Those on the left seem to discount the necessity of uniforms for armed soldiers. Why is that?
Our founders understood the concept of the spy or the illegal soldier. Why has the left of the aisle forgotton, one wonders? Europe, for the most part is left of (most of) our left wing. Have they too forgotten what their history taught them over so many centuries, that uniforms for soldiers is a fundamental protection for civilians. Is it that 20th century total war has come round to the modern jihadists point of view that the weakest among us are legal targets?
WTF? Sullivan doesn’t even mention uniforms. Are you implying that torture is a-ok unless the captee is wearing a uniform?
JA,
I don’t think torture is ok. I think that combatants caught without uniforms on the field of combat should be executed.
I’m curious however why I’ve never seen a left-wing (opposition) commentary on our treatment of prisoners note that uniforms are for a purpose and that enforcement of that requires differential treatment of legal and illegal combatants.
I’m curious however why I’ve never seen a left-wing (opposition) commentary on our treatment of prisoners note that uniforms are for a purpose and that enforcement of that requires differential treatment of legal and illegal combatants.
You think we should be in the business of “enforcing” uniform-wearing? By execution? By not granting Geneva rights? What?
Not wearing uniforms is a war crime. I don’t think people on the left deny that. We just don’t think it’s an excuse to torture, which is a stance you appear to agree with. I’m not sure why you think the left’s apparent lack of discussion about uniforms is more important that the right’s endorsement of torture, though. Torture is disgusting and America has lost so much of the moral high ground under this administration it makes me want to cry.
Keep in mind, by the way, that we almost certainly have Americans not in uniform working covertly in Iran right now.
JA,
Exactly what protections does the GC offer illegal combatants? Some on the left it would seem might offer more rights/protections to illegal than legal combatants. And I personally don’t know exactly how we should distinguish in our treatment of illegal and legal combatants, but I certainly think the distinction (and the difference in treatment) should be clear and well understood (and how to deal with the notion that that person who is (or should be) slated for summary execution should also be interrogated). I think all nations should be in the business of enforcing uniform wearing. It’s a fundamental protection for civilians.
Sullivan was claiming Iran’s mistreatment of uniform wearing British soldiers was affected by our treatment of illegal combatants, which argument I find odd as it compares apples and oranges (legal vs illegal combatants).
I’m not sure what your point is on the last bit. I don’t think we’d expect them to be treated as POWs if captured.
Exactly what protections does the GC offer illegal combatants? Some on the left it would seem might offer more rights/protections to illegal than legal combatants.
Strawman much? I’d settle for “no torturing.” We don’t need Conventions to tell us some things are wrong.
Sullivan was claiming Iran’s mistreatment of uniform wearing British soldiers was affected by our treatment of illegal combatants,
I don’t think that’s true. What he was arguing is that if they treat their captives the way we treat some of our captives, we’d be appalled. Which implies that we shouldn’t treat our captives the way we do.
JA,
You’re doing exactly the same thing as I’m accusing Mr Sullivan of, mixing apples and oranges. So let me ask you point blank:
For if there is no difference then, like others I’ve observed on the left, you seem to think that illegal combatants might be afforded more protections than legal ones. I think that attitude is dangerous and wrong.
Furthermore, I think your statement clearly implies our captives are not of a different sort than theirs, which is wrong. And that both you and Mr Sullivan have lost sight of that distinction, if it ever occurred to either of you as an important one at all.
You seem to be confusing the status of combatants themselves with what’s moral to do to them. Serial pedophiles are much worse than simple burglars, but we shouldn’t torture either of them (ticking bomb scenarios aside, for the sake of this conversation.)
Just because they don’t follow the Geneva Convention doesn’t imply that we shouldn’t treat them as if they have no human rights. Furthermore, there are a significant number of prisoners in Guantanamo who were not combatants, illegal or otherwise.
JA,
You seem to be confused with the notion that I advocate torture. I don’t. I’ve been confused (and perhaps still am) whether torture can be well measured, has a cultural or personal relative nature (what is torture for you or I might be a day at the office for another person). I’ve also wondered at its effectiveness, to which I think the answer requires a security clearance in this country at least. As I’ve said, I think we should execute illegal combatants. Torture is not on the table in that regard as far as my position.
You are ducking the question? Or is your statement that the “status of combatant has no relevance to the status of how we treat them” your answer?
However, we do in fact treat violent criminals different from white collar criminals and the length of our penal incarceration varies with the crime. However, combatants are normally held “for the duration” in time of war.
If you treat illegal and legal combatants equivalently, what argument have you for an soldier to wear his uniform if his regime has little regard for the human rights of the opponents of said regime?
I’m not dodging the question. You seem to be changing your story. Sullivan’s entire post was about torture. You criticized him for not talking about uniforms. Ergo, I assumed your point was that combatants not in uniform are ok to torture. If that’s not your point, I’m mystified as to what your complaint with Sullivan is. Did you link to the wrong post?
Regarding illegal combatants, yes, they should be treated differently. I don’t know the specifics as I have zero expertise in the matter, but I know that we shouldn’t be torturing them. It sounds like you might actually be in agreement with Sullivan and me, but you’re so used to opposing our ideas that you think you disagree.
JA,
Sullivan (and you?) seem to think that “treatment of captives” is all one, making no distinctions between treatment of illegal and legal combatants. That’s a separate thing from arguing how illegal combatants should be treated. If one treats illegal combatants in one fashion, I find it odd that Sullivan and you seem to think that has anything at all to do with how legal combatants are handled.
We think that “treatment of captives” is all one with respect to torture.
JA,
Why? You don’t equate treatment of jaywalkers with the treatment of violent criminals.
But we don’t torture either. I don’t get your point. It sounds like you want to say torture is okay for illegal combatants while denying it at the same time.
JA,
Not at all. To use the above analogy, if you believed we mistreated violent criminals how would that have anything to do with our treatment of jaywalkers?
Actually, there’s nothing at all “wrong” with being a captive legal combatant. A better analogy might be comparing and equating the mistreatment of violent criminals as being somehow the same sort of issue as similar mistreatment of people waiting in line for license renewals at the DMV. I wouldn’t understand how one might think it be ok to abuse or maltreat those waiting for a new drivers license. However, while I don’t agree with it, I understand the notion that the rights of those who have have committed horrible crimes by their intentional actions often are less diligently guarded, e.g., prison rape is guarded against not so diligently under the assumption that prison is not such a nice place after all. Thinking it’s ok to torture illegal combatants (which likely should be a capital offense) is more akin to the notion that medical experimentation on the unborn slated for abortion because “they’re going to killed anyhow so what does it matter”?
I understand the latter, but your notion that the two can be equated (treatment of legal/illegal) I have more difficulty grasping. I don’t think torture is ok, but I also don’t think there is any sort of reasonable comparison to be made between the treatment of illegal combatants and legal ones.
If Iran were to torture British legal combatants, we in the west would like to say, “Torture is vile and disgusting and never acceptable. People who engage in it are animals.”
Somehow, “Torture is vile and disgusting and never acceptable except it’s a little less vile and disgusting and unacceptable when used on suspected illegal combatants, so while you and I are both evil, you’re a little more evil than I” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
And don’t use euphemisms to cloud the issue. We’re not talking about “mistreatment.” We’re discussing torture.
JA,
Uhm, so is rape in prison less vile and disgusting because the victims and perpetrators are convincted felons? I don’t get your point. Do you think that we’d ever say, that “rape is vile and disgusting when used on people awaiting licensing, but less so when the victim is an incarcerated criminal”? We don’t … but then again … we do, don’t we?
Let’s both not use euphemisms … we’re also not talking about “suspected illegal combatants”, so far as I am aware none of the combatants we face are wearing uniforms, any people held who are not combatants and held by mistake is a direct consequence of the fact that every one of our enemy in the field is acting in a criminal and heinous fashion by not fighting in uniform.
If Iran were to torture their British captives, we’d say, “You must treat enemy (?!) captives honorably. This behavior is unacceptable.”
Ahem, and don’t cloud the issue, I was not talking to the torture point, but the predeliction of the left to ignore (or at best minimize) the illegal status of the combatants we face as highlighted by the casual comparison of the treatment of legal captive combatants with the treatment of war criminals.
And finally as to my term “mistreatment”. I’m willing to bet that Mr Sullivan for example has in mind not just alleged torture but as well mistreatment reported in prisons too. I used that term because it covered both instances, which I had understood to be at issue.
Uhm, so is rape in prison less vile and disgusting because the victims and perpetrators are convincted felons?
Imagine if all the prison rape were done by prison guards and condoned at the highest level of government and you’d have a better analogy. If that were the case and the Iranians were raping our soldiers, would we have a leg to stand on if we complained?
“But we rape convicted felons, not uniformed enemy soldiers!”
I think you, Sullivan, and I all agree that the Iranian government is worse than the United States’s. That’s not the question.
You trying to make this about uniforms is no more helpful than Sean Hannity demanding every liberal on his show agree that yes, Saddam was a bad man, and yes, terrorism is wrong. Well, duh. Obviously not wearing uniforms is a war crime, as I agreed above and as pretty much anyone on the left would agree to as well. But that doesn’t mean that our use of torture doesn’t lower our moral standing a great degree. And that was Sullivan’s only point, as far as I can tell.
I’m still not understanding where you disagree with us, unless your point is merely some straw man that liberals don’t care about uniforms. If that is the case, I don’t know why you pointed to Sullivan’s post, since that was entirely about the use of torture.
Anyway, bringing light the awful, immoral acts that our government is doing in our name can conceivably make it stop. What’s the point in harping about the insurgents’ use of illegal tactics? Can we change them? Not by force, because if they wore uniforms and fought conventionally, they’d be wiped out within a week.
It’s like a disease on the right to bitch and bitch about governments and people we can’t control while turning a blind eye to the atrocities done by our own representatives. I think it’s the same disease that makes them think anyone who criticizes the government or opposes the war hates America. It’s all us vs. them and if you say a word against us, you must support them. Utter inanity.
Oh, and the scale of rape in our domestic prisons is a national disgrace. You think Jesus is happy with America about that? If he were here, would he be wasting his time criticizing the American left for not talking enough about whether Iraqi insurgents wear uniforms?
JA,
Sullivan’s post “only about torture” was point made by insisting on trying to say our treatment of illegal combatants has changed in some way how we might be able to make pronouncements on legal ones. As I said above, I think that’s a direct comparison of the treatment of violent felons with the treatment of people waiting at the DMV, it’s incoherent.
Well, as long as fellows like yourself point out the injustice of occasionally incarcerating someone who was not a combatant (ignoring the fact that the fault lies with the illegal combatants). Then I’ll keep “harping on it” for that reason (although in my “harping” defense I don’t think I write on this very frequently). The other reason for “harping on it” is that there is something which might be “done about it”, which might involve our rules of engagement and differential treatment for those illegal and legal combatants.
You say the uniform is a straw man argument, but I’ve never recall a left leaning blogger ever even being addressing the notion that we should have differential treatment of legal and illegal combatants or what that means.
The reason, for my part, that I don’t complain about the “atrocities” by our own representatives is that I don’t trust any of the reporting about the same. I don’t know what’s happening, and I refuse to automatically believe the worst of everyone. Right now, on the other hand I think our military is pretty much the best the world has ever seen from a effectiveness and ethical standpoint. I think the left is clueless for not admitting to or even being proud of that.
Criticism of the government is fine. Opposing the war at this time is a little more confusing for me. The time for direct opposition was before the war started. After we’re engaged it makes less sense, unless are suggesting an alternative strategy which will improve the local and global situation. Given that it’s pretty much universally acknowledged that loss of life in Iraq would go out the window if we pulled out as well as the notion that we are a nation that is not a “paper tiger” … what alternative do you suggest that might be better?
I also think much of the mainstream war reporting has been blatantly anti-American and that part has been reprehensible by the American press. “Reprehensible” may be too mild a term. Perhaps “atrocity” might fit better.
No, he’s saying our TORTURE of illegal combatants has changed in some way how we might be able to make pronouncements on TORTURE of legal ones. Unless you’re willing to say that TORTURE is okay for illegal ones, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
You say the uniform is a straw man argument, but I’ve never recall a left leaning blogger ever even being addressing the notion that we should have differential treatment of legal and illegal combatants or what that means.
There’s a difference between acknowledging that something is a war crime and deciding that differential treatment being a good idea. I always thought, for example, that we didn’t torture because we are the good guys, not simply because of the Geneva Convention.
The time for direct opposition was before the war started.
And after it ended. It ended as soon as it stopped being winnable. Opposition will save lives.
After we’re engaged it makes less sense, unless are suggesting an alternative strategy which will improve the local and global situation.
There have been many proposals, ALL of which Bush has rejected. There was the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s. There’s setting a timetable. There was a call for a 60,000 person surge. There’s getting the neighboring countries involved. There’s partitioning and soft partitioning. There’s installing a dictator.
All of those alternatives might be wrong, but it’s disingenuous to imply that people haven’t suggested alternatives. NOBODY suggested a 20,000 troop surge.
also think much of the mainstream war reporting has been blatantly anti-American and that part has been reprehensible by the American press. “Reprehensible” may be too mild a term. Perhaps “atrocity” might fit better.
I cannot understand how you could be so blinded by partisanship. Regarding matters of war, the media lean right. Consider that some 70% of Americans oppose the war and compare that to the coverage.
JA,
Well, we’ve beaten most of this into a pulp.
One example on the last however, have you ever noticed that reports of encounters with the insurgents and al-Qaeda in Iraq list American casualties but never the opposition? Such is a small example of the reporting bias to which I am referring.
Do you think that bias has any role in the shift in support of the war?
Isn’t that a pro-U.S. bias? WTF?
JA,
It is not a pro-US bias to describe only US casualties and omit any mention of what they are doing of what they have accomplished.
Imagine, “The US encountered Japanese forces off Island of Midway today. We lost 307 men to enemy action and friendly fire.”
It is a definitely not a pro-US bias if only American losses, errors, and casualties are reported but never our successes, accomplishments and activities.
Golly, that describes well, and not a pro-US bias?
You could just as easily point out how the media doesn’t tell us about Iraqi civilians, who dwarf Americans in deaths and casualties. Besides, didn’t we learn that enemy body counts are a useless metric in Vietnam? The press reports it because Americans care when our brothers and sisters die, not because they hate America. WTF.
JA,
By and large we aren’t the cause of the Iraqi civilian deaths and casualties … and casualties aren’t the only thing I said was being omitted. More importantly context is dropped.
It’s one thing to report that “2 American’s died due to an IED explosion today”, but when you omit that the spotters and those triggering the explosion were tracked (as they often are) and either captured or killed … doesn’t that change the context? By mentioning nothing at all except casualty rates, you paint a dismal skewed picture. Pretty soon, people start (like you perhaps) wondering if any good is being gotten for a our efforts.
Do you ever wonder how there can be reports that American moral is at an all time high in Iraq? How could that be, given the attitude reported by the press do you think?
There is bias and it’s egregious and I’m unclear on how you don’t infer it’s anti-American.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree.