Ralph Peters Slams Hysterical Gitmo Critics

(By Ray D.)

Many Americans know that most Germans don't really care about Guantanamo and human rights. They march in outrage by the thousands to protest Bush and Guantanamo, but at the same time they condone and ignore far worse human rights abuses by Russia in Chechnya while their government does billion dollar deals with Vladimir Putin. Or how about massive weapons deals Gerhard Schroeder has in mind with China (another paragon of human rights) or the big business he did with the princes of Arabia on his last multi-nation tour of the Middle East?

No ladies and gentleman. Don't be fooled when you read articles in the German media criticizing Gitmo. It isn't about human rights. This is about tearing down the United States of America and especially conservative Americans. It is about the intellectual German left winning back the moral high ground, and America is perhaps the single greatest obstacle to that objective. Especially that part of red-state America that stood firm during the Cold War in the face of Soviet Communism. So what do the German elites do? We've documented it on this site: They shamelessly criticize anything and everything about the United States. They lie, twist and distort the facts about America to manipulate public opinion.

Now we know that at least one American writer has also not been fooled. Who you ask? Ralph Peters of the NY Post. Mr. Peters spent ten years in the military in Germany and knows a thing or two about the Euro-snob mentality towards his nation. His most recent article in the NY Post, entitled "Gitmo Cocktail" is a take-no-prisoners slam-dunk. Here are some excerpts:

"THE demands to shut down our Guantanamo lock-up for terrorists have nothing to do with human rights. They're about punishing America for our power and success.

From our ailing domestic left to overseas America haters, no one really cares about the fate of Mustapha the Murderer or Ahmed the Assassin. The lies told about Gitmo are meant to undercut U.S. foreign policy and embarrass America.

The Gitmo controversy is about many things, from jealousy of the United States and outrage that we refuse to fail, to residual anger that we won the Cold War and exploded the left's great fantasy of a dictatorship of the intellectuals. But the one thing the protests aren't about is human rights.

Except, of course, as a means to slam the United States. (...)

Has the Bush administration made mistakes regarding Guantanamo? You bet. The biggest one was attempting to placate the critics. By launching a new investigation every time a terrorist had a toothache, our government played into the hands of its enemies.

The truth is that the terrorists and their defenders have something in common. It's not courage, which is one quality violent fanatics don't lack. It's that neither can be appeased.

Any concession only increases their appetites. The Clinton administration's reluctance to respond to terrorist strikes encouraged al Qaeda. If the Bush administration closed the Guantanamo facility, any alternative holding center would be attacked just as rabidly and dishonestly.

If we put our captives up at the Four Seasons, we'd be condemned because somebody smelled bacon at breakfast.

You can't negotiate with terrorists. And you cannot reason with ideologues — whether they're Islamist fanatics or pathetic old lefties fishing for a cause to give meaning to squandered lives. Terrorists, French and German neo-Stalinists, and our own democracy-hating intelligentsia aren't interested in facts. It's all about the comfort of belief.

Let's get this straight: Nothing we could do would appease those who feel a need for our country to fail. We must stop trying to satisfy them. (...)

Oh, and thanks to the "mainstream" media for assuming that our country's always wrong.

There is a culture of torture in the world. Blessedly, America isn't part of it. When a few of our troops make mistakes, they're punished. Given the magnitude of our task and the unprecedented conditions we face, it's remarkable our errors have been so few.

What should enrage every decent citizen is that the real torturers — from Zimbabwe to China, from Syria to North Korea — get a pass from the political left. If terrorists behead defenseless captives on videotape, it's simply an expression of their culture. But if a handful of U.S. troops play an ugly round of Candid Camera, that's a new gulag.

As someone who takes human rights seriously, I'm appalled by the lack of sympathy the left feels toward the victims of any regime other than the Bush administration. Let's shout it to prisoners everywhere: If you're not harmed by an American, your suffering doesn't count.

The left's hypocrisy is immeasurable. The grandchildren of those who defended Stalin are mortified that Saddam Hussein will stand trial. By taking such irresponsible voices seriously, we grant our critics a strength they otherwise lack and simply help them keep their lies alive.

No matter what our country does, we will never please a global intelligentsia outraged that all their theories came to nothing. We can't satisfy al Qaeda, and we can't please those discontented souls who need to blame the United States for their personal inadequacies. It's time we stopped trying."

Read the entire article. Mr. Peter's has put his finger directly into an open wound. His article is a much-needed breath of fresh air.

As we wrote in an earlier piece: Many Americans realize that much of the criticism they hear blaring from across the seas is not fair, balanced, constructive and heartfelt but rather dishonest, biased, destructive and vindictive. Far too many critics of America would rather see the country go down in failure and flames as opposed to changing the nation for the better, and Americans know that.

And until that changes, until America's critics show some sign of fairness and proportion, there will be no basis for real change. Until the leftist Euro-critics show that they are genuinely interested in human rights violations, not just those allegedly perpetrated by the United States, there will be no real basis for change. And Americans should view any and all criticism coming from the European left with extreme caution and with heavy reservation until that fundamental change takes place.

Update: Here is an excellent comment from helian:

No one here is defending torture at Gitmo or anywhere else. The fact is, though, that Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc., are used as propaganda bludgeons to bash America by people who could care less about the suffering of the victims of torture at Gitmo or anywhere else. You don't have to be a genius to tell there's a huge difference between the impassioned but principled condemnation of abuse at Gitmo and elsewhere of people like Andrew Sullivan, or, a little further to the left, Josh Marshall, and exploiters of human suffering like the editors of SPIEGEL and STERN, who are transparently indifferent to the victims of torture, virtually ignore it anyplace in the world but the U.S., and are transparently more motivated by hate, malice and envy than any humanitarian desire to remedy human suffering. Guys like Andrew, Josh, and many others have real concerns that places like Gitmo are more dangerous to American core values and freedoms than any combination of terrorists you could name. I tend to think they're right. Unfortunately, the rug is being pulled out from under them every day by leftist hate peddlars whose over-the-top America bashing rhetoric is an easy mark for those who demand security at any cost. Andrew, Josh, et. al. have no traction at the moment, because of the entirely justified outrage of the American people at the usual double standard of the leftist elites.

Comments

[Pamela]

The History Channel shows alot of WWII stuff. The other day they broadcast a piece on the end of the war. There was a guerilla group in Germany at the end of the war called the Werewolves I believe. The film showed what Americans did with them when captured. Out of uniform, of course.

The two Werewolves members shown on the film were noted to be 16 and 17 year old boys. They were tied to poles and executed by firing squad. Air conditioning ala 1945.

[Joe]

The elites in many European nations take every opportunity to present America, her policies and her people in the worse possible manner. This is a form of programming. One sees it in the many examples cited here. These have ranged from television entertainment programs, to news broadcast, to television round table discussions, to even commercials for pens. This does not include all that the print media does on a daily bases.

Over time when a people are subjected to this form of propaganda it does have an effect. There seems to be general distrust of America in most nations of Europe.

I find this to be unfortunate.

It does lead to two observations. The first is great damage has been done to what has been a historical good relationship. This damage is much greater than most people realize or want to realize. In fact, the damage might very well be lasting.

The second one deals with realities or the lack of reality. Americans need to realize that Europe is no longer and ally of the US. It more than just elected leaders or the elites, it is the people. In this same vain, Europeans need to realize at a future point they truly will be on their own. They will need to form new allies who will be willing to invest in their security. Who these will be I do not know.

[Pamela]

@joe
>>They will need to form new allies who will be willing to invest in their security. Who these will be I do not know.

Um, Iran, China, North Korea.

[Helian]

Mr. Peters again eloquently points out the obvious; that the international left are not the enemies of torturers, but their collaborators. They're not interested in ending torture, they're interested in exploiting it. They are the professionally virtuous, the holier than thou left, whose chief joy is striking heroic poses from the moral high ground. Their hypocrisy is equaled only by their indifference to the fate of their victims, the faceless legions who suffer death and torture every day, but have the misfortune to be useless as propaganda tools.

[Sandy P]

Ray & David, you need to add another loon to the list, from the WSJ via Rantburg:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006834

The German Chair
A tale of torture at the hands of an America-hating diplomat

...But the diplomat had no patience for my small talk. Apropos of nothing, he said he had recently made a study of U.S. tax laws and concluded that practices here were inferior to those in Germany. Given recent rates of German economic growth, I found this comment odd. But I offered no rejoinder. I was, after all, a guest in his home.
The diplomat, however, was just getting started. Bad as U.S. economic policy was, it was as nothing next to our human-rights record. Had I read the recent Amnesty International report on Guantanamo? "You mean the one that compared it to the Soviet gulag?" Yes, that one. My host disagreed with it: The gulag was better than Gitmo, since at least the Stalinist system offered its victims a trial of sorts.

Nor was that all. Civil rights in the U.S., he said, were on a par with those of North Korea and rather behind what they had been in Europe in the Middle Ages. When I offered that, as a journalist, I had encountered no restrictions on press freedom, he cut me off. "That's because The Wall Street Journal takes its orders from the government."

By then we had sat down at the formal dining table, with our backs to Ground Zero a half-mile away and our eyes on the boats on the river below us. My wife and I made abortive attempts at ordinary conversation. We were met with non sequiturs: "The only people who appreciate American foreign policy are poodles." After further bizarre pronouncements, including a lecture on the illegality of the Holocaust under Nazi law, my wife said that she felt unwell. We gathered our things and left....

[Rofe]

I thought this site was dedicated to the premise that the German media is on a rampage against America, facts be damned. That criticism, per se, is not bad if it's reasoned and fact-based, but that the German press in no way comes close to that standard.

I'd be the first to admit there's a strong case to be made.

Lo and behold, we're now presented with an American rampager throwing out factless accusations as proof that - wait for it - everyone's against us. What mindless pap !

Here are a few of the more objectionable sentences from the esteemed Mr. Peters:

"Thanks to the "mainstream" media for assuming that our country's always wrong.!" Hyperbole, anyone ?

"What should enrage every decent citizen is that the real torturers . . . get a pass from the political left . . . if a handful of U.S. troops play an ugly round of Candid Camera, that's a new gulag." I'll take this as a slap at Amnesty International, which despite their offensive conflation of Gitmo and the gulag, has probably done more than any other organization over the past decades to call out torturers (including the Soviet Union) for their deeds.

And here's the real winner, "As someone who takes human rights seriously, I'm appalled by the lack of sympathy the left feels toward the victims of any regime other than the Bush administration." Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

So, for Mr. Peters there's no problem taking out the broad brush and linking 'the left' with Stalin, Robert Mugabe, et al. Peters never concretely identifies 'the left', but he leaves no doubt that 'the mainstream media', 'the intelligentsia', and 'our ailing domestic left' are part and parcel of the same anti-American bunch. I suppose if one reads the NYT, studied at a university or votes Democratic, he's already halfway into Peter's doghouse.

Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind in this context. And the mewling victimhood of American conservatives. Who would'a thought ?

Cheers,

[Helian]

A telling "Moore Award" by Andrew Sullivan, a strong, consistent and vocal but honest and principled opponent of torture, regardless of where it occurs:

>>"MOORE AWARD NOMINEE: "The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command." - Markos Moulitsas, on DailyKos yesterday. Look, few have been as outraged as I have been by what this administration has perpetrated and permitted with regard to detainees in U.S. care. But this kind of morally cretinous hyperbole only discredits the serious case against the administration."

The difference between the lunatic left and Sullivan is that Andrew wants to end torture, not exploit it. The modern left, decadent and intellectually bankrupt, filled with scorn and contempt for any positive value, can only rejoice at the evil that befalls those they so envy. Andrew, on the other hand, wants to put a stop to the abuses because he wants to preserve America and what she stands for. Both claim they want to put a stop to torture, but the difference is as clear as day and night.

[Doughnut Boy Andy]

"After further bizarre pronouncements, including a lecture on the illegality of the Holocaust under Nazi law, my wife said that she felt unwell"

That would make me feel unwell too.

[Pamela]

Sandy P., I posted that link on the previous thread. If you you subscribe to WSJ online, read the op-ed piece by Paul Johnson, otherwise you're stuck with dead tree. But I posted an excerpt with my earlier post.

[Joe]

Rofe,

Actually Peters was spot on. The left in the US is no different than the left in Europe. That might explain why the confidence in M$M continues to decline in the US. It is now in the high 20’s. Most people get their news from the web. But that is off topic.

So the studies done by Europeans about the bias of media coverage are not to be taken as factual. Or is that they do not fit your view of the world?

Frankly Rofe, I care less what you think or what your opinion is. Your comments have become nothing more than dribble.

[Rofe]

Joe,

I can't tell you how truly hurt I am that you don't care anymore. I'll bet you never did.

By the way, I agree with the premise that the German press plays fast and loose with the facts. If, in fact, they bother with facts at all. Get it. I agree. There's a strong case to be made. I'm not arguing.

Seems to me that ole Ralphie boy has the same relationship with those rascals (facts). Why let facts get in the way of a good rant ?

Cheers,

[Helian]

@Rofe

>>"Lo and behold, we're now presented with an American rampager throwing out factless accusations as proof that - wait for it - everyone's against us. What mindless pap!"

If it's "mindless pap," why are you so singularly ineffective at refuting it? Let's look at some of the "more objectionable" excerpts you cite:

>>"Thanks to the "mainstream" media for assuming that our country's always wrong.!" Hyperbole, anyone?

Um, no, more like pointing out the obvious. What, exactly, would you propose, to avoid such "hyperbole?" Is Peters supposed to supply us with an Excel spreadsheet of all the news reporting entities in America, carefully documenting and categorizing all their pronouncements? He probably wouldn't last very long as a journalist if he did, would he? Peters is pointing to a general tendency, and he is hardly unique in his awareness of that tendency. You can claim that Peters' comment is "hyperbole" because it cannot be proven true in every single instance for every single news organization in America. However, without such generalization and "hyperbole," human communication would be impossible.

>>"What should enrage every decent citizen is that the real torturers . . . get a pass from the political left . . . if a handful of U.S. troops play an ugly round of Candid Camera, that's a new gulag." I'll take this as a slap at Amnesty International, which despite their offensive conflation of Gitmo and the gulag, has probably done more than any other organization over the past decades to call out torturers (including the Soviet Union) for their deeds."

You can take it as a slap at Amnesty International, and proceed with setting up your straw man according to the usual drill. Unfortunately, Peters was referring to the "political left," not Amnesty International. The fact that you choose to willfully miss the point doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

>>"And here's the real winner, "As someone who takes human rights seriously, I'm appalled by the lack of sympathy the left feels toward the victims of any regime other than the Bush administration." Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem."

Here Peters is simply stating a fact. If you dispute it, where are your arguments? Can you show us where the left has expressed more concern about, say, the indisputably more severe and deadly human rights abuses in China than about those perpetrated by the U.S.?

>>"Peters never concretely identifies 'the left', but he leaves no doubt that 'the mainstream media', 'the intelligentsia', and 'our ailing domestic left' are part and parcel of the same anti-American bunch. I suppose if one reads the NYT, studied at a university or votes Democratic, he's already halfway into Peter's doghouse."

There you go again, as Reagan would put it, denying the value of generalizations, and thus the possibility that human beings can communicate at all. I read the NYT, went to a university, and occasionally vote Democratic, and yet I somehow lack the perception I'm in Peters' doghouse.

>>"Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind in this context. And the mewling victimhood of American conservatives. Who would'a thought?"

Some American conservatives have formed a bad habit of occasionally adopting the same trappings of victimhood that they so correctly disparaged on the left. This is not an instance of it, because the facts as presented by Peters are substantially true. If you do see a mistatement of fact in his article, I welcome you to point it out. So far you have been remarkably ineffective in doing so.

[poguemahone]

Ruff will be on safe ground in calling ANY statement he dislikes as hyperbole -

If Peters says the MSM is left-wing and America hating - only seeing "torture" when it can be blamed on America - then ruff can call that hyperbole and point to some exception

Whenever I am confronted with this weasely rebuttal I respond - "then you can't say the Nazis were evil - because Schindler was a member in good standing of the Nazi party after all"

Its called communication ruff - the statment about the MSM and leftists stands correct

Ray - question about this last sentence

"And Americans should view any and all criticism coming from the European left with extreme caution and with heavy reservation until that fundamental change takes place"

I think you can remove the word LEFT from this one - is there really any other kind of opinion coming out of Europe with the exception of Blogs like this?

I would suggest we should ignore the opinions put forth by every european in media, government and business about anything war related

Its just hot air and always the same old song

Maybe if we ignore them they will turn their attention to Chechnya and China and North Korea

[Doughnut Boy Andy]

Sorry the sort OT but this article from VDH is very much worth a read and a bit of it is very related to this blog and also in a way to this posting.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson061705.html

"I read the most of these news accounts last week while sitting in a Starbucks (Dunkin' Donuts next door) on the eastern side of the Brandenburg Gate in the former Communist sector of Berlin — watching a parade of protestors damn the militarism of the United States (a.k.a. "Top Gun") while a nearby TV blared accounts of a recent German mystery on state-run television, whose subtext was that the United States intelligence planned September 11 and blamed it on the poor jihadists.

So there we have a snapshot of 60 years of American efforts to rid Germany of Hitler, pour in Marshall Plan money, keep 300 Soviet divisions out of Germany, and convince skeptical British, French, and Russians to support reunification: In response, welcome in American popular culture as you damn the United States in the conveniently abstract."

VDH was here and I missed him!!!!!! AAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh
Great article (as usual) though.

[Ray D.]

VDH also has an excellent op-ed in the Washington Times today that I hope to post on later...

[Rofe]

Ah, Helian's here to enforce the party orthodoxy. Very glad that I can count on the resident OGPU agent to root out any deviations from approved thought.

Helian, do you realize that not a month back Amnesty International's Secretary General wrote, "The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times. . ." ? Of course you do. So making the link with Peter's use of the word 'gulag' really isn't much of challenge, now is it.

Then again, if your assertion is that Peters is simply going after 'the left', would that be the same left that marched for civil rights in the US ? Protested against apartheid in South Africa ? Condemned the abuses of military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina ? Gave prominent play to dissidents in Soviet Russia ?
(Of course I'm not talking about the left of the Hisses, Rosenbergs or Philbys of the world, but if you insist, then you just may have to reconsider whether 'the left' really is the monolith some are so fond of making it out to be.)

Nope, in fact I don't need a spreadsheet to know hyperbole when I see it. But talk about straw men. You know, and I know you know, that we can all Google columnists every major paper in America who support the war in Iraq. How does that even begin to jibe with the MSM "assuming that our country's always wrong" ?

And it's funny that you call on me to refute Peters' "facts". How about this one, "If we put our captives up at the Four Seasons, we'd be condemned because somebody smelled bacon at breakfast." Fact ? Nah, of course not. A well-turned bit of sarcasm, if you ask me, that earned a chuckle.

Well, then, how about, "You can't negotiate with terrorists." Very next sentence. Fact ? Don't know, but he stated it pretty baldly. We'll chalk it up to more grease for universal communication, i.e. generalizing.

Next we'll try, ". . . French and German neo-Stalinists, and our own democracy-hating intelligentsia aren't interested in facts." That sounds again like a broad generalization, and - try as I might - I don't really find any of the facts you referred to. Sure, plenty of broad, broad generalizations, but let's face it. He scores points on the 'colorful turn of a rant' meter, but fact-based reporter he ain't.

By the way, if comparing Gitmo to the gulag is offensive, and it is in my book, then certainly comparing your political opponents to Stalin (or Hitler) has a hint of offensiveness in it, too.

So, esteemed Helian, thank you for your critique. I'm afraid I've run afoul of David and Ray D.'s comments policy again, but perhaps you could do me a favor and point out some of Peters' facts that I missed.

Cheers,

[Rofe]

Sorry, one last thing:

"Despite a few positive steps, no attempt was made to introduce the fundamental legal and institutional reforms necessary to bring an end to serious human rights violations." First sentence in AI's 2004 annual report section on China.

Cheers,

[Ray D.]

@ Rofe:

You have a rather romantic view of the left. They also marched for Ho Chi Minh and then looked the other way while millions were killed, imprisoned and forced to flee in Southeast Asia. Many on the left also apologized for and even supported Stalin and co. until it became exceedingly clear that he was a mass murderering despot. As far as dictators in the Americas go, there too, the left has often been highly selective, choosing to ignore abuses in Cuba while expressing outrage over the same sorts of abuses in Chile. I guess you could say some things never change...

[Rofe]

Just came back and read pokeymyhome's comment. Seemed too good to pass up AI's next sentence regarding China:

"Tens of thousands of people continued to be detained or imprisoned in violation of their rights to freedom of expression and association, and were at serious risk of torture or ill-treatment."

Cheers,

[Ray D.]

And yes, AI has done much good work, of that there can be no doubt. But the "gulag of our times" statement only serves to completely discredit the organization and its work. It is an outrageous comparison.

[Rofe]

Ray D.,

Sorry for commenting again, but I agree that AI's 'gulag' comment is unconscionable. The more you know about the gulag, the worse it is. I wouldn't go so far as to say one comment wiped out the effects of years of good work, but it seriously diluted my view of their editorial judgement and called into question their perspective.

Regarding my view of the left, I don't make any excuses for its excesses. But 'the left' is not the monolith that it's conveniently made out to be in order to score cheap rhetorical points. In the same vein that 'the right' is not the Christian Coalition.

Thanks again for your work on the blog, and good luck in Washingtion.

Much as I'd like to stay, the weekend calls.

Cheers,

[poguemahone]

The problem here ruff is that you don't understand that writing op-ed's requires some effort at entertaining your audience

Of course the Four Seasons/Bacon thing is over the top

But frankly - the idea that we should be worried over some reports that a koran was knocked on the ground is on the same level of idiocy

This is like Nazi prisoners demanding that no jew's be assigned as guards - or be allowed to touch their copies of Mein Kampf without two gloved hands to avoid soiling the book with their subhuman digits

"Sorry Corporal Goldberg, we must respect the views of these prisoners - we don't want anyone comparing this to Dachau"

[Helian]

@Rofe

>>"Ah, Helian's here to enforce the party orthodoxy. Very glad that I can count on the resident OGPU agent to root out any deviations from approved thought."

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, and evidently only bad if used by people Rofe doesn't like.

>>"Helian, do you realize that not a month back Amnesty International's Secretary General wrote, "The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times. . ." ? Of course you do. So making the link with Peter's use of the word 'gulag' really isn't much of challenge, now is it."

I realize it very well. And your point is...? You're the only one claiming that Peters' general use of the term "the left" should be interpreted as a code word for "Amnesty International." When someone refers to "humanity" should we also immediately assume that he's speaking about us, or some other individual we happen to be thinking of among the billions? When someone speaks of "the galaxy" should we assume he's referring to Betelgeuse? After all, Betelgeuse is a large, bright object and burns hydrogen, right? Is there some other reason we should assume Peters really means Amnesty International/Betelgeuse when he says "the left", other than the fact that it's a good fit for your latest straw man argument?

>>"(Of course I'm not talking about the left of the Hisses, Rosenbergs or Philbys of the world, but if you insist, then you just may have to reconsider whether 'the left' really is the monolith some are so fond of making it out to be.)"

Gotta love this old chestnut. Back in the olden days when Communism was a real threat and the end of the Cold War was not in sight, people used to claim that anti-Communism was ridiculous because, after all, "Communism" wasn't a monolith, and, ergo, it didn't exist. I can honestly remember a friend of mine making that argument in the eighth grade (who knows what paleo-hippy foisted it on him.) It's good for us not too many people bought that argument, or we'd be living in "1984." It doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.

>>"Nope, in fact I don't need a spreadsheet to know hyperbole when I see it. But talk about straw men. You know, and I know you know, that we can all Google columnists every major paper in America who support the war in Iraq. How does that even begin to jibe with the MSM "assuming that our country's always wrong"?

This is another real thigh-slapper. Our media can't be biased, because, after all, there are conservative columnists. Hey, David, why not run a column by EJ Dionne every couple of weeks? Then it will be impossible for Rofe to accuse you of bias.

[fuchur]

This is not "fresh air". It is the same old tune you here from the right all the time.

Andrew Sullivan describes it so perfectly:

THE SPIN ON TORTURE: It has gone chronologically something like this: "It's not true. It's not true. It may be true but it's not torture. Okay, it's torture, but isn't official policy. It may be true and official policy, but we changed the policy and we uncovered the abuses ourselves. It may be true, it may have been widespread, but we've punished the culprits. It may be true, it may have been widespread, it may still be happening, but all these reports are old news."

One should add: "It may be true, it may have been widespread, it may still be happening, but in China or Iran it´s much worse."

I wish other conservatives besides Andrew would be willing to state the obvious:
it is true; it should never have happened; the people responsible for the policy as well as the criminals should be punished. Period.

But people like Peters could never do that. After all "any concession only increases ... appetites". That´s why they ignore, lie, deny and, when all else fails, simply grandstand.

[Joe]

If I remember correctly it was the German political elite who first compared the POTUS to Hitler. It was interesting that the German M$M chose not to condemn this comment with the same level of intensity that it does when it presents stories negative about America.

Of course having set the stage to allow Hitler to become leader of Germany and all that he and his supporters brought to the world, one can completely understand the moral high ground Germans like to occupy even it is nothing more than shifting sand.

[Helian]

@furchur

>>"But people like Peters could never do that. After all "any concession only increases ... appetites". That´s why they ignore, lie, deny and, when all else fails, simply grandstand."

Andrew Sullivan is right on target, but, as we can see by glancing at his blog today, he's well aware of the difference between principled opposition to torture and exploitation of torture to facilitate America bashing. There are certainly those who ignore, lie, deny, and, when all else fails, simply grandstand." However, as Peters has ably pointed out in his article, the left is part of the problem, not the solution. Their transparent hatred of the U.S. and obvious lack of any real concern for the victims plays right into the hands of the torturers they claim to oppose. They are, in fact, collaborators with the torturers, and thanks to them the real torturers have a free hand.

[Joe]

Like most things in the world there is one definition of torture which applies to the US and another for the rest of the world.

If you have any trouble understanding that just engage in your favorite flavor of M$M. There is complete silience other than when it comes to the US.

[Querdenker]

Oh nice, Mr Peters, known for some of the most hateful diatribes against Germany, and someone who got the attention of the Anti Defamation League for comparing Dean's tactics with those of Nazi brownshirts.

Better read up on that maverick before you heap praise on him.

As for Gitmo: The "GULag remarks" of AI were absolutely inapropriate, but excusing Gitmo with "the Nazis, the Commies are so much worse" doesn't cut it for me.

Since nobody has a real grab about what's really going on in Gitmo (and Diego Garcia etc), the real problem is not alleged abuse/torture or Koran flushings, but the unacceptable legal status of the inmates under US custody. Most have been there for over 3 years now, no access to any legal representation, left in doubt about their future, incomunicado.

This is not right, and it's also not necessary.

I don't know whether they are all terrorists or, at least partly, people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (some seem to have been), but denying humans any legal rights or legal status is un-American and unacceptable.

If America wants to be the role model of the world, it will be held to higher standards than North Korea, Cuba or China.

[Jan]

One thing is being from the left and misuse torture allegations to bash the US government.
Almost the same thing is being from the right and use the fact that allegations come from the left to deny or even justify torture.
BTW, there is a good reason to bash a government that tolerates or even promotes torture.
If the right feels or even just gets close to the argument that torture is OK when americans do it, you leave a lot of political space to the left.
America, or I should better say this government, are the only ones I know who, when confronted with critizism from nearly all parts of the world, prefer to blame the world for the critizism. Most people I know would ask themselves if they hadn't done any wrong.

[Joe]

They are not inmates.

And just what legal rights are they suppose to have? Something cooked up by the left?

I personally like the idea of declaring them EPW's and letting them stay there forever or till the end of the war. Of course, they should be moved to a permanent facility. One could be built on Attu Island.

Hard to think like some of you that these people are victims.

[Joe]

Mind defining the word torture the way some of you like to use it?

Thanks

[Querdenker]

Joe, do YOU really know who all these people are? Do you know their names, their history?
"Trust us, they are bad people/terrorists" isn't good enough for me.
I'm sorry, I believe in accountability of a government. No government of a free democracy can be allowed to shut people away at its own fancy and install a Kangaroo Court to deal with them. Had Clinton or Gore done that, I would not think any differently.
I'm sure some if not many of them probably need to be behind bars. But without the possibility to defend themselves?
Sorry, this is Kafka reloaded.
And no, I'm no leftist.

[Ray D.]

@ Querdenker:

You write:

"Since nobody has a real grab about what's really going on in Gitmo (and Diego Garcia etc), the real problem is not alleged abuse/torture or Koran flushings, but the unacceptable legal status of the inmates under US custody. Most have been there for over 3 years now, no access to any legal representation, left in doubt about their future, incomunicado.

Fair enough, you make a good point. So what can the world community do to constructively find a solution to dealing with terrorists in a legal, constitutional framework? Maybe there needs to be a summit to create some sort of new Geneva Conventions for the 21st century and the handling of terrorist enemy combatants. I think if America critics really cared about America, they would call for such a summit and a fair and open debate on how to solve the problem and not just bash the US by ridiculously comparing Gitmo to the gulag.

Unfortunately, the rhetoric of many on the left has been so over the top that it has alienated people of good-will who simply don't agree that the Geneva Conventions can be applied to stateless terrorists. I think if the left tones it down, stops mindlessly bashing Bush and stops making outrageous comparisons they might actually have half a chance to influence debate. But as it stands, I think Mr. Peters has touched a chord of truth that resonates with many.

[Joe]

Defend themselves from what?

And accountable to who?

You cannot have this both ways. Well if you are from the left you can have anyway you want anytime you want it of course.

You can say they are members of some military or they are crimials. They cannot be both.

I would have to assume you take the position these people are just poor victims who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That place just happened to be opposite the US military, but we can hold that point for another day.

So if they are not citizens of the US, then I guess you would suggest they all be set free as they have committed no crime in the US.

Or you could say that they are EPW's, which case they can stay there till the war is over. I am sure a member of IRC will be happy to contact the government which they fight for to inform them they are in a EPW status.

I am sure said government has an address is represented at the UN.

So free the victims. Yes?

[Hans Wall]

Joe, what about Big Brother declaring you - yes you! - EPW and elible for special treats at Gitmo or a secret Jordanian detention facility based on hearsay testimony. Couldn't happen to you? You'll be surprised!

[Phil]

What's a 'neo-Stalinist'?

[Sandy P]

Unless Joe's Jordanian, I don't think so.

[Querdenker]

Ray D, the reason why Gitmo is discussed so much now is the lack of information we have about it. The 9/11 conspiracy theories originated in the fact that there was too much stonewalling in the aftermath.
Only tiny tidbits of info got out. We know that the inmates (and yes, anyone occupying a tiny cell is an inmate), included a 90yo man and a 15yo boy. We know that some have been released without much ceremony, because "they no longer represent a danger to the US" (you really wonder what happened in those 3 years and whether they really were a danger to begin with.
We know even less about those who are held in Diego Garcia.
I'm not against that international summit. I think most countries actually understand the problem that we're dealing with a group of people who don't seem to fit the current criminal or POW scheme. But whatever they are, they deserve a legal status and the right to supervisional proceeding plus legal recourse, if simply for the fact that some may simply be innocent. We know that some hapless guys were "sold" to the Americans in Afghanistan as terrorists because the local collected money for them.
I can understand that the first months after 9/11 were chaotic, errors were made and many things couldn't be thought through properly. After nearly 4 years we should do better.
This can't go on forever.

Drug dealers kill and harm more people than terrorists have done up to now. There is even a War on Drugs going on. Yet nobody sends suspected drug dealers, people suspected to collaborate with them, people who are suspected to launder their money into camps, claiming that this is necessary until the War on Drugs ends. Drug dealers are tried and convicted, if their guilt as been established beyond reasonable doubt.

and Joe... accountable to us... WE THE PEOPLE

[Joe]

LOL Hans!

That will happen about the same time Hamburg is nuked for being a terrorist support base....

Of course, not being German or french or Russian, I have an entirely different prespective on the actions of government.

So I suggest you have another glass of that Kool Aid you seem to enjoy.

[Hans Wall]

Why not Sandra? It's called rendition and Craig Whitlock, WP knows more about it. As for the legal methods used see the (recently declassified) McCarthy papers for a beginning.

[Hans Wall]

Querdenker,

I just don't understand why you are so much in favour of Gitmo - its just bad PR and a legal nightmare!

[Joe]

Are talking about Black Ops?

[Hans Wall]

No Joe, Black Ops involve some ID (non creationist)which Gitmo obviously does not.

[Joe]

Oh, I see we have changed subjects again. Back to Gitmo.

What is wrong with Club Gitmo? If you are there it is probably a lot better than many other places you could be. Of course, granted you do have limited freedom of movement but then again you are not out killing people either. So a bit of a trade off.

Of course we could use one of the two German models - shot while attempting to escape or the more modern model - released because no crime was committed or there is not sufficant evidance to convict. Gee I bet all those hung at the Nuremberg Trails wished we were using the standard you proposed today. They would all have villas in Spain enjoying the good life.

[lost one]

The fundamental problem here is the definition of the word "Torture." No conservative I know or have read about thinks that torture is okay just because the US does it. We on the right just don't think the detainees at Gitmo are being tortured. The guards have to wear gloves when touching the Korans that WE provided the detainees??? Told when to pray and what direction Mecca is? Gimme a break. That is above and beyond sensitive. And personally, I think it should stop.

People in Gulags just wish they had it so good. Amnesty International and anyone who thinks Americans run gulags are unmitigated jackasses.

[Hans Wall]

Joe, nothing wrong with Gitmo per se besides the PR and the legal desaster but I am afraid its just $100m wasted with very poor results - Gitmo as a recruiting tool far outweighs the damage any baddies locked up there could have done.

[Joe]

Well I am so glad you are so sure of that statement. You have convinced me.

Free them all. The world will be much safer.

[Pamela]

@lost one
>>The fundamental problem here is the definition of the word "Torture." No conservative I know or have read about thinks that torture is okay just because the US does it. We on the right just don't think the detainees at Gitmo are being tortured. The guards have to wear gloves when touching the Korans that WE provided the detainees??? Told when to pray and what direction Mecca is? Gimme a break. That is above and beyond sensitive. And personally, I think it should stop.

Yes. See my post (first one, I believe) regarding the Allies idea of air conditioning in 1945 when we captured people who did not fall under the Geneva Convention.

And something else many here may not be aware of; After the Axis surrender, much of the physical labor used to rebuild Germany was provided by German POWS repatriated under U.S. custody. The operative word is 'custody'. They were not legally freed for years.

Stop treating this as a PR war for the moral high ground. The trivialization is disgusting.

[Joe]

Thank you Pamela. At least there is someone else here who understands this.

[Hans Wall]

Joe, hiding behind sarkasm does not help. Releasing Gitmo inmates indiscriminately does not help either. Maybe getting a few more of culturally aware interogators to Gitmo might help. But those are rare and the ones I know refused to get their reputation tainted by working there. I am changing subject again.