Guest writer and commentator, Ken Renner, Tennessee, submits the following article [Subject material presented is not necessarily the opinion or agreement of essay presented, all or in part; highlighted links in blue are provided by KAL]:
The past week had a sort of Alice in Wonderland quality to it, at least in the news. Just when it seemed one outrage could not be topped, another came along to top it. Lewis Carroll could not have made this stuff up if he tried.
Maybe the most outrageous story was broken Wednesday by the New York Times about the training given to our interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. It turns out that the Bush administration decided it would learn from the best. Its course was based almost verbatim on a study done by the US Air Force following the Korean War on techniques the Chinese Communists used to elicit false confessions from American POWs for propaganda use. The study was entitled “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions from Air Force Prisoners of War.” An entire class on “enhanced interrogation” was based on a chart showing the coercive effect of techniques like sleep deprivation and prolonged exposure. The only thing changed in the chart was its former title: “Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance.” From the Soviet NKVD and KGB to the German Gestapo to the Chinese Communists to America.
What’s wrong with this picture?http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
If that wasn’t enough, Alice in Wonderland, author Lewis Carroll was cited directly by judges of the US Court of Appeals in Washington in their first review of the status of an alleged “enemy combatant” held at Gitmo. The case involved one of a group of Chinese Muslims held at Gitmo who want to help liberate Eastern China. He claimed China was his enemy, not the US, but the US produced three classified documents with allegations that his guerilla group was tied to al Qaeda. Unfortunately, the judges found evidence that those allegations came from none other than the Chinese, who obviously have a dim view of the guerrilla movement. The court, including two Republican and one Democratic judge, cited Carroll’s nonsense poem “The Hunting of the Snark” where a demented ship captain tells his crew what he says must be true because he said it three times.
“The government insists that the statements made in the documents are reliable because the State and Defense Departments would not have put them in intelligence documents were that not the case. This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true…Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has ’said it thrice’ does not make an allegation true,” the court wrote.
Meanwhile, as he prepares for the Group of Eight economic summit in Japan, President Bush made yet another statement on his policy on the good old American greenback. “‘We’re strong dollar people in this administration, and have always been for a strong dollar, and believe that the relative strengths of our economy will reflect that,’ Bush told reporters. Among the ways he wants to support the dollar’s value, Bush said, are keeping taxes low and easing regulatory burdens. Lewis Carroll might have pointed out that the dollar has actually fallen by 41 percent against the euro since Bush took office. Of course this makes everything we buy from overseas 41 percent more expensive (does oil come to mind?) A big part of the reason for the dollar’s fall is the exploding US deficit resulting from Bush keeping taxes low while exploding spending on two wars and domestic programs. Another reason for the dollar’s decline is the bursting of the mortgage and housing bubbles, caused in great part by the elimination of most regulatory “burdens” on financial services firms.
The overseas news was even stranger. There has been a steady increase in stories pointing to the increased potential for war with Iran, either begun by the Bush administration or, more likely, started by Israel and rapidly supported by the US. The Israeli air force has just concluded a massive maneuver described by intelligence analysts as a “dress rehearsal” for a massive raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran warned that such a strike would have serious consequences, including the closing of the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments from the MidEast. Although Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and most senior Pentagon officials oppose opening a third front, Vice President Dick Cheney is said to be pushing for US action. The LA Times and The New Yorker reported this week that the White House has recently authorized $400 million for covert US operations inside Iran, including supporting Sunni groups allegedly allied with al Qaeda, to destabilize the Iranian regime. All of this is occurring at a time that our own intelligence agencies say Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and Iran is responding positively to overtures for negotiations to dial down the crisis from the European Union.
Meanwhile in Iraq, where 140,000 US troops remain bogged down in a conflict that has lasted longer than World War II, the US has dramatically increased its surveillance from spy satellites. The purpose of the increased surveillance? We’re spying on our allies in the Iraqi armed forces because we don’t trust them to do what they tell us, according to the LA Times. The Iraqi foreign minister, meanwhile, says the Bush administration will not get its sought-after long-term security agreement with Iraq before it leaves office because it does not want “another colonization of Iraq.” It seems like the US has demanded up to 58 permanent bases in Iraq as part of the agreement, along with immunity from Iraqi law for US forces and contractors and a free hand to use Iraq as a base for operations in other countries. How did they ever get the idea this was a colonization?
While all this is going on, Afghanistan is going nowhere but downhill. The Taliban and its allies in al Qaeda have retaken large parts of the countryside. US casualties there have risen more than 40 percent in recent months and now exceed those in Iraq. US commanders say they are desperately in need of more troops to turn the tide in our favor but Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says he has no more troops to send due to the surge in Iraq. The Pentagon this week extended the tours of duty for US troops already there.
Many Americans may remember it was al Qaeda in Afghanistan, protected by its Taliban allies, which actually attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. The same groups still survive in Afghanistan and the neighboring tribal regions of Pakistan, bolstered by money from record opium crops, sanctuaries in the mountains and US neglect. And while we worry about Iran maybe getting a nuclear weapon, the Afghan groups are also trying to destabilize the government of Pakistan, which already has a sizable nuclear arsenal.
Could Lewis Carroll have written this script?
Happy Fourth of July, America. The Mad Hatter and I are off to a tea party.
Ken:
Thanks for your contribution and taking the time to submit your Op/Ed …
Questions:
Were you so critical of the following events during the Clinton administration?
(a) Bombing of Chinese embassy;
(b) Bombing of factory in Iraq;
(c) Somali fiasco;
(d) US giveaway of technologies to Communist China;
(e) US involvement in Kosovo and related disturbances in Balkan States;
(f) Any of the various scandals occurring during the eight years Bill Clinton was President?
This is not to say that criticism is in order for aspects of the GW Bush administration and his policies; however, you only provided one source, and as usual it is only the New York Times – an established media entity that is anti-Bush from the very beginning of this administration. It is well recorded about bias news reporting coming from that media entity. To be fair, I have used the New York Times articles from time to time, but do not rely solely on that particular source of “news”. Most often it is to show the holes in their articles and opinions.
I have provided links within the text so readers can cross reference pertaining information and opinion you provided.
On certain points, such as proposed policy of establishing military bases in Iraq, I certainly agree with. We need to ensure that the Iraqi government and the military are well established and then pull out. Before and after that, the focus will continue upon Afghanistan and the Iranian problem.
Continued rhetoric and propaganda stating that the Iraq invasion concerned oil, is partly true, but as usual the political left uses it in their rhetoric of accusation against accusation. President GW Bush has been blamed for everything from the economy that had gone bad before he even was sworn in as President to ridiculous things like Hurricane Katrina – a horrible disaster that was warned about 3-5 days before it hit, and the President issued a warning that people should evacuate quickly before it hit because of the projected strength of the hurricane. I won’t go into detail, but the major fault for the result falls upon the Louisiana governor and the mayor of New Orleans.
While we should be watchful of presidential policy and the actions (inactions) of Congress; looking at it through the eyes of misguided loyalty to a particular political party is not positive in reaching the resolve of issues. And, even if we personally do not like the person holding office in the White House after winning election, we must, in our evaluation and support be objective and also keep in mind the big picture situation.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was about oil in an indirect way. Saddam demonstrated his intentions of cornering and controlling the oil market of that region when he invaded Kuwait. However, the picture is bigger when it comes to reasons. It has been proven from evidence (26 mass graves) that he ordered genocidal actions against the Kurds and his own people. I have written about this, but some folks just seem to ignore those factual aspects. Oil was an issue when fighting in North Africa against the German Nazi. Does this make America’s involvement in World War II incorrect? The Left has a habit of taking kernels of truth to use in their propaganda schemes, and after performing this action for so many decades – they have become experts at it. But this is not the Soviet Union, China, et cetera – this is America.
I understand Americans’ frustrations, especially concerning the policies and actions (or inactions) of the two past presidential administrations. Yet, the voting American continues to vote in the same way and retain those who are part of this problem in Congress – and chooses candidates who promise change, but their official record shows a different story.
It has appeared, through several points made in several writings submitted that you are only anti-war when a member of the GOP is in office. I cannot say that anyone who is reluctant about engaging in war is wrong, but the reasons behind this ideology are important. Believe it or not, folks who are called “neo-cons” are not happy getting involved militarily anywhere in the world; however, have you considered the alternatives if had not taken action, especially after September 11th, 2001? And has anyone noticed that there has been no attack since that day, despite plans made by infiltrators here in America who have been discovered because of the work of our FBI and the help of the international intelligence community, as well as the required procedures taken when war is declared?
Vietnam was a war that was longer than both World War II and this Iraq conflict, but then again one can say that the invasion of Iraq was a success and the mission was fulfilled – because in reality, Saddam is gone. It is the reconstruction phase, for various reasons and not all on the Bush administration’s responsibility, which has taken longer than it should have. And once again, haven’t you noticed that the American media and various leftist media elsewhere has continually painted despair with phrases like “the war is lost” when it comes to the Iraqi situation. And even when it is admitted by the media that progress has been made or an action has worked, it is not given its due of positive context.
The terrorist problem has gone on for several decades long before our involvement or the attacks upon American soil had taken place. Europe has been dealing with it as far back as the 1970s. The major problem of all is that it was treated as some sort of civic criminal action, instead of an organized body bent on destroying free nations or reducing their power, and the agenda that now is publicly known of the factions using the tactics of terrorism.
We must be watchful of our government, not matter who is in charge or who has the majority in Congress. I am not arguing about this truthful factor in this big picture scenario. However, the real problems are ignored, just as any progress being made.
Warships and other arrangements in the region concerning our military should continue, but I disagree with having bases of any kind remaining in Iraq past the point of time we should be removing troops to be read for use elsewhere. We are more apt to keep Iraq an ally in that way. And allies in the region we are discussing are important.
And, isn’t it strange, that instead of pointing to the terrorist organization and their agenda, the real blame here, that once again the US is blamed for something that a declared enemy has performed?
If you want to see the end of the Iraq situation come to a close, at least with US military involvement, wouldn’t it help to take the side of your own nation instead of the side of an enemy who declared war on us through verbal and physical means, as well as a war approved by Congress, who then changed their mind because they didn’t want Bush to succeed and make the GOP look good?
Our elected officials, the Left and the “moderates” and the “centrists” haven’t given a fair chance of this administration to end this situation – not in surrender as the Vietnam War ended, but instead not allowing the Islamic extremists to win.
Questioning our governments policies and actions is not un-American or unpatriotic; however, parroting the propaganda instilled by the enemy of the United States and all free nations everywhere is not in tune with wanting to win or supportive of the United States of America. Even those who are against involvement in wars (despite America being attacked) should try to think for themselves instead of repeating rhetoric meant to divide the US and therefore drag this on until the American people are too war weary to continue.
I believe the gist of misunderstanding of this war against organized terrorism I partly based upon the fact that few truly understand the enemy and why they do what they do, as well as the goals of their leadership who use humans in a manner of which is despicable.
Thanks again for taking the time to submit your Op/Ed and providing intellectual discussion. I haven’t given up on you yet, Ken, but I wonder if you will be as critical concerning policies of the next president if that person is either a Democrat, Libertarian or an independent.
Personally, when it comes to available candidates at present – I need a box on the voting ballot that states “None of the Above”. I am so tired of choosing the best of the worst.
Without going into a point-by-point recitation, I was much more disappointed in Bill Clinton that I am with George Bush. I never expected much from Bush and he certainly delivered. I thought Bill Clinton had the intellect and instincts to accomplish a great deal and he constantly disappointed. In the end, his own character contained the seeds of his destruction just like Richard Nixon. It was his own selfishness that eroded his administration and prevented him from achieving much more.
That’s not to say that I did not agree with several key efforts during the Clinton term, most emphatically his efforts to balance the federal budget and retool our economy. Reversals of those efforts during the Bush term have ben a big factor in our current economic troubles.
You are correct that the U.S. has been involved in the Middle East over the access and protection of strategic oil reserves since World War II. Each president since then has reaffirmed his belief that we have a strong strategic interest in the region. I have never been one of those to harp on the issue of oil relating to the Iraq war, probably only because I thought it was self-evident. And now that we have achieved sufficient stability in the country to begin exploiting Iraq’s oil wealth, we have set about doing it in a way that may gain us some short-term supplies at the cost of long-term stability.
A series of no-bid contracts are just now being let to American oil service, exploration and production companies, with the advice and consent of the American government, that will produce profits unimaginable anywhere else in the Arab or Persian world. These contracts basically concede 75% control to American oil firms and leave just 25% for the Iraqis. With the country desperate for revenue and its economy remaining in shambles, the Iraqis have had little choice to to acquiesce to these terms. Anyone who understands the history of the Middle East, however, will recognize that this will not stand. The major thrust of the anti-colonial effort by Arab and Persian peoples for the past 60 years has been to regain control of their own national resources. No one should have any doubt that these extortionate contracts will one day blow up in the face of America, certainly fueling anti-American sentiments and possibly leading to even more dire consequences. If you would like Iraq to remain an ally in the future, this is certainly the wrong way to go about it.
You and I have frequently sparred on the Iraq war and you have often labeled me as anti-war. I have just as frequently said I am not necessarily anti-war, just anti-stupid. I supported the liberation of Kuwait just as fervently as I support the all-too-neglected efforts to hunt down those who actually attacked America in Afghanistan and the mountain hideouts of western Pakistan, both wars initiated under GOP administrations. Both wars, in my estimation, were necessary and represented the only possible response to the provocation. While the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power was laudable and the world is certainly a better place without him, the war was neither necessary nor the only possible response to his brand of petty tyranny. The fact that most of our traditional allies refused to join in this effort should have told us something.
The Iraq war has turned into the greatest strategic blunder of American history. It was not carefully thought out, it was poorly conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed and has done harm to America. It has cost American lives, pushed up oil prices, run up debt that our grandchildren will still be paying and helped us to the brink of economic collapse. It has created more resentment of America in the region, helped radicalize a new generation of Islamic extremists and made us less safe. Whatever we have gained for America seems small next to these costs.
It was a war brought on by the newly-empowered neoconservative ideology of using American miltary might to reshape the world, but it has instead taught us the limits of American power. I notice that you contend neo-cons don’t necessarily want war but that is incorrect. True neocons believe American military power must be used to expand our power, influence and values. To the extent that we have seen the result of this philosophy, which harkens back to the imperialistic periods of many previous great powers, I trust it has been discredited for many years in the future.
Like a jar of mayonnaise, this Iraq war fortunately has an expiration date. The current expiration date is Dec. 31, which is when the UN resolutions expire that we are in Iraq to enforce. No UN resolutions, no authority for us to remain. That is why the Bush administration has been so anxious to negotiate a new “status of forces agreement” (SOFA) before the end of the year.
It is precisely that agreement that is now on the rocks due to the Iraqi government’s refusal to accept our conditions. In fact, Iraqi Prime Minister al Maliki said yesterday that he would not agree to any SOFA that did not contain a specific timetable for withdrawal of US-led forces. The White House said at first it wasn’t true; that Maliki was literally misinterpreted by the western media. To reinforce the point, Iraqi national security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie repeated the condition today.
“Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong … We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn’t have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq,” al-Rubaie said.
It’s time to face facts. There were no al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq until we invaded and provided them with an unstable state to exploit. By our blunders, we provided motive, method and opportunity for an insurgency to arise, then we have spent the past five years battling it. It has been clear for some time that even the Iraqis want us gone. Any Iraqi political leader’s street cred is measured on how anti-American he is. Now we are officially hearing it from the elected Iraqi government.
This ideologically inspired war of choice has cost America dearly. Beyond the blood, treasure and influence we have lost, perhaps the greatest cost has been the neglect of the war in Afghanistan, where the real terrorists who asttacked America continue to grow stronger. And because we took our eye off this ball, it is very likely it will come back to haunt us.
Ken:
Thanks for the additional commentary to your Op/Ed/essay.
In regards to the ridiculous accusations of this presidential administration that we went to war because of oil in a manner that is based upon truths, but made to look like other than protective, is part of twisted propaganda.
And isn’t it ironic that those carrying protest signs with words that describe GW Bush as evil and hungry for oil control are the very ones who would raise an outcry if there were a crisis where they would have to walk or ride a bicycle to work because there wasn’t any oil to be had because of those like Saddam Hussein. As stated, part of the reason why the decision was made to exile Saddam Hussein and/or make him pay for crimes against humanity was the issue of oil – which one can readily see why. In fact the Oil for Food program of the United Nations turned out to a scandalous event because of oil and it being found that money was being passed under the table via Hussein and counterparts with France and Russia demonstrating why they were so insistent against the US and coalition not to invade Iraq to rid the world of the “mini-Hitler”.
I too can see there would be agreements in both administrations concerning certain events and policy. My first disagreement with Bush was that he created an agency based upon allegiance to faith (religion), when he should have been reforming to a less bureaucratic government. While the gist of his conglomeration of the intelligence and national security agencies under one division called Homeland Security (which certainly solved the problem of interagency information that was, in part, the cause of the success of the September 11th, 2001 attacks) – he increased bureaucracy (and thus government spending) instead of his campaign promise not to do so. However, his tax initiatives to keep the economy afloat were good short-term fixes; he failed to advocate the long-term fix by ridding the American people of an unfair tax system that had gotten out of hand for a long period in American history.
And, as you pointed out, in this administration and previous administrations we have been financing our enemies – the Islamic extremist coalition and Chinese communists with unrestricted trade agreements and not paying the proper concern of intelligence information pointing to the hidden agenda of both. In addition, GW Bush has aided the Mexican invasion, clearly shown by the Mexican government, based upon the concept that the southwestern and former California republic (including the former Texas republic) rightfully belong to Mexico. Thus, we have elements of subversion in the form of organizations and drug lords who are infiltrating the infrastructure of the United States.
Government contracting history in several administrations, both at home and abroad, is another area of concern in terms of corruption and illegal practices. I understand a small part of this government action because I was a committee advisor for the NATO committee in Turkey in the operation to modernize LSE (LandSouthEast) headquarters at Izmir in the form of computerization. It was one of my great experiences and an honor to me to participate in something that would improve operations for NATO operations, however small a part of the big picture it was. It also afforded me the opportunity of learning the dos and don’ts of the world of contracting. Briefly, it was a bid contracted operation, and part of my task was presenting the bid offers of the several private computer companies of Turkey and meeting the requirements of that headquarters technological needs.
The problems arising with Iraqi oil has been pointed out by you in way that will help readers understand the big picture of that part of the situation there. I would like to also add, where there is big money operations, there are those that become corrupted and put a monkey wrench in the gears of operation.
The decision to overthrow the Hussein regime and free the Iraqi people from tyrannical rule – was not or never stupid. In addition to economic and strategic reasons, in part of that were the humanitarian aspects. Unfortunately, when it comes to big business and politics, too often the latter is put into place behind the other two. I apologize for providing you a “label”, but any comments were based upon what you have written. Thanks for clearing that up, however, I do not budge from the fact (not opinion) that Saddam had to go. In reality, as you mention the Liberation of Kuwait, Saddam should have been taken out then. But I also understand the reasoning of GH Bush in that he had Arab support (for the most part) under a coalition for the first time in America’s involvement in that region’s affairs. Frankly, when I heard the news of Bush’s decision while serving there – I was pissed. For I knew that we would leave and then must return to take him out later, and my estimation of two or three years was off because it took 12 years for it to happen and in that time tens of thousands of people ended up in mass graves. Ken, I will say it again – it is naïve to say that we should have done something else or waited longer (we now know why France and Russia procrastinated now after the revelation of the Food for Oil programme) – and you are being stubborn despite my presentation of facts from international intelligence and other credible records and events. Do you actually believe that 12 years is a hasty period of time to decide to take military action? C’mon!
No, Ken, the greatest blunder was the Vietnam War – not the initial assistance of keeping South Vietnam free of communism, but allowing it to drag on so long. The problem with you and the Left is that you keep thinking that the Vietnam War is so similar. It isn’t. The reconstruction phase, which you continue to ignore, was not supposed to be so difficult, and in that respect we can see that Bush and his strategists failed to provide a strong plan in that respect. However, the key element in dragging that out is the foreign intervention of organized terrorism and the leftover element of the Hussein loyalists going underground. Even without the military knowledge I have obtained from experience and being there set aside – anyone can clearly see what the “bog” is all about and who is causing it. It has been proven that Syria and Iran has also played a key role in the attempts to make the reconstruction phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom unsuccessful – and which is why Americans who go along with our enemy’s clear intent anger those labeled “neocon” (and since this term has been used describing me, the label “anti-war” naivety stands).
President Reagan once said in regards to military power:
“There are some who have forgotten why we have a military. It’s not to promote war; it’s to be prepared for peace.”
And, Walter Williams stated in intellectual terms:
“The stated reason for going to war with Iraq is that our intelligence agencies surmised Saddam Hussein had, or was near having, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence is never perfect. During World War II, our intelligence agencies thought that Germany was close to having an atomic bomb. That intelligence was later found to be flawed, but it played an important role in the conduct of the war. Since intelligence is always less than perfect, we’re forced to decide which error is least costly. Leading up to our war with Iraq, the potential errors confronting us were: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we incorrectly assumed he didn’t. Or, he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and we incorrectly assumed he did. Both errors are costly, but which is more costly? It’s my guess that it would have been more costly for us to make the first error: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we incorrectly assumed he didn’t. “
The problem with you and others who immediately label those with my advocacy is that you are either not aware or ignore the big picture and the gist of the truth, as Sun Tzu, whose writing on warfare are used by the American military war colleges wrote:
“I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant of both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.”
It is true that at one period of American history our expansionism culminated to a point of Imperialism – but this now is not the case. We are joined by a coalition of free nations in this effort, and it is not a case of imperialism or other worse accusations (fascism) by the political left of America who is nothing but mouth pieces of doctrine from the Communist Manifesto, but also aiding the very enemy that wishes our destruction – financially or otherwise. Brush up on your American history and military strategies. America has always been reluctant, except for the Spanish-American War, to use military. You should be ashamed of following blindly the rhetoric of the political left and the biased media from which this tripe comes from. The result of the “flower power” doctrine of the Clinton administration is quite evident in following the timeline and events of this that we discuss.
As far as the proposals of SOFA – I don’t blame the Iraqi government for its concerns in this manner. GW Bush has once again shown himself dysfunctional, but the decision of Iraq invasion still remains plausible.
I refuse to banter with you in the leftist propaganda that al Qaeda wasn’t present until American intervention. It is too ridiculous.
Neocon is nothing more than an identification of a person who is a war monger. Therefore, since you insist on following the left’s views that surmount to surrender to enemies of the United States and the free world, you are so blind in your anti-war (no war whatever the cost) that you cannot see clearly.
No war in human history was a “good” war, in terms of loss of human lives. But the alternatives in this situation and other periods of American history would have been far more disastrous. And show me the statistics where the enemy is getting strong, and I will show you how the political left has been helping them achieve their twisted, evil goals. Sometimes it is convenient or wise to sit on the fence of neutrality (or the illusion of it) – but sometimes one must decide in a simple yes or no decision. And, you do disservice to the American military when you say we cannot fight two battles at once (Iraq and Afghanistan). As in the case of Vietnam, too much political intervention within the task at hand, causes instances that “come back to haunt us”. In that, one can readily see why it is considered cowardice to given in to tyrants and terrorists, and in conclusion I quote the American political left’s demagogue:
“We have nothing to fear except fear itself” (FDR after America officially entered what has come to be known as World War II).
In regards to Guantanamo and related methods of interrogation: Nietzsche warned humanity that as we fight the “monsters of the abyss” beware that we do not become one of them. This is one of the failings or policies that I protest against this administration. However, the treatment of certain prisoners of war (and they were POWs – not incarcerated suspects of criminal action as the Left tries to paint) were not according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. They shouldn’t have, for most of them, been tortured. They should have been executed. The Geneva Convention clearly states that spies, saboteurs (not in a recognized military uniform), as well as looters (with or without recognized military uniform) can be shot on the spot, or after a military tribunal (as in the case of the German saboteurs of World War II in America) has found them guilty – can be executed by hanging or firing squad.
Your article clearly presents the argument against the Bush administration that is part of the failure. We cannot imitate, for repercussion or whatever reason) our enemy in the way we handle our prisoners of war. But then, our own court system doesn’t get the fact that they are not common criminals, but prisoners of war and criminals of war under the terms of crimes against humanity.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Errors and miscalculations can be pointed out concerning every American war fought. However, this does not strike out the fact that the war had to take place or it was forced upon us. In that, your ideology receives a failing grade.
This is World War III, Ken. Face up to it or stay out of the way of those who want to retain free nation, free people. According to your ideology, the American colonists who reluctantly decided that military action was the only road to their freedom and other such instances of world history, they were “neocons” as well. You are living in the fantasy world of Utopia.