The Horrors Really Are Your America, Mr Bush (Another conservative turncoat jumps the shark)

The Sunday Times ^ | June 4, 2006 | Andrew Sullivan

[quidnunc]

"This is not America." Those words were President George W Bush’s attempt to explain the horrors of Abu Ghraib prison on the Arabic-language network Alhurra in 2004. He spoke the words as if they were an empirical matter, but a cognitive dissonance could be sensed through them.

If the men and women who tortured and abused and murdered at Abu Ghraib did not represent America, what did they represent? They wore the uniforms of the United States military. They were under the command of the American military. In the grotesque, grinning photographs they clearly seemed to believe that what they were doing was routine and approved.

And we now know from the official record that Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, had personally authorised the use of unmuzzled dogs to terrify detainees long before Abu Ghraib occurred, exactly as we saw in those photos. Does the secretary of defence not represent America?

Almost two years after the torture story broke Congress finally roused itself and passed an amendment to a defence appropriations bill by John McCain that forbade the use of any "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees by any American official anywhere in the world. It was passed by veto-proof margins and Bush signed it. But he appended a "signing statement" insisting that, as commander-in-chief, he retained the right to order torture if he saw fit.

And so on May 18 the nominee for CIA director, Michael Hayden, was asked directly by Senator Dianne Feinstein whether he regarded "waterboarding" as a legitimate interrogation technique. Hayden replied: "Let me defer that to closed session, and I would be happy to discuss it in some detail."

Huh? Why a closed session? Isn’t the law crystal clear? Isn’t strapping a person to a board, tilting him so that his head is below his feet, and pouring water through a cloth into his mouth to simulate drowning a form of "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment? And isn’t that illegal? In America? Or is that not America either?

-snip-

[AmishDude]

Oh, dear; not Andrew Sullivan's whining again. His rants are a form of torture, and he's less of a conservative than my cat.

That cat's a lousy commie, that's for sure.

[BluH2o]

If the men and women who tortured and abused and murdered at Abu Ghraib did not represent America, what did they represent? They wore the uniforms of the United States military. They were under the command of the American military. In the grotesque, grinning photographs they clearly seemed to believe that what they were doing was routine and approved.

Murdered? What happened at Abu Ghraib under the command of U.S. forces wasn't much more in the way of torture than a college sorority hazing incident. The liberal slimes in the media are beyond help, their overwhelming hate of the U.S. military, and the Bush administration in particular, is off any scale remotely close to normalcy.

[AmishDude]

if we can do these things to unconvicted detainees, then why can't we do them to convicted felons?

By international law, the detainees are spies -- or worse. Summary execution is the most humane possible outcome. Felons are a domestic matter.

[Diogenesis]

[1066AD]

Ha ha, maybe he should marry that Huffington woman, she's an expert.

[Beagle8U]

"Let's look at this for a moment... if we can do these things to unconvicted detainees, then why can't we do them to convicted felons?"

The "unconvicted detainees" as you call them, are terrorist suspects. Like spies caught behind the battle lines, out of uniform, they have no rights.

This isn't someone suspected of stealing a car or of shoplifting, this is a war, and if they want to get involved in a war with America, they better put on a freaking uniform if they expect any rights at all!

[purpleland]

"...the use of unmuzzled dogs to terrify detainees long before Abu Ghraib occurred..." NOT TORTURE!

BTW, Excerpt:

---

That’s what makes a picture like Invasion of the Body Snatchers important. [1]
[1958 Blk/Wht film classic]
This theme is directly expressed in the film by McCarthy's character, who says at one point:

In my practice, I've seen how people have allowed their humanity to drain away. Only it happened slowly instead of all at once. They didn't seem to mind...All of us--a little bit--we harden our hearts, grow callous. Only when we have to fight to stay human do we realize how precious it is to us, how dear. [2]
Later, the psychiatrist Gates, himself turned into a pod person, gives a speech that sounds like Siegel's musings on the attractions of conformity:

Your new bodies are growing in there. They're taking you over cell for cell, atom for atom. There is no pain. Suddenly, while you're asleep, they'll absorb your minds, your memories and you're reborn into an untroubled world...Tomorrow you'll be one of us...There's no need for love...Love. Desire. Ambition. Faith. Without them, life is so simple, believe me. [3]

---

[Nonstatist]

He hasnt been a "conservative" since '03. He does like to advertise for male sex partners (tops, specifically) on the internet, though, in case anyone cares.

[Gondring]

By international law, the detainees are spies -- or worse.

Huh?!? Sez who? We have admitted that many of the detainees were innocents picked up in dragnets, or turned in by unscrupulous informants (rival clans, etc.)!

[Earthdweller]

Andy Andy Andy. What a shame that you have to insist on blaming a whole country for the actions a few. Could you possibly have an agenda?

[editor-surveyor]

How does he qualify as a conservative?

[Congressman Billybob]

Let's follow the "logic" of this latest screed by Andrew Sullivan. If nations are indeed responsible for what their citizens do, then it was Britain that bombed the London Tubes. It was Saudi Arabia that bombed the WTC. And it was Yemen that bombed the USS Cole.

More British bullsh*t. Did I miss anything?

P.S. New info. My primary is over, but because of legal and ethical problems, the incumbent may withdraw/be forced out. He is also losing in the latest poll (5/28) to the Democrat challenger. I seek to be the replacement nominee. For more information see my website. I still need your help.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Ray Nagin -- 'Good and Hard' "

[John Valentine]

Sez the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War.

[PGalt]

Not an atrocity bump!

Replacement nominee bump!

[t2buckeye]

If the men and women who tortured and abused and murdered at Abu Ghraib


NO murder occurred at Abu Ghraib...no one ever said they murdered anyone...and actions there did not constitute "torture" in the sense of what occurred there under Saddam Hussein. Abu Ghraib was bad, BUT not torture.

[EDINVA]

actually, Andrew's ticked that W jumped into the homosexual marriage issue, so decided to attack him on Abu Gharib

[BW2221]

With Andrew Sullivan around, you really need someone protecting your backside.

[paudio]

There was an unfortunate tendency during the 90's to label every one who was not enamored with Clinton as a "Conservative". Andrew Sullivan falls in this catagory.

Good point. Sullivan probably disliked Clinton for his "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

[Zeroisanumber]

Sullivan's been out of his freakin' mind for years now. This comes as no suprise.

[Radix]

"If the men and women who tortured and abused and murdered at Abu Ghraib did not represent America, what did they represent?"

I do not this jerks reputation. I do know from what I read here that he is full of sheite.