Tweet
Per Glenzilla:
Bill O’Reilly was just on Fox News vigorously praising Obama for trying to suppress the torture photos and viciously accusing Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Louise Slaughter of endangering the lives of The Troops by blocking the Graham/Lieberman amendment. O’Reilly is now interviewing Joe Lieberman and Linsdey Graham, and they’re doing the same. They all agree that Obama has acted so nobly here, and that Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are Far Leftists radicals who don’t care for the lives of the troops. As is true for preventive detention, military commissions and so many similar matters, the political divisions that have materializied in these areas are most interesting — and most revealing.
Independently, it’s quite amazing to watch the very same people who endorsed every policy that drove anti-American hatred to sky-high levels — the attack on Iraq, torture, Guantanamo, etc. — insist that these photos must be suppressed because anything that increases anti-American sentiment will endanger the lives of The Troops.
But our troops are already in danger. The atrocities depicted in those photos are already well documented, and the world is outraged at Obama’s insolent refusal to prosecute the perpetrators. He’s "not interested in looking backward."
Those who oppose prosecution of the perpetrators are far-right radicals who don’t care about the lives of the troops.
4 Comments
Bingo. Their actions here are just another case of projection. They have caused thousands of deaths of US troops and now they try to shift the blame to those of us who call for accountability.
One can make this point with considerably more force. Violating the laws of war with respect to prisoners and civilians at once strips American soldiers and civilians of protections afforded by international law and deprives the armed forces of tools vital for gathering intelligence and undermining enemy morale.
Historically, the laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions, have never been adopted out of altruism. They have been adopted for reasons of military necessity: the need to maintain discipline in the ranks (and, when possible, to undermine it in the enemy ranks) and the need to protect any of your own troops that fall into enemy hands.
Armies first began to constrain rape, looting, and the murder of civilians when semi-modern armies appeared on the battlefield in the late middle ages. When it became clear that the disorder following the sack of a town left the victorious army at the mercy of surviving enemy units, commanders tried to constrain their men’s behavior. These constraints have grown into the modern systems of military and international justice.
History shows that, for violence to be an effective instrument of state policy, it has to be organized and under state control at all times. Take away the military police, the provosts, the courts martial, and the firing squads, and an army becomes a mob, which is no more than an uncoordinated knot of individuals.
Nations adopted conventions on the treatment of prisioners in order to protect their own troops and maintain morale in the ranks. Protecting enemy troops was only the price paid for this protection. Sort of like a Mexican standoff with hostages, sanctioned by treaty.
Historically, nations have been very careful about violating these conventions, even if they were not signatories or were not inclined to humanitarian behavior. With few exceptions, the Nazi government treated American troops correctly because of concern for their own prisoners. And rightly so, German SS prisoners paid dearly for the murders of American prisoners by SS units during the Battle of the Bulge.
When an enemy is not so scrupulous, moreover, the US has, historically, been able to exploit this fact militarily. George Washington forbade mistretment of prisoners in part because it encouraged surrender, made desertions more likely, and generally undermined the morale of Britain’s largely mercenary army. In WW2, the shock of the contrast between the good treatment afforded Japanese in American captivity with the fates of American POWs was instrumental in gathering intelligence and obtaining the coperations of enemy POWs.
When we turn a blind eye to violations of laws that have developed through centuries of hard, practical experience and wilfully forget the lessons of that experience, we put our trops at risk, not just today in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in each and every future conflict. Today, we see signs of demoralization and disintegration in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers leave their posts to rape and rob. Others settle personal scores with Army weapons, shoot officers, steal, even sell weapons to the enemy. In enemy hands, our POWs are given no quarter. Perhaps this is the nature of the enemy, as some claim. But we must remember that the same people generally observed international norms when in Sadam’s Iraqi Army, whatever its other deficiencies might have been. We have to at least ask if our own behavior has not legitimized such conduct and made it the expected norm among current and future enemies. If so, American prisoners will pay the price for American politicians, and for some years to come.
” A federal judge has ruled that John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer who wrote crucial memorandums justifying harsh interrogation techniques, will have to answer in court to accusations that his work led to a prisoner’s being tortured and deprived of his constitutional rights. “
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06……html?_r=3
Per this SF Chronicle article, the judge also ruled that Yoo can be sued for his misdeeds.
There is an interesting thread at Dkos on this matter. Some of the discussion there drifted to the question of whether lawyers opinions should be protected from lawsuits. A year ago, Scott Horton had an interesting post at Balkinization on that matter relative to Yoo. Here is the part that get to his direct culpability: