Comments on: Torture, Part 3: the Philip Gourevitch version

By: Mike Brisco

Mike Brisco — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:51:52 +0000

Australia (where I live) is a signed-up member of the “Coalition of the willing”. Decisions the US takes, affect us. Our politicians go along uncritically, without Parliamentary debate without discussion.

Australian troops in Iraq, did detain people. There was concern at the time, whether Australian troops might be abusing prisoners. The politicians answered, Australians could sleep easy, we were not involved at all in that type of thing. We did not operate prisons. Our troops handed over detainees immediately to the US. Yes, there might be a few problems – but these were isolated, a few low-ranking soldiers, & you always get a few bad apples. Australian military acted in good faith, & could not be aware of absolutely everything taht went on in US-run prisons in Iraq.

But Gourevitch says, the entire system was involved in abuses, and was open about it. That means, our military would have been aware or at least had cause to suspect.

Australians are not yet discussing, complicity in torture/abuse. However if that is what we were – Gourevitch makes a good case – it is important we know that and own up to it.

Gourevitch’s book is avaialble here, & he did a few short radio interviews. His argument is important. So it is valuable to hear him speak at length.

By: orangescissor

orangescissor — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:35:47 +0000

It seemed like Philip Gourevitch was struggling to put in the clearest language and in the simplest terms that we as a nation need to face the torture practices we have accepted as national defense policy. We are smart people, and I am sure there are a tremendous variety of other questions Philip Gourevitch could (and probably would rather) be asking, but right now it seems that even when using the clearest and simplest language to explain the crimes committed in the name of national defense, many of us are still missing the message. After hearing this interview, the question of whether Gourevitch’s message will stick and be developed is something that I think might indicate changes in American collective identity: what will it take to face Abu Ghraib, and how can America reconcile the continuation of these past, documented crimes that haunt our present?

I have a suspicion that we might forget, but we cannot blame it on a dearth of information after hearing from Morris, Sands and Gourevitch.

By: seltzer

seltzer — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:12:11 +0000

Thank you for continuing this series, Chris. I am grateful that others in this country have not forgotten about Abu Gharaib and the Pandora’s box opened there. I feel compelled to counter Philip Gourevitch’s assessment that we as Americans aren’t outraged or haven’t protested the normalization of torture. I may be just one citizen, but I have signed countless petitions and donated to Amnesty International, and other human rights’ organizations, hoping that someday in the not too distant future, the leaders of my country will come to their senses and reject this barbarism. Perhaps I take this too personally, but I am nauseated by the idea that my tax dollars in however small a way subsidize torture.

By: josephmoyer

josephmoyer — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:38:29 +0000

I watched an episode of Charlie Rose some weeks ago with Mr. Gourevitch, what an impressive fellow. His discussion here opened my eyes wider and turned me back on, flipped the switch so as to keep me awake and interested in what is going on, to keep me aware of what is being done in the name of our United States.