I agree that our leadership could be doing more in Iraq and Afghanistan, but having been to Afghanistan (and many other places), it’s not as simple as storming the beaches of Normandy, or dropping a bomb on Nagasaki or Hiroshima to make the “enemy” surrender. One writer commented on the drug trade in Afghanistan. We’ve already proven that winning the War on Drugs is near to impossible. It’s very difficult to win any war when there are so many factors other than what we read in the papers, see on television, or hear on the radio. The old economic rule about supply and demand seems the real winner in a lot of these types of cases – Drugs, Oil, News Stories – but what about some actual factual information for a change without a political spin to it?

I’ve also found that most media sources do not seem to have very much investigative spunk when it comes to looking at actual historical events and how they relate to current issues. The closest Afghanistan and the opium trade has ever come to being controlled since the invention of the poppy was probably during the reign of the Taleban. Should we have praised the Taleban for stemming the flow of opium and heroin during their reign, or condemned them for their abuse against woman? There are more factors here, oh yeah, and don’t forget that 9/11 incident and Usama bin Laden supposedly being camped out in Talebanland. Where do we put the weight of our decisions? Incidently, the Taleban did stem the flow of opium and heroin for a period, but stored it in nice warehouses to sell at a much dearer price when there was less available (supply and demand? economics? general business common sense?), but I digress…

Ms. Scarry, how do *you* suggest we interrogate interred combatants? (This presumes you even believe in combat and internment in response to attacks on US civilians…)

———————–

Acutally, I am not sure how you think you know that I am a ‘mister’ – but that’s OK ..

I don’t know if you have spent time looking at the news reports, but a number of people have been killed while in detention by US forces; at Gitmo, at Abu-Ghraib, and god knows where else. They have been beaten, sexually humiliated, attacked by unmuzzled dogs .. the pitcures show the undeniable truth.

One US soldier during an ‘exercise’ at Gitmo, where he was told to play the part of a prisoner, was so badly beaten {even as he tried to tell his fellow soldiers he was one of them} that he now has brain seizures 6 to 10 times a day.

Here is a link, if you are inclined to read about it. I was unaware of this case until just yesterday {thanks American press for covering this one so closely} ..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml

I read with interest your comparisons of the soft cushy life at Gitmo for people who you claim are ‘better off’, and the blazing heroics of our troops, in every aspect of what they do. Somewhere, far off in the distance is reality. Your description has quite a ways to go, however.

I see our troops as ill-equipped, poorly trained for the task of nation building, and a military chain of command that is, at the very least culpable of allowing mayhem, and at the worst, promoting it. I see an administration that is allowing massive fraud, waste of billions of taxpayer money and not much to show for it.

I happen to have friends and family in the military, so I am not pleased by the tone of your comment concerning my trust in the military. Our men and women are not securing anything in Iraq that was not already ours. Iraq was not a threat to the United States, to you or to me. Iraq could have been controlled by applying pressure from it’s neighbors and the world community – but this was not given enough time.

Our men and women in Afghanistan have been held back from doing the correct job by poor leadership in Washington – the proliferation of the poppy fields and warlords there show that the US adminisitration has no political backbone, common sense or honor.

The issue is not trust in the military – my concern is with those civilians who lead the military.

Dershowitz works – IN THEORY. Nice theory.

Please, someone, anyone: show one case – IN FACT.

Has there any claim by the ‘administration’ that they have prevented an attack based upon something they got by torture?

One?

How much of this ‘acceptance’ of torture is a result of mass media portrayal in video games and movies of over the top violence?

Are we allowing ourselves to be dulled to the aversion of harming another?

It was the first time we were attacked in the US, but the whole world has been suffering this for thousands of years.

Why are Americans so special?

Is Spain OK with torture since they got bombed in Madrid, but the Swedes can’t because they have not been attacked?

Dershowitz and ticking bomb – someone please find us one case – ONE – where this is the logic and facts behind this.

Some of us feel rage, when we are stuck on Storrow Drive on a Friday afternoon, too. It’s OK to feel rage – but it’s not OK to act it out on it.

What we have done is to allow 9/11 be justification for a regression into our reptilian brain.

It has been both expressly and tacitly offered as acceptable by the highest levels of authority in this country – it has degraded our moral standing, our “shining city on the hill”.

Why does some Americans feel that we are somehow entitled to commit torture in repsonse to an attack on out homeland? Does this not imply that everyone else in the world who has ever suffered attack on their homeland is entitled too, or are Americans just “special” – better than everyone else?

It’s not just what separates man from being an animal, but what we have come to call enlightened Western Civilization vs the great abyss of darkness.

[...]

“These prisoners in Gitmo are muderers, experts at cutting off heads.”
And what of all those at Abu-Ghraib? The same?

Really? ALL of them? Have they been found guilty in a court of law?

There are teenagers of high school age {and younger} held at Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib, and God knows where else; doctors, lawyers, taxi drivers, teachers, laborers – many that were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Some are guilty, no doubt.
The issue of torture, EVEN FOR THEM is wrong. Americans are supposed to set a moral example for the rest of the world to follow.

But, back to your statement – are all these people guilty?

If so, please explain why 203 have been released from Gitmo.

Torture is open to discussion even more than the other hot-button issues precisely because of the fact that it appears to hold the promise of the tangible benefits of saving lots of lives.

The flipside is the sheer impracticality of torture; it hardly ever achieves its local purpose (by contrast, the death penalty and abortion are quite final). It doesn’t work, as compared to other methods; it brings the danger of retribution. The Atlantic Monthly has regularly dived into this; Mark Bowden’s 16,000-word The Dark Art of Interrogation from October 2003 is recommended reading.

Durbin at no time assailed the military in his statement, at least not from what I could find. He did assail the administration’s policies or lack of clear enunciation of same.

Perhaps the other part of the issue that needs examination is – who is doing the abuse? Private contractors, active/ex CIA or others?