I honestly don't know exactly who is in Gitmo or what goes on there. But regarding Abu Ghraib, I do think that the symbolism of sexually humiliating some prisoners and killing others in a place where Saddam tortured people was an idiotic move for an administration that was, if nothing else, masterful at symbolism. And there seems to be at least some reason to believe that what happened in Abu Ghraib was the result of administration policy. At this point, I'd speculate that there are a large number of Democratic party base who simply do not trust Bush, and are unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt that his policy on prisoner treatment fits their moral sensibilities. I don't know if the party leaders share that mindset or are just trying to capitalize on it.

Here's my question ( and I admit that this isn't an area that I've studied intensively ) If there's a stronger case to be made against Gitmo, would opponents of the administration have access to that information? How open is access to the place. Or is this opposition similar to opposition to nuclear power by people who are willing to bathe in car exhaust fumes; i.e. a lack of trust combined with a perceived lack of control.

I honestly don't know exactly who is in Gitmo or what goes on there.

It's a US facility in Cuba, constructed with the express purpose flushing Korans down the commode.

;-)

But regarding Abu Ghraib...

Harman never mentions Abu Ghraib here. She offers no proposals regarding it, and I never brought it up either. So we're discussing it... why?

I do think that the symbolism of sexually humiliating some prisoners and killing others in a place where Saddam tortured people was an idiotic move for an administration that was, if nothing else, masterful at symbolism...

So, you are claiming, the Bush administration *wanted* to create Abu Ghraib scandal (presumably, Bush or Cheney sent personal orders directly to Charles Graner and Lyddie England)? Why? Bush wanted to be equated, in Iraqi or Global minds, with Saddam -- the man he had demonized?

Yes, quite "masterful" I would think.

Ryan, and I mean this with all kindness and respect: Are you out of your mind? Or am I just grossly misunderstanding what you're saying here?

And there seems to be at least some reason to believe that what happened in Abu Ghraib was the result of administration policy.

Of course it was. The administration decided to start a war with Iraq. When wars happen, stupid stuff like this does. (There has *never* been a war where it didn't.) If we weren't in Iraq, this would never have happened.

To start off, yes, you've misunderstood me.

So we're discussing it... why?

Because;

1. I assert that the activities there are (or were) representative of Administration policy or intent, or that Bush's opponents have reason for believing that those activities were representative of admin intent. Abu Ghraib is part of the context in which Gitmo is observed by opponents of it. It's not totally unreasonable to assume that the main difference between Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is that folks in one took a few (unwanted) digital photos.

So, you are claiming, the Bush administration *wanted* to create Abu Ghraib scandal

No, I'm saying that the folks there were given free reign, and there was an admin push to define torture more loosely. The scandal wasn't anticipated (but should have been.) Maybe this was due to fuzzy admin policy. Maybe this was simply turning a blind eye. I do believe that there were some folks in the millitary who wanted this stuff stopped, and there were a few internal investigations, IIRC, prior to the scandal's exposure in the media.

Or am I just grossly misunderstanding what you're saying here?

I'd say you're misunderstanding me.

There has *never* been a war where it didn't.)

I agree. There have been a few psychos who have done some crazy stuff in Iraq that wasn't approved of by their COs. (and that similar problems may crop up sometimes in US prisons) Abu Ghraib should have been better controlled, especially if, as you say, something like this was anticipated. The implications I got from the Bush Administration arguing for looser definitions of torture was that they were turning their backs on this kind of behavior in order to punish those 'combatants' who attacked American troops without obeying the Geneva conventions. Some additional disincentive against those opponents was needed.

But if the charge is that the Administration ordered Abu Ghraib:

It isn't that they ordered the scandal, in particular or even that they explicitly ordered torture. I understand that the administration does send some prisoners to other countries where they can be tortured. The administration itself knows enough about plausible deniability not to order something like this directly. My point is; there are Americans who, when they don't know what the government is doing behind closed doors, assume the worst. Whether "the worst" is a result of direct orders or tacit consent (i.e. 'turning a blind eye) or simple lack of effective oversight is a political detail. Because of this, "trust us" isn't going to cut it for a lot of folks.

And went into Iraq for the oil? What's the alleged motive here?

I'm not claiming that oil, by itself, was why we went into Iraq. (I do think oil was part of the reason why Iraq was considered powerful enough to be a threat, while conflicts in other African conflits were basically ignored. But that's a separate issue.) The motive of the administration here was, I think, retaliation against enemies who fail to obey the conventions of warfare.

I hope that clears my position up a bit. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

p.s. Extracting information was probably also an issue.

And I don't think it's inconceivable that the administration might hope that one group ( the American people / western nations ) could get one impression of what was going on in Gitmo while another group might get a different impression.

Bush's opponents have reason for believing that those activities [Abu Ghraib] were representative of admin intent.

Bush's intent in Iraq was to photograph Iraqis naked? I'm sorry, I'm just not following this.

It's not totally unreasonable to assume that the main difference between Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is that folks in one took a few (unwanted) digital photos.

It isn't? I suppose it depends on the information you start with. In my world, photographing people naked is useless for gathering information. Loud music and cold rooms, on the other hand, are. In my world, an accused car jacker (the man in the famous photo with the hood) is not a potential intelligence asset. A terrorist who was shooting at us in Afghanistan, on the other hand, is. Abu Ghraib, as best I can see, wasn't done on any orders from above. In fact, Karpinski (the general in charge) should have been fired long before for negligence (and such charges were, in fact, brought), but was kept on for gender-parity reasons. On the other hand, the administration has admitted repeatedly that certain tactics have indeed been used at Gitmo, and that they were done according to administration guidelines.

So I see the two situations as being quite different.

If I'm wrong about any of the alleged facts above, feel free to correct me. Otherwise, it seems to me they constitute a difference of night and day.

No, I'm saying that the folks there were given free reign...

Right: But Gitmo has nothing of the sort. Graner wasn't an intel specialist. He had no formal training in anything of the sort. He wasn't qualified, in any way shape or form, to conduct and interrogation. Nor was Lyddie, his girlfriend. The specialists at Gitmo, to the extent such things happen, are, and are undoubtedly subjected to rather strict sets of rules and guidelines. Indeed, the very charge that the administration was trying draw up such guideliness inadvertantly admits they were trying to find a line not to cross. You may disagree with the line, but you can't argue that's the sign of a lack of control.

I agree. There have been a few psychos who have done some crazy stuff in Iraq that wasn't approved of by their COs. (and that similar problems may crop up sometimes in US prisons)

Gee: you mean Bush is implementing this policy in US domestic prisions too? Omigosh, it's worse than I thought! ;-)

(My point here is that if we can admit it happens in US prisions without the Bush administration dictating it, we should also be able to ponder the possibility that it could happen elsewhere by the same mechanism.)

Abu Ghraib should have been better controlled, especially if, as you say, something like this was anticipated.

(1) To say something is anticipated in a general sense doesn't mean it can be stopped at one specific point. Usually, it is enacted by troops in the field (that was the case in Vietnam and WWII) -- and steps were taken to prevent that, to the extent that such allegations have generally been rare during this war.

(2) As I mentioned, people *were* aware, at least in a general sense, that Karpinski was incompetant. But political correctness allows a lot of bad situations to flourish, because something is valued more highly than competance.

If you want to accuse the Bush adminstration, then, of trying to hard to keep women in roles of command, by all means do so. Otherwise, you'd have to admit it was generally those holding a more "liberal" view which would deserve some blame for our army's inability to fire this particular incompetant general.

The implications I got from the Bush Administration arguing for looser definitions of torture...

Actually, if you look at the matter historically, it is in fact administration critics who have been trying to change (by narrowing) the definion of torture.

Torture has traditionally involved things which physically harm the person. (e.g. the N. Vietnamese "rope trick") not mere mental distress (such as loud music or squalid living quarters -- which were present in N. Vietnam also, but not termed, even by us, torture).

Further, only a narrow class of armed combatants (those who complied with the Geneva accords) were clearly protected from it.

The administration's critics want to redefine (and have been largely successful) torture as including psychically harmless practices which produce psychological distress (such as waterboarding, which is used in training our own Navy Seals, or pretending to touch a devout Muslim with menstrual blood (which was really just red ink)) -- and to undermine the Geneva accords by claiming at even those who clearly flaunt them should protected.

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't use these practices, or when they should be applied. I'm just pointing out that Bush administration is not the primary goalpost-movers here.

... they were turning their backs on this kind of behavior in order to punish those 'combatants' who attacked American troops without obeying the Geneva conventions...

Let me ask you a clarifying question here: Are you *in favor of*, or *opposed to* the Geneva conventions? And another: What is the *purpose* of the Geneva conventions? Do you understand what they were intended to do?

I believe I understand their purpose. And am completely in favor of them. Thus, I am entirely for the idea that those who violate them should be treated worse than those who don't. It's inconsistant to aruge otherwise.

The whole point of the Geneva accords were to provide an *incentive* to avoid certain horrifying practices: using civilians as shields, blending in among them (thus increasing civilian casualities), using medical guise to kill, not heal (thus leading to inevitable targeting of hospitals), etc. By treating combatants who *avoided* these practices better than those who didn't, one provides an *incentive* to minimize civilian casualties.

So let me ask you bluntly, Ryan: Are you in favor of the tactics banned by the Geneva accord? If not, then why are earth are you taking a stance which will actually *encourage* them? How can you care so little about innocent civilians?

(BTW, I've never heard such an argument from the administration, but obviously I'm just asking whether it was really offered -- not disclaiming the argument per se -- as I quite think it has a serious moral basis. And I'm not aware that the carjacker, and others in the Abu Ghraib scandal, were armed combatants anyway...)

I do think oil was part of the reason why Iraq was considered powerful enough to be a threat...

And it was, ironically, the reason that nations like France and Russian supported Saddams apparent desire to hide WMD: they had outstanding contracts worth trillions.

The motive of the administration here was, I think, retaliation against enemies who fail to obey the conventions of warfare...

I disagree with you, mostly because I've never seen anything which suggests that's the prime reason for keeping people at Gitmo. Further, the very fact that most the people who've been detained at Gitmo have since been released also undermines that argument.

But even if was, I'm not sure that's a bad argument, as you might rightly suspect from my challenge to you above.

p.s. Extracting information was probably also an issue.

For Gitmo, yes. Was and probably still is, in a few select cases. For Abu Ghraib? Again, see my comments: the people who did that were mere night guards who had no authority nor even training, and their targets were worthless from an intel p.o.v.

(But I'd note you don't seem to have defended the good Congresswoman's precise argument.)

I see what you mean about Karpinski's incompetence and why I assume you don't believe her statements because of that (retaliation?). And there seems to be a good argument that Granger et. al. were most likely simply spillover from a culture that allowed torture for other purposes.

However Darby, who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib, said;

The other thing was, there were other government agencies who would come into the prison and handle prisoners. I can’t say which agencies, but you can probably guess. ... One night, this Black Hawk landed at about 4 a.m., and a couple guys came in with a prisoner and took him to tier 1, put sheets up so that nobody could see, and spent the rest of the night in there. They told us to stay away, so we did. Then a couple hours later, they came back out. They were like, “The prisoner is dead.” They asked for ice to pack him, and then they said, “You guys clean this up. We weren’t here. Have a good day.” Got back on the bird and took off, left the dead body right there. Those guys can come in and kill a guy, and there’s nothing you can do. There’s no record of them. They were never there. They don’t exist.

Granger -> Graner

On the other hand, if they are indeed terrorists, likely to actually kill people if released

Where does she argue they should all be released? She seems to be arguing that they should be tried in a criminal court, and treated as either innocent or guilty based on those results.

What am I missing here?

p.s. She offers other options other than trial in US courts, but still... you're usually a very careful reader Tim, so I'm open to the possibility that I've misread either you or her. But she doesn't seem to be advocating the release of terrorists.