Steve Newton at DE Libertarian reacts to my post from a couple days ago by saying, in part,
There is nothing morally to distinguish the people who convinced themselves that breaking the Geneva Convention was acceptable at Gitmo and Bagram from the people who convinced themselves that breaking the Geneva Convention was acceptable at Dieppe, Malmedy, and Zhitomir.
I have little difficulty with this statement (although weren't the Geneva Convention stipulations on torture after WW II -- in 1949?); however, my argument wasn't about what appear to be systematic abuses at Bagram (or Gitmo), it was about selective harsh interrogation of al Qaeda bigwigs like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Further, is there really nothing morally to distinguish the people in these different circumstances? Think about that for a moment.
I also find Steve's explanations regarding the comparisons of US actions in WW II unconvincing in their exculpatory aspects. He writes, for example:
Historians have generally condemned Dresden, because they do not--after sifting through the documents--believe that either Bomber Command or the USAAF commanders really credited the intel on the transfer of parts of the 6th SS Panzer Army through the city, which would have made it a legitimate target.
So, if the 6th SS Panzer Army was being transferred through Dresden, that is a justification for a saturation firebombing which killed upwards of 40,000 civilians? If this is such a justification, then why isn't it a justification to harshly treat a captured terrorist whom we know has valuable knowledge about further attacks on our country?
He also writes,
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (a) troop garrison cities and (b) wartime industrial centers. Therefore both were legitimate military targets, just as Pearl Harbor was.
Then why destroy the entire city? Did we not possess the ability, especially at that point in time of the war, to [pretty much] just destroy the industrial centers and troop garrisons? In addition, Steve has written extensively about Israel "overreacting" in its responses to Hamas et. al. in Gaza (and elsewhere). But if Israel, as it has claimed, states that Hamas has its memebrs hiding out in mosques or in the houses of civilians, then isn't that justification for Israel to destroy these targets -- even if surrounding civilians are [unfortunately] killed?
Both Steve and I stated in the comments on his post that personally we'd both be willing to engage in "rough treatment" of someone if the need arose. And, we both said we'd be willing to accept the consequences of doing so. As such, if George Bush, Dick Cheney et. al. truly feel that the actions they recommended and/or approved against guys like KSM were justified, they should be willing to defend them to Congress ... and accept any consequences that come their way. If the treatment of KSM (and others) really did provide good intelligence to thwart further attacks on the US, then I believe there'd be little to worry about. Public opinion is on the past administration's side: Only 28% of U.S. voters think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects. 58% are opposed.
I'm going to hate myself for trying to answer this in your comments section, because the damn thing is going to eat it.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki first: (1) no, we did not possess technology for pin-point bombing then; (2) the Japanese intentionally followed a policy of intermingling civilian and military targets; (3) you ignore my quotation of Tokyo wherein I noted we did more damage with the fire-bombing raids; (4) the intent of the atomic bombings, rightly or wrong, was to shock the Japanese to the peace table, because our best estimates were that the invasion of the home islands would cost us 100,000 lives and them upwards of 1.5 million.
Dresden: (1) has been condemned by historians but there is no evidence to suggest it was ordered fire-bombed as a matter of policy; (2) the transfer of the 6th SS Panzer Army did make the city a legitimate military target; (3) no technology for precision bombing existed; (4) there is very little evidence that anybody in the USAAF or Bomber Command involved in planning the raid expected precisely the result they got.
With respect to my first comment--you are right about the Geneva convention sections on torture--my sentence was poorly written. I was referring to specific cases of the (a) outright execution of POWs at Malmedy (for which Joachim Peiper was convicted); the "commando order" which resulted in execution upon capture for commandos at Dieppe and other locations; and (c) the policies empowering not just the SS Einsatzgruppen but regular Wehrmacht soldiers to execute Jews en masse at Zhitomir, among other places. In all of these cases there is a common denominator: we must do this to them or they will do it to us.
Hube, you know me well enough to know that I don't care about public opinion regarding this issue: you may disagree but I have been consistent all along.
As for the selective interrogations of KSM and other supposed high-value targets, you keep suggesting that I should believe the folks who say we got a lot of good information out of them. Two responses: (1) I don't acknowledge that the utilitarian success of torture exculpates those who developed the policy; and (2) I have yet to be convinced. The documents thus far released are vague, the language suggests confirmatory rather than actionable intelligence, and the people telling us we got great stuff have all misled us before. I work with this kind of material, have for years. There is not so far any evidence of A-1 material resulting from these interrogations. I will stand to be corrected when you can show it, but even the supposed LA attack does not pass serious muster.
I'm going to copy this now before I try to send it, so that I will not scream and have to post it again later.
Posted by: steve Newton at April 24, 2009 10:20 PMI notice, Steve, that you say the a-bomb was to shock the Japanese to the peace table "rightly or wrongly." With respect, which is it? Again, I can continue to likewise state "rightly or wrongly, we waterboarded KSM to get that vital information."
Truman could have easily picked a pure military target to "shock" the Japanese to the table.
In addition, if Dresden et. al. were legitimate military targets, then so too were those which the Israelis targeted, and for which you condemned them. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Weapons aren't THAT precision yet, Steve.
Posted by: Hube at April 25, 2009 08:58 AM