Hard to believe
It's hard to believe that Andrew Sullivan was once a sane man. He's not anymore.
On the 15 British sailors and marines that were kidnapped from Iraqi waters by Iranian troops, Sullivan had this to say:
The first strategic crisis created by the Bush-Cheney torture regime is now occurring.
Blame America first, Andrew. Of course, this ignores the fact that this is the second time that the Iranians have done this -- the last time was in 2004. By Andrew's count, this should be the second strategic crisis.
It also seems that a little less nuttiness might cause one to ponder the possibility that maybe it's Iran's fault -- or was that whole 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis also a product of the Bush-Cheney torture regime?
For the record: Rosie's a nut too.
0 comments on “Hard to believe”
Tags
Hi Matt,
I think you missed the point. I believe all Sullivan was saying is, the administration can't complain if "coercive interrogation techniques" are used on the British troops, remember the administration's words, it's not torture unless there is permanent damage. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation for extended periods of time, and stress positions are no longer torture.
This is the identical situation I raised in my responses to the administration's stance on "coercive interrogation techniques" last year. Unfortunately, now we get to see how it plays out.
df
Matt,
Bush caused Saddam to gas Iranians in the 1980's too, you know. Saddam used the WMDs he never had to begin with.
DF, there's a big difference between the treatment of unlawful combatants and British soldiers wearing uniforms abducted from Iraqi waters. The Geneva Conventions recognize the difference. The American government recognizes the difference. I'm confident that you recognize the difference too.
Also, these are the Iranians. Are we seriously supposed to believe that anything they do to these British troops are because of the way we treat unlawful combatants? Does that whole Iranian hostage crisis ring a bell? 444 days?
Any attempt to blame the United States or its policies for what Iran does to those British soldiers is misguided to say the least.
I don't think anyone is blaming the United States. The point is, we've lost the moral authority to say anything about their treatment.
"Also, these are the Iranians. Are we seriously supposed to believe that anything they do to these British troops are because of the way we treat unlawful combatants?"
Absolutely not, but how are we going to complain about it, where is our moral authority? The issue here is not about Iran, if these soldiers are tortured using techniques that the US uses, what are we going to say to the world?
Trust me, I get the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. And if we wrapped everyone captured in silk and treatedthem like kings I would still expect to see our, and our allies citizens, soldiers or not, treated poorly. The difference is, we would have the authority to stand up and say something about it. We have lost that authority.
df
The United States treats drug dealers and murderers differently. A certain percentage of murderers -- those who commit multiple murders or commit murder in a truly depraved and cruel way -- are executed by lethal injection, the electric chair or the gas chamber.
Drug dealers, on the other hand, do jail time.
Because the United States executes some murderers, does that mean that we don't have the moral authority to condemn nations like Indonesia or Saudi Arabia for their legal systems that feature the execution of drug dealers?
Because several states have mandatory minimum sentencing and three strikes laws that sometimes result in long prison sentences for seemingly minor crimes like stealing a piece of pizza (of course, this ignores the severity of the first two strikes, but that's another debate), does that mean we cannot criticize Saudi Arabia for cutting off the hands of thieves?
I don't believe we've lost our moral authority on these matters. You obviously disagree and I don't think I can convince you otherwise. I find it a little odd to be arguing for discernment in shades of gray on these issues, when it's those of us on the right who are usually accused of looking at the issues in black and white.
Another thought. We've come somewhat far afield of Sullivan's original comment. It's one thing to argue that we've lost our moral authority as you have, df. Sullivan was not arguing that we've lost our moral authority, he was arguing that Iran would merely be following the United States' lead. Seeing as how this is the same government responsible for the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, I think that claim fails the smell test.
I just re-read his entire quote:
"They are being "interrogated," apparently. The news reports put that word in quotation marks. I wonder if it emerges that they are being subject to George W. Bush's preferred euphemism "coercive interrogations." And if that turns out to be the case, and we have to pray it isn't, then what will the United States and its ally Great Britain say in complaint? After all, Iran is only doing to Western soldiers in captivity what the U.S. has been doing to "enemy combatants" since the war began. Then there's a question of what kind of trial they might face. One in which their defense gets a chance to see all the evidence against them? Oh, wait ... we don't do that either.
The first strategic crisis created by the Bush-Cheney torture regime is now occurring. It won't be the last. And if these British sailors are found to have been mistreated and their "trials" tainted, who in the international community is now going to come to Britain's and America's defense?"
Reading it again I can see both of our points of view toward the quote.
Although reading Sullivan on a regular basis I can't say that he is a member of the blame America first crowd. Far from it.
df