I think you pretty much nailed it on the head in a reasoned little bit of politics-free analysis.

It's hard to claim that Al Quaida did this because we "did" Al Ghraib or Haditha: they're murderers who would have probably killed the soldiers anyway in some cruel fashion.

What we did do, however, is blur the issue of our moral superiority in the eyes of Iraqi and Arab (and most the rest of the world's) observers. You can damn well bet that there is a majority of the world out there that is quietly thinking (or not so quietly saying) that the US has chosen to play by similar murderous rules, and we can expect now to die by them. Irregardless that we have no national policy that says "torture and kill", our Administration has been uncomfortably soft on vigorously condemning all flavors of torture and military misbehaviour.

In general, I am a whole lot more comfortable inhabiting firmly the moral high ground as an American. We have to renounce ALL torture and prosecute vigorously up and down the chain of command when we encounter torture or civilian killing among our troops. Unless we do that, we don't enjoy what used to be a pretty comfortable moral high ground.

These two men died a terrible death. I don't want he majority in the world to think privately that we kind of had it coming. That makes me sick.

This situation is precvisely why it was wrong to have tortured so many Iraqi's. We tortured them, and now they feel justified in torturing captured American soldiers. Nice job Rumsfeld!!!

"This situation is precvisely why it was wrong to have tortured so many Iraqi's. We tortured them, and now they feel justified in torturing captured American soldiers. Nice job Rumsfeld!!!"

This is just silly. The idea that al Qaeda was going to treat our soldiers in accordance with the Geneva Conventions beggars belief. Presumably the people who beheaded Daniel Pearl were prescient and knew ahead of time about Abu Ghraib and killed him in response to that ahead of time? There are a lot of good reasons to renounce torture, but comments like this trivialize the debate.

Andrew,
Decapitation is not torture, it is murder. We aren't talking about these two soldiers because they were murdered. US Soldiers are murdered almost every day in this war, and their deaths (while tragic) are not a topic of individual discussion annd debate. These two brave men are a topic of conversation here because they were tortured brutally.

We have no moral high ground to stand on right now because people like you and Mr. Rumsfeld have willfully disreguarded the Geneva Conventions reguarding torture. Now the rest of the world thinks that we deserve what we get, and that is bad for US interests.

Therefore, "You're doing a heck of a job Rummy!"

First, if you don't think decapitation is torture, you have a fascinating view of the world.

Second, I maintain that the idea that our enemies would not have stooped to torture had the Bush administration done the right thing and made sure that torture was not utilized in the questioning of any prisoners we took is asinine. We're dealing with barbarians, and to expect them to act otherwise is akin to expecting the sun to rise in the west.

Third, I cannot speak for Secretary Rumsfeld, but I'm quite sure I would recall if I had disregarded the Geneva Conventions regarding torture. So your accusation, in addition to being silly, is false.

We ought to observe the Geneva Conventions because they protect Americans in general. If Iraqi insurgents or terrorist groups choose to treat their captives humanely (or not), we should demonstrate conduct at all times that shows our moral superiority.

Part of this is that you have to think beyond Iraq, you have to consider the next war to be fought, and the one after that. We should have a long and clear record of avoiding cruelty and barbarity. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld's poor leadership, supported in full by Gonzales and the White House, has undone 200 years of image building and an honorable military legacy in this respect.

Rumsfeld ought to take responsibility for his massive failures and resign - or he ought to be given the sack, immediately.

countering with atrocities?
what was abu gahrib?
and gitmo?
i'm not saying this happened because of that...but the clowns that led us down this path gave up the high road a lot of miles back.
vision and leadership would have us in a position where we could say; "see, we're better than that." we can't now...we are no better.
thanks dubya.

"We have no moral high ground to stand on right now because people like you and Mr. Rumsfeld have willfully disreguarded the Geneva Conventions reguarding torture. Now the rest of the world thinks that we deserve what we get, and that is bad for US interests."

I should note that I concur with your analysis regarding how our policy on torture has damaged our standing with the world.

Whether you want to believe that Al Qeda would have murdered and tortured our soldiers regardless of our actions, or failed to follow Geneva Conventions is irrelevant. I agree, it is unlikely that they would have behaved any differently, however because of Bush and Rumsfeld basically saying that torture, indefinite detentions, etc., are all okay in this war, America and our soldiers are not going to get the benefit of the moral high ground anymore.

I really don't understand the argument that since we can't trust the enemy to not be barbarians we are free to be barbaric ourselves. America used to stand for morals, rights, and freedoms. Bush and his friends are slowly eroding all of those, yet they claim it is their critics who hate America. At least the critics are trying to preserve the America and its ideals that Bush claims to love, yet refuses to follow.

It is tragic what happened to these soldiers (as it is to all of the soldiers and individuals killed and wounded in this war), but it doesn't help our cause any when the rest of the world, rather than being horrified, feels that we are merely reaping what we sowed. It certainly doesn't help when many of our comentators, like Rush Limbaugh, make light of torture, and Gitmo, and the rest.

I don't understand the

"I really don't understand the argument that since we can't trust the enemy to not be barbarians we are free to be barbaric ourselves."

Who is making that argument? My point is that suggesting that Bush and Rumsfeld somehow brought this on our soldiers is abhorrent. I happen to concur with the idea that the Bush administration should have renounced the use of torture in the strongest possible terms a long time ago. But I don't intend to allow U.S. errors to mask the nature of our enemy in this fight.

Their barbaric nature does not give us carte blanche to act in a similiar fashion. Nor do our failures give them any moral cover for their atrocities.

Obviously I don't know the operational status down there, but from here it seems we should be drastically lowering the number of soft targets exposed the the enemy. Their CO needs to explain why only three people were out in hostile territory.

The sophistication of the traps left with the bodies is also serious cause for concern. It would take a fairly large and experienced force to pull that off. You can bet the locals know about it, but the bad guys are likely on the road to another town by now.

It isn't all that fascinating. Murder and torture are different things.

It is possible to execute somebody without torturing them or causing pain. Lethal injection, electric chair, hanging, and beheading are methods that have been used. Meanwhile, torture is the act of inflicting pain, and does not require death as a result.

The accounts of Daniel Pearl's death all agree that his throut was slit, killing him, and then he was beheaded. No torture.

I retract my statement about you disreguarding the Geneva Conventions. Obviously you did not personally do that. Mr. Rumsfeld did.

Your second point is the sticky one. I can't prove causality, it can't be disproven either. Therefore, I propose that we leave the causality issue aside.

The remaining fact is that most of the world thinks that we deserve whatever we get in Iraq because of our past actions. That is sickening because it ignores our true intentions and the inherent goodness that is the foundation of the American system. This is Rumsfeld's fault, and at some point I expect history will hold him accountable.

I don't think the issue is whether the Iraqi insurgency would have treated these American soldiers any differently if we hadn't tortured people. I see the issue as one where we used to have the moral high ground - people who tortured U.S. soldiers were looked down upon, mostly because the Americans had a well-deserved reputation for being humane and civil. The Bush Administration has decided that America's reputation as a shining beacon of moral values was too "pre-9/11", and now, in the Iraqi court of public opinion, the monsters who brutally killed two American soldiers will not suffer the same opprobrium they once would have earned for such a heinous deed.

That's the reason why some of us feel the US is now paying the price for disregarding the ban against torture.

I think one can be both horrified for what happened to the victims *and* feel that American misconduct and the lack of accountability had an effect.

Andrew said that he is afraid the anger in the other soldiers might lead to "people go out looking for revenge"who "sometimes aren't real concerned with locating the right target."
That doesn't mean that he will not be horrified if that happends, or that he rejoices in it. It doesn't mean that he thinks it is justified either. He just sees an increase of innocent Iraqi's as an unfortunate but possible consequence of these murders.

Two things keep popping up in my mind. This famous quote:

"This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners who were freed … were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."

(Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at Auschwitz)

(and no, I most definately don't think the US is even close to being as bad as Hitler. I just think about how even his underlings didn't see themselves as being as bad as they were, and about how important it is that misconduct is appropriately punished. Milgram and others have shown that people in groups, with power, can do bad things. Decent folks will than have to live with their conscience afterwards, when the group is gone. Anger/Justification and denial don't work for everybody)

The other thing that pops to mind is the treatment of US POWS in 2003.

"My point is that suggesting that Bush and Rumsfeld somehow brought this on our soldiers is abhorrent."

I'm sorry you find this suggestion abhorrent but perhaps you should step back and consider it rationally.

In the most fundamental and obvious way, Bush and Rumsfeld did work long and systematically to start the very war that killed these soldiers.

America had not been attacked and was not in danger from Iraq; in fact, America turned its attention away from the hunt for the mass murderer Bin Laden in order to start this pointless war, with the result that hundreds of innocents have died in Al Qaeda bombings all over the world.

If it were not for Bush and Rumsfeld, these soldiers would not have been in harm's way in Iraq. Perhaps they would have been the ones to find Bin Laden instead.

On a more proximate level, it's clear to everyone, "left" or "right", that the Bush government has not only allowed but actively encouraged torture even unto death and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners with no concern for due process or even guilt or innocence.

Each revelation of American atrocities ratchets up the violence level of the Iraqi combatants. It's what we expect and it's what we see.

No one really wanted to go after Iraq, just Bush and his croneys -- the rest of us wanted to get Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who attacked the United States and killed thousands of its citizens, the one who really attacked us and yet roams free to taunt us and kill again five years later.

If Bush hadn't stood up in front of the people of the United States and knowingly told a series of lies, we'd never be in this war and those two young men would almost certainly still be alive. And if Bush hadn't encouraged Americans to torture Iraqis, then these two men would almost certainly not have been tortured before they died.

Tom,

Whatever you paid for the course in logic, I'd advise you to ask for a refund.

Your argument seems to be as follows:

Bush and Rumsfeld caused the war;
The soldiers were in Iraq because of the war;
The soldiers were captured because of the war;
The enemy tortured the soldiers in response to allegations of U.S. torture;
Therefore, it is Bush and Rumsfeld's fault the soldiers were tortured.

First, of course, we have to throw out much of your verbiage because it is irrelevant to the argument. Whether or not Iraq was a danger doesn't affect your argument. Nor does your opinion that this was a pointless war, etc. I would suggest that, in the future, if you wish to make a claim that your argument is 'rational,' you limit your claims to issues relevant to your premises.

As you no doubt know, if any of your premises are incorrect, your conclusion is incorrect. Are all of your premises correct?

Premise #1 is valid. As the President, President Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq with the approval of the Congress.

Premise #2 is valid. Clearly the soldiers were only in Iraq because of the war.

Premise #3 is valid.

Premise #4, however, has no bearing in fact, and you fail to support it with a single cite. You are free to believe that the enemy would have treated American soldiers humanely were it not for President Bush's support for torture, but your belief is insufficient to provide actual proof for your argument. Conversely, we do have some history to look at that seems to undermine that claim: how captives were treated prior to revelations of Abu Ghraib (a situation that did not represent government policy in any case, but never mind that). Jessica Lynch was raped by her captors; I would submit that falls into the category of torturing prisoners. If we go back to the first Gulf War, there is significant evidence (here, for example that American POWs were tortured routinely by their captors. These actions were taken by the Iraqi government and not a terrorist organization, but it seems reasonable to assume that terrorists are not likely to be more scrupulous in their treatment of POWs than agents of a government. Therefore, your premise that the soldiers would not have been tortured is invalid and, therefore, your argument is invalid.

If you're interested, I can recommend several good texts on logic if you wish to try again.

Perhaps we can reword the #4 argument to read:

The enemy tortured the soldiers who were sent to this war which was started by Bush and Rumsfeld.

Therefore it is Bush and Rumsfeld's fault the soldiers were tortured.

What we are witnessing with the grisly execution of these two soldiers is a two pronged PR event by the Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Qeada. They are saying, simultaneously, to the US and their fundamentalist-Sunni base that after Zarqawi's death , they are still focused and effective.

The barbaric(to us) method used to kill the captives was meant to create extreme outrage here in the US and at the same time to demonstrate their role as instruments of God's displeasure, to the extreme fundamentalist Sunni's in and out of Iraq. They hope to provoke an overreaction here in the US which will hinder our ability to disengage.
In the Sunni community their aim is to feed the desire for retribution towards the US which the occupation breeds. By striking in such a high visibilty manner Al-Masri has (in the fundamentalist-Sunni communty) enhanced his stature as a holy warrior(gained honor in their eyes) and (just as importantly) diminished the collective shame that the Sunni's have endured with the fall of Saddam/Shi'ite ascendency.
At a stroke Al-Masri heralds his arrival, plays to his base, gets a big sympathy vibe from the population at large with grievances against the US occupation and further complicates the debate over Iraq within the US.

Eventually the perpetrators will be killed, one way or another. They know that. In essence they are suicide bombers in slow motion. Thier hope is to keep the pot boiling and keep us from ever leaving.

"The enemy tortured the soldiers who were sent to this war which was started by Bush and Rumsfeld.

Therefore it is Bush and Rumsfeld's fault the soldiers were tortured."

I'm not buying that premise either. I'm not prepared to give the people who actually tortured the soldiers a pass. I realize that this is a somewhat retrograde concept, but I'm of the opinion that the people who are responsible for the soldiers being tortured is the people who tortured them.

It is not required that we give the terrorists a pass at all. They are evil, and I savor the day when we find and kill them.

Their actions do not exonerate Bush and Rumsfeld either though. Lying in order to start a war does put the responsibility for the outcome of that war squarely on the shoulders of the war's creators. The current administration created this war on their own free will, and with no legitimate national security reason. This war is a pre-condition to the torture, and therefore they are mornally responsible for the torture (much as a drug dealer may face the chair if his clients overdose).

This is true of every war maker, and the harsh criticism to be dished out by history can only be overcome with one of two things.

1. The war of choice is fought honorably (i.e. geneva convention)

2. The war is fast and easy (i.e. not a lot of blood to dirty their hands with)

The story of these two soldiers is a chance for the insurgency to remind the world that we have not always been honorable in the ways we have approached Iraq, and in one key respect it shows the US and the insurgency on the same level. That is shameful.

Jessica Lynch was raped by her captors;

AFAIK that was only mentioned in a cheesy biography, but never proven. She doesn't remember anything but being treated well, the people in the hospital all say she was fully dressed and zipped up and the doctors in the hospital say that they've not looked for signs of rape because they were too busy saving her life - but rape would probabely have killed her. Instead shey was brought to a hospital in time to save her life.

The people that torture are responsible for torture, not any American politician. At the same time American politicians *are* co-responsible for an environment in which random violence is rule instead of exception.

Hey, Andrew Olmstead! Thanks for the condescending response!

Thanks for the offer of the logic book. I actually have a degree in mathematics and I studied logic at a graduate level.

I'm glad that you studied Aristotle's work. You might consider reading something written a little more recently, however.

Before I continue, let me explain something that's obvious to all reasonable people and certainly all mathematicians, and that is that very very few arguments that people use in law, in every day discourse or politics, are actually syllogisms. There are countless reasons but the main one is that most real-world human statements aren't absolute statements but probabilistic statements.

Logic got past the syllogism hundreds of years ago -- such ideas as Ockham's Razor (c. 1300) aren't even meaningful when applied to a syllogism.

Consider the following argument: "This man has been convicted of a dozen thefts already; therefore he is more likely to have committed this one". This is a legally valid argument; it's also a common-sense argument. It is not a syllogism.

Now let's go back to your "rebuttal". (I should note that "valid" is not a correct term to apply to a premise. "Valid" only applies to an argument of some type: premises are either true or false, they cannot be "invalid".)

Your claim is that what you call "premise 4" is "invalid" -- a word you appear to be using as a synonym for "false". I strongly suggest going back to the Aristotle because even if I accepted your reasoning, you have proved nothing of this sort -- what you are claiming is that we simply don't know the truth value of premise 4.

In fact, this is common to almost every real-world argument -- it's extremely hard to identify any fact in the real world as 100% true or false.

In a case like premise 4, we are making some claim about the mental state of people whom we are not. This is a priori impossible to verify or not without actually being this person -- it's impossible to directly verify the motives of another individual -- we have to rely on things like the statements of the individuals involved and our own observation of their actions.

Question to you, Andrew Olmstead. We have a very large collection of statements by Iraqis who at least have some claim to be terrorists. Can you truthfully read these and not be convinced that these individuals at least claim that the atrocities perpetrated by America are motivating their actions?

I have exceeded my time budget for dealing with this particular branch of evil (that's you) for the moment.

Let me add that my original posting to you was polite and respectful, and that your response was condescending. To adopt a superior voice and claim to know about logic when in fact you aren't even able to use the most basic terms correctly shows the terminal poverty of your underlying argument.

Face it, Andrew Olmstead. Your beloved President took us into a crazy pointless endless war and now these kids are dead for nothing. Your President encouraged soldiers to torture Iraqis to death and now Iraqis are torturing our soldiers to death. All your waving of "premise 4" isn't going to convince one person that it isn't retaliation.

People like you, Andrew Olmstead, have to feel pretty sick right now. You have to know deep in your heart what some kid in 2026 in school is going to say when asked about George Bush: "the worst President in history: 9/11; New Orleans; The Iraq War; and..." (some horror yet to be inflicted on this battered country, I'm sure).

So I forgive you your snarky tone. Things have to be pretty bad for you right now.

But please -- don't pretend to have knowledge and skills you do not. The internet is a big place and there is always someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Tom,

Thanks, I needed that. It's good to start the morning with a chuckle. You're certainly right that I doubtless have much to learn, but I'll keep plugging along. And I'll even apologize for the snark, as it doesn't do much good.

But I do enjoy someone who thinks he knows me offering me sympathy for what's happened to my 'beloved' President Bush. I feel various emotions towards President Bush, but that's the first time anyone has ever suggested that love was one of them, thus the chuckle. Still, might I suggest that while I'm working some more on my study of logic, you take the time to check your assumptions? I think that's a fair request. (Also, it's Olmsted, not Olmstead; like the architect.)

Again, thanks for the note. I'll keep plugging along, perhaps even with a touch less snark.

Oh, to answer your question, I'm sure that the terrorists will claim that their actions were motivated by U.S. atrocities, etc. For the record, I don't think that's the best reason for renouncing torture, however, as I think the best reason to keep torture off the table is because it's, well, wrong. And I think it's specious to claim that our enemy would play by Marquis of Queensbury rules if not for the actions of the Bush administration.

I agree with you completely on the torture issue; the reason not to do it is that it's wrong.

Let us pray that we wake from this nightmare where the government of the United States has innocent men tortured to death and American soldiers are revealed in their own photos to be torturers and sexual perverts, and punish the people responsible for these atrocities -- going all the way to the top.

I'd like to jump in and give a shout out to Andrew. Many weblogs don't allow comments to be posted, or the comments are filtered for ideological reasons. Andrew does not do that, he has allowed for and participated in a spirited debate. Thank you!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: