Back at the All Night Party
So noone knows about this blog yet. Who do I tell? Why? My friends will know soon enough. For now, though, it is a tiny little space that I am talking to myself in.
I want to update the human rights thing. First I want to mention that four debates have gone by with no mention of it. Four debates! I mean, it is obvious why Bush wouldn't bring it up, he doesn't give a crap. For Kerry, I can speculate that he has bought the idea that we shouldn't look weak in fighting terrorism, and talking about something as wussy as human rights will make him look bad. But three moderators and a bunch of middle leaning citizens have not seen fit to broach the subject. And it is a mighty one.
Are you weak if you are concerned about this issue? Well first of all, there are our soldiers. If we cross the line into torture, which we have, it is that much easier for our enemies to justify doing it to us, in their minds. The argument "we can do it because they wouldn't hesitate doing it to us" is an argument that can be used by both sides. And if both sides can use the argument, it can only end in escalation.
Second, there was no purpose to the tortures that occurred at Abu Ghraib. This was all for humiliation, and to keep people in line. Almost none of it was to get intelligence. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Do you think that the Iraqis don't know what happened there? We don't. We have seen glimpses, but many many pictures are not declassified. And of the glimpses we have seen, what do you think we would be doing if those people that were suffering had been our soldiers? Would we believe that the people doing this to them were a few bad apples among otherwise decent Iraqis?
I wonder.
I want to update the human rights thing. First I want to mention that four debates have gone by with no mention of it. Four debates! I mean, it is obvious why Bush wouldn't bring it up, he doesn't give a crap. For Kerry, I can speculate that he has bought the idea that we shouldn't look weak in fighting terrorism, and talking about something as wussy as human rights will make him look bad. But three moderators and a bunch of middle leaning citizens have not seen fit to broach the subject. And it is a mighty one.
Are you weak if you are concerned about this issue? Well first of all, there are our soldiers. If we cross the line into torture, which we have, it is that much easier for our enemies to justify doing it to us, in their minds. The argument "we can do it because they wouldn't hesitate doing it to us" is an argument that can be used by both sides. And if both sides can use the argument, it can only end in escalation.
Second, there was no purpose to the tortures that occurred at Abu Ghraib. This was all for humiliation, and to keep people in line. Almost none of it was to get intelligence. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Do you think that the Iraqis don't know what happened there? We don't. We have seen glimpses, but many many pictures are not declassified. And of the glimpses we have seen, what do you think we would be doing if those people that were suffering had been our soldiers? Would we believe that the people doing this to them were a few bad apples among otherwise decent Iraqis?
I wonder.