O'Reilly: Out of the Torture Closet...

Remove all ads!

Bill O'Reilly, famed Schlockmeister of the Fox "News" Network, recently delivered himself, after a not-noticeably-painful gestation, of his thoughts on the subject of Torture. (Please bear in mind that O'Reilly is to reporting as Cheeze-Wiz is to a balanced diet...)

What initiated his comments was the revelation that there were more torture photographs from Abu Ghirab, supposedly far worse than what has been previously seen, and the Pentagon's (so far successful) attempt to block their publication. O'Reilly weighed in as follows:

"These kinds of photos incite violence against Americans. Why should more be fed to the press?...More Abu Gharib pictures help the terrorists as do Geneva Convention protections and civilian lawyers....The ACLU and the judges who side with them are terror allies."

I hope you've noticed how O'Reilly neatly converted a position against release of the photos into an attack on the Geneva Convention, lawyers, and the patriotism of anyone who would like to see the photos released. But O'Reilly was far from finished with this subject, as we shall see:

John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona, has introduced a bill to prevent the administration from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross. McCain defended the bill on O'Reilly's show, "The O'Reilly Factor".

McCain: "I want us to abide by the international agreements we've made concerning human rights and against torture. Don't think that you get anything out of torture, Bill, because you don't. And I know that for a fact."

O'Reilly:`"But I think that coerced interrogation--the Boghram guys tell me it works--it's just a matter of degree."

O'Reilly was sufficiently callous to say this to a man who had been a POW in North Vietnam for five years, and who was frequently tortured. Yes, I know O'Reilly is merely a stalking dog for his masters at Fox and their masters in whatever corporate heaven they wallow in. I also know that he has the moral sensitivity of an insect.

 

Unbelievable...just unbelievable.

 

McCain put himself out there, sorry but I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. If he can't handle the debate he should stay away from the topic. To say that you have to pull punches in a debate because of the past experiences of the person you are debating, especially if that person is a public figure who is trying to initiate social changes, is total PC .

Of course the press love stuff like this. Just like a mom who has lost a child to a drunk driver, I am not sure that I believe that McCain is the ideal person to ask about such issues, as he is too close emotionally to the issue. But then the press always chooses to interview the activist mom who lost their child/husband because it pulls people in, so I am not to surprised that O'Reilly would pull the same tricks that the rest of the ratings whore media uses.

 

DW, I disagree -- McCain is the perfect person to sponsor the bill and bring it to the forefront. I believe the issue will require a personal touch to it because a too many Americans believe that terrorism should be stopped by any means necessary (read between the lines: torture and extreme prejudice). MADD could never have evolved to the level it is now without the personal loss of the key individuals.

 

McCain is out of his mind. All he's doing is trying to appeal to the anti-war bunch. What was done to thoese prisoners is nothing compared to what the commies did to him and he damned well knows it. Everything he does is geared towards his next doomed presidential run.

 

Is more a difference of degree than of substance. People (well, alleged terrorists, I'm sure) have been killed due to torture at Abu Ghraib. So, you are arguing that USA did not do so much of this terrible stuff.

 

Oh, yes. We all know how far that will get anyone who wants to be elected. Just ask Howard Dean or Ralph Nader. IMO, MacCain is appealing to principle, even though it may cost him any hope of being elected. First, he was a warrior in the classic sense, and now he has become a warrior for traditional American principles. It's good to know that men like McCain are still with us.

 

Khaavern, why don't you read up on the things the commies did to prisoners. I say to hell with the Geneva Convention. We should treat them the same way they treat our people.

 

Although you weren't directing the attack at me, I have read up on POW treatment, and heard several POW's speak about their treatment (and talked to a few, but not about their treatment). Understanding how POW's can be/are treated is almost required in the military -- it's also taught that we should never sink to that level in our treatment of the enemy.

McCain is doing the right thing, the honorable thing. Too many seem to chose expediency over honor.

 

Well, I assume they did pretty terrible things (although I did not read any official -or reliable- account). Still, McCain went through it, and he survived. And in my opinion, this gives him a moral standing for his position that others lack.

And, of course, the fact that the commies (or the jihadists) use torture should not excuse the US from doing so.

 

T2,

I never said he wasn't a good person to lead the charge, what I said is that if certain topics or opinions are off limits in a debate because of the life experiences of one of the people in the debate, then that person needs to stay out of the debate. The person leading the charge doesn't have to be the one out in the trenches debating the issue. Using the emotional pleas of a victim to sway a debate that is to decide policy/law going forward is intellectually dishonest IMO.

 

That's part of why I believe him to be the right person to push this -- he can easily shock opposition into silence by just recounting his own experiences and showing how horrifying torture is. I wouldn't say the opposition needs to pull punches, McCain can certainly take it. Although the opposition may want to given how masterful McCain is at using his past.

As an example, his very first campaign:

Bang. One comment and the election was over. McCain went from being the likable underdog to frontrunner overnight.

Those politicians who want to wave the 'all's fair in love and the war on terrorism' flag can do so at their own peril.

 

Khazadman writes: "What was done to these prisoners is nothing compared to what the commies did to him [McCain]."

But how does Khazadman know what is being done to these prisoners? Nobody knows. They are being held incommunicado, and the Red Cross is not allowed to see them. It is fair to assume that if they were being treated humanely, the Red Cross would be given access. How does he know they're not being tortured to Gestapo/Lubyanka standards? Since Bush claims to be a born-again Christian, perhaps he can tell us who Jesus would torture. These disgusting events, and the hypocrisy that accompanies them, are a stain on every citizen, on everything we have ever stood for, on every human being who believes in the values on which this nation was founded.

In a later post Khazadman adds, "To hell with the Geneva Convention." This at least has the merit of simple directness. War is a ghastly and bloody business; the Geneva Convention is merely an attempt to prevent those engaged in it from sinking wholeheartedly to the level of beasts.

 

I am amazed at your lack of compassion khazadman. Most that appear in Abu Ghribe and other such places in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are mere suspects (tons have been released with no charge). What gives anyone the right to torture them, just as they are mere suspects? During the 19870's and 1980's here English army and police officers beat catholic demonstrators or IRA 'suspects' and the US complained on this, but no-one was ever raped or suffered as the Iraqis had suffered in Abu Ghribe.

"To hell with the Geneva Convension" I doubt you would say that if you were an Iraqi street peddler being stuck in Abu Ghribe with Jeremy Garner in charge of you.

 

Khazadman, I am honestly surprised you'd write what you did. Does the fact that someone, somewhere, used worse methods to get information out of their captives justify you in sinking to their level? Or do you want to give the cause you believe in the same amount of credibility as, say, Al-Queda or some murderous sect? When you say you champion a cause of justice and peace (read any GWB public statement) you have to stick to the ideas you defend. Otherwise, you are nothing more than an imposter and a hypocrite.
Back to the topic, I have not watched the interview (could someone please point to a transcript or a video file?) but it would seem Mr. McCain made a good position. If anything, defending torture (forced interrogation, what a pathetic euphemism) to someone who has obviously experienced it is extremely callous. I can't understand anyone sympathizing with Mr. O'Reilly, really.

 

Amazed and surprised. You really are? Wish I could say that much for myself.

The US admin gets away with running a place such as Gitmo in plain sight of the US people. And we have all heard more than enough about what is happening in this so-called war til now. I think its clear there is - silent or not so silent? - consent that torture is acceptable. If not among all Americans, but a large enough number. Even if it all flies in the face of everything the States *so* wants to represent. I cannot explain to myself why there is not sufficient pressure to stop this if that isnt so. Even reports of prisoners tortured to death dont seem to change much.

The displayed sentiment up there seems to be that of a lot of Americans. So much for passing or failing the test when ideals have to stand true.

 

McCain survived. A lot of the prisoners didn't. I can't see how we can look at two scenarios (though both are despicable) where in one a person dies, and another where the person doesn't die, and say clearly, that the person who survived was given worse treatment than the person who died.

 

I can understand what khazadman is saying. Reading some accounts of torture which happened in the old Soviet Union, or under Saddam, makes me want to kill the SOB's. And I think this is a normal feeling, up to a point.

However, this does not mean that one should raise revenge to the level of official policy. For once, this would give raise the same kind of feeling among the other people which we feel when we real about some atrocity commited by the other part. So, if the US is torturing prisoners (which may or might not be guilty), even a normal Iraqi person may feel justified blowing up US civilians.

Another reason would be that torture brings up the worst in our people. I do not think a normal person can inflict torture repeatedly without being deeply affected. So, where it finally ends that sadists are in charge of prisons(see what happened at Abu Ghraib). Hardly a desirable situation.

And a somewhat unrelated comment: as far as I know, none of the superior officers responsible for the stuff at Abu Ghraib were punished. However, on Monday the Army cashiered a four star general because ... he had an extramarital affair. With a civilian, mind you. <"We all swear to serve by the highest ideals, and no matter what rank, when you violate them, you are dealt with appropriately," said one Army officer familiar with the case.> Apparently, torture does not matter, but infidelity is terrible stuff.

more on the story at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080900515.html

 

Well, it should hardly come as a surprise that attacks in Iraq intensified after the first Abu Ghraib pics came out, and the name got into the mouth of every radical out there.
I have a little theory that may be untested, but I think it somewhat close to the truth. Killing is, generally, understood and somewhat accepted when there is a reason for it. Therefore, when the USA bombed Afghanistan and sent troops to end the Taliban reign, there was very little resistance: this was understandable. Everyone in Karachi, or Dubai, or Mumbasa, could understand and justify it as revenge for 9/11. Revenge is present in every culture, no matter how much it is limited or made symbolical. However, torture is another thing entirely. Only someone very sceptical and/or callous would accept torture without some revulsion, even in war and as a method to extract information. Even so, routine torture of prisoners (that is the impression the Abu Ghraib affair gave) is despicable. Torture of innocents - even more so. Especially when this torture is accompanied by humiliation and made public. This defies the moral codes of almost any society, especially one stressing on honor and tradition, as it flies in the face of those two principles. In some cultures, gratuitous, unprovoked torture (for relatives or friends of an inmate often consider him innocent) or public humiliation are fates no better than "honest" death.
Therefore, the torture stories associated with the USA not only made it seem oppressive and evil, but also aiming to destroy the very fabric of Iraqi society. In addition to that, someone who has had a relative or close friend tortured or killed in such a matter will probably feel justified in getting revenge. On one hand he has an innocent relative/friend who has been killed or tortured and humiliated, on the other - he is killing evildoers Regardless of how many are killed or who else has to die, it can be considered, from this point of view, just retribution.

 

Torture is only wrong if the "enemy" does it, havent you learned that? If "our guys" do it it is extraction of vital information to save pure and innocent lives and all it really amounts to, really, is just a little friendly hazing even so. Gosh darnit though, what those pinko commie islamofascists do, thats just vile gratuitios torture for the sheer evilness of it and can never be compared to the gags our pink cheeked boys and girls play on vile childraping murderers of paleskinned people!