The Commonwealth of Virginia's Ultimate Blog

Monday, June 06, 2005

Gitmo Should Be Shut Down

I know it's surprising to hear from a hard-nosed conservative who was an avid supporter of the war since the beginning and still defends its purposes and its results, regardless of many of the questionable intelligence practices that propelled our nation to war, but Gitmo is a public relations disaster of epic proportions. To be absolutely fair, Amnesty International calling Gitmo the new Gulag is ridiculous if anyone has any understanding of the dimensions and degrees of the Soviet Gulag Archipelago. As someone who read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's spectacular chronicling of the gulag when I was twelve years old, the torture practices and size of the Soviet empire's gulag are indelibly imprinted in my memory. The fact is, millions of people died in the Soviet gulag, perhaps several tens of millions . . . . no one will ever know for sure. Only 540 people are currently held at Gitmo, and although others have passed through it or several similar institutions around the world, it is not even comparable to the gulag in size or horror.

Likewise, the Alberto Gonzalez was wrong when he wrote that 2002 memo justifying the use of hoods, pressure points, and sleep deprivation. Perhaps in a perfect world, if we knew that we held prisoner a person who had knowledge of an imminent nuclear attack, then perhaps . . . probably . . . torture to save the lives of millions would be justifiable, for self-defense reasons. Unfortunately, intelligence gathered through means of torture or practices tending toward torture is notoriously unreliable, and has proven to be so ever since the French practices during the Battle of Algiers in 1956 and 1957. The hardcore zealots will resist the torture or will provide false information. It is in their nature to take it to the limit.

And when we first begin to justify limited use of force such as pressure points and hoods, the line is blurred, and we slowly become that which we hate most. We become what we set out to put an end to in the beginning. No matter what official policy is, the result is Abu Ghraib and a collection of secret detention centers that leftwing critics around the world are calling the American gulag. Fallible human beings cannot draw the line at what is torture and what is acceptable when once we begin to sink into that moral gray area.

The ends do not justify the means. It is our calling and duty as that city on a hill that Ronald Reagan spoke about that we, as much as is possible, remain above reproach when it comes to human rights most importantly when it is in relation to our treatment of prisoners. Because so many people hate us and because we have raised the bar for ourselves internationally by our willingness to attack regimes that violate human rights (i.e. Iraq), our enemies look for every opportunity to point to apparent hypocrisy and various other chinks in our moral armor. I am not advocating merely giving into every criticism that emanates from people who do not have the stomach to stand up and fight for justice and human rights. Many of them have never seen a war that looked justifed to them. I am saying that we need to intelligently realize that when we remain above reproach when it comes to human rights, we speak with greater authority and the world respects us more. That is a consideration we must make.

2 Comments:

Blogger James Young said...

I can't agree with everything here, and am not even sure whether I agree with the conclusion. But I think it's a debate worth having.

One concern --- what do you do with the Gitmo prisoners? They are illegal combatants, detained for the duration of the conflict under traditional rules of war. Do we try and imprison them here? Might not work, especially since the criminal burden of proof might protect them.

2:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I strongly disagree with shutting down Gitmo. As with much that is considered a hopeless embarrassment for our government, the cloud is entirely man-made by those who want this administration to fail.

In the absense of a concerted effort by left-wing bush-haters like George Soros, the problems at Gitmo would be seen as simply the inevitable downsides to war and incarceration of the enemy.

It is unfortunate that the opposition party has decided to take a "win-at-all-costs" attitude, a "burn the village to save it" approach which makes any charges they make suspect. We need people to call out the truly wrong things the government does, and we surely know that government is rarely capable of excelling.

But because of the intransigence of the opponents, we must adopt a little ourselves, for the good of the country. If we were to shut down Gitmo, it would simply encourage them to find the next place to shut down. It isn't GITMO they are attacking, it is the administration. Until the administration is gone, and a good democrat is in its place, the attacks will continue.

I just got an e-mail from Ted Kennedy telling me about how radical Mitt Romney is. That is the future of capitulation. There is no person with an "R" next to their name that won't be attacked as being out of the mainstream, the mainstream being the filthy wastewater which was once the proud Democrat party.

When the opponents decide that losing a war is a good way to get elected, there is no way we can give into that.

I also believe that I could argue on the merits why the detention facilities at Gitmo are appropriate and necessary, but for now I think that is really of secondary importance.

This reminds me of Bolton -- for weeks I said that in the "good old days" once the democrats knew they couldn't beat him they would all vote for him because it would strengthen OUR COUNTRY in its dealings with the UN. I pretended that today's democrats simply were too stupid to see that.

But today Senator Leahy actually said that when all the democrats vote against Bolton, he will still win, but he will be badly damaged, and will have no credibility because our opponents will know there is strong opposition. He said that was a good reason for the President to withdraw his nominee. So there you have it -- A leading Democrat Senator KNOWS that his vote will weaken the United States, will harm the war on terror, and lessen the chance at meaningful change in the UN, but rather than doing what he can do directly to FIX that problem by getting his colleages to vote YES, he instead uses this democrat-led act of treason against our country as a political hammer to beat the President with.

No, I think we can't give in to this party, this type of argument. It will only encourage them.

Charles Reichley

12:09 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home