I've now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin's comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable. The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful. Hugh Hewitt should answer one single question: does he doubt the FBI interrogator who witnessed the appalling treatment of some detainees at Guantanamo?
[...]
Is Hewitt arguing that the interrogator was lying? Does he believe that the kind of tactics used against this prisoner are worthy of the United States?
Honestly, I think those are some fair questions.
As far as I'm concerned, I think that the details in the FBI email were probably accurate, though I'd like to see more foundation to support the email as evidence. It would be nice if somebody at the FBI could confirm or deny that the email did come from an agent who did have access to the Gitmo facility.
As far as whether or not America should be engaging in the sort of interrogation tactics being used in Gitmo, my opinion hinges on this: Are the measures effective in getting good intelligence? If they are then I think we should use them. After all, as many have pointed out, the methods used aren't all that much more brutal than the rigorous training exercises our troops are put through.
But if we aren't getting good intelligence using those measures then I think we should explore other options.
But now, having answered those questions, lets ask Mr. Sullivan some questions. Does he believe that our troops in Guantanamo Bay are doing things that make comparisons to Pol Pots death camp guards apt? Were the Nazi comparisons, which have no doubt harmed the morale of our troops not to mention gave credence to some of the worst accusations made by our enemies, neccessary to make Durbin's point about the methods used at Gitmo?
Couldn't we be having this discussion without the over-the-top hyperbole and blame-America-first rhetoric? Wouldn't those in charge of setting policies at Gitmo be more willing to discuss changes had they not been compared to Nazis first?
This is a point I've made before. Republicans aren't infallible. Democrats make good points at times. The problem has been, of late, that those points get lost in a sea of invective.
(via The Jawa Report)
Update:
Mr. Sullivan was kind enough to send this response to my post:
i wouldn't have amde the nazi comparison. and when i have written about these things, i haven't.
but these acts are brutal, cruel and inhumane.
andrew
This was my reply, via email:
Mr. Sullivan,
Thank you for your response.
If you feel the Nazi comparison was the wrong thing to do, and that's the impression I get when you say that you wouldn't have used it, then why does your post say that Mr. Durbin said nothing wrong? Perhaps his point wasn't wrong (I think that's debatable) but clearly framing the debate with the idea that what's happening in Gitmo is somehow equivalent to what happened under Pol Pot, etc. is.
That being said, I think a point can be made that some of the tactics are over the top.As far as the acts being "brutual, cruel and inhumane," I guess I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, I think that allowing these prisoners to urinate and deficate on themselves is wrong. On the other hand, subjecting them to extreme temperatures and making them listen to loud, annoying music doesn't seem all that bad. After all, this is a terror detention center...not sunday school.
But I think my mixed feelings prove the point I made in my post: Had Durbin not engaged in over-the-top rhetoric, talking about these things would probably be a whole lot easier.