London bombs justify 'torture', says Bush
Bush has given an interview for the BBC in which he has come out with some astonishing statements.
He's asked if he's happy with the fact that his legacy will equal Iraq. He responds:Well, I mean... that's what the current, you know, elite would like everybody to think about. And that's... fine. I think... when history marches on, there will be a little more objective look about the totality of this administration. Of course... the change in the way we... to date in Africa is substantial and different, and lives will have been saved. You know, dealing with liberating 25 million in Afghanistan is part of what I hope people think of when they look at my presidency. Being the first president to propose a two-state solution on Israel and Palestine. I mean, there's a lot of other issues. And I'm happy with Iraq. The... decision to move Saddam Hussein was right. And this democracy is now taking root. And I'm confident that if America does not become isolationist - you know, and allow the terrorists to take back over - Iraq will succeed.
But his most astonishing comments are reserved for his defence of waterboarding. He is asked if his decision to veto a bill which outlaws waterboarding isn't sending the wrong signal. He returns to his defence of "which terrorist attack would critics not have wanted him to prevent" and then, rather bizarrely, ropes the victims of 7-7 into his camp. He begins with a classic Bush strawman argument:Unless, of course, people say, "Well, there's no threat. They're just making up the threat. These people aren't problematic."
I don't think there's anyone in the whole world making this argument, but it's the one Bush puts forward as the only alternative to America torturing suspects. Then he brings in the victims of the London underground bombing:But, I don't see how you can say that in Great Britain after people came and, you know, blew up bombs in subways. I suspect the families of those victims are - understand the nature of killers.
So, he is now citing the victims of 7-7 as somehow sharing his values which allow suspects to be tortured as long as the US don't call it torture. I have no idea whether or not the families of those who died on 7-7 share Bush's values and I'm pretty sure that Bush doesn't either. He really has no right to use their suffering as a justification for some of the appalling things that he has allowed to be done to suspects held by the US. Nor is waterboarding the only form of torture that the US has been engaging in:
According to CIA operatives interviewed by ABC News in November 2005, 12 "high-value" detainees - including KSM and almost certainly some of the others charged on Monday - were subjected to an array of "enhanced interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, which produces the perception of drowning, "long time standing," in which prisoners "are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours," and "the cold cell," in which the prisoner "is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees," and is "doused with cold water" throughout his ordeal.So, for Bush to rather casually imply that the families of the victims of 7-7 share his belief that that suspects should be subjected to torture (as long as we don't call it that), really is astonishing.
Once again, we see the mindset that took hold in Republican circles after 9-11, the belief that all suffering leads people to believe that "the gloves are off" and that existing human rights concerns are somehow "quaint".
Perhaps some of the families of victims of 7-7 do share Bush's mindset, but I am sure there are also some who do not. What's interesting here is that Bush reveals that he truly believes that anyone who has suffered will instantly share his viewpoint, and the implication is that those of us who object to torture are obviously doing so because we have not experienced pain.
Had we done so, according to the mindset Bush is displaying, we would also be "comfortable with recognising this is still a dangerous world". You see, those of us who object to torture simply haven't yet recognised this fact according to Bush.
Matt Frei ends the interview by asking a question that, seven years ago, one could never imagine a reporter asking an American President:
Frei: Can you honestly say, Mr President, that today America still occupies the moral high ground?
Mr Bush: Absolutely - absolutely.
Read Transcript of the interview here.
6 comments:
I suspect the families of those victims are - understand the nature of killers.
So, he is now citing the victims of 7-7 as somehow sharing his values which allow suspects to be tortured as long as the US don't call it torture.
In no reading of the English language does Bush's statement mean what you say it means. But don't let that get in the way of your rhetoric.
So, for Bush to rather casually imply that the families of the victims of 7-7 share his belief that that suspects should be subjected to torture (as long as we don't call it that), really is astonishing.
Which of course, he didn't imply. You may have read that into his statements, but he didn't imply it and no rational reading of the text leads to any other conclusion.
So, as Bush never said or implied what you claim, that pretty much makes this entire post of yours invalid.
In no reading of the English language does Bush's statement mean what you say it means. But don't let that get in the way of your rhetoric.
Oh yes, he did. Whilst arguing that intelligence agencies needed the tools to interrogate - and whilst talking specifically about waterboading - he stated: "But, it's gonna take actions necessary to protect ourselves and find information that may protect others. Unless, of course, people say, "Well, there's no threat. They're just making up the threat. These people aren't problematic." But, I don't see how you can say that in Great Britain after people came and, you know, blew up bombs in subways. I suspect the families of those victims are - understand the nature of killers."
So, the actions that need to be done - in this case he was talking about waterboarding - are only objected to by people who think terrorists "aren't problematic" and he implies that the victims of 7-7 understand this better than others.
Nope sorry, that's still a pretty odd reading of it.
But, I don't see how you can say that [there's no threat] in Great Britain after people came and, you know, blew up bombs in subways. I suspect the families of those victims are - understand the nature of killers." (editorial highlight added for clarity)
The second sentence above modifies the previous one. The second sentence is stating that the families of the victims understand there is a threat. Unlike those who think that the terrorists aren't problematic (as stated in the first sentence I quoted), Bush claims that the victims' families understand their true nature.
It's pretty straightforward.
The second sentence above modifies the previous one. The second sentence is stating that the families of the victims understand there is a threat. Unlike those who think that the terrorists aren't problematic (as stated in the first sentence I quoted), Bush claims that the victims' families understand their true nature.
It's pretty straightforward.
Yes it is. You make my point beautifully. The families of those who lost loved ones on 7-7 understand the need for America to "take actions necessary to protect ourselves" - in this case he was discussing waterboarding - and the people who object don't understand the true nature of the enemy.
So he is claiming that, had the rest of us lost loved ones, as did the victims families on 7-7, that we wouldn't question his need to waterboard.
They understand, the rest of us don't. It's a simply hideous thing to say.
I can see this is pointless. I sometimes forget the effect BDS can have on the cognitive processes.
I can see this is pointless.
Arguing when you are wrong usually is. You are trying to say he didn't say something which he blatantly said. And it's not just the left wing Independent which took the same reading as I did of his remarks. The right wing Daily Telegraph also led with the headline: George W Bush: 7/7 bombings justify torture. As did the right wing Evening Standard: Bush: 7/7 bombs families would back terror torture. Dear God, even the ultra right wing Daily Mail led with the headline: Bush: 7/7 bomb families would back terror torture as Britain is branded a 'soft touch'.
Neither of these publications are known to suffer from BDS as you call it. So yes, your argument is pointless, because you are FLAT WRONG.
Post a Comment