The language of war is victims

March 15th, 2007 Posted in Torture, War on Terror

This will seem like a victory only to those who are not disturbed the fact that these confessions originate from a military tribunal, under conditions we can only assume include torture, in the legal netherworld of Guantanamo. Or for those who are not disturbed that the President believes he has the right to imprison in solitary confinement and torture any of his subjects (for that is what we are today) at his will and without evidence, as in the case of Jose Padilla.

A much greater victory than the “confession” of one man would be the observance of due process. This is about the difference between principles and individuals, and the fact that the destruction of our particular enemies is not worth the abdication of those principles. E.g., very simply:

His attempt to call two witnesses was denied.

And the bizarreness of the planner of 9/11 feeling the need to make these kinds of admonishments, as if to say “I thought I was heartless ….”

While not contesting his own guilt, Mr. Mohammed asked the United States government to “be fair with people.” He said that many people who had been arrested as terrorists in the wake of 9/11 were innocent.

Or the strangest tof all:

He added, “The language of war is victims.”

  1. 2 Responses to “The language of war is victims”

  2. By acopperwire on Mar 16, 2007

    Interesting, perhaps inadvertent turn of phrase. The way “the troops” are propped up only when the hawks need to put a human face on consequences that work to their advantage — they become the victims when “cut-and-run” democrats say enough is enough. The 3,000 WTC dead have been the ultimate victims, used to justify every asnine move of this administration. If somebody got caught fellating Bush in the Oval Office, he’d cry “9-11″ as he zipped up. The language of war is, indeed, victims.

  3. By Wes on Mar 17, 2007

    Nicely put.

    More reflections: he seems to be trying to say: I’m guilty, don’t complain about the causalities, you know all about that, that’s the point of war, we are men of war. He’s trying to assert some sort of moral equivalence (and solidarity) between himself and the planners of the Iraq war while saying: “but really, we’re men of war, yes there are casualties but we’re above torture and false imprisonment”. It’s the kind of condescension that’s meant to shame his captors. And especially because of its source, there is the stark reminder that indeed Bush and others went out of their way to create this moral equivalence after the fact (by indiscriminate killing that dwarfs 9/11), and that really is a shame.

Post a Comment