US and North Korea morally equivalent?

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

From today’s Washington Post comes this heartbreaking story of the horrible treatment by the North Koreans of 36 US airmen which ought to remind us of the enemies we fight, instead Northwestern law prof Joseph Margulies uses it to try and create a false moral equivalence between the North Koreans and us.

“During the Korean War, thousands of American POWs were forced to endure grotesque and sadistic physical torture. But the downed airmen were treated differently. The senior officer among them was Col. Frank Schwable, the highest-ranking Marine captured in the conflict. “I want to emphasize,” Schwable said later, “that I did not undergo physical torture. Perhaps I would have been more fortunate if I had, because people nowadays seem to understand that better. Mine was the more subtle kind of torment.”

He goes on to detail the treatment of these prisoners which used some of the same techniques that were front and center in the recent debate on torture.

“They were made to stand or sit in awkward and painful positions for hours at a time. One prisoner had to sit at attention on the edge of a stool for 15 hours per day for 33 days. Another time he had to stand for 30 consecutive hours, until he collapsed. Schwable was required to sit at attention every day for almost 10 weeks.”

The treatment, especially its duration is painful to read about and obviously much more so to endure. Margulies seeks to equate the treatment NK gave our prisoners with our treatment of AQ prisoners, but he completely ignores the biggest difference between the two situations. The North Koreans were attempting to get innocent men to confess to a plot to bomb civilians with bacteriological weapons, the men were brave US service members who knew that admitting this would seriously harm our country. Their resistance was epic and done for a good cause. In our interrogation of AQ prisoners, especially the high value ones like KSM, we were dealing with known terrorists who had actionable intel about ongoing plots to really kill civilians. Some how at Northwestern or in Mr. Margulies mind these two situations are the same. I guess in his world a criminal who uses a gun to commit a crime is the same as a policeman who uses a gun to stop one. Actually a better analogy would be a criminal with a gun and a cop with a billy club, as I don’t think any reasonable people believe we treat anyone ever with the unreal brutality of the North Koreans. Then he adds what for many who oppose coercive interrogation, is the clincher.

“At last, exhausted and demoralized, their resistance overcome, they confessed. They all confessed in the end. And they all lied.”

They had to lie you idiot, they weren’t actually war criminals. In the case of AQ prisoners, they don’t have to lie because they are freaking terrorists. They have actual information about other terrorists, terrorist plots and any manner of other useful intel we can use to save innocent lives.

I kinda feel bad for the folks like Mr. Margulies and Andrew Sullivan who seem genuinely appalled by the very thought of one human being mean to another for any reason. But until we live in that progressive wonderland where all is sweetness and light and the milk of human kindness flows through all veins then Kipling/Orwell said it best “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” In this case coercive interrogation, and we won’t wait for any thank yous from Margulies or Sully for making sure that, oh I don’t know, maybe the Library Tower in LA doesn’t become the next Twin Towers.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/6248519

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US and North Korea morally equivalent?:

» Bill's Bites -- 2006.10.02 from Old War Dogs
The webmaster's blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated, newest items at the top. Please click here to learn more about The Phoenix Project, then click here to see a selection of Old War Dogs merchandise. All sales proceeds go to support The Phoenix [Read More]

Comments

[allan]

Ah. Situational ethics.

We view AQ as criminals (or terrorists, whatever you want to call them). The N. Koreans viewed our military as criminals (war criminals). We think that, if we got information we might be able to stop the terrorism. They thought that, if they could get the military to admit they were wrong, it might stop the war.

Of course, we thought the N. Koreans were criminals. But, if these techniques are permitted, they whould be permitted no matter what the purpose of the investigation.

Please note, this is a philosophical argument. Perhaps you would argue philosophy has no place in a war, especially a war on terrorism. I would disagree.

[Uncle Jimbo]

I think philosophical discussion is really the only useful way to discuss this.

Where I disagree with your characterization is in the equating their intentions with ours. Every evil regime would claim to be conducting their evil for a higher purpose, we are not bound to grant that to them however.

Aside from the tremendous difference in severity of the interrogations conducted by NK, their goal could not be reasonably made out to be altruistic. Ours can and is.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Allan]

Hmmm, you might have a point.

Perhaps a comparison can be made to homicide. Generally, society frowns upon one person killing another. But, there are justifications: self-defense, war, etc.

Perhaps we could say that using coercive techniques is wrong, generally, but not in this situation. To get there, we must agree that using coercive techniques is wrong (just as killing another is wrong). I do not think we will ever get there. But, assume we do.

The next question is who will decide whether it is right or wrong. In the case of homicide, we have third parties (prosecutors) deciding to prosecute and fourth parties (judges and juries) making the decision. But, in the case of the interrogation issue, there are no third or fourth parties.

It is left to you and me to decide whether use of the questioned techniques is justified by the circumstances. Assuming we agree to get this far, I think we would disagree on the end.

One last point. The NYTimes published an editorial this weekend, titled Pirates of the Meditteranean, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html?ex=1159934400&en=2e054a0a83d41143&ei=5087%0A. The author made a persuasive point that this event might have led to the fall of Rome. I, too, think we are on the brink of implosion.

At the very least, I think that ALL laws passed after 9/11 have a sunset period and require review, say, every five years. The more draconian of the laws should be reviewed every year.

[jordan]

The North Koreans never hoped that if they could get the military to admit they were wrong, it might stop the war. They had no interest in stopping the war. They felt the power of China and Russia behind them, and were interested only in demolishing the South to include it in their Stalinist utopia. They tortured for their own sadistic pleasure, like the jihadists torture and behead on video, not for any identifiable goal.

Similarly, today's enemies have no interest in a truce. They'll stop fighting only after they're killed or utterly defeated.

South Korea/U.S./U.N. didn't invade North Korea. North Korea invaded the South. That alone squashes any equivalence between them. The fact that we fight back and end the fight by winning doesn't mean we're "just as bad". In fact, if we're on the verge of implosion it's due to the mindset that sees us as "just as bad."

[Mike James]

Allan, for clarity's sake, as long as it isn't too much of an imposition, would you mind answering a question? Which side do you think ought to win the war?

In the service of clarity, I would tell you that I think Civilisation ought to triumph, over those small parts of Islam which have once again embarked upon nihilistic warfare upon the civilised world.

[BenW]

If the historical accounts are acurate, the NK treated our people for the purpose of making them lie on camera. The NK would then show these coerced confessions. The particulars of this forced testimony was hideous enough to rise to war crimes levels. The NK regime could then have make a case, falsely, that or service personnel deserved capital trials and exicution.

The US in modern times, has not shown KSM or any other prisoner for the purpose of official humiliation, but rather has interrogated only to prevent further assaults. Saddam was shown only as proof, the abuses of Abu Graib were rogue and US officials have not dehumanized any of our prisoners.

To make an argument of equivalance is like swatting a gnat while ones home is overrun with cockroaches. Let the military interrogators do their jobs professionally with guidelines. Don't strain logic on moral waffling. Freedom is bought, paid for and guarded by folks who are willing to sacrifice for civilization. Instead of assuming our service personnel are vile, base and tainted, believe in their nobility of purpose.

Oh yeah, professors. "Let's publish something inflamatory in order to get noticed." Ug.

Ben

[jordan]

Interestingly, an Army interrogator, a relative, said after the war many N. Korean infiltrators continued to be captured in the South. By the 1970's, getting them to turn usually required about 48 hrs and a drive through downtown Seoul, which made them realize everything they'd been told was a lie. I hope that atrophied country is freed someday.

[bthun (the red neck formerly known as bruce)]

Moral equivalence? Bahhh, what a load!

Implosion? Oh yeah, yet another theory as to the fall of Rome. What's that make fifteen, maybe twenty thousand theories put forth by noted historians on the fall of the Roman Empire? Mmmmm...

If we are again attacked in the homeland, I doubt that people will be running around seeking a place to cower from those morally equivalent by extension primitives from the 8th century. Quite the opposite, I would be willing to bet.

No, the implosion we face will result from the contention we have among the two types of citizens in this country. Those aware of the real threat from the jihadists who are willing to face up to the long war that must result if we are to defend against their terror and expansionists designs and those who refuse to face the threat. IMHO there is no doubt that we will not implode due to the determined will of the one group and the dithering weakness other.

BTW I do agree with you Allan on the review/Sunset provisions in all the laws our representatives pass during the GWoT era which are related to security. But that's just the iddy-biddy-Government gene twitching within me...