Former Cole Commander: Damn the Human Rights — Full Speed Ahead
The former commander of the U.S.S. Cole is none too happy with Barack Obama’s efforts to return the United States to the rule of law and the international community:
The former commander of the USS Cole, the American war ship that was struck by a suicide boat in Yemeni waters more than eight years ago, on Thursday slammed President Barack Obama’s orders to close the Guantanamo detention center and reassess the prisoners being held there.
”We shouldn’t make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,” retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kurt Lippold said in a telephone interview. “We should consider what is best for the American people, which is not to jeopardize those who are fighting the war on terror — or even more adversely impact the families who have already suffered loses as a result of the war.”
With respect, this is just wrong. I am one who believes that international relations should be largely understood through the lens of interests. But there’s still such a thing as right and wrong. And we should, in fact, make adequate respect for the law and for human rights an important priority when making our policy decisions. Over the long run, Americans will much prefer to live in a world governed by law and human rights than one of chaos and brutality. And other countries will be better-disposed to our national power and leading global role insofar as they see us upholding humane values and basic decency. Besides which, it’s the right thing to do.
53 Responses to “Former Cole Commander: Damn the Human Rights — Full Speed Ahead”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Why with respect? Torture advocate deserve no respect.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
And we shouldn’t make policy decisions based on uninformed opinions by a naval commander who wasn’t able to protect his own ship.
There. I’ve sunk to his level.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
And other countries will be better-disposed to our national power and leading global role insofar as they see us upholding humane values and basic decency.
Exactly. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s in our interest.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
So the good Commander wants us to kill and torture to whatever extent we deem fit but then attack regimes like Iraq and Afghanistan for doing the same thing, just against us? This is horrifyingly dangerous hypocrisy.
http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
January 30th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I thought military guys were all about honor. Doesn’t the Commander think the United States should make policy decisions that honor formal commitments we have made? These human rights constraints are not just pipe dreams that live in academic papers. Many have been codified, solemnized and ratified by the majority of civilized nations, including the United States. Violating our commitments undermines our word and credibility, and makes it much harder for our leaders to pursue our interests through future mutually beneficial compacts with other countries.
Does Lippold also think we should just stab allies in the back whenever we decide it suits us, and not honor formal security commitments we have made? I hope not, since as a Navy Commander, these allies look to public statements from him and others to see how reliable those commitments are.
This is not just about right and wrong in some abstract moral sense. We undertake human rights commitments, security commitments and other commitments, in part, because we benefit from being part of the international order they help establish.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“We should consider what is best for the American people, which is not to jeopardize those who are fighting the war on terror”
I have to agree him there. We should do what’s best for America. I just don’t believe that torturing people is what’s best for us. It probably puts our soldiers at greater risk. My father had a friend who fought in Hitler’s army. He was drafted at age 15. He only committed one act as a soldier: he surrendered to the Americans. He did so because he knew the Americans would treat him well, and they did. He was so impressed with the Americans, he became a US citizen. But what would have happened if he had faced the Russians instead? He would have fired back at the Russians because he knew they would torture him. Surrender just wasn’t an option with the Russians. By torturing our enemies, we force them to fight back even when they can’t win. And some of our soldiers will die because of that.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“We should consider what is best for the American people, which is not to jeopardize those who are fighting the war on terror.”
Ummmm… the reason the US hasn’t tortured in the past was for exactly that reason, to keep the troops safe from torture. If we agree not to torture then our captured POW’s will hopefully receive the same treatment by the enemy. Now, admittedly we have warred in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq I, Afghanistan and Iraq II against people who have sometimes ignored the “rules” of war themselves, but that’s no excuse to backslide and encourage more torture of captured US soldiers by enemy combatants because we’re condoning it ourselves.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“retired former”
Is that the same as “passed over”?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
In what way is an attack on the USS Cole, as military a target as one could find, a *terrorist* attack?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Lippold does not seem to understand that the illegal treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay resulted in increased risk for members of our military without doing anything at all for our national security.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
right. because allowing the TORTURE of detainees sets a great example for how American POWs should be treated…
January 30th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
”We shouldn’t make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,”
This isn’t a policy decision based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,it’s a policy decision based on the rule of law. If any person detained in the “war on terror” is guilty of crimes against the United States there is already a structure for trying and punishing them. Illegal prisons and torture techniques do not make us safer.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
The former U.S. Special Forces interrogator in Iraq who was in the news recently disagrees with Lippold. He said that Abu Ghraib and Gitmo intensified the insurgency, leading to even more deaths of U.S. soldiers.
How does prison at Leavenworth and federal trials or courts martial “jeopardize” or “adversely impact” anyone or anything?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Why exactly should anyone care what Lippold thinks?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
When the Cole was attacked, a nearby UK ship rendered significant medical assistance. The most seriously wounded were medevac’d to a French military hospital in Djibouti, then were flown to a hospital in Germany. Would they have been able to have avail themselves of such assistance if we had adopted international pariah status as Lippold wishes?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“We shouldn’t make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups.”
Yeah, that kind of thing just gets you nowhere. Look at the U.S. Constitution – a bunch of paper wasted on legal mumbo-jumbo by a blthering gaggle of human rights advocates.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Apparently, Commander Dipshit doesn’t know how or why the previous inmates were released, which was on the basis of their country of origin, Europeans first …
Just another dumb freeper who thinks that the threat level of the inmate has jack shit to do with anything.
.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
This man Lippold was a Naval Officer who didn’t make it to flag for a reason, he probably was competent enough in running a ship, but he obviously is narrow minded and does not see the bigger picture, as far as he can see there are only two things his command (ship and crew) and targets to blow up. He doens’t have a clue of broader policy.
I work in IT and develop an maintain a customer facing application, dealing with constant changes in the business requirments prevents me from developing a super cool and stable application, but the reality is that my company business is selling stuff, not making my life easier.
In the same token, our country’s policies should not be geared as to what is good for the military, its the other way around.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Duly noted CMDR Lippold. But when did the U.S. start setting national strategy on the basis of what a retired navy O-5 has to say on items outside his expertise?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Joe the Plumber was unavailable.
.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Matthew, you overlooked mentioning a *major* part of the article:
Lippold was responding to the decision by a U.S. military judge in Guantanamo to reject a request by Pentagon lawyers to delay next week’s scheduled arraignment of Abd el Rahim al Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian who’s charged with helping orchestrate the October 2000 suicide bombing of the Cole. The bombing killed 17 U.S. sailors.
With respect, it is simply unfair for you to write about Cmdr. Lippold’s views without mentioning this GIGANTIC HUGE FACT that puts a dramatically different light on his views, at least in the real world of human emotion.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
McKingford brings up an interesting point:
In what way is an attack on the USS Cole, as military a target as one could find, a *terrorist* attack?
It seems that we’ve gotten to the point where, although we are “at war”, any attack on the US military is considered terrorism, which really renders the word meaningless. What some of the terrorists in Guantanamo are charged with is attacking US soldiers in Afganistan when we were in the process of invading that country and replacing its government.
You don’t have to be against the actions of the US in Afganistan in 2001 and 2002 to think that charging those who resisted us militarily as “terrorists” is overkill.
In fact, John Walker Lind, the famous “American Taliban” is charged with nothing more than being in an opposing military force and fighting against the US military. It’s strange that we’ve all come to assume that any military action against the US (even in other countries which we have invaded) is illegitimate and illegal.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
This man couldn’t keep his own war ship safe in a harbor. He neglected his duty, and now wants to criticize a man who is doing his.
Lippold needs to accept his own responsibility for his failure of command, and beg the families of the dead sailors for forgivess.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
it is simply unfair for you to write about Cmdr. Lippold’s views without mentioning this GIGANTIC HUGE FACT that puts a dramatically different light on his views, at least in the real world of human emotion.
Yeah, nothing like knowing our military commanders are governed by the desire for revenge. Really reinforces one’s faith in their ability to make good long-term decisions.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
It is almost certain that Lippold didn’t make O-6 and wound up retiring directly because of the Yemen attack.
He’s the boss, it’s his responsiblity. And he made some mistakes. (but other aspects of the ship’s readiness saved lives and saved the ship). Still, in some sense he was set up for failure, much in the same way that Pearl Harbor guy was. Any other CO, the same situation would have more or less occured with more or less the same results.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I guess the good Cmdr. never heard about staying in your lane.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
James Gary — Get serious.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
If Cmdr. Lippold REALLY believes that ”We shouldn’t make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups”, the place to have started was in Aden harbor, with the men on the day watch unslinging their M14s instead of waving at the attack boat crew.
But, the review board had prolly already covered that ground while they were passing the Cmdr over for promotion.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Yay! Unamerican advice from a failed commander who let a speedboat full of home-made explosives take out his ship.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Wow, you’ve got some ardent commenters here.
I hope you have enough sense of fair play to cut Lippold a break and update your article.
If you’re going to slam anyone, slam the McClatchy reporter, who set Lippold up as a human rights expert so he could pull this emotional whack job.
It would have been much more fair for the McClatchy guy to say something along the lines of “one observer who disapproved of the decision was Cmdr. Kurt Lippold, whose ship the Cole as attacked by … Lippold said:”
January 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Um, shouldn’t people who publicly declare their intentions to disobey executive orders be immediately detained and disciplined by their superiors?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
itsbenj, dude, he’s retired.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Vorkosigan 1 (#3) makes the key point. Lippold’s shortcomings are a big part of why the Cole attack happened, and I don’t care what he thinks about anything.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
In what way is an attack on the USS Cole, as military a target as one could find, a *terrorist* attack?
“Terrorists? That’s what the big army calls the little army!”
January 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
The former commanding officer of the Cole should STFU. Despite numerous violations, I want to say 37, he was found to have no responsibility for that attack. How he dares to do anything but hang his head in shame is beyond me. The buddy buddy system came to his rescue during the investigation but I cannot think of an officer with less credibility than him.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Fred Zimmerman is right. When a disgraced former officer of the United States military insists publicly that we shouldn’t make decisions based on law on human rights, and should instead keep suspected terrorists indefinitely detained without charges in legal limbo, we should ignore what’s right and instead pander to his emotionally delicate needs.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
It sure didn’t help our nation when the 17 sailors on the Cole were killed, nor the 3000 killed on 9/11.
I agree. One of those interests includes severe punishments (a sentence of death, not torture) against those who threaten them. It also depends on what is called torture. Nashiri was most definitely waterboarded (although not since at least 2003). But even Obama’s choice for Director of National Intelligence refuses to call waterboarding torture, albeit his Justice Department picks believe it.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
What executive order did the military judge disobey? The Executive Order titled REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES merely requires that a review of all cases be conducted. The request to delay all trials was made to support that requirement, but was not – repeat not – a part of the order. The judge was well within bounds to decline the request.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
LaFollette — I nerely pointed out that it was unrealistic to expect Lippold to be an advocate for rights for the detainees when one of them is the person who blew up his ship. the real villain here is the McClatchy report who presented L as an expert on human rights (and Matthew Yglesias, who uncritically accepted that premise).
I don’t come here often, and wow, I’ve got to say, tough crowd. I hope that you’re not all this sarcastic, judgmental, and rigid in real life.
Lippold’s a human being, he was asked his opinion and he gave a predictable one, just like you would get a predictable answer if you asked a Palestinian plumber standing next to the corpses of his family in a bombed-out house in Gaza about his stance on Zionism.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Fred Zimmerman,
I think you make a fair point. It is easy to see how these comments might have gotten made–Court issues ruling, McClatchy reporter calls up the retired Commander and baits him into making incendiary comments that will fit into the “Military at war with Obama” story that the reporter has already written. Still, ANY military officer knows that when they talk to reporters the resulting story often reads like they are speaking on behalf of the military, even though they aren’t. And it really isn’t believable that an officer who has been in the spotlight for so long, wouldn’t know that these types of comments on the record with a reporter wouldn’t make headlines.
All of which is to say, he’s retired and its fine for him to have an opinion, but if he thinks getting his ship blown up by AQ qualifies him as an expert on the law of war and detainee policy he ought to brace himself for a little skepticism from the public.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Fred, having read the article, I disagree that McClatchy set up Cmdr Lippold words as anything other than the opinion of (legally speaking) a lead witness to a crime.
Plainly, the Cmdr wasn’t an Obama voter, and disagrees with the current Administration’s expressed policies on how to pursue the GWOT. The story is conceptually no different that one reporting Ms. Ledbetter’s opinion about employee/management relations.
Having read Cmdr Lippold’s opinion, we’ve responded in kind. This isn’t a news reporting blog, it’s an opinion blog.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Yglesias’ commentariat is . . . special.
Worst. Comment. Community. Ever.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Okay, now that we’ve had his opinion, let’s ask the commander of the USS Liberty what he thinks about Israel and US support for Israel.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 4:26 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:03 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Hi all. They say such nice things about people at their funerals that it makes me sad to realize that I’m going to miss mine by just a few days.
I am from Burkina and also now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Buy airline tickets and buy cheap plane really cheap plane ticket online! Airline tickets to germany can even got from the counters at the airport in the.”
Thanks for the help 8), Jocose.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:48 am
WMThhw tekkjtxbyigv, [url=http://opukafingcxr.com/]opukafingcxr[/url], [link=http://temuqunwqysu.com/]temuqunwqysu[/link], http://ufjapvwsvaxz.com/