"Do As I Do, Not As I Say Do" -- U.S. Torture Chickens Come Home To Roost
Ronald Bailey | October 24, 2006, 10:09am
According to the Associated Press, the United Nations' special rapporteur on torture reports that other countries are now pointing to the United States when they are criticized for their treatment of prisoners. To wit:
Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, said that when he criticizes governments for their questionable treatment of detainees, they respond by telling him that that if the United States does something, it must be all right. He would not name any countries except for Jordan.
"The United States has been the pioneer, if you wish, of human rights and is a country that has a high reputation in the world," Nowak told reporters. "Today, many other governments are kind of saying, 'But why are you criticizing us, we are not doing something different than what the United States is doing.'"
This sadly predictable outcome reported here.
rob | October 24, 2006, 11:16am | #
The concept that the U.S. has somehow degraded its standing in the world regarding torture is all spin. We treat prisoners better than anyone else in the world, and prosecute those who mistreat prisoners.
What's really rich is the idea that by extending the Geneva Convention protections to unlawful combatants, the U.S. is somehow taking the moral high ground and this will, in turn protect U.S. POWs by encouraging their captors to treat them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
In reality it does exactly the opposite. By extending Geneva protections to unlawful combatants, it gives those unlawful combatants no reason to act as lawful combatants.
The result is that it ACTUALLY serves to degrade the chances that U.S. military personnel will be treated fairly. Why? Because the only "guarantee" - as slight as it is - of keeping U.S. POWs from being tortured was the idea that as long as they combatants conducted themselves as lawful combatants and didn't torture U.S. POWs, the U.S. would treat them as lawful combatants and provide them the protections afforded lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions.
Essentially, the carrot is fair treatment and the stick is unlawful combatant status.
The carrot is the Geneva protections afforded captured enemy lawful combatants - those who conducted themselves in accordance with the law of armed conflict and do not mistreat captured U.S. POWs.
The stick, denying captured enemy unlwaful combatants the protections of Geneva, is intended to discourage combatants from acting as unlawful combatants and mistreating U.S. POWs.
Now there is neither carrot nor stick, and the world is pointing at the U.S. as though it has condoned torture of lawful combatants who deserve the protections of Geneva.
It would be funny, really - the whole catch-22 that U.S. POWs and actual lawful combatants have been put in by the crowd that thinks the U.S. should extend protections to unlawful combatants who clearly have no motivation to conduct themselves in accordance with the law of armed conflict - if it weren't so sad.
The "best of intentions," ensuring that the U.S. doesn't lose its standing as a beacon of human rights, has actually led to the exact opposite.
Now the U.S. has neither the "beacon of human rights" standing NOR are its enemies remotely encouraged to act in accordance with the provisions of Geneva as lawful combatants.
The outcome has been to weaken the U.S.'s standing in the world AND to ensure that the U.S. will face future conflicts in which there is no motivation for enemy combatants to conduct themselves as "lawful combatants."
It's exactly the sort of result one would expect from a successful 4th generation warfare campaign by our enemies, but we did it from within. Amazing...
joe | October 24, 2006, 11:51am | #
"We treat prisoners better than anyone else in the world, and prosecute those who mistreat prisoners."
Nor military prisoners, not anymore. Virtually every other western democracy - Canada, France, Spain, Britain - has higher standards for their treatment than we do today. How you could even assert such a thing after the past five years is beyond me.
"They've apparently not revoked freedom of speech, yet, so I'm free to make a principled argument voicing my disagreement with them."
And I am perfectly free, when forced to decide between two parties making judgement calls about what is likely to happen, to take into account the levels of knowledge, experience, and other factors that are informative about each party's judgement. The people who are in a position to know the most about what is likely to happen are almost uniformly in disagreement with you, rob.
Your argument relies upon a series of judgement calls about how different groups are likely to behave. Since there are no means of objectively establishing what will happen in the future, I'm forced to consider the judgement of those making their preditions.
Why should we value your predictions over theirs, rob?
Bitch bitch whine whine boo hoo joe said something mean.
I think you'd better switch to calling me a racist now, as usual.
rob | October 24, 2006, 12:03pm | #
"Nor military prisoners, not anymore. Virtually every other western democracy - Canada, France, Spain, Britain - has higher standards for their treatment than we do today. How you could even assert such a thing after the past five years is beyond me." - joe
Really? How many of those countries have held unlawful combatants over the last 5 years?
"And I am perfectly free, when forced to decide between two parties making judgement calls about what is likely to happen, to take into account the levels of knowledge, experience, and other factors that are informative about each party's judgement. The people who are in a position to know the most about what is likely to happen are almost uniformly in disagreement with you, rob." - joe
Still waiting for you to actually argue against the points I made, rather than the weak rhetorical "appeal to authority" rhetorical trick.
"Your argument relies upon a series of judgement calls about how different groups are likely to behave. Since there are no means of objectively establishing what will happen in the future, I'm forced to consider the judgement of those making their preditions." - joe
No, my argument relies on how the Geneva Conventions were written and what they hoped to accomplish: to encourage combatants to engage in warfare in accordance with the laws of armed conflict and to treat captured enemy lawful combatants rather than mistreat them.
"Why should we value your predictions over theirs, rob?" - joe
This is what this is called, joe, go take a look:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
"Bitch bitch whine whine boo hoo joe said something mean." - joe
Yep, how's that ad hominem argument working out for you, joe? You use it so often, it must have won you a lot of arguments on the elementary school playground.
"I think you'd better switch to calling me a racist now, as usual." - joe
I just call your commentaries the way I see them. You can call me out for being a racist the next time I pull a Desi Arnaz imitation out when discussing a Hispanic comedian, call someone a derogatory homosexual term ("nancy") or make a play on the word "orthodox" that includes anti-Semetic stereotypes.
I just hope to God you don't say that kind of stuff in public, it's liable to offend someone into filing a discrimination complaint against you. Or punching you in the head, if they're prone to overly emotional responses the way you are. (Ex: "Bitch bitch whine whine boo hoo joe said something mean.")
rob | October 24, 2006, 12:57pm | #
"We treat prisoners 'better' than the Canadians? The British? The Dutch? The Australians? I'd appreciate a link or source for this assertion."
Les, see Abdul, directly above your post, for reasoning similar to mine. I admit that there is probably no way for either of us to prove our point, because the other nations probably aren't really holding unlawful combatants. I would point to the actual treatment of the vast majority of U.S.-detained unlawful combatants and the fact that we've extended them the protections of Geneva. (Which is actually in VIOLATION of the principles of Geneva.) If you provide me with a list of countries currently holding unlawful combatants, perhaps I can start to demonstrate how U.S. treatment is better? But a list of other Western nations isn't really the same as a list of countries holding unlawful combatants.
"[1] Isn't the fundamental problem that the U.S. government has demonstrated time and time again that it can't be relied on to accurately identify illegal combatants? [2] Many of the 'illegal combatants' that have been imprisoned (and mistreated) for years have turned out to be innocent." - Les
1.) Certainly that is an asserted problem, but I haven't seen much to support that assertion.
2.) A citation would be appreciated here, in support of your point.
"Off the top of my head, Spain has had a number of Basque terrorists in custody for years. They don't waterboard them, rob." - joe
Apples and oranges, joe. I suspect that you know this, but I'll explain it anyway...
The Basque are considered citizens of France and Spain, respectively, depending on which side of the border they actually live in. Do your research, instead of claiming that the Basques are unlawful combatants captured by a foreign army, read enough on the subject to realize that they were captured in the nation they are considered to be citizens of, by the nation they are considered to be citizens of. A better comparison of an ETA (Basque separatist) terrorist's treatment by Spain would be to compare it how the U.S. treated Timothy McVeigh. Like the theoretical ETA terrorist you refer to, McVeigh was tried as citizen of the U.S. and was tried under the protections guaranteed a U.S. citizen. Just as the theoretical ETA terrorist would have the rights of a Spanish citizen.
"I'll choose not to repeat myself about this being a case of judgement calls about the future, rather thans statements of fact about what is." - joe
Translation: I don't have the intellectual firepower to actually argue against your points, I can only point to people who agree with me in hopes that other people will be fooled by what is clearly an "appeal to authority" rhetorical fallacy.
"Your argument then goes on to make predictions about how our behaviors are likely to effect the behaviors of other parties in the future, requiring the reader to decide the credibility of these predictions." - joe
No, my argument simply points out the cynical nature of Geneva. They were written by people who wanted to encourage less barbaric treatment of noncombatants and chivalry among combatants engaged in life and death struggle. (Hard to regulate, obviously!) They took a very cynical approach to this, and used the only means at their disposal to enforce such behavior: protections for lawful combatans and reciprocity for unlawful combatants.
"Since that reader is also confronted with a different set of predictions from professionals in a better position to understand the issues surrounding military mistreatment of prisoners, and since there is no way to establish what will happen in the future through either objective measure of rational thought (as opposed to statements about existing phenomonena, which is what logical fallacies apply to), the reader is compelled to decide between the two based on the credibility of the opposing parties." - joe
This is an extremely complicated way to appeal to authority, joe. Translation: "They're the experts and experts are never wrong." (Except we all know that this is not true, and that the subject is hardly as cut and dried as "all the agrees with me." Gonzalez pointed out that legally there is no requirement for Geneva protections, and he's certainly also an expert. But repeating that he made the legal argument for torture is a standard smear on what was an accurate reading of LOAC.)
"None the rest of you ad homenim bitching is worth responding to." - joe
Oh, the pot and the kettle. I reserve my ad hom attacks on you as reciprocal, in the hopes that they will deter you from future such offenses. Sadly, much like the Geneva Conventions can't prevent unlawful combatants from conducting themselves unlawfully or mistreating U.S. POWs, reciprocity is the only tool I have in my kit to punish you with. When you conduct ad hom attacks, I reciprocate. Perhaps you are capable of realizing why it's really hypocritical of you to complain about ad hom attacks, but past episodes lead me to be cynical.
rob | October 24, 2006, 1:26pm | #
"So you really don't think that it's torture to be tied down to an inclined board and have water poured on your face until you can't breathe? What disqualifies this from being torture?" - Les
Nope. Worse happens during military training exercises. Actual torture would be a couple of guys with a pair of pliers and blowtorch. Or beating someone. Or leaving them in the snow until frostbite takes their extremities. Or... well, you get the idea.
Having water poured on you to make you "feel" like you might drown is simply not torture. I personally think it's the only thing on the list that even comes close - and even that's a stretch, because it does no actual damage.
In a theoretical example where I'd be given the treatment of an unlawful combatant detained by the U.S. at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, or the rights of a Saudi citizen accused of theft, where Saudi courts "impose capital punishment and corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for serious robbery, and homosexuality; floggings for lesser crimes such as 'sexual deviance' (e.g. drunkenness)."
Again, I'd say most unlawful combatants detained by the U.S., even those being water-boarded, are being treated better than they would be for a similar crime in their home country. Of course, I'm not arguing that either are RIGHT, merely that there is 1) a difference and 2) the U.S. is the only country that would ever see this level of squeamishness about pouring water on an unlawful combatant.
Frankly, while my personal opinion is that water-boarding is not a good idea, I still think it fails to rise to the level of actual torture.
"Jesus, I thought this was a libertarian blog. Don't see much concern for liberty." - Seth
Sorry, Seth, I don't put my principles above self-preservation. When the two are in conflict, I see my right to survival as higher on my personal list of priorities than protecting the liberties of a guy who wants to see me beheaded on al-Jazeera from being repeatedly doused with copious amounts of water. (Not even dunked, mind you, just plain old doused.)
Face it, it's not like the guys whose liberties we are arguing over so vehemntly would come even remotely close to returning the favor. (Which is why I often wonder if such arguments are politically motivated rather than ethically motivated.)
rob | October 24, 2006, 1:54pm | #
"It isn't the torture that is outlawed that's the are problem; it's the torture that is lawful. You know that this is the subject of the debate, and you won't deal with it honestly." - joe
Really joe? Which "lawful torture" would that be? If it's lawful, it's plainly NOT torture. I'm willing to honestly argue with you, joe, you don't have to rely on attacks on my honesty to make a point. That's just weak.
"It is when we are sending them to those countries for the purpose of allowing their 'security services' to gather intelligence for us. You know this, and you refuse to discuss it honestly." - joe
Again with the "honesty" thing? Weak, again. More rhetorical dishonesty on your part, in fact, and quite a bit of gall to point the finger at me. Again, what would you suggest we do with these guys if not send them to their country of origin?
"I agree; the guy who claims that it is not torture to use the the practices the Khmer Rouge applied to make innocent people confess to treason, knowing that death awaited them if they confessed, because they could not physically stand the agony and horror of what was being done to their body, really loses credibility." - joe
joe, your Khmer Rouge argument is specious. Because water boarding was the LEAST of what the Khmer Rouge did to people, not the WORST. Now THAT is intellectual dishonesty.
From the wikipedia entry on the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum:
"The torture system at Tuol Sleng was designed to make prisoners confess to whatever crimes their captors charged them with. Prisoners were tortured with electric shocks, searing hot metal instruments and hanging, as well as through the use of various other devices. Although many prisoners died from this kind of abuse, killing them outright was discouraged, since the Khmer Rouge needed their confessions. The torture implements are on display in the museum. The vast majority of prisoners were innocent of the charges against them and their confessions produced by torture.
After the interrogation, the prisoner and his/her family were taken to the Choeung Ek extermination centre, fifteen kilometers from Phnom Penh. There, they were killed by being battered with iron bars, pickaxes, machetes and many other makeshift weapons. Victims of the Khmer Rouge were seldom shot as bullets were viewed as too precious for this purpose.
Out of the roughly 14,200 prisoners at the prison, there were only seven known survivors. Only three of them are thought to be still alive: Vann Nath, Chum Mey and Bou Meng. All three of these men were kept alive because they had skills judged to be useful. Vann Nath had trained as an artist and was put to work painting pictures of Pol Pot. Many of his paintings depicting events he witnessed in Tuol Sleng are on display in the museum. Bou Meng, whose wife was killed in the prison, is also an artist. Chum Mey was kept alive because of his skills in repairing machinery."
It certainly throws stark contrast upon U.S. treatment of unlawful combatants and Khmer Rouge genocide, doesn't it? Well, maybe not in joe's world, where genocide and torture are synonymous with pouring water on people.
"The definition of 'illegal enemy combatant' - that is, the people subject to 'alternate interrogation techniques' - does not make any reference to nationality. American citizens can be declared illegal enemy combatants. I suspect you don't know this, because of your studied refusal to know things that you'd rather not admit." - joe
Of course it doesn't make reference to nationality, you dolt, the Geneva Conventions are intended to regulate conflict between nations. The U.S. isn't allowed to treat its own citizens as unlawful combatants because of their status as citizens. Even John Walker Lindh and Yaser Hamdi were tried in the U.S., though they were captured as enemy combatants.
You may have heard of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where "in disposition of which the Supreme Court issued a decision on June 28, 2004, repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen." Granted, it creeps me out that it had to go to the Supreme Court, but there you have it, nonetheless.
"And you still won't even attempt to address the point that predictions about the future cannot be falsified the same way as statements of fact, and therefore, the classic fallacies do not apply? Well, strike three, you're out." - joe
No, I would never argue that predictions about the future are somehow verifiable by any means other than waiting for the future to arrive. That's your straw man fallacy characterizatoin of my point. It's a straw man because I have not argued based on my predictions of the future, I've argued on the language, history (that would be the PAST) and historical context (again the PAST) of the Geneva Conventions. You're using a straw man fallacy argument here, because you have no means of arguing my actual points.
"You start off well in arguments, recycling talking points you've found somewhere, but whenever your challended, you demonstrate a real incapacity to honestly and effectively defend your position." - joe
Wow, you can't even successfully argue with a guy who only uses what you consider to be "talking points" without resorting to rhetorical fallacies and dirty tricks. You sure do know how to damn a guy with faint praise.
rob | October 24, 2006, 2:14pm | #
MSM - Actually, that's just an assessment of his usual bag of dirty tricks. You can't act like this thread is the first thread joe has ever posted to.
"So we know for a fact that the U.S. military has imprisoned perhaps over a hundred innocent people in Guantanamo alone" - Les
No, we know that over a hundred people detained as enemy combatants have been released from detainment. It's not the same as a "not guilty" verdict, clearly, anymore than German & Japanese soldiers were "not guilty" because we released them.
"Needless to say, military training exercises are voluntary. No one is tying you down against your will. Do you believe that torture has to do damage to be torture?"
Yes. If you don't want to be detained as an enemy combatant, don't fight in a war. If you don't want to be treated as an unlawful enemy combatant, conduct yourself as a lawful combatant.
"Don't you mean 'alleged' unlawful combatants?"
Nope.
"Why do you assume that the military pouring copious amounts of water on an actual unlawful combatant? What has the government done to earn such a degree of trust?"
Sorry, that's war. Sometimes you get shot at even if you're not the bad guy. I don't mean to be glib, but if I'm not going to argue over the tragedy of collateral damage, I'm not going to argue over the other potential costs of war, such as detaining people who might be innocent. Even in a first-world country like the U.S. where things usually go more right than wrong, the wrong people get caught up in the prison system.
"I'm arguing for the liberties of the innocent, who we know are regularly imprisoned by the U.S. government."
Even with full due process this happens. The world is an imperfect place, and bad things are sometimes done to people who don't really deserve it. I'm a really nice guy, but people have tried to mortar the place I lived. I don't bemoan it as undeserved, it's just war. You know that whole "war is hell" line? It's hell for innocent civilians and noncombatants more often than it is for soldiers. There is very little justice in any war, and that sucks, but that's the way it is.
In this respect, arguing about what is and isn't torture is like complaining that you prefer your shower to be warm rather than tepid, while elsewhere you'd be beaten to death just for kicks.
rob | October 24, 2006, 5:00pm | #
"We can behave well and fight our enemies; we can gain the world and save our souls." - Apostate Jew
Yep, I agree. The difference is in where you place the threshold for damnation. I think water-boarding is right at the line but not over it. I still don't think it's a GOOD idea, but it's not actually torture.
"Everyone else, I know reading rob's venomous diatribes is unpleasant" - joe
Yeah, it's tough when someone else's arguments are based in logic and fact and you have to resort to personal attack.
"Sorry, but that doesn't get you off the hook. You were the first to throw out an insult in this discussion. It is not like this is the first thread you have posted on either. If you want to pretend you have the high ground and are only responding to joe's bad behavior, you need to adhere to your own standards." - MSM
Look, I hardly find it blameworthy to go from one thread, where joe is screeching insults at me to pointing out that he does so in another thread.
"I have watched your posts on other threads. I would say you are as likely to present weak arguments, unsupported facts, or ad hom attacks in a debate as anyone else (not that there is anything wrong with that)." - MSM
No, you've disagreed with me on other threads. that makes it fairly obvious where your sympathies lie.
"This thread is about maintaning the high-ground. It is a good idea." - MSM
Agreed.
"A position that says water-boarding is not torture fails at the level of face validity." - MSM
Really? Perhaps you could explain how something that causes no actual damage, such as pouring water on people, is the same as gonig after someone with a pair of pliers and a blow torch.
"As I have said before, there is no point in trying to define the fuzzy boundary of torture versus appropriate treatment. They are starkly contrastive." - MSM
You mean sharp contrast like comparing the U.S. with the Khmer Rouge? Yeah, I'd say that water-boarding was the warm-up to actual torture for those guys.
"As a matter of policy, if the person with control of a prisoner needs to take even the slightest amount of time to wonder about whether the particular harsh treatment he is contemplating is torture or not, the default position should be that it is and that the harsh treatment shouldn't be continued." - MSM
Right... Now explain how to codify a prison guard's level of contemplation so that it can be used as a legal standard. Please. Something is either torture or it's not. Pouring water on people? Not torture. (Not a GOOD idea, but not torture.) Pliers, blowtorch and electrical current? Torture. Pretty easy, and it's a fairly obvious and bright line.
"There is a much greater tendency to be overly cruel than overly kind in prisons, so policy should be designed to minimize harsh treatment." - MSM
Agreed.
"This protects not only the prisoners, but those charged with their confinement and interrogation." - MSM
Agreed.
"Any appeal to the alleged acts committed by the prisoner is beyond the scope of the argument." - MSM
Not if their acts were used to determine their status as a prisoner.
"Policy about how prisoners are treated has to begin with the assumption that the prisoner may be an innocent individual." - MSM
Not in war-time.
"Policy about treatment must be based on how you would treat an innocent individual accused of a crime, not how you would treat a person convicted of a crime." - MSM
No, it's based on how you would treat a person captured in a combat zone.
"Arguments about the proper treatment of those convicted of a crime are another matter entirely." - MSM
Yeah, because one is for civilian criminals and one is for enemy combatants.
Thanks for coming out, but I think it's obvious where your line of argument falls apart. You know, anywhere I responded with more than "Agreed."
"[1] All you people who think we should degrade and dehumanize prisoners we don't like, well, I think you're the barbarians. [2] I'll bet not one single one of you pro-torture libertarians ever did time, ever had to deal with being locked up in a cage and find yourself at the mercy of scumbag jailers. [3] Incarceration is living hell, torturing and abusing human beings isn't something that should be applauded by libertarians" - Buckshot
1) There's a big difference between arguing that waterboarding does not rise to the level of torture and advocating actual torture.
2) Nope, can't say that I have. But what I can tell you is that what we allow to happen in U.S. prisons amongst prisoners certainly qualifies as torture, in my opinion. I would point out that while I believe my definition of torture is fairly standard, it does not include pouring water on people. It does include allowing prisoners to assault one another, etc.
3) Agreed. Frankly, I think that U.S. civilian prisoners have it worse than Gitmo detainees. Particularly in comparing how few detainees face actual assault, rape or murder. Not that bad things don't happen when you let someone like the idiots at Abu Ghraib's night shift loose without proper leadership, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the incidence of horrendous things happening to people is higher in the U.S. penal system than in the U.S. detainee system. Plenty of those folks are innocent as well, but you don't see joe and MSM and their crew talking about how important the Innocence Project is. http://www.innocenceproject.org/
That's because there isn't as much partisan political hay to be made. But just ask joe, this is "all about those poor, innocent detainees, wrongfully held and 'horribly' tortured (if you accept a wildly different definition of torture than commonly used)."
rob | October 24, 2006, 5:47pm | #
"When we take a person into custody, interrogate him, decide we're not getting enough information, put him on an airplane, fly the airplane to the other side of the planet, hand him to Jordanian secret police, tell them he is a terrorist and we want information from him, and cover up the whole thing, we are not 'allowing' his torture to happen." - joe
You should have stopped right there. That's because that's where you stop being right. The U.S. is NOT 1) allowing torture to happen; 2) participating in torture, or 3) accessories to torture. The U.S. is extraditing a suspected criminal who doesn't have the legal right to reside in the U.S. What happens to him in his own country is between him and his country of origin.
"If I break your car's window, but let someone else hotwire it and drive away, I'm still a car thief." - joe
Uh, technically, you're a vandal, not a car thief. But what if you are the UPS guy who delivers divorce papers to someone who wishes to remain married to their spouse? Are you complicit in allowing people to get divorced? Obviously not. Are you participating in divorce? Obviously not. Are you an accessory to divorce? Obviously not.
Wow, that was an amazingly bad analogy, joe.
"Really? People die in military training exercises?" - Shem
Yeah, actually they do. Even in plain old boot camp. Even in AIR FORCE boot camp.
"Because I gotta tell you, the fact that at least a dozen people have died in custody and had their deaths ruled homicides gives lie to your claim that things aren't that bad." - Shem
I'm not claiming that people beaten to death weren't tortured, Shem. I'm not arguing that those responsible should not be punished for torturing and killing the 9 people in the article you cite, if that's what actually happened. That's obviously the same position that Dept of Defense, State and Justice take.
My argument is not pro-torture, Shem. My argument is that water-boarding, the roughest of the approved interrogation tactics, is not actually torture. I think that claims that water-boarding is torture, when compared to people actually being tortured by unsupervised idiots, is obviously wrong.
All prison systems have bad people working in them, just like every other profession. The difference is that they have greater opportunity to do evil because of the power they have over other people - just like all people in authority have.
For example: Dennis Rader was a former Air Force enlistee, Coleman camping gear assembler, home alarm system salesman and installer, census field operations supervisor for the Wichita area, a supervisor of the Compliance Department at Park City (animal control, housing problems, zoning, general permit enforcement and a variety of nuisance cases), a served on both the Sedgwick County's Board of Zoning Appeals and the Animal Control Advisory Board, was a member of a Lutheran church where he had been elected president of the Congregation Council AND a Cub Scout leader.
Do you think any of those organizations were pleased to find out that Rader was the BTK killer?
No.
Were any of those organizations responsible for his torturing and killing people?
Obviously not.
Were all of those organizations glad to see him justly prosecuted?
Obviously.
The only difference in the 10 deaths you're referring to is that those responsible for those 10 deaths were in a position of authority that enabled their act
