posted
This article notes some of the fallout from the release of the photos; one notable event is the postponing of the State Department's annual report on human rights abuses.
One of the most damaging aspects of this crisis is that it leaves the country open to accusations of double standards where our holier-then-thou posturing is concerned. One grievance that many Arab countries have is that while we denounce them for human rights abuses, we never say anything about Israeli violations...nor ours for that matter.
BTW I understand that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has introduced eight articles of impeachnment against Rumsfeld for not only his handling of the prison abuse crisis but his overall handling of the war. The debate over these resolutions is pretty mch split along party lines.
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
I don't agree that the criticism raised against the US at this point is a case of "emotion over logic". Logic says that all western military forces, even the limeys, degos and frogs, have rules that must be obeyed on penalty of court-martial and/or imprisonment. We "westerners" invented the UN, the human rights and the god-damn Red Cross.
I'm in no moral uproar right now and I detest the way some factions "pay lip service" to politically correct issues in order to be on the right side, but this shit can't be allowed to reach any more systematic proportions without being nipped in the bud post fucking haste.
I know the sympathy for muslim extremists and troublemakers are at an alltime low today, and that there are many who say "they probably deserve it", but the next time it might be your ass, on some sun trip to a nice resort, and then you'd be mighty appreciative if your captor gives you clothes, regular food and resists the temptation to give you cigar-burns and rape your sister down the hall. Not because he didn't want to (boy did he want to) but because he wasn't allowed to, see? On saturdays, he might even have the common courtesy to give you a reach-around, as defined by prophet Ermey.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
"The info that Jay posted did not come from the original link left by Veers. So unless I'm a psychic I had no way of reading that info."
That's funny, because I'm not psychic, and I had read about those things long before Jay ever posted them. You come in here and tell us how not-horrible the things going on in Iraq are, and yet you obviously haven't even been keeping up with what is going on.
"You have taken what I've said and pulled it out of context using exaggeration just like I did with your comments."
Well, there's a difference. What I did was exaggeration. Specifically, sarcasm.
What you did was to take something I said, and then claim I said something different. Which is called, I believe, "lying".
See, I addressed the fact that many of the right wing assholes out there are making the arguement "our soldiers can do anything they want, so long as someone else somewhere has done worse". And I asked whether that meant that they would only criticize the soldiers if they become worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined. Note that this was presented as a hypothetical future situation. Therefore, not a condition that exists at this time.
You, subsequently, accused me of claiming that the soldiers' current acts of torture are already comparable to those of the aforementioned baddies.
That's precisely the m.o. of these clowns like Limbaugh et al. Take a few elements of something your opponent said, restructure them into something much worse but with a completely different meaning, and pass it off as what he originally said.
And then, when he corrects you, act all offended and abandon the conversation.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Nim the Fanciful: Jason: "Society and immeadeate social environment dont excuse illegal and morally reprehensible behavior."
I'm sorry to say it does, in too many people's minds, though they don't think of it as illegal or reprehensible, of course. I've seen too many examples of abuse at the hands of "enlightened" people in everyday society, who thought they were "within their rights", to be surprised that the Iraq prison scandal happened.
It doesn't take "extreme psychological maladjustment" or some fancy psychological illness to make a tormentor or executioner out of your average joe, as long as he's worked-up enough and gets the ok from the brass or his/her colleagues.
Nonsense: decent "adverage joe" people refrain from such behavior under far more extreme circumstances than those in Iraq: no amount of unnofficial "okay" or peer pressure could have convinced those soldiers that what they did was in any way acceptable (particularly as they're from the U.S. where civil rights are the standard everyone is entitled to). These guys have serious problems that the military cant be blamed for causing, to have done these things.
quote: I wasn't saying that the blame-system in the military always creates monsters, but when you have a chain of command within which bad grudges travel downwards, you create a platform for future lashouts at the base level, with prison keepers and "grunts" who lose their temper with civilians and prisoners.
None of wich in any standard of law excuses criminal behavior or behavior not in keeping with military codes.
quote: Since most of the abusers at the pictures were smiling, it wasn't a question of random lashouts but systematic and calculating abuse, with pictures taken as mementos.
I guess these people had simply seen a lot of bad things in the war, created by their enemy, and had no problem exacting justice on them, like poor 'Fuck Hitler' in "Saving Private Ryan" (though that one turned out badly).
No.....people out for revenge dont take momentos that way: besides, unless the prison was staffed solely with family members of 9/11 victims, there'd be zero chance of a "traumatization defense" standing up in court (not to underestimate the power of 12 dumb jurors).
No US Citizen would think such behavior acceptable in a US prison, none should think so of our prisons overseas either.
I get the point you're trying to make about those in command making a bad situation worse (particularly via lack of positive support) but thousands of armed forces members (millions worldwide) would have never subjected their prisoners to that kind of inhumane abuse.
This is a case on an extremely small minority being allowed to indulge in whatever perverse behavior they wanted with no oversight.
Also of note: Arab TV has neglected to even mention that most of the prison's guards are still Iraqi- or that it's the Iraquis that suppoedly raped prisoners (not that our troops there prevented them).
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Here is an excerpt from the Abu Ghazi prison report:
quote:The recommendations of MG Miller's team that the "guard force" be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees would appear to be in conflict with the recommendations of MG Ryder's Team and AR 190-8 that military police "do not participate in military intelligence supervised interrogation sessions."� The Ryder Report concluded that the OEF template whereby military police actively set the favorable conditions for subsequent interviews runs counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility.
Now we have this same Gen Miller, whose recommendations set the stage for this debacle, put in charge of Iraqi prisons. For God's sake why? For that matter, why is the prison still open? If the US forces have had any sense they would have bulldozed the place to the ground when they first arrived. As I said before, it should not only be the guards who committed these acts that should be punished but the officers (ESPECIALLY GENERALS) involved also.
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
A new article in the British newspaper The Guardian notes that the tortures used on Iraqi prisoners were in fact taught to both US and UK forces as part of so called "R2I" (resistance to interrogation) techniques. Many of the atrocities caught in those infamous photos were developed by both US and UK Special Forces as a means of enabling soldiers to resist interrrogation. These techniques were apparently disseminated among both US and UK troops.
THis to me marks the difference between these events and what those Iraqis did to those four contracters; certainly what they did was horrifying and barbaric. However this was a one-time "spur of the monment" event doen by a small group of Iraqis. THe torture of prisoners in Abu Ghazi OTOH was systematic and ongiong and seemed to have the implicit approval and encouragement of at least some highers ups.
BTW I heard GEN Miller's speech about changing procedures to prevent these kind of atrocities...which I find hypocritical because he was the one who recommended these "procedures" in the first place. He should at least be called on the carpet to explain his actions.
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
I want to see physical evidence (something) before I can believe that both the US and UK forces are being trained to specifically violate the Geneva Convention.
Back to these "contractors" again.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Jason: "thousands of armed forces members (millions worldwide) would have never subjected their prisoners to that kind of inhumane abuse. This is a case on an extremely small minority being allowed to indulge in whatever perverse behavior they wanted with no oversight.
Absolutely, it just better stay that way. Or, NOT stay that way. Damnit, you know what I mean. :.)
I'm not out for blood, I just hope they do nip this one in the bud professionally, not just cosmetically, because if more atrocities (on a grander scale) were to become public, the whole campaign may take a fatal hit, and if the US would be forced through peer pressure to pull out prematurely, chances are you'll have a really hard time dropping down on someone else down the road, without tripled vocal protest from the rest of the world.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Opened the Sunday editorial page in the newspaper...what I find disgusting is that two letters referred to these abuses as "fraternity pranks." These ARE NOT fraternity pranks.
posted
What I find particularly surprising is the refusal of the US to close Abu Ghraib. I realise there are practical difficulties (where to put the prisoners, etc) but surely this would be secondary to the moral effect upon the Iraqis? While this would have only a minimal effect on the outrage and anger felt, it would at least go some way to persuading the Iraqis that the US is serious in its condemnation of the acts.
A certain amount of 'roughing up' of prisoners might be expected immediately after their capture and especially in the situation immediately after the invasion. But not systematic torture after transfer to a prison. Grauniad article is misleading. Troops were not taught these techniques, merely subjected to them
quote:"The crucial difference from Iraq is that frontline soldiers who are made to experience R2I techniques themselves develop empathy. They realise the suffering they are causing. But people who haven't undergone this don't realise what they are doing to people. It's a shambles in Iraq".
The British former officer said the dissemination of R2I techniques inside Iraq was all the more dangerous because of the general mood among American troops.
"The feeling among US soldiers I've spoken to in the last week is also that 'the gloves are off'. Many of them still think they are dealing with people responsible for 9/11".
That remark is particularly telling; a combination of poor training and the attitude within US armed forces especially towards Iraqis seems to hav contributed towards these events.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You're quoting The Guardian.
I want to see physical evidence (something) before I can believe that both the US and UK forces are being trained to specifically violate the Geneva Convention.
I think you've misunderstood. US and UK forces are not taught those techniques to make them better at torturing people. They are taught them for two reasons. One, to make them understand what such torture is like, so that they won't do it themselves; and two, so that they can better resist those techniques if they are applied to them. It's not "How to torture people in 10 easy steps".
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
TSN it is obvious that you are not familiar with my forms of sarcasm. I have no intention of leaving this discussion yet. I do find it interesting that you consider your exaggeration of my comments to be sarcasm when my exaggerations of your comments are lying. I must admit that my news sources are probably not as vast as yours. I only watch the national and local news and read the local and state papers. I don't spend my days reading online news sources.
Ultra Magnus, I don't really care if I have made your all powerful dislike list. I'm not here for you to like. I'm here to post my thoughts and ideas and read the like. I don't ask to be like, what I do ask is to be respected, just as I respect you for your opinions. Frankly I don't care much for you either.
-------------------- The Poster formally known as Tec.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
And the reason your so-called "sarcasm" was actually lying is because you were accusing me of saying somthing I never did. And you were using that as an integral part of your argument as to why I was wrong.
On the other hand, I was merely throwing in a random insult just for the hell of it. I think any reasonable person could easily tell that I was not actually implying that you are incapable of reading.
Do you think that those same reasonable people would read your post and think that you weren't actually claiming that I had compared the Abu Ghraib MPs to Hitler?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
As regards news and source material used in arguments, I strongly suggest that everyone post a link to an online source, or a reference to an offline one, for the people who do not read The Guardian or somesuch on a daily basis.
On the other hand, much of what was posted, and not originally linked to, was rather wide spread, at least on the net.
As a result, I would suggest Epoch, and I�m not trying to be snarky, that your expand your circle of news gathering a bit.
Or as Harry Shearer, on his ever so clever Le Show radio program, might put it, get some news from outside the bubble.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic