# Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.



## hardheadjarhead

Well, its documented.  

American soldiers have abused Iraqi POW's with electric shock and other horrific methods...and they were idiotic enough to pose for pictures and video while doing it.

Its been on the evening news.  Even the conservative "Drudge Report" is playing it up.  The Arab stations, of course, have jumped on it. 

This is going to:

Hurt the war effort.

Ruin troop morale.

Ruin the morale on the home front.

Get American hostages/prisoners killed at worst, abused at best.

Be one of the greatest recruiting incentives for future anti-American terrorists.

Do irreparable damage to Arab/US relations...which are rotten to begin with.

Make us look terrible in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world.

Give our critics  abroad  and at home justification for saying "I told you so," in their efforts at demonizing us as a nation.


Geeeeezzzzzzz, whadda mess.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Touch Of Death

A picture is worth a thousand words, and there are quite a few pictures. The President will be quite busy over the next few months.
Sean


----------



## Makalakumu

The Arab World is on fire because of this.  It has been blazing on Al-jazeera all day today.  Iraqis are claiming that Bush is no better then Saddam.  Hopefully, this is an isolated incident.  Hopefully the good soldiers attempting to secure "democracy" for Iraq can overcome this negative incident.  That is my optimistic side speaking.  My cynical side is waiting for more information...

Is this going to become a new Mai Lae?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Touch Of Death

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The Arab World is on fire because of this.  It has been blazing on Al-jazeera all day today.  Iraqis are claiming that Bush is no better then Saddam.  Hopefully, this is an isolated incident.  Hopefully the good soldiers attempting to secure "democracy" for Iraq can overcome this negative incident.  That is my optimistic side speaking.  My cynical side is waiting for more information...
> 
> Is this going to become a new Mai Lae?
> 
> upnorthkyosa


Those soldiers did more to undermine the war effort than Kerry and Kusinich combined.
Sean (www.iemat.com)


----------



## Tgace

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_prisoner_abuse_12


While wrong, illegal and worthy of punishment....there was no "electrocution" and no physical injury (attributed to US troops. Aparently the Brits have an accusation). There should be, and looks like will be court martials all the way up the chain of command to include the General in charge of the camp. Mai Lai? Hardly.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_prisoner_abuse_12
> 
> 
> While wrong, illegal and worthy of punishment....there was no "electrocution" and no physical injury (attributed to US troops. Aparently the Brits have an accusation). There should be, and looks like will be court martials all the way up the chain of command to include the General in charge of the camp. Mai Lai? Hardly.



What happens in a court martial?


----------



## theletch1

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What happens in a court martial?


It's very much like a civilian trial but without all those silly rights of the accused things.  The result can be anything from loss of rank/pay, incarceration, forced retirement, dishonorable discharge or (although not in this case) execution.


----------



## Ping898

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What happens in a court martial?


Basically, they hold a military trial, and decide whether to discharge a soldier, dishonorably or otherwise.  If found guilty they can get get kicked out, have to pay punitive damages, be demoted, get jail time, loose their pension...things like that....depends how serious the crime and what charges are being brought.  Least this is my understanding of them.

Got to love JAG


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The Arab World is on fire because of this.  It has been blazing on Al-jazeera all day today.  Iraqis are claiming that Bush is no better then Saddam.  Hopefully, this is an isolated incident.  Hopefully the good soldiers attempting to secure "democracy" for Iraq can overcome this negative incident.  That is my optimistic side speaking.  My cynical side is waiting for more information...
> 
> Is this going to become a new Mai Lae?
> 
> upnorthkyosa



I believe that in each case, Me Lai, Kosovo, and others that the troops were held accountable and punitive actions were taken.  Time in Leavenworth was issued and served.  These incidences are horrible, but the fact that they will be tried and punished for it, that there are things like the Geneva Code, and Laws of Land warfare would indicate that the US military reaction to such behavior is intolerance and disapproval - not cheering and joining the street dance around the corpses.

THese guys have really messed up, will be held accountable.  Unfortunately, one of these incidents wipes out the thousands of little acts of humanity from our troops that never seem to make into the media.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I believe that in each case, Me Lai, Kosovo, and others that the troops were held accountable and punitive actions were taken.  Time in Leavenworth was issued and served.  These incidences are horrible, but the fact that they will be tried and punished for it, that there are things like the Geneva Code, and Laws of Land warfare would indicate that the US military reaction to such behavior is intolerance and disapproval - not cheering and joining the street dance around the corpses.
> 
> THese guys have really messed up, will be held accountable.  Unfortunately, one of these incidents wipes out the thousands of little acts of humanity from our troops that never seem to make into the media.



War in of itself is such a negative and inhumane thing.  I think that examples of people acting brutally toward each other are what people what to see when it comes to war.  There is a level of hatred that rides just beneath the surface of any war.  How else can you justify killing someone because someone ordered you too?  Every once and a while this hatred spews out in various ways...this is one example.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> War in of itself is such a negative and inhumane thing.  I think that examples of people acting brutally toward each other are what people what to see when it comes to war.  There is a level of hatred that rides just beneath the surface of any war.  How else can you justify killing someone because someone ordered you too?  Every once and a while this hatred spews out in various ways...this is one example.



I was trained to take those orders and never really hated the individual I might have to shoot, in conventional warfare the pace is too hectic for hatred or emotions to be registered in general.

I can justify such actions as swearing to an oath, to living by a code that doesn't make me the center of the universe and being willing to be part of something larger than myself, based on ideals that I agree with and am willing to stand up for.  

This is not an indicator of universal US military hatred for another as much as it is misdirected power usage/abuse, the surfacing of personal issues that these individuals brought with them to their training and service from their DNA/Nurture pre-military, and possibly a lack of adequate supervision to monitor troop morale, welfare and mission readiness.

As a teacher, you should know that trainees are not empty vessels that we or in this case the military machine fills with stuff.  They bring personality, experience and character (for good or bad) with them.  Contrary to the popular belief that you loose your 'self' through the service and have no sense of free will left, you are REQUIRED to adhere to the basic Corps/Army values even to the point of disobeying orders if they are in violation of those values, the Geneva convention and the laws of land warfare.


----------



## rmcrobertson

"Silly rights of the accused things?"

Uh...seems to me that if there were one thread on which such a comment would be best avoided....


----------



## theletch1

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "Silly rights of the accused things?"
> 
> Uh...seems to me that if there were one thread on which such a comment would be best avoided....


Yes, Robert, you have a good point.  My response was targeted solely at the court martial question and not at the thread as a whole.  I apologize for my insensitive remarks. :asian:


----------



## marshallbd

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What happens in a court martial?


Acourt martial is very similar to civilian trials but they use the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is written in the form of articles covering things such as dereliction of duty, indecent acts with another person, Conduct unbecoming and many other categories. ( I mentioned those because an article I read stated those would be some of the charges)....  They (the accused) would be judge by a "Courts Martial" which is similar to a jury trial with members of the military acting as the jury. (The Jury is usually even officer to enlisted for an enlisted persons trial but usuall all officers for an officers trial)  The TV show JAG (though highly exagerated and dramatized) pretty accurately depicts a "Courts Martial" trial almost every episode.... :asian:


----------



## marshallbd

loki09789 said:
			
		

> you are REQUIRED to adhere to the basic Corps/Army values even to the point of disobeying orders if they are in violation of those values, the Geneva convention and the laws of land warfare.


Hence the term "LAWFUL ORDER" is used  as in....
"I do hereby solemly swear to obey the _*lawful orders * _ of the President of the United States and those appointed over me" :asian:


----------



## Cobra

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Well, its documented.
> 
> American soldiers have abused Iraqi POW's with electric shock and other horrific methods...and they were idiotic enough to pose for pictures and video while doing it.
> 
> Its been on the evening news. Even the conservative "Drudge Report" is playing it up. The Arab stations, of course, have jumped on it.
> 
> This is going to:
> 
> Hurt the war effort.
> 
> Ruin troop morale.
> 
> Ruin the morale on the home front.
> 
> Get American hostages/prisoners killed at worst, abused at best.
> 
> Be one of the greatest recruiting incentives for future anti-American terrorists.
> 
> Do irreparable damage to Arab/US relations...which are rotten to begin with.
> 
> Make us look terrible in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world.
> 
> Give our critics abroad and at home justification for saying "I told you so," in their efforts at demonizing us as a nation.
> 
> 
> Geeeeezzzzzzz, whadda mess.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Steve


Hardheadjarhead, abused? Look bad to the rest of the world? Hah! Those Siddom Husein supporters deserved it. They have done much more worse things to the Iraqis that not even Hitler would imagine.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Dear "cobra:"

I see that the considerabel majority of posters on this theread get the concept. As for your post---vell, nothink to say but, "Javohl, mein herr."

Practicality uber alles. Hey, let's open kampfs. That'll learn 'em.

Last time I checked, we're supposed to be better than them. Not the same, not worse, not eye-for-an-eye--better, in terms of morality and action.

Never fails to amaze me, that some folks can't come up to the moral standards laid out in, say, "X-Men." 

We're supposed to be better than those murderous, hating thugs. Do keep that in mind, eh?


----------



## Tgace

We are "better than them" because our military does things like this (suspensions/investigations/court martials)...instead of rewarding the wrong doers like Sadams Regime probably would have done...the military I experienced would never tolerate stuff like this once it was discovered.



By DAVID DISHNEAU, Associated Press Writer 

CRESAPTOWN, Md. - The chief of the U.S. Army Reserve condemned the abusive treatment of Iraqi war prisoners Saturday and said he has ordered a study of whether reservists are sufficiently trained in ethical conduct and how to treat prisoners. 

Following a meeting with families of the reserve unit at the center of the investigation, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly said photographs of naked inmates forced to assume humiliating positions beside grinning military police reservists "go against the grain of everything America's Army stands for." 

Helmly, commander of 1.1 million reservists, said that if the allegations against six reservists are true, "it undermines our values of respect, dignity and honor, and we hold those values deeply." 

The reservists, members of the 372nd Military Police Company of Cresaptown, have been charged with crimes including dereliction of duty, cruelty, assault and indecent acts. 

Their boss, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, and at least seven others have been suspended from their duties at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to the U.S. military. 

The New Yorker magazine obtained an Army report that said Iraqi detainees at the prison were subject to "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses." 

Some of the family members said after the closed meeting with Helmly that they worried about their loved ones' safety because the outrage that the pictures, which first aired Wednesday on the CBS program "60 Minutes II," have provoked in the Arab world. 

"We were notified that the same pictures that were used on "60 Minutes" now are being displayed on all Iraqi television programs, which probably puts our soldiers at greater risk," said Lora Maddas, whose cousin, Russell Gibbs, is a unit member but was not charged. 

Jennifer Bird, 23, said her husband, Spc. Rodney Bird, told her about the investigation months ago. He is not among those charged. 

"I think it's awful," she said. "I think it makes them all look bad." 

Army Reserve spokesman Al Schilf said questions from the approximately 90 family members at the meeting mainly concerned the unit's extended deployment through early September. About 130 soldiers in the unit had already left Iraq (news - web sites) and were preparing to return home last month when their active duty was extended. 

Earlier Saturday, the father of one accused reservist, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, told NBC's "Today" show that he didn't believe the allegations. 

"None of the photos that I've seen has shown my son abusing anybody, which I don't think he ever would," said Ivan L. "Red" Frederick. 

President Bush (news - web sites) has condemned the mistreatment, saying he shared "a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated."


----------



## Cobra

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Dear "cobra:"
> 
> I see that the considerabel majority of posters on this theread get the concept. As for your post---vell, nothink to say but, "Javohl, mein herr."
> 
> Practicality uber alles. Hey, let's open kampfs. That'll learn 'em.
> 
> Last time I checked, we're supposed to be better than them. Not the same, not worse, not eye-for-an-eye--better, in terms of morality and action.
> 
> Never fails to amaze me, that some folks can't come up to the moral standards laid out in, say, "X-Men."
> 
> We're supposed to be better than those murderous, hating thugs. Do keep that in mind, eh?


It is not the case of abusing, just bringing up the topic is pointless. Should we punish torture prisoner unhumanly? No. But if something like that happens, it isn't worth bringing up considering the rotten things thay did. It is like going to war. If you go to war, innocent people will get killed even on the opposing side (like Afganistan for example). But compared to the people they attaked, it isn't worth saying cause lives has already been los on the attackers side. Call it casualties of war. These arn't even casualties. These are low life scum who tortures their own people for fun.


----------



## theletch1

Cobra, you are correct in that civilians are killed in combat.  It's called collateral damage.  It's also one of the reasons that smart munitions have been created and improved upon.  Torturing prisoners is NOT collateral damage.  What these reservist did is inexcusable for a member of the U.S. military.  If a police officer in this country were to toruture someone who had been arrested in this country for a violent crime it would (and has) cause such an outrage that the entire country would be up in arms.  This situation is not much different.  We are not in this fight to "teach someone a lesson" and military police are not there to punish anyone.  The mission of the military policeman is much the same as the civilian policeman.  They are there to guard prisoners from escape and from harm while in custody.  By not only failing in their duty to protect the prisoners but harming them they have pushed the level of animosity against the coalition forces in the region beyond the breaking point.  Any humanitrian services that the islamic people have seen from us will now be replaced or at least tempered with the visions of tortured prisoners.


----------



## Matt Stone

I am a military paralegal NCO working in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the US Army.  The collective take here on what constitutes a trial by court-martial (which just means "military court") is entirely incorrect.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) provides the accused with all the same rights that civilian law does, and is more efficient in that we don't wait years to go to trial.  We don't stand around wasting valuable docket time with endless delays by both Government and Defense.  Certainly, delays are allowed for good cause, but continual delays that do nothing more than delay (they serve no actual purpose other than keep the accused from trial) are absent.

The UCMJ's punitive articles (section IV of the Code) outline offenses under the code that are unique to military service - absence without leave, failure to repair (meaning, essentially, failing to go to work on time and showing up late), going from your appointed place of duty (leaving work early), insubordination, striking a superior, et cetera.  If these were civilian offenses, how many of you would be guilty?  Probably more than the civilian sector has time to prosecute.  But these offenses have specific military bearing - not being where you are needed, when you are needed there; running from conflict; disrupting the good order and discipline of the unit, etc.

A court-martial works just like a civilian trial.  First there may be an Article 32 hearing (a grand jury hearing) to determine the facts of the case and to determine, if it needs to be tried, what level of court it needs to be tried at (different courts-martial have different limitations on sentencing).  Then there is voir dire and challenge for cause, then providence on the pleas, then the Government presents their case, then Defense, etc. again.

After trial, appellate matters are submitted to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and the record is reviewed at that level.  Depending on the caseload and the nature of the record being reviewed, within a few months or even up to a year or more later, the appellate findings will be announced.  Then the trial is complete.

Sentences can be very minor (even at high level courts-martial), or very severe.  As punishment runs consecutively, not concurrently, multiple offenses net you more time in prison.  Confinement automatically gets you the maximum reduction (demotion), and your pay and allowances may be forfeited in their entirety.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask away...

And JAG, though it does depict some aspects of courts-martial properly, is a crap show.  Its hard enough to get attorneys to make their own photocopies, so I really doubt they fly F-15s and fight hand to hand to apprehend suspects...  :shrug:


----------



## Cobra

theletch1 said:
			
		

> Cobra, you are correct in that civilians are killed in combat. It's called collateral damage. It's also one of the reasons that smart munitions have been created and improved upon. Torturing prisoners is NOT collateral damage. What these reservist did is inexcusable for a member of the U.S. military. If a police officer in this country were to toruture someone who had been arrested in this country for a violent crime it would (and has) cause such an outrage that the entire country would be up in arms. This situation is not much different. We are not in this fight to "teach someone a lesson" and military police are not there to punish anyone. The mission of the military policeman is much the same as the civilian policeman. They are there to guard prisoners from escape and from harm while in custody. By not only failing in their duty to protect the prisoners but harming them they have pushed the level of animosity against the coalition forces in the region beyond the breaking point. Any humanitrian services that the islamic people have seen from us will now be replaced or at least tempered with the visions of tortured prisoners.


It is not a case of punishing or the torture. It happens, it is war. Emotions are flying everywhere. It is understandable for the officers to that. We can't imagine what he is going through. But to bring it up as a crime against the United States and saying that the US is a bad country like those like the French is not good. It happens, it is war. And to feel bad for those tortured prisoners is bad itself, it is like being sorry for Joseph Stalin, despite the millions he has killed. Huesain and his men are no different than Stalin. If Iraq had the amount of people Russia did, there would be similar numbers of death.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I was trained to take those orders and never really hated the individual I might have to shoot, in conventional warfare the pace is too hectic for hatred or emotions to be registered in general.
> 
> I can justify such actions as swearing to an oath, to living by a code that doesn't make me the center of the universe and being willing to be part of something larger than myself, based on ideals that I agree with and am willing to stand up for.
> 
> This is not an indicator of universal US military hatred for another as much as it is misdirected power usage/abuse, the surfacing of personal issues that these individuals brought with them to their training and service from their DNA/Nurture pre-military, and possibly a lack of adequate supervision to monitor troop morale, welfare and mission readiness.
> 
> As a teacher, you should know that trainees are not empty vessels that we or in this case the military machine fills with stuff.  They bring personality, experience and character (for good or bad) with them.  Contrary to the popular belief that you loose your 'self' through the service and have no sense of free will left, you are REQUIRED to adhere to the basic Corps/Army values even to the point of disobeying orders if they are in violation of those values, the Geneva convention and the laws of land warfare.



Your sense of self is subverted by your Oath.  You said it yourself in your statements above.  Ask any good soldier over their what he/she is doing and why they are doing it and they will phrase an answer that looks something like..."Saddam Hussain's regime was an "evil" regime that raped and tortured and terrorized the people of Iraq.  We are giving our lives to help free this people from this horror."  

This statement isn't "wrong" in a historical sense.  In fact, from a moral point of view, the statement provides a moral justification for the brutality of war...It is a blanket statement that they hold in their minds everytime they pull the trigger.  The stereotype justifies the violence.  This is the same type of mentality that hate groups use to justify violence.  And I'm not saying that the US military is a hate group.  I am saying that hate (moral justification) makes brutality easier.  

We sure do hate those things that Saddam Huissain and his followers did.  Yet we cannot forget that these people are also human.  They have families and lives just as the German, Japanese, and American people who committed war atrocities also did.  War, is by its very nature brutal.  Hatred makes brutality possible.  

Paul, as a teacher, you have to have seen how the effects of a "culture" have over ridden good sense and morality...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## rmcrobertson

I honestly don't know which repells me more: these loonbox statements that, "they deserve it," or these, "hey, I'M not in the slightest way responsible for what my government/my society does, because even if I profit by the exploitation of others I don't pay any attention to that, I just assume a position of moral superiority," viewpoints.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Paul, as a teacher, you have to have seen how the effects of a "culture" have over ridden good sense and morality...
> 
> upnorthkyosa



And as a teacher, the fact that Nazi Germany was based on a regime of racial purity to justify itself and sanctioned atrocities is clear to me.  The fact that Imperial Japan followed a dogmatic idea that the Emperor was akin to a god and they were also a superior race is clear to me as justification for treating their enemies as vermin.  SHussein was a criminal who found his way to power and used wmd on his own people based on a mentallity of tribal/racial superiority.

I think the race issue is hard to apply here when the servicemen and women fighting because they swore the oath, in a mission to establish stability and the opportunity for democratic representation of all Iraqis (we will see if this really comes to fruition, but that is the goal) come from a variety of 'races' and backgrounds.

Again, I come back to the point that the societal reaction to these atrocities is the indicator to the difference.  Ours: horrified (except in the case of Cobra - who I don't agree with at all on this one).  

Thiers:  applause.

The common soldier doesn't quote political rhetoric like a mantra with each round, like I said there is no real time for such thought.

I find this whole idea that there is a possibility of no cultural influence, that there is no moral justification for violence/war except hatred and that such things are inherently 'wrong' regardless of the charter or base values that we use to govern our choices.... from the practitioner and teacher of a militaristic martial art with 'cultural' overtones all over it.....

Upnorth, the concept of good sense and morallity is a product of culture -as a teacher/scientist are you claiming that there is an inherently natural 'good' and 'moral' quality of man that has been over ruled by cultural indoctrinization?

These acts of torture and abuse are immoral, war is brutal but in any natural process something has to die in order for something else to live.  Humans are the only ones who really spend so much time debating the reality of that as we devour dead plants, animals and natural resources to keep ourselves alive.  

Do we sit back and ooze so much empathetic grooviness that we don't stand for anything?  I doubt that you would be empathizing with someone attacking your wife or children or yourself in the process of a third party involvement.  You didn't speak too empathetically when you were peeling that guy off your wife and child during the aforementioned tour.  You actually were insulted that he didn't seem to empathize with you and your family.

Do we sit back and let the humanity of the wife/child abuser next door keep us from intervening when he is choking them in front of us?  No.  We live in a real world where philosophical realizations do not exist in a vacuum and they clash and we have to decide how we are going to balance them in the reality of the time.

I think that those men and women squeezing the trigger for real, dealing with the aftermath of watching friends and enemies die have a better sense of the humanity of all people.  Otherwise, why would some who have been activated to go back be refusing?


----------



## MisterMike

Link to details on the Humiliation:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Link to details on the Humiliation:
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact


Several of the images are available on this site by following the links on the right side of the page.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And as a teacher, the fact that Nazi Germany was based on a regime of racial purity to justify itself and sanctioned atrocities is clear to me.  The fact that Imperial Japan followed a dogmatic idea that the Emperor was akin to a god and they were also a superior race is clear to me as justification for treating their enemies as vermin.  *SHussein was a criminal who found his way to power and used wmd on his own people based on a mentallity of tribal/racial superiority*.



Please note the boldfaced statement.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I think the race issue is hard to apply here when the servicemen and women fighting because they swore the oath, in a mission to establish stability and the opportunity for democratic representation of all Iraqis (we will see if this really comes to fruition, but that is the goal) come from a variety of 'races' and backgrounds.



Hate has many flavors.  It doesn't always have to do with race.  Or even religion.  "*SHussein was a criminal who found his way to power and used wmd on his own people based on a mentallity of tribal/racial superiority" (I will extend this by inserting "and all who followed him")  * Now you have a moral justification to kill massive amounts of people.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Again, I come back to the point that the societal reaction to these atrocities is the indicator to the difference.  Ours: horrified (except in the case of Cobra - who I don't agree with at all on this one).
> 
> Thiers:  applause..



Acts like the ones in the photos are atypical of what is going on in Iraq (as far as we know).  As far as brutality is concerned, it is just a brick in the pyramid of war.  People will take the stereotype too far.  They will say, "*SHussein was a criminal who found his way to power and used wmd on his own people based on a mentallity of tribal/racial superiority" (I will extend this by inserting "and all who followed him*") and then do something like what we have seen because "they deserved it".  This is the essence of the hatred I'm talking about boiling to the surface.

Now comes the dangerous part.  If you agree that they didn't deserve it, then you agree that their is a limit to the amount of brutality you would accept.  My question is this, why would you accept any?



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> The common soldier doesn't quote political rhetoric like a mantra with each round, like I said there is no real time for such thought...



Not with every round.  That is instinct.  You train your instincts with your mantra though.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I find this whole idea that there is a possibility of no cultural influence, that there is no moral justification for violence/war except hatred and that such things are inherently 'wrong' regardless of the charter or base values that we use to govern our choices.... from the practitioner and teacher of a militaristic martial art with 'cultural' overtones all over it.



There are three types of violence, each with different motivations.  Violence in war is one type of violence and it is motivated by hate.  Hate is an evolutionary tool that allows one to commit brutal acts.  It is, in its essence, a throwback to xenophobia and tribalism.  I believe that their is a genetic prediliction among humans to hate each other - especially when resources are scarce.  Scarce times create war as groups of people compete and all sorts of insane justifications of war are rammed down the tribes throats.  The easier it is for a tribe to accept those justifications, the more successful that tribe will be at war.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Upnorth, the concept of good sense and morallity is a product of culture -as a teacher/scientist are you claiming that there is an inherently natural 'good' and 'moral' quality of man that has been over ruled by cultural indoctrinization?



I am very wary of absolutes.  I don't know if I could make such a claim.  As far as indoctrination is concerned.  We are the products of our environment.  From a very young age we are taught the basics of fighting and dying.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> These acts of torture and abuse are immoral, war is brutal but in any natural process something has to die in order for something else to live.  Humans are the only ones who really spend so much time debating the reality of that as we devour dead plants, animals and natural resources to keep ourselves alive.



True.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Do we sit back and ooze so much empathetic grooviness that we don't stand for anything?  I doubt that you would be empathizing with someone attacking your wife or children or yourself in the process of a third party involvement.  You didn't speak too empathetically when you were peeling that guy off your wife and child during the aforementioned tour.  You actually were insulted that he didn't seem to empathize with you and your family.
> 
> Do we sit back and let the humanity of the wife/child abuser next door keep us from intervening when he is choking them in front of us?  No.  We live in a real world where philosophical realizations do not exist in a vacuum and they clash and we have to decide how we are going to balance them in the reality of the time.



When someone attacks me or my family, I need no one to tell me who the enemy is.  And they might not even be the "enemy" you think they are.  Don't confuse the issue.  Self defense is not about hatred.  Self defense is about a natural need to protect oneself and ones family from direct danger.

This can transform into something else entirely when the danger becomes "percieved", though.  Now it is fear and fear leads to hate and hate leads to suffering (war)...didn't someone famous say something like this.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I think that those men and women squeezing the trigger for real, dealing with the aftermath of watching friends and enemies die have a better sense of the humanity of all people.  Otherwise, why would some who have been activated to go back be refusing?



As long as one can convince enough to people to accept at least a modicum of brutality, then the killing goes on.  I think that some people learned that their tolerance levels were a lot lower then they though.  They were naturally selected out of the population (their own brains and perhaps their genes being the tool for this).

In closing, my personal philosophy concerning war is as follows "The moment you abrogate your right to decide who the enemy is, you turn yourself into an instrument of hate.  I will never do this.  I will always be responsible for my ability to do violence to another human being."


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As long as one can convince enough to people to accept at least a modicum of brutality, then the killing goes on.  I think that some people learned that their tolerance levels were a lot lower then they though.  They were naturally selected out of the population (their own brains and perhaps their genes being the tool for this).
> 
> In closing, my personal philosophy concerning war is as follows "The moment you abrogate your right to decide who the enemy is, you turn yourself into an instrument of hate.  I will never do this.  I will always be responsible for my ability to do violence to another human being."



Aren't you, by virtue of your role as teacher of martial arts, convincing people to accept a modicum of brutality?  Aren't you indoctrinating others into what ever cultural values/criteria for what is morally acceptable levels of violence?

We have differed on these issues before.  Your view from the outside is loaded with assumptions: some of which are that soldiers 'subvert' themselves and any morallity, that soldiers are motivated by hate, that they don't continue to think for themselves.... not true on any of them.  

When I get the chance I have to paste in a sample of the laws of land warfare and elements of leadership training that is practiced in the services.  If anything the military, at least here in the USA, promotes a certain amount of individualism to foster innovation.  During WWII the hedge trimmer that was mounted on the front of tanks was the idea of a lower enlisted man who had the opportunity to contribute his idea.  German soldiers of the day, because they were really the model of compartmentalized extreme discipline wouldn't even dream of fixing their own vehicles if they broke down - that was someone elses job.  How many military coups have we had in our own country in modern history?  None.  One of the contributing factors is the morallity and encouragement to evaluate the lawfulness and morallity of orders.

I do concede that there are militaries and nations that have motivated troops with open hatred and have given examples of them.  I do not think, based on my personal experience, that the US military values/doctrine is to encourage hatred first, that is the point of the professionalism and discipline in military training.  Professionals act like professionals, according to the modern military image of soldier/sailor/Marine/airman/coast guard that means that you are motivated by loyalty to your fellows, your country and the values that they present.

We will go round and round about this Upnorth, I am done.


----------



## Tgace

Sound like a good rationalization for never standing up for anything...or a rationalization for never having to serve (i.e. put your life on the line) your country. I happen to like the nation I live in and (by and large) the people I call "countrymen". And I was proud to serve for them.

IMHO...I believe that the people who yell the loudest about the military being nothing but hatemongering bloodthirsty killers are sublimating some sort of inadequacy issues.

Im with you too bud...unsubscribed.


----------



## Gentle Fist

AOL had a link on the welcome page that advertised these photos as a hoax...or did I imagine this???


----------



## arnisador

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Well, its documented.
> 
> American soldiers have abused Iraqi POW's with electric shock and other horrific methods...and they were idiotic enough to pose for pictures and video while doing it.
> 
> Its been on the evening news. Even the conservative "Drudge Report" is playing it up. The Arab stations, of course, have jumped on it.
> 
> This is going to:
> 
> Hurt the war effort.
> 
> Ruin troop morale.
> 
> Ruin the morale on the home front.
> 
> Get American hostages/prisoners killed at worst, abused at best.
> 
> Be one of the greatest recruiting incentives for future anti-American terrorists.
> 
> Do irreparable damage to Arab/US relations...which are rotten to begin with.
> 
> Make us look terrible in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world.
> 
> Give our critics abroad and at home justification for saying "I told you so," in their efforts at demonizing us as a nation.


I hate to quote a whole post, but this bears repeating.

I am embarrassed.

Blame will be defused--"The interrogators asked us to keep them edgy, etc."--but I hope people are severely punished for it.

When I taught at West Point, the My Lai documentary ran on every TV in a classroom all the time, it seemed. I assume enlisted personnel also are taught about this? How is the message not sinking in?

I'm disgusted. I'm not surprised, as things like this always happen in war--but I'm sickened and sad nonetheless.


----------



## michaeledward

fistlaw720 said:
			
		

> AOL had a link on the welcome page that advertised these photos as a hoax...or did I imagine this???


 
There are two issues in the news right now. The photos that have been called a hoax concern an image of British Soldiers and were published in a British newspaper. The photos in question also have soldiers treating prisoners in an inhumane manner. The photos have been reported as a hoax based on the style of uniform and weapon the soldiers had in the photos; currently, they are not standard issue for soldiers serving in Iraq.

The issue concerning Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad is not a hoax. At minimum 6 soldiers in Iraq are being disciplined. One additional soldier was transferred between the time of the photos and the news story breaking. (She is the brunette woman with a cigarette, pointing at a hooded prisoner's genitals - apparently, she got pregnant and was transferred back to Fort Bragg).


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Aren't you, by virtue of your role as teacher of martial arts, convincing people to accept a modicum of brutality?  Aren't you indoctrinating others into what ever cultural values/criteria for what is morally acceptable levels of violence?



I think that my view of violence is a paradox.  It is something I keep in mind...this idea that "peace is the only perfect self defense" and when I break that peace it is truly a dark day.  Part of this philosophy means being reflective about your actions.  When the peace is broken, you know you have failed somehow.  Examine how this happened and try not to let it happen again.  This constant struggle is what I teach my martial arts students.  A struggle for peace and a fall into brutality as an absolute last resort and that resort is only to deal with the brutality that others thrust upon you.  This is my definition of violence self defense.  

It differs when it comes to war.  War is about groups of people acting in brutal ways toward one another.  This violence is motivated by an emotion that I cannot find any other word but "hate" to describe.  I think that you are seeing hatred only through the eyes of race/religion.  Hate can encompass ideas.  We do not like the way that SHussien and his people treated the majority of citizens in Iraq.  So we use those feelings to justify our actions.  Is there a better word to describe this?  Perhaps I have mislabled this emotional justification?  Perhaps hate is too stong of a word for someone who has served and has had to justify their actions in a similar manner?  What would you call this process?

TGace

My insistance on peace does not mean that I can't serve my country.  I serve my country better then a cruise missile.  Every year, hundreds of students come through my classes prepared with the scientific knowledge to help them become successful citizens.  A cruise missile, on the other hand, can kill hundreds with a single use.  Those people are gone forever.  Did you know that a cruise missile makes 10 times as much as I do?  What would happen if we reversed this priority?  If we valued life over death at a rate of 10 to 1?  Is my insistance for this somehow inadequate?  I think not.


----------



## MisterMike

I'm just amazed at the level of disgust over pictures, while there wasn't a sliver of concern (relatively) over the burnt bodies hanging from a bridge.

Good to see which side people are on.

Like that cafe over in Seattle...


----------



## someguy

There dead jim
so there is less reason to be concerned about helping them right now.  Also the people who did it aren't our people.  We can't control them well sort of but I don't feel like going to indepth into anything right now.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that my view of violence is a paradox.  It is something I keep in mind...this idea that "peace is the only perfect self defense" and when I break that peace it is truly a dark day.  Part of this philosophy means being reflective about your actions.  When the peace is broken, you know you have failed somehow.  Examine how this happened and try not to let it happen again.  This constant struggle is what I teach my martial arts students.  A struggle for peace and a fall into brutality as an absolute last resort and that resort is only to deal with the brutality that others thrust upon you.  This is my definition of violence self defense.
> 
> It differs when it comes to war.  War is about groups of people acting in brutal ways toward one another.  This violence is motivated by an emotion that I cannot find any other word but "hate" to describe.  I think that you are seeing hatred only through the eyes of race/religion.  Hate can encompass ideas.  We do not like the way that SHussien and his people treated the majority of citizens in Iraq.  So we use those feelings to justify our actions.  Is there a better word to describe this?  Perhaps I have mislabled this emotional justification?  Perhaps hate is too stong of a word for someone who has served and has had to justify their actions in a similar manner?  What would you call this process?
> .



No justification for my action needed, at least not to anyone but myself.  

But it is interesting that on one level (the level of violence that you are training in) you can justify it's practice with philosophy.  At a level that you can't control you focus on the act as inherently brutal with an assumed 'emotion' that you term hatred.  Violence, at any level and at any scale is a choice that you have to justify as morally sound.  

At a personal level, that is the state penal laws that cover force and deadly force, personal ethos and social morals.  

At a national level, it is based on the values and morals that the charter for said country and the current policies that are in place have identified.

On a personal level, you might say that we 'hate' the idea of losing your life and that of your loved ones so much that you would pre-meditate and rehearse violent behavior to be prepared for just such an occasion.  

Or, the way I see it, you could say that at every level there is a moral responsibility to be versed in the necessary skills of interaction with the other entities you will be dealing with (whether a person or a nation) from humanitarian behaviors (personal level:  charity work, volunteerism, education... National level:  relief support, education, social services) at one end of the spectrum all the way to violent behaviors (personal level:  self defense, third party involvement, stopping a drunken friend from driving, corporal punishment... National level:  military defensive/offensive military forces in a state of readiness).  The choice to engage any or all of the possible responses within the range is always 'justification' whether it is humanitarian or violent.  It is no more 'justifiable' to fail to act if the situation warrants than it is 'justifiable' to act when the situation doesn't warrant it.  

The adeptness to do any/all of these things well so that you either maximize the results of humanitarian acts or minimize the damage of violent acts is responsibility.  Why else is martial arts philosophy loaded with moral quandries that usually boil down to responsibility and commitment to training your mind as well as your body?

These individuals acted unprofessionally, outside of their sworn oaths and accepted duties.  They will be held accountable.


----------



## Makalakumu

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm just amazed at the level of disgust over pictures, while there wasn't a sliver of concern (relatively) over the burnt bodies hanging from a bridge.
> 
> Good to see which side people are on.
> 
> Like that cafe over in Seattle...



Imagine a world where people are outraged and disgusted by both...


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> No justification for my action needed, at least not to anyone but myself.
> 
> But it is interesting that on one level (the level of violence that you are training in) you can justify it's practice with philosophy.  At a level that you can't control you focus on the act as inherently brutal with an assumed 'emotion' that you term hatred.  Violence, at any level and at any scale is a choice that you have to justify as morally sound.
> 
> At a personal level, that is the state penal laws that cover force and deadly force, personal ethos and social morals.
> 
> At a national level, it is based on the values and morals that the charter for said country and the current policies that are in place have identified.
> 
> On a personal level, you might say that we 'hate' the idea of losing your life and that of your loved ones so much that you would pre-meditate and rehearse violent behavior to be prepared for just such an occasion.
> 
> Or, the way I see it, you could say that at every level there is a moral responsibility to be versed in the necessary skills of interaction with the other entities you will be dealing with (whether a person or a nation) from humanitarian behaviors (personal level:  charity work, volunteerism, education... National level:  relief support, education, social services) at one end of the spectrum all the way to violent behaviors (personal level:  self defense, third party involvement, stopping a drunken friend from driving, corporal punishment... National level:  military defensive/offensive military forces in a state of readiness).  The choice to engage any or all of the possible responses within the range is always 'justification' whether it is humanitarian or violent.  It is no more 'justifiable' to fail to act if the situation warrants than it is 'justifiable' to act when the situation doesn't warrant it.
> 
> The adeptness to do any/all of these things well so that you either maximize the results of humanitarian acts or minimize the damage of violent acts is responsibility.  Why else is martial arts philosophy loaded with moral quandries that usually boil down to responsibility and commitment to training your mind as well as your body?
> 
> These individuals acted unprofessionally, outside of their sworn oaths and accepted duties.  They will be held accountable.



I am glad that they will be held accountable.  Those deeds were henious indeed.  Where do we draw the line though?  What is too brutal in war?  Its kind of a dangerous question.  

Also, one of the best things we can do as martial artists is think about the violence that we train for.  We need to come to understand the concept just as much as the act.  I believe that its misuse/overuse comes from the lack of understanding in both areas.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I am glad that they will be held accountable.  Those deeds were henious indeed.  Where do we draw the line though?  What is too brutal in war?  Its kind of a dangerous question.
> 
> Also, one of the best things we can do as martial artists is think about the violence that we train for.  We need to come to understand the concept just as much as the act.  I believe that its misuse/overuse comes from the lack of understanding in both areas.



Agreed, that is my point about philosophy applied leads to personal choices and clashes between what 'is' because of the circumstance and what we would like things to be like.  The cyclical struggle to try and exemplify the training (mind/body) in reality is a challenge whether you apply it to actual physical skills or more symbollic stuff like relationships and communication.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Imagine a world where people are outraged and disgusted by both...



Based on the number of open criticisms to the war, outrage and protest to the number of dead and the comments on the attrocities by both sides.... I would say that  we do, it just isn't perfect.


----------



## arnisador

Speaking of criticisms of the war, have people seen the outrage over this:
http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/


----------



## MA-Caver

I was too young to know Vietnam at the time it was happening. But learned of the war and various events through various sources (friends who are veterans and others). Mai Lai was horrific in it's day (still is). 
The thought of american soldiers doing these types of acts makes me think we're no better than the communist russians and chinese and WWII Germans and Japanese. 
I hate having this "we're the good guys" bubble bursted but it would be stupid to deny even these pics.http://members.iinet.net.au/~sauterp/iraq/

Real question is... what do _we_ the average american citizen do about it?
What can we do about it? 

awfully damn sad IMO


----------



## MisterMike

arnisador said:
			
		

> Speaking of criticisms of the war, have people seen the outrage over this:
> http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/



Heard about that on the radio. Of course Tillman died protecting the right of people to print this type of thing.


----------



## Cruentus

I have nothing much to say about the torture stuff. You KNOW this stuff happends, but it's still hard to believe none the less when it is right in your face. The whole thing disgusts me. I don't know what the answer is, but I think a good start would be to stop making excuses for their behavior (not pointing fingers, just speaking generally).


----------



## loki09789

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I have nothing much to say about the torture stuff. You KNOW this stuff happends, but it's still hard to believe none the less when it is right in your face. The whole thing disgusts me. I don't know what the answer is, but I think a good start would be to stop making excuses for their behavior (not pointing fingers, just speaking generally).


I haven't heard anything but outrage over this stuff, rightfully so as far as I am concerned.  Where have you heard excuses being made?  The closest I know of is one mother in an interview was quoted as saying that "her boy wouldn't do anything like that".... How many times I have heard that in school.


----------



## MisterMike

All the headlines are now reading that Rumsfeld is not apologetic. Wouldn't apologizing be an admission of guilt on his behalf? Certainly the resposibility goes up the chain, but to say it came from the Secretary of Defense or the President....it's just ludicrous.


----------



## loki09789

MisterMike said:
			
		

> All the headlines are now reading that Rumsfeld is not apologetic. Wouldn't apologizing be an admission of guilt on his behalf? Certainly the resposibility goes up the chain, but to say it came from the Secretary of Defense or the President....it's just ludicrous.


I haven't read this stuff as much as stories about the incident themselves.

It is stupid and a bit inflammatory, possibly anti Bush Administration again too.

If he is not apologetic, is he upset or outraged or having some other emotional reaction that would seem 'sympathetic' to the moral reaction and the violation of every professional military code/law - not to mention the humanitarian issues, without apologizing.  Apologies should come from those who swore an oath to be professional and weren't.

So much for fixing the problem and not the blame.


----------



## Cruentus

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I haven't heard anything but outrage over this stuff, rightfully so as far as I am concerned.  Where have you heard excuses being made?  The closest I know of is one mother in an interview was quoted as saying that "her boy wouldn't do anything like that".... How many times I have heard that in school.



Well, "Cobra" made a few excuses here on this thread; basically saying "Oh Well" to the whole thing because of the way Saddam treated his own people. I wish I could say he was alone in his mentality, but there are a too many people out their who basically feel the same way. The media has expressed outrage, but what people say and what people do are different. The media will move on to the next sensation over the next few weeks, and all will be forgotten. But...what about those who are guilty? How seriously will this be taken by the military?

It seems that it will be taken very seriously, yet, attrocities like this and worse have been commited by both sides in almost every conflict. Sure, when caught, people are punished. But, we don't seem to treat this problem in a preventative way; we use the excuses like, "Well...they are criminals," or "We can't really DO anything to prevent this sort of thing other then punish afterwords." There seems to be a major paradox here. In order to enable soldiers to "Kill," the military not only allows, but propigates a level of dehumanization of the enemy to occur. In Vietnam, we killed "Gooks" not people. My friends over there right now aren't killing men with families either, they are killing "rag heads." Yet, when you have effectively dehumanized, things can go to far. So, there has got to be some different preventative solutions, as it would appear that our current solutions aren't working. 

My suggestion would be that men should be ordered to to stop the offenders on the spot through use of force, and by any means nessicary, otherwise they could be charged along with the offenders. I am sure that my answer is not the right one, though.

I really don't know what the answer is here.  :idunno:


----------



## loki09789

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Well, "Cobra" made a few excuses here on this thread; basically saying "Oh Well" to the whole thing because of the way Saddam treated his own people. I wish I could say he was alone in his mentality, but there are a too many people out their who basically feel the same way. The media has expressed outrage, but what people say and what people do are different. The media will move on to the next sensation over the next few weeks, and all will be forgotten. But...what about those who are guilty? How seriously will this be taken by the military?
> 
> It seems that it will be taken very seriously, yet, attrocities like this and worse have been commited by both sides in almost every conflict. Sure, when caught, people are punished. But, we don't seem to treat this problem in a preventative way; we use the excuses like, "Well...they are criminals," or "We can't really DO anything to prevent this sort of thing other then punish afterwords." There seems to be a major paradox here. In order to enable soldiers to "Kill," the military not only allows, but propigates a level of dehumanization of the enemy to occur. In Vietnam, we killed "Gooks" not people. My friends over there right now aren't killing men with families either, they are killing "rag heads." Yet, when you have effectively dehumanized, things can go to far. So, there has got to be some different preventative solutions, as it would appear that our current solutions aren't working.
> 
> My suggestion would be that men should be ordered to to stop the offenders on the spot through use of force, and by any means nessicary, otherwise they could be charged along with the offenders. I am sure that my answer is not the right one, though.
> 
> I really don't know what the answer is here. :idunno:


The military has and will uphold the professionalism in this case.  Like any institution with people in it, the military has been described as a "microcosm of the culture" how this is handled, how the military is structured is all a reflection of the society of the time (or at least the powers of the time).

The suggestion you made is already in place because every serviceman or woman has the obligation, according to the values and such along with UCMJ regulations depending on rank, to uphold those values - even to the point of reporting, detaining or restraining those conducting themselves outside of said conduct.  It is even justified for a leader to shoot subordinates if they are not compliant to the lawful order to stop such action and continue to pose a deadly threat to a POW entrusted in his/her care.... does it happen often - thank god no.  But the guidelines are clearly written and clearly communicated in Professional training.  The preventative measures are the professional training, focus on values and the reflection of your conduct on the country, military, branch and unit you are with.  

The term "gook" was never used professional military training documents/programs because it was a slang term adopted from Korea and such that the troops used.  It is derogatory and it is disrespectful.  It has been suggested that such language has been used - not just to dehumanize the 'enemy' - but also to avoid inflating the enemy to mythical/unbeatable status in the mind of the fighting man (fear coping).  

As far as the 'they deserved it' mentallity presented here and elsewhere.  I can tell you from experience that the majority of servicemen and women saw this kind of stuff as unjust because it was a demonstration of the lack of self discipline, professionalism and would impact the overall campaign support and military image negatively - as much as they thought it was unjust because of sympathetic feelings ("I would hope that I would be treated decently as a POW, so I treat others decently").


----------



## Cruentus

As it pertains to this discussion, by Vietnam the U.S. Military raised its rate of fire by infantry men from around 20% in WWII to over 95%. This means that in WWII, around 80% weren't firing their weapons at all. 

This increase in firing rate was enabled through a variety of training methods, and factors that were put in place to enable soldiers to fire on their fellow man. Some of these were pressence of a higher authority, psychological desensitization, responsability towards fellow soldiers, etc. One of these factors that determines the ability for a soldier to fire is distance from the enemy.

Distance from the enemy can be both physical as well as emotional and psychological. A way to distance yourself psychologically and emotionally from your enemy is through dehumanization. Your not killing a person, your killing a "rag head." Now, the men will dehumanize on their own to emotionally be able to handle the fact that they may have to kill these people, but from day one in basic training, the military helps this along. 

This information can be found in a wealth of different places, but a good book to read on the subject is "On Killing" by Lt. Col. David Grossman

This "Dehumanization" is a psychological method of coping; I have 5 friends/aquaintances active right now in Iraq, and I don't find it offensive that they refer to their enemy as "rag heads," because they haven't (yet) projected their stereotypes to other middle eastern people who they aren't fighting. I understand it is their way of coping for what they may have to do, and the military encourages this so that they can do their jobs. This is something I accept.

Yet, this dehumanization is not without consequence, as we can see from these photo's. Some simply brainwash themselves into believing that these people aren't human, so all becomes fair game. When authorities break down and combat stress kicks in, they are enabled to commit attrocities that they would never commit under different circumstances.

Hey...war is hell. Attrocities occur due to this "dehumanization of the enemy" factor, added with combat stress, on both sides. However, this is no excuse, just an explaination. So, the real question is, what do we do? 

We are experts at enabling our men to kill, but not so good at preventing attrocities. This is just something that needs to be worked on, IMHO.


----------



## Tgace

Ive read Grossman too .... just be aware that not everybody buys into his theory. 

The 20% firing rate in WWII comes from SLA Marshalls "Men Against Fire", which has experienced some criticism regarding its sources. And that 95% rate in Vietnam... its also been stated that very few of those rounds were aimed. The % could just as easily be attributed to every trooper carrying a select fire weapon with a ton of ammo as it could be to any "desensitization program". Not to say that there is nothing valid in Grossmans work, just like everything else though....nothing is so simple or "cut and dry".

What do we do? The only thing we can. Fight and win quickly...and stop the killing as soon as possible. Whats going on is War....always been this way. We do the best we can and abide by a system of (military) law. Hell..look what our own countrymen do to each other every day. What do we do about that? The best we can. And live by a system of law.

That being said, what these soldiers did was wrong. Not to mention stupid....take photos of what you are doing??? There should be a punishment just for the stupidity.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tulisan said:
			
		

> As it pertains to this discussion, by Vietnam the U.S. Military raised its rate of fire by infantry men from around 20% in WWII to over 95%. This means that in WWII, around 80% weren't firing their weapons at all.
> 
> This increase in firing rate was enabled through a variety of training methods, and factors that were put in place to enable soldiers to fire on their fellow man. Some of these were pressence of a higher authority, psychological desensitization, responsability towards fellow soldiers, etc. One of these factors that determines the ability for a soldier to fire is distance from the enemy.
> 
> Distance from the enemy can be both physical as well as emotional and psychological. A way to distance yourself psychologically and emotionally from your enemy is through dehumanization. Your not killing a person, your killing a "rag head." Now, the men will dehumanize on their own to emotionally be able to handle the fact that they may have to kill these people, but from day one in basic training, the military helps this along.
> 
> This information can be found in a wealth of different places, but a good book to read on the subject is "On Killing" by Lt. Col. David Grossman
> 
> This "Dehumanization" is a psychological method of coping; I have 5 friends/aquaintances active right now in Iraq, and I don't find it offensive that they refer to their enemy as "rag heads," because they haven't (yet) projected their stereotypes to other middle eastern people who they aren't fighting. I understand it is their way of coping for what they may have to do, and the military encourages this so that they can do their jobs. This is something I accept.
> 
> Yet, this dehumanization is not without consequence, as we can see from these photo's. Some simply brainwash themselves into believing that these people aren't human, so all becomes fair game. When authorities break down and combat stress kicks in, they are enabled to commit attrocities that they would never commit under different circumstances.
> 
> Hey...war is hell. Attrocities occur due to this "dehumanization of the enemy" factor, added with combat stress, on both sides. However, this is no excuse, just an explaination. So, the real question is, what do we do?
> 
> We are experts at enabling our men to kill, but not so good at preventing attrocities. This is just something that needs to be worked on, IMHO.



Thanks Paul, for backing up the point I was trying to make earlier.  I think your word choice "dehumanization" works better then mine "hate".  Are these two words so different though?


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Thanks Paul, for backing up the point I was trying to make earlier. I think your word choice "dehumanization" works better then mine "hate". Are these two words so different though?


Paul and UpNorth:

I have a copy of "On Killing" and the interview, survey info that Grossman cites has as much to do with the difference in reaction training because of technology (WWII:  smaller magazines of ammo, single shot, greater distances because of more open battle fields = more selective, lower rates of fire COMPARED TO Vietnam:  Full auto weapon, less marksmanship training time relative to WWII soldiers, Closer contact distances and differences in tactical SOP's.... = more general, suppression and higher rates of fire).

The number of rounds thrown down range equating to more troops firing because of dehumanization training being more 'effective' is an assumption - supported with other data to prove a thesis.  This means that the point is presented in a one sided manor.  There are some valid things in Grossman's book, but I have a problem with the majority of data being from interview sources years after the events (time and distance adding color and nostalgia to the interviewee's interpretation - so some of the assumptions are that what the interviewee is saying he/she was going experiencing 'then' could really be what he/she is going through now in relation to the memories).

Technology has been attributed to the amount of Post Traumatic Stress/Shell Shock... because the speed with which the individual is reintroduced into the mainstream after combat service.  WWII the transition was slower because of ship travel, slower planes.... the pace of travel alone, also units from Basic to dibanding moved together (Better espirit de Corps which aids in coping).  Korea/Vietnam and after, the individuals could be leaving combat and dropped off within a very short period of time.  That means that all those decompression things that you are going to go through will happen in the company of civilians and family who don't understand instead of fellow soldiers/Marines...  Personally, we came back from Bosnia and I still don't like crowd all that much (just as an example), and my tour was nothing like what WWII, Korea, Vietnam or any of the more modern conflict were/are like.

As far as us, meaning the USA being not so good at stopping these attrocities:  It is aweful, but I think it is to be expected - not tolerated - but expected.  That is why I emphasize the importance of professional training of individuals and leaders as the preventative measure in place.  They should (there will be some NCO's and Officers tagged on this stuff for not staying at the switch) be aware and adjust duties and assignments based on the signs that individuals are getting too wound up.

I think that, since it is going to happen, comparing our track record as a modern military force to that of other countries is the only realistic way to decide 'good at it' and based on that I would say that we are.  Also, I think the punitive actions taken when an incident occurs sets a tone of intolerance of unprofessional, inhumane behavior.

Remember too, that these detention guards aren't in 'combat stress' conditions as much as they are the equivelant of Corrections Officers.  The Stress syndrome excuse, the fatigue excuse and all that is BS as far as I am concerned.  My old MP unit had the EPW/POW mission before it was redesignated to general/combat support missions.  POW camp mission is almost like a regular job at times.

These individuals got too high on the amount of control they have over these prisoners and basically were the same as a predator playing with their food.  This is different in nature to battlefield attrocities because the stress and fatigue and the environment is very different.  That is not to say that any of these actions are to be tolerated.

What do we do?  We, as in you and I, very little.  They, as in the powers that be, review the training, the leadership and the schedule.... and make sure that the system you have set in place isn't the problem.  If it is, fix it.  If it isn't, did the NCO's / Officer's follow said procedures.  If they did, and they can prove it, did the troops responsible KNOW what they were doing was wrong, if so nail them to the wall within the UCMJ.


----------



## Cruentus

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Thanks Paul, for backing up the point I was trying to make earlier.  I think your word choice "dehumanization" works better then mine "hate".  Are these two words so different though?



Kind of, I think.

If someone were to kill a loved one, I would hate them. I would want to see that person dead. I would recognize that the person who took the life of someone I love is a human being, even though I would hate that person. I may be able to kill that person, but I would have to muster up a lot of energy to torture that person, or sexually abuse that person. Even if I was able to muster up that energy, I wouldn't be able to derrive enjoyment from it.

Dehumanizing is different. If you see someone as lower then a human being, you could do a lot of things to them, and possibly derive enjoyment from it. When I was a kid, I had a friend who was the pull the legs off spiders kind of kid. He derived enjoyment from torturing small animals, yet he showed remorse if another kid was hurt while we played. A kid that was hurt was human to him, animals were not.

You have Iraqi soldiers in a prison. They are probably unbathed, they probably don't smell good, they are unshaven, they speak a different language, and they glare at the american soldiers in hate. It would be very easy to see them as less then human. Add this to the dehumanization of the enemy that occurs in the military, and it is clear that the prisonors are seen as animals. Now, most people don't torture animals. But, if you throw in the factor of combat stress, you now have a recipe for disaster. There is a factor in Combat stress (forgot the term for it) where basically you see humor in extreme violence or attrocity; it's the minds way of coping with the violence that is around you every day. Put someone who is under combat stress who is at the point where their way of coping is by finding gross violence and attrocity humorious in charge of prisoners who are seen as "less then human" and you have a recipe for attrocities like what we have seen in those photos.

This is much different then "hate." Dehumanization is "hateful", and hate can be involved, but you don't really have to "hate" someone to commit violent acts towards them. I think that dehumanization is far more dangerous then hate. In our history, it has been what allowed mass genocides like in WWII, the near extermination of Native Americans, and things like slavery.


----------



## loki09789

On the point of professionalism and personal responsibility as the source of such attrocities and not the big bad military machine, there are more than one account of SF forces during the first gulf war who were comprimised on missions by children and old men out herding goats or what not.  These SF forces could have simply shot these people and would have been justified by military technicallity, but they didn't.  They either detained them, refused to shoot even in light of the consequences, or simply left.

I think imposing your will whether through violence or in general, regardless of war, is dehumanizing to a degree.  We 'dehumanize'  children in order to punish them or justify creating stress and discomfort in their lives as consequence to inappropriate behavior.  If we over empathized, we would never take any corrective actions.

In war, the act of dehumanization is stock and trade, just as it is in martial arts training for reality.


----------



## Cruentus

Side Note here: I am not rebuking the military at all by talking about "dehumanization." This is just a product of both training and war. I do believe that soldiers certianly intend to do more good then harm.

Not that anyone said I was rebuking the military, but I just wanted to clear that up.

Attrocity is a bi-product of combat stress and "dehumanization." Combat Stress and "Dehumanization" are both bi-products of war. 

My question still is, what can we actually DO about it?

 :asian:


----------



## loki09789

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Remember too, that these detention guards aren't in 'combat stress' conditions as much as they are the equivelant of Corrections Officers. The Stress syndrome excuse, the fatigue excuse and all that is BS as far as I am concerned. My old MP unit had the EPW/POW mission before it was redesignated to general/combat support missions. POW camp mission is almost like a regular job at times.
> 
> These individuals got too high on the amount of control they have over these prisoners and basically were the same as a predator playing with their food. This is different in nature to battlefield attrocities because the stress and fatigue and the environment is very different. That is not to say that any of these actions are to be tolerated.
> 
> What do we do? We, as in you and I, very little. They, as in the powers that be, review the training, the leadership and the schedule.... and make sure that the system you have set in place isn't the problem. If it is, fix it. If it isn't, did the NCO's / Officer's follow said procedures. If they did, and they can prove it, did the troops responsible KNOW what they were doing was wrong, if so nail them to the wall within the UCMJ.


This part of my last post addresses my view of what was going on in these cases and my answer to the what can we do question.


----------



## Cruentus

loki09789 said:
			
		

> This part of my last post addresses my view of what was going on in these cases and my answer to the what can we do question.



Those solutions sound like a good start.


----------



## Makalakumu

Well, I listened to the Senate hearing with Secratary Rumsfeld.  It looks like military intelligence ordered the MP brigade to do the things they did.  The purpose was for interrogation.  Now what?  What if this is systemic?  How far does this go up the chain of command?  Mr. Rumsfeld himself dodged mightily when Senator McCain questioned him directly, "Who was in charge of these soldiers?"


----------



## Makalakumu

More Information...

It looks like intelligence agencies were in charge of the interrogations and that these soldiers were ordered to commit these acts.  The interviews from the actual soldiers involved state that the pictures were taken to provide documentation of these orders.  (of course this does not explain why some of the soldiers are smiling and posing)

Starting in WWII the CIA began a program called Mind Kontrolle Ultra.  This program was reputedly discontinued and declassified a while ago.  If you look at this document...

http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm

The treatment of Iraqi prisoners for information purposes is neatly spelled out as MKU dogma.  Perhaps this program has not dissappeared entirely.

What does this mean for us?


----------



## MJS

I'm a little late to this thread, and I didnt read everybodies post, so if this was something that was already touched on, forgive me.  

It just amazes me how this entire thing gets blown up.  You have American workers there, that get killed, mutilated, dragged through the streets, and hung from a bridge, with a nice pic. of the happy Iraqi killers laughing, but something happens to them, and oh my God...they protest, etc.  Is there a difference here? Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying what we did, if its true, is right, I'm simply saying that these people have some nerve to make such a mountain out of this.  

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

MJS,

First of all, "if it's true," is kind of a crazy thing to say, IMHO, considering we have the photo's to prove it. Plus, attrocities happened in war...go back and read my previous posts that explained why. Yes, they happened on both sides, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I think the wrong thing to do would be to make up excuses like, "They do bad things to us to!" The wrong thing, also, would be to demonize out entire military because of the wrong doings of a few. The right thing to do would be to try to think of some solutions to the problem.


----------



## Makalakumu

As more and more evidence becomes apparent, the saying "It was only the wrong doings of a few bad apples" sounds more like wishful thinking.  As of this moment, International Red Cross reports from last year are surfacing that bespoke of widespread prisoner abuse.  Many of these reports including the Pentagon's own investigations have been circulating the Defense Department since January.  And everyone accused so far has been pointing up the chain of command.  I think this could become something truly scandalous.  Secratary Rumsfeld himself hinted at such, "There will be more pictures, more perpetrators and you can expect this to get much much worse..." in his hearing before Congress.


----------



## MA-Caver

artyon: 
*Hey! Just wondering... * has anybody noticed how _quickly and quietly_ the 9/11 investigation got buried in light of all the "horrible" abuse those poor iraqi's are getting ???  :idunno:


----------



## MJS

Tulisan said:
			
		

> MJS,
> 
> First of all, "if it's true," is kind of a crazy thing to say, IMHO, considering we have the photo's to prove it. Plus, attrocities happened in war...go back and read my previous posts that explained why. Yes, they happened on both sides, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> I think the wrong thing to do would be to make up excuses like, "They do bad things to us to!" The wrong thing, also, would be to demonize out entire military because of the wrong doings of a few. The right thing to do would be to try to think of some solutions to the problem.



Just seems odd that the photos have just surfaced now, and how long has this war been going on???   Where were all these photos before?? Dont misundertand what I'm saying here.  I am NOT saying what happened is right, or that they treated us badly so why not do it to them.  What I am saying is, I didnt see all of this coverage and investigation going on when our guys were dragged through the street.  

Mike


----------



## MJS

MACaver said:
			
		

> artyon:
> *Hey! Just wondering... * has anybody noticed how _quickly and quietly_ the 9/11 investigation got buried in light of all the "horrible" abuse those poor iraqi's are getting ???  :idunno:



Of course.  A new 'flavor of the week' was just put out in the open!!!

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu

MACaver said:
			
		

> artyon:
> *Hey! Just wondering... * has anybody noticed how _quickly and quietly_ the 9/11 investigation got buried in light of all the "horrible" abuse those poor iraqi's are getting ???  :idunno:



Ooooo...you are a dangerous man who sees to clearly.

 :jedi1:


----------



## Rick Wade

First and formost I don't condone the actions our servicemen did!

    However with that being said we should have handeled it on a level inside of the Army.  I still think the Solders should be courts martialed.  However (and this is the part were I will get in trouble) it kills me to see how liberal the American people are I am not condoning what we did to those prisoners.  But that isn't half as bad as what other countries do to our prisoners.  We don't cry out rage or demand justice.  Much less do we get to sit in on their punishment hearings (like the guards would ever go to a hearing).  
    Since this all public now why are the commanding Officers or Commanding Generals being held to the same code that the Soldiers are being held to?  I know this probably doesn't make sense to civilians but in the military even if you didn't perform the action you are still held responsible for your subordinates actions.  

Here lies the problem with embeded reporters.

This all leaked out because a Soldier got to be friends with a reporter and showed him the photos.  

While we are at it why doen't we just embed McDonalds to at least our Soldiers could be happy.

Respectfully
RWE


----------



## marshallbd

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> First and formost I don't condone the actions our servicemen did!
> 
> However with that being said we should have handeled it on a level inside of the Army.  I still think the Solders should be courts martialed.  However (and this is the part were I will get in trouble) it kills me to see how liberal the American people are I am not condoning what we did to those prisoners.  But that isn't half as bad as what other countries do to our prisoners.  We don't cry out rage or demand justice.  Much less do we get to sit in on their punishment hearings (like the guards would ever go to a hearing).
> Since this all public now why are the commanding Officers or Commanding Generals being held to the same code that the Soldiers are being held to?  I know this probably doesn't make sense to civilians but in the military even if you didn't perform the action you are still held responsible for your subordinates actions.
> 
> Here lies the problem with embeded reporters.
> 
> This all leaked out because a Soldier got to be friends with a reporter and showed him the photos.
> 
> While we are at it why doen't we just embed McDonalds to at least our Soldiers could be happy.
> 
> Respectfully
> RWE


Are you saying that the MP who turned the abuse of these prisoners in did the "WRONG THING"?  We as a nation cannot condone such reprehensible acts as these and then expect our enemies to treat our POW's in a humane manner as the Geneva Convention stipulates.  These Soldiers who perpetrated these acts should be punished publicly and swiftly.  It shows the resolve of the US to keep this conflict/war/police action conducted in the manner prescribed by the Geneva Convention and international law governing war and conflict.  Public or not, do you think this treatment would remain a secret?  It would get out to enemy combatants, exagerated, and then our people who get captured would be treated worse than they already are....it would snowball..... :asian:   Just my humble opinion..... :asian:


----------



## michaeledward

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> First and formost I don't condone the actions our servicemen did!
> 
> However with that being said we should have handeled it on a level inside of the Army. I still think the Solders should be courts martialed. However (and this is the part were I will get in trouble) it kills me to see how liberal the American people are I am not condoning what we did to those prisoners. But that isn't half as bad as what other countries do to our prisoners. We don't cry out rage or demand justice. Much less do we get to sit in on their punishment hearings (like the guards would ever go to a hearing).
> Since this all public now why are the commanding Officers or Commanding Generals being held to the same code that the Soldiers are being held to? I know this probably doesn't make sense to civilians but in the military even if you didn't perform the action you are still held responsible for your subordinates actions.
> 
> Here lies the problem with embeded reporters.
> 
> This all leaked out because a Soldier got to be friends with a reporter and showed him the photos.
> 
> While we are at it why doen't we just embed McDonalds to at least our Soldiers could be happy.
> 
> Respectfully
> RWE


You're kidding right ...  "*it kills me to see how liberal the American people are*" ... what does this have to do with 'liberal' or anything else?

The Bush administration have been claiming for months now that conquering of the nation of Iraq took place because of the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein (they are trying so hard to have the invasion not be about Weapons of Mass Destruction) ... and now *WE* get caught abusing human rights. How do you expect anyone to react ... 'Do as we say, not as we do' ?

This has nothing to do with embedded journalists. There was an extrememly courageous whistle-blower - and he was a soldier, not a reporter.

Activities of this type were to be expected. War is a messy business. The specific details were unknowable, but bad behavior is not unanticipated.

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death

marshallbd said:
			
		

> Are you saying that the MP who turned the abuse of these prisoners in did the "WRONG THING"?  We as a nation cannot condone such reprehensible acts as these and then expect our enemies to treat our POW's in a humane manner as the Geneva Convention stipulates.  These Soldiers who perpetrated these acts should be punished publicly and swiftly.  It shows the resolve of the US to keep this conflict/war/police action conducted in the manner prescribed by the Geneva Convention and international law governing war and conflict.  Public or not, do you think this treatment would remain a secret?  It would get out to enemy combatants, exagerated, and then our people who get captured would be treated worse than they already are....it would snowball..... :asian:   Just my humble opinion..... :asian:


I would say he did the wrong thing. If anyone should be court martialed, it should be the soldier leaking info to the press! As for the woman, she posed for a couple of shots at the urging of her boyfreind. A quick smile and a thumbs up is not systematic abuse. Her mere presence was by design; so, lay off that one. This has been under investigation since january and the military would have dealt with it. I don't see the good in having the whole world condem the US because of this. Don't get me wrong I enjoy watching the republicans squirm, but the damge the leak caused may cost more American lives than you can stomach, and you can weigh that against some guy with a pair of panties on his head.
Sean


----------



## marshallbd

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I would say he did the wrong thing. If anyone should be court martialed, it should be the soldier leaking info to the press! As for the woman, she posed for a couple of shots at the urging of her boyfreind. A quick smile and a thumbs up is not systematic abuse. Her mere presence was by design; so, lay off that one. This has been under investigation since january and the military would have dealt with it. I don't see the good in having the whole world condem the US because of this. Don't get me wrong I enjoy watching the republicans squirm, but the damge the leak caused may cost more American lives than you can stomach, and you can weigh that against some guy with a pair of panties on his head.
> Sean


Have you been in that particular region of the world?  What we are dealing with is a large population of people who are fanatical when they believe they are wronged and NO JUSTICE is given.  The MP who blew the whistle is a hero in my book for doing what he believed to be THE RIGHT THING TO DO!  I agree that this could be/will be damaging to the troops that are there, but when punishments are meted out and that is made public it will help to regain the trust that this incident has lost us as a nation.  THE GENEVA CONVENTION MUST BE ADHERED TO!!!  I dont care if you like or dislike these people in Iraq, they are human beings and must be treated as such..... :asian:


----------



## MisterMike

I think there is a difference because the president of Iraq ordered human rights violations and the president of the U.S. did not. People seem to equate the actions of a few soldiers to mean the U.S. intended it.

Second, most of these guys would not have been in jail if they simply'd thrown down their weapons after Saddam was caught. Obviously they still suported him and his type of leadership. I don't think they are going to like/hate us any more than they do already - and I don't really care. Let's just get the oil flowing to pay for this mess...


----------



## marshallbd

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think there is a difference because the president of Iraq ordered human rights violations and the president of the U.S. did not. People seem to equate the actions of a few soldiers to mean the U.S. intended it....


But if you were not here in this country and you saw this on the news what would you think?  What do you think the Iraqi people thought when they saw the things we had to say about Saddam? Did they believe it or was it just propaganda to them?



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Second, most of these guys would not have been in jail if they simply'd thrown down their weapons after Saddam was caught....


True.... 





			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Obviously they still suported him and his type of leadership. I don't think they are going to like/hate us any more than they do already - and I don't really care. Let's just get the oil flowing to pay for this mess...


See my first point.....this could be why....or maybe they are all just fried from the desert heat? :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death

marshallbd said:
			
		

> Have you been in that particular region of the world?  What we are dealing with is a large population of people who are fanatical when they believe they are wronged and NO JUSTICE is given.  The MP who blew the whistle is a hero in my book for doing what he believed to be THE RIGHT THING TO DO!  I agree that this could be/will be damaging to the troops that are there, but when punishments are meted out and that is made public it will help to regain the trust that this incident has lost us as a nation.  THE GENEVA CONVENTION MUST BE ADHERED TO!!!  I dont care if you like or dislike these people in Iraq, they are human beings and must be treated as such..... :asian:


Remind the US never to give you a security clearance. There will be no damage control now. Soldiers do not leak even the worst military secrets to the press. I say the interogations were bad and the wing of the military involved will remain untouched. The real issue is the MP and his freindship with the reporter.
Sean


----------



## MisterMike

marshallbd said:
			
		

> But if you were not here in this country and you saw this on the news what would you think?  What do you think the Iraqi people thought when they saw the things we had to say about Saddam? Did they believe it or was it just propaganda to them?
> 
> True.... See my first point.....this could be why....or maybe they are all just fried from the desert heat? :asian:



True, if they saw this on the news they may think ALL Americans are this way, but the thing is, people are saying it here from within this country.


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think there is a difference because the president of Iraq ordered human rights violations and the president of the U.S. did not. People seem to equate the actions of a few soldiers to mean the U.S. intended it.
> 
> Second, most of these guys would not have been in jail if they simply'd thrown down their weapons after Saddam was caught. Obviously they still suported him and his type of leadership. I don't think they are going to like/hate us any more than they do already - and I don't really care. Let's just get the oil flowing to pay for this mess...


Unfortuneately, I think you are not correct. According to the Red Cross, as many as 90 % of the imprisoned are there for no reason, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.



> _The Associated Press_ says the Red Cross contradicts President George W. Bush's claims that abuses were "the wrongdoing of a few." Instead, abuse of prisoners by American soldiers -- at Abu Ghraib and at more than ten other facilities [!] observed -- was widespread and routine. Among other horrors, this included having some mauled by military dogs. And all of this was visited upon people who, *the Red Cross says, shouldn't have been in jail in the first place, because the majority of them had been arrested apparently at random*.


----------



## marshallbd

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Remind the US never to give you a security clearance. There will be no damage control now. Soldiers do not leak even the worst military secrets to the press. I say the interogations were bad and the wing of the military involved will remain untouched. The real issue is the MP and his freindship with the reporter.
> Sean


First of all, I am a Master Sergeant in the USAF reserve, I served 9 years on active duty before transfering to the reserves to pursue a career in Law Enforcement. I served proudly in Somalia, Desert Storm, Turkey (Operation Provide Comfort) and Bosnia as part of the United Nations Peace Keeping Force. 

Secondly, I hold and have held for the last 17 years a Top Secret Security clearance, and have served as a Department of Defense Courier transporting  Two Person Control Material of a Sensitive Compartmental nature.  

From what I read, and I could be wrong, the MP did not leak it to the press, but instead reported the abuse to his superiors.  Unfortunately there was an embedded reporter there who ran with it and here we are.  If the MP who blew the whistle gave the info directly to the press then he too should be court martialed.  However if he reported to his superiors the abuse he saw (as I have to believe he did) then he IS a HERO for stopping this un-necessary abuse.  Please do not question my patriotism or sense of duty again.... :asian:


----------



## Rick Wade

As far as my liberal comment those Iraqi prisoners were not tortured!  They were humiliated.  When Jessica Lynch said she was taken advantage of everyone said thats not true you were in a lot of pain and on heavy drugs your memory isn't right.  When the Air Force General (Female I can't remember her name) was shot down She was raped repeatedly you never heard that in the mainstream media.  Does anyone remember Scott Spiker?  We didn't cry outrage when he was taken in the first war.  He wasn't even returned to us same country different war.  I was there January 19 2001 when the war started.  It wasn't pretty.  We as Americans have a much better society than Iraq lets remember that lets not cry outrage and keep dragging this out.  Lets punish those Soldiers and get on with it.  

Second no I am not saying what the solider did (the one that leaked it) was wrong I'm just saying that their lies the problems with embedded reporters.  We as American think we want to know everything that goes on but we really don't.  I am here to tell you that war isn't pretty.  It is sticky, smelly mess. Do you want to see one of our Seals sneak up behind a guard and kill him quietly so that he won't make any noise?  

Yes I do feel like what our Soldiers did was conduct unbecoming in the face of the enemy and they should be prosecuted.  However why aren't their Commanding Officers and Generals also being held responsible?


In closing This will be my last entry on this topic because I know my view isn't a popular one.  I won't even return to this thread as it brings back some really bad memories.  If anyone wants to discuss this any more PM me I can talk about this one on one.

Very Respectfully


----------



## Touch Of Death

marshallbd said:
			
		

> First of all, I am a Master Sergeant in the USAF reserve, I served 9 years on active duty before transfering to the reserves to pursue a career in Law Enforcement. I served proudly in Somalia, Desert Storm, Turkey (Operation Provide Comfort) and Bosnia as part of the United Nations Peace Keeping Force.
> 
> Secondly, I hold and have held for the last 17 years a Top Secret Security clearance, and have served as a Department of Defense Courier transporting  Two Person Control Material of a Sensitive Compartmental nature.
> 
> From what I read, and I could be wrong, the MP did not leak it to the press, but instead reported the abuse to his superiors.  Unfortunately there was an embedded reporter there who ran with it and here we are.  If the MP who blew the whistle gave the info directly to the press then he too should be court martialed.  However if he reported to his superiors the abuse he saw (as I have to believe he did) then he IS a HERO for stopping this un-necessary abuse.  Please do not question my patriotism or sense of duty again.... :asian:


well as I have stated the military was dealing with the issue just fine until that reporter turned it into a circus. The individual responible for handing that reporter the photos is a traitor. 
Sean


----------



## marshallbd

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> Yes I do feel like what our Soldiers did was conduct unbecoming in the face of the enemy and they should be prosecuted.  However why aren't their Commanding Officers and Generals also being held responsible?


I too feel that punishment in this case should flow up as well as down.... :asian:


----------



## Ceicei

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> well as I have stated the military was dealing with the issue just fine until that reporter turned it into a circus. The individual responible for handing that reporter the photos is a traitor.
> Sean


A traitor? To whom? Media does have a way of forcing the hand to be revealed at the card table and ending the game.

Since the military superiors did get the information about the abuse earlier, they were working on trying to resolve the issue (but probably not fast enough). Sooner or later, the information (including the pictures) would have got out somehow to the media. Better it be done sooner than later, as the damage would be much worse had the problem dragged on longer. Even then, it would have been a circus either way. 

Now suppose the military did take care of the problem and cleaned it up *before* all this leaked to the media, would it have made any difference? Perhaps a bit, but the media would have run with the story anyway and trust would still have been damaged in the process--and I can hear people yell "conspiracy" and "cover up". Remember what happened when the reality of certain war time events popped up years later long after wars have ended?

- Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei

marshallbd said:
			
		

> I too feel that punishment in this case should flow up as well as down.... :asian:


Yes, I agree.

- Ceicei


----------



## marshallbd

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> well as I have stated the military was dealing with the issue just fine until that reporter turned it into a circus. The individual responible for handing that reporter the photos is a traitor.
> Sean


Besides, the pictures would have surfaced any way....Can you say Freedom of Information Act? :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death

marshallbd said:
			
		

> Besides, the pictures would have surfaced any way....Can you say Freedom of Information Act? :asian:


well, the first American was just beheaded, you guys decide if it was better now than later.
Sean


----------



## Rick Wade

marshallbd said:
			
		

> Besides, the pictures would have surfaced any way....Can you say Freedom of Information Act? :asian:




OK I lied.  I'm back sorry shoot me I got an email and couldn't resist.

Those pictures that surfaced were PERSONAL pictures.  The Freedom of information act does not apply.  Freedom of information act only applies to offical government documents.  You are still watching to much mainstream media.  

Respectfully
Richard English
Chief Petty Officer, USN (active)


----------



## marshallbd

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> well, the first American was just beheaded, you guys decide if it was better now than later.
> Sean


Either way it's not a good situation.....First let me say my prayers go out to the family of the American that was just killed in that video....Secondly, I think that the FANATICS would have found another reason to kill him, this one was just convenient and at the right time for thier agenda.....

All I am trying to say is that the abuse needed to be brought to light and now that it has been it needs to be dealt with, swiftly, and harshly.... :asian:


----------



## marshallbd

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> OK I lied.  I'm back sorry shoot me I got an email and couldn't resist.
> 
> Those pictures that surfaced were PERSONAL pictures.  The Freedom of information act does not apply.  Freedom of information act only applies to offical government documents.  You are still watching to much mainstream media.
> 
> Respectfully
> Richard English
> Chief Petty Officer, USN (active)


Chief, you are partially correct,  those pictures WERE personal property until they became the property of the US Government in the course of the investigation.  Once that occured they became subject to the FOIA.... The only thing that could have kept them safe from the FOIA would have been to make them classified.... :asian:


----------



## Rick Wade

marshallbd said:
			
		

> Chief, you are partially correct,  those pictures WERE personal property until they became the property of the US Government in the course of the investigation.  Once that occured they became subject to the FOIA.... The only thing that could have kept them safe from the FOIA would have been to make them classified.... :asian:



We are starting to see eye to eye.  The problem is we couldn't make them classified because.  They went from the Soldiers hands to the media, published and then to the government.  Then the investigation started.  Then they found more evidence and found more photos and the second group of photos was classified and will not be shown.  If you listen to the news they said that President Bush would not release more photos because they were to graphic.


----------



## MisterMike

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Unfortuneately, I think you are not correct. According to the Red Cross, as many as 90 % of the imprisoned are there for no reason, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.



So the Red Cross was there when they were arrested or captured eh? After what I have seen from them, their numbers couldn't be trusted at all at this point.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Astonishing. 

I am glad to see that folks have so quickly picked up on the Secretary of Defense's lunatic claim that the problem is the PICTURES, the problem is the REPORTERS. 

It's remarkable that some have so weak a notion of the role of a free press in a democracy. It's remarkable that some would actually claim that the media should keep silent about TORTURE (I am capitalizing because, apparently, the fact of TORTURE doesn't seem to garner quite the attention that I was brought up to believe it should) in some phony, "national interest." 

I had this wacky idea that part of the reason for a free press--learned this in public schools in rural Maryland, 1958 to about 1964, hardly any radical hotbed--was that, in a DEMOCRACY, it is in the national interest to bring the abuses of the government to the light as quickly as possible. Beyond that, I had this wacky idea that TORTURE was wrong--learned that in Bible class, about the same time.

It is depressing to see people with so little knowledge of the history of their institutions, so little awareness of the reasons for a free press, and so little faith in their own country and its citizens, that they cheerfully throw out core ideas and principles that people have died for. Now that is un-American. 

And the assertions that the AMERICAN RED CROSS is just making this stuff up--to quote Twain, "Oh, carry me home to die, mother."


----------



## Touch Of Death

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Astonishing.
> 
> I am glad to see that folks have so quickly picked up on the Secretary of Defense's lunatic claim that the problem is the PICTURES, the problem is the REPORTERS.
> 
> It's remarkable that some have so weak a notion of the role of a free press in a democracy. It's remarkable that some would actually claim that the media should keep silent about TORTURE (I am capitalizing because, apparently, the fact of TORTURE doesn't seem to garner quite the attention that I was brought up to believe it should) in some phony, "national interest."
> 
> I had this wacky idea that part of the reason for a free press--learned this in public schools in rural Maryland, 1958 to about 1964, hardly any radical hotbed--was that, in a DEMOCRACY, it is in the national interest to bring the abuses of the government to the light as quickly as possible. Beyond that, I had this wacky idea that TORTURE was wrong--learned that in Bible class, about the same time.
> 
> It is depressing to see people with so little knowledge of the history of their institutions, so little awareness of the reasons for a free press, and so little faith in their own country and its citizens, that they cheerfully throw out core ideas and principles that people have died for. Now that is un-American.
> 
> And the assertions that the AMERICAN RED CROSS is just making this stuff up--to quote Twain, "Oh, carry me home to die, mother."


Well I don't know Robert the "Military" I was in didn't allow soldiers to free flow info to the press, and how dare you call stripping people naked and putting a dog collar or panties on someones head torture. The rapes were carried out by Iraqis and any American involvment is then torture. This is frathouse stuff. If you want to see "real" torture, just watch some vids the Iraqis are going to release over the next few months.
Sean


----------



## Rick Wade

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Well I don't know Robert the "Military" I was in didn't allow soldiers to free flow info to the press, and how dare you call stripping people naked and putting a dog collar or panties on someones head torture. The rapes were carried out by Iraqis and any American involvment is then torture. This is frathouse stuff. If you want to see "real" torture, just watch some vids the Iraqis are going to release over the next few months.
> Sean



What have these time come to TOD and I actually agree.  

Torture would be bamboo shoot under the fingernails snipping off a digit of each finger until you told them what they wanted to hear.  Real torture isn't something that most american can stomach to hear about much less be able to watch.  Those prisoners of war were humiliated not tortured.  I have had more torture in a Kenpo Technique line than what those prinoners went through.


----------



## Cruentus

> I am glad to see that folks have so quickly picked up on the Secretary of Defense's lunatic claim that the problem is the PICTURES, the problem is the REPORTERS.



And that's what I ment about making excuses. The world is expected to except our attrocities because they are somehow more humane then identical attrocities of the third world. Also, too many people think along the lines of, "Attrocities happened in war on both sides, but we don't need the media reporting on attrocities that we commit!" We're so used to the media being used as a tool to manufacture our idea's that when they report outside our little idyllectic box, then we object. 

I know it's hard, but I am waiting for people to climb outside the box to start thinking critically here. Yea, I know attrocities are committed by both sides. But, we can't make someone else stop their attrocities while they are in power, however we can do something about the way we handle things so that attrocities don't occur from our end. I believe that the U.S. is highly effecient in training it's soldiers; I believe that we have the capeabilities to train our soldiers in such a way that will reduce the attrocities from our side.

If anything, it is important for us to treat our prisoners humanely for strategic purposes. It has been proven that when the enemy believes that he will get humane treatment from his captors, then he is more likely to surrendor, meaning less casualties for both sides. This is a human condition, regardless of race or creed. When the enemy believes that they will be killed or tortured upon capture, they are far more likely to fight til the death, causing more inevitable casualties on themselves and their captors. Knowing this, how many of YOU would like to argue with me on my conjecture that most Fundamentalist Muslims would rather die then be treated like those men were treated in those photos? How many of you would bet against the probability that the photos (all over the same news that they get as well) will be used as propiganda to convince Muslim Men that this is what will happened if your captured by the americans?

So, for those of you who want to blow this off, yet claim to be "patriots," should really re-think the damage this has done to our own national security and credability, not to mention the moral and ethical problems.

As to blaming the reporters and whistleblowers....please. You gotta wonder why someone in the military would feel compelled to whistle blow his own buddies, considering that you can develop more comradary on active military duty then you could any where else. I think it's a bit hasty and illogical to think that the whistleblower is the one who is the traitor here, and is the one who is at fault; if the inhumane treatment was as bad as the pictures and accounts depict and nothing was being done about it, then what was he supposed to do? What was he supposed to do if his superiors weren't taking care of the problem? This man may very well be a bigger patriot then you might think.

Instead of blaming the reporters and the whistleblower, lets put blame where it belongs. Those men involved in that kind of torture are the real "traitors," when you consider the multitude of problems this causes us as a nation.

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Well I don't know Robert the "Military" I was in didn't allow soldiers to free flow info to the press, and how dare you call stripping people naked and putting a dog collar or panties on someones head torture. The rapes were carried out by Iraqis and any American involvment is then torture. This is frathouse stuff. If you want to see "real" torture, just watch some vids the Iraqis are going to release over the next few months.
> Sean



Sorry...I gotta disagree with you and Rick.

Do you think those men piled up on each other nude, and posed for phalatio pics because the U.S. soldiers politely asked them too? Sorry...these men were beaten and tortured into submission. There are many accounts of beatings and physical damage far beyond what you see in the photo's.

How would you feel if someone came over your house, made you strip down, get on your knee's, and give some guy Falatio...but "just for the picture"? I doubt any of you guys would be writing "frathouse prank" to describe the event on the police report.

The Iraqi soldiers went through physical abuse.... or TORTURE...plain and simple. To say it isn't torture because we don't have pictures of what the vietcong did to our U.S. soldiers is the same logic as, "Well...sure he took your $30K honda...but that's not stealing! I heard about another guy who took a mercades that was worth $75K!" Sorry...stealing is stealing and torture is torture.

My momma always told me that 2 wrongs don't make a right, anyways.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tulisan said:
			
		

> And that's what I ment about making excuses. The world is expected to except our attrocities because they are somehow more humane then identical attrocities of the third world. Also, too many people think along the lines of, "Attrocities happened in war on both sides, but we don't need the media reporting on attrocities that we commit!" We're so used to the media being used as a tool to manufacture our idea's that when they report outside our little idyllectic box, then we object.
> 
> I know it's hard, but I am waiting for people to climb outside the box to start thinking critically here. Yea, I know attrocities are committed by both sides. But, we can't make someone else stop their attrocities while they are in power, however we can do something about the way we handle things so that attrocities don't occur from our end. I believe that the U.S. is highly effecient in training it's soldiers; I believe that we have the capeabilities to train our soldiers in such a way that will reduce the attrocities from our side.
> 
> If anything, it is important for us to treat our prisoners humanely for strategic purposes. It has been proven that when the enemy believes that he will get humane treatment from his captors, then he is more likely to surrendor, meaning less casualties for both sides. This is a human condition, regardless of race or creed. When the enemy believes that they will be killed or tortured upon capture, they are far more likely to fight til the death, causing more inevitable casualties on themselves and their captors. Knowing this, how many of YOU would like to argue with me on my conjecture that most Fundamentalist Muslims would rather die then be treated like those men were treated in those photos? How many of you would bet against the probability that the photos (all over the same news that they get as well) will be used as propiganda to convince Muslim Men that this is what will happened if your captured by the americans?
> 
> So, for those of you who want to blow this off, yet claim to be "patriots," should really re-think the damage this has done to our own national security and credability, not to mention the moral and ethical problems.
> 
> As to blaming the reporters and whistleblowers....please. You gotta wonder why someone in the military would feel compelled to whistle blow his own buddies, considering that you can develop more comradary on active military duty then you could any where else. I think it's a bit hasty and illogical to think that the whistleblower is the one who is the traitor here, and is the one who is at fault; if the inhumane treatment was as bad as the pictures and accounts depict and nothing was being done about it, then what was he supposed to do? What was he supposed to do if his superiors weren't taking care of the problem? This man may very well be a bigger patriot then you might think.
> 
> Instead of blaming the reporters and the whistleblower, lets put blame where it belongs. Those men involved in that kind of torture are the real "traitors," when you consider the multitude of problems this causes us as a nation.
> 
> PAUL


Well, did he go to the Chaplain? Did he refuse to participate until he felt something was being done? or did he just hand the photos to his "freind". We will find out those answers someday, but I will lean toward, "no". A hero would have thought about American lives at stake, and waited until a safer time. Your argument for combatants surrendering more easily is the same argument for not having the death penalty. (nothing to lose mentality) Just for my own info do you believe in the death penalty?
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Sorry...I gotta disagree with you and Rick.
> 
> Do you think those men piled up on each other nude, and posed for phalatio pics because the U.S. soldiers politely asked them too? Sorry...these men were beaten and tortured into submission. There are many accounts of beatings and physical damage far beyond what you see in the photo's.
> 
> How would you feel if someone came over your house, made you strip down, get on your knee's, and give some guy Falatio...but "just for the picture"? I doubt any of you guys would be writing "frathouse prank" to describe the event on the police report.
> 
> The Iraqi soldiers went through physical abuse.... or TORTURE...plain and simple. To say it isn't torture because we don't have pictures of what the vietcong did to our U.S. soldiers is the same logic as, "Well...sure he took your $30K honda...but that's not stealing! I heard about another guy who took a mercades that was worth $75K!" Sorry...stealing is stealing and torture is torture.
> 
> My momma always told me that 2 wrongs don't make a right, anyways.


watch the news over the next couple of months. Your about to be shown the difference.
Sean


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Humiliation not torture?  Tell that to a kid who has gone through much the same thing, and is FUBARED for life because of it. Let's say it is, somehow, not torture....

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS!!!

I was taught Good Guys don't pull this kinda crap. It is not a humane, decent way for members of civilized society to treat another human being. And if we are there in a war on terror, then why are we acting like the dictator we deposed?  I offer this, based on shyte that happened in Gulf 1 that got minimal play: What we get caught doing is only a fraction of what has actually been gettin'done.  If we do not take a stance against mans inhumanity to man with our own nations troops, how can we justify using them to stop anothers' inhumanity towards man?

Marines & Navy guys reading this who've been to the Phillipines...do you remember Shiyt River? Those acts of indecent behavior by our troops were on the children of allies.  What kind of heinous crap do you suppose the yahoo's from the appalachians, pumped up by the intra-military propaganda machine to hate all things Arab, have dreamt up to do to captives under their care?

I would like to imagine that, at some point in time, the U.S. will be able to actually behave in a manner consistent with its professed values.

Dave


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> watch the news over the next couple of months. Your about to be shown the difference.
> Sean


TOD --

So we take the gloves off the SEAL'S & Delta guys, give the CIA back a dirty tricks department, and hunt down the perps who drag our soldiers through the streets to hack off their heads and bury them with bacon.  That is a problem-focused solution, consistent with the conduct of war.  

Tormenting naked Iraqi prisoners is not.


----------



## Matt Stone

I'm a soldier, have been for the better part of the last decade and a half.  I've been infantry, cavalry, and now I ride a desk in the Army JAG Corps.

I've seen both sides of the issue - wanting to do horrible things to the enemy in retaliation for wrongs committed against our troops, and defending the actions of an enemy against our troops.

I understand fully why the Iraqis are upset.  They have every right.  What upsets me are the _Americans_ that are so upset at the "atrocities" they allege our troops have committed...  Genocide is an atrocity.  Killing innocent civilians is an atrocity.  Taking embarassing and humiliating pictures isn't an atrocity any more than PVT Lynch was a hero...

Notice how this "news story" has had nearly 2 weeks of headline coverage?  How many days were devoted to the 4 contractors who were killed, burned, and hung from a bridge?  About 2.  How many of you that protest the "atrocities" at this prison were aware of the murder of an American civilian, the beheading of whom was videotaped and then posted on the Al Jazeera network's website?

Yeah, not much newsworthy about _that_ in an election year...

We haven't been attacked again on our soil since 9/11.  We have lost hundreds of soldiers in this war, and the Iraqis have lost even more.  But let's try really, really hard not to forget the several *thousand* that lost their lives when this whole party got started...  Maybe the Iraqis weren't responsible for 9/11, but they sure didn't go out of their way to keep themselves out of our crosshairs (note that Khadafy made darn sure we knew he was bending over backwards to help our cause, and he used to be one of our main enemies).  I'm glad, personally, that at least one of our leaders got off his duff and drew a line in the sand instead of across someone's blouse.  There are certainly far more complex reasons for our presence in Iraq, I'm sure at least some of them deal with the oil in Iraq - I'm not naive.  But there is still good in this fight, still a righteousness for toppling a real tyrant whose documented legitimate atrocities against _his own people_ that can't be denied...

There is a guy from E-budo that is on the ground in Iraq...  Hearing what he says _from the front line_ kind of conflicts with a lot of the propaganda the liberal media would like to put into the ears of the American public...  The folks he deals with _*daily*_ are very happy that Sadaam is out of power, that his reign of terror is over.  They are looking forward to having a say in their own country's government.  Not exactly what CNN or Fox shows every night, is it?  Of course not, because that'd make Kerry look like an a$$ and lend credence to Bush's cause.

There is always an extreme to every situation, an extreme to either side's opinion.  What I've found, though, is when you weigh both sides, the Truth is found somewhere in the middle...

Survivor of a poorly led convoy does *not* equal hero.

Actions by a few individuals do *not* equal the behavior of many.

Keep it in perspective people, whether you agree with the war or not.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Proposal:  Take the SOG lifers, the ones who are too unstable to release into the mainstream, so are left to operate in the brush in places we supposedly are not militarily active... give them their own battalion, with orders to hunt down and behead all who pull terrorist killings against Americans.  Give them a huge pocket book, and all the social support they need, and make them the feared sword of U.S. vengeance.

Conversely, make a similar group whose job it is to route out the egits from US military, and deal them a swift end, too.  How many of these bozo's, over there and over here, do you think would continue if the evening news was filled with images of heads on stakes?  Ever been to the gold markets of Saudi Arabia during prayer?  The absolute conviction of consequences does, whether in a good way or not, shape and effect behavior.

Let the terroristas know...no trials, no forums or pulpits from which to be heard...just a head on a stake. Let our troops know, maybe not the head on a stake, but certain punishment with definite and pre-determined prison time. Watch the crap halt.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> I'm a soldier, have been for the better part of the last decade and a half.  I've been infantry, cavalry, and now I ride a desk in the Army JAG Corps.
> 
> I've seen both sides of the issue - wanting to do horrible things to the enemy in retaliation for wrongs committed against our troops, and defending the actions of an enemy against our troops.
> 
> I understand fully why the Iraqis are upset.  They have every right.  What upsets me are the _Americans_ that are so upset at the "atrocities" they allege our troops have committed...  Genocide is an atrocity.  Killing innocent civilians is an atrocity.  Taking embarassing and humiliating pictures isn't an atrocity any more than PVT Lynch was a hero...
> 
> Notice how this "news story" has had nearly 2 weeks of headline coverage?  How many days were devoted to the 4 contractors who were killed, burned, and hung from a bridge?  About 2.  How many of you that protest the "atrocities" at this prison were aware of the murder of an American civilian, the beheading of whom was videotaped and then posted on the Al Jazeera network's website?
> 
> Yeah, not much newsworthy about _that_ in an election year...
> 
> We haven't been attacked again on our soil since 9/11.  We have lost hundreds of soldiers in this war, and the Iraqis have lost even more.  But let's try really, really hard not to forget the several *thousand* that lost their lives when this whole party got started...  Maybe the Iraqis weren't responsible for 9/11, but they sure didn't go out of their way to keep themselves out of our crosshairs (note that Khadafy made darn sure we knew he was bending over backwards to help our cause, and he used to be one of our main enemies).  I'm glad, personally, that at least one of our leaders got off his duff and drew a line in the sand instead of across someone's blouse.  There are certainly far more complex reasons for our presence in Iraq, I'm sure at least some of them deal with the oil in Iraq - I'm not naive.  But there is still good in this fight, still a righteousness for toppling a real tyrant whose documented legitimate atrocities against _his own people_ that can't be denied...
> 
> There is a guy from E-budo that is on the ground in Iraq...  Hearing what he says _from the front line_ kind of conflicts with a lot of the propaganda the liberal media would like to put into the ears of the American public...  The folks he deals with _*daily*_ are very happy that Sadaam is out of power, that his reign of terror is over.  They are looking forward to having a say in their own country's government.  Not exactly what CNN or Fox shows every night, is it?  Of course not, because that'd make Kerry look like an a$$ and lend credence to Bush's cause.
> 
> There is always an extreme to every situation, an extreme to either side's opinion.  What I've found, though, is when you weigh both sides, the Truth is found somewhere in the middle...
> 
> Survivor of a poorly led convoy does *not* equal hero.
> 
> Actions by a few individuals do *not* equal the behavior of many.
> 
> Keep it in perspective people, whether you agree with the war or not.


I was with you all the way up to you suggeting FOX news was a tool for the left. The FOX news I watch seems to celebrate everytime Bush looks even remotely good. Since when do they not want to make Kerry look bad????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Sean


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Actions by a few individuals do *not* equal the behavior of many.


I get PM'd and EM'd daily from friends over there who are being brought flowers, treats, etc., out of sheer joy by the locals that Hussein has been ousted. Please don't misunderstand: I'm extremely aware that we have done a good thing, even if some of the agenda leading to it was mixed.  I'm not, by any stretch, a peacenik; some objectives may only be met by force. (after all, ain't this an MA forum?)

I do believe, however, that members of the American military should conduct themselves as ambassadors to the world, representing the higher road to which we should ascribe.  This, and similar behavior, does not represent well.

Reading my own post, it looks like I'm saying "behead american soldiers". Nope. far from it. Just let them know, for certain, these actions are not OK, and will not be tolerated.  As for the boneheads dragging our guys through the streets or planning car bombs, THOSE are the ones to be hunted and eliminated. Use Old World tactics against Old World foes...they understand "certainty of death", and know Americans are too civilized/soft to mede out the same severity of action as they are.  Dig up some crazies, let them loose, and let the Old World foes have a taste of New World applications to an old idea.

Dave

Dave


----------



## Makalakumu

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think there is a difference because the president of Iraq ordered human rights violations and the president of the U.S. did not. People seem to equate the actions of a few soldiers to mean the U.S. intended it.
> 
> Second, most of these guys would not have been in jail if they simply'd thrown down their weapons after Saddam was caught. Obviously they still suported him and his type of leadership. I don't think they are going to like/hate us any more than they do already - and I don't really care. Let's just get the oil flowing to pay for this mess...



Mike - you're missing the point.  The toture was US policy.  These soldiers were ordered to do this.  It may not go up to the President or even the Secratery of Defense, but it goes way higher then a few miscreant privates.  

And you better believe that the Oil is flowing out of Iraq.  It is not going to pay for this war though.  We will do that.  You and I.  The Taxpayers, again, just like every war.


----------



## Makalakumu

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Well I don't know Robert the "Military" I was in didn't allow soldiers to free flow info to the press, and how dare you call stripping people naked and putting a dog collar or panties on someones head torture. The rapes were carried out by Iraqis and any American involvment is then torture. This is frathouse stuff. If you want to see "real" torture, just watch some vids the Iraqis are going to release over the next few months.
> Sean



Right.  And the picture of the naked Iraqi chained to the bed with the attack dog growling and then the picture of the same Iraqi man writhing on the ground with blood streaming from his legs...sure that's not torture.


----------



## rmcrobertson

First off, a silly question--would you guys generally agree that John McCain knows a thing or two about the abuse of prisoners in wartime? HE seems pretty indignant about this crap--and that's good enough for me.

Not TORTURE, my ***. Tell you what...when the Communist dictatorship that y'all fantasize about takes over this country, I'll bring the cops to YOUR house. We'll strip you naked, threaten you with dogs, sleep deprive you, have you pose in sexual poositions with other men, take lotsa pictures. Then, we'll ask again: is this OK? And don't worry: we'll have all sorts of pious things to say about, "national security," and the like. And don't worry: we too will blame the reporters, and whoever else sticks up for you.

Also, I must say that I loved the, "I know: let's just have death squads!" argument. Beyond the moral implications of that horror--learn about your history, a least a LITTLE, willya? We supported death squads, let the CIA loose, all the nonsense that was called for by some of you guys...check up on the history of a) the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran, b) our support for the Shah, c) our support for SAVAK. 

But hey, that worked! We've built democracies throughout the region, brought peace to the Middle East, established an absolutely-stable and unproblematic set of trading partners....oops, no, I forgot. 

If you can't be moral, willya at least for pity's sake try to at least consider being pragmatic?


----------



## Matt Stone

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I was with you all the way up to you suggeting FOX news was a tool for the left. The FOX news I watch seems to celebrate everytime Bush looks even remotely good. Since when do they not want to make Kerry look bad????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> Sean



It was, like other things in my post, a dichotomous comparison...

I think neither Kerry *nor* Bush is the best for the country.  It just happens that, in light of current events, Kerry stands to do more damage than any benefit his propagandists would like to say he'll provide.  At another time, in another place, maybe Kerry would be alright.  His brother, Bob (I think), was state senator for Nebraska for a while.  I always thought he was an okay guy.  This wannabe president, though, does precious little to quell the growing distrust I feel everytime I even see his picture.

Lastly, the media exists, like religious institutions, to propagate itself, not provide Truth.  Truth is free, and the media sells itself to whoever wants to advertise during the available time slots.  Therefore, the media does what it can to ensure lots and lots of viewers...  That includes yellow journalism, spin, and distortion of facts to play to the political climate.  I'm not saying one side is better or worse than the other - it's the nature of the Beast, in the same way that *all* politicians lie to their constituents.  It's a given.  So what I hear on CNN I try to balance against what I hear on Fox or local news.  Like I said, Truth is usually somewhere in between...


----------



## Rick Wade

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I get PM'd and EM'd daily from friends over there who are being brought flowers, treats, etc., out of sheer joy by the locals that Hussein has been ousted. Please don't misunderstand: I'm extremely aware that we have done a good thing, even if some of the agenda leading to it was mixed.  I'm not, by any stretch, a peacenik; some objectives may only be met by force. (after all, ain't this an MA forum?)
> 
> I do believe, however, that members of the American military should conduct themselves as ambassadors to the world, representing the higher road to which we should ascribe.  This, and similar behavior, does not represent well.
> 
> Reading my own post, it looks like I'm saying "behead american soldiers". Nope. far from it. Just let them know, for certain, these actions are not OK, and will not be tolerated.  As for the boneheads dragging our guys through the streets or planning car bombs, THOSE are the ones to be hunted and eliminated. Use Old World tactics against Old World foes...they understand "certainty of death", and know Americans are too civilized/soft to mede out the same severity of action as they are.  Dig up some crazies, let them loose, and let the Old World foes have a taste of New World applications to an old idea.
> 
> Dave
> 
> Dave



I with ya brother I can almost feel your rage through the screen.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, a silly question--would you guys generally agree that John McCain knows a thing or two about the abuse of prisoners in wartime? HE seems pretty indignant about this crap--and that's good enough for me.
> 
> Not TORTURE, my ***. Tell you what...when the Communist dictatorship that y'all fantasize about takes over this country, I'll bring the cops to YOUR house. We'll strip you naked, threaten you with dogs, sleep deprive you, have you pose in sexual poositions with other men, take lotsa pictures. Then, we'll ask again: is this OK? And don't worry: we'll have all sorts of pious things to say about, "national security," and the like. And don't worry: we too will blame the reporters, and whoever else sticks up for you.
> 
> Also, I must say that I loved the, "I know: let's just have death squads!" argument. Beyond the moral implications of that horror--learn about your history, a least a LITTLE, willya? We supported death squads, let the CIA loose, all the nonsense that was called for by some of you guys...check up on the history of a) the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran, b) our support for the Shah, c) our support for SAVAK.
> 
> But hey, that worked! We've built democracies throughout the region, brought peace to the Middle East, established an absolutely-stable and unproblematic set of trading partners....oops, no, I forgot.
> 
> If you can't be moral, willya at least for pity's sake try to at least consider being pragmatic?


Touche'

I still think there's something to be said about the pragmatism of meeting force with force, particularly where the enemy will understand little else then the type of force they deliver.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> It was, like other things in my post, a dichotomous comparison...
> 
> I think neither Kerry *nor* Bush is the best for the country.  It just happens that, in light of current events, Kerry stands to do more damage than any benefit his propagandists would like to say he'll provide.  At another time, in another place, maybe Kerry would be alright.  His brother, Bob (I think), was state senator for Nebraska for a while.  I always thought he was an okay guy.  This wannabe president, though, does precious little to quell the growing distrust I feel everytime I even see his picture.
> 
> Lastly, the media exists, like religious institutions, to propagate itself, not provide Truth.  Truth is free, and the media sells itself to whoever wants to advertise during the available time slots.  Therefore, the media does what it can to ensure lots and lots of viewers...  That includes yellow journalism, spin, and distortion of facts to play to the political climate.  I'm not saying one side is better or worse than the other - it's the nature of the Beast, in the same way that *all* politicians lie to their constituents.  It's a given.  So what I hear on CNN I try to balance against what I hear on Fox or local news.  Like I said, Truth is usually somewhere in between...


if Kerry is elected it will be because he is not Bush.


----------



## Matt Stone

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> if Kerry is elected it will be because he is not Bush.



Amen.  Personally, though, I'll be voting for Dubya.  Kerry gives me the willies, and will get my keister in tight spots without the cash money I'll need to get back out again.  With Dubya I know my annual raise (to offset inflation) will actually do what it is supposed to (our raises under the Dems barely kept pace with inflation, if not lagged behind), and I know that things will continue to keep making staying in worth it.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Amen.  Personally, though, I'll be voting for Dubya.  Kerry gives me the willies, and will get my keister in tight spots without the cash money I'll need to get back out again.  With Dubya I know my annual raise (to offset inflation) will actually do what it is supposed to (our raises under the Dems barely kept pace with inflation, if not lagged behind), and I know that things will continue to keep making staying in worth it.


You have given up a lot for those cost of living raises under Bush. Robert can list what you have given up off the top of his head; just ask him.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Astonishing.
> 
> And the assertions that the AMERICAN RED CROSS is just making this stuff up--to quote Twain, "Oh, carry me home to die, mother."


 
Thank you Robert! Thank you.


----------



## michaeledward

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> What have these time come to TOD and I actually agree.
> 
> Torture would be bamboo shoot under the fingernails snipping off a digit of each finger until you told them what they wanted to hear. Real torture isn't something that most american can stomach to hear about much less be able to watch. Those prisoners of war were humiliated not tortured. I have had more torture in a Kenpo Technique line than what those prinoners went through.


Perhaps you guys have heard that as many as 12 Iraqi's have died at the hands of US Soldiers ... those investigations are on going. (Currently, there are something like 3 dozen investigations going on).

If the choice is bamboo shoots under the fingernails or death at the hands of US Prison Guards, I'll choose bamboo shoots every time.

It is Torture.

mike


----------



## michaeledward

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> At another time, in another place, maybe Kerry would be alright. His brother, Bob (I think), was state senator for Nebraska for a while. I always thought he was an okay guy. This wannabe president, though, does precious little to quell the growing distrust I feel everytime I even see his picture.


Bob Kerrey and John Kerry are not now, nor ever have been related.


----------



## marshallbd

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> We are starting to see eye to eye.  The problem is we couldn't make them classified because.  They went from the Soldiers hands to the media, published and then to the government.  Then the investigation started.  Then they found more evidence and found more photos and the second group of photos was classified and will not be shown.  If you listen to the news they said that President Bush would not release more photos because they were to graphic.


Yes, it looks as though we are beginning to.  I just don't believe that they went directly to the media then the investigation began.  I believe, based on what I heard in a clip of an interview of the General in charge (Don't recall his name), that the investigation began back in January.....based on that statement, it leads me to believe the military was investigating this and then the press got ahold of it and broke the story..... :asian:


----------



## marshallbd

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> What have these time come to TOD and I actually agree.
> 
> Torture would be bamboo shoot under the fingernails snipping off a digit of each finger until you told them what they wanted to hear.  Real torture isn't something that most american can stomach to hear about much less be able to watch.  Those prisoners of war were humiliated not tortured.  I have had more torture in a Kenpo Technique line than what those prinoners went through.


How sad.....I too actually agree here.....While the treatment recieved by these folks is wrong, it does not constitute physical torture....But it is still a violation of thier basic human rights, and a form of psychological torture....They are still human beings..... :asian:


----------



## marshallbd

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Instead of blaming the reporters and the whistleblower, lets put blame where it belongs. Those men involved in that kind of torture are the real "traitors," when you consider the multitude of problems this causes us as a nation.
> 
> PAUL


Amen! :asian:


----------



## marshallbd

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I do believe, however, that members of the American military should conduct themselves as ambassadors to the world, representing the higher road to which we should ascribe.  This, and similar behavior, does not represent well.


Yes I agree that we need to conduct ourselves in the manner that displays the values of this country as a whole, and not as a bunch of lunatics. :asian:


----------



## MJS

Ok, so what does everyone think of the guy that got his head taken off???  In the paper, it said that this was retaliation for what we did.  Well, IMO, I dont believe that we killed anyone while in custody.  I might be wrong.  Anyway, seems like they took it to the extreme with doing that.  This looks like its just gonna keep going back and forth, back and forth.  Everyday, it seems like we're getting picked off, one by one.  Drop some bombs on them and end it!!!

Mike


----------



## MisterMike

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Unfortuneately, I think you are not correct. According to the Red Cross, as many as 90 % of the imprisoned are there for no reason, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.





			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Astonishing.
> And the assertions that the AMERICAN RED CROSS is just making this stuff up--to quote Twain, "Oh, carry me home to die, mother."



No reason??? Put 2 guns on front of any of these guys and they will take one for themselves and give the other to their 7 yr old son to kill Americans.

No reason...You gotta invite me to your world some time. On second thought, never mind. I'll choose reality.

Have you seen the latest video? Maybe they could at least carry your head ...


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> No reason??? Put 2 guns on front of any of these guys and they will take one for themselves and give the other to their 7 yr old son to kill Americans.
> 
> No reason...You gotta invite me to *your world* some time. On second thought, never mind. I'll choose reality.
> 
> Have you seen the latest video? Maybe they could at least carry your head ...


So now, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are conspiring against the United States? Next someone will be claiming they have Weapons of Mass Destruction or trying to buy Uranium from Niger.


----------



## michaeledward

MJS said:
			
		

> Ok, so what does everyone think of the guy that got his head taken off??? In the paper, it said that this was retaliation for what we did. Well, IMO, I dont believe that we killed anyone while in custody. I might be wrong. Anyway, seems like they took it to the extreme with doing that. This looks like its just gonna keep going back and forth, back and forth. Everyday, it seems like we're getting picked off, one by one. Drop some bombs on them and end it!!!


I think it is disgusting that anyone is beheaded. 

However, as I recall, the native North Americans used to 'scalp' the Europeans when my ancestors were conquering their land. 

Yes, violence breed violence. And no doubt it is going to escalate. Which is why I was against the war before it began.


----------



## Matt Stone

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think it is disgusting that anyone is beheaded.



So what do you think we should do about it?  Should we allow this to happen out of a deep sense of regret at the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners?  Was his life payment for the transgressions of a very small and isolated few?  What if that was your son, brother, or friend?  Would your blood be screaming for vengeance?  Or would you say "well, he shouldn't have been there," or perhaps "now the score is even, and we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya?" 



> Yes, violence breed violence. And no doubt it is going to escalate. Which is why I was against the war before it began.



Nobody was "for" the war.  Even the people giving the orders to go want to avoid war and the bloodshed that goes with it.  But, just like killing someone with the martial arts that we all practice, it may eventually become inevitable...  And so it was with Afghanistan and the Taliban, Iraq and Sadaam, Osama and the Al Qaeda punks...

I don't want any more people _that I know_ getting injured or killed.  Have you had any personal losses yet?  I have...  So far three people I know have been killed as a result of enemy action, and another friend is in harm's way daily.  But they believe in what they are doing, I believe in what they are doing, and I (nor they) won't forget what kicked this party off in the first place...

All the bleeding hearts are worked up over a few Iraqis being killed in captivity and a few others being abused.  Pearl was murdered.  Berg was murdered.  Several thousand innocent civilians and children were murdered.  Where is the outrage over those actions???  Everyone cries so loudly for justice for the poor, innocent Iraqis who are wrongly detained...  Why is there no outcry for justice on behalf of Berg and Pearl?  Are American lives so worthless and cheap that _*our own countrymen*_ view the lives of others who are engaged in actions against us, killing us, bombing us, as worth more???

Forget being called a traitor for not believing in the decisions of the Government...  But for the people who aren't hungry for justice on behalf of the innocents killed by the "peaceful Iraqi people," you should be ashamed of your misuse of the rights provided for you by the ones you criticize so readily...

I'm disgusted by this thread, I'm disgusted by the reactions of some of the people here...  We serve so you don't have to.  But don't take it for granted and cheapen the contributions and sacrifices that paid for your ability to be an a$$ in public...

 :rpo:  :bird:  :flammad:  :cuss:


----------



## michaeledward

Well then Matt, please don't do me any favors. 

I'm sorry you are frustrated by my beliefs, but if you review the record, you will see that there were many people in this administration (the leaders of the country) who were for this war. They put forth many arguments as to why Iraq needed to be invaded; why Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power. Unfortuneatly, none of those accusations seemed to have any facts to support them, now that we have 20/20 hindsight. There are no weapons of mass destruction. There is no nuclear weapons program. Iraq was not involved with Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States.

If these things do not exist ... and never did exist ... why then are the US military in this country? Yes, I am disgusted by Americans being killed (citizens and soldiers). I am more disgusted by the appearance that this is happening because of false pretenses.


----------



## Cruentus

marshallbd said:
			
		

> How sad.....I too actually agree here.....While the treatment recieved by these folks is wrong, it does not constitute physical torture....But it is still a violation of thier basic human rights, and a form of psychological torture....They are still human beings..... :asian:


Sorry to single your post out, marshall, but what you are saying here seems to be a trend, yet I believe it is a misconception. 

Do you want to know why the "liberal media" has been showing these pics over the past 2 weeks? There are many agenda's on all sides, and the media is just feeding into these agendas, and satisfying their urge to chase sensationalism. We know that the anti-war crowd will try to use this as justification for their cause, but did you ever think that their might be a pro-war agenda here as well? It's not good for the pro-war side that these attrocities were whistleblown, but since they have been, there is now becomes a need for them to "spin" the issue. Since the cat is out of the bag, it actually becomes good for the pro-war people that these photos have been pasted on every news station for the past 2 weeks, because this DESENSITIZES the public. The photo's are unreal and shocking at first, but they lose their "omf" after you've seen them for the 10th, 20th, or 50th time. If they tried to cover it up, it would only lead to more outrage, so instead we are saturated with the issue so that any "outrage" would be desensitized and short lived, which is exactly what is occuring. Now, well after the photos were first presented, and now after desensitization has taken its effects, I have heard the arguement on Fox News, as well as on most other "liberal" news outlets that these photo's don't depict torture...and that they could be compared to a "frathouse" or "childhood" prank. This is the very arguement that many of you are bringing to the conversation today....that this wasn't torture, and that it was only the equivelent of a "prank."

Show the photo's over and over again, then when the public is desensitized and no longer emotional over them, make the arguement that this was no more wrong then a frathouse prank. Damn liberal media....and you guys are falling for it.

Now, the "anti-war" crowd will continue to use these photos as examples to support their cause, which will backfire on them horribly. Now we have pictures and video of even worse attrocities; the film of the contractor who had his head cut off was just released yesterday. I am waiting for the full footage to be on the internet; as unfortunate as it is, you know that is what is going to happened. As horrible as it is, there are other accounts of assasinations on americans that haven't been published by that "liberal media" until after the treatment of Iraqi prisoners was whistleblown. Hmmm...why's that? Let's just say that I can see the arguements already: "These damn liberals want to slam on our soldiers for "frathouse pranks," when look at what "the terrorists" are doing to our prisoners!"(thrown in with a couple of "hoorahs" and "support our troops" and "go Bush 2004!" for good measure  )

So...in the long run, who did it really benefit from the pasting of the photos of Iraqi prisoners all over the news over the last 2 weeks....hmm? It ain't the anti-war crowd, the "Kerry" crowd, the contractor who was just killed, OR our soldiers who benefited...that's for sure. Damn liberal media.

Look...nobody is saying that "terrorists" aren't commiting attrocities on U.S. people, and everyone would agree that having your head cut off is worse then being humiliated (well, everyone except a muslim man, who believes that it is better to die then to go through that sort of humiliation and torture. But, who the heck are they, right?  ). All I am asking for you to do is think critically. 

Those Iraqi prisoners were tortured. That "liberal media" that equates these photo's with "childhood pranks" forgot to focus on stuff like this that was in the reports:

"Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

Hmmm....childhood prank, huh? 

What about these rape seen photo's:

Links Removed Due to Depiction of Brutal Sexual Acts.
Seig
MT ADMIN

Apparently rape is no big deal either, huh. Just fraternity stuff right? Well, maybe it is fraternity stuff....the kind that should end you up in jail.

But...hey, we haven't wrongfully killed any prisoners or anyone else, right?

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sauterp/iraq/iraqis_tortured_60min2-i.jpg

Opps...I forgot, about the investigation on at least 12 murdered Iraqi prisoners also.

Well, at least our government didn't "order" these military men to do these things right...

_"Davis also stated that he had heard MI [military intelligence] insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: Loosen this guy up for us.Make sure he has a bad night.Make sure he gets the treatment. Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, Good job, theyre breaking down real fast. They answer every question. Theyre giving out good information. "_

_"Gary Myers, Fredericks civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. Im going to drag every involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court, he said. Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of six soldiers? Not a chance. "_


Full account here: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact 

Errr....never mind. :xtrmshock 

Face it folks, our land of the brave is just as guilty of attrocities and torture as anyone else, today in as much as in our past. We just happened to handle it a little more "first world-like" today instead of "third-world" like. To add insult to injury, the "pro-war" folks are going to spin this, with the use of the "liberal media," to fit their agenda. 

The sooner we face the fact that we have a major problem with the way we handle our propiganda and foriegn policy, the sooner we can start solving these problems. To sweep it under the rug is disgraceful to our soldiers who are actually trying to fight a good fight, and it is disgraceful to our beliefs of freedom and liberty.

Don't let "them" manufacture your ideas...

PAUL
:asian:


----------



## Matt Stone

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well then Matt, please don't do me any favors.



I'll be sure not to.  Do me a favor and point yourself out the next time you find your soft tushy dropped into a combat zone...  I'll make sure no soldier to your left or right goes out of his or her way to lend you a hand. 



> Yes, I am disgusted by Americans being killed (citizens and soldiers). I am more disgusted by the appearance that this is happening because of false pretenses.



You are disgusted by the murder of an innocent, but still more disgusted by the political spin from both sides?  I certainly hope you maintain your beliefs in the event that someone in your immediate family faces some tragedy...  If they are killed by a drunk driver, be sure to hold that driver blameless and focus on the evils of the alcohol industry.  If they are injured or killed by a stray bullet, be sure to tout the innocence of the shooter, but feel free to sue the gun industry for their negligence.  If they are the helpless victims of terrorism, be sure not to call for justice nor vengeance, as the terrorists are obviously just misunderstood...    

I'm done here.  It is obvious the media has a stronger hold on some folks than I thought.  Believe what you want.  I never said there weren't discrepancies with the actions of the Government, but we are still head and shoulders better than "back in the day."  And ultimately, after 9/11, you'll notice nothing else has been bombed (as threatened repeatedly), you'll notice Osama doesn't show up much on the news (because he is either no longer news, or no longer a threat?), you'll notice that most Iraqis are glad Sadaam is gone.  Whatever got us there, we did the right thing, are doing the right thing, and will continue doing the right thing until the threat of terrorism, the threat of murder by psychopaths with a political agenda, is ended.

Hard for me to understand why some folks don't see this as a good thing.

So long, MT.  Enjoy your freedom.  Hope you appreciate it, especially when you haven't paid for it...

 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

> So what do you think we should do about it?



Good question, Matt Stone.

I think the answer is that we should create policies that coincide with what we propose is our moral and ethical beliefs, AND STICK TO THEM. Don't let their actions make us waiver from our resolve.

That being said, I personally am not a "bleeding heart" about the whole thing. Personally, I am for the death penalty for anyone who commits an attrocity that results in another persons death, just as long as we can prove who is guilty. Those guys who cut off that contractors head in the name of religion should be killed. In fact, I'd go a step further then that. If you commit an attrocity resulting in the death of another in the name of your religion, then we get to kill and bury you in a manner that is against your religion. In other words, those men that killed that contracter should be killed by firing squad with a shoe taped to their face (considered disgraceful), and buried in pigs blood (which I have heard that many believe that being buried in such a defiling manner can prevent you from going to heaven). Film it, and send it to their media. Send the message that if you commit an attrocity resulting in death of another, this is what will happened to you.

But...if we are willing to that, then we'd better be willing to send our men if they commit murderous attrocity to their people to be tried and punished by their standards. Can't have a double standard here, can we?

Or, how about we just set our policy that coincides with our ethical standards as americans, and we STICK to that policy, regardless of what attrocities occur on the other side?

As much as I'd like to kill some of those bastards myself, this is unfortunatily the only way.

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus

> So long, MT. Enjoy your freedom. Hope you appreciate it, especially when you haven't paid for it...



Last time I checked, a third of my paycheck pays for it every 2 weeks. If any of your aren't paying for it, please give me the number to your tax advisor.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Sorry to single your post out, marshall, but what you are saying here seems to be a trend, yet I believe it is a misconception.
> 
> Do you want to know why the "liberal media" has been showing these pics over the past 2 weeks? There are many agenda's on all sides, and the media is just feeding into these agendas, and satisfying their urge to chase sensationalism. We know that the anti-war crowd will try to use this as justification for their cause, but did you ever think that their might be a pro-war agenda here as well? It's not good for the pro-war side that these attrocities were whistleblown, but since they have been, there is now becomes a need for them to "spin" the issue. Since the cat is out of the bag, it actually becomes good for the pro-war people that these photos have been pasted on every news station for the past 2 weeks, because this DESENSITIZES the public. The photo's are unreal and shocking at first, but they lose their "omf" after you've seen them for the 10th, 20th, or 50th time. If they tried to cover it up, it would only lead to more outrage, so instead we are saturated with the issue so that any "outrage" would be desensitized and short lived, which is exactly what is occuring. Now, well after the photos were first presented, and now after desensitization has taken its effects, I have heard the arguement on Fox News, as well as on most other "liberal" news outlets that these photo's don't depict torture...and that they could be compared to a "frathouse" or "childhood" prank. This is the very arguement that many of you are bringing to the conversation today....that this wasn't torture, and that it was only the equivelent of a "prank."
> 
> Show the photo's over and over again, then when the public is desensitized and no longer emotional over them, make the arguement that this was no more wrong then a frathouse prank. Damn liberal media....and you guys are falling for it.
> 
> Now, the "anti-war" crowd will continue to use these photos as examples to support their cause, which will backfire on them horribly. Now we have pictures and video of even worse attrocities; the film of the contractor who had his head cut off was just released yesterday. I am waiting for the full footage to be on the internet; as unfortunate as it is, you know that is what is going to happened. As horrible as it is, there are other accounts of assasinations on americans that haven't been published by that "liberal media" until after the treatment of Iraqi prisoners was whistleblown. Hmmm...why's that? Let's just say that I can see the arguements already: "These damn liberals want to slam on our soldiers for "frathouse pranks," when look at what "the terrorists" are doing to our prisoners!"(thrown in with a couple of "hoorahs" and "support our troops" and "go Bush 2004!" for good measure  )
> 
> So...in the long run, who did it really benefit from the pasting of the photos of Iraqi prisoners all over the news over the last 2 weeks....hmm? It ain't the anti-war crowd, the "Kerry" crowd, the contractor who was just killed, OR our soldiers who benefited...that's for sure. Damn liberal media.
> 
> Look...nobody is saying that "terrorists" aren't commiting attrocities on U.S. people, and everyone would agree that having your head cut off is worse then being humiliated (well, everyone except a muslim man, who believes that it is better to die then to go through that sort of humiliation and torture. But, who the heck are they, right?  ). All I am asking for you to do is think critically.
> 
> Those Iraqi prisoners were tortured. That "liberal media" that equates these photo's with "childhood pranks" forgot to focus on stuff like this that was in the reports:
> 
> "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
> 
> Hmmm....childhood prank, huh?
> 
> What about these rape seen photo's:
> 
> *Links REMOVED DUE TO DEPICTIONS OF BRUTAL SEXUAL ACTS*
> 
> Apparently rape is no big deal either, huh. Just fraternity stuff right? Well, maybe it is fraternity stuff....the kind that should end you up in jail.
> 
> But...hey, we haven't wrongfully killed any prisoners or anyone else, right?
> 
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~sauterp/iraq/iraqis_tortured_60min2-i.jpg
> 
> Opps...I forgot, about the investigation on at least 12 murdered Iraqi prisoners also.
> 
> Well, at least our government didn't "order" these military men to do these things right...
> 
> _"Davis also stated that he had heard MI [military intelligence] insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: Loosen this guy up for us.Make sure he has a bad night.Make sure he gets the treatment. Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, Good job, theyre breaking down real fast. They answer every question. Theyre giving out good information. "_
> 
> _"Gary Myers, Fredericks civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. Im going to drag every involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court, he said. Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of six soldiers? Not a chance. "_
> 
> 
> Full account here: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
> 
> Errr....never mind. :xtrmshock
> 
> Face it folks, our land of the brave is just as guilty of attrocities and torture as anyone else, today in as much as in our past. We just happened to handle it a little more "first world-like" today instead of "third-world" like. To add insult to injury, the "pro-war" folks are going to spin this, with the use of the "liberal media," to fit their agenda.
> 
> The sooner we face the fact that we have a major problem with the way we handle our propiganda and foriegn policy, the sooner we can start solving these problems. To sweep it under the rug is disgraceful to our soldiers who are actually trying to fight a good fight, and it is disgraceful to our beliefs of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Don't let "them" manufacture your ideas...
> 
> PAUL
> :asian:


Liberal media is a myth.


----------



## michaeledward

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> I certainly hope you maintain your beliefs in the event that someone in your immediate family faces some tragedy... If they are killed by a drunk driver, be sure to hold that driver blameless and focus on the evils of the alcohol industry.


I am an alcoholic practicing my 12th year of sobriety. You need not lecture me on where the responsibility lies. Perhaps someday you may discover alcoholism is a disease, not a choice; we don't blame those with cancer for their disease.



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> If they are the helpless victims of terrorism, be sure not to call for justice nor vengeance,...


Justice and Vengeance are not the same thing.



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> And ultimately, after 9/11, you'll notice nothing else has been bombed


Please be aware that *more terrorist activities *have occurred *since *9/11/2001 than occurred in the same time period *prior* to September 11, 2001. Maybe not on U.S. soil, but the Marriott in Bali is pwned by a U.S. company. Al Qaeda's war is a world wide war.



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> (as threatened repeatedly), you'll notice Osama doesn't show up much on the news (because he is either no longer news, or no longer a threat?)


Or because the Bush Administration had to beat the drums to launch his 'Private Little War' against the 'Tyrrant' that tried to kill "his daddy".



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> , you'll notice that most Iraqis are glad Sadaam is gone.


. . . I'm not sure that the Iraqis are 'glad' about anything.



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Whatever got us there, we did the right thing, are doing the right thing, and will continue doing the right thing until the threat of terrorism, the threat of murder by psychopaths with a political agenda, is ended.


You are again arguing that 'Saddam' was part of the 'threat of terrorism'. This is just not true ... no matter how much some want to believe it. Of course, it is required that you believe this fallacy is true, in order to justify that we are 'doing the right thing'.  If Saddam was not part of the 'threat of terrorism', then what we are doing is wrong, regardless of the outcome.


----------



## Tgace

"I am an alcoholic practicing my 12th year of sobriety. You need not lecture me on where the responsibility lies. Perhaps someday you may discover alcoholism is a disease, not a choice; we don't blame those with cancer for their disease."

Cancer dosent make somebody get a bottle, pour a drink and lift it to their mouth. Dont take offense, but I know a few psychologists who dont believe in the "disease model" of alcoholism.


----------



## rmcrobertson

"Drop some bombs on them and end it!!"

"All the bleeding hearts are worked up over a few Iraqis being killed in captivity and a few others being abused."

It may not bother some of you folks that such words match up with remarks by Nazis and Stalinists all over the world, but it sure as hell bothers me. 

Silly me. I thought Christianity demanded something else from us. I thought America stood for something better than those other bastards. And I thought that martial arts meant learning an ethical code that would forbid killing even, "a few...in captivity," or abusing, "a few others," or merely leaning how to, "bomb them and end it." Silly me. 

Blame, "the media," a much as you like. It's certainly a convenient excuse.


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace said:
			
		

> Cancer dosent make somebody get a bottle, pour a drink and lift it to their mouth. Dont take offense, but I know a few psychologists who dont believe in the "disease model" of alcoholism.


No offense taken. Nor, am I absolving myself from any responsibilities for my actions while I was under the influence. But that is part of the treatment of my disease.


----------



## Cruentus

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "Drop some bombs on them and end it!!"
> 
> "All the bleeding hearts are worked up over a few Iraqis being killed in captivity and a few others being abused."
> 
> It may not bother some of you folks that such words match up with remarks by Nazis and Stalinists all over the world, but it sure as hell bothers me.



Bothers me too...



> Silly me. I thought Christianity demanded something else from us. I thought America stood for something better than those other bastards. And I thought that martial arts meant learning an ethical code that would forbid killing even, "a few...in captivity," or abusing, "a few others," or merely leaning how to, "bomb them and end it." Silly me.
> 
> Blame, "the media," a much as you like. It's certainly a convenient excuse.



 :idea:


----------



## MJS

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "Drop some bombs on them and end it!!"
> 
> "All the bleeding hearts are worked up over a few Iraqis being killed in captivity and a few others being abused."
> 
> It may not bother some of you folks that such words match up with remarks by Nazis and Stalinists all over the world, but it sure as hell bothers me.
> 
> Silly me. I thought Christianity demanded something else from us. I thought America stood for something better than those other bastards. And I thought that martial arts meant learning an ethical code that would forbid killing even, "a few...in captivity," or abusing, "a few others," or merely leaning how to, "bomb them and end it." Silly me.
> 
> Blame, "the media," a much as you like. It's certainly a convenient excuse.



I'm not blaming the media for anything.  When I said drop some bombs and end it, I was serious!!  When we first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, we overwhelmed them, took them by surprise and dominated the entire thing.  Now that Bush has cut back on the amount of troops there and everything else, we're getting picked off more everyday!  

Granted, not every Iraqi person is bad.  They looked at us when we first got there as saving them.  Due to the fact that we were tricked by many of them, it was pretty hard to tell who was the bad guy and who was the supposed 'good guy' even though they had a bomb strapped to them.  We're forced to do what we do, IE- doing a house to house search, to find the bad ones.  This unfortunately causes some anger with the good people of Iraq.  

Mike


----------



## OUMoose

I'm sorry.  I was really trying to stay out of this discussion until now.  

I finally saw the video that everyone is talking about here (just minimize the browser for the 30 second commercial to get access to the "premium" site), and frankly it makes me sick.  Not the atrocity itself, but the fact it's plastered on the web everywhere by news organizations.  You CAN'T tell me that they aren't using this to put a spin on the war, or even the massive propaganda machine that some call the Bush Administration.  

You thought that Christianity demanded something better?  I'm not a good christian by any stretch of the word, but I thought christianity taught compassion above all else?  unconditional love.  You're telling me that it's compassionate to paste the face of a son that someone gruesomely killed and pictures of the family weeping for it?  That's insanity!  Leave them the hell alone and let the grieve.  Don't use their horrific occurance to fuel the pyre of hate that is the world now.  

Martial arts has taught me discression and discipline.  It has taught me to avoid a confrontation by any means necessary.  THIS is not avoiding anything.  



> Blame, "the media," a much as you like. It's certainly a convenient excuse.


  Yes, I will blame the media on this one.  They're the ones spreading this crap, beating it into our skulls that muslims are bad people.  What do we do?  Sit and watch it in awe, to quote the movie Canadian Bacon, "Because joe public is afraid the world is going to end before the next commercial".  All that said, I do support our troops.  They're doing a thankless job that they shouldn't even be doing.  The "independent contractors" are in it for the money, but are still doing what they think is right.  The government who sends those people over there however...


----------



## Rick Wade

MJS said:
			
		

> Ok, so what does everyone think of the guy that got his head taken off???  In the paper, it said that this was retaliation for what we did.  Well, IMO, I dont believe that we killed anyone while in custody.  I might be wrong.  Anyway, seems like they took it to the extreme with doing that.  This looks like its just gonna keep going back and forth, back and forth.  Everyday, it seems like we're getting picked off, one by one.  Drop some bombs on them and end it!!!
> 
> Mike



What people don't realize is that guy was going to beheaded anyway.  My heart goes out to his family.  However these fanatical extreemist would have come up with another reason (i.e. the Americans still there in their country) to do something like this.  We have to remember that these people do not think like we do.  They don't have the same compasion that we do as a hole.


----------



## Cruentus

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> What people don't realize is that guy was going to beheaded anyway.  My heart goes out to his family.  However these fanatical extreemist would have come up with another reason (i.e. the Americans still there in their country) to do something like this.  We have to remember that these people do not think like we do.  They don't have the same compasion that we do as a hole.



I do agree with you there.


----------



## michaeledward

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> We have to remember that these people do not think like we do. They don't have the same compasion that we do as a hole.


What do you mean, 'They do not think like we do'? .. Do they think with their liver? 
Statements like these tend to be part of the 'dehumanization' process that allows people to kill someone else with enduring difficulties.


----------



## MJS

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> What people don't realize is that guy was going to beheaded anyway.  My heart goes out to his family.  However these fanatical extreemist would have come up with another reason (i.e. the Americans still there in their country) to do something like this.  We have to remember that these people do not think like we do.  They don't have the same compasion that we do as a hole.



You're right.  All the more reason to step up the force and end this.  Either that, or just pull everyone the hell out of there, and who cares about helping them rebuild.  I didnt see anyone from over there, coming to NYC to help with 9/11!

Mike


----------



## MJS

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What do you mean, 'They do not think like we do'? .. Do they think with their liver?
> Statements like these tend to be part of the 'dehumanization' process that allows people to kill someone else with enduring difficulties.



I think he's saying here that we wouldnt have cut someones head off.  

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What do you mean, 'They do not think like we do'? .. Do they think with their liver?
> Statements like these tend to be part of the 'dehumanization' process that allows people to kill someone else with enduring difficulties.



I took it to mean that fundamentalist Muslims have different values and way of thinking then Americans do. For instance, the Koran advocates that it is better to kill then disfigure or torture. This is where we often fail to realize how serious those pics are to the Fundamentalist Muslim.

There are certian values and thinking that are "human" (universal) and others that are specific to moral/ethical beliefs of the different communities. If that's what he ment, then I agree.


----------



## michaeledward

MJS said:
			
		

> I think he's saying here that we wouldnt have cut someones head off.
> 
> Mike


No .. we would just shoot them ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4955074/ ... either way, dead.


----------



## michaeledward

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I took it to mean that fundamentalist Muslims have different values and way of thinking then Americans do. For instance, the Koran advocates that it is better to kill then disfigure or torture. This is where we often fail to realize how serious those pics are to the Fundamentalist Muslim.
> 
> There are certian values and thinking that are "human" (universal) and others that are specific to moral/ethical beliefs of the different communities. If that's what he ment, then I agree.


These thoughts reminded me of this great song from the 80's .... although, maybe the lyrics need to be tweeked a bit for the current situation.



> *Sting - Russians lyrics*
> 
> In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
> Conditioned to respond to all the threats
> In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
> Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
> I don't subscribe to this point of view
> It would be such an ignorant thing to do
> If the Russians love their children too
> 
> How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
> There is no monopoly in common sense
> On either side of the political fence
> We share the same biology
> Regardless of ideology
> Believe me when I say to you
> I hope the Russians love their children too
> 
> There is no historical precedent
> To put the words in the mouth of the President
> There's no such thing as a winnable war
> It's a lie that we don't believe anymore
> Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
> I don't subscribe to this point of view
> Believe me when I say to you
> I hope the Russians love their children too
> 
> We share the same biology
> Regardless of ideology
> What might save us, me, and you
> Is that the Russians love their children too​



​


----------



## MJS

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No .. we would just shoot them ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4955074/ ... either way, dead.



Well, ya know...thats part of war!!!  Personally, I think that we (the US) stick our nose into WAY too much stuff to begin with.  We went to Iraq to look for WMD.  Seeing as how we didnt find what we thought, we should have left.  Over, done with.  As much as I want to see our people come home, we need to realize that it was them who singed up for the service.  To enlist and just go on the assumption that they could skate by, getting an education, etc. without the possibility of ever having to go to war, is poor thinking.  I know it sounds harsh and like I dont care, but thats not the case.  Its no different than someone becoming a firefighter and never dreaming in a million years that they'd ever have to walk into a burning building.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No .. we would just shoot them ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4955074/ ... either way, dead.



I think that is why people are so appalled by the photo's (as they should be). The american dialectic is dependent on "us" thinking that we are "better" then "them." When we hear of the wrongs that we do, it destroys that idealect. There are distinct differences at times. Other times, there are not. We are not always as "better" as we would like to think.


----------



## Rick Wade

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What do you mean, 'They do not think like we do'? .. Do they think with their liver?
> Statements like these tend to be part of the 'dehumanization' process that allows people to kill someone else with enduring difficulties.



No don't be sarcastic.  Don't argue, lets debate.  What I was saying is that the way they have been brought up, as a society isn't as compassionate and sheltered as our way of living in the United States.  I have been all around the world several times now and I can tell you first hand _*WE GOT IT GOOD * _   real good.  Just the fact that we can talk intelligently about this says allot for your country.  In most third world countries most of you would have been turned in for talking bad about the government and you would have been sought out and imprisoned.  Things like that make you think differently.  Remember these people haven't had freedom of speech and expression for several decades if not centuries.

Respectfully


----------



## Matt Stone

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am an alcoholic practicing my 12th year of sobriety. You need not lecture me on where the responsibility lies. Perhaps someday you may discover alcoholism is a disease, not a choice; we don't blame those with cancer for their disease.



Well, actually, no I don't believe alcoholism is a disease...  A disease happens to you, alcoholism (and drug abuse, spouse abuse, child abuse) is a choice.  Made under a degree of duress, perhaps, but it doesn't just "happen."  Alcoholics don't choose to be alcoholics, but they sure do choose to drink...  But congratulations on your sobriety nonetheless.  It's a long, hard road.  



> Justice and Vengeance are not the same thing.



No, they aren't, which is why I included them both in my admonishment to you to be sure that, in the situations I outlined, you call for neither.



> Please be aware that *more terrorist activities *have occurred *since *9/11/2001 than occurred in the same time period *prior* to September 11, 2001. Maybe not on U.S. soil, but the Marriott in Bali is pwned by a U.S. company. Al Qaeda's war is a world wide war.



And when, precisely, did I start giving two sh|ts about other countries?  I care that *my* family is safe, first and foremost.  All others come after that.  Is it sad and terrible that other countries have had such a rough go since 9/11?  You bet.  But you'll notice that after we froze Osammy's accounts, bombed the bejeezus out of his training camps, arrested as many of his operatives as we could, and made getting into this country a tad bit tougher, things haven't been quite so noisy here at home, have they?  Mission accomplished...



> Or because the Bush Administration had to beat the drums to launch his 'Private Little War' against the 'Tyrrant' that tried to kill "his daddy".



Nice side benefit, don't you think?  Be able to secure the country against outside attack *and* settle a grudge?  I'm not seeing a problem there...



> . . . I'm not sure that the Iraqis are 'glad' about anything.



Of course you aren't, dear.  That's because your information comes from the media.  I have at least a half dozen people on the ground that I speak with now and again, and they are saying that the word on the street, the word from the Everyday Joe, is that they are dead happy that Saddam is out of the picture.  But then, that'd go against your arguments aimed at Dubya's head, so why would you admit that they might be happy about what has happened...



> You are again arguing that 'Saddam' was part of the 'threat of terrorism'. This is just not true ... no matter how much some want to believe it.



No, I didn't say that.  I said that he has a history of atrocities against his own people.  I said that he was a tyrant.  I never said he was necessarily a part of the "threat of terrorism."  However, the friend of my enemy *is* my enemy.  If he was going to allow Osammy to reside within his borders, he becomes part of the problem in one fashion or another.  Again, Khaddafy made real sure that we knew he wasn't going to harbor anyone...  A few well placed bombs back in the Reagan administration saw to it that the Colonel knows with whom he f*cks when the US is concerned...



> Of course, it is required that you believe this fallacy is true, in order to justify that we are 'doing the right thing'.  If Saddam was not part of the 'threat of terrorism', then what we are doing is wrong, regardless of the outcome.



No, I am not "required" to believe anything.  Thanks for painting me with the same brush you accuse everyone else of using - making broad generalizations about a person's motives based on a few statements.

I am reminded of a saying I heard a long time ago: "Who must do the harsh thing?  He who can..."  In this instance, and so many others, the rest of the world bellyaches to the US "Oooh, bail me out of my financial quagmire," or "oooh, please feed my starving people," or "oooh, please give us free medical care to save us from the diseases plaguing us."  How about "oooh, please save my bacon from this other pissant third-world nobody that is rattling sabers at my borders?"  We're good enough for these things, right?  So we took the ball and ran with it.  We finished a mission that should have been wrapped up over a decade ago.  Some very few individuals have done reprehensible things on both sides.  But I stand by the fact that what we have done pales in comparison, if for no other fact than because it is my people that are being affected...

Is that different from the Iraqis?  Absolutely not.  Which brings me to this gem:



> What do you mean, 'They do not think like we do'? .. Do they think with their liver?
> Statements like these tend to be part of the 'dehumanization' process that allows people to kill someone else with enduring difficulties.



No, they think based on their cultural background, which states that acts like the beheading are perfectly acceptable in retaliation to the US for the photos and abuse of the Iraqi prisoners.  We don't think the same.  They think death is preferable to humiliation.  It is hard to get an American to feel strongly about anything to believe death is preferable, so the killing of an individual in place of anything else is abhorrent to us.

It is statements like *yours* that help to fuel the fires of those whose direct experience in any of these situations is lacking...


----------



## Cryozombie

Bear with me here... I might just be a little idealistic in this...

The way I perceive that the thinking differs is that OVERALL 

(And I say overall, understanding that there are exceptions to this, such as the events we are discussing)

The "Western" Ideal is that we capture prisoners, we interrogate them, but we feed them, provide them medical attention, and for the most part do not kill them. 

Our thinking has changed a bit over the years, and now We TRY as a group not to intentionally target civilian targets, yes, it happens, but its not our overall plan to say, "Lets Just Nuke Iraq and be done with it... to hell with the civilian population."

"Their" ideal is to Kill as many people as they can, regardless of their military or political affiliation... Bombing civilian buildings, trains, etc etc... it's all about the body count, not WHO the bodies belong to.

They capture, torture and rape on a regular basis.  When it comes out that we have done that, the majority of our people scream foul, and look to punish those who did it.  The majority of their people celebrate in the streets... 

That's what *I* see the difference in our thinking as.  
I agree that *we* are not always better, as certain circumstances have demonstrated, but in my opinion, *they* are worse more often.


----------



## Matt Stone

> We share the same biology
> Regardless of ideology
> What might save us, me, and you
> Is that the Russians love their children too



The problem is that, though we share biology, we do not necessarily share religion nor culture.  This is the gulf that separates us.  We believe in individual action, individual freedom, separation of church and state.  They do not, and to suggest that church and state be separate is simply incomprehensible.  This isn't necessarily their monopoly, either, as Mother Church felt quite the same for several hundred years...

The point is, we moved past that.  We being "the West."  For good or ill, we separated from the authority of religion and made politics and religion two distinct domains...  They have not.  This is what keeps us from finding a common ground, as much of what we propose is simply alien to their culture and way of thinking...

But you knew that, right?


----------



## MJS

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> Remember these people haven't had freedom of speech and expression for several decades if not centuries.



Thats very true.  The sad thing is, is that any of them fail to see that that is what we're trying to give them.  Unfortunately, it can't happen overnight.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

Briefly...

The attitude that "I don't care about other countries" needs to go away too. Because we are a unilateral power, we can't possibly live in a vacuum. If other countries are in danger, so are we, and vice versa. Also, if we mistreat another country or play unfairly (as we often do with trade laws), it threatens our security directly because of our power. This needs to be understood.

Anyways....continue....


----------



## Rick Wade

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Briefly...
> 
> The attitude that "I don't care about other countries" needs to go away too. Because we are a unilateral power, we can't possibly live in a vacuum. If other countries are in danger, so are we, and vice versa. Also, if we mistreat another country or play unfairly (as we often do with trade laws), it threatens our security directly because of our power. This needs to be understood.
> 
> Anyways....continue....



Good Point 

I will clarify whether those people that did the beheading were Iraqi or not is null in void the fact that they belong to Al Queda is a huge point.  I have absolutely no ill will to Iraqis or Muslims; my beef is with the Al Queda.  A transfer in power will take place on 30 June and they will learn to stand on their own.  For that I congratulate the Iraqi Nation.  

P.S.  the next hot bed that most of you probably haven't heard about the PI they are training terrorist over there also.  This isn't our father's world anymore.


----------



## Matt Stone

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Briefly...
> 
> The attitude that "I don't care about other countries" needs to go away too. Because we are a unilateral power, we can't possibly live in a vacuum. If other countries are in danger, so are we, and vice versa. Also, if we mistreat another country or play unfairly (as we often do with trade laws), it threatens our security directly because of our power. This needs to be understood.
> 
> Anyways....continue....



Agreed, however our Government's primary responsibility is to the people of the US, not the rest of the world.  Confucius said that if everyone took care of their own backyard, the whole world would be just fine (I'm paraphrasing).  We spend too much time worrying about other countries, and far too little worrying about our own.  I applaud the fact that Dubya bolstered the security of our borders.  It should have happened long ago.

I agree, though, that being the biggest, richest, fattest country makes us also the biggest, richest, fattest target for everyone on the block...


----------



## MJS

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> We spend too much time worrying about other countries, and far too little worrying about our own.



Yes, I agree!!!  If some country wants to run around with guns and shoot people, then fine.  As long as its not effecting us, let 'em kill each other.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Nice side benefit, don't you think?  Be able to secure the country against outside attack *and* settle a grudge?  I'm not seeing a problem there...



Sure, that elation will last until you receive your first bill for said grudge settling.  I hope you'll enjoy watching your kids be taxed to death for this, terrorist - no wait, wmd - no wait, humanitarian - no wait...what the hell is this war about anyway?


----------



## Makalakumu

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> The problem is that, though we share biology, we do not necessarily share religion nor culture.  This is the gulf that separates us.  We believe in individual action, individual freedom, separation of church and state.  They do not, and to suggest that church and state be separate is simply incomprehensible.  This isn't necessarily their monopoly, either, as Mother Church felt quite the same for several hundred years...
> 
> The point is, we moved past that.  We being "the West."  For good or ill, we separated from the authority of religion and made politics and religion two distinct domains...  They have not.  This is what keeps us from finding a common ground, as much of what we propose is simply alien to their culture and way of thinking...
> 
> But you knew that, right?



We have the same fanatical desires in our culture and religion.  Genetic prediliction toward lebensraum anyone?  Perhaps we have more in common then you think?


----------



## MisterMike

Iraqi sex, lies and videotape...

..on no, wait, it's just the Boston Globe:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38464

But this isn't anti-American. I'm sure someone will speak to that effect.


----------



## Cryozombie

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> We have the same fanatical desires in our culture and religion.  Genetic prediliction toward lebensraum anyone?  Perhaps we have more in common then you think?



I'm sorry, I'm confused... I did not know what was, so I looked it up in Merriam-webster and found this:

territory believed especially by Nazis to be necessary for national existence or economic self-sufficiency

space required for life, growth, or activity 

So, do you mean that we as a culture are pre-disposed to feel a need for land to survive?  I'm not sure how you meant that last statement, can you "dumb it down" for me?  Thanks.


----------



## Rick Wade

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Iraqi sex, lies and videotape...
> 
> ..on no, wait, it's just the Boston Globe:
> 
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38464
> 
> But this isn't anti-American. I'm sure someone will speak to that effect.



I don't look at as anti American I just look at it as someone trying to stir the pot mainstream media, and they got caught.

They are right down there with the New York Times and making up stories to sell papers.


----------



## michaeledward

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> No don't be sarcastic. Don't argue, lets debate. What I was saying is that the way they have been brought up, as a society isn't as compassionate and sheltered as our way of living in the United States. I have been all around the world several times now and I can tell you first hand _*WE GOT IT GOOD *_real good. Just the fact that we can talk intelligently about this says allot for your country. In most third world countries most of you would have been turned in for talking bad about the government and you would have been sought out and imprisoned. Things like that make you think differently. Remember these people haven't had freedom of speech and expression for several decades if not centuries.
> 
> Respectfully


I was not being sarcastic. I was being damned serious. To say that a member of the same species thinks in a different way is to accuse them of being something 'other' than what we are. In context, this usually means something 'less' than we are. This arguement has been made for hundreds or thousands of years to justify invasions and murder. I am certain that Iraqi husbands love their wives in just the same manner that I love my wife. I am certain that Afghanistan mothers love their children in just the same way I love my children. 

Most third world countries have strong religous societies, because it allows concentration of power and authority; it prevents revolt. Anyone familiar with Islam knows that it is a loving gentle religion. The roots of Islam are in the same Old Testament read by Christains around the world. The roots of Islam are the same as the Tora used as a guide for millions of Jews. Muslems believe in Abraham, Isaac and Jesus.

Those in this country who say that their religion teaches hate know nothing of the religion, and are practicing the same behavior that Eugenics believers practiced throughout the 20th century, and used to justify killing of millions.


----------



## michaeledward

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> ... the friend of my enemy *is* my enemy. If he was going to allow Osammy to reside within his borders, he becomes part of the problem in one fashion or another.


Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were not friends. All of the experts agree it would be a cold day in hell before Hussein allowed bin Laden into his country.



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> No, I am not "required" to believe anything. Thanks for painting me with the same brush you accuse everyone else of using - making broad generalizations about a person's motives based on a few statements.


In order to follow the logic of your argument, and accept it as valid, belief in the underlying principle is required. Your argument was, as I read it "*We did the right thing in deposing Saddam Hussein because of 9/11*" ... now, that is paraphrased a bit ... but let's recap your argument;



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> And ultimately, after 9/11, you'll notice nothing else has been bombed (as threatened repeatedly), you'll notice Osama doesn't show up much on the news (because he is either no longer news, or no longer a threat?), you'll notice that most Iraqis are glad Sadaam is gone. Whatever got us there, we did the right thing, are doing the right thing, and will continue doing the right thing until the threat of terrorism, the threat of murder by psychopaths with a political agenda, is ended.​


​You clearly state that we are doing the right thing until the 'threat of terrorism is ended'. --- IRAQ was not a terrorist threat!  And unless you believe that it was, the invasion of Iraq can not be justified.



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> No, they think based on their cultural background, which states that acts like the beheading are perfectly acceptable in retaliation to the US for the photos and abuse of the Iraqi prisoners.


Which states are acting that the execution of Mr. Berg was 'perfectly acceptable'?


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Iraqi sex, lies and videotape...
> ..on no, wait, it's just the Boston Globe:
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38464
> But this isn't anti-American. I'm sure someone will speak to that effect.


Mike, you're right ... this is repugnant. But, it will soon desensitize the American public, so that when the real photos emerge, the masses will not revolt.

Hell, the right wing talk radio are playing the activities in Abu Ghraib as 'Fraternaty Pranks' and 'Pornography'. I'm sure that's exactly what was going on over there; just like a good hazing at Alpha Alpha Beta Zeta Thong.

I'm more interested in hearing what Senate Majority Leader Frist had to say about his private screening today.

Mike

_OK all, sorry for the repeated posts ... I'll try to contain myself in the future ... _


----------



## Ender

Well I've been gone a few days and am just now getting caught up with this "event". From what I've gathered from some articles is that Iraqi prisoners were tortured and humiliated. From some accounts there was forced sodomy, homosexual sex acts, beatings, and humiliation. While many of theses abuses are repugnant, much of it is psychological. I personally don't see a problem using mind games on prisoners as a way to gather information or intelligence. Forcing them to stand naked, having them stand on a box and telling them they will be electrocuted if they get off the box, or excercizing them strenously I don't consider abuse. But beatings and abhorrent sex acts I do. But I am proud of this country, proud because WE found these abuses and are working to resolve them. WE put this out and let the world know about it. Our own military was working on this well before it became public. And WE will fix it and take care of it. I haven't read all the posts on this subject, but I'm sure many will try to use this as a politcal ploy against Bush. This I find just as abhorrent. Some will say he should take responsibility and resign. Well ,taking responsibility means to fix the problem and find a way so it doesn't happen again. Not to quit, or run away from the problem. Those that did these acts will be court martialed and punished.

Now, onto the recent beheading of Nick Berg. If you haven't looked at the video, you should. It is one of the most horrifying things I have seen. If you look at it you will see how these monsters grab him by the hair. Dragged him to the ground. Take a knife and started hacking away at his throat. you will hear his screams of pain and anguish. Then the silence of him no longer screaming because he is dead. And you will see how they continue to hack away at his neck, cutting away his head and holding it up as some trophy. And do you think we will get an apology for this? Where is the Arab outrage over this incident? Thats the difference between us and them. We find the abuses in our system and are repulsed by them. But these..these extremists are nothing but dogs, and this is what we are fighting against. this is why we are taking the fight to them. These extremists have no conscience. They don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, they will kill you anyway. And if we catch them, I would like to see the abuses done to these swine tenfold. But thats just me.


----------



## marshallbd

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I was not being sarcastic. I was being damned serious. To say that a member of the same species thinks in a different way is to accuse them of being something 'other' than what we are. In context, this usually means something 'less' than we are. This arguement has been made for hundreds or thousands of years to justify invasions and murder. I am certain that Iraqi husbands love their wives in just the same manner that I love my wife. I am certain that Afghanistan mothers love their children in just the same way I love my children.


I dont think anyone is saying that they are a different species, I think that they are saying that your environment, be it poitical or social, does influence your thoughts and feelings and BEHAVIORS (in caps for emphasis not to yell). :asian:


----------



## michaeledward

Ender said:
			
		

> Well I've been gone a few days and am just now getting caught up with this "event". From what I've gathered from some articles is that Iraqi prisoners were tortured and humiliated. From some accounts there was forced sodomy, homosexual sex acts, beatings, and humiliation. While many of theses abuses are repugnant, much of it is psychological. I personally don't see a problem using mind games on prisoners as a way to gather information or intelligence. Forcing them to stand naked, having them stand on a box and telling them they will be electrocuted if they get off the box, or excercizing them strenously I don't consider abuse. But beatings and abhorrent sex acts I do. But I am proud of this country, proud because WE found these abuses and are working to resolve them. WE put this out and let the world know about it. Our own military was working on this well before it became public. And WE will fix it and take care of it. I haven't read all the posts on this subject, but I'm sure many will try to use this as a politcal ploy against Bush. This I find just as abhorrent. Some will say he should take responsibility and resign. Well ,taking responsibility means to fix the problem and find a way so it doesn't happen again. Not to quit, or run away from the problem. Those that did these acts will be court martialed and punished.
> 
> Now, onto the recent beheading of Nick Berg. If you haven't looked at the video, you should. It is one of the most horrifying things I have seen. If you look at it you will see how these monsters grab him by the hair. Dragged him to the ground. Take a knife and started hacking away at his throat. you will hear his screams of pain and anguish. Then the silence of him no longer screaming because he is dead. And you will see how they continue to hack away at his neck, cutting away his head and holding it up as some trophy. And do you think we will get an apology for this? Where is the Arab outrage over this incident? Thats the difference between us and them. We find the abuses in our system and are repulsed by them. But these..these extremists are nothing but dogs, and this is what we are fighting against. this is why we are taking the fight to them. These extremists have no conscience. They don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, they will kill you anyway. And if we catch them, I would like to see the abuses done to these swine tenfold. But thats just me.


Spoken like someone with no knowledge of the facts.
* The abuse of prisoners in the US Prisons in Iraq was first discovered and reported by the International Red Cross.
* Activities to report the abuse were slow and / or non existant from the US Military
* The outrage about the Berg killing can be heard loud and clear in the streets of Baghdad, if one chooses to listen to the reports.

Regards - Mike


----------



## michaeledward

marshallbd said:
			
		

> I dont think anyone is saying that they are a different species, I think that they are saying that your environment, be it poitical or social, does influence your thoughts and feelings and BEHAVIORS (in caps for emphasis not to yell). :asian:


What if, for example, you look at statement 166 in this thread, by Ender, through the lens of 'dehumanizing' the enemy. That *WE *think and act in a noble and honorable way; that *THEY* are a brutal, animal people that are not like us, and therefore deserve what they have coming to them; and *WE* are justified in reigning our justice down on them, because *THEY* are not like us; those *EXTREMISTS*.

I think it is very clear that many on this thread are saying exactly that those 'Arabs' are a different species; obviously not understanding the term. They are putting forth a Eugenics argument.


----------



## marshallbd

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What if, for example, you look at statement 166 in this thread, by Ender, through the lens of 'dehumanizing' the enemy. That *WE *think and act in a noble and honorable way; that *THEY* are a brutal, animal people that are not like us, and therefore deserve what they have coming to them; and *WE* are justified in reigning our justice down on them, because *THEY* are not like us; those *EXTREMISTS*.
> 
> I think it is very clear that many on this thread are saying exactly that those 'Arabs' are a different species; obviously not understanding the term. They are putting forth a Eugenics argument.


I understand what you are saying and I do not agree with people looking at someone as a person or a race and saying they are not worth anything.  Being a person of Arabic descent does not make you an animal....the ideology that SOME, not all, Arabic people embrace is what creates the problem....

By the way for those who do not know the word as I didn't...

from dictionary.com...

Eugenics

n : the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating)   :asian:


----------



## MJS

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Iraqi sex, lies and videotape...
> 
> ..on no, wait, it's just the Boston Globe:
> 
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38464
> 
> But this isn't anti-American. I'm sure someone will speak to that effect.



Ahh...Very interesting.  I'm glad you found that link, because in my first post on this thread I made the comment "If its true", referring to the pics. and I got this response from another poster here.  This is what he said.



> First of all, "if it's true," is kind of a crazy thing to say, IMHO, considering we have the photo's to prove it. Plus, attrocities happened in war...go back and read my previous posts that explained why. Yes, they happened on both sides, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.



Just goes to show that you shouldnt believe everything that you see.

Mike


----------



## MJS

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> I don't look at as anti American I just look at it as someone trying to stir the pot mainstream media, and they got caught.
> 
> They are right down there with the New York Times and making up stories to sell papers.



Whats interesting, and maybe someone already brought this point up, I dont know, but why are these photos just surfacing now????  Considering that the war has been going on for a while now, is this so called 'abuse' just being discovered now or was it happening for a while??

Mike


----------



## MJS

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Spoken like someone with no knowledge of the facts.
> * The abuse of prisoners in the US Prisons in Iraq was first discovered and reported by the International Red Cross.
> * Activities to report the abuse were slow and / or non existant from the US Military
> * The outrage about the Berg killing can be heard loud and clear in the streets of Baghdad, if one chooses to listen to the reports.
> 
> Regards - Mike



Well, ya know what...it amazes me how people like the Red Cross, and all of the other groups who are so concerned with how the prisoners are being treated, are the first ones to cause the problem.  Some of these prisoners there, if not tied up, would not think twice about attacking a soldier.  Many of these people are violent and need to be restrained.  A prison is not a country club, therefore why provide them with all of the amenities of one???  Do you honestly think that if they had an American hostage, they would treat them good?? I dont think so!  

Its funny though..I havent heard anything about the expression of outrage against Berg from the 'people in the streets'.  Why isnt that published in the paper??  Maybe it is, I dont know, but I havent seen or heard about it.

Mike


----------



## marshallbd

MJS said:
			
		

> Its funny though..I havent heard anything about the expression of outrage against Berg from the 'people in the streets'.  Why isnt that published in the paper??  Maybe it is, I dont know, but I havent seen or heard about it.
> 
> Mike


I too, have not seen or heard of the reaction on the streets in Iraq concerning the beheading that took place.  Again, I would like to offer my prayers for Mr Berg and his Family....

On a side note, One of the 4 people whose bodies were mutilated and dragged through the streets last month was a martial artist and actor.  You might remeber him from the movie GI Jane...he was the seal instructor during the training sequences of that movie (According to BlackBelt Magazine) :asian:


----------



## MJS

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What if, for example, you look at statement 166 in this thread, by Ender, through the lens of 'dehumanizing' the enemy. That *WE *think and act in a noble and honorable way; that *THEY* are a brutal, animal people that are not like us, and therefore deserve what they have coming to them; and *WE* are justified in reigning our justice down on them, because *THEY* are not like us; those *EXTREMISTS*.
> 
> I think it is very clear that many on this thread are saying exactly that those 'Arabs' are a different species; obviously not understanding the term. They are putting forth a Eugenics argument.



I gotta agree with Ender on this one.  One thing to keep in mind here, is that these people would rather die than cooperate with the US.  If you think back, we've used these sorts of tactics before and they've had good results.  Blasting music for hours on end, in addition to other techs. used to mentally wear them down have been used for a long time.  Granted, and I'll say it again, IF these pics of prisoners in sexual positions are real, then no, that is not right.  But making them stand on a box, telling them if they fall they'll get zapped....why not??

Mike


----------



## MJS

marshallbd said:
			
		

> I too, have not seen or heard of the reaction on the streets in Iraq concerning the beheading that took place.  Again, I would like to offer my prayers for Mr Berg and his Family....
> 
> On a side note, One of the 4 people whose bodies were mutilated and dragged through the streets last month was a martial artist and actor.  You might remeber him from the movie GI Jane...he was the seal instructor during the training sequences of that movie (According to BlackBelt Magazine) :asian:



I gotta wonder if there was outrage at the dragging of the bodies through the streets as well??? I cant seem to recall if there was or not, but if I had to wager a bet, I'd say that there was none.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward

MJS said:
			
		

> Its funny though..I havent heard anything about the expression of outrage against Berg from the 'people in the streets'. Why isnt that published in the paper?? Maybe it is, I dont know, but I havent seen or heard about it.
> 
> Mike


Follow this link to listen to a news report concerning Iraqi response to Berg's murder.
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1894191


----------



## MisterMike

michaeledward said:
			
		

> * The outrage about the Berg killing can be heard loud and clear in the streets of Baghdad, if one chooses to listen to the reports.
> 
> Regards - Mike



I would think this is probably true. I do not think the Iraqi people want al-Qaeda-types in there cutting off the heads of Americans just for the simple fact it draws an overwhelming response from the U.S. Military, in the same fashion of how we shelled Falluja and that other place when the cleric was hangin' out.

I look forward to our response to this one...


----------



## rmcrobertson

So, if I understand correctly, the logic is:

a) It was OK because it wasn't torture.

b) It's OK because here on the greatest country on earth, we took care of it already; 

c) It's OK, because look at what, "those people," did to poor Nicholas Berg.

So, in other words, it didn't happen, we fixed it, and anyway it was their fault in the first place. Never seen a better illustration of Freud's bucket joke.


----------



## marshallbd

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Follow this link to listen to a news report concerning Iraqi response to Berg's murder.
> http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1894191


"Un-Islamic"?  Isn't 99% of what goes on over there "un-Islamic".  I am not muslim or islamic, but from what I understand, the Islamic religion is a peaceful religion the same as christianity.  So where in the Koran or the Bible does it talk about a holy war with terrorism as the principal means of fighting? :asian:


----------



## MJS

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Follow this link to listen to a news report concerning Iraqi response to Berg's murder.
> http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1894191



Thanks for the link.  Its good that there was something said, but is a shame that people have to go online to hear the report rather than being able to read about it in the paper.  Again, maybe it has been printed, I dont know, but I havent seen anything.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link. Its good that there was something said, but is a shame that people have to go online to hear the report rather than being able to read about it in the paper. Again, maybe it has been printed, I dont know, but I havent seen anything.
> 
> Mike


Do you know of any newspapers that have their own reporters on the ground in Iraq? Or are they dependent on Associate Press reports?  Seems to me that most major news organizations have spent the last decade reducing their overseas staff. The BBC does a pretty good job internationally. And PRI recently introduced a program called 'The World' (co sponsored by WBUR in Boston), that reports stories from overseas.


----------



## michaeledward

marshallbd said:
			
		

> "Un-Islamic"? Isn't 99% of what goes on over there "un-Islamic". I am not muslim or islamic, but from what I understand, the Islamic religion is a peaceful religion the same as christianity. So where in the Koran or the Bible does it talk about a holy war with terrorism as the principal means of fighting? :asian:


 

*Deuteronomy 7*
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

You can use the Bible to justify almost anything.


----------



## MisterMike

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *Deuteronomy 7*
> 1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
> 
> You can use the Bible to justify almost anything.



Just thought I'd put the NIV version for easier reading:

1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations-the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

But what this has to do with Iraq I do not know.


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> But what this has to do with Iraq I do not know.


Someone asked where in the Bible it talks about 'Holy War'. This is just one place. I am not arguing in favor of this behavior, or justifying anything with it. Just pointing out the reference.


----------



## Tgace

Alright..beside all the round and round ..what should be done that isnt being done right now.


----------



## marshallbd

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *Deuteronomy 7*
> 1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
> 
> You can use the Bible to justify almost anything.


But that is an order for war not terrorism...in my eyes they are very different...


----------



## marshallbd

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *Deuteronomy 7*
> 1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
> 
> You can use the Bible to justify almost anything.


But your point was well made....


----------



## MJS

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Do you know of any newspapers that have their own reporters on the ground in Iraq? Or are they dependent on Associate Press reports?  Seems to me that most major news organizations have spent the last decade reducing their overseas staff. The BBC does a pretty good job internationally. And PRI recently introduced a program called 'The World' (co sponsored by WBUR in Boston), that reports stories from overseas.



Honestly, I couldnt tell you.  But, I can say that seeing as how this war thing is such an important thing, I would think that every news paper, would get the info. somehow.

Mike


----------



## Ender

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Spoken like someone with no knowledge of the facts.
> * The abuse of prisoners in the US Prisons in Iraq was first discovered and reported by the International Red Cross.
> * Activities to report the abuse were slow and / or non existant from the US Military
> * The outrage about the Berg killing can be heard loud and clear in the streets of Baghdad, if one chooses to listen to the reports.
> 
> Regards - Mike



And you sound like someone who likes to select the facts he hears.

All accounts I have read have shown that the first identification of the problem came from within the military. Several weeks before the Red Cross became involved. These accounts came from CNN and MSNBC. Second, the military is a large government organization, and like any large government organization,  action is not usually quick. Third, the outrage you claim has been minimal. I have not seen any official, govenment leader, or Islamic leader condemn the beheading....yet.

Best regards-Ender


----------



## Cruentus

2 things...

I don't know the answer as to whether it was the red cross or the military that found out first, but instead of speculating, lets post a source. If you have a source for Red Cross being first, Mike, please post it. Ender, if you have a source saying military was the first, please post that.

Second thing, are american news sites actually showing footage of the be-heading, or is this just something on the Islamic websites?


----------



## michaeledward

Ender said:
			
		

> And you sound like someone who likes to select the facts he hears.
> 
> All accounts I have read have shown that the first identification of the problem came from within the military. Several weeks before the Red Cross became involved. These accounts came from CNN and MSNBC. Second, the military is a large government organization, and like any large government organization, action is not usually quick. Third, the outrage you claim has been minimal. I have not seen any official, govenment leader, or Islamic leader condemn the beheading....yet.
> 
> Best regards-Ender


The following is from the International Committee of the Red Cross, and can be read in more detail on their web site 

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5YRMYC?OpenDocument



			
				International Committee of the Red Cross said:
			
		

> A second point I would like to make is that this report includes observations and recommendations from *visits that took place between March and November 2003*. The report itself was handed over to the Coalition Forces (CF) in February of 2004.
> 
> This is important to understand in the sense that what appears in the report of February 2004 are observations consistent with those *made earlier on several occasions orally and in writing throughout 2003*. In that sense the ICRC has repeatedly made its concerns known to the Coalition Forces and requested corrective measures prior to the submission of this particular report.


And to the response of Berg's murder ... the Arab News web site posts the following 
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=44854&d=13&m=5&y=2004&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion



			
				The Arab News said:
			
		

> Now there are new pictures, taken this time not by American soldiers, but by Arab combatants  of an American civilian being beheaded by an alleged Iraqi Al-Qaeda group, of Palestinian militants holding high in triumph a bloody body part from an slain Israeli soldier alongside a copy of the Quran  a picture so revolting and outrageous that we could not, would not, publish it.


----------



## Cruentus

Thank you Mike.

So...who exactly is publishing this footage of the beheading on the web? Ender said that we should see this horrifying attrocity, but I don't see where anyone is actually showing the film.


----------



## michaeledward

_Adult Content and Sensitivity Alert!!_


I have not seen the video ...
I understand the video was removed from several servers on the web, particuarly in Indonesia. I am sure there are still mirror sites out there.

The following link does have still photos. The link has many violent images. The link is generally supportive of the 'Iraqi Resistance', and this is a position that I do not favor, so please don't yell at me just because I posted the link... thanks


_Adult Content and Sensitivity Alert!!_

*URL** DELETED DUE TO CONTENT OF ADULTS ENGAGED IN SEXUAL ACTS*
*SEIG*
*MT ADMIN*

For the still photos of Berg's murder ... scroll down the page.

Please use with Caution ....

_Adult Content and Sensitivity Alert!!_


----------



## Cruentus

michaeledward said:
			
		

> _Adult Content and Sensitivity Alert!!_
> 
> 
> I have not seen the video ...
> I understand the video was removed from several servers on the web, particuarly in Indonesia. I am sure there are still mirror sites out there.
> 
> The following link does have still photos. The link has many violent images. The link is generally supportive of the 'Iraqi Resistance', and this is a position that I do not favor, so please don't yell at me just because I posted the link... thanks
> 
> 
> _Adult Content and Sensitivity Alert!!_
> 
> *URL DELETED DUE TO SEXUAL ACTS*
> 
> For the still photos of Berg's murder ... scroll down the page.
> 
> Please use with Caution ....
> 
> _Adult Content and Sensitivity Alert!!_


That was the most hateful website I have ever seen. So it is websites like these that are showing the footage, not credable news sites. That's just what I was wondering about.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

marshallbd said:
			
		

> But that is an order for war not terrorism...in my eyes they are very different...


Religious ideology can be spun for all kinds of whacky crap. Anybody remember Mr. Falwell asserting that 9/11 was Gods punishment for abortion and gays in America? Sound like the act of a God who loved mankind (ALL mankind) so much, that he incarnated into the flesh, and was tortured to death for the salvation of  (let's see, perfect people? Nope.  Oh yeah...) sinners?

As for the Deut. piece...Old Testament is filled with lines of this and similar ilk, including one that even mentions not letting the chickens or livestock live, calling for total annihilation. One step further? There are Hindi teachers who have explained the Holocaust as Kharma on the reincarned souls of the Israelites who committed acts of religious genocide, as per biblical history.

Praise God, and pass the ammunition?

Oxymoron: "Holy War". Joseph Campbell said in his taped video series that man seeing the divinity in another man is not capable of acts of war. As long as we see the Thou in another, we will greet them as part of the Sacred. We must, necessarily, demote the "Thou" to an "it" to be able to destroy.

Were the Iraqi prisoners being viewed as "Thou" by their captors? Are we viewed as "Thou" by those who seek to steer plane into our landmarks, or drive bombs into our embassies? Are they comparable acts? On scale, of course not. In principle, they all require ignoring the divine spark of life present in each of us...on and by both sides. Yet we all believe we are right.

The execution squad afficianado has spoken.

D.


----------



## rmcrobertson

I suspect that the quote from Deuteronomy has to do with the repeated suggestions and claims--on this thread and elsewhere--that the problem in Iraq isn't just a few bad apples, it's with a religion that is in its very nature perverse and violent. The quote simply points out that if we're gonna go to Qu'ran and pick out the ugly bits, then use those bits to bolster a claim that Islam is sick as a religion, well, we better fess up that there are things just as ugly and as sick in the Old Testament.

As for the claim that this was war, not terrorism, so it's OK...whew. I refer youto the Nuremberg Trials (hell, at least watch the movie...Spencer Tracy, Maximilian Schell, Marlene Dietrich, Ruchard Widmark, and BURT LANCASTER), as well asthe Geneva Accords, to which the US is a signatory nation.

"War," does not make this crap OK. Neither does Christ's message, last I checked.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Sorry to single out your post...
> 
> Apparently rape is no big deal either, huh. Just fraternity stuff right? Well, maybe it is fraternity stuff....the kind that should end you up in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> PAUL
> :asian:


hows that go again? these porn shots you have posted won't land frat boys in jail. Porn isn't illeagal ... yet :uhyeah: 
Sean


----------



## Ender

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The International Committee of the Red Cross began discussing allegations of prison abuse of Iraqi prisoners in February, at which point Secretary of State Colin Powell began raising the issue with other Cabinet members, State Department officials have said.

Powell "wanted to make sure the concerns of the [Red Cross] were addressed," and "the administration was open to the recommendations of the [Red Cross]," a senior official said Thursday.

Powell said he spoke Thursday with Red Cross President Jakob Kellenberger and assured him the U.S. government is dealing with the charges of abuse of the Iraqi prisoners.

"We will answer in a comprehensive way," Powell told reporters.

Antonella Notari, a Red Cross spokeswoman, said its employees had been visiting Abu Ghraib prison for some time and had been reporting on their findings and recommendations in writing to U.S. authorities.

One State Department official said Powell exerted pressure on the administration regarding the issue of releasing some of the Iraqi detainees.

"He said, 'We have to address this if we want to advance the political process.' He said we have to release the ones that can be released, and for those that can't, decide what to do with them," the official said, noting this was the same position Powell took regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This official said that in recent months the United States began to hear charges of abuse of Iraqi prisoners from Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy who has been working in Iraq on the political transition. Brahimi also engaged Robert Blackwell, the White House point man on Iraq.

Powell first became aware of the prison abuse allegations in January, when they were reported "internally" throughout the U.S. government, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said


----------



## OUMoose

Tulisan said:
			
		

> That was the most hateful website I have ever seen. So it is websites like these that are showing the footage, not credable news sites. That's just what I was wondering about.




Check this site I put in my previous post if you REALLY want to see it...  It is exceptionally graphic, however, so you have been warned.  Just minimize the browser for a couple seconds during their little commercial to get access to the site.


----------



## Cryozombie

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So, if I understand correctly, the logic is:
> 
> 
> c) It's OK, because look at what, "those people," did to poor Nicholas Berg.
> .



Right right right.  

How about look at what, "those people," did to poor 

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm

Of course you in your University Fantasyland will find a way to discount that, and allow your heart to bleed for the poor Terrorists, Al-Queda supporters, Al-Zarqawi, and Al-Queda members we are killing/humiliating in return.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So, in other words, it didn't happen, we fixed it, and anyway it was their fault in the first place. Never seen a better illustration of Freud's bucket joke.



Oh, there is that fantasy world imposing itself on reality.  Get off the LSD buddy and realize NO ONE here said it didn't happen, most people aren't even "for it" having happend.  Even the ones who are "for it" condemmed MOST of the actions, but agreed with the "Pyschological Warfare" aspects of it... somthing we have been doing FOREVER... Mainly because A certain level of interrogation IS neccessary... and giving them a comfy chair, a prime rib dinner, and a thereputic massage wont cut it... but the line DOES need to be drawn somewhere... Personally I would say at "physical" abuse.  But psychological... well... Hell, even our police do that to our citizens... depriving them of food/sleep durring "interviews", stripping them naked, body cavity searches, lies and intimidation... cry about that for a while to Robert.  Oh wait, those are americans that is happening to, thats ok isn't it?


----------



## michaeledward

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Right right right.
> 
> How about look at what, "those people," did to poor
> 
> http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm


Again, people weem to be mixing up the arguments. Technopunk ... you aren't saying that the people in prison in Iraq had something to do with the attacks on September 11th, are you? Even the President has stated publicly that Iraq was not involved in September 11th.

It seems that you are arguing that because 2948 were killed on September 11th, the United States can perpetrate any act on any person anywhere in the world. That doesn't seem right.


----------



## Cryozombie

Ender said:
			
		

> Third, the outrage you claim has been minimal. I have not seen any official, govenment leader, or Islamic leader condemn the beheading....yet.
> 
> Best regards-Ender



Not that I think they are the most un-biased news service... but... 



			
				CNN said:
			
		

> CIA official: Al-Zarqawi likely beheaded Berg
> Thursday, May 13, 2004 Posted: 1:58 PM EDT (1758 GMT)
> 
> Three Arab states -- Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates --- have condemned Berg's murder. "There is no doubt that killing detainees and mutilating the remains of the dead are acts which are condemned by all religions and contrary to the morals of all nations and peoples," Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan said in a statement released Wednesday.


----------



## MJS

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I suspect that the quote from Deuteronomy has to do with the repeated suggestions and claims--on this thread and elsewhere--that the problem in Iraq isn't just a few bad apples, it's with a religion that is in its very nature perverse and violent. The quote simply points out that if we're gonna go to Qu'ran and pick out the ugly bits, then use those bits to bolster a claim that Islam is sick as a religion, well, we better fess up that there are things just as ugly and as sick in the Old Testament.
> 
> As for the claim that this was war, not terrorism, so it's OK...whew. I refer youto the Nuremberg Trials (hell, at least watch the movie...Spencer Tracy, Maximilian Schell, Marlene Dietrich, Ruchard Widmark, and BURT LANCASTER), as well asthe Geneva Accords, to which the US is a signatory nation.
> 
> "War," does not make this crap OK. Neither does Christ's message, last I checked.



Robert--Would you care to enlighten us to your solutions as how you think the situation should be solved??  

Mike


----------



## Cryozombie

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Again, people weem to be mixing up the arguments. Technopunk ... you aren't saying that the people in prison in Iraq had something to do with the attacks on September 11th, are you? Even the President has stated publicly that Iraq was not involved in September 11th.
> 
> It seems that you are arguing that because 2948 were killed on September 11th, the United States can perpetrate any act on any person anywhere in the world. That doesn't seem right.



No No, but it was stated that the Al-Queda was responsible for Bergs beheading, and Robert seems to be arguing that Berg was the "Only person" they killed.  And actually, Thinking about it, I would say that Radical Terrorists who openly assassinate Americans as a RESULT of what we do to some prisoners SUGGESTS a connection somehow... even if its only a "brothers in arms" kind of connection.

Oh, and... I have openly stated many times that we went TOO far in what we did, if a lot of what they claim happend is true... so no, we cannot perpetrate ANY act on ANY person.


----------



## MJS

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So, if I understand correctly, the logic is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) It was OK because it wasn't torture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm..It wasnt torture!!!!  That would be beating them with sticks or whips.  2 very different things here Rob.  Shame that you dont see it.  Mental abuse or hacking someones head off??? Gee, one looks more violent to me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b) It's OK because here on the greatest country on earth, we took care of it already;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, last time I checked, the good old USA looked like a damn good place to live to me!!!!  And if this country wasnt so great Rob, then let me ask you, why do soooooooooooo many people from soooooooooooo many other countries imigrate to the USA???  Makes ya wonder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c) It's OK, because look at what, "those people," did to poor Nicholas Berg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they did to Berg was SICK!!! PERIOD!!!!  These people only understand 1 thing, and that 1 thing is violence!!!  Every time you see a pic. of a burning vehicle, what else do you see??  A group of these sh**bags standing around, laughing, smiling, cheering, holding up a piece of the wreckage.  We are there to get rid of the terrorists, and attempt to give these people a better life, and what do they do???
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:
			
		

> Robert--Would you care to enlighten us to your solutions as how you think the situation should be solved??
> 
> Mike



He won't.  He will go off on some wild tangent that has nothing to do with anything you ask him... as usual.


----------



## Ender

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Not that I think they are the most un-biased news service... but...



Well finally!...they were slow to act don'tcha think?*L...*chuckles


----------



## michaeledward

Ender said:
			
		

> Well finally!...they were slow to act don'tcha think?*L...*chuckles


Let's see ... Quote from MSNBC article ..."The videotape, posted on an al-Qaida-linked Web site Tuesday, drew revulsion around the world."

​


​If the video was posted after the news cycle in the middle east (which it was - the world is round, you know)... how much time do you think it should take to react? 



Video posted on the web Tuesday
Viewable and reportable in the Middle East on Wednesday
Thursday reports of condemnation reported in the US.


Curiously - Mike

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4971314/


PS. - One last thought ... in reference to statements about how the middle east did not properly rebuke the attacks of September 11th. - This new article states that both Hezbollah & Hamas condemned the 9 11 terrorist attacks.


----------



## Ender

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Let's see ... Quote from MSNBC article ...
> 
> 
> 
> "The videotape, posted on an al-Qaida-linked Web site Tuesday, drew revulsion around the world."
> 
> 
> 
> ​If the video was posted after the news cycle in the middle east (which it was - the world is round, you know)... how much time do you think it should take to react?
> 
> 
> Video posted on the web Tuesday
> Viewable and reportable in the Middle East on Wednesday
> Thursday reports of condemnation reported in the US.
> 
> 
> Curiously - Mike
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4971314/



it was sarcasm...hellooo!!

But more to your point, revulsion IS NOT condemnation by Islamic Clerics or Arab Leaders... I do appreciate how you like to play those word games though. Keep up the good work.


----------



## michaeledward

Ender said:
			
		

> it was sarcasm...hellooo!!
> 
> But more to your point, revulsion IS NOT condemnation by Islamic Clerics or Arab Leaders... I do appreciate how you like to play those word games though. Keep up the good work.




OK ... sarcasm ... got it ... 

You know, if you click with the little arrow on the blue words with the line underneath them, it brings you to a new web page ... on that page .. you do get to read more information.... like this ...



			
				MSNBC Article said:
			
		

> "Hezbollah *condemns* this grisly act which has caused great harm to Islam and to Muslims by this group which falsely claims to belong to the religion of mercy, compassion and genuine human values, the statement said."


and


			
				MSNBC Article said:
			
		

> "The English-language Jordan Times *condemned* the beheading in an editorial, calling it a horrific act of the greatest magnitude.


 
by the way ... thanks for the chuckle ... this thread needed it a bit, and certainly I did ...


----------



## Cryozombie

And come to think of it...

While there is no way for us to know for SURE...

I believe that the "Terrorists" responsible would have killed Nicholas Berg, or someone else.. regardless of how we treated those prisoners... It sure makes a convienient excuse for them tho doesnt it?

I seem to recall american people being raped, tortured, burned, kidnapped, flown into buildings, etc...

Well before we ever tortured those Iraqis.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Where was it I read: "two wrongs don't make a right, but three do?"

Personally, I feel that if John McCain describes this stuff as torture, well, that's a good enough definition from an expert for me.

But hey, tell ya what: why don't we just go through all the photographs and statements, and arrange to do EXACTLY to some of those on this forum what American soldiers did to helpless prisoners? Seems that'd settle the question of, "Gee, was that torture?" right quick. Any volunteers?

Apparently the latest thing in the pictures is that these guys and gals--in addition to following what look to have been their orders--were running a sweet little S&M ring down in the basement of that prison. And seems to me there's no way in hell that none of the higher-ups knew it. 

But hey, if you're comfortable with that, neat-o. Why should we be upset with our troops mixing business with pleasure? 

I continue to be stunned by the amount of rationalizing on this thread. Guess moral HAVE declined since I grew up--back in the day, American soldiers were NEVER supposed to behave like this. We're a democracy, I was taught, and the traditional values of this country (as well as our religious principles) forbid any of what the bad guys do. It's a shame that consumer, corporatist capitalism has penetrated so far that at least a few Americans have lost all sense of pride, and hope, in the special thing that this country was put here to be.

Lincoln's remarks about the corrupting influence of slavery upon the slaveowner seem very much on point here. 

But me, I am depressed to see Americans attacking people they consider, "unpatriotic," for having different ideas and some principles. That's the worst thing about the Michael Savages of the world--they legitimate hatred of fellow Americans.

Trace back in these threads over the last year or so, and you will see the ideological groundwork for this crap getting laid. remember all those discussions of how torture was sometimes justifiable? Well, this is one of the consequences. American soldiers playing sex games and getting into inflicting cruel little-boy pain and humiliations, and passing it off as somehow, "necessary."

The behavior was sick, and anybody with a grain of sense knows it, whatever they say on these threads. Only question is, whether it was an aberration or a set policy. If it was a set policy, some generals should go to jail. Probably, so should the Donald.


----------



## Cryozombie

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But hey, tell ya what: why don't we just go through all the photographs and statements, and arrange to do EXACTLY to some of those on this forum what American soldiers did to helpless prisoners? Seems that'd settle the question of, "Gee, was that torture?" right quick. Any volunteers?
> 
> .



Sure pal, tell ya what... 

Ill get naked, tied to a wall, and hell, I'll EVEN LET YOU ELECTROSHOCK ME, not just threaten to...

WHEN YOU CONCEDE to letting me kill your family by crashing them into a building and then following that up by burning you alive and then decapitating you?

Sound fair?


----------



## MJS

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But me, I am depressed to see Americans attacking people they consider, "unpatriotic," for having different ideas and some principles. That's the worst thing about the Michael Savages of the world--they legitimate hatred of fellow Americans.



Having different ideas and principles???? What the hell are you talking about Rob?????  To me, it basically sounds like you're saying its ok for what they did just because their ideas of punishment are different from ours??? Dude, if thats what you're saying, you are seriiously messed up!!!  How the hell do you justify chopping someones head off compared to making someone think that they are gonna get shocked???????????  Again, 2 *VERY* different things here.  

I also have to wonder.  What would you think of all this if YOU had someone fighting over in Iraq or someone that you loved die on 9/11?  Would you have a different outlook then?  

I'm still waiting for how YOU would handle this situation????

Mike


----------



## MJS

Technopunk said:
			
		

> He won't.  He will go off on some wild tangent that has nothing to do with anything you ask him... as usual.



You're right!  That is exactly what happened.  I'm still waiting for his reply on how HE would handle this.  Unfortunately, I'll probably be old and grey before that happens.

Mike


----------



## Tgace

Opinions are like.....(the same saying for excuses). 

Solutions are rarer and tougher to come up with. Some people are very effective at cutting down ideas, but not so effective at submitting their own for examination.


----------



## Cruentus

Here is what the possabilities boil down too.

#1. What we did wasn't torture.

The fact is there are thousands, not 10 or 20 or 100, but THOUSANDS of photos of maltreatment against the prisoners. And not just frathouse pranks, but accounts of rape and beatings and murder. Just because we feel what terrorists do might be worse, that doesn't make what we did not torture.

#2 What we did may have been torture, but it was perfectly justified.

Last time I checked, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone rapes my wife, I will kill them, or bring them to justice through the system, plain and simple. I am not going to turn around and rape them. Just because horrific things may have happened to some of our soldiers and people, that doesn't give us liscense to do what ever the hell we want.

And F--- what "they" think about us, for the moment. As Americans, WE should hold ourselves to a higher standard then what was in those photos.

#3 O.K., O.K. It was torture, and it was not justified; but we weren't wrong. It was only a few soldiers that did it. So how could our country be blamed for the actions of a few?

First of all, there were THOUSANDS of photos and written statements, not just the few that hit the press. And according to both Democrates and Republican Senators on the news, the photos we haven't seen are far more horrific then what we have seen. So this isn't just the actions of a few.

Does this mean that "soldiers are bad." No, but it does mean that there was a top down order for these acts to occur. All the collaborating evidence supports that this was a top down order; the question is, how high does it go?

#4 O.K....fine. It was torture, and we were wrong.

Now we are getting somewhere. When you realize the problem, then you can solve it. Admitting fault is not such a bad thing. Many of our policy makers, republican and democrate, are willing to do this, and have done this. Yet, some of you here won't. It would be better for all of us in the long run.


----------



## Tgace

I agree, but I prefer to wait until all the evidence is in before jumping to judgement. If these pictures are all from the same camp then a reserve MP Bn does not an army make. If they are saying that this was an Army wide practice thats another story. 

Allowing MP's (especially reserve troops) to participate in Intell operations (like interrogation) is a problem I have. These guys may have thought that this stuff was SOP. PFC England is now saying that "higher ups" ordered her pose for photos to be used as psyop material against other prisoners and that they were commended for doing a good job and that good intel was being aquired. If thats true, the blame goes much higher than some lowly PFC.


----------



## loki09789

Come on, Paul.  You know how this game is played.  The 'top down order' is just as implausible as anything else.  They CYAed themselves because they never 'ordered' any of these specific acts.  They did put pressure on fast results of interrogation of prisoners that trickled down to intelligence agencies getting creative and encouraging mental and physical abuse that the troops carrying such acts - generally National Guard/Reservists with far less man hours of professional reinforcement and strong leadership than active duty components - were justified 'because they told me too.'  Well that doesn't fly for me because straight from my Guidebook for Marines:

"..You must never kill, torture or mistreat a prisoner, because such actions are a violation of the law and because prisoners may provide you vital information....Treating a prisoner badly will also discourage other enemy soldiers from surrendering.... this [proper treatment] will encourage the enemy to treat his prisoners (our buddies) well."

Now, if these reports aren't misrepresentations, exagerations of interrogation techniques no different than those that our soldiers endure during Escape and Evasion training.  If these photos/reports of sexual abuse and attrocities aren't just urban legends being planted and used to the benefit of the Military INtel(MI) folks to intimidate prisoners, I say nail all involved for sacrificing professionalism for speed of intelligence - and based on the military response, they are of the same mind.

If this is all information leaking and in the end it is no different than the myth building that Mid-East terror groups use to believe about Marines back in the '80's (you had to kill a family member to get into the Marines...was the myth), then it is a game that is dangerous and can loose the local crowd because they aren't in on it.


----------



## Tgace

I just hope that "good shoots" soldiers/MP's have been involved in dont get covered with the same blanket of abuse. Some prisoners will get shot if they are attempting an escape.


----------



## Cruentus

> Come on, Paul. You know how this game is played.



Yea, I guess I do.

The evidence points to the idea that it was a top down order, but it may not have been very high up. We'll have to see what more evidence points too on that one.


----------



## Cruentus

Tgace said:
			
		

> I just hope that "good shoots" soldiers/MP's have been involved in dont get covered with the same blanket of abuse. Some prisoners will get shot if they are attempting an escape.



I hope not too.


----------



## loki09789

I don't think it is right, but it is easier to 'lower the bar' to the enemies level when they aren't an actual 'nation' or members of the same 'honor' club who adhere to the laws of land warfare and Geneva code.... mirroring is not a really big 'character' reaction to enemy action though is it?


----------



## Tgace

Where were inspections? Where was the leadership? Squad Leaders, Platoon Sgt.,First Sgt., Squad Leader, Company Commander.....Paul, you know that if we had did something like this in Bosnia, the whole company would have known in short order.


----------



## loki09789

Tgace said:
			
		

> Where were inspections? Where was the leadership? Squad Leaders, Platoon Sgt.,First Sgt., Squad Leader, Company Commander.....Paul, you know that if we had did something like this in Bosnia, the whole company would have known in short order.


Exactly why I am not buying the "top down order" excuse. Firstly, when the words come out of a private's mouth, what do they really mean by "top down?" Hell, they have no idea where the order came from other than an NCO/Officer from their chain of command or NCO/Officer's that their chain of command allows to give orders to these non rates. 

You know what is right and wrong. You know that you are not only allowed, but obligated to refuse unlawful orders... these pictures show how important strong small unit leadership is to a units morale and conduct. The intell/interrogation operations should have been conducted by Intel people, not MP's - especially reserve/NG troopies. The unit commander's should have told the intel guys to do so themselves - MP's might have run camp security, but that isn't the same as being intell/interrogation trained.


----------



## Tgace

Absofrigginloutely


----------



## Ender

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK ... sarcasm ... got it ...
> 
> You know, if you click with the little arrow on the blue words with the line underneath them, it brings you to a new web page ... on that page .. you do get to read more information.... like this ...
> 
> and
> 
> 
> by the way ... thanks for the chuckle ... this thread needed it a bit, and certainly I did ...



I wanna see these Clerics leading thousands of demonstrators shouting "Allah Ackbar...Death to the Al-Qaeda infidels!...and I wanna see Al-Zaqwari hung in effigy and a picture of of Osama Bin Laden burned with them dancing around the picture......And I wanna see condemnation on every Arab newspaper and TV in the region from these clerics...These little lip service remarks don't cut it....nods..that should be enough for me....*L

oh, and leave the condenscending attitude at the door....it's so cliche' from your type.


----------



## MA-Caver

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Exactly why I am not buying the "top down order" excuse. Firstly, when the words come out of a private's mouth, what do they really mean by "top down?" Hell, they have no idea where the order came from other than an NCO/Officer from their chain of command or NCO/Officer's that their chain of command allows to give orders to these non rates.
> 
> You know what is right and wrong. You know that you are not only allowed, but obligated to refuse unlawful orders... these pictures show how important strong small unit leadership is to a units morale and conduct. The intell/interrogation operations should have been conducted by Intel people, not MP's - especially reserve/NG troopies. The unit commander's should have told the intel guys to do so themselves - MP's might have run camp security, but that isn't the same as being intell/interrogation trained.



This is true, but be that as it may. When you're in charge of "dangerous" prisoners and the opportunity to do unto them what they've been doing to your buddies... remember what happened a few weeks ago when they dragged U.S. bodies through the streets? Opportunities for "pay-back" are plenty when you got days and days of being alone with someone who would do or have done the same. I'm not saying the mentality is/isn't there (seems that it had to be for the torture/abuse to happen) but it is a question of ethics that we as Americans should be civilized enough NOT to fall prey to that trap. It would help for the rest of the world to see that we (as Americans) are above such barbarism. 
Yeah, I know I'm falling victim to wanting to have and believe in the America's "The Good Guys Image"... but, well ... dammit? Are we are or aren't we? I still want/like to be able to hold my head up and proudly say I'm an American!! But with atrocities like this... how we treat our prisoners and countries that we "say" we're trying to help... might as well wear a swaztika on one arm and a hammer and sickle on the other.  What those soliders did (are still doing???) is no better/different/excusable than the treatment of the aforementioned governments/regimes/dictatorships (and they're failed governments  mind you... a red flag  if we ever needed one :redcaptur), have done to _their_ prisoners.
Aren't we supposed to have the standards that everyone else looks up to and not DOWN on?

p.s. I realize that not _everyone_ on this board is an American.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Hey, here's a little number from the latest news, available on my Microsoft browser front page:

"The father of Nick Berg, the American beheaded in Iraq, directly blamed President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his son's death. "My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this."

But I know that won't bother anyone: personal attacks are so much easier.

I continue to be amazed by the utter failure on the part of some to recognize--or to admit, perhaps--a completely unacceptable series of violations of very basic moral precepts. 'Scuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't some of you the guys who keep lecturing the likes of me on the need for Solid, Timeless, Unchanging Moral Values? Or do these just apply when--I'm trying to put this politely--we're talking about WASPs? Or, I know--moral precepts apply only when it's convenient.

I continue to be amazed by the reiteration of the notion that I keep floating away from the Real Point on the part of people who keep dragging poor Nicholas Berg into it.

Why haven't I been parroting the sentiments you want me and other to parrot about terrorism's being wrong? Because, gee, I thought normal adults pretty much knew that already. Because, gee, I was brought up to believe that Americans believed that they could trust other Americans, that we had common interests that ran deeper than minor political differences. Because, gee, I was brought up to believe that this was a great and strong country that was confident enough to tolerate dissent, that didn't need to crush opposition because the whole point was to try and find out the truth, that was stronger for our disagreements. Because, gee, they taught me that our Founding Fathers were great men precisely because they believed and said things that were dangerous and disagreeable. Because, gee, they taught me that this country was, "the last best hope," of humankind precisely because WE WERE SOMETHING NEW, AND BETTER, AND WE DID NOT STOOP TO THE EVIL THAT THE BAD GUYS DID, NO MATTER WHAT THE PROVOCATION. Hell, they even taught me that America set an example of justice, peace, and tolerance for the rest of the world to follow. 

I realize it's comforting for a couple of you guys to believe that I was raised by Lesbian communists just outside Beijing, but the fact of the matter is that I will bet you I was raised far more traditionally than anybody on this thread, with the possible exception of Mr. Edward. And you know what they taught me, way back then? That my country was better than torturers and bullies and dictators and imperialists and liars. 

So--were they wrong to teach me that?

Some other time, we can get into the whole 'nother issue of a martial artist's response to this stuff. Guess they got that wrong too--I always read, and was taught, that a martial artist shows restraint and compassion at all times, and never bullies. They didn't even bring up the whole issue of whether a martial artist was allowed to torment the helpless, whatever the reason or cause might be.

Guess they figured that the answer to that last bit was obvious.


----------



## RRouuselot

Ender said:
			
		

> I wanna see these Clerics leading thousands of demonstrators shouting "Allah Ackbar...Death to the Al-Qaeda infidels!...and I wanna see Al-Zaqwari hung in effigy and a picture of of Osama Bin Laden burned with them dancing around the picture......And I wanna see condemnation on every Arab newspaper and TV in the region from these clerics...These little lip service remarks don't cut it....nods..that should be enough for me....*L
> 
> oh, and leave the condenscending attitude at the door....it's so cliche' from your type.


Agreed!!!!


----------



## RRouuselot

Just to add some of my own twisted thoughts on the subject.............I work on a military base.

First comment I heard was "why were they so stupid to take photos?"

I would have to agree.....look at the Nazis.....they took photos as well and it lead to some pretty damaging evidence.

Another comment I heard was "its a real war..real prisoners....not like Hogans Heros TV program....its R-E-A-L"

Again I agree.....things like this and the Nick Berg incident are horrifying but thats what wars are....horrifying.


----------



## michaeledward

Ender said:
			
		

> oh, and leave the condenscending attitude at the door....it's so cliche' from *your type*.


I'm sorry ... you said that they did not condemn the acts. But in the very article I referred to, there was a variant of the word 'condemn' at least twice. 

I can only assume that you did not expose yourself to the report because a) you do not know how or b) you do not care to know another point of view.

In this very thread, it has been pointed out that reports of prisoner abuse from the International Committee of the Red Cross come from more than 10 detention facilities in Iraq, yet some continue to put forth the arguement that it was just a 'few bad apples'. I suppose *my type* gets frustrated when people choose to remain unaware of what is going on around them.

Mike


----------



## old_sempai

As Sherman said "war is hell."   However, does anyonce recall hearing similar outcries from the western media during the 1st Gulf war when Jeffrey Zahn appeared on Iraqi & Arab TV with cigarette burns on his face, with his eyes and face also showing the effects of having been beaten.  Or of the Female American Helicopter pilot immediately raped after capture, or of the 3 British Commandoes of Bravo Two Zero that were tortured to death by Saddam's goons.  As for Mr. Berg his death is abhorrent, but then to his passport identified him as Jewish and also had an Israeli stamped affixed to it showing he had also traveled to Israel.  He may have been a kind hearted adventurer according to his family, but was he that naive that he did not recognize that he was going in harms way, and as a civilian no less.  His family did, but they were unsuccessful in their efforts to dissuade him from going, and now they chose to lay the blame elsewhere.


----------



## marshallbd

old_sempai said:
			
		

> As Sherman said "war is hell."   However, does anyonce recall hearing similar outcries from the western media during the 1st Gulf war when Jeffrey Zahn appeared on Iraqi & Arab TV with cigarette burns on his face, with his eyes and face also showing the effects of having been beaten.  Or of the Female American Helicopter pilot immediately raped after capture, or of the 3 British Commandoes of Bravo Two Zero that were tortured to death by Saddam's goons.  As for Mr. Berg his death is abhorrent, but then to his passport identified him as Jewish and also had an Israeli stamped affixed to it showing he had also traveled to Israel.  He may have been a kind hearted adventurer according to his family, but was he that naive that he did not recognize that he was going in harms way, and as a civilian no less.  His family did, but they were unsuccessful in their efforts to dissuade him from going, and now they chose to lay the blame elsewhere.


I understand about the passport....I made a few trips to Israel on a Government passport and had stamps from Israel....when the time came to go to the middle east, I ordered a replacement passport with no stamps to avoid the hassles that might come with having a passport with Israeli stamps in it. :asian:


----------



## marshallbd

old_sempai said:
			
		

> As Sherman said "war is hell."   However, does anyonce recall hearing similar outcries from the western media during the 1st Gulf war when Jeffrey Zahn appeared on Iraqi & Arab TV with cigarette burns on his face, with his eyes and face also showing the effects of having been beaten.  Or of the Female American Helicopter pilot immediately raped after capture, or of the 3 British Commandoes of Bravo Two Zero that were tortured to death by Saddam's goons.


I dont remember there being as much of an uproar about the abuse our people recieved in the Desert Storm.. as there is now..... :asian:


----------



## old_sempai

and fail to provide background data that would serve to put what they report in proper perspective.  Consequently, not many are aware that anyone with an Israeli Stamp on their passport is generally not able to travel to Muslim countries, such as Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Iran.  Mr Berg not only had an Israeli stamp on his passport, but had his prayer shawl with him as well.  It makes one wonder was he that naive not to realize he was putting a bullseye on his back especially since Zawaqari along with the rest of the Al Qaida followers are extremely passionate with regard to their hatred of Israel and Jews.


----------



## Makalakumu

MJS said:
			
		

> I also have to wonder.  What would you think of all this if YOU had someone fighting over in Iraq or someone that you loved die on 9/11?  Would you have a different outlook then?
> 
> I'm still waiting for how YOU would handle this situation????



I'm still waiting to see this link between Iraq and 911?  People sure have this stuck in there mind and there is absolutely no evidence.  Everytime I hear this, all the samurai in me thinks of is funshi...what a disgrace to rational thought.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> Opinions are like.....(the same saying for excuses).
> 
> Solutions are rarer and tougher to come up with. Some people are very effective at cutting down ideas, but not so effective at submitting their own for examination.



What really can a person do in this situation?  At best, I will say you have high expectations.  At worst...well, never mind.  I know that I don't have enough information to suggest anything on my own.  That is where these discussions help.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Come on, Paul.  You know how this game is played.  The 'top down order' is just as implausible as anything else.  They CYAed themselves because they never 'ordered' any of these specific acts.  They did put pressure on fast results of interrogation of prisoners that trickled down to intelligence agencies getting creative and encouraging mental and physical abuse that the troops carrying such acts - generally National Guard/Reservists with far less man hours of professional reinforcement and strong leadership than active duty components - were justified 'because they told me too.'  Well that doesn't fly for me because straight from my Guidebook for Marines:
> 
> "..You must never kill, torture or mistreat a prisoner, because such actions are a violation of the law and because prisoners may provide you vital information....Treating a prisoner badly will also discourage other enemy soldiers from surrendering.... this [proper treatment] will encourage the enemy to treat his prisoners (our buddies) well."
> 
> Now, if these reports aren't misrepresentations, exagerations of interrogation techniques no different than those that our soldiers endure during Escape and Evasion training.  If these photos/reports of sexual abuse and attrocities aren't just urban legends being planted and used to the benefit of the Military INtel(MI) folks to intimidate prisoners, I say nail all involved for sacrificing professionalism for speed of intelligence - and based on the military response, they are of the same mind.
> 
> If this is all information leaking and in the end it is no different than the myth building that Mid-East terror groups use to believe about Marines back in the '80's (you had to kill a family member to get into the Marines...was the myth), then it is a game that is dangerous and can loose the local crowd because they aren't in on it.



Respectfully, Paul, I think you missed this document.

http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm

Torture and mental duress were an official part of US policy in the past.  Why would that just go away?  MKU may be a project that was discontinued, but it does not mean that it didn't evolve.  

Unfortunately there is no way for the average person to find much out about this matter.  The amount of obfuscation in this case is very suggestive though.  The only thing I can think of when ever I hear anything from any side in this case is that one needs to be VERY skeptical.  

These acts frighten me (911, Nick Berg, Prisoner Abuse, ect...).  I can't imagine what was going through the peoples minds when they partake in such brutality.


----------



## Cruentus

I cought a portion of Bill O'rielly's radio show last night (yes, I listen to "liberal" media as well as "Conservative" to get all sides).

The Berg incident is going to be used to link Al Queda to Saddam, to try to justify why we went in to Iraq in the first place. Watch. By no later then next month the media and the administration will be saying, "See...we told you that Al Queda and Iraq were linked! Those men who did that to Berg were Al Queda!"   

Supposedly the man who was reading the long message in arabic has been identified by voice to be a certian Al Queda operative (forgot his name though). Considering that would be all to perfect for this administration, and it doesn't collaborate with other evidence, I am skeptical that it is the person they are refering to. However, it may have been Al Queda. But this just means that the pro-war people will use this incident to try to logically present the idea that Al Queda has been in Iraq all along; not thinking critically and realizing that since the fall of Saddam, many terrorist organizations have travelled to Iraq who weren't there before.

There are other sources that say that the Al Queda person that the voice is supposed to match to is actually dead. Then again, there are other sources that also say that the whole thing was staged, which I don't believe. 

But, no matter what the truth really is, we'll just have more lies for the use of political posturing rammed down our goards.


----------



## michaeledward

The terrorist referred to is 'al Zawahari', if I am not mistaken, or mis-spelling his name. He is Jordanian by birth. He was reportedly trained at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. He was reportedly injured during the battles in Afghanistan. The injuries received in Afghanistan were treated in an Iraqi hospital.

'Big John', O'Reilly's guest host on the Radio Factor yesterday was strenuously pushing al Zawahari's treatment in an Iraqi hospital as a Hussein-al Qaeda connection. The premise is, if he was treated in Iraq, it could only be because Saddam Hussein authorized and condoned it. 

This premise can be used to explain how George H.W. Bush had links with Timothy McVeigh - after all, McVeigh served in GHWBush's Gulf War, and lived under GHW Bush's presidency. So, they must be linked. Can't you all see it.


----------



## marshallbd

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Exactly why I am not buying the "top down order" excuse. Firstly, when the words come out of a private's mouth, what do they really mean by "top down?" Hell, they have no idea where the order came from other than an NCO/Officer from their chain of command or NCO/Officer's that their chain of command allows to give orders to these non rates.
> 
> You know what is right and wrong. You know that you are not only allowed, but obligated to refuse unlawful orders... these pictures show how important strong small unit leadership is to a units morale and conduct. The intell/interrogation operations should have been conducted by Intel people, not MP's - especially reserve/NG troopies. The unit commander's should have told the intel guys to do so themselves - MP's might have run camp security, but that isn't the same as being intell/interrogation trained.


I just heard a small blurb of a quote from one of the soldiers involved that the command did not know what was going on...he said if they did "there would be hell to pay"  this soldier is expected to plead guilty at his court martial. :asian:


----------



## loki09789

marshallbd said:
			
		

> I just heard a small blurb of a quote from one of the soldiers involved that the command did not know what was going on...he said if they did "there would be hell to pay" this soldier is expected to plead guilty at his court martial. :asian:


If he does, I respect his willingness to take personal responsibility. Believe it or not, the military will also recognize the demonstration of moral courage/accountability as well.  I think it should be the case all up and down the chain of command for those involved.  Those who were neglegent in leadership roles should take ownership of that, those who shirked professionalism/decency for speed should own up too.

Again, with PsyOps though, how many of these stories and claims/pictures were creations intended to shake prisoners into talking vs. how many of them are real is left to be discovered.  Some of the stories will be true, but some are really far fetched to be true and sound as if it is a 'story from a guy who heard it from...' among the prisoners.  I know that according to the Geneva code, a fighting man/woman is suppose to continue the fight even as a prisoner.  Some (but definitely not all) of this could be a smear campaign as part of that spirit.  

I notice there hasn't been any mention of the intell that was collected, confirmed or acted on successfully from all this mess.  I wonder what good stuff/dope/intell came from all of this.  What ever it was/is, I don't know if it is worth it to win the little missions or the 'war' but sacrifice international image, just seems to make more problems than it is worth.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Respectfully, Paul, I think you missed this document.
> 
> http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm
> 
> Torture and mental duress were an official part of US policy in the past. Why would that just go away? MKU may be a project that was discontinued, but it does not mean that it didn't evolve.


I didn't miss the document, but I doubt that a lt. in the Military Intelligence corps was privy to it in his training.  This really smacks of over zealous, under trained attempts at initiative at lower levels because of nonspecific, unclear communications of 'urgency' from above.....


----------



## Cruentus

> This premise can be used to explain how George H.W. Bush had links with Timothy McVeigh - after all, McVeigh served in GHWBush's Gulf War, and lived under GHW Bush's presidency. So, they must be linked. Can't you all see it.



I can see it now... must be good citizen....must....support president...must... :uhohh:  :erg:


----------



## Tgace

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font] 
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font] 
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Making 'em Talk*[/font] 
_Sunday 14 July 2002
repeated the following Wednesday at 2.30pm_ 
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]US military interrogators are currently having a hard time extracting information from the ex-Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters detained in Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay. Hardly surprising - but how do you get inside the minds of hostile captives, without going outside the constraints of the Geneva Convention? Is there such thing as a truth drug? This week we talk to two psychiatrists, as well as one military man with hands-on experience; he's the author of an interrogators' manual entitled "Make 'em Talk".[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Transcript:
[/font]*David Rutledge: *Hi, David Rutledge here, welcoming you once again to All in the Mind. And its the vulnerability and the resilience of the mind thats our subject this week. Specifically, the minds of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters held in American captivity in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. These captives, including the two Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, live in small chain-wire cells, under constant spotlight surveillance, dressed in orange boiler suits, at times manacled and at times blindfolded. And these captives have been specifically chosen for extensive interrogation. 

We dont know exactly whats going on inside the interrogation rooms. However, we do know that military psychologists and military psychiatrists are supporting the interrogation teams. The captives are classified as illegal combatants and not prisoners of war, so theyre not protected under the Geneva Convention. We can therefore assume that when it comes to their interrogation, the gloves will be coming off. Well, it was a Pentagon official who said recently that all appropriate steps and measures are being taken to turn the interrogations up a notch. But how exactly are such interrogations turned up a notch? What happens to the mind in solitary confinement? and is there such thing as a truth drug? 

This week Paul Brennan has gone in search of some answers.

*Paul Brennan: *We have inherited from the second world war the now comic cliché we have ways of making you talk. The interrogators aim is to extract from the prisoner information that can be turned against the enemy, either in the military or the propaganda war. Military interrogators work in various ways. The British, prior to interrogating some Irish insurgents, put black bags over their heads and made them stand against a wall with their hands on their heads for days. They bombarded them with 85 decibel noise of whirling helicopter blades. During the Yom Kippur War, some Israeli soldiers captured by the Russians were injected with high doses of a drug that caused screamingly painful muscle cramps and panic breathing. This helped the interrogators. Another high-tech way of giving the prisoner a pummelling without leaving too many bruises, is to use silent and low frequency ultrasound. It induces vomiting, disorientation, epilepsy and can be delivered with accuracy by laser beam. 

But its still the good old rough-and-ready third degree that remains popular with the front line military. Bob Newman is a former US marine with some practical experience interrogating Iraqis during Desert Storm. Hes written a book about interrogation techniques  which include exhaustion, isolation, degradation and fear. Newmans book is called _Make Em Talk_. So what makes a good interrogator?

*Bob Newman: *First of all, he needs to be mature, and to be focused very tightly on objectives and goals that he wants to reach. He has to be patient and very disciplined. The information that a good interrogator can extract from a source, a prisoner of war, could really make the difference between success on the battlefield and a very bloody failure.

*Paul Brennan: *Now, tell us about your experience as a fighter/interrogator during Desert Storm. Were talking Kuwait 1991.

*Bob Newman: *We started taking prisoners in staggering numbers, and we did not have enough interrogators, true interrogators, whose fulltime job it is in the Marine Corps to interrogate people, to process quickly enough on the battlefield all of the people we were capturing. So in part, folks up at the regimental and divisional level were relying on the very few people, such as myself, who had some interrogation experience. So we had to do very quick battlefield interrogations, where we wanted tactical information  not strategic information or biographical information, but tactical information  that could help the battlefield commander on the spot. So we wanted to know unit disposition, unit strength, weapons, unit movement, and especially immediate future plans, so that we could prevent those plans from ever taking place.

*Paul Brennan: *Now, in your book _Make Em Talk_, some of the interrogation techniques sound to me like torture. Are they?

*Bob Newman: *No, theyre not. As a matter of fact, if you read through the book, youll see a lot of insistence that it is absolutely unnecessary and absolutely illegal to torture somebody. *Torture gains physical compliance, and if you speak to former prisoners of war such as the Americans who ended up in the Hanoi Hilton, the Hoa Lo Prison in downtown Hanoi during our Vietnam War, theyll tell you that somebody who has physical control of you can make you do what they want you to do. It doesnt necessarily mean that torture can get good, useful, practical battlefield information.* (my emphasis)

*Paul Brennan: *A commentator in the _Wall Street Journal_ recently advocated the use of truth serums on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners at Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta. What do you think?

*Bob Newman: *Well, thats an old ploy from Hollywood movies, frankly. There is no such thing as truth serum. But if you want to get him to blab a little bit, and feel a little more comfortable, and get him to open up if you will, then sodium pentathol can be useful. 

*Paul Brennan: *A Pentagon official said recently that interrogations of Taliban and Al-Qaeda suspects were going to be turned up a notch, thats his phrase. How precisely can interrogations be turned up a notch?

*Bob Newman: *Well, how about this. The first thing were going to do is bring in some interrogators that he has not experienced before. And heres an example: instead of the interrogator coming in, announcing who he is and demonstrating control, that he is in charge of the situation to the source, we could bring in somebody who does not come across as an interrogator. Perhaps hes posing as a fellow prisoner of war, and is going to use soft sell techniques to get the information out of the prisoner, the real prisoner, without him even knowing that his new room mate is on the other side. What I really like to use, and Ive found this to be extremely useful, is sleep deprivation. But what you have to do with sleep deprivation, be very careful that the source does not become so tired that he is giving you information that he thinks is accurate, but in reality is very inaccurate. So thats a problem there. Another thing that you can always use is the reward system. Lets say hes used to getting one bowl of rice and a small piece of meat and all the water he can drink every day. The second one for turning up the notch would be to reward him with additional food, food that he really likes. And you can find out what food he really likes by any number of sources. One is to simply ask him what he likes, find out a little bit more about his culture, where he grew up, what would be standard meals for him, and merely show him that by co-operating he will be rewarded. And finally, you can turn up the heat by a technique that refers back to his family. By letting him know and stressing to him that he will survive this situation if he co-operates, and he will be back as soon as we can possibly get him back with his family. He will be repatriated. And therefore that is a reward system as well.

*Paul Brennan: *Modern interrogation technology has really got the prisoner under its thumb.

*Bob Newman: *Absolutely and thats what it is: the prisoner is under the interrogators thumb. Look at Mr. Abu Zubaida, the number three man in Al-Qaeda, who is under US care right now. He is the guy who, under proper interrogation, gave up the name of American Jose Padilla, a Chicago gangland member who was planning to detonate a radiological or dirty bomb in Washington DC. Zubaida gave us Padillas name because Zubaida was properly interrogated.

*Paul Brennan: *Bob Newman, counter-terrorist consultant in Denver Colorado. 

Now, even if the interrogations are carried out within the constraints of the Geneva Conventions, the sheer persistence and duration of such interrogations can still leave you in poor mental shape. Professor Derrick Silove is a consultant psychiatrist at the Sydney-based organization STARTTS, Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors. I asked him about the range of symptoms presented by survivors of interrogation.

*Derrick Silove: *The range is very wide, actually, because we obviously see a skewed sample. We see people who had severe reactions, and we shouldnt forget that a lot of people go through it without too much trouble. They might have a few sleepless nights and a few bad dreams and thats the end of it. So we see the high end of the spectrum, of people who have what we call post traumatic stress disorder and/or depression  the two often go together  and when they have the full-blown syndrome, its pretty serious. Because then they really have serious sleep disturbances, nightmares, flashbacks, their concentration is impaired, they may be very depressed and even suicidal.

*Paul Brennan: *Do you have evidence from your patients that confirms that drugs are being used by military interrogators?

*Derrick Silove: *Yes, theres no doubt. Its becoming a worldwide trend. Psychoactive drugs are available, both illicit and legal ones, across the world. And they have a very profound effect on reducing resistance.

*Paul Brennan: *Can you give us an example of how one or two or perhaps three drugs work and help the military interrogator?

*Derrick Silove: *Well, they often use combinations. So you get a combination of sedative drugs and stimulant drugs, which can be very disorientating, because on the one hand youre kind of stupefied, and half drowsy and half asleep, which reduces your resistance in a sort of drunk-like state. On the other hand, youre being aroused and stimulated, and your brain is charging very rapidly, and so you are more likely to talk a lot and spill the beans and free-associate. So it can be incredibly disorientating and undermining when you get these cocktails of drugs.

*Paul Brennan: *When people come to you as a result of that kind of interrogation, how do you actually pick up the pieces, psychologically speaking?

*Derrick Silove: *The core strategy is still a counselling approach. That is to re-engage the person; they often feel very cut off from humanity as a consequence, and everything else really flows from that engagement in terms of providing practical assistance, medication sometimes, psychological support of various kinds, and a willingness to actually listen to the story as it unravels. Because people feel very lonely and isolated with this knowledge which theyve never often been able to communicate to anybody else, out of shame and guilt and many other reasons.

*Paul Brennan: *In addition to drugs, military interrogators use  and have used for years  solitary confinement. How does that actually work on the mind?

*Derrick Silove: *People firstly become very disorientated. They lose track of time, day and night, especially if the lights are left on all the time or they are in dark all the time, so they lose track of time. That in itself is very psychologically undermining. Its something that none of us really experience, but if you lose track of time you really get very distressed and disturbed. You also lose a spatial orientation. You start losing track of where you are, what the place is and so on. So you start developing what is almost like a delirium, you really feel like youre out of touch with reality. People get paranoid, they misinterpret everything as threatening, they become very focused on obsessional thoughts. For example, the next meal becomes the key issue. So their mind become very constrained in its capacity to think widely and broadly, and the sense of loneliness, being cut off from the world is immense. 

*Paul Brennan: *Whats the difference in long-term prognosis between those whove survived interrogation without spilling the beans, and those who have in some way either compromised themselves or their friends?

*Derrick Silove: *I think that makes a huge difference. But I should also say that with so-called modern techniques, very few end up not spilling the beans. Because if the interrogators are well-versed in their trade, it is actually almost impossible to resist. But those who have spilled the beans under certain circumstances, are those people who are very racked by guilt, shame, a sense of being completely devastated by the experience. And they feel that their integrity has been destroyed. Ive had one patient say there are just bits and pieces of me left scattered around the interrogation room, I just dont exist any more as an integrated human being, and I thought that was a very stark illustration of what it feels like. Especially if youve been a militant or someone with very strongly held ethical standards prior to that.

*Paul Brennan: *Professor Derrick Silove. 

Military interrogations hold prisoners in solitary confinement where everything is controlled: the prisoners lighting, the noise, the temperature, their air supply, their total visual environment, as well as their access to food, water and ablutions. On top of all this are many possibilities for medical, chemical and electrical interventions into the prisoners body and into the prisoners mind. So with all this physical and psychological power in the hands of the interrogators, the crucial question is: isnt it really just a matter of time before the prisoners mind is destroyed? Derrick Silove again.

*Derrick Silove: *I wouldnt go as far as to say that the mind is destroyed totally or forever. I think people can recover from this. I think they always say theyve changed as a person, theyre not the same person. But I think the key lesson is that there is a threshold beyond which people cant resist, and the modern techniques very quickly reach that threshold.

*Paul Brennan: *How important, then, is religious belief?

*Derrick Silove: *Well, the research certainly shows that adherence to religion can be a very protective factor. Theres no doubt that people who have the comfort of religion  because thats something that you can take with you into any situation, including solitary confinement  it can make a huge difference. But I also have to say that there are those people who, at the end of these processes, give up on their religion or on any spiritual faith, because theyve kind of lost faith. And thats a very devastating experience. They just cannot believe a true god or gods could sanction such a thing, and therefore it actually destroys their faith.

*Paul Brennan: *If you were trying to help somebody who was perhaps going to go into military interrogation, what kind of advice could you give them as a psychiatrist?

*Derrick Silove: *Well, its interesting that its not just psychiatrists, but actually some militant groups in various parts of the world actually do train their cadres to do precisely that. So we have some knowledge about that, and its the obvious: the one is to try to draw on the experiences of those who have been through it, to prepare the person exactly for all the variations of interrogation that theyre likely to go through. The second thing, and I think thats the most helpful, is to tell them to spill the beans  and groups do that nowadays. They say, they tell them quite precisely dont spill the beans too quickly, otherwise they wont believe you. Put up a sham resistance, and then pretend that its all over, calmly, and tell them whatever you know. And the way they prepare them for that is by giving them as little information as possible, in other words make sure that each individual knows very little, and basically elaborate if you need to, with a bit of imagination to satisfy whatever they want. Because basically, withholding that information just doesnt help in the end.

*Paul Brennan: *So theres no future for the tight-lipped hero?

*Derrick Silove: *Very little, unfortunately. I think they are more the substance of novels nowadays, rather than reality.

*Paul Brennan: *Derrick Silove, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of New South Wales.

For many months now, prisoners have been held for interrogation at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Theyll all Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters and theyre all Muslims. What can we surmise about the vulnerability and resilience of their minds in the face of modern interrogation methods? Dr. Malik Badri is Professor of Psychology at the International Islamic University in Kuala Lumpur. Hes held academic positions in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and has also written a book on contemplation in Islam. Dr. Malik Badri describes the ordeals of Bilal, one of Islams first political prisoners during the seventh century.

*Malik Badri: *Bilal was an Ethiopian slave in Mecca. And his master used to, when he accepted Islam and rejected the bowing to their stone carved gods, he was taken in the hot sun and they would put very heavy stones on them and he would beat him and tell him, just say something to say that you have refused Islam, and say something good about our gods but he would only repeat the words _ahadun ahad_, God is only One. And he was able to feel that all the pain that he received was something that would bring him nearer and nearer to God, since he is sacrificing for the sake of God. 

Another prisoner in Islamic history, a man who was put in prison a few centuries ago, was Ibn Taymiyyah. And he was put in prison in Cairo, he was from Damascus. Ibn Taymiyyah was very famous for having said the very famous sentence when he was arrested. He said, What are they going to do to me? If they put me in prison then this is a chance for me for contemplation. If they send me out of the country, to deport me, it would be like tourism. And if they kill me, I will be a martyr. What can they do to me?

*Paul Brennan: *Now, while a Muslim warrior can no longer continue his jihad of the sword, in prison he must continue his mental and spiritual jihad. What does this actually involve?

*Malik Badri: *They say when the Prophet came from a battle, he said to his companions, We have returned from the small jihad to the major jihad. They asked him, What is the major jihad? What is more than what we were doing? He said, The jihad of the soul, the jihad of your desires that take you away from God, is a greater jihad. This is the major jihad. Prayer is very important, the repetition of certain exhortations to Allah is very important. This by itself will bring about a form of relaxation. It can increase the hormones that are related to relaxation, and make the person in a happy state which cannot be described by words.

*Paul Brennan: *Would a Muslim see their survival in prison as a kind of divine test, a divine lesson?

*Malik Badri: *Yes indeed. You see, if man can actually transcend himself to a higher level of reality, then indeed, whatever happens to man in terms of something which is painful, can be explained cognitively by him in two ways. Either this is a way by which God is helping him to forgive his sins, or else it is a way by which God elevates his position spiritually. So people who are in prison, who have this kind of conception, will actually be able to tolerate their imprisonment very well. And they can see that the prison is something which God has sent them in order to improve their status.

*Paul Brennan: *Now, while solitary confinement can separate every single prisoner from every other prisoner, do you think in some way they can communicate through something like a common heart or a common spirit?

*Malik Badri: *People when they are in prison, and when they are in solitary confinement, it seems that their psychic ability will be sharpened. I have known of a number of cases in which people who came out of prison, they would say they would actually know about what is happening in their homes, by their dreams. And at times, while they are awake, they would get this kind of  what we call inspiration. I feel that those people who have a belief in a hereafter, and the ability actually to communicate, these people are the ones who can tolerate quite a lot of psychological stress in prison. Even they can tolerate physical stress which does interfere chemically with their brains.

*Paul Brennan: *How can they spiritually transcend a truth drug?

*Malik Badri: *When it comes to the chemical, then the bodies of all people are the same. We must say that even we, in the field of psychiatry, we are using these drugs already. And a patient who has a lot of pent up feelings, maybe he has secrets which he cannot say to the doctor, is given a drug at times, and this drug will make him speak. This is what is known as catharsis, or abreaction, and in this sense we are actually using something which can also be used in prisons, to let those in prison who know certain information, can bring it up. Modern technology has actually been able, and modern medicine and modern biochemistry, if used in this manner, it can actually wreck anybody.

*Paul Brennan: *Dr. Malik Badri, Professor of Psychology at the International Islamic University in Kuala Lumpur. 


So there it is: according to one interrogator, one psychiatrist and one Muslim psychologist, all human beings, when subject to the vast battery of interrogation techniques, can be threatened, bribed or just pharmaceutically steered into spilling the beans. This surely dispels forever the romantic vision of the human mind as the resilient repository of the sacred self. The biotechnologies of interrogation, it seems, are heralding the post-human future, where your mind is not necessarily your own.

*David Rutledge: *Paul Brennan there, reporting on military interrogation.


----------



## Tgace

My point about "solution" is...is there intelligence we need to get and if so how far should we go to get it? Just asking for it isnt going to work. What techniques are OK and what is torture? If you thought that a prisoner you had knew about an immenent attack on a 9/11 scale...how far would you go to get that intel? What techniques do you think are OK and whats too far. Thats presenting an idea.

My idea...I have no problem with the sensory deprivation,drugs (carefully applied), yes..even threats of physical harm without actually doing it,nudity, hooding etc. If its applied as a technique of interrogation for an exact purpose and not for entertainment, vengance or sadistic pleasure of guards.

I do have a problem with actual physical harm being inflicted, sexual abuse, forcing prisoners into degrading acts with each other etc.


----------



## Cryozombie

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hey, here's a little number from the latest news, available on my Microsoft browser front page:
> 
> "The father of Nick Berg, the American beheaded in Iraq, directly blamed President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his son's death. "My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this."
> But I know that won't bother anyone: personal attacks are so much easier.



Yes but... in all reality isn't that exactly what that is? A personal Attack by Nick Berg's father on President Bush?  Unfortuantley, regardless of George Jr's f-ups, In Nick Berg's case the president had nothing to do with it... Nick Berg was not "Sent there" he chose to go, I recall reading that he considered going a... what did they say... rush? thrill? somthing along those lines... We know how far out you are, so of course instead of seeing that you use it as ammo against the Administration you claim to be brought up so strongly to believe in.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I continue to be amazed by the utter failure on the part of some to recognize--or to admit, perhaps--a completely unacceptable series of violations of very basic moral precepts. 'Scuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't some of you the guys who keep lecturing the likes of me on the need for Solid, Timeless, Unchanging Moral Values? Or do these just apply when--I'm trying to put this politely--we're talking about WASPs? Or, I know--moral precepts apply only when it's convenient.



I continue to be amazed by the utter failure on the part of YOU to recognize--or to admit, perhaps-- that most everyone here has said we went too far... But no... all you can hear with your own ego stroking going on about how you are brought up better than the rest of us is "YAY, LETS TORTURE RAGHEADS FOR FUN!"  (Pardon the expression, but I feel like that is what Robert thinks of us)



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I continue to be amazed by the reiteration of the notion that I keep floating away from the Real Point on the part of people who keep dragging poor Nicholas Berg into it.



Well Sir, if you wish for people to stop reiterating that notion, you have but to ADDRESS people's questions directed at you, instead of going off on some tangent that does not answer what you were asked.  I know focus is a big deal... but can you try it before complaining people claim you have none?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Because, gee, they taught me that this country was, "the last best hope," of humankind precisely because WE WERE SOMETHING NEW, AND BETTER, AND WE DID NOT STOOP TO THE EVIL THAT THE BAD GUYS DID, NO MATTER WHAT THE PROVOCATION. Hell, they even taught me that America set an example of justice, peace, and tolerance for the rest of the world to follow.



This is the notion that has the situation completely ATFU.  AMERICA didn't do those things... SOME PEOPLE DID.  PEOPLE are failible, and as such, PEOPLE DO THINGS WRONG.  PEOPLE, angry, sad, vengeful, or just plain MEAN did what they did because they were facing an Enemy who's NATION felt it was ok... I'm sorry to hurt your moral feelings, but AMERICA still is better.  Why can I say that? Because Instead of celebrating this evil those INDIVIDUALS did, we are looking to punish them... not dancing in the streets and cheering.  But you don't believe that. 




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I realize it's comforting for a couple of you guys to believe that I was raised by Lesbian communists just outside Beijing,



Haha, theres that LSD again making you think we said things we didnt. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> but the fact of the matter is that I will bet you I was raised far more traditionally than anybody on this thread, with the possible exception of Mr. Edward. And you know what they taught me, way back then? That my country was better than torturers and bullies and dictators and imperialists and liars.



Wow.  Nice Ego.  Does it come with a display case or do you just take it out and show it to people?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Some other time, we can get into the whole 'nother issue of a martial artist's response to this stuff. Guess they got that wrong too--I always read, and was taught, that a martial artist shows restraint and compassion at all times, and never bullies. They didn't even bring up the whole issue of whether a martial artist was allowed to torment the helpless, whatever the reason or cause might be.
> 
> Guess they figured that the answer to that last bit was obvious.



Maybe you read too much.  try living... OUTSIDE of a book. The notion "that a martial artist shows restraint and compassion at all times, and never bullies" is a nice one... and it is, I agree, (OMG we agree on somthing???) the most commonly taught... but it is NOT the only notion taught.   Add to that, ONCE AGAIN that people are failible, and well... Keep in mind, Robert, the "martial" in martial arts refers to fighting, combat and warfare... and durring a fight, only being "honorable and moral" leads to one thing... and its not "going home safley" after the battle is over.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I didn't miss the document, but I doubt that a lt. in the Military Intelligence corps was privy to it in his training.  This really smacks of over zealous, under trained attempts at initiative at lower levels because of nonspecific, unclear communications of 'urgency' from above.....



If you have the time, read through it.  Its very interesting reading and the kind of mental and physical duress described in the photos slips into this framework.  I'm not sure how it was arranged through the chain of command, perhaps this was a case in which the chain of command was hijacked by the CIA.  At the Senate hearing, the joint cheifs were talking about this very thing.

We all could go round and round on this forever.  The truth is that we just won't be privy to the information that could answer our questions.  I'm sick of speculating.  *Trust nothing* unless it comes directly from the people involved.  And then you can expect half of that pool of information to be lies.  Anyone with half a connection to this thing is going to pulling up the iron undies - dispicable - yet ya gotta cover yer butt.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Making 'em Talk*[/font]
> _Sunday 14 July 2002
> repeated the following Wednesday at 2.30pm_
> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]US military interrogators are currently having a hard time extracting information from the ex-Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters detained in Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay. Hardly surprising - but how do you get inside the minds of hostile captives, without going outside the constraints of the Geneva Convention? Is there such thing as a truth drug? This week we talk to two psychiatrists, as well as one military man with hands-on experience; he's the author of an interrogators' manual entitled "Make 'em Talk".[/font]
> 
> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Transcript:
> [/font]*David Rutledge: *Hi, David Rutledge here, welcoming you once again to All in the Mind. And its the vulnerability and the resilience of the mind thats our subject this week. Specifically, the minds of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters held in American captivity in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. These captives, including the two Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, live in small chain-wire cells, under constant spotlight surveillance, dressed in orange boiler suits, at times manacled and at times blindfolded. And these captives have been specifically chosen for extensive interrogation.
> 
> We dont know exactly whats going on inside the interrogation rooms. However, we do know that military psychologists and military psychiatrists are supporting the interrogation teams. The captives are classified as illegal combatants and not prisoners of war, so theyre not protected under the Geneva Convention. We can therefore assume that when it comes to their interrogation, the gloves will be coming off. Well, it was a Pentagon official who said recently that all appropriate steps and measures are being taken to turn the interrogations up a notch. But how exactly are such interrogations turned up a notch? What happens to the mind in solitary confinement? and is there such thing as a truth drug?
> 
> This week Paul Brennan has gone in search of some answers.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *We have inherited from the second world war the now comic cliché we have ways of making you talk. The interrogators aim is to extract from the prisoner information that can be turned against the enemy, either in the military or the propaganda war. Military interrogators work in various ways. The British, prior to interrogating some Irish insurgents, put black bags over their heads and made them stand against a wall with their hands on their heads for days. They bombarded them with 85 decibel noise of whirling helicopter blades. During the Yom Kippur War, some Israeli soldiers captured by the Russians were injected with high doses of a drug that caused screamingly painful muscle cramps and panic breathing. This helped the interrogators. Another high-tech way of giving the prisoner a pummelling without leaving too many bruises, is to use silent and low frequency ultrasound. It induces vomiting, disorientation, epilepsy and can be delivered with accuracy by laser beam.
> 
> But its still the good old rough-and-ready third degree that remains popular with the front line military. Bob Newman is a former US marine with some practical experience interrogating Iraqis during Desert Storm. Hes written a book about interrogation techniques  which include exhaustion, isolation, degradation and fear. Newmans book is called _Make Em Talk_. So what makes a good interrogator?
> 
> *Bob Newman: *First of all, he needs to be mature, and to be focused very tightly on objectives and goals that he wants to reach. He has to be patient and very disciplined. The information that a good interrogator can extract from a source, a prisoner of war, could really make the difference between success on the battlefield and a very bloody failure.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Now, tell us about your experience as a fighter/interrogator during Desert Storm. Were talking Kuwait 1991.
> 
> *Bob Newman: *We started taking prisoners in staggering numbers, and we did not have enough interrogators, true interrogators, whose fulltime job it is in the Marine Corps to interrogate people, to process quickly enough on the battlefield all of the people we were capturing. So in part, folks up at the regimental and divisional level were relying on the very few people, such as myself, who had some interrogation experience. So we had to do very quick battlefield interrogations, where we wanted tactical information  not strategic information or biographical information, but tactical information  that could help the battlefield commander on the spot. So we wanted to know unit disposition, unit strength, weapons, unit movement, and especially immediate future plans, so that we could prevent those plans from ever taking place.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Now, in your book _Make Em Talk_, some of the interrogation techniques sound to me like torture. Are they?
> 
> *Bob Newman: *No, theyre not. As a matter of fact, if you read through the book, youll see a lot of insistence that it is absolutely unnecessary and absolutely illegal to torture somebody. *Torture gains physical compliance, and if you speak to former prisoners of war such as the Americans who ended up in the Hanoi Hilton, the Hoa Lo Prison in downtown Hanoi during our Vietnam War, theyll tell you that somebody who has physical control of you can make you do what they want you to do. It doesnt necessarily mean that torture can get good, useful, practical battlefield information.* (my emphasis)
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *A commentator in the _Wall Street Journal_ recently advocated the use of truth serums on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners at Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta. What do you think?
> 
> *Bob Newman: *Well, thats an old ploy from Hollywood movies, frankly. There is no such thing as truth serum. But if you want to get him to blab a little bit, and feel a little more comfortable, and get him to open up if you will, then sodium pentathol can be useful.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *A Pentagon official said recently that interrogations of Taliban and Al-Qaeda suspects were going to be turned up a notch, thats his phrase. How precisely can interrogations be turned up a notch?
> 
> *Bob Newman: *Well, how about this. The first thing were going to do is bring in some interrogators that he has not experienced before. And heres an example: instead of the interrogator coming in, announcing who he is and demonstrating control, that he is in charge of the situation to the source, we could bring in somebody who does not come across as an interrogator. Perhaps hes posing as a fellow prisoner of war, and is going to use soft sell techniques to get the information out of the prisoner, the real prisoner, without him even knowing that his new room mate is on the other side. What I really like to use, and Ive found this to be extremely useful, is sleep deprivation. But what you have to do with sleep deprivation, be very careful that the source does not become so tired that he is giving you information that he thinks is accurate, but in reality is very inaccurate. So thats a problem there. Another thing that you can always use is the reward system. Lets say hes used to getting one bowl of rice and a small piece of meat and all the water he can drink every day. The second one for turning up the notch would be to reward him with additional food, food that he really likes. And you can find out what food he really likes by any number of sources. One is to simply ask him what he likes, find out a little bit more about his culture, where he grew up, what would be standard meals for him, and merely show him that by co-operating he will be rewarded. And finally, you can turn up the heat by a technique that refers back to his family. By letting him know and stressing to him that he will survive this situation if he co-operates, and he will be back as soon as we can possibly get him back with his family. He will be repatriated. And therefore that is a reward system as well.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Modern interrogation technology has really got the prisoner under its thumb.
> 
> *Bob Newman: *Absolutely and thats what it is: the prisoner is under the interrogators thumb. Look at Mr. Abu Zubaida, the number three man in Al-Qaeda, who is under US care right now. He is the guy who, under proper interrogation, gave up the name of American Jose Padilla, a Chicago gangland member who was planning to detonate a radiological or dirty bomb in Washington DC. Zubaida gave us Padillas name because Zubaida was properly interrogated.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Bob Newman, counter-terrorist consultant in Denver Colorado.
> 
> Now, even if the interrogations are carried out within the constraints of the Geneva Conventions, the sheer persistence and duration of such interrogations can still leave you in poor mental shape. Professor Derrick Silove is a consultant psychiatrist at the Sydney-based organization STARTTS, Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors. I asked him about the range of symptoms presented by survivors of interrogation.
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *The range is very wide, actually, because we obviously see a skewed sample. We see people who had severe reactions, and we shouldnt forget that a lot of people go through it without too much trouble. They might have a few sleepless nights and a few bad dreams and thats the end of it. So we see the high end of the spectrum, of people who have what we call post traumatic stress disorder and/or depression  the two often go together  and when they have the full-blown syndrome, its pretty serious. Because then they really have serious sleep disturbances, nightmares, flashbacks, their concentration is impaired, they may be very depressed and even suicidal.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Do you have evidence from your patients that confirms that drugs are being used by military interrogators?
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *Yes, theres no doubt. Its becoming a worldwide trend. Psychoactive drugs are available, both illicit and legal ones, across the world. And they have a very profound effect on reducing resistance.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Can you give us an example of how one or two or perhaps three drugs work and help the military interrogator?
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *Well, they often use combinations. So you get a combination of sedative drugs and stimulant drugs, which can be very disorientating, because on the one hand youre kind of stupefied, and half drowsy and half asleep, which reduces your resistance in a sort of drunk-like state. On the other hand, youre being aroused and stimulated, and your brain is charging very rapidly, and so you are more likely to talk a lot and spill the beans and free-associate. So it can be incredibly disorientating and undermining when you get these cocktails of drugs.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *When people come to you as a result of that kind of interrogation, how do you actually pick up the pieces, psychologically speaking?
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *The core strategy is still a counselling approach. That is to re-engage the person; they often feel very cut off from humanity as a consequence, and everything else really flows from that engagement in terms of providing practical assistance, medication sometimes, psychological support of various kinds, and a willingness to actually listen to the story as it unravels. Because people feel very lonely and isolated with this knowledge which theyve never often been able to communicate to anybody else, out of shame and guilt and many other reasons.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *In addition to drugs, military interrogators use  and have used for years  solitary confinement. How does that actually work on the mind?
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *People firstly become very disorientated. They lose track of time, day and night, especially if the lights are left on all the time or they are in dark all the time, so they lose track of time. That in itself is very psychologically undermining. Its something that none of us really experience, but if you lose track of time you really get very distressed and disturbed. You also lose a spatial orientation. You start losing track of where you are, what the place is and so on. So you start developing what is almost like a delirium, you really feel like youre out of touch with reality. People get paranoid, they misinterpret everything as threatening, they become very focused on obsessional thoughts. For example, the next meal becomes the key issue. So their mind become very constrained in its capacity to think widely and broadly, and the sense of loneliness, being cut off from the world is immense.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Whats the difference in long-term prognosis between those whove survived interrogation without spilling the beans, and those who have in some way either compromised themselves or their friends?
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *I think that makes a huge difference. But I should also say that with so-called modern techniques, very few end up not spilling the beans. Because if the interrogators are well-versed in their trade, it is actually almost impossible to resist. But those who have spilled the beans under certain circumstances, are those people who are very racked by guilt, shame, a sense of being completely devastated by the experience. And they feel that their integrity has been destroyed. Ive had one patient say there are just bits and pieces of me left scattered around the interrogation room, I just dont exist any more as an integrated human being, and I thought that was a very stark illustration of what it feels like. Especially if youve been a militant or someone with very strongly held ethical standards prior to that.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Professor Derrick Silove.
> 
> Military interrogations hold prisoners in solitary confinement where everything is controlled: the prisoners lighting, the noise, the temperature, their air supply, their total visual environment, as well as their access to food, water and ablutions. On top of all this are many possibilities for medical, chemical and electrical interventions into the prisoners body and into the prisoners mind. So with all this physical and psychological power in the hands of the interrogators, the crucial question is: isnt it really just a matter of time before the prisoners mind is destroyed? Derrick Silove again.
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *I wouldnt go as far as to say that the mind is destroyed totally or forever. I think people can recover from this. I think they always say theyve changed as a person, theyre not the same person. But I think the key lesson is that there is a threshold beyond which people cant resist, and the modern techniques very quickly reach that threshold.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *How important, then, is religious belief?
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *Well, the research certainly shows that adherence to religion can be a very protective factor. Theres no doubt that people who have the comfort of religion  because thats something that you can take with you into any situation, including solitary confinement  it can make a huge difference. But I also have to say that there are those people who, at the end of these processes, give up on their religion or on any spiritual faith, because theyve kind of lost faith. And thats a very devastating experience. They just cannot believe a true god or gods could sanction such a thing, and therefore it actually destroys their faith.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *If you were trying to help somebody who was perhaps going to go into military interrogation, what kind of advice could you give them as a psychiatrist?
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *Well, its interesting that its not just psychiatrists, but actually some militant groups in various parts of the world actually do train their cadres to do precisely that. So we have some knowledge about that, and its the obvious: the one is to try to draw on the experiences of those who have been through it, to prepare the person exactly for all the variations of interrogation that theyre likely to go through. The second thing, and I think thats the most helpful, is to tell them to spill the beans  and groups do that nowadays. They say, they tell them quite precisely dont spill the beans too quickly, otherwise they wont believe you. Put up a sham resistance, and then pretend that its all over, calmly, and tell them whatever you know. And the way they prepare them for that is by giving them as little information as possible, in other words make sure that each individual knows very little, and basically elaborate if you need to, with a bit of imagination to satisfy whatever they want. Because basically, withholding that information just doesnt help in the end.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *So theres no future for the tight-lipped hero?
> 
> *Derrick Silove: *Very little, unfortunately. I think they are more the substance of novels nowadays, rather than reality.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Derrick Silove, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of New South Wales.
> 
> For many months now, prisoners have been held for interrogation at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Theyll all Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters and theyre all Muslims. What can we surmise about the vulnerability and resilience of their minds in the face of modern interrogation methods? Dr. Malik Badri is Professor of Psychology at the International Islamic University in Kuala Lumpur. Hes held academic positions in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and has also written a book on contemplation in Islam. Dr. Malik Badri describes the ordeals of Bilal, one of Islams first political prisoners during the seventh century.
> 
> *Malik Badri: *Bilal was an Ethiopian slave in Mecca. And his master used to, when he accepted Islam and rejected the bowing to their stone carved gods, he was taken in the hot sun and they would put very heavy stones on them and he would beat him and tell him, just say something to say that you have refused Islam, and say something good about our gods but he would only repeat the words _ahadun ahad_, God is only One. And he was able to feel that all the pain that he received was something that would bring him nearer and nearer to God, since he is sacrificing for the sake of God.
> 
> Another prisoner in Islamic history, a man who was put in prison a few centuries ago, was Ibn Taymiyyah. And he was put in prison in Cairo, he was from Damascus. Ibn Taymiyyah was very famous for having said the very famous sentence when he was arrested. He said, What are they going to do to me? If they put me in prison then this is a chance for me for contemplation. If they send me out of the country, to deport me, it would be like tourism. And if they kill me, I will be a martyr. What can they do to me?
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Now, while a Muslim warrior can no longer continue his jihad of the sword, in prison he must continue his mental and spiritual jihad. What does this actually involve?
> 
> *Malik Badri: *They say when the Prophet came from a battle, he said to his companions, We have returned from the small jihad to the major jihad. They asked him, What is the major jihad? What is more than what we were doing? He said, The jihad of the soul, the jihad of your desires that take you away from God, is a greater jihad. This is the major jihad. Prayer is very important, the repetition of certain exhortations to Allah is very important. This by itself will bring about a form of relaxation. It can increase the hormones that are related to relaxation, and make the person in a happy state which cannot be described by words.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Would a Muslim see their survival in prison as a kind of divine test, a divine lesson?
> 
> *Malik Badri: *Yes indeed. You see, if man can actually transcend himself to a higher level of reality, then indeed, whatever happens to man in terms of something which is painful, can be explained cognitively by him in two ways. Either this is a way by which God is helping him to forgive his sins, or else it is a way by which God elevates his position spiritually. So people who are in prison, who have this kind of conception, will actually be able to tolerate their imprisonment very well. And they can see that the prison is something which God has sent them in order to improve their status.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Now, while solitary confinement can separate every single prisoner from every other prisoner, do you think in some way they can communicate through something like a common heart or a common spirit?
> 
> *Malik Badri: *People when they are in prison, and when they are in solitary confinement, it seems that their psychic ability will be sharpened. I have known of a number of cases in which people who came out of prison, they would say they would actually know about what is happening in their homes, by their dreams. And at times, while they are awake, they would get this kind of  what we call inspiration. I feel that those people who have a belief in a hereafter, and the ability actually to communicate, these people are the ones who can tolerate quite a lot of psychological stress in prison. Even they can tolerate physical stress which does interfere chemically with their brains.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *How can they spiritually transcend a truth drug?
> 
> *Malik Badri: *When it comes to the chemical, then the bodies of all people are the same. We must say that even we, in the field of psychiatry, we are using these drugs already. And a patient who has a lot of pent up feelings, maybe he has secrets which he cannot say to the doctor, is given a drug at times, and this drug will make him speak. This is what is known as catharsis, or abreaction, and in this sense we are actually using something which can also be used in prisons, to let those in prison who know certain information, can bring it up. Modern technology has actually been able, and modern medicine and modern biochemistry, if used in this manner, it can actually wreck anybody.
> 
> *Paul Brennan: *Dr. Malik Badri, Professor of Psychology at the International Islamic University in Kuala Lumpur.
> 
> 
> So there it is: according to one interrogator, one psychiatrist and one Muslim psychologist, all human beings, when subject to the vast battery of interrogation techniques, can be threatened, bribed or just pharmaceutically steered into spilling the beans. This surely dispels forever the romantic vision of the human mind as the resilient repository of the sacred self. The biotechnologies of interrogation, it seems, are heralding the post-human future, where your mind is not necessarily your own.
> 
> *David Rutledge: *Paul Brennan there, reporting on military interrogation.



Whoa...room 101 anyone?  No mind will ever truly be hidden...that is a scary thought.


----------



## Ender

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm sorry ... you said that they did not condemn the acts. But in the very article I referred to, there was a variant of the word 'condemn' at least twice.
> 
> I can only assume that you did not expose yourself to the report because a) you do not know how or b) you do not care to know another point of view.
> 
> In this very thread, it has been pointed out that reports of prisoner abuse from the International Committee of the Red Cross come from more than 10 detention facilities in Iraq, yet some continue to put forth the arguement that it was just a 'few bad apples'. I suppose *my type* gets frustrated when people choose to remain unaware of what is going on around them.
> 
> Mike



No, your type is the type who likes to pontificate and play loose with the facts. You turn "allegations" into facts to support your arguments and your type cites biased sources like NPR, etc. The type who likes to ramble off on tangents, then when confronted with the real facts your type then resorts to name calling, condenscention,and blustering... But I'm on to you now....best wishes.


----------



## michaeledward

Ender said:
			
		

> No, your type is the type who likes to pontificate and play loose with the facts. You turn "allegations" into facts to support your arguments and your type cites biased sources like NPR, etc. The type who likes to ramble off on tangents, then when confronted with the real facts your type then resorts to name calling, condenscention,and blustering... But I'm on to you now....best wishes.


What 'Fact' was I playing loose with?

What sources have you cited, biased or otherwise?


----------



## Tgace

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/27-05092004-297165.html

Interesting article...



> Miller, now in charge of the Iraq detention system, said Saturday that he had not recommended that military police participate in interrogations. Rather, he believed they could be more useful to interrogators in a passive role of relaying information they picked up from prisoners' conversations.
> 
> Miller said in his earlier report it was "essential that the guard force be actively engaged in setting the conditions" for more fruitful interrogations of what he called Iraqi "internees."
> 
> An Army investigative report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, which he based in part on Miller's assessment of the situation in Iraq in September, took issue with Miller's approach to the challenges in Iraq.
> 
> Taguba suggested that Miller was wrong to use the situation at Guantanamo Bay - where the prisoners are suspected terrorists with possible links to those who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks - as a template for Iraq, where the prisoners are Saddam Hussein loyalists and common criminals.
> 
> Some lawmakers say there are clear indications from the widely published photos of Army MPs abusing Iraqi prisoners that even if such acts were not ordered or condoned by U.S. commanders, the soldiers thought they were at least condoned.


----------



## MJS

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yes but... in all reality isn't that exactly what that is? A personal Attack by Nick Berg's father on President Bush?  Unfortuantley, regardless of George Jr's f-ups, In Nick Berg's case the president had nothing to do with it... Nick Berg was not "Sent there" he chose to go, I recall reading that he considered going a... what did they say... rush? thrill? somthing along those lines... We know how far out you are, so of course instead of seeing that you use it as ammo against the Administration you claim to be brought up so strongly to believe in.



Thats true.  When you're in the service, you are forced to go regardless of if you like it or not.  I didnt see anyone force Berg to go.




> I continue to be amazed by the utter failure on the part of YOU to recognize--or to admit, perhaps-- that most everyone here has said we went too far... But no... all you can hear with your own ego stroking going on about how you are brought up better than the rest of us is "YAY, LETS TORTURE RAGHEADS FOR FUN!"  (Pardon the expression, but I feel like that is what Robert thinks of us)



Again, true!  Seems to me that all he sees is what WE have done.  How about what THEY have done?????




> Well Sir, if you wish for people to stop reiterating that notion, you have but to ADDRESS people's questions directed at you, instead of going off on some tangent that does not answer what you were asked.  I know focus is a big deal... but can you try it before complaining people claim you have none?



Yes.  And I'm am STILL waiting for a reply to my question.  Robert, if you dont have an answer, just admit it.  Its ok to be wrong you know.  We're all human.




> This is the notion that has the situation completely ATFU.  AMERICA didn't do those things... SOME PEOPLE DID.  PEOPLE are failible, and as such, PEOPLE DO THINGS WRONG.  PEOPLE, angry, sad, vengeful, or just plain MEAN did what they did because they were facing an Enemy who's NATION felt it was ok... I'm sorry to hurt your moral feelings, but AMERICA still is better.  Why can I say that? Because Instead of celebrating this evil those INDIVIDUALS did, we are looking to punish them... not dancing in the streets and cheering.  But you don't believe that.



Another good point.  I made referrence to this very same thing in a post.





> Haha, theres that LSD again making you think we said things we didnt.



 :boing2: 




> Wow.  Nice Ego.  Does it come with a display case or do you just take it out and show it to people?



 :boing2: 




> Maybe you read too much.  try living... OUTSIDE of a book. The notion "that a martial artist shows restraint and compassion at all times, and never bullies" is a nice one... and it is, I agree, (OMG we agree on somthing???) the most commonly taught... but it is NOT the only notion taught.   Add to that, ONCE AGAIN that people are failible, and well... Keep in mind, Robert, the "martial" in martial arts refers to fighting, combat and warfare... and durring a fight, only being "honorable and moral" leads to one thing... and its not "going home safley" after the battle is over.



I dont see it happening.  He'll most likely make a referrence to the, as he calls it.."Fantasy" that we all live in!  I have also made referrences to him regarding SD, the arts, as well as fighting.  Sorry to say, its like  :deadhorse  cuz he just doesnt get it!

Mike


----------



## michaeledward

MJS said:
			
		

> Robert--Would you care to enlighten us to your solutions as how you think the situation should be solved??
> 
> Mike


Speaking for myself (and, obviously, not for Robert), there is no way to handle this situation well. And with each passing day, the United States is putting itself in a worse position.

How I would handle this situation is to *get the hell out of Iraq*. As soon as possible (by the way, on 1/27/04 I voted for Dennis Kucinich because this is also his position).

We could turn Iraq over to ali-Sistani. This would no doubt lead to a civil war in Iraq, al-Sadr's militia vs ali-Sistani. Once Sistani put the beating on al-Sadr, we would then see some ethnic cleansing as the Shi-ite pay back the Sunni's for 3 decades of oppression (or is that 3 centuries). The Kurds would break from Iraq, and there might be a struggle with Turkey for a while; which might require NATO's participation (shouldn't that organization terminate itself now that the Soviet Union is 10 years past dead?)

If we were no longer involved in Iraq, we could focus our efforts on true security measures for US citizens. The only security Iraq is providing us is the 'Fly-Paper' project, it is drawing all the terrorists to the easy targets (US Military) in Iraq. This will lead to an inescapable escalation of violence.

Wasn't it Saddam Hussein who predicted that an invasion of Iraq would be just like Vietnam? Weren't we all told by our leaders that there was no way Iraq could be like Vietnam? 

Oh, well.

Mike


----------



## MJS

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Speaking for myself (and, obviously, not for Robert), there is no way to handle this situation well. And with each passing day, the United States is putting itself in a worse position.



Well, I just simply said that because it seems like no matter what we're doing, it isnt good enough in his eyes.  I was simply looking for what his example of doing things right would be.  



> How I would handle this situation is to *get the hell out of Iraq*. As soon as possible (by the way, on 1/27/04 I voted for Dennis Kucinich because this is also his position).
> 
> We could turn Iraq over to ali-Sistani. This would no doubt lead to a civil war in Iraq, al-Sadr's militia vs ali-Sistani. Once Sistani put the beating on al-Sadr, we would then see some ethnic cleansing as the Shi-ite pay back the Sunni's for 3 decades of oppression (or is that 3 centuries). The Kurds would break from Iraq, and there might be a struggle with Turkey for a while; which might require NATO's participation (shouldn't that organization terminate itself now that the Soviet Union is 10 years past dead?)
> 
> If we were no longer involved in Iraq, we could focus our efforts on true security measures for US citizens. The only security Iraq is providing us is the 'Fly-Paper' project, it is drawing all the terrorists to the easy targets (US Military) in Iraq. This will lead to an inescapable escalation of violence.



Good points!!  I've said the same thing in the past.  IMO, we get involved in way too much stuff that we shouldnt!  If there is some country that wants to run around in the streets with guns, and shoot people...who the hell cares????  Let em kill each other!!  As long as they are not doing anything to effect the USA, then why the hell should we care.  Now, the first war, when they invaded Saudi...well, thats different.  We're allies with that country and its a source of oil, so yeah, I could see defending it.  But some of these other places.....stay the hell out!!  Less trouble on our end.  Many times, those people dont want us there anyway, so why bother to go??????



> Wasn't it Saddam Hussein who predicted that an invasion of Iraq would be just like Vietnam? Weren't we all told by our leaders that there was no way Iraq could be like Vietnam?



yup.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

I finally watched that video, and it was pretty horrific. My adrenaline was up during when they were reading in arabic. Then, they moved to cut his head off....and there was very little blood.

So, I was like, wait a second? If you know anything about the effects of the blade on the human body, you know that if you sever a jugular, blood spays everywhere at about 120 pounds of pressure. This was not the case at all with this video.

So...puzzled more then horrified at this point, I watched it again. I noticed the times are all differen't. The clock changes from real time to military time, and it appears to span over 11 or so hours, jumping back and forth. The head they hold up looks pale, like he was already dead, not just had been killed. His movements while he is kneeling, and even when the terrorists throw him down, upon scrutiny, are not very natural. It's almost like he was already dead or something. Add that with the grainyness of the video, and the fact that the audio isn't in sync with the video, and the details of this thing....I don't know, it ain't right though.

I am not saying that Berg wasn't killed, or that this is some big consperacy or something. I am just saying that it ain't right. This looks like a cut and paste, hack editing job. I am not in denial over the horrific act, as I can stomach these things well. It just doesn't seem "real."

Something is definatily wrong, here. I just got in from a meeting, saw it, and posted here...haven't had time to check the news. Has the media picked up on this yet (I mean, credable news sources)?


----------



## loki09789

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I finally watched that video, and it was pretty horrific. My adrenaline was up during when they were reading in arabic. Then, they moved to cut his head off....and there was very little blood.
> 
> So, I was like, wait a second? If you know anything about the effects of the blade on the human body, you know that if you sever a jugular, blood spays everywhere at about 120 pounds of pressure. This was not the case at all with this video.
> 
> So...puzzled more then horrified at this point, I watched it again. I noticed the times are all differen't. The clock changes from real time to military time, and it appears to span over 11 or so hours, jumping back and forth. The head they hold up looks pale, like he was already dead, not just had been killed. His movements while he is kneeling, and even when the terrorists throw him down, upon scrutiny, are not very natural. It's almost like he was already dead or something. Add that with the grainyness of the video, and the fact that the audio isn't in sync with the video, and the details of this thing....I don't know, it ain't right though.
> 
> I am not saying that Berg wasn't killed, or that this is some big consperacy or something. I am just saying that it ain't right. This looks like a cut and paste, hack editing job. I am not in denial over the horrific act, as I can stomach these things well. It just doesn't seem "real."
> 
> Something is definatily wrong, here. I just got in from a meeting, saw it, and posted here...haven't had time to check the news. Has the media picked up on this yet (I mean, credable news sources)?


Good, I am not the only one with suspicions on this won.  I can rationalize the grey face thing as shock reaction drawing blood into the body core, and the body reaction as catatonic state induced by shock.... but the blood issue really isn't right to me either.

It really looks like he was already dead/nearly dead.  If his heart was pumping under the fight or flight condition, there would be a lot more pooling and shooting blood.  The time inconsistency could be explained away as an edit because cutting through the neck with all the bones, ligaments, tendons, windpipe... needless to say that knife wasn't the most efficient tool for the job.

It does look funny though.  I wonder why no statement about that from medical experts has come out yet.  I mean we are just laymen and noticed it.


----------



## MJS

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I finally watched that video, and it was pretty horrific. My adrenaline was up during when they were reading in arabic. Then, they moved to cut his head off....and there was very little blood.
> 
> So, I was like, wait a second? If you know anything about the effects of the blade on the human body, you know that if you sever a jugular, blood spays everywhere at about 120 pounds of pressure. This was not the case at all with this video.
> 
> So...puzzled more then horrified at this point, I watched it again. I noticed the times are all differen't. The clock changes from real time to military time, and it appears to span over 11 or so hours, jumping back and forth. The head they hold up looks pale, like he was already dead, not just had been killed. His movements while he is kneeling, and even when the terrorists throw him down, upon scrutiny, are not very natural. It's almost like he was already dead or something. Add that with the grainyness of the video, and the fact that the audio isn't in sync with the video, and the details of this thing....I don't know, it ain't right though.
> 
> I am not saying that Berg wasn't killed, or that this is some big consperacy or something. I am just saying that it ain't right. This looks like a cut and paste, hack editing job. I am not in denial over the horrific act, as I can stomach these things well. It just doesn't seem "real."
> 
> Something is definatily wrong, here. I just got in from a meeting, saw it, and posted here...haven't had time to check the news. Has the media picked up on this yet (I mean, credable news sources)?



Ahhh...something else very interesting.  I was reading in the paper the very same thing that you just said, regarding the times on the tape.  I mean, even all of the tapes that come out with Osama supposedly talking on them.  What is the first thing that they do?? They analize the tape to see if its actually him!!!  These guys love to mess with you and keep you thinking.  And now that you mention it Paul, you bring up a good point with the severed head and the blood.  

Mike


----------



## michaeledward

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I finally watched that video, and it was pretty horrific. .... It just doesn't seem "real." .... Something is definatily wrong, here.
> 
> Has the media picked up on this yet (I mean, credable news sources)?


Thank you for pointing this out. I did not watch the video. Nor do I want to. I did see some still captures, and that is more than enough to satisfy any rubber-necking impulse I might have.

I just did a quick search for comments about blood, and found none. But I will be watching for them now.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson

Well, here's what I learned from the last two pages:

1. Whatever abuses the American army commits, however much these are attached to systemic doctrines, despite the extent to which these trickle down from an Administration (incidentally, T'punk, I wrote that I believed in the country, not the Administration, though it is interesting that you confuse the two) that has been spouting some pretty ugly ideas about, "crusades," for all the bombast broadcast by the likes of Michael Savage, for all the way  that that clown's ideas get repeated on this thread, it is Not Our Fault. 

2. In our democracy, citizens have no moral responsibility whatsoever for the things done in their name far away from home, by a "volunteer," Army consisting largely of the sons and daughters of military families, working class kids, and minorities, whose bravery and decency is being pissed away in a stupid war pushed by a gang of ignorant yahoos in the White House and State Department who were too lazy and intolerant to bother wading through the ridiculousness of the UN and getting international support. (OMG! I just, like, rilly said something negative about the UN!! I, like, rilly rilly hope Lenin doesn't find out!!!)

3. Martial artists have no need anymore to learn the restraint, nor the morality, that have always been a part of martial arts. Nor should they consider applying the teachings of martial arts training to anything other than beating people up when necessary.

4. Anybody who questions premises 1-3 should be subject to a barrage of direct personal attacks on their character, sobriety, decency, patriotism and faith, because there is no other way to discuss issues than to attack people. And anybody who complains about this said it first about me anyway, even if I can't find the place where they insulted me, because that's what I'd do if I were them.

5. We should hold our opinions without stopping for facts, citable sources, details from history, books or anything else, because who needs any of that liberal crap when it's time to just kick ***? And, anybody who asks for those thinks is probably a pinko anyway.

6. We should not let our opinions be sullied by the likes of pinkos like John McCain, because what does he know about what soldiers have to endure anyway? If his name is brought up, let's just pretend it wasn't--we'd a lot  rather sing along with a group of politicians who have never been in combat and seem to have dodged. (Memo: anybody ever wonder why it is that a long list of Americans who fought bravely in real wars--Kerry, McCain, Bob Kerrey, all the way back to George McGovern--tend to oppose these little adventures?) But at the same time, we should despise Democratic politicians who know nothing of what war is about. (Memo: indeed we should, given the likes of Robert MacNamara and Lyndon Johnson, but hey, some dear readers, please do overlook that I've just written something pretty nasty about Democrats.)

7. Oddly, I agree with MJS: run the elections, declare victory, and get the hell out. Or to echo a Vietname-era politican who was asked, "But how can we possibly leave Vietnam?" and replied, "Boats."


----------



## Makalakumu

Ender said:
			
		

> No, your type is the type who likes to pontificate and play loose with the facts. You turn "allegations" into facts to support your arguments and your type cites biased sources like NPR, etc. The type who likes to ramble off on tangents, then when confronted with the real facts your type then resorts to name calling, condenscention,and blustering... But I'm on to you now....best wishes.



Oh yeah, so that *type * must include Donald Rumsfeld in front of the senate hearing and George Bush jr at any press conference.  Nice *stereotype*.  

NPR biased?  

Sounds like the politics of conquest rather then compromise.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Not to be grim, but in Anatomy, at the end of the term, we had to disassemble the cadavers for shipment back to the broker for cremation and ash return to the families. The spine is so thick with multiple layers of connective tissues...not to mention that there is no single plane line that a knife could pass through to severe the spine without coming to a stop on bone...that beheading a guy with a knife alone is much easier said then done.  We had to use HACK SAWS to get through the cartilaginous tissues and bony facets of the spine to get the pieces small enough to fit in the containers provided.  haven't watched the film; won;t watch the film.  But even when OJ tried to take off Nicoles head, all he got through were the soft tissues.  Observers were forced to use the phrase "almost took her head off".

After cadaver duty, I really got that.

D.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/27-05092004-297165.html
> 
> Interesting article...



General Miller was put back in charge after the story broke and the scandal hit the press.  Interesting.


----------



## Makalakumu

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How I would handle this situation is to *get the hell out of Iraq*. As soon as possible (by the way, on 1/27/04 I voted for Dennis Kucinich because this is also his position).



There are to many powerful business interests behind the war in Iraq for this to happen.  Beyond all of the speculation and conspiracy, if you go back to what people in the Bush Administration have actually said, Iraq is about stabilizing the middle east for business interests.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I finally watched that video, and it was pretty horrific. My adrenaline was up during when they were reading in arabic. Then, they moved to cut his head off....and there was very little blood.
> 
> So, I was like, wait a second? If you know anything about the effects of the blade on the human body, you know that if you sever a jugular, blood spays everywhere at about 120 pounds of pressure. This was not the case at all with this video.
> 
> So...puzzled more then horrified at this point, I watched it again. I noticed the times are all differen't. The clock changes from real time to military time, and it appears to span over 11 or so hours, jumping back and forth. The head they hold up looks pale, like he was already dead, not just had been killed. His movements while he is kneeling, and even when the terrorists throw him down, upon scrutiny, are not very natural. It's almost like he was already dead or something. Add that with the grainyness of the video, and the fact that the audio isn't in sync with the video, and the details of this thing....I don't know, it ain't right though.
> 
> I am not saying that Berg wasn't killed, or that this is some big consperacy or something. I am just saying that it ain't right. This looks like a cut and paste, hack editing job. I am not in denial over the horrific act, as I can stomach these things well. It just doesn't seem "real."
> 
> Something is definatily wrong, here. I just got in from a meeting, saw it, and posted here...haven't had time to check the news. Has the media picked up on this yet (I mean, credable news sources)?



There have been rumblings of a conspiracy theory.  Check the Net.  NPR talked about the conspiracy a little and said that it was untrue.  There was no evidence to back up that claim.  As usual.  I'm glad you saw the same things...feeling a little paranoid.  

Two thing are for sure.  Mr. Berg is dead and this whole situation is horrible.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, here's what I learned from the last two pages:
> 
> 1. Whatever abuses the American army commits, however much these are attached to systemic doctrines, despite the extent to which these trickle down from an Administration (incidentally, T'punk, I wrote that I believed in the country, not the Administration, though it is interesting that you confuse the two) that has been spouting some pretty ugly ideas about, "crusades," for all the bombast broadcast by the likes of Michael Savage, for all the way that that clown's ideas get repeated on this thread, it is Not Our Fault.
> 
> 2. In our democracy, citizens have no moral responsibility whatsoever for the things done in their name far away from home, by a "volunteer," Army consisting largely of the sons and daughters of military families, working class kids, and minorities, whose bravery and decency is being pissed away in a stupid war pushed by a gang of ignorant yahoos in the White House and State Department who were too lazy and intolerant to bother wading through the ridiculousness of the UN and getting international support. (OMG! I just, like, rilly said something negative about the UN!! I, like, rilly rilly hope Lenin doesn't find out!!!)
> 
> 3. Martial artists have no need anymore to learn the restraint, nor the morality, that have always been a part of martial arts. Nor should they consider applying the teachings of martial arts training to anything other than beating people up when necessary.
> 
> 4. Anybody who questions premises 1-3 should be subject to a barrage of direct personal attacks on their character, sobriety, decency, patriotism and faith, because there is no other way to discuss issues than to attack people. And anybody who complains about this said it first about me anyway, even if I can't find the place where they insulted me, because that's what I'd do if I were them.
> 
> 5. We should hold our opinions without stopping for facts, citable sources, details from history, books or anything else, because who needs any of that liberal crap when it's time to just kick ***? And, anybody who asks for those thinks is probably a pinko anyway.
> 
> 6. We should not let our opinions be sullied by the likes of pinkos like John McCain, because what does he know about what soldiers have to endure anyway? If his name is brought up, let's just pretend it wasn't--we'd a lot rather sing along with a group of politicians who have never been in combat and seem to have dodged. (Memo: anybody ever wonder why it is that a long list of Americans who fought bravely in real wars--Kerry, McCain, Bob Kerrey, all the way back to George McGovern--tend to oppose these little adventures?) But at the same time, we should despise Democratic politicians who know nothing of what war is about. (Memo: indeed we should, given the likes of Robert MacNamara and Lyndon Johnson, but hey, some dear readers, please do overlook that I've just written something pretty nasty about Democrats.)
> 
> 7. Oddly, I agree with MJS: run the elections, declare victory, and get the hell out. Or to echo a Vietname-era politican who was asked, "But how can we possibly leave Vietnam?" and replied, "Boats."


Included the quote, because I thought some of this warranted a second look, and should be seen again.


----------



## Tgace

As distasteful as it is...On the beheading thing.I saw some film of a Russian POW being beheaded with a knife by Chechinan (SP?) soldiers. They stuck it into the side of the neck and cut forward, there was a lot of blood, but it pooled underneath instead of sprayed. Seen throat cuts and much of the blood poured instead of sprayed. Much comes out of the mouth and nose. I would think that unless there is a clean severing a la Katana the dramatic spray may not always happen. The time stamps is a whole different story....whats the conspiracy theory to go with that?


----------



## Ender

ABC NEWS Investigation Timeline
Who Knew About Alleged Iraqi Prisoner Abuse? When?



The release of graphic photographs depicting the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, a U.S.-controlled detention center outside Baghdad, has sparked an international firestorm of controversy. The scandal is also raising questions about which high-ranking members of the U.S. military knew of the allegations and when they were informed. 
The following is a timeline of events regarding the investigations of the abuse allegations: 

Aug. 31 - Sept. 9, 2003: Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller leads a team to Iraq to review the military's ability to rapidly exploit Iraqi prisoners for actionable intelligence, focusing on three areas: intelligence integration, interrogation operations, and detention operations.  Taguba Report 

Sept. 6, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tours Abu Ghraib prison and meets with Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski. 

Oct. 13 - Nov. 6, 2003: Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder leads an assessment team to Iraq to make specific recommendations concerning detention and interrogation operations. He finds that there are potential human rights abuses, training, and manpower issues system-wide that needed immediate attention.  Taguba Report 

October - December 2003: A number of "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses [are] inflicted on several detainees" in Tier 1-A of the Abu Ghraib prison. "Almost every witness testified that the serious criminal abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib occurred in late October to early November 2003."  Taguba Report 

Nov. 4, 2003: Iraqi prisoner Manadel Al-Jamadi is killed in detention, while under interrogation by CIA employee. 

Nov. 18, 2003: Department of Defense Principal Deputy General Counsel Daniel Dell'Orto writes to Sen. Patrick Leahy to confirm that earlier Department of Defense statements about the treatment of detainees bind the entire Executive Branch. He sidesteps specific questions about interrogation guidelines, adding that articles alleging improper treatment of detainees "often contain allegations that are untrue."  Human Rights Watch Timeline of Abuse Allegations and Responses

Nov. 26, 2003: Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a former Iraqi air defense commander, dies while under interrogation. U.S. military says he died of "natural causes." 

NOTE: ABCNEWS has since learned that the CIA inspector general is investigating the deaths of three men during CIA interrogation  two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. 

Jan. 6, 2004: The U.S. Army discharges three reservists and ordered them to forfeit two months' salary for abusing prisoners at a detention center in Iraq."  Associated Press, Jan. 6, 2004 

Jan. 13, 2004: A soldier of the 800th Military Police Brigade at Abu Ghraib reports allegations through chain of command. 

Jan. 14, 2004: Combined Joint Task Force-7 criminal investigation is initiated 

Jan. 16, 2004: U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt holds briefing on criminal investigation. CENTCOM issues press release to publicly acknowledge the investigation. 

Jan. 17, 2004: Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski, commander of 800th Military Police Brigade, is formally admonished and suspended from her duties in writing by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez regarding the "serious deficiencies in her Brigade." [Taguba Report, pg. 44]. Sanchez called the recent detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib the most recent example of poor leadership that "permeates the Brigade."  Taguba Report 

Jan. 19, 2004: Sanchez requests senior level investigation of procedures at the prison. 

Jan. 24, 2004: Gen. John Abizaid directs the Coalition Forces Land Component Command to conduct the investigation requested by Sanchez. 

Jan. 30, 2004: Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba is appointed to conduct an investigation in Iraq concerning allegations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, as ordered by CENTCOM at the request of Gen. Richard Sanchez  Taguba Report 

Early February: The Army inspector general begins an investigation of "what we were doing throughout the AOR [area of responsibility]," not including Abu Ghraib, but including Kandahar, Bagram, and other facilities in Iraq. 

Early February: In the midst of three investigations, the chief of the Army Reserves decides to conduct an internal review and assessment of how reservists are prepared for these missions. 

Feb. 10, 2004: Human Rights Watch writes to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, expressing concern about the treatment of detainees in Iraq and urges the administration to publicly clarify the status of the detainees and to make public the numbers of detainees being held.  Human Rights Watch 

Feb. 23, 2004: U.S. forces investigation of mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison results in the suspension of 17 soldiers, including a battalion commander and a company commander, pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations of abuse of detainees.  Reuters news service 

Feb. 23, 2004: CNN learns an investigation of Abu Ghraib prison abuse is under way. Reporter Barbara Starr is traveling with Rumsfeld and learns that criminal charges against U.S. personnel could come within the following two weeks. "The reports included the possibility that there are pictures showing prisoners being abused or held up to ridicule, and it was Gen. Sanchez several weeks ago that ordered an immediate investigation."  CNN reporter Barbara Starr 

March 3, 2004: Maj. Gen. Taguba finishes his preliminary assessment and presents it to Gen. David McKiernan. 


March 15, 2004: Army Criminal Investigation Division issues a preliminary assessment regarding its criminal investigation. 

March 20, 2004: Charges are preferred against six U.S. military personnel. Gen. Kimmit briefs on the matter in Baghdad, as some have already had their Article 32 hearings. 

April 6, 2004: Gen. McKiernan approves the findings of the Taguba Report, which leads to at least six letters of reprimand and two soldiers being released for cause (reassigned to other jobs). All of the soldiers are from the 800th MP Unit. 

April 9, 2004: Article 32 proceedings are held for Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick. The abuses become public at this hearing due to the outrage of Spc. Joseph M. Darby, an MP. He received a CD of photos from Cpl. Charles A. Graner, one of the accused, and Darby then submitted the photos along with a sworn statement to the Army's Criminal Investigation Division.  New Yorker, May 10, 2004 

April 23, 2004: Gen. George Fay, deputy chief of staff for Army intelligence, initiates an investigation of military intelligence gathering practices inside Iraq. Fay is on the ground in Iraq. 

April 28, 2004: CBS' 60 Minutes II airs segment showing pictures of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib prison. 

April 28, 2004: Sen.Tom Daschle says he and other congressional leaders met with Rumsfeld and other Pentagon leadership on this date, but they were not told about the abuses. 

Around April 30, 2004: Seymour Hersh writes a New Yorker article detailing abuses at Abu Ghraib. The names of the accused are mentioned: Staff Sgt.Ivan L. Frederick, Spc. Charles A. Graner, Sgt. Javal Davis, Spc. Megan Ambuhl, and Spc. Sabrina Harman. 

May 3, 2004: Pentagon announces that six soldiers in supervisory positions have received letters of reprimand and a milder letter of admonishment to a seventh. Six in subordinate positions have already been charged.  The New York Times, May 3, 2004 

May 4, 2004: Gen. George Casey states that, since December 2002, there have been 35 Army criminal investigations into the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. 25 involve deaths. Two were classified as homicides. Casey said he has no idea how many soldiers may ultimately be involved in abuse at Abu Ghraib.  Martha Raddatz report on ABCNEWS World News Tonight 

May 5, 2004: The Senate Intelligence Committee hears from CIA officials and the head of Army Intelligence in closed session. No names are provided.  Luis Martinez, Senate Today 

May 7, 2004: Testifying in front of a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Rumsfeld offers his deepest apologies to Iraqi victims of prisoner abuse, saying the culprits should be punished. He says he will not quit to respond to political pressure. 

Compiled by ABCNEWS' Brinda Adhikari, with additional reporting by Brian Hartman.  



hmmm...so far we lack evidence of a "systemic" problem. We do see some allegations, but nothing as far as evidence, yet....we see the military began the investigation before any outside humanitarian organizations "break the story". We see discharges, reprimands and proceedings for court martial. We see action being taken to correct the problems...these are the facts, without pontifcation and with some "credible" sources.


----------



## Cruentus

Tgace said:
			
		

> As distasteful as it is...On the beheading thing.I saw some film of a Russian POW being beheaded with a knife by Chechinan (SP?) soldiers. They stuck it into the side of the neck and cut forward, there was a lot of blood, but it pooled underneath instead of sprayed. Seen throat cuts and much of the blood poured instead of sprayed. Much comes out of the mouth and nose. I would think that unless there is a clean severing a la Katana the dramatic spray may not always happen. The time stamps is a whole different story....whats the conspiracy theory to go with that?



Right, but it would still gush like someone turned on a hose. In the video, it didn't. There wasn't even any blood on the face when they held the head up.

I don't perscribe to conspericy theories, I just try to look at the evidence in front of me. This just seems to look like a cut and paste editing job. If I had to make an assumption, I'd say Berg was dead before being put on the video, and the times were different because they spliced different footage together.


----------



## michaeledward

Ender said:
			
		

> hmmm...so far we lack evidence of a "systemic" problem. We do see some allegations, but nothing as far as evidence, yet....we see the military began the investigation before any outside humanitarian organizations "break the story". We see discharges, reprimands and proceedings for court martial. We see action being taken to correct the problems...these are the facts, without pontifcation and with some "credible" sources.


If you look at the reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, it clearly states that they perform their operations quietly. They do not release information. They do not 'Break the Story'. If the Red Cross took any of those actions, they would not be able to meet with detainees held throughout the world. 

In fact, the ICRC is a bit bothered by the fact that their report has been made public. I'm quite sure I posted the link to the ICRC's website, and the press conference of 5/8/04 which made these statements.

But then, the International Committee of the Red Cross is not a credible source, is it?

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5YRMYC?OpenDocument


----------



## Makalakumu

Ender said:
			
		

> Compiled by ABCNEWS' Brinda Adhikari, with additional reporting by Brian Hartman.
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm...so far we lack evidence of a "systemic" problem. We do see some allegations, but nothing as far as evidence, yet....we see the military began the investigation before any outside humanitarian organizations "break the story". We see discharges, reprimands and proceedings for court martial. We see action being taken to correct the problems...these are the facts, without pontifcation and with some "credible" sources.



What is your definition of a "systemic" problem?  A few privates?  Their commanders?  The entire military?  The entire US government?  How about other agencies in the US government?


----------



## Cryozombie

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, here's what I learned from the last two pages:
> 
> 1. Whatever abuses the American army commits, however much these are attached to systemic doctrines, despite the extent to which these trickle down from an Administration (incidentally, T'punk, I wrote that I believed in the country, not the Administration, though it is interesting that you confuse the two)



You're right.  My bad. From all the politcial statements and name use you had I made the assumption you used them as the same thing, I misunderstood. I'm sorry.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. In our democracy, citizens have no moral responsibility whatsoever for the things done in their name far away from home, by a "volunteer," Army consisting largely of the sons and daughters of military families, working class kids, and minorities, whose bravery and decency is being pissed away in a stupid war pushed by a gang of ignorant yahoos in the White House and State Department who were too lazy and intolerant to bother wading through the ridiculousness of the UN and getting international support. (OMG! I just, like, rilly said something negative about the UN!! I, like, rilly rilly hope Lenin doesn't find out!!!)



But, Robert, again I have to point out that most of us are willing to see something DONE about it... most everyone here has said that their actions went too far!  But to blame "Americans" and call us "Evil" is wrong BECAUSE most of us are willing to see somthing Done about it.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Martial artists have no need anymore to learn the restraint, nor the morality, that have always been a part of martial arts. Nor should they consider applying the teachings of martial arts training to anything other than beating people up when necessary.



Sir, you misread me... I said some schools teach that way, I in no way menat to imply all schools teach that way.  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. Anybody who questions premises 1-3 should be subject to a barrage of direct personal attacks on their character, sobriety, decency, patriotism and faith, because there is no other way to discuss issues than to attack people. And anybody who complains about this said it first about me anyway, even if I can't find the place where they insulted me, because that's what I'd do if I were them.
> 
> 5. We should hold our opinions without stopping for facts, citable sources, details from history, books or anything else, because who needs any of that liberal crap when it's time to just kick ***? And, anybody who asks for those thinks is probably a pinko anyway.
> 
> 6. We should not let our opinions be sullied by the likes of pinkos like John McCain, because what does he know about what soldiers have to endure anyway? If his name is brought up, let's just pretend it wasn't--we'd a lot  rather sing along with a group of politicians who have never been in combat and seem to have dodged. (Memo: anybody ever wonder why it is that a long list of Americans who fought bravely in real wars--Kerry, McCain, Bob Kerrey, all the way back to George McGovern--tend to oppose these little adventures?) But at the same time, we should despise Democratic politicians who know nothing of what war is about. (Memo: indeed we should, given the likes of Robert MacNamara and Lyndon Johnson, but hey, some dear readers, please do overlook that I've just written something pretty nasty about Democrats.)
> 
> 7. Oddly, I agree with MJS: run the elections, declare victory, and get the hell out. Or to echo a Vietname-era politican who was asked, "But how can we possibly leave Vietnam?" and replied, "Boats."



Robert... 

I will concede that you actually made some good points here... but answer me this...

Why does everything have to be "Black" or "White" with no shades of grey in between? 

Why can't a person be FOR some of the things our govenment is doing, but against others?  

Why can't one martial arts school teach "fighting" plain and simple, without any philosophy, and another teach the philosophy and humility? 

Why can't good people do bad deeds, and bad people do good ones? How come only bad people do bad things and good people do good ones? 

I know you did not SAY that it was all or nothing, but your posts imply it... and i am curous why.


----------



## Makalakumu

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Why can't good people do bad deeds, and bad people do good ones? How come only bad people do bad things and good people do good ones? QUOTE]
> 
> You bring up an interesting point here.  How can these people do this to other people?  From the interveiws of their parents, you get the picture that alleged were nothing but your typical "all american boys and girls."  I've got a few kids and can't imagine my little ones ever doing anything like this and its not like we (my wife and I) have these mentally deranged genes floating around in our phenotype.  Nor are we abusive parents or anything.  I am amazed at the brutality that this rose to, though.  And from what the admin has to say, this is only the tip of the iceberg?


----------



## Ender

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/index.html

20 tons of chemical agents and explosives?
71 different lethal chemicals?
a deadly cloud of a mile in size?
WMD?...no doubt
smuggled from Iraq...very distinct possibilty.


----------



## michaeledward

Ender said:
			
		

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/index.html
> 
> 20 tons of chemical agents and explosives?
> 71 different lethal chemicals?
> a deadly cloud of a mile in size?
> WMD?...no doubt
> smuggled from Iraq...very distinct possibilty.


Why is it that you state that these chemicals were smuggled from Iraq. The news article did not say this. In fact, the news article did not even speculate that as a possibility.

Incidently, members of al Qaeda are bad people, and they should be dealt with exactly as the Jordanian government dealt with this event; as a Law Enforcement issue. They apparently had evidence of a pending crime, and went in to stop that crime.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why is it that you state that these chemicals were smuggled from Iraq. The news article did not say this. In fact, the news article did not even speculate that as a possibility.



Maybe it had something to do with this...  



			
				Ender said:
			
		

> No, your type is the type who likes to pontificate and play loose with the facts. You turn "allegations" into facts to support your arguments and your type cites biased sources like NPR, etc. The type who likes to ramble off on tangents, then when confronted with the real facts your type then resorts to name calling, condenscention,and blustering...



Innuendo anyone?  Good enough for war I guess... :idunno:


----------



## Cryozombie

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You bring up an interesting point here.  How can these people do this to other people?  From the interveiws of their parents, you get the picture that alleged were nothing but your typical "all american boys and girls."  I've got a few kids and can't imagine my little ones ever doing anything like this and its not like we (my wife and I) have these mentally deranged genes floating around in our phenotype.  Nor are we abusive parents or anything.  I am amazed at the brutality that this rose to, though.  And from what the admin has to say, this is only the tip of the iceberg?



But you know what?  I bet these WERE good kids, who were exposed to the stories of what was being done to the U.S. forces overthere and were probably a bit horrified, disgusted, and pissed off... and then SOMEONE along their chain of command maybe directly told them, maybe hinted to them... that a little payback was acceptable.  Does that make them taking it too far acceptable, no... but It might provide a glimpse and some insight on how a "Good" kid could do somthing so bad...


----------



## Touch Of Death

Ender said:
			
		

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/index.html
> 
> 20 tons of chemical agents and explosives?
> 71 different lethal chemicals?
> a deadly cloud of a mile in size?
> WMD?...no doubt
> smuggled from Iraq...very distinct possibilty.


Reaching, ...reaching.
Sean


----------



## MA-Caver

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Technopunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't good people do bad deeds, and bad people do good ones? How come only bad people do bad things and good people do good ones? QUOTE]
> 
> You bring up an interesting point here.  How can these people do this to other people?  From the interveiws of their parents, you get the picture that alleged were nothing but your typical "all american boys and girls."  I've got a few kids and can't imagine my little ones ever doing anything like this and its not like we (my wife and I) have these mentally deranged genes floating around in our phenotype.  Nor are we abusive parents or anything.  I am amazed at the brutality that this rose to, though.  And from what the admin has to say, this is only the tip of the iceberg?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have enough education in the field to explain WHY these people were able to stoop to such degrading abuse to their prisoners. Because the individual reasons are as varied as the number of soldiers involved. But I'll make a guess as far as the HOW goes... Ask yourself and _answer only to yourself _  from the deepest recesses of your heart if you are capable of imagining the worse type of punishment, humiliation, degeneracy you can come up with. You might be surprised at what you can come up with.
> Mankind in general is particularly ingenious with the methods of inflicting pain and suffering upon his fellows. The Spanish inquisition, Nazi concentration camps, the Japanese at Baatan and Nanking, unknown horrors possibly committed behind the Iron Curtian of Communist Russia, Central and South America, our own atrocities committed against the Native Americans, the Serbs and Bosinia, Afganistan <sic> by the Soviets, and countless of other examples since man became mankind.
> The difference is the willingness to DO these things. The opportunity if given is by and large, too great to resist. These (Iraqi) atrocities might've never been known if the photos/videos hadn't been released, at best they'd been rumors and accusations without evidence. I stated earlier that it would be grossly naive for me (and anyone else) to think that we Americans are "The Good Guys" in *every* respect. Dig deep enough and you'll find our sins numbering right up there along side everyone else's.
> Would I, personally be able to commit such similar acts against my fellow man if I felt that I *KNEW* I would never get caught. I'd like to say absolutely not because of my personal faith and knowing that I will have to answer for them to my maker upon my judgement. But, properly motivated, having enough hate towards the prisoners in my charge? Again I just don't know. Neither does anyone else know (for themselves) for 100% certian.
> What I do know is that the chances for me *NOT* to do them magnifies with each ounce of faith in my God that I have.
> I'll light the fuse here and say that the further our soldiers get away from having God in their hearts  the more likely they're able to commit these crimes against humanity. About my aforementioned Spanish Inquisition, I'll say this... those "crimes" were done in the NAME of God... but for the ones committing and ordering them; they had God (and any other name) as far away from their hearts as Pluto is to the Sun. The same goes for the ones we call terrorists.
> :asian:
Click to expand...


----------



## michaeledward

I heard of an interesting study. It took the students in a class and randomly assigned them to be guards and prisoners. The study was designed to monitor what happens when one is placed in a position of authority. It was designed to run for 14 days.

The study had to be interrupted within 7 days because those that were given the power, used it in inhumane ways.

http://www.augsburg.edu/psych/vml/zimbardo.html
It is pretty spooky reading. 

Incidently, after reading this article, and reflecting a bit on my own life, I am absolutely certain that I would be capable of commiting the same acts depicted in the photos we have seen from Abu Ghraib. 

In my hopes, I can imagine I would be have as Nelson Mandela did. In my hopes, I can believe that Richard Lovelace was correct that 'Stone walls do not a prison make'.
Mike


----------



## MA-Caver

Spooky reading... oh my yes... but it helped show that human nature does come out in role-playing (and real-life) with these scenarios. I dunno whether to call that a failed or successful experiment. But it is a model for us to better understand what happened at Abu Ghraib. I still stand by my "God in the heart" and what happens to people when it's removed or minimized or perverted. 
I also still stand by that Americans in general are a civilized people and this behavior at Abu Ghraib is inexcusable regardless of who done it or ordered it. 
Such actions only make things worse for the soldiers serving and trying to maintain order in Iraq unti the country can stand on it's own. If that is the _"original intent"_ of the whole mess...


----------



## rmcrobertson

Here's my problem: by writing everything off to, "human nature," and a "few bad apples," we erase actual history. Of which here's a lil' piece:

"The following is from "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" written by Dee Brown:

"On the morning of November 29, 1864, 600 Cheyenne and Arapahos camped on a bend of Sand Creek were awakened by the sound of charging hooves. Two thirds of these 600 were women and children as the government granted able bodied men to go east and hunt buffalo to feed their hungry families. Only 35 braves were in the camp. This made the ensuing charge all the more frightening for the women, children, elders, and remaining braves. 

So great was the fear of the coming charge that men, women, and children ran from their lodges into the biting cold taking no time to fully dress. The partially dressed Indians began to gather under a huge American flag above Black Kettles lodge (Black Kettle was given the huge American flag and peace medals by Abraham Lincoln and Colonel A. B. Greenwood in Washington only a year earlier and was told that as long as the American flag was above them, no one would be harmed). The braves present surrounded the women and children gathered under the flag. At 8:00 am more than 700 cavalry men under the command of Colonel John M. Chivington and Major Scott J. Anthony, rode in and fired on the huddled Indians from two directions. After the initial charge the US soldiers dismounted and continued the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children. During the killing unspeakable atrocities and mutilations were committed by the soldiers. Accounts from two white men, John S. Smith and Lieutenant James Connor, described the acts of dehumanization." 

According to John S. Smith, Colonel Chivington knew these Indians to be peaceful before the massacre. Smith witnessed, as did helpless Indian mothers and fathers, young children having their sex organs cut away. U.S. soldiers mutilated Native American women, cutting away their breasts and removing all other sex organs. After the Massacre, soldiers displayed the women's severed body parts on their hats and stretched them over their saddle-bows while riding in the ranks. The sex organs of every male were removed in the most grotesque manner. One soldier boasted that he would make a tobacco pouch with the removed privates of White Antelope, a respected elder. Conner witnessed a soldier displaying the body parts of a woman on a stick. The fingers of Indians were cut off to get at the rings on them. Connor remembered a baby only a few months old who had been hidden in the feed box of a wagon for protection. When the soldiers discovered the baby some time later, the baby was thrown onto the frozen ground to die. In going over the site the next day, it was noted that every corpse was mutilated in some way, and scalped. 

Two other men, Robert Bent and James Beckwourth were forced to ride with Chivington that morning. They recorded similar images. Beckwourth noted that before the massacre, White Antelope (age 75) ran out to meet the soldiers. He came running out to meet the command, holding up his hands and saying Stop! Stop! He spoke in as plain English as I can. He stopped and folded his arms until shot down. Bent remembered seeing the shooting of a little girl carrying a white flag. He also remembered seeing an Indian woman on the ground whose leg had been shattered by a shell. As she lay helpless, a soldier drew his saber, breaking the arm she had risen in defense. She then rolled over on her other side. The soldier did not leave until breaking her other arm with his saber, whereupon he left without killing her. Bent saw a pregnant woman who had been cut open and disemboweled. Her unborn child lay mutilated almost beyond human recognition beside her. Quite a number of mothers were slain; still clinging to their babies. Such was the scene that cold gray morning at Sand Creek, November 29, 1864."

So in the face of the inevitable attacks, I am simply going to keep posting similar descriptions--taken, I am sorry to say, from our American history.

By the way, I was glad to see Ender cite a pinko America-hater like Seymour Hersch (who first came to prominence for reporting on My Lai 4) as an authority.

Coming up next: Gen. Curtis LeMay and the Fire Raids of 1944! Collect 'em all!!


----------



## Makalakumu

Please keep posting, Robert.  Perhaps some of the folks here will find their fill of war and then discover the meaning of "do".  Peace is the only "perfect" self defense...

Americans are human just like anyone else.  And ALL humans are capable of brutality.  For all of our vaunted virtues, there will always be biology.


----------



## MA-Caver

Thanks from me also Mike. 
In my earlier "human nature" post I included mentioning that American History is likewise tainted with innocent blood of the Native Americans. Likewise I'll add the brutality against other minorities like Chinese and Jewish and Irish immigrants during the mid/late 1800's and the slavery of Africans here. Being from Utah (but not mormon) I can also include the slaughter/massacre at Haun's Mill in Missouri sometime during the 1830's where hundreds were killed... and these were primarily white people who believed in something different than everybody else. 
Andersonville and other Civil-War prison camps could tell their own horror stories as well. 
So why is America appalled at the goings on in Iraq by our own troops? 
Denial?  :idunno: having a desire to minimize and/or rationalize and justify the events?  :idunno: 
No, we're not perfect but we are supposed to have  higher standards of living and that also includes higher levels of morality and humanity. We are supposed to be a nation founded on principals of freedom where tyranny and oppression are non-existent. We are supposed to have an inspired document(s) that should guide us in how we treat our fellow man. 
Of course freedom does not come without price... but innocents should *NOT* be allowed to pay the costs.


----------



## rmcrobertson

This just in....

Pentagon denies prison scandal stems from secret program gone awry


Sunday, May 16, 2004 Posted: 8:57 AM EDT (1257 GMT) 


NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was not the result of a few misguided soldiers, but of a decision last year by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to expand a clandestine operation against al Qaeda to the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, according to a report in The New Yorker.

Rumsfeld's goal was to bring the success of the secret terrorism program to Iraq in an effort to "generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency," the magazine reports.

The rules governing the secret operation were "Grab whom you must. Do what you want," according to a former intelligence official whom Seymour M. Hersh quotes anonymously in "The Gray Zone."

The Pentagon sharply rejected....


Just so's you know, too, the Seymour Hersh mentioned here is an investigative reporter who's been studying this sort of thing for going on forty years. So far, I am aware of no case in which he's been shown to be wrong...the pattern is always, "Nope, that never happened," to, "Well, it sorta happened but not that way," to, "I guess you've got some things right, but why do you hate this country so much?" to, "OK, OK, yes, you were right, but you shouldn't have said so," to....


And, previous page, Ender quoted him as a reliable source. 

A few bad apples, my foot.


----------



## MA-Caver

Whew, I'm glad that's over and done with... just a hoax... wow what a relief!


----------



## Rainman

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Well, its documented.
> 
> American soldiers have abused Iraqi POW's with electric shock and other horrific methods...and they were idiotic enough to pose for pictures and video while doing it.
> 
> Its been on the evening news.  Even the conservative "Drudge Report" is playing it up.  The Arab stations, of course, have jumped on it.
> 
> This is going to:
> 
> Hurt the war effort.
> 
> Ruin troop morale.
> 
> Ruin the morale on the home front.
> 
> Get American hostages/prisoners killed at worst, abused at best.
> 
> Be one of the greatest recruiting incentives for future anti-American terrorists.
> 
> Do irreparable damage to Arab/US relations...which are rotten to begin with.
> 
> Make us look terrible in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world.
> 
> Give our critics  abroad  and at home justification for saying "I told you so," in their efforts at demonizing us as a nation.
> 
> 
> Geeeeezzzzzzz, whadda mess.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Steve



Really?   Where is the out cry from the muslim world about the raping of the US soldier and the torture of two US female POW's...  Maybe these jerks did some of the raping for saddam... And far more killing and torture than the American public will ever get to know.... 

I do believe the American Government handled this wrong-  As far as humiliating those that Kill US citizens and military-  Boo hoo.  So sad too bad their poor little feelings were hurt.  These are not true muslims anyways, these are socio paths who kill and torture for pleasure same as Saddam and more than likely are part of his Rebulican Guard!


----------



## someguy

Rainman said:
			
		

> Really?   Where is the out cry from the muslim world about the raping of the US soldier and the torture of two US female POW's...  Maybe these jerks did some of the raping for saddam... And far more killing and torture than the American public will ever get to know....
> 
> I do believe the American Government handled this wrong-  As far as humiliating those that Kill US citizens and military-  Boo hoo.  So sad too bad their poor little feelings were hurt.  These are not true muslims anyways, these are socio paths who kill and torture for pleasure same as Saddam and more than likely are part of his Rebulican Guard!



Let us suppise you are right on some f this.  Still it will do as HHJH has said.

_Ruin the morale on the home front. _ to some extent yup more like harm it though.

_Do irreparable damage to Arab/US relations...which are rotten to begin with._ It will be repaired some but still damage it some.

_Make us look terrible in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world._Sort of yeah

_Give our critics abroad and at home justification for saying "I told you so," in their efforts at demonizing us as a nation._Hmm I have heard it plenty of times so I will have to say yup.


----------



## michaeledward

Rainman said:
			
		

> Really? Where is the out cry from the muslim world about the raping of the US soldier and the torture of two US female POW's... Maybe these jerks did some of the raping for saddam... And far more killing and torture than the American public will ever get to know....
> 
> I do believe the American Government handled this wrong- As far as humiliating those that Kill US citizens and military- Boo hoo. So sad too bad their poor little feelings were hurt. These are not true muslims anyways, these are socio paths who kill and torture for pleasure same as Saddam and more than likely are part of his Rebulican Guard!


According to widely accepted reports, as many as 90% of those held in the Abu Ghraib prison were not charged with any crime. They were not 'Republican Guard' troops. They were Iraqi's "lucky" enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The US military could not even determine who should be held, and who should be released.

And the outrage of the Muslim world world, during the invasion was directed at the country doing the invading (not just the muslim world, by the way, but pretty damn near the whole world). The Iraqi's posed no threat to the United States, so according to International Law, we had no right to invade. I don't think anyone, anywhere was cheering on rape or torture, but there may have been some bigger items in the news, at the time.


----------



## Rainman

someguy said:
			
		

> Let us suppise you are right on some f this.  Still it will do as HHJH has said.
> 
> _Ruin the morale on the home front. _ to some extent yup more like harm it though.
> 
> _Do irreparable damage to Arab/US relations...which are rotten to begin with._ It will be repaired some but still damage it some.
> 
> _Make us look terrible in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world._Sort of yeah
> 
> _Give our critics abroad and at home justification for saying "I told you so," in their efforts at demonizing us as a nation._Hmm I have heard it plenty of times so I will have to say yup.



Didn't ruin my morale any-  this is war- war is ugly- All fighting is ugly-  With that being said, who cares what the "feelings" of dictatorships and those that hide behind their so called religeon think.  They are cowards.  Cowards killed unarmed civilians working to rebuild Iraq.  They love the turmoil and subterfuge they live in otherwise the Iraqi people would come together and flat out put a stop to it.  It is the demagoguery that gets the retarded masses... What can you say about that?  Open your eyes?  Their eyes are wide open.    

Honestly I am really disturbed by people in my own country putting other countries before our own military and and our own citizens.  As soon as an American body was desecrated and humilated by being drug around on the streets of terikati the current administration should have zoomed in with a satellite and directed an intense military take over to recover those bodies and take those people out.   

I just don't see the point in letting cancer fester.   It is like someone brandishing a weapon, use it or don't. Stay away from the inbetween it is not logical because it gives the opponent time to react.  

On the flip side yes, someone didn't do their job... Big deal fire them, that is the American way.


----------



## Rainman

michaeledward said:
			
		

> According to widely accepted reports, as many as 90% of those held in the Abu Ghraib prison were not charged with any crime. They were not 'Republican Guard' troops. They were Iraqi's "lucky" enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The US military could not even determine who should be held, and who should be released.
> 
> And the outrage of the Muslim world world, during the invasion was directed at the country doing the invading (not just the muslim world, by the way, but pretty damn near the whole world). The Iraqi's posed no threat to the United States, so according to International Law, we had no right to invade. I don't think anyone, anywhere was cheering on rape or torture, but there may have been some bigger items in the news, at the time.



Not the whole world- we have had many allies privately supporting the US invasion.   Saddam wasn't a threat?  Are you nuts?  Mass graves were found with thousands of people in them...  He was a threat to anyone at anytime... Same as bin ladden and the other rich boy playboy creeps over in the middle east that are just flat out lunitics.

Gitmo... unlucky enough to be hanging around terrorists?  Bit of a stretch for me... maybe some are innocent... maybe they are murderers and rapists.  Would you not rather error on the side of safety...  3000 of our folks got wiped off the planet for going to work that day...  So what if the US has takes time to fully investigate these things.   Our citizens come first.   I mean really- to mass murder 3000 people for going to work- 

International Law-  Law is the job of lawyers now- are you an international attourney at law?  If you are please state where it is written that socio paths such as Saddam should test mustard gas on the kurds... That is a collection of empiracal data the could be used in terrorists attacks throughout the world.   Tell me if it is not the same to let a known serial killer out on a loop hole and try to get him before he kills again.   Whoever failed to close the case and do the job they were paid for FIRE THEM.  Don't know what else to say about that.


----------



## someguy

I seriously doubt that this incident didn't effect moral at all.  OK so it may not be as big of an effect as say Sadams capture but I would bet it has to some ectent or another.  As o proof it has hmm prove it hasn't.  Does that harm my case sure but I don't feel like thinking of a good bit of proof.  Any one else care to do that for me?


----------



## michaeledward

Rainman said:
			
		

> Not the whole world- we have had many allies privately supporting the US invasion.


I'm curious what planet you are living on? Odds are high that Tony Blair is going to be voted out of office for so vigorously supporting the United States in this little excursion. The 'Coalition of the Willing' is supported by extensive bribes by the United States.



			
				Rainman said:
			
		

> Saddam wasn't a threat? Are you nuts? Mass graves were found with thousands of people in them... He was a threat to anyone at anytime...


He was definately a threat to the citizens of his own country, but only if they voiced dissent. He was not a threat to anyone else. His military was severely degraded in 1991, and with the United Nations sanctions, replacement parts for his weaponry was unavailable. The only possible threat he could have posed was with Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons. As we have seen, those just didn't exist.



			
				Rainman said:
			
		

> Same as bin ladden and the other rich boy playboy creeps over in the middle east that are just flat out lunitics.


Certainly, bin Laden is a lunatic. No argument from me on this statement.



			
				Rainman said:
			
		

> Gitmo... unlucky enough to be hanging around terrorists? Bit of a stretch for me... maybe some are innocent... maybe they are murderers and rapists. Would you not rather error on the side of safety... 3000 of our folks got wiped off the planet for going to work that day... So what if the US has takes time to fully investigate these things. Our citizens come first. I mean really- to mass murder 3000 people for going to work-


Gitmo?   Who mentioned Gitmo? Now, since you bring it up. That the United States is holding indefinately, without charge, without rights, without status human beings is a disgrace and an embarassment. If they are criminals, charge them and try them. If they are prisoners of war, name them as such and provide them the rights granted to POW's. 

Abu Ghraib is a prison in Iraq. The detainees in this prison are being detained for questionable reasons. Some are supposed to be criminal, but others just happen to be living on the same block. When the US military executes a 'sweep', they detain all of the people in an area, detain them, and then are supposed to vet those who do not belong in the prison. However, due to manpower related shortages, many remain detained that should be released.

Thirdly ... 3000 murded (actually 2948) ... ahh, gee, haven't you heard, THE IRAQI's weren't involved with that ... Why don't we start randomly arresting Canadians? 

Forthly ... "would you not rather error on the side of safety" ... well, No. You see, if we do not provide every guarantee to our enemy, our enemy will feel justified to deny our soldiers those same guarantees. This begins the escalation of violence. Yes, the US Military can destroy all the other militaries on the planet, but unless you are going to destroy all of the people on the planet, the problem is not going to be solved.

Our country has done pretty well for itself guaranteeing the rights of citizens to be 'innocent until proven guilty'. Why should we abondone this noble concept, that has served us so well for 225 years?




			
				Rainman said:
			
		

> International Law- Law is the job of lawyers now- are you an international attourney at law? If you are please state where it is written that socio paths such as Saddam should test mustard gas on the kurds... That is a collection of empiracal data the could be used in terrorists attacks throughout the world. Tell me if it is not the same to let a known serial killer out on a loop hole and try to get him before he kills again. Whoever failed to close the case and do the job they were paid for FIRE THEM. Don't know what else to say about that.


No, I am not an international attourney at law. I am going to assume that is a rhetorical question.

It is not written that 'socio paths' such as Saddam should test mustard gas on the kurds. 

Also, he should not use it on the Iranians. Also, the United States should not provide intelligence data to Saddam Hussein so that he may effectively use his chemical & biological weapons against his enemies and citizens. ... But we did.

In 1949, the world adopted the 'Geneva Conventions'. These Convetions function as 'International Law' and deal directly with armed conflict. In 2001, apparently, the George Bush Administration decided that we no longer need to operate within the guidelines of the Geneva Convetions (Kyoto, anyone?). 

Here are the Geneva Conventions
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Here is the US abondoment of the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson

Huh. Nobody seems to want to tangle with Seymour Hersh's reporting, though it is the essence of this thread. I'll be darned.

"Would you not rather error on the side of safety... 3000 of our folks got wiped off the planet for going to work that day... So what if the US has takes time to fully investigate these things. Our citizens come first." Well, if people can't understand that those of us who have been born incredibly privileged have moral responsibilities (yes, Virginia, I mean you) to humankind, what can one say? 

As long as we're forgetting, anybody recollect Quaddafi's baby girl, killed by our airstrikes under Reagan? Anybody recollect the Iranians--300 plus Iranians--killed by one of our Aegis cruisers (some of y'all are into technology; like, isn't the Aegis' phased-array radar rilly, rilly kewl?)? 

Or hey, mustard gas. Clearly wrong and damnable--and hate to tell some, us lefties noticed that it was wrong and damnable. Regrettably we also noticed that a previous Bush administration abandoned the Kurds when then needed us...when we had a perfect, almost-immaculate chance to stand up for our best values and make a good political/military move, too. Instead, it was hasta la vista, suckers. 

Mustard gas. Yes, absolutely unforgivably wrong, all irony aside.. Hey, do a search. Check out: MK-Ultra. Check out the Christmas bombing of Hanoi. Check the experiments that the US government did in the 1950s, administering lethal doses of radiation to terminally-ill hillbilly children around a little area we like to call, Oak Ridge, Tennesse. Or look up the Phoenix Program.

By the way, the angrier and more insulting responses? I'll be responding with some episode from American history, so enjoy, enjoy.

The only sane and moral response is that it is all wrong, wrong and damnable. Robert Heinlein was right in "Starship Troopers:" doesn't matter if it's one or a million. Evil methods, evil ends: "you fight."

I heard Mr. Hersh on NPR (yes, I know: like to dismiss it as Communist, wouldn't some of you?): what I liked best, when he talked about the unforgivable **** that Rumsfield and the rest of the Gestapo (yes, gestapo: torturers who torture for high-minded purposes are Gestapo in my book) have been up to (sheesh, it's like some of you guys never saw, "Above the Law," and have failed to come up to the moral standards of Steven Seagal--or Billy Jack--not a high standard, mind), Hersh said, "We."

He's right. And so was Pogo.

Shame on those of you who have been thinking up fancy, abstract, intellectualized theories to justify torture and murder. Shame on you.


----------



## Rainman

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm curious what planet you are living on? Odds are high that Tony Blair is going to be voted out of office for so vigorously supporting the United States in this little excursion. The 'Coalition of the Willing' is supported by extensive bribes by the United States.
> 
> He was definately a threat to the citizens of his own country, but only if they voiced dissent. He was not a threat to anyone else. His military was severely degraded in 1991, and with the United Nations sanctions, replacement parts for his weaponry was unavailable. The only possible threat he could have posed was with Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons. As we have seen, those just didn't exist.
> 
> Certainly, bin Laden is a lunatic. No argument from me on this statement.
> 
> 
> Gitmo?   Who mentioned Gitmo? Now, since you bring it up. That the United States is holding indefinately, without charge, without rights, without status human beings is a disgrace and an embarassment. If they are criminals, charge them and try them. If they are prisoners of war, name them as such and provide them the rights granted to POW's.
> 
> Abu Ghraib is a prison in Iraq. The detainees in this prison are being detained for questionable reasons. Some are supposed to be criminal, but others just happen to be living on the same block. When the US military executes a 'sweep', they detain all of the people in an area, detain them, and then are supposed to vet those who do not belong in the prison. However, due to manpower related shortages, many remain detained that should be released.
> 
> Thirdly ... 3000 murded (actually 2948) ... ahh, gee, haven't you heard, THE IRAQI's weren't involved with that ... Why don't we start randomly arresting Canadians?
> 
> Forthly ... "would you not rather error on the side of safety" ... well, No. You see, if we do not provide every guarantee to our enemy, our enemy will feel justified to deny our soldiers those same guarantees. This begins the escalation of violence. Yes, the US Military can destroy all the other militaries on the planet, but unless you are going to destroy all of the people on the planet, the problem is not going to be solved.
> 
> Our country has done pretty well for itself guaranteeing the rights of citizens to be 'innocent until proven guilty'. Why should we abondone this noble concept, that has served us so well for 225 years?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not an international attourney at law. I am going to assume that is a rhetorical question.
> 
> It is not written that 'socio paths' such as Saddam should test mustard gas on the kurds.
> 
> Also, he should not use it on the Iranians. Also, the United States should not provide intelligence data to Saddam Hussein so that he may effectively use his chemical & biological weapons against his enemies and citizens. ... But we did.
> 
> In 1949, the world adopted the 'Geneva Conventions'. These Convetions function as 'International Law' and deal directly with armed conflict. In 2001, apparently, the George Bush Administration decided that we no longer need to operate within the guidelines of the Geneva Convetions (Kyoto, anyone?).
> 
> Here are the Geneva Conventions
> http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
> 
> Here is the US abondoment of the Geneva Conventions.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/
> 
> Mike


 
No doornob, I brought up Gitmo because it is similar and sets the precident-  that being if you are caught near such a situation the US government will incarcerate first and then sort through the material.   This has already been done to the citizens in the format of trying to reduce gang violence... "guilty by association"  Don't know why everyone is so shocked at this, has been a leverage tool used by law enforcement since the early 90's.  

*Innocent until proven guilty... * That is a laugh.  You are more innocent the more money you have... OJ, Enron, most business owners, unions and the rest of it.  

The Iraqis were not involved... and GW doesn't know what the CIA does either.   OPEC, the CIA, whatever.  Large amounts of money and power.   Money and power corrupt- and some of these folks absolutely have power... you know the rest.

*Saddam never bothered anyone unless they spoke out against him.  * 
The United states routinely spoke out against him...

You are speaking in past tense dude- They already raped and tortured and dragged bodies around the streets.    They violated the rules of engagement *First*.  

*Also, he should not use it on the Iranians. Also, the United States should not provide intelligence data to Saddam Hussein so that he may effectively use his chemical & biological weapons against his enemies and citizens. ... But we did.* 

I did not give my permission to do that.  There is no we.  I disagree with giving or selling any military secrets to anyone and I also believe anyone who does should get life in prision.  

*He was definately a threat to the citizens of his own country, but only if they voiced dissent. He was not a threat to anyone else. His military was severely degraded in 1991, and with the United Nations sanctions, replacement parts for his weaponry was unavailable. The only possible threat he could have posed was with Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons. As we have seen, those just didn't exist.*

By that logic you could also say the republican guard doesn't exist...  They all slither off reappear and disappear.  Never would have found Saddam if he wasn't ratted out-  and even that was for money.  

Blair is a socialist- that is the real reason people are not so happy with him.  England has been bombarded by imigrants who basically get the same stuff as people born there... It is putting a strain on their economy.  Sorry to pop your bubble but a co-worker of mine just imigrated to the US from the UK.  He is neither conservative or liberal, sad ,what he is is not is represented in his government by a middle of the road party.  

Lastly when is it your think terrorists are going follow the Geneva Convention?


----------



## michaeledward

Rainman said:
			
		

> No doornob,


chuckle !! 



			
				Rainman said:
			
		

> Lastly when is it your think terrorists are going follow the Geneva Convention?


It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad that you keep argueing that 'Terrorists' and the Iraqi people are interchangable. 

By that arguement, Cheif John Ross was a Terrorist (Cherokee Trail of Tears - and I had to look it up. - Also see 'General Winfield Scott')

What is causing me trepidation is that you are worried *not about the United States abondoning the Geneva Conventions* (and there will be ramifications Pandora), *but whether the other guy is going to respect them. *

Off to memorize the phone book with you. - Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson

"No doornob, I brought up Gitmo because it is similar and sets the precident- that being if you are caught near such a situation the US government will incarcerate first and then sort through the material. This has already been done to the citizens in the format of trying to reduce gang violence... "guilty by association" Don't know why everyone is so shocked at this, has been a leverage tool used by law enforcement since the early 90's."

Ah. I feel so very much better now, knowing that law enforcement is building up a proud tradition of grabbing citizens off the street--largely black and hispanic citizens, mind you--because they're hanging around with the wrong crowd. Thank god we are applying the same standards everywhere. 

By the way--just to mention the topic of the thread--"sort{ing} through the material," apparently means COMMITING ACTS OF TORTURE ON HELPLESS PRISONERS. And, "the material," actually means HUMAN BEINGS. 

Sheesh. And some of us constantly get accused of being materialists with no sense of values.

By the way, nothing in the Christian message says that decency is easy. It says that it's necessary--much as in martial arts, the discipline and control one learns on the mat is supposed to extend to the difficult parts of dealing with others.

But as always, the interesting thing is the invocation of capitalism as the fundamental problem. In that, I tend to agree.


----------



## Cruentus

The stupidity of people will never cease to amaze me. Here are a couple of things.

#1. For those of you who keep saying that "them Muslims aren't in objection to acts of terrorism" need to realize that all them "rag heads" aren't the same. Just like there are distinctly different versions of Christianity with some involving violence (like KKK and neo-nazi groups), there is the same diversity in the Muslim world. The only thing that we see from our "liberal media" is the fundamentalist rallies and parades. Yes, there sure seems to be a lot of muslim fundamentalists, however, if the roles were reversed and the U.S. was the third world, and the middle east was the unilateral power who fixed trade laws, and treated us "Christians" as lesser people, then you would see the violent forms of christianity marching in the streets all the same.
But the fact is, not all christians would agree with the violent forms.

This is true in the Muslim world. There many Muslims both in and outside of the middle east who are horrified by ther actions of Muslim fundamentalists, and who are in objection to acts of terrorism. MichealEdward posted a few links to Arabic media to support this fact in this thread, if you look back. 

So, quit saying statements like "You don't see an outcry for bla-blah-bla in the "Muslim" world" because it only makes you look racist and ignorant.

#2. On to the torture...for those of you who argue that "they," meaning the thousands of prisoners, needed to be tortured by us because "they" had valuable information to prevent terrorism, stop it. Out of all the prisoners, there may have been only a handful of them who knew anything. That doesn't excuse the now 1800 photo's detailing prison abuse that have been confiscated to date. Most of the people tortured in our prisons were not "terrorists", or anyone with military intelligence, but were just regular ol' Iraqi soldiers. So when you argue this way, you look retarded.

#3 Stop using the arguement that "because other countries might torture 'us' worse, then it must be o.k. for us to torture in the manner that we did." You all know that your mamma's taught you that "2 wrongs don't make a right" the same as mine.

#4 Stop saying that the torture wasn't a top down order when we have endless proof that M.I. told the guards to break these men down. This arguement is about as logical as trying to argue that the world is flat.

#5 And stop saying that IF you are upset at the way we handle foriegn policy, or upset with people in power, or upset with silly little things like "torture" at our own hands, that you are somehow, "putting other countries before our own military and citizens." If I am upset at the way my government handles something, it doesn't mean that I must support the terrorists. This is not a logical arguement.

O.K.....now that that's settled....proceed....


----------



## heretic888

*applauds Tulisan*

Nicely said.  :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

heretic888 said:
			
		

> *applauds Tulisan*
> 
> Nicely said.  :asian:



Thank you sir!  :asian:


----------



## loki09789

Tulisan said:
			
		

> The stupidity of people will never cease to amaze me. Here are a couple of things.
> 
> #2. On to the torture...for those of you who argue that "they," meaning the thousands of prisoners, needed to be tortured by us because "they" had valuable information to prevent terrorism, stop it. Out of all the prisoners, there may have been only a handful of them who knew anything. That doesn't excuse the now 1800 photo's detailing prison abuse that have been confiscated to date. Most of the people tortured in our prisons were not "terrorists", or anyone with military intelligence, but were just regular ol' Iraqi soldiers. So when you argue this way, you look retarded.
> 
> 
> #4 Stop saying that the torture wasn't a top down order when we have endless proof that M.I. told the guards to break these men down. This arguement is about as logical as trying to argue that the world is flat.
> 
> O.K.....now that that's settled....proceed....


Quite honestly, I don't think I am stupid.  And also, as far as the "stop this, stop that..." directive:  No.  My opinion is suppose to be welcome on this 'friendly forum' and I will continue to do so - within the forum rules.  Disagree all day long, but don't try and direct.  could that be a quarentine of my dissent (since it doesn't fit with your opinion)?

#2.  "Torture" for the purpose of information extraction is common practice in the military.  The extent that we go to is what people are up in arms about.  How far is too far?  I think that leaving some people alone and uncomfortable in stress positions and using positive reinforcement techniques of rewarding cooperation is fine.  I don't think that physical abuse is acceptabe nor do I think that inflicting any form of abuse or discomfort for personal pleasure is acceptable.  As far as 'regular old...' we don't really know now do we - doesn't make it right but that could be an assumption.

Besides one thing that we learned about OPSEC in the service was that if yo can compile enough Unclassified, 'unimportant' intelligence you can make some 'classified' conclusions/interpretations based on the patterns.

#4.  I am one saying that it wasn't a top down order.  No one from the pentagon/white house wrote a step by step directive to stand people on boxes in execution positions and no one wrote detailed orders on how to threaten electracution.  Some one from the top down did tell them to get the information, that it was urgent and speed was very important and encouraged them to 'keep it up' as intell was sent up the chain of command.  

That will be the loop hole crap that is played out as they climb up the food chain.  There will be many higher level leaders saying things like "I never told them to do THAT", "I only emphasized the urgency"....

The biggest problem I see in this whole war in Iraq, post 9/11 reaction is that there are lots of good ideas and intentions happening too quickly to be managed effectively.  That is the bottom line problem I am picking up on.  Things are happening so quickly that nothing is clarified by the time it gets to the level of execution.  Supervision can't effectively keep track of what is suppose to be happening, and the feedback/adjustments that require the initiative of lower level decision makers will end up being wrong because they don't have clear understanding of the 'commander's intent' in a lot of these cases.

There is enough blame to go all around now because of sloppiness at every level.  I just hope that it is distributed equitably and fairly.  Too often the lowly private types are sacrificed to save the cause.  It doesn't seem to be the case so far, but I don't think it is outside reality.


----------



## Cruentus

In term's of "looking stupid," anyone can say what they want here. Just don't say that I didn't warn ya!   

On that note, I agree with you here:



> There is enough blame to go all around now because of sloppiness at every level. I just hope that it is distributed equitably and fairly. Too often the lowly private types are sacrificed to save the cause. It doesn't seem to be the case so far, but I don't think it is outside reality.



 :asian:


----------



## loki09789

So, is it 'stupidity' because you don't agree with it, or is it 'stupidity' because the logic isn't sound, or is it people's stupidity because it isn't supported to your satisfaction....?  This whole thing is outside of our control for the most part.  I don't think telling people to stop this or stop that is going to foster any real communcation - if that is your goal.


----------



## Cruentus

loki09789 said:
			
		

> So, is it 'stupidity' because you don't agree with it, or is it 'stupidity' because the logic isn't sound, or is it people's stupidity because it isn't supported to your satisfaction....?  This whole thing is outside of our control for the most part.  I don't think telling people to stop this or stop that is going to foster any real communcation - if that is your goal.



It's "stupidity" because the logic isn't sound. Being illogical doesn't foster real communication either.


----------



## michaeledward

Tulisan said:
			
		

> #2. On to the torture...for those of you who argue that "they," meaning the thousands of prisoners, needed to be tortured by us because "they" had valuable information to prevent terrorism, stop it. Out of all the prisoners, there may have been only a handful of them who knew anything. That doesn't excuse the now 1800 photo's detailing prison abuse that have been confiscated to date. Most of the people tortured in our prisons were not "terrorists", or anyone with military intelligence, but were just regular ol' Iraqi soldiers. So when you argue this way, you look retarded.


Just a point of clarification. The people in the prisons in Iraq (Abu Ghraid and others) are not 'regular ol' Iraqi soldiers'. They were 'citizens' of Iraq. 

In a move of unprecidented *stupidity*, L. Paul Bremer dismissed the entire Iraqi military organization. The 'regular ol' Iraqi soldiers' were sent packing about a year ago - with no pay, no pension - oh, yeah, but he let them keep their weapons.

Now, you might make the argument that many of those in prison *used to be* Iraqi soldiers. I would ask you to justify that statement. The reports I have seen is that those detained consist of suspected insurgents, and anyone in the general vacinity. Most detained are waiting for a case review and release.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Just a point of clarification. The people in the prisons in Iraq (Abu Ghraid and others) are not 'regular ol' Iraqi soldiers'. They were 'citizens' of Iraq.
> 
> Mike



Thanks for that clarification, Mike. I was listening to that damn "Liberal" media again that proclaims that lumps everyone with brown skin in the middle east as "terrorists" again, so I assumed that they may have been soldiers. Silly me, my mistake.


----------



## loki09789

Tulisan said:
			
		

> It's "stupidity" because the logic isn't sound. Being illogical doesn't foster real communication either.


People standing around pointing fingers at each other, deflecting blame, using careful wording is illogical? You may know people in the military but I was in the military and I can tell you this prisoner stuff is just symptomatic of the CYA factor and the ambiguity of higher level "conceptual planning" orders as they trickle down to the troopies. 

Is it illogical to say that the lack of man hours of professional training, leadership training and strong NCO's/Officers at lower levels to nip this in the bud and not get their people involved are contributing factors to this whole mess?

If you are using 'either' about fostering communication, are you saying that your directive language is also wrong? Aren't you of the 'two wrongs don't make a right' mentallity?

I would prefer to just continue with this discussion without the 'stupidity' judgements of members. I can understand disagreeing with points and conduct, but if you are frustrated with it, taking it out on me or others that you disagree with isn't productive.

"Car!"

"Game ON"


----------



## Rich Parsons

loki09789 said:
			
		

> People standing around pointing fingers at each other, deflecting blame, using careful wording is illogical? You may know people in the military but I was in the military and I can tell you this prisoner stuff is just symptomatic of the CYA factor and the ambiguity of higher level "conceptual planning" orders as they trickle down to the troopies.
> 
> Is it illogical to say that the lack of man hours of professional training, leadership training and strong NCO's/Officers at lower levels to nip this in the bud and not get their people involved are contributing factors to this whole mess?
> 
> If you are using 'either' about fostering communication, are you saying that your directive language is also wrong? Aren't you of the 'two wrongs don't make a right' mentallity?
> 
> I would prefer to just continue with this discussion without the 'stupidity' judgements of members.  I can understand disagreeing with points and conduct, but if you are frustrated with, it taking it out on me or others that you disagree with isn't productive.
> 
> "Car!"
> 
> "Game ON"




HMMMM, not enough training. The use of reserve officers and men and women soldiers to guard the prisoners.

Yes, I can see, where there could be plausible deniablilty, by everyone from the top soldier to the bottom soldier.

I realize that it is "War" time, and that you need to take orders. And as nto being a member of the Military, I ask this. Is it not a possibility to ask for the orders to be written down? I agree that this might end your carear, yet, if it is against something you do not wish to do then, would you not want to get proof, and or make a note that you are executing the orders under protest?

It is war. People get killed. I realize that. Yet, I would have hoped that it might not have been in this type of situation.

My Personal Opinion
 :asian:


----------



## michaeledward

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Thanks for that clarification, Mike. I was listening to that damn "Liberal" media again that proclaims that lumps everyone with brown skin in the middle east as "terrorists" again, so I assumed that they may have been soldiers. Silly me, my mistake.


It sure would be nice if they were soldiers. Then we could call them Prisoners of War, and move on. Then there would be no doubt about the protections of International Law. 

Of course, the fact that we have stated publicly that our Mission is Accomplished, we would be required to 'Repatriate the POW's, (article 118 of the Geneva Conventions) rather than adding emprisoning more people.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> HMMMM, not enough training. The use of reserve officers and men and women soldiers to guard the prisoners.
> 
> Yes, I can see, where there could be plausible deniablilty, by everyone from the top soldier to the bottom soldier.
> 
> I realize that it is "War" time, and that you need to take orders. And as nto being a member of the Military, I ask this. Is it not a possibility to ask for the orders to be written down? I agree that this might end your carear, yet, if it is against something you do not wish to do then, would you not want to get proof, and or make a note that you are executing the orders under protest?
> 
> It is war. People get killed. I realize that. Yet, I would have hoped that it might not have been in this type of situation.
> 
> My Personal Opinion
> :asian:


Did you see Col. David Hackworths' article in the paper this week? He clearly labels the actions at Abu Ghraid as 'war crimes'. He also relays some interesting personal anectdotes concerning prisoner abuse.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=65&rnd=604.0894857871507

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

loki09789 said:
			
		

> People standing around pointing fingers at each other, deflecting blame, using careful wording is illogical? You may know people in the military but I was in the military and I can tell you this prisoner stuff is just symptomatic of the CYA factor and the ambiguity of higher level "conceptual planning" orders as they trickle down to the troopies.



I am not sure what you are trying to say here. 



> Is it illogical to say that the lack of man hours of professional training, leadership training and strong NCO's/Officers at lower levels to nip this in the bud and not get their people involved are contributing factors to this whole mess?



No, that could be a contributing factor. Yet, there have been countless reports stating that M.I. ambigiously ordered for these prisoners to be "broken down," that M.I. knew of the treatment of these prisoners, and that the "troopies" were told "good work" after horendous acts were commited. That is the next thing to actually telling the "troopies" to ram things up these prisoners butts.

The blame here doesn't rest on a few privates, this is a top down order from somewhere...the question is, how high up does it go?



> If you are using 'either' about fostering communication, are you saying that your directive language is also wrong? Aren't you of the 'two wrongs don't make a right' mentallity?
> 
> I would prefer to just continue with this discussion without the 'stupidity' judgements of members. I can understand disagreeing with points and conduct, but if you are frustrated with it, taking it out on me or others that you disagree with isn't productive.
> 
> "Car!"
> 
> "Game ON"



Dude, your reading a little too much into what I wrote. All I said was if you were using any one of those illogical arguements, then your being stupid, and you need to change tactics.

I hope no one is taken that too offensively here, as I am free to admit that we are all "stupid" at one time or another.


----------



## loki09789

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> HMMMM, not enough training. The use of reserve officers and men and women soldiers to guard the prisoners.
> 
> Yes, I can see, where there could be plausible deniablilty, by everyone from the top soldier to the bottom soldier.
> 
> I realize that it is "War" time, and that you need to take orders. And as nto being a member of the Military, I ask this. Is it not a possibility to ask for the orders to be written down? I agree that this might end your carear, yet, if it is against something you do not wish to do then, would you not want to get proof, and or make a note that you are executing the orders under protest?
> 
> It is war. People get killed. I realize that. Yet, I would have hoped that it might not have been in this type of situation.
> 
> My Personal Opinion
> :asian:


Rich,
Yes to all of this.  Inspector General's office, JAG, and your regular chain of command are all ways to go.  The 'on the record, I am not comfortable with it but I will do it' thing is sort of thin in the UCMJ, but it is better than nothing.


----------



## Rich Parsons

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Did you see Col. David Hackworths' article in the paper this week? He clearly labels the actions at Abu Ghraid as 'war crimes'. He also relays some interesting personal anectdotes concerning prisoner abuse.
> 
> http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=65&rnd=604.0894857871507
> 
> Mike



Mike,

No I have not read it. I will later tonight. Thank You for the link.


----------



## Rich Parsons

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Rich,
> Yes to all of this.  Inspector General's office, JAG, and your regular chain of command are all ways to go.  The 'on the record, I am not comfortable with it but I will do it' thing is sort of thin in the UCMJ, but it is better than nothing.



So then I really do not like to ask the following question(s).

Why did so many people feel comfortable with this type of behavior?

Mob Mentality?

Implicit orders? And willingness to please or revenge for 9/11?

Or is it more of an issue that those involved were not trained enough to know they had another course of action?

Either way, I still do not like it


----------



## Tgace

-Pressure to obtain results fed by reinforcement. ("good job, keep it up")
-Lack of training that made soldiers think that "this is the way this stuff is done".
-Lack of leadership, lack of military inspection procedure.
-"mob mentality"/peer pressure.
-Yes..probably some "payback" mentality.


----------



## Tgace

Personally, I think that the current backlash to; no feed time manipulation, no sleep deprivation, no uncomfortable positionong etc. is extreme in the other direction. They are good tools for obtaining vital intel. What needs to be done is an approval process, where specific techniques need to be approved for specific prisoners.


----------



## Cruentus

Well, prison shouldn't be like a resort, but it shouldn't be torture either.


----------



## Tgace

We have to decide how we deem a wartime prisoner's intell as vital enough to warrant specific techniques to get it. I think there needs to be a process. At Gitmo the Sec. Def. had to say "we need this guys info. you can use X to get it". Why the same process wasnt used I dont know.


----------



## Rainman

Tulisan said:
			
		

> The stupidity of people will never cease to amaze me. Here are a couple of things.
> 
> #1. For those of you who keep saying that "them Muslims aren't in objection to acts of terrorism" need to realize that all them "rag heads" aren't the same. Just like there are distinctly different versions of Christianity with some involving violence (like KKK and neo-nazi groups), there is the same diversity in the Muslim world. The only thing that we see from our "liberal media" is the fundamentalist rallies and parades. Yes, there sure seems to be a lot of muslim fundamentalists, however, if the roles were reversed and the U.S. was the third world, and the middle east was the unilateral power who fixed trade laws, and treated us "Christians" as lesser people, then you would see the violent forms of christianity marching in the streets all the same.
> But the fact is, not all christians would agree with the violent forms.
> 
> This is true in the Muslim world. There many Muslims both in and outside of the middle east who are horrified by ther actions of Muslim fundamentalists, and who are in objection to acts of terrorism. MichealEdward posted a few links to Arabic media to support this fact in this thread, if you look back.
> 
> So, quit saying statements like "You don't see an outcry for bla-blah-bla in the "Muslim" world" because it only makes you look racist and ignorant.
> 
> #2. On to the torture...for those of you who argue that "they," meaning the thousands of prisoners, needed to be tortured by us because "they" had valuable information to prevent terrorism, stop it. Out of all the prisoners, there may have been only a handful of them who knew anything. That doesn't excuse the now 1800 photo's detailing prison abuse that have been confiscated to date. Most of the people tortured in our prisons were not "terrorists", or anyone with military intelligence, but were just regular ol' Iraqi soldiers. So when you argue this way, you look retarded.
> 
> #3 Stop using the arguement that "because other countries might torture 'us' worse, then it must be o.k. for us to torture in the manner that we did." You all know that your mamma's taught you that "2 wrongs don't make a right" the same as mine.
> 
> #4 Stop saying that the torture wasn't a top down order when we have endless proof that M.I. told the guards to break these men down. This arguement is about as logical as trying to argue that the world is flat.
> 
> #5 And stop saying that IF you are upset at the way we handle foriegn policy, or upset with people in power, or upset with silly little things like "torture" at our own hands, that you are somehow, "putting other countries before our own military and citizens." If I am upset at the way my government handles something, it doesn't mean that I must support the terrorists. This is not a logical arguement.
> 
> O.K.....now that that's settled....proceed....


 
No you're post is one of demagogery.  Aint gonna work here and neither are your ridiculous commands.    

*#1. For those of you who keep saying that "them Muslims aren't in objection to acts of terrorism" need to realize that all them "rag heads" aren't the same. Just like there are distinctly different versions of Christianity with some involving violence (like KKK and neo-nazi groups), there is the same diversity in the Muslim world. The only thing that we see from our "liberal media" is the fundamentalist rallies and parades. Yes, there sure seems to be a lot of muslim fundamentalists, however, if the roles were reversed and the U.S. was the third world, and the middle east was the unilateral power who fixed trade laws, and treated us "Christians" as lesser people, then you would see the violent forms of christianity marching in the streets all the same.
But the fact is, not all christians would agree with the violent forms*

This is the most assinine comment I have ever seen.  Islam is very similar to chrisitianity... I am neither and have zero respect for either.  Both faiths say not to murder thy brother... Is a commandment.  DO NOT DO THIS SAYS GOD!!!  HERE IS ANOTHER ONE FOR SCREWBALLS IN YOUR FAITH... DO NOT MOLEST CHILDREN-- I am with Marxx on that one - Religion is the oppiate of the masses... I can tell what you've been smokin'.  NO CHRISTIONS OR MUSLIMS CAN AGREE TO VIOLENCE, IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE BIBLE AND KORAN SAYS.   They both have the same tenents- I know I had a lengthy discussion with a prof (who was a shiite) about the 2 doctrines.   If you are going to call yourself a christian, muslim, catholic, then follow the doctrine you so praise.   Fundamentalist?  Oh please!!  Lunatics like *you* on parade is closer to the truth.   

*So, quit saying statements like "You don't see an outcry for bla-blah-bla in the "Muslim" world" because it only makes you look racist and ignorant.*

More teenage semantics-  I see you are just barely out of your teens- no wonder     What a bunch of blather... I know I know you are just a product of your environment... that is why you need a stick, cause you are a whimp!!!


----------



## heretic888

> I am with Marxx on that one - Religion is the oppiate of the masses... I can tell what you've been smokin'.



People make these claims regularly. At least in some circles.

Ultimately, though, it matters not. Replacing your concrete-literal, ethnocentric thinking with secular content instead of religious content doesn't actually change the _substance_ of the thinking. Lenin and Stalin showed us this fact in ready abundance, as do many of the "democratic revolutionaries" the world over.

An atheistic bigot is still a bigot. Its not the religion per se that is the problem, it is the lack of world-centric, global thinking that is the problem. Some religious thinking is very global and world-centric in orientation -- including several sects of Christianity, Buddhism, and yes Islam.



> More teenage semantics- I see you are just barely out of your teens- no wonder  What a bunch of blather... I know I know you are just a product of your environment... that is why you need a stick, cause you are a whimp!!!



Given the content of your last post, I'd be careful about whose thought processes I'd accuse of being adolescent.

Laterz.


----------



## Rainman

heretic888 said:
			
		

> People make these claims regularly. At least in some circles.
> 
> Ultimately, though, it matters not. Replacing your concrete-literal, ethnocentric thinking with secular content instead of religious content doesn't actually change the _substance_ of the thinking. Lenin and Stalin showed us this fact in ready abundance, as do many of the "democratic revolutionaries" the world over.
> 
> An atheistic bigot is still a bigot. Its not the religion per se that is the problem, it is the lack of world-centric, global thinking that is the problem. Some religious thinking is very global and world-centric in orientation -- including several sects of Christianity, Buddhism, and yes Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> Given the content of your last post, I'd be careful about whose thought processes I'd accuse of being adolescent.
> 
> Laterz.



Ding thankyou for playing-  

1.  I am not an athiest.   I can read and interpret as well as any preacher.  What does *thou shalt not kill* mean to you?  C'mon Bill Clinton redefine what sex is while you are at it.

2. Yeah and you are one of the wise and all knowing sorts-  You would have had a point but you took the dunce cap off and your head was still conical.  Careful of what you freakin boob?  Religion and politics always end up in hysterical rants-  No one is nice when politics and religion are discussed-   It goes down to peoples core beliefs...  when I get better information I adjust my beleifs.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Rainman said:
			
		

> Ding thankyou for playing-
> 
> 1.  I am not an athiest.   I can read and interpret as well as any preacher.  What does *thou shalt not kill* mean to you?  C'mon Bill Clinton redefine what sex is while you are at it.
> 
> 2. Yeah and you are one of the wise and all knowing sorts-  You would have had a point but you took the dunce cap off and your head was still conical.  Careful of what you freakin boob?  Religion and politics always end up in hysterical rants-  No one is nice when politics and religion are discussed-   It goes down to peoples core beliefs...  when I get better information I adjust my beleifs.



No Disrespect, I thought I read, and cannot remember where, so I admit this is shaky, that one of the translation was actually "Thou Shall Not Murder". Nothing was said about killing animals for food or plants for food or animals for self defense. (* You could include humans in the animal section as long as you consider self defense. *) 

I am Not trying to change people's points of views or opinions.

I just tought some of those with more resources could either confirm or deny the statement, or point me to a resource, either hard copy or on the net.

Thank You
 :asian:


----------



## loki09789

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So then I really do not like to ask the following question(s).
> 
> Why did so many people feel comfortable with this type of behavior?
> 
> Mob Mentality?
> 
> Implicit orders? And willingness to please or revenge for 9/11?
> 
> Or is it more of an issue that those involved were not trained enough to know they had another course of action?
> 
> Either way, I still do not like it


None of us were there so none of this is anything more than opinion but I would say all of the above, but I wouldn't use the term 'mob mentallity' for this as much as peer pressure.  I don't like it either, as I have said.  I just don't think that it is something that was laid out in a grand scheme as much as it was sloppiness and speed leading to poor directions and poor judgement.


----------



## CanuckMA

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> No Disrespect, I thought I read, and cannot remember where, so I admit this is shaky, that one of the translation was actually "Thou Shall Not Murder". Nothing was said about killing animals for food or plants for food or animals for self defense. (* You could include humans in the animal section as long as you consider self defense. *)
> 
> I am Not trying to change people's points of views or opinions.
> 
> I just tought some of those with more resources could either confirm or deny the statement, or point me to a resource, either hard copy or on the net.
> 
> Thank You
> :asian:



It's not 'one of the translation', it's the correct translation. the Hebrew word used translates to murder. Seeing as later in the Torah there are some pretty explicit instructions for the conduct of war, and the death penalty, a prohibition on killing would be sort of self-deafeating.

Jewish translation of those verses : http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=20#P2


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*Reminder*

When engaged in the discussion of a hot/sensitive or otherwise emotionally charged topic, please refer to the following thread for allowable guidelines.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14456

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Thank you,
The Management


----------



## Rich Parsons

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> It's not 'one of the translation', it's the correct translation. the Hebrew word used translates to murder. Seeing as later in the Torah there are some pretty explicit instructions for the conduct of war, and the death penalty, a prohibition on killing would be sort of self-deafeating.
> 
> Jewish translation of those verses : http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=20#P2




Thank You


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Has anybody here seen the real beheading of the American Journalist? Torture, humiliation and abuse are all part of what makes a war, a war. Innocents and civilians are always killed, well almost always. I'm afraid that we wont here konw half of what does on out there. There will be torturing of our soliders and we will be torturing their fanatics. I'm afraid this is reality in its coldest most harsh atmosphere. What I wish however was that the American Army was more like the British Army. The British Army is the most professional and best trained army in the world. I'm sorry and I dont mean to offend you if you are American but the physcology generally of the American Army is very gun ho, hence the death of one of your atheletes recently when he thought his convoy could 'handle' the situation, they RPG'd the vehicles shot and burnt him and his men. The pictures of British troops torturing Iraq's have all found to be hoax's but doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## Cruentus

Rainman said:
			
		

> No you're post is one of demagogery.  Aint gonna work here and neither are your ridiculous commands.
> 
> *#1. For those of you who keep saying that "them Muslims aren't in objection to acts of terrorism" need to realize that all them "rag heads" aren't the same. Just like there are distinctly different versions of Christianity with some involving violence (like KKK and neo-nazi groups), there is the same diversity in the Muslim world. The only thing that we see from our "liberal media" is the fundamentalist rallies and parades. Yes, there sure seems to be a lot of muslim fundamentalists, however, if the roles were reversed and the U.S. was the third world, and the middle east was the unilateral power who fixed trade laws, and treated us "Christians" as lesser people, then you would see the violent forms of christianity marching in the streets all the same.
> But the fact is, not all christians would agree with the violent forms*
> 
> This is the most assinine comment I have ever seen.  Islam is very similar to chrisitianity... I am neither and have zero respect for either.  Both faiths say not to murder thy brother... Is a commandment.  DO NOT DO THIS SAYS GOD!!!  HERE IS ANOTHER ONE FOR SCREWBALLS IN YOUR FAITH... DO NOT MOLEST CHILDREN-- I am with Marxx on that one - Religion is the oppiate of the masses... I can tell what you've been smokin'.  NO CHRISTIONS OR MUSLIMS CAN AGREE TO VIOLENCE, IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE BIBLE AND KORAN SAYS.   They both have the same tenents- I know I had a lengthy discussion with a prof (who was a shiite) about the 2 doctrines.   If you are going to call yourself a christian, muslim, catholic, then follow the doctrine you so praise.   Fundamentalist?  Oh please!!  Lunatics like *you* on parade is closer to the truth.
> 
> *So, quit saying statements like "You don't see an outcry for bla-blah-bla in the "Muslim" world" because it only makes you look racist and ignorant.*
> 
> More teenage semantics-  I see you are just barely out of your teens- no wonder     What a bunch of blather... I know I know you are just a product of your environment... that is why you need a stick, cause you are a whimp!!!



Hey, I was just called a demigog, assinine, lunitic, "teenaged," and a "whimp," while also being attacked for my "child molesting" faith.

Neato....I must have said something right.


----------



## heretic888

> I am not an athiest.



I never claimed you were. I merely said changing the content of thinking does _not_ change the substance of thinking, as you so erroneously implied.

And, unlike you, I actually provided historical examples of this (with two Marxists, no less: Lenin and Stalin). You have yet to provide proof for the rather inane statement that "all religion is bad" --- then again, given the rather adolescent basis for such claims, I doubt you could.



> What does thou shalt not kill mean to you? C'mon Bill Clinton redefine what sex is while you are at it.



This is just silly.

Now, you're implying that every religious individual is somehow a hypocrite or, worse, a murderer. Its funny, because I would consider your 'intellectual' position as being pretty damn _religious_ in substance to me.

The simple historical truth is: religious fanatics murder, secular fanatics murder --- thusly, it has very little (if anything) to do with the actual _content_ of their beliefs, as opposed to the _substance_ of their beliefs. 

It is the fanaticism, the zealotry, the sociocentrism, and ethnocentrism; the willingness to sacrifice others in the name of one's "beliefs" or "order"; the inability to treat others of different nationality, belief, race, sexual orientation, gender, or whatnot as "equal" or, at the very least, "human". It is the concrete-literal and "blind faith" reliance on My People/Country/Religion, right or wrong.

This has nothing to do with religion per se (although many religions have historically manifested this behavior), it has to do with the type of thinking demonstrated above.



> Yeah and you are one of the wise and all knowing sorts- You would have had a point but you took the dunce cap off and your head was still conical. Careful of what you freakin boob?



I'm sure there's a point somewhere hidden between all the viscious personal attacks ... but I just can't seem to find it.   



> Religion and politics always end up in hysterical rants- No one is nice when politics and religion are discussed- It goes down to peoples core beliefs... when I get better information I adjust my beleifs.



Ummm.... you realized you just supported my viewpoint, right?  :uhyeah: 

Yes, religion _and_ politics (among other things) tend to end up in irrational, hysterical rants. Thus, it has nothing to do strictly with religion per se --- but with the substance and level of thinking usually associated with religion. Obviously, this type of thinking can manifest in a number of activities, politics included. Why?? Because it is a _type_ of thinking and _not_ a particular subject.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

Here's some more info on the subject; sources say that this was indeed a "top down" order:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3806713.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4206137,00.html


----------



## Cruentus

The disclosure, by military sources, is the first indication that Sanchez was directly involved in efforts to hide prisoners from the Red Cross....

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040621/usnews/21abughraib.htm


----------



## Cruentus

"U.S. says it will continue to hold thousands of Iraqi prisoners after June 30"

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/13/world/iraqprisoners040613

Himmmm. SO "the war" is over eh? June 30th we're pulling out huh? I guess thats why I have friends over there not scheduled to come back for another year. I guess that is why there are talks of re-instituting the draft.

I wonder if we'll get another aircraft landing with a "mission accomplished" sign for this one. I am sure we'll get the equivalent.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> What do you mean, 'They do not think like we do'? .. Do they think with their liver?
> Statements like these tend to be part of the 'dehumanization' process that allows people to kill someone else with enduring difficulties.


I think that (and I realize here I'm leaving out a huge part of the discussion) one of the things we sometimes forget is that often torture, and I think in particular what happened with the Iraqi prisoners, does not have to stem from thinking in a particular way, or *hating* the prisoners. 

A "dehumaization" process occurs when any person or group of people are given what they perceive to be unlimited and complete control over other people. 

Of course, hating the prisoners or what you believe they stand for, hating your job at the time, and what have you can all lead to more problems as well....

http://www.prisonexp.org/

This is a classic Psychology experiment, and may be useful for some of the discussions here, if anyone is interested. 

That aside, I agree with the original post - the news of the abuse has harmed the US and our relations with others in almost innumerable ways. It was awful for it to have happened, and it's going to bite us (as a nation, politically) in the *** over and over.

Also, I apologize if this link has been posted already - I skimmed part of the thread.

ETA: 



> I am not an athiest. I can read and interpret as well as any preacher.


Ha ha ha.  Reading and "interpreting" (which you do in a pretty arrogant way) does not mean having faith in anything.  It means literacy, hopefully thoughtfullness, and possibly nitpicking or misinterpretation.  

It seems to me that in several threads some folks would like to make a statement about a religion or religions in general driving hatred, violence, what have you.  Perhaps in the discussion on Islam some folks might find some thoughtful discussion on beliefs and the things people do.


----------



## StraightRazor

Hasnt this stuff or even much worse happened in EVERY war?? Not that it makes it right, but people are acting like this is a new animal.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> Hasnt this stuff or even much worse happened in EVERY war??


I think 1) we're suppossed to be abiding by the Geneva Convention, and 2) but this time, *we're* the bad guys...

I think that's why it's such an important topic for discussion.

That, and just because something may happen frequently, doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## Tgace

Well, In fairness he did say "not that it makes it right". and on #2 we (USA) have done stuff like this in every war. The execution of POW's on the battlefield, Mai Lai, beating intel out of people. Every war. Thats how war is. Our military attempts to place rules and "conventions" on Wartime actions much like our justice system attempts to use Law to keep civilians from committing rape, murder etc. It still happens. That this (so far) singular incident makes us the "bad guy" in totality is political maneuvering.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> In fairness he did say "not that it makes it right". and on #2 we (USA) have done stuff like this in every war.


This is true.  I'm sorry I seem to have rushed to post.  :asian: 

But then are you implying that the Geneva Convention was a joke, or are you saying that there will be screw-ups in the system?


----------



## michaeledward

a couple of random thoughts:

I hope it is just a single incident, but I fear we are going to find a similar pattern of behavior throught our detention facilities.

Donald Rumsfeld should be tried as a War Criminal for ordering and authorizing the detention of an Iraqi national without informing the International Red Cross.

Didn't Kennedy get excoriated for stating the prison at Abu Ghraib just changed hands?

OK... thanks for letting me share.


----------



## Tgace

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> This is true. I'm sorry I seem to have rushed to post. :asian:
> 
> But then are you implying that the Geneva Convention was a joke, or are you saying that there will be screw-ups in the system?


No...no more than I would say our justice system is a joke. But organizations are made up of people, with human flaws. As long as the "system" deals with the wrongdoers and the organization holds up a high standard. I dont think there is much more you can ask for.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Rainman said:
			
		

> No you're post is one of demagogery.  Aint gonna work here and neither are your ridiculous commands.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> More teenage semantics-  I see you are just barely out of your teens- no wonder     What a bunch of blather... I know I know you are just a product of your environment... that is why you need a stick, cause you are a whimp!!!




Well, he may be the first teenaged investment banker in the history of the world.  At age 26, I don't think he quite qualifies as being "just barely out of" his teens.

Rainman, I believe your posts are the most inflammatory (and poorly written) I've ever seen on this forum.  You called Paul a "whimp" (sic) for being an Escrimador...I'm sure that REALLY flys with all of us that do FMA.  You insulted him for his age, and inappropriatly, as it turns out.  You later make fun of the shape of Heretic's head, saying he took off a dunce cap and his head retained the conical shape.  Both of these guys are extremely bright, and their posts have been some of the best on Martialtalk.

Are the Mods catching this?

If you can't handle an argument, if you can't debate cogently...just go somewhere else.  Vent by hitting a pillow or something.  These online tantrums you're having make you look absolutely ridiculous.  You come off with all the dignity and intellect of a seventh grader.

-----
On to topic...

Insofar as the U.S. having committed atrocities like these in every war, that is quite true.  It is also totally irrelevant.  There is no way we can justify present conduct by pointing to examples of past transgressions...acts which at the time were rightfully condemned and placed in our history books as a stain upon our national honor.  

Nor can we point to the behavior of the enemy and say, "Hey, THEY'RE doing it", and use that as a rationale for our brutality.   This is cretinish at best.

We're supposed to be above that.  _We're supposed to be the good guys._

If we look at Presidential inaugural addresses from three Republican Presidents, we find statements that identify Americans and America as a people and a nation that should be an example to all the world.  

"America today is a proud, free nation, decent and civil, a place we cannot help but love....America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the Nation and gentler the face of the world. "  
---George Herbert Walker Bush

"Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress."
---Ronald Wilson Reagan

"Today, we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character. America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness...Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves."
---George Walker Bush 

Rhetoric like this becomes jingoistic and hollow if our behavior does not measure up to the expectations set by these words.  We look like a nation of hypocrites when our leaders espouse these ideals, and then their administrations savage the principles we've been exhorted to follow.

We can not wear a white hat and act like Black Bart.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> You called Paul a "whimp" (sic) for being an Escrimador...I'm sure that REALLY flys with all of us that do FMA.


Thank you, hardheadjarhead, for mentioning that among other things.  I was a bit too livid to say anything calmly about insulting FMA in a political debate.  

And good post otherwise, too.  I just picked up on that in particular.


----------



## MisterMike

> Donald Rumsfeld should be tried as a War Criminal for ordering and authorizing the detention of an Iraqi national without informing the International Red Cross.



Oh puh-lease. Now we answer to them first, before protecting our troops and citizens?

On a side note, I think torture should be allowed and performed routinely to get information that saves American lives. (Not so you can take pictures and send them to your friends)

Enough "rules" already. This is war.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Well, Michael, all I can tell you is that the idea of, "necessary," torture is a violation of every single moral tenet they taught me, back in traditional America, back in Bible school, back in what you consistently consider to be the good old days. Funny how, in the new, more-modern, more-practical America, those traditional values go right out the window.

Of course, none of this crap--or the mass detentions, or the denials of basic rights, or the illegal and un-Constitutional arrests of American citizens, seemed to be necessary in the first Gulf War--quite the contrary. Even in our two world wars, people weren't taken away, denied any due  process, and hidden in some dark nook for six months to a year. The process went forward, the courts stuck it to 'em. And just yesterday, that bozo Rumsfield came out with another song-and-dance about some Iraqi official kept locked up, no geneva Convention rights necessary, "because the CIA asked us to." 

But  that won't  matter. So here's a thought: have you ever wondered how terrorists, or suicide hijaackers, or Al Quaida murderers and torturers, justify themselves to themselves? I mean, what what do they say to themselves, to legitimate the misery aand death they inflict? 

I'll bet you a shiny nickle that they dress it up, yakking about, "necessity," and, "justice," and, "wartime rules," and "protecting our way of life." I'll bet you that they back this nonsense up with lots of references to religion, and a fair dash of racist language.

And how do we legitimate this stuff in our country? Hm...but of course, we're the good  guys.

Incidentally, I noticed that there  were  some very disturbing justifications for torture, illegal detention, etc., coming out in mags like, "Newsweek," BEFORE any of the news got out. Hm, again.


----------



## MisterMike

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, Michael, all I can tell you is that the idea of, "necessary," torture is a violation of every single moral tenet they taught me, back in traditional America, back in Bible school, back in what you consistently consider to be the good old days. Funny how, in the new, more-modern, more-practical America, those traditional values go right out the window.



To me it is not a violation of morals if it is the only way to get information that will stop Americans from being killed. A top al Queada yelling for a couple hours is worth a plane full of people. It's a dirty job but....



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Of course, none of this crap--or the mass detentions, or the denials of basic rights, or the illegal and un-Constitutional arrests of American citizens, seemed to be necessary in the first Gulf War--quite the contrary. Even in our two world wars, people weren't taken away, denied any due  process, and hidden in some dark nook for six months to a year. The process went forward, the courts stuck it to 'em. And just yesterday, that bozo Rumsfield came out with another song-and-dance about some Iraqi official kept locked up, no geneva Convention rights necessary, "because the CIA asked us to."



The reason for detentions is that these guys dont wear uniforms. You don't know who's going to lob a grenade in front of an Iraqi police station. Ya gotta play a little tougher now, and their tactics show how the outdatedness of the Geneva convention.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But  that won't  matter. So here's a thought: have you ever wondered how terrorists, or suicide hijaackers, or Al Quaida murderers and torturers, justify themselves to themselves? I mean, what what do they say to themselves, to legitimate the misery aand death they inflict?



Yes, it's "religious."



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'll bet you a shiny nickle that they dress it up, yakking about, "necessity," and, "justice," and, "wartime rules," and "protecting our way of life." I'll bet you that they back this nonsense up with lots of references to religion, and a fair dash of racist language.
> 
> And how do we legitimate this stuff in our country? Hm...but of course, we're the good  guys.
> 
> Incidentally, I noticed that there  were  some very disturbing justifications for torture, illegal detention, etc., coming out in mags like, "Newsweek," BEFORE any of the news got out. Hm, again.



That's right. We are the good guys. We didn't turn planes full of innocents into missles. Notwithstanding we certainly have pissed off a lot of people with our present and past international policies, you just don't turn around and kill civilians. But at this point we're losing the point of my last post so I'll stop...


----------



## hardheadjarhead

MisterMike said:
			
		

> On a side note, I think torture should be allowed and performed routinely to get information that saves American lives. (Not so you can take pictures and send them to your friends)
> 
> Enough "rules" already. This is war.




Run that by anybody in the chain of command from Bush on down and see what kind of response you'd get.  The Taguba report cited these as "sadistic, blatant, and wanton abuses."  How come the Army doesn't agree with you, Mike?  Rumsfeld and the President don't seem to either.

Abu Ghraib wasn't about saving lives.  It was a bunch of ignorant hill jacks from West Virginia lowering themselves to the intellectual level of an amoeba so they could have a good ol' time.  Their defense is that M.I. ordered them to do these things.  I doubt it.

The vast majority of those prisoners in Abu Ghraib were civilians, including women and teenagers.  The 70 year old woman that they forced to wear a harness before riding her around and calling her a "donkey"...do you think she truly had any information that was of value to M.I.?  How about the women they raped?  Was that part of the military intel process?  

The teenage boy that was sodomized by a male guard...what information do you think he came up with that was of value?  How do you reconcile this anal rape of a youngster given your previously expressed homophobia elsewhere in this forum?  

How does THIS work into the operational intelligence plan, Mike?

"Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee." 

They kicked one man's broken leg and made him denounce his religion and praise Jesus.  They forced a boy and his father to strip in front of each other...a humiliation in Genesis for Ham and Noah as it was for this child and his father.  

WHAT DID THIS DO FOR AMERICA?

Be careful here, Mike.  When things aren't easily broken down into simple, dualistic black/white perspectives you seem to get a might frustrated.  You then back out of the thread rather than making an attempt at reasoned debate, which seems a bit beyond you.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike

Steve,

Read my post. 

*(Not so you can take pictures and send them to your friends)* 

It should be used with a lot of discretion. Don't take all that other crap out on me. You don't go home and kick the dog for a bad day at work do ya?


----------



## hardheadjarhead

I did read the post, Mike...and you wrote this at the end of it.




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Enough "rules" already. This is war.




I've been reading crap like this every week in our local newspaper's "letters to the editor", and answering with letters of the same intensity as expressed here.  Obviously, this strikes a nerve with me. 

Discarding the rules of war goes against everything I ever learned growing up and while serving in the military.  There ARE rules governing war.  We subscribe to them as a nation.  Simple decency dictates that we give them due consideration.

As far as "kicking the dog", when the dog snaps and gets underfoot, it just might need kicking.  Your post was at best flippant.  The topic hardly merits that.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I did read the post, Mike...and you wrote this at the end of it.
> 
> I've been reading crap like this every week in our local newspaper's "letters to the editor", and answering with letters of the same intensity as expressed here.  Obviously, this strikes a nerve with me.
> 
> Discarding the rules of war goes against everything I ever learned growing up and while serving in the military.  There ARE rules governing war.  We subscribe to them as a nation.  Simple decency dictates that we give them due consideration.
> 
> As far as "kicking the dog", when the dog snaps and gets underfoot, it just might need kicking.  Your post was at best flippant.  The topic hardly merits that.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Steve



And I've been reading "crap" like yours long before I joined MT. Things that strike a nerve with me are how many people give aid and comfort to the enemy. As someone from the military, you of all people should appreciate that.

As for flippant, I see more disrespect from your posts than mine. If you'd like to converse with me, please show the same courtesy. If I drop off a thread, you now know why.


----------



## Cruentus

> Their defense is that M.I. ordered them to do these things. I doubt it.



I agree with almost everything you said, steve, but I gotta make a point about this.

Wall Street Journal (last week?) covered a story that talked about memo's and documents exchanged by members of our administration. The gist was that they had arranged the legal arguements and defense in 2002 to protect the President and his cabnet, saying that under certian circumstances, like "terrorism," we do not have to abide by the geneva convention. There has been a lot written about M.I. basically saying to a bunch of ignorant ameba's (who may have been put there for a reason) "do you worst to break them down," regardless of Geneva Convention rules.

I am not saying that I know the answer, or how "high" this thing went, but I can say that in this day in age, it isn't that far fetched to believe that this may have been an order that came from a much higher place then the prison guards themselves.

And as to some of you who justify this stuff by basically saying "this is war, big F-in deal." The difference is that when our soldiers have been guilty of war crimes in the past, these crimes were done by a very few, and there was no evidence that there was anything "Top Down" about the order. In this case, even though there was supposedly only a few soldiers involved, there are over 1800 photo's that have not been released to the public and press that are "far more horrific then what has been made public" according to Republican and Democratic Senators, and there is evidence that this order goes possibly as high up as the President and Rumsfield. This is quite a different situation, it seems, then just a few rouge soldiers breaking the rules.


----------



## Cruentus

> Well, he may be the first teenaged investment banker in the history of the world. At age 26, I don't think he quite qualifies as being "just barely out of" his teens.
> 
> Rainman, I believe your posts are the most inflammatory (and poorly written) I've ever seen on this forum. You called Paul a "whimp" (sic) for being an Escrimador...I'm sure that REALLY flys with all of us that do FMA. You insulted him for his age, and inappropriatly, as it turns out. You later make fun of the shape of Heretic's head, saying he took off a dunce cap and his head retained the conical shape. Both of these guys are extremely bright, and their posts have been some of the best on Martialtalk.
> 
> Are the Mods catching this?
> 
> If you can't handle an argument, if you can't debate cogently...just go somewhere else. Vent by hitting a pillow or something. These online tantrums you're having make you look absolutely ridiculous. You come off with all the dignity and intellect of a seventh grader.



Thank you very much for mentioning this, Steve. I didn't take Rainman's post very seriously, as I figure that he has nothing of value to offer if all he can do is character assasinate me instead of making a point.

Which is a shame for him. I'd like to think that we're all friends here (as far as we can be from internet conversations, anyways), even if we don't always agree with each other.

 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

Robert said this in a longer post:



> So here's a thought: have you ever wondered how terrorists, or suicide hijaackers, or Al Quaida murderers and torturers, justify themselves to themselves? I mean, what what do they say to themselves, to legitimate the misery aand death they inflict?
> 
> I'll bet you a shiny nickle that they dress it up, yakking about, "necessity," and, "justice," and, "wartime rules," and "protecting our way of life." I'll bet you that they back this nonsense up with lots of references to religion, and a fair dash of racist language.



I think that he makes a very compelling point here, whether you love or hate him, or agree or disagree with him. It's worth seperating, and giving a second thought.

 :asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead

MisterMike said:
			
		

> And I've been reading "crap" like yours long before I joined MT. Things that strike a nerve with me are how many people give aid and comfort to the enemy. As someone from the military, you of all people should appreciate that.
> 
> As for flippant, I see more disrespect from your posts than mine. If you'd like to converse with me, please show the same courtesy. If I drop off a thread, you now know why.




Mike,

You fire off your shots, and you leave.  I have never, NEVER seen you sustain a debate on this forum with anyone who could hold their own.  When the going gets tough...you book.  THAT'S why you drop off of threads.  

When you hear the pitter patter of little feet, its Mister Mike in full retreat.

Aid and comfort to the enemy?  I pointed out one of your icons did that on another thread that you subscribed to.  You didn't answer it.  The going got too tough for you, hmmm?

We see this time and again...you snipe, you prod, you poke, and then fail to follow up.  

---------

Paul...you may be right.  The source of the abuse might have gone higher.  Still, given that many of the victims had no information of any use to M.I....like the 70 year old woman and the fifteen year old boy...it makes one wonder just what in the Hell they were thinking they'd accomplish from all of this.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> Don't take all that other crap out on me. You don't go home and kick the dog for a bad day at work do ya?


I didn't see that as taking crap out on you. I saw it as hhjh calling you on things you said.  

Why try to play for pity and being kicked like a dog when you seem to have absolutely no pity or sense of "rules" for war or taking prisoners?  You have shown that you have no pity for people who (depending on your opinion) may or have been or were abused in prision who were, at best, unlikely prisoners of war.  

A call for pity after absolutely pitiless statements is ridiculous.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Are the Mods catching this?


No.  If anyone sees a problem such as those referenced here, please hit the "Report to Mod" link.  We can not, and do not read everything on the board.

Thanks


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Then if you didn't see it, how were you able to answer?

Just kidding.  Thanks for the info.  I'll remember that next time.

Does your signature say in Latin what I think it does? 


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Mike,
> 
> You fire off your shots, and you leave.  I have never, NEVER seen you sustain a debate on this forum with anyone who could hold their own.  When the going gets tough...you book.  THAT'S why you drop off of threads.
> 
> When you hear the pitter patter of little feet, its Mister Mike in full retreat.
> 
> Aid and comfort to the enemy?  I pointed out one of your icons did that on another thread that you subscribed to.  You didn't answer it.  The going got too tough for you, hmmm?
> 
> We see this time and again...you snipe, you prod, you poke, and then fail to follow up.



Well look a little harder if you've "never" seen me stay on a thread. Of course you won't because now you've obviously resorted to attacking me with your own version of my debate style rather than reality, as is typical.

There's no need to retreat after posting one's opinions, which is all I've done on this thread. If you're too insecure to let them be posted without coming after someone with insults, you've got bigger issues.

Lastly you don't know jack about my "icons" and who they may be so I'll let the last little stab go as your own wishful thinking.


----------



## MisterMike

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I didn't see that as taking crap out on you. I saw it as hhjh calling you on things you said.
> 
> Why try to play for pity and being kicked like a dog when you seem to have absolutely no pity or sense of "rules" for war or taking prisoners?  You have shown that you have no pity for people who (depending on your opinion) may or have been or were abused in prision who were, at best, unlikely prisoners of war.
> 
> A call for pity after absolutely pitiless statements is ridiculous.



In no way did I say what happened at Abu Ghraib was tolerable. And that is all HHJH replied with, as if to say, well you must be for this too.

MY comment stemmed from detaining an Iraqi and not telling the Red Cross, not the prison scandal. So they reflected the possibility of torturing this guy if they think he knows something.

When I got this backlash about the prison and rediculous questions of how plunging people with broom handles helped America, it was obvious this guy just has it out for me. Not good for serious discussion, eh?


----------



## michaeledward

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Does your signature say in Latin what I think it does?


It has been decades ... but I think it says

"I came, I saw, I castrated the bastards."


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Oh puh-lease. Now *we* answer to *them* first, before protecting our troops and citizens?
> 
> On a side note, I think torture should be allowed and performed routinely to get information that saves American lives. (Not so you can take pictures and send them to your friends)
> 
> Enough "rules" already. This is war.


Who is *we*?  .. who is *them*?

*We* do not answer. Donald Rumsfeld, as the United States Secretary of Defence should be aware of the obligations the United States has agreed to regarding military conflicts. If he violated those obligations, HE SHOULD BE MADE TO ANSWER FOR HIS ACTIONS.

*Them* are the citizens of the United States, who through their emmissaries have agreed to conventions of action when belligerant activities occur. Rumsfeld needs to answer to ME! How dare that son-of-a-b!+@H put the lives of US citizens at risk because of his God-Complex.

*Not in my name!*

Mike


----------



## MisterMike

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Who is *we*?  .. who is *them*?
> 
> *We* do not answer. Donald Rumsfeld, as the United States Secretary of Defence should be aware of the obligations the United States has agreed to regarding military conflicts. If he violated those obligations, HE SHOULD BE MADE TO ANSWER FOR HIS ACTIONS.
> 
> *Them* are the citizens of the United States, who through their emmissaries have agreed to conventions of action when belligerant activities occur. Rumsfeld needs to answer to ME! How dare that son-of-a-b!+@H put the lives of US citizens at risk because of his God-Complex.
> 
> *Not in my name!*
> 
> Mike



Do you know what his answer is going to be? THEY do not follow the rules either. New kind of war man.

*THEY* know the "rules" too. *THAT's* WHY THEY HIDE IN MOSQUES. THAT's why they recruit children.


----------



## jeffbeish

*>>>LINK REMOVED<<<*


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Do you know what his answer is going to be? THEY do not follow the rules either. New kind of war man.
> 
> *THEY* know the "rules" too. *THAT's* WHY THEY HIDE IN MOSQUES. THAT's why they recruit children.


The fact that 'THEY' behave that way is not sufficient for me to compromise my behavior. Else, I will become the monster I am fighting against.



			
				Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said:
			
		

> Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.


----------



## MisterMike

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The fact that 'THEY' behave that way is not sufficient for me to compromise my behavior. Else, I will become the monster I am fighting against.
> 
> [/font]



Good, then this kind of gets back to my original reason for posting.

Are you saying that the US should NEVER torture even if we had good reason to believe the person was of high rank and could help us thwart another 9/11?

Like Osama perhaps?

1 life in a few hours of turmoil vs. 3000 lives? Which is it?


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Good, then this kind of gets back to my original reason for posting.
> 
> Are you saying that the US should NEVER torture even if we had good reason to believe the person was of high rank and could help us thwart another 9/11?
> 
> Like Osama perhaps?
> 
> 1 life in a few hours of turmoil vs. 300 lives? Which is it?


Challenges like this are discussed through 'value' discussion all the time. Seldom are they as concrete as this, but the concept is very much the same. 

Yesterday, for instance, with the talk about the FAA & Air Force response to the events in the air on September 11 - if you were a fighter pilot, could you shoot down an American Airlines flight that was off course and non-communicative?  - - - Vice President Cheney gave that order; but what would the psychological results be if the order was followed. Truthfully, that is a position, I would not want to be in.

Perhaps the biggest challenge is the uncertainty about what *might* happen. 

In the situation you describe ... I know *for certain* that I would be violating my principles, and our nation's laws, and our nation's international agreements if I torture someone for a few hours, or a few days, or to his death. But I *do not know* *for certain*, that the 300 lives are in danger. I do not know what might interceed between any planned (I hate to use this word) evil event and its actual execution. There are too many uncertainties.

Given the certainty of my behavior, and the uncertainty of the behavior of others, I believe we must act in a way that is true to our moral and ethical beliefs. 

It is my understanding that as a nation, we have decided that torture is outside of our belief system. Therefore, yes, I am saying that we should never employ torture as a tactic.

Mike

"and Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he had not heard them."


----------



## Bob Hubbard

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Then if you didn't see it, how were you able to answer?
> 
> Just kidding. Thanks for the info. I'll remember that next time.
> 
> Does your signature say in Latin what I think it does?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Steve


Maybe.


----------



## MisterMike

No, nothing is certain. And I know I couldn't be the one up there with the thumb screws. But I woudn't be against it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Ladies and Gentlemen,
  While I share in the outrage at the actions of certain fanatics in their treatment of their fellow human beings, certain content is not appropriate to this website, even under the relaxed debate rules of this forum.

Please, no links to images of mutilated bodies, images of torture, etc.

While most of us are in fact adults, we have an estimated 20-25% visitors who are teenagers or younger.  Images and videos of beheadings are not something I personally think most parents want their kids to stumble across, especially when said links are not identified as containing such graphic content.

Thank you,
Bob Hubbard
MT Owner.


----------



## Matt Stone

Some folks here make really solid arguements for both sides of the debate.

Riddle me this - 

If someone near and dear to you, mother, father, sister, brother, spouse, son, daughter, were murdered in the fashion that our enemy (and since we are at war, they *are* the enemy now, not just misunderstood freedom fighters) has murdered our civilians in Iraq, would you be able to stand by while nothing was done?  Wouldn't your blood cry out for vengeance?

Screw religion for the moment, because I have yet to meet a professed member of any belief system _except Muslims_ that adhere to their religious precepts under duress as tightly as they would claim to.  Too many folks say "I'd do such and so," but when the rubber hits the road they fall short...

Torture is morally wrong.  What happened in the prison was wrong, but when you put National Guardsmen who only get a small amount of training per month (or per year) into a situation requiring a much higher degree of professionalism than they possess, you get nothing but trouble.  But we didn't behead anyone...

Murdering non-combatants is morally wrong.  But not only does our enemy have no problem doing that, he also encourages such acts.

I work for JAG.  I understand the Law of War and what it is in place to do.  However, when the enemy doesn't recognize the Law of War, it tends to hamper our efforts...  I'd love to know what the reaction would be if for every one of our citizens murdered we killed 10 of theirs.  For every 1 soldier killed in combat, we killed 10 detainees.  If they tried to step up their efforts, they'd find in short order nobody would be quite so ready to step up to do the deed...  They'd run out of troops pretty quickly.

I'm not advocating this behavior, but sometimes folks forget with whom they f*%k...  If we decided to stop following the rules, there'd really be hell to pay.  I think it proves we aren't as evil as they've been led to believe...  If this were 500 years ago or more, this would've been ended quickly with the slaughter of their people.  It worked for the Great Khan, so history bears witness to the efficacy of genocide...

Frustrating, to say the least...


----------



## michaeledward

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> But we didn't behead anyone...


There are reports that several detainees in US custody were killed. I think there has been talk of pending indictments for murder against prison guards. It saddens me to hear this, and I hope the reports are wrong. But, dead is dead.



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> I'd love to know what the reaction would be if for every one of our citizens murdered we killed 10 of theirs. For every 1 soldier killed in combat, we killed 10 detainees.


Be careful what you wish for. According to Iraq Body Count . Net, the current *civilian deaths* in Iraq are at a minimum 9436. Compare that to 4 civilian contractors in Fallujah, Nicolas Berg, and Paul Johnson ... that comes to 

*1572    Civilian Iraqi deaths for every     1    American Civilian Death.*


I know .. I know ... what about September 11? ... OK, Lets change the number ... 

Civilian Deaths from Terrorists September 2001 through November 2003 
Total : *3375*   (including 9/11 and 14 other terrorist attacks.

Now, comparing all terrorist attacks against the civilian deaths in Iraq and you get* 2.8 Iraqi civilians killed* for every *1 victim of terrorism*. It's a good thing the Iraqi's were tied so closely to the September 11 attacks, isn't it.

Do you think the Iraqi's have come to their sense yet, and want to live in peace ... or, do you believe the reports that say they want the occupying nation to leave their country immediately (even with threats of Martial Law imposed by their newly appointed government).

Thanks - I know it's a bit of a rant .. but THEY are dying over there.

Mike


----------



## Cryozombie

I have a question...

Do you think that these things are occuring as a result of the fat we are fighting a "New, Unknown enemy, in a new Type of war"?


----------



## Cryozombie

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> If this were 500 years ago or more, this would've been ended quickly with the slaughter of their people.  It worked for the Great Khan, so history bears witness to the efficacy of genocide...
> 
> Frustrating, to say the least...



If this were 60 years ago, we would have Dropped the big one on them too... 

But what would that really accomplish?


----------



## hardheadjarhead

MisterMike said:
			
		

> When I got this backlash about the prison and rediculous questions of how plunging people with broom handles helped America, it was obvious this guy just has it out for me. Not good for serious discussion, eh?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There's no need to retreat after posting one's opinions, which is all I've done on this thread. If you're too insecure to let them be posted without coming after someone with insults, you've got bigger issues.



I'm zipping back and forth through these posts trying to find something of yours that I'd find "serious", much less reasoned.  Your "arguments" throughout this forum are rife with flawed logic, distractions, digressions and dodges.

Michaeledward gives a well reasoned moral justification for Rumsfeld answering for the abuses we've witnessed in Iraq, and you respond with an infantile "tu quoque" argument and cap it with an appeal to emotion saying that "they" (the Iraqis) changed the rules...as if this relieved the United States of the burden of responsibility for our moral conduct.  

In another thread you basically suggested Heretic was a "no good commie."  Elsewhere you've questioned my patriotism.  You suggest I have "issues" and am "insecure".  These latter allegations, vague as they are, are always good to pull out when the going gets rough, eh?  Ad hominem attacks are so much easier than going after the gist of an argument.  But they are not--as you would put it--"good for serious discussion."

This thread is about Abu Ghraib, yet you constantly advocate torture to stop another 9-11 by Al Qaeda.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.  You and Dick Cheney are apparently the only two people in the United States unaware of this.

Be aware, lad, that I've not insulted you as you've alleged.  Not by my standards, anyway.  For your delicate sensiblilities, perhaps what I've written could cause such an emotional abrasion that could be construed as an insult.   

Note that I'm quite skilled at insults...but given your sensitivity, I'm not sure you'd weather them.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I have a question...
> 
> Do you think that these things are occuring as a result of the fat we are fighting a "New, Unknown enemy, in a new Type of war"?


<chuckle> We are fighting FAT in a new type of war .... OK Dr. Atkins 

Anyhow, I finally figured out what you meant .... "FACT"  (I usually read typo much better than that - and it's OK ... we all sometimes hit an incorrect key)

Anyhow ... I don't think there are any *New Types of War*. There is war. You kill me... I kill you... you kill me... I kill you...  Same ole' Same ole. Oh, sure we get new weapons, (horses, guns, airplanes, bombs), new tactics (trench warfare, firebombing, terrorism) but the war doesn't change that much... It's always a fight against *them*, over there, because they are different than us, they don't think the way we do, they don't value what we do.

Doctor McCoy ... "My God Jim, do you think we are wise enough? As a matter of history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create ... but lookout ... here comes Genesis, now we can do both at once."
Mr. Spock ... "Really Doctor. You must learn to govern your passions. Else they will become your undoing."

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> . . .
> I'm not advocating this behavior, but sometimes folks forget with whom they f*%k...  If we decided to stop following the rules, there'd really be hell to pay.  I think it proves we aren't as evil as they've been led to believe...  If this were 500 years ago or more, this would've been ended quickly with the slaughter of their people.  It worked for the Great Khan, so history bears witness to the efficacy of genocide...
> 
> Frustrating, to say the least...



Matt,

Why not Nuke em and let what ever religion the dead have take care off it? As to a family member, I would want revenge, expect it I am not so sure.

As to the Evil US Machine. We come into cultures offer then technology and toys and sex, and videos and movies, and music, that all talk about sex, and also the corrupt officals that are everywhere. From there stand point they wealthy people insisting they speak their language when they are the traveling, they see people who send out over the radio air waves that the unbelievers will all burn in hell for their beliefs. We as a culture challenge their way of life. We are evil in their mind

Yes, we could be worse. We cold be like Ghengis and Hitler, and Stalin, and Ceasar and the other Romans, or Alexander the Great, or ...., Some of these guys won others won for a while and then lost.  Yet would it be the right thing to do. And I am not talking about religion either. I am talking about or beliefs of our rights and responsibilities, that are laid out in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independance. Would it be right? The first individual reaction would be to wipe them out. What should be the right answer though?

Peace and keep up the good work of argueing the Law of War.

 :asian:


----------



## MartialArtist68

If I may, I'd like to interject that one of MSNBC's columists compared the whole thing to Chernoybl.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> If I may, I'd like to interject that one of MSNBC's columists compared the whole thing to Chernoybl.




Could you expound on that?  Do you have a link?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## StraightRazor

I agree. If we were the bad guys, we could really be BAD GUYS! If I were a "bad guy" Id light up all those #$%@^!@f%#@ers dancing on burning humvees and laughing at burned bodies.


----------



## michaeledward

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> If I may, I'd like to interject that one of MSNBC's columists compared the whole thing to Chernoybl.





			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Could you expound on that? Do you have a link?


It was actually Christopher Hitchens from Slate. And actually, I don't quite understand the metaphore ... but here's the link anyway. He says some good things here.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102373/


----------



## michaeledward

And ... while looking at the Hitchens article in Slate ... I couldn't help but laugh at this headline....



> *Plus, Is President Bush More Clintonian than Clinton*
> 
> *It Depends What the Meaning of "Relationship" Is*
> *President Bush's Clintonian calibrations on al-Qaida.
> *By Fred Kaplan​


​http://slate.msn.com/id/2102589/


----------



## Cryozombie

michaeledward said:
			
		

> <
> Anyhow ... I don't think there are any *New Types of War*. There is war. You kill me... I kill you... you kill me... I kill you...  Same ole' Same ole.



So, then would you say this enemy is the same as others we as a nation have fought? 

And, out of curiosity to everyone involved in this discussion...  Do you think holding to a moral code of "Rightness" is a good, positive thing... even if it were to cost us victory, and possibly our "way of life", if not our lives?


----------



## Matt Stone

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There are reports that several detainees in US custody were killed. I think there has been talk of pending indictments for murder against prison guards. It saddens me to hear this, and I hope the reports are wrong. But, dead is dead.



Y'know, I agree...  But I guess the difference would be (and I'm arguing a futile point here, because I do agree that dead is dead) that a) if they died it probably wasn't a brutal execution like beheading (I saw the Berg video...  did you?  It was unsettling...), and b) we didn't parade the results around for the world to see (of course, if the alleged deaths occurred they were likely kept quiet so as not to draw attention, etc., I know, I know, and the Iraqi agenda is different).  So yeah, dead is dead but there isn't the same disrespect for the dead present in the act...



> Be careful what you wish for.



I'm a career soldier.  Do you think I want to go to some rat *** third world country that smells like a huge kitty litter box badly in need of changing so that some person I've never met, someone I harbor no ill will against, can attack me, maim me, kill me, all in the name of a religion he doesn't fully understand because he's too illiterate to read the damned thing himself (and I say that because if they could read the effing book they'd see that their version of God hardly condones what they are doing in His name)?  Hardly.

I'm not "wishing" for it...  The point of my frustrated rant was simply that if we really were the Evil Satan they paint us to be, there wouldn't be an issue of this entire thing right now...  We are the most technologically advanced military force on the planet.  We can tell your temperature from orbit.  If we wanted their miserable little backwater country, it'd be a done deal.  If we wanted to institute a Govnerment sanctioned torture policy, nobody'd ever hear of it.

But that isn't the situation at all.

Someone (Al Coward-a) bombed the Twin Towers in the single most cowardly act I have ever heard of.  They killed innocents, non-combatants, people not directly involved in anything beyond their own narrow views of reality.  Thousands dead in a single event.  Maybe Iraq wasn't in bed with Osama, but they certainly didn't go out of their way to point him out in a crowd.  The old standard of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" fits, I think.  Libya knew better...  A few bombs on Colonel Moammar's door step a few years back seemed to change his tune.  Other countries got out of our way, since the Sleeping Giant was up, pissed off, and looking for a fight.  Saddam, buttmunch that he is/was, decided he was going to try to look macho and get in our way.  Whatever.  So much for him and his family.  He should have taken a tip from our field exercise hunting wild Noriegas...



> Do you think the Iraqi's have come to their sense yet, and want to live in peace ... or, do you believe the reports that say they want the occupying nation to leave their country immediately (even with threats of Martial Law imposed by their newly appointed government).



I don't know...  I don't believe 90% of what is on the TV.  Everyone has their own agenda, and anyone that believes any of the media is presenting the whole story is sadly mistaken.

I think that if the Iraqi people really wanted peace (and from the folks I know on the ground, they want peace and don't resent the US presence like the media would have us believe) and really wanted to run things on their own, they'd help police up the bad guys instead of standing around scratching themselves...  They have been ruled by thugs and strongmen for so long, it seems they are only capable of watching others do the difficult things.  It is apparent since they succumbed to Saddam's torture chambers for so long and did little to form a resistance against him.

Whatever.  It can be argued back and forth (they couldn't rise against him, he was too powerful, etc.).  I don't want to get into that.



> Thanks - I know it's a bit of a rant .. but THEY are dying over there.
> 
> Mike



I know.  There are people over there that feel strongly about their beliefs, that want to have their own lives free of outside influence.  I'll admit that our Goverment isn't lilly white and innocent in its motivations - I've worked for it too long to think that, and I'm no fool besides - but they need to stop biting the hand that freed them...

We'll be gone soon enough.  The more they screw around, the longer we'll be there until they show they can play nice...


----------



## michaeledward

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So, then would you say this enemy is the same as others we as a nation have fought?


Hmmm... Are they the same ... don't know. But, I do know that *they are* *no different*. If those two items are synonomous, then, there you go.

What is different, is the tactic: terrorism. Targeting innocent lives to force a change in foreign government policy. In prior conflicts, that was a by-product of war. But, then again, when the Minutemen hid behind stone walls at the Lexington Green, that was a new tactic too.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> And, out of curiosity to everyone involved in this discussion... Do you think holding to a moral code of "Rightness" is a good, positive thing... even if it were to cost us victory, and possibly our "way of life", if not our lives?


If we surrender our moral code of "Rightness", we have lost our "way of life".

Before the invasion, a pro-war friend stated that "We were the good guys" (See the thread - A Letter to Senator Smith). At which point, after we surrender the moral high ground (of not torturing detainees, holding detainees secretly, invading pre-emptively) do we stop being the 'good guys'.?

It is *so very important* that our country try *anything different* from President Bush during this election. The Bush Administrations policies are surrendering those things that define "our way of life" to the "global war on terrorism". I don't know how many immoral activities we can take and still maintain "our way of life". Hopefully, we have not reached the point of no return.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward

OK Matt ... There is a lot in this post that calls out for a response. I'm sure I won't get to it all. And I don't really like parsing down repsonse to small chunks, but I think in this case, I need to.



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> ... a) if they died it probably wasn't a brutal execution like beheading (I saw the Berg video... did you? It was unsettling...), and b) we didn't parade the results around for the world to see...


I seem to recall a photograph of a couple of soldiers leaning over a dead body, on ice, in a body bag, giving a "thumbs up". That certainly would seem like a US Government sanctioned, 'parading the results". The US media pixelated the faces of the dead body to comply with the Geneva Conventions, but other media sources didn't.




			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> I'm a career soldier. Do you think I want to go to some rat *** third world country that smells like a huge kitty litter box badly in need of changing so that some person I've never met, someone I harbor no ill will against, can attack me, maim me, kill me, all in the name of a religion he doesn't fully understand because he's too illiterate to read the damned thing himself (and I say that because if they could read the effing book they'd see that their version of God hardly condones what they are doing in His name)? Hardly.


As a career soldier, what you want is irrelevant. You are trained and paid to follow orders. As a citizen of the United States, you have the priveledge of selecting the Commander-in-Chief of the armed services. Please think carefully about that this November.

Most citizens of Iraq are secular in nature. Any violent activities they perpetrate have little to do with religion. Most terrorist activities throughout the world are secularly based, not religiously based. The motive is to affect a policy change in a foreign government; i.e. Get England out of Northern Ireland, Get Isreal out of the West Bank, Get the US out of Iraq. There are some who execute terrorist activities based on religion, but so far, these have been the minority.



			
				MattStone said:
			
		

> I'm not "wishing" for it... The point of my frustrated rant was simply that if we really were the Evil Satan they paint us to be, there wouldn't be an issue of this entire thing right now... We are the most technologically advanced military force on the planet. We can tell your temperature from orbit. If we wanted their miserable little backwater country, it'd be a done deal. If we wanted to institute a Govnerment sanctioned torture policy, nobody'd ever hear of it.
> 
> But that isn't the situation at all.


Are you sure? How many US soldiers are stationed in Korea right now? How many years after the end of hostilities in that conflict? Are you sure we don't "own" that 'miserable little backwater country'? Look back at when a new leader is elected in South Korea ... check the time table for his first visit the the United States. Usually, the new South Korean government arrives in Washington D.C. in short order, to pay homage to us. Consider the same for (West) Germany. These are 'Cleint' states of the United States government, and they better stay in line, or their fate may be that of an earlier client - Saddam Hussein.

Now, yes ... that may be a bit of a 'Noam Chomsky', 'Gore Vidal' babble. But, then again ... it may be worth considering.



			
				MattStone said:
			
		

> Someone (Al Coward-a) bombed the Twin Towers in the single most cowardly act I have ever heard of. They killed innocents, non-combatants, people not directly involved in anything beyond their own narrow views of reality. Thousands dead in a single event. Maybe Iraq wasn't in bed with Osama, but they certainly didn't go out of their way to point him out in a crowd. The old standard of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" fits, I think.


The facts show that the attack on September 11 was *in no way* associated with Iraq (despite President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's desperate attempts to suggest links - see the Slate Article above).
The facts show that Osama bin Laden solicited Iraqi intelligence (in 1994 - ten years ago) for some geographic territory in which to base his training camps. The Iraqi response - *NO!* 
The facts show that Osama bin Laden solicited Iraqi intelligence (in 1994 - ten years ago) for knowledge of, and if possible actual chemical weapons. The Iraqi response - *NO!*
Like Quaddafi before him, Hussein knew the power of the US military. He was, apparently, not going to do anything to invate the wrath of the US government. Also, the hyper-religious bin Laden, and the secular Hussein really went out of their way (after those 1994 overtures) to denounce each other. bin Laden called Hussein an 'infidel' just a few years ago. That's a pretty nasty word in Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan.



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> .... Saddam, buttmunch that he is/was, decided he was going to try to look macho and get in our way. Whatever. So much for him and his family...


There is another way to see Saddam Hussein's actions as well.
He lost the war in 1991. He knew it. He signed the papers. But those papers were not an 'Unconditional Surrender' (as used at the conclusion of WWII). With the war over, as a leader of an independant country, perhaps he was trying to a) maintain power and b) maintain territorial integrity. He didn't hand the keys to the country to the US at the end of that war (as did Japan, South Korea, Germany at the conclusion of their patricular wars). He wasn't willing going to become a 'client' of an American Empire.

Now, I don't necissarily agree with these arguments, but in Kenpo, we are taught to look at a conflict from 3 viewpoints ... and this is all from that 'By-stander point of view'.





			
				MattStone said:
			
		

> I don't know... I don't believe 90% of what is on the TV. Everyone has their own agenda, and anyone that believes any of the media is presenting the whole story is sadly mistaken.


I do my best to *not* watch any TV. Ain't much been on that's any good since Captain Picard closed up that 'Anti-Time' disturbance a few years back.



			
				MattStone said:
			
		

> and from the folks I know on the ground, they want peace and don't resent the US presence like the media would have us believe


*A U.S.-sponsored poll shows Iraqis have lost confidence in the occupying authoritiesand that the majority of Iraqis want Coalition troops out of the country*
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/



			
				MattStone said:
			
		

> They have been ruled by thugs and strongmen for so long,


And the news from Abu Ghraib doesn't make the US look like thugs and strongmen?



			
				MattStone said:
			
		

> It is apparent since they succumbed to Saddam's torture chambers for so long and did little to form a resistance against him.


In 1991, President GHW Bush called for the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. Then we sat by, watched and allowed Saddam Hussein's military to use helicopter gunships against the uprising citizens. They were slaughtered as we stood by, doing nothing. Those left behind, I am sure, still recall that horror show. 



			
				MattStone said:
			
		

> We'll be gone soon enough. The more they screw around, the longer we'll be there until they show they can play nice...


If we honestly look around at the United States policy since World War II (Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace), we will realize that the credibility of that statement is stretched pretty thin. Look around at all the places in the world the United States has 'foward deployments'. Can you really say that we will be gone? 

I haven't seen it much in the news recently, but I thought that Halliburton was already building a number of US airfields in Iraq (so we could get them out of Saudi Arabia).

Thanks for letting me rant. A very thoughtful post Matt.

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It was actually Christopher Hitchens from Slate. And actually, I don't quite understand the metaphore ... but here's the link anyway. He says some good things here.
> 
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2102373/





Excellent article.  Thanks to both of you.

I think the metaphor suggests it is "radioactive"...it'll linger...its effects will get worse and worse...and its a national disaster.  Not a good metaphor, perhaps, but it does sort of get your attention.

I noted that Hitchens mentions congressmen James Inhofe backing down from his "outrage at the outrage" after seeing the pics, vids, and reading the report.  I like to think his conservative constituents put his feet in the fire and told him to get a clue.  We're _supposed_ to be outraged at the prisoner abuse because we're Americans...and we're supposed to stand on a higher moral ground.

I expected better of a Republican congressman, and am surprised he'd lower himself to that level of thinking.  We have conservatives singing the praises of Bill Bennett's "The Book of Virtues" and Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah", both works that purport to act as guiding lights for Americans seeking morality...and then they have a congressman open his yap and say, essentially, "Hey, they're doin' it to US.  Fair is fair!"

He shut up pretty quickly after that.  Perhaps somebody on the Right pointed out the errors in his reasoning.

You know, Matt, the Hitchens article points out that we CAN win this war and not sacrifice our values.  If we play the game the right way, and they continue to cut off heads and fly planes into buildings...eventually the majority of the Arab world (and the world at large) will, I suspect, come to see the ridiculous moral disparity between militant Islam and the West.  

Abu Ghraib justified every ill feeling they've ever harbored towards us, and with things like this tainting America's reputation, we will NEVER win the hearts and minds of the people...and to win, we need to do this.  That was a lesson from Viet Nam that this administration ignored.

Regards,



Steve


----------



## michaeledward

In August of 2002, Assistant United States Attorney General Jay Bybee wrote a 50 page memo to the Bush adminstration supporting 'Torture' during interogations. This memo apparently made it through Attorney General Ashcroft to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and was used as the basis for interrogations in Guantanamo bay and Iraq.

Assistant United States Attorney General Bybee was elevated to a lifetime seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 13, 2003 (long before reports of torture were made public).

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=scheer0615
http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2981

How's that for a reward from the President?

Mike


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Wow.

Perhaps I have missed a similar post in this thread, but I find it really ironic with all this talk of, and Administrative "OK"-ing of torture, that such tactics are being used in the "war on terror".  

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried, it's too odd.  

Here's a quote from the first article:



> In fact, though, this was an argument of last resort for Bybee, whose definition of torture "covers only extreme acts...where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure.... Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is [a] significant range of acts that, though they might constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, fail to rise to the level of torture."
> 
> Bybee's generous standard should bring comfort to the totalitarian governments that find the brutal treatment of prisoners a handy tool in retaining power or fighting wars. Even Saddam Hussein, who always faced the threat of assassination and terrorism from foreign and domestic rivals, can now offer in his defense Bybee's memo that his actions were justifiable, on the grounds of "necessity or self-defense."


----------



## michaeledward

Fiesty Mouse ... You and I both have too much time on our hands. But, thank you for reading the link.

Of course, many see that the article is posted in 'The Nation' and automatically disregard it. Which is unfortuneate because of the content.

Thanks for reading and contributing.

Mike


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Thanks, Mike!  I'm fortunate - the experiments I have going right now, sometimes I have 10-minute sections between events where I can get on a computer and check in. 

And it was an interesting article.  So, by Bybee's definition, you could cut off someone's arm, and since it's not akin to death or organ failure, it's not torture?  Or electrodes to the genitals?  

This is even more linguistically bizarre than Clinton's trying to get around what "sex" meant.  That seems cute in comparison.


----------



## Cryozombie

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> And it was an interesting article.  So, by Bybee's definition, you could cut off someone's arm, and since it's not akin to death or organ failure, it's not torture?  Or electrodes to the genitals?



I would think it would depend on how you read it... I would take what was written  to mean that severing limbs was not acceptable, based on the statement "serious physical injury"

Granted, as I stated before... I believe PHYSICAL torture is wrong... if its an electrode to the genitals, a punch to the face, or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick... so dont take that as me agreeing with Bybee's definition of acceptable torture, I just interpereted what he said differently than Fiesty Mouse... kinda proves a point that vague guidlines dont work eh?

Fiesty would chop a guys arm off, and I would yell at him and poke him with a sharp stick, if we were "instructed to torture" someone "based on those guidelines..."


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> Fiesty would chop a guys arm off, and I would yell at him and poke him with a sharp stick, if we were "instructed to torture" someone "based on those guidelines..."


(I'd feel sorry for anyone who got stuck between us in that situation!)


----------



## michaeledward

I find it interesting that the following sentence was buried in the last paragraph of this short article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1005-2004Jun23.html



			
				Washington Post said:
			
		

> The documents confirm that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a number of harsh interrogation techniques for use in Guantanamo in December 2002, *including hooding*, *requiring nudity*, *placing prisoners in stress positions *and *using dogs*.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Did anybody see Lynndie England's interview on CNN?  She absolutely would not take responsibility for her actions.  She pointed the finger of blame at her superiors.  Early on, one of her friends whom she served with before the war (now out and a civilian) also pointed the finger of blame upstairs.

While the actions might have been sanctioned by people all the way up to Rumsfeld, the whole notion of not regretting one's actions (indeed, in her case, enjoying it) and not assuming responsibility for one's behavior is so sociopathic that it bears mentioning.  

The problem clearly lies with the administration and chain of command...but there is a problem at an individual level when we have citizens so unfeeling that they can not see the errors of their ways, and do not in any way understand the depths to which they've sunk.

We can explain this with England's lack of education, but only in part.  She is ignorant...and seems devoid of any native intelligence worth mentioning.  Her social strata might explain much of it...but we all know decent people who are poor.

Rumsfeld has no excuses insofar as intellect, having graduated from Princeton.

The abuse described could possibly be justified against a small portion of the prisoner population, were they actually Al Qaeda members with information of use in finding Bin Laden.  That argument has been addressed here and will be debated for decades.  

But the tactics at Abu Ghraib were used against people who had no such information.  Some were non-combatants.  Some were guilty only of civil crimes.  Some were old women.  Some were children.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'm zipping back and forth through these posts trying to find something of yours that I'd find "serious", much less reasoned.  Your "arguments" throughout this forum are rife with flawed logic, distractions, digressions and dodges.



Well, I can't find any. Do you think I should look for something like what you just wrote? I soooo appreciate the feedback on my posting. I'll try to better incorporate it just to please you next time.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Michaeledward gives a well reasoned moral justification for Rumsfeld answering for the abuses we've witnessed in Iraq, and you respond with an infantile "tu quoque" argument and cap it with an appeal to emotion saying that "they" (the Iraqis) changed the rules...as if this relieved the United States of the burden of responsibility for our moral conduct.



Well reasoned??? I thought they were "random thoughts" as he put it. I entered this thread and mentioned a "side note" with an appeal that torture should not be ruled out. If you want me to explain more, as my posts are generally short, please ask. You'll probably find it easier to get on the offensive. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> In another thread you basically suggested Heretic was a "no good commie."  Elsewhere you've questioned my patriotism.  You suggest I have "issues" and am "insecure".  These latter allegations, vague as they are, are always good to pull out when the going gets rough, eh?  Ad hominem attacks are so much easier than going after the gist of an argument.  But they are not--as you would put it--"good for serious discussion."



If I am going to say something, it will be in print. I've never said anything about anybody on these forums unles it was directly to them. Don't try and read into or distort my posts "when the going gets rough." I'm sure Hrretic and MichaelEdwards are very adept at standing up for themselves if I ever insulted them. 




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This thread is about Abu Ghraib, yet you constantly advocate torture to stop another 9-11 by Al Qaeda.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.  You and Dick Cheney are apparently the only two people in the United States unaware of this.



"Constantly? Again, where are you reading? Must have me mixed up with the latest political cartoon from Ted Rall. Go back to your comics.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Be aware, lad, that I've not insulted you as you've alleged.  Not by my standards, anyway.  For your delicate sensiblilities, perhaps what I've written could cause such an emotional abrasion that could be construed as an insult.
> 
> Note that I'm quite skilled at insults...but given your sensitivity, I'm not sure you'd weather them.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Steve



Sticks and stones may break my bones....

Honestly, when you want to lay into me for something you think I've said go ahead, but at least back it up with something substantial enough for a 5th grader to debate. I'm sure I'd whether your insults and anything else just fine.

I'll recap what my initial post said:



> On a side note, I think torture should be allowed and performed routinely to get information that saves American lives. (Not so you can take pictures and send them to your friends)



Why don't you just tell me where you take issue with it. I've posted some follup explanations that should help explain my viewpoint. I never advocated what went on at Abu Ghraib. Perhps the topic of Torture in general is straying from the main theme of this thread, I thought it a good place to interject and see if people thought torture should be allowed at all. So sorry. Really.


----------



## old_sempai

Well if we're really nice to the Terrorists then they will see the error of their ways and stop killing Infidels.....  :idunno: seems logical to me... along with all of the other naive types that truly believe that we should just be nice.... or have they forgotten all the people murdered over the past 30 years.......... from Lockerbie, to the Achillie Lauro, to the Cole, Khobar Towers, The World Trade Center [both 93 and 9/11] along with the Pentagon and the flight that went down in Pennsylvania........... the bombing in Spain, the Red Brigade murderers, the Tel Aviv airport massacre by the Japanese Terrorists in the 80's  and lets not forget the killing going on in Western Sudan even now... or how they've destroyed Somalia as a country.............

 :idunno:  :idunno:


----------



## sma_book

Old Sempai, 

All of those actions you list are indeed vile. But how does torturing Iraqi's help prevent or reduce those acts, or those that will follow?

Torture has never been very good at getting quality, timely information, which is why it has been the policy of the United States to now use these tactics. (Even if the President thinks torture is not part of our country's soul ... whatever the hell that means).

So, are we abusing these people just to satisfy our desire for vengence?

Mike

sorry .. .posted under the wife's ID again.....


----------



## old_sempai

I did not comment about whether the abuse at that prison was right or wrong.  Rather that by and large all western [read Judeao-Christian] cultures are not aware that revenge is a well practised virtue in almost every African Middle and Far eastern cultures.  If you'll pardon the pun from Azerbijan to Zimbabwae [sp????].

artyon:


----------



## michaeledward

Old Sempai, 

I can not speak to the beliefs and practices of Far East and African communities concerning 'Revenge', and whether it is considered a virtue or not. Although, I like to think I am fairly well informed, this is an area where I do not have specific knowledge.

Are you saying that because Far East and African people see revenge as a virtue, that the United States Military is justified in using torture, abuse and humiliation?

Mike


----------



## old_sempai

What course of action do you believe we should take?


----------



## michaeledward

I think my posts spell that out in great detail. I will try to summarize here.

Interrogations should be conducted by those who are skilled in completing them. Since 9/11, the CIA has been charged with interrogating anyone believed to be associated with 'terrorism'. It is important to note, that interrogations are not what the CIA does best. In the US Government, the FBI has traditionally handled interrogations.

Allowing the CIA, the professional military, and the National Guard to undertake the task of interrogating detainees is a fools errand. The task should have fallen to the FBI, where they know that abusive techniques do not provide quality information.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson

For anybody who thinks that torturing prisoners is just nifty when necessary: tell ya what, let's have this gang of clowns come to YOUR neighborhood, start yanking your friends and classmates and family off the street, holding people you care about without bail or lawyers or clergy visits or even notification, throwing them naked in a cellar with a hood over their heads, sticking them into what these morons are getting away with calling, "stress positions," and using dogs to terrify. And oh yeah, let's beat a couple to death, "by accident."

Let's keep this up for, say, six months to a year--not based on any hard evidence, either, just pretty much on the whims of the occupying military authorities--then let 'em out, and y'all can have a good solid discussion about whether or not this was torture, kinda over the meat loaf and mashed potatoes.

It astonishes me, the amount of rationalization on this thread. It disturbs me that so many students of martial arts would be seemingly incapable of applying the simplest, most-basic moral principles taught to six-year-old kids in all the arts I'm aware of, to such matters. 

And sorry, "Old Sempai," but your attempt to divide Judeo-Christian values from those of the "primitives," in African, Middle eastern and Far eastern cultures--your terms, not mine--is, to say the least, altogether wrong. I suggest that you consult the Old Testament (see the lex talionis; eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth ring a bell?), or the history of lynching in this country, or the facts of the My Lai massacre, or some of the statements on this very thread.


----------



## old_sempai

I made observations, nothing more!


But feel free to  artyon:


----------



## michaeledward

old_sempai said:
			
		

> I made observations, nothing more!


Gee ... it sure looked like you were making some pretty strong observations....



			
				old_sempai said:
			
		

> Well if we're really nice to the Terrorists then they will see the error of their ways and stop killing Infidels..... :idunno: seems logical to me... along with all of the other naive types that truly believe that we should just be nice.... or have they forgotten all the people murdered over the past 30 years.......... from Lockerbie, to the Achillie Lauro, to the Cole, Khobar Towers, The World Trade Center [both 93 and 9/11] along with the Pentagon and the flight that went down in Pennsylvania........... the bombing in Spain, the Red Brigade murderers, the Tel Aviv airport massacre by the Japanese Terrorists in the 80's and lets not forget the killing going on in Western Sudan even now... or how they've destroyed Somalia as a country.............


I don't know there is much to party about in this statement. Do you have a point?

Mike


----------



## PeachMonkey

old_sempai said:
			
		

> I made observations, nothing more!


 It seems rather disingenous to make a snide comment about "let's just be nice to the terrorists", then claim that you weren't make a statement about whether or not torture is just.  It's similarly disingenous to make a barely-comprehensible statement about revenge in Middle Eastern cultures and then respond to someone who calls you on it by saying "I'm just making observations!"

 I think it would servethe discussion much better if you more clearly state what it is you're getting at.


----------



## MisterMike

> For anybody who thinks that torturing prisoners is just nifty when necessary: tell ya what, let's have this gang of clowns come to YOUR neighborhood, start yanking your friends and classmates and family off the street, holding people you care about without bail or lawyers or clergy visits or even notification, throwing them naked in a cellar with a hood over their heads, sticking them into what these morons are getting away with calling, "stress positions," and using dogs to terrify. And oh yeah, let's beat a couple to death, "by accident."



But is that all really "necessary?" If you were making an analogous comparison, it would have to be the Iraqi's who come here, detain our citizens, and then beat them. I'm not sure who you mean by "this gang of clowns." If you meant the Iraqi's, then I agree. Somehow it's not who I think you meant.

Something should be set in place as to who does it, when, why, to whom, what kind, etc. Not "Hey Tony, make dis guy sing for me."

If we catch Osama, we need to know everything that's in his head. Everything he ever planned. What are we going to do, sit him beside Johnny Cochrane with a coffee and ask him nicely?

I think we are over the hump of what happened at Abu Ghraib. I'm curious to know why we sholdn't torture at all. Even when American lives are at stake. Obviously Rumsfeld feels it has application. Why is that?


----------



## heretic888

*If we catch Osama, we need to know everything that's in his head. Everything he ever planned. What are we going to do, sit him beside Johnny Cochrane with a coffee and ask him nicely?*

No. But, then again, contrary to what you have implied here, that is not the only alternative to torture.

People, particularly extremists, have this tendency to see policy decisions in extremely black-and-white terms. Either you declare war on Iraq, or your a "weak pacifist". Either you support gay marriage, or you're a "homophobe". Either you support affirmative action, or you're a "racist". Either you're with the Bush Administration's policies, or you're a "terrorist supporter". Either you believe in "our God", or you're an "atheist" (I can speak from personal experience on this one!).

The truth is --- you don't have to wage war on Iraq to demonstrate "strength", you don't have to support the typical "liberal" interpretation of sexual deviation to be exempt from homophobia, you don't have to support affirmative action to support civil rights, you don't have to support Bush to fight terrorism, and you don't have to believe in anyone's particular religion to be a "believer".

Likewise, you don't have to believe in torture in support of tough-minded interrogation. There are more than two options.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Mike: Well, since you asked...

1. The basic mechanisms that allow, even encourage torture, have nothing to do with the desire to gather information or the necessity of protecting the good guys--that's just the excuse, the cover-up, the, "ruse of reason."

2. Fundamentally, people torture because a) they're frustrated and frightened; b) they've dehumanized their subjects; c) they've got--like all of us--a cruel, sadistic streak of enjoyment in causing pain and suffering to others.

3. The dehumanizing is a hallmark of such behavior; note the comment from--was it "Marathon Man?"--where Szell says that this old rabbi was right about how the Nazis justified themselves: "We were not for them the same," we were not human to them. Or, see the depressing and famous Milgram experiments written up as, "Obedience to Authority." The Crusades, slavery, the death camps, My Lai, torture--the basic mechanism is the same. It's sadism, covered up by appeals to patriotism or nationalism or national security or religion, justified by turning your victims into what Simone deBeauvoir and Edward said called, "the Other."


----------



## PeachMonkey

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If you meant the Iraqi's, then I agree. Somehow it's not who I think you meant.


 Does it matter who he meant?  I don't want to be treated like that by *anyone*.  No one should be treated that way.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> If we catch Osama, we need to know everything that's in his head. Everything he ever planned. What are we going to do, sit him beside Johnny Cochrane with a coffee and ask him nicely?


 Your implication is that torture is more effective than interrogation without torture.  Do you know that?  I don't... I know I've heard, anecdotally, that interrogation experts have shown that torture is actually counterproductive, since people will tell you whatever you want to hear if sufficiently tortured.  See US prisoners in Korea and Vietnam who confessed to "war crimes" that they never committed.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think we are over the hump of what happened at Abu Ghraib.


 What do you mean by that?



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm curious to know why we sholdn't torture at all. Even when American lives are at stake.


 Well, there are a few reasons:

 1) It's wrong.  The ends don't justify the means.
 2) It's wrong because we signed international treaties and enacted US laws that *make it illegal*.
 3) It's counterproductive.
 4) We don't want people to torture *our guys*.  How can you *ever* claim that it's wrong to torture our soldiers, operatives, even civilians if you maintain carte blanche to torture others?


----------



## michaeledward

*There are FOUR lights!*


For those fans of Star Trek The Next Generation, there was a truly terrifying episode where Captian Jean-luc Picard was tortured for information. These are his words at the end of the episode as he stood defiantly before his torturer.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Mike - nice!  I got it right away.  That was a good 'un.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If I am going to say something, it will be in print. I've never said anything about anybody on these forums unles it was directly to them. Don't try and read into or distort my posts "when the going gets rough." I'm sure Hrretic and MichaelEdwards are very adept at standing up for themselves if I ever insulted them.
> 
> -------
> 
> Must have me mixed up with the latest political cartoon from Ted Rall. Go back to your comics.
> 
> -------
> 
> Honestly, when you want to lay into me for something you think I've said go ahead, but at least back it up with something substantial enough for a 5th grader to debate. I'm sure I'd whether your insults and anything else just fine.



Well, lessee...I posted this to which you refer on the 19th.  It only took you a little while to get back to it.  Nine days.

Okay.  I allegedly read comics and apparently can't provide substantial debate for a fifth grader.  I have issues.  My patriotism is in question All these your words...your assessment...from this and other posts.  

I have yet to resort to calling someone a communist, nor have I used a childish tu quoque argument (take another nine days off to look that one up if you like), nor have I thrown what can best be described as a prissy hissy fit by snapping at someone telling them to go back to their  "comics".  

If I'm working at the fifth grade level as you seem to think I am, it should be easy for you to attack my arguments.  So far you seem to be struggling with them and whipping out the old attacks against the person instead.  Frustrated?  

And you know, you're right about one thing.  Heretic and Michael and the others are more than capable of defending themselves against your snippy little assaults.  I didn't mean to imply they weren't up to it, and certainly hope they didn't take it that way.

I used them as an example of how you work an attack against the person.  The quote of yours above and at the head of this post contains other good examples.  


Regards,



Steve


----------



## MisterMike

Heretic: I agree nothing is black and white but what do you do when tough interrogations fail? Obviously there are many levels. You don't have to use the car battery, but it would be nice to put one one the table to let them know where you're coming from.

PeachMonkey: I don't know that torture is more effective for everyone. But for some it surely would be. I think the choice should be based on a psychological profile of the individual.

I also think it would only be counter productive if you were doing it wrong.

As for the Abu Ghraib thing, I meant we're over the discussion of torture there, and are talking in general now. Just so no-one shoots me for going too far off-topic.

Robert: While the act of commiting the torture would require qualities of a person whom shall we say, is not your local spiritual leader, I think the decision from the top to allow such activities is not driven by those types of fear or frustration.

What you describe is what we saw in the Iraqi prison, but not who is far away back in the US, who gave the orders, who is detached from the actual events. 

It seems the biggest blockade to allowing torture is that we don't want our image tarnished. We want to be the knight in shining armour. OK - and someone threw in there some psycho-babble about our evil mean streaks that we should stay away from. But it all seems to come back to humanity.

All that weighed, I think a few closed door beatings of a few that might save the lives of thousands (talk about humanity) is worth the tradeoff. Obvioulsy we'll never get there, what with people screamin bloody murder about shelters euthanizing animals after 3 days instead of 6.

Thanks for the discussion,


----------



## PeachMonkey

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I agree nothing is black and white but what do you do when tough interrogations fail? Obviously there are many levels. You don't have to use the car battery, but it would be nice to put one one the table to let them know where you're coming from.


 I don't know how to handle tough interrogations, but I do know evil when I see it, and I do know illegal when I see it.  Torture is both.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think the choice should be based on a psychological profile of the individual.  I also think it would only be counter productive if you were doing it wrong.


 From a practical perspective, you may well be right, that there are ways to torture certain people that will work.  Regardless of that, I find it deeply chilling that you're willing to think that way, particularly when it's not at all clear that torture is *ever* the *only* way to get information out of someone.

 Besides, intelligence relies on many, many different techniques... interrogation of prisoners is just one of them.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think the decision from the top to allow such activities is not driven by those types of fear or frustration.


 The "psycho-babble" that you refer to from Robert points out that people authorize and perform torture have been shown to do it primarily out of sadism and sickness.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> It seems the biggest blockade to allowing torture is that we don't want our image tarnished.


 Actually, for me, the blockades are that it's *wrong*, it's *illegal*, and it will lead to *torture of US citizens and soldiers and operatives*.  Are you able to address these issues?


----------



## MisterMike

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Well, lessee...I posted this to which you refer on the 19th.  It only took you a little while to get back to it.  Nine days.
> 
> Okay.  I allegedly read comics and apparently can't provide substantial debate for a fifth grader.  I have issues.  My patriotism is in question All these your words...your assessment...from this and other posts.



No your assessment. Albeit partly incorrect, but still yours.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I have yet to resort to calling someone a communist, nor have I used a childish tu quoque argument (take another nine days off to look that one up if you like), nor have I thrown what can best be described as a prissy hissy fit by snapping at someone telling them to go back to their  "comics".
> 
> If I'm working at the fifth grade level as you seem to think I am, it should be easy for you to attack my arguments.  So far you seem to be struggling with them and whipping out the old attacks against the person instead.  Frustrated?



Well, see, even your best description can still be wrong. Haven't had a dose of humility in a while I take? What's it like to always be right? I guess if I can have a fit in 5 words or less, ya got me there, shucks.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And you know, you're right about one thing.  Heretic and Michael and the others are more than capable of defending themselves against your snippy little assaults.  I didn't mean to imply they weren't up to it, and certainly hope they didn't take it that way.
> 
> I used them as an example of how you work an attack against the person.  The quote of yours above and at the head of this post contains other good examples.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Steve



Hey, whatever man. If I said something, call me on it when I do it. Whatever you are referring to is a LOT older than 9 days.


----------



## MisterMike

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I don't know how to handle tough interrogations, but I do know evil when I see it, and I do know illegal when I see it.  Torture is both.
> 
> 
> From a practical perspective, you may well be right, that there are ways to torture certain people that will work.  Regardless of that, I find it deeply chilling that you're willing to think that way, particularly when it's not at all clear that torture is *ever* the *only* way to get information out of someone.
> 
> Besides, intelligence relies on many, many different techniques... interrogation of prisoners is just one of them.
> 
> 
> The "psycho-babble" that you refer to from Robert points out that people authorize and perform torture have been shown to do it primarily out of sadism and sickness.
> 
> 
> Actually, for me, the blockades are that it's *wrong*, it's *illegal*, and it will lead to *torture of US citizens and soldiers and operatives*.  Are you able to address these issues?



OK, I'll take a stab at it 

As for being evil and illegal, I think the first is based on your morals (which are good for you, but shouldnt be imposed on anyone else) and the second, well, my first rant was related to the fact I don't believe in international law. It preempts soverignity. I say, us first, them second. (I know that's short, but we'll get way off track if I go into it more)

As for sadism and sickness, well that may be the past, but maybe it's time we use it more intelligently and effectively. We spend money looking for the "gay" gene (LOL) why not spend a few bucks on effective information gathering (with torture).

As for it leading to torture of our guys, well, it can't lead, it can only follow. It is already being done. To me, getting your head cut off = torture before you die. Try getting arrested in China. See how well they treat people. Or in a majority of African countries. See if they care about international law. Again, this isn't 2 wrongs make a right, its saying they already do it and will not stop. There's nothing to lead to. It's already being done.

Address or rationalize. That's a close one. I know that's what Robert's thinking now. I've just rationalized the destruction of a race of people..LOL.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Oh really. Well, I see I haven't been rude enough to anyone actually proposing that we blow off every religious code I've ever heard of (except, perhaps, for Satanism), ignore what we know about the history of torture (it doesn't work, and has a corrupting influence), flip a big finger in the direction of silly little things like the Geneva Convention, and--just incidentally--forget about the fact that using torture associates us with a) Stalinist Russia, b) Nazi Germany, c) Pinochet's Chile, d) Saddam Hussein, e) the North Korean and North Vietnamese treatment of our fliers, f) who  knows how many tinpot dictators and drug lords, all of whom make the very same arguments advanced here. 

Oh yes--it also means turning two blind eyes to what we know about the psychology of torture from studies like Stanley Milgram's and accounts of the delight taken in suffering by your average psychopath. 

I guess ya can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And yet, I'd thought that the very people now arguing for torture, when necessary, were the folks who rail against, "situational ethics," insist that there are universal moral standards, and tell the likes of me that our problem is we'll accept any injustice in the name of the holy goals of Communism.

But I honestly don't know what's worse: letting torture go on haphazardly, or sitting down and pretending to work out calm, logical, professional standards for torture. On balance, I believe I am more revolted by the proceduralists.

And oh yes--yes indeedy, dehumanizing whole "races," to enable torturing the sub-humans does absolutely serve as one of the intellectual bases for genocide. 

I also recommend being careful about poking fun at Freud, who does such an elegant job of explaining why "irrelevant," material like, "the gay gene," pops into our head while we're discussing, say, torture.


----------



## MisterMike

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh really. Well, I see I haven't been rude enough to anyone actually proposing that we blow off every religious code I've ever heard of (except, perhaps, for Satanism), ignore what we know about the history of torture (it doesn't work, and has a corrupting influence), flip a big finger in the direction of silly little things like the Geneva Convention, and--just incidentally--forget about the fact that using torture associates us with a) Stalinist Russia, b) Nazi Germany, c) Pinochet's Chile, d) Saddam Hussein, e) the North Korean and North Vietnamese treatment of our fliers, f) who  knows how many tinpot dictators and drug lords, all of whom make the very same arguments advanced here.
> 
> Oh yes--it also means turning two blind eyes to what we know about the psychology of torture from studies like Stanley Milgram's and accounts of the delight taken in suffering by your average psychopath.



Yea but torture has no psychology. It's more of a tool, like the internet. (Oh boy, I know I'm going to get reemed for this one). But you can use it for good or bad. Now I know we all need a job we love to do, and this isn't saying much for the people whos job it would be to inflict torture, but there are always aspects of our jobs we don't like. Just like having to shoot people for wearing a different flag on their sleeve.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I guess ya can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And yet, I'd thought that the very people now arguing for torture, when necessary, were the folks who rail against, "situational ethics," insist that there are universal moral standards, and tell the likes of me that our problem is we'll accept any injustice in the name of the holy goals of Communism.
> 
> But I honestly don't know what's worse: letting torture go on haphazardly, or sitting down and pretending to work out calm, logical, professional standards for torture. On balance, I believe I am more revolted by the proceduralists.
> 
> And oh yes--yes indeedy, dehumanizing whole "races," to enable torturing the sub-humans does absolutely serve as one of the intellectual bases for genocide.





			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I also recommend being careful about poking fun at Freud, who does such an elegant job of explaining why "irrelevant," material like, "the gay gene," pops into our head while we're discussing, say, torture.



Haha..I'm almost glad you didn't carry on there, as much as I find the little I know about Freud to be amusing, I laughed pretty hard there.

Ah well, it takes time to change, and again I thank you all for your input.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> Yea but torture has no psychology.


 I would argue that torture - on both sides, the victim and the perpetrator - does have a very particular psychology.

This famous (infamous) experiment was not established to look at torture, but deals with some of the relevant issues, conducted by Zimbardo and his colleagues

http://www.prisonexp.org/

This link is a summary of the famous Milgram experiments - I haven't read the entire page yet, but a good quick review

http://thunder.prohosting.com/~tlennon/obedience.html

and

http://www.fact-index.com/m/mi/milgram_experiment.html

as examples

There is very much a psychological background or effect of torture. 

It is a morally and politically reprehensible act, and is not an effective information-extractor.  And it has its own causes and effects on the perpetrator(s).


----------



## hardheadjarhead

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And yet, I'd thought that the very people now arguing for torture, when necessary, were the folks who rail against, "situational ethics," insist that there are universal moral standards....




This has to be one of the best observations made all week.  It is so good I would modify the adjective with an expletive, but there are children present, so I shall refrain.  

Many is the time I've seen people argue the gray areas of a particular argument, only to have the charge of "relativism" leveled...as if it was heresy.

Good job.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey

MisterMike said:
			
		

> As for being evil and illegal, I think the first is based on your morals (which are good for you, but shouldnt be imposed on anyone else)


 Your sense of situational ethics has already been addressed far more effectively than I ever could.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> and the second, well, my first rant was related to the fact I don't believe in international law. It preempts soverignity. I say, us first, them second. (I know that's short, but we'll get way off track if I go into it more)


 International laws apply to the United States primarily when we ratify them.  Torture is outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, which the United States ratified in 1955 (along with additional articles ratified later).  It is also outlawed by the International Covenant on on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, both of which the United States ratified.  "Ratified" means "The United States signed these treaties *and they apply to the United States*".  That's not some random international body making us do things; we *chose* do to them.

 But, let's ignore silly details like that for now.  Torture is *also* outlawed by US Law, including Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendements to the US Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the War Crimes Act of 1996, and an additional Federal anti-torture statute (18 USC 2340A).



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> As for sadism and sickness, well that may be the past, but maybe it's time we use it more intelligently and effectively.


 Torture is inherently sadistic no matter how "intelligently" it's used.  Others have provided links discussing this.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Again, this isn't 2 wrongs make a right, its saying they already do it and will not stop. There's nothing to lead to. It's already being done.


 You are right that there are groups that torture our civilians regardless of our attitude to torture.  It is *also* true that torturing others will enrage people that otherwise might not be moved to act.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Peachmonkey,

In the artillery they have a command, called "fire for effect".  It brings all guns to bear on the target and fires an allotted number of rounds in barrage.

Nice "fire for effect."   That was an overwhelming presentation of the facts.  

And thanks for the data.  Good research.  I'm saving your info for future use elsewhere.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson

Speaking of which, let me suggest in the strongest possible terms that anyone who cares about these issues take a gander at the website for, "The Avalon Project at Yale Law School," which contains--among other things--the words of Robert L. Jackson and Telford Taylor upon the criminality of waging aggressive war, and the immorality of Government-sponsored torture and murder.

Before anybody starts, I am not saying that we are the same as the nazis. I am saying that anyone who thinks and feels ought to cringe at these closing paragraphs from Robert L. Jackson's letter of resignation as Chief Prosecutor:

"6. It has been well said that this trial is the world's first post mortem examination of a totalitarian regime. In this trial, the Nazis themselves with Machiavellian shamelessness exposed their methods of subverting people's liberties and establishing their dictatorship. The record is a merciless expose of the cruel and sordid methods by which a militant minority seized power, suppressed opposition, set up secret political police and concentration camps. They resorted to legal devices such as "protective custody," which Goering frankly said meant the arrest of people not because they had committed any crime but because of acts it was suspected they might commit if left at liberty. They destroyed all judicial remedies for the citizen and all protections against terrorism. The record discloses the early symptoms of dictatorship and shows that it is only in its incipient stages that it can be brought under control. And the testimony records the German example that the destruction of opposition produces eventual deterioration in the government that does it. By progressive intolerance a dictatorship by its very nature becomes so arbitrary that it cannot tolerate opposition, even when it consists merely of the correction of misinformation or the communication to its highest officers of unwelcome intelligence. It was really the recoil of the Nazi blows at liberty that destroyed the Nazi regime. They struck down freedom of speech and press and other freedoms which pass as ordinary civil rights with us, so thoroughly that not even its highest officers dared to warn the people or the Fuehrer that they were taking the road to destruction. The Nurnberg trial has put that handwriting on the wall for the oppressor as well as the oppressed to read. 

Of course, it would be extravagant to claim that agreements or trials of this character can make aggressive war or persecution of minorities impossible, just as it would be extravagant to claim that our federal laws make federal crime impossible. But we cannot doubt that they strengthen the bulwarks of peace and tolerance. The four nations through their prosecutors and through their representatives on the Tribunal, have enunciated standards of conduct which bring new hope to men of good will and from which future statesmen will not lightly depart. These standards by which the Germans have been condemned will become the condemnation of any nation that is faithless to them. 

By the Agreement and this trial we have put International Law squarely on the side of peace as against aggressive warfare, and on the side of humanity as against persecution. In the present depressing world outlook it is possible that the Nurnberg trial may constitute the most important moral advance to grow out of this war. The trial and decision by which the four nations have forfeited the lives of some of the most powerful political and military leaders of Germany because they have violated fundamental International Law, does more than anything in our time to give to International Law what Woodrow Wilson described as "the kind of vitality it can only have if it is a real expression of our moral judgment." 

I hereby resign my commission as your representative and Chief of Counsel for the United States. In its execution I have had the help of many able men and women, too many to mention individually, who have made personal sacrifice to carry on a work in which they earnestly believed. I also want to express deep personal appreciation for this opportunity to do what I believe to be a constructive work for the peace of the world and for the better protection of persecuted peoples. It was, perhaps, the greatest opportunity ever presented to an American lawyer. In pursuit of it many mistakes have been made and many inadequacies must be confessed. I am consoled by the fact that in proceedings of this novelty, errors and missteps may also be instructive to the future. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT H. JACKSON 

I apologize in advance to some of the good people on this thread who simply have different ideas. I understand, moreover, that you may be in the position I was in, circa 1968--the unpleasant position of seeing, for the first time, what some of the patriotic myths concealed in this country. Nonetheless, I want to say something clearly--go out on a limb--make an extremist lefty statement---torture, whatever the high-minded theory and excuses one offers, is wrong. 

And shame on anyone who will not see this. You are betraying the best principles, the best people, of your country.


----------



## michaeledward

Look up there .... ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

What he said! Yeah!


----------



## hardheadjarhead

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...in the position I was in, circa 1968--the unpleasant position of seeing, for the first time, what some of the patriotic myths concealed in this country. Nonetheless, I want to say something clearly--go out on a limb--make an extremist lefty statement---torture, whatever the high-minded theory and excuses one offers, is wrong.
> 
> And shame on anyone who will not see this. You are betraying the best principles, the best people, of your country.



You make an interesting observation here.  In 1968 I believed very strongly in those patriotic myths and didn't believe it possible that our nation could violate the image they engendered.  Time an education cured that, and it was a painful experience.

Those myths ought not be believed, but they might yet have utility. Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill" is not something we are, rather something we should aspire to.  We are the most powerful nation on the planet, but to be the "greatest" we have to live up to the ideals that our patriotic myths profess.  We've done that at times.  Many times we've failed.  To ignore our failings because we simply can not stand the psychological friction that such introspection brings is a mark of immaturity.

So our patriotic myths can be the dreams and aspirations of the nation.  Like any dream, though, we need to keep in mind that it is not likely reality.  Our myths might be a wonderful articulation of where we would like to be, but we must open our eyes to ascertain first where we are.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander

From today's Globe and Mail,



> New York  At least 11 al-Qaeda suspects have disappeared in U.S. custody, and some may have been tortured, Human Rights Watch said in a report issued Monday.
> 
> The prisoners are probably being held outside the United States without access to the Red Cross or any oversight of their treatment, the human rights group said. In some cases, the United States will not even acknowledge the prisoners are in custody.
> 
> The report said the prisoners include the alleged architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, as well as Abu Zubaydah, who is believed to be a close aide to Osama bin Laden.
> 
> In refusing to disclose the prisoners' whereabouts or acknowledge the detentions, Human Rights Watch said, the U.S. government has violated international law, international treaties and the Geneva Convention. The group called on the government to bring all the prisoners under the protection of the law.


The Human Rights Watch report referenced in the article can be found here.


----------



## rmcrobertson

CNN also now says that the CIA is holding a group of, "suspects," in Jordan, where they're being tortured. Lovely.

It's crap like this that makes me just so proud to be an American....oh wait, I forgot, this is actually shameful.


----------



## Fool Wolf

I just found this letter written by a retired USMC General, Chuck Pitman.  I think that it puts some prospective on the topic at hand from the point of view of a true combat tested warrior.  I believe this is the viewpoint of many of us who serve in the military.  I apologize if this has been posted somewhere else.

FW

Subject: FW: Letter of Apology from Chuck Pitman

Letter of Apology

This Letter of Apology was written by Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired

"For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. 

On the one hand, right thinking Americans will harbor the stupidity of the

actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and

fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.

I humbly offer my opinion here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and

sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims

(Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came

after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.

I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under

savage dictatorships.

I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their

religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.

I am sorry that Yasir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and

high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a

token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial

supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame  the USA for all their problems.

I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed

masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements

of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the

"food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk

suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide

bombers upon their death.

 I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will

 receive 72 virgins in "paradise."

 I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies,

 children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate

 targets.

 I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape

 rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.

 I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other

 group.

 I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of

 Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

 I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

 I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."

 I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade

Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox  Church - one of our Holy Sites.

 I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the

 embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel

 Pearl, etc....etc!

 I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized

 village  in Africa.

 America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those

 responsible because that is what we do.

 We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on.

 That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff

 like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

 Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, We  were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners.

 Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we

 were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our

 hands because a few were humiliated?

 Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people

 killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating

 Fallujahans.

 If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long

 wait!



 You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins.



 Chuck Pitman

 Lieutenant General

 US Marine Corps (Retired)


----------



## heretic888

Ah, delightful.

The non-apologizing apology with obtuse references to the 'liberal media', 'radical professors', the 'corrupted' United Nations, veiled justifications for torture based on September 11, rampant racism, and the perpetual ethnocentric understanding of "Islam".

With, of course, the underlying message being that those American soldiers that engaged in torture didn't do anything wrong because the tortured "had it comin'". Let's just ignore its a violation of international law, not to mention plain-old illegal.

Guys like this make me sick.


----------



## michaeledward

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> I just found this letter written by a retired USMC General, Chuck Pitman. I think that it puts some prospective on the topic at hand from the point of view of a true combat tested warrior. I believe this is the viewpoint of many of us who serve in the military. I apologize if this has been posted somewhere else.


This letter does not put any perspective on the topic at hand. It is a rant about something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

The topic at hand is that Iraqi citizens were detained without charge, abused, humiliated and tortured. The laundry list the retired general has nothing to do with the behavior of the United States military personnel that subjected these detainees to behavior that is inconsistant with United States law, the Geneva Conventions and common decency. 

It is an attempt to 'dehumanize' the 'enemy', so that the good soldiers can sleep at night. If they thought they were treating someone's husband, son, or father, according to what has been discussed, well, we would probably see a high incidence of 'Shell Shock' or 'Post Traumatic Stress Disorder' in returning soldiers ... oh, wait ... well, we are, aren't we?

I especially liked the report that the United States dropped a JDAM on a resturant in Fallujah because we believed al Zaqarwi meets there. 

*When did a JDAM become a tool of assassination?*

Of course, like every other time in this engagment, our precision weapons hit exactly where we aimed, but we were aiming in the wrong place. 

So, yeah ... Let us continue to dehumanize all the Muslim people, so when a couple of waiters buy the farm at the end of a JDAM we can sleep at night. 

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq.
Minimum 13224 - Maximum 15292

Sleep well.


----------



## Fool Wolf

I think it was relevant in expressing the idea that the prisoner abuse that occurred in Iraq was a crime, and will be punished, much worse happened at Abu Ghraib before we stepped in. Many of the people that are quick to disparage the US never said a word about the atrocities being committed before we were there. No Iraqi torturers were ever prosecuted and the so-called human rights groups never made near the noise as they do when the US makes mistakes.  Things have to be put in perspective.

FW


----------



## heretic888

> I think it was relevant in expressing the idea that the prisoner abuse that occurred in Iraq was a crime, and will be punished, much worse happened at Abu Ghraib before we stepped in. Many of the people that are quick to disparage the US never said a word about the atrocities being committed before we were there. No Iraqi torturers were ever prosecuted and the so-called human rights groups never made near the noise as they do when the US makes mistakes. Things have to be put in perspective.



Ah. More "outraged at the outrage" arguments.

Its really not that hard of a concept: we're supposed to be the good guys. We're not supposed to torture, because its wrong.

No circular arguments, artificial justificiations, or Freudian projections will change that.

I mean, your argument is based on the fact that since torture occured during a brutal dictatorship, that its "not so bad" when we do it, too?? Whu??  :idunno:


----------



## michaeledward

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> I think it was relevant in expressing the idea that the prisoner abuse that occurred in Iraq was a crime, and will be punished, much worse happened at Abu Ghraib before we stepped in. Many of the people that are quick to disparage the US never said a word about the atrocities being committed before we were there. No Iraqi torturers were ever prosecuted and the so-called human rights groups never made near the noise as they do when the US makes mistakes. Things have to be put in perspective.
> 
> FW


Yes, the correct perspective things should be put in; is that the internal affairs of a sovereign nation are none of our business. The United States Courts are not responsible for bringing charges against Iraqi citizens or institutions. To discuss what happens in other countries has absolutely nothing to do with the behavior the United States Soldiers, acting under United States Authority.

It was not 'so-called human rights groups' that were detaining Iraqi citizens after the United States invaded their country. It was not 'so-called human rights groups' that set attack dogs on bound prisoners. It was not 'so-called human rights groups' that sexually abused and humiliated Iraqi citizens, detained illegally and without charge. It was not 'so-called human rights groups' that have 'disappeared' detainees into unknown locations (or some known locations, like Jordan where torture is occurring at the US behest) away from any review at all; Human Rights indeed. 

The more talk there is about others' behavoir, the more the lens is focused on our own behavior. And what we see is repulsive. To try and justify it is embarrassing and degrading. 

Don't you, or your retired Marine friend, try and tell me that what went on there is OK, because somebody else does worse. Look in the mirror. We have become that which we despise.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> the so-called human rights groups never made near the noise as they do when the US makes mistakes.



Is this based on an actual analysis of the complaints made by human rights groups about abuses by the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein vs. complaints made by the US occupying forces?  If so, I'd really like to see your sources and data.


----------



## Flatlander

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Is this based on an actual analysis of the complaints made by human rights groups about abuses by the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein vs. complaints made by the US occupying forces? If so, I'd really like to see your sources and data.


If a tree falls in the forest.......


----------



## GAB

Flatlander said:
			
		

> If a tree falls in the forest.......


Not if you are under it....G


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> I just found this letter written by a retired USMC General, Chuck Pitman. I think that it puts some prospective on the topic at hand from the point of view of a true combat tested warrior. I believe this is the viewpoint of many of us who serve in the military. I apologize if this has been posted somewhere else.
> 
> FW
> 
> Subject: FW: Letter of Apology from Chuck Pitman
> 
> Letter of Apology
> <snipped...content irrelavent to my reply>


Firstly, I doubt that this is a view held by "Many of us who serve in the military", I being one of them, and in charge of a good number more.

Secondly, LtGen Charles H. Pitman did not draft this apology letter. It first appeared in at Townhall.com, penned by Mike Adams.

I decided to quote a right-wing source, just to show my flexibility a bit.  Here you go: a conservative web form with the complete text of the original work.

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=53361


----------



## Fool Wolf

Mr. MichaelEdward

I respect your views, however I believe your perspective is off.  The Iraqi prisoner abuse was perpetrated by a small number of soldiers who were out of control.  They worked the night shift in an isolated wing of Abu Ghraib.  They lacked proper supervision from their leaders, both NCOs and Officers.  Soldiers who lack proper discipline and supervision will run amok, this is a universal truth about human nature and warfare.  There was a 15-6 commander's investigation initiated before the press even got the story.  In no way were the soldiers abusing the prisoners working in an official capacity to "soften them up" or illicit information.  They were acting out of sadistic pleasure and boredom.  They were criminals and not representing the US military.  To say that "we have become what we despise" is disingenuous.  

vr
FW


----------



## michaeledward

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> The Iraqi prisoner abuse was perpetrated by a small number of soldiers who were out of control. They worked the night shift in an isolated wing of Abu Ghraib. They lacked proper supervision from their leaders, both NCOs and Officers. Soldiers who lack proper discipline and supervision will run amok, this is a universal truth about human nature and warfare. There was a 15-6 commander's investigation initiated before the press even got the story. In no way were the soldiers abusing the prisoners working in an official capacity to "soften them up" or illicit information. They were acting out of sadistic pleasure and boredom. They were criminals and not representing the US military.


 
I think you are grossly unaware of what 'Abu Ghraib' consisted of, if you think that only the late shift of the 372nd Military Police was involved, you have not examined the evidence available.

General Taguba reported activities of wrongdoing which included

"_Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; puring cold water on naded detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guiard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in he cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instacne actually biting a detainee_"

General Miller was sent from Guantanamo to Iraq for the purpose of acquiring more actionable intelligence from detainees. Using techniques developed and implemented by the CIA's Special Access Programs (or SAP), to extract information from al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo was a completely inappropriate choice for trying to get information from Iraqi citizens. But the General visited Iraq in August 2003 to meet with General Sanchez about how to better get 'actionable intelligence'. (Of course the SAP information extraction methods in Guantanam, Cuba are also of skeptical legitimacy).

Even General Karpinski (the commander in charge of Abu Ghraib) who was working the prisons under her command. In addition to the uniformed soldiers, there were plain clothed people in the prisons. She reports, 

"_I thought most of the civilians there were interpreters, but there were some civilians that I didn't know. I called them the disappearing ghosts. I'd seen them once in a while at Abu Ghraib and then I'd see the months later .... always bringing in somebody for interrogation or waiting to collect somebody going out._" 

Some of these 'sterlie' people were military intelligence personnel.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Please. Bush admin guys and assorted conservatives started their, "debate," over when it was OK to torture prisoners AT LEAST two years ago, and we've been shipping prisoners to countries where we know they'll be tortured, as well as holding people incommunicado and torturing them ourselves, all over the world.

It is naive in the extreme to claim that this was a few bad apples. It was, and apparently still is, deliberate policy.


----------



## raedyn

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> Many of the people that are quick to disparage the US never said a word about the atrocities being committed before we were there. No Iraqi torturers were ever prosecuted and the so-called human rights groups never made near the noise as they do when the US makes mistakes.


Many people (in North America in particular) had no idea about what was going on before. And there WERE human rights groups trying to bring attentions to the problems under Hussein's regime. But mainstream media didn't pay much attention. Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.


----------



## heretic888

Well, raedyn, its really not difficult to figure out.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. It was no secret that he tortured and murdered thousands of people during his reign. In essence, we all knew he was a "bad guy".

The United States, on the other hand, is a country that is _supposed_ to pride itself on ideals like progress, freedom, liberty, and justice. In essence, we're supposed to be the "good guys".

This torturing policy the current administration has?? That's not very "good guy"-like. Plain simple.


----------



## raedyn

I have difficultly accepting any good guy / bad guy dicotomy.

I believe it is a noble and worthy goal for us to try and be a positive force in the world. But as soon as we start to label 'us' and 'them' as 'good' and 'bad' it sets us up for problems. It is never as simple or as black and white as that.


----------



## rmcrobertson

If you actually bother to look on, say, the Amnesty International website, you will find reports on absues all over the world, reported without fear or favor.

Left-wing and liberal groups have been screaming about the abuses in Iran, Iraq and the rest of the mid-east forever. You just weren't listening.


----------



## raedyn

exactly.


----------



## heretic888

> I have difficultly accepting any good guy / bad guy dicotomy.
> 
> I believe it is a noble and worthy goal for us to try and be a positive force in the world. But as soon as we start to label 'us' and 'them' as 'good' and 'bad' it sets us up for problems. It is never as simple or as black and white as that.



My apologies. I didn't mean to reduce the comparison to a simple dualism.

But, the point remains is the _reason_ we Americans are getting so much flack about the Abu Graihb incidents is because we claim to be morally _better_ than the guys we're trying to stop. We claim to be fighting for justice, law, freedom, and all that jazz. Torturing people isn't doing that, sorry.

Its a morally slippery slope to simply justify torture because "the other side" is doing it, too. Remember, that the "other side" is comprised of terrorists and murderers. Following suit is hardly the high road.

Laterz.


----------



## raedyn

heretic888 said:
			
		

> But, the point remains is the _reason_ we Americans are getting so much flack about the Abu Graihb incidents is because we claim to be morally _better_ than the guys we're trying to stop. We claim to be fighting for justice, law, freedom, and all that jazz. Torturing people isn't doing that, sorry.


Agreed.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Its a morally slippery slope to simply justify torture because "the other side" is doing it, too. Remember, that the "other side" is comprised of terrorists and murderers. Following suit is hardly the high road.


If we torture/murder/humiliate/etc, we are participating in the acts we (rightfully) condmen. And we are giving others more reason to despise us.

What about leading by example?


----------



## heretic888

> What about leading by example?



My point exactly.  :asian: 

I actually saw something interesting a year or two back. It was a PBS interview with the former German ambassador to the United States. He was decrying the war, of course, but it was very interesting in how he was describing our nation.

Right or wrong, this guy had somehow gotten in his head that the United States had traditionally been some kind of shining beacon of hope for the world, and a powerful moral voice among the nations. Given America's rebuilding of Europe following WWII, I suppose its understandable how he could come to that point-of-view.

But, the point was that was how this guy saw our country. I've been told by others that this was how quite a few Europeans saw America for the better part of the 20th century, as well.

Gee, funny people, those Europeans.


----------



## MisterMike

U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture

Fri Dec 3,10:05 AM ET

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer 



> WASHINGTON - Evidence gained by torture can be used by the U.S. military in deciding whether to imprison a foreigner indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant, the government says.
> 
> 
> Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday.
> 
> 
> Some of the prisoners have filed lawsuits challenging their detention without charges for up to three years so far. At the hearing, Boyle urged District Judge Richard J. Leon to throw their cases out.
> 
> 
> Attorneys for the prisoners argued that some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."
> 
> 
> Leon asked whether a detention based solely on evidence gathered by torture would be illegal, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."
> 
> 
> Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it."
> 
> 
> Leon asked whether there were any restrictions on using torture-induced evidence.
> 
> 
> Boyle replied that the United States never would adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.
> 
> 
> Several arguments underlie the U.S. court ban on products of torture.
> 
> 
> "About 70 years ago, the Supreme Court stopped the use of evidence produced by third-degree tactics largely on the theory that it was totally unreliable," Harvard Law Professor Philip B. Heymann, a former deputy U.S. attorney general, said in an interview. Subsequent high court rulings were based on revulsion at "the unfairness and brutality of it and later on the idea that confessions ought to be free and uncompelled."
> 
> 
> Leon asked whether U.S. courts could review detentions based on evidence from torture conducted by U.S. personnel.
> 
> 
> Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.
> 
> 
> The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday it has given the Bush administration a confidential report critical of U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees. The New York Times reported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as *"tantamount to torture."*
> 
> 
> The combatant status review tribunals comprise three colonels and lieutenant colonels. They were set up after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the detainees could ask U.S. courts to see to it they had a proceeding in which to challenge their detention. The panels have reviewed 440 of the prisoners so far but have released only one.
> 
> 
> The military also set up an annual administrative review which considers whether the detainee still presents a danger to the United States but doesn't review enemy combatant status. Administrative reviews have been completed for 161.
> 
> 
> Boyle argued these procedures are sufficient to satisfy the high court.
> 
> 
> Noting that detainees cannot have lawyers at the combatant status review proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, detainee attorney Wes Powell argued "there is no meaningful opportunity in the (proceedings) to rebut the government's claims."
> 
> Leon suggested that if federal judges start reviewing the military's evidence for holding foreign detainees there could be "practical and collateral consequences ... at a time of war."
> 
> And he suggested an earlier Supreme Court ruling might limit judges to checking only on whether detention orders were lawfully issued and review panels were legally established.
> 
> Leon and Judge Joyce Hens Green, who held a similar hearing Wednesday, said they would try to rule soon on whether the 59 detainees may proceed with their lawsuits.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Speaking of leading by example....

There was a time when this country--whatever its sometime actions in the field--made clear, articulate public stands against this sort of evil. One regrets seeing one's country tossing out the moral vision that made Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Telford Taylor and so many others possible, at the behest of a crowd of con artists, cheap hustlers, and rich white boys.


----------



## Adept

michaeledward said:
			
		

> "_Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; puring cold water on naded detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guiard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in he cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instacne actually biting a detainee_


 After what they do to their captives, you'll forgive me if I find it hard to get my panties in a twist over this.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Adept said:
			
		

> After what they do to their captives, you'll forgive me if I find it hard to get my panties in a twist over this.


The intellectual equivalent of a 9-year-old screaming "well he hit me first!"  

But hey, if you're happy with a government using policies of basic barbarism, you have fun.


----------



## Adept

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> The intellectual equivalent of a 9-year-old screaming "well he hit me first!"


 I would disagree and say that it is a simple comparison. What they do to their prisoners is much, much worse. Given that such horrible extremes exist, and are being used on a regular basis, I consider the 'abuse' that the prisoners in question were put through to be light punishment, by comparison. Everything is relative, after all. I would rather spend my energy worried about the treatment of western, and western allied prisoners held by Iraqis than the other way around. 



> But hey, if you're happy with a government using policies of basic barbarism, you have fun.


 I'm not overly happy about it. It generates public disease and makes it harder for the government to protect the interests of the nation. It is wrong because its stupid, not because its 'bad'. The rules of war, indeed the rules of common decency, will always be tossed aside as soon as they become an impediment to victory.

 This much should be obvious to you as a martial artist. It is hardly considered common decency to poke someone in the eye, or break their bones, or injure them in any way. However, when push comes to shove and its you or them, such social niceties mean absolutely nothing. You do what is necessary.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Adept said:
			
		

> I would disagree and say that it is a simple comparison. What they do to their prisoners is much, much worse. Given that such horrible extremes exist, and are being used on a regular basis, I consider the 'abuse' that the prisoners in question were put through to be light punishment, by comparison. Everything is relative, after all.


Does the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" mean anything to you? I don't care how bad other countries may treat their prisoners, that's no justification for our military to torture the prisoners we have just for the fun of it. 



> I would rather spend my energy worried about the treatment of western, and western allied prisoners held by Iraqis than the other way around.


Why's it only one or the other? 




> The rules of war, indeed the rules of common decency, will always be tossed aside as soon as they become an impediment to victory.


So all discussions of good and bad, right and wrong are automatically moot issues? Or at best, merely academic or speculative activities? 



> This much should be obvious to you as a martial artist.


Which I'm not. 



> It is hardly considered common decency to poke someone in the eye, or break their bones, or injure them in any way. However, when push comes to shove and its you or them, such social niceties mean absolutely nothing. You do what is necessary.


How has push come to shove, what's necessary here? The discovery of information? Oh please. Shove a light stick up someone's *** and i'm quite sure they'll tell you whatever you want to hear. If the situation is one of your life or theirs, I'd agree with you that decency and civility go out the window. But that's not the case here. What we have is a group of foreigners currently under our custody, and how they're being treated. I'd say civility is quite involved here.


----------



## Adept

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Does the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" mean anything to you?


 The phrase is inane in the highest regard. Two wrongs do not make a right, and taken on face value this is correct. However, when two parties both consider their own actions to be right, and the other parties actions to be  wrong, things get a little more complicated. Iraqi extremists consider beheading and torturing their prisoners to be right. We dont. Where does that leave us?



> I don't care how bad other countries may treat their prisoners, that's no justification for our military to torture the prisoners we have just for the fun of it.


 I agree, although likely for different reasons.



> Why's it only one or the other?


 Why waste time on the lesser problem? Consider it in context of a work related re-fresher course. You could use the time to learn new computer skills, or you could learn how to groom walrusses. Now, it doesnt matter how well you learn to groom said walruss, because there are more pressing problems at hand. Why not learn both skills? Why not use the time you are wasting on the one (lesser) problem to concern yourself with the other (much worse and pressing) concern.



> So all discussions of good and bad, right and wrong are automatically moot issues? Or at best, merely academic or speculative activities?


 Essentially, yes. There are certain people around the world who still consider it the 'right' thing to do to stone a woman to death for infidelity. There are cultures who consider it the 'wrong' thing to do to eat a pig. There are cultures who consider it acceptable to allow a baby to be partially born, and during the birthing to drive a spike inside its head, suction its brains out and collapse its skull.

 Right and wrong are relative.



> Which I'm not.


 Forgive the assumption. I felt it safe considering the context of the forums.



> How has push come to shove, what's necessary here? The discovery of information? Oh please. Shove a light stick up someone's *** and i'm quite sure they'll tell you whatever you want to hear. If the situation is one of your life or theirs, I'd agree with you that decency and civility go out the window. But that's not the case here. What we have is a group of foreigners currently under our custody, and how they're being treated. I'd say civility is quite involved here.


 In this regard I was discussing (in abstract) the rules of war and social niceties. Not really relevant to the particular discussion at hand, but a logical continuation of it. The actions at Abu Ghraib were out of order, not because they hurt peoples feelings or bodies, but because they hurt the over-all war effort. Just like the rules of war become counter-productive once they impede the ability of a nation to protect its interests.


----------



## Flatlander

Adept said:
			
		

> The actions at Abu Ghraib were out of order, not because they hurt peoples feelings or bodies, but because they hurt the over-all war effort. Just like the rules of war become counter-productive once they impede the ability of a nation to protect its interests.


No, the actions at abu Ghraib were out of order because they were in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.  May I direct you here for reference.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Reeeeeeal stupid question here, but the US did sign onto the Geneva Convention, right?


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Adept said:
			
		

> The phrase is inane in the highest regard. Two wrongs do not make a right, and taken on face value this is correct. However, when two parties both consider their own actions to be right, and the other parties actions to be wrong, things get a little more complicated. Iraqi extremists consider beheading and torturing their prisoners to be right. We dont. Where does that leave us?


In a position of complete hypocrisy, if we are to turn around and torture our prisoners. 



> Why waste time on the lesser problem? Consider it in context of a work related re-fresher course. You could use the time to learn new computer skills, or you could learn how to groom walrusses. Now, it doesnt matter how well you learn to groom said walruss, because there are more pressing problems at hand. Why not learn both skills? Why not use the time you are wasting on the one (lesser) problem to concern yourself with the other (much worse and pressing) concern.


I'm sorry, but did you just make a comparison between being concerned over prisoners' rights and grooming a walrus? Who the hell grooms a walrus? 

As a more substantial response, my point was that it's possible to be concerned and argue (since that's all we're doing right now) against BOTH country's torturing prisoners, instead of deciding one or the other. I think both are wrong, and am willing to argue so. 

Besides, walrus' need friends, too. :lol:




> Essentially, yes. There are certain people around the world who still consider it the 'right' thing to do to stone a woman to death for infidelity. There are cultures who consider it the 'wrong' thing to do to eat a pig. There are cultures who consider it acceptable to allow a baby to be partially born, and during the birthing to drive a spike inside its head, suction its brains out and collapse its skull.
> 
> Right and wrong are relative.


So because there are varying, and oftentimes opposing, standards of right and wrong, all are equally valid and should therefore not be looked towards for making decisions. Interesting take. So both the KKK's and Martin Luther King Jr.'s stances on racial relations are equally valid? 




> Forgive the assumption. I felt it safe considering the context of the forums.


It's a safe assumption on here, no apology necessary. Just clarifying that I am not, as of yet, a martial artist. Hope to be sometime.


----------



## michaeledward

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Reeeeeeal stupid question here, but the US did sign onto the Geneva Convention, right?


It is not a stupid question at all. 

Yes, the United States of America did Ratify the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. It was ratified by the United States Congress on February 8, 1955. This means the Geneva Convetions are United States Law.

Now, it is important to note that the United States did ratify the Conventions with 'Reservation / Declaration' which is defined as:
a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State when ratifying, acceding or succeeding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State (provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty).​I have no additional information concerning the 'Reservation / Declaration' at this time.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward

Adept said:
			
		

> There are cultures who consider it acceptable to allow a baby to be partially born, and during the birthing to drive a spike inside its head, suction its brains out and collapse its skull.


Once again, and inaccurate and incomplete description of a legitimate medical procedure from someone with, apparently, incomplete knowledge.

To process  you are describing is correctly termed 'Intact Dilation and Extraction' and is sometimes called D&X. There are times when this medical proceedure is required and is the most appropriate medical proceedure available.

But it is so much easier to argue emotion over reason.


----------



## michaeledward

Adept said:
			
		

> After what they do to their captives, you'll forgive me if I find it hard to get my panties in a twist over this.


And what if they are not doing it 'captives'? What if these actions are taking place against residents of the United States in prisons in New Jersey? Would that get your panties in a twist?

What if the people being attacked by dogs and beaten by guards were your neighbors? 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19287&highlight=Abu+Ghraib

When does it become unacceptable?


----------



## Adept

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> In a position of complete hypocrisy, if we are to turn around and torture our prisoners.


 I agree. Recreational torture is a no-no. It makes the job of the military that much harder. That is why it bothers me, not because of the human rights of the prisoners.



> As a more substantial response, my point was that it's possible to be concerned and argue (since that's all we're doing right now) against BOTH country's torturing prisoners, instead of deciding one or the other. I think both are wrong, and am willing to argue so.


 But are both _equally_ wrong, or is one worse than the other? Is one an isolated incident, while the other is very common? Was anyone killed deliberately in AG, and if they were, was it a common event? To me, getting worked up about the 'abuse' of iraqi prisoners is like looking at the rate of automotive accidents and focusing on the upholstery of the cars involved. It's not the important part of the picture.



> Besides, walrus' need friends, too. :lol:


 

 Yes, yes they do.



> So because there are varying, and oftentimes opposing, standards of right and wrong, all are equally valid and should therefore not be looked towards for making decisions?


 Bingo. Right and wrong are like beauty and ugly. You might consider it wrong to racially discriminate, and the KKK do not. Which of you can point to a commonly accepted, objective list of all things,which categorises racial discrimination either way? 

 Neither of you. No such list exists. There is no right and wrong, only opinions. Some opinions are held by more people than others, or held by the people otherwise in power, and thus they become arbitrary social standards of right and wrong. Even looking at our own (western) society in the last few hundred years reveals large shifts in the social perception of right and wrong. It was considered wrong for women to vote. It was right to own slaves. It was right to beat your wife with a stick. It was wrong for women to reveal ankles in public. It was right to stab your neighbour at a meal, as long as you used a knife. There is no huge list that complies the moral weight of each act on the planet for all time. The changing social values preclude it.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Once again, and inaccurate and incomplete description of a legitimate medical procedure from someone with, apparently, incomplete knowledge.
> 
> To process you are describing is correctly termed 'Intact Dilation and Extraction' and is sometimes called D&X. There are times when this medical proceedure is required and is the most appropriate medical proceedure available.


 This is not a debate about the specific morality of abortions of any stripe. It is a point raised to illustrate differing moral standards around the globe. Whether or not the procedure is the most appropriate or not does not change what people think of it. In fact, that rather highlights my point. At times, it may be considered the most appropriate medical procedure. Just like, at times, people in African nations consider it the most appropriate procedure to muilate the genitals of young girls to 'prepare' them for marriage.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> No, the actions at abu Ghraib were out of order because they were in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. May I direct you here for reference.


 _[font=Arial,Helvetica]Article 4[/font]_ 

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present  Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have  fallen into the power of the enemy:[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the  conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such  armed forces.[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]2. Members of other militias and members of other  volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to  a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if  this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,  including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following  conditions:[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica](a) That of being commanded by a person  responsible for his subordinates;[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica](b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign  recognizable at a distance;[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica](c) That of carrying arms openly;[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica](d) That of conducting their operations in  accordance with the laws and customs of war.[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]3. Members of regular armed forces who profess  allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining  Power.[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without  actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft  crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of  services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they  have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who  shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed  model.[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and  apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the  Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under  any other provisions of international law.[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on  the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading  forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,  provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]B. The following shall likewise be treated as  prisoners of war under the present Convention:[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the  armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it  necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has  originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory  it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt  to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat,  or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to  internment.[/font]  

 [font=Arial,Helvetica]2. The persons belonging to one of the categories  enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or  non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to  intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable  treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of  Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic  relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or  non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power.  Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these  persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a  Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the  functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic  and consular usage and treaties.[/font]  

 As you can see, the insurgents captured in Iraq are, for the most part, NOT prisoners of war at all, and are not protected by the geneva convention.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Not all the prisoners in Abu Ghraib at the time of the abuse incident are insurgents.  Some are there for civil crimes.  

Your rationale or defense for abusing them?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Actually, I believe they fall into these areas:


> 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
> 
> 2. Members of other *militias* and members of other volunteer corps, including those of *organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict* and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
> 
> ..
> (c) That of carrying arms openly;
> ..


----------



## Adept

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe they fall into these areas:


 Given that the passage requires a fulfilment of all the conditions, no they do not. Not only do they NOT carry arms openly (manufacture of IEDs and car bombing hardly count) but they most certainly do not have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a difference, and are not conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of the 'war'.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Not all the prisoners in Abu Ghraib at the time of the abuse incident are insurgents. Some are there for civil crimes.
> 
> Your rationale or defense for abusing them?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Steve


 I'm not trying to defend the actions of the soldiers at AG. I'm saying that the abuse those prisoners suffered was of a minimal level, and not worth my time being concerned about.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Whew. One was wondering when we'd get rid of those tired, worn-out religious principles about decency, as well as those pesky martial arts ideas about avoiding violence, treating people decently, and protecting the weak and helpless. 

One is also glad to see that in the New America, that whole wacky thing about living in a country that stood for something better than the way They did things, that was indeed Lincoln's "last, best hope," has all been swept away.

One can only suggest that we do unto you what was done to helpless prisoners, and then recheck this whole triviality argument. By the way, we've also shot down airliners, machine gun and rocketed weddings and school buses filled with kids. Waddya think--triviality, or just an oopsie or two?

At what point is it, pray tell, that torture becomes significant? At what point is it that you begin to at least wonder about your government devising the theory and practice of torture, getting tame lawyers and judges to OK it, and then going out and actually employing torture--oh, silly me, "duress,"--as a considered, settled policy?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

There is what the law states, and what is 'right'.  The law may allow for certain actions, but that still doesn't make it right to actually perform those actions.

As to Lincoln, he would have approved of those actions..the same way he approved of the destruction against Southern Civilians during and after the US civil war.  But that is another debate.


----------



## Adept

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Whew. One was wondering when we'd get rid of those tired, worn-out religious principles about decency, as well as those pesky martial arts ideas about avoiding violence, treating people decently, and protecting the weak and helpless.


 If you've got a point to make, then dont beat about the bush with it. I'm not sure what your points are in this paragraph. Religion begets decency? All people deserve decent treatment and only martial artists can deliver it? Where are you going with this?



> One can only suggest that we do unto you what was done to helpless prisoners, and then recheck this whole triviality argument.


 If I was in the situation those prisoners were in, I would consider it fair play. I would not have my side behead their prisoners and then expect decent treatment at the hands of my enemies. Especially when I refuse to play by the rules of war in the first place.



> By the way, we've also shot down airliners, machine gun and rocketed weddings and school buses filled with kids. Waddya think--triviality, or just an oopsie or two?


 This is war. Mistakes happen. What is your point? Better their civilians than our troops.



> At what point is it, pray tell, that torture becomes significant? At what point is it that you begin to at least wonder about your government devising the theory and practice of torture, getting tame lawyers and judges to OK it, and then going out and actually employing torture--oh, silly me, "duress,"--as a considered, settled policy?


 Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests. In the case of torture, this doesnt take much, since graphic images leaked to the press cause massive unrest in the voting populace at home, the troops at war, and the population of the enemy.


----------



## Adept

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> There is what the law states, and what is 'right'. The law may allow for certain actions, but that still doesn't make it right to actually perform those actions.


 Agreed. I would continue that each person must decide, individually, what they consider to be right. Even if that choice is just to adhere to someone elses pre-made decisions (in the case of societal or religious codes, for example).


----------



## RandomPhantom700

> In the case of torture, this doesnt take much, since graphic images leaked to the press cause massive unrest in the voting populace at home, the troops at war, and the population of the enemy.


Gee, I wonder why that would be? Could it be that the use of torture to extract information is stupid, wrong, and completely hypocritical of a country that's trying to portray itself as a home for civil rights? Or are we no longer doing that?


----------



## RandomPhantom700

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Whew. One was wondering when we'd get rid of those tired, worn-out religious principles about decency, as well as those pesky martial arts ideas about avoiding violence, treating people decently, and protecting the weak and helpless.


I've asked you before, I'll ask you again, and I'm sure you'll ignore me again like before, but why the hell do you keep saying "one" rather than, oh I don't know, "I"?

Completely off topic, but....oh who cares.


----------



## michaeledward

Adept said:
			
		

> Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests.


Personally, I find there is just so much, that is so wrong with your analysis of the situation, that it is terrifying. 

How many photos of female American Soldiers sexually humiliating, degrading and abusing male Iraqi detainees do you think it will take to turn the *1 Billion* faithful Muslems' against the 280 million American citizens? Regardless of how many mosque's we don't bomb?

Let us assume the Billion Hindu's on the planet keep a neutral position (fat chance), the 39 athiests on the planet turn back to their Carl Sagan texts, that the 500 million Christians in Europe stay pre-occupied with their secular interests, and that the Pope, in his infirmaty, keeps the South American Catholics quietly disapproving of the United States actions.

Even then ... let's review ... best case 4.75 Billion people sit on the sidelines watching; 1 Billion Muslems' 280 Million Americans. 

Don't you think that 1 photograph will 'impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests?' Are you familiar with Lt Colonel Custer? 

I do. This is a disaster in the making. Fortuneately, the new United States Attorney General (nominee) is strongly in favor of torture, signed the memos that informed the president such actions would be legal. Good Grief.

Just a note to Robert ... I think the issue is Robert, we lost.  But, I'm still with you.

Mike


----------



## Adept

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Gee, I wonder why that would be? Could it be that the use of torture to extract information is stupid, wrong, and completely hypocritical of a country that's trying to portray itself as a home for civil rights?


 The funny thing about hypocrites; they are still right. Not really relevant, but there it is.

 It stirs up such emotion because its graphic. Thats all, really. Images like that are easily manipulated (if such is necessary) by the relevant media. Any anti-war movements seize them and parade them around with little or no actual care for the 'victims of abuse'.

 The morality of the use of 'torture' (and I still dont see much of what happened at AG as torture) to extract information is relevant to the level and accuracy of the information extracted. If you save the lives of ten people, is it worth pulling the fingernails from one person? Is it worth flaying ten men alive to save the lives of one thousand?

 The problem is the quality of the information extracted under torture is often lacking. Things like sleep deprivation, non-physical threats, mental 'duress' as it was called before, are much more effective. They break down the mental barriers a person might erect and you get much better intel.



> Or are we no longer doing that?


 We were never doing that. Strip away all the hubris and political posturing, and the only reason a country ever goes to war is to protect its interests.


----------



## Adept

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How many photos of female American Soldiers sexually humiliating, degrading and abusing male Iraqi detainees do you think it will take to turn the *1 Billion* faithful Muslems' against the 280 million American citizens? Regardless of how many mosque's we don't bomb?


 If it came to a racial war, you can guarantee the western powers would be on the winning side. 1 billion muslims armed with outdated equipment, no significant airforce or navy, no ICBMs, and no longer with the protection of being 'civilians'. In one fell swoop we could glass the entire middle east into non-existance. The US could, and would, round up every muslim in its borders and summarily execute them. Once you dont have to sort the terrorist from the civilian, it becomes real easy. You just kill them all. The western powers have the means and we assume that in such a scenario, the will also.

 However, these photos have been circulating for some time. They clearly have *not* motivated the entire muslim population into militancy, nor *will* they in the forseeable future. 



> Don't you think that 1 photograph will 'impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests?' Are you familiar with Lt Colonel Custer?


 Custer of little big horn fame? Its not an area I'm familiar with. How does it relate to the issue at hand?



> I do. This is a disaster in the making. Fortuneately, the new United States Attorney General (nominee) is strongly in favor of torture, signed the memos that informed the president such actions would be legal. Good Grief.


 Its a disaster that has come and gone, with (relatively) minor repurcussions.

 I will take the time now to clarify my post. I do *NOT* advocate a race war of any degree. Far too many innocent people would die, and the world would change dramatically as a result.

 I do *NOT* approve of the 'abuse' of the prisoners at AG. As you have stated, and I have agreed, the political fallout from this event had the potential to be huge. Thankfully it wasnt.


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. One grew tired of repeated personal attacks and mean-spirited insults, as well as constant silly diagnoses, and chose a more-impersonal viewpoint as well as a more-imperial and pseudo-objective tone. 

2. One's point in reference to moral standards in religion and martial arts was that those espousing moral standards in religion and in martial arts should perhaps at times try to live up to them, no matter how inconvenient such standards appear to be in the short run. Indeed, one was suggesting that perhaps the most-cogent reason for principles is this: abandoning principles in the name of expediency is damaging not merely to the "enemy," but to oneself. 

3. Good to see old Uncle Joe Stalin's logic--you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs--adopted by Americans. Good to see that air attacks on weddings can be written off as the sort of oopsies that Happen in War.

4. Marvellous to see the old mistake--means are justified by ends--deployed once again. One would worry about finding common moral ground with, say, the Nazis, but wotthell. 

5. The essential error committed in the name of pragmatism is this: short term military advantages gained by torture--and make no mistake; "duress," and all the rest are mere euphemisms and what is under discussion is in fact torture as defined not merely by the UN, but by our own American codes of justice including the UCMJ--are always, always, always, more than outweighted by a) the corrupting effect upon one's own troops, b) the unreliability of such information, c) the creation of anger in the civilian population. 

6. We tried all this stuff in Vietnam. How'd that work out for us? The French played these games in Vietnam and Algeria, which is why France still has all its overseas colonies...oops, wait, forgot. They don't. The Japanese did all this and worse in WWII...how'd that go? And on, and on, back through history, back through the murdering bastard Crusaders who cheerfully slaughtered Christians when they couldn't get Muslims... apparently, those who remember the past have now started arguing for cheerfully repeating its mistakes. Why even bother with the work of forgetting, when we can simply rationalize?

7. Perhaps a re-viewing of Bruce Lee's movies is in order. Why? Well, again and again, and again, Lee's movies tell viewers that might does not make right, that making a buck is inferior to fighting for the weak and helpless, that mere technique always loses out to a good heart....but then, a martial artist should know already what's wrong with the claim that, "Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests."

8. Always good to see, "human nature," cited as the last best defense of evil, the ultimate excuse for whatever rottenness we come up with...including swaggering assertions of being able to nuke 'em all, papered over with a good thumpin' denegation. As in claiming that, "I do NOT advocate a race war of any degree...I do NOT approve of the 'abuse' of the prisoners at AG," while of course, on the other hand, "The morality of the use of 'torture' (and I still dont see much of what happened at AG as torture) to extract information is relevant to the level and accuracy of the information extracted," and that's all that counts.

9. Used, "we," because one suspects that all of us are equally guilty, on some level, of these same arguments and logics. The hope of religion, and the hope of martial arts, is that there are better ways.


----------



## Adept

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. One's point in reference to moral standards in religion and martial arts was that those espousing moral standards in religion and in martial arts should perhaps at times try to live up to them, no matter how inconvenient such standards appear to be in the short run. Indeed, one was suggesting that perhaps the most-cogent reason for principles is this: abandoning principles in the name of expediency is damaging not merely to the "enemy," but to oneself.


 I have never outlined my own moral guides here for perusal, as I'm sure the soldiers at AG havent. How relevant is this? The west is secular, not religious, and the moral standards in MA I find to be so much rhetoric.



> 3. Good to see old Uncle Joe Stalin's logic--you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs--adopted by Americans. Good to see that air attacks on weddings can be written off as the sort of oopsies that Happen in War.


 Just because a bad man said it, doesnt make it a lie. In war, mistkaes happen. That is all there is to it. We dont go about deliberately bombing weddings and such. The only alternative is to never attack anythig for fear of making a mistake. I'm sure you can see how practical that would be during an armed conflict.



> 4. Marvellous to see the old mistake--means are justified by ends--deployed once again. One would worry about finding common moral ground with, say, the Nazis, but wotthell.


 One of the least understood phrases in history. Of _COURSE_ the ends justify the means. They are the only thing that ever can. Lets take a look at a few simple examples:

 1 - Breaking into a car is bad. But it is justified if a baby has been locked inside on a hot day.

 2 - Hurting someone is bad. But it is justified if it is self defense or the defense of another.

 3 - Killing pets is bad. But it is justified if the pet is suffering from a terminal problem.

 What the phrase you quoted above _MEANS_ to say is "The ends do not justify ANY means". to whit, if a mugger comes at you on the street, you cannot knock him unconscious, chain-saw his legs off and then hunt down his family. The ends DO justify the means, but they do not justify ANY means.



> 5. The essential error committed in the name of pragmatism is this: short term military advantages gained by torture--and make no mistake; "duress," and all the rest are mere euphemisms and what is under discussion is in fact torture as defined not merely by the UN, but by our own American codes of justice including the UCMJ--are always, always, always, more than outweighted by a) the corrupting effect upon one's own troops, b) the unreliability of such information, c) the creation of anger in the civilian population.


 I agree whoelheartedly. When the level and quality of information is too poor, and the negative impacts on the political siutation too great, then torture is a negative thing. Obviously the 'abuse' dealt out at AG was not done with an eye to gathering intel, and the impact on the political situation could have been massive. Thus I disapprove.

[snip irrelevant points about past mistakes]



> 7. Perhaps a re-viewing of Bruce Lee's movies is in order. Why? Well, again and again, and again, Lee's movies tell viewers that might does not make right, that making a buck is inferior to fighting for the weak and helpless, that mere technique always loses out to a good heart....but then, a martial artist should know already what's wrong with the claim that, "Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests."


 Aye aye aye! What on earth are you talking about?! First note - Movies are not reality. Second note - Most of Bruce's movies revolved around technical and physical superiority. He was always the 'good' guy because that is what sells movies. I could say the same thing about the TMNT movies, or about Voltron, or Starwars...

 Why dont you spell out for me exactly what is wrong with the claim that "Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests."



> 8. Always good to see, "human nature," cited as the last best defense of evil, the ultimate excuse for whatever rottenness we come up with...including swaggering assertions of being able to nuke 'em all, papered over with a good thumpin' denegation.


 I can only assume you refer to me when using the word 'evil' in your above post. How am I using human nature to defend my position?



> As in claiming that, "I do NOT advocate a race war of any degree...I do NOT approve of the 'abuse' of the prisoners at AG," while of course, on the other hand, "The morality of the use of 'torture' (and I still dont see much of what happened at AG as torture) to extract information is relevant to the level and accuracy of the information extracted," and that's all that counts.


 That is all that counts, for me. There was no information extracted, and massive potential for harm. Why should I approve of that? I still dont view the treatment of those prisoners as abuse. Not when compared to the treatment of western prisoners in Iraq.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> I still dont view the treatment of those prisoners as abuse. Not when compared to the treatment of western prisoners in Iraq.


 When is abuse or torture relative?


----------



## Adept

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> When is abuse or torture relative?


 Everything is morally relative. This thread is a perfect example, really. I consider the abuse suffered at AG to be of a light nature. Others consider it to be very, very serious and wrong. Who among us can claim moral superiority and tell the other side they are wrong, just because we say so?

 It is best to let everyone have their opinion, and not try to tell others how to think.


----------



## Tgace

Adept said:
			
		

> Everything is morally relative. This thread is a perfect example, really. I consider the abuse suffered at AG to be of a light nature. Others consider it to be very, very serious and wrong. Who among us can claim moral superiority and tell the other side they are wrong, just because we say so?
> 
> It is best to let everyone have their opinion, and not try to tell others how to think.


I dont know if I can entirely agree with that. At some point we have to decide that something is "wrong". Relativism is a cheap way to sublimate a lot of evil stuff. Who were we to say Hitler was "wrong".....

We cant tell others what "to think" but we should stand by what we belive to be right and fight what we believe to be wrong. Anybody of signifigance does that. The world is full of a lot of wishy washy nobodies who never made a stand on anything.....


----------



## rmcrobertson

I agree with "tgrace;" there are indeed some moral choices which are not relative, but absolute. We would probably reach that conclusion by different routes--but the agreement remains.

One is a bit shocked to see someone of a conservative/right-wing political bent adopting precisely the notion of complete moral relativism that is so often attributed to leftists. But then, he's made his moral principles quite clear: anything is justified in terms of expediency and personal interest. Indeed, the moral precepts of martial arts are to him a bunch hot air. Odd, given that whatever else Bruce Lee's films make clear, it is that violence--and victory--always rest upon decency, upon honor, upon choosing the morally-correct side.

It's a pity to see folks adopting one of the central tenets of modern capitalism--only productivity matters, as though they'd thought it up as a, "liberating," choice. No doubt he will feel that his are not so much, "principles," as they are simple acceptances of an imaginary "Nature," and an invented, "reality."

One sees that there's a little cherry-picking of discourse: it was not said that torture was wrong merely because it didn't work. (Of course, if one argues that torture is a) OK, and b) useless, then one has just adopted the the rather peculiar position of saying that sadism is perfectly OK.) It was also noted that torture has, inevitably, a corrupting effect upon torturers and their society. 

If one chooses to espouse the notion that torture is perfectly OK provided it works, and does not "damage the national interests," or whatever other ugly rationalization for sadism as national policy seems appropriate, well, all that can be said is, congrats on rediscovering the same sort of evil--and that is exactly the right word--that has animated far too many of the worst moments in human history.

Regrettably, this country has gone around deliberately bombing civilians on more than one occasion in the last century or so. Try an Internet search on the following topics: "Colonel Chivington," "Dresden;" "Tokyo Fire Raids, 1944," "Bach Mai Hospital," "Christmas bombings, Vietnam," and a few others. No doubt you will simply rationalize them away as regrettable military necessities. But others of us prefer Freeman Dyson's analysis of the relationships between mass bombing and industrial productivity to illusions. 

"Intel."  Ah, the deployment of pseudo-technical language in support of torture! One recommends the first chapter of Paul Fussell, "The Great War and Modern Memory." But then too, the explicit justification offered by our government and part of our military was that "physical coercion," at Guantanamo, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, was essential to collecting intelligence. Perhaps it would be as well to read up on the arguments of one's own side, before attempting to justify them...

As for the claim that it's all just differences of opinions, well, congrats on being so realistic that dumping every moral tenet seems reasonable. To quote the American teacher Stanley Fish, "Students ought to be told to leave their opinions at home when they start college."

Let me try and answer your question: torture is wrong because a) it never really works; b) it antagonizes the attacked population; c) it corrupts the torturers and their society; d) it violates all the moral rules there are; e) it is against the explicit, repeatedly-stated positions of this country as well as the Geneva Accords. Note: neither our Constitution nor the Hague accords offer exceptions for the fifth-graders' excuses of, "Hey, THEY did it first!!"

Suggestion: find out who Telford Taylor was. Look up his brilliant, ringing words on what was wrong with the Nazis' ideas about torture and murder in the name of expediency. You live in a good country that has always had flashes of greatness. Would you like to know more?

Incidentally, it might be interesting to consider whether a scared, nineteen-year old soldier stuck out in the middle of the damn desert and under constant threat is as morally-culpable as the fat cats who sent them there.


----------



## Adept

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dont know if I can entirely agree with that. At some point we have to decide that something is "wrong". Relativism is a cheap way to sublimate a lot of evil stuff. Who were we to say Hitler was "wrong".....


 Of course we have to decide what is wrong. But we should also remember that it is a personal choice. We can decide what we think is wrong, but should always bear in mind that other people will decide differently. We had no authority to tell Hitler he was wrong. We decided that he was, and made a stand, but there is no objective omniscient third party to verify our claims that we were 'right'.



> We cant tell others what "to think" but we should stand by what we belive to be right and fight what we believe to be wrong. Anybody of signifigance does that. The world is full of a lot of wishy washy nobodies who never made a stand on anything.....


 I agree completely.


----------



## Adept

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> there are indeed some moral choices which are not relative, but absolute.


 Such as?



> One is a bit shocked to see someone of a conservative/right-wing political bent adopting precisely the notion of complete moral relativism that is so often attributed to leftists.


 I wouldn't call myself right wing or conservative. I hold some right wing views, and some left wing views.



> But then, he's made his moral principles quite clear: anything is justified in terms of expediency and personal interest.


 Not quite. Anything is justified, provided it achieves the desired goals. You are reading personal interest into that, which is not the case. Desired goals may be anything from saving lives, providing charity, defending myself or another, finding the remote control, anything. As a matter of fact, an honest self evaluation will reveal the same tendencies in your own moral and ethical codes. One only does that which pleases them. Please, take the time to analyze that beyond its obviously selfish approach. That which pleases you. Does helping a friend please you? Being nice to a stranger? Cleaning the house? Giving a gift? Spending time with friends? We do not choose the least pleasing option. Indeed, it is not possible to do so. Everyone has a reason for their actions, no matter how inexplicable they may seem.



> Indeed, the moral precepts of martial arts are to him a bunch hot air.


 Not at all. And I'll ask you to refrain from character attacks if you please. Moral codes are the things I use to decide personally what is right and wrong. I simply do not arrogantly assume that my morals should be those of everyone else.



> Odd, given that whatever else Bruce Lee's films make clear, it is that violence--and victory--always rest upon decency, upon honor, upon choosing the morally-correct side.


 Actually, they usually revolve around pride and revenge. My style is better than your style, you beat up my school first...



> Regrettably, this country has gone around deliberately bombing civilians on more than one occasion in the last century or so. Try an Internet search on the following topics: "Colonel Chivington," "Dresden;" "Tokyo Fire Raids, 1944," "Bach Mai Hospital," "Christmas bombings, Vietnam," and a few others. No doubt you will simply rationalize them away as regrettable military necessities. But others of us prefer Freeman Dyson's analysis of the relationships between mass bombing and industrial productivity to illusions.


 In the past, yes it has. This does not mean it happens today. In the past, the US waged war on the native americans. Times change and the morals of today are not those of yesterday. What is your point? The accidental bombing of civilian targets in Iraq is not really an accident at all? The US likes to spend thousands of dollars in munitions and man hours to alienate the civilian populace of a country it occupies? It was a mistake. Maybe you want to play it into some kind of under-cover conspiracy, but I would consider such a course of action to be foolish.



> "Intel."  Ah, the deployment of pseudo-technical language in support of torture!


 Or perhaps it is simply shorter than the longhand 'Intelligence'. 



> But then too, the explicit justification offered by our government and part of our military was that "physical coercion," at Guantanamo, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, was essential to collecting intelligence. Perhaps it would be as well to read up on the arguments of one's own side, before attempting to justify them...


 When it works, then it works. But I was discussing the specific actions of abuse at Abu Ghraib, not legitimate interrogation tactics.



> As for the claim that it's all just differences of opinions, well, congrats on being so realistic that dumping every moral tenet seems reasonable.


 You are reading too much into my posts. I DO have my own morals, which I try my best to live by. They are very likely different to yours, and I am also not so conceited as to assume everyone should hold similar moral views.



> Let me try and answer your question: torture is wrong because a) it never really works; b) it antagonizes the attacked population; c) it corrupts the torturers and their society; d) it violates all the moral rules there are; e) it is against the explicit, repeatedly-stated positions of this country as well as the Geneva Accords. Note: neither our Constitution nor the Hague accords offer exceptions for the fifth-graders' excuses of, "Hey, THEY did it first!!"


 So, torture is wrong when it fulfills any number of the above requirements. Lets take a hypotheitcal situation here;

 You have captured a group of insurgents in Iraq. Discovered with them was sensitive intelligence that indicates a large scale serious attack on US forces within the next 48 hours. You dont know when, and you dont know where, and you dont know how. This attack could kill hundreds of soldiers. If you take these insurgents into a small back room and use the most effective methods possible (chemical treatment, psychological torture, physical torture, I'm not an expert on the matter so I dont know what would work), to extract the necessary information to save the lives of your soldiers, is that wrong? Or to be more precise, is it _more_ wrong than letting the soldiers be killed?

 To recap:

 1 - This is likely to extract information of a good quality.

 2 - The attacked population will never know. They will not be antagonised.

 3 - This is unlikely to corrupt the people involved. State sanctioned executioners do not become mass murderers, nor does it corrupt the country in question, it is an isolated incident.

 4 - It is not against the morals of the torturers, since it is the lesser of two evils.

 5 - It is not against the Geneva accords. It is likely still illegal as we've seen at AG, but not a war crime.

 Again, most of the prisoners at AG are not prisoners of war. While the actions taken are most likely illegal, they are not against the Geneva convention.

Is it still wrong to torture someone if it leads to saving more lives? What if torture could have prevented or minimsed the 9/11 attacks? Are the lives of a few terrorists worth more than 3,000 civilians?


----------



## rmcrobertson

Good Lord. You're not actually reading what's written, are you? 

Among other indicators, you might try re-reading the part in which there was an explanation of the pronoun, "we," which went like this: "{One} Used, "we," because one suspects that all of us are equally guilty, on some level, of these same arguments and logics. The hope of religion, and the hope of martial arts, is that there are better ways." It might've been better if you'd read carefully before writing, "As a matter of fact, an honest self evaluation will reveal the same tendencies in your own moral and ethical codes," but now will do. 

The examples and reasonings you give are rather well summarized by your claims that, "Anything is justified, provided it achieves the desired goals," together with, "We had no authority to tell Hitler he was wrong. We decided that he was, and made a stand, but there is no objective omniscient third party to verify our claims that we were 'right'." 

It isn't merely that this is a....let's just say absolutist rejection of every moral code there is, including those of all martial arts. It's that this sort of absurd distortion of what is sometimes mistakenly read as the "situational ethics," arguments of post-modern and deconstructive philosophy legitimates absolutely any and all behavior, including that of Hitler. After all, he only wanted a happy human race and a unified world.

The moral examples given are equally out of whack. To cite only the two most obvious illogicalities. a) arguing that "necessary," torture is perfectly in agreement with the moral codes of American soldiers, "because it is the lesser of two evils," is an insult to those soldiers. (Find out who Ronald H. Ridenour is, and get back to us.). b) Arguing that, "State sanctioned executioners do not become mass murderers, nor does it corrupt the country in question, it is an isolated incident," presumes that this will only happen once and rests on obvious ignorance of history. (Find out who Reynhard Heydrich was, and get back to us.)

As for the arguments that the only Bad Things our military and politicians ever did in our names Were A Long Time Ago, find out a bit about Ollie North's career and get back to us. 

Torture violates both the letter and spirit of the Geneva Accords, as well as the UCMJ. Ask the poor stupid bastards who are presently on trial. And the argument  that it's all OK because "they," were Enemy Combatants! If anything betrays an utter naivete about accepting what the Powers That Be say, however much one pretends to cynicism and worldly pragmatism...

It's Freud's bucket joke, once more: Can I have back the bucket you borrowed? Well, a) I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back last wekk, and anyway it had a hole in the bottom when you loaned it to me.


----------



## Adept

For the purposes of discussion, I shall snip irrelevant text from your post.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> [snip]
> 
> arguing that "necessary," torture is perfectly in agreement with the moral codes of American soldiers, "because it is the lesser of two evils," is an insult to those soldiers.


 I disagree. It is simply an observation. When faced with a difficult choice, one should endeavour to choose the less 'evil' choice. How is this insulting?



> [snip]
> 
> Arguing that, "State sanctioned executioners do not become mass murderers, nor does it corrupt the country in question, it is an isolated incident," presumes that this will only happen once and rests on obvious ignorance of history.


 It was a hypothetical siutation. Which, by the by, you ignored in terms of counter-arguments.



> As for the arguments that the only Bad Things our military and politicians ever did in our names Were A Long Time Ago, find out a bit about Ollie North's career and get back to us.


 The US military does not deliberately go out of its way to bomb lower class weddings in third world countries. This might be hard for you to comprehend, since you seem to be hanging on to this point for grim death. Why would they? Why would the crusades (of all inane examples, really) be an indicator of the modern military deliberately bombing a wedding?

Well, you had a long post there. Too bad most of it was irrelevant rhetoric.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Russert:* Let me show you a picture of a United States soldier holding an Iraqi prisoner by a dog leash.* That, too, is seen around the world.* This morning, Seymour Hersh reports, "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq.* ...* According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operations, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."

Your reaction.

Powell:* I haven't read the article and I don't know anything about the substance of the article.* I've just seen a quick summary of it, so I will have to yield to the Defense Department to respond.* And I think the initial response from the Defense Department is that there is no substance to the article, but I will have to yield to the Defense Department to handle any further comment, Tim.

Russert:* But, Mr. Secretary, Newsweek reports that on January 25, 2002, the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, wrote a memo to your department which said, "In my judgment, this new paradigm of terrorism renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitation on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions, the Geneva Accords."* And it is reported that you hit the roof when you saw that memo to scale back, in effect, on the rules governing the treatment of prisoners.* Is that accurate?

Powell:* I don't recall the specific memo and I wouldn't comment on the specific memo without rereading it again.* But I think I have always said that the Geneva Accord is an important standard in international law, and we have to comply with it, either by the letter, if it's appropriate to those individuals in our custody that they are really directly under the Geneva Convention, or if they're illegal non-combatants and not directly under the convention, we should treat them nevertheless in a humane manner in accordance with what is expected of us by international law and the Geneva Convention.

Russert:* Mr. Secretary, you met with the International Red Cross on January 15.* In February, they released their report which said that, amongst the other allegations, male prisoners were forced to wear women's underwear; prisoners were beaten by coalition forces, in one case leading to death; coalition forces firing on unarmed prisoners.* And then in May, you and others in the administration said you were "shocked" by the allegations about U.S. forces' treatment of Iraqi prisoners.* Didn't you have a heads-up on this whole problem?

Powell:* In January, when I met with the head of the International Committee for the Red Cross, Mr. Kellenberger, he said to me that a report would be coming and it would outline some serious problems with respect to the treatment of prisoners in Iraq.* We were aware of that within the administration.* He also met with Dr. Rice and with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

And then in early February, the actual report was presented to our authorities out in Baghdad, both to Ambassador Bremer's office and to General Sanchez's office.* By then, of course, an investigation was already under way as a result of a soldier coming forward in the middle of January and outlining specific cases of abuse, and so an investigation was well under way by time the report was made available in February to the command.* I first saw the report in March when it was made available eventually to us in Washington.

Russert:* But you're a military man.* Do you believe that national reservists would go to Baghdad with hoods or dog leashes and actually undertake that kind of activity without it being devised by someone higher up?

Powell:* I wouldn't have believed that any American soldiers would have done any such thing, either on their own volition or even if someone higher up had told them.* I'm not aware of anybody higher up telling them.* But that's why Secretary Rumsfeld has commissioned all of these inquiries to get to the bottom of it.

What these individuals did was wrong, was against rules and regulations.* It was against anything they should have learned in their home, in their community, in their upbringing.* So we have a terrible collapse of order that took place in that prison cell block.* Let's not use this to contaminate the wonderful work being done by tens of thousands of other young American soldiers in Iraq.* We'll get to the bottom of this.* Justice will be served.

The command responded promptly.* Court-martials are already scheduled.* And I know that the president wants to make sure that we follow the chain of accountability up to see if there was anybody above these soldiers who knew what was going on, or in any way created a command climate in which such activities might in some bizarre way be found acceptable.* They were not acceptable in any way.* And one soldier stood up and said, "I know this is wrong," reported it to his chain of command, and the chain of command responded the very next day with the launching of an investigation that became the General Taguba investigation.

There is an excellent legal opinion from the Congressional Legal Service downloadable at    http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32395.pdf 

Sexual torture. Beating prisoners to death. Firing on unarmed prisoners. Guess one's gonna have to go with what our prospective Attorney General refers to as the, "quaint," provisions of the Geneva Accords. Or with what a know-nothing veteran like Colin Powell has to say.

Eeew, gross, dude.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

> Not at all. And I'll ask you to refrain from character attacks if you please. Moral codes are the things I use to decide personally what is right and wrong. I simply do not arrogantly assume that my morals should be those of everyone else.


Then please explain what you meant by "the moral standards in MA I find to be so much rhetoric."

As for accuracy of torture as a means of finding out information, what the hell happens if, in desperation, the tortured prisoner lies?  In your example, he could simply say the attack's gonna hit New York instead of Atlanta, and we'd be completely clueless until it's too late.  At best, torture only guarantees that the victim will give a response.


----------



## Adept

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operations, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."
> 
> Your reaction.


 My first reaction is that not enough information is revealed to judge the responsibility of the Pentagon. What guidelines were in place? Were said guidelines violated? Has the nature and goal of this program been undeniably verified? Were any results garnered? Could results have been reasonably expected? Was the program developed with the aid of qualified medical and psychological practitioners?

 On a related note - I do not consider sexual humiliation to be serious abuse in this case, and I would need to see the operational definition of physical coercion before I could comment on its use. I doubt they mean flaying alive and tearing out fingernails, however.



> Sexual torture. Beating prisoners to death. Firing on unarmed prisoners. Guess one's gonna have to go with what our prospective Attorney General refers to as the, "quaint," provisions of the Geneva Accords. Or with what a know-nothing veteran like Colin Powell has to say.


 I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The actions at AG were regretable. Once, a prisoner was beaten, which resulted in his death. Some prisoners were made to wear womens underwear (oh the horror). The actions may or may not have been initiated deliberately by the military command. Like I said at the start, given what they do to our prisoners, I find it hard to care  that we do this to an isolated few of theirs. It happened, it was regretable, and now its past.


----------



## Adept

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Then please explain what you meant by "the moral standards in MA I find to be so much rhetoric."


 Depending on the art you get things from "Violence is always wrong" to "Always respect your parents" "Always respect your teacher" "Uphold the laws of the country and always be courteous"

 I give respect to those I feel deserve it. I obey the laws I feel are just, or those I fear the penalty for. I live my life as I see fit, not some warrior living hundreds of years ago on the opposite side of the globe.



> As for accuracy of torture as a means of finding out information, what the hell happens if, in desperation, the tortured prisoner lies? In your example, he could simply say the attack's gonna hit New York instead of Atlanta, and we'd be completely clueless until it's too late. At best, torture only guarantees that the victim will give a response.


 Chemical sweating and sleep deprivation produce more reliable results than burning someones eyes with a hot poker. You might get wrong information, but what if you get the right information? What if it _does_ save those hundreds of lives? You just dont know. Which risk will you take? I dont think it is fair to say torture is always wrong. It is fair, IMHO to say it is often counter-productive, but it is not _ALWAYS_ wrong.


----------



## michaeledward

Adept said:
			
		

> It is fair, IMHO to say it is often counter-productive, but it is not _ALWAYS_ wrong.


However, at the current time, under current law, it is always illegal.

It seems to me also, that you are imposing your culture system and beliefs onto the detainees to determine the appropriateness of their response. 
"Ooo, they were made to wear womens' underwear ....or masturbate in front of each other and women ....Hell, in New Orleans people pay top dollar to see that." (no offense intended to New Orleansians).​However, much like North Americans' who can not concieve of canine meat as edible. If an American soldier was captured and forced to consume dog meat, many would find that abusive in the extreme. Or so I think.


----------



## Tgace

I agree, torture is wrong. Unlike a civil case though, I see no problem using info gained for military/intelligence purposes even if the soldiers involved are convicted. I wouldnt allow it to be used against the victim for incarceration purposes.


----------



## Adept

michaeledward said:
			
		

> However, at the current time, under current law, it is always illegal.


 And as Kaith hastened to point out earlier in the thread, the law does not always mirror morality. To whit, just because it is legal does not make it right, and just because it is illegal does not make it wrong.



> It seems to me also, that you are imposing your culture system and beliefs onto the detainees to determine the appropriateness of their response.


 To a certain extent, I suppose that is true. I have little time for religious fanatics of any stripe. "Oh, I can't eat pork or God will send me to hell!". But I'm more concerned with physical well being. Being made to wear womens underwear, or the threat of having a dog bite you, is hardly torture when compared to having your teeth pulled, or your eyes burned out.



> Or so I think.


 If I was captured by muslim extremists, I would consider myself very, very lucky to escape with only having had to eat a dog.


----------



## michaeledward

Adept said:
			
		

> It happened, it was regretable, and now its past.


While the events of Abu Ghraib did indeed happen in the past, and while it might be difficult to draw a direct line from that incident to this, it is not unreasonable to think that these two activities are in some way linked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6657943/



> JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia - Islamic militants threw explosives at the gate of the heavily guarded U.S. Consulate in Jiddah, then forced their way into the building, prompting a gunbattle in a bold assault that left seven people dead and several injured before the three-hour long crisis was brought under control.


The laws of unintended consequences are so difficult to predict.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Precisely because an Iraqi prisoner does not have the same background as an American or Aussie, being made to wear women's underwear, or being set upon by dogs, holds a great deal more symbolism and resultant psychological distress.

Since when did we get to be so noble that since we are not doing horrible physical things to people (blinding; beheading; electrocutions), we suddenly have the moral superiority?

Moral relativism is not simpatico with throwing away the Geneva Convention, I'm sorry.  We agreed to act in a certain way, and we didn't.

I would like to remind folks that as a general rule, torture does not "work" - if you damage a person enough, any information "extracted" may be totally useless.

It's morally abhorrent (relatively or absolutely), it's counterproductive to intelligence efforts, and it certainly has made international relations 1,000 times more difficult now.


----------



## rmcrobertson

One can agree that moral codes that do not rest on some concept of a Deity are difficult to justify, without throwing out the idea of any solid moral code whatsoever. And a repeat: the problem with this sort of, "whatever it takes to get the job done," because, "only the product matters," logic is that it is directly borrowed from the notions of Taylorism advanced throughout capitalism, which has always maintainted that only efficiency in the production of capital matters.

In other words, this, "pragmatic," and, "utilitarian," argument isn't nearly as independent-minded as the poster appears to believe. 

As for not goving a tarhootie what some long-dead warrior thinks, and trivializing the moral principles of martial arts--as well as misunderstanding Bruce Lee's movies--well, that's symptomatic of a basic issue in martial arts today, and probaably always has been. Folks fundamentally misunderstand what they're trying to lean: they think it's just technique, just power, just the ability to beat everybody else up. Whatever divisions may appear in the arts--or Lee's movies, for that matter--moral principles are reiterated again and again and again. In fact, the classic story arc for a martial arts movie depends on either a) someone merely powerful discovering the true art; b) someone discovering the true art and remembering their past just in time to beat the merely powerful, evil opponent.

And one must say that it is always interesting to see moral mission creep. First, Americans did no wrong. Then, the wrongs were trivial; now, yes indeed, beating a prisoner or so to death or shooting unarmed prisoners is bad, but just a few isolated incidents. All papered over with a claim that Any Other Bad Stuff was far in the past (1968? 1980s? 1991? long, long ago....vanished in history) or in fact never happened and even if it did it wasn't all that big a deal.

But hey, if you have no problems with your government devising, announcing on TV, and carrying out a systematic program of torture--and again, cut the crap; it's torture, even if we assume that "nothing worse," happened that what we know about for sure--what can one say? Other than congrats on rediscovering Hitler's logic...


----------



## Flatlander

Tgace said:
			
		

> I agree, torture is wrong. Unlike a civil case though, I see no problem using info gained for military/intelligence purposes even if the soldiers involved are convicted. I wouldnt allow it to be used against the victim for incarceration purposes.


The problem I have with that is that the information itself is corrupted.  How can you trust that information?  It's given under duress, and can quite possibly be exactly what you want to hear, regardless of fact value.


----------



## Adept

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Precisely because an Iraqi prisoner does not have the same background as an American or Aussie, being made to wear women's underwear, or being set upon by dogs, holds a great deal more symbolism and resultant psychological distress.


 And as I have made quite clear, their psychological stress means next to nothing to me. I consider it a direct, and not entirely out of order, reaction to their decision to take up arms against the coalition. You do the crime, you do the time. Not everyone will agree with me, but that is my view.



> Moral relativism is not simpatico with throwing away the Geneva Convention, I'm sorry. We agreed to act in a certain way, and we didn't.


 The Geneva Convention is not relevant in this case. The Iraqi insurgents are not following its rules, and are not protected by them. Yes, it is still illegal, but it does not violate the GC. 



> I would like to remind folks that as a general rule, torture does not "work" - if you damage a person enough, any information "extracted" may be totally useless.
> 
> It's morally abhorrent (relatively or absolutely), it's counterproductive to intelligence efforts, and it certainly has made international relations 1,000 times more difficult now.


 The crux of the issue here are the underscored words. As a general rule, I agree. However, I'm prepared to admit there may be cases where torture (and remember this includes chemical treatment, which is very effective, sleep deprivation which can also be very effective, and other psychological techniques) could be very useful, and save lives.


----------



## Adept

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The laws of unintended consequences are so difficult to predict.


 Indeed. And as regrettable as the actions in Jiddah are, I'm not seeing a spike in islamic terrorist action against the west, and _definately_ not seeing the race-war you predicted earlier.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> which has always maintainted that only efficiency in the production of capital matters.
> 
> In other words, this, "pragmatic," and, "utilitarian," argument isn't nearly as independent-minded as the poster appears to believe.


 

 I do not claim it to be 'new thinking' or anything so inane. Pragmatism and utilitarianism are as old as humanity itself. 



> they think it's just technique, just power, just the ability to beat everybody else up.


 Martial arts and morality should be seperated, IMHO. It is only the more esoteric eastern martial arts that make such a fuss over morality. You see none of it in western martial arts, or modern MMA.



> In fact, the classic story arc for a martial arts movie depends on either a) someone merely powerful discovering the true art; b) someone discovering the true art and remembering their past just in time to beat the merely powerful, evil opponent.


 Yes indeed. How this points to living a moral life or moral 'superiority' is beyond me. Usually the motives are pride and revenge. 



> And one must say that it is always interesting to see moral mission creep. First, Americans did no wrong. Then, the wrongs were trivial; now, yes indeed, beating a prisoner or so to death or shooting unarmed prisoners is bad, but just a few isolated incidents. All papered over with a claim that Any Other Bad Stuff was far in the past (1968? 1980s? 1991? long, long ago....vanished in history) or in fact never happened and even if it did it wasn't all that big a deal.


 Lets look at what was actually said - the abuse at AG was wrong because it set back the cause of the coalition in Iraq. I couldn't give a hang-stuff it they forced the Iraqi prisoners to eat pork and whip each other with electrical cords. Shooting at unarmed prisoners (AT, not killing them, just shooting at them), making them wear womens clothes, threatening to let a dog bite them... I could care more. Really.

 Then you brought up the incident of the wedding being bombed. I claimed it to be an accident (although this idea still seems repellent to you) and you then cited incidents of civilians being killed in the past. Obviously because the crusaders killed civilians, that clearly indicates that the US military in Iraq deliberately decides to waste thousands of dollars in killing a few civilians in the rural areas of third world countries. Why, the fire bombing of Dresden makes it so obvious that the US is deliberately car-bombing the Iraqi civilians and making it look like the work of Iraqi insurgents.

 Oh no, wait. Thats actually a really stupid conclusion to draw.



> and again, cut the crap; it's torture


 Hey, lets keep it civil. What one man calls assault another calls, well, not assault. You can call sleep deprivation 'torture' if you want, but I think you are devaluing good old boiling in oil and flaying alive.

 I would not be comfortable with a government backed program of torture. Legitimate interrogation techniques, yes. Actual physical torture with pliers and hot pokers, no. Because actual physical torture is a limited tool. Its negative impacts are potentially much larger than its potential benefits. I would like to have a law that made torture legal when it is required, however.


----------



## Tgace

Flatlander said:
			
		

> The problem I have with that is that the information itself is corrupted. How can you trust that information? It's given under duress, and can quite possibly be exactly what you want to hear, regardless of fact value.


Well, any intelligence officer worth his salt is only going to move on info. that has been verified by other sources. If what the prisoner said "fits" with other intell. then its stronger than something never heard before....


----------



## heretic888

Adept said:
			
		

> Martial arts and morality should be seperated, IMHO. It is only the more esoteric eastern martial arts that make such a fuss over morality. You see none of it in western martial arts, or modern MMA.



No offense, Adept, but that attitude is probably part of the problem here. 

I can also speak from experience that it is a major shortcoming among many a martial artist. Especially with those involved in sport-style competitions, there can be a tendency to behave like a bunch of drunken fratboys given a new toy. Only problem is that this new toy is their hands and feet.

I personally believe a martial art that does not instill the warrior spirit --- encompassing such quaint little "esoteric eastern" stuff like compassion, humility, discipline, honor, common decency --- in its adherents isn't worth the time of day.

Just my opinion. Of course.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888

Oh, and regarding the whole torture thingy...

I suggest some of you do a little reading on the psychological studies that have been devoted to this subject. Entailing both the reliability of info acquired under torture (guess what? it ain't) --- and the state of mind used to justify torture.

Oh, and on a side note --- if your only real concern about the Abu Graihb incident is that it "hurts national security" (i.e., makes us look bad to the other 90% of the democractic world that abhors torture), then you may perhaps be in need for some valuable introspection.


----------



## rmcrobertson

One doesn't think it useful to disentangle the network of inaccuracies completely, but "utilitarianism," and "pragmatism," are indeed modern philosophies. 

Before that, the primary emphasis was upon various forms of moral choice--partly on the grounds, oddly enough, that the moral state was the well-run state.

That is, of course, one of the fundamental blindnesses about relying on a binary opposition between, "merely moral," and "rationally pragmatic." As in martial arts, it's the immoral practitioner who ends up stuck at primitive levels. 

Our torturing prisoners--and cut the crap; beating people to death, running dogs at them, shooting prisoners, running sadistic little sex games, and all the rest is torture, as defined by the Geneva Accords, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and about 93 others agreements to which this country is signatory--is not merely wrong. It's extremely stupid. 

One finds it depressing to see this country continuing to squander its moral advantage.


----------



## PeachMonkey

It's depressing enough that people are such poor readers that they can't see how the Geneva Accords apply to people regardless of whether they wear uniforms, fight as irregulars, or act as "illegal combatants".  It's even more depressing that people at this level have become Attorney General.


----------



## Adept

heretic888 said:
			
		

> No offense, Adept, but that attitude is probably part of the problem here.


 No offense taken.



> I personally believe a martial art that does not instill the warrior spirit --- encompassing such quaint little "esoteric eastern" stuff like compassion, humility, discipline, honor, common decency --- in its adherents isn't worth the time of day.
> 
> Just my opinion. Of course.  :asian:


 And you are, of course, entitled to it. Discipline is required to be a decent martial artist. Without discipline no one would force themselves out of bed at 05:00 for that morning run, or push themselves through one more set of basics. The rest makes a good person (in general). But one does not have to be a good person to be a good fighter.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> It's depressing enough that people are such poor readers that they can't see how the Geneva Accords apply to people regardless of whether they wear uniforms, fight as irregulars, or act as "illegal combatants".


 The Geneva convention does not cover (for the most part) the insurgents in Iraq. They do not follow the guidelines necessary to be recognised by the GC. The whole idea of the rules of war is one of reciprocity. If you play nice, so will we. The GC allows for this and outlines what can be classed as a legitimate military action or group. If you are in one of these groups then you are covered by the GC. If you do not fulfill the requirements, you are not covered. You are considered to be playing too dirty.


----------



## Adept

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One doesn't think it useful to disentangle the network of inaccuracies completely, but "utilitarianism," and "pragmatism," are indeed modern philosophies.


 New names for age old ideas.



> That is, of course, one of the fundamental blindnesses about relying on a binary opposition between, "merely moral," and "rationally pragmatic." As in martial arts, it's the immoral practitioner who ends up stuck at primitive levels.


 Not at all. A dedicated martial artist will rise to the highest possible level regardless of his morality.



> Our torturing prisoners--and cut the crap; beating people to death, running dogs at them, shooting prisoners, running sadistic little sex games, and all the rest is torture, as defined by the Geneva Accords, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and about 93 others agreements to which this country is signatory--is not merely wrong. It's extremely stupid.


 Fair enough. I shall just have to note in future that our definitions of torture may vary wildly.


----------



## heretic888

> But one does not have to be a good person to be a good fighter.



This has not been my experience.

Unless, of course, by "fighter" you mean "brawler". Then sure. But, you don't need discipline or even formal training to get good at that. Just gotta be a big guy that spends lots of time in seedy bars.

If you are referring to the actual masterful warriors out there, however, then there does indeed seem to be a correlation between martial skill and moral consciousness. I personally think the reason for this is that to become both a moral exemplar and a great martial artist the ego must be conquered and submitted. When this occurs, such niceties as unconditional compassion for all and mushin tend to result.



> Not at all. A dedicated martial artist will rise to the highest possible level regardless of his morality.



Uhhh... no.

The very _highest levels_ of martial arts --- where we are talking about things like mushin, kanjin kaname, spontaneous flow, wa, or whatever term one wishes --- are directly accompanied by an internal development of characters and ego. I personally don't think that "morality" is a requirement for such levels of martial arts, but that it is an accompanied correlative line of development (along with things like spatial-temporal cognition, kinesthetic ability, creativity, and so on).

One can acquire great athletic ability and perhaps even strategic wisdom without really working on "self-development". But, neither of those are anything vaguely similar to the highest levels of martial arts.


----------



## heretic888

> The whole idea of the rules of war is one of reciprocity. If you play nice, so will we.



Hrmph.

I thought the whole idea of "war" --- at least from the American ideal of the concept --- is self-defense. Didn't know "eye for an eye" passed as self-defense these days.


----------



## michaeledward

I thought the whole idea of war is to kill as many of those aligned against you as possible, in the most violent manner, in the shortest time possible. The end result should be the opponent crying 'Uncle' (aka Unconditional Surrender).

Anything less is an injustice to those who serve.

This is also why it should be very difficult to start an offensive war.


----------



## heretic888

> New names for age old ideas.



Errr... sorta.

You could probably trace these concepts back to some long-dead philosopher-dudes in ancient Greece (although I'm sure the likes of Plato and Pythagoras would be apalled at these philosophies).

But, really, being in the book of some elite philosopher-sage doesn't mean it has been a wanton policy of any governing institution. We don't see things like that until the latter 'Age of Reason' time --- around 1500 on. Yup, its the ugly side of formal-rationalism. Darn tootin'.

For the most part, however, 'pragmatism' and 'utilitarianism' have taken a back seat to things like 'Manifest Destinies', 'holy wars', or 'divine ordainments'. Translation: I can do this because Gawd want me to.

Ta ta.


----------



## heretic888

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I thought the whole idea of war is to kill as many of those aligned against you as possible, in the most violent manner, in the shortest time possible. The end result should be the opponent crying 'Uncle' (aka Unconditional Surrender).
> 
> Anything less is an injustice to those who serve.
> 
> This is also why it should be very difficult to start an offensive war.



Mwah!! Now that's pragmatism!!


----------



## Flatlander

Adept said:
			
		

> The Geneva convention does not cover (for the most part) the insurgents in Iraq. They do not follow the guidelines necessary to be recognised by the GC. The whole idea of the rules of war is one of reciprocity. If you play nice, so will we. The GC allows for this and outlines what can be classed as a legitimate military action or group. If you are in one of these groups then you are covered by the GC. If you do not fulfill the requirements, you are not covered. You are considered to be playing too dirty.


I previously posted a link to this, but its seems that you must have missed it. Let's have another look:

From: *GENEVA CONVENTION *
*RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR *
*OF AUGUST 12, 1949 (GENEVA CONVENTION III)*


Quote:



> ARTICLE 3
> 
> In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring
> in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
> the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
> provisions:
> 
> (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
> of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors
> de combat by sickness, wounds, *detention*, or any other cause, shall
> in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse
> distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth
> or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
> To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at
> any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the
> above-mentioned persons:
> 
> (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
> kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
> (b) taking of hostages;
> *(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating*
> *and degrading treatment;*
> (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
> without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
> constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which
> are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


I have highlighted the bits to which I would like you to pay particular attention. Note that this must necessarily include any person who is being held captive. This is detailed explicitly. There is no other qualifier.


----------



## Adept

Flatlander said:
			
		

> In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring
> in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
> the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
> provisions:
> 
> (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
> of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors
> de combat by sickness, wounds, *detention*, or any other cause


 1 - this conflict is of an international nature.

 2 - The captured insurgents are not members of armed forces.

 3 - The captured insurgents are clearly not prisoners of war, as outlined in the section I posted much earlier.


----------



## heretic888

Slippery slopes are, like, totally off the chi'zain. F'shizzle.


----------



## Flatlander

Adept said:
			
		

> 1 - this conflict is of an international nature.
> 
> 2 - The captured insurgents are not members of armed forces.
> 
> 3 - The captured insurgents are clearly not prisoners of war, as outlined in the section I posted much earlier.


OK, Let's try Article 5 :



> *GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR OF AUGUST 12, 1949 (GENEVA CONVENTION III)
> 
> ARTICLE 5
> 
> The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article
> 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their
> final release and repatriation.
> 
> Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
> belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
> any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy
> the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status
> has been determined by a competent tribunal.
> *


 
Clearly, their status has not been determined by a competent tribunal, and therefore are legally entitled to the protection as laid out in Article 4.


----------



## Tgace

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/itm/IMSO/FAQS/02-GuantanDetainees.pdf


----------



## Flatlander

Tom, we're discussing Iraqi insurgents, not the Afghani Gitmo prisoners. :asian:


----------



## Tgace

Ahh...OK. I think you would get the same reply though.


----------



## Flatlander

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ahh...OK. I think you would get the same reply though.


Nay, I disagree.  The justification given in your referenced article was that the Gitmo folks were illegal combatants, ergo, not covered by Geneva article 4 (however, article 5 assures them coverage anyway) however, the Iraqi insurgents do not fit that description.


----------



## Tgace

Yeah, your probably right there. Personally, I think that as prisoners of the US, any detained person should be treated humanely. The Abu Graib stuff clearly overstepped some bounds. Im not against some physical/psychological manipulations (sleep/feeding/lighting/time distortion etc. stuff) to get necessary intell. I have a hard time justifying outright physical abuse....


----------



## PeachMonkey

Adept said:
			
		

> The Geneva convention does not cover (for the most part) the insurgents in Iraq.


 If you believe this, you must either be deliberately not reading the Geneva Conventions, or suffering from some sort of issue that prevents you from properly interpreting them.   Even illegitimate combatants are covered by the GC.


----------



## Adept

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> If you believe this, you must either be deliberately not reading the Geneva Conventions, or suffering from some sort of issue that prevents you from properly interpreting them. Even illegitimate combatants are covered by the GC.


 _[font=Arial,Helvetica]Article 4[/font]_ 

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica](a) That of being commanded by a person  responsible for his subordinates;[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica](b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign  recognizable at a distance;[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica](c) That of carrying arms openly;[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica](d) That of conducting their operations in  accordance with the laws and customs of war.[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]B. The following shall likewise be treated as  prisoners of war under the present Convention:[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica]2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

As posted by myself earlier. If the insurgents do not meet these criteria, they are not prisoners of war, and are not covered by any part of the Geneva convention which refers to prisoners of war. Very, very few insurgents meet these criteria.




			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> [/font]*Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.*


 There is no doubt. A tiny minority of the Iraqi insurgents may have been doing the following:

[font=Arial,Helvetica](a) being commanded by a person  responsible for his subordinates;[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica](b) having a fixed distinctive sign  recognizable at a distance;[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica](c) carrying arms openly;[/font]  

     [font=Arial,Helvetica](d) conducting their operations in  accordance with the laws and customs of war.

But most of them were quite clearly not. When confusion arises, then yes, give them the benefit of the doubt. But there is no confusion here.
[/font]


----------



## Flatlander

Doubt arises when there is lack of certainty.  Are you declaring, with certainty, that the people who are detained currently are not in any way "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces"?

I don't understand how you can be certain of this.


----------



## rmcrobertson

One fears that you still are clinging to a significant inaccuracy: the notion that if one is not defined by the Geneva Accords as a POW, then there can be no question of torture.

There've been a number of posts citing the specific sections of the Accords governing treatment of enemy combatants who are not in uniform: what seems to be the problem with responding to them?

Then too, there's the astonishing notion that torture--which you concede to be typically pointless--is perfectly OK for anyone who isn't a uniformed member of an army. Uh....'scuse me, but that's precisely the sort of thing that {fill in blank with creeps of choice} used to say. "Javohl! Zere ist nein doubt zet ve vanted to torture zem!!"

It might be instructive to peruse the recently-released materials on DIA personnel and their little--adventures--with prisoners. Not last century, not in Vietnam, not in the Gulf War....this year. Beatings, burns, kidnaps,  illegal "detentions," etc. etc...and threats against whistle blowers.

Not the country I grew up in, bubba. And not good to see rationalizations for the sorts of evils committed in North Korea and Iran, as well as among drug lords in Colombia...


----------



## Flatlander

Lets try this one, then,  

from www.UN.org:

*



Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
		
Click to expand...

 *

*



Article 5.

Click to expand...

*_




No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


Click to expand...

 _


----------



## PeachMonkey

Adept said:
			
		

> There is no doubt. A tiny minority of the Iraqi insurgents may have been doing the following:



This is not an accurate legal interpretation of the article.  The implication is that if there is doubt as to whether the detainee was a legal prisoner of war, than that detainee is entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war until a tribunal determines their status.


----------



## PeachMonkey

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Not the country I grew up in, bubba. And not good to see rationalizations for the sorts of evils committed in North Korea and Iran, as well as among drug lords in Colombia...



Apparently in this Brave New World of the Free and the Brave, Robert, it's okay to Do Unto Them As Dey Dun Unto Us.

Particularly if Dey are Swarthy and Muslim.


----------



## Adept

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Doubt arises when there is lack of certainty. Are you declaring, with certainty, that the people who are detained currently are not in any way "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces"?
> 
> I don't understand how you can be certain of this.


 The text in its entirety continues on to state that only people who fulfill that, and the other criteria are to be considered prisoners of war. In this way, you can seperate domestic criminals from prisoners. Locking up bank robbers and murderers without a trial as prisoners of war might piss some people off. 

 The Iraqi insurgents, for the most part, completely disregarded the GC and are therefore not protected by it. They are classed as domestic criminals. It doesnt affect my view of their treatment, or the legality of the situation very much in either direction. I simply take issue with people blithely stating that 'Its against the Geneve Convention!"

 With regards to the UN - Fair point. Not really relevant, but fair point. Again, it doesnt change the legality or my view of it one iota.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One fears that you still are clinging to a significant inaccuracy: the notion that if one is not defined by the Geneva Accords as a POW, then there can be no question of torture.


 Not at all. Its a seperate, semantic debate. People say the captured insurgents are prisoners of war as outlined by the Geneva Convention when they are not. Thats all.



> There've been a number of posts citing the specific sections of the Accords governing treatment of enemy combatants who are not in uniform: what seems to be the problem with responding to them?


 If they are not following the criteria as listed on this page, they are domestic criminals, not prisoners of war.



> Then too, there's the astonishing notion that torture--which you concede to be typically pointless--is perfectly OK for anyone who isn't a uniformed member of an army. Uh....'scuse me, but that's precisely the sort of thing that {fill in blank with creeps of choice} used to say. "Javohl! Zere ist nein doubt zet ve vanted to torture zem!!"


 Hmm. I dont believe I've said that, although I have a fair number of posts on this thread, and it may have slipped past my radar. To avoid confusion in the future:

 1 - My opinion. The abuse suffered by captured Iraqi insurgents at Abu Ghraib was of a minor nature, and does not make me feel sorry for them, or outraged at the abuse of their rights. 

 2 - My stance. Regardless of the legality, torture (using your definition, which apparently also includes legitimate interrogation techniques) can be a useful tool and may aid a country in protecting its interests.


----------



## Adept

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Apparently in this Brave New World of the Free and the Brave, Robert, it's okay to Do Unto Them As Dey Dun Unto Us.


 If we dont fight them in their back yard, we'll have to fight them in ours.


----------



## heretic888

Adept said:
			
		

> If we dont fight them in their back yard, we'll have to fight them in ours.



*sigh*

I do _so_ love the "our troops are terrorist distractors" argument. 

 :shrug:


----------



## PeachMonkey

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I do _so_ love the "our troops are terrorist distractors" argument.


 I know you're being sarcastic, heretic, but the argument drives *me* nuts.  It's the sort of schoolground argument that starts at the top of the right-wing machine to cover up mistakes, and gets repeated by people who really don't understand how much of a Real Mistake Iraq is.

 Iraq isn't *distracting* terrorists; it's *creating* them.


----------



## heretic888

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I know you're being sarcastic, heretic, but the argument drives *me* nuts.  It's the sort of schoolground argument that starts at the top of the right-wing machine to cover up mistakes, and gets repeated by people who really don't understand how much of a Real Mistake Iraq is.
> 
> Iraq isn't *distracting* terrorists; it's *creating* them.



Ditto.


----------



## Adept

heretic888 said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> I do _so_ love the "our troops are terrorist distractors" argument.
> 
> :shrug:


  

 I'm equally as much a fan of the "If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone" argument.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Cool. Thanks for the permission: we shall be at your door shortly, and on the grounds of national security--which we shall define, without regard to any other standards and especially not yours--we shall be, a) holding you incommunicado; b) denying you legal representation; c) keeping you in a cage; d) refusing to let your loved ones know where you are; e) stripping you naked; f) bringing in dogs; g) beating you if you squeak; h) pretending to shoot you; i) refusing to allow you to sleep; j) duct-taping you to the guy in the next cell and taking pictures; k) beating you again...and on through the alphabet.

But remember: all of this is minor. You have no beef. And since you haven't done anything wrong except piss me off, you aren't a criminal, so you aren't covered by our Constitution or our legal codes. We can do whatever we please; enjoy, enjoy.

Three smacks with a copy of Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," for the rationalization of fascism. But remember--it's minor, and you aren't a criminal, so we can do whatever we want to you.

The actually interesting question concerns the adoption by conservatives of the situational ethics so long blamed on the left side of the political spectrum. me, I blame the rise of capitalism and Empire; anything's OK, so long as it's expedient.

Congrats on jettisoning the last thousand years of human development, in favor of the lex talionis and Nature, red in tooth and claw...

Magna Carta: "No freeman shall be...in any way destroyed..."


----------



## PeachMonkey

Adept said:
			
		

> I'm equally as much a fan of the "If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone" argument.



No one has actually offered up that argument in this thread, but all the same, I can understand why it frustrates you.


----------



## Adept

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But remember: all of this is minor. You have no beef. And since you haven't done anything wrong except piss me off, you aren't a criminal, so you aren't covered by our Constitution or our legal codes. We can do whatever we please; enjoy, enjoy.
> 
> Three smacks with a copy of Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," for the rationalization of fascism. But remember--it's minor, and you aren't a criminal, so we can do whatever we want to you.


 Your point is? 



> The actually interesting question concerns the adoption by conservatives of the situational ethics so long blamed on the left side of the political spectrum. me, I blame the rise of capitalism and Empire; anything's OK, so long as it's expedient.


 No, anything is OK as long as it generates the best possible result.



> Congrats on jettisoning the last thousand years of human development, in favor of the lex talionis and Nature, red in tooth and claw...


 What particular advancement would that be?



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> No one has actually offered up that argument in this thread, but all the same, I can understand why it frustrates you.


 It is the opposite argument to the 'soldiers are terrorist distractors'. The bottom line is, no matter what we do people will be trying to kill us, just because we are western and non-islamic. If our soldiers do not fight them in their countries, they will have to fight them in our countries. I know where I would rather the war be.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

> No, anything is OK as long as it generates the best possible result.



And how exactly is physically and psychologically beating the **** out of detainees for the purpose of extracting unreliable information the best possible result?


----------



## Adept

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> And how exactly is physically and psychologically beating the **** out of detainees for the purpose of extracting unreliable information the best possible result?


 It isn't really. It generated large amounts of ill-will for the western nations, and brought us into disrepute.

 I'll repeat myself from a previous post:

 1 - My opinion. The abuse suffered by captured Iraqi insurgents at Abu Ghraib was of a minor nature, and does not make me feel sorry for them, or outraged at the abuse of their rights. 

  2 - My stance. Regardless of the legality, torture can be a useful tool and may aid a country in protecting its interests.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Adept said:
			
		

> 2 - My stance. Regardless of the legality, torture can be a useful tool and may aid a country in protecting its interests.


But most people in the know readily admit that torture *doesn't work* - it is not a "useful tool".


----------



## Adept

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> But most people in the know readily admit that torture *doesn't work* - it is not a "useful tool".


 By torture I was referring to it in the sense Robert does, which includes sleep deprivation, chemical treatment, mental disruption, and other very useful interrogation techniques.

 More blatant forms of turture are rarely useful, but I would not say they never are. Jumping to what some would call the lifeboat example - 

 You have a captive in custody who has information that could prevent the 9/11 attacks. If you do nothing, 3000 people die. You have 36 hours to act. What will you do?

 My point is not that torture is always useful, but that it _can_ be under the right circumstances.


----------



## Flatlander

Adept said:
			
		

> By torture I was referring to it in the sense Robert does, which includes sleep deprivation, chemical treatment, mental disruption, and other very useful interrogation techniques.
> 
> More blatant forms of turture are rarely useful, but I would not say they never are. Jumping to what some would call the lifeboat example -
> 
> You have a captive in custody who has information that could prevent the 9/11 attacks. If you do nothing, 3000 people die. You have 36 hours to act. What will you do?
> 
> My point is not that torture is always useful, but that it _can_ be under the right circumstances.


According to whom?  I'm actually quite skeptical that there can be any credibilty given to information derived from torture.  So, what makes you think it works?  What do you have to support your proposition?  It seems to me that, given the nature of the act, one ought have fairly unwavering justification to use this technique, so, what is it?


----------



## heretic888

Adept said:
			
		

> I'm equally as much a fan of the "If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone" argument.



No offense, but I see this response as symptomatic of a need to see the world in rigidly black and white terms.

I do indeed think we should be "tough on terrorism". Problem is, we haven't done this in over two years. And, what's worse, the place where we _were_ doing it, we've pretty much ignored and forgotten.

Cheers.


----------



## Makalakumu

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> I just found this letter written by a retired USMC General, Chuck Pitman.  I think that it puts some prospective on the topic at hand from the point of view of a true combat tested warrior.  I believe this is the viewpoint of many of us who serve in the military.  I apologize if this has been posted somewhere else.
> 
> FW
> 
> Subject: FW: Letter of Apology from Chuck Pitman
> 
> Letter of Apology
> 
> This Letter of Apology was written by Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired
> 
> "For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue.
> 
> On the one hand, right thinking Americans will harbor the stupidity of the
> 
> actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and
> 
> fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.
> 
> I humbly offer my opinion here:
> 
> I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and
> 
> sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims
> 
> (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).
> 
> I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came
> 
> after 9/11.
> 
> I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.
> 
> I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under
> 
> savage dictatorships.
> 
> I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.
> 
> I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their
> 
> religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.
> 
> I am sorry that Yasir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and
> 
> high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."
> 
> I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a
> 
> token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.
> 
> I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial
> 
> supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame  the USA for all their problems.
> 
> I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed
> 
> masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements
> 
> of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).
> 
> I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the
> 
> "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk
> 
> suffered.
> 
> I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide
> 
> bombers upon their death.
> 
> I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will
> 
> receive 72 virgins in "paradise."
> 
> I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies,
> 
> children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate
> 
> targets.
> 
> I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape
> 
> rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.
> 
> I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other
> 
> group.
> 
> I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of
> 
> Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.
> 
> I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.
> 
> I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."
> 
> I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade
> 
> Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox  Church - one of our Holy Sites.
> 
> I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the
> 
> embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel
> 
> Pearl, etc....etc!
> 
> I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized
> 
> village  in Africa.
> 
> America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those
> 
> responsible because that is what we do.
> 
> We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on.
> 
> That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff
> 
> like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.
> 
> Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, We  were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners.
> 
> Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we
> 
> were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our
> 
> hands because a few were humiliated?
> 
> Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people
> 
> killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating
> 
> Fallujahans.
> 
> If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long
> 
> wait!
> 
> 
> 
> You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins.
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Pitman
> 
> Lieutenant General
> 
> US Marine Corps (Retired)



Take this letter and read if after you have visited the holocaust museum in Washington DC.  If you haven't lost your lunch by that point, this will be the straw that broke the camel's back.


----------



## heretic888

Adept said:
			
		

> Your point is?



Unjustified rationalizations of quasi-fascist policies through a thinly-veiled veneer of fake reason and pseudo-science. Not to put too fine a point on it. 




			
				Adept said:
			
		

> No, anything is OK as long as it generates the best possible result.



Machiavelli would be proud.




			
				Adept said:
			
		

> What particular advancement would that be?



Take your pick --- from the rise of industrial and informational technologies to democratic states to the advancement of human/animal rights to ecological awareness to secular humanism, separation of church and state (sorta), and the advancement of science and philosophy.

The kind of rationalizations you are giving, on the other hand, come from a reversal of the paragidms that developed most of these.




			
				Adept said:
			
		

> It is the opposite argument to the 'soldiers are terrorist distractors'. The bottom line is, no matter what we do people will be trying to kill us, just because we are western and non-islamic.



This is just silly.

You don't suppose it has anything to do with the Western (more specifically, British) occupation and annexation of those regions historically, neh?? Or the unscrupulous situation surrounding the founding of Israel?? Or, our own hypocritical policies whereby we are publicly defaming governments like Iran and Saudi Arabia, but then turn around and make secret economic, oil, and weapons deals with them??

Sure, a lot of the people in question are just homocidal loonies. But, it may benefit your understanding to ask yourself _why_ they are the way they are??



			
				Adept said:
			
		

> If our soldiers do not fight them in their countries, they will have to fight them in our countries. I know where I would rather the war be.



More skewed logic. The war in Iraq, as international agencies devoted to recording these sorts of things universally report, has exponentially increased the membership of Al Queda and similar organizations. America is _less_ safe now than we were two years ago.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that fighting a war "over there" somehow prevents one from being ignited within our borders. In fact, given the steady incline in terrorist recruiting thanks to this administration's foreign policies, it is far more likely that a terrorist stike will be attempted than less so.

This, again, is typical of many threads within the Right (and some in the Left, I might add) --- that facts, statistics, and scientific data take a second fiddling to ideologies. We aren't going overseas to war because of "alarming data" about purported threats; we're going because of a quasi-theological imperialism. We aren't torturing others because torture has in any way been scientifically demonstrated to be effective (quite the contrary); we are doing so because of aggressive quasi-fascist philosophies that justify dehumanizing those "different" than us.

Remember, this is the same lot that think "the jury is still out" on gobal warming and evolution.


----------



## heretic888

Flatlander said:
			
		

> According to whom?  I'm actually quite skeptical that there can be any credibilty given to information derived from torture.  So, what makes you think it works?  What do you have to support your proposition?  It seems to me that, given the nature of the act, one ought have fairly unwavering justification to use this technique, so, what is it?



According to ideologists that justify toture, of course.

There is no reputable scientific evidence to support the claim that any type of torture is effective in acquiring intelligence. While, on the other hand, there is an abundance of data demonstrating the kind of mentality and psychological context that is invoked in the torturer via the act of torture (sadism is closer to the surface than many would surmise).

The idea that there is "some" torture that is effective "some" of the time is not justified by science, plain and simple. There is about an equal chance that pure situational guesswork would be as about as effective in intel.

Rather, this is merely speculation supported by conscious or unconscious rationalizatons. Same ol', same ol.


----------



## rmcrobertson

One scarcely knows whether to be tickled more by the resurfacing of the good old domino theory, the recurrent goofy claim that anything is OK as long as it's useful, or the re-restating of Freud's good old bucket joke.

"Torture? What torture?"

"Well, OK, it was torture but not that bad and we needed to,"

and of course,

"OK, we really tortured them and it was pointless but anyway they did bad first."

Apparently, if one says this fast enough and over and over, it magically becomes a good example of pragmatic reasoning.


----------



## raedyn

I am frustrated that anyone would try to justify this sort of behaviour. It's bad when "they" do it, it's bad when "we" do it. And saying "they did it first" is pretty much equivalent to the kid mom caught pounding his little brother and when he gets in trouble whining "but he hit me first!". Just like Mommy told us when we were 4 years old; two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## raedyn

*giggle* I got my first bad rep points on that post. I guess someone (anonymously of course) doesn't like being reminded what Mommy tried to teach us all.


----------



## heretic888

raedyn said:
			
		

> *giggle* I got my first bad rep points on that post. I guess someone (anonymously of course) doesn't like being reminded what Mommy tried to teach us all.



Apparently.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

raedyn said:
			
		

> *giggle* I got my first bad rep points on that post. I guess someone (anonymously of course) doesn't like being reminded what Mommy tried to teach us all.


Yeah, I got bad rep points for saying pretty much the same thing a while back.  Similarly, without any signature.


----------



## Adept

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Unjustified rationalizations of quasi-fascist policies through a thinly-veiled veneer of fake reason and pseudo-science. Not to put too fine a point on it.


 

  Thats your opinion, which is clearly different from mine.



> Machiavelli would be proud.


   Perhaps. Not exactly relevant, however.



> Take your pick --- from the rise of industrial and informational technologies to democratic states to the advancement of human/animal rights to ecological awareness to secular humanism, separation of church and state (sorta), and the advancement of science and philosophy.


  How exaclty am I destroying said advancements?



> Sure, a lot of the people in question are just homocidal loonies. But, it may benefit your understanding to ask yourself _why_ they are the way they are?


 The why of it is generally understood by most folk with an ounce of reason and motivation to learn. But as I thought you would be quick to point out, that doesn't make it right.



> More skewed logic. The war in Iraq, as international agencies devoted to recording these sorts of things universally report, has exponentially increased the membership of Al Queda and similar organizations. America is _less_ safe now than we were two years ago.


  One point does not lead to the other. 



> There is absolutely no reason to believe that fighting a war "over there" somehow prevents one from being ignited within our borders. In fact, given the steady incline in terrorist recruiting thanks to this administration's foreign policies, it is far more likely that a terrorist stike will be attempted than less so.


 More numbers does not equate to more attacks. This is not a fight that can be avoided through diplomacy. It is a fight that must be fought and won.



> We aren't going overseas to war because of "alarming data" about purported threats; we're going because of a quasi-theological imperialism.


 No one ever goes to war over a threat. Countries go to war not because it is right, but because they think it will generate the best possible result. War is, after all, an extension of politics. If you look like the biggest, baddest kid on the block, no one will mess with you.



> We aren't torturing others because torture has in any way been scientifically demonstrated to be effective (quite the contrary)


 Legitimate interrogations are being carried out and information is being gathered. Of course, the entire campaign in Iraq could be based on lucky guesses, but I find that unlikely.



> we are doing so because of aggressive quasi-fascist philosophies that justify dehumanizing those "different" than us.


 the actions at Abu Ghraib are not torture with the intent to gather intelligence. They are just torture for its own sake. I dont consider the things done to the inmates to be overly 'wrong'.


----------



## Adept

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> the recurrent goofy claim that anything is OK as long as it's useful


 What criteria do you use to decide whether something is the appropriate course of action?


----------



## Adept

By the by, I always sign any rep points I hand out, and I havent handed out any for this thread. Just in case you were wondering.


----------



## rmcrobertson

"...the actions at Abu Ghraib are not torture with the intent to gather intelligence. They are just torture for its own sake. I dont consider the things done to the inmates to be overly 'wrong'."

Well, that pretty much takes the biscuit.


----------



## raedyn

Adept said:
			
		

> the actions at Abu Ghraib are not torture with the intent to gather intelligence. They are just torture for its own sake. I dont consider the things done to the inmates to be overly 'wrong'.


So... let me see if I understand this correctly. You are now justifying the humilitation of the prisonsers because it was done without purpose, and just purely to satisfy the sadistic streak in the people carrying it out? Seriously?


----------



## heretic888

raedyn said:
			
		

> So... let me see if I understand this correctly. You are now justifying the humilitation of the prisonsers because it was done without purpose, and just purely to satisfy the sadistic streak in the people carrying it out? Seriously?



Actually, I've done a bit of reading the past few weeks and I have come to the conclusion that the "pure sadism" claims of intent don't really seem to be backed up by evidence.

All acts of violence or malevolence against another human being seem to be rooted in justifications or rationalizations of some kind --- even in the sickly perverted form we see in serial killers. There doesn't seem to be much, if any, cases of human harming solely for the purpose of harming. 

In this case, the rather flimsy rationalization was "I was just following orders" --- fundamentally the same justification given by Nazi soldiers on trial for war crimes.

A good source for all of this is _Evil: Inside the Human Violence and Cruelty" by Roy Baumeister.

Laterz._


----------



## ghostdog2

"But most people in the know readily admit that torture *doesn't work* - it is not a "useful tool"  Posted in some form or other by numerous

Drivel. Who are "most people"? Where's the scientific study of modern torture so many of you rely on? "In the know.." about what?

Aimlessly torturing random subjects certainly would  lessen your chances of getting reliable info. But selectively torturing specific individuals screened for access to desired info....I bet that would work just fine. And quickly, too.
Come on, be fair. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Skipping, of course, the mere fact that having to debate the effectiveness of torture is a betrayal of everything that makes America great, and what we should value about ourselves as martial artists...

A director of the CIA under the Reagan Administration, had the following to say:

"Physical abuse or other degrading treatment was rejected, not only because it is wrong, but because it has historically proven to be ineffective," said Richard Stolz, Deputy Director of Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1988.

... the problem with physical torture, being, of course, that people will typically say anything to make it stop.  Psychological abuse, including sleep deprivation, tends to be far more effective.

Physical torture is more effective than other forms in that it is a tool to punish, to silence, and to frighten.

This article by a retired USMC interrogator and intelligence instructor who served in Vietnam lists specific instances demonstrating why torture is not only not effective, if can be counterproductive:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3892

This article references both Vietnam-era CIA interrogation manuals and even WWII-era Japanese interrogation manuals that caution against physical torture:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=134740


----------



## ghostdog2

Well, are we against torture because it's a betrayal of American values or because it's ineffective.
I'm fine with the former. I completely agree with it, in fact.
As for the latter, I think it's a stretch (pun intended). Believe me, I could take the sleep deprivation, standing on boxes, posing naked stuff for quite a while. Break out the rubber hoses and lead pipes and I'd sing like a canary. Right now. That's just me, of course.


----------



## PeachMonkey

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Well, are we against torture because it's a betrayal of American values or because it's ineffective.



Yes.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> As for the latter, I think it's a stretch (pun intended). Believe me, I could take the sleep deprivation, standing on boxes, posing naked stuff for quite a while. Break out the rubber hoses and lead pipes and I'd sing like a canary. Right now. That's just me, of course.



So would I -- but would we really be guilty?  So many of the examples we've seen show that people under duress will confess simply to end torture -- regardless of actual guilt.  How effective is that?


----------



## michaeledward

There Are Four Lights!


----------



## Bester

Damn you Picard.



Hey, we have a guilty verdict!


----------



## michaeledward

Bester said:
			
		

> Damn you Picard.


H, ha, hu --- you called me --- Picard!

Your are four years old ... and helpless .....


----------



## Tgace

I would like to know how an E-4 winds up being the scapegoat. Where is the chain of command in all of this? I was taught as an Army sergeant that I was "responsible for what those under my command did or failed to do". Where was the supervison?


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace said:
			
		

> I would like to know how an E-4 winds up being the scapegoat. Where is the chain of command in all of this? I was taught as an Army sergeant that I was "responsible for what those under my command did or failed to do". Where was the supervison?


I believe President Bush today said that we had an 'Accountability Moment' on November 2, 2004.



			
				President Bush said:
			
		

> We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."


Apparently, he believes that his re-election was a positive assessment of responsibility for all of the action of all of those in his administration. So, even though Donald Rumsfeld may have been at the root of all of the Abu Ghraib interrogations, the 3 plus million vote majority negates any further 'supervision' or responsibility.

It must be so comforting to be Mr. Bush, to know with the certainty of faith that God has appointed you at this time.


----------



## Tgace

Thats nice....I want to know where this E-4's Squad Leader and Platoon Sergeant were for starters.


----------



## michaeledward

Pesky thing, that 'Chain of Command', eh?


----------



## rmcrobertson

Let us rewrite harry truman: 

"THE SHUCK STOPS HERE"

In my opinion, Bush is directly responsible, as are the voters who talked themselves into rationalizing the abandonment of the rule of law, the rejection of at least two treaties this country is signatory to, and the abandonment of what the, "moral majority," claims are their religious principles.

Not because of these particular abuses--but because the Bush government started floating the idea that, "preventative detention," and routine torture were perfectly OK shortly after 9/11, and there were no real objections from republicans and from centrists.

Certainly, the low-level soldiers are responsible. Their religious and moral education probably taught them better--and certainly, the UCMJ should have. But equally certainly, the blame spins right (get it?) up the chain of command. It certainly includes the "intelligence officials," who actively encouraged torture...and as far as can reasonably be seen, it damn well includes people like John Ashcroft and a couple of Bush's Court nominees...


----------



## heretic888

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> "But most people in the know readily admit that torture *doesn't work* - it is not a "useful tool"  Posted in some form or other by numerous
> 
> Drivel. Who are "most people"? Where's the scientific study of modern torture so many of you rely on? "In the know.." about what?
> 
> Aimlessly torturing random subjects certainly would  lessen your chances of getting reliable info. But selectively torturing specific individuals screened for access to desired info....I bet that would work just fine. And quickly, too.
> Come on, be fair. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.



Sure they would. 

They'd just have their own justifications for it. People have been having irrational and unscientific justifications for a lot of things for centuries. Nothing new here. 

After all, the "jury is still out" on global warming, evolution, and tobacco-induced lung cancer, right??   

There have been a few scientific studies detailing the effectiveness of torture. Most of them, of course, date before the 1950's. Couldn't get away with that kinda stuff nowadays. Ethics, liabilities, and all that silliness.

Just take a social psychology course if you want the meat 'n grits. The "efficacy of torture" is just one of those self-justified myths, right up there with "pure sadism (or 'evil')" and the "blank slate".

Latez.


----------



## rmcrobertson

There have been a number of claims on this thread that the abuses weren't really torture, or that everything was exaggerated, or that the prisoners deserved whatever they got, trial or no trial.

One would recommend that anybody comfortable with these sorts of lies should lift a finger, take a look, at today's "New York Times Book Review," (Sunday, Jan. 23, 2005.), which has a long review of two new books on the subject.

Here is a personal narrative recorded by the International Committee of the Red Cross:

"They threw pepper in my face and the beating started. This went on for a half an hour. And then he started beating me with the chair because the chair was broken. After that they started choking me. At that time I thought I was going to die, but it's a miracle I lived. And then they started beating me again. They concentrated on beating me in my heart until they got tired from beating me. They took a little break and then they started kicking me very hard with their feet until I passed out."

Yes, yes. To be sure--it's just those leftists. Unfortunately, the US Government's investigating group, the Schleschinger panel, has, "officially conceded, though the President has never publicly acknowledged, that American soldiers have tortured five inmates to death."

Yes, yes...yes, it's just a buncha bleeding-heart liberal civilians. Unfortunately, here is a statement from the US Army's own investigation, "led by Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones and Maj. Gen. George R. Fay":

"On another occasion DETAINEE-07 was forced to lie down while M.P.'s jumped onto his back and legs. He was beaten with a broom and a chemical light was broken and poured over his body...During this abuse a police stick was used to sodomize DETAINEE 0-07 and two female M.P.'s were hitting him, throwing a ball at his penis, and taking photographs."

So--what other excuses for torture ya got? It was just orders? They deserved it? Military expediency? Anything that wasn't covered by, you know, the Nuremberg Trials?


----------



## Adept

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "They threw pepper in my face and the beating started. This went on for a half an hour. And then he started beating me with the chair because the chair was broken. After that they started choking me. At that time I thought I was going to die, but it's a miracle I lived. And then they started beating me again. They concentrated on beating me in my heart until they got tired from beating me. They took a little break and then they started kicking me very hard with their feet until I passed out."


 I know. Lets treat him as the Iraqi insurgents treat our captives. We'll just beat him and starve him for a few days, then behead him and send the video to is family!





> Yes, yes. To be sure--it's just those leftists. Unfortunately, the US Government's investigating group, the Schleschinger panel, has, "officially conceded, though the President has never publicly acknowledged, that American soldiers have tortured five inmates to death."


 This being the same US government that assured the world that Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMDs?



> "On another occasion DETAINEE-07 was forced to lie down while M.P.'s jumped onto his back and legs. He was beaten with a broom and a chemical light was broken and poured over his body...During this abuse a police stick was used to sodomize DETAINEE 0-07 and two female M.P.'s were hitting him, throwing a ball at his penis, and taking photographs."


 Cry me a river.



> So--what other excuses for torture ya got? It was just orders? They deserved it? Military expediency? Anything that wasn't covered by, you know, the Nuremberg Trials?


 On this specific issue - I frankly dont give a crap. What they do to our prisoners is much worse. So I simply dont care what we do to theirs. It's petty and vengeful, and I know it. I garner a certain amount of satisfaction when I hear about such abuse of prisoners.


----------



## michaeledward

Adept said:
			
		

> On this specific issue - I frankly dont give a crap. What they do to our prisoners is much worse. So I simply dont care what we do to theirs. It's petty and vengeful, and I know it. I garner a certain amount of satisfaction when I hear about such abuse of prisoners.


 
Just so we are all clear on your position.


----------



## Adept

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Just so we are all clear on your position.


 As it pertains to the specific situation at Abu Ghraib, yes.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Congratulations! You've rediscovered the rationale of every murdering set of bastards down through history!!

And further kudos for the glib rejection of a) fundamental moral principles of every religion on earth; b) fundamental moral principles of martial arts advanced by--among many others--Bruce Lee.

And a deep bow for the glib acceptance of policies and actions that are not only making Iraq harder and harder every day, not only making this country more and more hated throughout the world, but which more and more allow whover gets into power to justify abusing citizens here at home.

News flash: we're supposed to be the Good Guys. That means we behave BETTER than the bad guys. See, that way, we not only live up to our own principles, but we show other people how to do it right. See, we're in Iraq to spread the principles of democracy and freedom, see, and these principles...oh, never mind. 

Just don't come cryin' when they grab your friends, your family, you, and then say, "Well, THEY did it FIRST!!!"


----------



## Adept

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Congratulations! You've rediscovered the rationale of every murdering set of bastards down through history!!


 One would hardly say rediscovered. That would imply that such rationales had been lost. One would consider it naive to believe that.



> And further kudos for the glib rejection of a) fundamental moral principles of every religion on earth;


 Like an eye for an eye? 





> b) fundamental moral principles of martial arts advanced by--among many others--Bruce Lee.


 One feels that your point has been misplaced. Which specific moral statutes set out in which specific texts by which specific martial artists, as they pertain specifically to martial arts? References please.



> And a deep bow for the glib acceptance of policies and actions that are not only making Iraq harder and harder every day, not only making this country more and more hated throughout the world, but which more and more allow whover gets into power to justify abusing citizens here at home.


 One understands how the actions in question are making life harder for everyone in Iraq. With regard to that, they are deplorable.



> News flash: we're supposed to be the Good Guys. That means we behave BETTER than the bad guys.


 One believes the Coalition forces _are_ acting better. They do not make a habit of deliberately bombing civilians, or routinely slaughtering captives, nor do they blatantly disregard the rules of war, as a matter of course.



> Just don't come cryin' when they grab your friends, your family, you, and then say, "Well, THEY did it FIRST!!!"


 When who does what now?


----------



## michaeledward

Remove the moat from thine own eye .... 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6863916/



> Torture in Iraq still routine, report says
> Detainees beaten, shocked by Iraqi jailers, rights group finds
> By Doug Struck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BAGHDAD - Twenty months after Saddam Hussein's government was toppled and its torture chambers unlocked, Iraqis are again being routinely beaten, hung by their wrists and shocked with electrical wires, according to a report by a human rights organization.
> 
> Iraqi police, jailers and intelligence agents, many of them holding the same jobs they had under Hussein, are "committing systematic torture and other abuses" of detainees, Human Rights Watch said in a report to be released Tuesday.Legal safeguards are being ignored, political opponents are targeted for arrest, and the government of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi "appears to be actively taking part, or is at least complicit, in these grave violations of fundamental human rights," the report concludes.
> 
> A spokesman for Allawi declined to comment Monday and said "I will put this report on the prime minister's desk tomorrow to see if he has any reaction."


And I just heard a report on the radio about extensive abuse in Guantanamo.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Bingo.

If anybody actually bothers to read the material, there is available all sorts of clear, direct, uncontroverted, incontrovertible evidence that a) the United States has been engaging in systemic, widespread torture in Iraq, at Guantanamo, and at camps in Afghanistan; b) we have also been shipping prisoners to countries such as Egypt for torture by others, in direct violation of our long-standing treaties; c) this isn't an accident or an occasional aberration, but planned, deliberate policy; d) the source for this policy is largely the civilian government of George Bush.

As somebody who's been around a little longer than some folks--brought up in that mythic, good old day America--let me tell you folks about a big change since the good old days, one that suggests that just perhaps all the right-wing complaint about moral decline may have a point.

I never thought I'd see the day when my government, and many of its citizens, would've sunk so far and become so frightened that they actually, publicly, began to institute a policy of deliberate torture.

No pseudo-realist claim that, "everybody always did it!" will excuse this. No insistence that, "It's an emergency!" justifies adopting the same policies and actions that distinguished the Nazis and Joe Stalin's bully boys will excuse this. No smartass remarks about, "Well, THEY do it to US!" will excuse this.

It's shameful. It's shameful that we've done this, and it's shameful to see citizeens in a democratic society trying to excuse it. Why? because, speaking purely for old-fashioned values: this country is all about the OPPOSITE of the bad guys. One had thought we're trying to defend America, not translate the country into some police state and the hooraw about the, "victory."

One plans to shut up on this thread now, unless something new comes along.


----------



## Bester

"One had thought we're trying to defend America, not translate the country into some police state and the hooraw about the, "victory.""

One was wrong. Actually, One wasn't wrong. Many were.
"One" was right. It is reality of the situation that is truely wrong.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Bester said:
			
		

> One was wrong. Actually, One wasn't wrong. Many were.
> "One" was right. It is reality of the situation that is truely wrong.


Thanks for clearing THAT one up.  :idunno:


----------



## heretic888

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Thanks for clearing THAT one up.  :idunno:



I believe he's agreeing with Robert, dude.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Oh...*looks over the post again, then shrugs*...ok.


----------

