Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.

[michaeledward]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

. . .
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]

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]

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?

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/