Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.

[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]

<
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]

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]

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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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.

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.

.... 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'.

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.

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/

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?

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?