1.) No one gives a fuck what they were “in your mind.” They don’t have to prove their innocence to your satisfaction in order to not be tortured. You may fantasize that they were guilty of something if that makes you feel good. However, the US government disagrees with you and says that they were mostly just random civilans arrested by mistake.
Furthermore, even if they were guilty of something, that still doesn’t justify torture!
2.) WTF are you talking about? When did I say that the decapitees were not innocent? My point was that it’s a red herring to keep bringing them up as some sort of rebuttal to the abuses committed by US troops. There are two gigantic reasons why- one is that they beheadings happened after warcrimes committed at Abu Ghraib and two (and this is crucial) the victims at Abu Ghraib had FUCK ALL TO DO with those beheadings or with any other crimes against Americans. They were innocent so the beheadings have no place in any conversation about crimes committed by sickos in American uniforms. Bringing up the beheadings is like bringing up Ted Bundy. Yeah, he was evil…so what the fuck does that have to do with the price of weed?
I had a nice lunch at Chilies yesterday with some Saudi friends. They mentioned they feel about 9-11 about the same way we (Americans) feel about the torture scandals.
thank you for trying to answer my question honestly, and thanks for the correct mathmatical term. but it is well known that the GC prevents the showning of EPW’s (enemy prisoners of war) in a public display.
[/QUOTE]
Cite? I’m aware that the GC prohibits the exhibition of EPWs for propaganda purposes, but the idea that a newspaper may be shut down in the United States for publishing pictures of American soldiers torturing Iraqis seems to violate the freedoms that our ancestors and veterans have fought for, don’t you think? I mean, freedom of the press, and all that?
Christ ** Diogenes The Cynic ** did you jerk your knee straight out of the socket?
Oh yes becuase I explicitly said that I thought the torture was justified right after I implied it. I merely said that I and all other posters here don’t know that the prisoners are innocent. I highly doubt that all the prisoners in AG were minding their own business when Evil puppy kicking American soldiers arrested them.
I didn’t say you did you said “And WTF do the beheadings have to do with the AG abuses anyway? You do know the AG victims were innocent, don’t you?”. I didn’t know if you meant they didn’t have anything to do with each other becuase the AG prisoners were innocent and the people that were beheaded weren’t or something else so I asked. Chill out yesh
Thank you for that quote. I wanted to know who said it so I looked it up. It was said by Carl Schurz, a fascinating man. A German immigrant. A Senator. An Ambassador. A Secretary of the Interior. An editor. A writer. A Republican.
I want to use that as a sig. Thank you.
Here are a couple of other nice quotes from the man:
– “From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor’s rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own.” Carl Schurz
– “If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.” Carl Schurz
To answer the OP: Ashamed, horrified and depressed.
The line kanicbird is following here was tried for a few days by the administration when the prisoner abuse scandal became public. There is a section of the Geneva Convention that prohibits the public humiliation of prisoners of war as a form of psychological abuse. Government spokesmen tried to float the theory that journalists were publically humiliating the abuse victims by publishing the evidence of their abuse and tried to claim that publishing such evidence was therefore a violation of the Genva Conventions.
Needless to say this theory was ridiculous and held no legal merit. The government quickly dropped it. But apparently kanicbird didn’t get the memo.
I’d basically go with that too. I have a huge admiration for the US.
Thanks all for your posts.
I have to say I wouldn’t feel ashamed. I’d feel angry and frustrated that actions were being carried out in my name.
Jackmannii while as I said pjen did go over the top sometimes his main point was that the US was losing the moral high ground due to unjustified detentions in GITMO and potential abuse of prisoners rights.
As to my minimal sites well I could give you lots more but since they’re nearly all eye witness accounts they probably won’t help you. I suppose we’ll have to wait for some dipstick to bring a camera in and film the actions, but that’s been banned now hasn’t it
Let me start off by saying that the rapes, and the people who died in AG as a result of mistreatment were not good. However, the number of people who died in AG pales in comparison to the number who didn’t. That doesn’t make those actions right, but simple humiliation is a good tactic. I don’t classify making a man wear women’s panties as torture. Making him wear panties while a dog eats his leg, or while pulling out his fingernails maybe. Abuse, sure, but torture, that word seems to strong. Torture most assuredly did occur (people did die) but not systemically. What the Viet Cong did to American POW’s was torture. Unfortunately, starting such abuse leads to a slippery slope in which torture might start happening. As an aside, some people (not I) have stated that perhaps the General in charge isn’t being treated as harshly as she should because the Army doesn’t want to be perceived as being negative towards the few women they have in power.
You think that attacking a defenceless person with a savage dog, or pulling his fingernails out, is “maybe” torture?
Having annihilated the meaning of the word “maybe,” you now move on to “systemically.” Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us as to your definition of this term?
Because all the evidence available right now suggests that the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib was regular, was ongoing, was used against many prisoners, was undertaken by a considerable number of individuals, was overseen by NCOs and low-level officers, and had the (tacit or explicit) approval of people further up the chain of command. It is even possible, though not yet certain, that it was approved, at least in principle, by people high up in the Bush administration.
If that doesn’t add up to “systemic,” i’m not sure what would.
I see. I get your reasoning now.
It’s not so much the act itself, but who is the victim, that’s important to you.
My fault for misrepresenting. Using dogs or pulling fingernails is torture. Not maybe torture. However, not everyone was treated this way. My point was that many, MANY more people died as a result of the atrocities committed by the Viet Cong. Vien Nam just happened to be the first to come to mind. Perhaps I could use the camps China has to quell dissidents. Maybe prisoners of the Bosnian Serbs. I was saying that not everyone in AG was attacked by dogs, at least from the information I had. Certainly there are many more pictures of abuse that is not deadly. However, you missed my point entirely by your selective quoting, about how I said any of the abuses are bad, leading to a mindset of “brutality=good”.
Who did what to whom at some other time in place is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. That someone else, somewhere, at some time did things worse does not excuse in any way shape or form what the occupying powers did to prisoners.
I mentioned it because the word being thrown around as torture isn’t necessarily always torture. Stacking up naked prisoners in a pyramid is not torture. Humiliating, degrading, wrong, yes. Torture, no. My only point. I was giving references to times and places where torture was much more widespread, and could be used as a blanket statement. I still stay to refer to the problem, one should say “the abuses that occur rampantly at Abu Ghraid, with intermittent (or even common) torture”.
I think the torture as practiced at Abu Ghraib justifies regime change in the US even if nothing else did (and plenty else does). The torture was practiced on prjisoners who had a very high probability of being innocents, it was out of control, it netted little or no little useful info that we know of. It was insanely stupid and vicious and reeks of desperation.
Rummy, Cheney, Bush, Condi: they’re all fucking evil, and they all have to go.
Yes I admit it, I pulled the lever for Dub-ya once before and will again, but I don’t see how the mods will care (w/ respect to this forumn), and don’t know what the problem is that you are trying to point out. I must say that you have anready used the letter ‘a’ in a previous post, which I may point out is a redundance
Anyway I am not the type to try to suppress your opinion by making some false claims of violation of rules.
I fall back on my statement, “I don’t care”, I have ignored the media driven hype of AG, these events took place (or at least reported to the public) long after the boy who cryed wolf (the media) had made several cries and I admittadly stopped paying any attention to them - they motive is clear, and even more so after the 1st beheading of Nick B. (and their reluctance to report it). From what you posted it seems like something had gone wrong, I hope it was under investigation if needed (after all a 12 yr old girl could fire a weapon - not that this has happened, just that it is possible).
It shows a bias, a stong bias, whick I can’t understand why anyone who can think on their own can’t see. At 1st is was underware in the head of EPW’s, it went on for days. Then the Nick B. Beheading, but it was not the mainstream media that let us know, I had to go to a conservative talk radio web site to find this out and to actually see what happened. It puts it into perspective.
As to the innocents, well innocent is a legal term, this is a war issue, there is a question as to the status of the EPW’s, and they might not be covered by the GC (or covered as spies)
For the record I am ashamed, but proud that there was something being done by the Military long before this became public.
The cite, I think is unneeded at this point and I will address later in this post. I didn’t ever say a newspaper should be shut done, just the reporters charged w/ war crimes, which, sometimes reporters like to consider themselves above the US, and citizens of the world, would think they would abide by the GC.
I fully and completely deny your statement that I stated a paper should be shut down.
Are you talking about former KKK member Byrd?, I am assuming so. Yes when Byrd doesn’t get HIS way he may weeps, even if the other way is for good (did I mention the KKK and the relationship to L. B.?). Anyway sorry you are in the same camp, I weep for you two.
Yes I must have missed the memo how publishing photos of EPW’s that hold very conservative religious beleifs (esp about sexuality) in sexually suggestive poses is not humilitation. And I hope it comes with an explaination, as I still don’t know how it is not a violation.
