Where’s the paper evidence that WMD were a bogus pretext to justify acquiring the worlds third largest reserves of oil - this isn’t Nixon’s Presidency, people and Administration have long since wised up.
The police can’t even nail Blair for cash for Honours malarkey – you’re asking for stuff that happened 20-30 years ago, in a more naive, computerless world.
And this is the thing that I feel is most damning about Abu Ghraib.
Whether one believes that the Stanford Prison experiment was flawed, or not, it remains a graphic example of how thoroughly and quickly people can go overboard when given power without limits, or even effective oversight. I don’t wish to sound like I support all of the conclusions that have been drawn (esp. by Prof. Zimbardo) from the experiment. But anyone in this day and age who doesn’t see the Stanford Prison experiment as evidence for the need to have effective and controlled oversight of prisoners and their keepers has to have had their heads in the sand for the past three decades.
The evidence of WMDs was on the ground - the US admin claimed they were there publicly, they were not. Case closed.
I’m not asking for something that happened 20-30 years ago, I’m asking for something that happened in 2002 or 2003; the change was made to military policy then, not 20-30 years ago.
And what does the Cash for Honours scandal have to do with anything?
suggest you have a coffeee and try again.
Ooo, you’re in the wrong forum for that comment.
What?
Ah, so there were no orders? Then how about not asserting or implying that those higher ups issued such orders?
Her civilian job was business consultant. Her military job was whatever her military assignment was. As a human being, she’s not a one-task machine. The guards may’ve made pizza in their civilian jobs, but their military jobs were whatever their MOS were. Again, they’re not one-task machines.
[qutoe]The same ideas of humiliation and torture by reference to cultural and religious mores weren’t a coincidence in Abu Gahaib, in USA dentention centres in Afghanistan, at Guantanamo, elsewhere in Iraq and all those cute 3rd pary extraordinary rendition sites - it was, and for all we know still is, US Government policy.
[/quote]
Actually, they very well could’ve been conincidences given the wide knowledge of at least some aspects of Islam. One such aspect would be the reverence for their scriptures. Another such aspect would be the aversion to pork.
Then, according to you, he didn’t order it.
So, let’s here you admit it in a short statement: There is no evidence.
Nope, her career is in business consultancy. Which in the view of the military clearly qualified her to govern the largest prison in Iraq - most sane people might think you don’t get be sufficiently skilled in a role just because the military assign you to that role.
I can do what you do, you can do what I do, but neither of us is going to be any fucking good at it. This attitude pretty much epitomises why the post-conflict (period) was lost by US civilian administrators, whether in part-time uniforms or not.
Fantastic; the USA Military is overtaken by a compulsion to humiliate and torture, by similar and identical means, by reference to cultural and religiuos mores on 3 - or is it 4 - continents, and it’s just one of those crazy coincidences. Would you believe it !!
It’s a crazy world folks. Say, I once bumped into someone from University while booking into a hostel in Katmandu - how about that!
Just for fun, Elsie; how about you starting to debate honestly as opposed to the fake representation of my wording you’ve posited?
What’s “fake representation” - take me though it ?
I believe all I’ve done is clean up your poor coding. Elaborate?
Oh I see, part of my quote is coded into your quote - sorry 'bout that.
This part isn’t helpful and obviously isn’t Monty’s
Forget this, then. As you were.
Oversight - sure, but that’s not enough.
[military anecdote] When I was in the army (in the late 80s) part of our training was meant to make us aware of the legality of orders.
My most memorable experience happened during a training mission: we captured a couple of “suspicious civilians” who made things … quite difficult to the point that the mission couldn’t be accomplished with them hanging around.
The sergeant made the, our impending failure perfectly clear if we didn’t get rid of the “obstacles”. Tensions grew, then the sergeant ordered the “shooting” of the captives.
I’ve no idea what would have happened if it had been a real situation though I have little doubt that the captives would have been toast – but in our specific situation an argument in favor of their “survival” couldn’t be denied even by the totally exhausted or frenzied ones: we were in training, nothing happened without a reason, nothing went unnoticed.
Soon enough it became abundantly clear that our reactions to an obviously unlawful order were part of the training, and, to my knowledge, no one succeeded who had failed - after - the initial test.
[/anecdote]
Curious, possibly a form of IQ test to determine whether the subjects were smart enough to recognize an artificial ‘test’. If not they were pond life.
I wonder what would have happened if the two likeliest recruits had caught the sergeant’s eye, then silently broken the ‘obstacles’’ necks.
Probably the sergeant would have been transferred for not giving the right covert signals.
Have you ever read the book or seen the movie, Casualties of War? It’s a true story.
Funny. As you know, killing someone in training simply meant to tell him, “you’re dead, move on”, so: No harm done. I do hope that is still the case. :eek:
My point is, you had a couple of young guys who had already adapted to the military way of thinking: they had learned to follow every order, got used to the idea that killing is what they were supposed to do and had been fed (and more or less believed because, well, they were that good) the cliched “failure is not an option”-attitude.
And for the first time, it looked as if they were going to fail, one way or the other.
Add fatigue and over wound minds after a week “in the field” and the training-mission at a point when it could have already been successfully completed if only the “baggage” wasn’t there …
And yet, those sleep deprived young men were, in the majority, still far too aware of the artificiality of the situation - and the rules guiding it - to simply say the words.
Experiences like that one make me doubt the validity of the Prison Experiment as stated by Zimbardo. I have always thought that the students knew the underlying rules as well as we did and they did what they had to do to succeed - from the one point of view that actually meant a thing.
I have the suspicion the same is true for the guards in Abu Torture.
I have seen the movie. And being born in a family with a long tradition of military service I have no doubt that such things happened, do happen, will happen.
The paradoxical demands of military acting “overload” at some point pretty much everyone’s sanity in the field, and you have to get out of there before you lose perspective - or rather adapt one that mirrors the world you live in too closely.
But as long as you’re not drugged or without time to think you’re still the one who decides how to cope, what to do - and your decision = your responsibility.
Same is true for the guards and their superior officers who either didn’t know what they should have known or knew and didn’t care – either way, they are unfit to command.
That is most decidely not what’s taught to members of the United States military.
Depends. Military people are certainly not taught to kill in every circumstance, and are quite specifically restrained from using full force in response to incidents based on the Rules of Engagement which are set from on high, but are quite frequently operating under the ‘failure is not an option’ remit in a lot of different missions.
The point is that grunts don’t have to understand the whole legal framework. Certain things are proscribed no matter what (shooting unarmed civilians, shooting POWs, illegal orders), whereas other things might or might not be allowed based on Rules of Engagement (do not fire unless fired upon or do not fire in certain areas) which may vary. The officer in charge determines the ROE; the grunts have to interpret as best they can when given orders, but the grunts are all extensively trained in what is and what is not allowed.
And that differs from what I said…how? My point is that members of the military are not trained to just follow orders. They’re trained to follow the laws too, one of which prohibits carrying out illegal orders.
Monty - you said
in response to Bertram’s
I agreed with you, and provided a bit more detail of why I agreed with you, whilst also agreeing with Bertram that ‘failure is not an option’ is a very real attitude on some missions but that doesn’t change the fact (and your premise I believe) that ‘failure is not an option’ DOES NOT override the UCMJ, which specifically states that Soldiers / Sailors / Airmen must not follow illegal orders.
OK?
Yep. Thanks.