I have no idea how to quantify the ratio of torture to abuse, I don’t care to speculate on Ms. England’s IQ, nor do I have an opinion on her geographic origins.
While I find her actions to be reprehensible and, frankly, inhuman, I think she’s more pathetic than monstrous. She’s a young girl who is obviously easily manipulated and according to her Wikipedia article, has not shown good judgment, either in Iraq or in her civilian life. I honestly believe she doesn’t understand the consequences of her actions, except as they affect her now, nor does she understand why what she did was wrong.
I especially feel sorry for her son. Both of his parents are convicted felons with dishonorable discharges on their records, and I’m sure that neither one will have an easy time supporting him.
Something I just thought of- suerly there has to exist pictures of Lynndie and the gang descrating the Koran or other holy book- Lynndie wiping her arse with it, or using pages to stem the red tide, etc. Right?
I have no idea what you think you’re proving here, unless it’s an impressive lack of reading comprehension. In my very first post since you or Nurse Carmen raised the issue, I addressed it. You fucking quoted me, yet here you are accusing me of trying to hide something or dodge the issue or God knows what.
No, my fucking point, if you’d bother to pull your empty head out of your stinking, disease riddled cunt and JUST FUCKING READ WHAT I POSTED, is that the media overreaction to the abuse allowed the torture to slip under the radar AND THAT THIS WAS A BAD THING. No only do you completely miss what I CLEARLY said, probably because you have the intellect that God gave a gopher, but you then proceed to give examples that PROVE MY POINT. Jesus, there’s stupid, and then there’s aggressive ignorance, and you’re way beyond both.
People mention that they’ve seen Elvis all the time. Doesn’t make it true. This entire paragraph is pure speculation on your part, and you’re trying to use it to question the validity of something I already said was a top of my head estimate. You still continue to beat this dead horse into it’s component atoms because you have no way to counter my real argument that it was a gross miscalculation by the anti-war faction, the Democrats and the press that provided the cover the Bush administration needed to sweep the real torture under the rug. The left created the smokescreen used to hide or at least obscure the very thing they were deploring, and in a sad irony, most likely prevented what they most desired from happening. If the left had been honest in it’s reporting from the get go, and allowed the story to evolve naturally instead of lying and exaggerating in a premature attempt to paint a hated administration with the broad brush of torture before it was warranted while at the same time shocking Americans with heinous accusations, most likely Kerry would be President today. The actual evidence of the really bad stuff started to come to light just in time for the '04 election season. Instead, by the time this real evidence of actual torture started to appear, the public had become so deafened to the repeated cries of “torture, torture, torture” about abuses that weren’t that the real stuff got lost in the noise. YOUR SIDE WOUND UP FUCKING THEMSELVES. Deal with it.
No, if the media hadn’t misreported abuse as torture, then when actual torture showed up, it wouldn’t have been dismissed by people assuming it was more of the same: Media hyperbole for ratings.
If that’s true, then I retract the word ‘moron’ from the OP.
Her statements, though, seem to be lucid and coherent – if not exactly eloquent. In fact, she has enough understanding to try to deflect the blame onto others, so I’m not sure I buy that she’s too dumb to own her piece of it. Does it takes superior intelligence to feel genuine remorse?
What does it say about the public school system if the following is true-
*A railroad worker’s daughter, England was reared on a dirt road behind a sheep
farm in the one-stoplight town. *She made the honor roll in high school ** but was
married and divorced before she was old enough to vote. And before she enlisted,
England toiled in a chicken-processing plant.
You are just determined to hammer home that she is too stupid to breathe aren’t you? People with learning disabilities can be on the honor roll you know. She also was determined to go to college, that is the reason that she joined the reserves.
I am NOT condoning her behavior at all, it’s obviously reprehensible. But she clearly was the prime scapegoat in this fiasco. For a different perspective, read this article.
I don’t think I’ve mocked her, I’ve just called a spade a spade and provided cites, but nonetheless I’ll desist from any further personal comments about her.
But no one is arguing that she’s not a scapegoat. She wasn’t the ringleader, and surely everything they did was sanctioned by higher ups who’ll never get in trouble for it. The Milgram and Stanford experiments proved even smart people will do reprehensible things if instructed to under certain conditions.
Indeed, and i apologize for that. Not only was i incorrect but, as you noted, my slip enabled Weirddave to focus on that rather than on the fact that his overall attempt at rationalization is still absurd.
And what makes it all the worse is that we’ve all seen this many times before, and i should have realized what was going on. Mea culpa. It’s the standard Weirddave mode of argumentation. Here’s how you play, the Weirddave way:
(a) produce an extensive, multi-paragraph diatribe about why all liberals who believe that A is true are idiots, and how they have, through their typical partisan stupidity, completely missed the point.
(b) insert a single short sentence or phrase, somewhere in the middle of your rant, conceding that, for the most part, A actually is true.
(c) fly into a self-righteous blather when people have the temerity to focus on the bulk and the substance of your argument and its implications, rather than on the single tentative caveat buried in the middle of the froth.
Well, i happen to know for a fact that those figures are the result of an extensive analysis, one that involved poring over news stories, statements by current and for military personnel, trial and court martial transcripts, and government reports. It was only through a mere oversight, a momentary lapse of concentration, that Weirddave failed to post a link to his philosophical essay defining the demarcation between abuse and torture, and his Excel spreadsheet breaking down the incidence of the two at Abu Ghraib.
I’m sure that lapse will be corrected momentarily.
Shot in the dark: She’s a poet. Some people find poetry, especially the kind that doesn’t rhyme, to be difficult to extract linear meaning from. In this sense, it can be said to be “obtuse.”
Maya Angelou could surely manage to at least make her poetry rhyme, for goodness’ sake!
Not to my satisfaction, you didn’t. When you originally submitted your take on a summation of her statements post in #5, I understood the second statement to be referring to her specific case. Your explication of how media revelation of actions by military personnel could be construed as irresponsible in certain cases appeared to me to be applicable to a far more general set of circumstances. You gave no compelling argument that her case fell under the mantle of those circumstances.
I suppose I could have put a winkie, or a smilie in my post, but where’s the joy in sucking all the humor out of a joke and then telegraphing the fact?
Just want to add a little something in support over how the press ‘handled’ the issue. although from a different perspective.
I read an article, or series thereof, in the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine), about the medical ethics of doctors who worked at the prison. They were told to be involved in the questionable treatment of prisoners, and the articles were debating whether or not those that were complacent should be held accountable, and if so, how accountable should they be held?
What was brought to light was that the doctors felt they had no choice. Certainly, according to military statute, they could refuse. However, what was going on was, at the very least, amoral. The doctors had no outside contact locally with whom they could share this information, and they felt in danger of their jobs (at the very least) or their lives (at the most extreme).
If an article had come out saying, simply, “Mistreatment of prisoners”, it would have gone to page 8 and likely never been seen again. The words ‘torture’ or ‘war crimes’ gave it a publicity that allowed people to step forward and give their view of the story without greater fear for reprocussions.
I know quite well that, were I in the situation of the doctors, I would’ve been very scared, too, and the ‘breaking’ of the story would’ve not only calmed my fears, but perhaps eased my conscience a bit as well, and given me the opportunity to, if not set things right, then at least have a hand in making sure such things didn’t happen again.
That’s because I don’t think her case fell under the mantle of those circumstances. Why would you think I think otherwise?
My point is that it’s not appalling, in and of itself, just to think a case is such that the immediate consquences are bad overall. This is an empirical question of fact. Someone who does not understand the relevant facts might make the wrong judgment about something like this. This isn’t appalling.
So the thing to say here is that no reasonable person could think that the short term consequences were what England thought they were. The best line is probably to argue that it’s appalling that she would say the consequences were bad, because it’s appallingly irrational and self-servingly motivated. And that might be right. But I don’t feel confident that I know enough about England’s epistemological situation to make that judgment. It wouldn’t suprise me if she were genuinely grossly misinformed by virtue of her position and her peers. It’s a grey-area case at least, IMO.
