[QUOTE=Starving Artist] FarmerChick, there’s nothing to be confused about; I said that in my opinion the abuses at Abu Graib in the Lynndie England photos were the result of ‘renegade’ military people behaving badly on their own.
As to how far up the chain of command this type of behavior was known of or condoned, I have no idea, but I’ve heard and read nothing substantive that would indicate that the behavior there was the result of following orders from on high as part of official U.S. policy.
The U.S. government and military have been quite clear in their condemnation of the events those photographs depict.
You then came charging in on high so as to “shut me up” before I could tell you the U.S. doesn’t torture. This presumption of yours is erroneous in a couple of ways. First, you seem to be conflating renegade abuse with official government policy, and secondly, you seem to be of the opinion that I was about to tell you the U.S. doesn’t torture, when I’ve never made such a proclamation anywhere on this board. The question of torture, what qualifies as torture, which types of situations may or may not call for it, etc. are too complex, multi-faceted and situation-specific for me to feel qualified to comment on.
So, before I leave the thread I will simply point out that my comments here have been intended to address the issue of whether or not there was media malfeasance in publishing the Lynndie England photos. You and j666 are trying to drag me into an argument over entirely different issues and I’m not gonna go there.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, and you are right, I jumped to a conclusion and then got rude. I do apologies for that. I’m not trying to drag you into any argument though, I truly am baffled by your insistence that this is an isolated incident. That being said, you are again correct in reminding me that this thread is about the media not torture.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Reasonable men of good will can disagree on many things in regard to this question. What constitutes torture…and what may or may not be the reason for employing it, orhow far up the ladder of officiality said torture or abuse can be shown to go…are questions that have been debated ad infinitum around here and I don’t want to get into them here.
[/quote]
Since you’re so interested in being reasonable, you pretty much have to concede that the chain of command for the use of torture undoubtedly originates at LEAST with Dick Cheney, who has consistently and vociferously championed the use of torture. Undoubtedly there is a chain of command between Cheney and England, but you can’t deny the probability of Cheney’s involvement without being totally disingenuous.
Whether Cheney let Bush in on this or not is a matter of conjecture, of course.
The media fell flat on their faces in the matter of investigating the chain of command, and of course the military made no real attempt and in fact covered up the links to the best of its ability.
Suuuuuure they weren’t. And Cheney and Bush’s support of torture is an optical illusion caused by swamp gas.
No, the harm done to America’s stature in the world as its leaders embraced torture as an official instrument of American policy has been and will be far greater than any revelation of their activities. The world NEEDS and DESERVES to have these kinds of atrocities exposed, whether they’re perpetrated by Third World kleptocracies or US kleptocrats.
In the Middle East, none at all I’m sure. In the Western World, it just adds to the general contempt we feel for governments that do this sort of thing.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Since you’re so interested in being reasonable, you pretty much have to concede that the chain of command for the use of torture undoubtedly originates at LEAST with Dick Cheney, who has consistently and vociferously championed the use of torture. Undoubtedly there is a chain of command between Cheney and England, but you can’t deny the probability of Cheney’s involvement without being totally disingenuous.
Whether Cheney let Bush in on this or not is a matter of conjecture, of course.
The media fell flat on their faces in the matter of investigating the chain of command, and of course the military made no real attempt and in fact covered up the links to the best of its ability.
Suuuuuure they weren’t. And Cheney and Bush’s support of torture is an optical illusion caused by swamp gas.
No, the harm done to America’s stature in the world as its leaders embraced torture as an official instrument of American policy has been and will be far greater than any revelation of their activities. The world NEEDS and DESERVES to have these kinds of atrocities exposed, whether they’re perpetrated by Third World kleptocracies or US kleptocrats.
In the Middle East, none at all I’m sure. In the Western World, it just adds to the general contempt we feel for governments that do this sort of thing.
To Starving Artist, add Blind Artist.
[/QUOTE]
You’re forgetting the the VP’s office isn’t actually part of the government. Remember, Cheney says it’s not really part of the Executive branch, or part of the Legislative branch, so how could it be in the chain of command? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Since you’re so interested in being reasonable, you pretty much have to concede that the chain of command for the use of torture undoubtedly originates at LEAST with Dick Cheney, who has consistently and vociferously championed the use of torture.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t have to concede any such thing.
Let’s say, for example, that you’re the assistant coach of some football team. And let’s assume you favor eye-gouging and biting when the officials aren’t looking. Then let’s say that a couple of rookies who are new to your team, and who came in with pretty much the same type of mindset, took it upon themselves to do a little biting and eye-gouging of their own.
And they get caught.
So, is the head coach, or the team itself, guilty of suborning injury to opposing team players? Are you? You didn’t give the go-ahead, and even though those players behaved in a way consistent with your own desires no amount of honest investigation can show that a.) a chain of command for this behavior can be traced back to you, or b.) that any chain of command for the eye-gouging and biting ever existed in the first place.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
No, I don’t have to concede any such thing.
[/quote]
Yes, you do. If I as a coach went around publicly defending eye-gouging and biting and talking about how they were necessary when you play football, I’d surely be responsible if my players did so, even if I never PUBLICLY gave the players specific orders to do so.
[QUOTE=DLuxN8R-13]
Would you like some fries with that generality, asshole?
[/QUOTE]
You can stuff your pc bs up your own arsehole. The average non-self righteous person hears of someone who was raised in a poor WVa. mining town in a trailer in the hills behind a sheep farm next to a saloon and wore camoflauge to school and worked in a chicken processing plant, most people would call that a hick. Get off the cross and join reality.
[QUOTE=DrCube and Slate Article]
The percentage of what the Army calls “high-quality” recruits—those who have high-school diplomas and who score in the upper 50th percentile on the Armed Forces’ aptitude tests—has declined from 56.2 percent in 2005 to 44.6 percent in 2007.
[/QUOTE]
Over half the army was scoring in the upper half of the testing scores? Is this possible, and if so, who’s making up the difference and taking the extra people in the bottom half?
I don’t think I agree with Starving Artist about the culpability of the media in this case – on balance, over time, it’s probably better if they release this sort of information instead of holding onto it – but I think he’s looking about it the right way.
I can’t speak to England’s motivations for what she said, but every quote in the OP is a true statement. If the photos had not been leaked to the media, or if the media had not published them, that probably would have saved lives. Yes, her actions are a link in that chain, but it’s the link that’s farthest removed from (and thus least cognizant of) the bad consequences that followed. Holding her responsible for the hundreds or thousands of deaths that ultimately resulted from her actions is a gross oversimplification, just as it’s an oversimplification to ignore that she was a subordinate following orders.
[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
I don’t think I agree with Starving Artist about the culpability of the media in this case – on balance, over time, it’s probably better if they release this sort of information instead of holding onto it – but I think he’s looking about it the right way.
I can’t speak to England’s motivations for what she said, but every quote in the OP is a true statement. If the photos had not been leaked to the media, or if the media had not published them, that probably would have saved lives. Yes, her actions are a link in that chain, but it’s the link that’s farthest removed from (and thus least cognizant of) the bad consequences that followed. Holding her responsible for the hundreds or thousands of deaths that ultimately resulted from her actions is a gross oversimplification, just as it’s an oversimplification to ignore that she was a subordinate following orders.
[/QUOTE]
Very good post Varlos, I didn’t see Starving Artist’s point for a while, I still don’t agree with him, but I do see where he’s coming from.
The reason I put up the link to the whole article was to put her words in perspective and to show that she was remorseful. I still think it’s a shame that she is the face of “American Torture.” There are many many more involved in Abu Ghraib in much more horrific detail that have gotten away with it, or at least will not have to carry it with them their whole lives as publicly as Lynndie England will.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Who the FUCK would want to see that? She’s got a face that would make a train turn down a dirt road. She looks like my cousin, who’s a dude.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly- there’s a reason Playboy hasn’t offered her money to pose, which they do for anyone remotely attractive who gets 1/100th the publicity/notoriety she’s gotten.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Who the FUCK would want to see that? She’s got a face that would make a train turn down a dirt road. She looks like my cousin, who’s a dude.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, have you actually seen some of the porn that’s out there?
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Who the FUCK would want to see that? She’s got a face that would make a train turn down a dirt road. She looks like my cousin, who’s a dude.
[/QUOTE]
That particular picture is an exceptionally unflattering one. For the second time in this thread, let me link to this photo in which she doesn’t look nearly as bad. Also, as Guinastasia has already pointed out, there are a great many people working in porn who you might find not up to your personal standards of beauty…Vishnu knows I don’t.
WRT to her not posing in Playboy ( a magazine that has been largely irrelevant for nearly 20 years), have you considered that she may have rejected an offer from them? Unless you are privy to the inner workings of The Mag That Jacking-Off Built, I will not accept that she was too ugly to offer a spread on just your say-so, Wee Bairn.
[QUOTE=Scumpup]
That particular picture is an exceptionally unflattering one. For the second time in this thread, let me link to this photo in which she doesn’t look nearly as bad. Also, as Guinastasia has already pointed out, there are a great many people working in porn who you might find not up to your personal standards of beauty…Vishnu knows I don’t.
WRT to her not posing in Playboy ( a magazine that has been largely irrelevant for nearly 20 years), have you considered that she may have rejected an offer from them? Unless you are privy to the inner workings of The Mag That Jacking-Off Built, I will not accept that she was too ugly to offer a spread on just your say-so, Wee Bairn.
[/QUOTE]
Besides, when are Cisco and Wee Bairn going to offer up pictures of themselves?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
No, I don’t have to concede any such thing.
Let’s say, for example, that you’re the assistant coach of some football team. And let’s assume you favor eye-gouging and biting when the officials aren’t looking. Then let’s say that a couple of rookies who are new to your team, and who came in with pretty much the same type of mindset, took it upon themselves to do a little biting and eye-gouging of their own.
And they get caught.
So, is the head coach, or the team itself, guilty of suborning injury to opposing team players? Are you? You didn’t give the go-ahead, and even though those players behaved in a way consistent with your own desires no amount of honest investigation can show that a.) a chain of command for this behavior can be traced back to you, or b.) that any chain of command for the eye-gouging and biting ever existed in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
Well, presumably nobody on the Duke lacrosse team’s coaching staff advocated raping strippers, and yet they were all fired when the allegations against the team were announced.
Also, your hypothetical situation is ridiculous. The head coach is certainly responsible for his players’ conduct on the field, regardless of whether he was behind it.
Last, but certainly not least, Bush repeatedly threatened to veto the 2005 defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody” - as spelled out in the Army Field Manual.
You may suggest, if you wish, that the President and VP bear no responsibility for Abu Ghraib. You certainly cannot suggest with a straight face that the President and Vice President have publicly opposed torture.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
No, I don’t have to concede any such thing.
Let’s say, for example, that you’re the assistant coach of some football team. And let’s assume you favor eye-gouging and biting when the officials aren’t looking. Then let’s say that a couple of rookies who are new to your team, and who came in with pretty much the same type of mindset, took it upon themselves to do a little biting and eye-gouging of their own.
And they get caught.
So, is the head coach, or the team itself, guilty of suborning injury to opposing team players? Are you? You didn’t give the go-ahead, and even though those players behaved in a way consistent with your own desires no amount of honest investigation can show that a.) a chain of command for this behavior can be traced back to you, or b.) that any chain of command for the eye-gouging and biting ever existed in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry to ressurect an old thread, but GWB has just confirmed that he personally approved the use of torture as an interrogation technique, and a working group met periodically in the White House to approve the methodology.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
Sorry to ressurect an old thread, but GWB has just confirmed that he personally approved the use of torture as an interrogation technique, and a working group met periodically in the White House to approve the methodology.
Nor does it in any way link any administration official to the activities at Abu Ghraib, which your quoting of my football coach analogy seems to suggest.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Nothing in your link says that President Bush approved torture. It says they discussed "“enhanced interrogation techniques.”
[/QUOTE]
Ideed, for all we know the meetings where named “Humane use of the Comfy chair during interrogation” or some such. :rolleyes:
