Exactly my point. It wasn’t England who said this today, it was a witness who said that England said this. That’s not the same as England saying, in court, that it was “just for fun.”
If the system works as advertised, any order to commit a war crime is by definition an illegal order. Refusing an illegal order isn’t just an option, it’s your duty as a soldier. And by ratifying the Geneva conventions, the US has accepted an obligation to incorporate the rules of the conventions into the military regulations.
In practice, it takes serious guts to stand up and refuse, especially in a war zone. Refusing an order is implying that your commander is the one committing a crime, and if you’re not very sure that you’re right and that you can make it stick, you’re now on your unit’s shit list and up for some really bad times.
I doubt that any of the jailers were “given orders” in that fashion to abuse their charges. Earlier comments by the six who have been singled out as the “bad ones” seemed to indicate that it was more a matter of the interrogators “suggesting” that various prisoners be “softened up” and then letting the group with Ganer make up their own rules.
Interestingly, however, the Army decided to investigate the situation after one of the K-9 handlers did refuse to use his dog to intimidate the prisoners and went on to lodge a complaint to higher authority.
Her “They ordered me to do it!” defense doesn’t hold water when you consider she wasn’t a guard, just a paper pusher illicitly visiting her boyfriend in the “prison’s fortified hard site” .
[Nitpick: It’s court-martialed, Counselor]
Anyway, why are you letting your attention be focused away from the persons who created the environment where abuse and humiliation were even tolerated, to say nothing of expected if not ordered? Why are you not profoundly angry at the chain of command up to at least Rumsfeld for explicitly authorizing it, and to the WH legal staff for perverting your profession into an excuse of torture and of flouting the Geneva Convention itself? How about the Commander in Chief who permitted it to happen?
Who is really responsible? Not some damned-idiot Reserve private who was dumb enough to let her picture be taken, and didn’t necessarily do even the worst of the things that are suspected. Bluntly, given the strength of your political loyalties, would a more-honest choice of target make you too uncomfortable?
Well I for one am 100% godamn sure I wouldn’t.
ELVIS –
Why would you assume my attention is “focused away” from anything? As I have already said, I think there’s plenty of blame to go around, and I think it’s stupid to implicitly argue that there’s really only so much blame to go around, so we’d better ration it. As to why focus on her in particular at this point in time: Because she’s the one currently on trial. Because she’s the one in the pictures. Because she’s the female, and I’m a female and I know her behavior reflects badly not only on our country and our armed forces, but also on “American women” or “Western women” in general.
But let me ask you in turn: Why are letting your attention be focused away from the people who actually did these henious things, and allowed themselves to be photographed while doing them?
Who said I wasn’t? Again, why are you not angry with the individuals who actually did these things? What’s that – you say you are? You say you’re perfectly capable of being angry at a whole host of people at the same time? My point.
Bullshit. Everyone involved is responsible. To say that the woman at the end of the lease, thumbs up and grinning, is not responsible – that is ridiculous. And outrageous. She did these things.
You know jack-shit about my political loyalties or how strong they may or may not be. Bluntly, if your own political loyalties dictate that you question the honesty of my feelings regarding this outrageous clusterfuck, you can kiss my rosy red ass.
I would never dream of questioning the honesty of your feelings regarding this outrageous clusterfuck. I would, however, like to question your willingness to do the right thing in order to effectively “apologize to those poor men, to the country of Iraq, to the whole Arab world, to the whole world” for the way this administration has behaved.
Will you be voting for John Kerry on November 2nd, thereby letting the whole world know that you refuse to support an administration that thinks they’re above the laws and treaties of our land and which condones torture and humiliation in violation of international laws?
The participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment, and those in Milgram’s study, would have had the same thoughts as you before they took part…
SHAYNA –
[qutoe]I would never dream of questioning the honesty of your feelings regarding this outrageous clusterfuck. I would, however, like to question your willingness to do the right thing in order to effectively “apologize to those poor men, to the country of Iraq, to the whole Arab world, to the whole world” for the way this administration has behaved.
[/quote]
Question away, but first you’ll have to explain to me why I am in any way bound by your personal idea of what “doing the right thing” is.
Refresh my memory: What business is it of yours who I vote for, or against, or why? You may think I would be endorsing the entire administration, without exception, if I were to vote for Bush, but the only thing you can reasonably infer from my refusal to tell you who I’m voting for, is that I don’t consider that any of your business. For that matter, I don’t consider it anyone’s business.
Where did I say you were? You’re free to do whatever you please. I suggest that the only effective apology to be made is to not give the administration who sanctioned these atrocities the power to continue doing so for another 4 years, otherwise, it’s just lip service. Clearly you’re free to disagree.
Again, where did I say it was my business? I merely asked if you were going to stand behind your desire to make an apology to the world, by using your vote to do so. Don’t want to answer the question? Fine by me. That’s certainly your prerogative. It does, however, leave the reader to infer the genuineness of your outrage. Whether that inference be right or wrong, we’ll never know, since you invoke your right not to tell. So be it.
SHAYNA –
My assumption was that you thought it was your business, because I can’t imagine you would have asked if you didn’t. Do you generally ask questions you know are none of your business? Why? Just to be rude?
A question that obviously assumes a agree my vote or your vote or anyone’s vote is tantamount to an apology to anyone, for anything. Which is crap, of course. Voting for Kerry doesn’t apologize to anyone for anything. Even if he’s elected, Iraqis will not interpret that as an apology for this. Because it isn’t one.
The reader can infer the genuineness of my outrage based on my refusal to allow you to violate my privacy, huh? 
Heh. The reader could “infer” that I was ashamed of my sexuality if I refused to tell you my sexual orientation, in the event you asked something so entirely none of your business and then disengenuously asked “where did I say it was my business?” The reader could “infer” that I was “hiding” my social class if I refused to tell you my salary, in the event you asked something so entirely none of your business, and then disengenuously asked “where did I say it was my business?”
But hopefully the reader will be smart enough to realize that refusing to disclose who I’m voting for (or even if I’ve decided) has fuck-all to do with how I feel about any of the events in Iraq – or indeed any of the events in the U.S. Hopefully the reader will be smart enough to see that I am not required to allow you to violate my privacy in order to convince you that my outrage is “genuine” – as if you were in a position to judge, and as if I give a rat’s ass what your judgment might be.
This is a discussion board, in case you hadn’t noticed. People here interact and ask each other questions about how they feel and where they stand all the time. Doing so doesn’t imply that there’s any “right” to know the answer.
You opened a discussion about the prison abuses suffered by Iraqi citizens. You said that if there was a way you could apologize you would do it. I suggested that there is a way – by helping to vote the administration that perpetrated it out of office, and asked if you’d be doing so.
Like I said, you are both free to disagree that that’s an effective means of apologizing and free not to answer the question. But that hardly makes me asking a question in the context of the conversation you started, “rude.”
I disagree. I think it sends a clear message that Americans don’t condone the actions of our current administration and won’t allow it to continue.
Asking you a question hardly qualifies as “violating your privacy.” Like I said, you’re free not to answer it. And I’m also free to draw whatever conclusion I wish, based on that refusal. For all you know, since I’m not revealing what conclusion that may or may not be, I simply conclude that you wish not to answer due to guarding your privacy.
SHAYNA –
So you ask questions here that you freely admit are none of your business, because “this is a discussion board.” What difference does that make? Are you more or less free IRL to attempt to put people on the spot by asking them questions that will require them to either divulge information you are perfectly aware you’re not entitled to ask for, or to point out that your question is inappropriate?
[quoite]You opened a discussion about the prison abuses suffered by Iraqi citizens.
[/quote]
Actually, I pitted one particular participant in those prison abuses.
Your “suggestion” assumes that a vote constitutes an apology – which we all know is crap – and your question was, as you freely (if oddly) admit) none of your business. None of which I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is your attempt to link my refusal to answer a question you admit is none of your business, with the “genuineness” of my outrage over the events in Iraq. As if one has anything to do with the other.
It is always rude to ask of acquaintances questions that you know are none of your business. Why? Because you place the other person in the uncomfortable position of having to either answer or point out to you that it’s not actually any of your business. Why don’t you ask? Y’know – because it’s none of your business. That’s pretty much the definition of the term.
“Sending a message” is not the same as apologizing. As I said, the Iraqis will quite rightly not take the election of Kerry as an apology for anything – because it isn’t one. But you snipped that part out.
No, not a violation; merely an attempt. You can hardly deny that, seeing as how you admit you had no right to ask in the first place.
Wow, you are really six kinds of disingenuous, aren’t you? Let me remind you of what you said: “Don’t want to answer the question? Fine by me. That’s certainly your prerogative. It does, however, leave the reader to infer the genuineness of your outrage.” You attempt to draw a clear line between (a) my refusal to answer and (b) the genuineness of my outrage. Kindly have the intellectual honesty to refrain from denying that. That is hardly consistent with your claim now that you have “simply concluded that I wish not to answer due to guarding my privacy.” If that had been your conclusion, you would not have made the underhanded and pathetic attempt to link the two together.
I didn’t say they were INNOCENT pawns, but they ARE most definitely PAWNS being sacrificed to save the heavy hitters who set them up.
I do not believe that the folks who deliberately set out to destroy the U.S. armed forces’ long tradition of not torturing prisoners (or at least of not condoning it) are folks who are all that capable of feeling guilt.
Ahhh…guess we better not let “young, naive, scared little girls” in the military then?
I didn’t say I wasn’t entitled to ask you the question, I said you have the right not to answer if you don’t feel like it. There’s a difference between acknowledging that I don’t have the “right” to expect an answer, if one doesn’t wish to give it, and feeling perfectly justified in asking the question within the context of the conversation in the first place.
I admitted no such thing. I merely inquired as to where I said that it was my personal business to know how you were going to vote. I contend that I haven’t violated any rules of etiquette in merely asking a question, brought up within the context of a conversation you started. However, to try to bring the level of vitriol down a notch or two, I will apologize for having offended you in asking it – it was not intended to offend.
No, I directly addressed it with my opposing opinion. So we disagree – no surprise there.
First of all, you bolded the wrong part. Let’s try again: “It does, however, leave the reader to infer the genuineness of your outrage.” I’m not the only one reading this thread, and I merely commented that you leave yourself open to interpretation by not answering the question. I further stated that that interpretation may or may not be correct. Secondly I did not “now claim” any conclusion on my own part. You have no idea what my own feelings are on the matter, as I haven’t stated them anywhere. However, in reviewing my comment I will rescind the use of the word ‘genuineness’ and replace it with ‘degree’ in relation to your level of anger. I have no doubt that your anger is, indeed, genuine.
And I’ll go you one futher. I have not stated what conclusion I drew from your refusal to answer how you intend to vote, but I’ll do so now. You are a Republican, and as such, a vote for President Bush could be naturally assumed. However, you are also a “moderate” and obviously passionate about human rights, so that assumption would be, well, presumptuous. So I asked, given your stated level of outrage at the treatment of Iraqi prisoners and your acknowledgement that the blame goes all the way up to the White House, are you outraged enough to vote the people who ordered and/or condoned this behavior out of office. There are many people all over the country who, based on their level of anger/disappointment/fear/concern at the actions of this administration, are crossing party lines to vote in this election. See: http://republicansforkerry04.org/, http://www.republicansforkerry.org/, http://republicansagainstbush.info/, Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos, http://anotherrepublicanforkerry.com/ and http://www.independentsforkerry.org/, as well as any of the following posts right here on this very message board: here, here and here.
For all I know, the outrage you feel about these incidents is enough to guide your vote, as it has for so many others, so I asked. It is my gut feeling, which I fully acknowledge could be entirely wrong, that in choosing not to answer at all, that the answer is in fact, that you aren’t angered enough by these incidents not to vote to give the administration who caused them, four more years of power to continue to do so. IF that conclusion is true, there would therefore have to be issues more important to you than how this administration condoned and/or ordered these actions that make you angry enough to be sick to your stomach, but not angry enough to actually do anything about it. IF that conclusion is not true, I have to wonder why you wouldn’t be willing to just say so, as if it would be such a terrible thing to admit (though I’m certainly not asking, because it’s clearly not my personal business why you would make that choice!).
It’s really just that simple. I wondered where you stood, so I asked. It is an election year, afterall, so I’m asking a lot of people how they intend to vote. I don’t view that the same at all as asking someone what their sexual orientation is, or how much money they make. You don’t wish to answer, which is your prerogative. I’ve therefore drawn the above conclusion, right or wrong, and apologize for having offended you by asking in the first place.
I’m going home to have dinner with my husband now. Have a nice night.
SHAYNA –
This entire exercise in back-pedalling may lead the reader to infer that you are a disengenuous weasel. This interpretation may or may not be correct.
Note how careful I have been to avoid saying this is my opinion.
I wonder if you truly do not see how offensive this entire line of “reasoning” is – and I put the term in quotes because it really doesn’t apply Let me recast your argument for you, into another realm where perhaps the offensive will be more obvious – though in your case, perhaps not.
I have asked you what your sexual orientation is. You have refused to answer, telling me that it is none of my business. My response is this:
It is my gut feeling, which I fully acknowledge could be entirely wrong, that in choosing not to answer at all, that the answer is in fact, that you probably gay and are ashamed of your sexual orientation and that’s why you won’t admit you’re gay. IF that conclusion is true, there would therefore have to be issues with you regarding your commitment to the cause of gay rights, because you are passionate enough to discuss the subject, but not passionate enough to admit your homosexuality. IF that conclusion is not true, I have to wonder why you wouldn’t be willing to just say so, as if it would be such a terrible thing to admit (though I’m certainly not asking, because it’s clearly not my personal business why you would make that choice!).
In case that was too subtle for you: You asked a question that requests an answer that is none of you business. You admit that the answer is in fact none of your business. You admit that a perfectly legitimate reason to refuse to answer is because the answer is – anyone? That’s right: None of your business. In light of all that, it is offensive for you to infer or imply a lack of moral courage/ depth of offense/ genuineness of offense/ dishonesty/ whatever, based solely on a refusal to answer. It’s a tactic used by Stalinists to infer disloyalty, by McCarthy to infer a lack of patriotism, by the Inquisition to infer a lack of piety, by a host of others who would seek to make their opponents “declare,” or suffer for their silence. As a tactic it is absolutely contemptible, and a person who would attempt to use it – be it ever so clumsily – is contemptible as well. I leave it to the reader to decide if that applies to you. :rolleyes:
So Jodi . . .
who ya votin’ for?