Well, that might happen when you stop making posts that are so needlessly accusatory and inflammatory.
Because something actually happened to the Koran. The idea that people on this message board would take pleasure in the desecration of the Bible is nothing but a figment of your imagination, a shibboleth of your own creation.
For what it’s worth, i personally can’t get too worked up of over the desecration of the Koran or the Bible. Or any other individual book, for that matter. But i appreciate that some people do take this issue seriously, and i respect their feelings on the issue. And this would apply whether it was the Koran or the Bible or the Talmud or whatever.
Nope, but your post came across to me as a bit of a broad accusation on the board as a whole, so I can kind of understand where ETF was coming from. Thanks for the clarification.
The difference seems to be what the religions teach. To christians and catholics, the bible is The Good Book but it is replaceable (with the exception of family bibles and the like) so if a bible gets flushed or peed on, it’s not as much of a big deal.
To muslims, the Koran is very sacred. Peeing on that isn’t much different than peeing on one of their children. It’s a big deal.
If this were accidental contact with the koran that was causing the hullaballoo, I would be more upset with those that are freaking. Since this was blasphemy with intent, it’s far more understandable. The soldiers know what they are doing when they do it.
Artfully worded. Note that the press release doesn’t say what, exactly, the pattern of unacceptable behavior was, only that the interrogator was “later fired”. You are invited to draw the conclusion, but deniability is maintained.
Oh, that’s wholly fair. My bigger point is that the fact that some idiots on the ground are doing stupid things (and it appears, possibly being punished for doing it after the fact) is not somehow an indictment of any administration.
I grow tired of, “The leader knows and is responsible for all,” think in a country with 280+ million people. If someone can show a connection (again, beyond the tenuous, "Bush is evil, he hates human rights, so it’s his fault), go for it. I’ll be the first there to crucify the guy.
But I wasn’t there crying for Clinton’s head because some prison rape blowjob occurred in Peoria, and we all know that Clinton’s permissive attitudes toward rape and blowjobs somehow caused it.
That article does exactly what I said is a joke. Extrapolates that, from a memo authorizing specified interrogation techniques (which techniques you may or may not agree are valid, I don’t think that’s the point of this thread, it’s a separate argument), to suggest that therefore, Bush is responsible for the widespread prison abuse.
We can have a separate argument as to whether harsh (or torturous, depends on your interpretation, and some might not give a damn if it is torture) interrogation techniques should be used in the U.S. I have respect for the opinions of both sides on that. But I didn’t see where, in the memo, it authorized the desecration of the Koran, or anything close to that.
But you fail to draw the necessary distinction between Guantanamo and other places that fall under federal jurisdiction.
The prisoners at Guantanamo are there as the result of official and explicit policies enacted by this particular Administration. Not only that, but Administration officials and spokespeople have gone on the record on multiple occasions discussing the importance of these prisoners, the need to keep them locked up, and asserting that they do not fall under the standard rules of war and the Geneva Convention. Anyone who’s been paying attention for more than about ten minutes over the last two years would know that the Administration has a very close eye on what is happening at Guantanamo, and that what is going on down there is being overseen by people at the highest levels.
By contrast, someone in a federal prison in Peoria (is there one?) is there as a result of a whole legal and judicial system and process that operates largely independently of whatever Administration happens to be in power at the time. Your analogy is a poor one.
Well, Sly, you might have missed it, but there was a big hairy ass deal a couple weeks back, about how Newseek’s assertion of flushing, wherein the Bushiviks went into Total High Dudgeon mode, bewailing their persecution at the hands of the Liberal Tedia, and how it was all a pack of lies and stuff.
not at all surprising. It reminds me of Condi Rice’s testimony when asked why the administration hadn’t prioritized Bin Laden and Al Q, (paraphrased) “If we’d known that people were going to fly planes into buildings, of course…”
Deny profusely flushing the book, while knowing that it was all but done. Bastids. IF nothing at all else, remember that the persons making the allegations aren’t (generally) native English speaking people, and so some specifics may get lost in translation. for all we know the original claim (in another language) had been something to the effect of “using the Koran for a toilet” which would have been an accurate description of the pissing action.
I really do highly doubt that they ordered the desecration of the Koran. I don’t find conspiracy in things like that; I don’t think the administration is directly pulling the strings for every Gitmo guard on the ground.
No, my analogy is that it is ridiculous to believe that because the administration has an interest in the happenings and result at Guantanamo, that it is somehow personally directing the acts of desecrating Korans. Just as ridiculous as applying any presidential interest or policy as being the cause of an incident at such a specific, ground level place. The belief that the Bush administration said, “Hey, I know what will break these guys, fuck with their holy book,” versus a dumbass prison guard interpretting his marching orders too broadly (or not even trying to interpret them, but merely being a sadistic ass).
I don’t blame the Bush administration for the actions taken by handfuls of soldiers high on testosterone and their own power trips. As was said before: we can’t always control what’s underneath us. What I resent is the opacity about events that they have sought to maintain, with only a handful of official cracks like this report to shed any kind of light at all. If the administration had been forthright in stating simply that investigations were ongoing and anyone found to be intentionally desecrating holy books or condoning/promoting such acts would be punished severely, I would’ve been happy to wait rather more patiently for results. Instead I feel lied to and my trust abused. Every statement coming from Bush or his press goons will now be parsed for any silent “but” statements. “The Qu’ran wasn’t flushed down the toilet! We resent Newsweek’s allegations! We’d never do something like that… but maybe other abuses happened.”
I’m a moderate leaning to conservative, but I’m finding it harder and harder to consider the President credible.
Do I believe that Bush et al sat around the campfire some night and cooked up a laundry list of abuses to order down at Gitmo? No.
However, the administration did indeed order a rethinking of just exactly what constitutes “torture” . Did indeed make a very public case for “these folks have no protection from Geneva Convention, nor American Jurisprudence” (which they’ve lost at the Supreme Court level BTB).
I would suggest that those two pieces of data together can be legitimately translated to “do whatever you think will work 'cause we’re on the side of the angels here”.
so, yes, they are culpable for the abuses happening on their watch.
Whoa, I fell totally out of the loop. I missed all of the news stories detailing how hundreds of Christians were being held for months and years at a time without being charged with anything and having their holy book abused. I am sure that you have cites for this.
This is, as far as I can see, the very definition of a straw-man post. I have come to expect at least a little more subtlety from you. Did we catch you before your morning coffee?
While it is definitely silly to suggest that Bush and his Administration were “somehow personally directing the acts of desecrating Korans,” i don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that they accept some responsibility for what goes on during their watch, especially when it concerns prisoners incarcerated without due process and under the direct orders of this particular Administration.
Also, just out of interest, could you direct me to where anyone has asserted that Bush or his Administration were “personally directing the acts of desecrating Korans”?
I think that is a fair viewpoint to hold. I disagree with it, but that’s life. I would suggest, however, that even under your viewpoint, the culpability of the administration is tempered by how they react to “misinterpretations” of their policies. If they say, “Wait a minute, relaxing the rules for interrogation and stating that the prisoners do not have status under the GC does not mean you desecrate holy books or take other actions that are not expressly approved,” and they state it with seriousness and punish those who disobey, than it can be reasoned that they are correcting misinterpretations of the extent of their policy.
In other words, policies get misinterpreted. Administrations may not be able to understand in advance exactly how the policy will be carried out by every functionary, but they damn well have a duty to correct misinterpretations when they find them. Otherwise, they by default are no longer misinterpretations, as they are condoned.
I do not know the extent that those punishments are occurring for “misinterpretations.” That is why the snippet regarding the firing of the guard was interesting, although as stated, it is phrased to make it unclear as to exactly why he was fired.
Yes, but they cannot correct it until they know the problem exists.
I do not understand why someone would attach culpability for a particular act to an administration unless they could somehow state that the administration directed the act. I guess I do not believe in, “You may use this level of water torture,” implies responsibility for guards descecrating Korans. Therefore, I do not know how to interpret backlash at the Bush administration, unless it is because the accusers believe the Bush administration were responsible for the desecration. If they do not believe it was direct responsibility, then I think the argument is a joke. So it’s basically, “You are accusing out of an inference of X; anything else doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
Maybe they could have ensured that the appropriate selection procedures were in place, and the appropriate instructions were given all the way down the chain of command, before letting these redneck fucktards loose on the prisoners.
In a system like this, those at the top have to take some responsibility when those below them fuck up. After all, the Administration is quite happy to bask in the reflected glory when the armed forces do something good; they should be willing to stand and take the shit when they do something bad.
The Administration might not be directly responsible for what happened to the Koran, but they are at least partly responsible for allowing a set of conditions to emerge that facilitated this outcome.
I respect how far up the chain you believe responsibility must reside on this issue. I just disagree with it. For anything like this, there is basically the actual site and source of the problem (call it “A”), and various letters of seniority and responsibility between said problem and the top of the chain of command (so that immediate supervisors of the guard might be “B,” overall watch leader might be “C,” facilities management and command might be “D,” etc.). Whatever letter you place the president and his near administration at, I believe that he has a duty to take actions to correct the problem once he learns of it. Where I think we disagree on this particular issue is at what point he is responsible for oversight to prevent the problem in the first place.
I understand what you are saying, I just do not believe responsibility for permitting it to happen goes that far up in this particular case.