Wow, I haven’t seen an OP so full to overflowing with such sheer horsehit, in well, a couple of days or so. What was done at Abu Graib had little or nothing to do with ‘keeping order’; it was a matter of US forces torturing, humiliating and making sport of prisoners who were helpless to resist, primarily for their own entertainment, under the singularly limp justification of ‘stressing’ some who might, who knows, actually had something to do with resistance to the US invasion. Some of those tortured thus may indeed have been guilty of something, but many apparently were not, and there is a system in place to try and punish those who are guilty, without resorting to the sort of extracurricular acvtivities that their guards practised with such gusto.
I sincerely hope that fucking reactionary idiots like New Iskander are not in fact representative of the United States I choose to live in. If he IS the sort of person that that this country represents, there doesn’t seem to be all that much left here worth preserving.
New Iskander, you can pretend that all this outcry over Abu Ghraib is actually foolish liberals hating America and not realizing the threats facing our soldiers but you’re wrong. (And stupid and probably ugly, but that’s another issue altogether.)
We signed the Geneva Convention not just because it promotes a basic level of human decency, but also because it protects our own soldiers from being tortured in this and future conflicts. They too can easily be described by the other side in the same rhetoric you use in your OP. They’ll have guns over their shoulders, grenades on their belt, and a past willingness to fight.
Even if we hadn’t signed the Geneva Convention, it’s in our interests to treat Iraqi prisoners well. Many of them are innocent, picked up by mistake. All of them are Iraqis, with families. The more we take the high road and try to be good guys, the less support the insurgency will have, and fewer soldiers and civilians will be killed or maimed.
It’s human maggots like you who started this war, and shitbags like you who are making it an unwinnable disaster, thanks to shit like Abu Ghraib. You aren’t fit to lick Saddam Hussein’s asshole.
Hey Isky, go and re-read World Eater’s post. Then re-read it. Then, sleep on it. Then re-read it again. When come back, bring humanity. Oh, and turning down your oh-so ignorant anti-Iraqi, Pro-US/Allies attitude. It’s boorish, stupid, classless, ugly, boorish, stupid…oh, well you get it.
People who think like you do are ruining what we as a nation were. If I could confine you all to a camp and treat you as the Iraqi detainees were, trust me I would. You, as an innocent individual might have a different perspective coming out of the detention center than when you came into it.
One more reason the OP is an idiot: Messrs. Hussein and Amin are witnesses for the prosecution, not plaintiffs. They were brought forward to testify on behalf of the prosecuting authority, which in this case, it seems, is the U.S. Army. Seems like that’s who New Isk should be mad at, if anyone.
We have control of prison where enemy combattants obtain guns and start shoot-outs with guards? This is not a controlled situation by any measure.
You know a better way? You wanna try giving out beads and chocolates? Why don’t you go try and see for yourself? What do you think had to be done? If those soldiers only left prisoners in peace, fed them regular meals, took them out for a walk and make sure of proper cell plumbing and ventilation, everything would be quite and peaceful? Those soldiers had to stay constantly involved with hostile desperate people inside closed environment. Those soldier had to maintain a position of supremacy and dominance. You ever watch sports? That’s what athletes do everyday on TV. They swagger and denigrate opponents to win the game. Except in this case those soldiers lives depended on this.
There is a trial going on. With prosecution going as far as introducing enemy combattant testimony. I’m sure if they could get innocent victim to testify, they would do it. Did they?
Do you really believe that shoving a lightstick up you know where is the best, most effective means of controlling a person?
Yes, yes I do. Even if they still hate our guts, we should do everything you mentioned, as it would be the right thing to do.
This isn’t a fucking game, there’s a huge difference. The longer these people hate us, the more they’ll blow things up, and the longer we’ll have to remain there to maintain order. We’re not instilling fear, we’re instilling resentment.
No, only someone of your stripe would draw that conclusion. I believe everyone in the pit who has been in a thread about politics or Iraq that I have taken part in can concur that I do not think even torturing assholes like you, or militant Iraqis, or black men, or gay women, ad infinitum, is proper or excusable. I do think you need to have a little “correcting” of some sort and eventually, you’ll misstep and someone will do so.
And I DO think if the shoe was on the other foot, you might feel a bit differently about the way the prisoners were treated and might, just might understand true Americans and their outrage at the incidents at Abu ghraib.
P.S.- Isky, it may be unfathomable to you(and certainly not a popular idea on the SDMB), but I would even defend Saddam Hussein, or Osama Bin laden’s right to not be tortured while in U.S./International/Iraqi custody. Hell, I’d probably even stand up for a sorry sack of shit like you if put in the same position.
Although this is a troll thread, lets just make a few points.
Its pretty clear that this complete and utter DOLT who happens to be the OP has never ever worked in a correctional facility.
I do.
You do not gain respect or control, or order through abuse, far from it, it is without any doubt whatsoever, the best way to lose it.
If the DOLT cares to look up what happened at the Indaiana jail riot he would see this.
The DOLT should realise that most of these prisoners have not been charged, never mind convicted, of any offence.
The DOLT should also look at what happened in Northern Ireland when the British used detention without trial, otherwise known as INTERNMENT, and then follow the history of he Irish Republican Army terrorist organisation, what the DOLT will soon learn is that INTERNMENT was without much doubt, one of the best recruiting tools that this terrorist organisation ever had and this led to 30 years of terrorism whose effects and politcs are still being dealt with today, the policy was started in 1971.
I wonder if the DOLT wants US soldiers to be in the firing line for that long, its estimated that at best the Irish Republican Army have perhaps 6 or 7 hundred actively involved, and several thousand sympathisers such as fund raisers.
The Iraqi insurgency (some might say freedom fighters) has many times that number, one figure that has been bandied around is about 200 thousand.
I just wonder how many people they could and will kill, how many will be US soldiers.
The British had the advantage of a good intelligence network, and a common language and still they lost several hundred soldiers, and something like 1800 people in total died, now look at Iraq, there is a huge cultural and language barrier between Iraqis and US troops, and the numbers of insurgents, terrorists - call them what you will, are very much larger, and they are not short of support throughout the mid east and beyond right around to the Phillipines.
Does the DOLT actually believe that torturing a miniscule number, relatively speaking, of suspected individuals will help endear the US to these peoples or do you think that maybe this will act as a superb recruiting tool ?
I think the comments by the DOLT support this use of the word, given the definition.
Did you read my OP? It was about a petty criminal and an enemy combattant giving evidence for prosecution in the trial of US serviceman. Please re-read.