Muslim 'torture' backlash (http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/10521577?source=Evening%20Standard)

This is truly, and utterly despicable. The fact is that a few "weekend warriors" have put the chance for success in Iraq in jeopardy. I mean no disrespect to those who volunteer in the Reserves and National Guard with my use of the term weekend warrior. The vast majority of them would never do something like this, and I have a great deal of respect for them and the job they do, but as the saying goes, one rotten apple ruins the bushel.

In another report a soldier was claiming that they had no training, no instruction, and had never read the Geneva Conventions. So what! Anyone would know that this is inhumane and unacceptable.

There is no excuse for this behavior. It is unbecoming to professional soldiers, and that is part of the problem: these people were not professionals. The fact that we have reduced our military to the point at which we have to depend on reserves and National Guardsmen to serve long term in these types of actions is going to lead to more bad things. These people are frustrated at being stuck over there for so long, and their actions are starting to show it. IMO, the fact that they took trophy pictures of this behavior shows that they have no business being there, and that they are not being utilized for what they are trained for. Professional soldiers with full time officers who understand their role might still do something like this, but it is far less likely.

Regardless, the behavior of this small group of soldiers will cost the coalition, and the Iraqis, a heavy cost before this issue is completely settled, if it ever is. :cry:

Yeah, just heard of it from TV. Proves that US is just practicing regular, imperialistic assimilation there. Nothing special.

(And no, that wasn't a bash; just a fact. :rolleyes: )

That is what happens in war. Nice, good, decent normal men and women commit atrocities without even thinking twice about it. This is why I think war is more or less never the answer, this is what it does to people and I pity both the victims and the perpetrators.

Put ten regular people in a war zone and pretty soon they will figuratively speaking be eating fried baby for dinner. War removes peoples humanity, thousands of years of socialisation is erased in a matter of months and normal humans degenerate into murderers, rapist and torturers.

Hm. Put some regular people under extraordinary pressure, and eventually the seams will begin to burst, it seems. A small part of me can understand that under the tremendous stress of risking your life day in and day out, you will be driven to do things that you would never even concieve of otherwise, as is the case here.

Another, far larger part of me, realizes that there are thousands of other people there who would never even consider such an atrocity. Hopefully these psychos will feel the full weight of military justice quickly. There is no excuse a person could make for conduct such as this, especially when one considers how damaging it is to the peace process in the region.

Well, this is more evidence that the Administration has spread its military resources too thin. Whether people agree with the war or not, I think most people would agree this is reprehensible.
We have replaced a brutal dictator with a brutal super-power Unfortunately, as Darkwolf implies, this is what the rest of the Muslim world will now believe (if they didn't already think so).

It's things like this that make me wonder if war is really the way to go. The atrocities that occur with people in authority turning a blind eye make me sick.

The depths to which humanity can sink never ceases to amaze me.

Yeah, just heard of it from TV. Proves that US is just practicing regular, imperialistic assimilation there. Nothing special.

(And no, that wasn't a bash; just a fact. :rolleyes: ) Yes, because the soldiers were ordered to torture Iraqis and aren't going to be punished in any way, shape or form, and as such, these actions show exactly what you said.

The only thing worse than an atrocity is a purposeless atrocity.

They say that the only thing a soldier should fear more than the enemy is his commanding officer. Maybe these fellas need a reminder. I think it's time to make a public example of these scum to instill fear in the hearts of the soldiers and Iraqis.

Have you folks heard of the Stanford Prison experiment? (http://www.prisonexp.org/)

there's some research to support the claims you folks are making about how "normal, decent" people flip out stressful situations.

It's not just war and stress that causes it, but power differentials.

As an aside, the Israeli police have been doing similar things to "suspects" for years.

[snip]

[ Offensive content removed. Warning pending. ] - Beren

[ May 01, 2004, 06:00: Message edited by: Beren ]

The fact is that a few "weekend warriors" have put the chance for success in Iraq in jeopardy.Ha, there will never be any success.

Anyway, if I was in Iraq getting shot and 24/7 and watching my friends being blown to bits I would get seriously pissed off, wouldn’t you? I would think torturing these folks would make me feel a whole lot better. Anyway this is hardly torture my friends. Most of these prisoners deserve far worse.

i agree with the other sarevok
and i think we should just nuke the middle east and half of the worlds problems will dissappear

I dont think that nuking them will solve the problem. Also, if you believe in such a thing, What makes you any better than they are? Commiting such heinous acts shows that we are no better than terrorists and petty thugs. Why not just nuke us and be done with it in that case?

@Sarevok 435: You realize, that by that logic you could just nuke the US and half the world's problems would disappear too, right? Takes two sides to fight, after all.

Sure, you could make the argument that US soldiers would be rather fed up with "insurgents" attacking and harassing you 24/7. Well, newsflash: The US invaded their country. What did they think would happen? Children strewing flower petals in front of coalition soldiers? If a foreign power invaded MY country, even if it was to oust a corrupt regime, I wouldn't want them to hang around either. The Iraqi people are sending an obvious message: You did what you came to do, now kindly **** off and let us rebuild our country. The foreign power torturing Iraqi people would hardly help matters out any.

Well, so much for a reasonable discourse regarding this issue. :doh:

Seeing what I started, I now wish I hadn't, as my name will forever be associated as the person who started this. :o

:idea: Someone put me out of my misery on this one and lock it so that it will quickly slink to the bottom of the postings and hopefully everyone will soon forget it. :(

joacqin and Shazam, thanks for trying. I don't agree with everything that was said, but at least your posts were more than just vitriol. :thumb:

The thread is like 1 hour old man chill out. Who wants to be bored with this kind of thing anyway? Every day there is like 3 threads concerning Iraq or war or killing or something. Can’t we all talk about fun stuff instead of negative ****? :wave:

@Darkwolf

Perhaps I can return this thread toward your original intent ;)

I think that the message is already clear...poorly trained reserve forces, who are not regular army, being thrust into a position that was never intended in the terms of their enlistment.

Due to the reductions in budget for conventional forces (by Liberals in Congress, mind you) this conflict has seen a greater use of NG and reserve forces in combat zones than any war previous.

These are the guys and gals who worked the snack bar at Wal-Mart last week, and as a result of their enlistment in the National Guard to help make the payment on the trailer...they find themselves thrust into the quagmire that is Iraq.

The Commanders know that if in a combat arena, these weekend warriors would essentially be cannon fodder...so they get put to work guarding the prisoners. The rest is available on the evening news.

I'm not making an excuse for their actions...investigate...try before the UCMJ...and show the world that the US will not tolerate this kind of treatment of POW's. Please remember, all of you, that this event is an isolated incident...and the treatment that the perpetrators will receive in this instance will help to insure that it stays that way.

The answer? Hire and train more regulars...give them decent pay...and ALL Americans honor them for the service they give our country.

Is that better, Darkwolf?

Yeah, it is rough on the reservists. My college buddy got snarfed up by the Navy, and is now in Kuwait sucking down refinery fumes (and I thought LA air quality was bad!)

This guy needs to be here finishing his degree, not out there getting lung cancer. At least he's not actually in Iraq, so maybe he's out of the direct line of fire. I'd better get that whiskey in the mail to him...

Now, perhaps if we had a broader international coalition, there might be enough support from other countries to help out. at this point, I guess nobody wants near that troublespot, and we've pissed enough people off that we don't have too many favors to call upon.

Hakenslash, do you think that increasing military funding would increase manpower? are there more professional soldiers in the making if we could pay them, or have most of the folks who would volunteer already done so? or do I misunderstand your point?

It's only the Americans, British troops (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3675215.stm) are torturing Iraqis as well and Britsh troops are not "weekend warriors, they are professionals.

Some facts to consider people...

Only a few (i.e. small number) US and UK soldiers committed these acts. They were not under order to comitt these acts. They will be severly punished for their actions.

Not every Iraqi is opposed to US temporary occupation. The MINORITY are the ones opposing the occupation yet they are more vocal and recieve more publicity. It's difficult to be vocal about agreeing with someone especially with the fear of being attacked by those who disagree.

There is no excuse for the actions of these 'torturers' no matter how many friends they have seen killed.

To withdraw the troops would bring more chaos than there already is. Some law and order is better than no law and order.

It's a pity that the troops are now going to be labeled as torturers because a very small number (6-20) of soldiers were being sadistic.

These troops should have the book thrown at them at full force to show that this kind of abuse of power is not acceptable in western society.

Actually according to the latest surveys over there, the majority want us out of there now. THough it is only a minority who want to forcibly make us to leave.

Put them in jail, for life, and I think that maybe even some Iraqians may be a bit happy about it.

Remember, I wrote some, not all. I do know that a lot of the Iraqians want them executed, and I understand them fully.

Regardless, the behavior of this small group of soldiers will cost the coalition, and the Iraqis, a heavy cost before this issue is completely settled, if it ever is.Not just soldiers. Civilian contractors were apparently running the show.

Yes I think in the broader picture this will do a lot more harm than people may think.It will be very difficult to gain the Iraqi people's trust now.I think this will also may great training video for Osama and his group.

All in all we have lost a tremendouse amount due the actions of such a small group of people.I am not sure any punishment that they get will be able to undo the public relations harm that they have done.

With all that being said I am even more appalled at the reaction I have heard on some talk radio in my local area.Some of these people are saying things like this was not torture but more like collage pranks.

I would like to see the collage prank where you're living quarters are only one yard by one yard and you are beaten degraded and sexualy attacked.

This sure is going to make things tough on the rest of the troops there.

I'm actually kinda curious what could be a proper "punishment" of torture. I bet they get ~10 years of jail, depending *what* they actually did there. Thus far, after the initial news flash, there hasn't been any more accurate descriptions of it.

It is to be seen in they even take them to court...

Nothing much to say about this debacle. I heard it could be fake photos, but the harm is done. However, Amnesty International has claimed a while ago that these 'college pranks' pulled by the occupation forces are far more common in Iraq than one might think. All sorts of humilations and mistreatments await iraqi prisoners. I am sure we will hear more like this in the future, when Iraq is free of occupation and terror - whenever that will be.

It makes me shudder what effects this will have on the arabians. The goals of the U.S. in that region have become even more unachieveable.

I can only add that this type of behaviour is a total disgrace for both the Americans and the British militairy forces. Aren't we westerners always full of the Geneva convention and stuff like that ? Isn't the reason why they went there in the first place, to stop barbaric acts like this ?

The little sympathy from the local population that may have been left, will now dissapear like snow in the sun.

They need to sort this out to the bottom, and all involved should be punished for warcrimes. Hell, if i were commander in chief, i'd put them all in front of a firingsquad, and pull the trigger myself. Some things simply cannot be tolerated, and this is one of them.

Due to the reductions in budget for conventional forces (by Liberals in Congress, mind you) this conflict has seen a greater use of NG and reserve forces in combat zones than any war previous Notice how very quickly the "liberals" are to blame for Iraqis being tortured by "poorly trained" reserves. I'm still waiting for one of these guys to blame the ultimate - Bill Clinton. :rolleyes:

Edit: BTW, the reserves I know, are getting 2.5 months of training before going to Iraq. How long did the soldiers that were drafted have before going to Vietnam? Maybe we lost that one also because of poorly trained "kids" fresh out of High School. Give me break, guys!

You have to qualify what I say in terms of political labels...from where I stand almost everyone is a liberal! Clinton falls more into the "pinko" category ;)

No one is responsible for these actions but the men who actually performed the acts, and perhaps their immediate commanders. I only tried to shed light on what elements contributed to it happening in the first place.

[edit to Chandos' edit] I think the conscrition used in the Vietnam war, and the subsequent conduct of many soldiers, relates very well to the conduct of the non-professional soldiers in question here. Yes, these guards and reserves are volonteers, but they volonteered to go and play in the woods one weekend a month...not to be an occupying force in a disfuntional land.

HS - Yes, and Shrub showed us his "military credentials" with a trip to the dentist.

Edit: HS - I did not want to go too far off topic here. I agree in part with your post, but I think anyone who wears the uniform should understand the meaning and commitment of doing so. But I think there is a lot to be said for a professional army.

[ May 02, 2004, 19:30: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Training doesnt matter, not much. Dont you think people already knew it wasnt ok to torture people without studying the Geneva convention? Put people in horrible situations and they will commit horrible acts. It is as simple as that. Especially since to be able to motivate your soldiers you have to demonize your opponents and remove their humanity, or else will your soldiers be able to kill the enemy soldiers in combat? A soldier must see a horrible monster coming to kill him, not another chap in a uniform and a mother fretting at home. If you are willing to send people into war things like this is a price you have to be willing to pay. Or else you are flaming hypocrits.

Thus you know my main reason for opposing war, even if it may appear like the right thing to do. Everyone becomes a victim. A large part of soldiers returning from WW1 and 2 and the Vietnam war wasnt traumatized by what had been done to them but what they had done to others.

Aww, come on... Soldiers are no longer exposed to propaganda like that used during the two world wars. I've been a soldier for more that two years now, and I've never seen anything like that. You might point out that I'm danish, but I can't imagine the american or british armies expose their soldiers to it either. So lets do away with these obsolete ideas.

There are no acceptable explaination to these incidents of torture though. As part of the coalition forces in Iraq, it personally infuriates me, as the actions of some few idiots are going to give the rest of us a bad reputation.

As for their claims regarding not being proper instructed: Bah! Im not trained at working with prisoners, but common sence dictates, that you don't put them on boxes with wires in their hands, telling them that they will be electrocuted if they step down.

Grovflab, nor have you been in a war. IIRC you were a part of the peacekeeping forces in Kosovo right? You were not fighting against something but trying to keep peace and order. Even so I am quite sure that your and your fellows opinion of the locals were in many ways rather negative. Atleast that is what I have heard here about the Swedish troops in Kosovo. Not to mention the Norwegian soldiers who made a sport of driving around shooting dogs and filming it for further distribution. Perhaps not torture of humans but rather cruel nonetheless and a part of the same phenomena I have been talking about. Of course there are people who are able to resist this degrading influence but what does that matter? How many are willing to go against their friends and comrades for what is essentially the enemy?

That kind of propagande I spoke of need not be official, it is imbedded in the soldiers life, their talk, their life. It is a natural part of trying to motivate yourself both as to why you are there and to enable yourself to kill other human beings.

I'd put part of it down to education, or lack of it. Why do I say this? Well, put it this way. Wherever I've lived, be it Singapore, various parts of the UK etc. I have found that my less educated collegues and friends are generally the ones that start the fights, don't think things through, and generally for want of a better term, racist. My more educated friends on the other hand do not.

Example: And please excuse any offensive language here concerning racial names.

Less educated friend will use terms such as paki, a number of vulgarities and generally act relatively aggressive concerning the subject. He will most probably make a number of 'jokes' about how the asian people in the area have probably got shoe bombs or whatnot.

Educated friend will use the appropriate name for the country we're currently at war with (The UK is always at war with someone it seems) ie. Iraqis, Indian, French etc. They also tend to look at the situation from both sides. Yes, sure we're quite nationalistic in the sense that we support our country but whats to stop people approaching the situation diplomatically? Their minds are just not on totally ass kicking the opposition and they are pretty good to debate with various topics etc.

I might have lost myself now but my point is, that in my opinion, education is a power in itself. ... yep I've lost the rails, not quite sure what i'm trying to say anymore. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Less educated people may be guilty of namecalling such as you describe, but it's the educated people who send them into war.

did everyone forget what hussein had done? developed all types of chemical weapons *THERE is your WMD* torturing his citizens, repressing religion then manipulating it to suit his own needs, murdering kurds, waging war on iran and kuwait.

this seems to be a trend now... villifying the united states. nothing but bandwagon jumpers.

if I remember correctly, during ww2, the vichy werent exactly nice to the french resistance. so what did the maquis do? they struck back with equal brutality against the nazis and their dogs.
in the pacific theater of ww2, the japanese didnt share sake or give bento boxes to their POWs.

this is war. you do not show mercy to the enemy.
to beat a brutal enemy, you have to be brutal yourself. spare me this drivel.

Well this phenomenon is common practice in all wars throughout history. The cruel and sometimes savage treatment of the prisoners. People do really need to feel that they control something or someone.
Anyway, if I was in Iraq getting shot and 24/7 and watching my friends being blown to bits I would get seriously pissed off, wouldn’t you? I would think torturing these folks would make me feel a whole lot better. Anyway this is hardly torture my friends. Most of these prisoners deserve far worse. If one was clever enough he would not do something that maybe later would hinder his life. Furthermore if one could distinguish reality and illusions, he/she would knew that he/she is the one who is logicall to be attacked since his country invaded. Third i don't think that either you or anyone here is has the right to express such brutal statements as to who deserves what.
I want to tell you that when in a war brutallities are a second nature to anyone who fights for his life. They are a mean to reassure himself of his prowess and strength and ability to impose himself as a master of a situation.
People do not deserve to get tortured or get humiliated like this. And one more thing:
There is no excuse for this behavior. It is unbecoming to professional soldiers, and that is part of the problem: these people were not professionals. I fear that the soldiers who are proffecionals would do much worst than that because they would be more corrupted than these volunteers, with the power that their uniform gives them over a defeated country and its citizens.
USA has lost the war about a year ago when they not managed, to relinquish Iraq immediatelly to the other Arabian countries to rebuild and restabilise it.

I'm not making an excuse for their actions...investigate...try before the UCMJ...and show the world that the US will not tolerate this kind of treatment of POW's. Please remember, all of you, that this event is an isolated incident...and the treatment that the perpetrators will receive in this instance will help to insure that it stays that way. Excuse me Hacken, but IIRC there were also accussations of mistreatment for the prisoners of Guatanamo. Ahh yeah.... i forgot Guatanamo is not exactly US soil and US justice does not apply there, not to mention that these guys are also about 7 years in there without even been trialed or getting a chance to get one in the near future. Nice respect of the Geneva Convictions. I feel sorry to say that but here too nothing will happen since this phenomenon is far more widespread than some of you may think and i fear that it will not stop even now.
I bet that the same night a couple of jailers went down to the cells (in the same or another prison or in many) and tortured some guys because they were nervous and furious.
I know though that this invasion has managed to do what many years of poverty and hunger have not done throughout the whole muslim society. Coiled the fundamentalists and brought more people in their clutches. And this is the worst thing USA managed to do, to fire a flame they wanted to smother.
did everyone forget what hussein had done? developed all types of chemical weapons *THERE is your WMD* torturing his citizens, repressing religion then manipulating it to suit his own needs, murdering kurds, waging war on iran and kuwait.
Well did Husein really had any WMD? i don't think so as the facts show do not use the evil Husein lecture. He did attack the Kurds but not without acceptance and prior knowledge of this act from certain countries.Which these same countries provided him with the chemicals in order to use them against their vile fundamentalist enemy Iran, which was attacked after their consultations. And the same applies for the invasion of Kuweit. And all these were just used for the interests of those who approved it but not commited the crimes. So as for the

[ May 03, 2004, 01:11: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

this is war. you do not show mercy to the enemy.
to beat a brutal enemy, you have to be brutal yourself. spare me this drivel. There's an old expression: Choose your enemies well, because that's who you'll become the most like.

this is war. you do not show mercy to the enemy.
to beat a brutal enemy, you have to be brutal yourself. spare me this drivelIf you look at it like that, then the Sept.11 attacks are totally justified too. It's war, anything goes, right ?

I thought we were better than that. Apparently i was wrong.

If you look at it like that, then the Sept.11 attacks are totally justified too. It's war, anything goes, right ?

I thought we were better than that. Apparently i was wrong. That's pretty ridiculous. We weren't at war in any sense with Osama when he decided to go kamikaze on September 11. While I don't agree with GabrielNYC in his... views, I think that the above comment is simply silly.

This torture thing is a horrible incident that is not at all indicative of how the Coalition forces act on a regular basis. Comparing these twisted individuals with any other Coalition soldier is akin to comparing Charles Manson to any other resident of the US, or Hitler to any German. An isolated incident of cruelty doesn't condemn the whole...

If so, I think two A-bombs on Japan weren't enough, in fact, with your (to lazy to name names, no offense) theories we should have cleaned out the whole island.

On another note, this case has lessened my trust and respect for all humanity. Was it not the US that helped write the Geneva accord on the treatment of POWs? Was it not the US that help start Amnesty International?

God I love life's little twists.

NOTE: Wow, this is the first time I agree with Darkwolf on anything.

[ May 03, 2004, 11:08: Message edited by: Erebus ]

@ Slith

You weren't at war with Osama BEFORE Sept.11 ? Then why was the Pentagon trying to track him down for at least a decade before that ? And if you weren't at war with him, then why did he blow up two US embassy's in Africa, and blow a hole in the USS Cole ?

The US definitely WAS at war with Al Qaeda, for as far it's even possible to declare war on a group of people with no names and no faces. And as stated before, in war ANYTHING goes, right ?

Pacman, think about it like this: Just because somebody is harassing us and attacking us doesn't mean we're at WAR with him. If that was true, then we've waged hundreds of wars against loonies like the Unabomber, and serial killers, and the like. It's different, pursuing a fugitive, than it is being at war.

It's a strange comparison for me, at least, comparing Osama and a few hundred of his terrorist cohorts to an army of millions, such as that of Germany or Japan, or Vietnam.

That's pretty ridiculous. We weren't at war in any sense with Osama when he decided to go kamikaze on September 11. While I don't agree with GabrielNYC in his... views, I think that the above comment is simply silly. Apart from the fact that US has now a declared war on terror, for many years now (since the end of Cold War), is trying to contain the winds US seeded around ex-USSR in order to destabilize the area. But after the end of the cold war these guys were useless and in fact dangerous for the USA interests in Asia.
So now what do we have? We have USA attacking their former employees and usefull regimes that now do not serve any other purpose, other than the burden of guilt and dark past on the enlightened chariot of US Democracy and way of life.
And for that burden to leave the chariot alone and get hidden in the dark corners of history many young (or not so young it does not matter) simple people, who had the misfortune to see things we hoped we have left behind (war), died and will still die. Because a guy with many complexes managed to grab within his hand some power and decided to purify himself and the nation along with him has managed to bring the exact opposite result.
People are dying everyday in Iraq, and the easy victory that he was dreaming and hoped for (in order to cleanse the ghost of Vietnam), has vanished in a cloud of dust and blood (the oil was just a profit for the few).
And the people who are there, i mean the coallision force, are seeing this everyday in front of their eyes, far away from their homes, family , loved ones fearing every second that they may be next etc. And most of them ( i am sorry but i believe that) are behaving improperly to put it mildly. Just in order to blow off some steam. But they are not to blame, their administration has made the mistake, and i fear that they won't pay for this.


BTW the quote at the beginning reminded me of the Kossovo case where the US did not declared war on Yugoslavia (they just bombed them). And one more thing out of topic.
Do you know that now in Kossovo Albanians are terrorising, killing the few Serbs that decided to stay in their houses? Do you know that Albanians are yelling about their dream of Great Albania, which is a state that includes territories from Yogoslavia (Kossovo), Greece (Ipeirus), the entire FYROM and some part of Bulgaria? Well i don't see any comment or threat, against these killings (national cleasings i would say) or these outrageous demands

Back to the topic, based on Major General Antonio M. Taguba's report (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact), there were/are some major problems at that prison. Some excerpts:

Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days. General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of resources. “This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and accountability lapses,” he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained—indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.

@ Pac Man

You're saying that Bush is educated? As for our Tony, prime minister of UK. He's a muppet. Then again i guess he is educated.

Note: I said the majority. Not all. I just generally find that educated people have a much broader view on things then unedcated people.

You're saying that Bush is educated? Well, he was a "C" student at Yale. :rolleyes:

Eh... it's better than 'F', isn't it? ;) Therefore it doesn't matter as long as he passed.

Some of the most educated people can be downright ruthless. I think Hitler was very well educated and look how he turned out. But I suppose there are always exceptions.

Some of the most educated people can be downright ruthless. I think Hitler was very well educated and look how he turned out. But I suppose there are always exceptions. Hitler was a High-School drop-out out and an unemployed. A classic case of from rags to riches. Bright but surely not educated.

As for the difference between more educated and less educated. I think it's the means. Less educated are more blunt, while more educated have a lot of euphemisms at their disposal.

Ah well, Darkwolf mentioned some weekend warriors putting the Iraq adventure at risk. That statement is quite unprecise and IMO even unfair to the US reservists - excluding the actual perpetrators. First of all, when that adventure is at risk, these morons are just *one* factor.

The US armed forces are pretty stretched thin, at the breaking point actually, and do rely on reserves to do jobs that should be left to active duty but there aren't the numbers of full time soldiers for the respective jobs. Therefor the US rely on reservists for quite a while.

When someone goes blaming the "weekend warriors" he overlooks the point that they were part of the plan right from the start and that they were needed right from the start.

When their discipline and morale are low that is first of all a leadership problem in the small unit level.
When the command structure is unclear and military intelligence, or worse, civilian contractors, encourage wardens to humiliate prisoners that's a leadership problem at the large unit level.
When soldiers are sent to become jail wardens without receiving adequate training that's also a leadership problem, this time on a the professional planning level in the pentagon.
And when the US start wars they don't have the manpower to handle, so that they have to rely on reservists and prolong their duty periods in Iraq, and to prevent soldiers from leaving the army in order to maintion the manpower needed - now that is a political failure, a substantial blunder, and heads should roll for that.

Blaming the individual prison wardens and treat them as isolated cases of sickos does anything but adressing the underlying problem.

Right... I just figured I should update this, due to some news I heard.

On the news program that my school broadcasts on the TVs each morning, this has been talked about for days, now. The most recent update states that a military tribunal is soon to be a reality. Extremely harsh punishment (read: execution) is expected... I suppose that's all I had to say.

@Ragusa - that's not the whole picture. Civilians, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were heavily involved in this, and indeed, General Taguba, in his investigative report, directs his most scathing criticism at them.

That's among the things i wanted to say:

The US gonna blame individuals, the usual CYA procedure in Washington, they don't adress the problems in the system. Abu Grahib is about much more than just a few whacked out individuals.

I mean what will change? The outsourcing the dirty work to mercenaries? Or Iraqi militia types, or tribals like they hired in Afghanistan to hunt down their enemies? What exactly do you think did Chalabis militia do with the lists of names they got during the process of de-baathification in Iraq? I would be very surprised if they did not work as death squads - eventually the US just started something resembling the Phoenix program in Iraq - atm the world's largest program for extrajudicial killing in place. The US have gotten into something very dirty, an occupation, and that is alwys dehumanising the occupier. The US are no liberator anymore. Key difference.

There is the saying of the two crow not scratching out the others eyes ... how long did the abuse go before someone eventually spoke out? A few months? Half a year? And how about Aftghanistan and the other places of legal limbo except Guantanamo or Abu Grahib? Isolated cases?

This is the tip of the iceberg, and it is IMO to a good degree attributable to small unit loyalty, primarily a good things - except when it comes to war crimes: when a buddy gets crazy from the sun and shoots a civilian, how likely is it that his corporal or sergeant go and report it as anything else but the killing of a "suspected insurgent"? Go watch some old vietnam flicks to catch the spirit. A whole village of suspect VC? No sh*t man!
When you're in a foreign country where you can't distinguish friend from foe - that directly resonates in how the troops treat the Iraqis, it is quite simple: everyone is a suspect insurgent.

And then, there is Bush's rhetoric - all the sh*t about us vs. them, good vs. evil ... swell, he expressed "deep disgust" (and no doubt he's honest) - but nevertheless he keeps on uttering his stuff about the good guys vs. the bad guys, and that everyone who resists all the good the US intends to bring to Iraq (here I give Bush the benefit of doubt again) must be evil and a thug? Gimme a break.
When someone comes to your country, occupies it and pushes you around, and you fire back - you're a patriot. Go look the hilarious movie "Red Dawn", it has a boulder of truth in it.
When the US doesn't even get their terminology straight they will never even understand what they have gotten themselves into ... denouncing patriots as thugs, petty criminals and legitimate resistance against a foreign occupation as terrorism guarantees that things like Abu Grahib will happen again and again. The US are the good guys. And as the US intend to such good to Iraq, don't the ends justify the means? Is it OK to torture or abuse enemy prisoners to get information that might save American lives?

Clearly not, military officers and ethicists say - especially in a conflict that President Bush has cast as a struggle between good and evil.

Yet that tempting idea, the sense that Sunday school tactics won't work against murderous terrorists, apparently persuaded U.S. enlisted soldiers, officers, supervisors, intelligence agents and hired contractors to participate in systematic abuse of Iraqi prisoners in recent months in Baghdad.

One key reason abuse is wrong is that it backfires badly when it becomes public, as this case has in ugly reverberations from the Oval Office to the Arab street, fueling Arab fury at the United States. (comment: IMO the weakest argument of all, as if it is ok when it remains secret ... )

"This is going to cost American lives," says Gary Solis, a career Marine Corps officer, West Point professor and author of books about war crimes in combat.

Like other officers who are shamed and infuriated about the unfolding abuse scandal, Solis fumed: "Where was the adult supervision? You don't find this kind of criminality in well-led units."

( taken here (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/8582653.htm) }The tempting idea, that tough action is needed, and that ends justify the means, is IMO deeply anti-american, though it has sure an appeal to the "can do" spirit Americans IMO tend to have.
Do America's inherent and unique virtue give it the right – Bush says the duty – to exercise unlimited power in the name of enforcing American values elsewhere in the world?
Imposing US values (like freedom/ liberty) at gunpoint and perhaps torture?
The US virtues, are they suspended for the time of fighting? If so, what makes the difference between Saddam's, Hitlers, Stalins or Bush's warmashines? Anyone else sees the problem?

If Iraqis resist military imposition of US values, then they must be "thugs and outlaws" deserving to be exterminated for standing in the way of America’s virtue and superior morality?
Only evil people would resist the good we are imposing on them? Didn't Bush cast the conflict as one of good vs. evil? That sort of rhetoric encourages mistreatment.

It seems to me that some US soldiers have caught that spirit, oblivious to the reality that it is pretty much the other way round when they go to work.

[ May 05, 2004, 14:04: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

The promblem may run even deeper than you think Ragusa.From listing to the radio and following the news here in the states.It seems public opion is this matter should just be dropped.It is just overblown and the media makes too much of it.

It amazes me that people can't see the simple fact that when you invade a country to "liberate" them from there evil oppressor and then turn around and do something like this it tends to tear away your credibility.

Sentiment here seems to be along the lines that the Arabs hate us and our way of life so we can do whatever we want cause in the end they are going to hate us anyway.

Forgotten are the long years we have spent meddling in there nations afairs.Deposing leaders and putting in US freindly ones.Forgotten are the times when we supported Saddam,especialy during the times when he committed alot of the atrocities we seem so outraged by now.He did gas the Kurds under US watch after all did he not.

IT really seems like we are turning this into an us againts the Arab states type of thing and thats just plain scary.

Until the media and the goverment stops labeling any Irag resistance as terrorists and thugs this line of thinking will just get worse.

From what I have seen and heard, a lot of the "Iraqi resistance" is imported from other nearby nations. The polls (if you believe any of them) seem to indicate that the rank and file Iraqi citizen is mostly happy with what the US has accomplished. Sure they want us gone, but I don't think they understand what will happen there if we cut and run now.

We are in a dilemma. If we stay we are the meddling Americans sticking our noses into that in which it doesn't belong, and if we leave we will be blamed for abandoning the Iraqi people.

Bush is giving 2 10-minute interviews to Arab media tonight. This could be the start of an effort to turn the tide.

Regardless, if we want this issue resolved in the best interests of all (or most), we better be ready to pay the price, and it won't be cheap.

Thanks Darkwolf you just helped to prove my point.Here in the States people are unwilling to accept even the chance that these people may just be normal Iragi people who are unwilling to accept a foreign goverments idea of how they should set there country up.

The information coming out of Irag,at the very least has a strong pro US slant.The reporters cant leave the bases so all the information we receive is coming from the US military.I am sure there is no bias there.

I still dont understand how we can invade a country and just expect them all to fall in line like good little soldiers because we seem to think we know what is best for a people whos culture ,quite frankly the average American has no idea about.

From what I have seen and heard, a lot of the "Iraqi resistance" is imported from other nearby nations.Uh, yes? I don't think that Fallujah needed outside input to be pissed off on the US, panicked US paratroopers shooting demonstrators did more than enough to start an amplifying circle of violence.
I stress this so very much because this "foreigh fighters" myth is so very convenient: See, we don't make mistakes, the Iraqis love us and they are only incited by troubleseeking jihadis from ouside!
No, I don't think so. And besides, it is chauvinism to think that Iraq, before Gulf War I the middle east's second strongest economy with high living standards, good scientists and excellent education, doesn't have intelligent people with the will and skill to kill US soldiers, and through unparalleled US blundering plenty of reason as well. The polls (if you believe any of them) seem to indicate that the rank and file Iraqi citizen is mostly happy with what the US has accomplished.Maybe they just don't know how much they like the US. As a matter of fact the last polls I saw indicated something like: "We don't want you here, we never asked you and now get the hell outa here!" Taken from an actual poll commented on in the Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE01Ak01.html) : As in the US poll, the trend lines in Iraqi public opinion were found to be distinctly negative. Thus, 71 percent of the Iraqi respondents said they considered coalition forces mostly as "occupiers" rather than liberators (19 percent). That rose to an overwhelming 81 percent when respondents from the Kurdish areas were excluded from the sample.

Asked how they would have answered the same question at the time of the invasion, the entire sample split evenly, with 43 percent on either side. The change suggests that nearly one-third of Iraqis who had welcomed the invasion now see it as an occupation.
... and as for happy with the job the US do, see how they are happy with the CPA, the organisation actually 'doing the job' ... On a 1-5 scale, 42 percent rated the CPA's performance as "very bad" or "fairly bad", while only 25 percent gave it positive marks. Nearly two-thirds said the CPA's actions have turned out worse than expected, compared with only 22 percent who said they turned out better
(...)
Iraqi respondents also gave US forces consistently poor marks for reconstruction activities ... Maybe worth noting is that it was a pre-fallujah & pre-abuse poll - that is, it is likely more positive than it would be today. When you believe what the pro war dudes tell you, that the Iraqis are happy the US are there you're fooling yourself. Eventually, they have a war to sell, and telling you that the Iraqis actually want the US to stay there is a way. Sure they want us gone, but I don't think they understand what will happen there if we cut and run now.That isn't really one of your business or America's actually, it is THEIR country. And a self-chosen mess is a privilege of the people to choose. Without the US meddling in they have no one to blame but themselves.
And Al Qaeda would have one less argument as well.

Sorry to get involved so late in this one, I was trying so hard to stay out of it.

One thing, is it ironic to anyone else, that one of big "selling points" on this war was that Saddam and co. were making use of torture chambers and "rape rooms?" Evidence that they are bad and dangerous to the world community.

I see the comment all the time, here's a literal quote from another board: "Are you saying that with sadaam out of power, the world isn't better off? The rape rooms are gone."

Funny thing, his rape rooms are gone, and now Americans and Brits are doing it in his stead.

Great.

Extremely harsh punishment (read: execution) is expected... Chance of executing any soldier or contractor for his actions? Zero percent. Soldiers will get a dishonorable discharge and be sent home. I do not think the U.S. even has jurisdiction over the contractors, so they might not even be able to do anything to them, but at worst they'll go to prison for a little while.

Executions? Laughable.

With all of the hoopla involved I'm sure that at least some soldiers will do time in military prison. However, many will probably just receive dishonorable discharges and move on with their lives.

Yeah, and that is just sick. As I said abovel, put 'em in jail for life, then we'll see if anyone tries to repeat their "deeds."

Any soldiers and their superiors involved need to be dishonorably discharged and publicly tried, by Iraqis, the Abu Graihb prison needs to be raised, and Donald Rumsfeld needs to be fired in disgrace. Anything less and we've proved Al Sadr, Osama and Saddam correct about us, at least in the eyes of the entire Arab world.

Any chance, if there ever was any, of a positive outcome in Iraq and a positive view of the United States in the Arab world is now gone forever.

I'll be staying out of any tall buildings or mass gatherings here at home for the next decade. The resolve of anti-Americanism now has the best recruitment tool it could ever ask for.

You might as well refrain from using public transportation then. Perhaps it's better to lock your doors and never leave the house again.

Come on dude, their hatred couldn't get any worse than it already was. This will change nothing. Just another black page in the historybooks, that's all.

That "buildings" comment was more metaphorical than literal, but I'm no less concerned. And It's not the "hatred" increasing that I'm worried about. It's their numbers. If you think this won't have a sharp effect either way on America's terrorism problem, all I can say is I wish I had your confidence. I for one and pretty damn worried.

The outrage. The sheer outrage. This once again proves the American president is too stubborn to pull his troops back to where they belong.

Not that I live in Belgium that I'm against the war like assumed, but this is indeed truly despicable. However, those are individualists so let us not generalise the situation. Nothing can be done to undo such things. The act as described in the article is just like terrorism itself. It cannot be stopped.

I like America, but I don't like it's president, that's all. No one here does. And a just point of view that is. He is just like Gaius (Caesar) who went to conquer our forefathers long ago. He used the argument of 'coming to aid' to attack our lands. Bush did just the same thing, using the so-called stored weapons which are not even there as a reason to start a war. That, my friend, is despicable, but that's another story, which is BTW history by now.

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz thinks "...[we could use] a torture warrant..."
Read about it here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/index.html) and draw your own conclusions.

If you start opening the door, making a little exception here, a little exception there, you've basically sent the signal that the ends justify the means, and that's exactly what Osama bin Laden thinks. He has some vision of a just society. His ends justify the means of attacking the World Trade Center. If we're going to violate an equally basic prohibition on torture, we are reaffirming that false logic of terrorism. We are going to end up losing the war Pretty much sums it up IMO.

Let's turn it around a bit. Let's say that Saddam, in March 2003, was absolutely convinced that some American citizen on Iraqi soil had crucial information about an imminent attack by the U.S. on Iraq, and that information could be used to prevent the attack. If torture were OK under the circumstances described in the link, then Saddam would be perfectly justified in using torture in this situation. It doesn't matter that he'd do it anyway; the point is, nobody would have to right to object.

It works both ways, and that's way it should never be tolerated.

Any chance, if there ever was any, of a positive outcome in Iraq and a positive view of the United States in the Arab world is now gone forever.Whatever. Previous wars had far, far worse atrocities - Dresden, anyone? - and both sides found ways to get on with their lives afterward.

Like I wrote earlier, the only thing worse than an atrocity is a purposeless atrocity. These were purposeless and should be dealt with accordingly. They make the US' job in Iraq that much harder and reinforce pre-existing animosity against the occupation. These soldiers' evil will wring itself out in innocent blood.

But, c'mon. Hussein's Iraq and Assad's Syria made atrocity official policy. Palestinian suicide bombing - an atrocity even by UN and Amnesty International standards, even if justified as resistance to occupation - is culturally accepted, even praised. Compare that to the shock and horror washing across the US - both its people and government.

Clearly the region is capable of enduring atrocities and still having a "positive view" of the atrocious. Equally clearly, the US writ large is appalled by atrocities writ small. A positive outcome for Iraq is still very possible - for reasons less paladinic than pragmatic.

Clearly the region is capable of enduring atrocities and still having a "positive view" of the atrocious Except that they don't see their acts as being atrocious, whereas they do (along with the rest of the world) see the U.S. soldiers' acts as atricious. So in their mind, it's not apples-to-apples.

Actually Splunge, the problem is that we act like we are so much better than the rest of the world. We condemn Saddam and his torturing of prisoners. Then we do the same (though not as brutal but more humiliating, which in Arabic culture is much more offensive). We condemn Saddam killing his own people. But who supplied him with many of those weapons and WMD's. We Did. We call Sharon a man of peace but look at the numbers killed by both sides. Isrealies kill 2 Palastinians to every Isreali killed by suicide bombers. Arabs living in Isreal (sorry wrong sp but son is trying to type so cant look up correct sp right now) are second class citizens. Both sides have commited atrocities. And maybe we sshould admit we knew about and supported Saddam's murderous reign as long as he didnt bother us. Iraqi's understand that and know we are not there for thier liberation. They know they are occupied and belive we want to take over (I doubt that, but have no doubt we will install a US friendly government if possible, which looks more and more unlikely every day). And for those who think this is nothing like Vietnam, you are right. It took a few years for as many soldiers to die in Vietnam at the start compared to just the first year in Iraq. I just hate the fact that our sons and daughters are dying for a political agenda and not for the war on terrorism. They are being asked to die to make our country less safe. And that is truly despicable.

The problem is that we act like we are so much better than the rest of the world.But we are better than the rest of the world. The West truly is better. Forgive me if that sounds arrogant or self-righteous - and I'm not trying to hijack this thread - but if we can't distinguish between the institutionalized atrocities of Hussein, Assad, and Khomeini, compared to the spontaneous and structured revulsion that America is displaying...then, ack! Keep in mind that these American atrocities were carefully documented for judicial reasons by the very same institution, the Army, which was responsible for those atrocities. That shows a level of self-correction and institutional conscience that much of the non-Western world, to be blunt, lacks.

We condemn Saddam killing his own people. But who supplied him with many of those weapons and WMDs.Yes, we supplied weaponry to Hussein...years after he sparked the war with Iran, and only when it looked like Iran might be able to overrun Iraq. We stopped supplying once Iraq appeared to gain the upper hand. Given that Iran's ruling ideology was steeped in hostagetaking, terrorism, and "Death to America", it was neither impolite nor impolitic to support Iran's enemies. The US certainly did not endorse Saddam killing his own people, especially with chemical weapons.

There is a qualitative difference between helping an enemy of your enemy and massacring your own subjects.

We call Sharon a man of peace but look at the numbers killed by both sides. Israelis kill 2 Palestinians to every Israeli killed by suicide bombers.Israel has blood on its hands, to be sure. But there is a qualitative difference between a democratic Israel (which democratically votes down Sharon's proposal to unilaterally sacrifice Gaza) and a Palestine consumed by a love affair with suicide. Both societies are sick, but in different ways - and Palestine may be sick unto death, literally.

And the different death toll doesn't give Palestine bonus martyr points.

It took a few years for as many soldiers to die in Vietnam at the start compared to just the first year in Iraq.Not a fair comparison, given that the first several years of the US-Vietnam experience involved mostly military trainers and materiel supplies. Maybe we should start the Gulf War at '91 and include the intervening no-fly-zone years, just like the intermission-pocked British-French 100 Years' War.

To sum up: these American atrocities are evil, pointless, self-destructive, and completely counterproductive to American and Iraqi interests. But scummy Westerners don't invalidate the point that Western civilization is still qualitatively better, at least when it comes to dealing with atrocity - as poison, not policy.

But we are better than the rest of the world. Grey - Flame suit! :eek:

America the country is a better place to live than most of the world i will agree. America's actions around the world have killed hundreds of thousands for totally selfish reasons. Why does Iran hate us? We helped overthrow thier government. We supported the Contras who killed over 30,000 innocent people. We knew Saddam was killing his own people (because they opposed him - but what about Iraqi's who oppose us, i guess if they fight us we can kill them too, plus about an additional 10,000 civilians at least so far) and we didn't give a damn. Our policy's overseas are horrible and we cozy up to any dictator who does what we want him to do. If he tortures his people, who cares as long as we get what we want. Take a look at any of the hundreds of things our government has supported and you will see why so much of the world hates us. Our government treats our people well, its just that anyone overseas who disagrees with us or doesn't play the way we like that gets the shaft.

I'm with shev on this one. The west 'is' better.

A few people were tortured but the torturers acted on their own, it's wasn't an order from the leaders. You get an army, you get people like that - "I joined so I could shoot stuff with big guns." So it's not surprising a few see not problem with torturing Iraqi prisioners, I'm surprised there have been so few cases.

I see an inherant problem with this west "is" better argument. As long as Countries like America violate international law without any care or concern the rest of the world is going to view it with distaste. What am I talking about? Everyone seems to have forgotten about Guantanamo bay. It seems that the illegal confinement and torture of people here is acceptable, whereas similar actions in Iraq are not.
Am I the only one who sees this paradox? You have a government that says it is o.k to confine illegally and abuse the human rights of individuals in one place, but you cant elsewhere? The soldiers guilty of these atrocities in Iraq can look at guantanamo bay and say, Hey, we were just following your lead.

Here's another thing. Bush declared the prisoners in Guantanamo as POW's. That way he is allowed to hold them indefinately. He calls them POWs in the war on terror. Well, if they are POWs then they are bound by the Geneva convention. If, as they are doing, America disregard this, then they are breaking international law. As such, it could be argued that international law no longer protects America, since they have no regard for it. In the future, johnny terrorist can do whatever he wants to America and say it's no worse then they do to the rest of the world.

Everyone seems to have forgotten about Guantanamo bay. It seems that the illegal confinement and torture of people here is acceptable, whereas similar actions in Iraq are not.There's only one important difference... The world got photos of torture from Iraq, whereas from Guantanamo, we only get rumours. I'm sure that the American public would be equally outraged and demanded blood if they found out that the same things were being done in Guantanamo. That is, found out without anyone's ability to cover it up or lie about it, which is something explicit photos make impossible.

Herein lies the problem, however. The general public could not care less about it, as long as the atrocities don't come out as undeniable, as in this case. So all Bush and the people under him have to do, is make damn sure no one with a camera gets inside Guantanamo, which is something they've been able to prevent thus far. They got careless about it in Iraq, and here are the consequences, America's outrage at full! The only problem is, there are dozens more prisons in Iraq, and believing that this sort of abuse only went on in one is Utopian. If these pictures hadn't come out, and if someone wanted to convince the American public that their soldiers are torturing the Iraqi people in their own prisons, none of the Americans would have believed it, or even attempted to give it the benefit of a doubt, but rather simply dismissed any talk about it as anti-American or lies. Of course, I'm generalizing here, and I apologize to those who don't fit in this category I just created, but this sort of mentalitity has been demonstrated on these boards for as long as this war has been going on, by many Americans. And that's really the saddest part of it all, the seeming inability by the majority of the American people to doubt any significant part of their self-proclaimed greatness. Greatness comes from such perception of yourself by the world around you. As long as it only comes from within, it is nothing but an illusion.

[ May 10, 2004, 23:16: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

And that's really the saddest part of it all, the seeming inability by the majority of the American people to doubt any significant part of their self-proclaimed greatness How dare you write something like this. You're claiming that "American people" see themselves as something better than everyone else. Well, you know NOTHING about America. Because if you did, you would know that the "majority of American people" have never thought of themselves as such, but, in fact, have built a country on continuous re-evaluation of what isn't right, with an effort to try to make it better.

I find your post to be inflammatory and highly insulting. :flaming:

(And this post is in violation of the very things you have cited other people for as well.)

Tal, did you ever stop to think that the reason that "most Americans" couldn't imagine such horrific treatment of prisoners is because such behavior would never be tolerated in American jails? Go ahead, call me naive - you won't be the first. But to say that "most Americans" don't care about how Iraqi prisoners are treated beyond how it reflects on our international image is baseless and patently unfair.

Please remember that "most Americans" did NOT support the election of George Bush; he got in on a Constitutional technicality.

I'm sorry that some of the Americans here perceived my post as insulting and encompassing the whole of USA, something I never intended it to be. Though my post is based on personal opinion, it is also largely based on observation. I've had a few years of sociological training, and like it or not, I observe people and their behavior because it interests me. Sometimes, however, it leads me into situations where I can appear insensitive, which is unfortunate. I trust that most people here know me well enough to know that I'm no hater of Americans, or America in particular. That I don't approve of the current Bush administration is common knowledge. But that's really as far as it goes.

Now, my previous post was written while I had Grey Magistrate's post in front of me. There he calls America (at least I presume he means America, and not the West in general) "better than the rest of the world". My reply was, for the most part, an argument that all is not quite as rosy as it might appear. Considering no one is flaming GM for stating his opinion, I was genuinely surprised at the reaction to mine, which is basically only a rebuke of his (though it also touches on some issues). Of course I don't know the majority of American people, but anyone who speaks of majorities will always necessarily generalize. I am fully aware of that, and have put a quite specific disclaimer as to that effect into my post. Along with an apology to those I offended in any way. My post, however, was based on observation of political discussion here since Bush's election. And I really couldn't say what I wanted to without resorting to some generalizing.

I completely realize that my post was borderline, but since this is AoDA, in certain cases it is acceptable. If anyone feels I was over the top in anything in particular, they are free to discuss it with me in PM.

Finally, to answer Rallymama... the thing here is that we are not talking about American jails in general, but Guantanamo, which is not on American soil, and not perceived as needing to follow the same rules as American prisons by some. So your argument here is misdirected, we're not talking about American prisons in general, but a very specific (and different) one.

Also,

But to say that "most Americans" don't care about how Iraqi prisoners are treated beyond how it reflects on our international image is baseless and patently unfair. It is, but it's not something I said, so I won't comment on it directly. What I was talking about is the general "out of sight, out of mind" attitude which pretty much every nation of the world has, my own included. I'm not singling out America here at all. In fact, my whole point was, that while some Americans are truly convinced that the US is better than the rest of the world, its citizens in general have pretty much the same "out of sight, out of mind" attitude than the rest of the world. My belief is that a country which thinks it is better than the rest of the world should not be able to afford such a mentality. But this whole thing is more of a philosophical debate than anything else.

As for the final comment,

Please remember that "most Americans" did NOT support the election of George Bush; he got in on a Constitutional technicality.Well, *I* would not dare to say that because I know how many Americans that would insult, and has in the past when it has been uttered here by certain posters. True or not. I know we've had discussions here where that idea was viciously argued as false.

The more I read the last two posts before my current one, the more it seems to me that their posters only read my own post and nothing before it. So attacking my post alone is really not fair, nor will reading my own post alone be enough to argue specifics of it.

[ May 10, 2004, 23:22: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Now, my previous post was written while I had Grey Magistrate's post in front of me. There he calls America (at least I presume he means America, and not the West in general) "better than the rest of the world". The West truly is better...That shows a level of self-correction and institutional conscience that much of the non-Western world, to be blunt, lacks...But scummy Westerners don't invalidate the point that Western civilization is still qualitatively better, at least when it comes to dealing with atrocity - as poison, not policy.No, I meant the modern West, writ large. French, Germans, and Americans may not agree on the wisdom of dethroning Hussein and enthroning a fragile constitutional order, but we all do agree on the unacceptability (socially, legally, and practically) of atrocity as policy. The West ain't perfect, not by a long shot - but at least on this particular score, I think a fair observer would say the West holds the moral advantage.

But, I really don't want to hijack this thread with what could be its own topic...and I really, really, REALLY don't want you mad at me, Taluntain. My apologies for my over-hasty post - a rightist like me should know better than to echo classical liberalism!

Also, something that has barely been mentioned is preliminary reports from several investigations that the abuse was systematic and Rumsfeld admitted today that there were photo's and even videos that make what we have seen so far look like nothing and that it would be a disater if they were released.

Grey Magistrate, I agree with your last post. And don't worry about getting me mad... when that happens, I usually use much fewer words. I'm not at all mad at anything in this thread. It's a good discussion.

And that's really the saddest part of it all, the seeming inability by the majority of the American people to doubt any significant part of their self-proclaimed greatness How dare you write something like this. You're claiming that "American people" see themselves as something better than everyone else. Well, you know NOTHING about America. Because if you did, you would know that the "majority of American people" have never thought of themselves as such, but, in fact, have built a country on continuous re-evaluation of what isn't right, with an effort to try to make it better.

I find your post to be inflammatory and highly insulting.

(And this post is in violation of the very things you have cited other people for as well.) No wonder why I don't make visit to here very often. :rolleyes: This will be a bit off-topic, I know.

IMO, it pointed out quite politely, more politely than what you could ever get in regular bar, just what Grey said: "Modern West" has the moral 'high-ground' to give out 'better' judgement. This is how I understood it, when counting in his later post. It's just what I have seen on other boards too; on one in particular people actually think that US has every right to judge others and interfere whenever they want.

--I won't make the mistake of judging wheter this is right or not.

Well, you know NOTHING about America. Of course not, but by the same degree; do YOU know your country that well?

Virne.... I don't want to rehash this again. I think it was pretty clear what I directed my comments at. However, I missed GM's post... had I seen it the same comment would have been directed at him.

In answer to your question though,... I do think I have a good idea of what this country and its people have tried to stand for over the years, as best as any one individual can. But this is clearly not the topic of this thread -- so let's not belabour it.

"Apology is not enough. What they have committed against the Iraqis won't be erased from our memory. The Rumsfeld apology is nothing but a media maneuver," said Taha Duraib Hussein, 41, a shop owner in Baghdad.
I could not agree more. But this looks like business as usual for the Shrub gang. There has been a pattern of calling officials before the congress to "answer to the people." Those of the same party sit there and grandstand with self-serving comments; those of the other party attack with whatever topics suit the politcal season.

Yes, it was a big embarrassing moment for Rummy. At times he looked shaken, for real. He should. I would not be so quick to dismiss the comments made by those criminals involved in this scandal. They very well could have been "following orders." Make no mistake - they are criminals. But how far up did knowledge of what was taking place go? I have this feeling that it was pretty high. Notice that Shrub has already drawn his own conclusions, without the benefit of a full investigation:

"What took place in that Iraqi prison was the wrongdoing of a few, and does not reflect the character of the more than 200,000 military personnel who have served in Iraq (news - web sites) since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom," Bush said.
Note: he quickly compares "a few" to the more than 200,000. This is called "damage control" of the first order. I'm sure everyone in the world knows that there are lots of honorable soldiers in the US Army that would never have been part of the actions of "the few." What we have here is the beginning of an attempt at a whitewash. The Bush gang will hunker down and wait, hoping that this story will start to run itself down, as new, important stories appear in the media.

If the American people are outraged enough, then that won't happen. Yes, there is outrage. But how will it manifest itself? If they are sufficently outraged enough to demand accountability from their leaders for this, then will there be change? That's the question at hand. If Americans settle for the the "business as usual" routine, then IMO, the outrage will be just another set of talking points off a checklist of lofty platitudes, which in the end are designed to make us "feel like we are morally superior" to those we hold in contempt.

But if Americans hold their leaders accountable for this then they will set a example of how a nation of moral people conducts itself before the rest of the world. If its as bad as they are hinting that this scandal will be, then we are in for a few more surprises.

The president's description of the extent of wrongdoing conflicted with an International Committee of the Red Cross report that mistreatment, sometimes close to torture, was rife and may have been condoned by U.S. forces.The time for change is now. Shrub can start by firing all the commanders directly connected with the prison. He should fire Rummy. He is the man at the top. And he appears more interested in trying to keep his job, than the matter at hand. It would also go a long way at convincing the next person in that position how serious this is.

But in the end, Americans have to decide if this is type of leadership they want. This is not just about image, but about everything that is good and decent in this country. It is about who we are and what we stand for as a nation. It's not the rest of the world we have to convince - it is our own leaders.

[ May 09, 2004, 03:26: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I tend to agree with Chandos here.We can try to downplay Rumsfield part in this all we want,but I think when you decide we are going to ignore parts of the geneva convention as a matter of policy it sets us up for this kind of thing.

The Republicans talk alot about taking responsibility for things.This is there chance to show its more than just party jargon.

Things will get worse soon.They talked about having video tapes of even worse things going on so I dont see how Rumsfeld can survive this.

Last paragraph removed due to lack of a good link may be reinstated as evidance presents itself.

[ May 09, 2004, 06:11: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

This has finally gone off the deep end. It is plainly evident that those calling for Rumsfeld's job have no interest in making things better, and are only interested punishing the Bush administration. All Rumsfeld has been proven guilty of is trying to minimize the political impact of this situation. TTBOMK there has been no evidence directly linking Rumsfeld to any complicity in this behavior. To the contrary, back in January the US military began investigations of these allegations.

This topic has become vastly overblown. What these soldiers have done is wrong, but it is nowhere near as serious as the press and the Democrats in Congress are making it. The Iraqi prisoners were maltreated, but as far as torture, I am not convinced that line was crossed. There is a quote running around by a prisoner who claims he was held in this same prison by Saddam's goons, and that he was beaten, electrocuted, and various other forms of torture were used on him, but that he preferred that to the humiliation he suffered at the hands of the US soldiers. Give me a break. This man was most likely an enemy combatant, and it is his duty to say things like this. It is propaganda, nothing more or less.

I am not saying that this isn't terrible, as it is, and justice should be handed down swiftly and harshly. However, calling for Rumsfeld's head is counter productive to the situation. He would simply be the sacrificial lamb, and then the whole thing would be swept under the rug. Keeping Rumsfeld under the scrutiny of the press is the best way to see that justice is done and that this type of behavior is stopped.

Well, personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Rumsfeld paying the price here, but I freely admit that I don't like him or the Administration in general, so I am biased.

Rumsfeld aside, the bottom line here is that if the U.S. is preaching moral superiority as justification for Iraq, it had better back up those words with actions. And in this case, even though it's only a few soldiers involved (that we know of), it has failed the morality test. Fairly or unfairly, when the eyes of the world are on you, the actions of a few can easily be seen as representative of the attitudes of many.

I would agree with you Darkwolf if our policy was to follow the geneva convention,and if the new photos were not showing a new group of gaurds involved.

Policy is set at the highest level and that is Rumsfeld in this case.I would like to see where the investigation goes before Rumsfeld steps down but I think it could lead there.

Frankly, the news about this didnt surprise me much. I am not sure I want to know what happens inside of Guantanamo. What I have seen so far isnt really better than the incidents of Abu Graib. BTW, its disturbing and sad to see the nation that helped us germans regain freedom run a shameful place like this. Disappointing.
Speaking of Guantanamo - what about the 'outsourcing of torture' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1038845,00.html)? Seemingly it is ignored by the U.S. public.
I think where Ossama and his goons surely will fail, the U.S itself might succeed: Bringing down the United States and what it represents. You let the 'evil' of your enemies affect and change you. I am resentful of many of the machinations of America but this is really troublesome.

Another interesting aspect of Abu Ghraib: The Iraqis are proud people, the humiliations in Abu Ghraib, made public, stigmatise every Iraq who has been there, whatever he claims. Has he not been abused or does he just not dare to speak out fearing the shame? Legends and rage can flourish on this ambiguity.

There is a great way to reassure oneself after such a, now that it is public, collective humiliation: Fight the perpetrators to wash away the shame and reclaim pride with American blood.
I imagine that someone who has been innocently incarcerated by US troops (reportedly some 80% of Iraqis detained by US were) and had nothing to tell* more likely faced abuse** - as that might provoke interrogators to try to break that really hard nut - that this Iraq really know why he fights and who he fights against.

And then, of course, there is the cultural divide, still the US seem to, except when it comes to how to best insult an Arab, a field where the US have developed a considerable expertise, have trouble understanding that they are in the Middle East: ...[The] cultural divide is the main contributor to the crisis in Iraq. Iraqis expect Americans to do no less than translate their democratic rhetoric into reality, to respect local culture and adhere to the rule of law. The Americans, in turn, expect Iraqis to show gratefulness for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the opportunity to build a democratic society.

But Americans and their allies must understand that Iraq is not a pragmatic society when it comes to religion, culture and sexual mores. It is never acceptable to touch a woman and then come back later to express regret or, worse, offer money. In their culture, Iraqis would accept money and a public apology for the killing of a family member. But in matters of honor — sexual assault, for example — an apology is accepted only when it comes with the head of the perpetrator. Those who are unable to pay such a price had better not commit the offense in the first place. This is why Bush's appearance on Arab TV last week was insulting and meaningless. He can never have enough money to cleanse the shame that his soldiers inflicted upon the Iraqi prisoners, and no words can do this either.

from the LA Times: Official US Reaction Compounds the Rage (http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/latimes141.htm) But then again, this White House doesn't admit mistakes, much less in an election year, and ironically, like in the oriental despocies Bush wants to dispose the Middle East of, incompetence has no consequences when the perpetrators are on good footing with the president. With King George in office personal loyalty again overrides accountability in America, traditional values if you like to say so :shake: a revolution down the drain? :shake:

* ... the US only captures 'suspect insurgents', to reiterate the braindead official terminology, but that terminology isn't without impact: It implies the mindset "guilty until proven innocent" among the US military and the interrogators.

** about what Rummy sheepishly said, that it is technically not torture - as if anyone cared - he should be sacked for that imbecility alone.

[ May 10, 2004, 13:40: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ah yes....Rumsfeld. I'm not sure here, but he must be the dumbest politician since Hitler. That man is an embarrasment for the US.

And yet he managed to win a ringing endorsement from Bush today.

Also, there was some truth in Tal's comments although some may have found them offensive. I never would have believed that Americans were torturing Iraqi's without incontrovertible proof.

And yet he managed to win a ringing endorsement from Bush today. Yes, they are two of a kind.

And yet more reasonable politicians like McCain and Zel Miller are also giving him the benefit of the doubt until the investigation provides some evidence that he is complicit in this affair.

I thought this country was full of people who were believers in giving someone due process, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty...I guess that in only when it is their favored politicians that are under fire. Of course since socialism and belief in individual rights are in contradiction to each other, I guess offering up Rumsfeld as the sacrificial lamb to put Kerry on the throne doesn't present a moral dilemma for those of the socialist persuasion.

Reasonable doubt? Yes, if we're putting Rumsfeld on trial, which we're not. He should definitely resign, and failing that, be fired, and for more reason than what's happening in those prisons.

This has nothing to do with Kerry Darkwolf.IT has everything to do with how Rumsfeld's policies afffected how the prison's were run.

They have known about this since at least January,and these things are sill going on in march.That does not say alot about accountabliity.

When you decide to take prisoners of war and and only apply the parts of the genevea convention that you want,I think you open the door to these kinds of things.

I think seeing it all in ligh of the coming elections is both helpful and misleading. It has not so much to do with Kerry but with Bush. Rummy can't resighn because there is no alternative with sufficient profile. Who should replace him? "Weird" Paul Wolfowitz? "Scooter" Libby? "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle? Gimme a break!

And Rummy the brawler won't go peacefully anyway, he hasn't given up his comfy life as a top executive only to allow himself to be made the scapegoat and be pushed out of office. Besaides, Rummy doesn't feel guilty anyway.
Rummy is indispensable for Bush, insofar the calls for his resignationa are IMO more than justified, but are pointless and useful only to keep the heat on Bush.

A former interrogator told the Red Cross that torture was part of the process (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5090507). Add the saying of Gen. Miller, who said that detention conditions must function as an 'enabler for interrogations (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9519057%5E401,00.html) and you see a military under pressure to produce results, quickly, and by all means necessary.

Consequently the Army Times sees the incidents of torture reflecting
a leadership problem at the highest level (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php). The US Army has been less than thrilled by the overbearing blundering incompetence (A cakewalk everyone? Trooplevels that are wildly off mark? Who needs an Iraqi army - let them go home! Sadr is of unimportant, so unimportant we have to remove him :roll: ) of the pro-war politicos planted there as I understand the silent opposition from their side. So why not read the whole article (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php)? Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war.
(...)
But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons. (pretty heavy stuff from the Army times, considering who they take aim on below)
(...)
But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership.

The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes.

In addition to the scores of prisoners who were humiliated and demeaned, at least 14 have died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has ruled at least two of those homicides. This is not the way a free people keeps its captives or wins the hearts and minds of a suspicious world.
(...)
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media.

By then, of course, it was too late.

Myers, Rumsfeld and their staffs failed to recognize the impact the scandal would have not only in the United States, but around the world.

If their staffs failed to alert Myers and Rumsfeld, shame on them. But shame, too, on the chairman and secretary, who failed to inform even President Bush.

He was left to learn of the explosive scandal from media reports instead of from his own military leaders.

On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.
(...)
This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.Rummy treated the issue as bad press while it was something conmpletely different: A full fledged scandal. As if supressing the pics would solve the problem and it would go away ...

Rummy's and Bush half-hearted responses send the disastrous message: "Torture is ok as long as we can keep it secret like in Gitmo (reportedly the abuse in Iraq began after Gitmo's Gen. Miller brought his know how to Abu Ghraib - honi sont ...), but when it comes out we'll fry you. So don't take photos the next time *wink* *wink* ... that allows us to smear the next one complaining about having been abused as a liar and partisan opponent of our glorious liberation in Iraq."

I mean, HRW, the red cross and amnesty have been telling the stuff Taguba told for a year, but no one cared to read their reports, made by whiny liberal sissies complaining about 'human rights'. I'm not kidding, I read such comments on, I can't remember where, Washington Times or Weekly Standard. For them the reports were wrong because thy came from the antiwar camp. That makes me ponder on how they take on reality, like: "You do have a different point of view so you lie anyway, rah-rah" ??!

So there will be a few pawns sacrificed, maybe even a cardinal, but sure no tower or a dame.

I mean, you praise Rummy's damage control Darkwolf? President Bush learned about the US torture of Iraqi detainees the same way you did – from TV news. And there we are at another problem.

It is close to impossible for US conservatives to get any but rah-rah kick-their-terrorist-butts commentary on the Iraqi conflict. Anyone who relies on Fox News, the Weekly Standard, National Review or the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page for understanding the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is as propagandized as Germans during the Nazi era, or a russian relying on the Prawda during the cold war. Bleh.

Besides, it has been complained by some Reps that the leaking of the photos was a criminal act, becausethey were classified secret. That critique is beside the point. Gvt secrecy is supposed to be used to safeguard national security information, not illegal activities.
Contrary to the spin of the administration and its allies, whoever leaked the photos did the American public a service by exposing the flagrant disregard of U.S. military prison guards for American values.
And as for damaging Bush, that is irrelevant, America will live on when he leaves office and this is an issue for America as a whole.

When in the 1970s the italian (iirc) prime minister Aldo Moro was kidnapped by commie terrorists the italian police caught a suspect who, as they guessed, knew where he was held. They refused to torture him, as the legitimacy of Italy as a state under the rule of law was at stake, and that was the higher value compared to losing Moro. Moro was assassinated by the italian red brigades. Italy still is exists, and survived the lethal threat posed by communist terror without compromising it's rule of law.
Seems as if Europe can still teach America a lesson or two.

Sometimes you have to lose to win.

[ May 11, 2004, 11:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

When in the 1970s the italian (iirc) prime minister Aldo Moro was kidnapped by commie terrorists the italian police caught a suspect who, as they guessed, knew where he was held. They refused to torture him, as the legitimacy of Italy as a state under the rule of law was at stake, and that was the higher value compared to losing Moro. Moro was assassinated by the italian red brigades. Italy still is exists, and survived the lethal threat posed by communist terror without compromising it's rule of law.

Seems as if Europe can still teach America a lesson or two.Sounds like Gandhi's advice to colonial master Britain during the '30s and early '40s - that it was better that the UK be steamrolled by the Nazis than it bloody its hands with violent resistance, since in the process Britain would sacrifice its national soul.

Maybe Europe can teach America because it finally learned Gandhi's lesson, that violence is never acceptable to counter evil. Now if only the world's terrorists would learn it, too.

The problem with Ghandi's approach is it only works when you are resisting a moral nation. The British Raj, was not good for India. It had many faults, but it was lead my a moral nation. When Ghandi led the people in passive revolt it was only a matter of time before Britain had to concede. The problem with Nazi Germany and terorists is they have/had no respect for human life. In this case you could resist passively all you want and they will keep killing you without any thought about it. This leaves you with no alternative but active resistance.

Now, I dont know if this supports Grey Magistrate or not, so I'll leave you all to make up your own minds.

I thought this country was full of people who were believers in giving someone due process, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.. Nobody said anything about putting him on trial. It has been suggested that he be removed from his postion for the good of this country. You are confusing legal rights with those of his job. As a public official he answers to the American People, just as his boss, the Prez.

Anyone read Safire's piece on this? I'll quote it in blocks for those who don't want to read it all.

First paragraph (intro):

WASHINGTON - Donald Rumsfeld has been designated by Democratic politicians as the scapegoat for the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison. But any resignation would only whet their appetite to cut and run. The highly effective defense secretary owes it to the nation's war on terror to soldier on.
Next two paragraphs (why Safire shouldn't be automatically flamed):

Because today's column will generate apoplectic e-mail, a word about contrarian opinion: Shortly after 9/11, with the nation gripped by fear and fury, the Bush White House issued a sweeping and popular order to crack down on suspected terrorists. The liberal establishment largely fell cravenly mute. A few lonely civil libertarians spoke out. When I used the word "dictatorial," conservatives, both neo- and paleo-, derided my condemnation as "hysterical."

One Bush cabinet member paid attention. Rumsfeld appointed a bipartisan panel of attorneys to re-examine that draconian edict. As a result, basic protections for the accused Qaeda combatants were included in the proposed military tribunals. Next three paragraphs (why Rumsfeld is a swell guy although his people are morons):

Perhaps because of those protections, the tribunals never got off the ground. (The Supreme Court will soon, I hope, provide similar legal rights to suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens.) But in the panic of the winter of 2001, Rumsfeld was one of the few in power concerned about prisoners' rights. Some now demanding his scalp then supported the repressive Patriot Act.

In last week's apology before the Senate, Rumsfeld assumed ultimate responsibility, as J.F.K. did after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The Pentagon chief failed to foresee and warn the president of the danger lurking in the Army's public announcement in January of its criminal investigation into prisoner abuse. He failed to put the nation's reputation ahead of the regulation prohibiting "command influence" in criminal investigations, which protects the accused in courts-martial.

The secretary testified that he was, incredibly, the last to see the humiliating photos that turned a damning army critique by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba into a media firestorm. Why nobody searched out and showed him those incendiary pictures immediately reveals sheer stupidity on the part of the command structure and his Pentagon staff.
Next couple (man those politicians are rude and there was really nothing covering up here):

But then Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota rudely badgered the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers, repeatedly hurling the word "suppression" at him. General Myers had been trying to save the lives of troops by persuading CBS to delay its broadcast of pictures that would inflame resistance. Rumsfeld quieted the sound-bite-hungry politician by reminding him that requests to delay life-threatening reports were part of long military-media tradition.

This was scandal with no cover-up; the wheels of investigation and prosecution were grinding, with public exposure certain. Second only to the failure to prevent torture was the Pentagon's failure to be first to break the bad news: the Taguba report should have been released at a Rumsfeld press conference months ago.
Migrating on to see whether this is really torture and whether we have to dump all interrogation techniques:

Now every suspect ever held in any U.S. facility will claim to have been tortured and demand recompense. Videos recompense. Videos real and fake will stream across the world's screens, and propagandists abroad will join defeatists here in calling American prisons a "gulag," gleefully equating Bush not just with Saddam but with Stalin.

Torture is both unlawful and morally abhorrent. But what about gathering intelligence from suspected or proven terrorists by codified, regulated, manipulative interrogation? Information thus acquired can save thousands of lives. Will we now allow the pendulum to swing back to "name, rank, serial number," as if suspected terrorists planning the bombing of civilians were uniformed prisoners of war obeying the rules of war?
And we close with a "U.S. is great, Go Rummy" pep talk:

The United States shows the world its values by investigating and prosecuting wrongdoers high and low. It is not in our political value system to scapegoat a good man for the depraved acts of others. Nor does it make strategic sense to remove a war leader in the vain hope of appeasing critics of the war.

This secretary of defense, who has the strong support of the president, is both effective and symbolic. If he were to quit under political fire, pressure would mount for America to quit under insurgent fire. Hang in there, Rummy! You have a duty to serve in our "long, hard slog."
Well, pardon my editorializing of his editorializing, but I thought is was pretty interesting to see how he was going to spin it. I'm sorry, but last I checked, the guy at the top of the Pentagon would, in fact, be the right guy to blame for a screw up like this.

Now, if you want to say that he shouldn't lose his job over this, that new and better tracking and safeguards need to be put in place, blah, blah, blah, that's fine and dandy. All the excess baggage that's packed into this column, though, simply supports my opinions regarding political journalists. :nolike: :almostmad: :1eye: :help:

Considering that, in business, a guy who makes you a ton of money this year can get fired next year for incompetence if he loses it, why can't Rumsfeld go, even if he did all of those things post-9/11 as Safire mentions?

On the other hand, is this really a "firin' offense"?

Thoughts?

This occupation is getting uglier by the minute:

The repercusions of the prison scandal (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040511/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_iraq_american_beheaded) are starting to show.

Now whether or not they would've killed this poor guy anyway is up to speculation, but man this is getting sick.

ArtE,

IMO Berg would have died regardless of the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners. This was just the cause that they decided to name his death in. Could (and would) have been blamed on something else if it wasn't this.

Chandos,

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I never said his Constitutional rights were being violated. It is funny how when Michael Moore work is blocked (though it is not really) the left says that maybe this form of censorship isn't illegal as the government isn't responsible, but that it isn't in the spirit of what America was founded on, and yet they are ready to fire a man for something that he may have not culpability in whatsoever without even bothering to investigate it. It is hypocritical to say that we should live by a credo only when it is convenient for us.

[ May 11, 2004, 20:18: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Considering that, in business, a guy who makes you a ton of money this year can get fired next year for incompetence if he loses it, why can't Rumsfeld go, even if he did all of those things post-9/11 as Safire mentions?

On the other hand, is this really a "firin' offense"? Yes, it's a firing offense. Safire's description of Rumsfeld as effective is laughable. Setting aside whether we should have invaded in Iraq in the first place, his policies have led directly to the problems in Iraq - not accounting for the Iraqi military, the continuing security problems due to his obsession of using only army-lite, using reservists and NG as regulars on the cheap, using contractors in gray areas (one can hardly avoid the sneaking suspicion that this was deliberate due to the legal blackhole in which they exist), and the policies which led to the mistreatment of detainees, because Mr. Rumsfeld determined enemy combatants don't have rights under the Geneva Convention. The list goes on.

The hole just gets bigger.

I'd be pretty pissed too if my country was run by such imbeciles.

Considering that, in business, a guy who makes you a ton of money this year can get fired next year for incompetence if he loses it, why can't Rumsfeld go, even if he did all of those things post-9/11 as Safire mentions?
Yes, I agree. It actually happened to a company that I was employeed with. They had a very good CEO, who for years did a good job with the company, which was number one in its sector.

A few years back he promoted a new technology, which was not a very good idea. He had his reasons, but consumers never really liked it and neither did most of those who had to sell it. It became a black hole into which some 150 million dollars disappeared. And then one day the entire thing was cancelled. Needless to say the CEO was replaced a few months later. Personally, I liked working for him, and hated to see him go. But everyone understood the consquences of such a loss.

So even though we did not agree, we all understood why he was replaced. It's called taking responsibility, which is something the Bush crowd is very good at ducking. Passing the buck is an art for these guys.

I agree with Safire that the Dems are playing some politics with this, and I say so in my post as well. But he fails to mention, unless I missed it, that republicans were absolutely self-serving in their own comments during the hearing. It was a pathetic sight indeed to witness our so called "leaders" trying to maneuver for advantage during this appalling scandal. Of course, it is an election season.

Donald Rumsfeld has been designated by Democratic politicians as the scapegoat for the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison. Excuse me for saying so, but this is a scandal for the Shrub gang, not the Dems. As such they don't require a "scapegoat." It is the Bushies who need one. The problem for them is that a few low level guards at a prison won't get them by, and they know it. Neither will the standard conservative line: "It's Bill Clinton's fault."

The scapegoat may very well turn out to be Shrub himself. This one may very will come around to "bite-him-in-the-butt" so to speak in November. IMO, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. I'm sure somewhere in the White House basement is Truman's old sign, "the buck stops here." Ah, maybe I'm just being too much of an optimist.

[ May 13, 2004, 03:52: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Just to mention it... Truman's sign is in storage, currently. One or two presidents since him have used it; I forget which ones. Might have been Kennedy, but I'm not sure.

I think it should be brought back out of retirement for a new tour of duty, regardless of the winner of the next election. If the theory behind it was put into effect, this country and the world would be a better place nowadays, I think.

My sentiments exactly Cassadar. I'd dislike it to say the least. Despicable, but understandable, given to the fact that Bush is stubborn.

And now the right spin offensive is in full swing. For them the torture wans't all that bad, in fact, let's move on, those guys deserved what they got.

For Dennis Prager the "liberal media" were to blame. Of course, without the reporting no ... moral ... problem? Torture is ok as long as it gives no bad press?

For others it was obviously clear that the Iraqis deserved what they got. Rich Galen who recently returned from Iraq was furious at the public outcry because "the prisoners at Abu Ghraib ... were trying to kill me and others like me. And if they succeeded in doing that, they were going to come over there and try to kill you." Err, ok.

Or take Sen. James Inhofe (R