this is appalling, abuse of Iraqi prisoners - Page 8

being the father of a three year old girl, this picture just makes me want to cry...

The picture of the naked Iraqi prisoner cowering in front of the guard dogs is only the first of a series. They actually let the dogs attack the man, of which there are apparently more photos. From the New Yorker article:


This is my first post in this thread - although I have read most of the posts along the way. This whole matter has left me so depressed and enraged that I feel I can add very little of use to the discussion here. I do thank those who have stuck with this thread and made numerous thoughtful comments.

Dude, you are fucking priceless.

How can you do such a thing..?

War/no war, whatever, but how can you as a human do such a thing to another person...

I have made friends for life in al'Qaeda. I admit that some of those lives will be shorter than others but we will all meet again, inshallah, in gardens full of kohl-eyed houris drinking lime juice and water.

Seriously, the time I spent in the camps in Afghanistan will stay with me for the rest of my life. (Whenever that may or may not end, I'm not really at liberty to say, suffice it to say that this may well be one of the last posts you will read from me.) I remember prom night, how I nervously took Jamilla (I think) to the well in the company of her brothers and uncles; my valedictorian speech treating with the correct method of sealing explosives into new Reeboks, oceans of Zionist blood, whether George Shaitan Bush was correctly a 'pig', a 'dog' or a 'monkey' ('monkey' I believe is correct.)

Happy days.

I am not sure what to make of this post...

But it definitely isn't humorous (i feel like crying actually)...

NaplesX said I was posting pictures of "dead Arabs" to try and get people to join me in al'Qaeda. So I thought I'd reminisce about my times in the mountains.

Ignore these posts, people, sorry. Address the topic. I'm thread death right now.

ah... my satire meter must be on ultra low sensitivity...

You see, that's what happens when you parse words instead of taking the time to "...stive to comprehend..." the entire post.

I'm just wondering what exactly has to be revealed for some people to see a problem here. Thankfully most people of any political perspective seem to be seeing that something is very, very wrong.

According to an article in the London Evening Standard, Amnesty will tomorrow release a report detailing the worst abuses yet.

Additionally, I don't think posting pictures here on AI will recruit more AQ operatives. I think the photos are more readily available from actual news sources. Wouldn't you agree Naples?

Regarding the "criminals and terrorists" angle, it is worth taking note that a recent international Red Cross report cites coalition intelligence officers estimates that 70-90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake. Think of that when considering this whole matter. Consider, for example, how you would feel - picked up by mistake in the middle of the night - not seeing family or friends for months on end - not having any legal right or means to even question your detention - and being subject to such treatment.

Further, regarding the criminal and terrorists angle, it is important to note, of course, that basic human rights to be free of torture and other abuse apply with respect to those detained even on well-founded suspicion. Those who violate such standards are themselves committing serious crimes.

The disturbing aspect of this thread, apart from the material itself, is the attitude of several of the board's conservatives, who imply approval of the abuse, act as apologists for those who did it, or deny that such stuff could happen in the first place.

sjo, I actually find most disturbing the fact that some of the posters (well, just Naples X, as he seems alone in this thread... the other Bush apologists, SDW, Scott, trumpt, et al are conspicuously absent ) seem to think that the Americans accused of this abuse are "innocent until proven guilty" and those being tortured/abused/raped/sodomized/murdered/whatever "deserved it."

I think this double standard is sickening and speaks to why much of the world dislikes the US.

I'm not sure they do. The Middle East is a lost cause, OK, but for the most part everyone dislikes your leaders, not the people who voted for them.

When Bush came to London last year, a newspaper poll found that something just less than %70 of Britons thought that the US was a 'force for good' (or something like that) and less than %50 of Britons thought that Bush should be made welcome. Can't remember the exact figures, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate.

From Hersh's latest article:

Bear in mind that Naples is of the "time will tell if there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" school.

Now he councels patience and open mindedness in the face of these attrocities.

I guess when reality intrudes on one's ideology, it is always possible to defer judgement forever, thereby striving to appear "reasonable" while refusing to face facts.

You know, like the Bush administration and its constant calls for "more evidence" in the face of things like ecological degradation.

When combined with a willingness to jump right in when the water suits you, ala the evidence thin attack on Iraq or Naples intimations of "guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to Iraqis, you get the moral incoherence and weirdly shifting rationales displayed here.

Now combine that with the self righteous "with us or against us" rhetoric of unquestioned American innocence and you get just plain old stupid, which would be kinda funny if it wasn't the dominate ideology of the day.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040510/D82FUT9O1.html

Systemic, not necessarily systematic.

You people are funny, yet not in a ha ha way.

First, let me say this and make it clear, I do not apologize for, condone, support or favor what these cowards and exploiters did to those prisoners. If you say that I do, you are a liar and coward of the worst kind. Make no mistake about it.

Second, I as always am supporting that everyone chill and let the evidence come out. Time makes things clear. Too many of you jump to conclusions way too soon and help encourage hatred and bad feelings toward this country, and more impotently it's citizens IMO. I is also my opinion that those that do this are actually helping those wish to harm us. I for one, will speak out against it, for the sake of at least my wife and kids. So get used to it. Name calling and trying to marginalize me will not make me stop.

I have been very clear on my stance on this and other matters. You do not show any mental strength or debating ability or intellectual honesty by parsing tidbits of my or anybody's posts and projecting some special knowledge of my motivations.

I think that I always answer direct questions as to my opinions and explain why I feel the way I do. So just ask me and when I check my email and have the time I will reply.

I thought that is how this whole thing was supposed to go.

Maybe I am wrong.

Naples, I generally stay out of political discussions here and I don't want to get into an inflamed argument with you about this. But, I'd like for you to reconcile couple things for me:

1) You preach "innocent until proven guilty" about the American soldiers allegedly engaging in this abuse yet you say "maybe he deserved it" regarding the dead Iraqi posted above.

and,

2) You favor "chilling" and waiting for "evidence to come out" yet you approved of a preemptive strike against Iraq rather than waiting for the weapons inspectors to do their job.

Could you help me out in understanding your beliefs regarding these inconsistencies? This is a direct question that I'd like for you to answer. Thank you very much.

On-topic update. CNN tells us that

So. Up to %90 of the people in this here prison might be there for no reason at all. The dead guy was probably a baker called Raed.

Oh, hell - quick, someone lock this thread! I had no idea that we were helping terra-wrists by expressing our outrage at the behavior of American soldiers and their commanders (all the way up to the Chief one) that allowed (and in some cases encouraged) this behavior that even you, Naples, agree is very wrong.

Hey, do you think that maybe those soldiers and their commanders, are the ones helping the cause of the terra-wrists instead of us? Maybe it's their actions that are encouraging hatred and bad feelings for their country, instead of our reaction to them? NAAA - couldn't be!! The patriotic thing to do is to stick your head in the sand and ignore it!! I like your line of thinking Naples.

You continue to speak out against those who have a problem with the actions of these soldiers and commanders, and those of us not wearing partisan blinders will continue to disagree with you. Feel free to "parse" my response (also known as "replying directly to specific points").

OK, its now been boiled down to this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...soner_abuse_19

Bush says that the abuse is just "a few isolated cases"...but the Red Cross maintains that it is "widespread, routine" and up to 90% of the detainees had been arrested "by mistake".

There is a yawning chasm between the two stories: someone is lying.

I wonder who?

I was watching the news tonight and some congressman (don't know who) explicitly said he doesn't blame the soldiers, but the internet for this. :!!!: I wish I caught his name.

Thank you for being civil, there is a serious lack of it these days.

1) The statement was my way of pointing out that no-one here knows who it is they are defending. As a matter of fact, no-one knows the true story surrounding that picture. He may very well be a lowly baker, as just stated, but then again he just as easily could be a SH loyalist directly involved in the crimes of that regime, or even a terrorist from Pakistan. Or then again he could be both. Who knows. Maybe a better choice of words was in order.

2) I know that many will accuse me of repeating talking points, but this is how I feel about the Iraq war issue:

13 years of sanctions and resolutions, and now we know, corruption, not to mention the constant and unrelenting acts of war and noncompliance, did not give the US or the world much choice. I see that as being fairly patient.

I also feel that 9/11 changes the whole landscape with regard to diplomacy and war. Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. It also removed a possible WMD supplier to the outlaw groups all around there. It also gave the US a strategic stance in the ME, a long standing problem for the US.

Most people on both sides agree that SH an Co. had to be dealt with sooner or later. I am a person that tries to take care of problems asap, so I do not see a problem with the action.

Don't get me wrong, war sucks, but I don't see that the President had much of a choice. I feel that the success that AQ had on 9/11 mobilized, emboldened and motivated terrorist groups and rogue nations around the globe. Bush/US had to show some real strength, Iraq afforded them the opportunity to do so.

This is my thinking on those questions. I make no claim to know anything more than anyone else on these subjects, but this is the way I see things, and this is how it makes sense to me. I could be wrong.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks the Iraq abuse was just a few bad apples in some isolated incidents is just not thinking. This was just another example of the "ends-justifies-the-means" approach of the Bush administration. The same General Miller who ran Gitmo advised that Iraqi prison on how to "exploit detainees" (direct quote).

If someone were to ask you, it would be your president and any elected officials that happen to have a (R) behind their name.

We will see right?

Naples.

Try to wake up.

Just try....

...Red cross reports abuses systemic...

big surprise there... actually, i wish it wasn't true but everything the bush administration has allowed with guantanamo bay etc...

What does that mean, exactly?

Wake up to what?

In our American system of justice, it doesn't matter at all what these people "might" have been. They are entitled to a certain level of treatment.
That's the whole point of the "rule of law"; it doesn't allow for "feelings" to be acted on, it requires process and evidence.

So IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WE ARE DEFENDING because we are not "defending" individuals but the whole edifice of justice, as ostensibly adhered to by the US.

I'll remind you, again, that "that whole edifice of justice" is a lynch pin in the "American way of life" that we are holding up as the alternative to murderous despots.

By musing about the possible culpability of the abused prisoners, you are in effect at least allowing for the notion that foreign detainees are subject to torture if a local military authority judges them to be "bad guys". There is no other way to read this, it's pretty much an either/or concept. Either you think justice must applied every single time via the rule of law, without recourse to notions of proximate "badness", or you are implying that American justice means little to you, that it is a situational notion that can be discarded if you feel the accused are really really bad.

I think that is a horrible way to think, and I think it does real harm to very fabric of liberty and democracy.




I dunno, dude. If you can still say things like " Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. " I suppose there is precious little point in debating it any further. It's not like the information is hard to come by.

I will say that there can be a real problem building a world view based on a foundation of lies, since it leads to false conclusions. Such as assuming that the people imprisoned in Iraq are likely "terrorists", since you start with the (false) assumption that Iraq was a haven for terrorists in the first place.

And I think it pretty much goes down hill from there, but we have your posts to look to to decide that.

Is english your first language?

The reason I ask is, you seem to be getting a totally different translation of what I am saying.

I specifically said I am not defending these actions. And yes these actions, helped those who want to harm us. I agree with you on that totally.

If any of these soldier's superiors were supporting these kinds of things, they should also be held to task, as far up as it goes. So, I think we can agree on that. Right?

I just don't see any benefit for anyone to presume the guilt of everyone all the way up the long chain of command, to the president. Which by the way, he has taken the responsibility that is his and apologized for these actions, to the world.

I also am pretty sure it does not help the morale of soldiers to know that a huge chunk of this country has fallen into the trap of partisan politics and thinks they are all of that kind of people, that would do these things.

i personally like to believe that people are good and make the right decisions.

You can believe what you want.

Here is the funny thing about this whole conversation:

I will go along with just about everything you just posted.

The problem that i have is tied into what you proclaim to embrace, namely proof. Our justice system is based on provable facts. Not innuendoes and rumors and political conjecture.

You and many others have accepted things that are not proven, nor likely ever to be so, based on your political bias. You have already accepted that these practices are accepted and encouraged by all in the military.

Just like the whole death penalty for generals in command, I hear a lot of opinions based on opinions and political bias and stretched logic. Not solid facts.

I did not say, by the way, that those in prisons in Iraq were terrorists, only that you nor I know what or who they are.

You did say that you didn't defend those actions. But you also said about the dead Iraqi that "maybe he deserved it." That seems to be defending the actions, or at least leaving open the possibility that they could be defensible.

I blame the president and the civilian leaders in the administration because they have clearly set a tone in which the means is subordinate to the end. The Geneva Convention is optional. They put POWs in a legal no-man's-land in Cuba. They argue that they can imprison people, including American citizens, with no legal counsel and no charges. They believe their cause is more important than any faggy legal or procedural issues. As George Bush said in his 2003 state of the union, "America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result."


Has anyone said that all the soldiers are sadistic? I personally don't think any of them are bad, even the specific individuals involved. I even feel kind of bad for them in a way. To dehumanize others like that has to have a negative effect on them, too. I don't think they're necessarily bad, I just think the administration is bad. They've been bad all along. The difference is that we have pictures now.

I'll just echo BRussell here.

The abandonment of the rule of law is exactly the underpinning of what we see now. It started as soon as the Bush administration decided that "a war on terrorism" was somehow a different conflict from any in the history of man and therefore mooted every notion we may have had about the restraints of a democratic society.

These pictures are the result, not the cause, of this line of thinking.

Nobody has said that all the soldiers are sadistic.

The R E A L I T Y

It's not a very good, insult when you try to explain it.

Does anyone remember how Bush and his cronies vetoed U.S. membership of the International Criminal Court a couple of years back? Now perhaps we know why.

It was not an insult.

A valid question. IMO.