this is appalling, abuse of Iraqi prisoners

18911131429

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 578
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    Donald Rumsfeld



    Some more quotes from Rumsfeld :



    BBC link here



    I think it's a disaster for the future of Iraq. This events have totally screwed up the reputation of US army in Iraq. It will be very difficult to fix this.




    Maybe not a bad thing that, if, in future, it stops them from just walking into other countries. I know, I know, they were only following orders...



    Did you notice how upset Rumsfeld seemed when he, as a damage limitation exercise, promised more pictures? Upset as in, how dare they come out with yet more pictures? Anyway, that was my take on it.



    The guy is *totally* out of his depth, and has been right from the start. The "Rumsfeld Doctrin" (as opposed to the "Powell Doctrin")? Not very successful, is it? Generals have been fired for less. At the very least he should be court marshalled.



    - T. I.
  • Reply 202 of 578
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I'll be in London in a week.



    Bring a hood.
  • Reply 203 of 578
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    You have an enormous amount to be proud of and the reactions to these photographs I've read are a reminder of everything that's supposed to make your country so cool.



    That is a *very* good point you are making, but at the same time I find it very depressing that the chances that, according to the latest opinion polls, Bush will get re-elected, and I use the term elected lightly, are very high. By contrast, Tony Bliar's position looks more shaky with each passing day.



    - T. I.
  • Reply 204 of 578
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by The Installer

    That is a *very* good point you are making, but at the same time I find it very depressing that the chances that, according to the latest opinion polls, Bush will get re-elected, and I use the term elected lightly, are very high. By contrast, Tony Bliar's position looks more shaky with each passing day.



    - T. I.




    Don't believe Opinion Polls. If you do look at them though notice Bush and Kerry are neck and neck with a 6% undecided still out there. The lions share of undecided votes usually go for the challenger. Also, look at Bush's job satisfaction numbers--very low which doesn't bode well for reelection. Another thing, Kerry has been doing a stump speech a week which isn't really campaigning. His first round of commercials is being released. Kerry will step up the campaigning after the DNC I dare say. Kerry is also more articulate thus wait for the debates if and when they happen. Kerry has a lot going for him right now. Kerry can run on his own platform (which he has been) or on "I'm not GWB". Either case will garner the democratic vote and probably the swing vote as well. GWB has to run on his record thus far.



    It's much too early to hand the election to Bush. There are a lot of conservatives out there upset with the budget situation and the expanding government programs under Bush thus www.conservativesagainstbush.com . The conservative voters upset with Bush are planning on abstaining this election year. The Log Cabin Republicans have not officially turned away from the repubs this election cycle but many of them are very upset with the proposed constitutional amendment which will lead some to not vote and others to vote for Kerry. I could go on but you probably get the picture. Bush is by no means a shoe-in for the presidency.
  • Reply 205 of 578
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    good point Segovius, of course, it's sad that things like this have to happen for people to see that though.
  • Reply 206 of 578
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    My hope would be that these images bring home the reality of these interrogation techniques so that we can actually have a national conversation about what we, as Americans, are willing to tolerate in the name of "the war on terror".



    I have been dismayed to realize that post 9/11 there has been a sort of tacit approval of torture as a way of getting information, something I never thought I'd see in this country. Of course, it all happened off-stage, with euphemisms to spare the faint of heart, but I think most Americans sort of "got it" and sort of thought it was "OK". After all, terrorists are inhuman monsters so the rule of law and standards of international justice need not apply.



    The problem, as I have seen it, is that once you breach that taboo, you may find it hard to go back. Torture becomes normalized as a legitimate way to "protect the homeland". And as we have seen with the war on terror, there is a constant diffusion outward of these extralegal techniques and "extraordinary measures" into more general processes (as in the Patriot Act turned against drug offenders or "homeland security" cited as a reason to harass activists).



    Now that we have seen these images, and any to come, perhaps it will be more difficult to blur over what we really mean when we say that information must be collected by "any means necessary". Perhaps there will be some light shed on how things are run at Guantanamo. Maybe it will be possible to point out that just because someone is in custody, they aren't necessarily scheming terrorist fiends (as in the case of the apparently many Afghani villagers who were swept up in the early days of that war and are languishing at Guantanamo without recourse to any form of legality whatsoever).



    I doubt that all of that will be put on the table, but if any of this becomes overt in the national conscience, as opposed to that sort of convenient vagueness that shields us from the ugly business of what our government does in our name, then at least some good will have come from this.
  • Reply 207 of 578
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    NaplesX,



    Would you be in favor of the death penalty for the generals that were responsible for encouraging the torture? If not, why not?




    No. Torture does not equal death. This was not necessarily torture. I can't say what happened though, nor can you.



    However, if death of one of these prisoners was a result of the torture, I would want those responsible prosecuted to the full.
  • Reply 208 of 578
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by The Installer

    Maybe not a bad thing that, if, in future, it stops them from just walking into other countries. I know, I know, they were only following orders...



    Did you notice how upset Rumsfeld seemed when he, as a damage limitation exercise, promised more pictures? Upset as in, how dare they come out with yet more pictures? Anyway, that was my take on it.



    The guy is *totally* out of his depth, and has been right from the start. The "Rumsfeld Doctrin" (as opposed to the "Powell Doctrin")? Not very successful, is it? Generals have been fired for less. At the very least he should be court marshalled.



    - T. I.




    I think it's the end of Rumsfeld doctrin, and that's a good thing. If Bush is reelected Rumy will be not in the oval office anymore. The election are only 6 months away : i doubt that he will be fired now.
  • Reply 209 of 578
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    I could go on but you probably get the picture.



    Yes, I do. Thanks for filling me in, faust9.



    As to Kerry being more articulate, not difficult that and thank God.



    - T. I.
  • Reply 210 of 578
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    I think it's the end of Rumsfeld doctrin, and that's a good thing. If Bush is reelected Rumy will be not in the oval office anymore. The election are only 6 months away : i doubt that he will be fired now.



    I actually do think that as a measure of desperation he will (have to) be sacrificed. Remember where you heard it first, Powerdoc



    - T. I.
  • Reply 211 of 578
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    I think it's the end of Rumsfeld doctrin, and that's a good thing. If Bush is reelected Rumy will be not in the oval office anymore. The election are only 6 months away : i doubt that he will be fired now.



    That may be true, I am not sure, but what makes you jump to that conclusion.
  • Reply 212 of 578
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Maybe we can all (even them) learn from this to reject dehumanising stereotypes (that are always necessary for abuse to occur) and to move on to something more. Maybe this can be a turning point for some amazing leap if the US (ie Bush) can grasp it or maybe we just carry on descending as before.



    I seriously doubt that the Bush will grasp it.



    The prison, for instance, as a symbolic gesture, should have been raised to the ground in the first place, but that would of course not have been as photogenic as tearing down the statue of Saddam. I understand that it was actually suggested some time ago, but the idea was vetoed by the adminstration, just as much as it was suggested the other day at the hearing, with the result of Rumsfeld saying, yes that might be a good idea, illustrating that he still doesn't get it



    It's been about media manipulation all along. Embedded reporters (oh yeah, very objective, that), the embarrassing presentation of a plastic turkey after landing on an aircraft carrier where, one might say, we got two turkeys for the price of one. That was pure pantomime (in the English theatrical sense). Forbidding anyone to show the soldiers (God rest their souls) "coming home", conveniently ignoring the Freedom of Information Act that Americans are rightly so proud of. And then there was Bush's visit to the U.K. that cost the British tax payer millions of £'s, but which at least provided nice pictures for the voters back home. The fact that nobody got the chance to wave to the most powerful man in the world, because all the roads being blocked off was, naturally, omitted from the TeeVee reports. He certainly ain't too popular with the Londoners, and that's a fact.



    On top of which we had/have endless and pious preaching of how grateful the Iraquis (and the free world) is/should be.



    And just in case anyone has forgotten, just where are those WMD's, that were the reason for liberating the Iraquis in the first pace?



    Good points in your post BTW, segovius.



    -T. I.
  • Reply 213 of 578
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    NaplesX,



    Would you be in favor of the death penalty for the generals that were responsible for encouraging the torture? If not, why not?




    You apparently do. So the real questions to be asked are:



    1. do you favor the death penalty only for US officials or should the same standard be applied to SH and his crew and other nations that do it?



    2. Is capital punishment to be doled out in such an inequitable way?



    3. Are you still a liberal? Death penalty?
  • Reply 214 of 578
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    You apparently do. So the real questions to be asked are:



    1. do you favor the death penalty only for US officials or should the same standard be applied to SH and his crew and other nations that do it?



    2. Is capital punishment to be doled out in such an inequitable way?



    3. Are you still a liberal? Death penalty?




    The United States' standards of behavior are her own. Pegging them to the behavior of criminals is grotesque.



    He is asking about the death penalty as a probe into your reasoning, not endorsing it.
  • Reply 215 of 578
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    The United States' standards of behavior are her own. Pegging them to the behavior of criminals is grotesque.



    He is asking about the death penalty as a probe into your reasoning, not endorsing it.




    I would like to hear it from him if you don't mind.



    I answered his questions directly. it would be nice to get the same.
  • Reply 216 of 578
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Hassan, your satire is amazing...
  • Reply 217 of 578
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I answered his questions directly.



    Really? It looks to me like you "answered" his question with another question (or series of questions).
  • Reply 218 of 578
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    You apparently do. So the real questions to be asked are:



    1. do you favor the death penalty only for US officials or should the same standard be applied to SH and his crew and other nations that do it?



    2. Is capital punishment to be doled out in such an inequitable way?



    3. Are you still a liberal? Death penalty?




    I'm against the death penalty, but as long as we use it I feel like this is a better cause than killing what's-his-name who blew up the Federal Building in O.K.C.



    As for SH and his crew, I'll defer to international law. Our laws don't matter when dealing with crimes committed in another country.



    Why would using it here be inequitable?
  • Reply 219 of 578
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    No. Torture does not equal death. This was not necessarily torture. I can't say what happened though, nor can you.



    However, if death of one of these prisoners was a result of the torture, I would want those responsible prosecuted to the full.




    Institutionalized violence of this fashion is a far greater crime than murder even if we only killed a few Iraqis in the process of torturing them.
  • Reply 220 of 578
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I'm against the death penalty, but as long as we use it I feel like this is a better cause than killing what's-his-name who blew up the Federal Building in O.K.C.



    As for SH and his crew, I'll defer to international law. Our laws don't matter when dealing with crimes committed in another country.



    Why would using it here be inequitable?




    Punishment should be equal to the crime. Since when does torture equate to death?



    In the OKC case, the crime was killing many people and the death penalty is appropriate.



    The burden of proof is overwhelming in this situation.



    You are also assuming that higher up encouraged these things specifically.



    You are also forgetting the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that we here pride ourselves in.
Sign In or Register to comment.