has gone to the jury. He has been accused of 'torturing' inmates in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In the spirit of solidarity with human rights activists around the world
, I present to you 'torture' vs. 'torture', an
.
Three British nationals recently released from Guantanamo Bay have claimed they were tortured. The ICRC goes so far as to say that what is going on at Gitmo may be a war crime. Many involved in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal now stand trial for their crimes. In fact, Islamist websites routinely use pictures of 'torture' at Abu Ghraib to justify their jihad against the US.
But what exactly does 'torture' mean? Is what was done at Abu Ghraib torture? Laying aside the fact that most of what is being said by the released Gitmo prisoners is rubbish--also, suspend for a second your knowlege that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to non-uniformed enemy combatants---what about the more credible claims of 'torture'?
I offer the following photo essay. Us vs. Them. Our 'torture' vs. their torture.
1
too bad the general american public doesn't get this balance ... keep up the good work
Posted by: whitey at January 14, 2005 02:19 PM (eOh5c)
2
Thanks for putting that back up Rusty. Maybe all the new people on this site will learn something from it - since they aren't going through the archives but automatically jumping down my throat, calling me names, when they don't know the history of this site and/or my time here. my contribution here. They come on not knowing the history of this blog and our history so jump to conclusions and calling me names, et al.
These types of posts are important and you have a lot of them (redux). Sometimes people need a wake up call - especially the new visitors.
BTW, I can't find what happened to the two Lebonese guys who were taken hostage last week. I've seen their video (you know the one that comes out first) but can't find any more info on them.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 14, 2005 02:46 PM (D39Vm)
3
It doesn't fly, Rusty.
I completely agree that the enemy is following an evil ideology, totally without the protections of the Geneva convention, etc.
But the equivalence argument just doesn't work. We're not aiming to be better than the Muslims. We're trying to do what is good. Not just what helps us win the war faster (nuke Iraq), but what the best, most virtuous course of action is. That's why we went into Iraq, and that's what we have to do now.
I think some of what happened at Abu Ghraib was completely justified (sleep deprivation, stress postures, dogs barking, etc.), but some of it wasn't. Not because it was as bad as what the Muslims do, but because it was morally wrong.
The neocons don't like it (because theirs is an irreligious conservatism), but there it is.
Posted by: Gleeful Extremist at January 14, 2005 02:54 PM (1hRqD)
4
Having read the testimony of Spc. 4 Charles Garner, Jr.'s NCOIC who stated that Spc. Garner was a "Disclipine Problem" and reading all the the Sergeant First Class had to say . . I have to say, I think we need to look up the chain of Command a little farther.
This SFC sounded like he was covering his ass with both hands. If any of this "torture" went on for any length of time, he, as well as anybody else in that area of the prison, had to know about it.
I live next door to a Sergeant in the Dept. of Corrections, and he knows what happens not only on his shift, but on the other two. If you are a Prison Guard, you have to know what goes on in your cell house ALL the time . . All the way up the Chain of Command. I think the whole damned thing is a smokescreen to keep the inquiry away from the brass!
Posted by: la at January 14, 2005 04:17 PM (VRK2g)
5
Rusty I see no post on the big jail break at Abu Ghraib !
See what being nice to POWs gets?! I never tortured (at least what I did I did not consider tourture - thank God Peter J. was not there looking over my shouldr)r or killed a POW but I sure was not nice to them, and none of them ever got away or hurt an ally. If you want to win a war you can not be nice to the bad guys!
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 14, 2005 04:40 PM (fLlQ8)
6
It's not that this posting is judge and jury on the issue, but there is not a single thing in the pictures of Abu Ghraib here that is reasonably or objectively torture. Humiliation, asshole guards doing things below the dignity of American soldiers - yes, but not torture. The difference between torture and what went on is the difference between assault and battery (fear v. physical violence.)
Posted by: Patrick at January 14, 2005 04:57 PM (mWdR5)
7
I agree 200 % with Patrick. I think because of modern technology and being able to have the resources to post pics on the net, on tv, in relatively short periods of time, this would have received little or no attention had it not been made available to the public via those photos.
Isn't torture a way of life to get the enemy to reveal pertinent information necessary to win the war? Then again, this wasn't torture, sophomoric acts at best, but torture?
Those assholes weren't even protected by the Geneva Convention. The best action is to take no prisoners in the first place, then we wouldn't have this problem! Problem solved, case closed.
Posted by: Laura at January 14, 2005 05:22 PM (ptOpl)
8
Laura can I send you to my local recruiter? How many push ups can you do, chin ups, run a mile? "Take no prisoners" I do not recall hearing that order, and if I did I would deny it.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 14, 2005 05:30 PM (fLlQ8)
9
It was a tongue in cheek remark...if we shot the enemy in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for taking any prisoners would there?
Get it?
Posted by: Laura at January 14, 2005 06:29 PM (ptOpl)
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 14, 2005 06:50 PM (D39Vm)
11
Breaking news: Graner was found guilty and faces 17 1/2 years in prison!
Holy Shit, what's the world coming to? And OJ is still free!
Posted by: Laura at January 14, 2005 06:55 PM (ptOpl)
12
let's face facts, what was done in abu grabb for the most part was not torture. to say otherwise is dumb. the idiots doing it caused us all a big problem by taking pictures, and bragging about it. most of the actions taken were on par with college hazing.
Posted by: pick handle at January 14, 2005 07:05 PM (oqEnc)
13
Bullshit, pure bullshit just because some sissies think its politically expedient at this time. The call should be better leadership at the General/Admiral level. Haven't heard one of them take the side of a GI yet. Careers before honor, careers before the men you command. Be politically correct and get a promotion. Bullshit. There was no torture. Merely hazing.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 14, 2005 07:23 PM (Chchy)
14
Now that I think of it, I think the military was pressured into having a trial. Why? Because those photos were mass distributed, probably to Al Jazeera as well. We were afraid of backlash from the insurgents, probably more beheading videos, etc. if we didn't take action.
Best action is to take no prisoners in the first place. Shoot em and ask questions later. Since when is it a crime to get information out of the enemy anyway? Isn't this protocol in a war? There was a war going on, last time I looked.
Posted by: Laura at January 14, 2005 09:17 PM (ptOpl)
15
Rusty, what's your friend's website (in yellow) who started collecting all these videos? Somehow I can't find it.
what happened at Abu Ghraib was an embarassment. Those photos were sent out by one of the guards who took the digital photos - the same kid who testified against Lyndie. We were in the beginning of a war and having lots of prisoners, not knowing who was who and what was what, this prison was run by the National Guard who were not trained or prepared to be in this situation. We would never have known about it if that young man didn't secretly send out those photos because he didn't like what was going on. But I'd never call it torture. You know the pick with the guy standing on a stool covered in black holding onto wires? They told him he'd be electrified if he fell off that stool but the truth was the wires were dead and he was safe no matter what. Those idiots were playing mind games. The girl liked to have the most fun, visiting different cells at night for sex. Yes, it's sickening but you cannot compare it to what Saddam did nor what the terrorists have done.
There was a discussion a long time ago that ended up on other blogs as well and the whole idea was about nuking Iraq, Mecca and so on. Not my original thought. It was put out there to discuss and that we did for weeks.
It did go up to the chain to the general - a woman - who ran Abu Ghraib prison; they are all up for court martial now. Specialist Garner pleaded guilty and will spend 7-1/2 years in prison. What a shame, really but these other people were under his command. People do strange things under the pressure of war. Unfortunately he has to carry this stigma with him for the rest of his life and it's sure going to screw up his life. Having digital camera's wasn't the smartest thing to do.
Rod is correct in his assessment - he was in the Vietnam war and we all know by now that OUR POW'S in Vietnam were not treated humanely; they were severely tortured by the VietCong and killing was like a blink of an eye to them. Those men suffered. These men at Abu Ghraib prison will get over their embarassment.
Patrick, the reason Rusty redux "torture vs torure" basically was to prove exactly what you said. The terrorists torture and kill; there is no comparison to Abu Ghraib.
I got it Laura and I've said the same thing: a dead terrorist is better than a live terrorist.
Hazing as Grey Rooster said, is basically what they were doing and they were not doing it for information - they were doing it for fun and for fear. The prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison were any Iraqi's they ran across as we barrel-assed ourselves into Iraq.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 14, 2005 11:46 PM (D39Vm)
16
The comparison is only in the eyes of the MSM and America haters, of which there are plenty.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 15, 2005 07:57 AM (IcheV)
17
When I entered the Marine Corps in the early sixties we were forced to strip naked and stand (asshole to belly button) in a long line. All stacked up in a long line of 100 or so recruits. Pushed together as tight as possible. I was forced to do step ups with my foot locker on my head until I dropped. They even read our mail. If you complained to your parents the entire platoon whould do pushups while the letter was read over and over until they dropped. The letter writer got to sit and smoke. Any idea what happened to the letter writer later? Should the drill instructors go to prison for humiliating us so. I still remember their names. Hey, any lawyers out there? Do I have a lawsuit here? Should be worth a couple of million. How about a class action for all Marines. Or would our General at the time, who was not a women, (physically or mentally) given us 10,000 pushups for complaining. We used to take pride that our Generals were as tough as we were. Chesty Puller, Krulack and such. They would stand up for their Marines. Someone to follow into battle. What happened?
Hey Rod: Mayor General (at the time) Krulack was the CO at MCRD, San Diego, 40, Califoria. I'll always remember that address with pride.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 15, 2005 08:06 AM (4npOj)
18
Cindy, my comment was directed (poorly) at the Gleeful Extremist comment. I understand...
Posted by: Patrick at January 15, 2005 08:48 AM (K2soa)
19
Patrick said "my comment was directed (poorly.)"
Making ourselves understand is essential to communication. We all have a basic need to persuade, vent emotions, and convey feelings. The most advanced and skilled type of self-expression uses both verbal and non-verbal methods: if you want to congratulate a friend on her promotion, you would probably smile (non-verbal), say "Well done" (verbal), and give her a hug (non-verbal). I hope this helps somewhat, Patrick.
Posted by: Anti War at January 15, 2005 09:52 AM (PM/BC)
20
You can't justify a crime simply on the virtue of it being less brutal than another crime!!!
Zarqawi is a sick demented puppy... we all know that... does that give US soldiers the right to break international law? Do you want the moral high ground or not?
Also it's very naive of you to compare Chechen brutality to American brutality (exhibit 6). If you're going to show the worst of the worst committed by the Checehn rebels then it's only fair you also show how brutal the Russian army is when it kidnaps and kills relatives of Checehn terrorists.
Posted by: Martin at January 15, 2005 12:23 PM (ll2pj)
21
how do ya watch the video of the beheading
Posted by: Dash at January 15, 2005 01:57 PM (oNqUM)
22
That's a good question Dash. When the first beheading became known, no one could find it. This is how I got into it. Finally after hundreds of people looked and seeked I did find it. I had the volume on then and I hate the way they sound when they read that stupid paper and they go on and on and on. So I turned the volume down. When they grabbed Nick Berg's hair, he looked at them like "What the hell are you doing?" and let out a scream. They pushed his body down on the floor and slit his throat. The camera shut off at this point and they held him down till he bled out. Then someone else came into the picture, the video was turned back on and commencement of sawing his head off from front to back by this new person in the picture (turned out to be Zarqawi). It was then I felt the world should see this and the horrific circumstances of his death. So I sent that info to bloggers I trusted. I had seen others before I came across Berg again; this time leaving the volume on. When it was over, I leaned over and puked. It made me so angry and I could not believe that such an act could go on without anyone knowing what these terrorists were doing. The Checkyn terrorists were already doing it to Russian soldiers in the field - and the Checkyna's are of the same islamic extremists as Osama Bin Laden and Al Zarqawi. It became my mission then to show the world what these people were capable of doing and I was lucky enough to find Rusty (at Wizbang, no less) and told him of these things and he made it his mission to pass this info along as well.
How do you watch. With one eye open only and no volume if you can help it. If you want the real horror of these actions, then use both eyes and volume on. Either way, it doesn't just make you sick, it makes you angry - angry at these terrorists and every reason in the world to wipe them off the face of this earth. These terrorists knew what they were doing for they would not get bloody and knew how to keep it to a minimum as did the related Checken terrorists.
Nick Berg did not have to die. He was in Iraq working and when his company's time was up, they left. But he decided to go back on his own because the money was so good. The troops picked him up in Northern Iraq and had him in a holding cell. The FBI checked him out, and they also spoke to his family here in the states. He was offered a ride back to Baghdad for a flight home. A safe flight home but he turned it down and walked out of that police station and continued down the road. Next time he showed up, was on a beheading video.
I don't know if Zarqawi took that digust and horror we felt when we saw that and used it to his own advantage - to terrorize us. But I do know that long before I saw the Nick Berg video, I had seen video of what Checken terrorists (I will not call them rebels) did to Russian soldiers. It is absolutely horrifying. This is also what happened to Danny Pearl in Pakistan. Like many of their videos, they use them as propaganda videos. Danny Pearl was used in a propaganda video as did Paul Johnson and many others.
They are not easy to watch but sometimes you have to watch to see who your enemy is and what they are capable of doing. Too many Americans have no idea what these type of horrific beheadings are like and they certainly don't know about the people behind them; therefore have no clue as to what our enemy, everyone's enemy, is like. What kind of people do this? Don't they have a heart? a soul? a conscience? anything? NO THEY DO NOT which is WHY they are so dangerous and WHY they must be caught or killed because if they could, they would come here and do the very same thing to every single person in America. They lie, they cheat, they hide behind turbans, they hide behind cameras and they love putting everything on camera. They film everything they do. These people are not human - like the terrorists from Beslan, they are not human and think nothing of killing. It's what they live for.....killing. So many Americans and others of the western worlds have no idea how bad these terrorists are and what they'll do just to terrorize the world. Watching them in a beheading video gives you a damn good idea. Throughout the whole thing, they yell something like "Allah Ankbar" ie God is great. Their God.
I remember vividly how President Bush heard about the beheading of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia. He had been giving a speech and on the way back to his plane, all the reporters were there and they asked him about it. Mind you, he just heard about it. He turned around to say something, walked away, turned back, walked away, turned back and you knew he was livid. He said something to the effect "There was absolutely no reason for this to happen." turned away, turned back, speechless, then someone took his arm and lead him away. I'll never forget that look.
It is vital that you see these terrorists for who they are and for what they do with eyes wide open and realize this fight - antiwar or not - just how important it is to fight these terrorists throughout the world before they take it over.
So as to your question, Dash, how do you watch a beheading video? You just do; you have to - it's a piece of knowledge that you just have to have inside you so you know who your enemy is and keep your ass out of Iraq if you're not military.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 15, 2005 03:30 PM (D39Vm)
23
is it just me, or is it just about impossible to keep your humanity while running a site like this?
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at January 15, 2005 03:35 PM (ATANO)
24
Some people have commented above that “Just because they did worse things than us does not justify us doing bad things (paraphrase).” Um, I think that Dr. Shackleford’s point is that the entire world, including the Arabs, are wringing their hands with supposed anguish/anger over U.S. "torture", but give a pass at the heinous crimes against humanity that Saddam, followed by Zarqawi and Co. are committing. People are talking about charging American soldiers with war crimes, but just shrug when the "freedom fighters" cut off the head of a foreign worker.
Posted by: Craig D. at January 15, 2005 04:38 PM (YxQ0a)
25
Craig: Americans should take that as a compliment then. The world clearly has higher expectations of your military than of Islamic terrorists and brutal dictators.
That still doesn't excuse the abuse at Abu Graib (I wouldn't personally call it 'torture' either, based on the pictures... but we don't know if the pictures reveal the whole story)
Posted by: Martin at January 15, 2005 10:52 PM (ll2pj)
26
Thing is, we never loose our humanity at all but we do become outraged at the terrorists and their actions. Watching these gruesome beheadings only causes us to be more human.It does not take away our humanity; if anything,it increases it.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 16, 2005 01:20 AM (D39Vm)
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 16, 2005 06:23 AM (fLlQ8)
28
The insurgents are not protected by the Geneva convention! What else are we supposed to do when trying to get vital info. out of the enemy? Give them cookies and milk and tell them faily tales?
This whole Abu Ghraib trial was a miscarriage of justice. The whole military was blackballed into an investigation. We want to show the Mid East countries that justice was served. Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Did it stop those bastards from killing Margaret Hassan, who was there helping their people? No. They killed her anyway. They have no conscience, no morals, no standards, no scruples.
Someone said well it doesn't make it any less of a crime because we tortured them less than they did to their innocent victims?? Again, bullshit.
Take no prisoners. Fuck 'em...kill the enemy and then we wouldn't have to worry about torturing them and having a trial.
This is an outrage. I hope Graner appeals. He was smiling as he was led away though. Does he think he will get out of it? Maybe. Who knows.
Posted by: Laura at January 16, 2005 09:42 AM (ptOpl)
29
Those "liberaters" act like animals, they should be treated like wild rabid dogs and shot on sight. Screw the games being played. Yes, we got 2 sacrificial lambs being sent because:
A) they are poor enlistees
and
B) the brass doesn't want to get their image tarnished by an inquiry going further than their poor enlistees.
damn bastards, all the mean while we lost perspective that what those two US enlisted service personel did was NOTHING compared to what those camel dong smoking allah barkers did to non-combattance in iraq.
Animals, pure and simple.
Posted by: Andre at January 16, 2005 12:47 PM (duzJB)
30
Yeah, and wearing underwear on your head is much better, by far, than having NO FUCKING HEAD, which is what those insurgents did to innocent civilians just living and working there, minding their own business, and had nothing to do with the war effort.
Those bastards!!!!! I know why they had to have an investigation; someone had to be the scapegoat, and Graner was it. The only way I can agree with this decision is if it spared more beheadings, but it still pisses me off that we have to give in to these bastards by trying our OWN MEN.
Fuck them all, we should have carpet bombed the countries a long time ago and been done with it.
Posted by: Laura at January 16, 2005 02:29 PM (ptOpl)
31
OK - people, this is exactly the reaction that not only I but Rusty wants you to have - we both want the same thing. We want you to get angry, to be disgusted, to be outraged at what these terrorists do and to support the troops and the war on terrorism. Now you know what Rusty means when he says that these pictures and video's ought to make you sick and to make you stand up against these terrorists. This is exactly the attitude he was trying to evoke from you. Many don't have the guts to tell it like it is but Rusty does. Rusty is antiwar but that doesn't stop him from bringing that information to you. We may hear on the news about a beheading or a killing; here you will find the truth. Hearing about it is definitely not the same as seeing it in real time. Anti war or not, it is vital for the people to see the truth. You've just seen a smidgeon of it; there's a lot more and look at your reactions. It's exactly what Rusty wants to inspire in you all. And the outrage of what the terrorists are all about = killers who will destroy the world if they can. It is these people who attacked us on that awful day on 9/11 and why our President wants to go after them. They didn't just attack us, but 80 other countries and they are all around us causing massive destruction and death everywhere they can. Sometimes it even takes years for them to plan something big, but soft targets are their best venue. There is only one way for the world to see who are enemy is and what they do; you have just experienced a very small part of that and it's really important you never forget!!!! and how important it is for the good guys of this earth to win against these cowardly unscrupulous dangerous and vile terrorists.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 16, 2005 08:00 PM (D39Vm)
32
PS FYI especially the new folks: Rusty does not blog on Sundays. A promise he made to himself and to his family some time ago.
If you have a family -- go hug them, tell them you love them, spend time with them and be grateful we live in the USA.
just my opinion.
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 16, 2005 09:44 PM (D39Vm)
33
This blog is some good shit.
Posted by: Heather at January 16, 2005 10:12 PM (Qhq4R)
34
Meh, the US military decided that Graner had broken its rules. That's why it tried him (and will try the others). He was found guilty by a jury of his peers, namely other soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also decided that his conduct was unbecoming of a soldier.
If you disagree with this, you pretty much disagree with the way the military conducts itself. It's not about the MSM this or the liberal that. If you think that way, you're making them scapegoats the same way Graner was made a scapegoat. He broke the law, was likely encouraged by higher-ups who will no doubt receive a slap on the wrist at best, and now he has to do the time.
Posted by: Venom at January 17, 2005 10:02 AM (dbxVM)
35
Broke WHAT law, Venom? These animals weren't protected by the GC....they are the damned enemy! Since when is it a crime to get info. out of the enemy??? These bastards don't even deserve to live.
Take no prisoners, that's my alternative. Then we wouldn't have the problems we're facing now in the first place.
Posted by: Laura at January 17, 2005 10:07 AM (ptOpl)
36
Laura,
"Broke WHAT law, Venom?"
I guess the military laws that he was found guilty of, mainly. It's not like the military made up these laws on the spot AFTER the photos came out and declared him guilty. These laws were on the books, and he broke them. By his own admission, he knew that what he was doing was wrong and that it was criminal. I still think they're making him out to be a scapegoat, but he was clearly involved, regardless.
As for the Geneva Convention, I don't think he was ever charged with breaking any of its rules, just the military's. So, why try and bring that into the equation. (mind you, again by HIS own admission, Graner acknowledged that what they were being asked to do was contrary to the Geneva Conventions, but that's neither here nor there).
If you don't like the rules that the military has in place, that's one thing. But trying to make it out like he DIDN'T break those rules is pretty stupid, when it's clear he did. And THAT's what he's being punished for.
Posted by: Venom at January 17, 2005 11:07 AM (dbxVM)
37
Wearing underwear on your head is a crime? Since when? He only admitted wrongdoing because the military was pressured into having an investigation and trial in the first place. Someone had to take the heat and it was Graner. I seriously don't think he thought he was gonna get that sentence though, if you look at all the pictures of him, before and during the trial, he's seen giving a thumbs up sign and smiling broadly.
By his own admission doesn't mean he DID wrong, who knows what the hell they pressured him into saying?
Anyway, I see the insurgents don't give a shit whether or not they get justice for those prisoners, I see they've captured a Roman Catholic archbishop! What the hell can they possibly gain by kidnapping someone of the cloth who clearly is against war in the first place?
I just don't get it, I guess.
Posted by: Laura at January 17, 2005 01:05 PM (ptOpl)
38
"also, suspend for a second your knowlege that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to non-uniformed enemy combatants---what about the more credible claims of 'torture'?"
The IV convention certainly covers civilan security risks. And thats what people who we capture that turn out not to have been al-qaeda are. Its also possible that that article 4 and 5 describe 'enemy combatants'. Of course you've read them and know these things.
Posted by: actus at January 18, 2005 10:25 AM (CqheE)
39
What was done in Abu G. is no were near torture, the only things these GIs are guilty of is being stupid. Taking the pictures is the only thing they did worng.
Posted by: Kel at January 18, 2005 02:59 PM (yQiAh)
40
'What was done in Abu G. is no were near torture'
People died there. As a result of mistreatment.
Posted by: actus at January 18, 2005 03:11 PM (CqheE)
41
ACTUS: Bullshit! Pure bullshit!
Posted by: greyrooster at January 18, 2005 08:15 PM (wJPgF)
42
You're a pain in my actus! That's bullshit! NO ONE was killed or even seriously hurt. All sophomoric acts at the worst and the military needed a scapegoat.
Case closed.
Posted by: Laura at January 18, 2005 10:21 PM (ptOpl)
43
'You're a pain in my actus! That's bullshit! NO ONE was killed or even seriously hurt. All sophomoric acts at the worst and the military needed a scapegoat.'
have you read the tabuga report?
Posted by: actus at January 19, 2005 09:00 AM (CqheE)
44
Don't believe everything you read. Last time I looked this was a WAR. How can they be trying OUR soldiers when these asses are the ENEMIES...hello???? Cruel and unusual punishment? They're lucky to be ALIVE.
The terrorists are killing people left, right and center field, even there own citizens, some whom have lived, worked and helped their people for many years.
And IF we did torture them to death, so be it. Look what the Viet Cong did to our men in Nam. Were any of them tried in their country? They were probably given a parade.
Since when is it a crime to get info. out of the prisoners? Isn't that what war is about?
Take no prisoners, yeah, that's the ticket!
Posted by: Laura at January 19, 2005 03:52 PM (ptOpl)
45
'Since when is it a crime to get info. out of the prisoners? Isn't that what war is about?'
Maybe you should get into Oxycontin. soothes the nerve. and preserves a good radio voice too.
Part of the problem with the prisoner abuse is that a substantial number of them weren't terrorists.
Posted by: actus at January 19, 2005 04:21 PM (CqheE)
46
Stop condescending me, actus! And stop defending the enemy...terrorist or not. So you would not give the benefit of the doubt to the men who are fighting for your country?
Nothing like a loud mouthed lib to get my blood boiling. If I need Oxycontin, you need shock treatment.
Posted by: Laura at January 19, 2005 05:03 PM (ptOpl)
47
Hah, I'm back and, after reading most of this shit, it's like I've never been away. Laura is still some stark raving lunatic with opinions to rival the greatest fascists the world has ever produced. America! Fuck Yeah!
Look, the Abu Ghraib stuff is dowm to this: Moral superiority. You can not go around the world condemning people for their actions if you commit acts that are morally wrong as well. If you want to convince the world you are serious about helping them you have to prove you possess the ability to rise above violence and death, that you will only fight when it is needed, not for the sake of it. Personally, I believe this stuff happens all of the time and to an extent I couldn't give a shit. But if someone takes photographs then you get all you deserve. There is a fine line between interrogstion and torture and certain soldiers have over stepped the mark.
Rusty, your montage is pure progaganda. You cannot use those photographs to highlight your points, they don't fit together. America abides by the Geneva Convention, as it should and how the greater good of the world demand. Those they fight against do not abide by the Geneva Convention and so we must use it even more to highlight our moral superiority. The day America start to abandon it (and they've been perilously close) is the day that chaos and destruction will ensue and we'll all star killing each other every time someone pisses us off. Our societies set laws for a reason and they are not there to be broken.
Posted by: Matt Bing at January 19, 2005 07:51 PM (6M7nL)
48
'So you would not give the benefit of the doubt to the men who are fighting for your country?'
Everybody makes mistakes. Particularly bureaucracies.
Posted by: actus at January 19, 2005 07:52 PM (5Lqt9)
49
Don't you guy's get it? The Americans, aswell now as the British with the latest photo's, have lost the MORAL HIGH GROUND.
Posted by: Kev at January 20, 2005 01:02 AM (PM/BC)
50
Fuck Morals! This is WAR. I don't think most lib's get it.
Posted by: Laura at January 20, 2005 07:49 AM (ptOpl)
51
Matt, another thing. If we wanted to show the world that we want to help, what do you have to say about poor Margaret Hassan, who WAS helping the people of Iraq for over 30 yrs.? What the hell good do it do HER?
These people we are dealing with HAVE no morals or reasons for doing what they're doing other than to TERRORIZE...there is no rhyme or reason to who they select and/or kill. You've seen that with the innocent civilians they have beheaded, and Iraqi's too!!!
I'm sick of America having to be "nice". This is a WAR last time I looked. I never thought it would come to this...our own soldiers on trial and sentenced for "torturing" the enemy??!!
What is wrong with this picture (no pun intended!)
Posted by: Laura at January 20, 2005 08:16 AM (ptOpl)
52
Laura, are you an idiot? The people charged at Abu Ghraib were breaking the U.S. military's own rules, not some "lib's" rules. They were on the books, and by Graner's own admission, he knew they were doing wrong. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
They broke the rules and gave good soldiers a black eye in doing so.
Oh, but it's "WAR," which means anything goes, right Laura? I mean, in your eyes, the Germans and Japanese in WW2 were perfectly justified in killing Allied POWs, right? Because it's war. Fuck, what a stupid argument. You saying that "it's war" basically justifies everything that the Islamic fascists have done so far. Since it's "war."
Also, pairing a bunch of photos together as was done here is something I'd expect from Michael Moore. Both situations involve someone trying to get a specific reaction by only showing shit they want to show.
Posted by: Venom at January 20, 2005 01:39 PM (dbxVM)
53
Fuck off Venom you soldier hating piece of crap! Last time I looked WE didn't start the fire, ok? 9/11, then Saddam's reign of terror had to be stopped, then the insurgents.
Don't YOU get it? Graner can admit wrongdoing all day long...the whole investigation and subsequent trial was staged because somebody had to take the rap...no one would have been the wiser had those photos not been released and distributed worldwide. I admit stupidity on their part, but criminal acts? Yeah, like having them masturbate is much better than cutting their dicks off which the Viet Cong was infamous for doing.
Why can't you stick up for our soldiers who are fighting for YOU? I guess you must think that Marine is guilty too, of shooting that "unarmed" insurgent soldier?
Get real, I have no pity for those prisoners. Watch some doco's on Auschwitz (which was on last night, by the way) then you will witness what REAL torture was.
Posted by: Laura at January 20, 2005 01:53 PM (ptOpl)
54
Give me a fucking break, you've got your head so far up your ass you probably chew your food twice.
I know you'd love to think so, but I'm not soldier-hating. In fact, I respect them so much that it pisses me off seeing a handful of them causing this kind of shit when they clearly need a boost in the public's eyes.
"no one would have been the wiser had those photos not been released and distributed worldwide."
This sentence of yours proves that YOU know Graner and company did wrong. You're just pissed off that people found out about it. Well, fuck you. We all know, now. And like I said earlier, I firmly believe Graner is a scapegoat, but he knew he was doing wrong.
"I guess you must think that Marine is guilty too, of shooting that "unarmed" insurgent soldier?"
Yup. If he broke the army's RoE, then he's definitely guilty. See, RoE stands for RULES of Engagement. Rules. Rules are meant to be followed. In fact, please tell me how the FUCK you have an effective military without rules? The integrity of the military is found in its strict discipline and adherence to its rules. You can argue with me to your blue in the face that those RULES are wrong, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish. The fact is that there are RULES and soldiers are bound to follow them. If they don't they get punished. Like Graner did. It's pretty black and white, actually. Did he break these rules? Yes. Ergo, punishment.
"Watch some doco's on Auschwitz (which was on last night, by the way) then you will witness what REAL torture was."
Yes, it was definitely horrific. Though, in your eyes, it's all justified because it's "war."
Posted by: Venom at January 20, 2005 02:30 PM (dbxVM)
55
That last sentence of yours is not even worthy of a response. Think what you may, the trial was held because the military was afraid more shit would happen from the insurgents once those pics got onto the Al Jazeera network.
Ah but modern technology doeth have a double edged sword.
We can tell each other to fuck off all day long, fact of the matter is we're BOTH pissed off about the situation, yet view it in entirely different ways.
Posted by: Laura at January 20, 2005 03:11 PM (ptOpl)
56
Well Venom, I can tell you 1000% that Laura does believe the American soldier was a million times right in killing that enemy combant on the
grounds that he was possing a threat by "BREATHING". As Laura often states an only good
enemy is a Dead one. I am amaze that she is mentioning the GC, because in our postal debate, she thought the who GC should be scrapped.
As far as the prison is concern, the Guards were breaking the GC Article 3 section 1 sub section c which states "(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;" True it was not torture but it was degrading treatment.
But as you can see from her other post, and a few others like her, she is incable of learning anything new. She is like a parrot that once train
she spouts off the only thing she has been taught.
Matt, Venom, Actus a few others are right. It makes no different what the ragheads over there or anywhere else in the world do. America has a set of very very high standards, and we must live up to them. I say this because, once serving in the military, you know, it helps in the long run. As far as I am concern, the terrorist would developed a severe case of constipation, and explode in about 3 hours due to all the SH?T they
are full of. But to really respect our troops, you must respect the ones that uphold the moral code, and punish those who break it.
Laura, I have a came up with some improvements for my other idea. Once again send me a picture of you, then catch a plane to Iraq. I have some military buddies still over there who will get you a couple of claymores to strap on. Then make a nusiances of yourself until Zarqawi comes for you, then denotate yourself and kill the other assholes around you. And if you do get Zarqawi, we will give the $25 mill to who ever you want us to. And once again I will create a Crusade card deck with your picture. Because when you stoop down to their level then you are no better than them.
Posted by: Butch at January 20, 2005 04:10 PM (Gqhi9)
57
We're not stooping down to their level, we just need to exterminate them, like any other rodent. I'm surprised, Butch, you being in the military that you are not outraged by this decision. Treatment? These are the enemies, what special treatment should they receive? Should we not try the soldiers for shooting, maiming, injuring, and killing the enemies as well?
Why do they become poor little defenseless animals once they become prisoners? Isn't means of obtaining vital info. necessary from the enemy?
No, we're not stooping to their level...we don't want to be on their level...we just want them gone...Oh, and level's not a bad word.
LEVEL THE COUNTRY AND MAKE IT A PARKING LOT.
Posted by: Laura at January 20, 2005 05:26 PM (ptOpl)
58
'LEVEL THE COUNTRY AND MAKE IT A PARKING LOT.'
Parking for what?
Posted by: actus at January 20, 2005 11:30 PM (5Lqt9)
59
if your point is to justify the actions of the US military then you are foolish, yes of course they do worse shit than we do, but i think the point is to not have any degree of tourture accepted in any way, we must set the example....
Posted by: scab at January 21, 2005 02:05 AM (Yov8i)
60
"These are the enemies, what special treatment should they receive?"
What are you talking about? "Special treatment?" Prisoners are expected to be treated according to the rules of war, or in these cases, the army's RoE. No one's talking about putting them in a minimum-security jail with cable television and a workshop. How is holding them in a jail "special treatment?"
"Should we not try the soldiers for shooting, maiming, injuring, and killing the enemies as well?"
Don't be an idiot. Killing the enemy in combat does not constitute a violation of the army's RoE. Abusing prisoners, though, appears to be.
"No, we're not stooping to their level...we don't want to be on their level...we just want them gone..."
Laura, you're already at their level.
Posted by: Venom at January 21, 2005 09:11 AM (dbxVM)
61
When fighting a war one should always take the high ground. That way you can shoot down at the enemy. Easier to kill them that way.
It's honorable to drop bombs on them at 35000 ft. But not honorable to make them wear panties on their heads. It's honorable to blow the enemy up with missles fired from 500 miles away. But it's not honorable to make them run around naked.
The reason Hitler defeated France in 37 days was that he took the moral high ground. History shows us the armys of Rome, Greece, Mongolia, Huns, Goths, Russia, Japan and Germany always set a high moral standard. This is why they were so successful.
BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT!
Posted by: greyrooster at January 21, 2005 09:44 AM (m4cNs)
62
So, I rest my case! The best alternative STILL is to take NO fucking prisoners then! Since it ain't a crime to kill the enemy, but it is to wear divvies on their heads, may as well get rid of em like any other rat.
Rooster, right on!
Posted by: Laura at January 21, 2005 01:57 PM (ptOpl)
63
I would like to thank the American people once again for their wonderful qualities of leadership and knowledge of Christian ideology. For a country who is consistantly considered to be one of the most fundimentally Christian in the world, you sure know how to go to heaven. Remember...do unto others as ou would have others do to you, that one is pretty important. Or maybe you're not Christians. Maybe that's not your religion of choice, I really shouldn't make that assumption, just maybe we shouldn't refer to them as Muslims... that sounds like a good start for me.
I'd like to remind you all of the reason the Geneva Convention was created. It was just after WWII, the good war, the one where so many died, but the cause is still considered just, because there was rampant slaughter of white people (but you know that jews originated in the middle east too), homosexuals, gypsies (i think we could also call them homeless, or transitent, immigrants.) How do we feel here in the United States about denying rights to people from the Middle East, people without property, people who are gay or lesbian... we're ok with that, just like Hitler was. But, I digress.
The Geneva Convention was the Allies (in other words, OUR) way of saying, the Holocaust can never happen again. NEVER. Torture, meaning any form of instituionalized abuse of former combatants or prisoners. We have similar rules that exist for Guantanamo, which are being further violated by the institution of the military.
So, if we created this law, with other countries, at a point when our country was a glorious victor and blossoming culturally, politically and economically, why are we now denying the very ideals and hopes behind it?
Laura, there is no such thing as real torture, and when you are put in a situation where you are physically and mentally abused simply because of your nationality and political beliefs, tell me that isn't torture.
Posted by: rachel at March 01, 2005 02:56 PM (FuUD6)
64
Just taking no prisoners at all would work perfectly, because as soon as they got out (unless they commited suicide cuz there peckers were too small) they would just go blow up more inoccent people and keep on fighting. It not wrong to kill someone who your fighting in a war. But it is wrong to make them walk around naked.
Posted by: Jason at May 20, 2005 04:22 PM (eL5zM)
65
Let me hold the living and the deid. Let me care for the war and the people. Love and care for others and yourself. pray for those in war and fighting for those who need fighting for.
In Christ
Posted by: Son of David at May 21, 2005 07:11 PM (J44Cu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment