This is topic Red Cross claims abuse and torture is a normal proceedure in coalition prisons in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:LONDON (Reuters) - The Red Cross saw U.S. troops keeping Iraqi prisoners naked for days in darkness at the Abu Ghraib jail in October, and was told by the intelligence officer in charge it was "part of the process," a leaked report said on Monday.
quote:GENEVA - The Red Cross saw American officers mistreating Abu Ghraib prisoners by keeping them naked in total darkness in empty cells, and up to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, according to a report disclosed Monday.
quote:The report cites abuses — some "tantamount to torture" — including brutality, hooding, humiliation and threats of "imminent execution."
"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information and other forms of cooperation from person who had been arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an 'intelligence value.'"
The agency said arrests allegedly tended to follow a pattern.
"Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property," the report said.
"Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people," it said. "Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles."
It said some coalition military intelligence officers estimated "between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq (news - web sites) had been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units."
quote:Kraehenbuehl said the abuse of prisoners represented more than isolated acts, and that the problems were not limited to Abu Ghraib.
"We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system," he said, declining to give further details.
If this report is accurate then these problems in Iraq are clearly more than "isolated" incidents. If the pictures being published are merely the tip of an iceberg, something serious needs to be done to fix it. We cannot afford to been seen as (or become) the new Saddam in Iraq.
[ May 10, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's a question, though: is keeping someone naked and disoriented in the dark inherently abominable? Is there no form of "torture" which is acceptable?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
What Tom said...
..these ARE people who tried to kill our people, you know..
I have a friend who was once held for two weeks in a psychiatric hospital here in U.S. for a mental evaluation and anger management. During that time, he was kept pretty much stripped down to either naked or next-to-naked and in insolation. I guess it is a common thing to keep patients from harming themselves and/or others. So this isn't too far a stretch from what we do to our own...
Farmgirl (however, of course, the news reports I have heard about there being rape and/or sodomy of prisoners -- that is WAY over the line of going too far. I'm just not surprised or shocked by the being-kept-naked part)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Did y'all see that article in the Atlantic Monthly about interrogation?
Basically, if someone doesn't want to tell you something, what can you do to get them to talk? If you have captured an enemy and they have information, is it really the act of a decent human being to make sure they are never uncomfortable for a second, because doing so may induce them to reveal the information that may save lives?
I almost hesitate to post this because I do think treating people crappily is a terrible thing, but think about it. Is making someone uncomfortable the same thing as torturing them?
And no, I wouldn't want it done to me, and I would never want to do it, and it's inherently barbaric, but come on. Did you think when the soldiers got to Iraq, everyone was going to hold hands and skip? (The above was directed not to Hatrackers, but to the media that overwhelmingly supported the war and then was Shocked! Shocked! when it turns out that war-like actions occurred.)
quote:..these ARE people who tried to kill our people, you know..
quote:...between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq (news - web sites) had been arrested by mistake.
Did anyone here have to study the Stanford Prison experiment in Psych 101? I'm not at all surprised that these unsupervised soldiers are reverting to such soulless animals when they find themselves with prisoners to control, but I am absolutely shocked that this is expected behavior, and no one did anything to forestall it! I mean, any 19 year old kid at my school could tell you that untrained humans react to prison systems like this; why the hell wasn't the army prepared for it? Why didn't they have trained prison guards to run these places, with experience in dealing with these kinds of situations? Why weren't these soldiers supervised??
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Tom,
According the Geneva Convention, it's unacceptable.
Here's another kink - even IF one thinks that tactics like these are acceptable to use with Al-Qaeda members, there's no evidence that any of the prisoners treated this way were, in fact, Al-Qaeda.
In Iraq, the prisons hold a mix of those with ties to Saddam, criminals, and others caught up in general sweeps - and no reliable way to identify which group individuals belong to. What other explanation is there for keeping innocent bystanders imprisoned for months?
There really isn't a credible defense for what has been allowed at the Iraqi prisons.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"..these ARE people who tried to kill our people, you know.."
The estimate is that 70to90% are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Of those remaining, many are guilty only of being uncooperative during house searches, eg: all the men&boys of a household arrested for trying to block soldiers during nightsearches from viewing the undressed (in terms of religiously mandated modesty) women&girls in their home, or trying to keep searchdogs from entering their home (religiously, dogs are considered unclean by many Arabs and NorthAfricans). Then there are families arrested on only the word of "informer"s who are known by neighbors to have grudges against those arrested. Quite often, those "informer"s are known neighborhood troublemakers.
[ May 10, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
How would YOU feel if soldiers broke into your house, yelled at you, broke property, arrested you, humiliated you, kept you naked in a pitch black cell, and threatened to kill you if you didn't confess to things? How would you feel if this happened to you and you had done no crime?
Keep in mind that coalition officials themselves admitted that "70 to 90 percent" of arrests were mistaken. How could this possibly be considered "acceptable" in any American sense of the term? Or are we Saddam now?
[ May 10, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Fine.
Then let them all go. Raze the prison. See what happens.
Farmgirl
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Either torture them or let them all go? Aren't humane prisons an option?
[ May 10, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"According the Geneva Convention, it's unacceptable."
*nod* So what methods of information gathering can we safely and ethically use?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: Here's a question, though: is keeping someone naked and disoriented in the dark inherently abominable? Is there no form of "torture" which is acceptable?
Oh Tom, how we've both changed it seems.
I remember a long time ago having arguement with you about torture, I dont think back then you would asked this question.
It'd be nice if I could find that thread, but sadly I have no idea what the title or subject of the thread was.
From a link on the other thread:
quote:The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib may have done little to further American intelligence, however. Willie J. Rowell, who served for thirty-six years as a C.I.D. agent, told me that the use of force or humiliation with prisoners is invariably counterproductive. “They’ll tell you what you want to hear, truth or no truth,” Rowell said. “‘You can flog me until I tell you what I know you want me to say.’ You don’t get righteous information.”
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I remember a long time ago having arguement with you about torture, I dont think back then you would asked this question."
I think you are mistaking my asking of a question with my ANSWERING a question. Nowhere in that sentence do I pretend to offer an opinion.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This is where things called "trials" come in handy. It helps the civilized world separate those who are guilty and deserving of punishment from those who are not.
But we can't wait for that type of understanding to be given. We are on a time clock here folks. The rebels are planting bombs for no good reason and funding for this adventure is running out. Instead we just "torture" everyone and someone will tell us what we want to hear.
If you are innocent and the dogs chew up your leg, well we do apologize. However, how innocent can you be if our well trained troops brought you in. For that matter, how innocent can you be living in Iraq.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow, Dan. That was equal-opportunity sarcasm. Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Dan's right. They all chose to live there, so it's not our fault if they get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and got a little embarrassed in one of our prisons. Serves them right for believing in a different God.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love the self-righteousness blowing through here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all fairness, kat, this is one of the few threads on Hatrack in which all the participants might well be JUSTIFIED in being self-righteous; I can't imagine any of the posters here attaching alligator clips to the genitals of naked prisoners, even under orders. Can you -- and if so, whom?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I love the self-righteousness blowing through here.
And this distinguishes this thread from other political threads...
how? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not that part.
I mean the making up of motivations. Abuse isn't enough - to make sure they are the bad guys, let's add religious snobbery to it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, but the crack that this is based on religious intolerance is actually rather insulting.
Dagonee
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Oh good freaking lord.... once again it all comes down to persecution against the religious, doesn't it? Forget the real life abuse and torture being discussed in this thread.... I thumbed my nose at Christians, and that's not okay! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's just so predictable. Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
You and me, kat, we make quite a team. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* I agree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, Ayelar, you're not as bad as the people torturing prisoners. Happy?
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Either torture them or let them all go? Aren't humane prisons an option?
Well, you were the one saying most of them didn't deserve to be in there in the first place. That they were 'mistakenly arrested'. So there is no reason to have the prison at all, right? They're all innocent? No one is killing us over there, right?
Farmgirl
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
No, not really.
[edit: response to Dag]
[ May 10, 2004, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Farmgirl, how exactly are you making this leap between "most" and "all"? Last time I heard, they still meant different things....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mainly, Aja, I just think it's inaccurate. I think our military would be as likely to torture non-English-speaking, non-white Christian terrorists; if there's a racist/culturalist component (and I'm sure there is), it's less religious than it is societal.
That said, I think the military is INHERENTLY incapable of running a prison to hold its defeated enemies without some form of torture. By definition. It can't do it.
I've said this on another thread, and I'll say it here: military police is an oxymoron. The military's purpose -- its SOLE purpose -- is to crush its enemies and rape their women (metaphorically speaking).
You cannot build nations with the military. You cannot win friends with the military. You cannot spread the ideals of democracy and justice with the military. You kill people with the military, and scare the ones you haven't killed.
So the question is: is this a military prison? If it is, its purpose is to torture its inhabitants until they turn over information essential to the prosecution of a continuing war effort. And this is right and good, presumably, because it's still better than just killing them -- and might well save more lives. Right?
But if it's a CIVILIAN prison, where we don't NEED to torture people -- and, remember, I'm assuming here the need to torture military prisoners, which may or may not be something you're willing to concede -- then it's ridiculous to expect the military to run it properly.
I would not ask a plumber to wire my house. I would not ask a dentist to check my oil. And I wouldn't ask the military to treat people with human dignity.
Why? Because I contend that it is impossible to kill someone while remaining fully conscious of their essential humanity. And it's impossible to extend dignity to someone without first being aware of that same humanity. So the primary goal of the military -- the killing of people -- is in fact directly in opposition to any goal that involves the recognition of human value.
[ May 10, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
And Farmgirl, you seem to be implying that our abuse and torture of these prisoners is somehow warranted if they were trying to kill our soldiers. Which is really difficult for me to understand, both because I really want to believe that Americans aren't so barbaric as that, and because WE are the invading army here. We're the fleet out to destroy the buggers before they destroy us, and they're the ones defending their homes. I have a hard time seeing all Iraqis as bloodthirsty murderers, simply because none of this would have happened if we hadn't chosen to invade them in the first place.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Yes, Tom, I can't say I was going for accuracy so much as I was lashing out at the idea that we either need to torture the hell out of these people, innocent or not, or raze the prisons and let them all go.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And your lashing out needed to bring religion into it why? Especially considering at least one of the people raising the possibility of some of the abuses being necessary comes from a more or less agnostic person?
Dagonee
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Dag, if I thought that any of the religious (or non-religious) people here would treat prisoners this way, then I probably wouldn't still be hanging around here.
I don't want to derail this thread or really get into a discussion about this, but personally, in my mind a growing amount of "American Culture" is pretty strongly tied to the "my God is better than your God and you'd better join my side or else!" mentality. Not for everyone, and certainly not for anyone here, but this is how I feel the more I watch the news, or entertainment TV, or anything coming out of the white house. *shrug*
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: I think you are mistaking my asking of a question with my ANSWERING a question. Nowhere in that sentence do I pretend to offer an opinion.
Was there not a point to your question?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote: Why? Because I contend that it is impossible to kill someone while remaining fully conscious of their essential humanity. And it's impossible to extend dignity to someone without first being aware of that same humanity. So the primary goal of the military -- the killing of people -- is in fact directly in opposition to any goal that involves the recognition of human value.
I agree.
Here is a quick "24" question. For you 24 fans, do you feel Jack Bauer is making the correct ethical choices in his brutality? Entertainment often reflects our value system, and I love 24. If the military is holding a military prison, do you think dehumanizing and degrading prisoners is preventable, wrong, or better then the alternative? Does it serve any good or is it just deplorable? Is it a creative way without causing physical damage to break the enemies will, or should we not try to do break the will of prisoners or find a more humane way to break will?
What is the line between interrogation, torture, and just degrading?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Was there not a point to your question?"
Yes. But I don't think you know what it was.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
"my God is better than your God and you'd better join my side or else!" isn't as scary as
"My intimations with my God are unequivocally more valid than the Law," which isn't nearly as scary if it came from anyone besides the chief executor of the Law. The man legally able to use the force of violence against anyone else in the world, holds himself to be above the Law.
If he were just a little more humble in the face of the law in general, or a little more apphensive about unilateral violence, I wouldn't be as worried. But as it stands, I don't like the casting in this political theater. Or maybe we could draft an American Magna Carta.
Edit:
quote: (The above was directed not to Hatrackers, but to the media that overwhelmingly supported the war and then was Shocked! Shocked! when it turns out that war-like actions occurred.)
Does this go for the President, also?
[ May 10, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Alexa,
First of all, I don't like using fiction as a basis for discussing real-life scenarios. I've never watched "24," but do they make sure the person subjected to torture is actually someone with valuable information?
Second, I think the question of what is "allowable" takes a back seat to a question the administration hasn't concerned itself with until the feces hit the fan:
Namely, how do we figure out just who the small number of prisoners are in this system involved with insurgency? How do we make sure innocent Iraqis are treated humanely and how do we expedite their release?
These aren't just human rights questions. They are issues that affect the amount of support or resistance that builds within a population towards an invader and occupier - us.
Yesterday, on ABC's "This Week," George Will said that there is no progress when failure has no consequences. He went on to give a litany of the "failures" that have met with no consequences within this administration - failures over intelligence, WMDs, the assurances we would be welcomed as "liberators." Of course, Will wasn't sure where to go from there, but he's not very happy with the Bush's managerial style.
How could we incarcerate thousands of Iraqis who have done no wrong for so long and not expect it to help resistance forces within the country? Add the mistreatment to that, and we have a recipe for real disaster - all those people have friends and family on the outside.
The trouble with using extreme measures when you don't know who is actually an "enemy" is that you'll start getting information from people who have none - they'll make up whatever they think you want just so you'll let them alone. Not a new observation, just a call to set priorities. Figure out who belongs with what group, and then start worrying about what is permissable with the "enemy."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Did anyone here have to study the Stanford Prison experiment in Psych 101?...I am absolutely shocked that this is expected behavior, and no one did anything to forestall it!"
The Stanford Prison Experiment is well-known by the US military. And there are specific US military regulations designed to prevent military guards from going out of control. The chief amongst them is one forbidding military guards from participating in any way in prisoner interrogations. Which the new commander of Iraqi prisons, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller deliberately subverted with the full approval of civilian DefenseDepartment managers, including DonaldRumsfeld.
"I can't imagine any of the posters here attaching alligator clips to the genitals of naked prisoners, even under orders."
That's assuming that Hatrackers are a rather extraordinary group. Only a minority resisted comparable orders from authority during the Milgram Experiment.
[ May 10, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
From the Atlantic article no one read:
quote:"If I as an interrogator feel that the person in front of me has information that can prevent a catastrophe from happening," she says, "I imagine that I would do what I would have to do in order to prevent that catastrophe from happening. The state's obligation is then to put me on trial, for breaking the law. Then I come and say these are the facts that I had at my disposal. This is what I believed at the time. This is what I thought necessary to do. I can evoke the defense of necessity, and then the court decides whether or not it's reasonable that I broke the law in order to avert this catastrophe. But it has to be that I broke the law. It can't be that there's some prior license for me to abuse people."
In other words, when the ban is lifted, there is no restraining lazy, incompetent, or sadistic interrogators. As long as it remains illegal to torture, the interrogator who employs coercion must accept the risk. He must be prepared to stand up in court, if necessary, and defend his actions. Interrogators will still use coercion because in some cases they will deem it worth the consequences. This does not mean they will necessarily be punished. In any nation the decision to prosecute a crime is an executive one. A prosecutor, a grand jury, or a judge must decide to press charges, and the chances that an interrogator in a genuine ticking-bomb case would be prosecuted, much less convicted, is very small. As of this writing, Wolfgang Daschner, the Frankfurt deputy police chief, has not been prosecuted for threatening to torture Jakob von Metzler's kidnapper, even though he clearly broke the law.
he Bush Administration has adopted exactly the right posture on the matter. Candor and consistency are not always public virtues. Torture is a crime against humanity, but coercion is an issue that is rightly handled with a wink, or even a touch of hypocrisy; it should be banned but also quietly practiced. Those who protest coercive methods will exaggerate their horrors, which is good: it generates a useful climate of fear. It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone.
If interrogators step over the line from coercion to outright torture, they should be held personally responsible. But no interrogator is ever going to be prosecuted for keeping Khalid Sheikh Mohammed awake, cold, alone, and uncomfortable. Nor should he be.
What do you think?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote: I don't like using fiction as a basis for discussing real-life scenarios
Actually, I was using 24 to illustrate where our collective opinion may be heading, not as an example of what is acceptable in Iraq. You are right; in 24 we know who the bad guy, in Iraq we don’t. In discussing fiction, I was just wondering if 24 is a sign of a collective acceptance of “the end justifies the means” mentality.
quote: Namely, how do we figure out just who the small number of prisoners are in this system involved with insurgency? How do we make sure innocent Iraqis are treated humanely and how do we expedite their release?
These aren't just human rights questions. They are issues that affect the amount of support or resistance that builds within a population towards an invader and occupier - us.
Very good point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's assuming that Hatrackers are a rather extraordinary group."
Yeah. I was taking that as a given.
-------
"What do you think?"
kat, I think it is impossible for someone to morally act immorally, even with moral purposes. One can rationalize this, of course, but it does not ameliorate the evil of the act in question.
The "wink and a nod" approach to torture -- that we punish people when they screw it up, but slide it under the table when it gets us what we want -- is a great way to get someone who starts out with the best of intentions to teeter on the edge of outright evil.
Like many of the worst types of evil, it's insidious -- and practical. It's evil that makes sense and seems necessary. But that doesn't mean it's not still evil.
[ May 10, 2004, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
You know, kat.... if all we were talking about was keeping people we had serious reason to suspect naked, cold, and alone as a means of aquiring information, I doubt that there would be many complaints.
It's when we're talking 70%-90% innocent bystanders, alligator clips, sexual abuse, and photographs of laughing guards enjoying it all that we have a problem. The Atlantic article seems to miss that point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Atlantic article was written months ago - before any of this came out.
I'm not justifying anything. It just made me think.
I don't believe there IS any such thing as a moral war. Why is it okay to shoot someone on a battlefield, but be shocked when they mock those same people in a prison. The Geneva conventions are a good idea and I would love it if they worked, but it's like trying to stop the tide. We declared war on Iraq! Why is it shocking when war-like things occur? It became immoral the moment anyone besides Sadaam Hussein himself was killed.
For all the outrage over the pictures, haven't thousands of Iraqi civilians been flat out killed? That isn't okay either! But no one called for resignations then.
The point is that this isn't a special case. Even if every other prison is gilded and serving veal at lunch, it's immoral to be there at all.
This really isn't directed against Hatrackers. But I'm floored at the Shocked!Shocked! attitude of the press. People, what did you think a war would entail?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
And do those of you who aren't that outraged also feel Saddam's torturing of the Shiites and other enemies (guilty and innocent) was okay when he was fighting their attempts at rebellion?
[ May 10, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I'm floored at the Shocked!Shocked! attitude of the press."
Part of it, I think, is that most people see the accidental killing of a civilian as less of a consciously evil decision than the knowing torture of a wicked man.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Moral Questions:
Would you allow one person to inflict pain on another in order to save the life of a third?
Would the amount of enjoyment the torturer recieved from this act make a difference?
Would you allow one person to inflict pain on a second persoin if there was a 50/50 chance it would save the life of a third?
How about a 10% chance?
How about a 1% chance?
What if it was 100 people that would be saved?
What if it was 100,000?
If torturer enjoyed doing this would you change your mind?
If you began to enjoy it, would you change your mind?
There is a lot of talk about Evil in this forum. People call each other, or themselves evil in jest. But this is how Evil works. One day you are doing your duty, following orders, risking your life heroically. Slowly, bit by bit you succumb to the influences around you. A week, a month, an hour later, you are threatening some poor man with attack dogs, and you are enjoying it. THen the idea strikes you that you are in charge, you are the power, that one "accidental" slip and these dogs would rip the skin off of his bones. Wouldn't that be fun? Wouldn't that be cool?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Is there anyone not outraged by the worst abuses in this thread? I didn't see anyone.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Sorry, Ayelar -- having a hard time keeping up with this thread and my work too, so I just keep popping in and out once in awhile.
I never intended for what I said to be justification for what those soldiers have done. Even if you throw out Geneva conventions, training, rules -- those soliders should have known IN THEIR GUT that what they were doing was wrong. There is a right and wrong we should ALL know about how to treat each other, regardless of religious background (or lack thereof), culture or education. Unfortunately, we have shown historically, over and over, that humans don't treat humans right.
I am simply saying that in the context of war, this is not surprising. It is not shocking. People get caught up in the "us vs. them" mentality and fuel each other's conversations until things get out of hand. One of their buddy's get shot, and they get all upset and angry and take it out on any other 'like' person over there. So these prisoners were paying the price for all the grief and sadness and anger and other emotions that these soldiers were feeling.
It is not shocking, it should not be surprising (given what we know about human nature) but it is wrong.
Farmgirl
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thousands of civilians die, and it's all part of the war. You know, regrettable and unfortunate, but all part of the game. Prisoners are cold and naked, and it's horrendously barbaric. Something doesn't add up.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
WE ARE NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM BEING COLD AND NAKED WE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED AND TORTURED.....
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:This really isn't directed against Hatrackers. But I'm floored at the Shocked!Shocked! attitude of the press. People, what did you think a war would entail?
Yeah, I'd be amused by it if the situation wasn't so serious. I think the press is acting shocked to cover up for the fact that they've done a piss-poor job of covering some of the more distasteful realities of the invasion/occupation.
I use the invasion/occupation since there was a shaky case for self-defense (which I didn't believe at the time and no one really supports now). One of the nasty realities, for example, is that in both Afghanistan and in Iraq, a decision was made to put the lives of our troops at a premium - their safety was put on a higher priority than civilians. I'm not saying it was even a wrong decision and if I had a loved one serving over there I'd KNOW it was the right one.
But we lobbed missiles at buildings where we "thought" Saddam and some of his supporters were hiding. We did missile strikes in Afghanistan against villages believed to harbor Al-Qaeda supporters. These long-distance strikes minimized the casualties in our own troops, but inflicted a lot of innocent civilian casualties.
But, especially in the case of Iraq, this wasn't "war" - it was "invasion."
I read international news a fair amount and have read a lot more about civilian casualties AND human rights abuses than I have encountered in the American press. The so-called "liberal media" has been pretty much asleep until 60 Minutes II and Seymour Hersh stirred things up.
[ May 10, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
People, what did you think a war would entail?
Since some of us didn't want to go to war in the first place, the shocked attitude is a bit more understandable.
But when a war is declared and one of the prime reasons (depending on whom and when you ask) is to remove an immoral leader, when the invaded country is told that everything is all right now because we're on a higher moral plane, when other Arab countries are watching closely to see if we treat them with respect or with scorn and derision, then I think we damn well better be on our very best behavior at all times.
You could not have asked for a better recruitment tool for al Queda than this. We said we're the good guys, they said we're the sexually and morally corrupt devils. No matter how many good deeds we do in Iraq, which view is easier to put on a poster?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote:And do those of you who aren't that outraged also feel Saddam's torturing of the Shiites and other enemies (guilty and innocent) was okay when he was fighting their attempts at rebellion?
I actually am outraged by the pictures and I am confused of the stupidity in taking them..but..back to your question...
Do you think the American's (I don't think we have enough evidence YET to declare if it is a systemic problem) method of torture is equivalent to Saddam’s torture methods? If there is a qualitative difference in the method of torture, I think it is not paradoxical to have a different emotional reaction. [EDIT]
quote: You could not have asked for a better recruitment tool for al Queda than this. We said we're the good guys, they said we're the sexually and morally corrupt devils. No matter how many good deeds we do in Iraq, which view is easier to put on a poster?
That is why it was so stupid to do and why Rumsfield should of been on top of it from the first sign of abuse. This is why Rumsfeld should resign in my opinion.
[ May 10, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. It is empirically true that we are more humane torturers than our major competition.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I think the press is acting shocked to cover up for the fact that they've done a piss-poor job of covering some of the more distasteful realities of the invasion/occupation.
Note that right after the Americans were killed in Fallujah, the pictures covered the entire front page. But when this story broke, the American media had it down as a secondary story.
Only after it became clear that there was outrage over it did it become big news.
quote:Do you think the American's (I don't think we have enough evidence YET to declare if it is a systemic problem) method of torture is equivalent to Saddam’s torture methods?
Not by the sound of it. I think there was a quantitative difference, though, in that Saddam's period of torturing lasted much longer without attempts by the government to correct it.
Well - actually, we don't go kill people outright - not unless it's in open battle at least. So there is some difference.
[ May 10, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The point is that if America is going to Iraq under the banner of democrasy, claiming to want freedom and equality and all those beautiful lacy words for the Iraqi people. They claim to not be like Saddam. Which makes events like this hurt even more. It causes the country to lose face. Yes, I am aware that civilians suffer in war, which is why I am against war in the first place. I know war is hell... But this, this is just deplorable. Sexual abuse of prisoners, what were they thinking? If this is truly about liberating the Iraqi people such things shouldn't happen in the first place. There is NO excuse whatsoever for this. Not one excuse. I read one article in which a man stated that he had been tortured under Saddam but what the US did to him was worse. They have no right to strip them of their dignity like that.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Here's a segment of an interview with John McCain on Fox News Sunday, with anchor Chris Wallace. While I hope the White House is listening to what he has to say, I am not getting my hopes up.
quote:WALLACE: Senator McCain, let me just follow up on one point that you made. As you well know, some people are saying, "Let's not go overboard here. The treatment of prisoners all across the Middle East is far worse than what went on at Abu Ghraib, and you, perhaps, suffered much worse treatment during your five years in Vietnam." How do you respond to that?
MCCAIN: I respond by saying America's greatness is defined by the treatment of our enemies. And if we came to Iraq to install a regime, or just replace one authoritarian regime with another that's not quite so bad, it's not worth the sacrifice of over 700 American lives.
And we came there as a beacon of hope and liberty. And many of these kinds of words are being disparaged by many so-called "realists" now. But that's what America's all about. And if we treated prisoners the same way that — or to a lesser degree, but in a violation of the rules of war, and the clearly laid out Geneva Conventions, then we have to apologize, and we have to make sure that it never happened again.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
McCain speaks as if THIS is what made us lose our moral authority.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Just thought I'd add....remember to keep supporting your troops!!! Other members of our military deplore this treatment of prisoners! My cousin just e-mailed from Iraq the other day, where he spends time between guarding convoys and working in the detention center. He wrote that yes, they give the Iraqi prisoners hell "like they give us", but also said, "don't get us confused with those people down south; what were they thinking?"
space opera
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:McCain speaks as if THIS is what made us lose our moral authority.
At this point, I'll take what I can get.
I'm bothered that people from both parties are focussed on whether or not this was a waste of American lives. No surprise there, it's still the predominant critique of Vietnam.
I think if I were an Iraqi, I'd really like to be hearing concern about the unnecessary loss of Iraqi lives as well as the abuses at the prisons.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know what I want?
A scorecard. Small corner box in the corner of every news outlet reporting on the war. If they pretend to believe that lives are what matters, and willing to treat this war as a contest to find the biggest, baddest Ozymandius around, then how about a small scorecard, with a caveat labeling the deaths as approximations, of American military deaths, American civilian deaths, Iraqi military deaths, and Iraqi civilian deaths. No, September 11th deaths don't count in the count.
To appease those who claim that anything we do now is justified compared to what we replaced, beneath that box, they add in the tally of deaths caused by Saddam Hussein. For perspective, you could do a deaths/week ratio for all numbers.
What do you think?
[ May 10, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Yes!! With all the above numbers. Us and Iraqi military and civilian deaths. They can even add some jazzy graphics.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Yes. But I don't think you know what it was.
Clearly.
Would you perhaps then be so kind as to share the point of the question?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
jebus, if I'd wanted to make the point without asking a question, I'd've done so. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I'd've done so.
Is it just me, or does a word containing two apostrophes just look horribly wrong?
/derailment
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Here's the New Yorker article on the whole, sorry mess.
I think that we should get Rumsfeld drunk, blindfold him, strip him naked, put a sign on his back, and drop him off on a street corner in Falujah.
He knew about this months in advance. The International Red Cross told our government about this LAST YEAR.
Rumsfeld said that he didn't think it would be that bad. I guess he meant "if we never get caught." What a schmuck. Actually, schmuck doesn't half cover it.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:jebus, if I'd wanted to make the point without asking a question, I'd've done so.
Well I'd hate for you to have to do something you don't want to do. But there are people who aren't the quickest on this board. So could you let us in on it?
An e-mail would also do fine, but that's so much hassle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, in a nutshell, I believe that certain actions -- including torture -- are empirically wrong, even when committed for the best of reasons (and perhaps even ESPECIALLY then, as it gets someone used to self-justifying the commission of evil).
On the other hand, I am also able to recognize that these evil actions are often the most "practical" and empirically "correct" behaviors, depending on the circumstance.
Ergo, I believe it is the responsibility of any enlightened person -- and nation -- to avoid being placed into a situation where the most practical option is a knowingly evil act.
---
Edit: and to stave off any further speculation, I should point out that I do not concede or agree that the torture of prisoners for interrogation purposes is even necessarily the most practical approach in cases like these. I'm just pointing out that, even if it WERE, it would still be wrong; evil is no less evil when it's proactive.
[ May 10, 2004, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
And then you make an edit.
[ May 10, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Note that right after the Americans were killed in Fallujah, the pictures covered the entire front page. But when this story broke, the American media had it down as a secondary story.
At that point, it was hard to find any U.S. sources for photos of the abused prisoners. But it was all over the international media.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sorry, jebus. I had figured, based on my previous comments, that no one would assume that I'd suddenly changed my mind about the necessity of torture -- but then I realized that leaving you a loophole might just wind up frustrating you. Sorry I didn't edit fast enough.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I've been awfully quiet lately. There're all kinds of reasons, ranging from finals to not wanting to catch up on thousands of posts. But one of them is that I didn't want to deal with this topic.
I was one of the stoutest supporters of the war on this board. Intellectually, I can see now that whatever the motives it was a bad idea. The trouble is that my gut is still telling me it was the right thing to do.
As I've said before, the supposed WMDs were never the big issue for me. I believe that it's inappropriate and unfair that we have a representative democracy and SUVs while people in other countries live under dictators and starve. And to me that means we have not just the right but the obligation to overthrow those dictators whenever and wherever we can. Yes, some people would end up suffering, but fewer in the long run than if we did nothing.
I don't know why I listened to my gut. It's not as though it's ever right about anything else. But this time it just seemed so tied to rightness and fairness I guess I...I dunno.
Maybe all this sounds hypocritical to you guys, associating a war with justice. I worry sometimes that I'm out of touch with the way other people think, or even with reality. I guess I could be, so any help you give me keeping on track would be appreciated.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The thing about torture is. . .
It has to have both a purpose, and be successful in that purpose to even begin to be seen as ethically permissable.
Of course, then it's called interrogation, not torture.
I'm ashamed at this. I just don't know how else to put it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Maybe all this sounds hypocritical to you guys, associating a war with justice."
Nope. Your position, Mabus, is a perfectly reasonable one: if a war leads to good things, or is done with good intentions, it is a good war.
That a "good war" is mostly impossible is by no means something that all humans believe.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:And to me that means we have not just the right but the obligation to overthrow those dictators whenever and wherever we can. Yes, some people would end up suffering, but fewer in the long run than if we did nothing.
The trouble is, that really gives us the rationalization to do whatever we want with whomever we want.
If relief of suffering and helping those being oppressed was the motivation, then why aren't our troops in the Sudan instead of Iraq?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Scott: its still torture.
For instance, I would never countenance prisoners having their genitalia cut off in the course of "interrogation". Or being killed.
There are always limits.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are limits. There's is also the near inevitability that those limits will be crossed.
When justifying a war, it can be worth the cost. But that cost benefit analysis needs to take into account that even our own side will not always act honorably. "This war is okay is because the guy we are toppling is all bad and we are so good of course we're better" is a line meant to sell you something.
The abuse is terrible and should be stopped, and I'm glad the outrage exists for the effects it may have, but I find it more than a little hypocritical. It's incredibly racist to believe that Iraqi prisons are terrible because they are just that kind of people, but if Americans were put in the same circumstances with the same powers, they'd never succumb to the temptation. That's incredibly more racist, because it assumes that we and our own are immune to the temptations and weaknesses of humanity simply because of our high ideals.
That's how I picture the crusades themselves, actually. I mean, they were a dreadful twisting of good, an adulteration of religion to use it as a justification for atrocities, but I doubt the crusaders saw it that way at the time. I'm sure they went with the same self-righteous self-assurance that because they were the good guys, it was okay to invade, okay to conquer, and okay to do whatever it takes to make that same land safe.
A war may still be worth the cost. But all the cost needs to be accounted for when making that decision. These abuses were almost inevitable. Part of the hellish cost of war is becoming a little bit of the monster the war is meant to vanquish.
[ May 11, 2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
fugu-- You're right.
Is torture ever permissable?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Part of the hellish cost of war is becoming a little bit of the monster the war is meant to vanquish."
And people teased me for being a pacifist.... Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
On an OSC board, how could that statement be a suprise? Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
To call torture "inevitable" is making an excuse. Perhaps it was inevitable that there might be a few bad apples in the military who did some bad stuff, but when torture is systematic and regular like this, it is anything but inevitable.
When our enemies torture, we don't let them get away with just saying "Oh well - it was inevitable!" We don't say torture was inevitable in Communist China, or Baathist Iraq, or fundamentalist Afghanistan, or Nazi Germany. It only became inevitable because of the policies taken by those nations. The decision to torture is a choice, and this should not be obscured by claims of it's inevitability, as if it were merely fate that decided these men should be tortured.
We had the option of not invading Iraq. We had the option of not going home to home to capture all these Iraqis. We had the option of providing more funding for well-trained guards. We had the option of not making the circumvention of human rights a national policy in the War on Terror. We had all sorts of choices that led to this torture. It is naive to believe that our side will not make mistakes, but it is equally wrong to think that widespread mistakes of a given sort have no correlation to the choices we have made as a nation.
[ May 11, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, it's not an excuse, it's a misquote.
The real quote "almost inevitable" is an observation of human nature. Where in there did you read an excuse?
It's like getting car and not getting liability insurance, because saying there's a chance you might hit someone and need to account for the possibility, despite the firm resolution not to and despite the driver's training, is an excuse.
There are thousands and thousands of people over there put in a position of authority and kept there by the power of force. Whatever the original motives, it's a situation that fosters abuse. If you are going to support putting people in those positions of power, you have to account for temptation, free agency, resolve to catch it and stop it when you can, but realize that it will probably happen. Is the war still worth it?
[ May 11, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
From my perspective, torture is never permissible, by definition.
There are many forms of interrogation that are not torture.
However, given how physical abuse is generally considered to be ineffectual in terms of information extraction, in particular leading to numerous false positives that just confuse the situation, there's no reason to be ever even approach torture.
And even if one knew "light" torture could likely result in some answers -- for instance, if we captured the young (say, 14 year old) daughter of a high ranking enemy official, I would never support it. That's an extreme example, but one that we run the risk of making possible by countenancing torture in less abominable-seeming circumstances.
Torture and such are forbidden for reasons: because we try to act civilized, because we do not want to be monsters; work in the vein of Mengele's could save huge numbers of lives, but at the cost of our humanity: why is war so special that suddenly its allowable to torture and abuse, and its not in the name of medicine, when medicine saves far more lives?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do you think war is?
"War is hell." "Oh, I didn't mean that kind of war."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Blaming human nature for something that resulted from choices you made is an excuse. If you get in a car, speed, and then crash into someone, you don't say "Crashs eventually happen to anyone who drives." You say "I shouldn't have sped."
[ May 11, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you reading what I wrote? I don't care about what should happen when weighing real life situations. What matters is what will most likely happen. A cost benefit analysis based on everyone refusing temptation and not following the patterns of human nature is a pipe dream.
There's no tolerance for it. It's not acceptable. It should stopped when found and the utmost steps taken to keep it from ever happening. It's not excused. But it's also not a surprise. What about Americans made you think that this would never happen?
Americans should be above such things. People defending freedom and dignity should never do anything to destroy that in other people. Iraqis should have had thankful parades in the streets, and the local leaders should set aside petty ambitions for power to build the country. No abuse should ever occur, and the soldiers should all burn with the white-hot flame of noble sacrifice. None of which matters. If an action is only worth it if everyone involved does nothing other than what they should do, then it isn't worth it.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Torture and such are forbidden for reasons: because we try to act civilized, because we do not want to be monsters; work in the vein of Mengele's could save huge numbers of lives, but at the cost of our humanity: why is war so special that suddenly its allowable to torture and abuse, and its not in the name of medicine, when medicine saves far more lives?
I don't want to derail this thread, but torture IS allowed as a "treatment" is some facilities in this country. I've brought it up in other discussions. People with labels of mental retardation and autism, for example are being subjected to "treatments" that include the use of cattle-prod type devices, water sprays, tobasco ingestion and other types of "aversives." Some of these same facilities subject people to "behavioral food contracts" in which every bite of food is contingent on performing in ways the staff require - with calorie intake allowed to go as low as 300 calories per day.
And as someone who worked in the developmental disabilities field, I can attest to the fact that institutional abuse isn't limited to prison populations - it's a big problem in institutions for people with mental retardation as well.
The difference is that we make at least SOME attempt to safeguard against abuse in institutions at home here, since the dangers are well-known.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
War as generally conducted nowadays is relatively clean and civil. It is orders of magnitude less ugly and awful than war has been for most of the past.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
[ May 11, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Thanks for the links, Kat.
I doubt that Iraqis subjected to our "shock and awe" saw the bombardment as clean or civil.
But the use of the bombardment strategy reduced our own casualties greatly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Seriously, you think the result of daisies and machine guns and better, more efficient weapons has been fewer casualties? Never mind the great wars of the twentieth century.
I remember when this one started there were several magazine cover articles devoted to non-lethal weapons that could hopefully make a war not really a war - the result of a nation that wants the results while ignoring the probable price. The moment of collective (as opposed to the very real individual) culpability for the abuse isn't the moment the soldiers decided to have a little fun with the prisoners. It was when we decided it was worth it to conquer a country and do whatever it takes to hold it even after the dictator was gone. I'm not saying whether or not it was worth it (you may make your own opinion), but in weighing the cost, events like these MUST be taken into account before they happen, because their occurance is not a surprise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But the use of the bombardment strategy reduced our own casualties greatly.
Exactly. This war is better for the Americans, and there are fewer casualties for us.
Which is why the sudden concern for the Iraqi prisoners strikes me as so irritating. I suspect there would be a lot less worry about it if it didn't make us look so bad.
How many think there would be this kind of coverage if no one had taken pictures?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And yes, our wars currently see much fewer casualties. Take a look at the figures on those casulaties from single battles in the links.
edit to add: not to mention, we have significantly more deaths each year from automobile accidents and such (than our current wars)
[ May 11, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And...it looks like human nature hasn't changed much.
Before claiming that war is okay now and shouldn't be compared to that which came before, you'd have to produce proof that human nature has changed, not more proof that human nature has a pattern of committing atrocities when given the power and position to do it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No I don't. I never claimed human nature was different, I claimed our wars were a lot less awful, and I just showed that the list of some of the worst stuff you came up with paled in comparison to what's been done in the past.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is this the "He punched me harder" defense?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Kat,
I mostly agree with you on inevitability, but the fact that we know ahead of time that certain situations foster abuse enables us to take steps to reduce the incidence and severity.
Rumsfeld and the administration did NOT commit themselves to commit necessary resources for maintaining order in Iraq. In fact, the administration forced the resignation of a general who testified the troop numbers needed in Iraq were far greater than the administration was planning on committing. (He was right.)
When you have a prison that is overcrowded and understaffed, the likelihood of widespread abuses go way up. I've seen nothing to suggest that the understaffing and overcrowding were things Rumsfeld wasn't aware of.
His culpability is way beyond the "mea culpa" he's offered so far.
[ May 11, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not excusing anyone (even Rumsfeld), and I'm trying to keep my own opinion of the occurance and conduct of the war out of it (although it shouldn't be hard to figure out).
I just think that even all possible preventions are...the best-laid plans. When deciding whether or not to go to war, you have to account for the consequences that almost always go along with war, despite the best of intentions.
I'm really not speaking to Hatrackers here, I think. I'm just furious at the press for cheering the droppings of bombs and conquering of a country and then turning away from the consequences for as long as they did.
[ May 11, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I can't even tell if you're serious.
No, its the the-number-of-casualties-nowadays-is-at-least-two-orders-of-magnitude-less-and-the-atrocities-of-today-are-merely-par-for-the-course-in-the-past-while-the-atrocities-of-the-past-ar e-incredibly-horrific-today defense. By my book, that's better. I certainly prefer, given the choice, wars with a relatively tiny number of casualties and fewer, less grotesque atrocities.
Unfortunately, modern war is a very recent development, post-world war 2.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Almost inevitable = Nearly impossible to prevent.
...
"Did you think when the soldiers got to Iraq, everyone was going to hold hands and skip? (The above was directed not to Hatrackers, but to the media that overwhelmingly supported the war and then was Shocked! Shocked! when it turns out that war-like actions occurred.)"
...
It makes me angry that we can think of this dumbass behaviour in those terms. How we've gotten to the point where criminal behaviour and "war-like actions" are believed to be similar in purpose and motive is what's so damned scary about this country and the public's downright ignorance when it comes to our end-game foreign policy objectives.
A veritable mountain of social science intelligence can tell you that these kinds of abuses were predictable given the circumstances. In fact, the Geneva Conventions were enacted and the United States became a signatory precisely BECAUSE it is known that soldiers in war will misbehave.
The Geneva Conventions were designed to REDEFINE "war-like actions" to the extent that one could not behave unjustly under the banner of 'war is hell'.
I cannot think of any sane reason to disagree with the need to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable methods of making war and to have everyone accountable to those agreed-upon guidelines.
The fact of the matter is that these abuses (to say nothing of their apparent systematic nature) ought not to be expected eventualities of the occupation process; because the American people and the press rightly assume that our soldiers will behave honorably and that there is a command structure in place to ensure that they do so.
No, we didn't expect everyone in Iraq to hold hands and skip around the country together. In fact many of us expected unending conflict and were wary of occupying Iraq because of it. But we have a frickin' right to expect our military personnel to behave in a manner befitting the American uniform.
Perhaps moreso in this particular war than ever before. It is THIS administration that has taken up the arrogant mantle of 'winning the hearts and minds' of Arabs. It is THIS administration that has delivered absolutely nothing to forward that goal outside of toppling Saddam Hussein while doing as little as possible to convince Arabs that this was done for their own benefit rather than ours. It is THIS Secretary of Defense whose blatant disregard for international law has led us to a position where the Iraq War (and its intended consequences) has, in a very large way, already been lost.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)