posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
WE ARE NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM BEING COLD AND NAKED WE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED AND TORTURED.....
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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?"
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
Yes!! With all the above numbers. Us and Iraqi military and civilian deaths. They can even add some jazzy graphics.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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?
posted
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?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
