quote:Edit: and "we've done worse" isn't either. The specifics there were refering to Jim's earlier post about the knives and beheadings. "Do you really want to argue" phrasing was in response to the immediately proceeding post's word choice. Does that clear it up for you, Dag?
No, because you're making a different mistake that I wouldn't tolerate from a five-year old. You're acting as if the unacceptability of "they did worse" as an argument to prove something "okay" - your word - means that one can never say "they did worse."
He clearly didn't say it was "okay." He's stated throughout the thread that it's not "okay."
To be clear: "They did worse so what I did wasn't bad" is not a valid argument. That does not mean that all arguments that start with "they did worse" are automatically invalid.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, my opinion is that the comparison that needs to be made is to our country's standards, not to those of anyone else.
And what, exactly, was the point of bringing those other actions into the discussion if not to say that they affect how we judge our troops actions?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: No one else has been comparing them
Yes they have. As I said earlier, one of my two central points was that Haditha and Abu Ghraib are not comparable. I was making that point precisely because people were comparing them. I was asking them not to.
My all caps post says nothing about justifying Abu Ghraib... and definitely not by comparing it to enemy action since gunning down 30 unarmed people is something that allegedly, but it appears actually, was perpetrated by US troops.
As far as my being the one bringing that particular atrocity up, that would be Bob, in the thread title.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I already clarified that the "other attrocities" I was refering to were in your earlier post.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And what, exactly, was the point of bringing those other actions into the discussion if not to say that they affect how we judge our troops actions?
Setting a bar of what constitues "severe."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what, exactly, was the point of bringing those other actions into the discussion if not to say that they affect how we judge our troops actions?
Because one can't discuss severity without discussing other actions at some point.
For example, all rainstorms make things wet. Therefore, calling some storms severe and some storms not severe can't depend on mere wetness.
Not all rainstorms lead to rivers exceeding their basin and causing floods. Therefore, flooding is one candidate criteria for storm severity.
We know this by looking at different storms and comparing them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, I will admit that I was being pissy about the tone of your post rather than addressing its argument. In fact, now that I think about it, I was using, “you’ve done something just as bad” to tell you to lay off the people making a comparison. The irony is painful. I apologize.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: At least two of these were ruled homicides, though as far as I am aware, the government has yet to prosecute anyone. So, until we get accurate details about these 30 odd deaths, I would have a hard time saying which is worse.
So 2 homicides which have yet to be prosecuted means all 37 deaths are the result of US torture? or are you trying to say that 2 of what appear to be negligent homicides (from the description in Bob's article, they were not trying to kill him but their actions, shich may or may not have been criminally negligent, resulted in his death) are really comparable to a squad of Marines gunning down 30 unarmed civilians, with full knowledge that they were?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
edit: I have to admit I don;t quite follow you on the irony.... all I was really concerned about was that you seemed to be accusing me of saying what I was not saying.... which was very upsetting to me (obviously).
And it's not just you, by any stretch. I am sorry that I directed so much at you when there's a broad range of posters I was frustrated with.
thank you, too, for sticking with it this far.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lest this get lost in the flurry.... this could be a significant development.
I wonder if the "speed" in question is methamphetamine or the "go-pills" in common use by the military. Both would be troubling, but for vastly different reasons. It could also be someone setting groundwork for a defense along the lines of the F-16 pilot who killed several Canadians in a violation of the rules of engagement.
*goes to read links*
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: ***** Apparently, the Marines who committed this crime might have been using speed at the time.
From the blog post about it:
quote: The wife of a Marine staff sergeant from the same battalion accused of killing civilians in Haditha, Iraq told Newsweek that "a total breakdown" in disclipine including drug and alcohol abuse may have been partly to blame.
"There were problems in Kilo Company with drugs, alcohol, hazing, you name it," said the woman unidentified by Newsweek. "I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha."
posted
I would like more details on these 37 deaths. I would also like to know if these were all the deaths that occurred since things still have not been fully reported. And actually, I think it takes a far more evil person to rape and torture someone to death than to gun someone down. Even if you didn't "plan" their death, that is still just as much of an atrocity as killing unarmed civilians.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I would like more details on these 37 deaths.
I would, too. I don't have any problem with people criticizing the lack of detail in stories we have so far. I tried to make that clear at the beginning of the thread.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of some of the moral judgements getting thrown around, it certainly matters. It also matters because you're not asking the only person here making the comparisons.
---------
On the issue of torture: I think we need a new vocabulary for this sort of thing, because the connotations of the word 'torture' are very different from the denotation. I think it's quite a bit like war, actually. Few if any nations are in the indefinite future going to challenge the USA in an open, conventional forces war...and yet here we are, engaging our military in several places across the globe in serious combat using conventional forces.
We are 'at war' but not 'at war'. We need a new set of vocabulary for that, too. And before I get stomped for it, this has no bearing on whether or not I think prisoner abuse is wrong: just that the word 'torture' gets used for anything between humiliation and beatings within an inch of one's life, and I think that breadth of meaning is pretty silly for such an important topic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Jim, why does it matter whether US atrocities and Iraqi atrocities are comparably bad?
Why does it matter whether I pick my nose or kill and eat my neighbor if they can both be labeled "disgusting"?
And it's not a matter of US atrocities vs. Iraqi atrocities. It's a matter of what is an "atrocity". My Lai and, apparently, Haditha are atrocities. Abu Ghraib was a bad thing. I have consistently used US atrocities throughout this thread and only mentioned an Iraqi one once.
Attempts to paint widely disparate acts with the same brush are disingenuous. In this particular instance, this tactic is being used to dishonor US soldiers *in general*.
The fact that you are consistently misreading my statements, especially after I *just* got done painfully hashing this out with dkw, tells me you are being deliberately obtuse. Stop it.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't think the comparisons matter one bit for "moral judgement." Especially in the lack of full disclosure from our government and the military in particular, the people who pay for and support those entities are left wondering what is being done in our name.
That's a different situation than our relationship to any other soldiers (or "enemy combatants") anywhere else in the world.
The point is that the folks who did these things are US. We and they are one in our eyes and in the eyes of the world.
I draw the line on such things by making clear that I realize that I don't have full information. But I also point out that this encourages, rather than discourages, speculation.
When we have people who argue in favor of how limited this all is forgetting that the CIA killed a man during "rough questioning" at Abu Ghraib and that no-one has been prosecuted for that death yet, and yet a bunch of grunts who were stupid enough to abuse prisoners and take photos of it have all now been charged, tried and sentenced, it makes me wonder.
The CIA killed that man before the rest of the Abu Ghraib stuff started happening. The fact that Graner was insider enough to pose with the corpse after the fact at least opens up the possiblity that his earllier stories were true about how the stuff they were doing to the prisoners WAS sanctioned by someone higher up the food chain (if not his actual chain of command.
And I do note that the Brits have given an officer an honorable discharge AFTER he refused to return to Iraq and fight alongside our troops. They apparently bought his condemnation of the pervasive attitude of dehumanization of the Iraqis in general. Look...say what you will, but the Brits are known for a few things militarily:
1) High degree of honor (and yes, I know they've had their problems) 2) Not giving out honorable discharges just to shut people up.
Unless their military has gone way downhill, that event among our closest allies should at least give us pause.
In the context of the odious practice of "extraordinary rendition" the idea that we are somehow a non-torture state is just ludicrous. We have sent people to countries knowing that those countries torture prisoners. If we'll do that, and not torture them ourselves, then we're just squeemish, not anti-torture.
The Red Cross doesn't even know how many prisoners we are holding, and where. Let alone their names.
These are the things being done in my name that I want answers about, and I want them to stop.
This kind of stuff is what dishonors the sacrifices of our troops. Not me saying it, but actual people actually doing it!
And if we signed a treaty banning torture, and then do some of the things that are defined as torture in that treaty, then we're guilty of torture.
Just because the cases involve psychological torture mostly doesn't make us better than other torturers. It means that we're willing to violate the treaty. If you'll do it a little, will you do it a lot? Again, in the absense of full disclosure, the mind is free to roam -- to places where our operatives like the CIA person who killed the man at Abu Ghraib. Where does he go? What does he do to people?
Until we have details on that guy's actions, and others like him, and know what has happened to folks that we've "rendered" "elsewhere," I think it's perfectly legitimate to wonder if the US is engaging in more overtly physical forms of torture of prisoners, contrary to our treaties.
And if these are isolated incidents involving bad actors, then, again, who is that CIA guy, and what prison is he in?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that full disclosure will do nothing but good. I know of no reason to avoid it. I can think of a few reasons to delay it, the best one (in every sense) being to take care that the information presented is accurate. I gather this is largely Senator McCain's position, is it not?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because the cases involve psychological torture mostly doesn't make us better than other torturers. It means that we're willing to violate the treaty. If you'll do it a little, will you do it a lot?
I fail to follow this logic, Bob. By this line of reasoning as you're using here, one lawbreaker (litterer) is just as bad as another lawbreaker (vandal) who is just as bad as another lawbreaker (rapist).
Just because I believe there should be another definition for what was done, does not mean that I believe we are not guilty of torture. Because we have signed treaties saying we wouldn't do it, and we have done it. I challenge you to point to where I've said or suggested otherwisie.
Torture, incidentally I suspect virtually every other nation on Earth-including the Brits, to the IRA.
Now when I point that out I'm sure to get people jumping on me for it, pointing out that this does not make it acceptable, or even less awful, for us to be guilty of torture. I'm just pointing it out. I'm introducing the point that we've done something awful. Lots of people have done the same awful thing, maybe even worse. As Americans it is our special duty to be more concerned with what our soldiers do than with what other nations' soldiers do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: [QB] I will answer that one, since it involves clarifying something I said earlier.
I said "Illegal fraternity hazing."
I know, and it's still a terribly, obscenely inappropriate comparison for reasons I should not have to explain to anyone.
The events in Abu Ghraib were in no way comparable to fraternity hazing of any sort. Unless, of course, there's a university around these parts somewhere that I don't know about that will apprehend men and women with convoys and hold them in prisons for months while abusing, torturing, and occasionally even killing them.
quote:But if you think that's comparable to gunning down dozens of people in cold blood, I seriously suggest you adjust your moral compass.
Where in my post do I suggest that it is? You are misreading my position greatly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lots of people have done the same awful thing, maybe even worse. As Americans it is our special duty to be more concerned with what our soldiers do than with what other nations' soldiers do.
I've become confused about what people are disagreeing over in this thread, because I endorse this statement completely. It sounds exactly like the point I was trying to make before.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As Americans it is our special duty to be more concerned with what our soldiers do than with what other nations' soldiers do.
I agree.
Sorry I took so long to respond here. I missed this thread last night.
quote:I agree that full disclosure will do nothing but good. I know of no reason to avoid it. I can think of a few reasons to delay it, the best one (in every sense) being to take care that the information presented is accurate. I gather this is largely Senator McCain's position, is it not?
I agree Jim-me. I don't really know what McCain's position is in detail.
One point that I think is worth making is that if there was independent review, skeptics like myself would have a lot less cause to say that delayed disclosure is due to stone-walling, but rather was legitimate in the pursuit of accuracy.
As long as the military investigates itself, I think they leave themselves open to this kind of criticism.
The fact that the prosecution of the guards at Abu Ghraib is completed and we don't even a person charged in that death that I referenced is a case in point. If they can gather evidence, try and convict in that period, what's the holdup in finding out which CIA operatives were present just before that man died and letting the world know that at least someone has been held for questioning.
It's not like we need names, at least not until/unless there is a conviction.
I don't like the implications of that particular delay because it means, to me, that the grunts are going to take the fall for what may be a much more far-reaching cover-up of physically extreme torture was used.
It begins to look like a show for the press rather than a real search for truth or justice.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I even agree that torture is the wrong word for the Abu Ghraib crimes. It's not like they were going all Jack Bauer on the prisoners.
But we need to come down hard on that kind of behavior, because it undermines our stated goals of helping out the Iraqis. If our troops are going to act that way, there really is no point to our being in that country.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But we need to come down hard on that kind of behavior, because it undermines our stated goals of helping out the Iraqis. If our troops are going to act that way, there really is no point to our being in that country.
Yes, we do need to come down hard on such behavior. And frankly, I would have been in favor of coming down much harder on all involved in Abu Ghraib than we have thus far. Farther even than the exact offense in and of itself might deserve, simply because they wear the uniform and their actions brought disgrace to their units, their services, and their nation. Not to mention the indirect but undeniable impact on PR and public sentiment in Iraq, which has a direct impact on the amount of violence there to Iraqis and international soldiers.
But "our soldiers" are not acting that way there. Some-a tiny minority-are acting that way there. Which is quite different, and clarifying that is not the same as minimizing or dismissing it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But "our soldiers" are not acting that way there. Some-a tiny minority-are acting that way there.
I absolutely agree. But if one soldier misbehaves, that's one too many, and not just from a moral standpoint.
It's essential to our mission in Iraq that none of our troops act that way -- because success requires that the Iraqi on the street see US forces as friendly. These people won't give us the benefit of the doubt. So all of our soldiers must be scrupulous. If they can't (which is entirely possible) our mission of rebuilding the country has already failed.
I would add that sending mixed messages about the wrongness of torture and abuse won't make it any easier to expect near-perfect ethical behavior from the troops.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, I'm wondering. You keep saying that people shouldn't make accusations about worse things happening at Abu Ghraib and how it was all on the level of illegal fraternity hazing. What do think about the pictures and videos that the Bush administration classified at the 11th hour?
I have no personal knowledge on what's on the classified material, but, considering the descriptions of it being "much worse that what we've seen" by people who have seen it and the administration's hiding it away, I have a really bad feeling about it.
I don't want to be the country that minimizes and hides things that it's representatives do wrong. Besides being wrong, I think that it hurts us in the long run. In my opinion, we'd be better served to come out openly with what happened, how it was the actions of isolated individuals (fingers crossed on that one. I don't actually fully believe it based on what I see as a casual attitudes towards torture that's been displayed) that the military, policitians, and general public strongly disapprove of, and that those involved are punished severely and openly.
Consider the Catholic Church's response to the sexual abuse scandal. They minimized and covered up. The laity response was at least as strongly leaning towards defensive as outraged. Does anyone trust them anymore? The Church came out looking like an organization that needs to be severely punished in order to police itself. I don't want America to fall into the same trap, but that's the way I see our leaders taking us.
quote:I would add that sending mixed messages about the wrongness of torture and abuse won't make it any easier to expect near-perfect ethical behavior from the troops.
Yes indeed, it would not help. It's a good thing no one here is doing so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, we do need to come down hard on such behavior. And frankly, I would have been in favor of coming down much harder on all involved in Abu Ghraib than we have thus far. Farther even than the exact offense in and of itself might deserve, simply because they wear the uniform and their actions brought disgrace to their units, their services, and their nation. Not to mention the indirect but undeniable impact on PR and public sentiment in Iraq, which has a direct impact on the amount of violence there to Iraqis and international soldiers.
But "our soldiers" are not acting that way there. Some-a tiny minority-are acting that way there. Which is quite different, and clarifying that is not the same as minimizing or dismissing it.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm wondering. You keep saying that people shouldn't make accusations about worse things happening at Abu Ghraib and how it was all on the level of illegal fraternity hazing.
I most emphatically do NOT keep saying that. I haven't said it once. Which is why I keep getting more and more angry with this thread, because you are all distinctly putting words in my mouth and ignoring my main points no matter how clearly I state them.
It's really pissing me off.
I said people shouldn't make broad, unsubstantiated accusations about things like Abu Ghraib being "business as usual" on the basis that "the administration is covering it up." The act of generally insulting US soldiers because we can't see the invisible cat in the chair is bad enough, but those accusations damage the war effort and play right into the hands of the insurgency... people who make and spread those assertions are among the insurgency's strongest allies.
As for the illegal fraternity hazing comment, what I said was that My Lai compared to Abu Ghraib was like mass murder compared to illegal fraternity hazing. Observe:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Mentioning these allegations or the actions at My Lai (pronounced "me lie", in case you young-uns were wondering) in the same sense as Abu Ghraib is kind of upsetting.
While I don't condone what happened at Abu Ghraib, it's a whole different order of abuse on several levels. Roughly the difference between illegal fraternity hazing and mass murder (in terms of civilian crime).
By challenging me on my assertion (which I stand by with a minor adjustment) that the vast majority of what happened at Abu Ghraib was not "severe" (from the definition someone else cited) enough to rate as "torture", people have effectively ignored the main thrust of my comments and continually painted me as minimizing or even justifying the abuses at Abu Ghraib when that is patently untrue.
Which is why I'm pissed. For three pages now you people have consistently ignored everything I'm saying in order to deliberately paint me as holding an unreasonable and unjustifiable position. It is, as I have also repeatedly said, disingenuous. So far only one person has offered an apology for so doing.
For the rest of you, please learn to read.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes indeed, it would not help. It's a good thing no one here is doing so.
I wasn't talking about anyone here. I was referring to the guy who just signed an anti-torture bill while reserving the right to ignore it if it gets in his way.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-me, if it makes you feel better, I don't judge the actual soldiers at all. I judge Cheney and Rumsfield and Bush and the other top guys. It is a commander's job to control those beneath him/her. I would think most of the actual soldiers are victims. I get upset over calling Abu Ghraib abuse instead of torture because I think the very word choice is a way of minimizing what happened. MrSquicky pointed out that many of the pics have been classified. Descriptions of those include proof of rape. So, I look at this story, see proof of people being killed and raped. I get very annoyed to then hear it minimized as just psychological or not severe.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really Jim, because that's not what I've been reading at all. For example:
quote:While I don't condone what happened at Abu Ghraib, it's a whole different order of abuse on several levels. Roughly the difference between illegal fraternity hazing and mass murder (in terms of civilian crime).
quote:As to Abu Ghraib, I'm going to be very preciuse here. What was done was wrong, and it was degrading. Characterizing that as "torture" betrays a gross misunderstanding of what torture actually is.
quote:And I think your "and this is just what we know about" statement is *exactly* the kind of unwarranted sentiment I have been warning against this entire thread.
What I've read is you minimizing what happened and ignoring the fact that we don't know the full extent of what happened, but have reason to believe it's worse that what's come out. Or is murder and rape covered under your "illegal fraternity hazing" charaterization?
I think that the decision to hide and cover-up what happened at Abu Ghraib was a poor decision. Full honesty and outrage are, to me, the best ways to handle a situation with rogue soldiers. When the Bush administration doesn't take this course, I think the reprecussions of this (including *gasp* people thinking that there's more going on than they are telling) it's their fault.
Maybe, to you, that makes me a aid to the terrorists. I kind of think people who do as you do, letting the administration get away with minimizing and covering up our mistakes and whose line seems to be "the things they let us know about aren't that bad" hurt the country more than people who are trying to get them to be honest.
edit: When the administration classifies media from Abu Ghraib at the 11th hour, when they won't let the Red Cross visit their prisoners, when they float the idea that torture is something that they're not necessarily prohibited from doing, when they oppose John McCain's "We don't torture." resolution, when they farm out torture under the name of "extraordinary rendition", they give the appearance to American citizens and the rest of the world that we are the sort of country that is not all that concerned about torture and that may even employing it clandestinely. The best way I can see to counter that is to make as big a fuss about it as I can, so that people know that for at least some of us, torture is really not okay and it's not something that we're willing to accept may be happening.
Back to the Catholic example,the vast majority of Catholics are really not okay with priests molesting children and then the administrators covering this up and moving the priests around. That's not the problem with their response. The problem was that they seemed at least as concerned about defending the Church, covering up what could be covered up, and minimizing what couldn't as they were about extreme outrage that the Church let this happen.
Despite your frequent assertions, I don't think anyone has accused you of thinking that what happened at Abu Ghraib was okay or right, but you seem a great deal more concerned about minimizing it than outraged that it happened or that the Bush administration is still covering what is likely the worst parts of it up.
posted
I've said explicitly and repeatedly and even in all caps that my point is that things like My Lai and Haditha are an entirely different order of evil than what happened at Abu Ghraib.
I cannot make it anymore clear than that. If you can't read, that's not my problem.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that me saying "trust us" won't get me real far, but here's the deal. These are real people under an enormous amount of stress and cracking. It happens. Is it excusable? Heck no. Will they be punished? Heck yes.
Stop lumping military screw-ups together. Two different services in totally different Commands. Abu Ghraib involved stupid Soldiers (you wouldn't believe how dumb some of those guys are), and Haditha involves incredibly stressed and emotionally destroyed Marines. The dumb Soldiers thing can be fixed, but if walking down a street remains as harrying as it is now, an entire Marine Company flipping out again remains a (remote) possibility.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I realize that me saying "trust us" won't get me real far, but here's the deal. These are real people under an enormous amount of stress and cracking. It happens.
I'm sympathetic to this.
But if it's true, we shouldn't be involved in an operation where success requires our troops to scrupulously respect the rights of a suspicious civilian population. If atrocities are in some sense inevitable, the leadership should realize this and be more reluctant to begin wars.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will believe the Haditha was people cracking. The Abu Ghraib was too organized to be just stupid people.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember the whole story behind Abu Ghraib, but if memory serves, only one person was charged with anything. I think the Colonel in charge may have been punished too, but I'm of the opinion that someone needed to be blamed, and the poor Colonel in charge had enough rank for the big cheeses to nail in a "look what we did to make it better" kind of way. I don't think the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was policy as much as unsupervised dummies.
The reason that I think stupid was to blame is the military entrance exam. You either need a 36 or a 45 out of 99 to pass and be assigned a job. I doubt Jailer requires a score much above the entrance score.
To give you an idea how dumb these kids can possibly be, I took the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) with the Army. It's when we found out our scores and the two guys the recruiter took to test with me didn't have a combined score that equaled mine, I decided to join the Air Force.
Edited because I dislike extraneous letters
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
airmanfour, like you I don't remember all the details of Abu Ghraib, but certainly more than one person was charged and convicted. If I had to guess without research, I'd say 6-10 were courtmartialed, with most found guilty or pleading guilty to something.
As far as
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I don't think the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was policy as much as unsupervised dummies.
, that's certainly debatable. Some of the soldiers convicted said more than once they were charged by interrogators with "softening up" certain prisoners. Of course, that's obviously self-serving on their part.
But when you have an administration that describes the Geneva Conventions as "quaint", and a president who signs the McCain torture bill with a signing statement that essentially reserves the right to torture anyway, as well as a dozen other policy decisions that have erased bright lines regarding torture and abuse, it would seem that policy is plausibly involved as well as stupidity.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another major problem is the use of consultants. Outside companies are being hired to help with interregoations. They are not US military. I thought that was why the general running the prison did not get punished- because the interrogation was under the command of a consultant and she had no power of them, though the consultants were allowed to give orders to the troops.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's just the stuff they got caught doing. What about the stuff they will be able to hide well?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is something to think about, but, "What about the stuff we don't know about?" is an accusation that can be hurled at anyone, anytime, anywhere.
So while it becomes more important depending on the integrity of the accused party and its past deeds, bear in mind that the question of itself is hardly damning.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
