Don't get mad, it's for our troops

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:45
VIEWED: 14196
PAGE 4 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

HERO

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Coward:
Hero:
Is it really possible that you think of your country as better than the rest of the world? Is it really possible that you without scrutiny accept this as a universal truth?

As I said, America and the United States are two different ideas. My country is not 'better then the rest of the world. There is no reason why Iraq or any other nation can't be America's equal, and as an equal take its share of leadership of the free world. The reason they fall short is because their leaders and failed ideologies have made them less. We seek to liberate their bodies from the whims of the tyrant and their minds from the limitations of 14th century thinking. If they embrace freedom they can join the community of nations as friends and allies rather then enemies.

Granted this idea of international equality is not shared by all the western Democracies. France, for example, has recently sought to remind the many smaller nations from the former eastern block that they are not supposed to act independently contrary to French policy.

Quote:

Believing that you are superior in every way possible is called nationalism.

Guess I'm not a nationalist. I don't believe my country is superior in every way to other countries. Japan, for example, is tops in the video game field. Germany makes the best beer. Nobody can do italian food better the real Italians. I'm partial to Canada when it comes to perscription drug prices. Nobody does oil better then the Saudis (though I think the Texans could teach them a thing or two if we let them).

But, given a choice, I buy 'Made in the USA'. Guess that makes me a patriot.

Quote:

Believing that citizens of you country deserve better because your country is superior is called national socialism, not something anyone would generally want to associate themselves with.

If believing in freedom and equality of the races makes me a national socialist, then Hitler must have been President of the NAACP. Give me a break.

National Socialism is an ideology that advocates racial purity, nationalistic expansion (look out Canada), and mystical "hero-cult" worship of the "leader".

Quote:

I have never claimed that any country is the greatest, best or "most perfect" in the world,

I said "more perfect" not "most perfect". Big difference not the least of which is Constitutional.

Quote:

I do not doubt your reasons, bringing democracy and equality to the rest of the world is a noble cause. Just never ever assume that your way is the right way. It may be the right way for you, but consider whether the Iraqi people are really better of without Saddam. Remember the months without water or electricity, the collapse of infrastructure and oil-production. Remember how the next governament will undoubtedly have a more extremist interpretation of Islam than Saddam, where women will be oppressed more than they were before, then consider whether it was all really worth it.

Sorry for the big quote but I wanted your words in full context. If Iraq chooses to lapse into extremism then they will remember these days fondly. The days when any destiny, be it one of peace and prosperity or ignorence and conflict, was their's for the taking. Saddam's policies where suffocating the Iraqi people. We have freed them.

As for water and power and life in general, I think most Iraqis agree its better now then under Saddam. The first months were hard, but there was a war after all. Now it'd be a whole lot easier if these foriegn terrorists would stop blowing up water and power lines. But what can you do? The terrorists can't have a free and stable Iraq. An Arab Democracy.

The Iraqi people didn't want the war on terror to come to their door. But like everything else, it was Saddam's choices that put them in this position. Now its their choice what direction their future will take.

H

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:26 PM

Finn mac Cumhal wrote:

Quote:
I won’t say that I don’t support limited torture, because I do, but I have mixed feelings about this, principally because I’m uncertain as to the reason or extent of it.

"Limited torture" is kinda like saying someone is "somewhat raped" or "a little bit pregnant." I don't think you really understand what it is. The difference between fraternity style hazing and what's been going on in Iraq is that the boys being hazed, mostly, do not fear for their lives. The promise of hazing is that if they endure whatever they're put through, they'll be allowed to join the frat and inflict the same kind of suffering on new pledges themselves one day.

Of course, the moment the hood goes over your head in Iraq, it is absolutely natural to believe that you will be killed and forgotten. In fact, the current torture of Iraqi prisoners by Americans takes full advantage of that country's previous policies, particularly at the notorious prison in question, for its affect on the detainees. Saddam Hussein started the "softening up" process years ago and when we threaten Iraqi men and boys with torture today they know very well what torture is. Do you see how it makes us complicit with Hussein? Apparently, Americans have beaten and killed as well as raped prisoners over there, and people want to quibble that we didn't pour acid over their bodies beforehand?

As far as torture's effectiveness as a means of gaining information, man is it inefficient (not to mention illegal in every "civilized nation" on Earth)! Torture puts a person into immediate fear for his or her life and what a person does in that frame of mind is entirely dependant on what kind of person he or she is and has nothing to do with the "extent" of the torture. Once you have succeeded in making a person fear for his or her life, every further action is meaningless cruelty and punishment.

I can't believe we're still talking about torture like it's a coherent policy, an "effective tool" and not simple sadism expressive of the desire to destroy another human being whether spiritually or physically.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:25 PM

I understand completely what I meant by limited torture. It is not like saying "somewhat raped," at all. There is a big difference between using techniques to exhaust a person's willpower and using techniques to inflict pain. They are worlds apart. In fact, it is perhaps inaccurate to even refer to this as torture, because it is so clearly not defined by the connotation of the word torture. And if it saves lives to extract information from terrorist by intimation and humiliation then I support this technique. These are terrorists and militants who would sooner kill Americans, and very likely their own people, as look at them. From some of the comments, one would imagine we were talking about innocent victims. I have far less sympathy for them then I do for the innocent Iraqis and Americans they killed or were complicit in killing or will be killed without their cooperation. Cooperation that is not likely to be forthcoming without some kind of persuasion. If a little intimidation will extract information from these people and save lives then I believe that there is something very self-righteous about refusing to proceed, and instead posing these men as innocent victims.

The use of such practice does not in any way make the US complicit with Saddam Hussein’s use of torture. That's an absurd statement. And I have yet to see any evidence at all of American soldiers killing or raping prisoners as a means of torture, and such statements are very irresponsible without evidence.

I hope that these photographs do not represent any more then intimidation and humiliation. Time will tell, but one should not ignore the larger picture and paint the US in a vacuum. To do so will not serve the truth, only an ideology.

ZORIAH

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:05 PM

Have you not seen the recent pics of the prisoner being deliberately threatened (while naked and blindfolded) and apparently bitten by a vicious dog? Or the dead body on ice that has numerous bruises and wounds to the face and upper torso (a death being investigated). Or the prisoner forced to stand on a box with electrical wires attached to him and warned that if he stepped/fell off the box he would be electrocuted.

Bush himself has been reported as saying there are far worse photos than those published and that there is even video footage, and stuff that is of a 'disturbing sexual' nature.

If you haven't seen the photos already published by reputable news sources I suggest you go look at them and come back and tell us it's all just a bit of 'hazing' intimidation and humiliation.

I'm sorry but this is TORTURE. Torture is not only a physical abuse, but also mental. Check out the Geneva convention, I believe that mental torture of prisoners is also deemed unlawful.

Additional Protocol I, Article 75 of the Geneva Conventions, “murder; torture of all kinds, whether physical OR MENTAL; CORPORAL PUNISHMENT; and mutilation … are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by CIVILIAN or by military agents.” Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “NO PHYSICAL OR MORAL COERCION shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.”

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
Have you not seen the recent pics of the prisoner being deliberately threatened (while naked and blindfolded) and apparently bitten by a vicious dog? Or the dead body on ice that has numerous bruises and wounds to the face and upper torso (a death being investigated). Or the prisoner forced to stand on a box with electrical wires attached to him and warned that if he stepped/fell off the box he would be electrocuted.

No I’ve not seen those photos, but I am aware that such photos might exist. I am concerned by them. If it is the case that torture involving the inflicting of pain was used on these prisoners, it is not something I would condone or justify. The offending US soldiers are receiving court-martials and I’m sure more court-martials are to come. These soldiers will be prosecuted, probably whether their actions were paramount to torture or not. If it turns out, as you claim, that US soldiers conducted real torture on these prisoners, the only thing it will change is that I will feel better about their court-martials.

However, none of this changes the fact that the individuals in question are killers and I have far less sympathy for them then I do for their victims. None of this changes the reality that information obtained from these killers has certainly been used to save innocent lives. No one denies that torturing prisoners is bad, but so is killing and torturing American soldiers and civilians and Iraqi civilians. Are we to avoid completely an avenue that will save these lives, so that we may self-righteously proclaim ourselves good people to terrorists who could care less if we were good or not?

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
I'm sorry but this is TORTURE. Torture is not only a physical abuse, but also mental. Check out the Geneva convention, I believe that mental torture of prisoners is also deemed unlawful.

If "mental torture," as you say, of killers and terrorists will save lives then I am completely in favor of it. I will not confuse the topic with Peter-Pan logic. We do not live in a world that affords us the ability to act always as saints, though we may wish to do so. There are no good actions taken in war, but an action that helps save a life is as close as you might be able to get.

And the Geneva Convention applies to declared wars, and uniformed soldiers and innocent civilians. It does not applied to non-uniformed combatants without a recognizable banner.

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:42 AM

Quote:

And the Geneva Convention applies to declared wars, and uniformed soldiers and innocent civilians. It does not applied to non-uniformed combatants without a recognizable banner.

So if I grabbed a couple of your " civilian contractors " or " mercenarys "

How much torture can I put them through before you'd object?

Hey just looking to help out the guys on my side so that makes it ok, right ?

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:03 AM

"Life is Beautiful"

What a great movie. One of the things I found most remarkable about it was the portrayal of ordinary Italians in the years and months leading up to the Holocaust. How ordinary people, rather nonchalantly tolerated people in their midst having serious discussions about culling out the inferior elements of the race and the need to put aside selfish moral concerns for the greater good of the nation.

I wonder how far it went before they realized that it had gone too far. Is it like the story about boiling the frog? Does it just get hotter and hotter until we realized we're cooked? I don't know, but I'll be damned if I'll back down and shut up because some people might label me 'alarmist' or 'paranoid'. I see some creepy fucking stuff going on these days and I see more and more people looking the other way so as not to seem out of line.

Reminds me of the Bob Dylan song: "It's not dark yet.... but it's gettin' there."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:44 AM

Of the evils recognized in American slavery is stripping people naked for public display - like animals - and keeping them shackled and naked. Of the evils of Nazi Germany, is recognized people being made to strip - en masse - and being examined and herded like animals to their fate. Unquestionably, this is done under threat since no one would do this voluntarily.

Perhaps there are those who didn't see my earlier post, but this supposedly 'mild' degradation is unlawful under the Geneva Convention (which the US signed).

But more was done that that. People were burned with chemicals; males and females, old and young, were raped. People were beaten, bitten by dogs.

This is not just the sick fantasy of a few individuals. There is probative documentation from soldiers saying they were acting under direction of interrogators. And who supplied the hundreds of hoods? the photography equipment and supplies? the dogs? 'Stress and duress' is official US policy.

As for the presumption prisoners MUST be guilty - one of the people in the prison was an elected mayor. However, the US doesn't like the mayors to be elected, they want them US-appointed. So the US appointed a mayor, and the first thing the new mayor did was to claim the elected mayor was a terrorist. And off he disappeared. Most people are there for similar reasons - on the say-so of someone who may or may not have a grudge. And no real investigation is done into the truth of the allegations.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So if I grabbed a couple of your " civilian contractors " or " mercenarys "

How much torture can I put them through before you'd object?

Hey just looking to help out the guys on my side so that makes it ok, right ?

Key word: civilian. Civilians, unlike unlawful combatants, are recognized under the Geneva Conventions, but it makes little difference, because few of the people we are fighting in Iraq have any intention of recognizing the Geneva Convention, were it to apply or not. And that's the reason the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to most of them.

I want to see evidence of this torture of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers that exceeds intimidation and humiliation. I also want to see evidence that these prisoners are not terrorists and insurgents but instead innocent duly elected mayors.

ZORIAH

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:13 AM

For your perusal Finn mac Cumhal

The International Red Cross details Abuse claims made in report to US and UK officials in February
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3700975.stm

The allegations include-

Prisoners were kept naked in cells, in darkness and without facilities

Prisoners were held for prolonged solitary confinement in cells with no daylight

The actions of coalition forces in arresting suspects appeared to go beyond any legitimate use of force

Prisoners were beaten, in one case leading to death

Soldiers fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some

The ill-treatment was widely tolerated, especially with regard to extracting information from Iraqis

Methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence to gain confessions

The report also says some troops told the Red Cross that 70% to 90% of those detained had been arrested by mistake.

Amnesty International claims that UK troops shot civilians while under no threat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3701351.stm

Some Highlights: British troops have been involved in the deaths of 37 civilians since 1 May 2003, Amnesty says.

Only half of these are being fully investigated by the armed forces.

The most tragic case in the report was that of eight-year-old girl Hanan Saleh Matrud, alleged by her family to have been killed by British soldiers who had been stoned by mobs. No investigation was made.

Amnesty highlights the case of Hassan Hameed Naser, killed as he walked near a demonstration where stones were being thrown at a British armoured vehicle. No investigation was made.

CNN's latest article on the investigation into the Abuse by Maj Gen. Taguba
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/politics.abuse.main/index.ht
ml

Note this little tidbit:

Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense -
Cambone said that the U.S. government "made clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to our activities in that country" and said that "members of our armed forces should have been aware of that.

BBC's report of Taguba:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3703751.stm

Highlight - Gen Taguba told the committee: "A few soldiers and civilians conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside the bounds of international laws and the Geneva Convention."

Detainees at Abu Ghraib prison were forced to commit sexual acts, were threatened with torture, rape or attack by dogs, and were hidden from Red Cross visits, "in violation of international law", according to his 53-page report which focused on blocks where interrogation took place.

And as for pics - check out the New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

Some graphic detail on a few of the images as described by the publication:

Another image shows that the man, an Iraqi prisoner, is naked. His hands are clasped behind his neck and he is leaning against the door to a cell, contorted with terror, as the dogs bark a few feet away. Other photographs show the dogs straining at their leashes and snarling at the prisoner. In another, taken a few minutes later, the Iraqi is lying on the ground, writhing in pain, with a soldier sitting on top of him, knee pressed to his back. Blood is streaming from the inmate’s leg. Another photograph is a closeup of the naked prisoner, from his waist to his ankles, lying on the floor. On his right thigh is what appears to be a bite or a deep scratch. There is another, larger wound on his left leg, covered in blood.

Don't take my word for it though, how about President Bush himself:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/11/1084041400746.html

"The president's reaction was one of deep disgust and disbelief that anyone who wears our uniform would engage in such shameful and appalling acts," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

"It does not represent our United States military and it does not represent the United States of Ame

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE