Iraqis tortured - truly despicable

Remove all ads!

No, I meant the modern West, writ large. French, Germans, and Americans may not agree on the wisdom of dethroning Hussein and enthroning a fragile constitutional order, but we all do agree on the unacceptability (socially, legally, and practically) of atrocity as policy. The West ain't perfect, not by a long shot - but at least on this particular score, I think a fair observer would say the West holds the moral advantage.

But, I really don't want to hijack this thread with what could be its own topic...and I really, really, REALLY don't want you mad at me, Taluntain. My apologies for my over-hasty post - a rightist like me should know better than to echo classical liberalism!

 

Also, something that has barely been mentioned is preliminary reports from several investigations that the abuse was systematic and Rumsfeld admitted today that there were photo's and even videos that make what we have seen so far look like nothing and that it would be a disater if they were released.

 

No wonder why I don't make visit to here very often. This will be a bit off-topic, I know.

IMO, it pointed out quite politely, more politely than what you could ever get in regular bar, just what Grey said: "Modern West" has the moral 'high-ground' to give out 'better' judgement. This is how I understood it, when counting in his later post. It's just what I have seen on other boards too; on one in particular people actually think that US has every right to judge others and interfere whenever they want.

--I won't make the mistake of judging wheter this is right or not.

Of course not, but by the same degree; do YOU know your country that well?

 

Virne.... I don't want to rehash this again. I think it was pretty clear what I directed my comments at. However, I missed GM's post... had I seen it the same comment would have been directed at him.

In answer to your question though,... I do think I have a good idea of what this country and its people have tried to stand for over the years, as best as any one individual can. But this is clearly not the topic of this thread -- so let's not belabour it.

 

I could not agree more. But this looks like business as usual for the Shrub gang. There has been a pattern of calling officials before the congress to "answer to the people." Those of the same party sit there and grandstand with self-serving comments; those of the other party attack with whatever topics suit the politcal season.

Yes, it was a big embarrassing moment for Rummy. At times he looked shaken, for real. He should. I would not be so quick to dismiss the comments made by those criminals involved in this scandal. They very well could have been "following orders." Make no mistake - they are criminals. But how far up did knowledge of what was taking place go? I have this feeling that it was pretty high. Notice that Shrub has already drawn his own conclusions, without the benefit of a full investigation:

Note: he quickly compares "a few" to the more than 200,000. This is called "damage control" of the first order. I'm sure everyone in the world knows that there are lots of honorable soldiers in the US Army that would never have been part of the actions of "the few." What we have here is the beginning of an attempt at a whitewash. The Bush gang will hunker down and wait, hoping that this story will start to run itself down, as new, important stories appear in the media.

If the American people are outraged enough, then that won't happen. Yes, there is outrage. But how will it manifest itself? If they are sufficently outraged enough to demand accountability from their leaders for this, then will there be change? That's the question at hand. If Americans settle for the the "business as usual" routine, then IMO, the outrage will be just another set of talking points off a checklist of lofty platitudes, which in the end are designed to make us "feel like we are morally superior" to those we hold in contempt.

But if Americans hold their leaders accountable for this then they will set a example of how a nation of moral people conducts itself before the rest of the world. If its as bad as they are hinting that this scandal will be, then we are in for a few more surprises.

The time for change is now. Shrub can start by firing all the commanders directly connected with the prison. He should fire Rummy. He is the man at the top. And he appears more interested in trying to keep his job, than the matter at hand. It would also go a long way at convincing the next person in that position how serious this is.

But in the end, Americans have to decide if this is type of leadership they want. This is not just about image, but about everything that is good and decent in this country. It is about who we are and what we stand for as a nation. It's not the rest of the world we have to convince - it is our own leaders.

[ May 09, 2004, 03:26: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I tend to agree with Chandos here.We can try to downplay Rumsfield part in this all we want,but I think when you decide we are going to ignore parts of the geneva convention as a matter of policy it sets us up for this kind of thing.

The Republicans talk alot about taking responsibility for things.This is there chance to show its more than just party jargon.

Things will get worse soon.They talked about having video tapes of even worse things going on so I dont see how Rumsfeld can survive this.

Last paragraph removed due to lack of a good link may be reinstated as evidance presents itself.

[ May 09, 2004, 06:11: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

 

This has finally gone off the deep end. It is plainly evident that those calling for Rumsfeld's job have no interest in making things better, and are only interested punishing the Bush administration. All Rumsfeld has been proven guilty of is trying to minimize the political impact of this situation. TTBOMK there has been no evidence directly linking Rumsfeld to any complicity in this behavior. To the contrary, back in January the US military began investigations of these allegations.

This topic has become vastly overblown. What these soldiers have done is wrong, but it is nowhere near as serious as the press and the Democrats in Congress are making it. The Iraqi prisoners were maltreated, but as far as torture, I am not convinced that line was crossed. There is a quote running around by a prisoner who claims he was held in this same prison by Saddam's goons, and that he was beaten, electrocuted, and various other forms of torture were used on him, but that he preferred that to the humiliation he suffered at the hands of the US soldiers. Give me a break. This man was most likely an enemy combatant, and it is his duty to say things like this. It is propaganda, nothing more or less.

I am not saying that this isn't terrible, as it is, and justice should be handed down swiftly and harshly. However, calling for Rumsfeld's head is counter productive to the situation. He would simply be the sacrificial lamb, and then the whole thing would be swept under the rug. Keeping Rumsfeld under the scrutiny of the press is the best way to see that justice is done and that this type of behavior is stopped.

 

Well, personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Rumsfeld paying the price here, but I freely admit that I don't like him or the Administration in general, so I am biased.

Rumsfeld aside, the bottom line here is that if the U.S. is preaching moral superiority as justification for Iraq, it had better back up those words with actions. And in this case, even though it's only a few soldiers involved (that we know of), it has failed the morality test. Fairly or unfairly, when the eyes of the world are on you, the actions of a few can easily be seen as representative of the attitudes of many.

 

I would agree with you Darkwolf if our policy was to follow the geneva convention,and if the new photos were not showing a new group of gaurds involved.

Policy is set at the highest level and that is Rumsfeld in this case.I would like to see where the investigation goes before Rumsfeld steps down but I think it could lead there.

 

Frankly, the news about this didnt surprise me much. I am not sure I want to know what happens inside of Guantanamo. What I have seen so far isnt really better than the incidents of Abu Graib. BTW, its disturbing and sad to see the nation that helped us germans regain freedom run a shameful place like this. Disappointing.
Speaking of Guantanamo - what about the 'outsourcing of torture'? Seemingly it is ignored by the U.S. public.
I think where Ossama and his goons surely will fail, the U.S itself might succeed: Bringing down the United States and what it represents. You let the 'evil' of your enemies affect and change you. I am resentful of many of the machinations of America but this is really troublesome.

 

Another interesting aspect of Abu Ghraib: The Iraqis are proud people, the humiliations in Abu Ghraib, made public, stigmatise every Iraq who has been there, whatever he claims. Has he not been abused or does he just not dare to speak out fearing the shame? Legends and rage can flourish on this ambiguity.

There is a great way to reassure oneself after such a, now that it is public, collective humiliation: Fight the perpetrators to wash away the shame and reclaim pride with American blood.
I imagine that someone who has been innocently incarcerated by US troops (reportedly some 80% of Iraqis detained by US were) and had nothing to tell* more likely faced abuse** - as that might provoke interrogators to try to break that really hard nut - that this Iraq really know why he fights and who he fights against.

And then, of course, there is the cultural divide, still the US seem to, except when it comes to how to best insult an Arab, a field where the US have developed a considerable expertise, have trouble understanding that they are in the Middle East:

But then again, this White House doesn't admit mistakes, much less in an election year, and ironically, like in the oriental despocies Bush wants to dispose the Middle East of, incompetence has no consequences when the perpetrators are on good footing with the president. With King George in office personal loyalty again overrides accountability in America, traditional values if you like to say so a revolution down the drain?

* ... the US only captures 'suspect insurgents', to reiterate the braindead official terminology, but that terminology isn't without impact: It implies the mindset "guilty until proven innocent" among the US military and the interrogators.

** about what Rummy sheepishly said, that it is technically not torture - as if anyone cared - he should be sacked for that imbecility alone.

[ May 10, 2004, 13:40: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ah yes....Rumsfeld. I'm not sure here, but he must be the dumbest politician since Hitler. That man is an embarrasment for the US.

 

And yet he managed to win a ringing endorsement from Bush today.

Also, there was some truth in Tal's comments although some may have found them offensive. I never would have believed that Americans were torturing Iraqi's without incontrovertible proof.

 

Yes, they are two of a kind.

 

And yet more reasonable politicians like McCain and Zel Miller are also giving him the benefit of the doubt until the investigation provides some evidence that he is complicit in this affair.

I thought this country was full of people who were believers in giving someone due process, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty...I guess that in only when it is their favored politicians that are under fire. Of course since socialism and belief in individual rights are in contradiction to each other, I guess offering up Rumsfeld as the sacrificial lamb to put Kerry on the throne doesn't present a moral dilemma for those of the socialist persuasion.

 

Reasonable doubt? Yes, if we're putting Rumsfeld on trial, which we're not. He should definitely resign, and failing that, be fired, and for more reason than what's happening in those prisons.

 

This has nothing to do with Kerry Darkwolf.IT has everything to do with how Rumsfeld's policies afffected how the prison's were run.

They have known about this since at least January,and these things are sill going on in march.That does not say alot about accountabliity.

When you decide to take prisoners of war and and only apply the parts of the genevea convention that you want,I think you open the door to these kinds of things.

 

I think seeing it all in ligh of the coming elections is both helpful and misleading. It has not so much to do with Kerry but with Bush. Rummy can't resighn because there is no alternative with sufficient profile. Who should replace him? "Weird" Paul Wolfowitz? "Scooter" Libby? "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle? Gimme a break!

And Rummy the brawler won't go peacefully anyway, he hasn't given up his comfy life as a top executive only to allow himself to be made the scapegoat and be pushed out of office. Besaides, Rummy doesn't feel guilty anyway.
Rummy is indispensable for Bush, insofar the calls for his resignationa are IMO more than justified, but are pointless and useful only to keep the heat on Bush.

A former interrogator told the Red Cross that torture was part of the process. Add the saying of Gen. Miller, who said that detention conditions must function as an 'enabler for interrogations and you see a military under pressure to produce results, quickly, and by all means necessary.

Consequently the Army Times sees the incidents of torture reflecting
a leadership problem at the highest level. The US Army has been less than thrilled by the overbearing blundering incompetence (A cakewalk everyone? Trooplevels that are wildly off mark? Who needs an Iraqi army - let them go home! Sadr is of unimportant, so unimportant we have to remove him ) of the pro-war politicos planted there as I understand the silent opposition from their side. So why not read the whole article?

Rummy treated the issue as bad press while it was something conmpletely different: A full fledged scandal. As if supressing the pics would solve the problem and it would go away ...

Rummy's and Bush half-hearted responses send the disastrous message: "Torture is ok as long as we can keep it secret like in Gitmo (reportedly the abuse in Iraq began after Gitmo's Gen. Miller brought his know how to Abu Ghraib - honi sont ...), but when it comes out we'll fry you. So don't take photos the next time *wink* *wink* ... that allows us to smear the next one complaining about having been abused as a liar and partisan opponent of our glorious liberation in Iraq."

I mean, HRW, the red cross and amnesty have been telling the stuff Taguba told for a year, but no one cared to read their reports, made by whiny liberal sissies complaining about 'human rights'. I'm not kidding, I read such comments on, I can't remember where, Washington Times or Weekly Standard. For them the reports were wrong because thy came from the antiwar camp. That makes me ponder on how they take on reality, like: "You do have a different point of view so you lie anyway, rah-rah" ??!

So there will be a few pawns sacrificed, maybe even a cardinal, but sure no tower or a dame.

I mean, you praise Rummy's damage control Darkwolf? President Bush learned about the US torture of Iraqi detainees the same way you did – from TV news. And there we are at another problem.

It is close to impossible for US conservatives to get any but rah-rah kick-their-terrorist-butts commentary on the Iraqi conflict. Anyone who relies on Fox News, the Weekly Standard, National Review or the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page for understanding the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is as propagandized as Germans during the Nazi era, or a russian relying on the Prawda during the cold war. Bleh.

Besides, it has been complained by some Reps that the leaking of the photos was a criminal act, becausethey were classified secret. That critique is beside the point. Gvt secrecy is supposed to be used to safeguard national security information, not illegal activities.
Contrary to the spin of the administration and its allies, whoever leaked the photos did the American public a service by exposing the flagrant disregard of U.S. military prison guards for American values.
And as for damaging Bush, that is irrelevant, America will live on when he leaves office and this is an issue for America as a whole.

When in the 1970s the italian (iirc) prime minister Aldo Moro was kidnapped by commie terrorists the italian police caught a suspect who, as they guessed, knew where he was held. They refused to torture him, as the legitimacy of Italy as a state under the rule of law was at stake, and that was the higher value compared to losing Moro. Moro was assassinated by the italian red brigades. Italy still is exists, and survived the lethal threat posed by communist terror without compromising it's rule of law.
Seems as if Europe can still teach America a lesson or two.

Sometimes you have to lose to win.

[ May 11, 2004, 11:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Sounds like Gandhi's advice to colonial master Britain during the '30s and early '40s - that it was better that the UK be steamrolled by the Nazis than it bloody its hands with violent resistance, since in the process Britain would sacrifice its national soul.

Maybe Europe can teach America because it finally learned Gandhi's lesson, that violence is never acceptable to counter evil. Now if only the world's terrorists would learn it, too.