Iraqis tortured - truly despicable

Remove all ads!

The problem with Ghandi's approach is it only works when you are resisting a moral nation. The British Raj, was not good for India. It had many faults, but it was lead my a moral nation. When Ghandi led the people in passive revolt it was only a matter of time before Britain had to concede. The problem with Nazi Germany and terorists is they have/had no respect for human life. In this case you could resist passively all you want and they will keep killing you without any thought about it. This leaves you with no alternative but active resistance.

Now, I dont know if this supports Grey Magistrate or not, so I'll leave you all to make up your own minds.

 

Nobody said anything about putting him on trial. It has been suggested that he be removed from his postion for the good of this country. You are confusing legal rights with those of his job. As a public official he answers to the American People, just as his boss, the Prez.

 

This occupation is getting uglier by the minute:

The repercusions of the prison scandal are starting to show.

Now whether or not they would've killed this poor guy anyway is up to speculation, but man this is getting sick.

 

ArtE,

IMO Berg would have died regardless of the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners. This was just the cause that they decided to name his death in. Could (and would) have been blamed on something else if it wasn't this.

Chandos,

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I never said his Constitutional rights were being violated. It is funny how when Michael Moore work is blocked (though it is not really) the left says that maybe this form of censorship isn't illegal as the government isn't responsible, but that it isn't in the spirit of what America was founded on, and yet they are ready to fire a man for something that he may have not culpability in whatsoever without even bothering to investigate it. It is hypocritical to say that we should live by a credo only when it is convenient for us.

[ May 11, 2004, 20:18: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Yes, it's a firing offense. Safire's description of Rumsfeld as effective is laughable. Setting aside whether we should have invaded in Iraq in the first place, his policies have led directly to the problems in Iraq - not accounting for the Iraqi military, the continuing security problems due to his obsession of using only army-lite, using reservists and NG as regulars on the cheap, using contractors in gray areas (one can hardly avoid the sneaking suspicion that this was deliberate due to the legal blackhole in which they exist), and the policies which led to the mistreatment of detainees, because Mr. Rumsfeld determined enemy combatants don't have rights under the Geneva Convention. The list goes on.

 

The hole just gets bigger.

I'd be pretty pissed too if my country was run by such imbeciles.

 

Yes, I agree. It actually happened to a company that I was employeed with. They had a very good CEO, who for years did a good job with the company, which was number one in its sector.

A few years back he promoted a new technology, which was not a very good idea. He had his reasons, but consumers never really liked it and neither did most of those who had to sell it. It became a black hole into which some 150 million dollars disappeared. And then one day the entire thing was cancelled. Needless to say the CEO was replaced a few months later. Personally, I liked working for him, and hated to see him go. But everyone understood the consquences of such a loss.

So even though we did not agree, we all understood why he was replaced. It's called taking responsibility, which is something the Bush crowd is very good at ducking. Passing the buck is an art for these guys.

I agree with Safire that the Dems are playing some politics with this, and I say so in my post as well. But he fails to mention, unless I missed it, that republicans were absolutely self-serving in their own comments during the hearing. It was a pathetic sight indeed to witness our so called "leaders" trying to maneuver for advantage during this appalling scandal. Of course, it is an election season.

Excuse me for saying so, but this is a scandal for the Shrub gang, not the Dems. As such they don't require a "scapegoat." It is the Bushies who need one. The problem for them is that a few low level guards at a prison won't get them by, and they know it. Neither will the standard conservative line: "It's Bill Clinton's fault."

The scapegoat may very well turn out to be Shrub himself. This one may very will come around to "bite-him-in-the-butt" so to speak in November. IMO, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. I'm sure somewhere in the White House basement is Truman's old sign, "the buck stops here." Ah, maybe I'm just being too much of an optimist.

[ May 13, 2004, 03:52: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Just to mention it... Truman's sign is in storage, currently. One or two presidents since him have used it; I forget which ones. Might have been Kennedy, but I'm not sure.

I think it should be brought back out of retirement for a new tour of duty, regardless of the winner of the next election. If the theory behind it was put into effect, this country and the world would be a better place nowadays, I think.

 

My sentiments exactly Cassadar. I'd dislike it to say the least. Despicable, but understandable, given to the fact that Bush is stubborn.

 

And now the right spin offensive is in full swing. For them the torture wans't all that bad, in fact, let's move on, those guys deserved what they got.

For Dennis Prager the "liberal media" were to blame. Of course, without the reporting no ... moral ... problem? Torture is ok as long as it gives no bad press?

For others it was obviously clear that the Iraqis deserved what they got. Rich Galen who recently returned from Iraq was furious at the public outcry because "the prisoners at Abu Ghraib ... were trying to kill me and others like me. And if they succeeded in doing that, they were going to come over there and try to kill you." Err, ok.

Or take Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing:

Inhofe's claim is, of course, ridiculous. According to a February 2004 International Red Cross report, "Certain CF military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake." But who has ever said senility disqualifies a politician?

But who cares? For Inhofe someone who's in jail necessarily is guilty, of ... whatever. And most certainly, that explains why he probably likes the death penalty so much, just a wild guess. Inhofe plays politics of the pure heart. As if America is is teflon-coated, and can't do no harm. Abu Ghraib again makes painfully obvious how much it can.
Don't fool yourself, these incidents were neither isolated nor did they include 'abuse', it was torture. That is what beating up, rape and humiliation means.

Great comment on that by a veteran editor: Torture story badly distorted

Relatively high ranking US officers uttering stuff like "The only thing the arab mind understands is force!" "With a massive dose of fear and violence we'll bring democracy to Iraq" give a glimpse on the mindset at work. And of course, inevitably, there will be outrages by U.S. troops enraged at the killing of comrades and the jeering of hostile populations. So they shoot on everything that moves.
And the british officers who commented on US troops regarding Iraqis as subhuman may have been referring to statements like that, if not actions.
Disagree with me or not, IMO racist sentiment plays a role in it. I might be mistaken, but it isn't far off that some soldiers wanted their piece of the action, their personal revenge for 911 on whoever. Then every arab does just fine. Now if that isn't a problem to adress. But then I forgot, something like that doesn't exist in America.

That's what I find so sickening, both the Dems and the Reps are trying to make political capital from this scandal (where IMO the Dems have (a) more reason and (b) arguments) - and the ones left out are the victims. I get the feeling that in the US public mind the Army and the soldiers are the victims. And Rummy seems to care much more about the photos and bad press than about poor discipline and torture in his armed forces.

No one really seems to care about the Iraqis who have been maltreated. Anyone remembes one of their names? I find the right reaction obscene.

[ May 12, 2004, 22:11: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

You are so correct. Now all we hear about is how that civilian wasn't even smart enough to get out of a war zone. Al Quaeda releasing that video of him getting his head cut off is seriously going to cut into the horror of the Iraqi prisoner scandal. This may even save Rummy's (a term I find derogatory) job. What are we to do?

 

I've read that article today. I found it quite good and interesting.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=519399

 

Two days ago working colleague of mine and I had a little chat in the lunch break, and in anticipation of the coming Whit Monday I said I looked forward to the coming weekend. Because she was muslim she asked me what Whit Monday was all about and I explained it to her.

She was from Morocco, and spent some 7 years here to become a translator for english and french (means, including maghreb-arab and german, she speaks four languages fluently), and modesty aside , if it would have been me, she'd been able to give quite some germans a history lesson on Europe. She spent the 7 years here, living on her own, and she remarked that she'll miss the independence she enjoyed here quite a bit when returning to Morocco.
When I asked if her parents are conservative - that is, I never saw her without a scarf - she replied that they are and that she found it quite natural to return to her parents instead of living on her own there. "That's how it is." she said.

Coming to the point of liberating Arabs in Iraq, among other things referring to woman rights, she chuckled, and remarked that not even in hindsight she ever felt the desire to be liberated from her situation when she was in Morocco and that she could hardly imagine the Iraqi woman to see it much different.

For a while we went on and eventually came to Abu Ghraib and I wondered aloud why there haven't been angry protests in face of it on the streets. She replied that, of course, every Arab suffers with the inmates in Abu Ghraib, but then she said the lack of protests could be easily explained - the Arabs knew it al along, not the details, but the stuff that had been on Arab news, like Al Jazeera, for more than a year. It was only news for us she meant.