Politics: J'accuse!

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

This is some sick shit. I'm embarrassed by their behavior. Bush has indicated he is. You should be too.

If the abuse was necessary to interrogate prisoners, you squeemish lefties need to thank Jesus that someone has the balls to cover your asses. Abuse is a necessary part of military intelligence and espionage. Deal with it.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
If the abuse was necessary to interrogate prisoners, you squeemish lefties need to thank Jesus that someone has the balls to cover your asses. Abuse is a necessary part of military intelligence and espionage. Deal with it.

That's a big if. Looks to me like they were just doing it for fun. Are pictures of the abusers SOP for military intelligence and espionage.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why waste your time defending the indefensible?* Pick your battles, Hello. This may not be dropping people into shredders feet first, but this goes beyond the level of frat boy hijinks. This is some sick shit. I'm embarrassed by their behavior. Bush has indicated he is. You should be too.

*Um, okay, maybe I do this. But I'm paid for it.

Yo, its funny that you think I'm defending these guys with a whitewash. I've already indicated that some of the behavirior is indefensible, some of it would be indefensible in the wrong context, and some of it is exactly what you'd expect in a prison run by American prison guards. Yeah, I'm embarrassed by it too. And I'm embarrassed that it happened at the hands of those who wear our uniforms. And I'm especially appalled that their superior officers are trying to shift blame everywhere else.

But a lot of this shit was just stupid, not a war crime. But ooohhh, you got me, if that broom-handle rape (or maybe one or two of the other allegations) are credible, then those are war crimes. And fuck any idiot who would do such a thing. But wait, I already said that. Now if you kids don't understand that prisoners across America get cold-water treatment, and naked-solitary-confinement (protective) treatment, and the back-of-the-hand the tongue-of-the-boot every day in America, and nekked (well, semi-nekked pictures), and hands stuck-up-butts and coochies looking for narcotics, etc. etc. etc., then you are exactly who I'm talking about when I said on this board that

Americans don't want to know what happens in their own communities. Welcome to the Baghdad Jungle. And believe me, anything beyond simple-battery/simple-assault is something that I'm all in favor of punishing. But it would be a shame for the real war-crime allegations to get drowned out in the noise of simple assault and battery allegations.

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That's a big if. Looks to me like they were just doing it for fun. Are pictures of the abusers SOP for military intelligence and espionage.

HA! Now you are using my lines even.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
[If the abuse was necessary to interrogate prisoners, you squeemish lefties need to thank Jesus that someone has the balls to cover your asses. Abuse is a necessary part of military intelligence and espionage. Deal with it.

Don't do me any favors. [Wait, I think you're just provoking me. Oh, well, too late to turn back now.]

There are different levels and types of "abuse" and/or pressure tactics which can be used in interrogation. Certain types of physical and psychological pressure -- including but not limited to sleep deprivation, prolonged exposure to light/sound, and other disorientation tactics, etc. -- are not generally considered to be "torture" and are generally considered to be "legal" under international law.

Other tactics, such as physical abuse through prolonged forced exercise, come closer to "the line". More severe physical abuse, from simple beatings on up, are generally considered to cross the line. Sexual abuse, with or without extreme force, is also considered to cross the line. Whether you reserve the term "torture" for flayings, rape, etc. -- those tactics are illegal.

There are good reasons for the Geneva Convention and other international conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners; and there are good reasons why the U.S. miltary has policies that such rules are to be strictly observed.

Do you remember the first Gulf War? There were a number of U.S. POWs, including a few women. All of our POWs were beaten and severely abused during interrogation. While this was not publicized at the time, every one of the women was raped repeatedly during their captivity (as they had been warned was likely if captured). Are you equally comfortable with your rationale when applied to U.S. captives?

Entirely aside from whether or not torture produces reliable information (many experts say not) -- there is a more important reason why, as a rule, the U.S. should and does avoid that kind of stuff: it violates in a very fundamental way the mythology that all Americans are taught from the time we are children about who and what we are, and what makes us special as a nation.

This ideal of "American exceptionalism" sets us apart from the rest of the world, and provides us with the energy, motivation and moral authority to at least try on occasion to act not solely from self-interest but to make the world a better place.

Look at Fallujah. In our place, with our technology, the old Soviet Union would have turned that city into a charnel house, and then looked around and asked if anyone wanted more of the same. We didn't do that -- not only because we're smarter but because That Is Not Who We Are.

To take a most mundane example -- I hold open doors for women not because they are ladies, but because I am (try to be) a gentleman. Period.

It may be much harder in the short term to win when you operate according to certain self-imposed strictures that your opponent does not. The extra effort is worth it.

Only in the most dire circumstances of self-preservation can one perhaps excuse the departure from basic moral norms. We're nowhere close to that in Iraq -- and sure as hell weren't in Abu Ghraib prison in late 2003.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
There are different levels and types of "abuse" and/or pressure tactics which can be used in interrogation. Certain types of physical and psychological pressure -- including but not limited to sleep deprivation, prolonged exposure to light/sound, and other disorientation tactics, etc. -- are not generally considered to be "torture" and are generally considered to be "legal" under international law.

Okay, I haven't read it yet, just what's on here, but:

1. I don't think anybody was saying that this stuff is good, wholesome fun. It's fucked up, no doubt, and nobody has argued otherwise. (Say Hello's post was funny. Sorry - there - I said it.)

2. But, as you say, nobody's getting killed, tortured . . . you know, war crimes stuff. This was just blatantly mean shit, but everybody walks away.

3. They hang their prisoners up and burn them. Let's keep that in mind.

4. The people who did what I saw in those pics should be, and likely will be, punished.

5. This drops us closer to their level. Please remember that this brings us no where NEAR their level. Every day, you get older, but you will never pass me in age.

I say these things not to disagree with your last post, but in response to some earlier comments. I agree that this is far below our reasonable aspirational level of behavior.

[LessinSF]

Putting aside the issue of whether the Geneva Conventions apply to these prisoners (although I note that Article 5 states that any doubt about whether a person is protected is resolved in favor of said protection until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal) I think review of some of their terms is interesting:

Article 13

"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. ...

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."

Assuming applicability and the veracity of the Teguba report (which seems unquestioned), we violated this convention.

Article 14

"Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Assuming applicability and the veracity of the Teguba report (which seems unquestioned), we violated this convention.

Article 17

... No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Assuming applicability and the veracity of the Teguba report (which seems unquestioned), we violated this convention.

Article 27

Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war in sufficient quantities by the Detaining Power, which shall make allowance for the climate of the region where the prisoners are detained. ...

I'm not sure whether this applies, although there is no indication in the pictures that these prisoners have been given clothing at all.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Putting aside the issue of whether the Geneva Conventions apply to these prisoners (although I note that Article 5 states that any doubt about whether a person is protected is resolved in favor of said protection until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal) I think review of some of their terms is interesting:

Article 13

"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. ...

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."

Assuming applicability and the veracity of the Teguba report (which seems unquestioned), we violated this convention.

Article 14

"Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Assuming applicability and the veracity of the Teguba report (which seems unquestioned), we violated this convention.

Article 17

... No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Assuming applicability and the veracity of the Teguba report (which seems unquestioned), we violated this convention.

Article 27

Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war in sufficient quantities by the Detaining Power, which shall make allowance for the climate of the region where the prisoners are detained. ...

I'm not sure whether this applies, although there is no indication in the pictures that these prisoners have been given clothing at all.

I think the average DWI detainee undergoes more violations of those conventions than you listed here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That's a big if. Looks to me like they were just doing it for fun. Are pictures of the abusers SOP for military intelligence and espionage.

Its fucked up, but shows the vagaries of the human condition. I know lots of guys who would have PAID for this kind of humiliation, but it goes to people who didn't want it.

Remember the Bukowski short story where he was at the track taking a dump, and he hears the guy going into the next stall start cursing because the last guy shit, but didn't flush:


Buk- You know, life's just fucked. I know plenty freaks who'd love to walk in on a fresh pot of turds, but they never seem to, its always the ones who want it least...

I can't believe you guys talked this all day. Some of the US soldiers behaved in a manner such that they should go to prison. When we send them to prison we show how we are not this way. We are not this way; I don't think any of you are arguing that we are. But big picture, this does not change in any way whether the war was right, etc.

The Arab world is angry? Well any of them who watch and see that we don't stonewall, but deal with the problem and actually punish the guilty should get a big ass lesson in the difference between our gov't and at least Saddam.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think the average DWI detainee undergoes more violations of those conventions than you listed here.

Gardener! Tell us about Mexican jail, please?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think the average DWI detainee undergoes more violations of those conventions than you listed here.

Not agreeing with you, but so what? A DWI detainee is not a POW privy to the protections of the Geneva conventions to which the U.S. and Iraq are signatories. You have fallen into the trap that Hello has pointed out. Abuses that occur in our prisons on a day-to-day basis do not justify committing war crimes.

[Iniquity]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
For example, all of the times I've been threatened with male rape, it's been in a relatively jocular environment that I was free to leave, or, in the case of law firms, at which I was getting paid at the time.

Does this happen for you a lot? Are you including promises and offers?

[Iniquity]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, I haven't read it yet, just what's on here, but:

1. I don't think anybody was saying that this stuff is good, wholesome fun. It's fucked up, no doubt, and nobody has argued otherwise. (Say Hello's post was funny. Sorry - there - I said it.)

2. But, as you say, nobody's getting killed, tortured . . . you know, war crimes stuff. This was just blatantly mean shit, but everybody walks away.

3. They hang their prisoners up and burn them. Let's keep that in mind.

4. The people who did what I saw in those pics should be, and likely will be, punished.

5. This drops us closer to their level. Please remember that this brings us no where NEAR their level. Every day, you get older, but you will never pass me in age.

I say these things not to disagree with your last post, but in response to some earlier comments. I agree that this is far below our reasonable aspirational level of behavior.

I haven't read it yet either. Agree on your 1. On your 2, what's the point of drawing a line between this and "torture"? What is the line? On 3., who is they? Were all these people guilty of something? Do we just presume Iraqis to be evildoers when useful to us, and good-natured yeoman aspiring (small d) democracts at all others? On 4, yes.

None of this should surprise us particularly. It's really too bad, but it's the sort of complication with the war effort that could have been expected at the outset. What impresses me is that continuing ability of war supporters to keep saying, I was with Bush in principle, but I can't believe they keep fucking things up like this. This kind of fuck-up should be no surprise.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Iniquity
None of this should surprise us particularly. It's really too bad, but it's the sort of complication with the war effort that could have been expected at the outset. What impresses me is that continuing ability of war supporters to keep saying, I was with Bush in principle, but I can't believe they keep fucking things up like this. This kind of fuck-up should be no surprise.

If you were around in '44, the Battle of the Bulge would have caused you to want eisenhower replaced.

How do you tie this to bush? He's usually really against sodomy, unless? That there would be, as you say "fuck ups" is certainly no surprise- but you think the specific one predictable? Is this the Ty the nut case sock?

[Iniquity]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you were around in '44, the Battle of the Bulge would have caused you to want eisenhower replaced.

How do you tie this to bush? He's usually really against sodomy, unless? That there would be, as you say "fuck ups" is certainly no surprise- but you think the specific one predictable? Is this the Ty the nut case sock?

I don't tie this to Bush. Do you?

This wasn't going to be a nut-case sock, but the cool avatar Less sent me was too big, and I'm crushed. So I may be cranky for a while yet.