Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Of course, you're right that the presence of cameras, and not the organized torture of prisoners, is the problem.

UPI reported today that Rumsfeld has banned picture phones in Iraqi prisons:

• Washington, DC, May. 23 (UPI) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has banned cellphones equipped with cameras throughout the military, an Australian newspaper reported Sunday.
  
  The Business newspaper said a Pentagon source said the Defense Department believes some of the photographs taken within the Abu Ghraib prison of abuses were taken with cameraphones.
  
  For now digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds throughout Iraq but a complete ban throughout the military is in the works, the report said.

Mark Kleiman thinks it's a hoax.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I still can't tell what this has to do with Abu Ghraib, and club hasn't been able to find any discussion of U.S. soldiers taking advantage of Iraqi prostitutes so he's sort of dropped the "double standard" point.

C'mon, Ty. sgtclub asked a very simple question -- will this get a fraction of the coverage that the US torture of prisoners got. While he may have every interest in smearing the UN, that was not the thrust of his post.

The thrust of his post was the effort to blame the media because Americans might actually be more interested in knowing if their government is torturing prisoners in Iraq than in knowing whether soldiers on loan to the UN from Malaysia or whereever are hiring hookers in Africa. His point was silly enough, you don't need to mischaracterize it to ridicule it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Cite for what?

Cite for this:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
whereas the conduct of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib has indicia of being pursuant to policies and orders

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The key point here being that the right-wing posters now must ritually invoke the phrase "conspiracy theory".

Don't forget the ritualistic use of phrase "liberal media," which, contrary to what Sidd said, is a great phrase. It not only rallies the Rep base, it lead to the creation of the Fair & Balanced Fox News Channel.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
UPI reported today that Rumsfeld has banned picture phones in Iraqi prisons:

Good thinking, Rummy!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
C'mon, Ty. sgtclub asked a very simple question -- will this get a fraction of the coverage that the US torture of prisoners got. While he may have every interest in smearing the UN, that was not the thrust of his post.

The thrust of his post was the effort to blame the media because Americans might actually be more interested in knowing if their government is torturing prisoners in Iraq than in knowing whether soldiers on loan to the UN from Malaysia or whereever are hiring hookers in Africa. His point was silly enough, you don't need to mischaracterize it to ridicule it.

And so I asked whether he thinks U.S. soldiers overseas don't hook up with prostitutes, and whether he could find any news coverage condemning that as "exploitation" in the same way that this articles pins it on the Moroccans and Uruguayans. The answers, apparently, are "no" and "no." Your point is that what the UN peacekeepers did is qualitatively different from what we did at Abu Ghraib. Of course it is. To start with, no one walked into Abu Ghraib because they were hungry, and the UN peacekeepers weren't forcing the prostitutes to stay.

I just can't get over the fact that a libertarian is complaining about prostitution in a place where the absence of a functional government has left people at the utter mercy of market forces. It's a libertarian's wet dream, except that you have these UN peacekeepers there trying to do a little to make things better. So it's important, obviously, to slam the UN for its little part in the human misery there, but to ignore the rest of the picture.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
UPI reported today that Rumsfeld has banned picture phones in Iraqi prisons:

• Washington, DC, May. 23 (UPI) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has banned cellphones equipped with cameras throughout the military, an Australian newspaper reported Sunday.
  
  The Business newspaper said a Pentagon source said the Defense Department believes some of the photographs taken within the Abu Ghraib prison of abuses were taken with cameraphones.
  
  For now digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds throughout Iraq but a complete ban throughout the military is in the works, the report said.

Mark Kleiman thinks it's a hoax.

Now if they could staff military prisons with illiterate mutes, they could get back to business.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Cite for this [indicia that US torture of prisoners is pursuant to policies and orders]:

The torture took place (primarily, as far as we know) in the one wing of the one prison where high-intelligence value prisoners were concentrated.

Intelligence officers and torture-mercs were present, as photographed.

The soldiers currently known to have tortured prisoners gladly let themselves be photographed. At least some of these individuals are prison guards in their civilian lives, who certainly know (as the non-prison guards would virtually certainly know) that you generally do not want to be photographed torturing prisoners, unless of course you have reason to believe that your superior officers will approve that conduct.

When the Red Cross first reported this to the US military, the official response was not "thanks for finding those bad apples!", but rather an effort to prevent further Red Cross surprise inspections. Eventually, the Red Cross became so frustrated with US non-response to their findings that the Red Cross almost broke its long-standing policy against going public with findings. Why would the US have behaved this way if this was really just a few bad apples?

The US response to individual Iraqis who complained of their treatment was similar to the response to the Red Cross. Former prisoners' complaints were ignored or disregarded. Individuals were told that complaints would not be accepted unless they could identify the soldier responsible -- difficult to do when the complaint is that you were hooded and beaten.

The sheer number of abuses, photos, videos, statements, and murders seems contrary to the "bad apple" theory. Why would there be so many "bad apples" in Iraq in 2003, when there was nothing like this in Iraq in 1991 (despite many more soldiers and many more prisoners)?

The use of forms of torture that are specifically known as interrogation techniques, such as wiring an individual and telling him that if he moves from a "stress" (i.e., pain-inducing) position he will be electrocuted, that a bunch of civilian hillbillies are unlikely to have thought of on their own.

This Administration has not exactly shown high regard for international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, and the guards received no education and training on the Geneva Conventions.

Individuals who were involved in interrogating prisoners in Afghanistan -- where US policy was that the Geneva Conventions do not apply -- were present in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.



Are these things conclusive proof that the torture was directed by the command structure? No. They are indicia of such, as I said. It is these indicia that, in part, make the story so enormously important and "interesting" from a news perspective. If the story were, in effect, "One US Soldier Beats Up an Iraqi" -- something that has surely happened in Iraq -- we would probably never hear it, and it would certainly not get this kind of attention.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When the Red Cross first reported this to the US military, the official response was not "thanks for finding those bad apples!", but rather an effort to prevent further Red Cross surprise inspections. Eventually, the Red Cross became so frustrated with US non-response to their findings that the Red Cross almost broke its long-standing policy against going public with findings. Why would the US have behaved this way if this was really just a few bad apples?

Sorry, Sidd. During your whirlwind visits to Middle Eastern stripclubs, NotMe has expressly determined that this is woefully insufficient citation style. You'll need to produce the actual ICRC memos -- not reporting about them, but the memos themselves* -- as evidence of this point.

Come to think of it, the mention of the photos themselves may cause problems here too. If it's the ones that Not Me likes to giggle at on evening television, I think we can stipulate to their existence, but anything beyond that will require copies of the negatives.

Essentially, it's a very mind-numbing game of "your sources suck," which tends to bring the conversation -- any conversation -- to a screeching halt. Welcome back.

Gattigap

* Notarized, please. The risk of forgery for things over the Net is simply unacceptable.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I just can't get over the fact that a libertarian is complaining about prostitution in a place where the absence of a functional government has left people at the utter mercy of market forces. It's a libertarian's wet dream, except that you have these UN peacekeepers there trying to do a little to make things better. So it's important, obviously, to slam the UN for its little part in the human misery there, but to ignore the rest of the picture.

Ty, once again you are being ridiculous. These prostitutes were 13 year old girls. That is statutory rape. They are too young to consent. That alone is reason to be outraged by this conduct on the part of the soldiers. Moreover, they are rape victims who are now treated as pariahs because of being raped.

So the UN soldiers are fucking 13 year old rape victims too young to consent to sex. And are giving them bananas and a piece of cake in exchange. Where is the outrage over this?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sorry, Sidd. During your whirlwind visits to Middle Eastern stripclubs, NotMe has expressly determined that this is woefully insufficient citation style. You'll need to produce the actual ICRC memos -- not reporting about them, but the memos themselves* -- as evidence of this point.

Not true. Citing to blogs and opinion pieces without any reference to actual evidence is what I mock. News stories that report facts from eyewitnesses are legitimate citations.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
They are indicia of such

Well if you mean indicia in the literal sense, OK.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Not true. Citing to blogs and opinion pieces without any reference to actual evidence is what I mock. News stories that report facts from eyewitnesses are legitimate citations.

I don't read blogs and nothing I referenced is based on an "opinion piece." Thus, I assume everything in my post passes muster with you. Hallelujah.

If you are expecting me to actually pull articles for you, you'll need to pay me a retainer. It's not my problem if you've buried your head in the sand for the past few weeks.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Well if you mean indicia in the literal sense, OK.

Huh? What other sense would there be?

I do not claim to have the memo in which Rummy instructs the military to torture Iraqis in the hopes of finding the secret Al Qaeda link, if that's what you mean. I am simply noting that these indicia -- that the torture of prisoners was both systemic and systematic, and was done with approval from high levels of the chain of command -- is one very obvious reason why this story will, and should, get far more attention than will a handful of blue helmets fucking hookers in Africa.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Now if they could staff military prisons with illiterate mutes, they could get back to business.

Holy shit - I found a cite.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/st...toryid=1389734