Torture in Abu Ghraib Prison

[Bill]

"I take no pleasure...[snip snip snip] Frankly, to just wear us out on it."

You are just flat out wrong and not a little bit out of line. No other word for it. I am reducing nothing. I am not saying it is not *THAT* bad. It's probably a whole lot worse, becuase we have not seen all the pictures. I'm not hoping to shut down anyone's antipathy. If anything we should be doing more to understand.

I know this is mean and probably out of line as well, but I am starting to question your motives and your qualifications, Krunky. Because your reductions are as blatant as the ones you ascribe to me. You keep hammering the same morally santimonious stuff OVER AND OVER. I GOT IT ALREADY. It's morally reprehensible what those soldiers did, okay? Never argued that. Never meant to imply anything otherwise. BUT, that they did these things does NOT give reactionary zealots like you the right to wholesale change in the government of this country becuase you feel like it or your pet interests aren't being addressed or your pet programs are not being funded. That soldiers acted in the lowest fashion whatsoever is in no proximate way related to the fact that we are there. THAT is what I had hoped to point out. IT WAS DONE BY US BEFORE WE EVER WENT TO IRAQ. That we are there is in no proximate way related to the beheading of Mr. Berg. IT WAS BEING DONE TO US BEFORE WE WENT TO IRAQ. Did being there make it better? Absolutely not. Do I think we should have gone to Iraq in the first place? No I do not.

Too fine a point?

I asked a literal and legitimate question (actually several) and you couldn't or wouldn't even deign answer it. Who the hell knows why? Maybe you realize deep down that moral self-righteousness can only take you so far. So, attack the questioner. Question his morals. Ridicule him. (By the way, did you ever work for the Christian Right? They are good at that sort of thing). I can take the discussion/debate elsewhere if you are that tired of it, but it won't go away. My only point: Your moral indignation won't solve the problems that will remain after you get YOUR regime change, and does nothing to separate you from those you are so adamantly against. That's my only point. Everything else is in your imagination.

[krunky]

Bill said:
" My only point: Your moral indignation won't solve the problems that will remain after you get YOUR regime change, and does nothing to separate you from those you are so adamantly against."

Hey, it's a start. Bush is gone.

Feel free to raise some off-topic, Kerry bashing issue. We're all expecting it.

But right, you're not for Junior or his gang of xtian whack-jobs. Yeah, you wouldn't vote for the guy that allowed these atrocities. I agree that you won't be voting for the criminal sitting in the oval office.

[L'Etranger]

Bill said:
" My only point: Your moral indignation won't solve the problems that will remain after you get YOUR regime change, and does nothing to separate you from those you are so adamantly against."

Hey, it's a start. Bush is gone.

Feel free to raise some off-topic, Kerry bashing issue. We're all expecting it.

Oh, fine, but maybe in a new thread, gentlemen?

[zakt]

Krunky says:

Someone comes to my house and kills my pets and rapes my SO. Then that person feels badly about what they did, wants to help clean up the mess and so forth. You know, I'd just call the cops and get that fucked up whack-job out of my house. I'll bury the bodies of the animals I have cherished, I'll go to counseling to help my SO get over her bout with abuse and violence. I don't need the sick fuck perpetrator of the acts that caused me harm to help me with anything. No thanks.

The analogy could be that someone comes into your house, kills your pets, rapes your SO, and then stays for thirty years or so, beating you up, bleeding you dry. The police come in (uninvited), arrest the guy, and in the process demolish your house, your mother gets killed in the crossfire, and they arrest your neighbour as a suspected accomplice. They can't expect you to be grateful for all of their actions. But have they achieved some good? "What would you do, Mr Glogauer?"

I don't think it's as easy as to say we should have left well alone, Krunky. The troops are in, B'n'B have stirred up a hornet's nest, but there is an opportunity to get the UN in and allow an internationally and more importantly domestically acceptable restructuring of the political and social fabric of Iraq. The tragedy is that Iran was beginning to be much more open before the occupation descended into a bloody farce. Now what? :?

Facts?

1. I repeat - Bush fucked up
2. Saddam was a maniac
3. Saddam's gone, Bush is in deep shit.
4. People are angry.
5. People are scared
6. People are confused
7. Bad people will take advantage, both on the far right and in the religious stratosphere.
8. Never mind Bush, we are all in deep shit.

[Bill]

"Feel free to raise some off-topic, Kerry bashing issue. We're all expecting it."

I don't have to; for once your post isn't functional equivalent of a revolutionary manifesto (read: long on inflammatory rhetoric and attacks and short of any real answers).

Why is it so hard for you to deal with someone who asks probing questions and who isn't willing to kowtow to you? You've been beating on me for several months now. More recently you try to browbeat L'Etranger for committing the hate crime of actually agreeing with me, and now you are implying I am being facetious about my support (rather, lack thereof) of Bush or the Christian Right?

I don't know why I have to even say that I would not vote for the person that allowed those atrocities to happen. Just one more example of how narrow and blinding your focus is. You're simply saying "You're either with us or against us", just using different words.

[krunky]

Here, I'll explain the atrocities in three easy steps...

"Saddam is an evil omnipotent overlord who will kill us all!"

becomes:

"We are there to save the poor Iraqi people."

becomes:

"They're the enemy - they deserve what they get."

[krunky]

U.S. Pledges to Avoid Torture: Pledge on Terror Suspects Comes Amid Probes of Two Deaths
By Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 27, 2003; Page A11

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

The Bush administration pledged yesterday for the first time that the United States will not torture terrorism suspects or treat them cruelly in an attempt to extract information, a move that comes as the deaths of two Afghan prisoners in U.S. custody are being investigated as homicides.

"All interrogations, wherever they may occur," must be conducted without the use of cruel and inhuman tactics, the Pentagon's senior lawyer wrote after members of Congress and human rights groups pressed the White House to renounce abusive tactics reported by U.S. government officials.

On a day when President Bush asserted that his administration intends to lead by example in a global fight against torture, Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II said that anyone found to have broken the law in the Afghanistan deaths will be prosecuted.

...

"It's a very, very welcome statement," Human Rights Watch executive Tom Malinowski said of Haynes's letter. "What that means is that whether you call it 'stress and duress' or 'torture lite,' the administration is saying that it's wrong and prohibited, that the United States isn't doing it and that no one else should do it."

Malinowski said officials from some countries whose treatment of prisoners is considered objectionable have countered that the U.S. government itself uses similar techniques.

Bush, in honoring U.N. Torture Victims Recognition Day yesterday, said, "The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment."

-------------------------------

Talk, it's only talk
Arguments, agreements, advice, answers,
Articulate announcements
It's only talk

Talk, it's only talk
Babble, burble, banter, bicker bicker bicker
Brouhaha, boulderdash, ballyhoo
It's only talk
Back talk

Talk talk talk, it's only talk
Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy
Chatter, chit-chat, chit-chat, chit-chat,
Conversation, contradiction, criticism
It's only talk
Cheap talk

Talk, talk, it's only talk
Debates, discussions
These are words with a d this time
Dialogue, dualogue, diatribe,
Dissention, declamation
Double talk, double talk

Talk, talk, it's all talk
Too much talk
Small talk
Talk that trash
Expressions, editorials, expugnations, exclamations, enfadulations
It's all talk
Elephant talk, elephant talk, elephant talk

- King Crimson

[Catherine Cornelius]

We must continue our cries of outrage and demand a cessation to all this crap. Visit this message [broken link]and let the American and British governments know that the fucking party is over.

[Anonymous]

Bill, you of all people should know by now that you are wasting your time arguing here. I don't even bother coming to these forums much anymore, as debate is pretty much being drowned out by a vocal, venemous miniority who seem to think that their worldview is the only correct worldview. I don't understand why Moorcock fans of all people cannot grasp the concept of balance.

The thing is, I am here because I am a Moorcock fan and like the idea of being able to interact with my favorite writer. I am not here because I care what some dipshit sitting in their mother's basement thinks about the global economy. With that in mind, I plan on withdrawing from these forums, other than asking questions in the Q&A that pertain to Mr. M and his work. I do still plan on moving forward with the Moorcockopedia as well. My energies with regards to this site will be better focused there.

Cheers

dlackey

[VonWeiner]

Bill, you of all people should know by now that you are wasting your time arguing here. I don't even bother coming to these forums much anymore, as debate is pretty much being drowned out by a vocal, venemous miniority who seem to think that their worldview is the only correct worldview. I don't understand why Moorcock fans of all people cannot grasp the concept of balance.

The thing is, I am here because I am a Moorcock fan and like the idea of being able to interact with my favorite writer. I am not here because I care what some dipshit sitting in their mother's basement thinks about the global economy. With that in mind, I plan on withdrawing from these forums, other than asking questions in the Q&A that pertain to Mr. M and his work. I do still plan on moving forward with the Moorcockopedia as well. My energies with regards to this site will be better focused there.

Cheers

dlackey

:lol:

Yeah, these things have a way of spinning out of control. I posted this just to talk about the events, but things like this tend to get political in nature. That's why I stear clear usually.

I think someone will have to answer for the torture. Do I think Bush and Rumsfeld knew that it was happening? No. I do, however, think that in the highest levels of gov't (White House, Congress, Defense Dept., etc...) they know this stuff goes on. They know what Military Intelligence does to interrogate people. They know in GITMO no one is asking the detainees to "please give the information with sugar on top, pretty please". They know in Iraq it happens too.

Do they know how it happens or when? I don't think so. I just think they do in a general sense. As every administration has before Bush. I can't say specifically that Rumsfeld knew these things were happening, just because I wasn't there, I don't talk to him, I don't really know. I can guess all I want, but in the end, I just do not know for sure. Does someone have to take the blame? Yes.

To me it sounds like there was a bit of confusion between Military Police and Military Intelligence as to which was in charge in that area of the prison. And that could be the same in many prisons. MI could be doing this kind of thing everywhere. The gov't needs to change the way military intelligence operates in certain areas. Should we blame Bush? I don't think its that easy. We can say this would never have happened if we were not in Iraq to begin with. And I am one of those that believe its the "captain of the ship" that is responsible for everything that happens, right or wrong, but as I said, things are not so easy.

In the end I want Military Intelligence to do its job but retain its sense of morality. We all know what Nietzsche said: "He who fights with monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster. And if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you" (quoting from memory, hope that's right). I am sure MI gets mixed signals as to what they can do and what they can't. I am sure they are told to get results by whatever means. And psychological manipulation of the enemy is a common practice in the US Military, as it is in most militaries. There is an entire group in the US Army dedicated to PsyOps. My wife was interested in it when she was in the Army (and if you could see how she makes me curl up in the fetal position you would know its true :lol: ).

I understand everyone's passion about this. It show's you care for other people's well-being. And I think Bill has said, quite clearly, that he does too. Some of us just approach a problem from a different angle, with our own perspective. Some of us look at this from many different sides and sometimes could be looked at as "cold", others feel they see this straight and clearly and can not understand why someone would try to look at things differently. I think this is where the misunderstandings come from.

Bill is very good at playing the "devil's avocate" (no offense Bill) and I think this is healthy. I don't mean it in the sense that Bill backs the "other side", I am refering to his ability to raise questions that run contrary to what others may be thinking (and may be just for the sake of argument - he is a lawyer ). And Krunky's passion and knowledge can be infectious, his determination like an elemental force. I think Krunky could tell me the Moon was made of cheese and I might just believe him. And LEtranger's worldly view is extremely valuable being that he has lived in so many places and has a truly outside look at the USA. There are too many extraordinary people in this forum to list all of their good qualities.

Judging by the amount of posts in this topic, I would say we can all agree that we care about our fellow man, we don't want to see torture occur anywhere. I think everyone here has made good points. I guess some of us just disagree on how to change things.

[L'Etranger]

Thanks, Von Weiner. We all aren't that far away from each other as our human values aren't. I have in other threads even defended Bill and his right to speak in controversy, but in the current thread the , maybe even not conscious, "method" of fatiguing out an issue does seem very appparent. Same applies to many many postings of entire articles by many of us. Couldn't we just post the links? Otherwise the threads become so unwieldy. Not all of us can spend hours on the internet.
But, see, aren't we able to settle things without a government here? Up the black flag of ANARCHY!

[krunky]

When linking to an article I think it's nice to quote salient passages, takes but a moment (cut and paste). I sort of make a point of giving only a teaser so that people will go to the URL if they want more. That's an attempt to respect the original publication rights while still quoting whatever I like because of perceived fair use rights.

I work in a multi-tabbed browser, which means I can have multiple windows open - some for several hours while I do things, come and go, etc. Unless a submit form is set to time out somehow, it usually isn't a problem. I often return to my computer to "discover" that I was in the middle of posting something when I left. I just pick up where I left off.

As some people read the daily paper - I read the internet. I read 10-15 sites regularly throughout the day, some of which are themselves link collections. I probably read 1-5 blogs too, depending on my mood. I guess I read pretty quickly, those that do not would never understand the skill. I know people that read so blindingly quickly and with so much retention and comprehension that it boggles my mind, and I'm fast by most people's standards.

And it's worth noting that I do not watch much television. Maybe if I am eating and alone. But just as often I read at solo meals. I also do not have children. I save huge chunks of time and money that way - I do pretty much as I please.

Oh, and I am a genius at scoring info from google. I don't know what it is but I have a real talent for doing it and quite quickly too. Then again, one has to be careful to not assume everything one finds is golden. But then again, how does that differ from what we are told by the govt. or major media channels?

Quoting takes no effort at all. Stealing about the same. The only thing that takes time is to say something semi-original myself. And even that isn't much time as I am a native english speaker with a degree or two. My biggest problem is a hand injury sustained several years ago.

[Bill]

"I don't understand why Moorcock fans of all people cannot grasp the concept of balance."

Ironic, no? But, and I assume Krunky feels the same, I don't think it is wasted time. I tend to think that if more people stood up for what they believed in their heads and hearts (and THERE is where the balance is really critical), that would be a great start on the "baby steps" that others (I think Krunky) stated we need.

They say that "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron, and I imagine that is for good reason. I know that there are things that MI takes for granted that stun me. For example, before the war in Iraq, there was a CIA team of operatives (not technically MI, but not much different in training and objectives) that went into Iraq with over $40MM in US cash, in $100's ($1MM in cash in $100's weighs like 22 pounds according to the book, "Plan of Attack" if my memory serves). This to me is mind boggling. Do you know what the ENTIRE STATE OF CONNECTICUT could do with $40MM????? How much education that could pay for??? So to me, to hear that this could have its origins in MI, does not surprise me one bit.

"Bill is very good at playing the "devil's avocate" (no offense Bill) and I think this is healthy. I don't mean it in the sense that Bill backs the "other side", I am refering to his ability to raise questions that run contrary to what others may be thinking"

VW, regardless of what is said here, I know my intent is much more in line with "devil's advocacy" than it is in "fatiguing". The latter implies that I intend some outcome or conclusion different than what my "opponent" (wrong word, but...) in the debate intends. That really isn't it. I am looking for a more macro, less knee-jerk view that isn't far at all from my "opponent". Just asking to look at it a different way. And I appreciate you understanding even if you don't agree.

Personally, I think Krunky's manner of citing is right on. Usually a quick sentence of explanation/commentary, and a link to the details.

"Oh, and I am a genius at scoring info from google."

It is a skill, like anything else, and an invaluable one for a lawyer. Although I am pretty good at it too, it is what separates me from the truly gifted in the field.

"...one has to be careful to not assume everything one finds is golden. But then again, how does that differ from what we are told by the govt. or major media channels?"

Krunky, that should be a lesson to our kids; you can't take one source as gospel regardless of its pedigree. I think the only right way (time and resources allowing, anyway) is to collect as many sources as one can, acknowledging, of course, that not all information is weighted equally, and conclude on your own. I tend to think most people get the bulk of their information from the ticker on the bottom of Headline News or the summary column on the left side of the USA Today front page.

[VonWeiner]

Ah Bill, I didn't say I don't agree with you. I think I am somewhere in the middle. As always, I just don't have all of the facts, so I find it hard to come to definite conclusions. Its hard for me to admit I know anything unless I was actually there (this applies to most things).

[L'Etranger]

Whatever is the case, this thread is a quagmire and has lost all structure and transparency. I leave.