Strange Famous

I feel ashamed, very deeply. These criminals have disgraced our country and the world will not forget, I believe that retaliations will follow, we will all have to reap what these people - whatever minority they are - have sown.

The British army claim to set an example to the world, in terms of training and discipline and honour, they are as low as Saddam's torturers today, they are worse even because of the sheer hypocrisy that they claim to be their to liberate.

What has changed for the normal Iraqi today? Still the torture and abuse continues, just a different colour and nationality is responsible, the civil war claims more lives now than were lost under Saddam.

I just feel so sad and angry that my nation, and my myself, are to be so humiliated and disgraced. If there is a retaliation, how many people throughout the world will weep for us when they see these photographs and know what our soldiers have done in Iraq?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4187789.stm

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Coppertop

A blackeye for the people of the UK for sure. Welcome to the club, guys.

dy156

I've seen those pictures, and the uk guy is not smiling taking funny pictures. Damn.

Mephisto2

Yeah, well I'm not so sure they just "emerged", as I've known about this case for some time.

Again, this is just a shame.

The only positive side to it is that the US can now at least accept that it's nothing inherent in them that caused the problems at Abu Ghraib. It's just that there's assholes in the military (as there is everywhere).

I'm not sure about the orders line.

"Ve vere only following orders!!" Hmmm? Wasn't that used a defence in a set of trials about 50 years ago?


Mr Mephisto

powerclown

Yep.

As Ross Perot said, "Let's not let a few mosquitoes ruin the picnic."

The military plays their games, the media plays theirs...

frogza

That this kind of animalistic behavior exists is sad.

What's more sad is that the reputation of the majority will be tainted by the actions of the few. Unfortunately we see this trend too often. In the west Islam is seen as barbaric because of a small percentage that are murderers at heart and in the east, Christianity is being viewed as evil due to a few overzealous evangelists of the "american way". Of course the list of unfairly maligned groups goes on.

Not that this will make the British people feel any better but I feel your pain.

The_Dunedan

I don't know much about the Royal Fusiliers...when I first heard about this I figured they were either 2 Para or SAS, both of which have a VERY bad reputation for this sort of thing from their atrocious conduct in Occupied Northern Ireland.

Mephisto2

Dunedan, whilst I consider myself a Nationalist, I don't know why you refer to Northern Ireland as "occupied" and use proper noun spelling for the term.

The fact remains that the majority of the people there don't want to be reunited with Ireland just yet. And Northern Ireland exists due to a treaty signed by the Irish Free State; furthermore it was ratified by Dail and it was also confirmed by the Border Commission.

It's not really occupied at all; not in the military sense.

BTW, I agree with you about the SAS and the Paras. They don't have a great reputation in Ireland.


Mr Mephisto

Rdr4evr

Why does everyone assume that it's just a "few" who do this every time proof arises? Just because it's not on camera doesn't exclude the option that it's not happening more often than we are made aware. I understand it goes both ways, but we shouldn't assume anything.

Coincidentally, today in college I was discussing issues of abuse and illegal activity with a veteran. He has fought in war-zones and I was basically questioning him regarding abuse and how often it occurs and whatnot. He told me nearly half of the sadist who break the rules of war (illegal executions of the enemy and civilians) were nearly at the mid-way mark judging from his personal experience. For example, he explained to me if they captured the enemy and restrained him, most of the time they would execute him rather than take him in for questioning or punishment. He also stated that 90% of the brainwashed lunatics that perform these illegal acts are marines. Obviously there are bad apples in all branches, but he specifically described marines as twisted and sick puppets (for the record, he was army).

What I described is not my words, but his, whether you believe or not is up to you. Interestingly enough, he stated that he left the military permanently due to the fact that he accidentally shot a child in cross-fire, it was at that point where he decided to never return once his contract was up as war was simply not worth it for him.

daswig

Don't. The vast majority of the pictures don't show anything bad. Pouring water on some guy's face? Bad soldier. Making them act as stevedores? Oh, the horror. Driving the guy around on a forklift? I've done stranger things than that voluntarily while intoxicated.

It reminds me of the pics found early on which were supposedly showing a US soldier raping an Iraqi woman. Turns out it was just screenshots from a 10 year old bad porno.

Seaver

What war? Did he volunteer or get drafted? What unit was he in? Did he get discharged or leave voluntarily?

These are all questions that DO have relevance. I have a friend who was Marine Force Recon during the Persian Gulf (he knew personally the people in the kill the kid / get found predicament so popular now). I know from talking to him of what went on, and what was claimed to have gone on.

If he was discharged (even more dishonorably), many people are known to have gone and said MANY things that were untrue. If it was Vietnam, draftees arent generally known to be the most disciplined fighting forces.

All I'm saying is be careful when talking to the "military". I've talked to many people who were SEALs, when I asked them what team many said team 12 (hint, there is no SEAL team 12). Just last night I met a guy who said he was a Sargeant in the Navy (hint, there is no Sgt. ranking in the Navy).

Rdr4evr

When I state he is a veteran, I don't mean he's some old man who fought in WW2 or anything; I simply mean he has served in the armed forces. He volunteered when he was 17; he is now 30 and completely removed from any military obligations. I personally don't know how military contracts and procedures work, but he stated that he was under a two year contract, and after that he is considered a reserve, and once 8 years passes, he is free of all military duties unless he decides to reinstate himself. He left voluntarily for the very reason I stated in the previous post.

As far as where he fought or went on missions, I don't remember exactly as we didn't get into detail, but I do remember he mentioned Chechnya and Kosovo several times. He stated the Serbian military were some fucked up and sick people, probably the worst he has seen next to Chechen rebels, considering they were military and not guerilla, they broke plenty of rules (like the executions I mention).

uncle_el

i was thinking the same thing.

i wonder if it's only a matter of time before more cases of abuse come to light from the other countries involved... who else is there?!? lol. but seriously, there may be more revelations in the coming weeks to months.

it also makes me wonder what statements will come from the bush administration regarding this matter.

__________________
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of inprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. - Malcolm X

daswig

There were some that claimed giving MREs to captured Iraqi soldiers in Gulf War I was a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

For the far left, ANY conduct by the US and it's allies constitutes a war crime. For example, one of the pics in question this time show them pouring drinking water from a small bottle over some guy's head. I suspect this is because they hate America and anybody who helps us.

Coppertop

Sure looks friendly to me.

Seaver

Ok well we were never involved in Chechnya. I know of the crap that went on there and continues to do so. Russian military =! US military.

And Kosovo, we didnt have people on the ground there, so the atrocities that went on was not us.

No one says that armies around the world try to prevent civilian deaths. What they will say is that modern western countries try to, and go to great lengths to ensure it (not bombing the Iraqi Intel building until after dark, and even then letting them know ahead of time so the janitors could leave the building). What is sad is when those bad apples spoil the hard work and dedication of the rest of the 50,000+ soldiers there.

Mephisto2

Or the bombing of a hospital during the first Gulf War. Or the bomb-shelter that resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties.

Don't fool yourself that the US "warns" their targets so that janitors can escape.

I think you have a Hollywood sense of what the war is really like. It's not all "Good Guys in white hats" you know. It's nasty, dirty, deadly and downright savage.

Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus

i've got to disagree. it can be all "good guys in white hats" as long as you realize that those in white hats are "guys" and not Gods. there will be imperfections but i think you've got to judge the actions of such a large group by human standards. if you apply human standards to the U.S. military and realize that their only purpose is to prosecute wars that they are commanded to wage (they cannot and will not choose a war)... i don't think history has seen a more humane and benevolent fighting force.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Mephisto2

Irate,

What I meant was not referring to the GI's on the ground, but the "bigger picture".

The US, like all nations, is partly motivated by geopolitics and its own self-interest. When I said it's not all "Good guys in White Hats", I was referring to the ChickenHawks in the Administration. Those who know some of their actions are not moral or righteous, but proceed with recommending them anyway.

That's what I meant.

There are "bad guys in black hats" on both sides, and no one has a monopoly on the high moral ground.


Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus

hmm... well, the thread is about the GI's on the ground. it seems clear to me that your original statement was in fact directed towards them. i think a discount should have been made if referring to policymakers was really part of your original intent.

and i don't think i can even go as far as your last statement.
are you saying that a monopoly on the high ground can't be had under any circumstance?

does being the "guys in the white hats" necessarily entail that there be no "black hats" among them?
if the answer is "yes", then how can any significant number of people do something truly good? if the answer is "no", then why is abu graib and these british photos an issue with anyone if they believe only a tiny fraction of a single percent of those wearing uniforms are involved?

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Mephisto2

You know even when I post a statement calling the war "nasty, dirty, deadly and downright savage", which is akin to the oft-repeated quip "War is hell" that is often made here, I'm still accused of being biased.

All I'm saying is that neither side is perfect and to think that the US always "warns" their targets to avoid civilian (or non-combatant) casualities is ideal in the extreme.

What does it tell you about certain members of the political spectrum on this board that, when their "opponents" on the other side agree with them and use some of the same arguments to explain horrible events, they still get accused of bias?

/SHAKES HEAD AND WALKS AWAY


Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus

wow... i'm really confused.

it seems that your first two statements in your last posts are irrefutable.

i don't know who would say that war isn't hell. or that the US "always" warns civilians ahead of time. i've yet to see someone postulate that anyone has been perfect at any time in history except for Jesus Christ himself.

i'm genuinely confused on what you're trying to say, or who your trying to say it to. also, responding to the questions not cited in your last post would do a great deal to clarify to me your position.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Mephisto2

OK, let me see if I can explain what I was trying to say.

My original contribution to the thread was originally "sympathetic" to the Americans who felt ashamed by the events in Abu Ghraib. So, straight out of the starting block I'm not attacking the "GI's on the ground" (the thread is actually about UK professional soldiers, but that's irrelevant to subsequent posts).

I then responded to Seavers post, simply stating that I think he has a "Hollywood sense" of what war is about. By that I meant it's hardly like the old movies where one side was always good and only did good and never played bad, whilst the other side was evil and only did evil and never played good. In other words, it's not "Good Guys in White Hats" against "Bad Guys in Black Hats". There are people on the US side who do make decisions that are not moral or righteous. It's patently obvious the same applies, even to a much great extent, to the Iraqi side.

So I was not referring to the GI's. I was making a broad comment on the politics of conflict.

Let's go on and see if I can answer the questions you posed.

No I'm not. I'm saying that in the current conflict, the US cannot claim that they alone hold the high moral ground; that they have a monopoly. Are they generally more moral than the terrorists? Undoubtedly. Are they more moral than Hussein? Without question.

But, have they ever done something that is immoral? Absolutely.

Therefore, they do not have a monopoly. They are not the "Hollywood" ideal of "Good Guys in White Hats" that can do no wrong. There are people who do wrong on both sides.

Absolutely not. I guess that's my whole point.

For several reasons.

The first is because we expect more of ourselves. We believe we are righteous, moral and fair. We are fighting against regimes who use torture. Indeed, the use of torture is used as a reason by our leaders to justify the invasion. Yet here we are, exposed to these acts (by a few people) that revolt us. We are horrified and dismayed that we are becoming what we hate.

Secondly, because to ignore them would offer succour to our enemies. We must highlight them, admit the mistakes, punish the guilty and show that our efforts are indeed worthy of respect and, at least, understanding.

Thirdly, because these actions were illegal and should be punished.


I'm often reminded of the statement "Justice not only needs to be done, but it needs to be seen to be done." Perhaps I'm just waxing lyrical about philosophical concepts and why we should try harder.


Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus

mr. mephisto,

well, i can sympathize (and even share) in the ideas you presented... but i think such an intellectually honest approach is very very rare.

when you hear about a child porn ring being busted in australia... do you rip your clothes and pour ashes on your head, lamenting the idea that the world will now think of all australians as pederasts? and yet, the percentage of abusers at these prisons relative to the whole department of defense is probably less than the percentage of sexual predators in any country. there are awful things done in all corners of the world... yet there are so many who demand that we engage in ritual suicide a hundred times over for the abuses at abu graib (and the like).

the military promised a full investigation, people are being held accountable, and people across the political arena acknowledge that this is incredibly rare. what more can be done? what more should be done?

i'm telling you all... what drives this story is not a sincere desire for justice, it's the satisfaction of a sickness that infects a large percentage of the western world. it's the self-destructive disease of self-loathing. it encourages this self-hate in such a sensational way... it's as if the actual events were welcome to many. they are not revolted by the abuses, they are vindicated by them. it's not that justice be done, it's so they can reinforce their preconceived notion that western ideals are corrupt and hypocritical.

i say that if you really believe in your heart that the abuses are as rare as you give lip service too, then quietly watch for justice to be done. if justice is not satisfactory, then give the U.S. military (or, the british in this case) hell, but not until then. i'll tell you what gives succor to our enemies, it's the continuous self-lashing that only justifies the lashing we receive from the propaganda machines of islamic fundamentalists. the sick voyeurists are only worsening the situation with their insatiable requests for self-immolation. they are killing our men and women out there.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Mephisto2

Well, to be perfectly honest Irate, I think if you go back over my posts on this topic the past several months, you will find that I do indeed support that justice be done. I'm not one of the rabid lefties here who call for Bush to be impeached because of it. Justice will be, and is being, done. I have never expected anything less.

The only issue I have is that I, like many others, suspect that the guilt for these crimes go a bit higher up the chain.

For example, I think Rumsfeld is guilty of instigating an atmosphere where these crimes were committed. Does this mean I believe he should be prosecuted? Of course not. But I think it shows a certain lack of ability, good judgement and common sense. I think he should resign. That's just my opinion.

The soldiers that carried out these crimes are being held to account. Perhaps some of their superiors should also be tried. But that's not for me to say.

I don't know why you seem to think I believe we should engage in " ritual suicide a hundred times over for the abuses at abu graib (and the like)." I don't.


Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus

my post was in response to your post, yet not all (or even most) of the statements were directed to your person specifically. you have my respect.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OFKU0

It's interesting the mindset here. Automatically, without question, these men are the bad guys, the terrorists. Would it be so uniquely impossible that some of these men are innocent? In your eyes,...well I know the answer.

Maybe if you were a suspected terrorist, and were captured by Iraqi forces, and treated to the same humiliation,..would you approve? Afterall, one man's terrorist is another man's terrorist. Hmmm,..walk on the other side of the street once in a while, you might gain a little insight into something called humanity. But afterall, this is no big deal to you. You apparently revel in such ignorances by choice.

But getting back to something of more substance, I have to believe there is a fundemental breakdown in the training of military personnel. The U.S, British and Israeli units to name a few have all denegrated military honour by crossing the threshold of idiocy.

I've seen documentaries on U.S and British training methods and am not surprised things like this happens. Kill or be killed was the line I most remember from an interviewee. I could go on but won't.

As unfortunate, is the coming down period for these soldiers, who are understandably fucked up in some ways given the senario of their missions, and have little or no recource to digest and filter what they have gone through. Those with such claims, whatever the percentages, are left to their own means, since to cave in and admit guilt,sorrow, or any emotion not prescribed by the military ,...well is just the pansy way out, the girlie men who couldn't take it etc,,.etc,..machismo and having big balls and not giving a fuck about anything except what the right people tell you to think, do and believe.

I believe the main purpose of soldiers today is to become coldhearted killing machines first and foremost, with little or no regard for there actions. Kind of like a trucker who sees billboards every mile of a cross country journey and can't remember what he saw, but generally would agree somewhere along the line, there was a McDonalds sign.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

irateplatypus

OFKU0 raises an interesting point...

however, what is wrong with a soldier having the the idea that "kill or be killed" as the best way to approach warfare? which is most beneficial to him? to our country? to his family? will his enemy not kill him if he does not shoot first? would soldiers who are trained to analyze each combat engagement in its entirety (as if they were sitting at their desk chair as i am now) necessarily make better decisions for the total military operation?

also, what is the alternative to cold-blooded killing? is warm-blooded killing better or even possible? i firmly believe that it is against every sane person's nature to want to kill another human being, yet these very young men and women are placed in an environment where they must do just that. would it be better for them to go through the emotional steps to cope w/the reality of war on the battlefield (as their friends and fellow soldiers rely on them for their very lives) or is the best alternative for them to deal with it when they are out of harm's way?

all must realize that the purpose for the military is to be the killing arm of US policy. we are paid and trained to kill people should our politicians (elected by all of you) decide to task us with such a mission. we ARE killers and wagers of war by profession. we aren't machines (however stoic and efficient), we aren't cold-blooded killers (by our nature we would never casually take a life) yet we must kill and face the consequences ourselves... we are the tightly closed fist of American clout, the realization and consequence of the decisions your ballot made possible. use us wisely, use us sparingly... don't cripple us by making us your social workers and politicians. killing while retaining honor and humility is difficult enough.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OFKU0

I understand your point Irate. Of course all of us, if we had to, would kill rather than be killed.

The comment of kill or be killed came from a soldier who apparently indiscriminantly shot at everything in sight, not out of pleasure but out of a sense of duty that he was doing his job and to his knowledge was the proper way to do things. Only by his own reflection, and with his identity secret, did he reveal the horrors that were expected of him.

I can't remember the name of the documentary, but it aired on the CBC in Canada a few months ago and profiled mainly British soldiers and to a minor degree Americans, used as reference

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

daswig

Impossible? no. Unlikely? yes. You must remember that civil law (and therefore civil standards of proof) does not apply in a war zone.

I wouldn't be doing the kind of things that these people got caught doing. I'm sure that if I was in a PMITA prison for being a serial child rapist, it'd well and truly suck. However, for a serial child rapist, that kind of situation is "getting off light", compared to what true "justice" would have been.

It's not a matter of training, it's a matter of being assigned duties which are not consistent with their purpose. The reason the military exists is to kill people and break stuff when ordered to. Their job is NOT to be "peacekeepers" or jailers.

The military can be exceedingly brutal. That's part of the job description. But the pictures I've seen (in both "scandals") PALE in comparison to what people in the military do to EACH OTHER on a routine basis. Anybody who has been "pinned" knows exactly what I'm talking about.

martinguerre

Wtf? How does standards of proof say anything? It wont make a guilty person innocent or a innocent person guilty. using excessive force on wide spectrums of the population is totally immoral. that hazing occurs...is again totally irrelevant.

if we hold prisoners, we cannot mistreat them. what's so difficult about that?

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

daswig

Huh??? Compare the conviction rates where the burden of proof is "clear and convincing evidence" as opposed to "proof beyond reasonable doubt."

You insinuate that we're using excessive force on wide spectrums of the population. What do you base this on? Do you really think we're brutalizing large segments of the Iraqi population? Or have there been a few isolated incidents (like three in over a year, involving under 50 people total out of a population in excess of 100K)?

I suggest you go to Ogrish.com, and see what's actually going on. Compare the pictures of the Brits "torturing people" with the pics of Nick Berg's headless body being hung from a bridge or the beheadings of the two Iraqi cops (they're all on the front page), and ask yourself "which group would I rather be the prisoner of?"

martinguerre

standards of evidence don't make innocent people guilty. or guilty people innocent. they just change verdicts. you imply that these people are really guilty, and they'd be found that way with looser standards of evidence. the only argument i see there is "if we were allowed to make more mistakes, we would find more of them guilty." It's hogwash.

That you even feel the need to compare nations that lead the world to a group of terrorists shows the depravity of your arguement.

That they stoop that low ought to have no bearing on our conduct at all.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

daswig

Remember that you said that when they win.

Who is driving the fundamentalist muslim outlook of the world, the one that wants to reestablish a Caliphate under religious law from the old borders from Spain to China? They are not stupid. If their government came out and said "yeah, we're the ones pushing it", they know that it would all be over within 3 months, and they'd LOSE. So instead they fight by proxy, engaging in terrorism. The goal remains the same...the establishment by force of an Islamic state operating under Fundamentalist Islamic law world-wide, and the conversion of ALL people on Planet Earth to Islam, by the sword if necessary.

You don't win a war by being nice. It's CONFIRMED that some of the people we released from Gitmo are already back in the field against us. We had strong reasons to think they were Al Queda, but not enough evidence to prove it, so we released them, and they're killing us to show their gratitude for our "civilized" behavior.

If you'd ever been in uniform, you'd understand that there are two kinds of people. Your people, and everybody else. You do what's necessary to protect your people, regardless of who else gets hurt, because they are YOUR PEOPLE, and you are OBLIGATED to protect them. The rest of the people simply are not your responsibility. And if that means you beat the hell out of some terrorist bastard who was shooting at you a few days ago to get necessary information to track down his buddies and kill them, well, that's simply too fucking bad, and he should have thought of that possibility before he started shooting at you from ambush and while not in uniform in the first place.

martinguerre

You live in a polar world when the alternative to engaging in recreational torture and war crimes is the only alternative to bowing down to a radical theocratic state. Frankly, i think such rhetoric is inflammatory, and false.

Confirmed? Do i smell sources?

I'm glad i don't think there are two kinds of people. Plenty of people do...they just happen to often do nasy things. The terrorists do. Can you think of other people who thought there are good and bad people, with no middle ground and no reason to treat the enemy humanely? I can.

Serious dualism, such as what you espouse, allows a person to dehumanize their oppositition. And that's when the real horrors start.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

daswig

Recreational? Who said it was recreational??? The purpose was to break them for interrogation purposes, which is a valid military objective.

Sorry, the horrors routinely happen when there's no "good" or "bad" people too.

As for dehumanizing the enemy, THEIR conduct has dehumanized them, and they must pay the price for their conduct.

martinguerre

The prosecution at the Graner trial for one. The claim is that most of the Abu Gharib abuses occured at the perogative of the soldiers involved, and was for their benifit and entertainment.

This is exactly the argument that is THE problem of excusing torture. Where the hell are you going to stop? Is the goal to actually win a peace? Or to rightously hand out death until there's nothing left? If you operate by the standards of the worst...there won't be anything worth fighting for. It's just a random choice. Do i want the violence of a theocratic assholes who slice people's heads off? Or do i prefer the violence of a state that tortures prisoners?

What kind of fucked up choice is that? I'll make compromises, and acknowledge the unfortunate pragmatism necessary to survive. But when the choice is how i want my human rights abuses, i think it's high time to wake up and seek a new way.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

daswig

Wasn't there testimony at a previous court martial that they had in fact been ordered to "soften up" the inmates? And that one of the main reasons pictures were taken was for blackmail of the individuals involved? Blackmail doesn't necessarily have to involve cash...it can involve information, too.


Given a choice between being decapitated or having a bottle of water poured on your head as "torture", which would you choose?

martinguerre

The claim was evidently rejected by the court, since Graner was convicted. I believe that they were ordered to break the Geneva Convention to employ torture, but that they took further liberties in the commision of abuses that amounted to using torture as recreation. The pictures seem to indicate this.

You are ignoring the scope and problem of American use of torture. Water bottles did not get Graner convicted, or inspire the others to plead out. This is matter of public record. The Taguba Report is widely available, and contradicts your assertions. At this point, i think that's all there is to say.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

daswig

Ya know, it's amazing y'all don't want to bring the US up on charges for violating the Geneva Conventions during SERE training.

It reminds me of the old question about PETA: Why don't you ever see PETA protesters throwing paint on bikers for wearing leather?