Torture of military prisoners

The perspective is simple -- the Patriot Act and the difference between a "detainee" and POW is beyond the comprehension of the average military mind and the lack of education of our troops is reponsible for this debacle. And the worst is yet to come.

Okay, I do have an additional comment.

The terrorists blew up a train and claimed victory at the ouster of a Spanish administration. Message: terrorist acts can topple heads of state.

Find the most vulnerable point of public opinion (Abu Graib), exploit it to the fullest, and bend the beast to conform to the will of radical extremists.

Fail to recognize this at your (and our) peril.

Prosecuting a futile war effort can also tobble a leader. LBJ, if alive, would attest to that.

Um, LBJ voluntarily chose not to run I believe.

any action that an administration takes, they should realize, may become open to the scrutiny of all. The only way to avoid handing 'ammunition' to the enemy, is to be beyond criticism, in areas of ethical importance.
The fault for disregarding the obvious lies with those who's lack of control, discretion, or wisdom, allows the trail of 'crumbs' to inevitably lead back to them.

blatham writes:


Respectfully disagree. In my view, corporate national guilt can be assigned only when it is either a) the national policy and/or b) is tolerated by and/or acceptable to the society. As neither is the case re the deplorable events at Abu Graib, I think the prudent thing is to direct the national outrage at the criminals who committed the crime and that it is destructive and counterproductive to assign guilt to the American and British societies and/or governments.

Whatever happened to the idea that those who commit the crime are the ones guilty of the crime?

Dubya is too deluded and arrogant to choose not to run.

In politics, unfortunately or not, the guilt rises to the top.

fox

I think the chances that you, two weeks ago, would have allowed that such acts could have occured under the US in Iraq, in the degree of severity we now know, and in the breadth of instances which are coming to light, are zero.

Also predictable is that you would attempt to redirect attention away from the acts committed under American responsibility and towards the acts of others, a moral escape hatch you have had at the ready.

Who committed the crime - the individuals raping, murdering, pulling naked men by leashes, etc - have to be punished, and no one OBVIOUSLY has said anything other. Got it? But your happy hope that responsibility stops there is not merely likely to prove very foolish as a matter of fact, but very foolish as a matter of correction what has gone wrong.

ps
knew you couldn't stay away

The 'top' has acknowledged what it should and the 'top' is doing what it can to make amends.

LBJ did choose the noble thing to do -- something we can likely never expect from Dubya. Despite trying to make excuses using false rhetoric, it effectively tobbled a leader just as Nixon was tobbled by his machinations. Nixon never gave us an honorable withddrawal he promised and actually prolonged the war with even more dishonorable covert operations.

Dubya and Rumsfeld have no concept of making amends. I doubt that Dubya ever got beyond the first step.

I don't know "why not", but yeah, two weeks ago I really would have considered this impossible. A few isolated sadists, sure, but these are not activities a sane person could expect to remain secret from the rest of the members of a military unit.

Blatham, I have not questioned your motives in posting the comments you have, nor have I presumed to know your mind or what you would have thought given a different set of circumstances. I will accept your negative assessment of me as your opinion, however. (I won't suggest that you deflected the discussion to something other than it was, of course. )

I will stand by my conviction that those who commit crimes are the guilty, and it is not the responsibility of government to accept that guilt but rather to appropriately deal with the crime. If the crime was committed within the scope of government activity, the appropriate action is to bring the guilty to justice and to make restitution as possible to the damaged part(ies).

I will refer you to my previous remarks that I am weary of the inequities in reporting and assigning of blame. I in no way attempted to shift responsibility for Abu Graib to anyone but those who must be held accountable. It is the fact that our national leaders, our media, and our people go public with their outrage at the unconscionable actions of a few countrymen that sets us apart and defines 'who we are'. Compare that with the silence of others who refuse to criticize the unconscionable actions of their own.

And thanks for the welcome back I think.

roger

Our innocent assumptions (describing some of us moreso than others) is part of the problem. It speaks to the hubris which aquiunk mentions, or to notions of exceptionalism. "why do they hate us" becomes unanswerable in any realistic way given such pridefulness.

fox

Welcome back is sincere. Which doesn't mean, of course, that I won't send dobermans after things you say which I consider dangerously false or misleading.

I myself am surprised by the degree and the number or spread of these acts. I am not surprised that such policies (disregard for Geneva Convention protocols) prevailed in this military at this time and under this Secretary of Defence and this President. I do consider it likely to certain, knowing your ideas to the degree to which I now do (unless you've been fibbing about them), that you would not have believed such acts and policies to exist within the US forces. For the reasons I mentioned to Roger.

I did not deflect. You expressed a view that we might err in positing moral or systemic guilt much past a few privates (or some such). I argue that guilt and cause reach far higher and more broadly. That MUST be considered possible, at least, and investigated.

If it is the case that those who committed the acts were order or encouraged or trained to do so, or if those acts and policies were known at higher levels and ignored, then guilt moves up the hierarchy as far as such responsibility can be discovered.

Foxy, doesn't the hypocrisy stand out here?

Everyone is righteously condemning these prison atrocities.

But, we attacked a land where the terrorists were few.
We used 9-11 as a reason falsely to inflame public opinion, particularly against people who had nothing to do with 9-11.
We acted in contravention of international law.
We falsified documents to seek to justify this.
We disregarded the wishes of the UN.
Bush lied to Congress, and Blair lied to Parliament.
We bombed civilians, and continue to do that.
Congress approved funds to attack Afghanistan, and find Osama bin Laden. But Osama is still at large, and we're attacking a country which Congress did not sanction.
We apparently failed to plan properly for anything in post-war Iraq except for the preservation of the Oil Ministry building and the security of the oilfields.

Compared to these crimes and misdemeanours, the actions of the prison guards are not significant. But these actions are the misdemeanours which are being reported, and discussed, and condemned.

I think the "top" should be made to address the big picture, some of them in a Nuremberg-style court. I think history will judge the allies very harshly here.

McTag, no I see no hypocrisy in the 'top' doing what I believe the 'top' should do. And while I certainly acknowledge that serious mistakes have been made, I do not share your negative opinion of the current administration whom I believe has told us the truth unprecedented in modern politics.
And I do not hold that an Iraqi regime that tortured, executed, raped to death, and murdered 300,000 of its own citizens was innocent in the state of world affairs. Do I hold all Iraqis responsible for that? No I do not. Do I believe all Americans or all Brits are responsible for the actions of a few? No I do not.

blatham writes:
.

I have seen nothing demonstrated or implied in either the British administration or the American administration that suggests that anyone culpable in committing the atrocities will not be tried, convicted, and appropriately held accountable under the law. Nor do I think anything less should be the policy.

I refuse, however, to consent to suggestions that all Brits and all Americans are somehow guilty when far fewer than 1% of the coalition forces committed evil acts.

NOBODY BELIEVES OR HAS CLAIMED THAT ALL AMERICANS ARE GUILTY OF THESE ACTS.

Were all German citizens guilty of the crimes that were tried at Nuremburg? Of course not. Were many (too many) German citizens too complacent about how wrong fellow citizens in their state might be or become? Obviously. Had more of them been more critical of their leaders than they were, would that have provided some check on what happened. Of course. Is this part of a citizen's responsibility? YES.

As to your claim that this administration has demonstrated truth-telling unprecedented in modern politics...that is fully and completely derisable.