Stop publishing torture photos; we get the picture

Does anyone believe that Edgar doesn't get the point without a constant barrage of pictures? (Sorry Edgar; your statements and the fact that you are so well liked here, make you a terrific example).

Does anyone believe that any administration could completely prevent such atrocities from taking place?

The hyper-partisan hyperbole is obscuring BBB's point to oblivion. It's no secret that Hobit and I agree on very little; but if a man with his undeniable principles couldn't prevent similar actions, who could?

As with any criminal investigation; the wheels of justice shouldn't stop turning until the king-pins have been rolled over, but does anyone really believe there was complicity in the upper echelon of our government? That is on par with blaming the postmaster every time a postal worker goes postal.

C.I.: The "private" is as responsible for his own actions as any man above him. Is this not so?

0 Replies

Those of you on A2K are on here because you can write lucidly in English and express yourselves with at least some common sense and often times with intellect and a tempered emotion. Do you think the average American will get the message? Now the rationalization begin which are going to do more harm than more pictures.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Does anyone believe that Edgar doesn't get the point without a constant barrage of pictures?

As far as can see - when reading European papers and listening to "normal" German (and English) people, we really don't the point, because such is so increadable.
(Same is, of course, with things "not to believe", happening here.)

Now, however, since the situation in 'ordinary' US-prisons is published/broadcasted here more as well, some start to wonder even more.

0 Replies

A private may well be responsible for his or her actions but the man or women above him/her is responsible for correcting the situation if the private gets out of control. Which as these photographs document, they obviously did. Further the those with more rank are particularly charged with not giving orders that would violate the codes of conduct that are clearly articulated and made mandatory knowledge for all members of the military. In this case not only did the guards engage in illegal acts, they were at least on some occasions ordered and encouraged to engage in illegal acts and knowledge of those acts ran all the way to the top of the chain of command, but nothing was done until it became public knowledge.

0 Replies

I think the point that Walter made early on is one of the most important ones. The damage of this abuse is not just to the prisoners but to our moral standing in the world. The incidents happened, they can't be taken back. But how we react to the incidents can impact the effect they have. If we cover them thoroughly, and take every chance to deplore how awful it is/was, and call for change, that will go much further towards addressing our credibility/morality gap than just ignoring them.

I know you're not calling for ignoring them, BBB, but I think that Walter's point about "not showing them, will surely nourish the idea that the US wants to hide all those cruelities" is a very valid one.

Show them, lament them, eat crow, hope to gradually build up some credibility again.

0 Replies

In terms of the Saddam thing, isn't the whole point that we're better than him? Isn't that our entire rationale for being in Iraq? (Seeing as how there are no WMD's...) Doesn't saying "well Saddam did it too" completely undercut any possible remaining reason for us to be in Iraq? We're supposed to have the moral high ground. With this, our moral high ground shows itself to be awfully darn swampy.

-sigh-

0 Replies

Walter: You have a lot of American friends. Do you think the picture being painted accurately depicts the morality, or lack thereof, of the average American? I have a cousin in an 'ordinary' US-prison right now. I assure you the conditions are no worse than the conditions of prisons anywhere. It is the sensational stories that get the press. If anything; our prisons are probably too lenient. Again, you can't sell newspapers by reporting that 99% of all prisoners get 3 hots and a cot as there lives slowly tick away. There is no story there.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

In terms of the Saddam thing, isn't the whole point that we're better than him? Isn't that our entire rationale for being in Iraq? (Seeing as how there are no WMD's...) Doesn't saying "well Saddam did it too" completely undercut any possible remaining reason for us to be in Iraq? We're supposed to have the moral high ground. With this, our moral high ground shows itself to be awfully darn swampy.

-sigh-

Well, soz, since this gives a totally bad feeling, some try to get over it by saying "Saddam did the same .." - again - and not noticing .....

Well, as a German I know about that <sigh>

0 Replies

Bill, The private must follow orders of his superior. In the service, there is little choice. Have you ever served in the military?

0 Replies

You nailed it, sozobe. Weak rationalization that boys will be boys (well, and some girls) and/or others have done worse doesn't shake. Even those in the administration and several conservative pundits, if you believe they are sincere, are not trying to rationalize these events. George Will is severely critcizing the administration.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Does anyone believe that Edgar doesn't get the point without a constant barrage of pictures? (Sorry Edgar; your statements and the fact that you are so well liked here, make you a terrific example).

Whatever.

Quote:

Does anyone believe that any administration could completely prevent such atrocities from taking place?

The better question is: did this administration encourage them, and were they attempting to cover them up? The answer to the second one is yes, they were attempting to cover them up.

Quote:

The hyper-partisan hyperbole is obscuring BBB's point to oblivion. It's no secret that Hobit and I agree on very little; but if a man with his undeniable principles couldn't prevent similar actions, who could?

Whose undeniable principles? Bush's? Don't make me laugh!

Quote:

As with any criminal investigation; the wheels of justice shouldn't stop turning until the king-pins have been rolled over, but does anyone really believe there was complicity in the upper echelon of our government?

Yes. Reports are beginning to come in that expose just this sort of complicity.

Quote:

That is on par with blaming the postmaster every time a postal worker goes postal.

Strawman argument.

Quote:

C.I.: The "private" is as responsible for his own actions as any man above him. Is this not so?

But what would likely ahve occured, had thses incidents not been made public, would have been that joe snuffy E-4 and below would have been article 15'ed and chaptered. The NCOS would have gotten bad NCOER's and been "encouraged" not to re-enlist. A few O-1 through O-3s would have been allowed to "terminate their contracts" early, but that would have been the end of it. I think that, with continued pressure from the media, those who made decisions higher in the chain of command will be forced to resign, and hopefully even be tried before an international trinunal, and jailed. Maybe Spandau can be re-opened.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bill, The private must follow orders of his superior. In the service, there is little choice. Have you ever served in the military?

No, Bill is one of the armchair hawks, like McGentrix, who loves the thought of war, but is afraid to get his hands dirty.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bill, The private must follow orders of his superior. In the service, there is little choice.

Unless you courage to stand up for one's beliefs - the German word for this "civil courage".

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bill, The private must follow orders of his superior. In the service, there is little choice. Have you ever served in the military?

No, I have not... But I don't believe for one moment I could be ordered to commit an atrocity (yes, I know I can't know that, but that is what I believe). I further believe the "I was just following orders" excuse was thoroughly invalidated at Nuremberg.

0 Replies

I believe from what I've read and heard so far is that the upper echelon of the military were confused about what is a "detainee" and a POW. I can see why -- as usual when politicians get hold of anything they manage to confuse the issue even within their own parties and ideologies. It's government by committee and if we think we have a single minded captain at the helm, change that to simple minded captain with an emotional IQ of the average school child.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL is correct.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I further believe the "I was just following orders" excuse was thoroughly invalidated at Nuremberg.

Right, but only for the loosers of a war.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Bill, The private must follow orders of his superior. In the service, there is little choice. Have you ever served in the military?
No, I have not... But I don't believe for one moment I could be ordered to commit an atrocity (yes, I know I can't know that, but that is what I believe).

Considering some of your comments here, its pretty easy to imagine you doing so.

Quote:

I further believe the "I was just following orders" excuse was thoroughly invalidated at Nuremberg.

Like many other aspects of 1930s-1940s Germany, it seems to be something this administration has embraced.

0 Replies

I believe the new US military code incorporates provisions for refusing an order.

0 Replies

It is the responsibility of a soldier to refuse to follow an "unlawful order." the problem is, what happens in the middle of a nightmare like AG when one does so? Might one then become the latest "American casualty?"

0 Replies

Stop publishing torture photos; we get the picture

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know