Yeah, I guess he is kinda regretting being a car thief now. Something tells me his experience may very well have been much worse had he been caught while Saddam was still in charge.
Actually, you see where up there I translated:
Hussein Mutar ended up in the punitive prison of Abu Ghraib near Baghdad in late 2003 for car theft. There he was, he says, forced by American soldiers to masturbate, in a piramid of naked bodies. [..] 'I could not believe that this could happen. I wanted to end my life, because I could not stop them in any way. They tortured us as if it were a theater show.'
Well, that [..] bit that I left out (because I was afraid of the diversion of rhetorical outrage it would create), read: "'Even Saddam Hussein did not go that far', he declared." Original Dutch text here
And just so I am not misunderstood here, I am not supporting what went on at Abu Ghraib, but had he not stolen the car, he would not have been in that place to begin with. So I think I will hold back the tears for him. I just have a hard time feeling sorry for a car thief.
Yeah, anyone who does anything wrong pretty much deserves anything that others might do wrong in retaliation to him. I'll remember that next time you go on holidays and upon, say, transgressing the speed limit by 10 miles an hour, a cop stops you, beats you to the ground, shackles you, transports you to the police station at gunpoint and fines you $5,000. What do you mean unreasonable reaction? You should just not have sped, now shouldn't you! Hey, no sympathy from me ...
Oh, and I don't know about the assertion that conservatives here argued that the only prisoners were terrorists. I know I did not. It would have been silly to believe that others were not caught up in the arrests back then. I don't remember anyone here making a claim that only terrorists were arrested, so I think you statement is wrong on that account. I just hate it when you paint us in such a bad light without justification.
You must be bloody JOKING!
If you don't remember "anyone here" making the claim that the people in Abu G. we were talking about were dangerous terrorists, you have an incredulously selective memory!
I remember all too well, having been perplexed and exasperated by it time and again. Time and again any discussion of Abu Ghraib, whether or not introduced by a formal condemnation of the actual individual violations (just incidents, of course), were immediately reduced by conservatives to theories of how, on the other hand, one has to realise that in a war against terrorism, faced with people who [fill in lurid description of potential evil done by 9/11 type terrorists], we might simply be forced
to resort to "unconventional" tactics ...
Some claimed outright that we should assume the Abu G. inmates in question to be of that category - it wouldn't just have been ordinary prisons, the US army would never have done that!; others limited themselves to merely responding to any Abu G. item with eleborate proposals of how, you know, in general we do simply have to ask ourselves this question of what means are legitimate in interrogating terrorists, potential mass murderers. With never a single acknowledgement of the fact that the victims of the abuses were NOT some select group of high-ranking AQ terrorists, were as often as not nothing like
the people they conjured up in order to rationalise the application of torture. When the arrestee is a car thief, the whole "well, what else are we to do faced with Al Qaeda terrorists" excuse falls into pieces, no?
It was never more than an assumption
, one the majority of conservatives here insisted on making, time and again.