Abu Ghraib: Tortured ... over car theft

willow_tl wrote:

car thief or jay walker...you can't say that this behavior by certain troops is justafiable in any situation...

No Willow, it is not justifiable. I never said it was. And punishment for what was done needs to be handed down to those directly responsible. I have no problem with that at all.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
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.

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.

Ah, just kill 'em all.

THAT would solve almost everything - right?

Actually, yes, it would solve almost everything. But nowhere have I suggested that, so your sarcasm is misplaced. But I applaud you for your brilliance in coming up with your solution to kill them all. :wink:

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I for one was never naive enough to think that others (some probably innocent altogether of anything) were not arrested.

...

My point was simply that he would have avoided all of this had he never stolen that car. It was HIS decision that put him in a place that allowed SOME who had authority over him to treat him as they did.

Hmm....

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
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.

Oh, goodie! We're doing better than Saddam Hussein! Yippee!
Let's not set the bar too high, here.

That is a plus, is it not?

DrewDad wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
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.

Sure sounds like you're supporting it.

I don't think so, and if it sounds that way, then you have misunderstood.

DrewDad wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
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. Of course, I have not checked nor I am sure read all the posts from back then, so I could be wrong about some of the conservatives here. I'm sure you will point me to a post to prove your statement if I am wrong. :wink:

I think he referred to all the "well, torture is OK 'cause they're terrorists" comments.

Well, if that is what was being referred to, then I would admit I seem to recall a few who may have had those sentiments. But not all conservative posters as he seems to be saying.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

What is the purpose of this thread?

To debunk the apologistic "well, you gotta understand, we're talking about terrorists here, people who wouldn't shirk at flying planes into American buildings" phallacy as habitually applied in rhetorical retort to any news on torture of US-held detainees.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

NIMH: Ok, first, show me the proof where anyone here tried to say that the only people spending time in Abu Ghraib were terrorists. Then I will gladly admit I am wrong and that some people on this forum did indeed believe that every one of them were.

Note how you change my point to neatly establish a kind of preventive out for yourself there ...

My point was, quote: The assumption made by many conservatives here that the abused inmates of Abu G. were "terrorists" was only ever that - an assumption. In reality, there were all kinds of prisoners there.

I can dig up plenty of posts in which conservatives automatically assumed, when the issue of Abu G. torture came up, that, you know, we are talking terrorists here - like, "what do you propose we do confronted with these people? Nicely conform to every human right standard when they hold to no law?"

I probably can't find many posts back in which, to quote the way you neatly rephrased the point, conservatives insisted that "every one of them" was a terrorist. So whatever post I'll now dig up that has someone going in re: to the Abu G. scandal, well, but you gotta understand, we're dealing with terrorists here, you can say, well, he never explicited that he claimed every single one of them was!

Neat trick.

My point stands though: the automatic assumption, in posts re: Abu G., that we're talking about terrorists here, was only ever that - in the face of information available back then already that we were talking about a much more diffuse, wider array of people here.

CoastalRat wrote:

Secondly, I do not speed, thus your insinuation that I do and that I would be pulled over and beaten is bull. But I forgive you for thinking that I would so easily break the law. I guess you thought so because you have no qualms about breaking the law. Oh well.

Neat way to sidestep the argument, first, and then try to make people forget that you did so by loading on enough provocative insinuation to ensure the reaction will be to that, instead.

The point is all too simple: you wouldn't stand for a inhumanely disproportionate punishment to whatever you might be found doing wrong either.

But yes, of course you can claim to never ever in your life do anything wrong, and thus insist on judging that whoever did, deserves no sympathy for whatever punishment awaits him, no matter how inhumane, extreme or disproportionate.

There's a biblical teaching about that kind of attitude I believe, but as an atheist I can't name it - someone else might. Let he who is without sin?

CoastalRat wrote:

Anyway, where in my post did I say he deserved what he got

It's his own fault that he ended up in the place to begin with, so you don't see why you should feel sorry for him. Is that a proper summary of your point?

Now you can explain me the intricacies of how, semantically speaking, that doesn't actually exactly equate with that he deserved what he got.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

My point was, quote: The assumption made by many conservatives here that the abused inmates of Abu G. were "terrorists" was only ever that - an assumption. In reality, there were all kinds of prisoners there.

I can dig up plenty of posts in which conservatives automatically assumed, when the issue of Abu G. torture came up, that, you know, we are talking terrorists here - like, "what do you propose we do confronted with these people? Nicely conform to every human right standard when they hold to no law?"

I still doubt your belief that "many" conservatives assumed all the inmates were terrorists and thus supported the treatment they received, but I will grant that I misread your post and I will grant you that I would not be surprised if a few people here did originally assume in their argument that all were terrorists.

numh wrote:

But yes, of course you can claim to never ever in your life do anything wrong, and thus insist on judging that whoever did, deserves no sympathy for whatever punishment awaits him, no matter how inhumane, extreme or disproportionate.

I never stated that I have never done anything wrong. I did state that I do not break the law. There is a big difference. You are correct however that I do not give sympathy to anyone who puts themselves in a situation and then cries about the outcome of that situation. It is called personal responsibility. Does that mean he deserved to be beaten for stealing a car? Nope. But do I feel sympathy for him? Not particularly. Again, he had the power to avoid what happened to him. Whether what happened was right or wrong, he had the power to avoid it.

Let me put it another way. Let's say he was tossed into jail for car theft and while there was raped by other prisoners. I would wish it had not happened to him, but I would not feel sorry for him simply because his own actions put him there in the first place. My sympathy would extend to him only if he were there and was innocent of any crime.

0 Replies

Yuck.

So your daughter puts some gum in her pocket on the way out of the store. She's caught, and her punishment is to walk naked down the street while being flogged by several soldiers. Too bad, her fault, no sympathy?

And before you say "my daughter wouldn't..." or "I don't have a daughter...", this is again extending the logic of what you already said; "I would wish it had not happened to him [/her], but I would not feel sorry for him [/her] simply because his [/her] own actions put him there in the first place."

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Hmmm - so the next American to steal etc over there gets tortured too? Or you will introduce it in America for such offences?

or - is it only Iraqis who deserve to be tortured, McG?

Pardon the spelling mistakes, I don't have a spell checker on this machine.

I wouln't have a problem with the worst of the worst in prison here in the US were allowed to be tortured. If your in for being a pediphile or a murderer then let the torture happen, maybe it would work a little better then this candy ass approach we have to our current prison system.

I also think in the cases of people running from the police, that they should be allowed to be beat for a measured time in accordance with the amount of time that they were running from the police putting peoples in danger. If you run for 20 minutes then you should receive a 5 minute beating. I would love to see a 1 to 5 ratio in cases such as that. Less people would run from the police.

As for the people who are in prison in Iraq I'm sure they are not as innocent as they seemto be. Most of them that have been put there are not first time offenders and I'm sure have done other things that they haven't been caught for. I do beleive in Karma!

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Yuck.

So your daughter puts some gum in her pocket on the way out of the store. She's caught, and her punishment is to walk naked down the street while being flogged by several soldiers. Too bad, her fault, no sympathy?

And before you say "my daughter wouldn't..." or "I don't have a daughter...", this is again extending the logic of what you already said; "I would wish it had not happened to him [/her], but I would not feel sorry for him [/her] simply because his [/her] own actions put him there in the first place."

I am quite willing to play the games you all insist on playing. The answer to your question is easy. If I had a daughter who stole a piece of candy and the prescribed punishment for that theft (your exact scenerio) is what you say, then I would have no sympathy for her. I would absolutely believe what she got was unfair and harsh, but she did the crime, thus putting herself in the situation. And I will take it one step farther. If she were thrown in jail and a guard were to beat her while there, I would be upset that it happened, but again, she placed herself in that situation, thus pity or sympathy for her would not be forthcoming.

Does this make you happy? I hope so. Cause I am still trying to figure out how this whole thing got started out of what I thought was a relatively non-memorable observation.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Let's say he was tossed into jail for car theft and while there was raped by other prisoners. [..] I would not feel sorry for him

I honestly don't know what is left to say after that.

0 Replies

Does "cruel and unusual punishment" mean anything to you?

How it applies here is twofold:

1.) Differentiating between whether ANY punishment is warranted and whether excessive, cruel and unusual punishment is warranted. Sure, you steal a car, you should be punished. That's fine, I don't think anyone argues with that. The disconnect comes from whether there should be a LIMIT to what form the punishment takes.

Death penalty for stealing gum, fine? If not, why not?

2.) Many posters here were saying that evil terrorists deserve anything they get and the Abu Ghraib prisoners who were tortured were evil terrorists. Nimh is debunking that specific assertion -- no, they were not just evil terrorists. This has a direct bearing on whether the torture can be somehow justified.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
Let's say he was tossed into jail for car theft and while there was raped by other prisoners. [..] I would not feel sorry for him

I honestly don't know what is left to say after that.

I take it you feel sorry for people who get thrown into jail and then have things happen to them? Things they could have forseen and avoided by being law-abiding citizens? That is fine. You can feel as sorry for them as you want. Next time one of them kill a family member and then while behind bars gets beaten or raped, just keep reminding yourself how sorry you feel for them. Maybe it will help your loved one rest easier to know how much sympathy you have for criminals.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

You can feel as sorry for them as you want. Next time one of them kill a family member and then while behind bars gets beaten or raped, just keep reminding yourself how sorry you feel for them. Maybe it will help your loved one rest easier to know how much sympathy you have for criminals.

I've read that some children of some president were unlawfully and drunk alcohol.

Are you suggesting we should fear that they might come and try to kill us now Shocked

0 Replies

Graner is a sadist. I just wonder...would someone this despicable have enough of a conscience to get on his knees and thank whatever God he prays to that he doesn't receive the same punishment he's alleged to have meted out. Somehow I doubt it. That he has a conscience, that is.

By the way, just in the interests of being factual...the car thief was arrested by the Iraqi police and turned over to the Americans. He wasn't being punished (humiliated and tortured is a better word) for stealing a car, though. He was being punished for fighting in prison. Not that it makes a difference....just more factual.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Does "cruel and unusual punishment" mean anything to you?

How it applies here is twofold:

1.) Differentiating between whether ANY punishment is warranted and whether excessive, cruel and unusual punishment is warranted. Sure, you steal a car, you should be punished. That's fine, I don't think anyone argues with that. The disconnect comes from whether there should be a LIMIT to what form the punishment takes.

Death penalty for stealing gum, fine? If not, why not?

2.) Many posters here were saying that evil terrorists deserve anything they get and the Abu Ghraib prisoners who were tortured were evil terrorists. Nimh is debunking that specific assertion -- no, they were not just evil terrorists. This has a direct bearing on whether the torture can be somehow justified.

Sozobe, let me try this one final time. No where have I stated they DESERVE what they get (above the legal punishment that is). No where have I said I am happy to see them tortured, abused, neglected or humiliated, or anything else you all seem to believe has issued from this keyboard. OK???? Please, all I have stated is that I do not, and will not, feel sympathy for someone, anyone, who thru their OWN ACTIONS, places into motion events that lead to their being tortured, abused, neglected or humiliated.

I do not see how that means I am glad it happened, or think they deserved it to happen.

I understand that the point of his article was to assert that not everyone detained/arrested were terrorists. I never said all were. I understand that in a situation as exists in Iraq, there will be people in that prison who are not terrorists. My only real objection with Nimh's original post was his belief that "many" conservatives assumed the prisoners were all terrorists. His belief was backed by no evidence and no proof. Just his belief based on posts made many months ago.

Now, I will admit he is correct in his belief once he goes back, counts all the conservatives who posted responses supporting his belief, and compares that to all conservatives posting on this board.

0 Replies

Quote:

I wouln't have a problem with the worst of the worst in prison here in the US were allowed to be tortured. If your in for being a pediphile or a murderer then let the torture happen, maybe it would work a little better then this candy ass approach we have to our current prison system.

As for the people who are in prison in Iraq I'm sure they are not as innocent as they seemto be. Most of them that have been put there are not first time offenders and I'm sure have done other things that they haven't been caught for. I do beleive in Karma!

I believe in Karma as well; and I gotta tell you, Baldi, you might want to look in your heart and find some compassion for your fellow man before Karma remembers you.

As an aside, what exactly would be the point of torturing convicted felons in the US? Specifics on the beneficial nature would be appreciated.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

nimh wrote:
CoastalRat wrote:
Let's say he was tossed into jail for car theft and while there was raped by other prisoners. [..] I would not feel sorry for him

I honestly don't know what is left to say after that.

I take it you feel sorry for people who get thrown into jail and then have things happen to them? Things they could have forseen and avoided by being law-abiding citizens? That is fine. You can feel as sorry for them as you want. Next time one of them kill a family member and then while behind bars gets beaten or raped, just keep reminding yourself how sorry you feel for them. Maybe it will help your loved one rest easier to know how much sympathy you have for criminals.

At what point do you say "they deserve everything they get?"
Spitting on the sidewalk?
Noise violations?
Passing a bad check?
Underage drinking?
Drunk and disorderly?
Drunk driving?

At this point, however, I assume you are posting this trash to get attention.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
You can feel as sorry for them as you want. Next time one of them kill a family member and then while behind bars gets beaten or raped, just keep reminding yourself how sorry you feel for them. Maybe it will help your loved one rest easier to know how much sympathy you have for criminals.

I've read that some children of some president were unlawfully and drunk alcohol.

Are you suggesting we should fear that they might come and try to kill us now

Sorry Walter, maybe I am a bit dense, but I have no idea what you are talking about or the point you are trying to make. Maybe you misunderstood my post. Why or how do you take my post to mean that we should fear that (in your example) the president's children might come and kill us? Maybe if you clarify what you are trying to say. But I really think you missed the point I was making.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I've read that some children of some president were unlawfully and drunk alcohol.

Are you suggesting we should fear that they might come and try to kill us now

No, he's saying that if the Bush girls had been arrested at the time and then raped in jail, he would not have felt sorry for them.

0 Replies

Abu Ghraib: Tortured ... over car theft

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know