I guess the thing is....at some point it may be more than just 'boys will be boys.' And when a lot of this conflict is a propaganda battle....shouldn't preventing this stuff be a pretty high priority. If the "lunatic liberals" are using this stuff in their personal battles with George Bush...can you imagine what the Extremist terrorists are doing with it? I'm surprised you're willing to dismiss it so quickly.
i wonder how often this happened during the revered WWII? not trying to use moral equivalency here but i'm gonna guess that it happened a hell of a lot more.
I expect you're right, robbie...but there have been all sorts of conventions and agreements since then. And Vietnam changed everything. Both with TV and the questioning of our absolute moral right. So...we gotta play by today's rules.
vietnam, and watergate, also changed the media's relationship w/ the military and the government. it's become much more adversarial. in walter cronkite reported from the front in WW2 wearing a uniform, and reporters never hesitated to use "we" speak when referring to the troops and US government. the press happily submitted it's reports for censorship, because everyone understood the risks involved of reporting something that could give the enemy an advantage. all that's changed now.
i wonder how often this happened during the revered WWII? I vaguely recall that the Geneva Conventions went into effect between WWI and WWII.
It has happened before, but it isn't right to pretend like it was an everyday occurence. Multiple cases of members of the military murdering prisoners over the span of only a few years is not common, nor has it been common for some time. Nor does it mean that upstanding patriotic Americans won't be outraged when it does happen. Yes it is just partisan games. The leader shouldn't actually have any responsibility for this. After all who ever heard of a leader accountable, and making him have any responsibility? I mean just because this leader has members of his staff who write memos justifying torture and getting promotions doesn't meant a thing. Nobody should ever hold a leader responsible.
Wow. This is lame for even for you. Here's a suggestion Mr. Patriotic Badass- enlist and serve your country. Rather than send other people to fight, kill and die you have the opportunity to join and compare notes with your ex-Ranger buddies. Risk having the flag around your coffin before you impugn the patriotism of others by wrapping it around your soft, cowardly shoulders at the drop of a thread. Live the courage of your convictions. Your country needs you. Recruiting is down, the terrrorists are still fighting and the military has lowered IQ requirements so your mission is clear. Good luck, hero. I'll play a Lee Greenwood song in your honor.
That's just asking too much. Serving in the military might interfere with his complicated exfoliation regimen. Priorities man priorities.
Gosh, you just scared the $h!t out of chickenhawks' pilonidal cysts! Come on man, can't you be a little considerate?
This kind of makes me think about all the people who signed up after 9/11 to defend our country. Were their intentions honorable or were they just hell bent on exacting some sort of revenge in their own way? All of this prisoner abuse that goes on cannot be defended by 9/11 or any other incident. I certainly have lost a lot of respect for those who serve due to all of the bad things which have been going on and it taints all of those who are doing the job right. 9/11 seems now more like an excuse to go over and sh*t on Arabs when viewed in retrospect. It gave the president his excuse for starting the war with Iraq and it gave some in our military the excuse to behave like animals.
How do you know it has never been an everyday occurence? How do you know that "multiple cases of memebers of the military murdering prisoners over the span of only a few years is not common?" at least during war time? You don't know. You are just choosing to believe whatever supports your political beliefs/agenda. We would like to believe that cops don't torture prisoners but you know it happens a lot. We just don't get too upset about it until video comes out which is essentially what is happening here. Also, I never said it wasn't abhorant or that our leaders shouldn't make an effort to stop it. I even suggested that granting the press such never-before-seen levels of access was a way to keep people honest. But, when you put gun ho, redneck soldiers in charge of the chicken coop, especially when they HATE those prisoners, you are going to find abuses. It has happened to all militaries across all times. No one is disagreeing that murdering prisoners is wrong and no one is disagreeing that everything should be done to stop things like this from happening. However, if they same things came out under the Clinton administration you would probably not blame Clinton but the soldiers who perpertrated the acts. That's the way I see this. It's the guys who did the acts that need to be punished.
I'm not dismissing it "so quickly"; in fact I agree with you with regard to the negative PR. My point is that 1) I don't see why everyone is acting all shocked and 2) the lame attempts to blame the President. As I mentioned in another reply, cops abuse people in their custody all the time. You probably know people with stories to tell about what cops did to them. Yet we don't raise a fuss about it until video surfaces. Then everyone acts all shocked like they never new that it happened. And we all know that MOST cops are good people. It's just a few bad apples. Same with the prisoner abuses.
Addressing Clinton first. I would most definitely blame Clinton if appointed Janet Reno to her position after she wrote memo attempting rationalize a position allowing torture. I think Clinton should receive bashing thread after bashing thread for telling Kerry to come down hard on gay civil unions and homosexual rights. I mentioned before that it was lame of Clinton to advise that, and I gave props to Kerry for not being willing to do that, but Kerry only got partial props since he didn't carry his stand far enough. I initially blasted Clinton for his bombing of Iraq until I read in the Kaye report that it actually helpd wipe out some of the few remaining WMD stockpiles. I have blasted Clinton for being softer than soft on China. I don't care who the president is if they are soft on torture and grant promotions to those who rationalize it among U.S. detention facilities they are behaving disgracefully and creating an atmosphere that will breed torture and abuse. I know it isn't all of our military since I started thread about a detention facility in Iraq where the commander didn't tolerate this kind of thing. I don't believe it was common place with multiple instances over the span of a couple years because since the freedom of information act and released reports there haven't been a rash of these kinds of incidents and a climate where Attorney Generals get appointed after writing memos saying torture would be allowable, until now. If anyone would like to point out instances where that did happen in the past I will be more than happy to condemn those as well. There are too many Marine Corps generals, and other officials who have a history of opposing this kind of thing, and spoke out against it this time around for me to believe it has always been accepted to the same level it is currently. Again if shown that I am wrong I will be more than happy to spread my displeasure around evenly and not just Bush.
You've got a problem with being vague here. It's really pretty simple. You follow a policy that you have adopted. If not the Geneva Conventions, then whatever that policy happens to be. Funny in a Full Metal Jacket sort of way, but meaningless. Which ones? The ones who approved of the Taliban? The ones who didn't approve of the Taliban? The ones who didn't approve of the Taliban, and were driving taxis? All you have to do is be specific. You can't just clump every human inside the Afghan border as a mass murderer. We would have nuked Afghanistan in that case. There must have been a reason for the smart bombs? They cost a lot more than the regular ones you know. Cost determines everything in the USA. We wouldn't have been careful for no reason. Your blinded by patriotism, and living in the past. This is not Vietnam. No one is bashing vets. No one is making deals with the Taliban. Protest of this torture is to prevent it in the future. Why would you want innocent people being tortured and killed? It is simple. Make a policy. Enforce it strictly. Enforce it quickly. Had these things not been ignored and hidden, they could have easily been fixed. Trader Jorge can bath in the blood of the infidels and the POW's can be treated as they should be. Everyone gets what they want.
I'm sure you know that you are unlikely to get a response, and that if you do get a response there is a close to 0% chance that you will get a point by point response specifically addressing the issues you brought up. But if there are any unfamiliar with TJ reading the thread I just wanted to make sure they weren't expecting anything like that.
But at the same time you shouldnt arrest innocents and torture them just because you have a HUNCH. What we are doing is no better than what happened during McCarthyism, or any darn Witch trials, or freaking WWII when the Japanese were rouned up. Just because it isnt happening in our country does not mean that these CIVILLIANS dont have rights.
I don't need a point by point response. I just get upset. Somehow being patriotic is a free ticket to say anything? Our Constitution was a very thoughtful document based on very specific philosophies. When politics stray so blantantly far away from any semblence of an ideal it has to be called. If Trader Jorge doesn't think this was bad enough to call, I would like him to spell out what "over-the-line" is during war. On the grand scale of war time injustice, I want a number..... 1- Innocent bystander gets shot in leg. Never walks again. 2- Soldier kills another friendly soldier by unpreventable accident. 3- Cultural treasures are destroyed as a demoralizing tactic. 4- Systematic POW torture causing deaths in some situations that was easily preventable. 5- Systematic torture, rape, and murder of civilians. 6- Sacrificing hundreds of soldiers in lost causes. 7- Killing civilians by the thousands as a demoralizing tactic. 8- Killing civilians by the tens of thousands while bombing when a major goal could not be accomplished otherwise. 9- Using a nuke as something other than a last resort. 10- The Holocaust or other atrocious genocides. I understand that it is hard to conduct a war of any sort without demonizing your enemy. Killing a person takes a lot of will power, and unless you convince yourself that you are doing the right thing beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it can really F you up for the rest of your life. I just don't think that means anything goes. I think this is especially true when the power of each side is so vastly different. There HAS to be a line. And if you aren't prepared to draw it, make it policy, and enforce that policy, then you are a piss poor leader.
See? This is my point. It's still not accepted and has probably never been accepted. But it still happens. The only difference is you're hearing about it now because the press is 1) more involved and 2) there is money to be made by exposing this stuff. So, you are perfectly correct to be disgusted and mad that it happens but don't be so surprised that it happens. And don't be so naive to think that it is more "accepted" now than ever before.
The premise you are basing your whole argument on is false. They are now defining torture as acceptable as a matter of US policy and the rotten fruits of their policy is seeping to the surface. This is not a matter of the routine brutality of war. This torture is a *direct extenstion* of White House policy. The same type of torture occured in various theatres of this war on terror and followed the same brutal and illegal guidelines for obtaining information that were developed by Gonzales and Rumsfield. This is not something that has happened in every war, certainly not one the US has participated in. Not on this scale, anyway. Your other argument explaining why this story is getting run is just loopy. Tell me exactly what money is being made by exposing "this stuff?" Is there a lucrative Torture Channel just starting? Is there a new pop cultural trend arising from this like some sort of tie-in to a new hang-an-arab video game? Was the motive behind exposing the My Lai massacre money, too? Your assertion about why this story is getting play is demonstrably asinine. Far from a "more involved" press, the media has spent much, much more time on irrelevant stories like the runaway bride and Teri Shiavo. The American press has ignored many aspects of this story and the war, generally, because the press is more concerned with keeping their bosses and government sources happy. They have also been cowed by an administration who has been willing to go so far as risking the very national security they are sworn to upheld in order to punish their enemies (see nuclear non-proliferation CIA operative Valerie Palme). Here's my point: These stories are breaking because these practices are so foul and widespread (over many, many countries where the US is involved in military actions, or partnerships) that a critical mass has been reached where they can't be ingnored. The White House attempted to raise hell about Newsweek to divert attention from this, and other stories, coming down the pike. In the name of "freedom" they are fast turning America into the kind of banana republic we used to feel sorry for.
Regarding the allegations at Gitmo- "The U.S. government took corrective measures and those allegations have not resurfaced," [ICRC spokesman] Schorno said. ICRC is the Red Cross. This stuff is no direct extenstion of White House policy.
