Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Britain's Abu Ghraib"
Close your eyes and think of England. And not Lynndie, either. From a BBC account:
Nine charges against the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers soldiers include forcing prisoners to simulate sex acts at a Basra aid camp in May 2003....
The photographs released by the court martial include a picture of two naked Iraqi men simulating anal sex with their thumbs raised to the camera and a photograph of two Iraqi men simulating oral sex.
The offences the three soldiers are accused of are alleged to have taken place at the aid camp, known as Camp Bread Basket, on or around 15 May 2003, weeks after coalition troops had ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.
Whole thing here.
Via Truthout, which has posted some really disturbing photos.
|1.19.05 @ 10:28AM|#
Dude! What is up with everyone forcing the jihadis to act like they are having sex for the cameras? Did Lyndie start a strange but apparently popular trend?
|1.19.05 @ 10:31AM|#
kwais, I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that soldiers in all these different prisons (Abu Ghraib gets all the press, but similar episodes have occured in facilities throughout Iraq) came up with the idea independently.
|1.19.05 @ 10:54AM|#
Warren,
What are you getting at too? Are you saying that our society as a
whole has no morals, and that we cant seem to find people to not
abuse prisoners? (both in Iraq, and in US prisons).
Well that was just a guess, what are you saying?
|1.19.05 @ 10:56AM|#
kwais, yes.
Sexual humiliation seems to be a tool that DIA and CIA personnel
are using (and getting the military to use) to gather
intelligence.
|1.19.05 @ 10:58AM|#
Pigwiggle,
Do you want to go ass rape them yourself in the stockade? WTF? I
mean if they were Americans. They are Brits, so they are the
Brittish peoples problem.
But why would it not be OK for prison guards to sexually abuse
their Iraqi prisoners, but it is OK to sexually abuse American or
Brittish prisoners?
Pigwiggle, what crimes makes it OK to sexually abuse a prisoner
pray tell?
|1.19.05 @ 11:01AM|#
Kwais, I think they are saying that this type of abuse (sexual humiliation) and the photos of it are Pentagon policy to humiliate and/or blackmail these Iraqis in order to get them to give information about insurgents.
|1.19.05 @ 11:04AM|#
our society as a whole has no morals, and that we cant seem
to find people to not abuse prisoners? (both in Iraq, and in US
prisons)
Not so much society, but the prison system. As the famous Stanford
prison experiment proved, there is no easy way around this, sadly.
Maybe technology will make it easier.
Of course, in US prisons, you have to worry about other prisoners
as much, if not more, than the guards.
|1.19.05 @ 11:06AM|#
Joe,
I'm not sure it's such a stretch given that similar things have
been happening everywhere from US prisons to HS football teams and
frat hazings, long before March of 2003 (speaking strictly of sex
humiliation themes here, not attempting to make an overall
comparison between all the behaviors of the guards in question and
the other aforementioned situations). There are many criticisms one
can make of the US military and Bush administration with regard to
abuse and torture. The coincidence of sex humiliation showing up at
various US prisons in Iraq, and now British military prisons as
well, is not a particularly compelling one.
Sex abuse as domination isn't particularly unique, be it to Lynndie
England, the US and British militaries, or even humans in
general.
|1.19.05 @ 11:07AM|#
What is up with everyone forcing the jihadis to act like
they are having sex for the cameras?
It seems an effective means of humiliation given the prevailing
culture in the region.
I don't see the cause for outrage here. A guy forced to carry a
small box on his head. Another lifted by the tines of a forklift.
This is really blowing my skirt up, lemme tell you. Graphic
pictures my ass.
Tim Cavanaugh|1.19.05 @ 11:14AM|#
It seems an effective means of humiliation given the
prevailing culture in the region.
Unlike all those other cultures, where being smeared with human
feces is a great honor.
This kind of Professor Backwards pontificating about the
"prevailing culture" puts the cont in contemptible.
|1.19.05 @ 11:21AM|#
Unlike all those other cultures, where being smeared with
human feces is a great honor.
Hey, leave Mel Gibson out of this!
|1.19.05 @ 11:23AM|#
This kind of Professor Backwards pontificating about the
"prevailing culture" puts the cont in contemptible.
Who's pontificating? It seems remarkably effective over here to.
All this simulated gay sex works the Professor Progressive types up
into a frothy lather.
Look Cavanaugh, I'm not saying this shit is cool. What I am saying
is that a broken window in my own neighborhood carries a hell of a
lot more weight with me than how some deadender military goons
treat their imprisoned charges. We (U.S., U.K.) already have laws
against this...it's not like this behavior is some brand new prison
guard prototype beset by a malice no one ever thought to outlaw.
And I'm sure if somebody sniffs around we can string up Geoff Hoon
right alongside Rummy, and that'll be fun. But in the meantime,
these are three criminals, of no different color or impact (beyond
PR) than your local hooligan. I get the sense this story was my cue
to talk shit about western civilization like it's the worst thing
that ever happened to the world.
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 11:34AM|#
What are you saying? It is a conspiracy involving the Brits
too?
"conspiracy" implies that there's no trail of evidence, mr kwais.
as we've seen, however, there are numerous bits of clear evidence
that this sort of torture was sanctioned at the highest level --
not to mention the endless testimony given by people in the field
that this behavior was orchestrated by military intelligence
officers giving orders to the likes of lynndie england.
rather than rehash yet again the slog of evidence for people who
are simply going to ignore what they find to be inconvenient, i'll
simply link a hersh new
yorker column and leave it be.
anyway, seeing as the british worked closely with the americans, i
see no reason to assume that american military intelligence wasn't
operating in british facilities as well.
The coincidence of sex humiliation showing up at various US prisons
in Iraq, and now British military prisons as well, is not a
particularly compelling one.
wadr, mr chthus, a pattern of periodic abuse of varaible nature
could be explained in this way.
seeing prisoners in the same state of undress in same specific
poses with the same intentions with the same specific and
ridiculous "thumbs-up" -- i'm afraid psychological rationalism
doesn't cover it.
this is clearly programmatic, and the fact that the same pattern
shows up again and again over wider areas indicates that this was
clearly authorized from very high up.
|1.19.05 @ 11:37AM|#
rst,
What a crock! By outlawing a procedure you call effective, your
"outlawing" is merely meant as a symbolic gesture.
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 11:39AM|#
Graphic pictures my ass.
you would have to have been in some way civilized, mr rst, in order
to be able to depricate civilization convincingly.
all evidence to the contrary, to my dismay -- you're clearly
nothing of the kind. it's savagery you're at home with, if your
statements are to be believed.
|1.19.05 @ 11:39AM|#
By outlawing a procedure you call effective, your
"outlawing" is merely meant as a symbolic gesture.
Do not confuse "effective" with "legal," nor with "ethically
upright."
Plenty of effective solutions to problems are outlawed for very
sound reasons.
|1.19.05 @ 11:46AM|#
this is clearly programmatic...this was clearly authorized
from very high up.
Yes, and the pictures were sent off to a regular film developer.
Sounds like an airtight program.
you're clearly nothing of the kind.
Yes I know, I'm a raging barbarian. You should see the puddle of
slobber that's collecting on my keyboard tray as I type. Hold on,
lemme get a bucket.
Clearly, I've no sense of civilization because my parameters for
what does and does not make me gasp in disbelief are apparently
much wider than yours.
in order to be able to depricate civilization
convincingly.
Or perhaps you've just been shocked into your mindset.
|1.19.05 @ 11:48AM|#
See this is why the Marine Corps policy is to kill them all and let Allah sort them out. In war, if you simply kill the enemy it avoids all the messy stuff like prisons, tortures, harrasment, simulated sex, etc, etc, etc.
|1.19.05 @ 11:52AM|#
This is no worse than a hazing ritual for whatever the British
equivalent of a fraternity is.
The bigger question is whether they made the prisoners eat British
food. "Tell me where the safe house is, or Nigel here will feed you
nothing but dry mutton with runny ketchup!"
|1.19.05 @ 11:54AM|#
"seeing prisoners in the same state of undress in same specific
poses with the same intentions with the same specific and
ridiculous "thumbs-up" -- i'm afraid psychological rationalism
doesn't cover it."
First, as I mentioned in my above post, I was specifically speaking
to the sexual themes, and their commonality as making it no clear
case of conspiracy here.
Let's break down the various behaviors here: nakedness, which may
or may not be considered sexual, is a humiliation technique older
and more widespread than dirt. It is certainly no psychological
rationalization to say so, and it's beyond flimsy as evidence as a
conspiracy. The poses may indeed be more particular than the state
of undress, but given the limited variation of male on male
simulated sex (genital to mouth, genital to ass) this hardly offers
up more evidence towards a conspiracy, given the ubiquity of sex
abuse as domination I mentioned above.
As to the non-sex behavior you mention, this is a bit more
peculiar. On it's own it wouldn't seem to amount to much more than
the sex theme, it's a common "okay" sign. However in light of the
prisoners all happening to be forced to do this for photos, it is a
bit more suspicious. It appears as if it was a childish defense to
be included in the photos, as though it may offer explanation if
they were to be seen by outside observers, that the prisoners were
okay. This indication of the photos being taken with the thought in
mind of a necessary defense speaks much more towards a higher up
conspiracy than does the nakedness or repeated sexual themes.
Tim Cavanaugh|1.19.05 @ 11:55AM|#
Plenty of effective solutions to problems are outlawed for
very sound reasons.
If this stuff were effective, we would have heard about it at the
Graner trial. There's no evidence these tactics produced any
results.
|1.19.05 @ 11:57AM|#
Although I'm not in any way trying to excuse the behavior here
-- and any trails which might lead to higher levels of command -- I
do have to put in two cents for a certain level of coincidence and
spontaneous order here. Making people under your control look like
they're having sex -- particuarly oral or anal sex -- and the
thumbs-up as a signal for "Dude!" or "Cool!" are both pretty
ubiquitous behaviors. People around the world have been doing the
same thing to their drunk friends for decades (Google up "drunk
shaming" for a look), so I'm willing to accept some . . . er,
what's the Trekkie term . . . "parallel evolution" here.
Still, these assholes should all be relieved of duty and
dishonorably discharged. And a little stint in military prison
wouldn't hurt, either.
|1.19.05 @ 12:05PM|#
When trying to find the source of what looks like widespread
hazing gone awry, is there any place better to start than our own
Frat-Boy-In-Chief.
Skull&Bones Rocks, Dude!
|1.19.05 @ 12:09PM|#
"this is clearly programmatic, and the fact that the same
pattern shows up again and again over wider areas indicates that
this was clearly authorized from very high up."
I'm not so sure that this is the case, but I also would not
completely rule out the possibility. As I said before there are
some suspicious similarities going on here, and this gives me
pause. However, one of the problems in discussing this overall
issue is that so many seem unwilling or unable to dissect out the
relevant points from the irrelevant. There are a variety of
behaviors observed and described from the US and British military
prisons. It is important to realize that what may be distastful
(nakedness) is not necessary unusual or illegal. As well, what may
seem more mundane and commonplace (guard said, "I'll kill you" to
prisoner) may actually be illegal.
As for this going very high up, there are argument to be made (and
that have been made) that there are some indications of this, if
not actively ordering certain behaviors, then specifically ignoring
certain ones. The involvement of the British troops in similar
instances, however, doesn't seem to be further evidence of this.
Now a more complicated explanation is required if one is to make
the case of this going up to the highest levels. Blair and his
military and policy advisors must now be included along with Bush,
Rummy, Gonzales and the rest. This requires a more, not less
complex conspiracy. While one could simply state that the Brits had
given up control of their military to the US, the discussions and
debates we saw in the movement of the BlackWatch division up to
Baghdad indicates that this isn't likely the case.
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 12:24PM|#
Making people under your control look like they're having
sex -- particuarly oral or anal sex -- and the thumbs-up as a
signal for "Dude!" or "Cool!" are both pretty ubiquitous
behaviors.
this is bizarre delusion, mr phil. (you've done this all before,
have you?... j/k)
This indication of the photos being taken with the thought in mind
of a necessary defense speaks much more towards a higher up
conspiracy than does the nakedness or repeated sexual themes.
i disagree, mr chthus. clearly the gesture is intended to basely
humilitate by implying enjoyment. this is obvious, it seems to me,
and if it is meant to have a premeditated meaning for plausible
later obfuscation it is secondary.
again, examine the conditional probability of the events. if
several photos had a thumbs up but no other similarity, that could
be coincidence. but they have nudity, simulated sex, thumbs-up,
photography, military prison -- hundreds and hundreds of photos,
taken in different times and places with different military
personnel, all sharing these characteristics.
can anyone rationally believe that all these probabilities
aggregated into reality on a number of occasions simply
coincidentally? that is *highly* unlikely, in my estimation -- its
much more plausible to conclude that there is a system at work that
increases these coincident probabilities greatly.
This requires a more, not less complex conspiracy.
and i would disagree here as well. american military intelligence
had the run of prisons both american and british, and i don't
suspect blair involved at first blush.
raymond|1.19.05 @ 12:36PM|#
Are you saying that our society as a whole has no
morals
Here is your answer:
I don't see the cause for outrage here. A guy forced to carry a
small box on his head. Another lifted by the tines of a forklift.
This is really blowing my skirt up, lemme tell you. Graphic
pictures my ass.
A graphic
picture, you ass.
|1.19.05 @ 12:44PM|#
Let's look again at the comparisons you mention:
"but they have nudity, simulated sex, thumbs-up, photography,
military prison"
Photography - all the photographs are photographs, but this is
neither here nor there. While there is some insight to be gained in
what was being done during the photo, there is also the
complication of the carelessness with which these photos were
developed and distributed, as mentioned above
Military prison - That all the military prison abuse in question
took place in military prisons is about as shocking as the fact
that testicular cancer is found in the testicles
Nudity - The stripping of prisoners has been standard procedure
from Jesus to the Stanford Prison Experiment to today. While
unpleasant and perhaps exceptionally humiliating in reverse
proportion to prisoners' comfortability (personal and cultural)
with nakedness, it is as surprising and suspicious as the fact that
the guards are often wearing uniforms
Simulated Sex - This is a slightly more valuable piece of evidence
of conspiracy than nakedness, but given it's commonality in a
variety of dominance (largely male) situations, it hardly gives
much to go on
Thumbs up - Here I find behavior slightly more suspicious than you
or Phil, though Phil's arguments for ubiquity of the sign in much
milder situations deserves some consideration, despite your merely
anecdotal dismissal
"and i would disagree here as well. american military intelligence
had the run of prisons both american and british, and i don't
suspect blair involved at first blush."
Again, unless you are ready to posit that US soldiers were giving
orders to the British soldiers in the pictures, this would require
amore complex explanation to show collusion, even more so if you
wish to include the Bush administration in complicity yet exclude
Blair. If you are to go this route, though, how then do you explain
the US military having such fine detail control over the British
soldiers, yet them being unable to get movement of a british
regiment without discussion and debate?
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 12:44PM|#
Clearly, I've no sense of civilization because my parameters
for what does and does not make me gasp in disbelief are apparently
much wider than yours.
no mr rst -- not because you are unsurprised. i'm sadly unsurprised
as well.
you're a cretinous debilitated savage because you think it's all
perfectly acceptable. you've no outrage at this -- and that is the
hallmark of a abhorrent monster, a desensitized animal. your
apologism is what makes you pathetic, and i can only hope it is a
misanthropic charade you put on for the internet audience and not
something you practice in reality.
|1.19.05 @ 12:46PM|#
Every time I hear someone talking about whether this kind of
behavior is torture, I think of the Gonzales Torture Memo. This
behavior is consistent with the--I still don't what else to call
it--pro-torture logic of the Gonzales Torture Memo, is it
not?
The Schlesinger Report, absent testimony from military
intelligence, put the blame for the torture at Abu Gharib on the
confusion created by Rumsfeld's decision to change US policy
regarding torture--under the advice of the Gonzales Torture
Memo.
Our policy makers made the torture at Abu Gharib possible. Our
policy makers, and certainly our military intelligence people,
coordinate with the British, do they not? While we don't have a
smoking gun to show that the these instances of British abuse were
the product of some kind of joint strategy, the theory seems
entirely plausible to me--indeed it seems likely.
|1.19.05 @ 12:47PM|#
Do not confuse "effective" with "sound"?
No. That I feel something is effective does not necessarily mean I
feel it is right or should be legal. Genocide for instance can be
quite effective. Inadviseable as a course of military action for a
host of reasons, sure. But there's no more complete way of
defeating your enemy than eradicating them. And the world would be
quite alright without your enemies' culture or genetic variance, to
say nothing for resources and real estate you gained.
As to this incident, if this was in the course of interrogation as
a means to erode resistance then I do not feel this story is of any
consequence. However it doesn't seem like this was the case...this
seems to have been for entertainment. Bad brits, no bangers for
you.
And on a side note, my confusion isn't so much the nudity or sex
acts, but the cameras. Were they mementos or propaganda for other
prisoners? If the latter, why were they developed in England?
|1.19.05 @ 12:57PM|#
I would think the fact that pictures were taken would be part of the humiliation. Especially if you want to go along with your "prevailing culture" line which would be some form of iconography for a fundamentalist muslim.
|1.19.05 @ 12:58PM|#
�Pigwiggle, what crimes makes it OK to sexually abuse a prisoner
pray tell?�
It fits my sense of parity and justice. They are in the stockade
for torturing and raping, and then they reap the same. I�m not
calling for some official policy of rape and torture. I�m just
hopping they get what they put out plus another 50% in
interest.
|1.19.05 @ 1:09PM|#
A graphic picture, you ass.
The caption: A soldier aims a simulated kick at a bound
detainee on the floor, his head near a puddle of water.
Uh, yeah. Graphic. Ass.
There's no evidence these tactics produced any
results.
To reiterate, as I am often unclear: the appropriateness of these
actions are based on their context. These actions do not seem to
have been undertaken in the course of interrogation, i.e., to
humiliate the prisoners to reduce restiveness or resistance to
interrogation. As such I agree with the prevailing sentiment: put
them in the dock.
you're a cretinous debilitated savage because you think it's
all perfectly acceptable.
Ooh, a cretinous debilitated savage. If you could only see
my six-inch incisors.
Sorry GM if I don't get my panties in a bunch over some kids
simulate punching and kicking detainees, taking their clothes, and
having them simulate sex acts, all for cameras. It's just too tame
for outrage.
These individuals broke existing laws, by abusing prisoners
unsanctioned, and hopefully they will be punished.
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 1:14PM|#
then you don't have a sense of justice, mr pigwiggle -- you have
a sense of animal revenge, and revenge as a policy is
degenerate.
"Such is the moral construction of the world, that no national crime passes unpunished in the long run... Were your present oppressors to reflect on the same truth, they would spare to their own countries the penalties on their present wrongs which will be inflicted on them in future times. The seeds of hatred and revenge which they [sow] with a large hand will not fail to produce their fruits in time. Like their brother robbers on the highway, they suppose the escape of the moment a final escape and deem infamy and future risk countervailed by present gain."
--Thomas Jefferson to Francois de Marbois, 1817
|1.19.05 @ 1:16PM|#
"Im just hopping they get what they put out plus another 50% in
interest"
Hmmm so are you glad that the people who probably murdured innocent
Iraqis so that their religious group be able to maintain supremacy
over another and not be threatened by democracy were in fact abused
themselves?
|1.19.05 @ 1:16PM|#
"...the appropriateness of these actions are based on their
context. These actions do not seem to have been undertaken in the
course of interrogation, i.e., to humiliate the prisoners to reduce
restiveness or resistance to interrogation."
Are we looking at the same pictures? Once again, are these pictures
not consistent with the logic in the Gonzales Torture
Memo?
These actions do seem to have been undertaken in the
course of interrogation; in fact, more than one American has
claimed that when similar actions were undertaken by Americans,
they were undertaken under the orders of military intelligence.
|1.19.05 @ 1:22PM|#
�Hmmm so are you glad that the people who probably murdured
innocent Iraqis so that their religious group be able to maintain
supremacy over another and not be threatened by democracy were in
fact abused themselves?�
Did they take pictures too? If they did it, I�m for it.
|1.19.05 @ 1:26PM|#
Also, the whole thing about the thumbs up proving that it came
from the top is pretty silly IMO. That would imply that there is a
memo out there, or a guy that comes by to teach policy that says;
"OK, now remember the proper way to signal the thumbs up when you
are taking pictures showing how much you enjoy abusing
prisoners.
What I have seen is quite the opposite. Colonels not letting
operators get physical with murderers. Brittish troops getting
irate when high ranking US officers offer these guys tea after they
had just tried to kill some of the Brits, because the US officer is
afraid in wake of the Abhu Ghraib scandal.
I think the sexual humiliation and abuse is wrong and wrongheaded.
But I think that official policy goes too far trying to be nice to
these assholes.
The only solution ends up being to not take prisoners.
GM Sy Hersh is full of shit.
|1.19.05 @ 1:28PM|#
Especially if you want to go along with your "prevailing
culture" line which would be some form of iconography for a
fundamentalist muslim.
From the Hadiths of Muhammed:
"whenever a male mount another male, the throne of God trembles"
and "if you see two people who act like the people of Lot, then
kill the active and the passive"
This strikes me as pernicious in a region where the most
controversial debate is how much of the more traditional
principles, like beating the shit out of your wife, Arab peoples
are ready to leave behind. Contrast that to the U.S., where our
religious debates center around the words to the pledge and a rock
in a courthouse.
It's not about fundamentalism; Sunni and Shiite Islam alike hold
that hadith as the word of the prophet.
|1.19.05 @ 1:29PM|#
Pigglewiggle,
So the crime is taking the pictures. If the Jihadis took pictures
(which is very likely), and the Brits hadn't have taken pictures
then no harm no foul?
|1.19.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Pictures of captured insurgents forced to have sex vs pictures
of kidnapped civilians having their heads cut off.
Which is worse? Are they comparable?
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 1:39PM|#
people like you, mr rst, is why it is right to fear for civility
and defend it vigorously. your individualist apathy has made you an
amoral idiot.
here -- i can quote your betters for you too, for all the good it
can do an animal:
"Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart.
"Self-love... is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others. Accordingly, it is against this enemy that are erected the batteries of moralists and religionists, as the only obstacle to the practice of morality. Take from man his selfish propensities, and he can have nothing to seduce him from the practice of virtue. Or subdue those propensities by education, instruction or restraint, and virtue remains without a competitor.
"When [the moral sense] is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation, by presenting to the being so unhappily conformed, other motives to do good and to eschew evil, such as the love, or the hatred, or the rejection of those among whom he lives, and whose society is necessary to his happiness and even existence; demonstrations by sound calculation that honesty promotes interest in the long run; the rewards and penalties established by the laws; and ultimately the prospects of a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done while here. These are the correctives which are supplied by education, and which exercise the functions of the moralist, the preacher, and legislator; and they lead into a course of correct action all those whose depravity is not too profound to be eradicated."
--Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.
|1.19.05 @ 1:43PM|#
fact, more than one American has claimed that when similar
actions...
I thought we were talking about the Brits. From what I gather the
abuse was punitive; the detained men were simply looters. As such I
can't abide it, but likely not for the reasons GM would
prefer.
If OTOH these were insurgents and evidence existed that they were
members of an incompletely captured group, then as candidates for
interrogation, they're ready for their closeups, Mr. Demille.
Pictures of captured insurgents forced to have sex
They weren't forced to have sex, they were forced to give the
appearance of having sex for the camera. From what I read there was
no actual sex involved.
I was thinking the camera (and perhaps the inclination towards
abusing these prisoners) may be in part motivated by the beheadings
on Arab evening news. A little fuck-you to the people who supported
the insurgents? It's a theory...any takers?
Odd though how our outrage at beheadings was nothing compared to
our outrage at these little scandals.
|1.19.05 @ 1:50PM|#
people like you, mr rst, is why it is right to fear for
civility and defend it vigorously. your individualist apathy has
made you an amoral idiot.
Oh boo hoo. Thanks for philosophical sentiments from 190 years ago.
Now that's 2004, try a little pragmatism instead of trying to paint
the world with this broad my-size-fits-all moral brush you seem to
have picked up in your old age.
Excuse me, I have a tree of liberty to refresh.
|1.19.05 @ 1:54PM|#
"Odd though how our outrage at beheadings was nothing compared
to our outrage at these little scandals."
We - America, the American people - aren't responsible for the
behavior of foreign terrorists. We are responsible for the behavior
of our armed forces.
BTW, every American in uniform is authorized to kill Zarqawi on
sight, without trial - which is certainly NOT the treatment
approved for the Abu Ghraib criminals. So spare us the "greater
outrage" nonsense.
|1.19.05 @ 1:56PM|#
Odd though how our outrage at beheadings was nothing
compared to our outrage at these little scandals.
try a little pragmatism
You funny!
|1.19.05 @ 1:57PM|#
Me: Making people under your control look like they're
having sex -- particuarly oral or anal sex -- and the thumbs-up as
a signal for "Dude!" or "Cool!" are both pretty ubiquitous
behaviors.
gaius marius: this is bizarre delusion, mr phil. (you've done
this all before, have you?
No, it isn't.
There. Now we've properly gainsaid each other. Do you have
something, you know, more to offer, or . . . ? You've never seen a
person outside of this context do something stupid, or mean, or
abusive, then give a thumbs up? Ever? You've never seen or heard of
a couple of alpha males take a drunken, unconcious friend and say,
"Dude, put his hand on his dick! Now put his hand on that guy's
ass!" -- really? You live in a box.
Curious: Pictures of captured insurgents forced to have sex vs
pictures of kidnapped civilians having their heads cut off.
Which is worse? Are they comparable
Is this your yardstick? As long as we're better than terrorists and
murderers, we're A-OK? How sad. Is it OK for me to beat people
senseless as long as I'm not killing them like Jeffrey Dahmer?
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 1:57PM|#
But I think that official policy goes too far trying to be
nice to these assholes.
this is the delusion, mr kwais -- that we restrain ourselves
because we're softhearted or passive or are burdened with an
inferiority complex and want to be nice.
it has NOTHING to do with any of that.
it has to do with maintaining our civilization against the savage
backsliding that mr rst so well represents. when we indulge
ourselves of brutality to prisoners, it isn't just or even
primarily the prisoners who are affected -- it is us. such moral
decay as it affords is insidious, wholly destructive and can become
quite rapid. it must be guarded against with great effort and
care.
the west is already well-advanced in this direction, as is
frighteningly illustrated by the barbaric chest-thumping stupidity
that much of the american public indulges in over iraq, which is no
better behavior than one expects of a tribe of apes.
in the hopes of remediating this decay before we destroy ourselves,
we CANNOT dismiss this. we must vigorously root this thing out to
its highest cause -- gonzalez, rumsfeld, even bush if need be. if
we can not, a clearer judgement of civil damnation i can't
imagine.
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 2:04PM|#
You've never seen or heard of a couple of alpha males take a
drunken, unconcious friend and say, "Dude, put his hand on his
dick! Now put his hand on that guy's ass!" -- really?
no, i haven't, mr phil -- ever. and not for a lack of being fucked
up and puking at 2am with my friends, i assure you.
in any case: my point was you have zero conception of what is
"ubiquitous" about torture. or are you *seriously* suggesting that
your homoerotic college hijinx provides you a context for
this?
|1.19.05 @ 2:08PM|#
Odd though how our outrage at beheadings was nothing
compared to our outrage at these little scandals.
It's not odd at all. As U.S. taxpayers, we're all responsible for
the actions of our military, but we're not at all responsible for
the actions of barbaric religious fundamentalists from other
countries (though that doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn the act
and move to destroy the perpetrators).
Personal responsibility. It's what's for dinner.
|1.19.05 @ 2:11PM|#
Ah, I see Joe beat me to it by several posts.
But what is odd is that some people who claim to be generally
suspicious of the government trust it to only abuse guilty
prisoners (even after the government has admitted that many, if not
most, of those prisoners are innocent). Very odd indeed.
|1.19.05 @ 2:13PM|#
Aren't we much in advance of where we were in Viet Name and WW2?
Aren't we much in advance of any other war situation? I'd say just
because this hand wringing and discussion is taking place across
the west shows we have improved over previous generations.
Tom Jefferson was a cleaver guy and had lots of good ideas, but it
was OK for him to enslave, rape and sell human beings? I bet Sally
Hemmings would have loved to be in Abu Garib compared to being
imprisoned on Monticello. Seems like he was complaining about the
mote in his brother's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
|1.19.05 @ 2:14PM|#
"when we indulge ourselves of brutality to prisoners, it isn't
just or even primarily the prisoners who are affected -- it is
us."
An example being, when soldiers/jailers are authorized to behave
like sadists just a little bit, and only for a really good reason,
they end up getting a taste for a little "recreational" torture on
the side.
|1.19.05 @ 2:18PM|#
in any case: my point was you have zero conception of what
is "ubiquitous" about torture
I didn't claim to have any conception whatsoever about torture. I
claimed to have knowledge about how overstimulated alpha males
behave when given temporary power over people.
There was an infamous video clip circulating around the Internet a
year or two ago of some drunk college kid passed out in a chair,
and all his "friends" videotaping themselves putting their asses or
testicles on his face. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about
here -- bored, aggressive people with too much power doing sexually
humiliating things to others. And I offer it only to proffer some
evidence -- something I note that none of the conspiracy theorists
have been able to offer -- in favor of the "coincidence" line of
thinking. If you can't understand that, it's your problem, and not
mine.
. or are you *seriously* suggesting that your homoerotic
college hijinx provides you a context for this?
And now, since you can't be civil, I'm done with you. Enjoy feeling
superior to everyone, shithead. And make sure you alienate all the
other anti-torture people just because they won't put up with your
crap. That's usually pretty effective.
|1.19.05 @ 2:32PM|#
You know, the military actually has a little bit of experience
in maintaining discipline among overstimulated alpha males.
Given the opportunity to state that the President lacks the
authority to order torture, Condi Rice passed up the chance
yesterday.
Again.
|1.19.05 @ 2:38PM|#
Aren't we much in advance of where we were in Viet Name and
WW2? Aren't we much in advance of any other war situation? I'd say
just because this hand wringing and discussion is taking place
across the west shows we have improved over previous
generations.
I agree, Ira. It's important to remember that we have improved and
why.
|1.19.05 @ 2:38PM|#
But what is odd is that some people who claim to be
generally suspicious of the government trust it to only abuse
guilty prisoners
If you are speaking to me, at no point have I made warranty as to
their guilt. And not generally trusting the government is not the
same as thinking that every single thing it does is "wrong" by
virtue of an existing opinion. I trust the military to wage war
more or less effectively; I think it does an excellent job when not
fettered by the government.
we CANNOT dismiss this.
Yes we can, and we will. The Super Bowl is coming up Gaius. There's
plenty out there to distract us from this.
it must be guarded against with great effort and
care.
Too late, GM. Morality as a relative entity is a growing sentiment.
When people reject religion, they're not doing so because they find
the icons tacky. They reject religion for its moral absolutism.
You, with yours, are no better than Falwell.
As U.S. taxpayers, we're all responsible for the actions of our
military
When acting under orders, yes. When they go off the reservation,
no. Some will tell you it's "patently obvious" that this behavior
was sanctioned from the top, although they have no evidence of such
and instead are relying on your innate distrust of the government
to propel the credibility of such statements "over the line" so to
speak. The rest of us, who like to think first, are waiting on any
available evidence.
Which brings us to the actual severity of the acts. Still tame, for
all the pontificating.
|1.19.05 @ 2:45PM|#
Personal responsibility. It's what's for dinner.
It's also anathema to the collectivist mindset that puts emotional
nonsense ahead of action and consequence.
Enjoy feeling superior to everyone, shithead.
Don't worry Phil, this is the internet. We are by definition in the
business of indulging fantasies. GM has a unique view and the right
to express it, even if he is a bit idealist.
|1.19.05 @ 2:48PM|#
The way I see it is that the official rules for the treatment of
prisoners is indeed to soft. And as such is only adhered to when
there is adult supervision. Such as was not the case in Abu
Ghraib.
And you you have prisoner guards who don't seem to have the sense
an adult should have. They don't seem to have a sense of
responsibility. Like there is not a wrong and a right, like actions
don't have consequenses.
I blame the welfare state, and public school. And maybe the
drinking age law, and gun control too.
|1.19.05 @ 2:58PM|#
"And you have prisoner guards who don't seem to have the
sense an adult should have. They don't seem to have a sense of
responsibility. Like there is not a wrong and a right, like actions
don't have consequenses."
This can also be explained by assuming that they were following
orders rather than indulging some weird fetish.
|1.19.05 @ 2:59PM|#
And not generally trusting the government is not the same as
thinking that every single thing it does is "wrong" by virtue of an
existing opinion.
I agree with you and I don't think I've implied that every single
thing it does is wrong. But if we don't generally trust the
government to deal with healthcare or education and so keep a very,
very close eye on what it does in those arenas, why should we trust
it wage war any more efficiently or morally?
When acting under orders, yes. When they go off the
reservation, no. Some will tell you it's "patently obvious" that
this behavior was sanctioned from the top, although they have no
evidence of such and instead are relying on your innate distrust of
the government to propel the credibility of such statements "over
the line" so to speak.
The orders don't need to be sanctioned from the very top for us to
be responsible for them.
When those at the top attempt to convince us that only those at the
very bottom are culpable, even when everyone at the very bottom is
saying that they were told what to do what they did by someone
higher up than them, it's reasonable to suggest that the problem is
complex, rather than simple, which is what those at the top would
have us believe.
The rest of us, who like to think first, are waiting on any
available evidence.
Do you believe that the claims of many soldiers that they either
received instructions to abuse prisoners or reported abuse and were
ignored and/or disciplined for it do not count as evidence that
this problem included matters of policy?
Which brings us to the actual severity of the acts. Still tame,
for all the pontificating.
Why do you believe that being killed during an interrogation or
being sodomized with glow sticks is "tame?" If murder doesn't rise
to the level of "serious," what does?
|1.19.05 @ 3:06PM|#
"I thought we were talking about the Brits."
...and I thought we were talking about whether this was done as
part of an interrogation.
|1.19.05 @ 3:27PM|#
"This can also be explained by assuming that they were following
orders rather than indulging some weird fetish."
I really don't buy that. Why would they give out instructions to
abuse prisoners? Besides a stupid career ending thing to do, what
kicks would they get out of it? Those decisions are really to be
left to local field commanders.
Every incident I have ever witnessed, or heard of other people who
witnessed first hand. The case was of being restricted from doing
anything even remotely harsh. People who captured someone that
killed one of their buddies, and roughed them up, did so in fear of
getting caught by higher.
|1.19.05 @ 3:37PM|#
"The case was of being restricted from doing anything even
remotely harsh. People who captured someone that killed one of
their buddies, and roughed them up, did so in fear of getting
caught by higher."
Maybe pretending these episodes are primarily about low-level
troops acting out, and responding to them as such, wasn't a very
good idea.
|1.19.05 @ 3:51PM|#
why should we trust it wage war any more efficiently or
morally?
Primarily because the administration of health care and education
involve processes which are much more efficiently executed by
private companies, whereas war is among the few necessary
government activities that could not credibly be engaged in this
setting by the private sector. An argument could be made for the
privatization of detainee security, but that's a different
discussion. I do not expect war to be moral; war is itself amoral.
There is no moral ground anywhere in the contest of subtracting
human life and property until one side concedes. So I'll pass on
the discussion of, "One MOAB II, or four daisycutters?"
When those at the top attempt to convince us that only those at
the very bottom are culpable, even when everyone at the very bottom
is saying that they were told what to do what they did by someone
higher up than them
I would buy that as an indictment of Joe Sixpack if we held real
power over the government, but we do not. That of/by/for the people
bullshit is a sales pitch.
So I do not see how we share culpability in the model you describe.
An individual along the information supply chain being negligent,
criminal, or dishonest in relaying information is at fault for his
decision to do so. Surely the California voter is not at fault for
Chandra Levy's death, is s/he? Had they elected the "other" guy,
Levy would never have been a Congressional staffer, and she'd still
be alive. Damn you all, California.
do not count as evidence that this problem included matters of
policy?
It is certainly admissible evidence, but without something tangible
-- like the pictures these guys were stupid enough to take -- I
don't see how their claims could hold water in a court
martial.
And policy matters could certainly exceed orders. It's been said
repeatedly that we apparently employ adults in our armed forces who
need further adult supervision. I am in agreement, insofar as it
would address whatever "recreational" components there were to this
fiasco.
being killed during an interrogation or being sodomized with
glow sticks
I was speaking of these photographed instances here. In the U.S.
cases, I was clear that I felt some of the acts were tame, while
others crossed the line into torture (death itself is not torture,
although torture more likely than not -- the guilt standard in a
court martial -- preceded the detainee's death).
A quick reminder...y'all are aware we're talking about two
different chains of command here, right?
...and I thought we were talking about whether this was done as
part of an interrogation.
It may have been. Based on what I read, the UK incidents were
punitive, not in the course of an interrogation.
Fear and humiliation are powerful aspects of human confrontation
that can give the interrogator valuable leverage, especially with
subjects for whom pride is important. So long as they are
protracted rather than acute events, it may be a more efficient
means to extract information.
But when not used to that end, it is simply terrorizing and
humiliating prisoners for the fun of it. Inefficient, and yes,
cruel too.
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 4:15PM|#
since you can't be civil, I'm done with you.
mr apologies, mr phil. i didn't mean to exclude you for ridicule
there somehow. i think "homoerotic college hijinx" are pretty
common, even if i didn't experience the variety of physicality you
alluded to.
And I offer it only to proffer some evidence -- something I note
that none of the conspiracy theorists have been able to offer -- in
favor of the "coincidence" line of thinking.
i understand what you're saying. i'm simply saying that the
similarities are too close in too many examples to be
naturally-occuring sadism, which comes in a thousand
flavors.
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 4:30PM|#
I do not expect war to be moral; war is itself amoral.
you genuinely don't feel any outrage? to you, mr rst, the
self-evident fact that "this is war" excuses anything at all and we
should not be shocked in the slightest should we see americans
eating arab babies with spoons?
and we are excused furthermore into declaring "war" whenever and
wherever we feel like some ambiguous threat may exist? and we are
excused even when that "war" may be the neverending war of
terrorism?
what barrier, then, to restrain any of us from pillaging as we whim
in perpetuity, mr rst?
raymond|1.19.05 @ 4:32PM|#
The caption:
A soldier aims a simulated kick at a bound detainee on the
floor, his head near a puddle of water.
On the truthout site, I don't see any caption.
I don't see the cause for outrage here. ... Graphic pictures my
ass.
"It cannot be said that these photographs are of incidents that are anything other than shocking and appalling," Lt Col Clapham told the court.
Apparently Clapham's wrong. Apparently, rst & co. can say all
sorts of other things.
|1.19.05 @ 4:51PM|#
rst: January 19, 2005 12:47 PM
"Were they mementos or propaganda for other prisoners? If the
latter, why were they developed in England?"
I'd go for the propaganda angle, flash those pictures to the
"jihadist", and their 72 virgins take on a whole new meaning. Why
don't they have digital cameras.
kwais at January 19, 2005 01:26 PM
"The only solution ends up being to not take
prisoners."
I endorse Col. Kurtz's ideology and methods too.
rst at January 19, 2005 01:43 PM
Odd though how our outrage at beheadings was nothing compared
to our outrage at these little scandals.
Possibly, I know it is a lottery type proposition but, could it be
because we expect/ed that type of behavior from the insurgents and
somehow naively expected american troops and their
allies to conduct themselves, if only slightly, above "the savages
we are sent to democratize".
rst at January 19, 2005 01:50 PM
Excuse me, I have a tree of liberty to refresh.
That tree is being refreshed with the blood of young
soldiers(son/husbands, daughters/wives). you are a
rhetorician, sadly as most of us here have been
relegated to.
Ira Weatheral at January 19, 2005 02:13 PM
Seems like he was complaining about the mote in his brother's
eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
All are guilty, including those commenting and those just lurking.
Ref: above statement.
kwais at January 19, 2005 03:27 PM
People who captured someone that killed one of their
buddies, and roughed them up, did so in fear of getting caught by
higher.
That thought is merely an assumption on your part.
i.e., the marine who was shot in the face and the bullet lodged in
his teeth, has anyone heard of the fate of the iraqis who
surrendered!!!
|1.19.05 @ 4:59PM|#
you genuinely don't feel any outrage?
I am but a little soul carrying a corpse.
to you, mr rst, the self-evident fact that "this is war"
excuses anything at all
War should motivate towards maximum practical efficiency.
Considerations of maximum efficiency preclude selecting "anything
at all" as viable tactics. Further, there would be no need to
excuse such tactics, as in an amoral context there is no moral
option.
we should not be shocked in the slightest should we see
americans eating arab babies with spoons?
Yes. A knife and fork would be far more efficient.
and we are excused furthermore into declaring "war" whenever
and wherever we feel like some ambiguous threat may
exist?
To varying degrees that is what we have done with every war. With
the exception of 1812 and possibly Confederate secession, our union
has never known a threat that was not to some degree
ambiguous.
Apparently Clapham's wrong.
He's not right or wrong, he's saying what he's supposed to say.
|1.19.05 @ 5:23PM|#
Outside@@n,
The dude who stopped the bullet with his tooth was an army
guy.
As far as my assumption. It was only an assumption in that I
believed the guy when he told me that. I know him, and I judged him
to be telling me the truth. It also matches what I already know to
be true.
|1.19.05 @ 6:32PM|#
rst,
Simply because defense is best served by the government doesn't
mean that the government is better at it than it is at other
things. There's no evidence of it anyway.
Do you believe there should be rules of war?
I think the reason the U.S. isn't "by/of/for the people" is partly
because so many people have given up on making it so.
Still, a confounding pleasure disagreeing with you, as always.
gaius marius|1.19.05 @ 6:39PM|#
mr rst, you overlooked the most important question i had:
what barrier, then, to restrain any of us from pillaging as we
whim in perpetuity, mr rst?
|1.20.05 @ 11:28AM|#
Simply because defense is best served by the government
doesn't mean that the government is better at it than it is at
other things.
Of course they suck. But when you've got to kill people (or you
just think you do), they're still the best choice.
Do you believe there should be rules of war?
No. And there aren't anyway.
what barrier, then, to restrain any of us from pillaging as we
whim in perpetuity, mr rst?
None. What barrier was there before? You act as though "morality"
is a concrete thing, like a leash or a wall. Morality is nothing
but an idea.
|1.20.05 @ 11:30AM|#
I changed my mind, there should be one rule of war: make the
other side surrender as fast as possible.
Oh yeah and the thing that will keep us from pillaging as we whim
in perpetuity is that one day we ourselves will be pillaged.
|1.20.05 @ 12:22PM|#
"what barrier, then, to restrain any of us from pillaging as we
whim in perpetuity, mr rst?"
Well, the real barrier is of course self interest.
gaius marius|1.20.05 @ 3:23PM|#
self interest.
for rational men, perhaps, mr kwais. but rational men understand
moral self-restraint to be in their self-interest, even if in way
swhich are not immedaiately apparent to themselves.
i fear that mr rst's answer is the one that circulates the offices
of men like paul wolfowitz.
raymond|1.21.05 @ 2:11AM|#
My own well being.
I try not to do to others what I don't want them to do to me.
So I don't torture, for example. Or defend torture. Or downplay
abuse. Or jesuitically pick out the least offensive act in a series
of apparently horrendous acts of humiliation to "prove" that the
whole series is actually quite acceptable.
Your ideas - and Dan's and pig...'s (and those of some others here)
- are a danger to me and to those I love. Not nice natural danger,
like tsunamis or malaria, but WILLED danger.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245