"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.

Comments

[kwais]

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?

[joe]

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.

[xray]

and what's with the thumbs up posing? it must be some kinda secret code.

[Warren]

Keep pulling on that "just a few bad apples" yarn!

[kwais]

Joe,

What are you saying? It is a conspiracy involving the Brits too?

[pigwiggle]

Here?s to hopping these clowns get ass-raped in the stockade.

[kwais]

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?

[joe]

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.

[kwais]

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?

[atomicsoda]

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.

[Mo]

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.

[chthus]

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.

[rst]

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]

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.

[Eric Cartman]

Unlike all those other cultures, where being smeared with human feces is a great honor.

Hey, leave Mel Gibson out of this!

[rst]

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]

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.

[jc]

rst,

What a crock! By outlawing a procedure you call effective, your "outlawing" is merely meant as a symbolic gesture.

[gaius marius]

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.

[rst]

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.

[jc]

Do not confuse "effective" with "sound".

[jc]

Meant that as:

Do not confuse "effective" with "sound"?

[rst]

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.

[Iguana]

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.

[thoreau]

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!"

[chthus]

"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]

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.

[Phil]

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.

[NoStar]

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!

[chthus]

"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]

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]

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.

[chthus]

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]

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.

[Ken Shultz]

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.

[rst]

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?

[Russ D]

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.

[pigwiggle]

?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.

[rst]

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]

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

[kwais]

"I?m 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?

[Ken Shultz]

"...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.

[pigwiggle]

?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.

[kwais]

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.

[rst]

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.

[kwais]

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?

[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?

[gaius marius]

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.

[rst]

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.

[rst]

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.

[rst]

2005 even!

[joe]

"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.

[jc]

Odd though how our outrage at beheadings was nothing compared to our outrage at these little scandals.

try a little pragmatism

You funny!

[Phil]

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]

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]

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?

[Les]

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.

[Les]

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.

[Ira Weatheral]

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.

[joe]

"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.

[Phil]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Les]

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.

[rst]

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.

[rst]

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.

[kwais]

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.

[Ken Shultz]

"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.

[Les]

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?

[Ken Shultz]

"I thought we were talking about the Brits."

...and I thought we were talking about whether this was done as part of an interrogation.

[kwais]

"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.

[joe]

"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.

[rst]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[outSide@@N]

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!!!

[rst]

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.

[kwais]

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.

[Les]

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]

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?

[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.

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.

[rst]

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.

[kwais]

"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]

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]

Morality is nothing but an idea.

Like freedom.

Like everything.

[rst]

Like everything

Now you're getting it.

So what's your moral referent?

[raymond]

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.