OT - Restoring America's Honor

[NoMyths]

Link: NYT: Restoring Our Honor (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/opinion/06FRIE.html)

I have been silent around these parts on the current P.O.W. atrocity in Iraq, partly out of a disgust and dismay so overwhelming that it exhausts me. This New York Times column by Thomas Friedman is an eloquent statement about the situation we now find ourselves in, and I'd encourage everyone to read it. There's a little something in it for everyone.

Full Text:
NYT: Restoring Our Honor
by Thomas L. Friedman

We are in danger of losing something much more important than just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world. I have never known a time in my life when America and its president were more hated around the world than today. I was just in Japan, and even young Japanese dislike us. It's no wonder that so many Americans are obsessed with the finale of the sitcom "Friends" right now. They're the only friends we have, and even they're leaving.

This administration needs to undertake a total overhaul of its Iraq policy; otherwise, it is courting a total disaster for us all.

That overhaul needs to begin with President Bush firing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — today, not tomorrow or next month, today. What happened in Abu Ghraib prison was, at best, a fundamental breakdown in the chain of command under Mr. Rumsfeld's authority, or, at worst, part of a deliberate policy somewhere in the military-intelligence command of sexually humiliating prisoners to soften them up for interrogation, a policy that ran amok.

Either way, the secretary of defense is ultimately responsible, and if we are going to rebuild our credibility as instruments of humanitarian values, the rule of law and democratization, in Iraq or elsewhere, Mr. Bush must hold his own defense secretary accountable. Words matter, but deeds matter more. If the Pentagon leadership ran any U.S. company with the kind of abysmal planning in this war, it would have been fired by shareholders months ago.

I know that tough interrogations are vital in a war against a merciless enemy, but outright torture, or this sexual-humiliation-for-entertainment, is abhorrent. I also know the sort of abuse that went on in Abu Ghraib prison goes on in prisons all over the Arab world every day, as it did under Saddam — without the Arab League or Al Jazeera ever saying a word about it. I know they are shameful hypocrites, but I want my country to behave better — not only because it is America, but also because the war on terrorism is a war of ideas, and to have any chance of winning we must maintain the credibility of our ideas.

We were hit on 9/11 by people who believed hateful ideas — ideas too often endorsed by some of their own spiritual leaders and educators back home. We cannot win a war of ideas against such people by ourselves. Only Arabs and Muslims can. What we could do — and this was the only legitimate rationale for this war — was try to help Iraqis create a progressive context in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world where that war of ideas could be fought out.

But it is hard to partner with someone when you become so radioactive no one wants to stand next to you. We have to restore some sense of partnership with the world if we are going to successfully partner with Iraqis.

Mr. Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO and the U.N., and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page. Second, he needs to explain that we are losing in Iraq, and if we continue to lose the U.S. public will eventually demand that we quit Iraq, and it will then become Afghanistan-on-steroids, which will threaten everyone. Third, he needs to say he will be guided by the U.N. in forming the new caretaker government in Baghdad. And fourth, he needs to explain that he is ready to listen to everyone's ideas about how to expand our force in Iraq, and have it work under a new U.N. mandate, so it will have the legitimacy it needs to crush any uprisings against the interim Iraqi government and oversee elections — and then leave when appropriate. And he needs to urge them all to join in.

Let's not lose sight of something — as bad as things look in Iraq, it is not yet lost, for one big reason: America's aspirations for Iraq and those of the Iraqi silent majority, particularly Shiites and Kurds, are still aligned. We both want Iraqi self-rule and then free elections. That overlap of interests, however clouded, can still salvage something decent from this war — if the Bush team can finally screw up the courage to admit its failures and dramatically change course.

Yes, the hour is late, but as long as there's a glimmer of hope that this Bush team will do the right thing, we must insist on it, because America's role in the world is too precious — to America and to the rest of the world — to be squandered like this.

[Desnudo]

Where to start? This kind of thing, while unfortunate, has happened in all wars in the past and yes, commited,*gasp!*, by Americans. The attrocities commited in Vietnam went far beyond the scope of what happened in Iraq. The same for looting in WWII. The difference is in the publicity around them. These things happen in war. We should be congratulated that the incident rate was incredibly low considering the amount of prisonors and guards.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: the op/ed piece -- What an utter & complete pile of steaming horseshit. Just a lot of hot air from someone who clearly has an agenda that the unfortunate incident with a handful of prisoners happens to be useful to further.

Then again, I'd expect nothing less from the NYT.

re: partly out of a disgust and dismay so overwhelming that it exhausts me. If you're so exhausted, let me suggest that you stay the fuck out of the way of the people who are still willing to do what is necessary to get the job done.

[NoMyths]

re: If you're so exhausted, let me suggest that you stay the fuck out of the way of the people who are still willing to do what is necessary to get the job done.If it is your sense, conversely, that when I'm not exhausted I'm standing in the way of the torture and sexual humiliation of others, then I suppose I'll have to save a little bit of energy.

[Desnudo]

If it is your sense, conversely, that when I'm not exhausted I'm standing in the way of the torture and sexual humiliation of others, then I suppose I'll have to save a little bit of energy.

Yeah, that guy is doing a real hell of a job being an armchair critic. Lives have been saved. Thank god he's on their side.

[NoMyths]

Yeah, that guy is doing a real hell of a job being an armchair critic. Lives have been saved. Thank god he's on their side. :rolleyes:
I'm on America's side. I wish you fuckers would quit ruining the place, and what it stands for.

[Desnudo]

:rolleyes:
I'm on America's side. I wish you fuckers would quit ruining the place, and what it stands for.

Right. I'll be leaving the thread about restoring civility after that personal attack. Have a nice day.

[Easy Mac]

Friedman's generally considered one of the more conservative writers for the NY Times op-ed. Of course, I'm sure if American prisoners were sexually abused by Iraqi's, JiMGa would be right there to shove the broom further up their ass.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Friedman's generally considered one of the more conservative writers for the NY Times op-ed.
I believe you may have just defined the phrase "damning with faint praise"

Of course, I'm sure if American prisoners were sexually abused by Iraqi's, JiMGa would be right there to shove the broom further up their ass.
Sorry, that's been covered in another thread (search for "double standard" & I believe that ought to turn it up if you missed it the first time around)

[albionmoonlight]

So, Jon, are you for the torture of prisioners as a means of extracting information? I don't mean to bait with this question, but that's how I read your comment about staying out of the way of people willing to do what is necessary . . . .

[BishopMVP]

As to his larger point of the US being hated in the world right now, he's right. The Cold War is over, and until these people are convinced that the alternative is worse than America it'll stay that way. Talking to them (Europeans in particular) and pointing out just how bad Islamic fundamentalism is doesn't seem to work, so I'm content to do what we have to do with the countries that realize what must be done.

As to Abu Ghraib specifically, you and every other editorialist that has devoted a column to this needs to retain some perspective. First, anyone who thinks firing Rumsfeld in the middle of the war will either help us win or significantly change anything in the military is a fool. As to the abuses themselves, they were disgusting, they were disgraceful, everyone who committed or condoned them should be severely punished, especially because they increased the risk posed to every soldier there, but to imply that we lost our military lost its honor over that? A few soldiers committed the acts and the Army began investigating and punishing them 3 months ago, 3 months before this ever became public. The larger investigation has ruled there were 25 deaths of Iraqi prisoners, with 2 being considered murders since the beginning of the conflict. That's two more than should have happened, but the fact that countries who routinely torture and kill people as state policy have the gall to criticize us over our treatment of prisoners disgusts me.

To me, this incident shows why our military is so honorable. A few soldiers committed heinous acts, and they were investigated and prosecuted by the Army before any public outcry happened. Personally, I think there have been times fairly recently we've lost honor - our decisions to pull out of Vietnam, Lebanon and Mogadishu and to a lesser extent when the people of Rwanda, Iraq, currently the Sudan, etc, died while we had the power to stop it and did nothing.

[EagleFan]

Kind of funny how the people who cry double standards are the ones who say nothing when reports of attrocities of other countries come out. Mistreated American prisoners get very little attention from them but suddenly the roles are reversed and they get out their soap box.

Both are wrong. It's war and it happens (a realistic viewpoint). Don't go trying to make a political agenda out of a small group of people doing something wrong.

[Buccaneer]

Kind of funny how the people who cry double standards are the ones who say nothing when reports of attrocities of other countries come out. Mistreated American prisoners get very little attention from them but suddenly the roles are reversed and they get out their soap box.

Both are wrong. It's war and it happens (a realistic viewpoint). Don't go trying to make a political agenda out of a small group of people doing something wrong.
Yep.

The only thing I agree with is that Rumsfield must go.

[albionmoonlight]

Just FYI: I still beleive that the vast, vast majority of Americans and the vast, vast majority of our military know that this is wrong and are ashamed of these actions of a few.

I also beleive that these actions are wrong whether we do them or whether some non-Americans do them.

I also beleive that those responsible for the torture will be subjected to a fair trial/process, allowed to present a defense, and will be accorded the punishment that they deserve.

I hope that processes will be put in place to try to prevent such things from happening again.

[Buccaneer]

By the way NM, how come you didn't get disgusted to the point of exhaustion after seeing photos of missionaries getting tortured and mutilated in China and some ME countries? Or seeing thousands of Kurds piled up after numerous genocide attacks? Or seeing thousands of children being held in bondage in Sub-Sahara Africa? Or seeing a trash can full of dead fetuses? Or many other human atrocities? Aren't each of these just as worthy to get raged about just as the ones showing prison abuse? So why single out this one for the comment about being disgusted to the point of exhaustion?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Kind of funny how the people who cry double standards are the ones who say nothing when reports of attrocities of other countries come out. Mistreated American prisoners get very little attention from them but suddenly the roles are reversed and they get out their soap box.

Dunno about this. People were plenty outraged at how the remains of those four contractors were treated following the ambush. Those were just the remains. And do you remember the whole Jessica Lynch affair? People were pretty upset at the initial reports. I don't think there is a double standard at all.

What was done to those prisoners is inexcusable, barbaric, cruel, and dishonorable. Unfortunately, I was not surprised when it came to light. These things happen in war.

Whenever I hear about this kind of thing, I always think about that scene in "Platoon" where Bunny finds that old woman and her one-legged son in that hut. He makes fun of them and starts tormenting them, shooting his M-16 at the one-legged guy's feet to make him hop. Bunny laughs and laughs, getting a real kick out of it, before he kills him. That scene stuck with me. I hated Bunny for it. It was a depiction of a horror of war. Much like these photos.

[sabotai]

I reason that comes to mind is that we keep saying that we are better than they are, that we hold human rights far higher than places like China, Iraq, etc. and here we have our soldiers, the same people who we have put up on a pedastal and called "heros", doing stupid shit like this...

But I for one agree with the notion that if after a year of war, the worst thing we have done was that a few soldiers acted like total jackasses (and have been dealt with before we heard about it), considering past an present "wartime atrosities", that's actually pretty damn good. Doesn't excuse what these few soldiers have done, but so far statistically, our boys and girls over there have behaved themselves pretty well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

...but that's how I read your comment about staying out of the way of people willing to do what is necessary . . . .
Now that misconception is something I feel like I have to clear up, because that's not what I was referring to at all.

That "willing to do" comment was in reference to Bush, Rumsfeld, the U.S., etc. & in terms of the bigger picture, and had nothing to do with the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners.

I see very clearly how easy it was to apply the reference to something other than what I meant, I pretty much shifted gears in midstream (which was something that I alluded to the editorialist doing earlier in the thread -- I guess that's why I made the jump & figured people would see where I was landing.) I should have added another phrase or something that would have avoided creating confusion.

In other words, a'light ... my bad.

[albionmoonlight]

Now that misconception is something I feel like I have to clear up, because that's not what I was referring to at all.

That "willing to do" comment was in reference to Bush, Rumsfeld, the U.S., etc. & in terms of the bigger picture, and had nothing to do with the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners.

I see very clearly how easy it was to apply the reference to something other than what I meant, I pretty much shifted gears in midstream (which was something that I alluded to the editorialist doing earlier in the thread -- I guess that's why I made the jump & figured people would see where I was landing.) I should have added another phrase or something that would have avoided creating confusion.

In other words, a'light ... my bad.
Cool beans.

[Buccaneer]

sabotai: I agree with you. In a relative sense, I believe we adhere to human rights far better than most other countries - not perfect by any sense, but still better. However, I look at society today here in this country and see many cases of degradation - in many forms of abuse (child, spousal, pornographic, etc.), toleration and celebration of deviant behaviors, as well as reduction of personal responsibilities and accountability. Are we then surprised at seeing a photo such as this?

[NoMyths]

By the way NM, how come you didn't get disgusted to the point of exhaustion after seeing photos of missionaries getting tortured and mutilated in China and some ME countries? Or seeing thousands of Kurds piled up after numerous genocide attacks? Or seeing thousands of children being held in bondage in Sub-Sahara Africa? Or seeing a trash can full of dead fetuses? Or many other human atrocities?I do. I tend to have those discussions in venues other than this forum.

Aren't each of these just as worthy to get raged about just as the ones showing prison abuse? So why single out this one for the comment about being disgusted to the point of exhaustion?Absolutely. I single this one out because a) I tend to post articles relating to the Iraq situation here; b) I've been struggling with how to articulate my dismay at how much world goodwill we've squandered since 9/11 and c) I thought Friedman did a nice job in an article I felt others here would be interested in reading.

By the by, Bucc, since you're evidently wondering what else is on my attention list that I don't post about here, here's a quick runthrough of the books in the "working through them" spot on my desk: four books on Auschwitz and the Holocaust, the first Shelby Foote Civil War book, Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell, a collection of Afghan womens' poetry, and two Galway Kinnell poetry collections. And to the best of my recollection, I've posted about none of these subjects in this forum, though they all are occupying more than a little of my attention lately.

[Buccaneer]

NM, fair enough. By the way, you and I can debate endlessly about Shelby's views and interpretations in his 3 vol book but seeing that you are living in SC, I suspect we would differ quite a bit.

[John Galt]

I too have been horrified and dismayed at the torture and abuse of prisoners. It makes me fear what is happening in Cuba as well.

And I also am upset about the sad situation for human rights in Burma, the continued deaths in Isreal and in the PNA, the various abuses suffered by women in countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and India, the endless violence in Sudan, and the horrors that occurred in Rwanda.

What do any of the second group have to with the first?

I'm an American and I oppose actions by my government that violate the basic liberties and rights of people. To say this an inevitable part of war and life is just sad. Change happens when people stop saying things are "just the way they are" and that they "are inevitable." That people can actually justify the abuses suffered by these prisoners is disgusting. The righteousness and indigination expressed by Americans who believe they are better than everyone else yet won't face up to the role they/we play in making humanity weaker disturbs me to no end.

America, its military, and its government can be both "GOOD" and "BAD" at the same time. I don't why people pretend it has to be one or the other.

[BishopMVP]

I do. I tend to have those discussions in venues other than this forum.If you hold this viewpoint, then do you disagree with what we have done, or just how it was done?

[BishopMVP]

That people can actually justify the abuses suffered by these prisoners is disgusting. The righteousness and indigination expressed by Americans who believe they are better than everyone else yet won't face up to the role they/we play in making humanity weaker disturbs me to no end.I wasn't trying to justify the abuses, because they are horrible. I just hate all these people that use these acts to attack our entire military/country and the people who focus so much more attention on these pictures than on other abuses around the world to justify their hatred of America/Bush/Globalization/Capitalism.

[John Galt]

I wasn't trying to justify the abuses, because they are horrible. I just hate all these people that use these acts to attack our entire military/country and the people who focus so much more attention on these pictures than on other abuses around the world to justify their hatred of America/Bush/Globalization/Capitalism.

Why? America/Bush/Globilization/Capitalism are the in part responsible for the abuses (just as you would say Islamic fundamentalism is in part responsible for 9/11 or many other terrorist attacks).

[BishopMVP]

Why? America/Bush/Globilization/Capitalism are the in part responsible for the abuses (just as you would say Islamic fundamentalism is in part responsible for 9/11 or many other terrorist attacks).Because these people say "Look at that terrible human rights abuse" or "Look at this kid who doesn't have enough to eat" and rail against those systems while failing to acknowledge the abuses committed by the systems they want to emulate. Such as the people who look at this and say "See??? America is just as bad as Saddam Hussein!!!"

[Leonidas]

I think most folks around here know I am a military man, and I took part in the initial operation that rid Iraq of that piece of scum know as Saddam Hussein. I have also lost friends in this whole operation and have already signed myself, and five other people who work for me up for another tour over there this fall. So I think I speak from a unique perspective from one particular side. Friedman has an excellent reputation as a straight shooter. In fact he has probably been roundly criticized for being too friendly to the current administration. I like his columns and greatly respect his views. I think for the most part this is a good piece.

But the more pictures of what I see in this prison the madder it makes me. I happen to know a thing or two about the interrogation trade and I can tell you the really good ones at it do not need torture. The really good ones can extract information while the subject doesn't even realize it isn't happening. Then there are some subjects that only brute force works. Every situation is different, but by and large torture is counter productive. When you torture people all you get is mimicry of what you want to hear. What I saw in those pictures was frat party hazing bullshit that had nothing to do with legitimate military interrogation and I am embarassed to share the uniform with anyone who thinks this is the way to do business. I am especially embarrassed because we know the world is watching. Do the people over there doing these things think they can do them, photograph it, and really get away with it? God I am so ashamed of this. I pride myself on being a professional and this crap cheapens the whole deal. Regardless, I know everyone I work with is equally appalled and disgusted not just for oursleves, but for the sake of human decency. You don't treat people this way.

Now I do think Friedman is off on a couple points. I am not so certain we are losing in Iraq. He is correct in pointing out the silent majority. It most certainly is there. But that silent majority is not necessarily as silent as the press would have you believe. There is a great deal of progress being made in many areas. There is a bright side, really, there is. In time I think some folks will be pretty amazed at what comes down.

Anyway, I've been storing this crap up for some days and felt the need to relieve myself of it. For those well meaning right wingers trying to explain this away, just let it go. The whole thing is a huge mistake we need to own up to and make good on. No excuse or rationalization can make any of it better. We just need to suck this one up and make damn sure it doesn't happen again.

[WussGawd]

re: the op/ed piece -- What an utter & complete pile of steaming horseshit. Just a lot of hot air from someone who clearly has an agenda that the unfortunate incident with a handful of prisoners happens to be useful to further.

Then again, I'd expect nothing less from the NYT.

re: If you're so exhausted, let me suggest that you stay the fuck out of the way of the people who are still willing to do what is necessary to get the job done.

Um, JiMG, you do realize that Friedman has been one of the bigger Bush apologists when it comes to the Iraq War, right?

[John Galt]

Because these people say "Look at that terrible human rights abuse" or "Look at this kid who doesn't have enough to eat" and rail against those systems while failing to acknowledge the abuses committed by the systems they want to emulate. Such as the people who look at this and say "See??? America is just as bad as Saddam Hussein!!!"

Who are "these people?" How is your statement different than theirs?

[Dutch]

Why? America/Bush/Globilization/Capitalism are the in part responsible for the abuses (just as you would say Islamic fundamentalism is in part responsible for 9/11 or many other terrorist attacks).

WTF???

[John Galt]

WTF???

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, but I'll try again. Without Bush/Capitalism/Globalization/America, you don't have those abuses in Iraq (just as without Islamic Fundamentalism, you don't have many terrorist attacks). Therefore (in reply to BishopMVP's point), people have reason to hate Bush/Capitalism/Globalization/America for these abuses.

[EagleFan]

Why? America/Bush/Globilization/Capitalism are the in part responsible for the abuses (just as you would say Islamic fundamentalism is in part responsible for 9/11 or many other terrorist attacks).


Hmm, Islamic fundamentalism promotes and sponsors terrorism, so I guess you are saying that America/Bush/Globilization/Capitalism promote the torture? That's the only way to take that statement.

[Buccaneer]

Just ignore him, most people do.

[John Galt]

Hmm, Islamic fundamentalism promotes and sponsors terrorism, so I guess you are saying that America/Bush/Globilization/Capitalism promote the torture? That's the only way to take that statement.

It depends on what you mean by "promote." I preferred to say, "but for." Either way, I don't see why it doesn't make sense for people around the world to increase their hate for America/Bush/Globalization/Capitalism in response to these abuses as America/Bush/Globalization/Capitalism made those abuses possible.

[EagleFan]

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, but I'll try again. Without Bush/Capitalism/Globalization/America, you don't have those abuses in Iraq (just as without Islamic Fundamentalism, you don't have many terrorist attacks). Therefore (in reply to BishopMVP's point), people have reason to hate Bush/Capitalism/Globalization/America for these abuses.

Bush/Capitalism/Globalization/America don't promote that kind of behavior. That is the worst kind of logical reasoning that I have ever seen. That's like saying that because the DC snipers were black, you don't have that crime without black people. Complete and utter garbage reasoning.

[John Galt]

Just ignore him, most people do.

Thanks, Bucc. I try my best to respect you and others. Then you say stuff like that.

[John Galt]

Bush/Capitalism/Globalization/America don't promote that kind of behavior. That is the worst kind of logical reasoning that I have ever seen. That's like saying that because the DC snipers were black, you don't have that crime without black people. Complete and utter garbage reasoning.

You are missing my point. I'm saying because B/C/G/A are part of what made these abuses possible, it makes PERFECT sense that people will hate B/C/G/A for these abuses.

I in NO way say that B/C/G/A are equivalent to terrorists or fundamentalism. My point is that these abuses reflect poorly on B/C/G/A and to pretend otherwise is to deny reality.

[Buccaneer]

Thanks, Bucc. I try my best to respect you and others. Then you say stuff like that.
I would say the same of you, sir.

[John Galt]

And how have I ever suggested that other people ignore you? I guess I just find that rude.

[sabotai]

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, but I'll try again. Without Bush/Capitalism/Globalization/America, you don't have those abuses in Iraq (just as without Islamic Fundamentalism, you don't have many terrorist attacks).

Damn, that's a non-sequintur and a half...I *might* agree if it was Bush (Bush sends troops to Iraq, so the troops physically aren't there without him), but to include Capitlaism/Globalization/America...and I thought Dutch put out some mighty non sequinturs in that past. :)

[EagleFan]

Those abuses reflect poorly on the people who chose to commit them. If it comes out to be something that is rooted deeper, such as some sort of backwards ass policy, then you can blame the rest of the group. You've been watching too much of that Middle Eastern propoganda.

Those abuses could have happened no matter what the country, leader or association (and have), just based on human nature sometimes. The Islamic fundamentalist funded and sponsored terrorism doesn't happen without them.

[Buccaneer]

Not ignore as in Ignore List but just keep the vitrolic opinions to oneself and not to respond in kind. There was no reason for you to say publically what you did here, knowing that many would take great offense for your weak analogy - just as some should just let your opinions slide on by without comment.

[John Galt]

Damn, that's a non-sequintur and a half...I *might* agree if it was Bush (Bush sends troops to Iraq, so the troops physically aren't there without him), but to include Capitlaism/Globalization/America...and I thought Dutch put out some mighty non sequinturs in that past. :)

Well, I think globalization is the biggest stretch and I thought of leaving it out, but I think it is fair to say if America didn't seek to promote global markets and an American style democracy (two parts of globalization), we wouldn't be in Iraq. And I certainly think capitalism fits there as well. And if Bush is responsible, then all of us as Americans are responsible. We elected him and one man is not responsible for the abuses committed by our armed forces (just as one man would not be responsible for their accomplishments).

[Galaril]

re: the op/ed piece -- What an utter & complete pile of steaming horseshit. Just a lot of hot air from someone who clearly has an agenda that the unfortunate incident with a handful of prisoners happens to be useful to further.

Then again, I'd expect nothing less from the NYT.

re: If you're so exhausted, let me suggest that you stay the fuck out of the way of the people who are still willing to do what is necessary to get the job done.

Hey Jon,
Are you serving in the military now?What the hell are you doing to get the job done?What job is that,EXACTLY?Do you really believe that what is going on currently in Iraq is benefitting America or Her Interests?BTW I am active duty military and serving.(Osan AB ,South Korea)

[John Galt]

Those abuses reflect poorly on the people who chose to commit them. If it comes out to be something that is rooted deeper, such as some sort of backwards ass policy, then you can blame the rest of the group. You've been watching too much of that Middle Eastern propoganda.

Those abuses could have happened no matter what the country, leader or association (and have), just based on human nature sometimes. The Islamic fundamentalist funded and sponsored terrorism doesn't happen without them.

That is my point. Those abuses can and do happen EVERYWHERE. That is a reason to fight them, not to say they are inevitable. I have no idea if there was a larger policy that made these abuses possible. I don't think it matters. If we send troops to fight a war for us and they do bad things, WE are responsible.

[John Galt]

Not ignore as in Ignore List but just keep the vitrolic opinions to oneself and not to respond in kind. There was no reason for you to say publically what you did here, knowing that many would take great offense for your weak analogy - just as some should just let your opinions slide on by without comment.

I'm confused as to why anything I've said here was offensive or uncalled for. It is what I believe in my heart. I believe Americans should feel shame at what their troops have done. I don't know how they could ever feel pride in America if they aren't willing to feel shame when horrible wrong are committed in our name. Blaming a couple individuals is just too convenient for me. I'm not willing to abdicate my responsibility in this and I don't think others should do it either. By throwing stones at those criticizing us, I think we miss an important opportunity to look at ourselves.

[Dutch]

Damn, that's a non-sequintur and a half...I *might* agree if it was Bush (Bush sends troops to Iraq, so the troops physically aren't there without him), but to include Capitlaism/Globalization/America...and I thought Dutch put out some mighty non sequinturs in that past. :)

But that's just because I never check my work before I post. :D

[Buccaneer]

I'm confused as to why anything I've said here was offensive or uncalled for. It is what I believe in my heart. I believe Americans should feel shame at what their troops have done. I don't know how they could ever feel pride in America if they aren't willing to feel shame when horrible wrong are committed in our name. Blaming a couple individuals is just too convenient for me. I'm not willing to abdicate my responsibility in this and I don't think others should do it either. By throwing stones at those criticizing us, I think we miss an important opportunity to look at ourselves.
One would only think this is an "important opportunity" if in the context of not believing any good came or would come out being Iraq.

But look at what I said earlier in the thread. This is not more of an important opportunity than many other society's ills. You choose to put in the context of Bush/Capilization/etc and that is way too narrow and obviously politically motivated. But you chose to look at what you want to see and have it support your views, I'll chose to look at the more fundamental root cause and how this is not a singular event in human history.

[sabotai]

Well, I think globalization is the biggest stretch and I thought of leaving it out, but I think it is fair to say if America didn't seek to promote global markets and an American style democracy (two parts of globalization), we wouldn't be in Iraq. And I certainly think capitalism fits there as well.

I don't agree with this at all. If it's in America's nature to promote and push whatever it is this nation beleives in (Globalization/Capitalism), then those things can't be held responsible for what America does. If we still wanted to go around spreading what we beleived, but we were a total Communist state, then would Communism be partly responsible? In other words, because America goes around pushing what it beleives, doesn't make those things responsible for what America does.

And if Bush is responsible, then all of us as Americans are responsible. We elected him and one man is not responsible for the abuses committed by our armed forces (just as one man would not be responsible for their accomplishments).

emphasis mine...I would argue that the men and women in the armed forces who commited the abuses are the only ones responsible in anyway. Just because Bush sent them there doesn't mean he's responsible for their actions. It's a slipperly slope (sort of).

Are the soldier's commanding officer responsible for putting them on the shift that the atrocities accured on? Are his parents? You know if they never had him, he wouldn't have been there to put them on that shift, so they are partly resposible. Well, you can't prove that if someone else was the commanding officer that things would nessicarily be different (anyone in command could of, and probably would have, put them on that shift).

What I'm getting at is that, imo anyway, all responsibility is with those commiting the crime. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. In the end, everyone in our armed forces have a mind of their own. It begins and ends with them. They knew what they were doing was wrong, so it's their fault. Fully their fault.

NOW, if you want to argue that those who hate us, Bush, Globalization and Capitalism are going to use this to just hate more all of things they already hate...I won't disagree. They'll use it (just like they'll use anything. A sheep shits on an ant...Bush is the devil.). But they're wrong for using it. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hey Jon,
Are you serving in the military now?What the hell are you doing to get the job done?What job is that,EXACTLY?Do you really believe that what is going on currently in Iraq is benefitting America or Her Interests?BTW I am active duty military and serving.(currently,Osan AB ,South Korea)
Let's see, I'll try to take these in order ...

1)Nope, not currently serving.

2)Gee, I'll hold my contributions for a second & come back to them after the other items.

3)Ditto this one, because I think answering #4 first makes sense.

4)Yes, without doubt or hesitation. Now, back to ...'

3)With regard to Iraq, the "job" is reducing, and ultimately eliminating a threat to our interests. That job includes a)eliminating a hostile regime; & b)eliminating an element of support, direct or indirect, for other enemies of the U.S.

Now, as promised, back to #2
2) I'm not sure where you're headed with that seemingly hostile choice of words, but I'll play along just for the hell of it -- I'm lending my resources & abilities to minimizing the ability of elements opposed to the best interests of the U.S. to undermine those in charge of more direct action against hostile elements.

In less flowerly words, I believe my most important contribution comes with working to limit the ability of a collection of fools,cowards, and outright traitors to interefere with the efforts of those who are in position to more actively neutralize those who desire our destruction. Those contributions are made with investments of my time, energy, and finances.

re: your current service status -- I appreciate your service, thank you.

[John Galt]

One would only think this is an "important opportunity" if in the context of not believing any good came or would come out being Iraq.

But look at what I said earlier in the thread. This is not more of an important opportunity than many other society's ills. You choose to put in the context of Bush/Capilization/etc and that is way too narrow and obviously politically motivated. But you chose to look at what you want to see and have it support your views, I'll chose to look at the more fundamental root cause and how this is not a singular event in human history.

I still am astounded the way my politics here are portrayed. If it were 8 years ago, I would have gladly said Clinton/Capitalism. 2 years from now, I may say Kerry/Capitalism. I'm not a democrat and I am not a republican (although I have voted for both parties in presidential elections). The one common theme to my politics as displayed on this board is that I hold a very skeptical eye to our government and while I love America, I feel it has an ugly side too. That necessarily aligns me against whatever party is in power more often than not.

In this case, I agree it is a singular sad event and I do not view A/B/C/G as the primary sources of the abuses, but I can't deny that they are causes and that people will rightfully but some of the blame on each of them. I just get upset when people act as though that criticism is wrong or unfounded. America is not perfect and it shouldn't be treated as above the law. Yes there are other ills that should cause reflection (and they do for me). I was just responding to an indignance that I found troubling.

I think patriotism is not loyalty to one's country, but loyalty to a set of ideals that you believe your country stands for. Since each of us have different conceptions of what America stands for, our values often clash. I will never stop criticizing our government precisely because it would be unpatriotic to do so. I just hope people hear understand that.

[John Galt]

I don't agree with this at all. If it's in America's nature to promote and push whatever it is this nation beleives in (Globalization/Capitalism), then those things can't be held responsible for what America does. If we still wanted to go around spreading what we beleived, but we were a total Communist state, then would Communism be partly responsible? In other words, because America goes around pushing what it beleives, doesn't make those things responsible for what America does.



emphasis mine...I would argue that the men and women in the armed forces who commited the abuses are the only ones responsible in anyway. Just because Bush sent them there doesn't mean he's responsible for their actions. It's a slipperly slope (sort of).

Are the soldier's commanding officer responsible for putting them on the shift that the atrocities accured on? Are his parents? You know if they never had him, he wouldn't have been there to put them on that shift, so they are partly resposible. Well, you can't prove that if someone else was the commanding officer that things would nessicarily be different (anyone in command could of, and probably would have, put them on that shift).

What I'm getting at is that, imo anyway, all responsibility is with those commiting the crime. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. In the end, everyone in our armed forces have a mind of their own. It begins and ends with them. They knew what they were doing was wrong, so it's their fault. Fully their fault.

NOW, if you want to argue that those who hate us, Bush, Globalization and Capitalism are going to use this to just hate more all of things they already hate...I won't disagree. They'll use it (just like they'll use anything. A sheep shits on an ant...Bush is the devil.). But they're wrong for using it. :)

I think the fundamental basis of our difference hear is that 1) I believe in collective responsibility (in addition to individual responsibility) and 2) I also understand why other people around the globe believe in collective responsibility. I think this probably stems from your libertarian focus on the individual (something I used to strongly adhere to) whereas I believe the focus on individuals allows evil to persist in collectives. Instances like Nazi Germany and Rwanda provide powerful examples for me that small groups of individuals can be easily blamed, but they miss the bigger picture. You may disagree with me, but I think if you take the notion of collective responsibility seriously, you won't find my comments that bizarre.

[SFL Cat]

When I saw the pics, I initially thought that the Iraqis were guest starring in a new Brittany Spears video.

[sabotai]

Instances like Nazi Germany and Rwanda provide powerful examples for me that small groups of individuals can be easily blamed, but they miss the bigger picture. You may disagree with me, but I think if you take the notion of collective responsibility seriously, you won't find my comments that bizarre.

Well, I'd say I beleive in "collective responsibility" to an extent, I just don't think it applies to what several retarded military personel do to some Iraqi prisoners (as opposed to the rise of the Nazism in Germany). If these acts occured in greater numbers, then I'd start extending the ladder of blame up the chain of command some. If it was a widespread occourance, then obviously something is wrong and is going on the cause this. But since this is, seemingly, just an isolated event, I just leave it with the soldiers that did it.

[John Galt]

Well, I'd say I beleive in "collective responsibility" to an extent, I just don't think it applies to what several retarded military personel do to some Iraqi prisoners (as opposed to the rise of the Nazism in Germany). If these acts occured in greater numbers, then I'd start extending the ladder of blame up the chain of command some. If it was a widespread occourance, then obviously something is wrong and is going on the cause this. But since this is, seemingly, just an isolated event, I just leave it with the soldiers that did it.

I think the phrases "isolated incident" and "a few abberant individuals" are used a little too often by leaders. The incidents may be few (we don't know yet), but it doesn't make them better in my mind. I guess, for me, if there are only a few incidents, I/we am/are LESS responsible, but I don't think I can ever say I/we am/are NOT responsible for actions of soldiers acting in our name. They wouldn't be in Iraq without America sending them and when they do wrong there, I think we are all responsible.

[Dutch]

Then the same could be true that by not sending our troops into to Iraq between 1979 and 2003, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's were killed, tortured, and humiliated. So the collective "WE" are responsable for having reduced killing, torturing, and humiliation of prisoners by well over 99.99999%.

So what are you bitching about then????

[EagleFan]

I think the phrases "isolated incident" and "a few abberant individuals" are used a little too often by leaders. The incidents may be few (we don't know yet), but it doesn't make them better in my mind. I guess, for me, if there are only a few incidents, I/we am/are LESS responsible, but I don't think I can ever say I/we am/are NOT responsible for actions of soldiers acting in our name. They wouldn't be in Iraq without America sending them and when they do wrong there, I think we are all responsible.



Because Isolated incidents are all that have been shown. If it is more, than there is a lot more blame to go around. 'We' are not responsible for the actions of FEW. If this had been going on and people were looking the other way, then yes 'we' as a nation could be held a lot more accountable.

Somehow you compare this to Nazi Germany? Wow, just how can you stretch that far in this one? Nazi Germany were many looking the other way to allow the group to take control. It's not like there was one isolated incident that gave Nazi Germany some underserved bad name.

I guess by your reasoning here, you believe that parents should be punished when their kids commit a crime. Gun makers shuold be sentenced when a crime is committed with a gun (it wuold not have been possible without them). Thomas Edison is to blame when someone accidentally electicutes himself (without his inventions...). Good news to everyone, you are not responsible for your own actions, there is always someone to blame!!!!!

[Flasch186]

Right, again...On my line of thought on all of the admin. at this point. Lies Lies Lies, hide it from the public, hide it from the public, hide it from the public...if/when they find out, pray that everyone is so in our pocket they will already have an explanation in hand. Its nice when the Senate finds this out from the NYT before the Pentagon lets them know. Good luck Donald tomorrow when they ask you why they are the last to know, when it is the military that is CIVILIAN controlled and the Senate represents those Civilians. Im sure it wont matter most DEMS and REPS on here are already set in their ways and Like the guy said in the other thread, "Im ok being lied to if it prevents another attack like 9/11." Welp, I like NOT being lied to but that is quite DEM of me I think after reading threads on here.

[BishopMVP]

Who are "these people?" How is your statement different than theirs?"These people" are, in the US, the ANSWER part of the anti-war movement, the anarchists who attack WTO meetings and to a lesser extent the authors (Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore most prominent) who print the bullshit that inspires these people. Overseas, they include the same groups but are much more widespread, especially in most of the Arab world (outside Iraq, Iran, Israel) Western Europe and among the "elites" of the world.

My statement is different because I account for degree. In our armed forces, this is an isolated instance where the perpetrators are held accountable and punished. In many other countries it is state policy, and occurs frequently from the top down.

As for Globalization, Capitalism and Democracy in general, there is a clear correlation between increased free markets, increased trade and increased representative, accountable governments and the prosperity and quality of life of people. Since most prominent opponents of these, for whatever reason, want to deny the larger picture, they seize upon isolated instances, for example claiming that because a few soldiers in the US Armed Forces abused a few prisoners it excuses genocide (Sudan's representative to the UN yesterday) or systematic abuse in their own countries.

[BishopMVP]

I will never stop criticizing our government precisely because it would be unpatriotic to do so.I think you miss the definition of patriotism. If someone was preventing you from criticizing our government, that would be unpatriotic. But sometimes, it is better to keep your mouth shut. In this most recent example, the military was already investigating and prosecuting. So if you were in possession of the photos, I think we'd be a lot better off if you had made sure the military was addressing it, then if you still felt the story should be widely publicized, told someone in the news media, maybe showed them the photos, but not released them. Unless the military was ignoring the issue (which they weren't), the fact is the propaganda value of the photos to our enemies was/is far greater than the good you would achieve for this country by releasing them.

[Galaril]

Let's see, I'll try to take these in order ...

1)Nope, not currently serving.

2)Gee, I'll hold my contributions for a second & come back to them after the other items.

3)Ditto this one, because I think answering #4 first makes sense.

4)Yes, without doubt or hesitation. Now, back to ...'

3)With regard to Iraq, the "job" is reducing, and ultimately eliminating a threat to our interests. That job includes a)eliminating a hostile regime; & b)eliminating an element of support, direct or indirect, for other enemies of the U.S.


Now, as promised, back to #2
2) I'm not sure where you're headed with that seemingly hostile choice of words, but I'll play along just for the hell of it -- I'm lending my resources & abilities to minimizing the ability of elements opposed to the best interests of the U.S. to undermine those in charge of more direct action against hostile elements.

In less flowerly words, I believe my most important contribution comes with working to limit the ability of a collection of fools,cowards, and outright traitors to interefere with the efforts of those who are in position to more actively neutralize those who desire our destruction. Those contributions are made with investments of my time, energy, and finances.

re: your current service status -- I appreciate your service, thank you.


Well Jon,

Thanks for the response.Also, let me give my apology for the tone of my post nothing personal in it.Later. :cool:

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I think you miss the definition of patriotism. If someone was preventing you from criticizing our government, that would be unpatriotic. But sometimes, it is better to keep your mouth shut. In this most recent example, the military was already investigating and prosecuting. So if you were in possession of the photos, I think we'd be a lot better off if you had made sure the military was addressing it, then if you still felt the story should be widely publicized, told someone in the news media, maybe showed them the photos, but not released them. Unless the military was ignoring the issue (which they weren't), the fact is the propaganda value of the photos to our enemies was/is far greater than the good you would achieve for this country by releasing them.


To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
— Theodore Roosevelt


I think the real scary thing in all this is this...Bush had to find out about the photos by watching the Evening News. I mean, say what you will about Slick Willie, but at least he knew what the hell was going on. Which is a big problem with this Presidency is that it's basically running like a corporation and as a result, all the branch Presidents, not the CEO know about things. Thus, when Bush says he didn't know or had no idea about something, I unfortunaly have to believe he really didn't know and Cheyny and Rumsfield basically patted him on the head and gave him a new speech to read.

- Jesse

[Buccaneer]

Jesse, not too bad of an insight. Slick Willy knew things and therefore knew how to lie and to cover up (because he knew the truth). With Bush, we got plausible deniability. You can't lie or cover up if you don't know the truth. As far as certain members of his Administration.... Personally, I would much rather have a CEO with steadfast beliefs running the Executive Branch instead of a political wonk with no beliefs that can only make decisions based on self-image and polls. Clinton had to run his circus because he had many incompetent amateurs around him. Bush on the hand, has too many VPs that wants to arrogantly run their own kingdom. I suppose it has to be inevitable because you the biggest arrogant kingdom of them all to fight against - Congress.

[JPhillips]

From the Washington Post:

"Some U.S. officials said Rumsfeld was resistant to repeated warnings from Iraq governor L. Paul Bremer -- delivered as early as last fall -- that the United States was detaining too many Iraqis for too long and in poor conditions. Bremer told Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials that if the problem persisted, the political fallout in Iraq would be serious, the officials said."

From The Nelson Report:

according to eye witnesses to debate at the highest levels of the Administration...the highest levels...whenever Powell or Armitage sought to question prisoner treatment issues, they were forced to endure what our source characterizes as "around the table, coarse, vulgar, frat-boy bully remarks about what these tough guys would do if THEY ever got their hands on prisoners...."

From the O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: All right. Well, the damage to the country obviously is just immeasurable. But reading your article in "The New Yorker." I just get the feeling that the Army, when they heard about it, started action almost immediately. It wasn't a cover-up situation. Or did I read your article wrong?

HERSH: This guy Taguba is brilliant. He could have made a living doing -- it's a credit to the Army that somebody with that kind of integrity would write this kind of -- it's 53-page report.

O'REILLY: OK, but Sanchez the commander put him in charge fairly quickly. They mobilized fairly quickly.

HERSH: No, look, I don't want to ruin your evening, but the fact of the matter is it was the third investigation. There had been two other investigations.

One of them was done by a major general who was involved in Guantanamo, General Miller. And it's very classified, but I can tell you that he was recommending exactly doing the kind of things that happened in that prison, basically. He wanted to cut the lines. He wanted to put the military intelligence in control of the prison.

From the Taguba Report:

This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320thMilitary Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF).


This is not a problem of a few renengade soldiers. We've purposefully created a system of beyond-the-law prisons so that there is no oversight on what is being done. I don't believe anyone in Washington ever ordered prisoners to be abused in this fashion, but we have been very careful in categorizing these prisoners so that they have no international protections. There is no doubt that the folks in charge both in the military and in Washington have questions to answer.

[GrantDawg]

I really do believe it is time for Rumsy to step down.

[GrantDawg]

I think patriotism is not loyalty to one's country, but loyalty to a set of ideals that you believe your country stands for. Since each of us have different conceptions of what America stands for, our values often clash. I will never stop criticizing our government precisely because it would be unpatriotic to do so. I just hope people hear understand that.
I would change "loyalty to "blind loyalty" in that opening sentence, but you hit it right on the head. The same people (fellow conservatives, sadly) that try to stifle criticism to the government on things like the war and sweet-heart contracts to friends of the administration are the same people who want the freedom to critize the government on social programs, etc.

Keep on critcizing, John! You may be wrong often, but you have every right to be wrong.

[sachmo71]

Again, we have to scramble to find someone to blame. I just don't see the point in that. The military made a mistake. Fix it and move on. If it happens again, then fire your scapegoat.

"It's Rumsfeld's fault there wasn't enough training."
"It's Rumsfeld's fault there wasn't enough supervision."
"It's Rumsfeld's fault that prisoners are dying."

Great. Can we focus on cleaning up the mess? Then go on your fucking witch hunt.

[clintl]

I, for one, don't believe at all that this was "a few rogue soldiers" acting without authorization. The evidence is clearly pointing toward a systematic and intentional pattern of abuse by military intelligence. How far up the chain of command this will go, I don't know. But I think the six soldiers charged and the seven reprimanded are the tip of the iceberg, and probably were just doing as they were told.

[JPhillips]

Sachmo: It's a lot more than a mistake. This pattern of abuse has done more to hurt our efforts in the Middle East than anything in the past thirty years. Any good will that we built up during the war has been destroyed by what happened at this prison. It is a monumental set back. We can't, as you would like, "fix it and move on" unless we finally decide to conduct an honest assessment of what we are doing and how we need to change our procedures. Court martialing a few soldiers and staying the course will only get us deeper in shit.

I'm not in favor of any witch hunt. Personally I think firing Rumsfeld and laying all the blame at his feet won't fix things either. At this point I don't know what the solution is, although I think I agree with some of the harsh punishments for the soldiers and their supervisors that Tacitus.org suggests. The key is exposing all of the abuses no matter how painful. Secrets won't help us here. After we know what happened we can try to figure out why and then decide what to do. More than anything else, I believe that the American people will make the right decision most of the time as long as they know the full story.

[sabotai]

HERSH: No, look, I don't want to ruin your evening, but the fact of the matter is it was the third investigation. There had been two other investigations.

One of them was done by a major general who was involved in Guantanamo, General Miller. And it's very classified, but I can tell you that he was recommending exactly doing the kind of things that happened in that prison, basically. He wanted to cut the lines. He wanted to put the military intelligence in control of the prison.

Oh that's nice. Tell us something that no one in the media could possibly verify.

[HornedFrog Purple]

And people wondered why I call him McNamara Jr.

I must give credit where credit is due. The Republicans on the committee likewise are really grilling him and asking key questions. One of the first things Rumsfeld tried to do is make this a political issue. Rumsfeld is so caught up in the murk of his own lies and denials he doesn't know which end is up.

[Dutch]

HFP, et al,

I need a list of those lies, so I know what we are talking about. Honestly, I am completely in the dark as to what Donald Rumsfeld has done to gain such an abysmal reputation.

Hyperlinks are the best of course, fact's without hyperlinks are fine, and opinions, I guess, work too, but are less effective if they are backed by a very biased ideology.

[Flasch186]

the moveon.org thing was a good one, but thats the first that pops into mind.

[HornedFrog Purple]

HFP, et al,

I need a list of those lies, so I know what we are talking about. Honestly, I am completely in the dark as to what Donald Rumsfeld has done to gain such an abysmal reputation.

Hyperlinks are the best of course, fact's without hyperlinks are fine, and opinions, I guess, work too, but are less effective if they are backed by a very biased ideology.

Well first thing I'd do is read the complete transcript when it becomes available. It's a hoot.

Second thing I'd do is look into Rumsfeld's past in the middle to late 80's and early 90's. In particular pay attention to companies he owned and various ties to the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations.

Third when I have the time, I'll dig up his and other key cabinet member's version of Pax Americana. Things are going according to plan there.

But I'll take your view on it and decide he is the most honest, informed Secretary of Defense since McNamara himself. If you can say that with a straight face, more power to ya.

As President Bush said, he will keep him and pin medals on his chest when he's done. What a great American.

[BishopMVP]

But I'll take your view on it and decide he is the most honest, informed Secretary of Defense since McNamara himself.If we're going to judge a Secretary of Defense, are honest and informed the first two things that come to mind? Shouldn't successful resolution of military conflicts be the most important thing? I'm not saying he is perfect (not enough soldiers in the initial Iraqi invasion appears to have been the biggest problem), but he's been in charge of two major theatres of operation and both have been pretty much unqualified successes from a military point of view. Now the charge for his resignation is being led by those opposed to the policies, not the manner he carried them out.

[Dutch]

Well first thing I'd do is read the complete transcript when it becomes available. It's a hoot.

Second thing I'd do is look into Rumsfeld's past in the middle to late 80's and early 90's. In particular pay attention to companies he owned and various ties to the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations.

Third when I have the time, I'll dig up his and other key cabinet member's version of Pax Americana. Things are going according to plan there.

But I'll take your view on it and decide he is the most honest, informed Secretary of Defense since McNamara himself. If you can say that with a straight face, more power to ya.

As President Bush said, he will keep him and pin medals on his chest when he's done. What a great American.

So basically, you don't know? :D

[Leonidas]

From the Washington Post:
From the O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: All right. Well, the damage to the country obviously is just immeasurable. But reading your article in "The New Yorker." I just get the feeling that the Army, when they heard about it, started action almost immediately. It wasn't a cover-up situation. Or did I read your article wrong?

HERSH: This guy Taguba is brilliant. He could have made a living doing -- it's a credit to the Army that somebody with that kind of integrity would write this kind of -- it's 53-page report.

O'REILLY: OK, but Sanchez the commander put him in charge fairly quickly. They mobilized fairly quickly.

HERSH: No, look, I don't want to ruin your evening, but the fact of the matter is it was the third investigation. There had been two other investigations.

One of them was done by a major general who was involved in Guantanamo, General Miller. And it's very classified, but I can tell you that he was recommending exactly doing the kind of things that happened in that prison, basically. He wanted to cut the lines. He wanted to put the military intelligence in control of the prison.


Some of you may have read what I said earlier, so I hope I established myself as a fairly straight shooter with some amount of credibility who is thoroughly PO'd by this whole affair. But seeing Seymore Hersh quoted gets my blood boiling. Hersh is a colorful writer with a very nice style. But I know for a fact he also likes to play fast and loose with his facts. During the Afghani operation he wrote a big article smearing spec ops guys all over the place. I know for fact 80% of that article was pulled out of his butt. Now Hersh is suddenly privvy to highly classified reports that he never comes right and says he actually saw? Hersh is a fine writer and a lousy journalist. Please spare us the supermarket crap a guy like him has to offer.

[JPhillips]

Leonidas: You've got a right to your opinion, but in this instance I believe that Hersh probably has the goods. After all he brought the Taguba report to light. He's been right on most everything related to this story.

[Dutch]

For the record....from FoxNews.Com....

2003

• June 30: Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski named commander of all military prisons in Iraq.

• Aug. 31-Sept. 9: A team of counter-terrorism experts investigating prisoner interrogations in Iraq concludes that although the prisons should provide a "safe, secure and humane environment that supports the expeditious collection of intelligence, … it is essential that the guard force be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees."

• October: The 372nd Military Police Company ordered to guard Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

• Oct. 13-Nov. 6: A team of military police and legal and medical experts reviews the prison system in Iraq; it concludes that there are possible manpower, training and human rights problems that should be addressed immediately.

2004

• Jan. 13: A Member of the 800th Military Police Brigade tells superiors about prison abuses, and Pentagon officials are informed. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is told a day or so later. Shortly afterward, Rumsfeld tells Bush.

• Jan. 14: U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, opens criminal investigation of abuses.

• Jan. 16: U.S. Central Command announces that an investigation of prison abuses is underway.

• Jan. 17: Sanchez formally advises Karpinski that there are serious deficiencies in her command and that the performance reflects a lack of leadership. Karpinski is later suspended from duty.

• Jan. 19: Sanchez asks for a high-level review of prison procedures.

• Jan. 24: Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, U.S. ground forces commander in Iraq, is directed to conduct the review.

• Jan. 31: Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba is named chief investigator on the review.

• Feb. 2: Taguba and his team visit Abu Ghraib.

• March 3: Taguba's preliminary findings are presented to McKiernan; they point to members of the 372nd Military Police Company and intelligence operatives as the abusers.

• March 13: The Army's Criminal Investigation Division charges six soldiers with counts ranging from conspiracy to indecent acts.

• April 6: McKiernan approves some report recommendations, including letters of reprimand for six MPs and noncommissioned officers; two are relieved of duties.

• April 28: "60 Minutes II" shows photographs of prisoners forced to engage in simulated sex acts.

• May 3: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) asks Pentagon officials to testify before his committee the next day.

• May 4: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says those responsible will be brought to justice and widens investigations of prisons outside Iraq and Afghanistan. National security advisor Condoleezza Rice tells the Arab world that the abuses will be investigated and the perpetrators punished. Army officials give Senate committee a private briefing.

• May 5: President Bush appears on two Arab television channels, saying those responsible for the abuses will be brought to justice. Rumsfeld agrees to testify before the Senate committee on May 7.

[Buccaneer]

There's the military way of doing things and then there's the political way of doing things. As the American Civil War showed, sometimes they stumble over each other.

[Esquared1]

Excuse me as a frequent lurker and infrequent poster: To put it as succinictly (sp) as possible. . . I firmly believe, we, as Americans, tend to believe our own hype.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I think most folks around here know I am a military man, and I took part in the initial operation that rid Iraq of that piece of scum know as Saddam Hussein. I have also lost friends in this whole operation and have already signed myself, and five other people who work for me up for another tour over there this fall. So I think I speak from a unique perspective from one particular side. Friedman has an excellent reputation as a straight shooter. In fact he has probably been roundly criticized for being too friendly to the current administration. I like his columns and greatly respect his views. I think for the most part this is a good piece.

But the more pictures of what I see in this prison the madder it makes me. I happen to know a thing or two about the interrogation trade and I can tell you the really good ones at it do not need torture. The really good ones can extract information while the subject doesn't even realize it isn't happening. Then there are some subjects that only brute force works. Every situation is different, but by and large torture is counter productive. When you torture people all you get is mimicry of what you want to hear. What I saw in those pictures was frat party hazing bullshit that had nothing to do with legitimate military interrogation and I am embarassed to share the uniform with anyone who thinks this is the way to do business. I am especially embarrassed because we know the world is watching. Do the people over there doing these things think they can do them, photograph it, and really get away with it? God I am so ashamed of this. I pride myself on being a professional and this crap cheapens the whole deal. Regardless, I know everyone I work with is equally appalled and disgusted not just for oursleves, but for the sake of human decency. You don't treat people this way.

Now I do think Friedman is off on a couple points. I am not so certain we are losing in Iraq. He is correct in pointing out the silent majority. It most certainly is there. But that silent majority is not necessarily as silent as the press would have you believe. There is a great deal of progress being made in many areas. There is a bright side, really, there is. In time I think some folks will be pretty amazed at what comes down.

Anyway, I've been storing this crap up for some days and felt the need to relieve myself of it. For those well meaning right wingers trying to explain this away, just let it go. The whole thing is a huge mistake we need to own up to and make good on. No excuse or rationalization can make any of it better. We just need to suck this one up and make damn sure it doesn't happen again.

Funny how this post appears to have been ignored in favor of the usual pissing match... Best post in the thread...

[dawgfan]

If we're going to judge a Secretary of Defense, are honest and informed the first two things that come to mind? Shouldn't successful resolution of military conflicts be the most important thing? I'm not saying he is perfect (not enough soldiers in the initial Iraqi invasion appears to have been the biggest problem), but he's been in charge of two major theatres of operation and both have been pretty much unqualified successes from a military point of view. Now the charge for his resignation is being led by those opposed to the policies, not the manner he carried them out.

Successful resolution of military conflicts at what expense? And which 2 military conflicts are you referring to, and on what terms is success defined?

If we 'win' a military conflict but in the process violate the principles that our country stands for, does that make the 'victory' hollow? Is 'winning' at all costs worthwhile if in so doing we lose our integrity?

[BishopMVP]

Successful resolution of military conflicts at what expense? And which 2 military conflicts are you referring to, and on what terms is success defined?Defeating the Taliban and Saddam's Baathist government. Both of which we did easily with minimal casualties for our soldiers. We haven't been as successful after we toppled the governments, once the diplomats got involved.
If we 'win' a military conflict but in the process violate the principles that our country stands for, does that make the 'victory' hollow? Is 'winning' at all costs worthwhile if in so doing we lose our integrity?Look at every military conflict over our history. We've committed some war crimes in every one. Almost always less than the people we're fighting against, but they're there. Sometimes these things happen, but you can choose to focus on one incident or the bigger picture. The size of the threat in Iraq was/is nowhere near the one posed during WW2, same with the extent of war crimes on the part of American soldiers. In retrospect, I think we did the right thing then, and I think history will show we did the right thing here too, despite a few ugly incidents.

[Buccaneer]

I am thinking of Andersonville and Libby's Prison and yes, Elmira and Fort Castle.

[Dutch]

If we 'win' a military conflict but in the process violate the principles that our country stands for, does that make the 'victory' hollow? Is 'winning' at all costs worthwhile if in so doing we lose our integrity?

I don't think we violated the principles of democracy. Look, there are bad people that are in Iraq humiliating and in some instances murdering Iraqi's and basically violating their rights as human beings.

But what about the tens of thousands of soldiers who have done so much good? We all know they have accomplished a lot. Does the good not overcome the bad at some point?

I mean, the Arabs have been yelling and screaming about how evil the USA is for years based on murder rates and other crime rates. We, as a people, while working hard all the time trying to lessen the effects of crime, have never said that the crimes done by the criminals in any way shape or form is a reflection of the greater principles of the USA. Never.

And so why now do we suggest that a few criminals in Iraq are spearheading the philosophical motives of all of our soldiers?

You can blame it on perception if you will, but that's the enemies job. Our job, as Americans, is to understand the truth and reality of the situation and not play partisan politics at every single last moment.

[Buccaneer]

Focusing on the few bad against the many good in all aspects of our lives is expected. The newspapers and news reports have trained us well. I have wondered why it is so important to build negative perceptions, of people and places, instead of balancing the negatives with the positives?

[sabotai]

Bucc...I'll give you a clue: $$$$

[Super Ugly]

"Funny how this post appears to have been ignored in favor of the usual pissing match... Best post in the thread..."

I think it's best that I don't post in these types of threads often, because I don't want to offend too many people. But yes, I too think that this was a great post. Regardless of your political stance you need to get this thing in perspective and see it for what it is.

[Super Ugly]

What a fucking dumb arse thing I said.

I'm drunk. I apologise ...

[Super Ugly]

Ah, forget it ...

[Dutch]

Bucc...I'll give you a clue: $$$$

So we are protecting the press in the U.S. Constitution so they can make a quick dollar at OUR expense. These people should be reporting the news.

[Glengoyne]

I, for one, don't believe at all that this was "a few rogue soldiers" acting without authorization. The evidence is clearly pointing toward a systematic and intentional pattern of abuse by military intelligence. How far up the chain of command this will go, I don't know. But I think the six soldiers charged and the seven reprimanded are the tip of the iceberg, and probably were just doing as they were told.
I think it is somewhere inbetween. Certainly more than a few rogue soldiers and well short of systemic. I do believe that the Intelligence community wanted the prisoners to be as uncomfortable as possible. I do understand that prison guard duty in a situation like Iraq where you don't understand the language of your charges can lead to dehumanizing the prisoners in one's mind. I don't understand that the millitary didn't make the proper and respectful treatment of prisoners a top priority. I don't understand that when the pentagon was made aware of the problem, they didn't run this up the flag pole to the top brass. I know they did reprimand some folks, and some people's careers have ended, but really instead of sitting on the time bomb for 3 months they should have broken the story themselves. To have the president find out on sixty minutes is pretty ridiculous. It is the lassie faire attitude this was dealt with by upper brass that makes me feel like Rumsfield should go. It isn't like he has a spotless record to this point anyway.

[BishopMVP]

These people should be reporting the news.No, it is that the perception of the press as fair and unbiased needs to end. I think most posters here realize that the press is there to make money, not report news, but I also think FOFC is more informed than the general public. "Yellow journalism" was much more prevalent and commonplace the fisrt 150 years of the US, but for some reason most people perceive the press as fair and unbiased now.

[sabotai]

So we are protecting the press in the U.S. Constitution so they can make a quick dollar at OUR expense. These people should be reporting the news.

Don't blame the press for it. They just give us what we want, negative news. Positive news does not sell. It's simple. Don't blame them because the majority of the people want to read about bad shit that happens.

[Dutch]

Don't blame the press for it. They just give us what we want, negative news. Positive news does not sell. It's simple. Don't blame them because the majority of the people want to read about bad shit that happens.

Hmmm, it doesn't sell? Based on what fact? The only news that can be remotely considered positive is FoxNews and they have managed to grab half the market share for news broadcasting in a little less than what? a few years?

I think what is really happening is people are sick of journalists trashing our country for a buck.

[sabotai]

The only news that can be remotely considered positive is FoxNews

:rolleyes:

Let's see how "positive" they become if Kerry wins. I remember how "positive" they were when Clinton was in office.

[Dutch]

But they have surged in popularity and that coincides with positive spun news. So who says news has to be negative?

[sabotai]

But they have surged in popularity and that coincides with positive spun news. So who says news has to be negative?

Of course you would see it that way. The reason, I think, they have gotten popular is because they are right-wing, and they're pretty much the only right-wing news outlet on television. All of the left-wingers have several options.

And I definately do not see Fox News as "positive". News spun conservatively is not the same as news spun positively. Of course it would be the same to you...as it would all conservatives. All I see is CNN in reverse.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So who says news has to be negative?
With the exception of those of us who view (in large numbers as you know) FNC as a bit of an antidote to the daily doses of crap that were administered elsewhere for years ... pretty much everybody says the more negative, the better.

"If it bleeds, it leads" did not become the catchphrase of the news industry just because it rhymed. It did so because, for at least the past 20 years (and longer IIRC) every form of news pulls higher usage for bad news.

That goes from the record numbers who watched on TV news on 9/11 down to the once-a-week newspaper in a town of 3,000 people that knows (from decades of keeping track of this very thing) that having a picture of a car crash on the cover means 10% or more sales that week than having a picture of kids-with-kittens.

I'm not sure if I can explain why the media consumer reacts that way ... but I've seen absolutely nothing to make me doubt that particular bit of c.w. (and quite a few things that make me believe it as about a solid a fact as exists).

[Buccaneer]

I read a summary of the army's report and concluded it was not a matter of a few bad apples. It was clearly a case of a unit being assigned a mission it could not handle and then isloated, all the while suffering from incredibly bad morale. History does repeat itself because the same exact thing happened in the Rev. War, Civil War, WW2 and of course, Vietnam. You would think we would have learned by now.

[dawgfan]

Defeating the Taliban and Saddam's Baathist government. Both of which we did easily with minimal casualties for our soldiers. We haven't been as successful after we toppled the governments, once the diplomats got involved.

From a purely military perspective, yes we've been largely succesful in removing these regimes. However, we clearly have not had successful exit strategies implemented in either case. We've only done part of the job; I don't blame this on the Army necessarily, but those who drafted the plans to invade these countries and gave the go-aheads for the invasions (i.e. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush) were also responsible for figuring out how to resolve the situations once the initial task of removing the regimes had been accomplished. We have an incomplete grade in both situations.

Look at every military conflict over our history. We've committed some war crimes in every one. Almost always less than the people we're fighting against, but they're there. Sometimes these things happen, but you can choose to focus on one incident or the bigger picture. The size of the threat in Iraq was/is nowhere near the one posed during WW2, same with the extent of war crimes on the part of American soldiers. In retrospect, I think we did the right thing then, and I think history will show we did the right thing here too, despite a few ugly incidents.

We should never find it acceptable when human rights abuses like this happen under our authority. Our country has operated for many years with an assumption that we hold a moral superiority and a right to criticize human rights abuses by other leaders and countries. A part of the reasoning given for the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam from power was the concept that we were liberating the Iraqi people from an oppressive and brutal regime. Whether or not these prison camp abuses were really isolated instances perpetrated by just a few bad apples, or whether it was more systemic and at least partly due to a real breakdown in established procedure as recent news reports seem to show, what matters to the Iraqi people and the Arab world at large is that the United States suffers a severe blow to any claims of moral superiority.

[dawgfan]

I read a summary of the army's report and concluded it was not a matter of a few bad apples. It was clearly a case of a unit being assigned a mission it could not handle and then isloated, all the while suffering from incredibly bad morale. History does repeat itself because the same exact thing happened in the Rev. War, Civil War, WW2 and of course, Vietnam. You would think we would have learned by now.

The reports that have come out this weekend indeed paint a very grim picture of this situation. Units were severely understaffed and failed to conform to Army standards in terms of the ratio of prisoners to jailers; MP's were improperly used in the interrogation efforts with little or no training and basically asked to rough-up the detainees; conditions in the prisons were frequently awful and contributed to plummeting morale among the units stationed there; Red Cross inspectors were intentionally deceived so as to avoid being 'found out' for violating human-rights agreements; warnings were ignored for a long period of time about the problems occurring in these prison camps, etc.

It has also become clear that the administration handled this situation about as poorly as possible from a public-relations standpoint, which exacerbated the fallout from the prison abuses.