Suck it down, Abu-Ghraib apologist bitches; it was TORTURE

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2005-02-19 08:21am

Gustav32Vasa wrote: This leads me to ask, who is worse then the Nazi?

Pol pot and the red Khmer ?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-02-19 09:21am

Gustav32Vasa wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:That's what I've always surmised from the fact that the first defense is always to compare whatever they've done recently to what the Nazis did, and say "we're not like that". It implies that until they do get as bad as that, we'll keep hearing this excuse.
This leads me to ask, who is worse then the Nazi?

Pretty much any Maoist state

In response to Mikle though...

That is why I compared them directly with the nazis.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-02-19 11:03am

Gustav32Vasa wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:That's what I've always surmised from the fact that the first defense is always to compare whatever they've done recently to what the Nazis did, and say "we're not like that". It implies that until they do get as bad as that, we'll keep hearing this excuse.
This leads me to ask, who is worse then the Nazi?

Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot had much higher kill counts

and with pol pot we also had canabalism.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-02-19 11:07am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:
Gustav32Vasa wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:That's what I've always surmised from the fact that the first defense is always to compare whatever they've done recently to what the Nazis did, and say "we're not like that". It implies that until they do get as bad as that, we'll keep hearing this excuse.
This leads me to ask, who is worse then the Nazi?
Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot had much higher kill counts

and with pol pot we also had canabalism.

And we can guarantee there is no* canabalism in the Republican Party.

*By none, of course, I mean there is some amount.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-02-19 11:42am

SirNitram wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:
Gustav32Vasa wrote: This leads me to ask, who is worse then the Nazi?
Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot had much higher kill counts

and with pol pot we also had canabalism.
And we can guarantee there is no* canabalism in the Republican Party.

*By none, of course, I mean there is some amount.

isn't this the point where Zombie Chaney shouting "More Brains"

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-02-19 12:11pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote: Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot had much higher kill counts

and with pol pot we also had canabalism.
And we can guarantee there is no* canabalism in the Republican Party.

*By none, of course, I mean there is some amount.

isn't this the point where Zombie Chaney shouting "More Brains"

Nooooo, that's strom thurmond

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2005-02-19 02:38pm

Beowulf wrote:I fucking would be opposed. If he's wasn't convicted, then you just gave a man cleared of the charges against him what amounts to a felony conviction. Because that's what a DD is. In fact, it's worse, because the only job opportunity he has is working a McDonalds. It's punishing an innocent man, and you are a fucking idiot to not try to think that through.

I would only bring charges after formal inquries brought conclusive evidence that soldiers had been involved in prisoner abuse. I would not advocate that soldiers be charged before inquries established some form of culpability.

During the inquiry process, the investigators in charge could choose to drop the matter and thus exonerate any implicated inidividuals, but if the inquiry results in a determination that soldiers were involved in prisoner abuse and should be tried, then those soldiers deserve to get fucking blasted.

Basically, my proposal would flow like this:

1.) Prisoners, soldiers or investigating case officers place formal request for inquiry with a commission on the Prevention of Prisoner Abuse.

2.) The commission reviews the applicant's claims and determines if their claims warrent the establishment of a formal inquiry.

3.) If the commission authorizes a formal inquiry, military legal officials begin their investigation. They should have a wide ranging ability to compell testimony, issue subpoenas, and otherwise ensure a comprehensive investigation.

4.) The officals in charge of the inquiry submit their findings to the parent commission for Preventing Prisoner Abuse, including a reccomendation to issue charges or not. If the inquiry does not recommend charges, then the case is considered closed. If the inquiry does recommend charges, the matter is referred to the parent commission for final determination.

5.) The Commission on the Prevention of Prisoner Abuse decides if charges are neccessary and punishment is warrented. If the commission decides that charges are neccessary, they are basically reaching a guilty verdict based on the work of the inquiry. The Commission does have the option to overrule the recommendation of the inquiries and dismiss the matter entirely.

Basically, my theory is that if an inquiry has decided that there is enough evidence to warrent charges and an indpependent commission reviews their findings and agrees, then the soldiers implicated are probably guilty and deserve to have their asses put in the fire. I'm not advocating that we do away with a legalistic, fair approach to these cases. I'm just stating that the penalties for Prisoner Abuse should be aggressively discouraged and that penalties for prisoner abuse should be harsh.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2005-02-19 02:43pm

Actually, that last sentence I wrote was butchered....I meant to say that penalties for prisoner abuse should be very harsh, and that abuse should be strongly discouraged in every form by the military.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-02-19 08:08pm

Is anyone else noticing a distinct lack of right-wing nay-sayers in this thread?

Picky picky picky people that they are, they must be trying to dodge the point again - not that I'm saying that they can suck it all down or anything, but they can...

Post by **Gandalf** » 2005-02-20 12:55am

If this 14th century shit seems to be acceptable there, what are the odds other prisoners are subject to this?

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-02-20 02:20am

weemadando wrote:Is anyone else noticing a distinct lack of right-wing nay-sayers in this thread?

Picky picky picky people that they are, they must be trying to dodge the point again - not that I'm saying that they can suck it all down or anything, but they can...

They're hiding out in SB. Strange to say, even Lt Ryguy is making similar statements............

Post by **Edi** » 2005-02-20 04:11am

Beowulf wrote:Let's force an investigation any time one of our soldiers shoots someone, because otherwise they might end up in The Hague facing war crimes trials. The ICC could claim that since we didn't investigate, we're covering up, and a soldier ends up in jail for shooting at someone shooting at him.

Nice strawman of my argument. I've never advocated frivolous charging with war crimes for normal conduct during war (e.g. shooting an enemy during battle), but you seem to find the idea of even investigating the possibility that US forces could commit atrocities repulsive.

But when you have a track record of coverups, refusal to investigate and refusal to punish for offenses like the US military does, do not expect anything more than contempt for your system from others.

Edi

UCBooties · Post by **UCBooties** » 2005-02-20 04:24am

weemadando wrote:Is anyone else noticing a distinct lack of right-wing nay-sayers in this thread?

Picky picky picky people that they are, they must be trying to dodge the point again - not that I'm saying that they can suck it all down or anything, but they can...

Ahem. Here I am, your obligatory right winger to say... you are absolutely right. This is in no way acceptable and there must be an accounting. Just because America is one of the most powerful nations in the World doesn't mean we shouldn't be held accountable when we fail to respect human rights. Interogation is one thing, perhaps even death could be acceptable if the stakes were high enough (and they clearly were not) but under no circumstances should this kind of abuse be justified or tolerated. This has been your obligatory right winger.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-02-20 06:16am

What I don't understand is what the hell the people involved was thinking? And why didn't the proper authority make sure that the prison had properly trained personnel?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-20 10:03am

Mange the Swede wrote:What I don't understand is what the hell the people involved was thinking? And why didn't the proper authority make sure that the prison had properly trained personnel?

The proper authority authorized the use of "stress positions" in the first place.

Post by **Coyote** » 2005-02-20 10:40am

There's no defense for this. It validates the hate the enemy has and gives them something to point to. We have to try harder than the terrorists, do more, be better.

I said when the Abu Ghraib thing first broke-- "This is gonna make our job a whole lot harder".

It is one thing to say "well, it's not as bad as _________ evil group", but that's not the point. We shouldn't be judging ourselves by how far on the evil-o-meter we are. That we're on the evil-o-meter at all is evidence of failure.

That said, I must also express dismay about those who feel "vindicated" by this.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-02-20 10:40am

Darth Wong wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:What I don't understand is what the hell the people involved was thinking? And why didn't the proper authority make sure that the prison had properly trained personnel?
The proper authority authorized the use of "stress positions" in the first place.

Ah, but they need properly trained torturers that know when to cut someone down so they can fix them up and start again. Clearly the proper autority is lax in its training and recruiting practices!

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-02-20 11:42am

We shouldn't need torchers at all since we signed a treaty decades ago that said we wouldn't DO that to anyone.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-02-20 11:52am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:We shouldn't need torchers at all since we signed a treaty decades ago that said we wouldn't DO that to anyone.

"Ink on a page!"

Disgusting. Purely disgusting. Roughing somebody up on the field to get immediate results? I can live with it, especially if it saves lives. But in a controlled enviroment such as a prison? This speaks of pure sadism. And what was gained? Was any information gleaned out of these people? Or did they say what their torturors wanted to hear?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-02-20 12:16pm

That's just it though. I don't believe any intelligence was acquired from these sessions of torture. They weren't even torture techniques used to get the target to release information, they were just random tactless attacks on helpless people. Like many have said, it is akin to the typical college hazing ceremony which has no practical purpose at all.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-02-20 01:10pm

Christ.

But I thought I heard that "We did it coz we was ordered to by dem intel officers, who wanted the prisoners tah be softened up." Was that excuse found to be bullshit? Forgive me, this isn't a topic I've followed all that much (too fucking depressing).

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-02-20 01:14pm

If there was intelligence gathered of any real use, then it's been kept secret, obviously. But I'd have to wonder how such practices worked at all and were even condoned. The services will go to great lengths to squeeze anything out of suspects who likely have key knowledge, but the acts we're discussing here reek of childish games and mockery more than anything.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-02-20 01:51pm

Coyote wrote:There's no defense for this. It validates the hate the enemy has and gives them something to point to. We have to try harder than the terrorists, do more, be better.

I said when the Abu Ghraib thing first broke-- "This is gonna make our job a whole lot harder".

It is one thing to say "well, it's not as bad as _________ evil group", but that's not the point. We shouldn't be judging ourselves by how far on the evil-o-meter we are. That we're on the evil-o-meter at all is evidence of failure.

That said, I must also express dismay about those who feel "vindicated" by this.

Thank you, I don't think I've ever heard my feelings on the matter summed up better.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-02-20 04:45pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:What I don't understand is what the hell the people involved was thinking? And why didn't the proper authority make sure that the prison had properly trained personnel?
The proper authority authorized the use of "stress positions" in the first place.

Technically, stress positions are meant to create physical discomfort, so that in theory, the prisoner is not as mentally capable of resisting interrogration. This ranges from sleeping in an cold environment or being placed in perpetual darkness or worse. I guess we now seen worse.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-02-20 05:07pm

The best ones include using special sonic frequencies that are the ear is most sensitive to. Keep a guy in a bare room with little food and water and have that stuff going on for a few hours and they pretty much break eventually. The idea is to go far enough to get them to leak snippets of information that are useful, but not so far that they blather on about anything just to satisfy you and get the punishment stopped.