Well, at least we didn't boil him!

[Mephisto]

In US Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths
By Tim Golden
The New York Times

Friday 20 May 2005

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052005Y.shtml
_________

I can already hear the taunts of, "you can't believe the NY Times," or, "that's a liberal website," but the idea that these things likely occur (they do in every war) should worry us.

Our government uses big words like Democracy, Liberation, Freedom and Human Rights rather loosely. Our actions "under the table" and in aligning ourselves with countries like Uzebekistan certainly don't go unnoticed among even peaceful Muslims throughout the world.

The actions of our military (and our government) are inexcusable. When will we learn that we can't kill everyone we incarcerate, and those we torture and later release will influence budding insurgents. When are we (the people of the United States) going to quit waving the flag long enough to punish those responsible (and I don't simply mean the Lyndie Englands)?

Is it illogical of me to conclude that the torture victim of today may be the insurgent of tomorrow?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Is it illogical of me to conclude that the torture victim of today may be the insurgent of tomorrow?

On that last note, actually, yes, it is illogical. The terrorists of today are NOT the torture victims of yesterday - they tend to be middle class, relatively well off and educated, not the poor and oppressed. Why then would you think that the victims of today's torture would be the terrorists of tomorrow? Because that's what you would do?

I do not bring this up as a way of excusing torture, and the concern that this gives propaganda opportunities to our enemies is real - but the particular threat you bring up is not the problem.

[crimresearch]

I don't know if that is a liberal website or not.

I do know that the NY Times has gone to a great deal of effort to earn their current reputaton regarding honesty in reporting.

It *is* illogical to cast issues of hatred and geopolitics in a simplistic tit-for-tat scenario.
I haven't heard anything about the Swiss government's having a policy of widespread torturing of anyone, and yet they have 'insurgents'.


I did look in my local paper to see when the next 'Support Torturing People to Death' rally was being held, but I couldn't find one.

[Mycroft]

Certainly what happened to these two prisoners is terrible and inexcusable, however the disconnect in your reasoning is in somehow extrapolating that to mean the entire war in Afghanistan was wrong. One can support the war as a whole, and still disagree with specific events that happened in the war.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
On that last note, actually, yes, it is illogical. The terrorists of today are NOT the torture victims of yesterday - they tend to be middle class, relatively well off and educated, not the poor and oppressed. Why then would you think that the victims of today's torture would be the terrorists of tomorrow?

Why then aren't we torturing the relatively well-off, educated, middle class instead of the poor?

If you'll notice my original post, I said that ex-torture victims INFLUENCE potential terrorists. So, as it turns out we actually agree (does that make you uncomfortable?). I believe the propaganda opportunity is probably the greatest impact torture victims offer the insurgents. Because our actions against prisoners aren't discouraged, there are undoubtedly a bevy of such cases that inevitably reach the ears of those who seek to recruit people to fight us, or seek to prove that we are more an occupying army than a libertating one.

Many Muslim famlies are quite large (I think Osama was the 23rd of ?? children), and if you stop to consider that every single Muslim prisoner that we've tortured and returned to his family has no doubt told of his mistreatment, and his story has exponentially gotten exaggerated through all his cousins, aunts, co-workers, friends and acquaintences, then you see why there seems to be no end of people who are willing to take up arms against us.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Certainly what happened to these two prisoners is terrible and inexcusable, however the disconnect in your reasoning is in somehow extrapolating that to mean the entire war in Afghanistan was wrong. One can support the war as a whole, and still disagree with specific events that happened in the war.

I said that I believe the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary, and that I support it. I certainly disagree with certain specific events that happen during the war, because they are detrimental to our mission there.

I apologize for not making myself more clear. I was suggesting that perhaps the U.S. should be pursuing allegations of prisoner torture a little more vigorously. This has become an expanding issue, and you can bet the Muslim world is taking notice.

A little empathy always works wonders for me. It's relatively easy for me to put myself in other's situation, and I only wish that those engaged in these practices could see that for every tidbit of information gleaned from a torture victim, there is created a bit of passionate anger that will be leveled at our troops in the form of a bullet or a bomb.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I don't know if that is a liberal website or not.

I do know that the NY Times has gone to a great deal of effort to earn their current reputaton regarding honesty in reporting.

Thanks for that, at least.



Originally posted by crimresearch
It *is* illogical to cast issues of hatred and geopolitics in a simplistic tit-for-tat scenario.
I haven't heard anything about the Swiss government's having a policy of widespread torturing of anyone, and yet they have 'insurgents'.

I'm sure every country has insurgents of some type, but not every country has insurgents planting bombs in roadkill on busy streets.


Originally posted by crimresearch
I did look in my local paper to see when the next 'Support Torturing People to Death' rally was being held, but I couldn't find one.

Rallies make as much sense to me as wearing (or buying a magnetic) yellow ribbons to bring the troops home. However, when dealing with a government that censors the battlefield, lies about the reasons for military action, and involves us in a war completely unrelated to a devastating terrorists attack, I feel that a complacent inaction is the same as endorsement.

Our military interrogaters have apparently forgotten a simple rule of physics - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The same is true of prisoner torture.

Mephisto

[Eleatic Stranger]

Originally posted by Mephisto

Is it illogical of me to conclude that the torture victim of today may be the insurgent of tomorrow?

Well, despite the oddity of the above answer it's right. It is illogical of you to conclude that.

We're torturing them to death, man.

Now, their relatives, friends, and pretty much anyone in that part of the world? There's some potential.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is interesting that this issue is being debated as a matter of whether or not torturing people is a useful long-term strategy.

Not so long ago torturing people would have been seen as morally wrong in and of itself.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Many Muslim famlies are quite large (I think Osama was the 23rd of ?? children), and if you stop to consider that every single Muslim prisoner that we've tortured and returned to his family has no doubt told of his mistreatment, and his story has exponentially gotten exaggerated through all his cousins, aunts, co-workers, friends and acquaintences, then you see why there seems to be no end of people who are willing to take up arms against us.

I think you're making judgments from preconceptions and prejudices rather than facts. I think your depictio of Muslims is primitive and offensive.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I think you're making judgments from preconceptions and prejudices rather than facts. I think your depictio of Muslims is primitive and offensive.
I may or may not agree with his depiction of Muslims, but I did not see it as "primitive and offensive." Could you expand on how those two adjectives apply? Thanks.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by SezMe
I may or may not agree with his depiction of Muslims, but I did not see it as "primitive and offensive." Could you expand on how those two adjectives apply? Thanks.


Certainly.

The vast majority of Muslims are not revenge crazed fanatics as Mephisto would portray them. This image that an offense to one will bring dozens of his brothers, cousins, uncles and nephews to rise up and become G.I. killing Jihadis is just, well, how the white man sees the ignorant savage. Only they’re not that ignorant nor that savage.

The fanatics and militants among them are real enough and dangerous enough, but the majority are like you and I, who don’t go into a murderous rage at any provocation. He’s making the mistake of judging the rank and file by the crazies that get the media attention.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Certainly.

The vast majority of Muslims are not revenge crazed fanatics as Mephisto would portray them. This image that an offense to one will bring dozens of his brothers, cousins, uncles and nephews to rise up and become G.I. killing Jihadis is just, well, how the white man sees the ignorant savage. Only they’re not that ignorant nor that savage.

The fanatics and militants among them are real enough and dangerous enough, but the majority are like you and I, who don’t go into a murderous rage at any provocation. He’s making the mistake of judging the rank and file by the crazies that get the media attention.

I never meant to suggest that every single friend or relative of torture victims would come after our troops as crazed fanatics. I was saying that the stories torture victims would return home with would be exaggerated exponentially until it reached the ears (AND INFLUENCED) budding terrorists.

For the record, I am NOT a white man, and my ancestors were once suppressed as savages. Perhaps you are making the mistake of thinking that I share the white man's disdain for indigenous cultures.

Now, let me reiterate so as to be clear and NOT have my words twisted.

1. I believe that the war in Afghanistan was warranted.

2. I believe that our military torturing prisoners is ethically wrong, against the Geneva convention (I didn't write that, so please don't hold me responsible), and seriously detrimental to our mission in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

3. I believe that prisoners that have been tortured by our military (or CIA) will tell their families and friends about the ordeal. The families and friends will exaggerate the story somewhat with each telling.

4. I believe that the exaggerated stories of torture inevitably reach fanatics that will use them as propaganda against us, and in the recruitment of new insurgents.

5. I believe that many Iraqis, Afghans and people in neighboring countries who may just be waiting for an excuse to join an insurgency group, may just find that excuse in the various stories of American torture victims.

6. I believe that if the U.S. doesn't do something to seriously curtail these types of scandal (i.e. prosecuting those at the highest rungs of command), our troops in the middle east will suffer the consequences.

Now, if you disagree with any of the above points, please tell me. I'm all ears.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
We're torturing them to death, man.

Now, their relatives, friends, and pretty much anyone in that part of the world? There's some potential.

That's exactly my point. The news of a family member dying while in custody of American forces will certainly be passed through that family, and perhaps may eventually reach the ears of someone waiting for an excuse to strap on a sachel charge. For every single death in custody, for every single scarred prisoner returning home and for every story of torture and abuse there is a family or a circle of friends that will know of our involvement.

Mephisto

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
It is interesting that this issue is being debated as a matter of whether or not torturing people is a useful long-term strategy.

Not so long ago torturing people would have been seen as morally wrong in and of itself.

I agree. It also seems to me that some who might see it as a useful long-term strategy have also forgotten that not so long ago a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country would have been seen as morally wrong.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I
I haven't heard anything about the Swiss government's having a policy of widespread torturing of anyone, and yet they have 'insurgents'.
They have? Can you find a link for that?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The vast majority of Muslims are not revenge crazed fanatics as Mephisto would portray them. This image that an offense to one will bring dozens of his brothers, cousins, uncles and nephews to rise up and become G.I. killing Jihadis is just, well, how the white man sees the ignorant savage. Only they’re not that ignorant nor that savage.

The fanatics and militants among them are real enough and dangerous enough, but the majority are like you and I, who don’t go into a murderous rage at any provocation. He’s making the mistake of judging the rank and file by the crazies that get the media attention.
Thanks, Mycroft. I agree that the "vast majority of Muslims are not revenge crazed fanatics" while I don't think that Mephisto portrayed them as such.

Let me try to sharpen the focus here by making a very personal statement. You say that Muslims generally will not "go into a murderous rage at any provocation." (my emphasis) No doubt, but I would not characterize torture as "any" provocation. Long before this thread I have wondered how I would react to the torture of my brother, aunt, parent, etc. I suppose this is a reflection on me, but I must confess, "not well." In fact, I might well go over to the dark side. Then I think of my kids being tortured and I know my heart would become black and revenge would fill my days.

Am I one of the "rank and file" or am I one of the "crazies?"

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mephisto
I never meant to suggest that every single friend or relative of torture victims would come after our troops as crazed fanatics. I was saying that the stories torture victims would return home with would be exaggerated exponentially until it reached the ears (AND INFLUENCED) budding terrorists.

Which incidentally implies Muslims are more prone to exaggeration and less capable of skepticism than non-Muslims.

Budding terrorists are influenced by terrorists. Think of how fundamentalist Christians are produced, it’s not by world events, it’s by being influenced by other fundamentalist Christians. Islam is no different.

Originally posted by Mephisto
For the record, I am NOT a white man, and my ancestors were once suppressed as savages. Perhaps you are making the mistake of thinking that I share the white man's disdain for indigenous cultures.

I think anyone can make the mistake of judging another people based on stereotypes and misconceptions, and this is just as true of Native Americans as it is of Americans of European descent. The claim, "I’m not prejudiced because I’m not white" is somewhat hollow.

Originally posted by Mephisto
5. I believe that many Iraqis, Afghans and people in neighboring countries who may just be waiting for an excuse to join an insurgency group, may just find that excuse in the various stories of American torture victims.

And that’s really the issue. If they’re looking for an excuse, any will do. Any incident that happens while someone is detained will become "torture" and be used to excuse whatever type of fanaticism needs excusing at the moment.

Originally posted by Mephisto
Now, if you disagree with any of the above points, please tell me. I'm all ears.

Absolutely. In addition to what I’ve cited, I have a problem with number 6.

Originally posted by Mephisto
6. I believe that if the U.S. doesn't do something to seriously curtail these types of scandal (i.e. prosecuting those at the highest rungs of command), our troops in the middle east will suffer the consequences.

We should investigate and prosecute with the goal of learning the truth and punishing the guilty. Politics should not be a part of it. Those at the highest rungs of command should only be prosecuted if evidence is found of guilt, they should not be targeted merely to create scapegoats to placate those who are our enemies anyway.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by SezMe
Thanks, Mycroft. I agree that the "vast majority of Muslims are not revenge crazed fanatics" while I don't think that Mephisto portrayed them as such.

Let me try to sharpen the focus here by making a very personal statement. You say that Muslims generally will not "go into a murderous rage at any provocation." (my emphasis) No doubt, but I would not characterize torture as "any" provocation. Long before this thread I have wondered how I would react to the torture of my brother, aunt, parent, etc. I suppose this is a reflection on me, but I must confess, "not well." In fact, I might well go over to the dark side. Then I think of my kids being tortured and I know my heart would become black and revenge would fill my days.

Am I one of the "rank and file" or am I one of the "crazies?"

As I said in an earlier post, a little empathy goes a LONG way. It doesn't take much to realize how one would PERSONALLY feel if thrust into the situation of being a friend or relative of a tortured prisoner, and it takes even less to realize that the anger and frustration might be just enough to send someone over to "the dark side."

I would like to repeat my assertion that, unless the U.S. does something very drastic to punish those responsible for the maltreatment (from the commanders down to the grunts), our allegations that we are spreading freedom and Democracy are laughable.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by SezMe
Thanks, Mycroft. I agree that the "vast majority of Muslims are not revenge crazed fanatics" while I don't think that Mephisto portrayed them as such.

We have a difference of opinion, I can respect that.

Originally posted by SezMe
Let me try to sharpen the focus here by making a very personal statement. You say that Muslims generally will not "go into a murderous rage at any provocation." (my emphasis) No doubt, but I would not characterize torture as "any" provocation.

Agreed, torture is not "any" provocation, and some of my recent thoughts may have been inspired more by the recent Qu’ran desecration issue rather than by older torture issues. At the same time, let’s also acknowledge that the significance of many of these torture allegations are hotly disputed.

Originally posted by SezMe
Long before this thread I have wondered how I would react to the torture of my brother, aunt, parent, etc. I suppose this is a reflection on me, but I must confess, "not well." In fact, I might well go over to the dark side. Then I think of my kids being tortured and I know my heart would become black and revenge would fill my days.

I think it’s easy to fantasize about events that in all likelihood will never happen. I think in these fantasies, it’s easy to make issues black and white that are much more complex in real life.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
On that last note, actually, yes, it is illogical. The terrorists of today are NOT the torture victims of yesterday - they tend to be middle class, relatively well off and educated, not the poor and oppressed. Why then would you think that the victims of today's torture would be the terrorists of tomorrow? Because that's what you would do?

I do not bring this up as a way of excusing torture, and the concern that this gives propaganda opportunities to our enemies is real - but the particular threat you bring up is not the problem.

Logic, true or false. Your first assertion is 'they tend to be'.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Which incidentally implies Muslims are more prone to exaggeration and less capable of skepticism than non-Muslims.

No it doesn't. Embellishing a story is human nature and when someone has seen the scars (or knows a friend whose cousin saw the scars), or has heard the story firsthand, anger and NOT skepticism is the emotion at the forefront.



Originally posted by Mycroft
Budding terrorists are influenced by terrorists. Think of how fundamentalist Christians are produced, it’s not by world events, it’s by being influenced by other fundamentalist Christians. Islam is no different.

That's not necessarily true until we start incarcerating and torturing Christian fundies. It's useless to compare the two otherwise. Besides, you yourself agreed that the propaganda opportunities offered by torture victims could easily incite those prone to violence.



Originally posted by Mycroft
I think anyone can make the mistake of judging another people based on stereotypes and misconceptions, and this is just as true of Native Americans as it is of Americans of European descent. The claim, "I’m not prejudiced because I’m not white" is somewhat hollow.

But it was YOU who made the mistake of believing that I was looking at Muslim's through "white" eyes. My grandfather (who was full-blooded Apache) told me once when I was young, "Hate is a natural human emotion, but you can't hate someone for something they can't help (color of their skin, culture, etc.). You CAN hate someone for something they've done to you or a family member." Perhaps I'm a budding insurgent myself, as I know (again, in my blindly passionate way) I would definitely take up arms against a violent injustice against my family.



Originally posted by Mycroft
And that’s really the issue. If they’re looking for an excuse, any will do. Any incident that happens while someone is detained will become "torture" and be used to excuse whatever type of fanaticism needs excusing at the moment.

But this isn't just "any excuse" is it? It's not likely that an Iraqi, Afghani or Muslim is going to go medieval on our troops for the sole reason that they're stopped at every military checkpoint, or because they're searched too often. Your last sentence sums it all up; if an clear incident of torture is exaggerated with each telling, it will certainly spark the fanaticism that could costs innocent lives.



Originally posted by Mycroft
Absolutely. In addition to what I’ve cited, I have a problem with number 6.

We should investigate and prosecute with the goal of learning the truth and punishing the guilty. Politics should not be a part of it. Those at the highest rungs of command should only be prosecuted if evidence is found of guilt, they should not be targeted merely to create scapegoats to placate those who are our enemies anyway.

I don't understand how you can separate the politics from the problem. A military commander is responsible for the actions of his men, and when his men are torturing prisoners, then that commander should be held responsible.

Now knowing what their troops are doing/have done is an excuse that is often used by commanders who shut themselves away in a safe area away from "the action." Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, and shouldn't be an excuse for our military. If a Wal-Mart employee constantly mistreats Wal-Mart customers with the knowledge of his supervisors, wouldn't YOU PERSONALLY hold his superiors responsible? Why do we make excuses for our military commanders?

Again, I feel that, without searching for scapegoats, ANY military commander in charge of troops who routinely torture prisoners should be punished to the most severe extent. It would discourage further abuse, and would show the indigenous population that we are serious about civil rights and freedom!

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I think it’s easy to fantasize about events that in all likelihood will never happen. I think in these fantasies, it’s easy to make issues black and white that are much more complex in real life.

Well, if it's so easy then picture this; your family is a law-abiding group of easy-going people who just want to survive. You live in an area patrolled by an occupying force not native to your country, and they suffer from the actions of your fanatic countrymen. Now, just for argument's sake, your father and younger brother are detained by occupying forces for a period of months. You're not sure what has happened to them, but perhaps a friend or neighbor mentions that he saw them at the prison where he was also "detained."

Now, after a period of time, your brother returns home emotionally distraught and physically scarred. He doesn't know what happened to your father, but has heard "stories" from other prisoners. He tells you of the abuse he suffered at the hands of your "liberators" and tells of the abuse he's witnessed while incarcerated.

What is Mycroft's personal reaction? Do you still feel the issues are as complex as you're trying to lead us to believe they are?

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
At the same time, let’s also acknowledge that the significance of many of these torture allegations are hotly disputed.

Hotly disputed? I've got two words for anyone that doesn't believe this happens too often: Abu Grahib.

[Mephisto]

I suppose that it must have been easy for Mycroft to put himself in the place of a Afghan or Iraqi family whose family member returns with stories of torture.

Apparently, the complexities of the situation are lost when there is an emotional attachment to the story.

:p

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Hotly disputed? I've got two words for anyone that doesn't believe this happens too often: Abu Grahib.

Great example. In Abu Graib a severe breakdown in discipline of a small number of soldiers over a short period of time is portrayed as policy. Very little, if anything, is done to correct this misimpression. Embellishing a story, as you say, is human nature.

Originally posted by Mephisto
No it doesn't. Embellishing a story is human nature and when someone has seen the scars (or knows a friend whose cousin saw the scars), or has heard the story firsthand, anger and NOT skepticism is the emotion at the forefront.

So are Muslims more prone to acting from emotionalism than non-Muslims? This is the impression I’m getting from reading your words, "Best not to give those ignorant savages any excuse or they’ll go jihad on us. The slightest thing will become exaggerated, and they’re just not sophisticated enough to tell a few soldiers behaving badly from the official policy of the US armed forces!"

How would you feel if someone had that attitude about you?

Originally posted by Mephisto
That's not necessarily true until we start incarcerating and torturing Christian fundies. It's useless to compare the two otherwise. Besides, you yourself agreed that the propaganda opportunities offered by torture victims could easily incite those prone to violence.

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, and if you believe there is something unique about Islamic fundamentalism that it can’t be compared to other kinds of fundamentalism, then maybe that reinforces my point that you see them differently than other people.

Originally posted by Mephisto
But it was YOU who made the mistake of believing that I was looking at Muslim's through "white" eyes...

And when I said, " how the white man sees the ignorant savage" I was fully aware of your Native Americanism. That comment was tailored for you. If you see Muslims as being primarily motivated by revenge and emotionalism, then you’re the one thinking like the cowboy, not the Indian.

Originally posted by Mephisto
Perhaps I'm a budding insurgent myself, as I know (again, in my blindly passionate way) I would definitely take up arms against a violent injustice against my family.

Would you?

Suppose your brother or best friend were arrested for a crime you believe he didn’t commit. Suppose in being arrested, he was beaten and hospitalized.

Would you kill a cop over it?

Originally posted by Mephisto
But this isn't just "any excuse" is it? It's not likely that an Iraqi, Afghani or Muslim is going to go medieval on our troops for the sole reason that they're stopped at every military checkpoint, or because they're searched too often. Your last sentence sums it all up; if an clear incident of torture is exaggerated with each telling, it will certainly spark the fanaticism that could costs innocent lives.

Just like a Christian fundamentalist will see the works of Satan everywhere, including harmless music, so will a fundamentalist Islamist find reasons for militancy everywhere. Remember how the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Mephisto
I don't understand how you can separate the politics from the problem. A military commander is responsible for the actions of his men, and when his men are torturing prisoners, then that commander should be held responsible.

There are rules for how far that responsibility goes, those rules should be followed. You don’t sacrifice innocent people to appease enemies.

Originally posted by Mephisto
Now knowing what their troops are doing/have done is an excuse that is often used by commanders who shut themselves away in a safe area away from "the action."...

This is pure fabrication made up to fit your prejudices.

Originally posted by Mephisto
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, and shouldn't be an excuse for our military.

No one is claiming ignorance of the law, another fantasy.

Originally posted by Mephisto
If a Wal-Mart employee constantly mistreats Wal-Mart customers with the knowledge of his supervisors, wouldn't YOU PERSONALLY hold his superiors responsible?

Sure, but you’re advocating scapegoating just for the sake of scapegoating. A commander who knowingly allows abuse is culpable and should be punished according to law, as happened to the (former) General in charge of Abu Graib.

Originally posted by Mephisto
Why do we make excuses for our military commanders?

No excuses, but if we value rule of law we don’t condone witch hunts just for the sake of placating an enemy either.

Originally posted by Mephisto
I suppose that it must have been easy for Mycroft to put himself in the place of a Afghan or Iraqi family whose family member returns with stories of torture.

Apparently, the complexities of the situation are lost when there is an emotional attachment to the story.

:p

Lol!

The traditional term is chirping crickets, but you give the guy more than an hour and a half. It's assumed people have things to do other than hang on your every word. :)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Why then aren't we torturing the relatively well-off, educated, middle class instead of the poor?

Oh please. I know you aren't serious about this, so why say it?

If you'll notice my original post, I said that ex-torture victims INFLUENCE potential terrorists. So, as it turns out we actually agree (does that make you uncomfortable?).

Agree about what, that torture is bad and we shouldn't do it? Sure, we agree about that. Why on earth would you think that makes me uncomfortable?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mycroft
So are Muslims more prone to acting from emotionalism than non-Muslims? This is the impression I’m getting from reading your words, "Best not to give those ignorant savages any excuse or they’ll go jihad on us. The slightest thing will become exaggerated, and they’re just not sophisticated enough to tell a few soldiers behaving badly from the official policy of the US armed forces!" He's been clear that he's refering to general human nature, so your impression is false.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
He's been clear that he's refering to general human nature, so your impression is false.

It's just that some are more prone to "human nature" than others.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mephisto
What is Mycroft's personal reaction? Do you still feel the issues are as complex as you're trying to lead us to believe they are?

First, yes, the circumstances are a lot more complex than you're describing them. Your scenario leaves a lot of questions unanswerd:

What were the circumstances of the invasion? What was the previous regime like? What is the objective of the invaders? What sort of activities are they doing? How long will they be there? Why was your brother and father picked up? Were they "fanatics?" Were they friends or supporters of "fanatics?" What of the friend or neighbor, was he a "fanatic" or a supporter of "fanatics?" How and why was he released?

How or why was the brother released? Is his personal story better or worse than other stories? Is everyone who is detained abused in the same way?

What of the occupiers, what do they say? Are they doing anything in response to the abuse? Are they trying to cover it up, or are they allowing open discussion over it? Is there a legal process in motion to address it?

All of these issues are critically important in determining a reaction. Are there times when violence and insurgency may be justified? Yes, but a reasonable person couldn't tell from your scenario alone without filling in the blanks with a lot of assumptions.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Great example. In Abu Graib a severe breakdown in discipline of a small number of soldiers over a short period of time is portrayed as policy. Very little, if anything, is done to correct this misimpression. Embellishing a story, as you say, is human nature.

Allegations of prisoner abuse apparently don't need much embellishment considering there are reports of it from Guantanamo Bay, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. It may not be policy, but it's certainly widespread enough to appear that way.


Originally posted by Mycroft
So are Muslims more prone to acting from emotionalism than non-Muslims? This is the impression I’m getting from reading your words, "Best not to give those ignorant savages any excuse or they’ll go jihad on us. The slightest thing will become exaggerated, and they’re just not sophisticated enough to tell a few soldiers behaving badly from the official policy of the US armed forces!"

Just last week, rioting spread throughout the Muslim world from Gaza to Indonesia to Iraq to Afghanistan. Muslim rioters burned down government buildings, tore apart the offices of relief organizations, an unnamed number of people were injured and 15 people were killed. All because of Newsweek's allegations that U.S. interrogators were desecrating the Koran. Would you find similar behavior from Christian fundies after hearing the Bible had been similarly treated? Of course, you'll no doubt chalk it up as being actions of "crazed fanatics" without stopping to consider what is making those fanatics so crazed in the first place.


Originally posted by Mycroft
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, and if you believe there is something unique about Islamic fundamentalism that it can’t be compared to other kinds of fundamentalism, then maybe that reinforces my point that you see them differently than other people.


You're right, and I'll reinforce you assertion that I DO see fundies as unique with regards to their particular culture/beliefs. Fundamentalism isn't simply fundamentalism in every instance - when Ayatollah Khomeini called for the death of Salman Rushdie for writing "The Satanic Verses" Rushdie went into hiding. Why? Because he knew his life was in danger, not because he was overreacting to his knowledge of Muslim fundamentalists. Certainly there are similar crazed fundamentalists in the U.S. (members of Operation Rescue who have killed doctors at abortion clinics), but for the most part, I feel it is harder to incite American fundamentalists to the point where they are willing to commit violence. Before your head explodes, I'd like to add that I'm NOT characterizing all Muslims or middle-easterners as willing to go that route.


Originally posted by Mycroft
And when I said, " how the white man sees the ignorant savage" I was fully aware of your Native Americanism. That comment was tailored for you. If you see Muslims as being primarily motivated by revenge and emotionalism, then you’re the one thinking like the cowboy, not the Indian.

I don't necessarily see Muslims as being motivated by revenge and emotionalism in a war zone, I see PEOPLE as being motivated by revenge and emotionalism. I also see the cowboy as the one ignoring the numerous instances of human rights abuse by passing them off as "isolated incidents" and not taking them seriously enough to ensure they don't continue.


Originally posted by Mycroft
Suppose your brother or best friend were arrested for a crime you believe he didn’t commit. Suppose in being arrested, he was beaten and hospitalized.

Would you kill a cop over it?

That's not a particularly good example is it? While many actions by insurgents are crimes, not all crimes are acts by insurgents. Now, if you put my studious, introverted brother in a war zone, and occupation forces arrested him and beat him to the point that he was hospitalized, I might just take a few pot shots at a passing patrol. The insurgency offers some degree of anonimity to its followers, and that may likely be why many join, at least temporarily. A criminal act in the United States wouldn't have the emotional impetus that an insurgent might feel.



Originally posted by Mycroft
Just like a Christian fundamentalist will see the works of Satan everywhere, including harmless music, so will a fundamentalist Islamist find reasons for militancy everywhere. Remember how the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

Good point, and when those fundamentalists have the capability to arm and encourage anyone that comes to them with disenchantment over the treatment of someone in American custody they could easily become insurgents.


Originally posted by Mycroft
There are rules for how far that responsibility goes, those rules should be followed. You don’t sacrifice innocent people to appease enemies.


So then you're saying that all Muslims, or Afghans, or Iraqis are enemies?

I was only stating that we should be more rigorous in prosecuting EVERYONE responsible for prisoner abuse to show the honest, hard-working Muslims (Iraqis) who are interested in Democracy and freedom that this behavior is intolerable. You are stuck on the idea of appeasing enemies, I am asserting that we use the law to show the Afghans, the Iraqis and the entire world that the people torturing prisoners are equally reprehensible to us.



Originally posted by Mycroft
Sure, but you’re advocating scapegoating just for the sake of scapegoating. A commander who knowingly allows abuse is culpable and should be punished according to law, as happened to the (former) General in charge of Abu Graib.


I AM NOT ADVOCATING SCAPEGOATING! I AM SAYING THAT MILITARY COMMANDERS SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THEIR MEN! If they don't know what their men are up to, then they should either spend more time at the office, or be relieved of that command and put into the field.


Originally posted by Mycroft
No excuses, but if we value rule of law we don’t condone witch hunts just for the sake of placating an enemy either.


Well, if the abuse and torture of prisoners continues at this rate, we're going to have a very difficult time proving that we value rule of law at all.

[Mephisto]

I'm talk about Mycroft's family. Is your father a fanatic? How about your brother?

Now, put yourself in the place of an Iraqi family - you're thankful that Saddam is gone, but there is a lot more violence around you than you like. The occupying army is American, British, Australian, three Filipino infantrymen, and four truckdrivers from WeneedtheU.S.supportistan.

You fill in the blanks.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mephisto
I'm talk about Mycroft's family. Is your father a fanatic? How about your brother?

Now, put yourself in the place of an Iraqi family - you're thankful that Saddam is gone, but there is a lot more violence around you than you like. The occupying army is American, British, Australian, three Filipino infantrymen, and four truckdrivers from WeneedtheU.S.supportistan.

You fill in the blanks.

Then my personal reaction is to continue being a law-abiding, easy-going person who just wants to survive.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mephisto

Many Muslim famlies are quite large (I think Osama was the 23rd of ?? children), and if you stop to consider that every single Muslim prisoner that we've tortured and returned to his family has no doubt told of his mistreatment, and his story has exponentially gotten exaggerated through all his cousins, aunts, co-workers, friends and acquaintences, then you see why there seems to be no end of people who are willing to take up arms against us.

I ask, in all seriousness; do you really believe that the root cause of most islamist terrorism is due to the mistreatment, torture even, of a few of these people?

I do note that you don't really comment on whether or not any of them were terrorists to begin with; before all the torture, that is. Are you suggesting that there is something fundamentally sheepish about Islamists that it takes only one to freak out and all the others follow in the killing/hate spree?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mephisto


Just last week, rioting spread throughout the Muslim world from Gaza to Indonesia to Iraq to Afghanistan. Muslim rioters burned down government buildings, tore apart the offices of relief organizations, an unnamed number of people were injured and 15 people were killed. All because of Newsweek's allegations that U.S. interrogators were desecrating the Koran.


Sorry for not addressing every point here, but this one seems core to your issue. Can you not accept at all that this was not because of anything printed by Newsweek; but because these people have what is simply an idealogy (they call it a religion) of hate towards outsiders?

Why is this type of behaviour analysed to the final decimal point by so many? It's a spasm, deadly certainly, but still a spasm by a subculture that can never, ever, create a modern civilization. It's control is rooted in ignorance and what it promotes is ignorance and what it promises is the bliss of ignorance.

Why do we analyse it so?

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Elind
I ask, in all seriousness; do you really believe that the root cause of most islamist terrorism is due to the mistreatment, torture even, of a few of these people?

I do note that you don't really comment on whether or not any of them were terrorists to begin with; before all the torture, that is. Are you suggesting that there is something fundamentally sheepish about Islamists that it takes only one to freak out and all the others follow in the killing/hate spree?

influence - 1. a power indirectly or intangibly affecting a person or event, 2. To cause a change in the character, though or action of . . .

budding - 1. to begin to develop or grow from or as if from a bud, 2. to be in an undeveloped stage or condition

terrorist - systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end

Where in those words do you find that I believe that prisoner abuse is the root of most Islamic terrorism?

You're right that I didn't comment on whether or not any of the prisoners were terrorists to begin with. Consider the fact that they may have been so inclined, then consider how quickly the news of their abuse will reach the people who will likely use it against us.

That point aside, are you suggesting that perhaps they deserved the mistreatment?

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Elind
Sorry for not addressing every point here, but this one seems core to your issue. Can you not accept at all that this was not because of anything printed by Newsweek; but because these people have what is simply an idealogy (they call it a religion) of hate towards outsiders?

Why is this type of behaviour analysed to the final decimal point by so many? It's a spasm, deadly certainly, but still a spasm by a subculture that can never, ever, create a modern civilization. It's control is rooted in ignorance and what it promotes is ignorance and what it promises is the bliss of ignorance.

Why do we analyse it so?

These people, huh?

Why is it that it is so apparently reprehensible to fellows like Mycroft when they think I'm stereotyping Muslims, yet they don't seem to jump on comments like yours?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mephisto

Where in those words do you find that I believe that prisoner abuse is the root of most Islamic terrorism?


Seems to me you suggested it here

"Just last week, rioting spread throughout the Muslim world from Gaza to Indonesia to Iraq to Afghanistan. Muslim rioters burned down government buildings, tore apart the offices of relief organizations, an unnamed number of people were injured and 15 people were killed. All because of Newsweek's allegations that U.S. interrogators were desecrating the Koran. "



You're right that I didn't comment on whether or not any of the prisoners were terrorists to begin with. Consider the fact that they may have been so inclined, then consider how quickly the news of their abuse will reach the people who will likely use it against us.


As if any other excuse would not be good enough?



That point aside, are you suggesting that perhaps they deserved the mistreatment?

Why do you say that? Why do you even ask that? Did I make any suggestion that I agree with that part of the issue?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mephisto
These people, huh?

Why is it that it is so apparently reprehensible to fellows like Mycroft when they think I'm stereotyping Muslims, yet they don't seem to jump on comments like yours?

Why would you jump at that comment or even consider it the way you seem to imply? I'm sorry I'm not PC enough for your tender sensibilities, but these people that I refer to are quite obviously, to anyone without PC blinkers on, the fanatics that believe in all the perversions of heaven that we don't need to repeat again (they themselves do it often enough).

Yes, they are "those people".

Not "all people".

Not "all Muslims". Just plain and simple, "the perverted ones".

Do you really care to defend them some more and give them respect?

[jay gw]

The American rich and upper middle classes that frequent JREF will never object to torturing Muslims.

Is it illogical of me to conclude that the torture victim of today may be the insurgent of tomorrow?

That's nice.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Allegations of prisoner abuse apparently don't need much embellishment considering there are reports of it from Guantanamo Bay, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. It may not be policy, but it's certainly widespread enough to appear that way.

Allegations that are being investigated, I might add. And when appropriate, prosecuted. Isn’t that what you want? This thread, for example, begins with a recent New York Times article about events from years ago that have already been fully publicized and investigated. This isn’t recent news, but the recent publication is, in my opinion, the height of journalistic irresponsibility, given recent events sparked by the Newsweek article.

Originally posted by Mephisto
I don't necessarily see Muslims as being motivated by revenge and emotionalism in a war zone, I see PEOPLE as being motivated by revenge and emotionalism. I also see the cowboy as the one ignoring the numerous instances of human rights abuse by passing them off as "isolated incidents" and not taking them seriously enough to ensure they don't continue.

Seven people have been charged with the death of the men in the article you started this thread with. When the story broke two years ago, it was because the Army was already investigating, and some of their documents were released to the press.

How is that not taking it seriously enough?

Originally posted by Mephisto
I was only stating that we should be more rigorous in prosecuting EVERYONE responsible for prisoner abuse to show the honest, hard-working Muslims (Iraqis) who are interested in Democracy and freedom that this behavior is intolerable. You are stuck on the idea of appeasing enemies, I am asserting that we use the law to show the Afghans, the Iraqis and the entire world that the people torturing prisoners are equally reprehensible to us.

What I think is you probably don’t know the degree these cases are being prosecuted and assume that because the MSM doesn’t announce it with the same fanfare that it first brings these allegations to light, then it doesn’t happen at all.

Originally posted by Mephisto
I AM NOT ADVOCATING SCAPEGOATING! I AM SAYING THAT MILITARY COMMANDERS SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THEIR MEN! If they don't know what their men are up to, then they should either spend more time at the office, or be relieved of that command and put into the field.

That’s the way it is now, military commanders are held responsible for the actions of their men. Previously you expressed dissatisfaction that not enough people of high enough rank had been prosecuted. Which is it? Do you want rule of law where there are investigations and charges are brought against those who are culpable or do you want high ranking officers targeted until your blood lust is satisfied?

Originally posted by Mephisto
Well, if the abuse and torture of prisoners continues at this rate, we're going to have a very difficult time proving that we value rule of law at all.

And what rate is that? This thread was started over an event from years ago, when was the last one?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Mycroft
That’s the way it is now, military commanders are held responsible for the actions of their men. Previously you expressed dissatisfaction that not enough people of high enough rank had been prosecuted. Which is it? Do you want rule of law where there are investigations and charges are brought against those who are culpable or do you want high ranking officers targeted until your blood lust is satisfied?

False dilemma.

I think every right-thinking person's preference would be for justice to be done, and justice to be seen to be done. So far it seems to me that the first is occurring at best in isolated cases, and so the second is failing by definition.

A good start would be a US government declaration repudiating torture, repudiating the practise of handing people over to other regimes to be tortured, and allowing Red Cross, Amnesty International and lawyers access to all US military prison facilities. I do not think anyone believes we will see anything of the sort however.

[Zep]

Gentlefolk,

Before you go on, can I suggest you all read Pirate Lad's blog about one "week of work" in Iraq (the one about Operation MATADOR). I think there's a reference to it somewhere in the "writing award" thread somewhere. Ask KittyNH anyawy.

To my mind, this particular blog entry graphically illustrates the differences between treating the people of an occupied country like human beings or senseless animals. Would that there were many more US soldiers and marines with PL's sense of fairness and humanity, unlike some of the other US soldiers he describes. Having the upper hand doesn't necessarily mean you have to use it.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/War-on-Terror/Bodies-mount-in-Putins-dirty-war-on-terror/2005/05/21/1116533580409.html



Russian oppression of radical Islam is fuelling the very extremism it is meant to contain, writes Julius Strauss.

The Russian policemen who threw the battered body of Rasul Tsakoyev on to a rubbish dump at the edge of his village must have thought he would be dead within hours.

The 26-year-old had been beaten so badly that he was barely conscious, his major organs were failing and he had massive internal bleeding from repeated punches, kicks and blows from a baton.

But after the two policemen left, Rasul, an athlete who ran a small mobile telephone business in the southern Russian city of Nalchik, clambered to his feet and staggered the two miles home.

When he arrived his body and face were so swollen that at first his parents didn't recognise him.

"He was always so tall and thin and stood so erect," his mother, Zukhra, said. "But when he stood at the door his whole body was bloated and he was bent almost double from the beatings.

"How they drugged him, ran electric currents through his body, put out cigarettes on his neck and broke needles under his fingernails."

Rasul was taken to hospital, where he slipped into a coma. Within a week he was dead. A post-mortem revealed damage to his major organs.

To the West, President Vladimir Putin presents the face of a staunch partner in the war on radical Islam, waging a legitimate fight against extremists in the south of his country.

As evidence of what he is up against, he cites the brutal seizure of the school in Beslan last year, the downing of two Russian airliners by Chechen suicide bombers and numerous other attacks that the Kremlin regards as terrorism.

But even as he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Western leaders abroad, at home his men are conducting a dirty and brutal war against innocent civilians that, far from combating terrorism, is driving them into the hands of a tiny minority of radicals.

The effect of these policies has been to bring the entire Russian Caucasus to boiling point and create an extremist threat in regions that have no history of militant Islam.

[Elind]

Originally posted by jay gw
The American rich and upper middle classes that frequent JREF will never object to torturing Muslims.



That's nice.

I can't recall who you are quoting, or figure out if you're being facetious or serious?

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Elind
[B]

Seems to me you suggested it here

"Just last week, rioting spread throughout the Muslim world from Gaza to Indonesia to Iraq to Afghanistan. Muslim rioters burned down government buildings, tore apart the offices of relief organizations, an unnamed number of people were injured and 15 people were killed. [b]All because of Newsweek's allegations that U.S. interrogators were desecrating the Koran.

Sorry Elind,

I was using that as an example to Mycroft that not all religious fundamentalists are the same. Claiming that they are exactly the same doesn't take into account their culture, their religion and whether or not they view their way of life as being under direct threat from another country.

I also didn't mean to suggest that you advocate the torture of anyone, but I honestly don't believe that torturing the most guilty of insurgents will serve to do anything but incite and inspire more violence.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
This thread, for example, begins with a recent New York Times article about events from years ago that have already been fully publicized and investigated. This isn’t recent news, but the recent publication is, in my opinion, the height of journalistic irresponsibility, given recent events sparked by the Newsweek article.

So this is old news that was recently published? Where then am I at fault? You chide me for something out of my control. I merely passed on the article and my impressions of what might be done to save a few troops on the ground from further violence.

Regarding the recent events sparked by the Newsweek article, are you saying that you agree that Muslim fundamentalists are just a wee bit more passionate than Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are, or are you going to accuse me of stereotyping once again?



Originally posted by Mycroft
What I think is you probably don’t know the degree these cases are being prosecuted and assume that because the MSM doesn’t announce it with the same fanfare that it first brings these allegations to light, then it doesn’t happen at all.

Well maybe then we could just placate everyone and show the world (with equal fanfare) that those responsible for prisoner torture aren't just being shuffled elsewhere.

One question though, how do you personally know the degree that those cases are being prosecuted?



Originally posted by Mycroft
That’s the way it is now, military commanders are held responsible for the actions of their men. Previously you expressed dissatisfaction that not enough people of high enough rank had been prosecuted.

Yes, I did express a dissatisfaction that not enough people of rank are being held responsible for this fiasco. If military commanders can take time to inspect the shine on the boots of their troops, the cleanliness of their weapons and their morale, they could just as easily weed out those who enjoy tormenting prisoners. There seems to be a breakdown in discipline among the ranks of some prison guards (MPs?) and I wonder who YOU'D hold responsible for that lack of discipline?

As a former NCO, I only had to share disciplinary actions of soldiers in my control once. After that, I paid ample attention to how they did their jobs. For the record, I held custody of prisoners several times and made certain that those guarding them KNEW that as prisoners, they were non-combatants. Treating prisoners with dignity and respect goes a long way toward dispelling anything negative they've been told about Americans.


Originally posted by Mycroft
Which is it? Do you want rule of law where there are investigations and charges are brought against those who are culpable or do you want high ranking officers targeted until your blood lust is satisfied?


Hmmmm, that's a difficult one. I think I'll go with . . . having (explosive) charges placed against rank officers until we investigate their blood lust.

Originally posted by Mycroft
And what rate is that? This thread was started over an event from years ago, when was the last one?

Then you're comfortable with the current rate of prisoner abuse?

Apparently Colin Powell agrees with my assertion that the world should see us prosecuting those involved in prisoner scandals. It's old news, but it's better than no news:

"An investigation into 25 prisoner deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan has determined one prisoner was murdered by an Army solider, and other by a CIA contractor, an Army official said Tuesday.

This comes as Powell downplayed the number of troops involved with abusing Iraqi prisoners, but vowed wrongdoers would be brought to justice for the world to "observe and watch."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1083753251203_16/

Mephisto

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/news/War-on-Terror/Bodies-mount-in-Putins-dirty-war-on-terror/2005/05/21/1116533580409.html

I'm sure that family will understand it probably won't happen again. If they're level-headed people, they'll no doubt be satisfied with the prosecution of those directly involved and not hold their superiors responsible.;)

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Zep
Gentlefolk,

Before you go on, can I suggest you all read Pirate Lad's blog about one "week of work" in Iraq (the one about Operation MATADOR). I think there's a reference to it somewhere in the "writing award" thread somewhere. Ask KittyNH anyawy.

To my mind, this particular blog entry graphically illustrates the differences between treating the people of an occupied country like human beings or senseless animals. Would that there were many more US soldiers and marines with PL's sense of fairness and humanity, unlike some of the other US soldiers he describes. Having the upper hand doesn't necessarily mean you have to use it.

Zep,

Could you please point me towards Pirate Lad's blog? I would be very interested in what he has to say. It sounds like he's advocating exactly what I've been trying to get across here - treating people (prisoners) well, and severely punishing those who don't.

Thanks. :)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mephisto
So this is old news that was recently published? Where then am I at fault?

It’s old news re-published. Where are you at fault? In jumping on the "more proof America is bad" angle without looking beneath the surface.

Originally posted by Mephisto
Regarding the recent events sparked by the Newsweek article, are you saying that you agree that Muslim fundamentalists are just a wee bit more passionate than Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are, or are you going to accuse me of stereotyping once again?

We should be careful how we treat our prisoners anyway, because it’s the right thing to do. The fundamentalist wackos are going to be offended and violent no matter what we do, so we can’t look to them as a measure of how successful we are in maintaining our standards of human rights. Flushing a Qu’ran down the toilet? Get real. If that causes riots and killings while bombs in mosques (set off by other Muslims) don’t, it’s clear we’ve got an irrational double-standard going here.

Originally posted by Mephisto
Well maybe then we could just placate everyone and show the world (with equal fanfare) that those responsible for prisoner torture aren't just being shuffled elsewhere.

One question though, how do you personally know the degree that those cases are being prosecuted?

Follow the prosecutions and trials. They are reported, even if not on the front page.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Sorry Elind,

I was using that as an example to Mycroft that not all religious fundamentalists are the same. Claiming that they are exactly the same doesn't take into account their culture, their religion and whether or not they view their way of life as being under direct threat from another country.

I also didn't mean to suggest that you advocate the torture of anyone, but I honestly don't believe that torturing the most guilty of insurgents will serve to do anything but incite and inspire more violence.

On the first point, I will agree generally, but if you look closer at Islamic fundamentalism you will see that they consider ALL others a threat, and territory to rule eventually. There are many people who are highly religious but who are not fundamentalists in the sense of the extremism we usually discuss here.

On the second point, we all agree in principle that "torture" is not ethical nor that it provides worthwhile results. However, none of the "arguments" we have hear are about whether one should allow nail pulling and the like, but genuine disagreement of what constitutes torture. Flushing Korans down a toilet is not torture in my book, nor is pretending to touch someone with menstrual blood, to give two examples. Whether effective or not, these simply constitute taking advantage of an enemy's weaknesses, and, needless to say I see no reason to show particular respect for this type of fundamentalism, which itself gives no respect for anyone else.

We shouldn't needlessly stir up the fanatics, but we should certainly be willing to tell them what hypocrits they are when appropriate, and that applies to the "religious" as well as the fundies. An obvious example is the deafening silences we hear from them when those they defend to the hilt in Guantanamo make allegations, but when the same flock commit mass murders of their own civilians.....nothing.

That in a nutshell is probably what I "debate" here 90% of the time (please, don't ask me for proof of the 90% :) )

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Follow the prosecutions and trials. They are reported, even if not on the front page.

. . . this whole argument to you if we can agree that it would be beneficial to U.S. troops to bring these prosecutions and trials to the forefront (the front page?) in order that everyone can see that the U.S. is prosecuting those involved in prisoner abuse. As for the old news, I'm honestly sorry that I don't keep up with current events quite as well as I should, still, if I was so incensed by this article, I can only imagine how middle-easterners might feel.

I'm not hunting a scapegoat, and I'm not interested in appeasing enemies. I am, however, interested in how the U.S. handles future scandals along this line.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Elind
We shouldn't needlessly stir up the fanatics, but we should certainly be willing to tell them what hypocrits they are when appropriate, and that applies to the "religious" as well as the fundies. An obvious example is the deafening silences we hear from them when those they defend to the hilt in Guantanamo make allegations, but when the same flock commit mass murders of their own civilians.....nothing.

That in a nutshell is probably what I "debate" here 90% of the time (please, don't ask me for proof of the 90% :) )

Your first sentence above is the crux of my entire argument.

I'll also agree with you that there is a certain hard-core "element" among the insurgents that is the most dangerous and ruthless of all. However, my assertions that, "we shouldn't needlessly stir up the fanatics," was more aimed at the would-be fanatic who might be weak-willed enough or angry enough to go over to "the dark side" as SezMe put it so aptly.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Your first sentence above is the crux of my entire argument.

I'll also agree with you that there is a certain hard-core "element" among the insurgents that is the most dangerous and ruthless of all. However, my assertions that, "we shouldn't needlessly stir up the fanatics," was more aimed at the would-be fanatic who might be weak-willed enough or angry enough to go over to "the dark side" as SezMe put it so aptly.

That latter part I disagree with fundamentally. Those so inclined will always be looking for an excuse, they are primed from graduation in what they call schools. To say we pushed them into it is wrong, and taken to the next level (not you here) becomes what I refer to as apologist.

[Kopji]

PirateLad's blog:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57206

I was left with a disturbing idea for a political cartoon: strings of live kittens staked out in front of people's houses as sacrifices, so the soldiers would kill them instead of the sons or daughters...

The point seems to be that if Iraq or Afghanistan were our country, and they were here doing this to us (treating captured Americans) this way, we'd be the terrorists.

But they are just Afghans and Iraqi's, not real people like us...

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mephisto
. . . this whole argument to you if we can agree that it would be beneficial to U.S. troops to bring these prosecutions and trials to the forefront (the front page?) in order that everyone can see that the U.S. is prosecuting those involved in prisoner abuse. As for the old news, I'm honestly sorry that I don't keep up with current events quite as well as I should, still, if I was so incensed by this article, I can only imagine how middle-easterners might feel.

The thing is, we got a free press. That means they, not the government, is free to bring to the forefront what they think is important. That means if the New York Times feels that re-hashing a scandal from a couple years ago without making it clear to everyone it's not a new scandal is more important than covering the results of a military trial...well, that’s their choice and they’ve got the first amendment to back them up.

Personally, I think the priorities are a bit skewed, but until the editors of the New York Times ask my opinion, things are going to stay the way they are.

Originally posted by Mephisto
I'm not hunting a scapegoat, and I'm not interested in appeasing enemies. I am, however, interested in how the U.S. handles future scandals along this line.

At the same time, Government Public Relations often goes by another name, propaganda. I’m not saying it’s always wrong, but there are some that have a natural distrust of anything that comes from Uncle Sam.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Kopji
PirateLad's blog:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57206

I was left with a disturbing idea for a political cartoon: strings of live kittens staked out in front of people's houses as sacrifices, so the soldiers would kill them instead of the sons or daughters...

The point seems to be that if Iraq or Afghanistan were our country, and they were here doing this to us (treating captured Americans) this way, we'd be the terrorists.

But they are just Afghans and Iraqi's, not real people like us...

You have some specially tinted glasses you wear, don't you?:(