Abu Ghraib revisited

February 17, 2006

[:"red"] Warning: Clicking on the link below will lead to disturbing photes[/] there are naked men and blood and obvious wounds. If you can't take it, do not click on the link.

Abu Ghraib torture

While I understand that these are photos that were taken at the time of the scandel, what is disturbing to me is that there should have been more leadership that should have had thier heads rolled for this type of abuse. This extent shows that torture was far more pervasive and entrenched in the minds of this unit than was spun. The military leadership failed these men and women and the prisoners.

This is shameful....America is disgraced.

February 17, 2006

It's even worse Neil. There are several indicators that the worst, and most heinous, photos have yet to be leaked.

There is at least one more iteration of outrage coming and it will be far, far worse.

I read a newspaper article yesterday, where someone who would have reason to know predicted that there will be one more release of photographs that will horrify the world... and what we've seen already... is bad enough.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the guy's name. He was a not American, however.

Clio

February 17, 2006

When America is at war, Americans should have enough sense and enough love of country not to put out pictures and information that do harm to their nation. Imagine how many mistakes and crimes were committed during WW II yet were not reported because Americans knew how important it was to win the war and because Americans did not believe in betraying their country.

Now, however, there are many Americans who actually want to see their country defeated and the President embarrassed. They do not even mind seeing their fellow Americans killed.

The things done by a few Americans at Abu Ghraib could only get Americans killed when the pictures were printed. Yet the pictures taken at Abu Ghraib are nothing compared to the pictures that could be published of Saddam's men at the same prison REALLY torturing and murdering thousands of people. Why don't they print the pictures of the REAL crimes?

Couldn't they have waited until after the war is over before printing those pictures for the world, and our enemies, the terrorists, to see?

Yes, this is indeed shameful... This is truly how America is disgraced.

February 17, 2006

Let's not forget that this was not 'a few Americans': the trail goes all the way to the top, and was never adequately followed. How about 'when America is at war, Americans should have enough sense and enough love of country NOT TO TORTURE PEOPLE AND TAKE PHOTOS OF IT'?

February 17, 2006

Quote:

When America is at war, Americans should have enough sense and enough love of country not to put out pictures and information that do harm to their nation. Imagine how many mistakes and crimes were committed during WW II yet were not reported because Americans knew how important it was to win the war and because Americans did not believe in betraying their country.

Now, however, there are many Americans who actually want to see their country defeated and the President embarrassed. They do not even mind seeing their fellow Americans killed.

The things done by a few Americans at Abu Ghraib could only get Americans killed when the pictures were printed. Yet the pictures taken at Abu Ghraib are nothing compared to the pictures that could be published of Saddam's men at the same prison REALLY torturing and murdering thousands of people. Why don't they print the pictures of the REAL crimes?

Couldn't they have waited until after the war is over before printing those pictures for the world, and our enemies, the terrorists, to see?

Yes, this is indeed shameful... This is truly how America is disgraced.

How do I say this without sounding like some nut idealogue...... We Americans exstoll a high standard for ourselves in all classes. We allow all americans to persue thier dreams as long as those dreams do not interfer and subordinate another. We do no harm to our fellow human beings....And when there is a time of war, we play, or at least, we believe that all Americans play by the rules of war.... That means Americans do not torture thier enemies.... This type of thinking comes in line with Christian thinking as well. We really don't want to kill. but we will, and would be justified in doing so, when we have solid evidence that another would do bodily harm. In time of war, having a gun at the ready is enough evidence.

When we find something wrong, we exposs it for all to see...that wound needs to be opened and blead a bit for the wound to heal. Torture is wrong...We are more indignate when our enemies toruture fellow americans and we do not do the same. It justifys the removal of a regime.....

Now, we are torturing other human being... We are reducing our fellow man to animals, a subclass of human simply by torturing our enemies. To torture in the name of patriotism, is to subvert the God given rights that founded this nation. We have become the enemy, and we have become what we abhore.

Oh, and John.... during WW2, and the war between the Americans and Russians, we Americans were the prefered army to surrender to, because we did not torture our prisoners. We treated them accourding to the Geneva convention. Russians did not do that and were known to kill thier prisoners.

February 17, 2006

Quote:

John317 said:

When America is at war, Americans should have enough sense and enough love of country not to put out pictures and information that do harm to their nation.

The latest pictures were released from Australia, not the US.

February 18, 2006

And Australia is meant to be part of the 'coalition of the willing', whatever that means.

The particular TV channel, SBS, is not a commercial one, but a funded channel catering for other language groups and interests. They have some quite searching current affairs programs.

But it is all a bit like the cartoons of the prophet being discussed in another thread - should this stuff be published to prove we have freedom to do so? Do 'the people' really need to know? Or should we be grateful for its exposure, and hopefully hence prevent such atrocities in the future. The pictures come in the same week there were reports of British troops abusing Iraqi youth.

I am not claiming special virtue for the Australian troops, of course I like to think they would not behave in such a way, but it is very likely that their field of operation has not given them this sort of contact with the Iraqis who may raise their ire.

February 18, 2006

Quote:

Let's not forget that this was not 'a few Americans'

Evidence is to the contrary.

Quote:

the trail goes all the way to the top

America's enemies would like to think so.

February 18, 2006

These photos were released for one reason and one reason only. To bring in ratings and make money. It is all about making money.

Unfortunately terrorists are using them to recruit more terrorists and kill Americans and Iraqis.

February 18, 2006

Shane, the TV station concerned is a subsidised on, it does not need to make ratings to make money in the way the commercial ones do. It would have released the pictures from other motives - maybe just like why Mt Everest gets climbed, because they were 'there', maybe from a desire to do public service and quite possibly from other motives which some may regard as more sinister.

If the actions had never taken place this discussion and the repercussions of their release would not be happening.

February 18, 2006

In the United States, public television often has a political agenda, which seems to be a worse motive than profit. However since these were released, many pivate sector forms of media have picked them up in the pursuit of profits.

Think about this. If you were running for office and could expose something that would result in increased terrorism and death but would help you gain political victory, would it be noble of you to expose it? Would it be worse than the network executive that exposes the same thing with the same results for financial gain? One wants power and the other wants money.

February 18, 2006

Quote:

Clio said:

Quote:

John317 said:

When America is at war, Americans should have enough sense and enough love of country not to put out pictures and information that do harm to their nation.

The latest pictures were released from Australia, not the US.

The problem, as I see it, is with those Americans who first released the original pictures for the general public. They should have allowed the problems there at the prison to be dealt with by the military authorities without telling the whole world about it. Given the current situation in Iraq, they should have known that these pictures would be used by the terrorists and Muslim extremists to do harm to Americans. This is just an example of how many there are who care more about money than the truth. Many of these same news organization refuse to show the thousands of pictures and videos of torture and killing by Saddam's government or the sawing off of the heads of innocent civilians by the "insurgents".

The Australians are supposed to be our allies and friends, and most of them probably are. Every country, including our own, has its prostitutes, willing to sell anything for whatever they can get no matter what harm to anyone results from the transaction.

February 18, 2006

I don't see a problem with the original pictures being released as they were. I think that is a healthy part of having a free press. Had a free press existed in Saddam's Iraq, many pictures much worse would have been shown to the world during is reign of terror.

I do take issue with an irresponsible press that sensationalizes the story. Many forms of media tried to use the story to impune the Bush Administration by using guilt through association. They satuated the air waves and printed page with the story for months.

The entire world over now knows about the story. There are no new victems and no new offenders. There is no reason to publish more photos except to help terrorists in their recruiting efforts and sell a few papers and advertising spots.

February 18, 2006

Shane, when I said this was not 'a few Americans', I meant that Cheney was fighting the torture amendment (later) and Gonzales was arguing that the Geneva Convention was 'quaint' and policies on water-boarding were being made and peopl were being held without trial at Guantanamo and... yes, it was a few people who were the cutting edge of the machine, but the machine (the climate and policy settings that let this happen) was very large indeed and went right to the top. To say that thsi was the isolated acts of a few is to totally put the lie to the whole idea of chain of command and responsibility.

And before you say "oh it's just stuff that happens, and it happens to both parties..." The point is that IT'S STUFF THAT SHOULD NEVER, EVER HAPPEN. How about we stop defending and start working actively to make sure it doesn't?

February 18, 2006

And yes, there is an excellent reason to publish the pictures again - becasue it was never dealt with properly in the first place. I'm just speechless that people are more het up about the publicationof the photos than about the torture itself - because it embarrasses their political party. Humans were treated inhumanely, and those responsible were not punished.

February 18, 2006

Quote:

there is an excellent reason to publish the pictures again - becasue it was never dealt with properly in the first place.

That is an opinon.

Should we keep trying O.J. Simpson until we get a jury that finds him guilty? After all, we can argue that justice was not served because the first jury found him not guilty. So, let's do it again and again and again until we get the result we desire.

Fact is that these photos are helping terrorists recruit more terrorists and kill more Americans and Iraqis.

The anti-Bush crowd does not seperate Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. These are two seperate issues. What took place at Abu Ghraib was illegal and those that did it have been charged and some sentenced for their crimes. What is going on in Guantanamo is not illegal and no one, that I know of, has been charged with a crime there (although I am sure there are isolated cases of abuse there).

Many in the anti-Bush crowd have a lower threshold for what they call torture than those in the administration do. I consider torture to be pulling my fingernails out with pliars, cutting my tongue out with a razor blade, shoving needles up under my fingernails, drilling in my teeth without novacaine, electrical shock, shoving glass tubes up my penis and breaking them, breaking my skin with a whip or cane, etc. To me, that is torture. Making me so cold that I shiver all night, making me sleep in my excrement, making me so hot that I near heat exhaustion, etc. is more like harrassment than torture to me. No one in the Bush Administration was advotcating torture that comes near to anything our enemies are doing to us. I am not aware of any US soldiers chopping off terrorists' heads.

February 18, 2006

Quote:

Bravus said:

And yes, there is an excellent reason to publish the pictures again - becasue it was never dealt with properly in the first place. I'm just speechless that people are more het up about the publicationof the photos than about the torture itself - because it embarrasses their political party. Humans were treated inhumanely, and those responsible were not punished.

If you have family over there in harm's way what might make you speechless is the fact that many are willing to place them further in harm"s way. It is not about a political party, it is about their life. At the very least if it is so crucial to so many that these pictures keep being shown over and over and being kept fresh in the minds of those that are looking for anything to justify their own actions, show corresponding events side by side. Just to keep it all in perspective and so that everyone understands the true scope of torture for every picutre of wrong doing by the US soldiers, show a picture of atrocity by Saddam and his thugs over the years. Nothing makes torture by the US right. But again, let's compare what torture is. Let's compare a picture of humiliation with a picture of someone being shoved feet first into a wood chopper. Or, just to keep it really balanced and fair, a picture of true torture, the US inflicting pain on someone and then what Saddam inflicted on someone. Neither is right, the US party responsible for needless and wanton pain being used on someone should be stopped, but I would be willing to bet the farm, you wouldn't get the bleeding heart response to the plight of the poor terrorist you get if the pictures were shown side by side.

For every photo used that shows Iraqi people telling the US and Bush to go home, show one that welcomes and thanks them. What do you think the response would be then. That would be a little more balanced. And Yes, there are many, many photo's of very thankful people saying and doing just that. For those that have been there and have come back, those that have come home on leave and are eager to go back, this is one of the things that make it very worth while to them. This is one area you and others never address. WHY??? Don't these people count? Their tears of gratitude?? Their struggles and tremendous courage when given half a chance?? Don't hear much about them do we?? For that you have to have those that are willing to expose their own necks ready to have them cut off by these charming fair fighters of Iraq.

So maybe just to have the whole thing fair minded like we all claim to be, you knw unbiased and without rancor towards anyone, we need to see all.

We need to know what our government and soldiers are doing, but if it must be shown over and over so that it can be used against our own men and women, then we need to also hear and see over and over what the other side did and is doing. We need to see the graphic protrayal of the beheading of the first young man. Hear his screams of pain and fear. Side by side. This keeps it fair and balanced.

Shows perhaps a little of why our men and women may lose it at times. Not justifiably so, but give a little insight into why our leaders, our soldiers may feel the end justifys the means. Those that torture still need to pay the consequences of their actions.

Maybe you need to use the same words of compassion for those that do this as you use for those that come here admitting to struggling with one sin or another.

Bonnie

February 19, 2006

I think that where the issues lie with these pictures is that America often takes the moral high ground over a number of issues, declaring that they are the civilised nation of the world, the super power that has been self appointed to protect the world and it's self. When it is then found that the very same things that America is saying it starts wars to protect people from it is actually enforcing upon others, it looses it's credibility and makes it's moral high ground suspect.

I don't agree that this should be looked at within the light of what Saddam Hussein has done, because America purports that it is more civilised than this man and his thugs. Whilst I do agree that there should be balance in the media, I also believe that there is a right to know the truth.

Guantanamo is outrageous, there is no question that it does not contrevene the Geneva Convention, of course it does. I find it interesting that some christians feel that this wholly justifiable, it is not and never will be.

Young men and women have found themselves in a position that they should not have been queezed into by governments who see themselves as Holier than Thou.

Whilst it might be my opinion, I have no doubt in my mind that the acts my those foot soldiers was known by those above them if not directly sanctioned by them.

War is ugly, but surely it's not about who can be the ugliest.

FQx

February 19, 2006

1.I think that where the issues lie with these pictures is that America often takes the moral high ground over a number of issues, declaring that they are the civilised nation of the world, the super power that has been self appointed to protect the world and it's self. When it is then found that the very same things that America is saying it starts wars to protect people from it is actually enforcing upon others, it looses it's credibility and makes it's moral high ground suspect.

A. What you see as self appointed has frequently been asked for and in some cases begged for. Not only militarily, but financially. A partial solution for that is to quit asking from those that do claim to take the moral high ground, and to refuse that which is voluntarily offered. Another is to quit expecting all that is American or every american to behave in what you consider a acceptable humane manner. It is not going to happen with America or with Americans. We have our sleeze, our non-christian behaviors by those that claim to be christian etc, just as you have those within your country or your race that that do not live according to what you consider minimal acceptable standards of conduct.

The pictues have been shown over and over. As far as I know people have/are being prosecuted. Right ones, probably not all the way to the top. However this is no different than what happens in our denominations in general. In our businesses,in life in general. What it does accommoplish is to make it more and more unsafe for those that are completly innocent of such conduct.

2.I don't agree that this should be looked at within the light of what Saddam Hussein has done, because America purports that it is more civilised than this man and his thugs. Whilst I do agree that there should be balance in the media, I also believe that there is a right to know the truth.

B Our conduct should not be based on the conduct of Saddam and his thugs. But the only purpose to continually keep showing the same scenes over and over again is to win the hearts and minds of the public at large against the war. To show the other side would give those same people a more balanced perspective with which to make up their minds as to the importance of what our men and women are doing. Go ahead, show the pictures of abuse at this prison, for every segment allow equal time for the graphic pictures and sounds of the screams of pain and fear of the poor young man of the first photographed beheading. For every picture of humiliation of poor courageous Saddam being dragged from his hiding hole, show one of a Iraqi being shoved feet first into a wood chopper. Wonder who would win the "war over the hearts and minds" then. Or maybe, report the news factually, show the pictures, try the individuals, and get it done with. Don't keep dragging it out for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 100th look, just so we make sure that we can make it more difficult for those that have had no part in this.

This absolute impossible standard of conduct you place on the US government, it's businesses, it's citizens is placed on no other in the world. We have our honorable, our extra ordinary, our ordinary, our dishonorable, our thugs, our crooks inside and outside government, just as everyone else has. We are the only ones expected not to have any of this. Or, if we acknowledge we have any, we have lost the right to consider this a great country to live in.

If there is no balance in the media , most people will never have this "right of knowing the truth" you speak of. So, let's see all the pictures in all the gory details, our sins, every last one of them, so they can be evaluated, along with theirs. Otherwise, we simply can't know the truth of what we are doing there and why, as wrong as it is in our eyes, some may feel differently.

3. Guantanamo is outrageous, there is no question that it does not contrevene the Geneva Convention, of course it does. I find it interesting that some christians feel that this wholly justifiable, it is not and never will be.

C. Christians all over the world disagree on many things. Things that apprear crystal clear to me are not so to others, and vice versa. I know those that have even defended a serial rapist/murderer to a degree by claiming he was no worse than any of us. I disagree with this and can't quite understand that rationale, but each to their own

4 Young men and women have found themselves in a position that they should not have been queezed into by governments who see themselves as Holier than Thou.

D What proof do you have that this government or the people of America for that matter see themselves as "holier than thou"

Sounds like a judgement call to me.

5 Whilst it might be my opinion, I have no doubt in my mind that the acts my those foot soldiers was known by those above them if not directly sanctioned by them.

Maybe true, at least suspected. Makes them the "coatholders" my father spoke of in my childhood, does it not??

We give them a great big pass in the denomination, why not here.

Look at the scandels over the past ten years. Big boys still in power, or faded from the scene for a bit and schzaam, back again.

Funny how we are willing to accept that in some very important places and not in others, HUH???? In business, government everyone likes to cyniclly say follow the money. Within denominations it is???????

War is ugly, but surely it's not about who can be the ugliest.

February 19, 2006

NOTE: This comment is actually general in some aspects, and in those aspectes is not directed at Shane.

It have been susggested that people should have credentials to speak to this subject, and that those credentials should include military service, and combat. Here are my credentials:

a) I have served 20 years on active duty in the U.S. Army, as an enlisted person, and a commissioned officer. I have served additional years in the Reserve componnents.

I have been in combat.

c) I have attended military schools where I have been tauaght military sciences, to include national policy in various areas.

d) I have personally walked through a dentention facility, in a combat zone, where we had Cubans and others under guard.

e) I have done the above with a member of the International Red Cross (an inspector) on my right side as we discussed the conditions under which we were keeping the prisoners, and others.

Hopefully the above gives me the credentials to speak to this issue.

Re: "Making me so cold that I shiver all night, making me sleep in my excrement, making me so hot that I near heat exhaustion, etc. is more like harrassment than torture to me."

The United States Armed Forces are full of people, to include commissioned officers who would disagree with the above statement, and have been appalled at what the news media has reported as happening.

Combat (war) may be popluarly described as H * # #, but there is a body of beleif that states that war must be fought under certain rules of engagement, and that those rules would not allow what has happened, and what is referenced above.

I find it interesting that an institution, popularly percieved as seccular, non-religious, or more, should have many of it members taking a higher ethical position than what appars to be the position of members of the body of Christ.

February 19, 2006

For me, it is not the reporting of what happened. it is the reporting, rereporting,rereporting and then reporting again and again. If this is necessary they should treat all sides of the story of abuses in Iraq the same.

Torture is wrong no matter who does it and no matter who condones it. But as long as so much of the reporting is done one sided and with the intent of winning the hearts and minds of the people watching, let's give them the whole scoop.

We have a neighbor that had a horrific experience. Or at least this is the one he could briefly talk about. He torured no one, but if he had, the whole story would have had to have been told to have any compassion for this man. This is a word or it's equivalent that gets thrown around this forum quite freely. Our men and women in the armed services have as much of a need for that little word as anyone here.

The story is to terrible to relate in detail, it is sufficient to say it involved the innocent children of a family this man and

his unit befriended and helped. Sharing their food and asking family at home to send speical items to make their lives a little better. This unit had to leave the area for a month and when they returned the family was nowhere to be found. The one little boy was finally located in a makeshift hospital, missing both feet. I will spare you the rest of the details and the whereabouts of the rest of the family. Only the man's christian upbringing and his intensive military training kept him from retaliating

and torturing any of those he might suspect of having a hand in this. If you were to hear of this man and his unit involved in the torture of prisoners without hearing the graphic details of both sides your first inclination would be to be appalled at his conduct. Hearing both sides for me, I am in awe that this man could restrain himself in the face of such horror. Even so, had he resorted to torture, he would have needed to be stopped and pay the consequences, but it puts a much differet face to it than american soldiers being wanton murderer's and willing to torture prisoner's just for the sport of it.

I am sure on the flip side we do have those in the armed services that are lacking in conscience and any code of moral conduct. Same as any other profession, any other country.

Interesting little side note on this. When I was hospitilized last year I had a nurse whose husband was EMT. I commented that I had a deep respect and admiration for those that did this. I had needed them for my husband on several occasions and they were absolutely wonderful. Her response surprised me. She said "don't get to carried away with the hero worship. It isn't a deep need for my husband to help those in trouble, he is a adreniline junkie and this is the only way he can get his fix, he really feels nothing towards his patients. Which is probably why he is so good at his job, he is completly detached, unlike those that feel true compassion".

I am sure we have those kinds in our military as well. Some could torture without batting an eye, just for the sheer sport of it. Others may do it because they completly lose it when they see some of the horrific things they see. All torture is wrong, but you need the whole story instead of a small one sided snippet that serves a one sided agenda.

Bonnie

February 19, 2006

Quote:

Guantanamo is outrageous, there is no question that it does not contrevene the Geneva Convention

This goes to the point I was making that the anti-Bush crowd cannot seperate Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Now if someone wants to take the position that America's motives are not more noble than al Queida's or Saddam's I will let that arguement fall with its own weight.

February 20, 2006

Just to clarify:

When I speak of America I speak of it's government and not it's individual's. Whilst I recognise that the government body is made up of individuals with differing options the government makes decisions and stands by them as a body or institution.

Britain is by no means exempt from it's part to play within the war in Iraq and torture of prisoners.

Everyone is entitles to expressing their opinion and viewpoint.

February 20, 2006

Shane,

You miss quoted me! WHilst I am not a Bush fan it doesn't make me stupid

Could you explain the differences you see between Abu Graib and Guantanomo?

What are your thoughts on Guantanomo?

February 20, 2006

It's a difficult one to balance.

Publish and be damned. Lose the confidence of those who say you are fighting for, but show you are honest.

Dont publish, and you are dishonest and are as guilty of those who you accuse.

The Brits are now losing cooperation with Iraquis because of the abuse shown on video in 2004.

Sign In

Abu Ghraib revisited

Recommended Posts

Neil D

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Clio

John317

Bravus

Neil D

Clio

Nan

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Nan

Dr. Shane

John317

Dr. Shane

Bravus

Bravus

Dr. Shane

bonnie

fifiqueen

bonnie

Gregory Matthews

bonnie

Dr. Shane

fifiqueen

fifiqueen

David_McQueen

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity