CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Why only a handful of grunts paid for the unspeakable crimes of Abu Ghraib
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why only a handful of grunts paid for the unspeakable crimes of Abu Ghraib

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
From the great New Yorker:

Quote:
Annals of National Security
The General’s Report
How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties.
by Seymour M. Hersh June 25, 2007

Taguba knew his report would make him unpopular: “If I lie, I lose. And, if I tell the truth, I lose.” Photograph by Mary Ellen Mark.

On the afternoon of May 6, 2004, Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba was summoned to meet, for the first time, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his Pentagon conference room. Rumsfeld and his senior staff were to testify the next day, in televised hearings before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees, about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq. The previous week, revelations about Abu Ghraib, including photographs showing prisoners stripped, abused, and sexually humiliated, had appeared on CBS and in The New Yorker. In response, Administration officials had insisted that only a few low-ranking soldiers were involved and that America did not torture prisoners. They emphasized that the Army itself had uncovered the scandal.

If there was a redeeming aspect to the affair, it was in the thoroughness and the passion of the Army’s initial investigation. The inquiry had begun in January, and was led by General Taguba, who was stationed in Kuwait at the time. Taguba filed his report in March. In it he found:


Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees . . . systemic and illegal abuse.

Taguba was met at the door of the conference room by an old friend, Lieutenant General Bantz J. Craddock, who was Rumsfeld’s senior military assistant. Craddock’s daughter had been a babysitter for Taguba’s two children when the officers served together years earlier at Fort Stewart, Georgia. But that afternoon, Taguba recalled, “Craddock just said, very coldly, ‘Wait here.’ ” In a series of interviews early this year, the first he has given, Taguba told me that he understood when he began the inquiry that it could damage his career; early on, a senior general in Iraq had pointed out to him that the abused detainees were “only Iraqis.” Even so, he was not prepared for the greeting he received when he was finally ushered in.

“Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba—of the Taguba report!” Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, “I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting.”

In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. “Could you tell us what happened?” Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, “Is it abuse or torture?” At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”

Rumsfeld was particularly concerned about how the classified report had become public. “General,” he asked, “who do you think leaked the report?” Taguba responded that perhaps a senior military leader who knew about the investigation had done so. “It was just my speculation,” he recalled. “Rumsfeld didn’t say anything.” (I did not meet Taguba until mid-2006 and obtained his report elsewhere.) Rumsfeld also complained about not being given the information he needed. “Here I am,” Taguba recalled Rumsfeld saying, “just a Secretary of Defense, and we have not seen a copy of your report. I have not seen the photographs, and I have to testify to Congress tomorrow and talk about this.” As Rumsfeld spoke, Taguba said, “He’s looking at me. It was a statement.”

At best, Taguba said, “Rumsfeld was in denial.” Taguba had submitted more than a dozen copies of his report through several channels at the Pentagon and to the Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, which ran the war in Iraq. By the time he walked into Rumsfeld’s conference room, he had spent weeks briefing senior military leaders on the report, but he received no indication that any of them, with the exception of General Schoomaker, had actually read it. (Schoomaker later sent Taguba a note praising his honesty and leadership.) When Taguba urged one lieutenant general to look at the photographs, he rebuffed him, saying, “I don’t want to get involved by looking, because what do you do with that information, once you know what they show?”

Taguba also knew that senior officials in Rumsfeld’s office and elsewhere in the Pentagon had been given a graphic account of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, and told of their potential strategic significance, within days of the first complaint. On January 13, 2004, a military policeman named Joseph Darby gave the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (C.I.D.) a CD full of images of abuse. Two days later, General Craddock and Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, the director of the Joint Staff of the J.C.S., were e-mailed a summary of the abuses depicted on the CD. It said that approximately ten soldiers were shown, involved in acts that included:


Having male detainees pose nude while female guards pointed at their genitals; having female detainees exposing themselves to the guards; having detainees perform indecent acts with each other; and guards physically assaulting detainees by beating and dragging them with choker chains.

Taguba said, “You didn’t need to ‘see’ anything—just take the secure e-mail traffic at face value.”

I learned from Taguba that the first wave of materials included descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees. Several of these images, including one of an Iraqi woman detainee baring her breasts, have since surfaced; others have not. (Taguba’s report noted that photographs and videos were being held by the C.I.D. because of ongoing criminal investigations and their “extremely sensitive nature.”) Taguba said that he saw “a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.” The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over Abu Ghraib. “It’s bad enough that there were photographs of Arab men wearing women’s panties,” Taguba said.

On January 20th, the chief of staff at Central Command sent another e-mail to Admiral Keating, copied to General Craddock and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the Army commander in Iraq. The chief of staff wrote, “Sir: update on alleged detainee abuse per our discussion. DID IT REALLY HAPPEN? Yes, currently have 4 confessions implicating perhaps 10 soldiers. DO PHOTOS EXIST? Yes. A CD with approx 100 photos and a video—CID has these in their possession.”

In subsequent testimony, General Myers, the J.C.S. chairman, acknowledged, without mentioning the e-mails, that in January information about the photographs had been given “to me and the Secretary up through the chain of command. . . . And the general nature of the photos, about nudity, some mock sexual acts and other abuse, was described.”

Nevertheless, Rumsfeld, in his appearances before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees on May 7th, claimed to have had no idea of the extensive abuse. “It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn’t say, ‘Wait, look, this is terrible. We need to do something,’ ” Rumsfeld told the congressmen. “I wish we had known more, sooner, and been able to tell you more sooner, but we didn’t.”

Rumsfeld told the legislators that, when stories about the Taguba report appeared, “it was not yet in the Pentagon, to my knowledge.” As for the photographs, Rumsfeld told the senators, “I say no one in the Pentagon had seen them”; at the House hearing, he said, “I didn’t see them until last night at 7:30.” Asked specifically when he had been made aware of the photographs, Rumsfeld said:


There were rumors of photographs in a criminal prosecution chain back sometime after January 13th . . . I don’t remember precisely when, but sometime in that period of January, February, March. . . . The legal part of it was proceeding along fine. What wasn’t proceeding along fine is the fact that the President didn’t know, and you didn’t know, and I didn’t know.

“And, as a result, somebody just sent a secret report to the press, and there they are,” Rumsfeld said.

Taguba, watching the hearings, was appalled. He believed that Rumsfeld’s testimony was simply not true. “The photographs were available to him—if he wanted to see them,” Taguba said. Rumsfeld’s lack of knowledge was hard to credit. Taguba later wondered if perhaps Cambone had the photographs and kept them from Rumsfeld because he was reluctant to give his notoriously difficult boss bad news. But Taguba also recalled thinking, “Rumsfeld is very perceptive and has a mind like a steel trap. There’s no way he’s suffering from C.R.S.—Can’t Remember Shit. He’s trying to acquit himself, and a lot of people are lying to protect themselves.” It distressed Taguba that Rumsfeld was accompanied in his Senate and House appearances by senior military officers who concurred with his denials.
Read the rest of the piece at the link above. This to me is one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated by our country, right up there with the Trail of Tears and slavery. Our great country has been taken over by sociopaths.
post #2 of 63
When I read this it made me think of the DC Madam case because for "some reason" federal prosecutors decided to only go after the Madam and her girls, but didn't want to go after the "Johns" that hired the services. They even made sure to get a gag order real quick and get a hold of the Madam's black book so the press wouldn't find out any names.
post #3 of 63
The government unilaterally and irrevocably decides what is law and makes themselves immune from the law. They alone can disarm anyone they like and keep themselves armed. It should be no wonder that they do things like this-our government has been doing it since it began. Did this come as news to you today?
post #4 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelo Mike
The government unilaterally and irrevocably decides what is law and makes themselves immune from the law. They alone can disarm anyone they like and keep themselves armed. It should be no wonder that they do things like this-our government has been doing it since it began. Did this come as news to you today?
Can you please explain what you mean by this?
post #5 of 63
He means-
"I'm a fucking jack-ass."
post #6 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelo Mike
The government unilaterally and irrevocably decides what is law and makes themselves immune from the law.
Good thing we're a nation of men, not laws, right? Am I right?!?

Shit. Maybe Angelo is right.

Then again, maybe he is, in fact, a moron. 'Irrevocably'? What are these irrevocable laws you speak of?

Sure, the government is easily immunized from laws, but it wasn't the government banging prostitutes in hotel rooms.
post #7 of 63
Odd. This is the same guy who argued private business owners should be above the law.
post #8 of 63
This sums up a lot of the problem here:
Quote:
Taguba concluded that Miller’s approach was not consistent with Army doctrine, which gave military police the overriding mission of making sure that the prisons were secure and orderly. His report cited testimony that interrogators and other intelligence personnel were encouraging the abuse of detainees. “Loosen this guy up for us,” one M.P. said he was told by a member of military intelligence. “Make sure he has a bad night.”

The M.P.s, Taguba said, “were being literally exploited by the military interrogators. My view is that those kids”—even the soldiers in the photographs—“were poorly led, not trained, and had not been given any standard operating procedures on how they should guard the detainees.”
These soldiers were, at the very least, given tacit approval to do what they did. The MPs didn't have the training in proper interrogation procedures and did whatever inhumane things they wanted to do to the "terrorists." I think that this Miller guy has a lot to answer for.

This is a great quote:

Quote:
“From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable.”
post #9 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
From the great New Yorker:



Read the rest of the piece at the link above. This to me is one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated by our country, right up there with the Trail of Tears and slavery. Our great country has been taken over by sociopaths.
Maybe the country is run by sociopaths, but to suggest this is as bad as slavery or the trail of tears is pure hyperbole. Both of those travesties were several orders of magnitude worse than Abu Ghraib.
post #10 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taguba
From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable.”
This guy is who I'm talking about when I say I support the troops. No bullshit, no excuses, and actual respect for the values that the Armed Forces are supposed to be based around. Speaking out against one's peers is never easy, a fact only compounded by military training and culture. If he wants to run for something after being retired for this, he's got my vote.
post #11 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
These soldiers were, at the very least, given tacit approval to do what they did.
The very least. Bush grandfathered immunity for American torturers into the Military Commissions Act. Nine years' worth of immunity.

Quote:
The MPs didn't have the training in proper interrogation procedures and did whatever inhumane things they wanted to do to the "terrorists."
You don't need to be trained in proper interrogation procedures to tell the difference between humane and inhumane treatment. And I'm quite sure these MP's did have access to the then-current UCMJ, which explicitly prohibited torture and gave reasons why. It may have since changed to reflect the United States' new willingness to commit war crimes, though.
post #12 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
This guy is who I'm talking about when I say I support the troops. No bullshit, no excuses, and actual respect for the values that the Armed Forces are supposed to be based around. Speaking out against one's peers is never easy, a fact only compounded by military training and culture. If he wants to run for something after being retired for this, he's got my vote.
Wouldn't his position on the issues matter a bit?
post #13 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelo Mike
The government unilaterally and irrevocably decides what is law
Maybe you should educate yourself on what a constitution is before ranting in public.
post #14 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Wouldn't his position on the issues matter a bit?
Yeah, if it turns out he supports the Creation Museum or something else outlandish, then I'd reconsider. But a soldier who is firmly against torture and for goverment accountability has scored a lot of points in my book already. He's battting a thousand thus far.
post #15 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelo Mike
My mother unilaterally and irrevocably decides what is bedtime and makes herself immune from the curfew. She alone can turn off any TV she likes and keep her own TV on well past 10pm.
...
post #16 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
Yeah, if it turns out he supports the Creation Museum or something else outlandish, then I'd reconsider. But a soldier who is firmly against torture and for goverment accountability has scored a lot of points in my book already. He's battting a thousand thus far.
Sad that it comes to that, isn't it? Wondering whether your next president will support torture or not, I mean.
post #17 of 63
He's got my vote for making a Bottle Rocket reference.
post #18 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Sad that it comes to that, isn't it? Wondering whether your next president will support torture or not, I mean.
This is something that still sticks in my craw from a recent Republican debate. Only one candidate came out - unequivocally - against torture. How is it possible that in America, major Presidential candidates can publicly advocate for torture? It's like I went to sleep one day and woke up in another country.
post #19 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Only one candidate came out - unequivocally - against torture. How is it possible that in America, major Presidential candidates can publicly advocate for torture? It's like I went to sleep one day and woke up in another country.
It's heartbreaking. I still keep expecting to wake up, as if one day America's going to shake itself, get some coffee and remark about what a crazy dream that was.
post #20 of 63
Quote:
How is it possible that in America, major Presidential candidates can publicly advocate for torture?
By not calling it torture, and by invoking fear.

I have houseguests at the moment, a friend who left Calgary nine years ago to live in rural Pennsylvania and then Richmond and her boyfriend. She told me not two days ago that stuff like this happens because America runs on fear. Fear of guns, fear of no guns, fear of drugs, fear of going to hell, fear of the current bad guy (the Kaiser, the Japs, Nazis, Commies, Muslims, whoever) fear of government, fear of getting sick, fear of being sued. I believe her.

Either that, or Republicans are just a bloodthirsty bunch who want some payback because they have a bug up their collective ass over 9/11, and the candidates know it. I didn't hear a lot of boos concerning Romney's declaration that he would step up the torture in Cuba and would be sure to deliberately not set out to determine the guilt of those he will have tortured.
post #21 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
I didn't hear a lot of boos concerning Romney's declaration that he would step up the torture in Cuba and would be sure to deliberately not set out to determine the guilt of those he will have tortured.
It's mind-boggling, and it's a sad reflection on the current state of the Republican Party. People don't seem to get that once it's ok to torture that other guy, it's ok to torture you.
post #22 of 63
I have trouble with the 'it's okay to torture the other guy' step. The people cheering this behaviour on are not likely to be captured and tortured regardless of the behaviour of the US government towards citizens of other nations. Your average rock-ribbed Conservative is not going to be convinced to respect the rights of others out of enlightened self-interest on those grounds.

That torture does not work, that the people being held have yet to be proven guilty of anything at all, that all this serves only to create more enemies for the US doesn't seem to sink in either. You're in a better position to understand why than I am, but the only reasons I can think of are fear, vicarious sadism, or plain old brand loyalty. You said at one point you assumed that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing because the US was doing it, and I see no reason not to believe others argue in favour of torturing prisoners on the same ground.
post #23 of 63
Thread Starter 
While the politicians should and do know better, I have a horrible feeling that regular people have been whipped into such a frenzy by radio and TV hosts that they don't understand any of this. They're being told it's not only OK, it's justified. They have been told that the Iraqis are vicious, horrible people who blow up babies and deserve whatever we give them, whether it's legal or not. They don't understand the real life implications of torture, the Geneva Conventions, blowback, the increased danger it imposes on our troops in, none of that.

The melding of "24"-style entertainment and the Hannity/Rush/Glenn Beck/O'Reillys of the world popularizing torture and blasting hate into people's ears probably gets high marks on these candidates' focus group testing, so they will pander to it. "Double Guantanamo!" was the weirdest thing anybody said at the GOP debates. And the crowd cheered.
post #24 of 63
I have to lay blame at the Democrats' feet. They should be having a PR field day with this sort of thing, but they can't put together a convincing sound bite for the life of them. Just come out and declare this stuff "unAmerican" already.
post #25 of 63
Watching grownups admit they don't 'believe' in evolution (what's there to believe? It's like believing in gravity or the scattering of sunlight; we don't need to believe in it, we can see it happening around us) was weirder. I understand moral bankruptcy, I suppose, but I don't understand this newfound Conservative aversion to rationality.
post #26 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
"Double Guantanamo!" was the weirdest thing anybody said at the GOP debates. And the crowd cheered.
Yeah, in all the sound clips I heard from that debate, Romney got the biggest applause, and he was basically saying fuck due process or habeus corpus, or whatever, and put more of these bad guys in prisons, and do whatever we can to them. The crowd loved it. And it's totally just based on fear. People are locked into eating up what Fox or other mainstream news outlets tell them. They are wired into this fear thing - the news reports aren't even the most important news items, they're just scary shit that gets your attention. So for the viewer, logic and careful thoughtfulness is gone and it's replaced with reactionary quick decisions, and support for insane policy.

Just to rant a little, what gets me about the whole torture thing is the us against them thought process that it's based on, from the angle of the people who support this stuff. And it ties into people who even just support war or violence on any level. I want to ask these people who they are? What elite group are you a part of that you will forever be shielded from being a victim of this type of violence, for whatever cause it might be done in the name of? When it works this way, one of the torture supporters could just as easily become one of its victims.

From my perception it appears that all the people that support share a common irrational fear, and all the people that don't support are the rational, thoughtful ones. That's what it comes down to.
post #27 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by stump
From my perception it appears that all the people that support share a common irrational fear, and all the people that don't support are the rational, thoughtful ones. That's what it comes down to.
It's easy to ramp up the fear in the general population after the enemy in question seems to have no qualms in torturing and killing their own people in their cause. What are they going to do to the people they *really* hate?
post #28 of 63
It appears to be easy anyway. Remember: remain calm, buy duct tape.
post #29 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
It appears to be easy anyway. Remember: remain calm, buy duct tape.
And shovels...lots and lots of shovels.
post #30 of 63
Americans have been so isolated for so long as a country by not just geography but everything else. Maybe I'm just too cynical but it's not too surprising that a lot of people here in the states are reacting the way they are since they have no experience with people outside of their sphere. This is especially true for a lot of conservatives that tend to remain insulated within their community and not actively seek out new things (ala new theories, information, education in general, etc.). When you think about it, by nature being conservative means that you don't really try to change so anything that forces you to change or exposes to you to something different is likely to scare you immensely and have you feel comfortable with anything that tries to keep your little world intact as you know it.
post #31 of 63
If the US is geographically isolated, then so is Canada. Yet we don't torture our prisoners. I think the cause lies, as they say, elsewhere. How many countries do you have to border before you aren't isolated? Technically, we're more isolated than you as we only share a border with one country.

And if there's one country that is not politically isolated, it's the US. You stick your nose in and interfere and overthrow and invade and attack at the drop of a hat. If there's a reason the US has any role at all in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, I can't imagine it.

Quote:
Maybe I'm just too cynical but it's not too surprising that a lot of people here in the states are reacting the way they are since they have no experience with people outside of their sphere.
Does one need to be well-travelled to have the integrity to support adhering to treaties the US has signed? Does one need to be well-travelled to figure out that confessions extracted under torture are somewhat suspect? Or just to be a decent human being?

I wonder: how many of these pro-torture goons do you think believe that the people who were tortured into confessing to be witches really were witches? I bet some of them do.
post #32 of 63
[QUOTE=Seabass Inna Bun]
And if there's one country that is not politically isolated, it's the US. You stick your nose in and interfere and overthrow and invade and attack at the drop of a hat. If there's a reason the US has any role at all in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, I can't imagine it.QUOTE]

Brokering peace, perhaps?

Guess Jimmy Carter better turn in that Nobel Peace Prize since he had no business getting into the affairs of Israel and Egypt. And look how badly that's turned out for everyone.

The US can't win. We either become too isolationist in some eyes, or too involved in the affairs of others.

Which way do you want it?
post #33 of 63
Quote:
Brokering peace, perhaps?
Ostensibly, but why the US? Why not Brazil or England or Holland or Canada or Australia or any other nation you care to name?

I never said the US was 'too' anything in this thread, just that it isn't politically isolated.
post #34 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Ostensibly, but why the US? Why not Brazil or England or Holland or Canada or Australia or any other nation you care to name?
I would love it if more nations got involved in the peace process. It's clearly too big a job for one nation to broker, especially when the US seems to be the bad guy no matter what.

I'm thinking that the US should become the 'Bad Cop', and let someone else step up to be the 'Good Cop'.

What would happen if the US threw it's support behind Hamas as the 'duly elected leadership of the Palastinian Authority?

Would Hamas suddenly burst into flame from the very idea of the Great Satan supporting them?

Granted, it will never happen....
post #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
If the US is geographically isolated, then so is Canada. Yet we don't torture our prisoners.
I didn't realize Canada had any substantial number of POWs.
post #36 of 63
I didn't say anything about not having secret prisons.

The US's ways do not have a lot of support in Canada, despite being just as isolated geographically. I don't think isolation is a factor.
post #37 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Why the US?
Because we came out of WWII as the top dog (or, perhaps more accurately, the last man standing) in our sphere of influence. This gave us the ability to create a pax Americana that led to sixty years of relative peace and stability.
post #38 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Your average rock-ribbed Conservative is not going to be convinced to respect the rights of others out of enlightened self-interest on those grounds.
You're right. The part that baffles me is the widespread tolerance for the idea among the Army's enlisted ranks (there was a story about it in the Washington Post a few weeks back.). Guys in uniform have the most to lose from an erosion of the US position on torture.

Quote:
That torture does not work, that the people being held have yet to be proven guilty of anything at all, that all this serves only to create more enemies for the US doesn't seem to sink in either. You're in a better position to understand why than I am, but the only reasons I can think of are fear, vicarious sadism, or plain old brand loyalty.
Those reasons could very well be it.

Quote:
You said at one point you assumed that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing because the US was doing it, and I see no reason not to believe others argue in favour of torturing prisoners on the same ground.
I don't recall that exact quote, but I will happily cop to being an American nationalist. As such, I will always give my country the benefit of the doubt. When it comes to torture, however, there is no doubt. Regardless of the euphemisms various politicians may choose to trot out, it's always wrong and it never works.
post #39 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
When you think about it, by nature being conservative means that you don't really try to change so anything that forces you to change or exposes to you to something different is likely to scare you immensely and have you feel comfortable with anything that tries to keep your little world intact as you know it.
Donde, I think you misunderstand American political conservatism. You may want to research some of the history of the movement, as well as its differnt strains in American political life since WWII.
post #40 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Because we came out of WWII as the top dog (or, perhaps more accurately, the last man standing) in our sphere of influence. This gave us the ability to create a pax Americana that led to sixty years of relative peace and stability.
That's not a very satisfactory answer. The US apparently does not have the ability to broker peace between Israel and Palestine, WWII ended some time ago as did the post-coital glow the US enjoyed afterwards, and if the Pax Americana includes kicking people off their land because some religious book says someone else had lived there 2000 years earlier, then it is responsible for creating the problem, not solving it.
post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
You're right. The part that baffles me is the widespread tolerance for the idea among the Army's enlisted ranks (there was a story about it in the Washington Post a few weeks back.). Guys in uniform have the most to lose from an erosion of the US position on torture.
People you torture have the most to lose from an erosion of the US position on torture.

Quote:
I don't recall that exact quote, but I will happily cop to being an American nationalist. As such, I will always give my country the benefit of the doubt.
Even still? So you think Gonzalez is an honest man, if a bit absent-minded?

Quote:
When it comes to torture, however, there is no doubt. Regardless of the euphemisms various politicians may choose to trot out, it's always wrong and it never works.
At least we agree on a few of the basics.
post #42 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Even still? So you think Gonzalez is an honest man, if a bit absent-minded?
I do not think the US is always right, unlike many who think the US is always wrong.

The US is not the root of all evil in the world.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
post #43 of 63
Nothing is the root of all evil.
post #44 of 63
Arguing that the US "is not the root of all evil" is kind of like apologizing for "disrespecting the Bing". It's true and all, but it's evading the real issue, because that stripper you beat to death? She's still dead.
post #45 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
A It's true and all, but it's evading the real issue, because that stripper you beat to death? She's still dead.
Yeah, but I didn't beat the stripper to death. Well, at least THAT one.

Anyway....

At this point, I want everyone above the level of bottle washer cleansed from the government. We need a do-over badly. I'm really looking forward to whoever wins the next election try to fix any of this...but I doubt it will happen. Business will go on as usual, Dem or Rep.
post #46 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector,
Yeah, but I didn't beat the stripper to death. Well, at least THAT one..
Yeah, that's what I was talking about.

But,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector,
At this point, I want everyone above the level of bottle washer cleansed from the government. We need a do-over badly.
At least we can agree on this.
post #47 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
Arguing that the US "is not the root of all evil" is kind of like apologizing for "disrespecting the Bing". It's true and all, but it's evading the real issue, because that stripper you beat to death? She's still dead.
I don't know what the Bing is, or why I should respect it. I don't see how I'm evading the issue, but I don't see how Vivisector's reply to me is actually a reply to anything I said so I'm not sure what issue I'm evading. All I did is ask whether Abu Gonzales deserves the benefit of the doubt.
post #48 of 63
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bada_Bing

http://www.slate.com/id/1007576/

Wasn't directed at you, Seabass. Although now, your lack of knowledge on this matter does offend me.
post #49 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
All I did is ask whether Abu Gonzales deserves the benefit of the doubt.
After all of the current debacle, including the current twist of missing e mails...no. Where there's smoke there's fire, and at this point we can't see anything because the air's coal-black.

Please...someone...anyone...decent and qualified....please run for president.
post #50 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bada_Bing

http://www.slate.com/id/1007576/

Wasn't directed at you, Seabass. Although now, your lack of knowledge on this matter does offend me.
Oh, that. And here's me thinking "I've never shot down Bing Crosby. What gives?"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Why only a handful of grunts paid for the unspeakable crimes of Abu Ghraib