Beheading or abuse of prisoners

I was in part amused to see the argument cropping up that *the media* were not displaying sufficient outrage, or not providing enough coverage of the Berg murder versus the abuse of prisoners in US custody. I note with much interest that that line is coming from the right.

I draw your attention to an editorial from the NYT which touches on yet anothe point in more or less the same issue:

It's easy to say he should not have been in Iraq, but Nicholas Berg was a type familiar to all danger zones: an adventurous and naïve young man who was perhaps keen to do a bit of business, but keener yet to test himself; old enough to understand the danger, but young enough to defy it. It is impossible not to feel grief, and horror, at his terrible end. The claim of this young American's murderers that they were retaliating for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is a cruel ruse. They killed him out of the same madness that drove their comrades in Al Qaeda to slaughter thousands on Sept. 11, 2001. But this manipulative attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the gruesome execution of Mr. Berg and the torture of Iraqi prisoners is now being mimicked by some hard-core supporters of the American war in Iraq. They are cynically trying to use the images of Mr. Berg to wipe away the images of Abu Ghraib, turning the abhorrence for the murderers into an excuse for demonizing Arabs and Muslims, or for sanctioning their torture. Mr. Berg's parents have legitimate questions for the United States government about how he came to be in Iraqi police custody immediately before his kidnapping, what happened to him there and what knowledge American officials had about his situation. The occupation authority needs to stop passing off those questions to the Iraqi police force, which does not exist other than as an agent of American power. The Berg family deserves answers so they can grieve for their son's death in peace. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/opinion/.../14FRI2.html?hp

I believe the NYT op-ed captures accurately the whining about the lack of coverage of Berg's murder. In any case, with the exception of the video (and let's face it, that is certainly not unique) murders occur everyday in most of our societies, certainly not often as brutal as Berg's, but murders all the same.

But then, abuse of prisoners, and on the scale seen in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay weren't believed to happen everyday. Which brings me to my point. Which case, the abuse of prisoners or Berg's murder should lead to them most outrage, and that's really a simple one.

In the case of Berg, we have the bad guys, acting true to how we have characterized them, bad guys.

In the case of the abuse of the prisoners, we have the good guys acting right out of how they have been characterized.

I hope you follow the logic of that, from 100% good to say 90% bad is quite a jump. In my example, a change of 190%.

From say 90% bad to 100% bad, the bad guys are in character, perhaps just a bit more brutal. In my exmaple, a change of 10%.

I do hope you follow this line of thinking. Those who are howling for more media coverage of Berg, are in my opinion, simply seeking to obscure the far greater moral issue.

On the subject of Berg, follow this analogy:

A man wishes to cross a river which is infested with man eating crocodiles. These crocodiles have been hunted by man and also developed a hatred for man. The local park ranger points out to the man the danger of the crocodiles (as was pointed out to the man before he even started his trip) and advises the man that trying to swim the river is not a wonderful idea. The park ranger even offers to ferry the man over in his boat. The man refuses, wades in and starts swimming and winds up as brunch for a couple of crocs.

Who is to blame?

On the other hand, some 43,000 Iraqis got detained, without charge and without trial, without legal representation. Eventually, some 600 of them are charged. An unknown number have been raped, murdered, tortured, abused physically and mentally. And the answer from a US politician is that they are all guilty and therefore deserve what ever treatment they receieve.

And it also comes out that Rumsfeld signed off on the plan that led to the abuse, despite his apparent claims of a lack of knowledge. Worse, you should all read what Powell has been saying, that Bush knew of the claims of the IRC, despite Bush's denials and Rumsfeld defense run for Bush.

Yeh, there should be some moral outrage alright.

[Mr.Vicchio]

So basically you are saying that the terrorist murder was no worse then what a handful of soliders did, equatign the two as equal?

The NYT is such an objective source too. I think this is a long winded attack ad for John Kerry.

Mr.Vicchio

Gee, if you can't figure out what I just posted, I see little point in bothering with your opnions. And it wasn't simply a case of a handful of soldiers, but you keep right on living in denial.

[Mia]

both. The inherently brutal nature of a person or group does not make his or their actions any less horrifying.

BUT many Iraqis have been murdered also - it's not JUST humiliation or JUST torture - so just because we didn't get a video of people being beaten to death and hearing their screams doesn't make it less.

[Mr.Vicchio]

No PW, it WAS a group of soldiers, not some vast consperiacy leading to remsfelds desk where he ordered the abuse and humiliation of prisoners in this manner, and it is not the position of the US military, we do not do that. Does shit happen, yes and I wont deny that.

To say this is the policy of the USA to treat people in this manner, that is shwon in these pictures.. if what you are implying were true, then those soldiers would not be up for court martial they would be getting medals.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Mia, both.  The inherently brutal nature of a person or group does not make his or their actions any less horrifying. BUT many Iraqis have been murdered also - it's not JUST humiliation or JUST torture - so just because we didn't get a video of people being beaten to death and hearing their screams doesn't make it less.

But there were some pictures of Saddam throwing people off a roof and another of cutting someone's tongue out. I don't think there are photos of the thousands that stood over mass graves and were shot and pushed in while their wives and children were made to watch.

It isn't as simple as comparing one type of torture to another... or saying one is really bad but another is not so bad. Although the sexual abuse kinda ranks somewhere less than being murdered, don't you think? Especially having your head cut off with a knife while you are conscious.... at least for a little while.

VXerick But there were some pictures of Saddam throwing people off a roof and another of cutting someone's tongue out.

Um, are you sure, would you like a chance to restate the above?

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, No PW, it WAS a group of soldiers, not some vast consperiacy leading to remsfelds desk where he ordered the abuse and humiliation of prisoners in this manner, and it is not the position of the US military, we do not do that.  Does shit happen, yes and I wont deny that. To say this is the policy of the USA to treat people in this manner, that is shwon in these pictures.. if what you are implying were true, then those soldiers would not be up for court martial they would be getting medals.

Not according to the Associated Press. The AP released a story about 11:00 EST tonight saying just that. According to the AP, the source was the New Yorker. I don't claim any way to verify this but the Associated Press is a respected source and I'll include the first paragraph. I'm sure the Sunday papers will carry it.

"NEW YORK- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq, the New Yorker reported Saturday."

If true, this would make almost every word out of Bush, Rumsfeld and every other administration member who denied all this a lie.
Given the choice is information from an independent news source and the subjects in question, I'll lean towards the New Yorker, as Bush, et al have not proven themselves to be the bastions of truth as they want us to believe, and of course they wouldn't incriminate themselves by admitting anything.
I'm sure the far right will scream "liberal media" as usual, but when one side has no real advantage in lying and the other side has EVERY reason to cover this up the administration needs a little more than some stooge saying it's all lies to satisfy me.

As for the soldiers being court martialed, the word "scapegoat" comes to mind, as I find it hard to swallow that these things happened right under the noses of the military brass. The commanders were either in on it, ordered or encouraged it, or are too incompetant in missing it to remain in the armed services.

Scribbler1

You might also like to read this:

Powell says Bush was 'informed' of Red Cross concerns Officials advised president 'in general terms' about reports of abuse, he says By Mark Matthews Sun National Staff Originally published May 12, 2004 WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he and other top officials kept President Bush "fully informed ... in general terms" about complaints made by the Red Cross and others over ill-treatment of detainees in U.S. custody http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...bal-news-nation

[PatrickHenry]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292...925-2903288.php

Editorial: A failure of leadership at the highest levels Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war. snip But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons. There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers in the now-infamous pictures and an even more damning report by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. Every soldier involved should be ashamed. But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership. The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. snip This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war. — Military Times editorial, May 17 issue

REGIME CHANGE IN WASHINGTON DC

[Impenitent]

DREAM ON

[Mia]

Originally posted by VXerick,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (VXerick,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mia, both.  The inherently brutal nature of a person or group does not make his or their actions any less horrifying. BUT many Iraqis have been murdered also - it's not JUST humiliation or JUST torture - so just because we didn't get a video of people being beaten to death and hearing their screams doesn't make it less.

But there were some pictures of Saddam throwing people off a roof and another of cutting someone's tongue out. I don't think there are photos of the thousands that stood over mass graves and were shot and pushed in while their wives and children were made to watch.

It isn't as simple as comparing one type of torture to another... or saying one is really bad but another is not so bad. Although the sexual abuse kinda ranks somewhere less than being murdered, don't you think? Especially having your head cut off with a knife while you are conscious.... at least for a little while.[/b][/quote]


The subject was only the beheading vs. the prison abuse. Since the prison abuse resulted in several murders, I don't see how it can be less.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Scribbler1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Vicchio, No PW, it WAS a group of soldiers, not some vast consperiacy leading to remsfelds desk where he ordered the abuse and humiliation of prisoners in this manner, and it is not the position of the US military, we do not do that.

Not according to the Associated Press. The AP released a story about 11:00 EST tonight saying just that. According to the AP, the source was the New Yorker. I don't claim any way to verify this but the Associated Press is a respected source and I'll include the first paragraph. I'm sure the Sunday papers will carry it.

"NEW YORK- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq, the New Yorker reported Saturday."

If true, this would make almost every word out of Bush, Rumsfeld and every other administration member who denied all this a lie.
[/b][/quote]
Here's the story from the New Yorker.Actually the same story in a format easier to read at truthout.org: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/051604A.shtml
Mr.Vicchio, time for a little word eatin' along with a side order of some humility.

They carried out instant interrogations-using force if necessary-at secret C.I.A. detention centers scattered around the world.<snip> "The rules are 'Grab whom you must. Do what you want.'" One Pentagon official who was deeply involved in the program was Stephen Cambone, who was named Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in March, 2003. The office was new; it was created as part of Rumsfeld's reorganization of the Pentagon. Cambone was unpopular among military and civilian intelligence bureaucrats in the Pentagon, essentially because he had little experience in running intelligence programs, though in 1998 he had served as staff director for a committee, headed by Rumsfeld, that warned of an emerging ballistic-missile threat to the United States. He was known instead for his closeness to Rumsfeld. "Remember Henry II-'Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?'" the senior C.I.A. official said to me, with a laugh, last week. "Whatever Rumsfeld whimsically says, Cambone will do ten times that much." Cambone was a strong advocate for war against Iraq. He shared Rumsfeld's disdain for the analysis and assessments proffered by the C.I.A., viewing them as too cautious, and chafed, as did Rumsfeld, at the C.I.A.'s inability, before the Iraq war, to state conclusively that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction. Cambone's military assistant, Army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, was also controversial. Last fall, he generated unwanted headlines after it was reported that, in a speech at an Oregon church, he equated the Muslim world with Satan. Early in his tenure, Cambone provoked a bureaucratic battle within the Pentagon by insisting that he be given control of all special-access programs that were relevant to the war on terror. Those programs, which had been viewed by many in the Pentagon as sacrosanct, were monitored by Kenneth deGraffenreid, who had experience in counter-intelligence programs. Cambone got control, and deGraffenreid subsequently left the Pentagon.

Hersh's story shows that the DoD has an "intelligence" program that has drawn objections even from CIA, who parted ways on method and means. Insider sources say the root was Pentagon hubris. The enlisted and NCOs are takin' it in the ass for the DoD higher ups and the military chain of command because of the "secret" nature of the sap.

In 2003, Rumsfeld's apparent disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate General's (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar Association's Committee on International Human Rights. "They wanted us to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation," Horton told me. "They were urging us to get involved and speak in a very loud voice. It came pretty much out of the blue. The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and it's going to occur." The military officials were most alarmed about the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process, Horton recalled. "They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels in the Pentagon. The jag officers were being cut out of the policy formulation process." They told him that, with the war on terror, a fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions had come to an end. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed on January 13th, when Joseph Darby, a young military policeman assigned to Abu Ghraib, reported the wrongdoing to the Army's Criminal Investigations Division. He also turned over a CD full of photographs. Within three days, a report made its way to Donald Rumsfeld, who informed President Bush. The inquiry presented a dilemma for the Pentagon. The C.I.D. had to be allowed to continue, the former intelligence official said. "You can't cover it up. You have to prosecute these guys for being off the reservation. But how do you prosecute them when they were covered by the special-access program? So you hope that maybe it'll go away." The Pentagon's attitude last January, he said, was "Somebody got caught with some photos. What's the big deal? Take care of it." Rumsfeld's explanation to the White House, the official added, was reassuring: "'We've got a glitch in the program. We'll prosecute it.' The cover story was that some kids got out of control." <snip> "In an odd way," Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "the sexual abuses at Abu Ghraib have become a diversion for the prisoner abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions that is authorized." Since September 11th, Roth added, the military has systematically used third-degree techniques around the world on detainees. "Some jags hate this and are horrified that the tolerance of mistreatment will come back and haunt us in the next war," Roth told me. "We're giving the world a ready-made excuse to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld has lowered the bar."

Impenitent-Try to avoid posting oneliners<"I don't agree", or "you're wrong...etc">. From the etiquette.

[Mr.Vicchio]

No PH its not.

Wow one source, ONE source has this. HAven't you slammed me for one source trumpteting? Hmm? And this reporter has a history of Bush, and for that matter, military slamming?

[Mia]

No one-sourcing.

Top Pentagon officials have conceded that some of the interrogation techniques approved for use by the US military on Iraqi prisoners violate the Geneva Convention. The grudging admission came on Thursday as US senators investigated disclosures of sexual and psychological abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Democrats confronted Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and General Peter Race, the number-two official at the Pentagon, with "rules of interrogation" approved by the top commander in Iraq, Lt.Gen Ricardo Sanchez. Those methods included sleep and sensory deprivation, forcing prisoners to assume "stressful" body positions for up to 45 minutes, threatening them with guard dogs, keeping them isolated for longer than 30 days and dietary manipulation. Senator Jack Reed asked Pace if a foreign nation held a US Marine in a cell, naked with a bag over his head, squatting with his arms uplifted for 45 minutes, whether would that be a good interrogation technique or a Geneva Convention violation. "I would describe it as a violation, sir," replied Pace, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "As I read General Sanchez's guidance, precisely that behaviour could have been employed in Iraq," Reed pointed out. Reed then asked Wolfowitz a similar question. Wolfowitz initially tried to sidestep it, but eventually replied, "What you have described to me sounds, to me, like a violation of the Geneva Convention." US interrogation techniques have come under scrutiny amid revelations prisoners were kept naked, stacked on top of one another, forced to engage in sex acts and photographed in humiliating poses. Human rights activists have said the US interrogation methods clearly violated the Geneva Convention. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/340...66BF832903F.htm

The US military has barred a number of interrogation methods in Iraq, defence officials in Washington say. The banned methods include sleep and sensory deprivation, and making prisoners assume "stress positions". The US military has been rocked by revelations about abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. On Friday the army said a fourth US soldier would soon face court martial for allegedly mistreating Iraqi inmates. Until now, a number of techniques - including sleep deprivation and "stress positions" - could be used if approved by a commander. Earlier this week Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended the methods, saying that they had been cleared by Pentagon lawyers. But now Pentagon officials say requests to use these methods would be turned down. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3716497.stm

Sigh, top down.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, No PH its not. Wow one source, ONE source has this. HAven't you slammed me for one source trumpteting? Hmm? And this reporter has a history of Bush, and for that matter, military slamming?

Actually, I used to have to hound you for any sources. You have gotten better about referring to where it came from.

You might want to read the story. It helps defend the enlisted and NCOs who are getting the heat that should be applied to the order-givers. I would think that you would have seen some stuff from the inside that would make you want responsibility placed where it needs to be, without roastin' the poor slobs on the bottom. But that's just me...

David Duke is back, he is on the National Alliance broadcast this week
http://www.natvan.com/

And has his own broadcast today here;
http://www.duke.org/radio/index.html

Is this true about Duke?

Running as a Republican, Duke won a Louisiana State Legislature seat in January 1989, despite scrutiny and opposition from national Republican leaders. While in office, he continued to sell neo-Nazi literature. While claiming that he had repudiated racism, Duke made statements such as "Jews are trying to destroy all other cultures." Duke won 43.5 percent of the vote in an unsuccessful 1990 U.S. Senate race and 700,000 votes in a 1991 race for the governorship of Louisiana. After an unsuccessful Presidential bid in 1992, Duke retreated from the political arena but continued to concentrate on raising his media profile. He tried his luck as a radio talk show host in 1993, but his controversial program, the "David Duke Conservative Hotline," proved unpopular.

[PatrickHenry]

Where did your quote come from?