NationStates Jolt Archive

It's official. We're monsters. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6714221/)
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - U.S. Marines forced Iraqi juveniles to kneel while troops discharged a weapon in a mock execution, used electric shock on one prisoner and set fire to a puddle of solvent that burned a prisoner, according to U.S. Navy documents released Tuesday.

The documents portray a series of abuse cases stretching beyond the Abu Ghraib prison, where photographs surfaced this year of U.S. troops forcing prisoners — often naked — to pose in humiliating positions. The files document a crush of abuse allegations, most from the early months of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, that have swamped investigators....

In one of the reports, a Marine reported that a fellow officer said he and two others had been ordered to execute three Iraqi “enemy prisoners of war.”

“The executions allegedly took place in early April 2003 while the unit was temporarily based at an abandoned Iraqi pharmaceutical factory south of Baghdad,” according to the NCIS document, dated June 26, 2003.

The Marine said he was threatened with death if he did not carry out the order. The bodies of dead Iraqis were allegedly dumped in a hole, the document said.

The suspect, whose name, along with those of others allegedly involved, was blacked out, was given a polygraph test. “An evaluation of the examination indicated [he] was being truthful in his responses,” the document said.

Troops have said many of them were trained in ways to trick polygraph examiners, although it was unclear whether there was any other reason to close the investigation.

There is no--I repeat, NO--justification for this kind of shit. None. Whatever moral justification we may have had in claiming that Saddam Hussein was a monster is gone and then some. All you mouth-breathers who support Bush, get this straight--he and everyone in his administration who planned this debacle or who had anything to do with the argument that we are somehow above the treaties we signed that detail the treatment of prisoners are war criminals, plain and simple. They're as responsible as the soldiers who committed the acts, and if you continue to support them after this, then you're a fucking accessory. Don't like it? Tough shit. Lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.308.gif

And again, the crickets are chirping in a thread that talks about the latest indefensible action this nation has taken. Why do I even try?

Why are we suprised? We've known where these setups go for a long time now, and how ordinary people become these kind of authoritarian monsters:

http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

Why do I even try?

because you would feel bad if you didn't?

and because the eerie silence that occurs each time something like this happens is quite telling. it's like the cognitive dissonance forces them to not even acknowledge these threads' existence. at least not until their masters' puppets tell them what to think about it.

This isn't a debate. It isn't a refutation.

But maybe it's my cynicism showing; were you ever really surprised, Incertonia?

Torture, hatred and atrocity is part of war. The United States and it's allies have gone to insane lengths to prevent it. But it can't be prevented. It's part of the human race. Also, to a certain extent, a necessary part. It's very hard to keep in contact for months at a time with a 'hostile' person and NOT either sympathise or dehumanize.

So, what we have here is a situation where I'm amazed that there have been so FEW atrocities and war crimes. But that doesn't forgive the ones there are. Nor does it forgive those that ignore them.

And again, the crickets are chirping in a thread that talks about the latest indefensible action this nation has taken. Why do I even try?
Sadly, because it doesn't directly involve sensationalism, sexuality or religion. Just boring ole human suffering.

You should've titled it something like Christian soldiers are killing gay, poor Muslim members of NAMBLA.

Why are we suprised? We've known where these setups go for a long time now, and how ordinary people become these kind of authoritarian monsters:

http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm




Thank you for posting this. This experiment is so relevant today, I have heard about it in several different college classes, most notably in a book "Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture" by John Conroy. The book was one of the first things I thought of when I first heard of the prison abuses and thought, "Jeez, how relevant that book is. Everyone should read it'

This isn't a debate. It isn't a refutation.

But maybe it's my cynicism showing; were you ever really surprised, Incertonia?

Torture, hatred and atrocity is part of war. The United States and it's allies have gone to insane lengths to prevent it. But it can't be prevented. It's part of the human race. Also, to a certain extent, a necessary part. It's very hard to keep in contact for months at a time with a 'hostile' person and NOT either sympathise or dehumanize.

So, what we have here is a situation where I'm amazed that there have been so FEW atrocities and war crimes. But that doesn't forgive the ones there are. Nor does it forgive those that ignore them.
I don't think we've gone to insane lengths this time around. In fact, if the attitude of Alberto Gonzales and Don Rumsfeld toward the Geneva Conventions is indicative of the attitude of this administration--and I think it must be, since they've been rewarded for their parts in its execution--then I'd say that these actions have been approved tacitly at the very least. And to be quite frank about it, I don't think we've even heard a fraction of what's really been happening over there. I think this is just the beginning.

Thank you for posting this. This experiment is so relevant today, I have heard about it in several different college classes, most notably in a book "Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture" by John Conroy. The book was one of the first things I thought of when I first heard of the prison abuses and thought, "Jeez, how relevant that book is. Everyone should read it'

This should be included in school curriculums, and might help the students understand the dynamics behind force and coersion. They told me to do it isn't an acceptable excuse, and that's what we always hear the guilty parties saying in these cases.

This should be included in school curriculums, and might help the students understand the dynamics behind force and coersion. They told me to do it isn't an acceptable excuse, and that's what we always hear the guilty parties saying in these cases.When I taught freshman comp at the U of A, some essays on the Milgram Experiment were included in the old textbook. They weren't in the new one, but I photocopied them and used them anyway, simply because I felt it was more important than covering essays on the original form of Cinderella versus the Disney-fied version.

This should be included in school curriculums, and might help the students understand the dynamics behind force and coersion. They told me to do it isn't an acceptable excuse, and that's what we always hear the guilty parties saying in these cases.

If it's not 'They told me to do it', it's 'I don't remember' or 'I don't recall' coming from the higher-ups, who try passing the buck down the line.

Thanks for the post, Incertonia. Don't feel it's a wasted effort. Those who keep their silence in this instance are indeed speaking volumes.

It's official. We're monsters.

Maybe you are, but I and most others are not.
All you mouth-breathers who support Bush, get this straight--he and everyone in his administration who planned this debacle or who had anything to do with the argument that we are somehow above the treaties we signed that detail the treatment of prisoners are war criminals, plain and simple. They're as responsible as the soldiers who committed the acts, and if you continue to support them after this, then you're a fucking accessory. Don't like it? Tough shit. Lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.This coming from a member of the moveon.org psychopaths. :rolleyes: Go back to your drink, man.

Maybe you are, but I and most others are not.
This coming from a member of the moveon.org psychopaths. :rolleyes: Go back to your drink, man.

So after being given hard facts and cold data, you respond with "LOLLERS you drink!"

Fuck, Incert-he's got us there.

So after being given hard facts and cold data, you respond with "LOLLERS you drink!"

Fuck, Incert-he's got us there.
I knew there was a reason Salchicho was on my ignore list.

Maybe you are, but I and most others are not.
This coming from a member of the moveon.org psychopaths. :rolleyes: Go back to your drink, man.

Perhaps you should check out the actual meaning of psychopath and apply it where it actually belongs - to those who are able to not care about suffering, to those who casually cause and dismiss suffering and cruelty in order to further their own personal gains. You are sick.

Does it even occur to a person like you that there are people who actually care?

It's official. We're monsters.

.
.
.

Whatever moral justification we may have had in claiming that Saddam Hussein was a monster is gone and then some.

You are comparing a handful of alleged cases of prisoner abuse (among probably many thousands of prisoners) with Saddam's wholesale executions and attempts at ethnic cleansing. That's like comparing Scott Peterson with Stalin... not even close to being in the same league. Bad when it happens? No question. But to claim moral equivalence between aberrations (yes, they are such) and what we know to be a dictator's modus operandi is a stretch, to say the very least.

In fact, if the attitude of Alberto Gonzales and Don Rumsfeld toward the Geneva Conventions is indicative of the attitude of this administration

IIRC when it is said that Geneva Conventions do not apply to illegal combatants that's true. Insurgents generally dress themselves in civilian clothes and fight near civilians or from within civilian buildings on a regular basis. Not many tears would or should be shed if they were caught and summarily executed.

And to be quite frank about it, I don't think we've even heard a fraction of what's really been happening over there. I think this is just the beginning.

Time will tell who's right.

Perhaps you should check out the actual meaning of psychopath and apply it where it actually belongs - to those who are able to not care about suffering, to those who casually cause and dismiss suffering and cruelty in order to further their own personal gains. You are sick.
Actually the correct definition would be those that are unable to care about suffering.

You are comparing a handful of alleged cases of prisoner abuse (among probably many thousands of prisoners) with Saddam's wholesale executions and attempts at ethnic cleansing. That's like comparing Scott Peterson with Stalin... not even close to being in the same league. Bad when it happens? No question. But to claim moral equivalence between aberrations (yes, they are such) and what we know to be a dictator's modus operandi is a stretch, to say the very least.

IIRC when it is said that Geneva Conventions do not apply to illegal combatants that's true. Insurgents generally dress themselves in civilian clothes and fight near civilians or from within civilian buildings on a regular basis. Not many tears would or should be shed if they were caught and summarily executed.

Time will tell who's right.
To quote Republican Senator Lindsay Graham when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke: If we're going to be the good guys, we've got to act like the good guys. We undertook this war under the premise that we had the moral authority to remove Saddam Hussein, and the longer we're there, the more apparent it becomes that the differences between us are a matter of degree, not of kind.

Goddamnit, we're supposed to be better than this, and yet when you put this together with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with the reports from the other camps in Iraq, we're the biggest bunch of fucking hypocrites on earth. This is going to piss some people off, but we're worse than Hussein right now--at least he never hid the fact that he was a murdering thug. We've got the balls to act all high and mighty while simultaneously abusing and murdering captives. How did we manage to go so terribly wrong in this country?

You are comparing a handful of alleged cases of prisoner abuse (among probably many thousands of prisoners) with Saddam's wholesale executions and attempts at ethnic cleansing. That's like comparing Scott Peterson with Stalin... not even close to being in the same league. Bad when it happens? No question. But to claim moral equivalence between aberrations (yes, they are such) and what we know to be a dictator's modus operandi is a stretch, to say the very least.

Morality and war crimes are not a matter of numbers, nor are they some bizarre auction. To use one set of crimes to justify another is totally illogical.
It's the equivalent of a murderer saying : "Hey, gimme a break, I only killed one guy". How would you regard that as a defence?

IIRC when it is said that Geneva Conventions do not apply to illegal combatants that's true. Insurgents generally dress themselves in civilian clothes and fight near civilians or from within civilian buildings on a regular basis. Not many tears would or should be shed if they were caught and summarily executed.

The only case that there are "illegal combatants" is that the USA declared them to be so. Were the American minutemen of the Revolution "illegal combatants"? Or the partisans fighting against Nazi occupation? If so, why were the trials held of the Nazis after WW11 (where the US, to its credit, played a large role). Your argument is that of the Gestapo.

Time will tell who's right.

You even got that wrong. Some things are never right, under any circumstances, at any time, for anyone.

Hmm. Well, the next time you're driving down the street in your civilian car, and the local insurgents light your car up like the Fourth of July, I'll be sure to walk away and let them kill you.

You've never met these people, have you? To them, it's not about freedom from the US. The ones who are fighting (and they are by no means a majority) against the US are doing so because of their religion.

They would fight us in the US, given the chance. Sound familiar?

They send women and children out to fight. Should I not shoot them?

We might also add that the US investigates and prosecutes abuse of prisoners.

On the day that Islam investigates and prosecutes the insurgents who killed Margaret Hassan, an innocent woman who spent her life serving the poor, I'll eat my own underwear on international television.

Hmm. Well, the next time you're driving down the street in your civilian car, and the local insurgents light your car up like the Fourth of July, I'll be sure to walk away and let them kill you.

You've never met these people, have you? To them, it's not about freedom from the US. The ones who are fighting (and they are by no means a majority) against the US are doing so because of their religion.

They would fight us in the US, given the chance. Sound familiar?

They send women and children out to fight. Should I not shoot them?Let me clue you in on something, bub--if I were an Iraqi, I'd be one of the insurgents doing whatever I felt was necessary to get the US out of my country, just as if there were an occupying power here in the US. Part of the problem is that paternalistic "we're better than they are and they're too stupid to realize it" attitude that comes out in your post. Until you start to understand why they are fighting--and it's not just religion--you'll continue to think of them as less than human, and you'll continue to lose.

Let me clue you in on something, bub--if I were an Iraqi, I'd be one of the insurgents doing whatever I felt was necessary to get the US out of my country, just as if there were an occupying power here in the US. Part of the problem is that paternalistic "we're better than they are and they're too stupid to realize it" attitude that comes out in your post. Until you start to understand why they are fighting--and it's not just religion--you'll continue to think of them as less than human, and you'll continue to lose.

Well, if the paternalistic thing is why everyone hates the US, then I'm sure your logic would apply to OBL as well. Why don't we just give OBL whatever he wants, and I'm sure he'll leave us alone as well.

I'll give you a hint. I've talked to more than one insurgent, and it's not the paternalistic thing. It also isn't the fact that we invaded.

Well, if the paternalistic thing is why everyone hates the US, then I'm sure your logic would apply to OBL as well. Why don't we just give OBL whatever he wants, and I'm sure he'll leave us alone as well.

I'll give you a hint. I've talked to more than one insurgent, and it's not the paternalistic thing. It also isn't the fact that we invaded.
The "paternalistic thing" isn't the reason why everyone hates the US--it's the reason why we don't understand why others want to kill us. We're so busy treating them like backwater idiots who just need the civilizing force of democracy that we never stop to realize that maybe, just maybe, they have legitimate grievances with us. We're the British Raj all over again. Orwell was right when he said that the key to empire-building was dehumanizing the enemy to a point where we can do anything to them and not become outraged. Sound familiar?

. . .

IIRC when it is said that Geneva Conventions do not apply to illegal combatants that's true. Insurgents generally dress themselves in civilian clothes and fight near civilians or from within civilian buildings on a regular basis. Not many tears would or should be shed if they were caught and summarily executed.

. . .



Read Geneva III. There are several circumstances in which non-uniformed combatants are supposed to be guaranteed the same rights as uniformed regulars. One of these is when they are local citizens whose areas have been invaded.

The "paternalistic thing" isn't the reason why everyone hates the US--it's the reason why we don't understand why others want to kill us. We're so busy treating them like backwater idiots who just need the civilizing force of democracy that we never stop to realize that maybe, just maybe, they have legitimate grievances with us. We're the British Raj all over again. Orwell was right when he said that the key to empire-building was dehumanizing the enemy to a point where we can do anything to them and not become outraged. Sound familiar?

IIRC, Bin Laden was pissed because we stationed troops in Saudi during the original Gulf War in order to fight against Saddam. We were invited there to defend Saudi. How is that like the British Raj? The UN okayed it, so it must be good. How is that like the British Raj? So when Bin Laden ordered the destruction of the Trade Towers (pre-1993), how was Clinton like the British Raj? And who were we trying to bring to democracy prior to 9-11?

I suggest you read Bin Laden's papers in order to understand why he wants to kill us. And the insurgents I talked to had those papers on them. And they said that's the only reason they shot at us. I also suggest that you read about Wahhabism - it's the growing trend of belief amongst all insurgents.

Put simply, anything not holding to an exact and pure Islam is evil, and must be destroyed at all costs. Not enslaved, not subjugated, not thrown out of Iraq - destroyed. Annihilated. In case you didn't notice, this probably includes you.

I know exactly what would happen if we put one of these guys in your house for the night.

Hmm. Well, the next time you're driving down the street in your civilian car, and the local insurgents light your car up like the Fourth of July, I'll be sure to walk away and let them kill you.

You've never met these people, have you? To them, it's not about freedom from the US. The ones who are fighting (and they are by no means a majority) against the US are doing so because of their religion.

They would fight us in the US, given the chance. Sound familiar?

They send women and children out to fight. Should I not shoot them?

When they are armed and attacking you: yes.

When they are in chains under your control: no.

How is that so hard to understand?

When they are armed and attacking you: yes.

When they are in chains under your control: no.

How is that so hard to understand?

When we do bad things, we investigate and prosecute. And convict.

When they do bad things, they laugh about it and play tapes of it on Al Jazeera, especially when they're shooting an old woman in the head.

How is that so hard to understand?

Read Geneva III. There are several circumstances in which non-uniformed combatants are supposed to be guaranteed the same rights as uniformed regulars. One of these is when they are local citizens whose areas have been invaded.
And when probably about half of those fighting are not locals and all are in civvie clothes then detemining if someone is covered by the GC is once again thrown into shadow.

And when probably about half of those fighting are not locals and all are in civvie clothes then detemining if someone is covered by the GC is once again thrown into shadow.

Geneva iii also protects those whose status is undetermined. Have you read it yet?

And again, the crickets are chirping in a thread that talks about the latest indefensible action this nation has taken. Why do I even try?
Because you still care?

Geneva iii also protects those whose status is undetermined. Have you read it yet?

I'll let you in on a little secret. How many prisoners did we used to take before, and how many do we take now?

As a proportion of the people we fought in the spring in Fallujah, how many were killed and how many taken prisoner.
As a proportion of the people we fought in the fall in Fallujah, how many were killed and how many were taken prisoner.

Dead people don't have status. It makes the paperwork so much simpler if the insurgents refuse to surrender on the first request. There's no obligation for me to not throw a grenade into the hole they're hiding in after they refuse.

I guess you'll say that all the way back in the Princess Gate operation (where the British SAS freed hostages in the Iranian Embassy way back a long, long time ago) that the SAS was violating the Geneva Convention. They had orders to shoot any body they passed in the head during the operation. This meant that if a terrorist were wounded, and fell, each time an SAS man passed by, he would get shot in the head. A few terrorists who fell in central hallways were found shot more than fifty times in the head.

No, I'm sorry. If you shoot at me, it's personal, not religious. And you're going home in a black plastic trash bag.

When we do bad things, we investigate and prosecute. And convict.

When they do bad things, they laugh about it and play tapes of it on Al Jazeera, especially when they're shooting an old woman in the head.

How is that so hard to understand?

Actually, when we do bad things, we scapegoat those who followed the orders and those who gave them get off with barely an investigation, but that's not the point.

I understand that perfectly, but that was not the issue. Their crimes, no matter how great, do not justify ours, no matter how much lesser. You pointed out carbombings and such and then asked if you can shoot those who perpetrate such things. Since this thread is about abuse and execution of POWs I must assume that you meant that you should be allowed to shoot captives, based on crimes committed by members of their side. Did you mean something else? (BTW, the leaders of the main insurgent factions have condemned the murder of Margaret Hassan.)

You can shoot attackers. You cannot shoot captives. Understand yet? Crimes committed by anyone on their side, even they themselves, do not justify crimes committed by us. Understand yet?? How they respond to crimes committed by people on their side does not justify crimes committed by people on our side. Understand yet???

I'll let you in on a little secret. How many prisoners did we used to take before, and how many do we take now?

As a proportion of the people we fought in the spring in Fallujah, how many were killed and how many taken prisoner.
As a proportion of the people we fought in the fall in Fallujah, how many were killed and how many were taken prisoner.

Dead people don't have status. It makes the paperwork so much simpler if the insurgents refuse to surrender on the first request. There's no obligation for me to not throw a grenade into the hole they're hiding in after they refuse.

I guess you'll say that all the way back in the Princess Gate operation (where the British SAS freed hostages in the Iranian Embassy way back a long, long time ago) that the SAS was violating the Geneva Convention. They had orders to shoot any body they passed in the head during the operation. This meant that if a terrorist were wounded, and fell, each time an SAS man passed by, he would get shot in the head. A few terrorists who fell in central hallways were found shot more than fifty times in the head.

No, I'm sorry. If you shoot at me, it's personal, not religious. And you're going home in a black plastic trash bag.

What's this little secret you wanted to let me in on? That KIAs don't count as POWs? That's not a secret that's common sense.

Here's a "little secret" for you: the topic here is not the killing of enemy combatants who refuse to surrender. It is the killing and torture of POWs. Now that we're on the same page, perhaps you have something to say about that?

Actually, when we do bad things, we scapegoat those who followed the orders and those who gave them get off with barely an investigation, but that's not the point.


I see. So you believe that every abuse by any troops were ordered by Rumsfeld? I've never seen orders like that. In fact, I've consistently seen the opposite.


I understand that perfectly, but that was not the issue. Their crimes, no matter how great, do not justify ours, no matter how much lesser. You pointed out carbombings and such and then asked if you can shoot those who perpetrate such things. Since this thread is about abuse and execution of POWs I must assume that you meant that you should be allowed to shoot captives, based on crimes committed by members of their side. Did you mean something else? (BTW, the leaders of the main insurgent factions have condemned the murder of Margaret Hassan.)


Until you surrender, and I accept the surrender, Geneva dictates that I can still shoot you. That's how the case law works out, anyway. Plenty of examples in WW II.


You can shoot attackers. You cannot shoot captives. Understand yet? Crimes committed by anyone on their side, even they themselves, do not justify crimes committed by us. Understand yet?? How they respond to crimes committed by people on their side does not justify crimes committed by people on our side. Understand yet???

It's not a crime to shoot a combatant whose surrender has not been accepted. We're more than generous. We used to ask multiple times if you want to surrender, and now we only ask once, if you give us the chance to yell it to you. I have shot quite a few insurgents who were reloading instead of surrendering (he got to shoot at me 30 times before this). I didn't think it was unfair to shoot him between the eyes while he was helpless and reloading.

At that point, his friends didn't seem to be too interested in surrender. Shooting running people in the back who have thrown away weapons isn't a crime, either.

I think that anyone who thinks that abuse would never happen in a POW situation unless it was explicitly ordered should read the Milgram studies.

It's human nature for the abuse to happen. Studies prove it. That's why we investigate and prosecute. That's why it's not the result of explicit orders from Rumsfeld, no matter how hard you wish it was.

If you were in that situation, it's entirely possible you would commit abuse as well, just like the students in the Milgram study. College students who weren't even in a war.

And we're better than they are because we look for it, find it, and stop it. And we get to question it online here. They, on the other hand, love to play it on TV, and then apologize into their sleeves with a smile on their face.

I see. So you believe that every abuse by any troops were ordered by Rumsfeld? I've never seen orders like that. In fact, I've consistently seen the opposite.



Until you surrender, and I accept the surrender, Geneva dictates that I can still shoot you. That's how the case law works out, anyway. Plenty of examples in WW II.



It's not a crime to shoot a combatant whose surrender has not been accepted. We're more than generous. We used to ask multiple times if you want to surrender, and now we only ask once, if you give us the chance to yell it to you. I have shot quite a few insurgents who were reloading instead of surrendering (he got to shoot at me 30 times before this). I didn't think it was unfair to shoot him between the eyes while he was helpless and reloading.

At that point, his friends didn't seem to be too interested in surrender. Shooting running people in the back who have thrown away weapons isn't a crime, either.

Yeah and don't think they'll ever let you see those orders, whether they came from Rumsfeld or anyone between him and the torturers.

Have you read the first post? These were captured enemies. POWs. Is the best you people can do to try to divert the topic to instances of killing enemies in active combat? Or to use WW II precedent to justify refusing a valid attempt to surrender? THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. I repeat: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. I have no problem at all with you shooting an enemy when he is reloading. I may have a problem with you shooting the injured and those who are really trying to surrender, but again: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. If you have some justification, other than revenge, for torturing and executing POWs, by all means, state it here. Otherwise admit that it is WRONG. In other words: PTFU or STFU.

i find it much easier to ignore people like mr selfish guns and armed bookwrosm ad corneliu and the rest than it is to try and force reason into their thick skulls. they WANT to torture the muslims because they are "devils" and probably think we ARE on some sort of crusade from god to take back the holy land. those are the people causing this shit and the ones needing to be locked away not the "evil" muslims

Yeah and don't think they'll ever let you see those orders, whether they came from Rumsfeld or anyone between him and the torturers.

Have you read the first post? These were captured enemies. POWs. Is the best you people can do to try to divert the topic to instances of killing enemies in active combat? Or to use WW II precedent to justify refusing a valid attempt to surrender? THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. I repeat: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. I have no problem at all with you shooting an enemy when he is reloading. I may have a problem with you shooting the injured and those who are really trying to surrender, but again: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. If you have some justification, other than revenge, for torturing and executing POWs, by all means, state it here. Otherwise admit that it is WRONG. In other words: PTFU or STFU.


Gee, I'm in the military, and I don't get to see orders that are supposed to order me to abuse prisoners? Where's the logic in that?

And if we're only talking about abuse of captives, find those orders or STFU.

We're already investigating and prosecuting. Show me insurgents who are hanging the ones who shot Margaret Hassan, or STFU about how they are just as good as we are.

I think that anyone who thinks that abuse would never happen in a POW situation unless it was explicitly ordered should read the Milgram studies.

It's human nature for the abuse to happen. Studies prove it. That's why we investigate and prosecute. That's why it's not the result of explicit orders from Rumsfeld, no matter how hard you wish it was.

If you were in that situation, it's entirely possible you would commit abuse as well, just like the students in the Milgram study. College students who weren't even in a war.

And we're better than they are because we look for it, find it, and stop it. And we get to question it online here. They, on the other hand, love to play it on TV, and then apologize into their sleeves with a smile on their face.

1) Have YOU read the Milgram study? I doubt it, because what it is about is the tendency of most people to follow orders even when they are orders to abuse their fellow human beings.

2) Even if it were about whatever you seem to think it was about, it would not, as you assert, constitute proof that Rumsfeld, or anyone else in the chain of command, did not give torture orders.

3) Since it is about what it is about, namely, the tendancy of people to follow immoral orders, it actually bolsters the claims of the accused that they were "just following orders". Good job disproving your own point there, Sparky.

1) Have YOU read the Milgram study? I doubt it, because what it is about is the tendency of most people to follow orders even when they are orders to abuse their fellow human beings.


It's about people's tendency to go beyond orders and commit abuse against people just because they have the authority to do so. That's why they stopped the study.


2) Even if it were about whatever you seem to think it was about, it would not, as you assert, constitute proof that Rumsfeld, or anyone else in the chain of command, did not give torture orders.


Specious logic, don't you think? In order to prove that he gave orders, you have to have the presence of those orders. Since I'm in the military, and would be ordered to commit abuse, I would have heard those orders or seen them.

That's like saying that just because I can't see Santa Clause doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. After all, who else would put presents under the tree?


3) Since it is about what it is about, namely, the tendancy of people to follow immoral orders, it actually bolsters the claims of the accused that they were "just following orders". Good job disproving your own point there, Sparky.

Hardly. It's about the tendency to abuse prisoners just because you can. Exceeding authority you think you have because no one is stopping you. It's human nature.

Just because someone says, "soften them up" doesn't mean that I'm so stupid that I'm going to put panties on their heads and make them form a homoerotic pyramid. Yes, some soldiers are that stupid, and you'll notice that they are on trial. There are means of softening people up that are perfectly legal - and they don't involve photos, underwear, masturbation, or leaving marks on people.

If I put you in a cell and play loud white noise for 48 hours and don't turn off the lights, feed you at irregular intervals, and make you stand there without sleep, and then I ask questions, no court in the US or UK would convict me of abusing you (prisoner of war - as opposed to arrested local citizen).

It's called "the treatment", and it's legal, and it works.

If that were a crime, then most of the UK police force that dealth with the problem in Northern Ireland would already be in prison. And I don't hear anyone at the Hague calling for them to come down, either.

Gee, I'm in the military, and I don't get to see orders that are supposed to order me to abuse prisoners? Where's the logic in that?

Have you been accused of abusing prisoners? No? I guess we might assume that you haven't been ordered to. Those who have been so accused have all said they were following orders.

And if we're only talking about abuse of captives, find those orders or STFU.

We're talking about abuse torture and murder of captives. Those accused of it, like the guy in the first post, say they were following orders, but that is a side point. The main point is about the abuse and torture, and murder, not about whether it was following orders or not. Whether the Marine in Post #1 is lying or not is open to debate, so I will not STFU about that and I bet that neither will you.

We're already investigating and prosecuting.

Good that we are investigating and prosecuting... at least the ones who say they were following orders. But I never once said that we were not, or that we were moinsters, or as bad as they are.

Show me insurgents who are hanging the ones who shot Margaret Hassan, or STFU about how they are just as good as we are.

OK I will STFU about that... oh... wait a minute. I NEVER ONCE SAID THAT OR ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE IT. Reading Comprehension: look into it.

You know what i think?

I think that the insurgents seem to be winning. All of that "morality" stuff that us westerners can claim for going into Iraq is now kaput. Man, i bet the insurgents and al jazeera are going to have a field day.

I won't be surprised if after the election, the entire place goes to total hell.

You know what i think?

I think that the insurgents seem to be winning. All of that "morality" stuff that us westerners can claim for going into Iraq is now kaput. Man, i bet the insurgents and al jazeera are going to have a field day.

I won't be surprised if after the election, the entire place goes to total hell.

Yeah, tell that to the insurgents in Fallujah. I counted at least 3000 rotting corpses.

It's about people's tendency to go beyond orders and commit abuse against people just because they have the authority to do so. That's why they stopped the study.

Actually they stopped the study because they were afraid it would be used to justify the Holocaust. And there was no conclusion that people had a tendency to be abusive beyond what they were ordered to do.

http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

Reading Comprehension: gotta love it.

Specious logic, don't you think? In order to prove that he gave orders, you have to have the presence of those orders. Since I'm in the military, and would be ordered to commit abuse, I would have heard those orders or seen them.

That's like saying that just because I can't see Santa Clause doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. After all, who else would put presents under the tree?

No, what is specious logic is concluding that, because you and I have never seen such orders, they categorically do not exist. Should I assume you're an Atheist? It's ok if you are, but if you're not... have you ever seen G-d? If not, is that proof that He does not exist?

Hardly. It's about the tendency to abuse prisoners just because you can. Exceeding authority you think you have because no one is stopping you. It's human nature.

Just because someone says, "soften them up" doesn't mean that I'm so stupid that I'm going to put panties on their heads and make them form a homoerotic pyramid. Yes, some soldiers are that stupid, and you'll notice that they are on trial. There are means of softening people up that are perfectly legal - and they don't involve photos, underwear, masturbation, or leaving marks on people.

If I put you in a cell and play loud white noise for 48 hours and don't turn off the lights, feed you at irregular intervals, and make you stand there without sleep, and then I ask questions, no court in the US or UK would convict me of abusing you (prisoner of war - as opposed to arrested local citizen).

It's called "the treatment", and it's legal, and it works.

If that were a crime, then most of the UK police force that dealth with the problem in Northern Ireland would already be in prison. And I don't hear anyone at the Hague calling for them to come down, either.

We're not talking about sleep deprivation either. We're talking about immolation, electro-shock, sodomy and other sexual abuse and humiliation, and murder.

THE THREAD SO FAR:

1. Posts about toirture and execution of POWs.

2. Posts wondering why none of the Hawks on NS come to comment about it.

3. Posts from Hawks saying that they are worse than we are.

4. Posts saying so what if they are, it is still war crimes by our side.

5. Posts from Hawks justifying killing people IN COMBAT, justifying harsh but non-criminal interrogation techniques, misrepresenting the conclusions of the Milgram study, and accusing me wrongly of claiming that we and the Jyhadists are morally equal.

6. Posts from me telling the Hawks, now mainly represented by My Gun Not Yours, to get back on topic and to quit misrepresenting Milgram and myself.

Yeah, tell that to the insurgents in Fallujah. I counted at least 3000 rotting corpses.

Is that something to be proud of?

If we, inteligent people cannot see that killing each other is not the way forward, what are we doing?

Defence is good, but deplomacy is better. Agression begets agression.

Sadham was a bad man. but to his own, are we going to stomp on anyone in any country that we think is bad? if so why haven't we gone into China?

Is that something to be proud of?

If we, inteligent people cannot see that killing each other is not the way forward, what are we doing?

Defence is good, but deplomacy is better. Agression begets agression.

Sadham was a bad man. but to his own, are we going to stomp on anyone in any country that we think is bad? if so why haven't we gone into China?

Well, I'm sure that you could talk these people into being nice. In fact, I would invite you to come down and talk to them in person. I'm sure that they would listen for about five minutes, and then you would be the next American Idol on Al Jazeera (even if you aren't American, as Margaret Hassan discovered).

Well, I'm sure that you could talk these people into being nice. In fact, I would invite you to come down and talk to them in person. I'm sure that they would listen for about five minutes, and then you would be the next American Idol on Al Jazeera (even if you aren't American, as Margaret Hassan discovered).

Yes. Very good. You certainly know what buttons to push and how to appeal to moral outrage. Yes. they are bad people.

Now, please answer to the topic of this thread: is it justified to torture and murder POWs?

We claim that we are not the barbarian, they are. Yet more and more case lie this come up, like Abu Grab and Guantamino, can we truely say there worse than we are?

Yes. Very good. You certainly know what buttons to push and how to appeal to moral outrage. Yes. they are bad people.

Now, please answer to the topic of this thread: is it justified to torture and murder POWs?

No. There are no orders to do so. And we investigate and punish those that do. So the prison scandals are just that - and there are no orders to abuse anyone. If there were, no one would be investigated or punished.

Of course, certain interrogation techniques may be considered by some to be torture. But, the US is not using any interrogation techniques that aren't already accepted by nations such as the UK. In fact, some of them come from the UK playbook.

As for those who are not yet prisoners according to the law, if in the heat of combat, someone attempts to surrender, and I have no time (I'm under fire) to accept the surrender, I am legally justified to kill the person and move on, unless I have been explicitly ordered to take as many prisoners as possible.

We claim that we are not the barbarian, they are. Yet more and more case lie this come up, like Abu Grab and Guantamino, can we truely say there worse than we are?
There is a big difference between barbarism and civility on a personal level and a barbaric culture and a civilized one.

Thanks Incertonia, you've done a valuable service.

And a simple appeal to all the Americans who support this war:

Don't become that which you are against.

Actually the correct definition would be those that are unable to care about suffering.
So, the people who support this sort of thing?

Thanks Incertonia, you've done a valuable service.

And a simple appeal to all the Americans who support this war:

Don't become that which you are against.


So, the people who support this sort of thing?


Ah, from Dublin are we? Perhaps you should tell us the story of the Irish fire brigades that drove across Ireland to Belfast during WW II when the Germans bombed Belfast. It's a heartwarming story, and certainly more interesting than this thread.

BTW, my point is that we are already like our enemies. What little difference we have is that it's individuals, not our whole society that has gone south like theirs.

The move of the Irish fire brigades to cross into Northern Ireland and help Belfast in the middle of WW II is representative of that society. A society that Islam does not have.

Ah, from Dublin are we? Perhaps you should tell us the story of the Irish fire brigades that drove across Ireland to Belfast during WW II when the Germans bombed Belfast. It's a heartwarming story, and certainly more interesting than this thread.

BTW, my point is that we are already like our enemies. What little difference we have is that it's individuals, not our whole society that has gone south like theirs.

The move of the Irish fire brigades to cross into Northern Ireland and help Belfast in the middle of WW II is representative of that society. A society that Islam does not have.


Er... you do have have keruvalia....

Er... you do have have keruvalia....

True, but as an individual, he's but a small sample of the completely f**ked up culture that is Islam.

I still urge people to read Naipaul. It's not as though he's some pro-imperialist wretch. He's quite accurate - coldly so - about Islam.

There is a big difference between barbarism and civility on a personal level and a barbaric culture and a civilized one.
Please point out which culture is civilised and which barbaric? There just diffrent thats all.

Please point out which culture is civilised and which barbaric? There just diffrent thats all.

Yes, one civilization considers women to be chattel property with no human rights, and hides them in beekeeper outfits (blue or black, depending on the country). Occasionally, they kill the women if they've talked to a neighbor boy (honor killing). Or sometimes, they gangrape her (as was done in Pakistan). Or put a bullet through her head in a soccer stadium because she was listening to music.

Yes, that's different alright.

Yes, one civilization considers women to be chattel property with no human rights, and hides them in beekeeper outfits (blue or black, depending on the country). Occasionally, they kill the women if they've talked to a neighbor boy (honor killing). Or sometimes, they gangrape her (as was done in Pakistan). Or put a bullet through her head in a soccer stadium because she was listening to music.

Yes, that's different alright.
Yes, I don't agree with that, however that is there culture and if we want to change it, (And personally I want to change those aspects) we need to respect and notice the other elements of it, not just the bad ones.

After all people call the Indians who live in the Amozon rainforest barbaric because they don't have TV's and things and don't wear clothes, but there a damm sight more enviromently freindly than us.

Please point out which culture is civilised and which barbaric? There just diffrent thats all.
Loosely speaking one would define the culture more civilized as the one in which more choices were available. Make your own conclusions.

We're monsters?! WE'RE MONSTERS?! Do you remember what happened on September 11th?! How can you call yourself an American?

No pics?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6082653/

It's funny how some people lump together a bunch of isolated instances and make it seem as if that's the way the whole war is being conducted. Yes, some of our men in uniform are monsters. Yes, the ones responsible for this should be incarcerated. Yes, Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al. are war criminals. But I see no reason to apply labels to every one of our troops. The vast majority of them are honest, decent, courageous men who undoubtedly show just as much disgust over these atrocities as we do. Our communist media is doing the exact same thing they did in Vietnam- ommitting the stories of the acts of heroism by our military, while giving enormous coverage to every atrocity, abomination, and aberration, in an attempt to malign our military, destroy morale, and hand victory to the enemy on a silver platter. The correct solution is to punish the soldiers who are guilty, staunchly support those who are not, and sweep our communist media into the dustbin of history where they belong.

It's funny how some people lump together a bunch of isolated instances and make it seem as if that's the way the whole war is being conducted. Yes, some of our men in uniform are monsters. Yes, the ones responsible for this should be incarcerated. Yes, Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al. are war criminals. But I see no reason to apply labels to every one of our troops. The vast majority of them are honest, decent, courageous men who undoubtedly show just as much disgust over these atrocities as we do. Our communist media is doing the exact same thing they did in Vietnam- ommitting the stories of the acts of heroism by our military, while giving enormous coverage to every atrocity, abomination, and aberration, in an attempt to malign our military, destroy morale, and hand victory to the enemy on a silver platter. The correct solution is to punish the soldiers who are guilty, staunchly support those who are not, and sweep our communist media into the dustbin of history where they belong.You make a good point--of course we should punish those responsible, all the way to the very top of the chain of command at the Commander in Chief.

Here's the problem for those soldiers in country, though. Do you think that the siblings and parents and children of those Iraqis who have been abused or murdered are going to take the time to investigate and discover who's guilty and who's innocent, and then mete out personal vengeance? Will our enemies who are watching differentiate between our monsters and our good guys? Do we? Haven't Muslims as a whole come in for condemnation because of the actions of a few in the eyes of many in the US? Hell, follow the link that Markreich posted above--it's pretty obvious that to him, all Iraqis are the same, even though I imagine there are plenty who did welcome the US and who hope for a good end to this situation.

So like it or not, our military, our government, and us as a people now share a collective guilt for the actions of those soldiers who have abused Iraqis and other prisoners. And again--there's no reason to think these are isolated incidents. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Camp X-Ray, and the ones mentionedin this article are just what has broken through to us in the US. It wouldn't be surprising to me to discover that this is only a small fraction of what's actually happening.

What's worse is that we as a country knew this was happening prior to the election, knew that the people in charge had a dim view of both the Geneva Conventions and our own laws on torture because they'd been trying to get around them for years, and yet we as a country didn't repudiate them. We voted to keep the people who treated torture as a casual matter in office. It's a stain on every one of us as Americans, but especially on those who supported the people who allowed this to happen and whose idea on how to stop it included banning digital cameras and camera phones rather than actually stopping the torture.

What's worse is that we as a country knew this was happening prior to the election, knew that the people in charge had a dim view of both the Geneva Conventions and our own laws on torture because they'd been trying to get around them for years, and yet we as a country didn't repudiate them. We voted to keep the people who treated torture as a casual matter in office. It's a stain on every one of us as Americans, but especially on those who supported the people who allowed this to happen and whose idea on how to stop it included banning digital cameras and camera phones rather than actually stopping the torture.

It's a matter of fact that bad things happen during a war. And we are investigating it - which is something that we don't hold our enemies to. We are, for reasons of civilization, held to a much, much higher standard of conduct.

I would, however, point out that although we claim not to be racist, and claim to be somehow more civilized then our opponents, that after 9-11, the general sentiment in the US towards Muslims and Arabs in general (however right or wrong that might be) swung so far over so hard that it was not only possible, but politically favorable to allow extreme interrogation methods.

Some more stupid soldiers may have gotten the impression that this means unprofessional, ineffective methods such as burning people, killing them, or putting underwear on their heads. However, the other methods, such as sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and the use of drugs, are methods that are accepted and practiced by members of the EU. Prior to 9-11, the US did not even practice these methods.

Not saying it's right, but you're going to have to persuade a lot of Americans that the people being tortured aren't in the catch-all category of "Islamic terrorists" before they'll have any sympathy for them at all. And I don't see that happenning any time soon.

It's a matter of fact that bad things happen during a war. And we are investigating it - which is something that we don't hold our enemies to. We are, for reasons of civilization, held to a much, much higher standard of conduct.

I would, however, point out that although we claim not to be racist, and claim to be somehow more civilized then our opponents, that after 9-11, the general sentiment in the US towards Muslims and Arabs in general (however right or wrong that might be) swung so far over so hard that it was not only possible, but politically favorable to allow extreme interrogation methods.

Some more stupid soldiers may have gotten the impression that this means unprofessional, ineffective methods such as burning people, killing them, or putting underwear on their heads. However, the other methods, such as sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and the use of drugs, are methods that are accepted and practiced by members of the EU. Prior to 9-11, the US did not even practice these methods.

Not saying it's right, but you're going to have to persuade a lot of Americans that the people being tortured aren't in the catch-all category of "Islamic terrorists" before they'll have any sympathy for them at all. And I don't see that happenning any time soon.So in essence, you're agreeing with me--we've become monsters and have lost whatever vestiges of moral authority we once had in the world.

So in essence, you're agreeing with me--we've become monsters and have lost whatever vestiges of moral authority we once had in the world.
thats ok, cuz we are inherently better than them because we are americans tee hee :rolleyes:

You make a good point--of course we should punish those responsible, all the way to the very top of the chain of command at the Commander in Chief.

It's possible Annan is guilty--it is equally possible that he is innocent and is being slandered. Let's hold off on passing judgment on that one just yet, shall we?
I guess the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing only applies if an organized scandal goes on over the period of years costing billions of dollars. Of course, if there is prisoner abuse in the short period of time following the fall of Iraq and Abu Gharib, it must go all the way to the top, without a doubt.

I guess the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing only applies if an organized scandal goes on over the period of years costing billions of dollars. Of course, if there is prisoner abuse in the short period of time following the fall of Iraq and Abu Gharib, it must go all the way to the top, without a doubt.
Well, there are memos written by the White House counsel that show a concerted effort by the White House--embodied by George W. Bush--to get around terrorism statutes. That looks like guilt to me. The evidence against Annan is far less reliable at this point, although who knows what Volcker will come up with.

I think there's a case to be made against Rumsfeld due to this, but depending on whether the memos were written, the case for Bush is different. It depends on whether they were written in knowledge that the torture was goign to happen, and thus in preparation for it, or after, and in reaction.

But I agree that Rumsfeld is more trouble than he's worth.

I think there's a case to be made against Rumsfeld due to this, but depending on whether the memos were written, the case for Bush is different. It depends on whether they were written in knowledge that the torture was goign to happen, and thus in preparation for it, or after, and in reaction.

But I agree that Rumsfeld is more trouble than he's worth.
So does Bush bear no responsibility for this? After all, Rumsfeld serves at his leisure--all Bush has to do is ask for his resignation. By asking Rumsfeld to stay on, Bush is saying that the job Rumsfeld has done is okay--at the very least, Bush has become complicit in Rumsfeld's failures, and by refusing to get rid of him, has become at the very least, an accessory.

As to the memos, the were written post 9/11, but pre-Iraq War. They were written first in response to the Guantanamo detainees and then expanded to cover the Iraq situation.

So does Bush bear no responsibility for this? After all, Rumsfeld serves at his leisure--all Bush has to do is ask for his resignation. By asking Rumsfeld to stay on, Bush is saying that the job Rumsfeld has done is okay--at the very least, Bush has become complicit in Rumsfeld's failures, and by refusing to get rid of him, has become at the very least, an accessory.

No, Bush dosen't deserve responsibility in this. It shows that Bush believes that Rumsfeld's upside outweighs the scandal the military engaged, and possibly is still engaging, in. Bush may believe that Rumsfeld is the only man for the job to overhaul the military. On November 2nd, the majority of the voters re-elected George Bush, but that dosen't mean we all like what happened in Abu Gharib, simply that we think his other qualities outweighed what did happen.

No. There are no orders to do so. And we investigate and punish those that do. So the prison scandals are just that - and there are no orders to abuse anyone. If there were, no one would be investigated or punished.

Of course, certain interrogation techniques may be considered by some to be torture. But, the US is not using any interrogation techniques that aren't already accepted by nations such as the UK. In fact, some of them come from the UK playbook.

As for those who are not yet prisoners according to the law, if in the heat of combat, someone attempts to surrender, and I have no time (I'm under fire) to accept the surrender, I am legally justified to kill the person and move on, unless I have been explicitly ordered to take as many prisoners as possible.

So we are in agreement: there is no justification for what was described in Post #1. Thank you. And thank you for going over your diversionary arguments once again, which I have never once disagreed with.

The move of the Irish fire brigades to cross into Northern Ireland and help Belfast in the middle of WW II is representative of that society. A society that Islam does not have.
I don't really know enough about Middle Eastern Islamic culture to make the comparison, but I think it would be a grave error to judge it all by suicide bombing terrorists. It would be like judging Catholic culture by the IRA.

No, Bush dosen't deserve responsibility in this. It shows that Bush believes that Rumsfeld's upside outweighs the scandal the military engaged, and possibly is still engaging, in. Bush may believe that Rumsfeld is the only man for the job to overhaul the military. On November 2nd, the majority of the voters re-elected George Bush, but that dosen't mean we all like what happened in Abu Gharib, simply that we think his other qualities outweighed what did happen.I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. The fact that Bush is willing to accept this sort of behavior, this sort of incompetence, and yet not ask for a resignation from anyone with any significance who was involved means to me that he has accepted responsibility for the situation at the very least. Not that I'm surprised--the buck has never stopped with Bush his entire life. Someone else has always taken the fall for him or bailed him out.

So in essence, you're agreeing with me--we've become monsters and have lost whatever vestiges of moral authority we once had in the world.

Since when did we ever have moral authority? And what is moral authority? If we have any moral authority, it is only as a matter of degree, and not an absolute.

You know, I should brush the flaming chunks of bomb victims off my boots to address the worldwide outrage over the enemy soldiers who had their self-esteem damaged. I should be brought up on a Court-Martial, with everybody pointing out that it was Bush who started it. I want Bush to lose tons of Public Support and have every foreign policy objective suddenly put in doubt.

Now, winning the war will depend on how we play to Ivy League politicians who think a gun is something you hang over your mantlepiece to be occasionally dusted by the maid in your Connecticut Summer home. And when it comes to the point where people demands the truth (and say they're "entitled" to the truth) I want to tell them that they, in fact, can't handle the truth.

We live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. I have a greater responsibility than they can possibly fathom. They weep for mistreated prisoners and curse the military. They have that luxury. They have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that the naked human pyramid and homoerotic torture, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to them, saves lives.

They don't want the truth, because deep down, in places they don't talk about at parties, they want me on that wall. They need me on that wall. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it.

I'd rather they just said "thank you" and went on their way. Otherwise, I'd suggest they pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what they think they're entitled to.

Since when did we ever have moral authority? And what is moral authority? If we have any moral authority, it is only as a matter of degree, and not an absolute.

You know, I should brush the flaming chunks of bomb victims off my boots to address the worldwide outrage over the enemy soldiers who had their self-esteem damaged. I should be brought up on a Court-Martial, with everybody pointing out that it was Bush who started it. I want Bush to lose tons of Public Support and have every foreign policy objective suddenly put in doubt.

Now, winning the war will depend on how we play to Ivy League politicians who think a gun is something you hang over your mantlepiece to be occasionally dusted by the maid in your Connecticut Summer home. And when it comes to the point where people demands the truth (and say they're "entitled" to the truth) I want to tell them that they, in fact, can't handle the truth.

We live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. I have a greater responsibility than they can possibly fathom. They weep for mistreated prisoners and curse the military. They have that luxury. They have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that the naked human pyramid and homoerotic torture, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to them, saves lives.

They don't want the truth, because deep down, in places they don't talk about at parties, they want me on that wall. They need me on that wall. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it.

I'd rather they just said "thank you" and went on their way. Otherwise, I'd suggest they pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what they think they're entitled to.
Who are you? Nicholson from A Few Good Men? Give me a break. When I speak of moral authority, I speak of the authority invoked time and again by this administration after the WMD argument didn't pan out. It's their aargument, not mine, and now it has been undermined by grandstanding amoral politicians, by soldiers who find themselves in an impossible situation, and by people like you who try to justify torture by quoting Jack Fucking Nicholson. Whatever credibility you may have built up has just vanished in a plume of salf-aggrandizing dust.

Who are you? Nicholson from A Few Good Men? Give me a break. When I speak of moral authority, I speak of the authority invoked time and again by this administration after the WMD argument didn't pan out. It's their aargument, not mine, and now it has been undermined by grandstanding amoral politicians, by soldiers who find themselves in an impossible situation, and by people like you who try to justify torture by quoting Jack Fucking Nicholson. Whatever credibility you may have built up has just vanished in a plume of salf-aggrandizing dust.

I'm trying to be funny. Perhaps you need to lighten up. I don't believe in the various justifications given for any war, and I don't find that any politician has really given a good reason for one. Historically speaking, it's merely a matter of picking one.

Remember LBJ? That fine upstanding non-Republican President? Faked the whole Gulf of Tonkin incident so that we would be fooled into declaring war on Vietnam? Or FDR, who knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and let it happen so that we could make war on a worldwide scale? Or even Truman, who decided to bomb Japan with nuclear weapons without warning?

America hasn't changed, and neither has its presidential behavior.

I knew there was a reason Salchicho was on my ignore list.
Probably something about shattering your disturbed world view by countering the illogic of your venom and profanity laced posts. :)

Probably something about shattering your disturbed world view by countering the illogic of your venom and profanity laced posts. :)

What are you talking about? He made a long post and you responded with "Well you drink, lollerskates!" That's not shattering anything but the record for least amount of respect given to you.

I'm trying to be funny. Perhaps you need to lighten up. I don't believe in the various justifications given for any war, and I don't find that any politician has really given a good reason for one. Historically speaking, it's merely a matter of picking one.

Remember LBJ? That fine upstanding non-Republican President? Faked the whole Gulf of Tonkin incident so that we would be fooled into declaring war on Vietnam? Or FDR, who knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and let it happen so that we could make war on a worldwide scale? Or even Truman, who decided to bomb Japan with nuclear weapons without warning?

America hasn't changed, and neither has its presidential behavior.
Sorry, but my sense of humor is sorely lacking when it comes to shit like this. Yes, politicians are generally shitty, and LBJ's Vietnam decision is in my opinion the worst of the bunch (mainly because I've not seen hard evidence of the FDR accusation and I know the Truman one is crap). It's the great failing of an otherwise remarkable presidency.