The War's Lost Weekend

[WalterM140]

From the New York Times:

Just when you've persuaded yourself yet again that this isn't Vietnam, you are
hit by another acid flashback. Last weekend that flashback was to 1969. It was
in June 1969 that Life magazine ran its cover story "The Faces of the American
Dead in Vietnam: One Week's Toll," the acknowledged prototype for Ted Koppel's
photographic roll-call of the American dead in Iraq on "Nightline." It was in
November 1969 that a little-known reporter, Seymour Hersh, broke the story of
the 1968 massacre at My Lai, the horrific scoop that has now found its match 35
years later in Mr. Hersh's New Yorker revelation of a 53-page Army report
detailing "numerous instances of `sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses'
at Abu Ghraib." No doubt some future edition of the Pentagon Papers will
explain just why we restored Saddam Hussein's hellhole to its original use,
torture rooms included, even as we allowed Baghdad's National Library, a
repository of Mesopotamia's glorious pre-Baath history, to be looted and
burned.




The Vietnam parallels are, as always, not quite exact. We didn't "withdraw" for
another four years after 1969 and didn't flee Saigon for another two years
after that. We're on a faster track this time. News travels at a higher
velocity now than it did then and saturates the culture more completely; the
stray, silent images from the TV set at the gym or the p.c. on someone else's
desk lodge in our brains even when we are trying to tune them out. Last
weekend, the first anniversary of the end of the war's "major combat
operations," was a Perfect Storm of such inescapable images. The dense 48-hour
cloud of bad news marked the beginning of the real, involuntary end of
America's major combat operations in Iraq, come hell or June 30.

The first sign was the uproar over "Nightline" from the war's cheerleaders. You
have to wonder: if this country is so firm in its support of this war, by what
logic would photographs of its selfless soldiers, either their faces or their
flag-draped coffins, undermine public opinion? The practical effect of all the
clamor was only to increase hunger for "Nightline" — its ratings went up as
much as 30 percent — and ensure that the fallen's faces would be seen on many
more channels as well. Those faces then bled into the pictures from Abu Ghraib,
which, after their original display on "60 Minutes II," metastasized by the
hour on other networks and Web sites: graphic intimations of rape, with
Americans cast as the rapists and Iraqis as the victims, that needed no
commentary to be understood in any culture. (The word "reprimand" — the
punishment we first doled out for these crimes — may lose something in
translation to the Arabic, however.)

Then there were the pictures of marines retreating from Fallujah and of that
city's citizens dancing in the streets to celebrate their victory over the
American liberators they were supposed to be welcoming with flowers. And
perhaps most bizarre of all, there was the image that negated the war's one
unambiguous accomplishment, the toppling of Saddam. Now, less than 13 months
after that victory, we could see a man in Republican Guard gear take command in
Fallujah. He could have been one of those Saddam doubles we kept hearing about
before "Shock and Awe." But instead of toppling this Saddam stand-in we were
resurrecting him and returning him to power.

Through a cruel accident of timing, each of these images was in turn cross-cut
with a retread of a golden oldie: President Bush standing under the "Mission
Accomplished" banner of a year ago. "I wish the banner was not up there," Karl
Rove had told a newspaper editorial board in the swing state of Ohio in
mid-April. Not "I wish that we had planned for the dangers of post-Saddam Iraq
before recklessly throwing underprepared and underprotected Americans into
harm's way." No, Mr. Rove has his eye on what's most important: better
political image management through better set design. In prewar America,
presidential backdrops reading "Strengthening Medicare" and "Strengthening Our
Economy" had worked just fine. If only that one on the U.S.S. Lincoln had said
"Strengthening Iraq," everything would be hunky-dory now.



Not having any positive pictures of its own to counter last weekend's ugly
ones, the administration tried gamely to alter the images' meaning through
words instead. Little could be done to neutralize the mortal calculus of
"Nightline" — though Paul Wolfowitz trivialized the whole idea of a casualty
count by publicly underestimating the actual death toll by some 200. But back
in Iraq, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt went for broke. "This is not a withdrawal,
it's not a retreat," he said, even as news video showed an American tank
literally going in reverse while pulling away from Fallujah. To counter the
image of the Saddam clone, the Pentagon initially told reporters that he was
not a member of the Republican Guard, even as we saw him strutting about in the
familiar olive-green uniform and beret. (Later the truth emerged, and the
Saddam clone in question, Jasim Muhammad Saleh, was yanked off-camera.)


As for Abu Ghraib, a State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said "I'm not
too concerned" about the fallout of these snapshots on American credibility in
the Arab world. Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, took to
three Sunday morning talk shows to say that only "a handful" of Americans had
engaged in such heinous activities — even though that low estimate was
contradicted by the two-month-old internal Army report uncovered by Mr. Hersh
and available to everyone in the world, it seemed, except the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs and his civilian counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld.

The general blamed the public's grim interpretation of the news from Iraq on
"inaccurate reporting" that he found nearly everywhere, from CNN to "the
morning papers." He and the administration no doubt prefer the hard-hitting
journalism over at Fox. "I end up spending a lot of time watching Fox News,"
Dick Cheney explained last month, "because they're more accurate in my
experience, in those events that I'm personally involved in, than many of the
other outlets."

It was instructive, then, to see how Fox covered the images of last weekend —
in part by disparaging the idea of showing them at all. Fox's (if not
America's) most self-infatuated newsman, the host of "The O'Reilly Factor,"
worried on air that "Nightline" might undermine morale if it tried to "exploit
casualties in a time of war." He somehow forgot that just five nights earlier
he had used his own show to exploit a casualty, the N.F.L. player Pat Tillman
— a segment, Mr. O'Reilly confided with delight, "very highly rated by
billoreilly.com premium members." (Lesson to families who lose sons and
daughters in Iraq: if you want them to be exploited on "The Factor," let alone
applauded by Web site "premium members" who pay its host $49.95 a year, be sure
they become celebrities before they enlist.)

Soon Mr. O'Reilly was announcing that he was "not going to use the pictures" of
Abu Ghraib either and suggested that "60 Minutes II" should have followed his
example. Lest anyone be tempted to take a peek by switching channels, a former
Army interrogation instructor, Tony Robinson, showed up on another Fox show,
"Hannity & Colmes," to assert that the prison photos did not show torture.
"Frat hazing is worse than this," the self-styled expert said.

Perhaps no one exemplified the principles of Cheney-favored journalism more
eloquently than the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the large station owner (and
Republican contributor) that refused to broadcast "Nightline" on its ABC
outlets. A spokesman, Mark Hyman, explained: "Someone who died 13 months ago
— why is that news?" Been there, done that, I guess.

The administration has been coddled by this kind of coverage since 9/11, until
fairly recently, and it didn't all come from Fox and Sinclair. Last Sunday,
Michael Getler, the ombudsman at The Washington Post, wrote that "almost
everything we were told before the war, other than that Saddam Hussein is bad,
has turned out, so far, not to be the case: the weapons of mass destruction,
the imagery of nuclear mushroom clouds, the links between al Qaeda and Hussein,
the welcome, the resistance, the costs, the numbers of troops needed." He was
arguing that, as good as much of the war reportage has been, "it is prewar
coverage that counts the most."

If that coverage had been sharper, and more skeptical of administration
propaganda, more of the fictions that sent us to war would have been punctured
before we signed on. Perhaps a majority of the country would not have been
conned into accepting as fact (as it still does, according to an April poll)
that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam was in league
with al Qaeda. As fate would have it, last weekend was also when C-Span
broadcast live coverage of the annual White House Correspondents' Association
dinner, many of whose attendees were responsible for the journalistic shortfall
described by Mr. Getler. The revelers joined the president in pausing to mourn
Michael Kelly and David Bloom, two of the 25 journalists killed so far in the
line of duty in Iraq. Then it was back to Washington at its merriest, as the
assembled journalists could return to drooling over such fading or faded stars
as Ben Affleck, Morgan Fairchild and Wayne Newton.

That was an image, too — as ludicrous in its way as those second-rung Playboy
bunnies turning up in "Apocalypse Now" — but not as powerful as those from
the front lines. Mr. Koppel's salute to the fallen was heartbreaking, no matter
what you think about the war; one young soldier could be seen cradling his
infant child, others were still wearing the cap and gown of high school and
college graduations. The Abu Ghraib images shocked us into remembering that
real obscenity is distinct from the revelation of Janet Jackson's right breast,
the cynical obsession of some of the Washington politicians also seen partying
at the correspondents' dinner.

As we know from "Mission Accomplished" and Colin Powell's aerial reconnaissance
shots displayed as evidence to the United Nations, pictures can be made to lie
— easily. But over time credible pictures, because they have a true story to
tell, can trump the phonies. Try as politicians might to alter their meaning
with spin, eventually there comes a point when the old Marx Brothers gag comes
into play: "Who are you going to believe — me or your own eyes?" Last weekend
was a time when many, if not most, of us had little choice but to believe our
own eyes.

-- Frank Rich

[Aerophotos]

excellent article there, exact on all issues i believe

sad thing is GWB jnr will kill alot more people before he is voted out
of office.

bush jnr has no regard for combat deaths of either side, as he has never
served in a war and has no concept of death.....

only his father has....

gwbs jnr whole political structure and the US dod knew about the abuse
but was hoping middle america would never find out..

fortunately for the western world brave men like hersh went beyond the
call of journalism and in doing so has revealed the true nature of war
yet again rather ironically and sadly ...

i give the pretzel presido a short time before he will be removed from
office for corruption in carrying out his duties.


WalterM140 wrote:
>
> From the New York Times:
>
> Just when you've persuaded yourself yet again that this isn't Vietnam, you are
> hit by another acid flashback. Last weekend that flashback was to 1969. It was
> in June 1969 that Life magazine ran its cover story "The Faces of the American
> Dead in Vietnam: One Week's Toll," the acknowledged prototype for Ted Koppel's
> photographic roll-call of the American dead in Iraq on "Nightline." It was in
> November 1969 that a little-known reporter, Seymour Hersh, broke the story of
> the 1968 massacre at My Lai, the horrific scoop that has now found its match 35
> years later in Mr. Hersh's New Yorker revelation of a 53-page Army report
> detailing "numerous instances of `sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses'
> at Abu Ghraib." No doubt some future edition of the Pentagon Papers will
> explain just why we restored Saddam Hussein's hellhole to its original use,
> torture rooms included, even as we allowed Baghdad's National Library, a
> repository of Mesopotamia's glorious pre-Baath history, to be looted and
> burned.
>
>
>
> The Vietnam parallels are, as always, not quite exact. We didn't "withdraw" for
> another four years after 1969 and didn't flee Saigon for another two years
> after that. We're on a faster track this time. News travels at a higher
> velocity now than it did then and saturates the culture more completely; the
> stray, silent images from the TV set at the gym or the p.c. on someone else's
> desk lodge in our brains even when we are trying to tune them out. Last
> weekend, the first anniversary of the end of the war's "major combat
> operations," was a Perfect Storm of such inescapable images. The dense 48-hour
> cloud of bad news marked the beginning of the real, involuntary end of
> America's major combat operations in Iraq, come hell or June 30.
>
> The first sign was the uproar over "Nightline" from the war's cheerleaders. You
> have to wonder: if this country is so firm in its support of this war, by what
> logic would photographs of its selfless soldiers, either their faces or their
> flag-draped coffins, undermine public opinion? The practical effect of all the
> clamor was only to increase hunger for "Nightline" — its ratings went up as
> much as 30 percent — and ensure that the fallen's faces would be seen on many
> more channels as well. Those faces then bled into the pictures from Abu Ghraib,
> which, after their original display on "60 Minutes II," metastasized by the
> hour on other networks and Web sites: graphic intimations of rape, with
> Americans cast as the rapists and Iraqis as the victims, that needed no
> commentary to be understood in any culture. (The word "reprimand" — the
> punishment we first doled out for these crimes — may lose something in
> translation to the Arabic, however.)
>
> Then there were the pictures of marines retreating from Fallujah and of that
> city's citizens dancing in the streets to celebrate their victory over the
> American liberators they were supposed to be welcoming with flowers. And
> perhaps most bizarre of all, there was the image that negated the war's one
> unambiguous accomplishment, the toppling of Saddam. Now, less than 13 months
> after that victory, we could see a man in Republican Guard gear take command in
> Fallujah. He could have been one of those Saddam doubles we kept hearing about
> before "Shock and Awe." But instead of toppling this Saddam stand-in we were
> resurrecting him and returning him to power.
>
> Through a cruel accident of timing, each of these images was in turn cross-cut
> with a retread of a golden oldie: President Bush standing under the "Mission
> Accomplished" banner of a year ago. "I wish the banner was not up there," Karl
> Rove had told a newspaper editorial board in the swing state of Ohio in
> mid-April. Not "I wish that we had planned for the dangers of post-Saddam Iraq
> before recklessly throwing underprepared and underprotected Americans into
> harm's way." No, Mr. Rove has his eye on what's most important: better
> political image management through better set design. In prewar America,
> presidential backdrops reading "Strengthening Medicare" and "Strengthening Our
> Economy" had worked just fine. If only that one on the U.S.S. Lincoln had said
> "Strengthening Iraq," everything would be hunky-dory now.
>
> Not having any positive pictures of its own to counter last weekend's ugly
> ones, the administration tried gamely to alter the images' meaning through
> words instead. Little could be done to neutralize the mortal calculus of
> "Nightline" — though Paul Wolfowitz trivialized the whole idea of a casualty
> count by publicly underestimating the actual death toll by some 200. But back
> in Iraq, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt went for broke. "This is not a withdrawal,
> it's not a retreat," he said, even as news video showed an American tank
> literally going in reverse while pulling away from Fallujah. To counter the
> image of the Saddam clone, the Pentagon initially told reporters that he was
> not a member of the Republican Guard, even as we saw him strutting about in the
> familiar olive-green uniform and beret. (Later the truth emerged, and the
> Saddam clone in question, Jasim Muhammad Saleh, was yanked off-camera.)
>
> As for Abu Ghraib, a State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said "I'm not
> too concerned" about the fallout of these snapshots on American credibility in
> the Arab world. Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, took to
> three Sunday morning talk shows to say that only "a handful" of Americans had
> engaged in such heinous activities — even though that low estimate was
> contradicted by the two-month-old internal Army report uncovered by Mr. Hersh
> and available to everyone in the world, it seemed, except the chairman of the
> Joint Chiefs and his civilian counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld.
>
> The general blamed the public's grim interpretation of the news from Iraq on
> "inaccurate reporting" that he found nearly everywhere, from CNN to "the
> morning papers." He and the administration no doubt prefer the hard-hitting
> journalism over at Fox. "I end up spending a lot of time watching Fox News,"
> Dick Cheney explained last month, "because they're more accurate in my
> experience, in those events that I'm personally involved in, than many of the
> other outlets."
>
> It was instructive, then, to see how Fox covered the images of last weekend —
> in part by disparaging the idea of showing them at all. Fox's (if not
> America's) most self-infatuated newsman, the host of "The O'Reilly Factor,"
> worried on air that "Nightline" might undermine morale if it tried to "exploit
> casualties in a time of war." He somehow forgot that just five nights earlier
> he had used his own show to exploit a casualty, the N.F.L. player Pat Tillman
> — a segment, Mr. O'Reilly confided with delight, "very highly rated by
> billoreilly.com premium members." (Lesson to families who lose sons and
> daughters in Iraq: if you want them to be exploited on "The Factor," let alone
> applauded by Web site "premium members" who pay its host $49.95 a year, be sure
> they become celebrities before they enlist.)
>
> Soon Mr. O'Reilly was announcing that he was "not going to use the pictures" of
> Abu Ghraib either and suggested that "60 Minutes II" should have followed his
> example. Lest anyone be tempted to take a peek by switching channels, a former
> Army interrogation instructor, Tony Robinson, showed up on another Fox show,
> "Hannity & Colmes," to assert that the prison photos did not show torture.
> "Frat hazing is worse than this," the self-styled expert said.
>
> Perhaps no one exemplified the principles of Cheney-favored journalism more
> eloquently than the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the large station owner (and
> Republican contributor) that refused to broadcast "Nightline" on its ABC
> outlets. A spokesman, Mark Hyman, explained: "Someone who died 13 months ago
> — why is that news?" Been there, done that, I guess.
>
> The administration has been coddled by this kind of coverage since 9/11, until
> fairly recently, and it didn't all come from Fox and Sinclair. Last Sunday,
> Michael Getler, the ombudsman at The Washington Post, wrote that "almost
> everything we were told before the war, other than that Saddam Hussein is bad,
> has turned out, so far, not to be the case: the weapons of mass destruction,
> the imagery of nuclear mushroom clouds, the links between al Qaeda and Hussein,
> the welcome, the resistance, the costs, the numbers of troops needed." He was
> arguing that, as good as much of the war reportage has been, "it is prewar
> coverage that counts the most."
>
> If that coverage had been sharper, and more skeptical of administration
> propaganda, more of the fictions that sent us to war would have been punctured
> before we signed on. Perhaps a majority of the country would not have been
> conned into accepting as fact (as it still does, according to an April poll)
> that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam was in league
> with al Qaeda. As fate would have it, last weekend was also when C-Span
> broadcast live coverage of the annual White House Correspondents' Association
> dinner, many of whose attendees were responsible for the journalistic shortfall
> described by Mr. Getler. The revelers joined the president in pausing to mourn
> Michael Kelly and David Bloom, two of the 25 journalists killed so far in the
> line of duty in Iraq. Then it was back to Washington at its merriest, as the
> assembled journalists could return to drooling over such fading or faded stars
> as Ben Affleck, Morgan Fairchild and Wayne Newton.
>
> That was an image, too — as ludicrous in its way as those second-rung Playboy
> bunnies turning up in "Apocalypse Now" — but not as powerful as those from
> the front lines. Mr. Koppel's salute to the fallen was heartbreaking, no matter
> what you think about the war; one young soldier could be seen cradling his
> infant child, others were still wearing the cap and gown of high school and
> college graduations. The Abu Ghraib images shocked us into remembering that
> real obscenity is distinct from the revelation of Janet Jackson's right breast,
> the cynical obsession of some of the Washington politicians also seen partying
> at the correspondents' dinner.
>
> As we know from "Mission Accomplished" and Colin Powell's aerial reconnaissance
> shots displayed as evidence to the United Nations, pictures can be made to lie
> — easily. But over time credible pictures, because they have a true story to
> tell, can trump the phonies. Try as politicians might to alter their meaning
> with spin, eventually there comes a point when the old Marx Brothers gag comes
> into play: "Who are you going to believe — me or your own eyes?" Last weekend
> was a time when many, if not most, of us had little choice but to believe our
> own eyes.
>
> -- Frank Rich

[BUFDRVR]

>Just when you've persuaded yourself yet again that this isn't Vietnam

Which, no matter how bad you leftys want it to be, it is not.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[WalterM140]

>>Just when you've persuaded yourself yet again that this isn't Vietnam
>
>Which, no matter how bad you leftys want it to be, it is not.
>

It is in the most important respect. The most determined fighters are on the
other side.


Also, just like Viet Nam, we cannot make these people set up a democracy and
fight for it. That was beyond our power then, and it is beyond our power now.

Walt

[Denyav]

>t is in the most important respect. The most determined fighters are on the
>other side.

The most important difference between Vietnam and Iraq is Oil.
The former had no oil whereas the latter has worlds second largest oil
reserves.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Which, no matter how bad you leftys want it to be, it is not.
>
> You're right -- even McNamara could do a better job than
> Rumsfeld...

Unfortunately, your following justification for that statement falls flat...

>
> Failing to take quick and effective action against the abuse of
> prisoners at once when the first report of it arrived (we are
> not even talking about taking effective measures to prevent it)
> was not just callous, it was also truly monumentally stupid.

Let's see, according to the AP's timeline for this incident:

"Jan. 13, 2004: Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby, an MP with the 800th at Abu
Ghraib, first reports cases of abuse at the prison.

Jan. 16: Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez orders a criminal investigation into
reports of abuse at the prison by members of the brigade. The military also
announces the investigation publicly."

Yeah, there is a real timelag there...three whole days. And note the rapid
public disclosure. As to not doing anything about it, the chain of command
does indeed seem to have begun taking action rather quickly...

"Jan. 18: A guard leader and a company commander at the prison are suspended
from their duties, and Sanchez admonishes Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who
commanded the brigade.

Jan. 19: Sanchez orders a separate administrative investigation into the
800th. Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba was appointed to conduct that inquiry on
Jan. 31."

Emmanuel, what would *you* have done more rapidly or differently from the
above? The first courts martial related to this incident is getting ready to
kick off as we speak; what would you rather have us do, summarily execute
those accused? That would appear to be about the only way one could have
moved any more rapidly to address this situation....

Your political sentiments are again affecting what should pass as your
better judgement in this case...

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin

[BUFDRVR]

>Your political sentiments are again affecting what should pass as your
>better judgement in this case...
>
>Brooks

This has reached epidemic proportions on this newsgroup.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 09 May 2004 19:00:46 +1000,
Aerophotos attempted to say .....

> excellent article there, exact on all issues i believe
>
> sad thing is GWB jnr will kill alot more people before he is voted out
> of office.
>
> bush jnr has no regard for combat deaths of either side, as he has never
> served in a war and has no concept of death.....
>
> only his father has....
>
> gwbs jnr whole political structure and the US dod knew about the abuse
> but was hoping middle america would never find out..

That's funny, since DOD released news of the relief of command and that
investigations were ongoing back in January.



> fortunately for the western world brave men like hersh went beyond the
> call of journalism and in doing so has revealed the true nature of war
> yet again rather ironically and sadly ...

Can he expect his check his check soon ?
You folks in Russia seem to be behind in your payments, why the local
comunist book store even had to close its doors.


> i give the pretzel presido a short time before he will be removed from
> office for corruption in carrying out his duties.

Make up your mind, is he going to be voted out or removed for your fictional
offenses ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Mon, 10 May 2004 00:28:48 +0200,
Emmanuel Gustin attempted to say .....

> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Which, no matter how bad you leftys want it to be, it is not.
>
> You're right -- even McNamara could do a better job than
> Rumsfeld...
>
> Failing to take quick and effective action against the abuse of
> prisoners at once when the first report of it arrived (we are
> not even talking about taking effective measures to prevent it)
> was not just callous, it was also truly monumentally stupid.

I guess relief of the general in charge and letting the 15-6 investigation
be completed isn't enough ?

You can't have instant justice.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Steve R.]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Your political sentiments are again affecting what should pass as your
> >better judgement in this case...
> >
> >Brooks
>
> This has reached epidemic proportions on this newsgroup.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Not just the newsgroups I'm afraid. Common sense and rationality have long
since departed from those screaming for Pres. Bush's head.

[Cub Driver]

>That's funny, since DOD released news of the relief of command and that
>investigations were ongoing back in January.

Note that most or all of the information in the media came not for
from their investigative reporting, but from the Pentagon
investigation. That is, it was the DOD that broke the news. See the
Wall Street Journal on "Abuse and the Army"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005044


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Aerophotos]

gezz emma .... bush jnr wont like your thoughts at brekkie
tomorrow...they are so simple and clear he wouldnt know what your on
about...

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Emmanuel, what would *you* have done more rapidly or differently from the
> > above?
>
> Well, for a start, there are persistent reports that the Pentagon
> allows "special techniques" to be used on prisoners as "enablers
> for interrogation".
>
> If true, that is a war crime. Not, of course, at the same level as
> actual mass murder or genocide; as OJ would say, there is still
> a difference between beating a wife and murdering her.
> Nevertheless a crime which, brought to court, would merit at
> least a few years imprisonment.
>
> But also stupid. The psychology of camp and prison guards has
> been studied extensively. Give people a position of power and
> the feeling that some rough behaviour to prisoners is not just
> tolerated, but expected, and you will see no end to what they
> will fall to, especially under stress. For *most* people that is a
> very steep slippery slope. It doesn't take a particularly bad
> character. (The guards who committed the crimes cannot be
> absolved of guilt, but is also unfair to demonize them.) Allow
> the line to be crossed, and you are certain to have a disaster.
>
> If it is not true, it is still unforgivable that the US government
> allows its credibility to drop so low that such rumours are
> widely believed and printed. It is the duty of government
> officials to make it 100% clear and obvious that such behaviour
> will not be tolerated, BEFORE it happens. Afterwards is always
> too late. To blindly trust that it will not happen, in a war situation,
> is plainly stupid. (Vietnam should at least have served as a warning.)
>
> The US government does allow Red Cross inspections of the
> detention facilities in Iraq. At the very least it has neglected to
> give the unsatisfactory reports that it has been receiving for
> over a year, the attention they deserved. And to neglect an issue
> like this, in a situation where a hollow pumpkin could grasp
> the importance of showing scrupulous respect to the Iraqi people,
> is beyond words.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Let's see, according to the AP's timeline for this incident:
> >
> > "Jan. 13, 2004: Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby, an MP with the 800th at Abu
> > Ghraib, first reports cases of abuse at the prison.
>
> The problem with this AP "timeline" is what it leaves out. The first
> report of the ICRC notifying the US government about abuse of
> prisoners by US soldiers was delivered a long time before the US Army
> finally took this action. The director of operations of the Red Cross,
> Mr. Kraehenbuehl, is quoted as saying "Our findings were discussed at
> different moments between March and November 2003, either in direct
> face-to-face conversations or in written interventions."
> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3694521.stm)
>
> March 2003 to January 2004 is very a long time to do nothing. Red
> Cross reports are confidential -- the burden of taking action rests on
> the government.

LOL! March 2003 was when we were moving into Iraq--pretty quick reaction
time for the ICRC, eh? And the thought of securing a bad guy in an unlit
cell...jeepers (at a time when most civilian Iraqis were also without
power...that's rich!)! The claims of murder and shootings seem a bit
far-fetched--I guess you think we covered those up, but for some odd reason
when the first reputable claim of mistreatment at Abu Ghraib was presented
to the military chain, they immediately initiated (multiple) investigations
and announced that to the press, eh? Now how do you explain that?

Again, you are letting your prejudices cloud your better judgement. I
thought you were a bit more sensible than what you have been exhibiting of
late, Emmanuel. We have already begun criminal proceedings against soldiers
involved in this terrible affair. I will bet you that our accused personnel
face a bit tougher future than some other nation's troops that were
photographed doing some rather disgusting things (to children, no less--ring
any bells for you?)...maybe you ought to instead look a bit closer to home,
if you feel such outrageous indignation at the idea of such treatement of
prisoners? "First published in the United States on the cover of the June
24th issue of the left-wing weekly Village Voice, the photograph depicts two
Belgian paladins of the new world order giddily holding a Somali child over
an open flame...One Belgian UN soldier testified that it was a regular
practice to use metal boxes as prison cells, and that other Somalis probably
died similarly gruesome deaths...Belgian military authorities launched an
investigation into the atrocities following publication of a front-page
story by Belgium's Het Laatste Nieuws. In early July, Privates Claude Baert
and Kurt Coelus, the two paratroopers photographed dangling the Somali child
over a flame, were acquitted by a military court, which ruled that the
incident - described by Baert and Coelus as a punishment for stealing - was
"a form of playing without violence," according to prosecutor Luc
Walleyn...In September, another military tribunal will be held to
investigate the actions of Sergeant Dirk Nassel, the soldier photographed
forcing a Somali boy to ingest worms and vomit. However, the Belgian
military system - which is deeply entwined with the UN "peacekeeping"
apparatus - has yet to inflict substantive penalties for abuses committed in
the service of the UN. Several years ago, according to Gould, "Belgian
soldiers were also accused of holding mock executions for Somali children
and forcing them to dig their own graves; though their officer was given a
suspended sentence, the soldiers were acquitted."
(www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/ POLITICS/UN/peace.html ) Or: "A fourth member of the 3rd battalion of the Parachute
Regiment, based at Tielen in Flanders, is also due to go on trial in
September. Sergeant Major Rudy Derkinderen is suspected of having murdered a
Somali whom he was photographed urinating on. The circumstances surrounding
the death of another child at the paratroopers' base near Kismayo in
southern Somalia are also under investigation. According to the testimony of
two former paratroopers, the boy, who had been caught trying to steal food,
died after being locked in a container for 48 hours."
(www.public.iastate.edu/~vwindsor/WTH.html )

Sounds like you have to do a bit of house-cleaning of your own (I notice
that your military courts proved either unwilling or unable to do it for
you) before you start worrying too much about whether or not the Iraqi PW's
had electric lighting in-place IAW with your own expectations--and I guess
in Belgian circles "firelight" is acceptable (even if it is used to "heat
up" some Somali child?).

Brooks
[i]
>
> Emmanuel Gustin

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Emmanuel, what would *you* have done more rapidly or differently from
the
> > above?
>
> Well, for a start, there are persistent reports that the Pentagon
> allows "special techniques" to be used on prisoners as "enablers
> for interrogation".
>
> If true, that is a war crime.

No, that depends upon what you are specifically referring to. The actions of
the guards at Abu Ghraib do appear to be clear-cut criminal acts--which is
why prosecutions are underway. More subtle forms of softening up individuals
for interrogation are not necessarily criminal acts, though (i.e., sleep
deprivation, within reasonable limits; isolation, again within reasonable
limits, etc.).

Not, of course, at the same level as
> actual mass murder or genocide; as OJ would say, there is still
> a difference between beating a wife and murdering her.
> Nevertheless a crime which, brought to court, would merit at
> least a few years imprisonment.

How much time did the prosecution ask for in the case of those two Belgian
paras holding the kid over the fire? One *month*? (They of course did not
even get *that*). How much time did SGT Nassel end up receiving--one single
year, IIRC (and only then after his original lesser sentence was appealed?)?

>
> But also stupid. The psychology of camp and prison guards has
> been studied extensively. Give people a position of power and
> the feeling that some rough behaviour to prisoners is not just
> tolerated, but expected, and you will see no end to what they
> will fall to, especially under stress. For *most* people that is a
> very steep slippery slope. It doesn't take a particularly bad
> character. (The guards who committed the crimes cannot be
> absolved of guilt, but is also unfair to demonize them.) Allow
> the line to be crossed, and you are certain to have a disaster.
>
> If it is not true, it is still unforgivable that the US government
> allows its credibility to drop so low that such rumours are
> widely believed and printed. It is the duty of government
> officials to make it 100% clear and obvious that such behaviour
> will not be tolerated, BEFORE it happens. Afterwards is always
> too late. To blindly trust that it will not happen, in a war situation,
> is plainly stupid. (Vietnam should at least have served as a warning.)

Belgium...Somalia. Look closer to home before you start ranting about a
process that is still ongoing regarding our own criminal prosecutions.

Brooks

>
> The US government does allow Red Cross inspections of the
> detention facilities in Iraq. At the very least it has neglected to
> give the unsatisfactory reports that it has been receiving for
> over a year, the attention they deserved. And to neglect an issue
> like this, in a situation where a hollow pumpkin could grasp
> the importance of showing scrupulous respect to the Iraqi people,
> is beyond words.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I guess you think we covered those up, but for some odd reason
> > when the first reputable claim of mistreatment at Abu Ghraib was
presented
> > to the military chain, they immediately initiated (multiple)
> investigations
> > and announced that to the press, eh? Now how do you explain that?
>
> I think that are still many decent people in the US Army,
> untolerant of such barbaric actions, and willing to take
> action against it even when their superiors are clearly
> negligent. That is a good thing.
>
> > In September, another military tribunal will be held to
> > investigate the actions of Sergeant Dirk Nassel, the soldier
photographed
> > forcing a Somali boy to ingest worms and vomit.
>
> I have found the actual judgments in only this case, because the
> defendants were also accused of racism and an anti-racist
> organisation put the full judgment on a site. Basically, the courts
> ruled that the more lurid claims of forcing the child to eat vomit
> etc. were a fantasy, not supported by any witness. Dirk N. was
> convicted of forcing a muslim child to eat a tin of pork out of a
> C-ration. The court judged that there was insufficient evidence
> to convict the defendant of causing bodily harm of making criminal
> threats; he was found guily of a racist act committed as a government
> official. He was given a sentence of six months, of which three
> effective immediately, fined, and his civil rights (voting etc.)
> were taken away for five years.
>
> On the whole, considering the facts that were proven, this
> seems a reasonable enough judgment to me.
>
> In the case of Coelus and Baert, the court judged that there
> was no evidence that the child was harmed, nor evidence
> that the intent was to harm. It accepted the statement of the
> defendants that it had started as a 'rough game,' and although
> it reprimanded them, it saw no reason to convict.

Odd, in that the mention of "murder" was included in the case of one of the
four defendants (a Sergeant Major, IIRC), and in view of the photo of the
kid being suspended over the flames, we see only one rather minor
conviction--can't even find reference what happened to the SGM, who's trial,
if it ever occured, was scheduled after Nassel's (and IIRC Nassel was (also)
actually convicted of forcing a young Somali girl to perform a strip-tease
for his soldiers...). Seems to me if you *are* so interested in ridding the
world of military criminals, you still have your work cut out for you back
home before you embark on any crusade against a US military justice system
that is just now beginning proceedings against the MP's. A US military
justice system that has, unlike the Belgian version, demonstrated that it
will indeed really punish those who violate the law (witness the case of the
US Army SSG who was convicted of the rape and murder of a little girl in the
Bosnia/Kosovo region, and IIRC was sentenced to death).

Brooks

>
> > Sounds like you have to do a bit of house-cleaning of your own
>
> Measures recommended (by the general appointed to investigate)
> to prevent a repeat included faster disclipinary measures and
> court procedures, banning the possession and consumption of
> alcoholic beverages during operations, and improving training
> with more attention for humanitary law and the laws of warfare.
>
> > (I notice that your military courts proved either unwilling or
> > unable to do it for you)
>
> Belgium meanwhile abolished military courts in peacetime. Not
> cost-efficient for a small army, and to have a parallel system of
> justice for and by soldiers seemed a bad idea, creating at least
> an impression of unequal treatment. Cases against soldiers will
> now be heard in the normal civilian criminal courts. (That this
> will result in faster court procedures for suspect soldiers is
> doubtful indeed.)
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > No, that depends upon what you are specifically referring to. The
actions
> of
> > the guards at Abu Ghraib do appear to be clear-cut criminal acts--which
is
> > why prosecutions are underway. More subtle forms of softening up
> individuals
> > for interrogation are not necessarily criminal acts, though (i.e., sleep
> > deprivation, within reasonable limits; isolation, again within
reasonable
> > limits, etc.).

You missed some stuff--must have accidently snipped it, eh?

To wit:

How much time did the prosecution ask for in the case of those two Belgian
paras holding the kid over the fire? One *month*? (They of course did not
even get *that*). How much time did SGT Nassel end up receiving--one single
year, IIRC (and only then after his original lesser sentence was appealed?)?

>
> Torture is a criminal act prohibited under the Geneva conventions;
> and intentionally inflicting physical or mental suffering to make
> people more "cooperative" is torture.

Depends upon the definition of "suffering". You could argue that solitary
confinement is "torture" under your wideranging definition--but that is not
necessarily the case, is it? How about waking someone in the middle of the
night to undergo an interview--is that "torture"?

Whether there are limits
> of 'subtelity' put on the practice is irrelevant.

Those limits are what indeed separates the legal from the illegal.

One cannot be a little
> bit a torturer, any more than one can be a little bit pregnant.

So by your definition, those Belgian troops were all guilty of "torture", a
single crime of all-encompassing limits. What kind of sentences did those
four receive, again? Oh, that's right--holding a kid over an open fire for
an extended period of time is not "torture", according to your courts, is
it?

When
> a government permits 'moderate' abuse of prisoners for some
> purpose, it has to accept the responsibility when things run out
> of hand --- because that is to be expected.

So Belgium should be sigularly censured for failing to do anything to the
culprits involved in the Somali incidents (plural). OK. After we have
finished the courts martial proceedings against our own miscreants, you can
weigh in as to which of our respective nations took a more hardline approach
to controlling aberrant behavior. 'Till then, keep up that hosecleaning in
your own military justice system...

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Odd, in that the mention of "murder" was included in the case of one of
> the
> > four defendants (a Sergeant Major, IIRC),
>
> There was a conviction for murder of a Belgian peacekeeper;
> AFAIK the murder was related to an arms smuggling ring set
> up by UN peacekeepers (there were big scandals in Canada
> and Italy after the Somalia mission as well). Nobody claims
> that the UN mission in Somalia covered itself in glory; it was
> an all-round disaster.
>
> But you seem very willing to believe the most outrageous
> accusations you can find. Courts, it may surprise you, have
> to proceed by evidence. If a crime cannot be proven, they
> have to acquit.

Odd, given that you have already made pronouncement of the US in a case
where the trials are just starting, then. And unlike the case of Belgium,
the US Army began investigating and pursuing criminal cases *before* the
press published photos (indeed, also unlike the belgian case, the Army was
the party that announced the problem in the first place).

>
> > home before you embark on any crusade against a US military
> > justice system that is just now beginning proceedings against
> > the MP's.
>
> My objection is not against the US military justice system.
> (That AFAIK has a fairly good reputation internationally.)
> My objection is against an US government that has been
> negligent in establishing the line between right and wrong,
> and perhaps has even intentionally blurred it, but nevertheless
> eagerly throws the first stone when its servants transgress,
> without accepting its own responsibility.

I don't think you are right in this case.

>
> Belgian ministers of defence tend to strictly belong to either
> of two categories of politicians: Those who still have to
> prove their ability, and those who have already proven that
> they haven't any. (The current incumbent firmly belongs to
> the latter category.) But even they take their responsibility
> more seriously than Donald Rumsfeld.

That appears to be an unfounded accusation, IMO.

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You missed some stuff--must have accidently snipped it, eh?
>
> My habit is to snip thoroughly, leaving only in small bits as
> anchors to allow readers to roughly establish track what parts
> of a post a reply corresponds. I hate posts of 7,753 quoted lines
> with "me too!" added to it. If you can't live with that, bad luck.

That was not a "me, too!" item you snipped. It goes directly to the question
of how the US military handles such cases, a process that you seem upset
with (that whole three day lag in kicking off the CID investigation, etc.),
versus how your own nation handles it. The US announced the investigation
was underway immediately after it began; Belgium, IIRC, only investigated
after the press raised the issue. The US immediately relieved officers in
the chain of command; I have yet to see where the Belgians did that. But you
feel quite comfortable in critiquing our process, while it is still
ongoing...?

>
> > How much time did the prosecution ask for in the case of
> > those two Belgian paras holding the kid over the fire? One
> > *month*? (They of course did not even get *that*).
>
> I don't know how much the prosecutor asked.

One month.

The defence told
> the court that the soldiers swung the boy above the fire as a
> kind of rough game to frighten him a bit. Apparently there was
> no evidence to prove the contrary, and in the end the court
> accepted that story. With a case like that, no wise prosecutor is
> going to demand a heavy sentence --- because no judge is
> going to award it.

But according to you, "Whether there are limits of 'subtelity' put on the
practice is irrelevant." H'mmm...it seems you find limits unacceptable for
the US, but just fine for your folks when it comes to threatening to roast a
kid alive?!

>
> > How much time did SGT Nassel end up receiving--one single
> > year, IIRC (and only then after his original lesser sentence
> > was appealed?)?
>
> Actually, he was acquitted in his first trial. Yes, his total
> sentence was one year; I have found no record of his conviction
> in the second case. The charges varied from physical violence
> to organising prostitution, so it is hard to tell what he was found
> guilty of without the actual record. Too lenient? Perhaps.
> The court had to judge the cases on basis of the available
> evidence, not on newspaper reports in the sensationalist press;
> I am not willing to second-guess it on basis of the latter.

But you are quite willing to condemn our entire chain of command, up through
the SecDef at least, on the basis of similar "sensationalist press"
accounts? Are you beginning to see what i said before, about you letting
your prejudices taint your analysis of the current situation?

>
> > Oh, that's right--holding a kid over an open fire for
> > an extended period of time is not "torture", according
> > to your courts, is it?
>
> If you have any evidence that they did so for a "prolonged period
> of time" and caused actual harm to the boy, please send it to the
> Belgian judiciary.

Your words: "Whether there are limits of 'subtelity' put on the practice is
irrelevant." Don't be two-faced about this.

>
> > So Belgium should be sigularly censured for failing to do anything
> > to the culprits involved in the Somali incidents (plural). OK. After
> > we have finished the courts martial proceedings against our own
> > miscreants, you can weigh in as to which of our respective nations
> > took a more hardline approach to controlling aberrant behavior.
>
> You keep missing the point, do you -- must be accidental, eh?
> The point is NOT whether the actual "miscreants" are punished
> harshly. Personally, I won't object at all if US military courts
> give lenient sentences to the "miscreants" of Abu Ghraib. IMHO
> the major portion of the guilt rests with the people who allowed
> an environment in which such abuse of prisoners became widely
> tolerated and ("if done with subtlety") may even have been part
> of official policy.


Nope. And don't twist my words--I have said nothing to support the acts that
our own miscreants carried out at Abu Ghraib. I hope they all get severe
sentences. I also hope that the battalion and brigade level key personnel
who either knew of the acts, or should have known of them, deserve to be
punished, be it by Article 15 or by courts martial for dereliction of duty.
But trying to link this to the SecDef is a bit ridiculous. Until you can
present convincing evidence that he was directly, or even indirectly,
*responsible*, then your accusations are groundless and just symptomatic of
your anti-Bush/Rumsfeld hysteria (exacerbated by that "sensationailst press,
no doubt--or is that a factor only when Belgians are the accused party?).

The people who transgressed into brutal abuse
> of prisoners committed a crime -- but so would, in similar
> circumstances, a majority of any group of people. That is the sad
> reality of human nature. The Pentagon has to accept that soldiers
> are only human, and design its policies and regulations accordingly.

The policies and regulations promulgated by the Pentagon are not really
subject to attack, AFAIK. Remember, it was also one of those regulations
that led a concerned soldier to report the abuse to CENTCOM in the first
place.

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>
>

[WalterM140]

>gezz emma .... bush jnr wont like your thoughts at brekkie
>tomorrow...they are so simple and clear he wouldnt know what your on
>about...
>

On Friday last, it was leaked that Bush had "admonished" Rumsfled for not
keeping him apprised of these horrendous photographs; yesterday, Bush said
Rumsfeld had done a "superb" job.

Bush is nothing but a puppet for Cheney and the other neo-cons. And he is a
miserable failure.

The effect on the Muslim world that Bush's calling Rumsfeld's performance
"superb" can be predicted with some certainty. They will hate America more and
more American servicemen/women will die because of it.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>t is in the most important respect. The most determined fighters are on the
>>other side.
>
>The most important difference between Vietnam and Iraq is Oil.
>The former had no oil whereas the latter has worlds second largest oil
>reserves.

That's a good point. So it's a war for oil after all.

Walt

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 22:04:10 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>Torture is a criminal act prohibited under the Geneva conventions;
>and intentionally inflicting physical or mental suffering to make
>people more "cooperative" is torture.

If we follow this definition, Emmanuel, then the word "torture" is
meaningless. You would call any sort of discipline torture.

I understand torture to mean physical violence that leaves you
screaming and probably damaged for life. John McCain understands
torture.

Wearing a hood is not torture. Standing for 12 hours is not torture.
Sleep deprivation is not torture (my daughter is a blue-water sailor;
she trains herself to do without sleep, as a career necessity).

Humiliation is not torture, either, though I certainly think that PFC
Englewood (whatever her name) would be found guilty of some lesser
included offense under the UCMJ for her party trick with the leash. If
she were an officer, then it would be "conduct unbecoming." I don't
remember from my days covering courts martial, but I'm sure there's an
equivalent catch-all for enlisted troops.

We've pretty much destroyed any meaning the word "genocide" or "rape"
once had. Let's not toss "torture" into the PC dustbin also.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[BUFDRVR]

The troll WalterM140 wrote:

>Bush is nothing but a puppet for Cheney and the other neo-cons.

I was wondering how long it would take for you to break out your "neo-con"
remark.

Beat it troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Denyav]

>Bush had "admonished" Rumsfled for not
>keeping him apprised of these horrendous photographs; yesterday, Bush said
>Rumsfeld had done a "superb" jo

Rumsfeld is only cabinet member who understands the nature of current conflict.

If he had chosen to send "overwhelming" force to Iraq,Iraq war would be lost
even before first shot were fired.

If your opponent is Global Financial Power you must run Pentagon like a
Pharmacy company .
In order to win a war with Global Financial Power you must prove that financial
returns from the military invasion are better than invading this country with
Hondas,Toyatas,BMWs, Microsofts etc.

So,"overwhelming force" has no chance aganist such an opponent,but a lean and
very capable force might have a slight chance.

But unfortunately Rumsfeld is the Defense Secretary of United States not a
Confederate Defense Secretary.
He seems to forget that frequently.

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:59:19 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>Apparently, the report also contains claims of excessive violence
>used in arrests; of the beating of prisoners, in one case resulting in
>death; of soldiers firing on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers;
>etc. Whether the ICRC was reporting the abuse that is now subject
>of criminal investigation? Well, if not, then the problem is even
>bigger than we know now. Reports are dripping in suggesting that
>the problem was not limited to Abu Ghraib; it remains to be seen
>how widespread it really was. Time will tell -- I hope.

Time will tell how many commentators actually read the ICRC report and
take on board the other sections of it (e.g. Section 38) which
acknowledge things like the generally correct treatment detainees
received, the improvement in non-lethal restraint of serious
distrubances and escape attempts and so forth. People who want to
make justifiable mileage out of the allegations of systematic abuse of
military intelligence detainees must also address the whole picture of
systematic coalition behaviour revealed in the less sensational
sections of the report. This will not happen, of course, as the
report - like everything else - will be used to selectively further
arguments based on pre-existing prejudices which are all but
impervious to evidence which contradicts the axiomatic understandings
involved. People will simply use the report selectively to confirm
their prejudices, not to objectively inform their understanding.

>Crucially, the ICRC report is said to point out that although the
>abuse was widespread, it was limited to those prisoners regarded
>as "of intelligence value" and held for interrogation. That supports
>the view that the abuse was not the result of random acts of
>depravity by bad individuals, but the fairly direct consequence
>of a policy designed to soften up prisoners before interrogation.

It also comments on the limitation of that policy to a selected group;
what about that group? Or do they simply get air-brushed out of the
equation when it comes time to deliver verdicts on US policy towards
detainees as a whole?

>> So says you. I don't expect the SecDef to read every report that is
>> generated at each and every echelon below his own--
>
>This was not "each and every report." This was a report on
>a developing crisis that was about to deal a fatal blow the
>USA's Iraq policy and indelibly tarnish the reputation of the
>US military.

I see, so now ittle evidence of "wait and see" is now required, you
can - where it suits you - jump to conclusive characterisations of how
the ICRC report is about to deal a "fatal blow" to US Iraq policy.
Like most other commentators on this issue - on both sides - your
analysis is being driven by your preconceptions.

>> (preferably more than what your own nation has handed out to your soldiers
>> who committed equally, or even moreso, barbaric acts)--
>
>Sentences can only be given to soldiers after their guilt has
>been proven to the satisfaction of a court of law. Really,
>what is so hard to understand about that that it refuses to
>enter your brain? BTW, from what I have read, the maximum
>penalty defined by US law for such acts as committed in
>Abu Ghraib is one year.
>
>Again, I do not believe that turning the small fry into human
>sacrifices on the altar of political credibility serves a purpose
>or is fair.

Really? I suggest holding individual soldiers - Belgian or American -
responsible for any immoral or illegal acts they commit, through the
normal process of military and civilian justice, is an essential
prerequisite for maintaining the rule of law and military discipline.
I do note with interest how flexible your dismissal of holding
perpetrators responsible for their actions is, and how contingent it
is upon your preconceptions and their status and rank.

>> Don't start lecturing us until you have your own house in
>> order, Mr. Gustin.
>
>As I have pointed out, changes in policy have been made in
>the Belgian army to prevent a recurrence of such events.

Oh, so that's OK then. Would you tolerate such a response - an
internal inquiry followed by internal procedural change and then an
assertion that "everything is OK now" - from the US army? Somehow I
doubt it. As Kevin Brooks suggests, I think you should seriously
consider the issue of your objectivity over this matter.

>This
>seems to be more than the US Army is about to do,

Actually, given the apparent delay (or even lack) of any substantial
legal due process and imminent punishment, the US forces, incredibly
enough, are actually doing better than the Belgian.

[snip your characterisation of Bush policy]

>And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the nationality of the
>perpetrators, no matter how much you choose to harp on that.

I'm afraid it looks like it to me; and I'm somebody who does accept
that the Rumsfeld DoD has undermined US standards in terms of the
handling of dentainees, and seriously underestimated the commitment
required to stabilise and rebuild post-war Iraq. You should take a
close look at where your assertions in this thread materially move
beyond those points, and where you apparently adhere to a double
standards in regard to the nationality of soldiers alledged to have
commited human rights abuses on active service.

>That concludes this debate for me: I don't believe anything substantially
>new has been said in this latest exchange. I wonder whether anyone
>else has bothered to read it, but it hope it is a change from the more
>content-free rants that pollute this newsgroup.

I have indeed read it, and while I disagree with some of what Kevin
Brooks has written, I find the discussion typical of the kind of
polarised and sterile debate which characterises discussion of
American policy in Iraq - principally because of the level of
disproportionate, self-righteous hypocrisy ridden with axiomatic
assumptions and prejudice which tends to inform anti-US opinion even
more than it does pro-US opinion. And that's saying something.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

[Presidente Alcazar]

On 13 May 2004 10:49:43 -0700, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

>> It also comments on the limitation of that policy to a selected group;
>> what about that group? Or do they simply get air-brushed out of the
>> equation when it comes time to deliver verdicts on US policy towards
>> detainees as a whole?
>
>You mean, is it relevant who the abused detainees are?

No. I mean acknowledging the extent of the abuse amongst all
detainees, without fear or favour: where it exists, and, just as
importantly if you have any pretence to objectivity, where it doesn't
exist or has been dealt with.

>I don't think it is.

Good for you. Nice straw man, by the way.

>Most courts take a dim view of attempts to excuse
>a crime by throwing mud on the victims.

Good for them. This has nothing to do with my question on the
representative nature of the recorded US abuse. If you want to spend
time answering my posts, either ask for clarification of my point or
answer it rather than introduce your own straw men.

You are, as I understand it, critiquing US policy towards Iraqi
detainees. A commonly-acceptable starting point for that would be to
acknowledge what US policy was and what the involved in the treatment
of *all* detainees, and not just selected groups of them actually was.
For example, your approach is as meaningful in terms of characterising
the approach of US forces to all detainees as Rumsfeld parading a
group that the US forces had treated with kid gloves and then claiming
this was characteristic of the experience of detainees as a whole.
What is missing is any sense of proportion and any pretence to
objectivity.

>> I see, so now ittle evidence of "wait and see" is now required, you
>> can - where it suits you - jump to conclusive characterisations of how
>> the ICRC report is about to deal a "fatal blow" to US Iraq policy.
>
>You are right, I do not think we need to wait much longer to
>judge this.

Clearly, you don't.

>How is any future Iraqi government going to be able
>to work with the USA, with this millstone around their necks?

Pretty much how the German government works with the USA despite the
millstone of American force's war crimes and occupation crimes against
the local population. With any luck any future Iraqi government will
restrain their desire to announce how the latest case of American
crime or misdemeanour is characteristic of flaws in the American
government or character, and instead demand and receive due process of
legal justice on the suspects as individuals. You know, pretty much
like any other country might, without indulging the more hysterical
elements of anti-American hysteria. You can leave the conspiracy
theories and the generalised axiomatic assumptions until they are
demonstrably provable.

>> Really? I suggest holding individual soldiers - Belgian or American -
>> responsible for any immoral or illegal acts they commit, through the
>> normal process of military and civilian justice, is an essential
>> prerequisite for maintaining the rule of law and military discipline.
>
>I fully agree with that, as long as this involves fair and
>measured sentences based on sound evidence and a correct
>assesment of the environment these people had to live and
>work in.

Good. Now start applying this to every case involving US soldiers in
Iraq using physical or lethal force in the course of their duties,
rather than jumping to assumptive judgements apparently based on their
nationality alone.

>And as long as sentences and procedures are not
>influenced by any considerations of political convenience.

I'm quite happy for larger issues or political "convenience" in the
case of maintaining public order in Iraq to informn legal proceedings,
at least to some extent, e.g. delaying al-Sadr's trial for murder, or
accelerating courts-martial for the soldiers involved in the abuse at
Abu Ghraib.

>> how contingent it is upon your preconceptions and their status
>> and rank.
>
>You are right that I believe that politicians who make their
>decisions from a comfortable chair thousands of miles away,
>should be judged more rigourously than footsoldiers who break
>the law in a highly stressful situation.

Good, now demonstrate the Rumsfeld was a party to the breaking of the
law by soldiers in Abu Ghraib. You seem to know this for a fact
already, so you should have no problem sharing the evidence that
convinced you of this.

>> Oh, so that's OK then. Would you tolerate such a response - an
>> internal inquiry followed by internal procedural change and then an
>> assertion that "everything is OK now" - from the US army?
>
>Actually, yes, on condition that the new policy is indeed an
>effective and rigorous approach to banning and preventing
>abuse of prisoners.

The problem is proving that. Public judicial proceedings are an
essential element towards that end. An internal and invisible army
process is unacceptable.

>> You should take a
>> close look at where your assertions in this thread materially move
>> beyond those points, and where you apparently adhere to a double
>> standards in regard to the nationality of soldiers alledged to have
>> commited human rights abuses on active service.
>
>No double standard is involved.

I beg to differ. You've convicted Rumsfeld already, and indicted US
policy by selective example alone.

>If the US military court of
>justice judges in fairness that some of the charges against
>the guards of Abu Ghraib are unproven, and that lenient
>punishment for the other charges is appropriate considering
>the circumstances, I see no fundamental reason to object.

Given that the soldiers are being arrested, charged and are apparently
set for trial, I question your understanding of their conduct of DoD
"policy".

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

[Denyav]

>I fully agree with that, as long as this involves fair and
>measured sentences based on sound evidence and a correct
>assesment of the environment these people had to live and
>work in. And as long as sentences and procedures are not
>influenced by any considerations

Interesting point,I could only add that the personal backgrounds of those foot
soldiers must also be assessed.
I guess at least some of them could easily be qualified as Jerry Springer
guests.

[Denyav]

>The problem is proving that. Public judicial proceedings are an
>essential element towards that end. An internal and invisible army
>process is unacceptable.

If the civil war between various US agencies continues like that you probably
wont see any invisible military process but any invisible intel agency process
either.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
om...
> Presidente Alcazar > wrote in
message >...
>

<snip>

I was going to ignore your continued partisan ranting about this subject,
but some of the ideas you have posited are so ridiculous that commentary is
necessary.

> > Good, now demonstrate the Rumsfeld was a party to the breaking of the
> > law by soldiers in Abu Ghraib.
>
> Now you ARE behaving as the stereotypical American --
> attempting to narrow down the issue to the breaking
> or not of the letter of the law.
>
> The biggest question hanging over Rumsfeld's head is his
> political responsibility, not his legal responsibility.
> The two are substantially different. There is not direct
> link between guilt of a crime and the political and moral
> responsibility for the fact that it occurred.

Great. So now you agree he is not guilty. As to political responsibility, we
have a way of handling that over here--it is called an *election*. If the
majority of the US people, through the electoral college process, agree with
you, then Rumsfeld and Bush will be removed this fall; if not, then we'll
pronounce him politically "innocent" as well. If the politics of the
situation are all that concern you, just hold tight and wait till this
November, OK?

<snip more sniping at political issues>

>
> > The problem is proving that. Public judicial proceedings are an
> > essential element towards that end. An internal and invisible army
> > process is unacceptable.
>
> I agreed to an internal investigation -- not an invisible
> one. Nor do I agree that an internal investigation would
> be a block towards legal proceedings. What is needed is
> *more* than legal proceedings. There must be a serious
> policy review -- and that is a service that courts don't
> provide, and is not easily done in the full glare of
> publicity and political controversy.

Then you should be quite happy that the 15-6 investigation executive summary
has been produced. Though I must have missed your laudatory comments
regarding those soldiers and that one sailor who were singled out in it for
having taken actions to prevent/stop abuse (why, one would almost suspect
you are only interested in the negative aspects of the situation--but that
could not be the case, now could it? LOL!).

>
> The outcome of Belgian investigations in the events in
> Somalia was made publicly available. The outcome of US
> CID investigations into cases of possible abuse in Iraq
> and elsewhere (Afghanistan, Guantanamo) should be made
> publicly available as well -- AFAIK it would be illegal
> to classify it.

Bullpoopie. The 15-6 report summary has been made public. But you think we
routinely release the results of CID investigations? Not quite--just as
civilian police departments do not routinely release the results of criminal
investigations in their entirety, especially while legal action related to
them are ongoing (maybe this is why your Belgian atrocities went largely
unpunished--your weasely politicians released the criminal investigation
results prior to the trials because you insisted upon it?). You are already
getting your CID investigation results, though--in the form of the courts
martial proceedings against those found to be criminally liable. And no, the
maximum term that can be given out is not one year for all of those accused,
as you posted earlier--that was the case for the charges made against one
individual, and there are a number of others, some with more severe charges
pending. As to your Belgian investigation results...like I said before, you
need to start looking to your own house. Investigations and court cases
against individuals who hold a child over an open fire in an effort to scare
him and result in no penalties being levied (and one of them remaining in
your armed forces) seem to be a bit lacking--not to mention the fact that
unlike the US in this case, your own investigations did not even begin until
forced upon you by the international media--are you real proud of that?

Brooks

>
> Emmanuel

[Presidente Alcazar]

On 14 May 2004 10:25:07 -0700, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

>That not all prisoners were treated in this way does not make
>it less bad that some of them were.

That's not my point, either. I am not seeking to excuse the undoubted
abuses and crimes that have been committed. What I do doubt is the
accuracy of your characterisations of US policy: you cannot make
accurate or proportionate judgements about US policy as a whole by
ignoring the evidence of the majority of cases of the implementation
of that policy. Can you understand that point?

>A policy that singles out
>some individuals for bad treatment is still a bad policy.

Yes. I have never disputed this. A policy of assumptive judgement
which ignores the treatment of the entireity of the detainee
population is still a flawed judgement, however. Otherwise the mere
fact that any law-enforcement agency or armed force experiences cases
of physical abuse would render every armed force and every police
force in the entire world guilty of *bad policy*. What matters are
what steps are taken to avoid such things in the first place, then
deal with them afterwards, and a proportionate and objective judgement
based on a realistic assessment of the circumstances at the time. In
most cases in Iraq, the latter factor is entirely absent.

>A policy that carries with it a very high risk that soldiers
>will stoop to unacceptable treatment of prisoners is still
>a bad policy, even if not all of them do.

Again, I would like to ask you to address the points I have actually
made in this thread, rather than introducing straw men of your own.

>> Good, now demonstrate the Rumsfeld was a party to the breaking of the
>> law by soldiers in Abu Ghraib.
>
>Now you ARE behaving as the stereotypical American --

Frankly, I'm unsuprised by your assumptive judgements of American
stereotypical behaviour. It seems to inform the understanding of many
who share your position, and demonstrates my point about how debate
over Iraq has become entirely subservient to the servicing of
prejudical assumptions and axiomatic totems. For your information, I
am neither American, nor a gung-ho supporter of the Bush
administration.

>attempting to narrow down the issue to the breaking
>or not of the letter of the law.

No, that's what you're doing. Meanwhile, my actual views - should you
accept the challenge of addressing *them*, rather than your
assumptions about the stereotypical pro-American views I must *surely*
hold if I disagree with you, are that the letter and spirit of the law
has been clearly violated at Abu Ghraib, and the soldiers involved and
their immediate superiors have a clear legal case to answer.

>The biggest question hanging over Rumsfeld's head is his
>political responsibility, not his legal responsibility.
>The two are substantially different. There is not direct
>link between guilt of a crime and the political and moral
>responsibility for the fact that it occurred.

The problem with that is the flexibility of judgement when it comes to
extending the one responsibility into the other. That derives from
your subjective personal political opinion. This is also true for me,
but at least I'm prepared to admit that upfront. Meanwhile, I do
actually think Rumsfeld does have some level of responsibility for the
systematic disregarding of the Geneva convention at the insitutional
level. However, what Rumsfeld has not done is specify or instruct the
suspect guards at Abu Ghraib in their crimes, and if you want to make
an argument about his institutional leadership and responsibility for
US behaviour towards detainees in military operations, that argument
must encompass the totality of the evidence for that, and no just
selective examples where individuals have manifestly exceeded DoD
policy.

>As for legal responsibility, that is another matter,
>depending on exactly what Rumsfeld approved of as "special
>interrogation techniques", what legal standards are
>applicable, and how much he knew or decided he did not
>want to know. It is for the courts to decide after an
>investigation into this... I can only hope there will be
>one, but it isn't likely at all.

I'm entirely convinced that, as the pendulum of US public opinion
swings back against the legal excesses and violations of due process
that we have seen in the "War Against Terror" in the long-term,
evidence will accumulate against Rumsfeld. Particularly in the case
of unarmed, non-combatant suspects held by the CIA and exported to
compliant foreign regimes for torture far above what even the most
excessive Military Intelligence grouping have managed in Iraq.

>> The problem is proving that. Public judicial proceedings are an
>> essential element towards that end. An internal and invisible army
>> process is unacceptable.
>
>I agreed to an internal investigation -- not an invisible
>one.

That's exactly what produced the Abu Ghraib pictures, and the known
evidence of abuse. Frankly, that remains a powerful argument that the
US forces are, at least to some extent, capable of keeping their house
in order. That itself discounts a lot of the "insitutional" and
"policy" dynamics to such behaviour.

>The outcome of Belgian investigations in the events in
>Somalia was made publicly available. The outcome of US
>CID investigations into cases of possible abuse in Iraq
>and elsewhere (Afghanistan, Guantanamo) should be made
>publicly available as well -- AFAIK it would be illegal
>to classify it.

I don't disagree with that. I think there should be extensive
investigations into lethal incidents involving Coalition forces. What
I would also like to see is the some account taken of the
circumstances, as well as the same level of *public notoriety* being
generated in the media where the assumptions of the anti-war
consitutuency are questioned. Today has seen the second example of
fake photographs of prisoner abuse being acknowledged. I'll be
waiting a long time for the headlines associated with that to equal
the coverage they got when they were first published.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

[WalterM140]

>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

>(1) In democracies, ministers who make major blunders,
> are responsible for catastrophes (or, in Britain, go to
> bed with their secretary) are expected to resign or to
> be fired by parliament.

>(2) The situation in Iraq is in deep crisis. The USA (and
> the world) need a competent and untarnished secretary
> of defense to be in place ASAP if anything is to be
> salvaged.

>(3) I did not "agree that it is not guilty" except in the sense
> of "not guilty until convicted." I hope that the question
> of his guilt will be subject of due investigation and, if
> justified, trial.

All of that is exactly right.

>As you might have noticed if you had actually bothered to try to
>understand any of my earlier posts, I am neither claiming that all
>US soldiers behaved badly, not am I out to harshly condemn those
>who did, considering the circumstances. My concern is that the
>US DoD has some policies in place that stimulate bad behaviour,
>and that these need to be changed, and that those who put these
>policies in place have to be identified and held responsible for
>them. Today's decision to ban the use of "special interrogation
>techniques" in Iraq illustrates, IMHO, that the US army shares
>this concern; although this decision does not yet go far enough.
>

I think the US Army officers are very upset over what happened. The Army has
been working on its reputation for a long time, now it is all besmirched again.

>> You are already
>> getting your CID investigation results, though--in the form of the courts
>> martial proceedings against those found to be criminally liable.
>
>Your talent for missing the point is truly formidable. To investigate
>only the criminal liability would be a dereliction of duty.
>
>The steely determination of American conservatives to focus
>exclusively on the criminal liability is highly significant in itself.
>It reveals that they understand only too well that the Bush
>administration is morally and politically responsible.
>

Also a good point.

>To make the point, Belgian had *besides* the criminal investigations,
>a commission of inquiry, a study of problems in the army that might
>have contributed to the events in Somalia, and (following on the
>conclusions of that review) an investigation in the occurrence of
>racism in the army.
>

Brooks said:

>> your armed forces) seem to be a bit lacking--not to mention the fact that
>> unlike the US in this case, your own investigations did not even begin
>until
>> forced upon you by the international media--are you real proud of that?
>

We have enough problems of our own; Brooks is just trying to deflect blame and
shame Emmanuel into silence.



Walt

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Great. So now you agree he is not guilty. As to political
responsibility,
> we
> > have a way of handling that over here--it is called an *election*.
>
> (1) In democracies, ministers who make major blunders,
> are responsible for catastrophes (or, in Britain, go to
> bed with their secretary) are expected to resign or to
> be fired by parliament.

Why don't you let us worry about what is "expected" of our own leadership,
OK?

>
> (2) The situation in Iraq is in deep crisis. The USA (and
> the world) need a competent and untarnished secretary
> of defense to be in place ASAP if anything is to be
> salvaged.

No, it is not in "deep crisis", and the sky is not falling down, either.

>
> (3) I did not "agree that it is not guilty" except in the sense
> of "not guilty until convicted." I hope that the question
> of his guilt will be subject of due investigation and, if
> justified, trial.

"Not his legal responsibility" were the words you used. Your whole discourse
regarding this matter has pointed to the fact that you have already
convicted him, but when pressed on the matter you back off from any "leagal
responsibility...then just as quickly, you are now back to "the question of
his guilt". In reality, there is no question--he is not guilty.

>
> > Then you should be quite happy that the 15-6 investigation executive
> summary
> > has been produced. Though I must have missed your laudatory comments
> > regarding those soldiers and that one sailor who were singled out in it
> for
> > having taken actions to prevent/stop abuse (why, one would almost
suspect
> > you are only interested in the negative aspects of the situation--but
that
> > could not be the case, now could it? LOL!).
>
> As you might have noticed if you had actually bothered to try to
> understand any of my earlier posts, I am neither claiming that all
> US soldiers behaved badly, not am I out to harshly condemn those
> who did, considering the circumstances. My concern is that the
> US DoD has some policies in place that stimulate bad behaviour,
> and that these need to be changed, and that those who put these
> policies in place have to be identified and held responsible for
> them. Today's decision to ban the use of "special interrogation
> techniques" in Iraq illustrates, IMHO, that the US army shares
> this concern; although this decision does not yet go far enough.

What "goes far enough" for you?

>
> > You are already
> > getting your CID investigation results, though--in the form of the
courts
> > martial proceedings against those found to be criminally liable.
>
> Your talent for missing the point is truly formidable. To investigate
> only the criminal liability would be a dereliction of duty.

Which is why they did the 15-6.

>
> The steely determination of American conservatives to focus
> exclusively on the criminal liability is highly significant in itself.
> It reveals that they understand only too well that the Bush
> administration is morally and politically responsible.

There is no focus "exclusively on criminal liability"--see the 15-6.

Brooks

>
> To make the point, Belgian had *besides* the criminal investigations,
> a commission of inquiry, a study of problems in the army that might
> have contributed to the events in Somalia, and (following on the
> conclusions of that review) an investigation in the occurrence of
> racism in the army.
>
> > your armed forces) seem to be a bit lacking--not to mention the fact
that
> > unlike the US in this case, your own investigations did not even begin
> until
> > forced upon you by the international media--are you real proud of that?
>
> The claim that the investigation was "forced upon" military
> justice by the international media is for your responsibility.
> AFAIK the original investigation was prompted by reports
> from human rights groups and Belgian (Flemish) state
> television. Of course investigators will look into allegations
> of criminal abuse that are reported in the media -- to fail to
> do so would be unacceptable. To conclude from this that
> they would not do so if the reports had not been in the media
> is dishonest. That the media had to story first did indicate a
> problem: the reporting of abuse in the Belgian army was
> deficient. This problem had to be identified and corrected
> by a policy review, separate from criminal investigation.

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>
>
>

[Presidente Alcazar]

On 15 May 2004 09:44:39 -0700, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

>> That's not my point, either. I am not seeking to excuse the undoubted
>> abuses and crimes that have been committed. What I do doubt is the
>> accuracy of your characterisations of US policy: you cannot make
>> accurate or proportionate judgements about US policy as a whole by
>> ignoring the evidence of the majority of cases of the implementation
>> of that policy. Can you understand that point?
>
>I can understand the point, but I cannot not understand why you are
>arguing it. It is an established fact, admitted even by Rumsfeld
>himself, that the US DoD has adopted a policy of harsh treatment
>of some prisoners to "facilitate" their interrogation. How does the
>fact that this policy appears not to extend to all prisoners, render
>it non-existent?

It doesn't. Now, how does the point that this was not extended to all
prisoners render them non-existent? I'm not selectively airbrushing
any group out of the equation when it comes to making a substantive
judgement on US policy towards detainees. You are. The question
remains, why? My assumption, which I have yet to see disproved, is
that this selectivity is driven by prejudice on your part. This would
be entirely consistent with the level of binary polarisation,
sometimes amounting to shrill hysteria, which passes for criticism of
American policy and behaviour in Iraq. However, I'm prepared to admit
this might be a mistaken assumption on my part if you prove me wrong.

>> fact that any law-enforcement agency or armed force experiences cases
>> of physical abuse would render every armed force and every police
>> force in the entire world guilty of *bad policy*.
>
>No. Isolated cases are not necessarily indicative of bad policy.
>But when abuse is widespread, and a policy is promulgated from
>above that enouraged "special" treatment of prisoners during
>interrogation, AND reports indicate a link between interrogation
>and abuse, then it is safe to conclude that there is a link
>between abuse and policy, and demand an investigation and review
>of the policy.

I don't think that linkage has, in this case, been demonstrably
proven. Despite the attraction of it as a thesis in accordance with
existing ideological perspectives of the Bush administration and
Rumsfeld's role within it.

I prefer to see more relevant evidence before assuming links between
the factors involved. As, I suspect, would you, if the agencies
involved weren't American, and weren't involved in a specific
contentious policy such as the occupation of Iraq.

>> Again, I would like to ask you to address the points I have actually
>> made in this thread, rather than introducing straw men of your own.
>
>You mean I have to allow you to restrict the debate to the ground
>you chose, and ignore other aspects that are at least equally
>relevant, but you choose not to discuss?

Then the legitimacy of the debate, at least as you see it, is entirely
contingent upon the relevancy, as you see it, of other "aspects".
Given the character of the discourse involved in this thread, and the
assumptive nature of your view of "relevancy", I don't hold out much
hope for any substantial agreement. You dislike Rumsfeld, and are
happy enough to see rumour, conjecture and assumption form the basis
of your opinion. I also dislike Rumsfeld, but I prefer to be more
alive to the dangers of my own prejudices when it comes to damning him
on limited or non-existant facts.

>I was not born yesterday.

I didn't imply that. Perhaps you should take a more dispassionate
view of the manner in which your own pre-conceived ideas are informing
your opinions not only over the substance of the issues at hand, but
in the manner you characterise my opinions.

>> For your information, I am neither American,
>
>I did say you were, only that you were behaving as one :-)

Actually, when it comes to the influence of national feeling informing
judgement, I think your approach is more influenced by stereotypical
"American" assumptions than mine.

>> However, what Rumsfeld has not done is specify or instruct the
>> suspect guards at Abu Ghraib in their crimes, and if you want to make
>> an argument about his institutional leadership and responsibility for
>> US behaviour towards detainees in military operations, that argument
>> must encompass the totality of the evidence for that, and no just
>> selective examples where individuals have manifestly exceeded DoD
>> policy.
>
>I do not agree with that. If the DoD adopts a policy to achieve A,
>but one that is at the same time likely and can be reasonably expected
>to have a result B, and the DoD takes no effective steps to prevent
>that, then the DoD is responsible for A and B, regardless of whether
>B was the intended result.

I disagree. What matters is who was instructed to do what by whom,
who was aware of it, who wasn't, and who did what (if anything) to
stop it. From the evidence I've seen, Rumsfeld's personal
responsibility for this has not been proven, and the official response
of the US forces in Iraq has not been to cover this up. Frankly,
there is insufficient evidence to indict Rumsfeld. Yet. But I see
this doesn't agree with your opinion.

>In this case the DoD pronounced a policy A of using physical and
>mental "pressure", to put it euphemistically, to soften up prisoners
>before interrogation; and in addition it put prisoners in hands of
>a too small number of poorly trained guards who lacked supervision.
>That this would result in abuse beyond the limits of what was intended
>by the Pentagon was, given what is known of human psychology, entirely
>predictable.

Why? You are assuming that the personnel allocated to administer the
detainees involved would automatically jump at the chance to
administer illegal abuse. That's an interesting lack of confidence in
the American soldiers concerned. It's justifiable with hindsight, but
not entirely when the result for the service personnel involved is a
court martial. That scarcely implies that they were successfully
administering DoD policy.

>What the Rumsfeld has done is to put his soldiers on a steep slope,
>drawn a line horizontally accross, poured on soap -- and then he
>blamed them when they slid down.

Meanwhile, the majority of US servicemen and women seem to negotiate
this slippery slope without resorting to the sexual humiliation and
sadistic abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Of course, they won't factor into
your characterisations of US policy, for the simple reason that they
don't meet your pre-determined requirements for analytical selection.
Meanwhile, until the evidence emerges that indicates Rumsfeld's
personal role in specifiying the abuse of the Abu Ghraib prisoners, or
ignoring it when it was brought to his attention, I'll resist the
temptation to make assumptive judgements about his guilt in accordance
with my own ideological prejudices, which would put him somewhere in
the region of Dr Strangelove. I doubt you'll find many Americans
outside the anti-war movement who share that perspective, but don't
let that restrain you when you want to characterise my opinion as some
kind of redneck Bu****e apology.

Gavin Bailey




--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:10:05 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>> It doesn't. Now, how does the point that this was not extended to all
>> prisoners render them non-existent?
>
>It doesn't, but crimes do not dilute by average.

I did not assert that they did. But if you're characterising
administration policy. you need to engage with the totality of that
policy, otherwise a selective reading of US behaviour in Iraq puts the
US forces and US administration on a par with the Waffen SS.

>It is good
>news that most of American soldiers are entirely innocent
>of such abuse,

The point is that it will never make the news, whether it is "good" or
otherwise: the context for media and public discourse has been set,
and nothing outside those set of axiomatic understandings will be
entertained.

> but that does not diminish the responsibility
>of those who are not so innocent.

No, and again, I did not say it did. What, however, I do say is that
guilt must be substantiated both individually and institutionally, and
not just asserted en masse in accordance with ideological suspicions.

>> My assumption, which I have yet to see disproved, is
>> that this selectivity is driven by prejudice on your part.
>
>So now I am guilty until proven innocent?

I wasn't aware you saw yourself as appearing in a court of law. I
have judged the basis for your opinion as you have posted it in this
thread.

> I do not even
>consider my position to be that heavily critical of the USA
>or even of the US government.

I'm sure you don't. We all like to see ourselves as dispassionate
observers, unclouded by issues of personal subjectivity.

>Comparing with what most
>media here are printing, or American media such as the
>New Yorker, this is at most lukewarm criticism. Over here
>even faithful "Atlantists" such as Mark Eyskens (former
>prime minister and almost irrationally pro-American)
>advocate replacing Rumsfeld by Powell (not the most
>realistic suggestion, IMHO.)

I'm well aware of the intellectual bankruptcy of most popular European
perspectives of US policy. I read the Guardian.

>> I disagree. What matters is who was instructed to do what by whom,
>> who was aware of it, who wasn't, and who did what (if anything) to
>> stop it.
>
>No. Governments have (morally and politically) to be
>judged on the consequences of their actions, not just on
>their intentions.

The problem is the huge range of actions you are eliminating from
consideration of their institutional policy to deliver a verdict on
their institutional policy be means of a selective examples.

>> Why? You are assuming that the personnel allocated to administer the
>> detainees involved would automatically jump at the chance to
>> administer illegal abuse. That's an interesting lack of confidence in
>> the American soldiers concerned.
>
>Call it a lack of confidence in humanity. There have been
>interesting studies in the psychology of guards etc., most
>famously be a pschychologist named Milgram. The indications
>are, both from science and from history, is that the majority
>of people will perhaps not "jump at the chance to administer
>illegal abuse", but will be willing to perform torture, if they
>feel that such behaviour is tolerated and perhaps expected
>of them. And this was a situation where a government
>was, to put it mildly, giving the impression that it supported
>'softening' prisoners by physical and mental pressure, local
>commanders failed to give sufficiently clear indications to
>the contrary, and military intelligence officers may even have
>stimulated such behaviour.

Frankly, the only agencies that matter are the local commanders the
troops involved were in contact with. They were their point of
contact with the American "government", as you describe it, and they
had the primary responsibility for the discipline and behaviour of the
troops under their command. If Hersch actually manages to produce
some documentary evidence that Rumsfeld was behind it all as a matter
of personal agency, rather than vague institutional rumour-mongering,
then I'll be happy to reconsider that approach. Until then, the only
defensible approach is to follow the evidence and act on it, rather
than selectively use evidence to jump to conclusions that agree with
pre-existing opinions.

> Add to that the stress of a being in
>a hostile environment, and it was entirely predictable that
>some soldiers would commit acts of serious abuse.

Yes, but I think we both agree that we are not disputing acts (such as
the use of lethal force to re-establish order during prison riots)
which have been taken under a crisis of environmental pressure, we're
talking about essentially pre-meditated actions taken where there is
no evidence of any such threat to the soldiers concerned. This is a
distinctly different set of circumstances than troops using excessive
force on prisoners during or immediately after violent combat, which,
although unacceptable, is to my mind is far more easily understandable
in light of their immediate context.

That does
>not render these people innocent, for they still had a choice,
>but it is unjust to demonize the guards for flaws in human
>nature that most of us have.

I disagree. This wasn't a difficult moral judgement to be made under
high-stress circumstances in the battlefield.

>Much responsibility lies with
>the people who created an environment that stimulated such
>behaviour. Anyway, it was a serious failure for any
>administration to overlook the dangers inherent in this
>situation.

I think that's arguable, but not conclusively so. I think the real
failure was the fact that the individual soldiers did it, and then
nobody in their immediate chain of command stopped it until outside
investigation had begun.

>> Meanwhile, the majority of US servicemen and women seem to negotiate
>> this slippery slope without resorting to the sexual humiliation and
>> sadistic abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
>
>The majority of US servicemen and woman are not on
>the slope -- they are not being employed as guards of
>prisoners that are regarded as potential "intelligence
>sources." The indications from red cross reports and
>oher sources are that among those who are, abuse is
>frequent, but that it is rare among others.

The report lists abuse in a selected group and then ignores everything
else. That's entirely justifiable and to be expected in an ICRC
report, but that's not - by itself - a valid platform for generalised
assumptions to be indulged in, no matter how sympathetic they might be
to pre-existing believes about the American administration or American
policy.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En