www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Where does responsibility lie?

Try telling that to burka-wearing Muslim women who are whipped by the religion police!

These aren't innocent Muslim men who got their morals from watching re-runs of Sesame Street. Their dignity went down the drain when they enlisted to kill for a tyrant. What happens to the dignity of Iraqi citizens and their culture when 'foreigners' intrude into their state to fight? You are worried about these thugs losing their manhood. I believe they left that behind long ago.

Joe

"Try telling that to burka-wearing Muslim women who are whipped by the religion police!"

Wrong country Joe, that's not Iraq, at least not yet. However, if we continue to screw things up there it might end up that way. All we are doing is giving the radical fundamentalists grist for their mill.

Moe

I agree, they lost their dignity, but they remain human beings, created in the image and likeness of God.

And the American and British soldiers who participated in torturing and humiliating the Iraqi POWs have also lost their dignity by violating the values they claimed to defend...

Christian

It seems there continue to be even more coming out to show it was policy and not just some untrained staff.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...mp;u=/nm/20040510/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_dc_37

I'm from the school of, Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."

Who took these photos? I don't see why the perpetrators of the alleged severe abuses would photograph their disgusting actions then release the pics to the public.

Were there informants who secretly took the pictures to tell the world of Iraqi prisoner abuse?

Where the photos fabricated/doctored?
I don't know who or what to believe.
Many questions, too few answers.

Paul

Moe,

You mentioned Muslim men. Did you mean only those Muslim men in Iraq or was humiliation not a factor elsewhere. Radical fundamentalists always have a mill to grind. Why is this so new to you?

Joe

Well, your President and Secretary of Defence don't think they were fabricated, so...

Christian

Christian,

Good point.

If we are past the authenticity of the photos, then were the dispicable acts done to the Iraqi prisoners done to tear down the Bush administration close to the presidential election?

Lord have mercy!

Paul

So the Democrats were behind it??! Those godless Liberals!

Christian

Don't believe the torture and abuse in Iraq was solely the work of a few sadistic hillbillies and miscreants, as the Pentagon is claiming.

The process of inflicting pain, humiliation, and degradation on captives - dehumanizing them - was officially sanctioned by the Bush Administration. The White House's rejection of the Geneva Conventions protecting captives, its creation of legal black holes in Guantanamo and other foreign bases where captives could be deprived of the rule of law, and its claim that anyone branded a `terrorist' or `illegal combatant' could be dealt with my courts martial or presidential fiat opened the gates of Abu Ghraib.

President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld as much as told US soldiers and agents to ignore the laws of war. They are ultimately responsible for the disgraceful acts now being revealed in Iraq. When I served in the US Army, I was taught that the president was the ultimate military commander. It is time the commander-in-chief take responsibility for these crimes that have so befouled America's once good name.

The tortures and abuse being used were perfected by CIA psychologists and psychiatrists. These tortures, based on Israeli techniques to crush the Palestinians, and taught by Israeli advisors, were designed more to break Iraqi's will than to elicit information. The carefully thought out sexual humiliations were designed to inflict maximum mental punishment on Muslims.

For US occupiers of Iraq, dreaded Abu Ghraib plays the same role it did under Saddam Hussein: terrifying the population into docility. The US now may hold more Iraqi prisoners � 15,000-20,000 � than did Saddam's prisons.

After last week's revelations from Abu Ghraib, the only people likely to still believe President Bush's claims to be fighting in Iraq for `freedom and democracy,' will be brain-numbed American TV viewers.

- from Eric Margolis\' latest article [bigeye.com] . Margolis was honoured at a banquet in Toronto for his truthful reporting a few months ago by the Ukrainian community.

P.S. the presence of Israeli torturers/advisors in the prison was hinted at by The New Yorker's Seymour Hersch last week on the Charlie Rose show (I remember something to the effect of "intelligence officers from one of our Middle East allies").

Paul,

Unfortunately for the added dimension of horror that it brings to the victims - but fortunately, because it so often provides the nexus to bring the perpetrators to justice - people who engage in and enjoy this type of behavior not infrequently enjoy documenting it. It's part of the power trip, enough so that it blinds perpetrators to the risk that it may be their undoing. As to allowing the film to get into the hands of the public, it's another aspect of the psychological makeup of these same kind of folks. They perceive a socio-cultural/political connection between themselves and a public that they believe will appreciate what they've done, because of its hatred/fear of Saddam, of Arabs, of terrorists, etc. Don't discount this as stupidity; there are certainly those whose reaction is everything for which a perpetrator could have hoped.

Did some of these come from "informants"? Assuredly, there were witnesses who couldn't stomach what they were seeing and felt it had to be reported - and documented, so that it would believed. That's not an easy role to undertake. WO Hugh Thompson had the advantage at My Lai of having superior weaponry to those he observed committing obscenities under color of authority; an observer armed with a camera didn't have that advantage and took a potentially real personal risk in what he or she did.

Justin's point is absolutely correct. It isn't even necessary that all of those involved would have ordinarily participated - the circumstances of power can easily sway those with no predeliction toward the behavior.

Back in 1970, an Iowa teacher named Jane Elliott conducted an experiment within her classroom. As she explained it to the children, they would consider blue-eyed children superior and give them some minor privileges over those of other eye colors. It didn't take long before the blue-eyes were asserting added privileges and exerting significant authority (not always in the nicest of ways) over their "inferior" classmates, many of whom were their best friends just days beforehand. To this day, "Eye of the Storm", the documentary of the experiment is considered a classic record of how quickly and easily power or its perception can and will be abused - even in settings where there is no prior history of antimosity between the parties -imagine a hate-charged war setting.

Joe,

Perspective has nothing to do with it. As a Viet Nam veteran, I can tell you that war is not ever a pretty thing - it wasn't even in the centuries when it was conducted under "civilized rules". What the hell do you think the "rest of the story" is - that the prisoners "asked for it" - said, "hey, I got a fantasy, I bet you folks can help me fulfill it"? The behavior portrayed in the videos and photos cannot be justified or mitigated under any circumstances.

Yes they did, but they weren't allowed access. And, even if they hadn't, it would make no difference. No one ever suggested that Saddam's regime was one of benevolence. We - Americans - put ourselves forth as being of a higher moral calibre than the dictators, terrorists, etc. against whom we wage war; it's sad that examples such as this make clear that we aren't always.

Paul,

Don't believe that for a moment. Neither Bush nor any administration spokesperson has even suggested it. This is not something from a "dirty tricks" bag. This is something gone seriously wrong with folks who were in a position of trust and abused it, acting "under color of authority" as the UCMJ puts it. That such is not a new phenomenon is why that term of legal art exists in civil and common law, as well as the military code.

Roman,

While I am no fan of Bush, I think it is too much to say that it was officially sanctioned. I agree with you, however, that the administration's prior handling of Afghani prisoners clearly contributed to a mindset that would make it easier for people to believe that they were doing something that would be acceptable in the minds of authority and/or the public.

I also think that the role of CIA, DIA, NSA, and MI in this activity will eventually be shown to have been contributory - although I suspect that at least some of what occurred resulted from copycat activity and other was independent felonious activity.

Unfortunately, for all the thousands of dedicated and wonderful men and women who serve in the uniformed services and in agencies such as the CIA, there is and likely always will be a core of people who are psychologically unfit to exercise the kind of authority that goes with wearing a uniform, carrying a weapon, or having power over others.

That some of those will come to be working under the command of officers who either share their psychological unfitness or lack the command presence or moral fiber to assure that it isn't put to practice is an unfortunate fact of life. Until we become so skilled at profiling as to be able to assure that persons are only placed in roles that they are psychologically and morally fit to exercise, there will continue to be Abu Ghraibs.

Many years,

Neil

IM,

Nobody is justifying it. The "rest of the story" is what we will discover as the story behind the pictures unfold. Just heard how over a dozen congress persons were notified about this before the pics were revealed and failed to respond to it. Now, they are claiming they were kept in the dark.

Do you really think that I believe these prisoners had such fantasies? Now THAT is a different perspective I didn't consider.

BTW, what are your thoughts about our government going after porn sites that show even more graphic pictures? Yet, our First Amendment protects them - even when they are photographing and/or video taping children who haven't even reached puberty. Do you think the Pro-Life movement should depict the aftermath of abortion in the public?

I like to look at the whole picture, not just a few chosen ones. The media is interesting in what it decides to be important to show the public. Abuse isn't justified. Don't get me wrong. But do you think the media is just as interested in depicting the good that our troops ARE doing in Iraq? Of course not. It is an election year. Go figure.

Joe

Joe,

My apologies for misinterpreting your reference to "the rest of the story". A review of my posts from the other morning will suggest that I was a tad cranky that day (I'm usually such fun :rolleyes: ).

I agree that photographs and video to the media are sales tools more often than they are intended to educate. It is a sad but true commentary though that the world needs to be shown these types of pictures - which so much serve to inflame - to get folks to believe that this kind of horror is perpetrated by Americans in uniform, albeit the few, not the many.

General Taguba is to be commended for what appears to have been a very forthright and honest overall effort to report on the situation. His assessment appears to me to be a more realistic portrayal in many instances than that of John Warner, a lawmaker for whom I ordinarily have considerable respect, but who is suddenly appearing to be trying to put "a best face" on things by some of his reported comments

Joe,

I presume you are referring to BDSM sites. Frankly, provided that measures are put in place that restrict access to such sites to those who choose to view them, I can live with the First Amendment protection granted to them.

There is no First Amendment protection granted to kiddie porn sites and my observation has been that there are active and ongoing measures taken in pursuit of shutting down those and prosecuting those who operate and/or contribute to them, as well there should be.

The Pro-Life movement frequently does depict the effects of partial-birth abortion, an effective tool in educating the public to the arguments in favor of banning it. I'm not sure what your question is of me in this regard? Do I suggest they not be permitted to do so? No, I don't think I ever argued that photography and videos should only be displayed when they depict happy moments - at least not until those are the only types of moments available to be shown - we should be so lucky.

Many years,

Neil

The US has rejected the Kyoto environmental protocols and it has rejected a Permanent International Criminal Court while adhering to some sort of legalistic argument that permits mistreatment of captives at Guantanamo and elsewhere. The US seeks UN approval for its military escapades yet goes forward with them even when the approval is not forthcoming. The most famous professor at its most prestigious law school advcocates for the use of torture in some cases yet retains his "human rights advocate" title. The government subcontracts out torture (for legalistic reasons, according to some commentators). Soliers assigned guard duty at prisons, for all their training, are ignorant of the Geneva Accords.

The US government rejects the moral counsel of most long-established European based religious leaders, including the Pope, apparently preferring that of some home-grown Protestants.

The rejection of any international legal or moral authority could hardly be clearer. Footsoldiers would have to be pretty dim to not have noticed.

****************************************

Pope to Ask Bush for Radical Shift in Policy, Says Cardinal Laghi
Changes Sought in Approach to Iraq and Holy Land

VATICAN CITY, MAY 13, 2004 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II will ask U.S. President George Bush to stop basing his policies in Iraq and the Holy Land on recourse to force, when they meet June 4, a cardinal says.

"We are at the edge of a precipice and we must stop," said Cardinal Pio Laghi, a one-time papal nuncio in the United States, in statements to the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera.

"We are told this by the horror unleashed by the tortures of Iraqi prisoners, the beheading of the American hostage, and the scoffing at the bodies of American soldiers," he said.

Cardinal Laghi, who was nuncio in the United States from 1980 to 1990 and who helped establish diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Washington, visited Bush in March 2003 on behalf of the Pope to ask the president not to engage in a "preventive war."

"'Stop' is the cry expressed by the Church in the name of abused humanity," the 81-year-old cardinal told the newspaper, which published his comments today.

"The United States must also stop and I think it has the strength to do so. It must re-establish respect for human beings and return to the family of nations, overcoming the temptation to act on its own," he said.

"If it does not stop, the whirlwind of horror will involve other peoples and will lead us ever more to the abyss," said the cardinal.

Cardinal Laghi said he is certain that the Holy Father will repeat to Bush "the advice I gave him, which he decided not to heed. Now we see how wise it was."

The Pope "will again express the more ample appeal he made in the message for the 2004 World Day of Peace," the Italian cardinal continued. "In it, he called for a higher level of international order and warned that the struggle against terrorism cannot only be 'repressive,' but must start with the 'elimination of the causes' of the injustice."

In that message, "it is stated that respect for life must always be honored and that the struggle against terrorism does not justify giving up the principles of the state of law, as the end never justifies the means," Cardinal Laghi said.

He added that he had not expected the news on the tortures in Iraq.

"I was afraid that the war would make the plague of terrorism more violent, as the Pope said, and that there would be cruel massacres," the cardinal said. "But I did not expect the torture of prisoners."

"I love the United States and I did not imagine this madness was possible. I am dismayed. I have American friends who are holding their heads in their hands and I with them," he added.

Cardinal Laghi, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Catholic Education, said that Bush's visit to the Pope at so critical a time is a good sign.

"I don't think it is orchestrated, that is, in view of the presidential elections," the cardinal said. "If there was a time when it was difficult for him to ask for a meeting with the Pope, it is precisely now. And yet, he has asked for it. I think he has requested it twice and that he has changed his agenda to make it possible."

"We must see in Bush's meeting with the Pope, that of the successor of the president of the United States who in 1944 ordered the liberation of Rome. That event re-established in Rome the law of nations. The Successor of the Pope of that time will express his gratitude to the successor of the then president," Cardinal Laghi explained.

"At the same time, he will be able to tell him that the United States' options at present are not re-establishing the law of nations in the Middle East," the cardinal said. To re-establish law in the Mideast, and in particular in Iraq, requires "a cultural understanding of that world that is difficult for us and that I think our American friends have not achieved."

"To bomb a mosque, to enter holy cities, to put women soldiers in contact with naked men, shows a lack of understanding of the Muslim world that I would label astonishing," Cardinal Laghi said.

"Bridges must be built with Islam, not pits dug," he suggested. "And priority should be given to the Israeli-Palestinian question, which is the first source of terror."

He added that "the forces present in Iraq not only must not be in fact under the command of the United States, but they must not even give the impression that they are."

The cardinal concluded: "There should be a multilateral presence, which is not under those who organized and wanted the war."

Congress Members Told of Abuse Months Ago

By DAVID DISHNEAU, Associated Press Writer

HAGERSTOWN, Md. - Two months before pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse became public, the family of one accused soldier wrote to 14 members of Congress that "something went wrong" involving "mistreatment of POWs" at Abu Ghraib prison.

...

The rest of the story can be found at:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../prisoner_abuse&cid=512&ncid=716

Interesting thing about this is that 13 of those 14 Congressmen were Democrats, including Kennedy, Lieberman, Clinton, etc. Now that pics of the abuses were made public they are now all in shock and awe. Go figure.

The article points out:

"In late February, his family sent letters or e-mails to 11 Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee, plus three of their local congressional members and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, seeking information on Frederick's status, said Frederick's uncle, William W. Lawson, of Newburg, W.Va."

Joe