« Bring it On | Main | Jerking Off at the Public Library »
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Sen. Talent I Beg to Differ
Sen. James M. Talent (R-Mo.), praising the [Church] report [on prisoner abuse and torture] , said he did not "need an investigation to tell me that there was no comprehensive or systematic use of inhumane tactics by the American military, because those guys and gals just wouldn't do it."
Oh?
Then I guess those 71 substantiated cases of abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan just happened in a vacuum? Or maybe it's because our guys are so poorly trained and out of control that they have just gone wild on their CO's? Maybe they just decided that they would disobey an order to treat prisoners with at least the minimum of humane treatment they deserve?
Well no that doesn't jibe with the fact that we have one of the best trained, best run fighting forces in the world. Our folks don't often disobey orders and start free lancing on policy.
Actually in a backhanded way I agree with Senator Talent. Maybe it wasn't Senior Pentagon officials, but one step further up the chain of command. The real culprit is the complete disregard for proper protocol and human decency shown time and time again by this Administration that led to these problems. Alberto and Rummie and George all with their "ah a little torture never hurt no one" attitude set a tone they filtered it's way down to the guys risking their lives.
The Administration betrayed those captives. It betrayed the soldiers who used torture as a tactic. Most of all, they betrayed us. No matter how the report tries to obscure that.
Posted by The Bastard at 05:53 AM in Current Affairs, Politics | Permalink
Comments
My question to all you folks who say it's no big deal, "not torture", or "they deserve it": Would that be your response if the situation were reversed? Would you still be saying it's "no big deal" and "perfectly acceptable" if the photos showed US POW's being treated as such? I doubt it highly.
3:16 PM
Posted by: Phil | Mar 12, 2005 7:41:10 PM
Emmets... maybe the US doesnt use tortue... they just hand the person over to someone who does... how is that different...
and you cant label these people ALL as terrorists... i really doubt they are 100% correct all the time when they bring people in... they are human and make mistakes... regardless... these things shouldnt happen...
9:53 AM
Posted by: volterwd | Mar 12, 2005 7:42:02 PM
Sorry spelled blew "blue" in my last comment.
7:44 AM
Posted by: emetts | Mar 12, 2005 7:43:16 PM
The plain truth of the matter is the the FUCKING MEDIA blue this whole matter of torture out of proportion. THE MEDIA made this into an ELECTION story to help John Kerry and the Democrats! I've seen worse torture (HAZING is what it is called) by highschool and college students. THE MEDIA put civilian and Military LIVES in danger by blowing up this story. And please, please stop this Chain of Command BULLSHIT. Of course the whole Chain of Command knew about the HAZING (not torture). To bad we don't actually use TORTURE!
7:42 AM
Posted by: emetts | Mar 12, 2005 7:44:17 PM
I think in the war on terror, if you engage the terrorist in a military or covert operation we are defending ourselves and are justified. However, once we take them into custody, we assume a certain duty. That duty requires us to act with a minimal level of civility and treat them in a humane manner. I'm not talking Martha Stewart in prison level humane, but more so than what we have seen in these cases.
The case that if we do not torture prisoners we will open ourselves up to future attack is a strange one. Are you saying that torture is a necessary part of the way the United States must conduct it's buisness inthe future? That logic violates almost every basic ideal we have in this country.
If we want to make the world better, then we need to Act like the country we want others to be. We proport to be against despots and torturers (my god how many times has Bush thrown out the fact they Hussein tortured his own folks)therefore we need to BE a country that is neither despotic (ahem Patriot Act) or torturing.
And to answer your question Kender, sarcasm works well here. We will let you know when we encounter any.
7:26 AM
Posted by: Cranky Liberal | Mar 12, 2005 7:45:09 PM
Fraternity pranks (several comments above). Yeah, God what memories. We'd hold down some new pledge and stick electrodes up his peeneehole. Or we'd hold their heads under water until they almost drowned. When I was pledging they'd put a burlap sack over my head and then punch me in the face 'til I passed out. Yeeaahhh!!! They were the best friends I ever had.
Ahh, the memories.
12:15 AM
Posted by: thhofpa22 | Mar 12, 2005 7:46:17 PM
"poor little prisoners......I am soo sad...."
The idea behind the Geneva Convention treatment of prisoners was to bring pause to the worsening escalation of treatment of POW's, the whole they beat them so we will to situation.
Yea, I know, but these guys were not in uniform blah blah blee blee. The fact is that most of the men in the photos were in uniform, they were not terrorists, they were members of a standing army protecting their homeland and they deserve the protection of the occupier not the abuse.
As for the terrorists, all bets are off.
Posted by: The Bastard | Mar 12, 2005 7:47:55 PM
Comparing the torture to collwgw hazin rituals...incredulous!
Posted by: sally | Mar 12, 2005 7:49:59 PM
poor little prisoners......I am soo sad....
Hey, does sarcams work on this thing?
Posted by: kender | Mar 12, 2005 7:51:07 PM
I was in the military and I will say that the actions of the soldier are a reflection of who he/she directly reports to. This holds true all the way up the chain of command. These soldiers should be held accountable for their actions but they are not alone!
9:01 PM
Posted by: The Bastard | Mar 12, 2005 7:51:56 PM
Rumsfeld has been cleard by the way... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050311/TORTURE11/TPInternational/Americas
4:19 PM
Posted by: aaron s | Mar 12, 2005 7:52:50 PM
Lemme guess...It's better to slaughter tens of thousands of your own people then to put people in a naked pyramid. This was not torture anymore than a frat prank is torture.
Now if any prisoner was harmed physically...and that may have happened..then we have a problem. But putting a prisoner on a leash is not close to torture.
4:13 PM
Posted by: aaron s | Mar 12, 2005 7:53:36 PM
Which is it? Individual soldiers acting on there on? Or, is it a systemic attitude from the top of command?
12:50 PM
Posted by: sally | Mar 12, 2005 7:54:44 PM
Ummm....since WHEN is this not torture? Torture comes in all kinds of forms. Last time I checked this was the definition of "torture".
a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
But you won't read or comprehend this anyway because you prefer to live in denial.
Posted by: Ticklebug | Mar 13, 2005 1:12:59 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.