Psy-ops...What is 'too much'?

[theloniusfleabag]

Psychological warfare is one of the worst parts of war, and indeed, the darkest part of the human soul. However, it exists, and is sometimes useful, but not usually. The latest from Afghanistan suggests that the US troops might have gone 'too far'.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF....rticleID=188024

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF....rticleID=188022

"They used that as a psychological warfare, I guess you'd call it. They used the fact that the Taliban were burned facing west," Dupont told SBS. "They deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them ... that's the only way they can find them."

Is there such a thing anymore as 'the moral high road'? Or has morality gone out the window, and the US can be just as bad as anyone else, with final victory the only thing that matters?

When it comes to both sides desecrating each other, both sides torturing people to death, how can I hope for one to be victorious, when I'd rather see them both be gone?

[Black Dog]

Is there such a thing anymore as 'the moral high road'? Or has morality gone out the window, and the US can be just as bad as anyone else, with final victory the only thing that matters?

I think the attitude behind these incidents and others (such as the continued revalations of abuse at places like Abu Ghirab) are driven by pure arrogance. If, so the reasoning goes, the United Satets is, by definition, morally superior, then no action it takes can be morally questionable. At least, that would appear to be the attitude behind an administration that jumps through all sorts of legal hoops in order to give the president the authority to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture (see: the Gonzales Memo). And I doubt the American public, swamped from birth in their own myths and secure in their cultural chauvanuism, would think to differently (after all, slaughtering dark-skinned foreigners is as American as apple pie). So I don't think complicated quandries like the one you or John McCain would put forward need to be discussed when the equation is so simple: anything "we" do is good; anything "they" do is bad.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

If, so the reasoning goes, the United Satets is, by definition, morally superior, then no action it takes can be morally questionable.

I realize many in the US wish to scrap the UN, but is the US announcing that it intends to abrogate and discard the Geneva Convention? That is indeed a bold step.

[dollar]

Dear Black Dog,

If, so the reasoning goes, the United Satets is, by definition, morally superior, then no action it takes can be morally questionable.

I realize many in the US wish to scrap the UN, but is the US announcing that it intends to abrogate and discard the Geneva Convention? That is indeed a bold step.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

very bold for only 5% of the earth's population to make

when the other 95% gets organized America may find itself alone and without

superpower staus to fight the rest of the world

I would think that the US is a minor player on the world scene

one that is quickly becoming isolated ,If it keeps up the war crimes it may find itself in the penalty box and it's leader bush hauled off on war crimes

a real modern day Nuremburg

[PocketRocket]

This is another case of "the ends justify the means" type of thinking.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing will rile up a lot more Muslims internationally, not just the Taliban members at whom it was aimed.

Not real good long-term thinking.

[Argus]

  Is there such a thing anymore as 'the moral high road'? Or has morality gone out the window, and the US can be just as bad as anyone else, with final victory the only thing that matters?

Gee, Fleabag, I wouldn't have thought it would be so hard to figure out. In a world where the enemy burns people alive, the guy who only burns them after they're dead has the moral high ground. Quite easily, I would think.

When it comes to both sides desecrating each other, both sides torturing people to death, how can I hope for one to be victorious, when I'd rather see them both be gone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You get back to me when we hear of the US hacking off prisoners heads, okay?

[Argus]

I think the attitude behind these incidents and others (such as the continued revalations of abuse at places like Abu Ghirab) are driven by pure arrogance. If, so the reasoning goes, the United Satets is, by definition, morally superior, then no action it takes can be morally questionable. At least, that would appear to be the attitude behind an administration that jumps through all sorts of legal hoops in order to give the president the authority to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture (see: the Gonzales Memo).

Almost anything? Can they, say, strap electrodes to the prisoners' genitals and electrocute them, as is an apparent favourite throughout the Muslim world? Can they rape women? Can they skin the children of their prisoners alive before their eyes to get them to talk? What about putting heating elements into a chair so that, in effect, the prisoner is sitting on a hot stove; is that allowed? Can they break their prisoner's bones with iron pipes, one by one, to get them to talk? What about hanging them from their hair? Is that okay?

I know of no one sane who would not rather be a political/terrorist prisoner of the Americans than that of the "insurgents" or of any Arab or Muslim government.

So yes, there is a moral high ground. The guy who strips someone naked to laugh at and embarrass them is considerably higher than the guy who sticks a hot iron up the prisoner's anus.

Are we clear on that? Or is that too complicated?

[Argus]

Dear Black Dog,

If, so the reasoning goes, the United Satets is, by definition, morally superior, then no action it takes can be morally questionable.

I realize many in the US wish to scrap the UN, but is the US announcing that it intends to abrogate and discard the Geneva Convention? That is indeed a bold step.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

very bold for only 5% of the earth's population to make

when the other 95% gets organized America may find itself alone and without

superpower staus to fight the rest of the world

I won't hold my breath waiting for a mass of ignorant, illiterate, barefoot peasant goat herders to organize against the US.

I would think that the US is a minor player  on the world scene

one that is quickly becoming  isolated ,If it keeps up the war crimes it may find itself  in the penalty box and it's leader bush hauled off on war crimes

a real  modern day Nuremburg

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are at least a hundred countries which commit more human rights abuses than the US. Just who do you think is going to get together to charge the US for their poor respect for human rights? The Chinese and Indians, perhaps? With the North Koreans and Syrians as helpers?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Gee, Fleabag, I wouldn't have thought it would be so hard to figure out. In a world where the enemy burns people alive, the guy who only burns them after they're dead has the moral high ground. Quite easily, I would think.

Well, the desecration of bodies is against the Geneva Convention, so anyone who does it isn't on very high ground at all. It is similar to crucifixion for a Christian, or the dismemberment of a Jew.

You get back to me when we hear of the US hacking off prisoners heads, okay?

I believe that the US did indeed use different methods to kill their prisoners.

Those decapitations were truly an abomination. I should hope that those responsible should someday be held accountable.

However, I also hope that whomever I support does not do things like this, nor fall back on playground excuses like "He did it first, so I can do it too." Or, "At least I'm not as bad as that guy".

Being on 'morally higher ground' is more than just standing on a bigger pile of turds in the sewer.

[Montgomery Burns]

Maybe the Taliban will listen to the US, when they tell them to take care of the inevitable result of going toe-to-toe with US forces.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Gee, Fleabag, I wouldn't have thought it would be so hard to figure out. In a world where the enemy burns people alive, the guy who only burns them after they're dead has the moral high ground. Quite easily, I would think.

Well, the desecration of bodies is against the Geneva Convention, so anyone who does it isn't on very high ground at all. It is similar to crucifixion for a Christian, or the dismemberment of a Jew.

I doubt they really saw it as desecration. Many cultures burn the bodies of the dead, including ours. And I suspect foot soldiers out in the boonies are not really up on the finer points of Muslim death rituals.

You get back to me when we hear of the US hacking off prisoners heads, okay?

I believe that the US did indeed use different methods to kill their prisoners.

I haven't heard of them deliberately killing any prisoners.

Being on 'morally higher ground' is more than just standing on a bigger pile of turds in the sewer.

It is rather difficult to fight any war, let alone a guerrila war, in a way which keeps you pristine and pure. As I posted once in regard to the US supporting nasty regimes during the cold war - the reason they didn't support peaceful, enlightened, sensitive political groups against Marxist/Communist guerrilas was that they'd lose - and badly.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I doubt they really saw it as desecration. Many cultures burn the bodies of the dead, including ours. And I suspect foot soldiers out in the boonies are not really up on the finer points of Muslim death rituals.

There were translators there, with bullhorns, to make sure that there was no confusion over the fact that it was a deliberate desecration. In fact, if the individual soldiers were ignorant, then it is a 'military policy decision' which guided them. There haven't been any other burnings up till now, they have buried them.

I haven't heard of them deliberately killing any prisoners.

No???? Some were killed when they were severely wounded, a 'coup de grace', and I do not consider this wrong. However, there was a case in the news about a soldier walking up to a prisoner and shooting him dead (claiming the prisoner was 'faking death'). Then, there were several murders at Abu Ghraib, although some of them could be classified as 'accidentally tortured to death'.

It is rather difficult to fight any war, let alone a guerrila war, in a way which keeps you pristine and pure.

Indeed, I have just read a book called 'War Without Hate", by Colin Smith and John Bierman, about the North African Campaign of WWII. The gallantry and mutual respect of both sides was incredible, and sadly, incredibly rare.

As I posted once in regard to the US supporting nasty regimes during the cold war - the reason they didn't support peaceful, enlightened, sensitive political groups against Marxist/Communist guerrilas was that they'd lose - and badly.

You are correct, but it is difficult to see as honourable, the support of 'Pro-American murderous dictators' versus 'Pro independence murderous dictators', when the former were often found to be worse than the latter.

[Army Guy]

This is a clear case of the "on scene commander" making the wrong decision. Who's actions will clearly effect more then just US troops in the region, but all coalition forces,including Canadian. Did they honestly think this would have enraged the taliban into taking on US forces in a toe to toe fight. They may be peasent fighters, but they do know one thing thats how to fight. And this action will not go unheeded.

Being frustrated by the Talibans gurilla tactics is not an excuse to step outside the rules of engagement, it means doublily your efforts to find them.

They would have been better served by allowing the village to pick-up the bodies for burial unheeded. or bringing the dead to thier mosque. and using that as part of thier phys ops.

No???? Some were killed when they were severely wounded, a 'coup de grace', and I do not consider this wrong. However, there was a case in the news about a soldier walking up to a prisoner and shooting him dead (claiming the prisoner was 'faking death'). Then, there were several murders at Abu Ghraib, although some of them could be classified as 'accidentally tortured to death'.

Coup de graces are forbiden according to the geneva conventions and are wrong in all cases. Medical aid will be given until persons dies of thier wounds. but it is clearly against the rules of war to put anyone out of thier misery.

A combatant is not a prisoner until he has clearily surrendered and has no wpns or has been disarmed by friendily forces and is taken into custody, then and only then is he afforded the rights of a prisoner. The incident with the US soldier you mentioned was cleared of any wrong doing, as that insurgent was still a combatant.

QUOTE

It is rather difficult to fight any war, let alone a guerrila war, in a way which keeps you pristine and pure.

Not true. And it comes down to disipline, and punishing those that step out of the rules of engagement. Quickily, and publicly so that your enemies know that these actions will not be tolerated by them or ourselfs.

I doubt they really saw it as desecration. Many cultures burn the bodies of the dead, including ours. And I suspect foot soldiers out in the boonies are not really up on the finer points of Muslim death rituals.

These Soldiers knew exactly what they were doing, if they recieve a fration of the training we do on muslim customs and culture. US phys op's units would recieve even more training than the average grunt, on customs, beliefs etc. Besides you can not help but learn it while you are in the country.

Coalition forces must take the moral high ground on ALL matters in this conflict, regardless of what the Bad guys do on a day to day basis. If they don't it will only add fuel to the bad guys cause and drag this conflict out.

[Argus]

I haven't heard of them deliberately killing any prisoners.

No???? Some were killed when they were severely wounded, a 'coup de grace', and I do not consider this wrong. However, there was a case in the news about a soldier walking up to a prisoner and shooting him dead (claiming the prisoner was 'faking death'). Then, there were several murders at Abu Ghraib, although some of them could be classified as 'accidentally tortured to death'.

I haven't heard of any being tortured to death. I believe I know the "faking death" incident you're speaking of, and such things do happen in war, especially when dealing with guerrilas/terrorists who do not suffer from any problems of ethics or morality in who they kill or how they kill them. Let's not forget out own dear young Khadr boy now enjoying sunny Cuba, who surrendered, then threw a grenade at an army medic who came to check on his injuries, killing the man. But I tend to differentiate between the actions of the occasional soldier and the obviously systematic behaviour of the "insurgents" who generally murder every prisoner they catch - in cold blood, posing for videos, after making them plead for their lives.

And I find it odd that no one seems to be raising any kind of hue and cry, or expressing any kind of dissaproval over the mindless butchery carried out by the "insurgents", usually against Iraqis. It's all very well and good to point out that the US is misbehaving, but it would seem that the same sources who are constantly jumping up and down and pointing at the US might show at least an occasional concern when the "insurgents", slaughter a street full of children or kidnap and murder school teachers, janitors and truck drivers.

It is rather difficult to fight any war, let alone a guerrila war, in a way which keeps you pristine and pure.

Indeed, I have just read a book called 'War Without Hate", by Colin Smith and John Bierman, about the North African Campaign of WWII. The gallantry and mutual respect of both sides was incredible, and sadly, incredibly rare.

Both sides knew their enemies. And both sides acted honourably. Neither side even plucked out of history with the same men and same attitudes of honour, would behave in the same manner if they were fighting the "insurgents". I know of no conflict in history in which any army behaved with any kind of consistent honour when fighting extremely violent enemies who wore no uniforms and hid among the civilian population.

As I posted once in regard to the US supporting nasty regimes during the cold war - the reason they didn't support peaceful, enlightened, sensitive political groups against Marxist/Communist guerrilas was that they'd lose - and badly.

You are correct, but it is difficult to see as honourable, the support of 'Pro-American murderous dictators' versus 'Pro independence murderous dictators', when the former were often found to be worse than the latter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which ones were worse? I mean, really? The only ones I can think of was the Nicaraguan conflict, and the US was certainly wrong to back the murderous "insurgents" they called Contras.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I haven't heard of any being tortured to death.

Here are a couple of links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/25/...ain645601.shtml

"I don't know of any other case where a major general died of asphyxiation during interrogation. I doubt that this has happened in the past 50 years," he said.

Incidentally, Rumsfeld himself explicitly endorsed asphyxiation ("making the person feel as though they were being suffocated') as a legitimate method of coersion for interrogation.

Which ones were worse? I mean, really? The only ones I can think of was the Nicaraguan conflict, and the US was certainly wrong to back the murderous "insurgents" they called Contras.

Some of these are indeed dificult to say 'worse', as many opponents never really had a chance to 'prove themselves', but the list of 'US supported dictators' would include;Augusto Pinochet, 'Papa Doc' Duvalier of Haiti, Charles Taylor of Liberia, the UNITA rebels of Angola (where both sides, US and Russian backed, committed atrocities far worse than in Central America), Manuel Noriega of Panama (who was on the US Army 'paylist' for 31 years, and the CIA's for 15), Gen. Suharto of Indonesia, Ferdinand (and Imelda) Marcos of the Phillipines, and, for a time, Saddam Hussein. There are more, of course, but these are generally the 'heavy hitters'.

Oh, and let's not forget the US helping the likes of Osama, Gulbbudin Hekmatyar, et al. defeat the Russians in Afghanistan (when those people were fighting solely for a 'piously Muslim' dominated Afghanistan) giving rise to the Taleban. Mind you, I don't blame the US for the actions of the Taleban, just for their ignorance and lack of foresight.

[Army Guy]

Argus:

And I find it odd that no one seems to be raising any kind of hue and cry, or expressing any kind of dissaproval over the mindless butchery carried out by the "insurgents", usually against Iraqis. It's all very well and good to point out that the US is misbehaving, but it would seem that the same sources who are constantly jumping up and down and pointing at the US might show at least an occasional concern when the "insurgents", slaughter a street full of children or kidnap and murder school teachers, janitors and truck drivers.

And this is where the US is failing, is they need to quickly interrogate these Insurgents then charge them for any crimes they have commited. and tried in a court of law either a US court in Iraq perferable an Iraqi court. It has to be done publicly and quickly. Most intell they would have would become useless after a short period of time anyway, so holding them prisoner for long periods of time is mout except that they are off the battlefield.

Another US failing is most if not all Muslim media are bias again'st the US. The coalition could use it's own media to broadcast in Arabic to paint a true story of events. broadcasting every one of these insurgents actions and the cost that iraqi people are paying for there so called liberation fighters.

[PocketRocket]

Good point regarding use of media, ARMYGUY.

I don't remember who first said it, but it goes "Who controls communications, controls the country".

The US, and the new Iraqi government, need to get the common, grassroots citicenry to turn unequivocally against the insurgency.

Unfortunately, as it currently stands, it seems a lot of the Iraqi people's sympathies still lay with the insurgents.

[Black Dog]

Almost anything? Can they, say, strap electrodes to the prisoners' genitals and electrocute them, as is an apparent favourite throughout the Muslim world? Can they rape women? Can they skin the children of their prisoners alive before their eyes to get them to talk? What about putting heating elements into a chair so that, in effect, the prisoner is sitting on a hot stove; is that allowed? Can they break their prisoner's bones with iron pipes, one by one, to get them to talk? What about hanging them from their hair? Is that okay?

I know of no one sane who would not rather be a political/terrorist prisoner of the Americans than that of the "insurgents" or of any Arab or Muslim government.

Obviously you haven't heard of Abu Ghraib where Iraqi detainees (including women and boys) were raped by U.S. guards, placed in stress postures, beaten, bitten by dogs etc. etc. And then there's the practice of shipping detainees off to countries where the practices you describe are used. So while I am familiar with your loathing of Muslims, please don't let that interfere with your ability to gather some basic background information on the subject.

So yes, there is a moral high ground. The guy who strips someone naked to laugh at and embarrass them is considerably higher than the guy who sticks a hot iron up the prisoner's anus.

Are we clear on that? Or is that too complicated?

You know, you might have a point were it not for the dozens of Iraqis with broomsticks and chemical lights stuck up their ass.

I haven't heard of them deliberately killing any prisoners.

No some 37 detainee deaths in custody, including at least eight classified as "unresolved homicides", these are just accidents, I'm sure.

And I find it odd that no one seems to be raising any kind of hue and cry, or expressing any kind of dissaproval over the mindless butchery carried out by the "insurgents", usually against Iraqis. It's all very well and good to point out that the US is misbehaving, but it would seem that the same sources who are constantly jumping up and down and pointing at the US might show at least an occasional concern when the "insurgents", slaughter a street full of children or kidnap and murder school teachers, janitors and truck drivers.

Then again, no one is displaying the same rah-rah attitude towards "mindless butchery" that you display towards abuse and defilement.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Obviously you haven't heard of Abu Ghraib where Iraqi detainees (including women and boys) were raped by U.S. guards, placed in stress postures, beaten, bitten by dogs etc. etc. And then there's the practice of shipping detainees off to countries where the practices you describe are used. So while I am familiar with your loathing of Muslims, please don't let that interfere with your ability to gather some basic background information on the subject.

There was no Rape of anyone in US custody, gaurds have threaten male prisoners with rape but no rape occured. Placing prisoners in stress postions is legal according to genva convention. Bitten by dogs (one instance is recorded)

And correct me if i'm wrong but those that carry out those acts of beating,dog attacks, light stick probes have all been charged with crimes and have recieved thier day in court and are now serving time in a military prison.

That said those acts are unexcuseable, and those responsable have been charged in a public court.

No some 37 detainee deaths in custody, including at least eight classified as "unresolved homicides", these are just accidents, I'm sure.

I not sure where you got your numbers from,but more than 11 US personal have been charged with murder, or manslaughter.

Then again, no one is displaying the same rah-rah attitude towards "mindless butchery" that you display towards abuse and defilement.

Although i am a firm believer that the genva convention should be followed i also know there are going to be times when unconventional means will have to be used to extract info that is time sensitive or could save lives. I'am refering to extracting info via chemicals or drugs by a team of trained interrogators and medical professionals. And not the physical torture of prisoners.

[Black Dog]

There was no Rape of anyone in US custody, gaurds have threaten male prisoners with rape but no rape occured

Hersh: children raped at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon has videos

Also: what would you call having a broomstick or chemical light shoved up your ass?

And correct me if i'm wrong but those that carry out those acts of beating,dog attacks, light stick probes have all been charged with crimes and have recieved thier day in court and are now serving time in a military prison.

That said those acts are unexcuseable, and those responsable have been charged in a public court.

If you expect me to buy the "bad apples" explanation, while ignoring the evidence indicating the use of torture techniques was officially sanctioned (see: Gonzalaes memo), then you're dreadfully naive.

Although i am a firm believer that the genva convention should be followed i also know there are going to be times when unconventional means will have to be used to extract info that is time sensitive or could save lives. I'am refering to extracting info via chemicals or drugs by a team of trained interrogators and medical professionals. And not the physical torture of prisoners.

People who believe in the "ticking time bomb" rationale (to to mention the idea that chemicals or drugs can be used to extract imnformation) have probably been watching too much "24". Plus: once you okay "unconventional means" of any sort, you thro wthe door wide open. After all, why wait for the doctors to rrive with he sodium pentathol when you have a pair of pliers handy right now?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Sorry, I did not know that there has been aligations of Rape, of women and children. That being said and i do not want to sound cold but why has this not made front page news. A story this big should still be news worthy today, since the aligation broke in july.

My Webpage

There are several questions here: Has Hersh actually seen the video he described to the ACLU, and why hasn't he written about it yet? Will he be forced to elaborate in more public venues now that these two speeches are getting so much attention, at least in the blogosphere? And who else has seen the video, if it exists -- will journalists see and report on it? did senators see these images when they had their closed-door sessions with the Abu Ghraib evidence? -- and what is being done about it?

Also: what would you call having a broomstick or chemical light shoved up your ass?

Being sodomized, not raped.

If you expect me to buy the "bad apples" explanation, while ignoring the evidence indicating the use of torture techniques was officially sanctioned (see: Gonzalaes memo), then you're dreadfully naive.

SO now we paint everyone with the same brush. and that every american serving is a torturer awaiting to happen. like i said those responsiable have been sentenced, if thier are new charges then those to , will be punished and sentenced.

These new aligations are from the same time period as the orginal crimes perhaps even done by the same indivs. And yes they are bad apples, commiting crimes because one was following orders is not an excuse. As we seen with those that were charged.

  People who believe in the "ticking time bomb" rationale (to to mention the idea that chemicals or drugs can be used to extract imnformation) have probably been watching too much "24". Plus: once you okay "unconventional means" of any sort, you thro wthe door wide open. After all, why wait for the doctors to rrive with he sodium pentathol when you have a pair of pliers handy right now?

Perhaps i do watch to much TV, but if you could have prevented 9/11 by this method would you.

DND has strict policies when dealing with POW's, they are cuffed or zap strapped, hooded, and separated, and talking or moving is forbiden. MP's will pick up all POW's from the front lines or place of capture and transport them to the rear for processing. in the case of Afgan MP's hand them over to the US for processing.

The piont is Everyone must answer for thier actions.

[newbie]

Also: what would you call having a broomstick or chemical light shoved up your ass?

Being sodomized, not raped.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the risk of being politically correct, the action described falls well within the definition of rape:

rape: forced or manipulated nonconsensual sexual contact, including vaginal or anal intercourse, oral sex, or penetration with an object.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define...nG=Search&meta=

[Black Dog]

There are several questions here: Has Hersh actually seen the video he described to the ACLU, and why hasn't he written about it yet? Will he be forced to elaborate in more public venues now that these two speeches are getting so much attention, at least in the blogosphere? And who else has seen the video, if it exists -- will journalists see and report on it? did senators see these images when they had their closed-door sessions with the Abu Ghraib evidence? -- and what is being done about it?

Well, here's the thing: the tapes exist (even Rumsfeld has admitted as much), but the DoD is refusing to release them.

Link.

Have they been viewed? I don't know. Down the memory hole.

Being sodomized, not raped.

Rape, to me, is the crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts of any sort. Penetrating someone with a foreign object against their will fits that criteriea.

SO now we paint everyone with the same brush

No. I'm simply pointing out that these are NOT simply acts of over zealous grunts. The use of techniques up to and including torture is de facto policy, due to the fact that the Bush Administration has consistently sought legal wiggle-room to expand the limits on what the U.S. military (or the countries it cooperates with) can do to the people it captures.

These new aligations are from the same time period as the orginal crimes perhaps even done by the same indivs. And yes they are bad apples, commiting crimes because one was following orders is not an excuse. As we seen with those that were charged.

The people charged, while undoubetdly guilty, are scapegoats.

Perhaps i do watch to much TV, but if you could have prevented 9/11 by this method would you.

Here's the thing: the likliehood of encountering such a situation is so thin as to render the scenario completely implausible. What's more, information extracted under torture is notoriously unreliable.

[Montgomery Burns]

Almost anything? Can they, say, strap electrodes to the prisoners' genitals and electrocute them, as is an apparent favourite throughout the Muslim world? Can they rape women? Can they skin the children of their prisoners alive before their eyes to get them to talk? What about putting heating elements into a chair so that, in effect, the prisoner is sitting on a hot stove; is that allowed? Can they break their prisoner's bones with iron pipes, one by one, to get them to talk? What about hanging them from their hair? Is that okay?

I know of no one sane who would not rather be a political/terrorist prisoner of the Americans than that of the "insurgents" or of any Arab or Muslim government.

Obviously you haven't heard of Abu Ghraib where Iraqi detainees (including women and boys) were raped by U.S. guards, placed in stress postures, beaten, bitten by dogs etc. etc. And then there's the practice of shipping detainees off to countries where the practices you describe are used. So while I am familiar with your loathing of Muslims, please don't let that interfere with your ability to gather some basic background information on the subject.

So yes, there is a moral high ground. The guy who strips someone naked to laugh at and embarrass them is considerably higher than the guy who sticks a hot iron up the prisoner's anus.

Are we clear on that? Or is that too complicated?

You know, you might have a point were it not for the dozens of Iraqis with broomsticks and chemical lights stuck up their ass.

I haven't heard of them deliberately killing any prisoners.

No some 37 detainee deaths in custody, including at least eight classified as "unresolved homicides", these are just accidents, I'm sure.

And I find it odd that no one seems to be raising any kind of hue and cry, or expressing any kind of dissaproval over the mindless butchery carried out by the "insurgents", usually against Iraqis. It's all very well and good to point out that the US is misbehaving, but it would seem that the same sources who are constantly jumping up and down and pointing at the US might show at least an occasional concern when the "insurgents", slaughter a street full of children or kidnap and murder school teachers, janitors and truck drivers.

Then again, no one is displaying the same rah-rah attitude towards "mindless butchery" that you display towards abuse and defilement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like you've been reading the gross exaggerations of Seymour Hersh and the NAMBLA-supporting ACLU. Plus, the few soldiers who did wrong were cahrged and convicted. Don't forget that it was the military who started investigating allegations of some abuse at Abu Ghraib back in January 2004 - months before the liberal media had a month-long frenzy when they saw those pictures.

Thanks again to the liberal MSM, the Jihadists get more free propaganda. :angry:

And you accuse Argus of loathing Muslims, but if you had it your way, those 25 million Iraqis would still be under Saddam's (and his two spawns of Satan) boot and the mass graves would be filling up again with innocents. You are strongly against the Iraq war.

If anyone appears to loathe the Iraqis, it is you.

[Montgomery Burns]

Journalist Who Filmed Burning Taliban Bodies Suggests Media Got it All Wrong

There has been a lot of outrage in the media concerning the burning of a couple of dead, Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in early October. Yet, the Australian journalist who videotaped the proceedings, Stephen Dupont, stated in an interview on National Public Radio yesterday (audio link to follow courtesy of Bareknucklepolitics.com) that he believed the bodies were burned purely for reasons of hygiene when the local villagers refused to retrieve them, and that the American soldiers didn't do anything wrong.

DUPONT:  “I actually believe that the guys who were involved in the burning did it with honorable, you know, reasons. They did it through their orders, or they did if for hygiene. I had no doubt in my mind that they were telling me the truth. If they were doing something that was problematic or controversial, there’s no way they would have shown me this. There’s no way they would have let me go up there and film this.”

With regard to the bodies intentionally being pointed toward Mecca as many in the press have asserted, Dupont said:

“No. Look, the bodies as far as I’m concerned, the bodies were lying on the ground, they weren’t facing anywhere, they were just lying there.”

A pic of another media darling getting the star treatment.

Kinda reminds me of this infamous pic.