Enough is enough....

[Zuruck]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... abuse_dc_1

How much more of this has to go on before someone starts getting their azz kicked? Look, I know war is tough to deal with and you do things that you normally wouldn't, but this is getting ridiculous. 30 prisoners have died so far in custody, how is that acceptable? If we claim this moral superiority over these people, how do we explain these actions to the citizens of country? Let alone the rest of the world?

[Testiculese]

He probably was innocent of the charges they were hoping to get on him, so they just killed him rather than have him get released after the trial.

Yea..or something.

[Will Robinson]

We must be morally superior because no one even said shiz about the hundreds of thousands they killed but we have only thirty deaths and have already made arrests in some cases...investigating the others....

Yep, we are morally superior and the stat's prove it!

....Oh...did you mean perfect when you said superior?!?
Well we're much too smart to make that claim even if we aspire to that impossible standard...aren't we?

And we certainly aren't stupid enough to abandon all honorable efforts just because we aren't perfect...wouldn't you agree?

Or I could just say: Get some perspective...please!

[Nightshade]

They're America-hating hippies Will. Let 'em rot.

[Tyranny]

Will: preach mah brothah!

[Lothar]

How much more of this has to go on before someone starts getting their azz kicked?

Do court martials not count as "azz kicking"? Or do those people not count as "someone", and you have a specific "someone" in mind whose azz you want kicked (and whose azz you'd *still* want kicked even if none of this happened)?

30 prisoners have died so far in custody, how is that acceptable?

If you have a prison population of 7300 people, with a death rate of 6.56 per thousand, the expected number of deaths in one year is 48. If there were only 30 deaths, that would be pretty impressive. But, of course, we're not talking about the number of people who just plain died -- we're talking about the number whose deaths are suspicious, which is a distinction you need to draw more carefully.

In that case, 30 suspicious deaths is not acceptable. That's why it's under investigation, and why people are going to trial over it. The fact that it's being investigated should make it clear that, in fact, it's not acceptable.

When you ask about moral superiority, and you ask why we can still claim to hold it, there's one critical point you have to notice: those 30 deaths are under investigation, and if someone is found guilty, they will pay for it. In the regime we replaced, we'd be talking about a hundred thousand times more dead, no investigations, and no accountability for it. Saddam's regime would stand by the 3 million dead and smile about it. This is where the US shines above Saddam's regime (and above most of the other regimes in that part of the world) -- even one suspicious death is enough to be investigated, and even one wrongful death is enough to send someone to trial, and even one murder -- even of an enemy -- is enough to put someone in jail for a long, long time.

Z, you've been on this board long enough that we all know what you really mean -- what you really mean is that Bush should pay, because you blame him for every single atrocity or alleged atrocity that could possibly have happened in Iraq. You already thought Bush should pay even if there were not atrocities, and every atrocity that is committed by anyone even remotely related to the US, you add to the stack of things you think Bush should pay for -- and then when some terrorist beheads a civilian, you blame Bush for that, too. And that, simply put, is nonsense. (Of course, you'll take this response as evidence that this board is too right-wing... heh.)

we certainly aren't stupid enough to abandon all honorable efforts just because we aren't perfect

WORD.

[woodchip]

Blows wet sloppy kisses at Zuruck.

[CUDA]

ooooh 30 whole ppl
I read today that some terrists in Iraq killed I think it was 96 and injured 260 something more, what say ye about that Zurich?
/me breaks out his WW2 stats book. lets see D-Day 10,000 casualties in one day HRM
and whats this Saddam killed how many Kurds, and She-ites???? ( swear filter wont let me spell it correct ) 1,000,000+ ??

I think this world will be much better off without those 30 questionable at best terroist at worst ppl, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, if 30 killed save 300 or 3000 or 30,000 then its worth it.

[Lothar]

The swear filter won't let you spell out Shi'ite?

[bash]

What al-Reuters fails to mention:

"Several have been attributed to natural or indeterminate causes. Eight were determined to be justifiable homicides by prison guards or other US personnel during four incidents, when prisoners became dangerously violent. Others are still under investigation by the Army."

Consider that this was during the course of two wars. Seems pretty damn good when compared to how many prisoners died in both those countries prior to our arrival.

[index_html]

whats this Saddam killed how many Kurds, and She-ites???? ( swear filter wont let me spell it correct ) 1,000,000+ ??

By last November they'd already found 400,000 in mass graves. Who knows what the total is. We may never know. There were 270 mass graves reported at that time, and at the 400,000 corpse mark, only 53 sites had been confirmed. Linkage (Read the PDF file for more depth ... click on the picture).

It doesn't excuse unlawful killings by the U.S. military and they should be investigated and prosecuted, if any have occured. But, let's not forget why we're there and keep the big picture in focus. I don't know where genocide technically begins, but I'd say it's long after 30 and way under 400,000.

[Krom]

So they are investigating it, lets not jump to conclusions Z. If they do not find anything then no problem, if they do find that someone has been doing wrong, they will be punished for it.

[Tyranny]

wow, was just browsing through stuff and noticed how quickly Z ducked out of this one. The one initial post and thats it. lol!

pwnd!

[Zuruck]

Nah Tyranny, if I don't post during the week here at work, then you won't see me for a couple days. I do not live on this board when I'm at home, in fact I'm rarely on the computer unless I'm at work. So ok here we go.

After reading your arguments and rebuttals, this is what I'm surmising. You all believe that since we haven't killed as many people or that more people died in WW2, that this is acceptable. When this story first broke, you all claimed it was isolated and that it was only the 800th MP brigade doing the dirty work. It continues to get bigger and more and more people are killed in our protection. So basically, we are just starting what Saddam left off. We have a long ways to go till we get as far as he did, but hey, even he had to start somewhere. If I remember correctly, none of the guards were court martialed UNTIL 60 Minutes broke the story with the pictures even though the govt had issued several reports about it months earlier. Do you think they were going to do anything had it not been put in the media? And I think it's safe now to all agree to the fact that it was not JUST these MPs acting out on their own. If you don't think this came down the chain of command, then I'm dealing with a bunch of idiots. I'm not blaming Bush or Rumsfeld, I'm not surprised at all by this stuff, what surprises me is all of your reactions to this stuff.

Morally superior doesn't mean perfect Will. Deaths tied to prison riots are one thing, and they are understandable. Deaths because the agents didnt like the answers they were getting and cracked his head with the butt of a gun are much worse.

Lothar, you really make me laugh. For all you out there that are quick to say that the left jumps to politics right off the bat, it's always the GOP bringing it up. Bush has done more than enough in the last 3 years that this doesn't even matter to me. Do I think he was aware? Yes. Do I think he allowed it? I think he gave Rumsfeld the authority to dictate it. Do I think 30 deaths is better than 800k? Well of course, but it doesn't change a single thing. I mean, the sole reason we went to Iraq was to liberate the country and free them from tyrannical rule and unimaginable torture right? We cannot rule the Earth with an iron fist, as much as you righties would like that, it's not possible. There has to be PR somewhere.

[Stryker]

After reading your arguments and rebuttals, this is what I'm surmising. You all believe that since we haven't killed as many people or that more people died in WW2, that this is acceptable. When this story first broke, you all claimed it was isolated and that it was only the 800th MP brigade doing the dirty work.

Has anyone here said that this is acceptable?

Did "ALL" of us claim that?

Right-wingers aren't perfect, neither are left-wingers, though many of us seem to think that right or left-wingers are perfect. I happen to think that the right has stronger arguments than the left. That doesn't mean I'm going to excuse someone for torturing a prisoner. But look at the facts.

Americans are outraged over 30 prisoners dying or being killed in a prison. This number IS unacceptable, but look at it in perspective. These people would have been plotting to kill thousands had they NOT been in prison. Certainly, we should court-marshal those who have been involved in this. Do the abuses mean that we should release the prisoners? Should we have never taken them in the first place, and let them continue in their bloody work?

Saddam killed millions. He WAS a threat to humanity. He loved torture, and torture of kinds much crueler than Americans have been guilty of. Where was the outrage when 30,000 were tortured and killed under Saddam?

[Lothar]

this is what I'm surmising. You all believe that since we haven't killed as many people or that more people died in WW2, that this is acceptable.

Go get some reading and surmising sk1llz please. Here, let me give you a couple quotes from this thread:

The fact that it's being investigated should make it clear that, in fact, it's not acceptable.

It doesn't excuse unlawful killings by the U.S. military and they should be investigated and prosecuted, if any have occured.

I don't see how you get that anyone is saying it's "acceptable". I clearly stated it is not acceptable.

What we're saying is that it should be investigated, and that any wrongdoing that occured should be punished, because such wrongdoing is not acceptable.

Furthermore, we're saying that you should get some perspective -- the fact that there were 30 suspicious deaths (many of which were found to be justifiable homicide, or natural deaths) in 2 wars over the course of 2 years does NOT point to "the next coming of Saddam". Clearly, the abuses we're talking about are of very different character -- with Saddam, it was a widespread pattern, where hundreds or thousands would be killed at a time in an organized campaign. With the US military, it's isolated incidents where one guard goes off and kills one prisoner, or a few prison guards go off and torture (quite mildly, as torture goes) a few prisoners on one single day. The fact that you'd even consider making a Saddam comparison means you have zero credibility.

none of the guards were court martialed UNTIL 60 Minutes broke the story

How long do you suppose a court martial normally takes? It typically requires a lot of investigation, evidence gathering, and case building -- just like legal cases. When's the last time you heard of any non-trivial legal case that went through in under 3 months? And yet you're surprised that when 60 minutes broke the story ~3 months later, nobody had been court-martialed yet?

Now, let me ask you: how many of the people were still on active duty, and still in a position where they could continue doing what they had been doing, once the army began investigating them? From what I understand, every one of them was placed on some sort of leave when the investigations started.

Do you think they were going to do anything had it not been put in the media?

Yes, I do.

I think it's safe now to all agree to the fact that it was not JUST these MPs acting out on their own.

I don't agree. You call me an idiot for disagreeing, but I think my intelligence has been fairly well established here, so if your point requires you to think that I'm an idiot, that probably means your point is wrong.

What *evidence* is there that these MP's weren't acting out on their own? How many levels up the chain of command does the evidence point? If you can't present evidence, I don't think it's safe to say we should all agree unless we're idiots.

So far, the only piece of "evidence" I've heard that this goes farther than the actual perpatrators or their immediate supervisors has been reference to someone in the administration (Rumsfeld?) saying to "do whatever it takes" to get information. You interpret this to mean "including torture practices, unlawful killings, and so forth". I have to wonder, if a sports executive says "do whatever it takes to sign this player away from our rivals" do you interpret it the same way? Your interpretation says more about your preconceptions than it does about the actual situation.

Consider this: if Bush or Rumsfeld had ordered torture and unlawful killing, how many incidents would there have been? The number wouldn't be growing to 30 -- it would be growing to more like 3000. There would be incidents probably every day in a few prisons across the nation. The people involved would not be placed on leave soon afterwards; they'd be allowed to continue as long as possible. And, chances are, the military would've tried to keep it all under wraps. Now, when something is being kept under wraps and then allegations begin to surface, it tends to snowball really quickly -- you hear about a single incident on Tuesday, and by Friday all of a sudden hundreds allegations are surfacing everywhere.

None of the patterns match with what you'd get from widespread abuse or abuse sanctioned by the top echelons of command.

Deaths because the agents didnt like the answers they were getting and cracked his head with the butt of a gun are much worse.

Agreed. Which is why every one of us has said that these things should be investigated, and if any wrongdoing is found, the person should be punished accordingly.

Bush has done more than enough in the last 3 years that this doesn't even matter to me. Do I think he was aware? Yes. Do I think he allowed it? I think he gave Rumsfeld the authority to dictate it.

Which means I was 100% correct in my assessment of your position:

what you really mean is that Bush should pay, because you blame him for every single atrocity or alleged atrocity that could possibly have happened in Iraq. You already thought Bush should pay even if there were not atrocities, and every atrocity that is committed by anyone even remotely related to the US, you add to the stack of things you think Bush should pay for -- and then when some terrorist beheads a civilian, you blame Bush for that, too.

Now, the fact is, you *believe* Bush knew and you *believe* he gave Rumsfeld authority to dictate it -- but you have no legitimate evidence. You have what, one quote? A quote that most reasonable people would not take to mean "go ahead and torture and murder people" if it was spoken by someone outside of the Bush administration about anything other than Iraq? Yeah, I was right -- you think Bush should pay, and you'll take any piece of evidence that can possibly be construed that direction, no matter how flimsy it is.

To wrap up:
1) Torture and unlawful killing is *NOT* acceptable, which is why these people were under investigation, and would have been punished whether or not the media picked up the story.
2) The incidents we've heard of are still, clearly, isolated -- all of the patterns match with isolated incidents, and none with widespread coverups. There are no snowballing accusations; people involved were placed on leave quickly; investigations and court martials have been and continue to be taking place.
3) The evidence tying Bush and the nebulous "chain of command" to these incidents has been, so far, extremely weak.