Image control...

[wolf]

Cool. I've seen short interviews with Zimbardo discussing this experiment, and of course have read about it multiple times, but the slideshow is fantastic.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Holy shit. That was scary. Thinking about it, I've seen this on a different scale, when people are given authority, some can't handle it. I remember a boy scout that was assisting running a cub scout pack, being increasingly abusive. Maybe he's not a good example because 2 years later he killed his mother, father and brother over use of the family Hudson.

[Torrere]

pouring cold water on naked detainees;

It sounds unassuming, but this is probably one of the most damaging methods of torture out there, along with sleeplessness, standing, thirst, terror and the unknown.

There were various aspects to punishment cells -- as, for instance, dampness and water. In the Chernovsty Prison after the war, Masha G. was kept for two hours barefooted and up to her ankles in icy water-- confess!

...

They locked him naked in a concrete alcove in such a way that he could neither bend his knees, nor straighten up and change the position of his arms, nor turn his head. And that was not all! They began to drip some cold water onto his scalp -- a classic torture -- which then ran down his body in rivulets. They did not inform him, of course, that this would go on for only twenty-four hours. It was awful enough at any rate for him to lose conciousness, amd he was discovered the next day apparently dead. He came to on a hospital cot. They had brought him out of his faint with spirits of ammonia, caffeine, and body massage. At first he had no recollection of where he had been, or what had happened. For a whole month he was useless even for interrogation.

- Solzhenitsyn

[jaguar]

So your arguement is that because worse things have happened in war, this is just a drop in the ocean? Sorry but that's just crap. This has been shown to be a known and aknowledged issue to the very top of the chain of command, every level knowledgeable that they're breaking the geneva convention and torturing prisoners, that's not a shit happens situation, that represents a systematic flouting of the rules. That makes them no better than Saddam.

In war people do some really fucked up shit but they don't usually have what is meant to be the best army in the world claiming to be bringing peace, justice and democracy.

[Griff]

[quote]Originally posted by Undertoad
My point, and I'd hoped it would be plain, is that you can't possibly put over a hundred thousand troops into a war/warlike situation and give them enough autonomy to get the job done efficiently without finding that some number of them have gone wrong for whatever reason and committed war crimes. On the scope of war crimes this is a one on a scale of ten. If the expanded New Yorker bits are true it's a two on a scale of ten. If they had taken the prisoners out back and summarily executed them it would be a six on a scale of ten. Comprende? In war, people do some really fucked up shit.

The problem is everyone else considered this before we went into Iraq.

[DanaC]

"The problem with PLAYS is the gritty little details are often not true, which leads the play goers to think they know the true story, when in fact they don't."

Would yuou then suggest that playwrites deliberately not include "gritty" details? If the main character in her monologue calls upon smells and tastes and touch in order to make her story more vivid.....is that misleading? If the playwrite chooses to have the main character engage in activities which anyone in that situation might have engaged in, is that disengenuous? Would you suggest that the playwrite deliberately avoid using any detail which might draw his audience in and make his characters breathe? Is this only a danger if the play is based upon or inspired by real world events? Perhaps the playwrite should avoid dealing with real events entirely then?

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Undertoad
On the scope of war crimes this is a one on a scale of ten. If the expanded New Yorker bits are true it's a two on a scale of ten. If they had taken the prisoners out back and summarily executed them it would be a six on a scale of ten. Comprende? In war, people do some really fucked up shit.

Meanwhile Belmont Club points out,

We are at war, and the men in those hoods are the enemy.

And what really annoys me is that noone at the top appears to have considered this. When look at Bush's 'bring it on' comment, and his reference to a crusade, I get the impression of a person who really does not understand the gravity of a war. If Mr. Bush was more well read on history or had been in combat himself, I do not beleive he would have started this war, at least not at the time he did.

I have not heard of similar abuses in Yugoslavia by peacekeepers. Is that because they are perceived by themselves and the Yugoslavians as peacekeepers and not occupiers?

IMO, one of the mistakes was having National Guardsmen as guards. At least the regular army knew they were joining the Army and half expecteed to end up in someplace like Iraq. The reservists and guard members who signed up to pay for their tuition or help their families now find themselves on a 12 to 18 month deployment in a war that a majority of the world does not support and only about half their country supports. Place people like this in charge of other human beings and the crushing responsibility and displaced anger, fail to support them and even encourage some abuse, and the result should be obvious.

Except I didn't see it coming. Of course, I'm not a professional tactition. But the people in charge didn't plan for it, which means they either were incompetant and negligent, or wanted these results.

It's time for a clean sweep. At this point, even if my pick as President were in charge, I'd say it's time for a change. A new Command in Chief, a new Secretary of Defense, and maybe a new Secretary of State, although Powell seems like he could be effective if someone in the White House would just listen to him.

I would personally love to see McCain as Secretary of Defense. He has a great public presence and a reputation for integrity. His background as a POW might help to diffuse this current crisis. Only a Democratic president would offer him the job, since it would put a Republican seat in Congress up for grabs.

It's also time to start planning what to do with all of the mentally fucked up men and women who will be coming back from this war. I hope they can stop building the bombers and attack subs long enough to make sure that the VA has enough resources for that.

[DanaC]

Moore can not be vindicated because he's already proved himself to be a charlatan.

In what way has he done this?

[elSicomoro]

--Bowling for Columbine was a sham
--He bitched last week about how he had just found out that his new film was not being distributed by Disney. The truth is, he actually knew this a year ago.

In other words, he's a dumb motherfucker...and a charlatan.

[Undertoad]

Somebody smarter than me pointed out that these kinds of deceptions are exactly the sort of shams Moore is supposed to be interested in exposing.

[DanaC]

In what way was Bowling for Columbine a "sham"? Personally I though it a very well made documentary and it did very well overhere. If you disagree with his analysis fine, but in what way was it a sham? Do you have anything to back up that assertion?

As to the row with Disney. He didnt say he just heard about it. He has been working behind the scenes for some time to try and resolve this with them. He avoided for as long as possible making it a public battle so as not to let the film get drowned in adverse publicity.
He disputes their assertions. There are two sides to this story , are we now accepting Disney's as undisputed truth?

Two sides to this story

More on this story

And for Michael's own take on this


Michael Moore

""taken from Michael's site
In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But “explosive” for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of “explosive” is what they want to run from as fast as they can.

Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R).

According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie."

[xoxoxoBruce]

In what way was Bowling for Columbine a "sham"? Personally I though it a very well made documentary and it did very well overhere. If you disagree with his analysis fine, but in what way was it a sham? Do you have anything to back up that assertion?

Sure it did well, because you believed it to be the truth. Ahhh, ...the power of theatre to mislead.

[elSicomoro]

Moore shoots himself in the foot on his own website, regarding Disney:

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

He can say all he wants about how Miramax kept giving him money to film it, but Disney gave him fair warning. Maybe Miramax told him they could soothe Eisner, but Moore still knew that, at that point, Disney was not putting the film out.

You can put lettuce, tomato and mayo on a shit sandwich, but in the end, it's still a shit sandwich.

[DanaC]

From a site online

Critics of Moore hold that Moore's films are not "real" documentaties and attack his books for perceived factual errors. Moore contends that these are not critics, but people who disagree with him politically, noting the fact that in all four of his books there has not been a single lawsuit against him.

And Michael's own response to the accusations of his dishonesty?


"Here's another whopper I've had to listen to from the pro-gun groups:

"The Lockheed factory in Littleton, Colorado, has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction!"
That's right! That big honkin' rocket sitting behind the Lockheed spokesman in "Bowling for Columbine"-- the one with "US AIRFORCE" written on it in BIG ASS letters – well, I admit it, I snuck in and painted that on that Titan IV rocket when Lockheed wasn't looking! After all, those rockets were only being used for the Weather Channel! Ha Ha Ha! I sure fooled everyone!!

Or....

The Truth: Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons-maker in the world. The Littleton facility has been manufacturing missiles, missile components, and other weapons systems for almost half a century. In the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear warhead on the Soviet Union; in the mid-80s, they were partially assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM, a space laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as Brilliant Pebbles.

In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles."

As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me, "They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large national security satellites, some we can't talk about."
Since that interview, the Titan IV rockets manufactured in Littleton have been critical to the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These rockets launched advanced satellites that were "instrumental in providing command-and-control operations over Iraq...for the rapid targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes and clandestine communications with Special Operations Forces."


and
""The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was. ""

"Finally, I've even been asked about whether the two killers were at bowling class on the morning of the shootings. Well, that's what their teacher told the investigators, and that's what was corroborated by several eyewitness reports of students to the police, the FBI, and the District Attorney's office. I'll tell you who wasn't there -- me! That's why in the film I pose it as a question:

"So did Dylan and Eric show up that morning and bowl two games before moving on to shoot up the school? And did they just chuck the balls down the lane? Did this mean something?"

"I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be."

[DanaC]

I dont see how that is him shooting himself in the foot. He had hoped they would be able to resolve the issues.....He deals mainly with Miramax not Disney....Miramax no doubt was backing him up and trying also to get this film made. He didnt say this all came like a bolt fromthe blue.