Image control...

I'm reading about US military prison abuses in Iraq. 60 minutes ran a story and images, after pressure to withold the story. But they ran it as the images started to hit the net. I couldnt find these images at the CBS site. I'm curious. Anyone know a link?

The Toronto Star gives graphic descriptions, but I have not seen anything.

Uniondales a nice little town...

I don't know but this is hmmm intereting: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

War is ugly. I know that. When the last rickety rationalization for invading Iraq is humanitarian liberation...well, these incidents are important to note and to see. The images provide some needed contrast to not only Saddams mass graves but to young Jessica Lynch. But we cant see them.

Three pictures on the TV news this morning.

1- Naked, hooded man with wires attached to each arm, standing on a bucket, with arms out stretched. Told if he steps down he'd be electricuted.

2- Six naked, hooded men forming a human pyramid.

3- Naked, hooded man, bound and standing, while an American female in fatigues, smiles and points at his penis.

What's deeply saddening about this is that the abuses took place ( I think these are the same ones I heard about anyway) In Abu Ghraib, which was one of Saddam's torture/execution prisons

Yeah, but a big difference in the outcome. No prisoners were injured in the production of this thread,

Just saw the pictures on F*x News BTW...

The turds responsible for this need to be punished... hard, and have examples made of them. And then their boss turds need the same thing. It's worse, y'know, because of the honor/shame society stuff. We need to set the example of how to treat prisoners...

This really pisses me off.

Guantanomo and all the prisoners being kept there in secrecy is another situation that needs to see the light of day. It is an example of how this government has disreguarded the Geneva Convention because it is inconvienient. Its shameful. The blame is not limited to low ranking people in the military, it clearly goes all the way up to Bush. He is allowing that situation to remain, and probably ordered it to be that way in the first place.

Indeed. The descriptions of Guantanamo bay that the lads from Manchester and Tipton in the UK have given us made me quite angry.
Jamal Udeen still walks with a stoop because the chains are kept too short for them to straighten up. In the interview I heard he could have been one of my family. His accent sounded as Manchester as theirs. He was nothing to do with the Taliban. He was held and tortured for two years.

I know...he wasnt the only one....but you cannot imagine how much it grieved me to know a fellow Manc was in that hellhole being held by our allies for no good reason. It also pissed me off to hear about the lads from Tipton. fucking Tipton... If anybody in here had any idea what a pitiful little place Tipton is you'd know just how tragic that sounds. Birmingham accents in Guantanamo Bay.

Jamal's story

As a side note. One of the things that moved me when I heard his interview on the radio was that he sounded so ordinary. He sounded tired, but he seemed to have kept his sense of humour even if it had become a little dark. He wasnt spitting anger or anything like that He just seemed to want to tell his story and did so in a fairly gentle and good natured way.

Originally posted by DanaC
Indeed. The descriptions of Guantanamo bay that the lads from Manchester and Tipton in the UK have given us made me quite angry.

It's these kind of connections that make this whole mess real to us. Apparently these guys are from Uniondale, a pretty little town in one of the most beautiful areas in the States. It is on Cayuga lake in the wine growing region of New York State. It's a place I love to cycle through. War makes it possible for people from ANYWHERE to behave like animals. The costs of war can't be measured.

Originally posted by Griff
Apparently these guys are from Uniondale, a pretty little town in one of the most beautiful areas in the States.

Eh, Griff, are there two Uniondales in NY State? The only Uniondale with which I am familiar is on Long Island.

Crap. Union Springs not Uniondale. On the upside, I don't have to get creeped out next time we ride through there.

Fucking drunk. :)

What amazes me was the one soldier who said he had never read the Geneva Convention until he was charged. Of course, he did not have to read it to know that stacking guys in naked human pyramids was probably wrong.

I wonder how long the military would have waited to take action if the story hadn't leaked, and how long CBS would have waited to report it.

"What amazes me was the one soldier who said he had never read the Geneva Convention until he was charged. Of course, he did not have to read it to know that stacking guys in naked human pyramids was probably wrong."

I thought that too. What is going on in your head that you think that could possibly be appropriate? One of these guys is a prison guard back home, great.

Let's see we've had incidents of women soldiers being raped by their fellow servicemen and now this. We're doing a great job of showing the rest of the world how an evolved society works.

Originally posted by TheLorax
Let's see we've had incidents of women soldiers being raped by their fellow servicemen and now this. We're doing a great job of showing the rest of the world how an evolved society works.

An evolved society decries and punishes these acts. Isn't that what's happening?

-sm

When/if we hear about them, and certainly not under international law. It is suspect. The press is the only sort of "independent" or less dependent check in place.
Good cop bad cop. Good war crime bad war crime. Now there is another unfortunate Vietnam association.

The thing about war is, those who are participating have to turn in their humanity card for a brief period. Otherwise they go nuts. Their job is to kill the enemy, which means dehumanizing the enemy - otherwise they can't kill. It's gone on in every war since war began. The difference today is that the press is on the front line and can more effectively document the reality of war.

It's a sad fact that if armies try to be polite to their enemy, they get killed. The quickest way to win this war would be to follow the doctrine of WWII: Get the press out so they can't see what happens, then carpet bomb the place and send in the infantry to kill whatever is still twitching. Quick, but not pretty.

Thing is, this wasnt on the romantic battlefield, this was after the "battle" (this was like a year ago and if we listen to Bush it was probably even after the "war".
This was when we were incharge and meant to be just and humane. That being said, I dont know how all the soldiers arent nutty.

This also brings up a bit, the contracting out off the policing and security duties to private companies. Does anyone check for humanity cards? Are these guys held up to military law? International law? Do they need to worry about the Geneva convention?

Originally posted by warch
That being said, I dont know how all the soldiers arent nutty.

Maybe not all of them, but some of them are. Washington Post every couple of weeks runs pictures of the soldiers who have died, and a brief description of how they died. Too many of the war dead are suicides. I am confident that not one of those suicides would have occurred if these guys weren't living through hell. It can't help that their tours keep getting extended. How many times can you hear that you aren't going home after all, before you lose all hope?

By the way, the Washington Post doesn't list them as suicides, but how else can a soldier die of a gunshot wound to the head while in a chapel on a secure base?

Originally posted by warch
This also brings up a bit, the contracting out off the policing and security duties to private companies. Does anyone check for humanity cards? Are these guys held up to military law? International law? Do they need to worry about the Geneva convention?

In a word - no.

There was a scandal a while back because a group of the private security guys started notching their knives by enforcing apartheid in South Africa while it was falling apart.

Stanley Milgrams experiment in Obedience

If you want to understand some human behavior, you can look at Stanly Milgram's Experiment in Obedience

In the 1960's, Milgram told subjects that they would be 'teaching' volunteers by administering electical jolts when the volunteers made a mistake.

When the "teacher" asked whether increased shocks should be given he/she was verbally encouraged to continue. Sixty percent of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

Milgram's experiment was controversial in it's effect on the subjects. Even after being told that there was no real physical damage to the 'volunteer', many of the test subjects suffered attacks of conscience.

In effect, Milgram was conducting a 'morality test' of average Americans (the test was later peformed in other countries). He advanced the theory that while some Nazi leaders were sociopaths, the capacity to commit acts of atrocity exists in 'normal' citizens, requiring only the encouragement of authority.

Project Phoenix in Vietnam

This is the best summary I could find of
The Phoenix Program: in Vietnam. I placed a quote below I should add that the last statement has never been completely proved. The part that ties in with our current discussion about military prisons is the rules for detention of individuals who were 'suspected' of Viet Cong (VC) sympathies or activities.

Picture an Enron environment in which artificial quotas replace any qualitative measure of success. Now picture middle managers under pressure to meet quotas. Except instead of a board room or assembly line, the quotas cover the interrogation, torture, and executions of individuals.

"Central to Phoenix is the fact that it targeted civilians, not soldiers. As a result, its detractors charge that Phoenix violated that part of the Geneva Conventions guaranteeing protection to civilians in time of war. "By analogy," said Ogden Reid, a member of a congressional committee investigating Phoenix in 1971, "if the Union had had a Phoenix program during the Civil War, its targets would have been civilians like Jefferson Davis or the mayor of Macon, Georgia."

"Under Phoenix, or Phung Hoang as it was called by the Vietnamese, due process was totally non-existent. South Vietnamese civilians whose names appeared on blacklists could be kidnapped, tortured, detained for two years without trial, or even murdered simply on the word of an anonymous informer. At its height, Phoenix managers imposed a quota of eighteen hundred neutralizations per month on the people running the program in the field, opening up the program to abuses by corrupt security officers, policemen, politicians, and racketeers, all of whom extorted innocent civilians as well as VCI. Legendary CIA officer Lucien Conein described Phoenix as, "A very good blackmail scheme for the central government: 'If you don't do what I want, you're VC.'"

"Because Phoenix "neutralizations" were often conducted at midnight while its victims were home, sleeping in bed, Phoenix proponents describe the program as a "scalpel" designed to replace the "bludgeon" of search and destroy operations, air strikes, and artillery barrages that indiscriminately wiped out entire villages and did little to "win the hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese population. Yet the scalpel cut deeper than the U.S. government admits. Indeed, Phoenix was, among other things, an instrument of counter-terror - the psychological warfare tactic in which members of the VCI were brutally murdered along with their families or neighbors as a means of terrorizing the entire population into a state of submission. Such horrendous acts were, for propaganda purposes, often made to look as if they had been committed by the enemy.

Milgram was a fucking pimp...too bad his experiments are considered unethical now...

That experiment changed the way experimental ethics are handled (made getting human research projects approved a colossal pain in the ass).

I always liked Peter Gabriel's song about the experiment ...

Apparently torture and abuse of prisoners was ongoing many times previously. At least two earlier cases of outright abuse have been reported. But then this only demonstrates a fundamental principle - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top mangement. When Americans last were in a war due to top management lies, then abuse and torture was routine. VietNam. One need only look at Guantanamo to see this administration gives lip service to civil rights, rule of law, and the truth.

Why is prisioner abuse probably widespread in Iraq? And why does this administration refuse to admit the problem until the press finally tells Congress? Problematic is a righteous loyalty to George Jr - god's choosen president. Civil rights, the law, and ethical responsibility is always secondary to that (god's) agenda. Lets not forget what George Jr told his staff. He is choosen by god to be president. Does god also condone torture? Of course. "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. The White House set the tone for how all non-Christian prisoners are to be treated. Camp Delta. Why should anyone do anything different? After all, those prisioners in Cuba are obviously being treated as god has ordered through his disciple - George Jr.

Maybe god hates us. He has given us the president we deserve. Just another reason for the world to so suddenly go from admiring Americans to disliking Americans. (don't tell right wing extremist Americans who never understood why the world hates them). Clearly god is punishing us. He gave us George Jr. Those American prison guards were only doing what the president advocated - Camp Delta.

Originally posted by tw

Maybe god hates us. He has given us the president we deserve. Just another reason for the world to so suddenly go from admiring Americans to disliking Americans. (don't tell right wing extremist Americans who never understood why the world hates them). Clearly god is punishing us. He gave us George Jr. Those American prison guards were only doing what the president advocated - Camp Delta.

I'm not quite ready to build a conspiracy theory around this. Basically we under-supported the prison in order to supply manpower to a badly overstretched occupation force. Conspiracy theories imply competence. This was just another cluster fuck caused by bad planning and lack of support, not to mention politicizing the war in not allowing the generals fighting it to ask for the forces they really need and getting rid of the ones who actually do give reasonable estimates.

It will be interesting if this news will affect the Supreme Courts hearing of the two cases before it about Camp Delta. I am especially interested in how the US intends to justify taking a US citizen in custody inside the US and specifically shipping him outside the US to deny him his legal rights, then pretending that a US military base is not US soil. If a suspect fled the country he would be charged with Interstate flight to avoid prosecution. So is the governments action 'International flight to avoid defense?".

With these pictures coming out, any country with citizens in Camp Delta will be under pressure to demand oversight.

BTW, Joe Scarborough's spin on this is so bizarre that he must be doing it for ratings. He really can't possibly believe what he is saying, can he?:eek:

What would an Iraqi say?

Of course the behavior at Abu Ghraib is terrible and I think everybody agrees; and most certainly the few who perpetrated these actions do not represent anybody but themselves. They have betrayed the Coalition soldiers and all the friends of democracy, before anybody else. However, the Media, and especially the famous Al Jazeera, Al Arabia & Co. are having great time with this affair. It’s like Christmas over there. Saturation coverage, trying all the time to sound objective and merely reporting what the western media are saying.

Well I am an Iraqi, and hate what I saw, but I would like to say in all honesty that compared to the practices of the old Baathists, this is a drop in an ocean. The terrors of Saddam torture houses make this isolated condemned practice by a small group of perverted individuals seem nothing, awful as it is. And more important, the outrages of the Saddam regime were sanctioned and perfectly well known and approved from the highest levels of the state and there was no question of any criminal investigations of the practices, the victims simply buried in any convenient ditch near by. But we never heard any righteous and noisy protests from Any Jazeera or Arabiya, nor did we witness much “Arab” anger during many years when torture, rape and murder were going on a regular basis and massive scale. Perhaps those hundreds of thousands of victims were not “Arabs” and did not deserve the righteous pity of the brotherly Arab masses.

Salaam

Alaa, The Mesopotamian

Originally posted by Undertoad
What would an Iraqi say?

Alaa, The Mesopotamian

Unfortunately, everyone knew Saddam was a bad man. It wasn't news. The US, as crusaders, are the 'good guys'. It's just like the fact that child molesters exist is not news, the fact that some priests were child molesters and that some individuals in the heirarchy knew about it and took little or no action raises the issue to a new level.

We went in there on a crusade, and like the last Crusade (actually there were 8 to 12 over hundreds of years), this one has been fraying around the edges as a significant minority sink to the lowest level.

Now, we can say that because no blood was shed and no permanent injury was done, that this is not as bad as Saddam's regime. In fact, the concept of 'bloodless torture' was what was proposed by Pope Innocent IV at the start of the Inquisition around the time of one of the Crusades.

In 1252 Pope Innocent IV authorized,

"torture which will not imperil life or injure just as thieves and robbers are forced to accuse their accomplices, and to confess their crimes; for these heretics are true thieves, murderers of souls, and robbers of the sacraments of God."

The problem with all war, especially murky ones, is that in addition to the dead and physically wounded, the spiritually wounded come back home. These are the ones who have to worry about going near an amusement park because the children's happy screams might trigger a flashback.

I am actually as concerned for the US soldiers who acted as torturers as I am for their victims. These men and women, unless they have gone completely cold inside, must have some attacks of conscience. One of the reasons that Milgram got into so much trouble was that his subjects, after the experiment was over and they were told that they had caused no actual damage, were still devastated.

The men and women who participated, the ones who didn't but kept quiet, all of them will have that guilt follow them for the rest of their lives. Unlike combat, there can be no 'fog of war' excuse. They did this premeditated and in cold blood.

People accuse Kerry of flip-flopping on the war and being indecisive. I think that he and every other 'blooded' veteran in Congress understand what war really means and were trying to be cautious. One need only look at the problems of Vietnam-era veterans to understand the mental toll war takes on men and women.

These dozen men and women only represent a fraction of the mess we are going to have to deal with when all of these troops come home. The cost, emotional as well as monetary, will continue long after every soldier is home.

God save us all.

Richlevy that's an excellent point.

It's too easy I think to simply point at the soldiers/reservists who engaged in such activities and say they are the problem. The way I understand it, it's not an easy thing to cross that line the first time. Our militaries spend fortunes training people to be able to cross a line which most humans simply cant cross.

In studies ranging from the Prussian wars to the modern era we see that the vast majority of soldiers on the front line ( without the particular training which has been developed to combat this in recent years) didnt aim to kill when confronted with his enemy's face. In the down and dirty type of fighting which allows you to see the eyes of the man you are about to kill most people find it nearly impossible to strike the killing blow. People who would have sworn blind they would have no difficulty found instead that they simply couldnt do it. One of the most common forms this inability would take ...was that their hand would not respond. A temporary paralysis or freezing of their trigger finger.

An American military chap ( cant recall his name now) who lectures at Westpoint and is recognised as the world's leading expert in the phsycology of killing suggested on a programme I saw, that 98 per cent of the population find killing difficult often to the point of impossibilty which means that even if they are able to overcome their difficulty and take the life of another they are then left with enormous phsycological trauma....Two per cent have little or no difficulty in killing . Of those half are what we generally think of as "heros" they are able to empathise and understand the seriousnes of what they do but are able to kill without difficulty and without the crippling psychological aftereffects. The other half of this 2 per cent...are sociopaths. They are able to kill without difficulty , without psychological after effects and are unable to empathise.

The US military has perfected training methods which specifically counter this difficulty. Theirs is the best training available to modern man if what you wish to train people to do is to step over the line which stops most animals (it apparently holds true across many species) actually killing another of its own species.
They apparently can now train an ordinary soldier in such a fashion that they are able to overcome this whilst in combat. (they do it with very very sophisticated wargames and pattern behaviours to the point of near automation when in the zone)
They are still working on the crippling psychological after effects

They claim 60 % of their soldiers now are able to fire the killing shot at rather than 2 or 3 % .....If thats the case then there must be a lot of trauma being inflicted on these people which they are going to have to live with...Not just the ones who have committed "crimes" against the Iraqis but the also ones who are following orders to the letter and doing their job well.

It also means....that amongst the well trained and organised soldiers there is a small but heavily armed bunch of sociopaths running around iraq right now.

Needless to say I think this extends to the British army also....Seems our boys and girls have been up to some highly dubious shenanigans as well.

Iraqi familys' High Court Battle for Compensation

What's your point? The purpose of a soldier is to kill people. That's their job. I want them to have that training. I want them to be good at killing.

My point ( or points) is that it isnt really much of a surprise to find some of our soldiers are overstepping the mark and that both the ones who are guilty of crimes and the ones who are merely guilty of doing their job will have a lot of psychological trauma to deal with when they return to civilian life.

(they do it with very very sophisticated wargames and pattern behaviours to the point of near automation when in the zone)

And thus, are possibly almost as good as those 13-year-olds who have logged over 1000 hours in Counter-Strike.

USMil: 0WnZZ0Rs!!!!

[size=1]And me with Ghost Recon - where practically every other kill is that close, and it's as sophisticated a wargame as is possible to design with current technology. Am I 31337 enuf for teh MARINEZ?[/size]

Originally posted by DanaC
My point ( or points) is that it isnt really much of a surprise to find some of our soldiers are overstepping the mark and that both the ones who are guilty of crimes and the ones who are merely guilty of doing their job will have a lot of psychological trauma to deal with when they return to civilian life.

OK. Fair enough.

I know it's a bit trite, but: "war is hell."

I'm no fan of this war in Iraq. I don't think we have a good reason to be there. The decision to go to war was made too casually. But now that we are at war, I'm not surprised in the least by any of the crap that's going on.

It's only going to get worse.

USMil: 0WnZZ0Rs!!!!

I can see hordes of dead iraqis floating over falluja bitching about the way UsMil has godmode and keeps getting BS headshots.

Heh, that's the thing - they believe they have Godmode. Can't remember where I read it, but apparently one reason Arabs are terrible shots as a whole is because they tend to not aim at all - just point in the general direction of the target, and Allah is supposed to take care of the rest.

To combine this thread with the philosophy thread, a solid belief in predestination is a really, really bad trait for a soldier.

Originally posted by DanaC
My point ( or points) is that it isnt really much of a surprise to find some of our soldiers are overstepping the mark and that both the ones who are guilty of crimes and the ones who are merely guilty of doing their job will have a lot of psychological trauma to deal with when they return to civilian life.

Actually, this is something that the US Military is quite aware of, and has plans in place to deal with the reentry into civilian life. Some of this involves Critical Incident Stress Management, as well as counselling.

.

As our good friend, Rush Limbaugh, says:

RUSH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?

Originally posted by Happy Monkey

As our good friend, Rush Limbaugh, says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please tell me this is a joke.

Chosen carefully and taken out of context.

I heard that segment and he was NOT excusing the soldiers who mistreated Iraqis. He's not even an apologist for them, he was simply making the point that a few rotten apples should not be used to judge ALL Americans any more than a few misguided Arabs who hijacked and subsequently crashed civilian jets into buildings, killing thousands, should not be used to judge all Arabs.

I can find the transcript on his website if I really want to.

Brian

I was thinking about this tonight...Rush is a dumbfuck, IMO...but not that dumb. Besides, had he really said it as presented above, it would have been all over the news.

Originally posted by richlevy
I'm not quite ready to build a conspiracy theory around this. Basically we under-supported the prison in order to supply manpower to a badly overstretched occupation force. Conspiracy theories imply competence. This was just another cluster fuck caused by bad planning and lack of support, not to mention politicizing the war in not allowing the generals fighting it to ask for the forces they really need and getting rid of the ones who actually do give reasonable estimates.

I don't understand where insufficient staffing has anything to do with the abuse. Do people who are overworked then physically and sexually abuse others? Where is the justification? Understaffing and insufficient training do not justify this kind and widespread abuse.

When a large organization enters a project with a clear objective, then the rules work. We entered the Kuwait liberation with clear and specific objectives. In fact Powell had to fight tooth and nail to get those objectives defined. He fought so hard for those specific objectives that many (ie Cheney) openly wondered if they had the right General for the job. But as a result, the liberation occurred according to principles that America deems essential. The rules actually meant something because top management was responsible enough to even make specific objectives.

This war is clearly had no strategic objectives, no exit strategy, no political solutions to take over when the military job was done, top management that even takes troops off of planes to go home and says, "you are staying another three months". When management is that corrupt (and yes that kind of incompetance by management is called corruption), then the little people make on their own rules (ie Catch 22).

Where is a conspiracy to be assumed? There is no conspiracy. These things will happen when top mangement does as this administration has done. These are lessons from Vietnam - another war lead by corrupt top management.

Is it not obvious that the rules don't matter. Guantanamo Bay (Camp Delta) said torture and abuse of 'infidel' muslims is acceptable and preferred. That attitude - that message from highest levels - the White House - said the written rules will not be enforced. No conspiracy. Just exactly what happens when troops never even trust the date given for going home.

No specific agenda. Lies even about reasons for war from the highest levels. Lies about sufficient numbers of troops. Lies about the people wanting to be liberated. Lies - for some units multiple times - about when the troops would be going home. Even a top general who outrightly disparages Muslims in public - and is not even reprimanded (investigation is said to still be ongoing). Torture and abuse are therefore acceptable behavoir. That is the message. Just as in VietNam, when top management lies, does not even provide honest objectives. Lies and deciet within the ranks are then common; should be expected. The concept is even taught in a 500 BC book called "Art of War". Principles are that well understood - except apparently by this administration.

In VietNam, we were liberating yellow skined, slant eyed boys. It turns out they did not want to be liberated. And so we ended up with My Lai massacre and "we had to burn the village to save it" mentality. Exact same thing in Iraq. Directly traceable to the attitude and knowledge provided by this George Jr administration.

A soldier marries an Iraqi against orders. He is simply reprimanded. Soldiers sexually and physically absue prisoners. They too are only reprimanded. Investigation still ongoing for how long and nobody - not even Congress - is informed? What does that say? Minor infractions include outright torture and sexual abuse. How much clearer could top management be?

Then it gets even worse. The president cannot even apologize for this abuse. Abuse was ongoing and known for most of the last six months in that one prison alone. It is still ongoing in Guantanamo Bay. It may have been routine in many other locations (only during the tenure of George Jr). People are picked up and held for 3 months. No outside contact. Relatives are not even told where they are. The Red Cross is not even permitted to visit! After three months, if they are not guilty of anything, they are kicked out with $10. This is justice? This says to Iraqis that Americans are better than Saddam? This is how America will win the hearts and minds of people? Teach them the values of democracy?

We did not even do that to prisoners in WWII. Red Cross informed the families of where the man was being held. Why is it justified now to not even tell his family where he is? Because they are only muslims? That was the message even from Guantanamo Bay.

If the prisons were so understaffed, then why was the Red Cross not even permitted to help?

Tell the truth? Even the murder, in 15 minutes, of an Iraq Major General was covered up. They even faked the attempt to rescue him from a heart attack long after he was murdered. Why do we only find out about this now, almost 1 year later? Why does 60 Minutes II report to the president what even his top cabinent officers knew and could not report? Or is George Jr only lying again? Hoping just like Nixon that the truth will remain buried? Blame the misguided assistants.

Tell the truth? A new sign is now posted in Abu Ghraib that says no pictures? Why? Torture would still be ongoing if not for those photos. Reminds me of when the press would demonstrate repeatedly how airports had no real security. What was the solution? Congress passes a law making it a crime to test airport security. That mentality also saved the WTC. The sign should read, "all who enter are required to take pictures." Why do we fear more truths coming out?

Again, top management is so much the problem that George Jr will not even apologize for the abuse. His arrogence is only dipping toxins all over the middle east.

But some have noted something good. America - or more specific, the name George Bush - is so toxic in the Arab world that this only and again confirms the hate. It does not increase the hate. However it has caused a light to be turned on. Suddenly, Arabs are now seeing how dirty the entire room is. Discussions in free press organizations (ie Al Jazzera) are also expanding the anger to how prisons are also run in Syria and Saudia Arabia. So maybe some good will come.

Still that and a shortage of troops does not justify any of the abuse. There is no conspiracy. That abuse occurred because it was condoned and encouraged at the highest levels of government. They defined the objectives. They demonstrated that the wrong actions will not result in anything more than a reprimand. This Abu Ghraib prison abuse is exactly the attitude encouraged from the White House. No conspiracy. They simple defined an attitude and objective. The abuse was an inevitable consequence - for the same reasons even massacres were inevitable in Vietnam. This is what happens when top management does not do its job - does not even define a valid strategic objective - lies about the war's purpose - and all but condones the resulting abuse. Hell. The president is so arrogent that he cannot even apologize for something that America should be apologizing for.... big time.

The picture Bruce posted is of alleged abuses at the hands of British troops. Needless to say this does not make me all too proud of our lads. .....What does make me proud though is that the pictures and the details of abuse were passed to the Mirror by squaddies serving alongside the abusers. Some of the soldiers felt strongly enough abou this to blow the whistle. Go lads.

Talking of the My Lai massacre.....Just as an aside, my ex's dad wrotea play about that called "Bodycount" which has been translated into serveral languages and performed in several countries ( including somewhere in the East but damned if I can recall where!)....was a wonderful play. He can write can Les.....Goes for the gritty little details that make it all come home and spins off into something beautiful and lyrical ....I wish I could finda copy of it but I believe its out of print now. Last time it was performed was over a decade ago at least. Its all told to the audience by the character of a woman who survived the massacre ( she was a child at the time).

Originally posted by BrianR
Chosen carefully and taken out of context.

I heard that segment and he was NOT excusing the soldiers who mistreated Iraqis. He's not even an apologist for them, he was simply making the point that a few rotten apples should not be used to judge ALL Americans any more than a few misguided Arabs who hijacked and subsequently crashed civilian jets into buildings, killing thousands, should not be used to judge all Arabs.

I can find the transcript on his website if I really want to.

Brian

No need. Here it is. (last four paragraphs) He was not talking about judging all Americans. He was being an apologist for the perpetrators, deliberately misinterpreting the caller's point, and saying that it was "understandable" that they could "lose control".

Danac you mention My Lai and that there are always those of good heart mixed amongst the bad and I am reminded of

Hugh Thompson an American helicopter pilot who turned his guns on American troops at My Lai

The british case is a funny one, it appears the pictures were faked, I wouldn't be shocked if the Mirror made up the whole thing. It is the Mirror after all.

Originally posted by DanaC
Talking of the My Lai massacre.....Just as an aside, my ex's dad wrotea play about that called "Bodycount" which has been translated into serveral languages and performed in several countries ( including somewhere in the East but damned if I can recall where!)....was a wonderful play. He can write can Les.....Goes for the gritty little details that make it all come home and spins off into something beautiful and lyrical

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.

Originally posted by jaguar
The british case is a funny one, it appears the pictures were faked, I wouldn't be shocked if the Mirror made up the whole thing. It is the Mirror after all.

Are you saying that a publication would fake information?!? If this is true, it puts my view of "The National Enquirer", "The Star", and, most importantly, "The Weekly World News" into a whole new light. That means that BatBoy and Oprah Winfrey aren't getting married, and even worse, all those women aren't really married to aliens. I feel ...... dirty.

Yelof, thanks for that . Just goes to show not everyone succombs to the heat of the moment.

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

By that logic we should only ever have plays which are set in fantasy worlds for fear of accidentally giving someone the wrong impression.
Generally people who go to a play know that it's the playwrite's own interpretation of events ( on the occassions where real life has been the inspiration) Shakespeare was not an authority on the life of kings and nobody looks to Arthur Miller if they wish to get an authoritative history of the events surrounding either the witchhunts or McCarthyism.

Gritty little details are one of the things I pick out as common in Les Smith's plays. He is a political playwrite, his plays are there to tell stories he thinks should be told. Generally speaking the people watching and the people producing those plays know this. The other stylistic feature I picked out was his lyricism, which I think would prevent anybody from accidentally believing they were watching a documentary. I do however think he may have had a reasonable insight into the events given the several years of research and the interviews with some ofthe people concerned.


Originally posted by jaguar

The british case is a funny one, it appears the pictures were faked, I wouldn't be shocked if the Mirror made up the whole thing. It is the Mirror after all.

The Mirror has a habit of making up stuff about celebs...Gossip and so forth. When it comes to more weighty matters their track record is pretty good. Currently another soldier is talking to Officials at the MoD about further allegations of abuse. This soldier also approached the Mirror with his allegations. Piers Morgan is standing by his sources and indeed there are other soldiers who have refuted some ( though not all) ofthe evidence for the pictures being faked;for instance, the truck which has been reported as not being used by the army in Iraq is in fact in use by the territorial Army in Iraq. The headgear which was said to not be in use in Iraq it seemingly in fact is, as is evidenced by several other photos of other events in Iraq showing very clearly soldiers wearing that particular type of hat.

There is still much about the photos that doesnt quite ring right for me though....People are starting to suggest now, that the photos may have been a reconstruction of actual events. If that's the case then it's a little disengenuous of the rest of the press to focus on the potential for fake photographs when the verifiable evidence is now starting to emerge of serious breaches of human rights in Iraq at the hands of members of the British forces.

If that's the case then it is highly unlikely to be the mirror which has falked the evidence butrather the soldiers who brought it tothem. Since nobody has thus far been able to categorically prove them fakes, one must assume that the mirror also was unable to prove their veracity and instead made the judgement call that this was an issue of grave importance which neded to be brought tothe attention of the public. Now I realise they must have also had in mind the sale of newspapers, but I have noticed in the last few years that the mirror has a decided tendency to stick to it's guns on an issue even when there is an enormous pressure to back off ( as with the start of the Iraq war when the calls for dissenters to stand behind the troops in time of war were vociferous and showing the other side was dangerous to a profit making paper) They also show a remarkable reluctance to jump on the anti asylum issue despite the fact that many of their readership would probably accept it and some even welcome it. They have consistently takenthe opposing side to that, choosing instead to run features about the "Myths" surrounding asylum seekers and the newcomer states to Europe.

I dont suggest for a moment that they would continue to take that tack if they started to fail as a business nr do I hold them up as bringers of truth but I do think that Piers Morgan takes his journalistic integrity seriously when deaing with matters of grave importance such as war, warcrimes and fascist whispers in the British winds.

Does it really matter whether one photo is fake? Yes to the integrity of that newspaper. It is why they have an Ombudsman. But newspaper integrity is promoted only to avoid the issue. The issue is this. Top management knew this abuse was ongoing and did nothing.

Rumsfeld even had the report of abuse and torture on his desk in March. He did nothing. He did not even read beyond the Executive Summary. IOW torture and abuse is condoned at the highest levels. THAT is the subject - not whether some paper reconstructed an event. We know that torture and sexual abuse was ongoing. We know it was reported to top management. We know top management did nothing - therefore condoned the abuse and torture - until the press exposed the issue. We know that the abusers and their officers only got reprimands - a slap on the hand - for doing something that would be years in jail elsewhere.

Just like there was no looting in Iraq. Just like we have enough troops in country. Just like the people were storming the streets when liberated. That is the issue. Top management would have us divert attention to the irrelevant. The bottom line remains that top management lied - which only encourages if not endorses torture and abuse. Then top management did nothing to stop it. These are the blunt facts that some would have us avoid. Don't fall for their propaganda. The only question in this thread remains - how corrupt is our leadership? Not whether the picture in a paper is legitimate. A far more serious question remains that we should have been asking when Camp Delta and the Patriot Act were being promoted. How corrupt is the George Jr administration. Not whether they are corrupt. How corrupt?

All I ask, tw, is that you stop just making shit up.

It turns out they removed the six, uh, alleged fuckwad guards from duty a few days after they found out about it in January, and initiated court-martial procedures, and by March had instituted a new command structure at the prison with a large set of reforms, and on March 20 had a press conference on it. At some point they asked to not have 60 Minutes air the photos because they felt it would be too dangerous for the troops in the field at the time.

Worst of it: there are tons more photos and even videos.

:(

Originally posted by Undertoad

It turns out they removed the six, uh, alleged fuckwad guards from duty a few days after they found out about it in January, and initiated court-martial procedures, and by March had instituted a new command structure at the prison with a large set of reforms, and on March 20 had a press conference on it.

UT, are you saying that the military command structure not only knew about this, but they were on top of it and had the situation resolved long before the story hit the big time?

Now that I would find very hard to believe.

Given what I have been seeing on the news I'm with russotto on this

The hearings are live for the last two hours, I'm just telling you what they said.

Fair enough UT ....Here *hands UT a :joint: *

Originally posted by Undertoad
All I ask, tw, is that you stop just making shit up.

It turns out they removed the six, uh, alleged fuckwad guards from duty a few days after they found out about it in January, and initiated court-martial procedures,

Provide all the facts UT. First the entire MP company - except for a few - are now being investiagated if not reprimanded. This only *after* the press reported the coverup. Only one court-martial was being considered. Other five just reprimanded. Now most everyone in the unit, "except a few" (and that is an exact Rumsfeld quote) is suspect - as they should be. The abuse was that widespread.

How widespread the abuse was stated by Rumsfeld in testimony today as Senators such as McCain and Clinton took him apart. Especially damning was the angry questioning from McCain who demanded Rumsfeld display knowledge and stop asking a General to, instead, answer the questions. McCain demonstrated how little Rumsfeld really knew of the problem. Rumsfeld had mostly ignored the entire affair which is why he could not even list the command structure from him down to the unit. Again he was dependent on his General to answer questions of specific facts because he did not know specific and major facts.

Lynne English had long been transfered out because she was pregnant in Iraq. Her boyfriend is another story of "wrong man to be prison guard". Only after her transfer out was she being investigated. Only a few were taken back to the US for investigation. One officer tried to claim the problem only existed on third shift. But the abuse may have spread beyond this MP unit. Units now in Germany are also under investigation. Rumors have it that at least two other American prison facilities may also be involved.

Of course Rumsfeld did not dispute the facts. Instead he blamed people with digital cameras taking unauthorized pictures AND leaking secret information to the press. Of course. Blame the messenger so they don't blame top management. Cast blame everywhere so that we forget - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Of course DoD refused to even followup an investigation of almost the entire MP unit- leaving the two foot tall study mostly unread. Even the Red Cross had warned Rumsfeld of problems. Rumsfeld's comment also included "...they found problems as they always do...". It demonstrated how little he really regarded the problem.

Where Sen Hillary cited accusations against Chaplain Yee. All charges against this Chaplain in Guantanamo Bay were trumped up, quickly leaked to the press, and eventually (quietly) dropped. Why did the DoD not trump the dropping of those charges as they had hyped Yee's arrest (on phony charges)? If what Yee did in Guantanamo was serious, then why is his so called secret crime not kept secret. Whereas widespread abuse in Iraq is not disclosed?

Rumsfeld claims this Iraq problem was all disclosed in January. Then he blames whistle blowers and people with digital cameras for creating all problems. No. The problem was Rumsfeld, et al were keeping this quiet and not charging any officers. Again, almost zero court-martials. That probably now will change due to whistle blowers - the same whistle blowers that Rumsfeld blames instead of taking blaming for Rumsfeld's inaction.

How did CBS get the story? Rumsfeld's staff was quick to leak charges against Chaplin Yee but not tell anyone about the abuse in Iraq. Double standard. This is the ethics of the man and his administration. Since nothing was happening to stop the problem in Iraq - same officers (except top officers) remained at that prison long after six were returned to the states. Then patriots - whistle blowers - let the word out. So Rumsfeld instead blames those whistle blowers - rather than the principles he had advocated first in Guantanamo Bay. Now most everyone in the MP unit will finally be investigated. UT forgets to mention that part.

Furthermore, Rumsfeld apparently knew the CBS story was going to be reported in advance. He knew it even when he testified, only hours before the story was released, before Congress. The same Congressman he is suppose to report these things to; yet he said nothing. Rumsfeld thought the story so insignificant that he did not even tell his boss - George Jr - of the story in advance. At least that is the president's public statement.

Get your facts right UT. Stop hugging the mental midget president everytime they get caught lying. The question is how many people will now be blamed for condoning sexual abuse and torture. Don't question whether a newspaper picture is legit. Question what did Rumsfeld know and when did he know it. Rumsfeld was sitting on the case - not even continuing the investigation beyond maybe one court-martial. No they were not going to court-martial all six. Now that may change because patriots - whistle blowers - exposed a Rumsfeld coverup.

Well said tw. Anything else is just misdirection, stories of fakery to take our attention away from the nub of the matter.

Oh come on. Please. The truth is that war crimes happen - they just do, as terrible as they are - because people are people, they're morons, they're imperfect and they're put into this bizarre situation. And the real question is whether you have to establish policies that would prevent these kinds of problems under any, any circumstance or whether you allow a cheaper, less thorough approach to managing prisoners.

And everybody understands that. It turns out they had a military lawyer on hand for a March 25 press conference when they announced they had problems at the prison. They expected to have to lay the whole thing out for reporters. But the reporters considered it a non-story. Not interesting enough to follow up on. Hey, shit happens, and in Iraq there's a lot of shit happening and this particular shit doesn't even register. Some people were morons, there was humiliation, nobody died, not enough story to register on the most sensitive scale.

Until the pictures showed up. When the pictures showed up it totally changed the dynamic of the story. Now it's important mostly because it's a cultural problem; the Arabs don't like humiliation, while we treasure it and celebrate it by engaging in it constantly from age 10-17. (They had panties on their heads, man! Worst thing in the fucking world! I kinda wish I had some panties on my head though, don't you?)

(Y'see Arabs are allowed to cut off tongues and hands and heads and beat themselves bloody with chains and cut themselves open and stone each other to death and be as warlike as possible to each other, but they can't possibly have another culture come in and put panties on their heads... it's just horrible for them.)

But until the pictures came out, nobody could have anticipated that this sort of cultural problem could be elevated to become the Worst Problem in the Entire Fucking War for a few days. NOBODY!

And so when it turns out that the Secretary of Defense was a little more concerned with problems larger than people putting panties on prisoners' heads, something thoroughly addressed months ago (including giving the press all the information they had), I say: good! There were about 100 more important things for him to worry about, such as whether he should have had 20,000 more troops covering the borders.

Originally posted by Undertoad

Hey, shit happens, and in Iraq there's a lot of shit happening and this particular shit doesn't even register. Some people were morons, there was humiliation, nobody died, not enough story to register on the most sensitive scale.

From the BBC News Site ; Wednesday 5th May

The US military says there have been investigations into 25 deaths in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In two cases the dead men were found to have been murdered by Americans, according to a US army official.

People did die. People have had their human rights violated in what is looking increasingly like an intitutionalised culture of widespread abuse. Is anybody terribly surpised that soldiers ( and reservists and paid up civilians) abuse and humiliate their prisoners? Well no.....if we all expected that sort of thing not to happen nobody would have felt the need to enshrine it in n internationally accepted convention.

(They had panties on their heads, man! Worst thing in the fucking world! I kinda wish I had some panties on my head though, don't you?)

If you had been raised a muslim with muslim sensibilities you would find it thoroughly humiliating and deeply wounding. ...In fact I think if you as the person you are now were placed in a situation where you feared for your life and were under no illusions of being covered by the geneva conventions....where you were in fact entirely at the mercy of the invading occupying soldiers in whose custody you found yourself.....I suspect being made to wear womens underwear over your face might seem somewhat worse than it sounds to someone sitting comfortably at home.

(Y'see Arabs are allowed to cut off tongues and hands and heads and beat themselves bloody with chains and cut themselves open and stone each other to death and be as warlike as possible to each other, but they can't possibly have another culture come in and put panties on their heads... it's just horrible for them.)

I see. So because many arab nations live under regimes which promote that kind of state violence against their populace or in whose lands civil war and division has led to savagery and extreme responses we shouldnt feel bad about being the ones to abuse them ? So...perhaps we shouldnt feel bad about the way the Americans who were burned out of their vehicle and then even when dead dragged about the streets because hey....you guys are quite happy to kill someone with agonising surges of electric current burning them up from the inside out and hey....your gangs in LA are too busy shooting each other up to notice they ran out of crack.....Why should you be bothered if a non american treats one of you badlly? Its not even as if they were alive when they got hung fromthe bridge why should anyone care?

Your attitude towards the Iraqis is deplorable. These people are in the care of occupying forces. We keep saying we shouldnt be srprised at the horros being committed but we really should....This isnt war this is an occupation, these people have rights and we should be respecting that.

Sorry UT you just lost my respect.

How you can possibly claim that routine humiliation and torture of prisoners under the protection of a country that is trying to claim it's the bringer of justice and peace AND justified the war with propaganda about saddams torture chambers as nothing is beyond the pale. No wonder Iraqis are actively resisting American occupying forces, they must see them as worse than Saddam - at least there was peace, security and electricity then.

These pictures will be the same as that little girl running from the burning village was for the Vietnam war - Iconic reminders that America's intrusions into other soverign nations bring only destruction, chaos and hate.

Originally posted by Undertoad
(Y'see Arabs are allowed to cut off tongues and hands and heads and beat themselves bloody with chains and cut themselves open and stone each other to death and be as warlike as possible to each other, but they can't possibly have another culture come in and put panties on their heads... it's just horrible for them.)

Actually, we Americans have our little quirks as well. While we find violence socially acceptable, sexuality is still more shocking. This is why it is easier to show a gunshot to the chest on TV than a bare nipple.

Americans might have accepted the electrodes, or the sleep deprivation, and said "Hey, that's the cost of doing business". The forced lewd acts however, cut across all lines. The liberals who weren't uptight about sex were still disturbed by abuse and the conservatives who might have accepted non-sexual abuse were shocked at the forced lewd acts.

In short, it was 'the perfect storm' (note overused phrase) in terms of unnacceptable behavior.

The deaths of individuals in custody is also an issue.

A senior army official said there had been investigations into 25 cases of death and 10 of abuse in US custody in Iraq or Afghanistan since December 2002.

The BBC's Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says of the 25 deaths, 12 were found to be either of natural or "undetermined" causes, one was a "justifiable homicide", and two were murders. Ten inquiries are ongoing, he says.

Not jailed

An Army official said a soldier had been convicted of using excessive force when he shot dead a prisoner who was throwing stones at him.

He was thrown out of the army but did not go to jail.

The other murder was committed by a private contractor who worked for the CIA, the official said.

Killing someone who throws rocks at you is a judgment call. After all it happened at Kent State and noone was ever tried for murder. Killing individuals in custody should be a big deal. Unfortunately, the US has a poor history of punishing homicides on or near battlefields.

As a result of the My Lai massacre, Lt. Calley, who I believe was the only person to serve any time at all, served 3 years under house arrest before being pardoned.

After deliberating for 79 hours and 57 minutes, the jury returned a verdict. They had found Calley guilty of premeditated murder of 22 of the villagers of My Lai. One juror claimed that they “had labored long and hard to find some way, some evidence, or some flaw in the testimony so we could find Lt. Calley innocent.” Before the jury reconvened to decide his punishment, Calley was allowed to address the jury and said, “Yesterday you stripped me of all my honor, please by your actions that you take here today, don’t strip future soldiers of their honor-I beg you.” The prosecution responded that Calley had stripped himself of his honor by murdering women and children. After seven hours the jury sentenced Calley to life of hard labor. In the end, he only served only days in Fort Leavenworth, before being transferred back to Fort Benning, where he was placed under house arrest. His sentence was repeatedly reduced. Finally, he was pardoned by President Nixon. He was paroled in November, 1974.

It has always been believed that it is harder to punish someone for killing ten thousand people than 1. When killings, even of acknowleged innocents such as the children in the Philadelphia MOVE bombing, occur as a result of otherwise justifiable operations, there always seems to be a concern for the morale and future effectiveness of the police or military. It might be that authorities consider any severe punitive judgement would cause more social harm than the goodwill and rule of law associated with such a judgement justify.

A few months ago, everyone in the United States had what we thought was a purely intellectual excercise in the validity of using torture in the war on terror. In August 2002, the public had a short discussion about the issue when the US abstained from a vote to beef up the Geneva conventions on torture ABC News .

Personally, I am glad that we as a nation saw the pictures. I am tired of the public handing off responsibility to authorities and being insulated from the results. Doing so leads to real abuse, as was discovered during the Holocaust. If we as a culture really wish to justify torture to ourselves, than we need to see the results of such a decision so that we can take off the imaginary white hat we see ourselves wearing and realise that we are stepping closer and closer to becoming 'evildoers' ourselves.

It's one thing to choose not to be a vegetarian. It's another thing completely to pretend that the hamburger you are eating was grown on a hamburger tree.

Show us what war costs in men, money, and souls. Let us shed the hubris, fold up the 'Mission Accomplished', and never, ever, utter the phrase "bring it on" again. Maybe our next presidents, even if they have never been in combat, may more fully appreciate the true cost of war.

By that logic we should only ever have plays which are set in fantasy worlds for fear of accidentally giving someone the wrong impression.

Bullshit, I didn't say anything of the sort.

Generally people who go to a play know that it's the playwrite's own interpretation of events

Generally speaking the people watching and the people producing those plays know this.

You seem to know a hell of a lot about what other people "generally" think.

I do however think he may have had a reasonable insight into the events given the several years of research and the interviews with some ofthe people concerned.

What you're getting is his take on it, which is not necessarily the truth. If it were, then 5 people that spend several years of research and interviews on a subject, then write a book about it, would all write the same thing. Doesn't happen.

Killing someone who throws rocks at you is a judgment call.

No it's not. Throw rocks at me and I'll blow your fucking head off. No question about it.:p

While UT would like to pretend it was all fun and games putting panties on someone's head, this is far more serious than that and he should know that. I quote the Ney Yorker, which itself is quoting a military report.

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

At the very same prison Saddam's henchmen committed some of the worst torture in Iraq.

SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that.

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

See:

Certainly a unique way of winning hearts and minds. Here

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce

quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By that logic we should only ever have plays which are set in fantasy worlds for fear of accidentally giving someone the wrong impression.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bullshit, I didn't say anything of the sort.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally people who go to a play know that it's the playwrite's own interpretation of events
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking the people watching and the people producing those plays know this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to know a hell of a lot about what other people "generally" think.

I didnt say you said that, I merely followed what you did say through to what I considered to be it's logical conclusion.
As to what I do or do not know about what other people think....No I dont know what other people think, however I can make an informed guess given my own experience of the theatre going public through my involvement in the UK theatre scene. I merely express what I have found to be the case amongst those I have spent time with. The theatre scene is not like the Cinema scene ( certainly not in the uk) The kind of theatre which produces Les Smith's plays and the kind of audience he attracts is as idiosynchratic as the audience you might find at a Michael Moore film.....more so because Michael Moore is very well known by the mainstream too unlike Les who isnt....More generally the types of audience attracted to Town theatres ( not including te musicals and am dram productions) and Rep theatrical productions tend to be dominated by a particular demographic ....Forgive me if I am arrogant enough to suggest I may have an insight into them as I am one of them.

And yes, what Les researched gave him a particular view of the events. It seems that hisview of events is eerily similar to the views held by the survivors, the whistleblowers, the international media and most honest historians.

Originally posted by Undertoad
(Y'see Arabs are allowed to cut off tongues and hands and heads and beat themselves bloody with chains and cut themselves open and stone each other to death and be as warlike as possible to each other, but they can't possibly have another culture come in and put panties on their heads... it's just horrible for them.)

Give those soldiers the "Not as bad as Saddam" medal!

I didnt say you said that, I merely followed what you did say through to what I considered to be it's logical conclusion.

I don't consider that at all logical. To the contrary, it's ridiculous, but I think you know that.

Not being part of the British theater scene and not knowing Les Smith, I'll take your word for his fans being idiosynchratic.
Michael Moore's fans are just idiots.

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.

Meanwhile Belmont Club points out,

My first thoughts at the news of the Abu Ghraib abuses, the Taguba Report and the Presidential mea culpa which followed was whether posterity would recall the incident in the same way the Christmas Truce in the first year of the Great War is remembered today. The last grasp at enforcing civilized standards of conduct before the brutality of the trenches coarsened men completely. The fraternization of that first December so alarmed the generals that "special precautions were taken during the Christmases of 1915, 1916 and 1917, even to the extent of actually stepping up artillery bombardments" to prevent its recurrence.

The brass didn't have to worry: it was never to be repeated. After the Somme in the following year, infantrymen on both sides filed saw-teeth into their bayonets to make the thrusts more painful. The history which remembers the Second World War as 'the Good War' forgets how four years of fighting transformed Allies that refused to bomb German cities in 1940 into those that planned thousand plane raids on Hamburg and Dresden in 1945 to rain incendiaries on tens of thousands of Western Europeans as policy. There were no reprimands, only medals, for the B-29 crews that incinerated 100,000 civilians in Tokyo in the raid of March 9, 1945. And the sad balance of probability is that Abu Ghraib will be displaced from the front pages by the next terrorist outrage, the next Bali, the next Madrid, the next 9/11 until we find ourselves wondering why it upset us at all.

While it is important to punish everyone responsible for the outrages at Abu Ghraib, the only effective way to stop the corrupting influences of war is to achieve victory.

We are at war, and the men in those hoods are the enemy. If we are at the end of this war, these events will seem like a long-run outrage. If we are at the beginning of this war, these events will seem like a drop in the bucket. I really have no way to know where we are in history but it doesn't exactly seem like victory is close at hand, does it?

I don't consider that at all logical. To the contrary, it's ridiculous, but I think you know that.

I know nothing of the kind.

What you said in your post was this
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."

If gritty little details are a problem because they lead the audience to believe they know the story when they dont, what would you suggest as a solution? Fewer gritty details? Or a change of subject matter to be quite sure they dont get the wrong impression? Maybe a disclaimer at the start of the play? I was pointing out a stylistic feature of the play and the playwrite, you suggested that it may be problematic. Personally I disagree with you. I dont think that is a common problem with theatre production. More of a problem with the Hollywood productions of historically inaccurate and underesearched films I'd have thought.

Besides, since this play was primarily about one of the survivors and her story as told by her ....I think it can be taken as having some accuracy. It wont tell you the whole story of My Lai, but it will tell one of the stories of My Lai fairly well.

I am not even remotely surprised at your disdain for Michael Moore fans ( of which I am one) I'll take that idiot label and wear it with pride ;P ....and when all the smoke clears and the House of Bush and all it's acolytes are shown for the scoundrels they are and Moore's work is vindicated I'll polish my label up nice and shiny and make sure I wear it every place I go

I was pointing out a stylistic feature of the play and the playwrite, you suggested that it may be problematic.

Wrong, "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." The same goes for any theatrical production, i.e., movies, tv programs, vingnettes, historical dramas and reenactments. They are ALL, somebodys take on history and the more OPINIONS on the gritty details the more misleading they are. Anything written for entertainment, based on true incidents, except for putting fictional characters in a historical setting, in a way that the setting is background and the characters do not affect the background story, is misleading.

Moore can not be vindicated because he's already proved himself to be a charlatan. It has nothing to do with Bush, as Moore has been around a long time and been tilting since before the first Bush. Sometimes they were dragons but usually windmills. He's an opportunist of the first order. Even opportunists get it right occasionally. Moore less than most. So you can wear your "idiot label" proudly, for as a Moore fan, you've earned it.

As a liberal, I find Michael Moore to be a fucking idiot. He's like the Ann Coulter of liberals. Fucking rabble-rousing turd.

Something I ran across in my sociology studies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Welcome to the Stanford Prison Experiment web site, which features an extensive slide show and information about this classic psychology experiment. What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? These are some of the questions we posed in this dramatic simulation of prison life conducted in the summer of 1971 at Stanford University.

How we went about testing these questions and what we found may astound you. Our planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended prematurely after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress. Please join me on a slide tour of describing this experiment and uncovering what it tells us about the nature of Human Nature.

http://www.prisonexp.org/

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.

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.:shotgun:

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

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.

[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.

"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?

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.

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

In what way has he done this?

--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.

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.

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."

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.:rolleyes:

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.

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."

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.

Originally posted by 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.

The key word being supposed. :(

From Moore's site:

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

It wasn't really unofficial to begin with. Disney said a year ago it wouldn't put the film out. He sounds surprised by their decision, when in fact, he shouldn't be.

According to that site
""He lives in a million-dollar apartment, and boasts of that as well. "I walk among them. I live on the island of Manhattan, a three-mile-wide strip of land that is luxury home and corporate suite to America's elite..... Those who run your life live in my neighborhood. I walk in the streets with them each day" (Michael Moore, Stupid White Men, p. 51).""

He lives on the Island of Manhattan and walks amongs them, that doesnt mean he is living in the most luxurious place in manhattan ... In his own words. ."One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about you. For instance, I have read in quite respectable and trustworthy publications that a) I'm a college graduate (I'm not), b) I was a factory worker (I quit the first day), and c) I have two brothers (I have none). Newsweek wrote that I live in a penthouse on Central Park West (I live above a Baby Gap store, and not on any park),"

Interestingly the person who wrote the article you pointed me to is a pro Guns lawyer active in the Pro gun lobby and part of the "KeepAndBearArms.com " group.....can anyone say the words Vested Interest? Does anybody have any refutations of michael's works that dont have a connection to the gunlobby?

He lives on the Island of Manhattan and walks amongs them, that doesnt mean he is living in the most luxurious place in manhattan

No, but a million dollar apartment anywhere hardly makes him main stream American.;)

Interestingly the person who wrote the article you pointed me to is a pro Guns lawyer active in the Pro gun lobby and part of the "KeepAndBearArms.com " group.....can anyone say the words Vested Interest? Does anybody have any refutations of michael's works that dont have a connection to the gunlobby?

That doesn't change the facts. If you want more, Google it. We've been through this before.

Million dollar apartments may not be the average for American citizens, but I wouldnt mind betting it's very low for a filmmaker/celebrity/author. How much does the average minor TV star spend on their home? The average value of a property in the state of NewYork is I think around the $250k mark. So his home is four times the value of an average New Yorker's home. I dont think that's exactly monumental in it's extravagance.

My point Bruce is that I doubt the veracity of that source. I have googled it. I have googled it and found an anti Moore campaign by Gunlobbyists, many of whose accusations I have found to be less than honest. I am still looking for some other details :) And as far as Facts being facts goes...well Facts are malleable and if we didnt take into consideration vested interests we'd be sold a great deal more hogwash than we currently are. All this goes to show is that there are people who believe Moore to be a charlatan and people who believe him not to be. I havent seen anything yet which proves him a charlatan I have found plenty to make me doubt the honesty of those making that claim.

Now I am not suggesting that Moore is infallible. He is a film maker and sometimes I realise he moulds the available facts to fit his particular analysis...Thats generally what documentary film makers do. His analysis is not without his own particular prejudices and agendas. But that is something no film maker can be said to be free of. All the best documentaries have an agenda. Are there occassional inconsistencies in his analysis? Probably, none of us are without inconsistency. Is he a charlatan? Deliberately setting out to mislead? I dont think so.

As to the whole Disney thing.....Why are we so worried about when Moore knew? Is nobody bothered that Disney wont distibute a film which criticises Bush and his administration? I find that the more worrying thing frankly

Hey, find us a website that actually backs up Moore...we're open-minded folks, ya know...

Originally posted by DanaC
Is nobody bothered that Disney wont distibute a film which criticises Bush and his administration?

Not really, given what Sinclair Broadcasting did last week. What Disney is doing does suck, but the Weinsteins took a risk by funding that film, knowing that Disney had already said no.

Originally posted by Griff
The problem is everyone else considered this before we went into Iraq.

Nobody considered this. We went into war gung ho - many with a "big dic" mentality about it. Logical justification was not required. We entered war based on facts that were fiction. Outright lies. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. There were no WMDs. There was no threat to the security of the US. Even the Vulcans are now saying (their story has changed as they blame Colin Powel) that we did this to fundamentally change the Middle East - not to respond to preceived threats. So yes, nobody considered the consequences of going to war WITHOUT a smoking gun. Suddenly we have exactly the failures that occur when war is justified without a smoking gun - when war is justified by myths, outright lies, and a "big dic" emotion. The emotion that so promoted a Pearl Harbor attack on Iraq was in the Cellar only 1.5+ years ago.

"In war, people do some really fucked up shit" ... when the war is promoted by outright lies such as the mythical aluminum tubes and WMDs, and Al Qaeda in Iraq. All lies justified only because the poltical agenda is important and because lies are justified by the agenda.

But even worse, those convinced that alunimum tubes were for WMDs (when even advanced science labs disagreed) now say that torture and abuse are going to happen; therefore justified.

UT - again first follow the facts. You listened to the Rumsfeld interview. Don't ignore what you don't like to hear. Major General Miller, whose job was to torture and abuse prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, was sent to *coordinate* the investigations in Iraq. What happened in Abu Ghraib is directly traceable to Guantanamo Bay. Therein lies a direct connecction - Major General Miller.

Sexual abuse and outright torture will happen in war. Therefore it is acceptable for Americans to do it? Even worse, when exposed, we only blame the enlisted men - an unsized company? They were not trained for prison duty. They did not even have all 180 men because every time one was lost, no replacements would be sent (directly traceable to Rumsfeld's idea that we have enough troops). The unit assigned to Abu Ghraid would have trouble controlling 4000 prisoners. They had 7000 prisoners AND they were attacked every night by RPGs and mortars. These enlisted men, only doing what they were ordered from the highest levels and doing what UT calls acceptable because it will happen, are now subject to court-martial? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion when war is even justified by lies? Exactly why the smoking gun must exist before war can occur.

What do you think Guantanamo Bay is all about? Is that justification to now blame Michael Moore - to divert away from the subject only because the subject demonstrated evil from god's choosen president? Torture and abuse justified only because no rule of law exists there. Why are "investigations" in Iraq being coordinated with those in Guantanamo Bay? 80% of the prisoners in Cuba are innocent - and the administration cannot find proof for all their lies? So let go torture some in Iraq for the answers?

The George Jr administration lies like no other - except the Nixon administration. So instead one would blame Michael Moore? Where did most of the principles (top management) in this George Jr administration get their start in government? In the same Nixon administration. A few massacres, torture, and abuse are going to happen in war. Therefore it is justiified. Instead we blame Michael Moore? Instead nobody should expect the Spanish Inquisition? Same reasoning also justified this Pearl Harbor attack on Iraq. Exactly what happens when no smoking gun exists to justify war. Then blame the enlisted men.

Originally posted by sycamore
Not really, given what Sinclair Broadcasting did last week. What Disney is doing does suck, but the Weinsteins took a risk by funding that film, knowing that Disney had already said no.

DanaC said "bothered", not "surprised".

Thought I saw surprised in there...my bad.

It's difficult to find anything that isnt very very anti Moore on google. I dont really consider that to be indicative of anything other than the vociferousness of his opponents ( as evidenced by the huge number of blogs )
But I did find a few interesting articles about him and his work.


Heres one

and this one isnt really tackling the case against him, but is I think quite interesting here's another

Even the Vulcans are now saying (their story has changed as they blame Colin Powel) that we did this to fundamentally change the Middle East - not to respond to preceived threats.

Uh... Tom?

That has always been the real reason for the war. But they can't say so outright; all they can do is hint at it.
here is the relevant portion of Bush's speech to the AEI in late February 2003 hinting at that approach:

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on Earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.

This is why failure is not an option, but also why failure means really dramatic, unforgivable failure. If they got it wrong, they've really fucked it up, it's unforgiveable. It's a little too early to say whether they got it wrong but current events are not promising. But we don't know at what point in history we are!

For all of you Anti's our there. A dose of science.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Ed.: emphasis added

Originally posted by DanaC
It's difficult to find anything that isnt very very anti Moore on google. I dont really consider that to be indicative of anything other than the vociferousness of his opponents ( as evidenced by the huge number of blogs )
But I did find a few interesting articles about him and his work.

The Guardian and the Times...whoo! Big surprises there! :)

This quote sums it up perfectly for me...

Many conservatives denounce him as a leftist, when in fact the serious left, the thinking left, generally finds him appalling. He is, in short, the latest in the modern breed of Limosine Leftists -- individuals who, while personally they share the values of 19th century robber barons, find it flattering to adopt a thin (and personally meaningless) veneer of leftism as a pose, in the same manner they pick a flattering hair style or gown.

--Paul T. Hardy

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
No, but a million dollar apartment anywhere hardly makes him main stream American.;)

As opposed to who, George W. 'man of the people' Bush? I don't begrudge him his money, just as I don't care that the Constitutional Convention was made up of rich white guys. The point is whether or not his facts are straight.

As for his opinions, I find that he acts as a nice balance to Joe Scarborough and all of the other 'fair and balanced' , assholes*.

*Note to lawyers - the preceding is my opinion, so please do not sue this BBS.

No one's facts are completely straight...not a one. Some are better than others, IMO, but in the end, they're all a bunch of commentators selling you their POV.

It's fun to watch them throw shit at each other though...hell, it's fun to watch people throw shit at each other here.

No one's facts are completely straight...not a one. Some are better than others, IMO, but in the end, they're all a bunch of commentators selling you their POV

That I can go along with

Originally posted by DanaC
Million dollar apartments may not be the average for American citizens, but I wouldnt mind betting it's very low for a filmmaker/celebrity/author. How much does the average minor TV star spend on their home? The average value of a property in the state of NewYork is I think around the $250k mark. So his home is four times the value of an average New Yorker's home. I dont think that's exactly monumental in it's extravagance.

As proven more and more, being a celebrity is not something to be particularly proud of these days. Like most of them he's a scumbag.
Only four times the average home in NYC? That's a laugh. Most people in NYC don't own their homes. They rent a home because they can't afford to own one. Of the people that do own, many only own them because they bought them when they were cheap.

I havent seen anything yet which proves him a charlatan I have found plenty to make me doubt the honesty of those making that claim.

Then wear your "Idiot" badge proudly.

I think I already said I was going to do that :P

I did a search for it and couldn't find it posted here, but if it was I apologize.

Anyone seen this:

http://www.moorewatch.com/

MOOREWATCH is dedicated to unearthing the truth behind the doublespeak and falsehood that spews from the mouth (and keyboard) of Michael Moore on a regular basis. Moore is a disingenuous danger to this country, and his assumptions and assertions should not go unchallenged. The collective expertise and research abilities of the entire Internet are more than enough to debunk most of the nonsense Moore regularly puts forth as fact, and we at MOOREWATCH hope to be the clearinghouse for this information.

Heh. A "danger to this country". And he calls Moore disingenuous.

Moore wouldn't be "dangerous" even if every word of his movies were a lie.

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Heh. A "danger to this country". And he calls Moore disingenuous.

Moore wouldn't be "dangerous" even if every word of his movies were a lie.

Words and ideas are more dangerous than all of the weapons ever made put together.

I kinda like moore, sure he's trashy as all hell and blows everything out of proportion but he usually does have a point under it all, he's just a showman.

Frankly I don't see whether he lives in a cardboard box in subway tunnel or a $25m penthouse with solid gold bathtaps makes the slightest bit of difference. My experience has shown me that if there is one social divide it's PC to bitch about it's wealth and it's often the least justified.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Words and ideas are more dangerous than all of the weapons ever made put together.

Indeed. But not Moore's. If he started saying dangerous things, he could be dangerous. But what he says is not dangerous, whether or not it is true.

I enjoy listening to Michael Moore's opinions. He reminds me that there are other voices in America then the ones that typically make their way over the Atlantic. I am encoraged to hear that he is a bestselling author in America, I only hope that he makes people stop and think by his criticisms.

If American conservatives think he is a danger to America by presenting a distorted lens on the country, they are quite mistaken, I think he instead increases people's opinion of America by showing it is capable of self criticism

He often is too loud, too eager, much of what he does is showbiz.. but what do you expect he is American after all ;)

*agrees with Yelof*

At the very least he balances out the more extreme of the right-wingers.

And the sad balance of probability is that Abu Ghraib will be displaced from the front pages by the next terrorist outrage, the next Bali, the next Madrid, the next 9/11 until we find ourselves wondering why it upset us at all.

Smart guy, that Wretchard at Belmont Club...

They say it took them 5 hacks to cut Berg's head off. They say he was still screaming until the third.

Information clearing house has the video. Its very disturbing.

Information Clearing house.

Think the Feds don't control the Internet?

Maybe it's the ragheads.;)

Somehow I think they're real interested in having their actions seen by as many people as possible.

Originally posted by Elspode
Somehow I think they're real interested in having their actions seen by as many people as possible.

Just not their faces. They obviously don't beleive what they are doing is right, otherwise they wouldn't wear masks.

The CIA is checking claims that top al-Qaeda suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was involved in the killing of Mr Berg


MSNBC news story about Bushco passing up multiple opportunities to take out al-Zarqawi pre-invasion because of obsession with overthrowing Saddam

Originally posted by glatt
Just not their faces. They obviously don't beleive what they are doing is right, otherwise they wouldn't wear masks.

I think that is more related to not wanting to be killed themselves because of what they believe. I mean, otherwise, they might as well just commit suicide...which, now that I think of it, wouldn't be a bad idea all in all.

Very low quality version available here:

http://www.ogrish.com/index2.php

They are disappearing as fast as they are posted.

That's the third "site where you can see the video" I've tried that has been removed.

As the moderate swing voter I expect that everyone who has angrily demanded the showing of returning caskets at Dover and the complete cache of Abu Ghirab photos, on the basis that we need to have a frank view of the results of war, should also clamor for the public release of the full decapitation video.

S'only fair

And in that vein:

Originally posted by russotto
UT, are you saying that the military command structure not only knew about this, but they were on top of it and had the situation resolved long before the story hit the big time?

Now that I would find very hard to believe.

Check the date on this CENTCOM press release.

January 16, 2004
Release Number: 04-01-43
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DETAINEE TREATMENT INVESTIGATION

BAGHDAD, Iraq – An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility. The release of specific information concerning the incidents could hinder the investigation, which is in its early stages. The investigation will be conducted in a thorough and professional manner. The Coalition is committed to treating all persons under its control with dignity, respect and humanity. Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the Commanding General, has reiterated this requirement to all members of CJTF-7.

Belmont Club again (I love that guy):

What was new about the May coverage was that the press had pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuses and was in a position to project, not a new set of facts, but a new set of powerful emotions upon the public. Getler's claim [Wapo ombudman demanding Abu Ghirab release -UT] is really an assertion of the right to invoke outrage, disgust and hatred at a specific act and its perpetrators, and those who may have been indirectly responsible for it. By taking this logic to its limit, Sullivan [Blogger demanding beheading video release -UT] claims the same right: to unleash a symmetrical set of set emotions at another group -- and demonstrates the absurdity. For it must either be correct to publish both the Abu Ghraib and Berg photos or admit partisanship. Surely, if it is acceptable to run the risk of tainting the entire US military with the brush of Abu Ghraib then there can be no harm in coloring all Muslims with the hues of Al Qaeda. But this is madness.

Originally posted by Undertoad
As the moderate swing voter I expect that everyone who has angrily demanded the showing of returning caskets at Dover and the complete cache of Abu Ghirab photos, on the basis that we need to have a frank view of the results of war, should also clamor for the public release of the full decapitation video.

S'only fair

Sure, why not? I thought it was already out. And I think it's of sufficent importance to not be banned as a snuff film.

My dont I feel on the cutting edge of the cyberwar? I saw the video on Information Clearinghouse then went back and saw an "account suspended" sign and the next thing I knew it was a feature on the nightly news with that very screen up on TV and the suggestion that pages were being shut down/ blocked by the CIA.........

Originally posted by wolf
They are disappearing as fast as they are posted.

That's the third "site where you can see the video" I've tried that has been removed.

I have it if you can't get it and still want it.

I have been told it has also been posted onto edonkey and several other filesharing sites

Anyone that was involved with De-CSS knows that once something is no the net, you can't get it off, that's never been proven wrong, once it hits the filesharing networks (and it has), there is no way that can effectively shut it down, it's too distributed. Exactly why such networks are fantastic tools.

Oh an UT, I agree completely. All information on the war, all videos, all photos, no matter how unpalateable to anyone should be availaible for all to see. The worst ones should be on the top half of the front page for people to mull over as they eat breakfast. Iraqis getting blown in half by .50cal sniper fire, US soliders dragging away their buddies that just copped an AK round to the groin, burnt bodies littering the street. That was next time some armchair warrior asshole wants to yell out 'bring it on', they'll remember exactly what IT is.

There was a photo on the back of Adbusters a year or two back from the first gulf war of an Iraqi soldier who has burnt to death trying to get out of a tank that was hit by a bomb, grusome as hell, they had a quote from the photographer:

"If I don't photograph this, people like my mom will think the war is what they see on T.V"
- Kenneth Jarecke, photojournalist.

He's someone whose footsteps I would love to follow.

Ah but the war will still be what she sees on TV.

It's better than nothing. It's a start.

There was a picture on the front cover of the Observer in the UK from that first gulf war which genuinely shocked me. Your post reminded me of it Jag. It showed the scorched remains of the massacre on the road to Basra. It may have been the same picture

Its an ironic war of image control. A successful mission accomplished now seems to require that any new popularly supported Iraqi government hold the image of "defeating and ousting" the US occupation. We need to maneuver so that we can be "beaten" by the moderate, democracy loving bunch rather than the radical, head chopping faction.

We need to maneuver so that we can be "beaten" by the moderate, democracy loving bunch rather than the radical, head chopping faction.

Thats an interesting angle

I thought so too. I should clarify that I read that somewhere I cant remember, It didnt originally occur to me.

That was the image as it appeared on the back of Adbusters. It was heavily repressed during the end of the war, ti was only a while after that it managed to get published. It's from the 'turkey shoot' US pilots ran on retreating Iraqi troops at the end of the war.

The guy who took it is a fucking legend, utter maverick with a long histroy of taking pictures governments don't want their people to see and risking his life to make sure they do. Damn fine article on this topic here

I have only ever considered myself a photographer - nothing more, nothing less. I went to war and thought of people and pain, not exhibitions and awards. I looked into people's eyes and they would look back and there would be something like a meeting of guilt. As a war photographer, you cannot escape guilt, particularly when the man in front of you who is just about to be shot appeals to you to help him.


Photography is not just about photographs; it's about communication. It's not about you. It's not about art. You're there to record. Sometimes, all too rarely, what you record is acts of human decency, of kindness and compassion - I have seen men cradling dying comrades and weeping. But that's the only side of war you will see that is beautiful.