G'day there.
May I preface what I am about to write, and you read, with my observation that true friendship is best shown when your best mate tells you things you may not like but which are intented to assist, not destroy.
Such is what I am now writing, for tonight, having watched the graphic, shocking and simply destroying newly released photos taken of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq being beaten, humiliated and killed by the US military broadcast on the Australian SBS televsion network, I am a stunned man.
American readers of this will not have seen them as apparently US papers and TV will not run them - and therein lies the real rub.
In the nation of the United States of America, and one of Australia's greatest allies (and vice versa), where free speech is enshrined in the Consitution, it seemingly does not, in fact, exist.
Watching them in horror, I was struck by the thought that not only have these people given Bin Laden and all others who hate America (and us with you) an almighty free kick but they also beg the question "are we really any better than Saddam Hussein?"
If I was an Iraqi watching them, I would emphatically say "no" - in fact probably worse, for we came there holding out the promise of better things for them and here we are repeating history.
My late father always told me that you never lowered yourself to other peoples standards- they came up to yours. Well, tonight Uncle Sam got right down there with the dirtiest and lowest of them and I am sure if the late Johnny Cash, one of my real life heroes, had seen them, he also would not have been singing about raising Old Glory!
Many Americans are puzzled why they are so much on the nose around the globe. To answer that, you need look no further than these pictures; George Bush, Sr.'s promise, and then reneging to the marsh Arabs of southern Iraq his support if they overthrew Saddam (a handly little aside that cost many thousands of lives) and duplicity in their handling of the whole Middle Eastern picture.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RedTard
I don't think our news should run those videos unless they also run those of our enemies chanting praises to Allah while slicing off the heads of our compatriots or tearing apart soldiers bodies while dancing in the streets.
2 - Bing
No shit huh Redtard. The ACLU and others on the far left get their panties in a bunch everytime a terrorist suspect is put in a cell without air conditioning or isn't served a second pice of pie with dinner while they are being detained but they don't say anything about muslim terrorists kidnapping and killing American civilians or muslims rioting and threatening to kill people over cartoons.
All you need to know about the ACLU is that they are more upset by Abu Gharib than the beheading of innocent civilians from different nations by muslim terrorists.
They are public enemy number one and must be stopped at all costs.
3 - Michael J. West
Bing, you're so cute. :-)
4 - Teutates
grab some popcorn and watch it unfurl...
5 - Dave Nalle
In the nation of the United States of America, and one of Australia's greatest allies (and vice versa), where free speech is enshrined in the Consitution, it seemingly does not, in fact, exist.
Free Speech includes the right not to speak, and if the media here in America chooses not to show those pictures, then that's their right. They have also refused to broadcast terrorist beheadings and even to show the offensive anti-Mohammed cartoons which were recently controversial.
What surprises me is that if you're so concerned about Americans seeing these Abu Ghraib pictures, why did you write this article without posting a link to the pictures, which are easily available on the web from a number of sources, including our good friends at Al Jazeera among others. BTW, a small gallery of selected pictures from this new release is here.
What you also don't make sufficiently clear is that these are NOT new pictures. They are pictures which have been in US Government hands since 2004 and were part of the evidence used to convict the Abu Ghraib abuses but they were just not released to the public at that time. They do not represent new or additional abuse, and while they slightly have different images - often the same scene from a different angle - they are not substantially different in content from the sampling of pictures previously released and are available now because of a US court ruling in November that all of the photos in evidence should be released to the ACLU who presumably then leaked them.
And here's the key point. This was an isolated case of abuse which took place when an officer of questionable judgement decided to put control of prisoners in the hands of a bunch of minimally trained hillbillys with almost no supervision. It was an aberration, and it was dealt with swiftly and harshly. The abusers are now in prison themselves.
Dave
6 - ss
AF:
Although you do make a very good point about our own 'sacred cows', and how we voluntarily censor ourselves where they are concerned, I think it might actually do more harm than good to air the photos in question in America right now.
I'm in the paradoxical position of having opposed the war at its onset (one reason being that I knew Abu Gharib, or something as bad, was bound to happen), but being of the opinion, now, that we shouldn't leave to soon. Not because I'm worried about victory, or honor, or American credibility, or any of that idiotic crap, but because I think we owe it to the Iraqis to make this thing work.
One thing you have to understand about the American people is that we're not bad, but we are used to starting in a position of great advantage, getting instant gratification, and then patting ourselves on the back for our 'resolve' and 'tenacity'.
We now find ourselves in a situation that our military can't resolve on it's own, Period, let alone resolve in one year or less.
People are disgusted, not (unfortunately) by the careless use of power that leads to these kinds of abuses, but by the fact that affecting positive change in the Muslim world may take longer than two years.
At some point the whole truth must be told, and America has to deal with the fact that the kind of power we have is not a toy to be played with for instant gratification, and if we use it that way, horrible things will happen.
At this particular point in time, I'm afraid we'd just use it as an excuse to abandon secular Muslims. And in Iraq, that'll just mean someone else takes over the torture chambers.
7 - ss
Well, Dave, I just said I'm against releasing the photos at this time in the U.S, and said why, but I do feel the need to make some possible corrections to your post:
The article put out on the AP wire that I read this morning claimed that the administration is appealling that decision and has not yet been released the pictures, to the ACLU or anyone else.
The article also said that there appeared to be dead bodies (plural), pools of blood, and prisoners performing sexual acts on one another.
Lastly, and this is important, the article also pointed out that none of the photos has been authenticated in anyway.
I still don't know how to post a link, but the adress is given below:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060215/D8FPKM5G0.html
8 - Teutates
WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan finally got her invitation to see President Bush again, but before she set eyes on him at the State of the Union address, Capitol Police removed her from the gallery overlooking the House chamber.
The offense: her shirt, bearing an anti-war message and other "unlawful conduct," police said.
Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was handcuffed and charged with unlawful conduct, according to Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. The charge was a misdemeanor and Sheehan was being released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.
Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to Tuesday night's speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.
Note: NEITHER GOOGLE NEWS NOR YAHOO SAID
What's the friggin shirt say!
I looged on to them frenches...it said 2249 dead, how many more~
9 - Setatuet
<img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f177/trementatis6/caravaggioArmor.jpg" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket">
10 - zingzing
the difference between a terrorist killing an american and the us torturing prisoners is that the us is a country, while the terrorists are just individuals. our army or marines or whoever is in charge at abu ghraib cannot continue to torture, and if they do, they better make damn sure they aren't caught doing so. plus, what about the numbers? how many american prisoners have been tortured? how many "enemy combatants?"
if you, redtard and bing, want them to show the beheadings, you better be ready for a long, nasty video of the us torturing their suspects. i'm sure there is plenty more footage of our wrongdoings than theirs. neither is better than the other, but what a few terrorists do does not reflect on all muslim people. what our armed forces do does reflect back on us.
11 - lumpy
last I checked, the terrorists were organized and claimed to represent the people of islam, plus they are funded and supplied by rogue states like iran. the terrorists and their backers should all be held accountable for their actiions.
12 - zingzing
sure they are organized, but the people of islam do not claim they are represented by terrorists. we represent these rogue states as engaging in illegal activity by funding terrorism. so, if our military tortures victims, then we are engaging in illegal activities as well, and supposedly these illegal activities are done, quite openly, in the name of the american people.
13 - Natalie Davis
If your military tortures, it is terrorist and terrorism is being committed in your name.
Mr. Nalle is correct, media outlets have the right to choose not to show the photos, which indeed come from the same batch as the ones previously published. However, they can choose to do their job and show the truth. Some of the pics are available through All Facts and Opinions; just scroll downward. Just because those atrocities are the work of agents of your government doesn't make them any less vile, unforgivable or terrorist.
14 - Dave Nalle
But remember, these actions at Abu Ghraib were actions of rogue government employees whose actions didn't represent the intent of our government any more than the actions of terrorists beheading hostages represent the will of the general Muslim population. Plus they were punished for their crimes. Can the same be said of major terrorist groups? Perhaps of Hamas who just got voted into power?
Think about it. The election of Hamas in Palestine would be the equivalent of electing Lyndie England president. But in fact, with a felony on her rap sheet she can't even run for office in most states. That's the key difference here.
Dave
15 - Anthony Fountain
Dave,
You wrote-
__Think about it. The election of Hamas in Palestine would be the equivalent of electing Lyndie England president. But in fact, with a felony on her rap sheet she can't even run for office in most states. That's the key difference here.__
If we are ever top break the cycle in the Middle East of attack,revenge,attack etc etc there has to be some "big men" attitude shown on both sides.
The reality is, as much as Israeli and American governents have thrown up their hands in horror over the Hamas win (and by all accounts it was above board), that they were , by all accounts,elected fair and square by the people- one of the hallmarks of democracy surely.
Now comes the tricky bits because just as a bolter of a team that has been carping for years about NFL Super Bowl suddenly finds themselves in "the big game" and with the football, their outlook suddeny changes and I tend to think that the people within Hamas with logic (and they are there), whilst still blustering about a lot of prior issues, will actually sit down and negotiate.
PROVIDED
They are not boxed in by Israel/US and whomever cutting off the money and simply creating even more mayhem.
To be honest, I think their "deal" that they will drop arms for a truce if Israel goes back to the 1972 (that the right date?) borders is not unreasonable (whoa Anthony, brace yourself for emails on THAT point!!) and just as the bloodshed in Northern Ireland came to a halt by both sides giving something, I'm willing to punt that Israel and Hamas, if the right people are negotiating without others sticking their noses in, might just cut a deal.
If that happens a lot of the heat goes out of the whole Middle Eastern conundrum, much of the reason for angst is removed from moderate Muslims (and they are in the majority, even if they don't capture the headlines) and the radicals are exposed for what they are.
Carpe diem
Tony
16 - Bing
If the American military is torturing known AL Queda and other terrorists in an attempt to gain information that could save the lives of American civilians it is not terrorism, it's just good strategy. Unlike Natalie and zingzing I have absolutely no regard for the terrorists that they American military may capture and interrogate. Thier lives are worth less than nothing in my eyes and I say have at em. You delusional, peaceniks can go on and on about your "we should be better than them" bullshit ideals but here in the real world sometimes you have to get ugly to protect yourself.
I don't believe that our military should be torturing civilians. I also believe that they don't. I don't think the US military would waste it's time with foreign civilians who don't have any information that could help protect us. I believe that when our troops capture and interrogate someone it is because that person is in fact a terrorist.
Lastly, if a person doesn't want to become a detainee of thee US military and all that that entails there is one simple thing they can do. Don't become a terrorist. Not too hard is it.
I have to go order my 'Guantanamo, Come for the Sun, Stay for the Interrogation" t shirt now.
17 - Natalie Davis
"But remember, these actions at Abu Ghraib were actions of rogue government employees whose actions didn't represent the intent of our government"
Says who? Dubya? Rummy? Rice? Sorry, I can't and don't take them at their worthless word. I see no difference between the invading Bush Gang and the violent Iraqi insurgents, who, like the Bushites, insist they are using violence merely to defend their own interests. They're all terrorists. A pox on all their houses.
Mr. Bing, you are delusional if you believe only terrorists reside within the walls of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. New US Army records show that a majority of detainees are "of no intelligence value" and/or "innocent" of terrorism - and that the DoD and the CIA struck an agreement to keep the existence and tragic fates of these poor souls -- known as "ghost detainees" -- under wraps. Of course, you likely will write them off as necessary collateral damage and I will hold that view in contempt.
NR Davis
18 - ss
How do you know exactly who is being captured and tortured?
I'd agree that it's probably terrorists in the overwhelming majority of cases, but there was an article posted on Desicritics about an Indian businessman being detained at the State of the Union because someone thought he fit a desription. He was released an hour later, but if he'd been put on a plane and flown to Syria, what legal channels could his family use to get him out?
This is especially touchy in Iraq, where the situation is more chaotic.
Again, I think the bad part about releasing the photos, right now, is they will probably just be used as an exuse to bail out on a situation we created. Also it's a bad time for publication because Iraq is trying to form a new government and they probably don't need gas poured on the fire right now.
But the attitude I'm seeing on this thread:
'It's okay if it's us and if anyone's wrong here, it's the ACLU'
If you seriously believe that maybe they do have to publish the pictures.
19 - troll
NRD - that report is a year old (3-10-05) so your use of 'new' is questionable
lack of outrage in the US is amazing
troll
20 - Natalie Davis
Actually, it was a mistake. Good catch, Mr. Troll, and thanks for pointing out my error. I have had the link in my bookmarks for quite a while - I found it pretty memorable - but tend to consider anything less than a year old "new."
21 - zingzing
you don't believe that we're torturing detainees, bing? what the fuck do you need? pictures!?
22 - zingzing
oh... you said civilians. okay. so torturing terrorists is fine, then... i don't really believe that's true, but forgive my knee-jerk reaction.
23 - zingzing
i think that torture is wrong, just because i also believe that what we do to them, they will do to us. (also, it's just plain nasty). it's a cycle of violence that will continue as long as we let it.
don't you see that this is how the middle east got the way it is today? that it's the way it's always been? violence is obviously not the answer there.
how many times can we hit our head against a brick wall? do you really think the wall will break before the skull does?
the election has passed and a government has been formed. things are still not under control in iraq. one of the main things that is causing this is our presence. we need to slowly back out, keeping things balanced as we do. after we are out, we need to let them try to run their own lives. in the interest of lasting peace, we should not, and cannot try to intervene in the middle east again. it's not our place. hell, even the resident israeli here says that we need to back off.
24 - Scott Butki
Salon is running the photos.
25 - Dave Nalle
i think that torture is wrong, just because i also believe that what we do to them, they will do to us.
This may be the most naive thing I've ever read. The kidnapping, torture and murder of western civilians in the middle east has been going on since long before the Iraq War and the War on Terror when no one was being tortured or even harassed by our side. The idea that if we started being nice to our prisoners a pattern of terror that dates back 30 years would suddenly stop is utterly ridiculous.
Dave