Appalling new prison photos!!! - DPChallenge Forums

06/17/2004 03:24:43 PM · #351

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Russell2566:
From the talk of the dems you'd think we were actualy torturing the prisoners...

Embaressing and humiliating yes, torture, NO!

So you figure those wires attached to the prisoner standing on the bench were just to help him stand up? I kind of thought it was evidence of torture...

My poor little dictionary says that torture is
"1.a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish."
I find it difficult to believe that a few wires and a hood rise to the level of causing "severe" or "excruciating" pain.
I don't agree with the abuse by any means, but it doesn't rise to the level of "torture" in my book.

Ron

MadMordegon

06/17/2004 07:14:56 PM · #352

jesus christ people. it dosnt matter what YOU think the fine line between tourture and abuse is.

THE REST OF THE WORLD SAW THIS:

call it what you like, but its not pretty 1
call it what you like, but its not pretty 2
call it what you like, but its not pretty 3

06/17/2004 07:44:43 PM · #353

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

You, like most of the media, forgot to give equal exposure to the photos of charred bodies dragged around by cars and hanging from bridges. The rest of the world should have seen that too.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/17/2004 07:55:34 PM · #354

Originally posted by frychikn:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
jesus christ people. it dosnt matter what YOU think the fine line between tourture and abuse is.

THE REST OF THE WORLD SAW THIS:

call it what you like, but its not pretty 1
call it what you like, but its not pretty 2
call it what you like, but its not pretty 3

You, like most of the media, forgot to give equal exposure to the photos of charred bodies dragged around by cars and hanging from bridges. The rest of the world should have seen that too.

Not to excuse the atrocities on either side, but we invaded their country; an as such they have somewhat more a defensible position since they are actually defending themselves from attackers.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/17/2004 08:00:47 PM · #355

Originally posted by RonB:

I don't agree with the abuse by any means, but it doesn't rise to the level of "torture" in my book.

Ron

That would be the the Autobiography of Torquemada, I presume ... is your favorite musical Marat/Sade?

MadMordegon

06/17/2004 08:02:58 PM · #356

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by frychikn:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
jesus christ people. it dosnt matter what YOU think the fine line between tourture and abuse is.

THE REST OF THE WORLD SAW THIS:

call it what you like, but its not pretty 1
call it what you like, but its not pretty 2
call it what you like, but its not pretty 3

You, like most of the media, forgot to give equal exposure to the photos of charred bodies dragged around by cars and hanging from bridges. The rest of the world should have seen that too.

Not to excuse the atrocities on either side, but we invaded their country; an as such they have somewhat more a defensible position since they are actually defending themselves from attackers.

exactly.
not to mention, we are suppost to be a 'liberating' force and we are suppost to uphold our great 'american morals'.

also, please dont confuse 'terrorists' with 'freedom fighters'. if the united states was being invaded and we were sabatoging the invading force every chance we got would we be terrorists?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/17/2004 08:15:43 PM · #357

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

also, please dont confuse 'terrorists' with 'freedom fighters'. if the united states was being invaded and we were sabatoging the invading force every chance we got would we be terrorists?

We'd be insurgents ... as are these folks. Terrorists strike randomly at civilian targets to inspire a culture of fear among a populace; insurgents strike deliberately at logically specific targets of foreign origin.

06/17/2004 08:16:50 PM · #358

Some excerpts from an article at the HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH web site:

"The United States is setting a terrible example in Afghanistan on detention practices," said Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch. "Civilians are being held in a legal black hole â�� with no tribunals, no legal counsel, no family visits and no basic legal protections."

"The 59-page report, "Enduring Freedom": Abuses by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, is based on research conducted by Human Rights Watch in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2003 and early 2004. Human Rights Watch documented cases of U.S. forces using military tactics, including unprovoked deadly force, during operations to apprehend civilians in uncontested residential areasâ��situations where law enforcement standards and tactics should have been used. Afghan forces deployed with U.S. forces have also mistreated persons during search and arrest operations and looted homes."

"The report also details mistreatment in U.S. detention facilities. Released detainees have said that U.S. forces severely beat them, doused them with cold water and subjected them to freezing temperatures. Many said they were forced to stay awake, or to stand or kneel in painful positions for extended periods of time."

"There is compelling evidence suggesting that U.S. personnel have committed acts against detainees amounting to torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment," said Adams."

"Human Rights Watch said that many of the violations documented were reported in non-combat situations, and emphasized that many abusesâ��especially arbitrary arrests and mistreatment of detaineesâ��were inexcusable even within the context of war."

06/17/2004 08:37:51 PM · #359

A PENTAGON report from early 2003 argues that torture is legal as it pertains to the war on terror.

Article HERE.

"A classified Pentagon report, providing a series of legal arguments apparently intended to justify abuses and torture against detainees, appears to undermine public assurances by senior U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, that the military would never resort to such practices in the â��war on terrorism.â��

"Excerpts of the report, which was drafted by Defense Department lawyers, were published in the Wall Street Journal on June 7. The text asserts, among other things, that the president, in his position as commander-in-chief, has virtually unlimited power to wage war, even in violation of U.S. law and international treaties. (A full copy of the report is available at //online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/military_0604.pdf)."

â��The breadth of authority in the report is wholly unprecedented,â�� says Avi Cover, a senior attorney with the U.S. Law and Security program of Human Rights First, formerly known as Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. â��Until now, weâ��ve used the rhetoric of a president who is â��above the law,â�� but this document makes that (assertion) explicit; itâ��s not a metaphor anymore,â�� he added. While it is unknown whether Bush himself ever saw or approved the report, it was classified â��secretâ�� by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld on Mar. 6, 2003, the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to the Journal."

06/17/2004 08:54:03 PM · #360

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
also, please dont confuse 'terrorists' with 'freedom fighters'. if the united states was being invaded and we were sabatoging the invading force every chance we got would we be terrorists?

We'd be insurgents ... as are these folks. Terrorists strike randomly at civilian targets to inspire a culture of fear among a populace; insurgents strike deliberately at logically specific targets of foreign origin.

Oh, you mean that if WE were invaded, we would be "insurgents" if we attacked the Police Stations, the Power Plants, the Water Companies, that were being run by OUR people - just like the Iraqi "insurgents" are doing. They certainly can't be accused of striking CIVILIAN targets like the Oil Pipelines and Power Lines. And, even if they were, those must be of "foreign origin".
On the contrary, it certainly sounds like they are terrorists, since, by your own definition, those kinds of attacks are meant to inspire a culture of fear among a populace. If I were a native ( non-foreign) Iraqi policeman, member of the Iraqi military, or member of the incoming Iraqi government, I'd be experiencing some fear.

Ron

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

06/17/2004 08:58:53 PM · #361

You have 150,000 people over there that are trying to do the right thing. 10 people that were complete a**holes get all the attention. No doubt what they did was horrific, but the press only wants to point out the treatment at the prison.

Why dont they show the opening of schools, the closing of the torture camps, the hoping and praying that one day Iraq people will be able to be a free nation that is not under a ruler that murders and turtures its own people.

I guess that would just be boring.

Message edited by author 2004-06-17 21:01:42.

06/17/2004 09:06:05 PM · #362

Originally posted by GeneralE:

You contradicted yourself quite nicely here. First you say "not to excuse the atrocities on either side", then you turn right around and excuse the atrocities of the Iraqui terrorists. It sure took a lot of guts to defend themselves from civilians who were attempting to safeguard food shipments to other civilians. What a threat!

06/17/2004 09:11:35 PM · #363

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
also, please dont confuse 'terrorists' with 'freedom fighters'. if the united states was being invaded and we were sabatoging the invading force every chance we got would we be terrorists?

We'd be insurgents ... as are these folks. Terrorists strike randomly at civilian targets to inspire a culture of fear among a populace; insurgents strike deliberately at logically specific targets of foreign origin.

Oh, you mean that if WE were invaded, we would be "insurgents" if we attacked the Police Stations, the Power Plants, the Water Companies, that were being run by OUR people - just like the Iraqi "insurgents" are doing. They certainly can't be accused of striking CIVILIAN targets like the Oil Pipelines and Power Lines. And, even if they were, those must be of "foreign origin".
On the contrary, it certainly sounds like they are terrorists, since, by your own definition, those kinds of attacks are meant to inspire a culture of fear among a populace. If I were a native ( non-foreign) Iraqi policeman, member of the Iraqi military, or member of the incoming Iraqi government, I'd be experiencing some fear.

Ron

If we were being invaded we would have to do more than just attack police stations, power, water, and phone companies, and our own industries in order to be full-fledged red-blooded "insurgents". We would also have to bitch and whine about "no electricity, no security, no jobs, etc'."

06/17/2004 10:34:46 PM · #364

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Not to excuse the atrocities on either side, but we invaded their country; an as such they have somewhat more a defensible position since they are actually defending themselves from attackers.

And dragging dead, charred bodies thru the streets, and hanging them from bridges is a defensive maneuver? Sorry, but I don't understand how that works.

Ron

06/17/2004 11:13:54 PM · #365

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Not to excuse the atrocities on either side, but we invaded their country; an as such they have somewhat more a defensible position since they are actually defending themselves from attackers.

And dragging dead, charred bodies thru the streets, and hanging them from bridges is a defensive maneuver? Sorry, but I don't understand how that works.

Ron

Ron, I think that the 4 american contractors that got killed brutally were victims of a mob mentality that got out of hand and because of anti coalition/American sentiment about their country being occupied by a foreign power.

The American abuses and torture, on the other hand, are more wide spread and systematic.

Message edited by author 2004-06-17 23:17:38.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/18/2004 01:34:01 AM · #366

Originally posted by RonB:

No, I guess you've never heard of Americans ever committing atrocities under any circumstances, so those little incidents must have slipped under your radar ...

The incidents you mention would never have happened if we had not invaded Iraq. That certainly suggests a cause/effect relationship to me ... most helpful when assessing culpability.

Message edited by author 2004-06-18 01:34:21.

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/18/2004 01:53:22 AM · #367

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=GeneralE]Not to excuse the atrocities on either side, but we invaded their country; an as such they have somewhat more a defensible position since they are actually defending themselves from attackers.

And dragging dead, charred bodies thru the streets, and hanging them from bridges is a defensive maneuver? Sorry, but I don't understand how that works.

Ron

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Oly, this isn't "mob mentality". Mob mentality is when a soccer game gets out of hand and rival teams fight each other, or when a riot breaks out and stores are destroyed or cars over-turned, etc., it's not when people are murdered, burned, dragged through streets, and then hung from brides. I would, instead, call that a barbaric culture of sub-humans.

There is no way anyone can justify it or make believe that they just got a little out of hand, or a "mob mentality" took over.

The fact of the matter is, Iraqis don't appreciate what we are doing for them there. We are wasting too much money on this hopeless country. Only 2% of the people there believe we are liberators and the rest hate our guts.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The American abuses and torture, on the other hand, are more wide spread and systematic.

Oly, we did NOTHING to those Iraqi prisoners in comparison to what happens to an American soldier if he/she gets captured. I can't believe you are even making a comparison or calling this "more wide spread and systematic". I'll never understand how some people are so undermining to their own country to make a statement like this.

06/18/2004 09:06:16 AM · #368

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Ever hear of the KKK, or "Strange Fruit", or the case of Mr. Byrd (I think it was his name) in TEXAS, dragged to death behind a pickup truck "for fun" (Arabs no not have a monopoly on decaptation, merely use the time-honored methods)? My Lai ring a bell? Napalm? That's burning, jellied gasoline for those of you too young ... it sticks to your body and burns the flesh off. We dropped plenty of it on Viet Nam ...

No, I guess you've never heard of Americans ever committing atrocities under any circumstances, so those little incidents must have slipped under your radar ...

The incidents you mention would never have happened if we had not invaded Iraq. That certainly suggests a cause/effect relationship to me ... most helpful when assessing culpability.

Actually you discredit me. I have, indeed, heard of all the things you mentioned. But I do not, and, in fact, did not claim that any of them were defensive in nature.
I have mentioned several instances, so I'm a little confused which of them you think would never have happened. Let me guess. The incidents of fingers being chopped off would have happened, and indeed did happen. The rapes would have happened, and indeed did happen. The people being tossed off buildings would have happened, and indeed did happen. The coalition workers being murdered, burned, dragged through the streets and hung from bridges would not have happened - in IRAQ. But American civilians, and indeed civilians of other nations, have been savagely murdered by Islamic terrorists in countries that we have NOT *invaded* ( e.g. Indonesia ) - so while this particular incident may not have occurred, that's not to say that it was ONLY due to the fact that we *invaded* Iraq. If you care to remember, the 9/11 attacks, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc. all happened BEFORE we *invaded* Iraq. So given that you feel that a cause/effect relationship is most helpful when assessing culpability - what would you say was the "cause" of those attacks?

Ron

06/18/2004 10:23:18 AM · #369

Originally posted by RonB:

But American civilians, and indeed civilians of other nations, have been savagely murdered by Islamic terrorists in countries that we have NOT *invaded* ( e.g. Indonesia ) - so while this particular incident may not have occurred, that's not to say that it was ONLY due to the fact that we *invaded* Iraq. If you care to remember, the 9/11 attacks, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc. all happened BEFORE we *invaded* Iraq. So given that you feel that a cause/effect relationship is most helpful when assessing culpability - what would you say was the "cause" of those attacks?

Ron

I would say, from the reading and studying I have done, that the causes of those attacks were:
1. Islamic militants were upset that there were military bases established in the holy cities of Medina and Mecca inside of Saudi Arabia.

2. That the Islamists are upset about the continueed support for Israel and that the Palestinian question and how they are treated is not being dealt with.

3. That Islamist have seen that many of the puppet leaders of their countries have been installed by the US for the purposes of allowing oil exploitation and giving contracts to the American oil corporations. The Shah of Iran, Sadaam Hussein come to mind. These leaders have brutalized and killed many of their own people.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/18/2004 10:33:49 AM · #370

Originally posted by RonB:

... If you care to remember, the 9/11 attacks, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc. all happened BEFORE we *invaded* Iraq.

So again, you (like the Administration?) are STILL trying to link 9/11 (and other unrelated activities) and Iraq ... Iraq did not sponsor 9/11, did not blow up the embassies, did not bomb the Cole.

Al Qaeda and almost all the 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi's ... why don't we attack the actual source of the problem?

I'm glad you are actually informed on the extent of atrocities committed by Americans ...

06/18/2004 11:27:28 AM · #371

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

As for #1 and #2, I am in agreement with you. Not that I think that it justifies their actions. And while #3 is perhaps the perception of many Islamists, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the leaders are "puppets" installed by the US for the purposes of allowing oil exploitation, etc. If OPEC sets the price / volume and we pay it, I don't see that as "exploitation". It is, of course, true that some Arab leaders have been brutal despots - but that is not a uniqely Arabic, or Islamist trait.

Ron

06/18/2004 11:34:14 AM · #372

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, I think that the 4 american contractors that got killed brutally were victims of a mob mentality that got out of hand and because of anti coalition/American sentiment about their country being occupied by a foreign power.

Oly, this isn't "mob mentality". Mob mentality is when a soccer game gets out of hand and rival teams fight each other, or when a riot breaks out and stores are destroyed or cars over-turned, etc., it's not when people are murdered, burned, dragged through streets, and then hung from brides. I would, instead, call that a barbaric culture of sub-humans.

There is no way anyone can justify it or make believe that they just got a little out of hand, or a "mob mentality" took over.

I'm not trying to justify the murders of the 4 American contractors. I agree that those brutal murders were barbaric...I'm trying to understand it. I do think that they were the result of a mob mentality and these types of mob situations can, and often do, result in death. For example, lynch mobs, vigilante groups, witch hunts and progroms. In this case, it was about the people angry and fed up with the American occupation of their homeland and the detention and torture of many innocent people, as well as, the military barging into their homes and being brutalized in their homes. The Red Cross has stated that 70% to 90% of those in Abu Ghraib are innocent.

So what's to be done about this "barbaric culture of subhumans," as you call it? Do you believe in genocide?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The American abuses and torture, on the other hand, are more wide spread and systematic.

Oly, we did NOTHING to those Iraqi prisoners in comparison to what happens to an American soldier if he/she gets captured. I can't believe you are even making a comparison or calling this "more wide spread and systematic". I'll never understand how some people are so undermining to their own country to make a statement like this.

I believe that the purpertrators of these crimes and human rights violations of torture are undermining our country, and democratic and humanistic ideals, as well as, destroying our good standing in the world. Democracy is built on permitting and even encouraging the criticism of one's own government and it's actions. Seymour Hirsh has published an article that has shown how systematic it is and how it goes up to high levels of government officials. You can read the article HERE.

06/18/2004 12:31:46 PM · #373

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
... If you care to remember, the 9/11 attacks, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc. all happened BEFORE we *invaded* Iraq.

So again, you (like the Administration?) are STILL trying to link 9/11 (and other unrelated activities) and Iraq ... Iraq did not sponsor 9/11, did not blow up the embassies, did not bomb the Cole.

Al Qaeda and almost all the 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi's ... why don't we attack the actual source of the problem?

I'm glad you are actually informed on the extent of atrocities committed by Americans ...

First of all, neither I nor the Bush administration ever made statements that attempt to link the attacks on 9/11, and/or the embassies, and/or the USS Cole, with Iraq.
Secondly, instead of relying on us to infer something from your post, why don't you just come out and say what YOU think is the "actual source of the problem" and just how you would propose we might best attack that source?

Ron

06/18/2004 07:43:27 PM · #374

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:
But American civilians, and indeed civilians of other nations, have been savagely murdered by Islamic terrorists in countries that we have NOT *invaded* ( e.g. Indonesia ) - so while this particular incident may not have occurred, that's not to say that it was ONLY due to the fact that we *invaded* Iraq. If you care to remember, the 9/11 attacks, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc. all happened BEFORE we *invaded* Iraq. So given that you feel that a cause/effect relationship is most helpful when assessing culpability - what would you say was the "cause" of those attacks?

Ron

I would say, from the reading and studying I have done, that the causes of those attacks were:
1. Islamic militants were upset that there were military bases established in the holy cities of Medina and Mecca inside of Saudi Arabia.

2. That the Islamists are upset about the continueed support for Israel and that the Palestinian question and how they are treated is not being dealt with.

3. That Islamist have seen that many of the puppet leaders of their countries have been installed by the US for the purposes of allowing oil exploitation and giving contracts to the American oil corporations. The Shah of Iran, Sadaam Hussein come to mind. These leaders have brutalized and killed many of their own people.

Military bases were never established within Mecca and Medina and you know it.

It's really too bad that islamic fundamentalists are upset with us because we won't let them destroy Israel.