May 28, 2004
PRISONER ABUSED
It'll be interesting to see how little coverage this receives:
The military has revealed that one soldier initially listed as killed in action while riding in the same doomed convoy as former prisoner of war Jessica Lynch was actually captured by Iraqi fighters.
More than a year after the March 23, 2003, ambush, the military released new details on Tuesday to the family of Sgt. Donald Walters of Salem, Ore. On Thursday, the details were released to the public.
Walters "was held separately from his fellow soldiers and killed while in custody," according to a news release from the Oregon National Guard.
"He was executed -- shot twice in the back," Maj. Arnold Strong, public affairs officer for the Oregon National Guard, said during a telephone interview Thursday.
Perhaps Walters' captors hadn't been told of their need to comply with the Geneva Convention.
Posted by Tim Blair at May 28, 2004 05:37 PMDon't be silly Tim, everyone knows the Geneva convention only applies to the 3anglos fighting ugly regimes and Islamo-facism. Latham, Rudd, NYT, ABC, SMH, Age, assure all it is so, so there.
Now, when are the U.N.hugging leftoids to visit their bosom pals, Osama and AlQaeda ? What, never!
Posted by: d at May 28, 2004 at 05:42 PMTim, perhaps you could run one of your polls on how the major media rates this story.
Posted by: slatts at May 28, 2004 at 06:00 PMShooting him in the back - that's an outrage. Now if he had just been hooded, told he was going to be electrocuted, attacked with dogs, raped, forced to masturbate for the cameras, stacked in a pile of other naked prisoners, shoved underwater to the point of near drowning, deprived of sleep and food, held naked in complete darkness for days at a time, stomped on, beaten to death, had his corpse photographed with other soldiers giving a thumbs up, and then thrown from the back of a truck - that I could understand.
But shooting him? Those animals.
Posted by: felixrayman at May 28, 2004 at 06:49 PMfexlix,
As opposed to being burnt alive because a rumor that you might have been raped.
Honor, shame, rinse, repeat.
Felix is right. Getting shot dead isn't as bad as snapshots, gymnastics, bathing, jerking off, pantomime, exhibitionism, dieting and uninterrupted snoozing.
Seriously, though, I think you've here indulged in what is called conflation. This is the practice of intermingling facts, myths and any other phenomena with any conceivable usefulness to your 'argument' and creating a scrambled-eggs narrative whose function is both to deceive and give the conflater a sense of righteous omniscience. Hitler's Mein Kampf was built on lies and conflation of this kind, as are the 'works' of Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, John Pilger and Michael Moore.
What is true in your hysterically equivalentarian (a neologism I'm willing to claim) ejaculation is known by you how exactly? Ah that's right - you know because the Pentagon was in the process of investigating the allegations of prisoner abuse months before you and the other left-wing residents of Sesame Street started oohing and ahhing at photographs. It was publicised in the press at the time which meant proceedings, courts-martial and prosecutions were likely. That's one of the benefits of life in a democracy.
And you know Donald Walters wasn't abused before being shot how exactly? Where's your evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding his imprisonment? You don't have any, of course. You're assumming those lovely, gentle Iraqis treated him with great hospitality and compassion. And Nick Berg's death? I suppose you think that wasn't as bad as being barked at by a dog.
Saddam's men were animals - you just can't build up the minor scandal of Abu Graihb to rival the 500,000 people tortured, killed and buried by their regime. You'd like to but you can't. And that makes you angry doesn't it?
This is the modern left folks: they hate Jews, they deny the Kurdish/Marsh Arab/Iraqi Holocausts and they side with tyrants that make Franco look like Julio Iglesias.
Hey Felix you stupid twat, let me give you a choice: I will either shoot you in the head and kill you (no doubt after i have tortured you) or i will put a hood over your head, let my dog bite your leg, laugh at you, make you engage in "mock" sex with one of your pals, and then force you to watch me having sex with one of your guards. Your choice - what'll it be?
Posted by: hen at May 28, 2004 at 09:30 PMi think currency and hen have pretty much covered it.
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 28, 2004 at 09:58 PMSee the problem here is it looks a lot like trying to excuse and trivialise what happened at Abu Ghreib. Surely the case for war, if it is robust, ought to be able to overcome the inevitable messups?
More importantly, comparing it to what Saddam would have done means you are using Saddam's behaviour as the test of morality. It lets his behaviour become the minimum bottom line of behaviour -- and you can't both do that and argue his behaviour is so extreme he needed to be overthrown.
The recent treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghreib iks so appalling -- and worth attention -- precisely because the previous treatment of prisoners at the same place was so awful.
If you are going to excuse it, or minim ise it, then your whole case for war starts to weaken, because it leaves you in no better position than looneys who claim George W is just as bad as Saddam.
So Felix is right, really.
One reason to be very cross with whoever is responsible for what happened (whether the grunts who dunnit, or higher in the chain of command) is that it weakens the undemrines the whole war effort.
Silly Woman:
The Abu Ghraib(sp?) events are bad. I believe they have nothing to do with the case for war. What is the argument that they do? That these events, in some infernal calculus, cancel out anyone of the reasons for taking out Saddam Hussein and his dynasty? Please. These (the case for war and the prison scandals) are stand alone events that bear no relation to each other. The events are so appalling because the previous treatment was so awful? The logic (or rather, the lack of it) in that statement is so bad I don't even no where to begin.
In sum: the soldiers at Abu Ghraib acted against their orders and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The US Army investigated, tendered charges, and is prosecuting. Of course bad things are done by people; that's why laws are written prohibiting those bad things. That's why there is a justice system to investigate crime, try the accused, and punish if convicted.
Duh.
Yours, Mike
Posted by: Mike at May 28, 2004 at 10:53 PMthe treatment was appalling there, and the us soldiers who did it will be punished, unlike the previous tenants, who were promoted
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 28, 2004 at 10:54 PMSilly woman, make yourself useful and grab us a beer will ya?
While you sit there and embroil and equivocate the yanks in a myriad of morally questionable acts the Middle East is known for, your Masters in this aggressive cultural war, the French, sit around and do it in a much lazier way.
Their government policies led to 15,000 old people dying last summer. Where was that scandal of a film at Cannes? Old farts were DROPPING LIKE FLIES! Michael Moore, where are you? Heartless beasts and their policies KILLING INNOCENTS!!
Now, I know why the French get away with it. Cause this world is dominated by men who think like silly women, and they refuse to turn on their own - unless they are caught wearing the same dress at the Oscars.
And in such a world where there are no testicles, THE MAN WITH ONE SHALL RULE!!!!!!!!!!!
MARK LATHAM FOR UN CHIEF!!!!!
Posted by: Jamie at May 28, 2004 at 11:13 PMGet a grip, Silly Woman.
No one is trying to excuse or trivialise the guards' actions at Abu Ghraib. What you are seeing is the completely justifiable reaction to the media's shock offensive against the Coalition. After nearly a month of the same photos on the evening news day in, day out, some observers are starting to question whether the extent and severity of the crime warrants the torrent of negativity that is turning Abu Ghraib into Iraq's Tet offensive.
Just who is undermining the war effort? The people who are starting to politely speak up and say enough is enough? Or is it the media, carefully rationing out new pictures, videos and allegations every couple of days, and managing to turn this unpleasant, but relatively minor, incident into a more dangerous threat facing the handover of power than Sadr?
Posted by: Al Bundy at May 28, 2004 at 11:41 PMLooks like Silly Woman and felix have been well fisked!
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 12:44 AMI just wanna know where that picture of the guards standing over a beaten dead prisoner doing that 'thumbs up' thing is.
I keep hearing about it. But all I ever see are those other pictures. Surely that would be the damning one. Surely that would be the one they'd lead with. But all I ever see is Lynndie playing naked legos with a bunch of terrorists.
Posted by: jack at May 29, 2004 at 01:11 AMJack, if that picture exists, the Washington Post, NYT, Boston Globe and LA Times will release it the Monday before election day.
Posted by: Richard McEnroe at May 29, 2004 at 01:17 AMAl:
No one is trying to excuse or trivialise the guards' actions at Abu Ghraib
Actually quite a few people are, many of them posting in this thread, and including yourself in that very post.
Hen:
Interesting that you leave out the part about being beaten to death and then having pictures taken with soldiers mocking the corpse.
Jack
The thumbs up photo is here.
CurrencyLad:
As Godwin's Law has been invoked I see little point in responding to your "argument".
Hey Felix - "Beaten to death"? Really. By all means show me the link that has proof that US soldiers beat to death any Iraqi prisoner.
But let's for a second believe this lie. The US soldier who "beat to death" some terrorist scum in the AG jail will under UCMJ be court martialled and jailed for the rest of his life.
Now let's look at the Iraqi terrorists and murderers who have captured US soldiers and shot them, point blank, or civilians (American, Italian, it doesn't matter) and chop their heads off - what will happen to them? Nothing. No i take that back - they will be feted by the world press as "freedom fighters" and people such as yourself will get teary eyed thinking of their brave acts of resistance.
Like i said before - stupid twat.
Posted by: hen at May 29, 2004 at 02:40 AMThe Rodney King incident is proof that all cops are evil and abusive. The justification for maintaining a police force is "To Protect and Serve", but every day I hear about crimes being commited. Where is the enforcement of the law? Clearly, it is a failure.
Also, we should pull out of that quagmire known as California.
Posted by: Bob in Feenicks at May 29, 2004 at 02:44 AMNearly all of the posts here are attempts to justify what cannot be justified. As a people and a nation we are judged by how we treat others.
We should set the standard, not lower ourselves to the standards of terrorists.
Posted by: Easy at May 29, 2004 at 03:36 AMEasy meet Felix, Felix - Easy.
The USA and most of the Western world DOES set the standard that the rest of the world cd only hope to live up to - in Iraq there are approximately 150K Coalition forces - so far we have heard about less then a dozen idiots doing acts which are disgusting, stupid and will land them all in a military jail for quite some time.
Your trying to equate Allied forces with anyone is repugnant.
Posted by: hen at May 29, 2004 at 04:00 AMThe US soldier who "beat to death" some terrorist scum in the AG jail will under UCMJ be court martialled and jailed for the rest of his life.
Actually, one member of the military and one civilian contractor have been found responsible for murdering Iraqi prisoners so far, with around 3 dozen other cases under investigation. In the case of the member of the military, he was indeed tried, and found guilty. He served no jail time. In the case of the civilian contractor found responsible for murder, the military declined to prosecute, claiming lack of jurisdiction.
Now let's look at the Iraqi terrorists and murderers who have captured US soldiers and shot them, point blank, or civilians (American, Italian, it doesn't matter) and chop their heads off - what will happen to them? Nothing.
Actually the military claimed over a week ago to have captured four of the people responsible for Berg's death. Do you think they will receive greater or lesser sentences than the cases mentioned above?
Posted by: felixrayman at May 29, 2004 at 04:14 AMJust as we have John Doe on our forms to show how to fill them out, the Brits
used Thomas Atkins on theirs. We call our GIs Joe theirs are Tommys
Tommy
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
Actually, felixrayman, I like to say actually before I begin, so...
"Godwin's Law has been invoked"
Actually, quoting funny little wikipedia entries like you are a mental giant is quite tiresome. Really, the EU backs terrorism in Palestine, the media won't criticise it, it is on side with the "victim" strategy (Arafat is oppressed, he's originally born in Cairo: FREE EGYPT!!) there is no coverage of some of the videos I've searched for and downloaded - including, an 'American and Israeli informer' tied up in Gaza, a sign put on his chest in arabic (something to do with helping jews) and shot many many times with the camera rolling. It was very graphic. Go to Kazaa, they have many of these videos, I've sadistically enjoyed watching many islamic snuff films. Of course, the NYT and The Guardian won't publish this stuff first page, cause they can't prevent it. It will happen no mattter what they do. Now the yanks, they may be able to stop their abuse with enough media bashing...
Posted by: Jamie at May 29, 2004 at 05:12 AMAbu Graib is what it is. It happened. A nation was unified in its disgust and outrage. Offical justice will be swift; unofficial justice (scorn, humiliation in a post-military life) will be eternal.
I have extensive military history training,and ironically, have done primary source work on the treatment of prisoners in WWI and II.
the sum total of $50k and four years worth of research: prisoner abuse happens. a lot. less frequently on the US side, but it does occur.Worst offenders in order: Japs, Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Arabs (1948,-67,-73), Canadians, Israeli, French, Turks, British, Germans, Anzac.
There should be asterisks of course: as in many theaters and many campaigns, there was no emphasis on taking prisoners, away from some HumInt.
There was never a point in history where it really mattered, save for now. I can find no point in history where a society has been so revolted at the treatment of prisoners.
This is not an excuse, but simply acknowledging the human fraility that rears its head in life. Im rather surprised it has not happened more.
felix, old man, how about some links to those murder convictions? You are open and free with facts. Since you provided that photo, I'm sure you can comply.
And while you are doing that, try and think about this:
A man was shot in the back against all aspects of the Geneva Convention. You don't care because he was an American soldier (my conclusion from your attitude and attempts to change the thread).
A number of American soldiers are being tried under UCMJ for violations of the Geneva Convention. You brush this off because of the sentences you claim are being handed out. That this won't happen to the terrorists that murdered Nick Berg or the contract guards in Fallujah seems to be immaterial to you.
Finally, if you are concerned about light sentences for murders and rapists, what are you doing in your home land for victims rights? Anything? Or is this just a convenient excuse for you to shout the usual "I HATE AMERICA!" spew again?
Me, I just think you don't give a damn about anything, unless it supports your views against the war, for the terrorists, and against the USA and/or western civilization. In other words, you are a member of a Homo Sapiens subspecies known as left wing moonbats, who are closely related to the cheese eating surrender monkey family.
But that's just me. I'm sure you have a higher opinion of yourself.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 05:21 AMI don't think anyone here is excusing the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
A lot of this seems to be a fruitless quest for perspective and context. I know many on the left, for example, find these conceits to be applicable to, say, Palestinian suicide bombers.
The other desire is, having ackowledged that the abuses took place and that, indeed, trials and punishments are being handed down in full view of the entire world, a lot of us are ready to get on with things.
This is in direct contrast to the left, which - as is usuals - wants to talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk about it.
That's why the pictures are so convenient - the left has some graphic elements to help break up the text on their rhetorical PowerPoint presentations.
Posted by: Steve in Houston at May 29, 2004 at 05:22 AMAs always with the left, it is what is not shown, known, and discussed, that is crucial.
Set the agenda, and you already have your enemy on the backfoot.
The culture warriors know this well - the French have been riding like this since way back.
Posted by: Jamie at May 29, 2004 at 05:52 AMSteve in Houston said:
"That's why the pictures are so convenient - the left has some graphic elements to help break up the text on their rhetorical PowerPoint presentations."
LOL! And thanks for the correction -- I always thought the left preferred pictures because reading is something they prefer not to do. Oh, they can read, but they prefer to do so in private and wash their hands afterwards.
Jamie, good analysis. The French may have turned into cheese punching surrender monkeys, but they understand audacity and know how to take the initative.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 06:36 AMI never compared US forces with the terrorists. It looks to me like most of the posts here are doing that nicely. My point was that nothing that the terrorists do should be looked on as a justification for what WE do.
I see a lot of rhetoric here trying to make it seem like the abuses at Abu Ghraib are no big deal because the terrorists are doing worse things. Please keep in mind that the military has already admitted that some of the men in Abu Ghraib were there by mistake. Is it OK to mistreat innocents?
What about the standards of this great nation? Do we just pay lip-service to the ideals of the constitution? Or do we carry them with us wherever we go? Should we be a beacon, setting an example for the world, or is it OK to do whatever we want once we're outside US borders?
Abu Ghraib will be used to recruit the next hundred suicide bombers. We can't do the work for these assholes. We can't play into their hands. We have to prove ourselves in word and deed.
What happened to Sgt Walters is terrible. But I notice that everyone here seems to be quick to blame the media for not reporting it. Isn't it just as likely that the current admistration didn't want it known right away? I'm not claiming anything nefarious here, just that it's a possiblity, and there could be lot's of reasons.
When they catch those rotten sh*tbags who executed Berg, and Walters I hope that they get what's coming to them. I won't shed a tear.
PS-
I have 2 godsons in Iraq. I don't want to hear a damned thing about not being behind our troops.
and whilst we are on the subject of swee[ing this stuff under the carpet.
Where are the remaining italian hostages ?
Whilst "silly woman" points out our mea culpas, she misses the point that it is the frenetic reporting of these mea culpas in graphic detail which caused the death of Nick Berg and whose treatment was infinitely worse that having ladies underwear place on your head or being roughed up by the guys you had been shooting at with your Ak47s or worse.
free yourself from the rules of war. Become a jihadist and get Geneva protection.
Enjoy your freedom whilst those you fight have their hands tied behind their backs by their own stupid infidels !
Easy:
You miss the point. Most of the other posters do NOT act "....like the abuses at Abu Ghraib are no big deal because the terrorists are doing worse things. We see the acts by our own soldiers as being an aberration, not the standard behavior.
Unlike a lot of the left, however, I and others are willing to accept the responsibilities, and move to fix the problem. A lot of the left are beating their chests over and bloody over again about what US troops did, ignoring the response by the military, ignoring the courtmartials, ignoring the system in action. It's not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than what the residents of Abu Ghraib under Hussein had.
Standards are standards. If you insist that America should follow them, then why do you ignore and/or forgive the atrocities that Hussein was known to be committing prior to the invasion? I view that "ignoring facts" when condemning US soldiers as hypocrisy. I see the actions of the Hussein regime as that which we must not do, the darkness that we must avoid, not a bloody baseline standard.
So, in response to all of this chest beating, I ask: "Where the f**k were you when the Hussein regime was doing far far worse in the exact same facility?"
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 08:46 AMEasy:
You miss the point. Most of the other posters do NOT act "....like the abuses at Abu Ghraib are no big deal because the terrorists are doing worse things. We see the acts by our own soldiers as being an aberration, not the standard behavior.
Unlike a lot of the left, however, I and others are willing to accept the responsibilities, and move to fix the problem. A lot of the left are beating their chests over and bloody over again about what US troops did, ignoring the response by the military, ignoring the courtmartials, ignoring the system in action. It's not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than what the residents of Abu Ghraib under Hussein had.
Standards are standards. If you insist that America should follow them, then why do you ignore and/or forgive the atrocities that Hussein was known to be committing prior to the invasion? I view that "ignoring facts" when condemning US soldiers as hypocrisy. I see the actions of the Hussein regime as that which we must not do, the darkness that we must avoid, not a bloody baseline standard.
So, in response to all of this chest beating, I ask: "Where the f**k were you when the Hussein regime was doing far far worse in the exact same facility?"
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 08:47 AMSorry, Andrea, the server here blipped, and I wanted to be sure this one was posted. Feel free to delete the duplicate.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 08:48 AMWhoops, Easy, I forgot one point:
"Abu Ghraib will be used to recruit the next hundred suicide bombers. We can't do the work for these assholes. We can't play into their hands. We have to prove ourselves in word and deed."
I agree with you on this one. But what you fail to understand or appreciate is that those Who Hate America No Matter What (TM) would have found something else to screech about, and that they do not represent the entire Arab world. No amount of training, apologies, punishments, or self-immolation will change that attitude.
Further, the US military is made of human beings. Ask your godsons about that one. Mistakes will be made! The trick is to correct those mistakes and learn from them. The US military does try to do that, but has many eyes upon it if someone should screw the pooch, and then try to hide the evidence. That's called a self correcting system, with the military accountable to the civilian leadership. Thank God for the US Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
If you can't accept this simple fact, you are going to drive yourself nuts with worry. Focus on the fact that many people (Iraqis and non-Iraqis alike) appreciate the rebuilding in Iraq.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 08:55 AMYeah it's all that pesky media's fault. Really there's no problem in Iraq at all. It's all jim dandy, if only those lefties who have hijacked every major media outlet in the world would stop printing all that nasty uncomfortable negative stuff. How unfair it is.
Posted by: Miranda Divide at May 29, 2004 at 09:50 AMGood points Miranda, well said. I see you're starting to wake up.
Posted by: Al Bundy at May 29, 2004 at 10:04 AMAny foolishness can and will be used to recruit the next googol of suicide bombers. Felix's rhetoric is more manure applied to the fertile middle eastern soil where terrorists and suicide bombers are conceived, grown and harvested. The rhetorical campaign of deletion, distortion, denial, and change-of-subject is part of that recruiting campaign. The facts of what happened to the members of the 507th maintenance company detachment are what they are, the forehead bullet wounds of the dead GI's shown on al-Jazeera and seen around the world in April 2003, Lori Piestewa's dying agony as she was manipulated for a terrorist photo-op, the evidence that Jessica Lynch was sodomized after she was captured (that her Iraqi doctors denied even though they never bothered to check for - there is probably more terrorist video of that to be released in coming decades), and now the news that Sgt. Walters was shot in the back after being captured. Put all that on one side of the balance, and Abu Ghraib/Saddam Hussein/honor killings/etc. on the other side. Evaluate the balance, and watch out for the butcher putting his thumb on the scale.
Posted by: Tresho at May 29, 2004 at 10:07 AMHuh? US Intell thought the man was KIA at the scene of the ambush? They can mount a major rescue op for a winsome female private virtually live for the cameras, but they didn't notice if Sgt Walter's corpse was among those present?
'As always with the Right, it is what is not shown, known, and discussed, that is crucial'.
Can someone please tell me about the media coverage of the Marine who came back from Iraq and told reporters he shot prisoners of war in the back of the head? Or the newspaper which did not published prisoner abuse photos for weeks?
Come back crying to me when the American and Australian media quits being so bias towards our "heros". I'm sick of you morons complaining about 'liberal bias' in the media. You need to get out more.
And one more thing. Western civilisation is stuffed if all we can say is "Well, we torture and beat prisoners to death but at least we're not as bad as those other guys". Right-wing tards who use this argument are selling out the basic values of western democracies - you are traitors.
Posted by: dobaman at May 29, 2004 at 11:18 PMHere is a link for you and Mr Blair to stew on -
http://shock-awe.info/archive/000533.php
best quote from the comments - 'I'm betting this story won't get much play on FOX News, will it?'
Can you see the relevance to your current post and concerns about bias in the media? Maybe it would have made the mainstream news if there had been some pictures.
Mr Blair maybe in the tradition of FAIR and BALANCED Fox News reporting you could post up this as an issue?
Posted by: dobaman at May 29, 2004 at 11:29 PMWell, dobaman, perhaps because the story was clearly an obvious fabrication by those who know the guy, and if true the guy would be guilty of murder in the military's justice system. Or are you trying to use such stories to justify the real stories of American soldiers being murdered after capture, usually after a nice torture session. No panties on the head either. We're talking the cutting-fingers-off breaking-kneecaps kind.
I know a guy who claimed for a number of years to be a Navy Seal. He was pretty pathetic actually. The closest he ever got to being a Seal was working as a bouncer at a local nightclub. Should Fox News run a story on his numerous "war stories" too?
Posted by: Brent at May 30, 2004 at 12:44 AMdobaman:
An extract:
"Gunnery Sgt. Gus Covarrubias, 39, of Las Vegas pleaded guilty to two counts of making false official statements and was docked $1,500 in pay, said Marine spokesman Capt. Patrick Kerr of Marine Forces Reserve in New Orleans."
It's not Fox News, but it took me less than 5 minutes with Google to find several references to this puke.
If you are so concerned with bias, start with yourself.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 30, 2004 at 01:01 AMYou're missing the point I was making guys...I'm not saying I'm not bias - I am. Everybody is bias to some degree. Including the vast majority of American and Australia mainstream media - a nationalist, politically conservative bias. Its a bias which largely ignores stories such as your friend Gus and creates excuses for prisoner abuse. My point is Mr Blair is consequently a whinging fool to complain about 'liberal bias' in the media.
His attempt to link the obligations of the united states and Australia under the Geneva Convention with the possible war crimes committed by Iraqi soldiers is childish. Basically what he implies it is OK for our troops to committ crimes provided someone else does something worse. Good logic.
I wonder if the media (or the military) EVEN TRIED to investigate whether your friend Gus was 'just kidding' about murdering that Iraqi.
Update - Mr Blair has demonstrated his inability to hack dissent by bannning me rather than responding to my comment. Tim if you have a problem with alternative views WHY have a comments section?
Posted by: doba-man at May 30, 2004 at 02:37 PMdoba-man, you are a cesspool of logical fallacies. You have no solid facts, just rumours (most probably outright lies), which others like you have used to try and prove the point that you can equivocate the US with the enemy, or use it as proof of what really motivates the enemy. You are but another victim (or tool) of the mainstram media. The West are not cold-blooded killers, the other side is, this is a war against them that involves propaganda, which side do you think this media bashing of the yanks favours? (the NYT has put the prisoner story on its front page for 28 straight days. A total of 50 front page articles. That's almost unprecedented in journalism. Only Watergate rivals that kind of exposition [surprise surprise, also against Republicans in office]. The LA Times put Abu Ghraib on its front page 26 out of the past 28 days, running 42 front page stories on it.)
I state again:
Set the agenda, and you already have your enemy on the backfoot.
I would love to hear the Islamic guys tell mainstream media the truth (and the media print it 28 straight days in a row on the front page) that they want to murder/convert all infidels on the planet - and no matter what we do, how we come across, they will pursue it anyway. Contrary to the mainstream media and Osama Bin Laden, we do not wish the same of muslims. With coverage like that we might actually win this war before the end of the decade, instead of 40 years down the road.
Now, I would love to crank out a few verses with Michael Jackson singing We Are The World, but I don't believe there are people out there that would join in, coincidentally that includes some boys who hung out with Michael Jackson.
Posted by: Jamie at May 30, 2004 at 05:02 PMGod, dobaman, you miss the point!
1. The Geneva Convention is the standard of conduct for soldiers in war.
2. The soldiers in the Coalition generally, and the American troops in particular, are held accountable to the Geneva Convention through their legal system.
3. The Iraqi military under Hussein was not held accountable in any sense of the word. Not at any time, not at any place. This was true in Desert Storm I and the recent war.
4. The number of violations of the Geneva Convention -- and the seriousness of the crimes -- by the Hussein regime far outnumber what the US has committed.
5. In spite of the wide differences in the practical applications of moral and legal codes, the media chooses to ignore items #3 and #4, and hammer upon the world the seriousness of item #2, by repeating the same news over and over again. They take the "moral high ground" and accuse America as being a bad example, not worthy of leadership of the world, of leading other nations down the same road of corruption.
In short, the media perfers to sell bad news in lieu of good news, to sensationalize something that should be taken seriously so their ratings go up. That this is blatant hypocrisy (especially so with CNN who chose not to release stories just so their Iraq offices would stay open) is a convenient fact that they ignore.
This is the OJ Simpson trial all over again, Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 commission, Al Gore screaming in front of an audience. Entertainment over justice! Politics before morality! And it is twits like you that feed the fire. Congratulations, you are a sheep in the flock.
Oh, and your statement, "Its a bias which largely ignores stories such as your friend Gus and creates excuses for prisoner abuse" is pure crap.
First, that gunny sergeant lied. You don't accept the findings of the legal proceedings? There's a cover up in place? Too bad! Prove he didn't lie. Go over to Iraq with his story and dig up the evidence. Don't sit on your ass and post links to web sites that are little more than a cheap imitation of a bad tabloid (I went to that link, in case you didn't realize it). Stop whinging yourself.
Second, yeah, I've seen people try and excuse this away. They're wrong to do so. I've seen people (like you) get upset, even hysterical about it, complaining that we are corrupt and should go home. You're wrong as well. People have opinions, they can voice them. That doesn't mean they are right.
If you're going to have an opinion, at least have an intelligent one. Don't project your fears on to the rest of the world, we aren't your shrink.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 30, 2004 at 05:13 PMJamie, you whinge and whinge about the coverage that the war is getting now. But I recall the media reporting dutifully that there were WMD in every home in iraq. How are the media so totally bias against the war? They carried, uncritically, all the hype and lies/misinformation that lead us into the war. You are out of your mind if you think the media is flatly are anti-war. As it happens they are reporting what is going on in iraq... and being a war and all... it involves tons of people on both sides dying. Sounds like you don't like hearing about the effects of you political actions maybe? Would you prefer it all sanitised and wrapped in white linen? It only seems like it is anti-war to you because you feel guilty about everything going on there.
And as for your analysis about the number of front pages devoted to the iraq abuse scandal.... go fetch me some numbers on Clinton/Monica. Blowjob VS a liberal democracy santioning the torture and possible killing of people in violation not only of common decency but of internal and international law. Stop bleating you ambit bargain to try and gain more mindshare in the media. And you only quote a few rags there. Go fetch me the fox news coverage and coverage by radio pundits in the US. Classic right-wing whinge. It's just like the democrats trying to block 4 judges and the republicans having an epileptic fit over it.... neatly that they blocked way more. Your ambit bargaining is a fraud.
And "The Real JeffS" where do I begin? STILL harping on the "they did evil stuff so it justifies us doing some evil stuff too". We aren't talking about the parts of war you NEED to do. When you conduct war, civilians are always going to get caught in crossfire or misplaced missles etc. That is one of the evils you have to think about when you go to war. What isn't NEEDED is for a prisoners, who are already captured to be tortured and in some cases possibly murdered. There is no NEED for that - that goes way beyond the necissary evils of war and it goes way beyond some blow-job by an intern in terms of media coverage. Anyone, who tries to justify that, is wrong. And anyone who thinks the US will hold their military accountable to law (american or international) is simply naive and hasn't studied any history. You don't warrant any more of a response.
Posted by: sgt. failure at May 30, 2004 at 08:00 PMwill someone explain why WE have to fight by the rules of war, when our adversaries do not ?
will someone explain to me why we consider ourselves so morally superior that we are a hundred times more upset by the abuse of a jihadist prisoner, than when our civilians are kidnapped and brutally murdered.
Why is it not rascist to expect higher standards from our own troops than from the mud colored terrorist ?
Is that not the problem of the left - blind moral rascism towards Iraqi jihadists?
Has war ever been like a boxing match played by the marquess of queensbury rules ?
I cannot think of even one that has ever fought by these rules.
sgt failure:
You twisted, lying jerk! I did not say that the prisoner abuse was justified or justifiable. I still don't. You are indulging in personal attacks to ignore the facts that:
(a) The prisoner abuse is being addressed legally and publically, unlike other nations;
(b) The prisoner abuse, while both despicable and critical, is far outweighed by the good that is being done in Iraq;
(c) The same media that hammers this one single issue down our throats from their "moral high ground" was silent when far worse was happening in the same prison.
Don't like them facts? Too bad! That you ignore them simply speaks of your own bias. Your trollish behavior speaks further.
Nice blog name, by the way. One might say that it's the period to your rant.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 31, 2004 at 12:50 AM"But I recall the media reporting dutifully that there were WMD in every home in iraq. How are the media so totally bias against the war?"
How is reporting on something that all major nations presumed to be accurate, including France, part of bias? In every home? That sounds like a strawman if I ever saw one.
"They carried, uncritically, all the hype and lies/misinformation that lead us into the war. You are out of your mind if you think the media is flatly are anti-war."
So you can use that to slander the Bush Admin now, but it wasn't "hype" or "lies" back then, so the media were just printing what was happening with Colin Powell at the UN. Media flatly anti-war? I'll take that bet, exclude Fox News and some minority papers in America and you have yourself a punter. Hey, have Reuters called Osama Bin Laden a terrorist in hard news coverage yet? Instead of "militant"? And without the scare quotes that I use for militant?
"As it happens they are reporting what is going on in iraq... and being a war and all... it involves tons of people on both sides dying. Sounds like you don't like hearing about the effects of you political actions maybe?"
Selectively reporting what is going on in Iraq. I can't emphasise that enough. The NYT, ABCBSNBCNN cabal all chose carefully what they will focus on. Fox of course, is the only major outlet offering different perspectives, which it gets assaulted everyday for doing. The LA Times chief called their news psuedo-journalism - what's that quote, 'take a speck out of your eye, when I have a log in my own'? The LA Times redefines pseudo-journalism.
Sounds like you don't want people questioning the complimentary views of your own politics in the mainstream media?
Remember, media is supposed to be the traditional check on government, when I see it celebrating expansion of government programs it loses its credibility and reason for existence. It has become a tool for one side of government at the least - the big governnment side.
"And as for your analysis about the number of front pages devoted to the iraq abuse scandal.... go fetch me some numbers on Clinton/Monica. Blowjob VS a liberal democracy santioning the torture and possible killing of people in violation not only of common decency but of internal and international law"
Clinton/Lewinsky - we knew for a fact that scandal went RIGHT TO THE TOP. It wasn't in the middle of a war that we can't afford to lose... oh, wait a minute, Clinton did try to start one the day before he was to be impeached, didn't he?
That scandal kinda highlights for me what was on Clinton's mind, I mean, how did Al-Qaeda believe it could get away with 9-11? Wasn't like Clinton scared them one bit, he was pre-occupied with himself, still is. Can't wait for the "legacy" memoirs...
"Classic right-wing whinge."
Classic Left-Wing Projectionism.
Posted by: Jamie at May 31, 2004 at 01:13 AMSince the media bias issue seems the order of the day... check this out
Posted by: doba/man at May 31, 2004 at 01:04 PMahh the amusment continues. I notice two of my attackers don't even mention the clinton/Lewinsky thing. And the third (Jamie) tries to claim that the clinton/Lewinsky thing went "RIGHT TO THE TOP", yeah well it appears that some of this abuse stuff goes up pretty high to a special access program in the pentagon, possibly to rumsfeld. That's pretty high if you ask me, pretty high considering Bush is standing behind him after it, that puts Bush in the picture as a person who said it's ok (after the fact) even if he didn't know at the time.
Quite asides from the fact that you avoid the gravity of the issue. One is consensual sexual conduct with the bad bits being; he was married, he abused a power position and then he lied about it. Versus the authorisation of the violation of geneva convention. Or in other words, an authorisation of torture. Even putting aside the lying about the threat ("imminent threat") that saddam posed (he is either lying or just a complete idiot, you have to pick one you can't avoid it) this is WAY biggerand, to-date, I would say has received LESS media coverage (and there has been no impeachment either) than the clinton stuff. So call me back in a couple of months more of non-stop Bush bashing and impeachment proceedings and tell me it's no fair. Until then, you ARE WHINGING. There is no two ways about it, it is out and out whinging when you compare the two.
Second, you all try and give a sense that there is a deadly emergency like we are at war with some sort of equal partner. We are not, even if we "lose" in iraq and it subsequently becomes Iran v.2 how does that affect american power? It's not like WWII Britain where if they failed they were going to be DEFEATED, it's a bunch of religious loonies forming a network with no states backing it. Even in WORST case where they let off a nuke in major american city and release a biological virus
America would be far from defeated. It would be far from the kind of odds faced by Britian in WWII.
Until such a time as the West is in danger of being defeated completely by an enemy you can take your "we need to torture people and violate international law" arguments and put them in the chiller for a later date. Yes it is damned wrong, and yes the investigations are very weak, only the bottom guys are being charged and a full investigation - right to the top - should be mounted. Why? Because that is the very difference between "us" and "them" is that we are the good guys, we believe in the rights of the individual and democracy. If you go and torture some guys, you are no better than them. The whole point of the war is that we are better than saddam and his freakin buddies.
Militarily, give or take, the west can crush any middle eastern state. America has broken a sweat economically, but it's not like it was hard (insert conscription, food rationing, war economy) to beat iraq. Billions and Billions of dollars yes, but the point is this isn't total war, it's war, but it isn't total war. Therefore we should stick to the very ideals we are fighting to defend, democracy and liberty.
If you aren't in it for democracy and liberty what are you in it for?
Are you going to go with the loonie left and say it's about oil? Hell no.
Are you going to go with the left and say it's misguided? I can see both sides. I personally think it was misguided re: WMD.
Going to go with the right and say it's about liberty and democracy? I didn't want us to go in for various reasons, but seeing as we are there, we may aswell ACT LIKE WE BELIEVE IN THE STUFF WE ARE KILLING PEOPLE OVER.
Deal with it, the WMD argument whether is was a lie or not is in ruins. The only other argument you have for being there is the liberty and democracy argument. So you can't weasle out and say that doesn't apply when prisoner torture goes down. In all fairness there has to be an investigation and media attention of proportional magnitude to other issues. The issue I chose to compare it to is the clinton blowjob, and when you compare it there you guys are just having a cry. simple as that.
Posted by: sgt. failure at May 31, 2004 at 02:01 PMUhhh... "sgt. failure" (does your name refer to your failure to comprehend reality?), there has been an investigation of the Abu Ghraib tortures. That's why all this came to light, dumbass. All the media posturing is after the fact -- which makes all the carrying on by the Carin' 'N' Cuddlin' media mavens look doubly ridiculous. The media chose to sit on the photos for months, apparently so they could unearth them later and pretend to be shocked, yes shocked! by such dastardly goings-on. Which had been known about for months.
And there is hardly a connection between Clinton getting his knob polished by a willing intern and depraved activity by some ill-supervised subordinates, except in the minds of busy conspiracy bees like you. Maybe Monica Lewinsky, in thrall to her lizardoid overlords, masterminded the whole thing!
More of your stupidity:
Even in WORST case where they let off a nuke in major american city and release a biological virusUh huh. I remember reading in history books how London was obliterated by weapons even worse than nuclear bombs and biological agents in World War 2, weapons so horrible and awful that even to this day they are never named. Yet somehow Britain bounced back, only to pay in the horrid form of mutants spawning the New Romantic movement.
America would be far from defeated. It would be far from the kind of odds faced by Britian in WWII.
And -- oh, let's confront the big one:
Even putting aside the lying about the threat ("imminent threat") that saddam posedOh, you had to go and do it -- you had to jump into that briar patch. Here is the transcript of the so-called "imminent threat" speech. I fail to find anything untoward in this speech, such as a claim that Hussein had a nuke poised and ready to launch at New York City. I can only think that either the speech was too difficult for you to understand (remember, this is Dumbya Bush who supposedly speaks in small, simple sentences using kindergarten-level words) or you have simply decided that Hussein was a gentle lamb-farmer who collected pretty metal cylinders and colorful chemical solutions to show his friends, and that the killing of Kurdish villagers by chemical agents was the result of an unfortunate plastic-factory accident.
Poor sgt. failure and the rest of you; you have had to eat crow and you find it not to your taste.
seeing as we are there, we may aswell ACT LIKE WE BELIEVE IN THE STUFF WE ARE KILLING PEOPLE OVER.You could be an example of this, you know. So far I don't see that you give a rat's ass about "believing" anything, except your need to shriek and whinge that we haven't made a Paradise in the Iraqi desert.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 31, 2004 at 03:13 PM