Subj : Re: BSG
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Ken McElhaney
Date : Tue Sep 27 2005 12:43:45

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape


TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote:
> Ken McElhaney wrote:
> >
> > TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote:
> > > Ken McElhaney wrote:
> > > > John I wrote:
> > >
> > > > > In other news, when I was watching 210, I was struck by the subtext
> > > > > surrounding the different ways the Fascist side treated their prisoner,
> > > > > versus the way that Galactica treated hers.  It seemed remarkably
> > > > > coincidental with the new revalations about the Abu Ghraib atrocities:
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/8ko7r
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From the HRW report (http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/):
> > > > >
> > > > > "....Detainees at FOB Mercury were held in so-called "PUC tents"....The
> > > > > torture of detainees reportedly was so widespread and accepted that it became
> > > > > a means of stress relief for soldiers. Soldiers said they felt welcome to
> > > > > come to the PUC tent on their off-hours to "Fuck a PUC" or "Smoke a PUC."
> > > > > "Fucking a PUC" referred to beating a detainee, while "Smoking a PUC"
> > > > > referred to forced physical exertion sometimes to the point of
> > > > > unconsciousness."
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, the crimes committed by the guards at Abu Graib are serious and
> > > > should be delt with severely.  As for the total scope of what they did
> > > > compared to what Saddam did to his people;
> > > > http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm
> > > >
> > > > ..is like comparing a drop of water to the Atlantic Ocean.
> > > > Ken
> > >
> > >
> > > It's one thing to stack up Saddam's crimes against the war's civilian
> > > casualties.  [Although time will tell how the Iraqis ultimately perceive
> > > the cost-benefit ratio, given how incompetently we've handled things.]
> >
> > Considering that 80% of Iraqis are either Kurdish or Shia, I think
> > they'll look at the cost-benefit ratio a lot better than you believe.
> > Was the US "incompetent"? Maybe.  Would the Kurds 'n Shia like to go
> > back to the good ol' days of Saddam? I highly doubt it.  Why not ask a
> > relative of someone killed by Saddam's troops if the totality of our
> > "incompetence" is on the same scale.
>
>
> Too early to tell.  We don't yet know the results of our incompetence -
> whether things will turn out OK or Iraq will end up mired in a bloody
> civil war, under Taliban-type rule, etc.

Too early to tell? The prison scandel has been public knowledge for
quite a while. The Shia usually protest in large numbers (as they did
in late 2003) when something upsets them.  So far, no large scale (or
for that matter, ANY major reaction) protests have happened.

It is true that it's too early to tell if Iraq will form a decent,
represenative democracy.  As for our incompetence, it is not as
important as the Kurds 'n Shia participation in the new government.

>
> > > But whatever Saddam did has no relation whatsoever to our treatment of
> > > prisoners of war.
> >
> > I point it out because it keeps getting lost in the arguement. That
> > somehow everything in Iraq was peachy-keen (like Moore's depiction of
> > Iraqis flying kites in his film "Farenheit 911") until we showed up.
> > Again, ask the Kurds 'n Shia (who rarely appear on tv since almost all
> > the violence is happening in Sunni territory) if the United States is
> > just as bad or even in the same ballpark as Saddam.
> >
> > > All we've done with regard to POWs is severely damaged ourselves -- our
> > > ability to sanction other countries for mistreating prisoners and our
> > > ability to object if any of our own soldiers are taken prisoner in some
> > > future war.
> >
> > Since we are fighting terrorists, do you think they'll negotiate over
> > treatment of prisoners? Do you think that those who only seek our
> > destruction will somehow be nice to captured soldiers?
>
>
> I don't mean the "War on Terror" or simply the Iraqis' opinion of us.
> Who knows what future situations we will find ourselves in.  The bottom
> line is that, worldwide, we no longer have the moral authority to
> complain about any country's treatment of prisoners, and that includes
> the treatment of our own soldiers if taken prisoner.  That's why McCain
> and others are so upset over this.

Since the future cannot be accurately predicted (as anyone looking at
sports bets can attest to), to say we no longer have "moral authority"
is a crock.  Perhaps to ourselves, but to think that if we did fight
North Korea for example that Kim Jung Il would either torture American
prisoners or not based on Abu Ghraib is silly to say the least.

> > > Be sure to read the URL John posted.  http://tinyurl.com/8ko7r. It is
> > > now obvious that this goes way beyond Abu Graib - that it was widespread
> > > and that the military is still trying to cover it up.
> >
> > At least its a mainstream paper this time.  And while the military may
> > be trying to cover it up, there appears to be NO evidence from the
> > article that this was standard policy or that anyone high up ordered
> > the mistreatment of prisoners.
> >
> > "Some soldiers beat prisoners to vent their frustrations, one sergeant
> > said,"
> >
> > That many of these incidents happened while soldiers were in an
> > unsupervised situation and most of them happened before Abu Graib
> > became public knowledge.
> > But again, in this country we have the press who digs deep, reveals
> > these mistreatments and brings them to light. Did the same thing happen
> > in Iraq under Saddam?
> > Ken
>
>
> I am in no way equating our country or our behavior with Saddam's.

Good. Thanks for recognizing that fact as it puts these events in their
proper place.

> I know from long experience working for the state and for large
> organizations that when higher ups tacitly condone certain behavior, it
> becomes widespread.  When higher ups condemn such behavior, monitor
> their staff, and do whatever they can to stop it, bad behavior is rare,
> reported by others, and can be curbed.

As is happening according to the very New York Times story that you 'n
John cited.
Unlike most countries, we own up to our mistakes in public.  Everyone
gets to hear about it and those found guilty go to jail. I think this
is a case of you 'n John wanting more people to be "outraged" but are
not.  Perhaps because every major conflict in American history has had
cases of prisoner abuse (Andersonville prison, Civil War) or the
killing of innocents (Me Lai, Vietnam).  Perhaps because Americans in
general understand that war is not clean or civil and can bring out the
worst in people.  Bush and his administration may say one thing, but
most people understand that such abuses have happened in the past and
will happen again. What separates the United States from most countries
is that we have an active, dillegent press the brings these incidents
to light.

> The only way to regain credibility and moral authority in the eyes of
> the world is to go after the superiors who allowed this to happen.  And
> that is not happening.

Considering the vast amount of crimes committed by every country during
warfare is at least equal, if not much greater than we have ever
committed (Germany, Japan, Russia, shall I go on?), I'm less concerned
with our "moral authority" standing as I am with staying on the path
that will eventually bring down Islamic-based terrorism.  The Kurds 'n
Shia who will run Iraq is a start in a decades-long struggle in this
conflict.  Even if we do everything "perfectly",it will take decades to
rid the world of the kind of terrorism.  

Ken

.