Subj : Re: BSG To : alt.tv.farscape From : Ken McElhaney Date : Tue Sep 27 2005 22:57:39 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote: > Ken McElhaney wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Huh? I never argued that the prison scandal will tip Iraqi opinion one > way or the other. And since that is what really matters, 80% of the Iraqi population seeing the Abu Ghraib scandel as not being important enough to warrent massive protests. > "Too early to tell" refers the incompetent way we > have run this war and the resulting potential for bad outcomes (see my > next new paragraph below). The prison scandal is a separate issue that > really has little to do with Iraq. That I would agree. > > > 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. > > The type of democracy is the least of my worries. > > The incompetence I refer to are all of our missteps - lack of sufficient > troops, lack of planning for "nation building," etc. that has resulted > in the massive increase in insurgents (now estimated at 18,000) and > foreign fighters (now estimated at 900), etc. Which shows that the foreign fighters and terrorists recognize that Iraq becoming a democracy is something they want to prevent at all costs. > There may come a day when > the average Iraqi feels that the slaughter of innocent civilians by the > insurgents and foreign fighters and the general chaos in Iraq makes life > as miserable as it was under Saddam. Oh puh-leeeeze! These terrorists are concentrating their efforts against Sunnis to keep them from participating in the new government. So far, the Kurds have been vitually left alone and only random attacks against the Shia in Basra. And since the Kurds 'n Shia represent 80% of the population, I doubt that any of them will wish for the days when Saddam was in power and killing hundreds of thousands of their people. > And if the worse case scenario > comes true - if Iraq ends up mired in a civil war and the entire region > destabilizes (e.g., Iran steps in to help the Shia, The Iran/Iraq war proved that the Shia in Iraq wanted nothing to do with the Iranians. With Saddam on the ropes, the Shia remained with the Iraqi army, even though they had plenty of opportunities to switch sides. > Syria steps in to help the Sunnis. the Kurds secede and Turkey goes after them, etc.) > everyone will regret that we ever went after Saddam. If instead Iraq > ends up a stable country, you'll be right and my worries will have been for > naught. But we don't know yet. This assumes of course that we completely bug out and leave the job unfinished. It also assumes that the tens of thousands of Kurd and Shia militia, who so far have not participated in quelling the terrorists in Bagdad and other Sunni controlled areas are not unleashed and allowed to participate in the fighting...in case we do leave. And it assumes that the Turks, who want no Kurdish state in their territory, would be dumb enough to enter Iraq and go after the Kurds there instead of bypassing them and going straight into Sunni controlled areas to crush the terrorist cells (as they once offered to do), allowing the Kurds to remain a part of Iraq proper. And it assumes that the Syrians, whose armed forces would have to cross hundreds of miles of desert to reach the Sunnis, could possibly maintain a decent supply line to fuel their forces. That's a lot of ifs, indeed. > > > > > 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. > > > I never said that our moral authority would stop evil countries from > mistreating prisoners. Losing our moral authority means we can no longer > credibly complain about/criticize the way other countries treat > prisoners of war. Could you please cite one example of where our "moral authority" has successfully stopped prisoner abuse? Did our "moral authority" under Bush 41 or Clinton successfully stop Saddam from killing Kurds 'n Shia? > > > > > > 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. > > > It should have been evident to you from my first post. I said from the > beginning that the prison scandal should not be compared to Saddam's > behavior, that the danger of the prison scandal was to *us*. The only > thing I have equated with Saddam's behavior is the outcome if Iraq falls > apart, which will result in more misery for Iraqi civilians. Since most Iraqi civilians are not the targets of the terrorists, I fail to see how their "misery" will lead them to "fall apart". Again, this assume that we leave Iraq without finishing the job. Which means it's even more important to stay and support the Kurd and Shia majority. > > > > 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. > > You're missing my point. I don't want more people to be outraged. I want > the *superiors* who allowed this to happen to be punished, not just the > lowly grunt who was doing what he/she was allowed to. How do you define *superiors*? Are you talking about the Captains 'n Colonels who were in charge of those portions of the facilities? Or do you want to go higher up? Say the General who was in charge? Or is that not good enough? > And I don't > equate what happens in a prison (an environment we have control over) > with things that happen out in the field (e.g., Mi Lai). Funny, the Mi Lai massacre was a result of superiors allowing such an event to happen, even if they didn't order it. In war, all sorts of terrible things happen in all types of environments, including prisons. > > > > 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 > > Yes, all sorts of bad things happen in the chaos of war. Thank you. > But as I said > above, the one place where we actually have the power to stop those > things from happening is in the controlled atmosphere of a prison. This assumes that prisons in war zones operate just like prison stateside. Lack of command and control leads to abuses and violations in any war environment, including prisons. I trust that all those directly involved will be punished in some form. Wasn't the general in charge of Abu Ghraib relieved of her command? Ken .