Subj : Re: BSG
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Ken McElhaney
Date : Tue Sep 27 2005 23:00:26

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape


John Iwaniszek wrote:
> 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.  "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.
> >
> >
> >> 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.  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. 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, 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.
> >
> >
> >>>>> 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.
> >
> >
> >>>>> 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.
> >
> >
> >>> 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.  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).
> >
> >
> >>> 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. 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> Shorter Ken: "We still aren't as bad as the Nazis."  What a moron.

Shorter John: "If you disagree with anything I say, I will call you
names."


> My Lai.  504 subdued and unarmed civilians (women and children) gunned
> down systematically over a period of a few hours.  It was a war crime and
> it was a controlled setting.  The soldiers made a choice and they chose
> murder.  Not every American in attendance approved and, like at Abu
> Ghraib, there were some who were shocked by the barbarism and tried to
> stop it.  Good for them.  The ones who did it and the people who covered
> it up and make excuses for it are criminals.

And you assume that they won't be punished? Why? 

Ken

.