Subj : Re: BSG
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Ken McElhaney
Date : Wed Sep 28 2005 14:10:39

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape


TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote:
> Ken McElhaney wrote:
> >
> > TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote:
> > > Ken McElhaney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote:
> > > > > Ken McElhaney wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote:
> > > > > > > Ken McElhaney wrote:
> > > > > > > > John I wrote:
>
> [much snipped througout]
>
> > > 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.
>
> Zarqawi is targeting the Shia.

For the past several weeks, suicide bombers have targeted Sunnis, not
Shia. I know this 'cause ABC leads off each newscast with the story.
Sorry, Zarqawi may include Shias in his efforts to kill every man,
woman, 'n child in Iraq, but the primary target has been Sunnis, not
Shia.  Otherwise, more bombings would take place well outside Sunni
territory.

> Here is a good article. The success or
> failure of the entire endeavor may hinge on whether we can stop him.

I guess killing Zarqawi's #2 man wasn't isn't considered progress by
your standards?

> Shame Rummy didn't listen 3 yrs. ago to the people who told him that
> securing the borders was of crucial importance.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9ynpk

And leaving Bagdad wide open?

>
> > > 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?
>
> I just said (see above), "I never said that our moral authority
> would stop evil countires from mistreating prisoners."

That wasn't the question, "Could you please cite one example of where
our "moral authority" has successfully stopped prisoner abuse?

I made no qualification as to what country it was, evil or not.  Again,
please cite one example of a country stopping the mistreatment of
prisoners because of our "moral authority".

> You can have a free for all or you can have rules (e.g., the Geneva
> Conventions).  Some countries will follow the rules, others will ignore
> them.  But if even a small number of countries observe them (for fear of
> war crimes trials, or that their own prisoners will be abused in
> retaliation) that makes life better for at least some POWs.



> If you observe no rules yourself, you've lost the ability to criticize
> or gain support for sanctioning anyone else's behavior. And then there's
> that little issue of what kind of country we want to be.

That certainly didn't stop the Japonese from torturing and killing
American prisoners.  The problem is,

> Rumsfeld said the treatment of Iraqi prisoners would follow the Geneva
> Conventions. However, at Abu Ghraib, they were told by their superiors
> to treat Iraqi detainees (70 to 90% of whom were later found to have
> been picked up by mistake, according to military intelligence) according
> to the Guantanamo Bay rules, not the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva convention applies to captured soldiers, not terrorists.
Are you sure that Rumsfeld was talking about "ALL" prisoners and made
no exceptions. Abu Ghraib was dedicated to prisoners suspected in
terrorist activities if my recollection is right and therefore, not
subject to Geneva convention rules.

> McCain, Warner, and Graham (all Republicans who have been in the
> military) think this is damaging the U.S. and worldwide opinion of us.
> And that it's simply wrong.  The White House disagrees.  What I would
> give to see a poll of the entire military on this matter.

> And the Army stalled on investigating Fishback's claims for *17 months!*
> until he went to Human Rights Watch and ultimately to McCain.

And now it's being investigated.  Meaning that the delay better have a
good explaination or those involved will be punished as well.

> Here's a column from the conservative Washington Times:
>
> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050918-101526-8443r.htm
>
> Here's a straight news article (nearly all papers are reporting on this
> - I happened to pick the Hartford Courant because it summarized things nicely):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9blx5
>
> More quotes from McCain from the LA Times:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7l4c2

I'm not objecting to what did or did not happen, I'm simply waiting for
the investigation to conclude before castigating one side or the other.
 To make assumptions at this point is simply wrong. After all, what if
Fishback's claims are not completely supported? What if additional
facts change how these alligations are seen.  Again, wait 'n see before
firing your guns.


> > > 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.
>
> See my response to John on this point.

I did.

> > > > > 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.
>
> You know, that "Thank you" is really condescending and insulting.

I apologize for being condescending and insulting, but your posts
implied that you were ignoring historical precidents and I needed to
know if you understood that war crimes have been committed by all
countries and it happens far more than we would like it to.  You have
been holding us to a standard which was impractical to say the least.
War crimes have, are, and will be committed by all sides in a conflict
at some point.  It took decades for the United States to officially
apologize for it's treatment of Americans citizens of Japanese decent
after WW2 for example.  And no matter how careful we are, abuses and
crimes will happen again, that is the nature of war.  What matters is
that the truth comes out and those responsable are punished.

> It
> implies that you've been telling me bad things happen in war and I've
> disagreed until this point.

Well, what it implied and what it ment was two different things.

> Please re-read all of my posts; you are
> implying a position I have never taken.

What I believe you are doing is jumping to conclusions you want to be
true.  Allow the process to continue to the end so that the truth will
be revealed.

> > > 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
>
> The Army cleared four of the five top officers responsible for
> prison policies in Iraq. The woman relieved of duty, Karpinski, has
> complained she was a scapegoat.

My understanding was that she claimed she was unaware of the treatment
of prisoners.  Is that correct?

> Fishback's new allegations (which were
> at a facility completely separate from Abu Ghraib) now reveal that these
> policies were widespread and practiced by both reservists and the
> regular Army.  That lends dramatic support to Karpinski's claim that the
> policies came from above her level.

But the NYTimes article you cited seemed more to indicate that the
abuse was not ordered from higher up, but that it was a series of
brutal acts committed by soldiers who were not supervised.  What you
characterize as "policies" could also be similar acts committed by
soldiers that had no direct connection.  Again, let the truth come out
before jumping to conclusions.

> I hope you can get this column (not sure if the public can get it), but
> give it a try.  If you can't get it, I'll post some excerpts. It's by
> Jeff Jacoby who is *extremely* conservative. I typically disagree with
> him on nearly everything, so this article stunned me.


> http://tinyurl.com/3ow5r

No, but if it's an opinion piece, you know my policy on that whether
it's true or not.  Opinion pieces by their very nature leave out
important facts.  I don't care if it's right or left wing, makes no
difference.

> In the end this is not going to be a right wing vs. left wing issue.  It
> won't even be military vs. civilians.  It's going to be the good guys
> versus those trying to cover up for stupidity and incompetence.

And the truth comes out as it always does.  What I question is whether
you will be satisfied if the truth was that the Pentagon didn't order
this abuse.

Ken

.