Subj : Re: BSG To : alt.tv.farscape From : TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 02:22:12 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Ken McElhaney wrote: > > 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] > > > > 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". Are we using the same definition of "moral authority"? It doesn't directly stop anyone from doing anything. It gives one credibility, that's all. For example (forget the historical time difference), Nazi Germany would not have the moral authority to criticize or bring action against Rwanda for genocide. But the allies did have the moral authority to conduct the Nuremburg Trials against the Nazis. John McCain explains it a lot better than I. Yet the White House opposes this amendment - Cheney has been lobbying to kill it. http://tinyurl.com/ad5fb > > 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, That's because our moral authority had to do with us, not the Japanese. > > 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. I believe he made a distinction between Guantanamo (Taliban soldiers) and people imprisoned in Iraq, because so many innocent civilians were caught up in the sweeps in Iraq. Also, unlike the foreign insurgents, many of the home grown ones really are more like traditional soldiers - because if the Sunnis are brought into the political process, many are likely to obey their leader's command to stop fighting. Fishback says that Rumsfeld's comments (clarifying that they were operating under the Geneva Conventions in Iraq) were what prodded him to report the abuse. > > 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. [much snipped] > > > > 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? I'm not sure what her initial statements were. Later on she said she was following the instructions of Major General Geoffrey Miller. But she got sacked and he didn't. > > 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 Even if they did not order it, the instant they were told it might be happening, they should've launched investigations and acted. Here's a quote from Fishback's letter to McCain (from a Boston Globe editorial): "In a letter to Senator John McCain, Fishback said he repeatedly asked superior officers for guidance on handling detainees but 'despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership. . . . I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation, and degrading treatment.' " - TNW [To e-mail me, remove 12345 from my address.] .