I get it. They were fakes. This entire controversy is a total pile. The guy with the wires? I gaurentee they weren't threatening him. Why bother? The picture of it is worth SO much more. They can show it to people they're interrogating. They get them really really sleepy, make them very uncomfortable and then, like 3 days in they start showing them the pictures of what's going to happen to them if they don't talk. Those pictures are completely, wholly and fully staged to the point where the people in the pictures, including the iraqis, knew they weren't in any danger and that they wouldn't be forced into anything sexual or whatever. The power of context. This is part of learning to deal with the information age. As a species, I pray we learn a lesson by this. Yup, so much whining over SO LITTLE. I hope you take back your accusations and expand your context if you need to.
hmm... and if you publicly embrace this position, or admit it, you ruin the technique's effectiveness. so do you pay the cost of an entire, highly effective information extraction technique or allow a scandal as the cost to keep it? all you have to do is make it look like you don't like the people that did it, punish them and if you feel bad you can let them off early when the scandal blows over, or go easy on them with the sentencing and whatnot.
This thread will be null when you see the pics that are being withheld. Interrogation techniques you and I don't know about are something we really don't want to know about. Stress positions: In Taguba's report he reports something to the affect a witness states "he was so stressed out that he died." It doesn't take much imagination to think of what the CIA could think up to torture someone to death.
"This entire controversy is a total pile." This controversy is a watershed geopolitical event. The occupation of Iraq was losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people anyway, but this was the moment when it became clear that the game is up: The legitimization of American-led occupations, and the legitimization of overtly American-installed governments in the Mideast, are now clearly unattainable. Regardless of what you choose to believe about a subject that remains buried in secrecy and spin, the impact on Arab opinion of American intervention is crystal clear and unstoppable. It's time for US forces in Iraq to go now. It will remain time for us to go, as we add more casualties, resentment, and accomplish nothing further. All of the murkily-defined mission that can be accomplished, is now accomplished. The Iraqi civil war cannot be bottled up, because the pressure of doing so will explode regionally. Now it's time for the US government to prepare for the implications of increasingly likely revolutions in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, accelerating genocide in Israel and her occupied territories, an energy crisis, and a complete absence of effective allies, as the full disaster precipitated by the most arrogant and inept US foreign policy in a lifetime unfolds. In the aftermath, Abu Ghraib will always be a historic marker in describing the moment when United States began to precipitously lose the goodwill of the world. You can whine that it isn't fair if you want, but that's the way it's gonna be.
Don't you think it's kind of silly to make that statement, being as that uhm... well you know... you haven't seen them? I certainly hope not to find myself subject to them, yes. Do you think a witness is qualified to make such a diagnosis? How about an autopsy? How exactly is that related to the fact that there is no need to do so, and that these picuteres, all taken completely out of context - have caused an amazingly horrific US PR problem for the sake of the leftist political agenda? I suggest that the person who willingly exposed these pictures out of context be tried for high treason.
Your promotion of your dogmatic political speculation is clearly irrelevant to the topic. I do not wish to discuss the "validity" or status of legitimacy, that is a dead horse and unrelated to the stated topic. Oh? Certainly there is some amount of damage, but it could be minimized were the truth exposed. The problem with doing so however is covered in my second post I think. It's a consideration at least. You never fail to spew irrelevant, dogmatic propaganda. Please stay on topic, as the validity of the occupation is an entirely different subject. Finally a relevant comment. That is a possibility, but I don't think it's set in stone. For instance to me, this scandal is a much different thing. It's the point at which some secret information was leaked out of context to the world and had a horrible impact, but the extent and course of that impact is still in the future. Calling it "always" blah blah blah is simply presumptuous. Looks like you've got the whining handled, thanks. The point as stated was that it's untrue, regardless of where the PR war takes it. I you have comments to that end, they would at least be relevant. My guess is that if you try again, you'll still fill your post with dogmatic propaganda because you are incapable of cojent, relevant analysis.
More qualified than, say, you. It's pretty inane to doubt the claim given that you have no evidence to the contrary.
Should I believe the bible too? EDIT: The point is that saying that a man "died of stress" is a medical diagnosis and unless the guy who saw it, also performed an autopsy, I give little credence to the claim.
Well, you seem to have a proclivity for holding random beliefs without substantiating evidence. Perhaps the Bible is just the thing for you.
You “believe” the photographs were staged. Brilliant. You also “believe” “the people in the pictures, including the iraqis, knew they weren't in any danger and that they wouldn't be forced into anything sexual or whatever.” –Why? Because you “believe” that it is inconceivable that your great US of A would use torture? Just the fact that the pictures of the naked Iraqi men together, staged or not , exist would be detrimental to the prisoners if the pictures would be shown to their Arab families, friends and neighbors – (which they are). Ok. Let’s say you are completely right. They are staged and nobody was ever really in any danger. And, as you said, nobody would ever admit them being fakes. Then for all intensive purposes, they are NOT fakes and they (USA) deserve to be accused and any further discussion on this topic is pointless.
Because torture is un-neccessary when staging a picture of it to threaten people who haven't slept in three days is so much more effective. Further, it is not US policy to torture people. There is no reason to do it. I'm sure some prisoners were mistreated by individuals who disregarded policy and they should be punished, however the individuals in question only obeyed orders as they said, because they were told by delta force dudes, who they cannot identify because they're shadows, that they should do it. I'm sure they didn't give the prisoners a choice, but at the same time re-assured them that nothing would happen to them if they cooperated. That's the path of least resistance. To actually torture them, etc. would not at all be productive, as anyone trained in that type of thing likely knows you don't want to push them beyond a particular point at which they'll say anything to stop what's happening to them. They want good information and it wouldn't be productive to actually indulge in what was shown in the pictures. Yes and if the treasonous act of releasing them to the public hadn't happened, that wouldn't be an issue. The fault lies in the exposure, not the staging. (intents and purposes) I disagree based on the my opinion that understanding the situation is more important than international opinion, but your point stands in the context you presented it.
That you see them as random is not evidence that they are. It merely indicates your ignorance as to my thought process and/or my failure to properly present it, or a gap in our communication. Oh? Software and salvation? You da man porf.
All the U.S. Soldiers that are seen in the photo's admit to the practices AND the abuse. None of them have denied it, they only state that they were told to do it. Are they in on it too? Maybe they want to deflower America's innocence as well. They were just posing... really. You have got to be kidding me. You can't possibly be that stupid. No wonder people think all americans are ignorant.
On the interviews I've heard with the lawyers for the accused, they in fact did NOT admit that it was "practice" to do stuff like that. They specified that they were told exactly how to pose, which makes sense in the context I've offered. Innocence in the context you use it is irrelevant. Practicality is pertinent. That is an unfounded accusation (considering that your initial statement was wrong) followed by... ... an invalid conclusion. Choose to believe whatever propaganda you like. I'm trying to cut through it and figure out what makes sense. Accusations of stupidity or world opinion are unwelcome and irrelevant. I hope that at least you find them entertaining. Perhaps you attempt to refute a point?
From the lead investigator and senators who have viewed the remainder of the evidence you haven't seen, your entire arguement is false. Lyddie has stated that they were not "staged" as you assert. Why would so many U.S. senators lie? Do you think they want more war and want more U.S. soldiers and civilians to be targetted in Iraq? Do you think they like America looking like a bunch of bullies? Don't you think that that would undermind the effort in Iraq? Just think. That's all I am asking you to do. It's painfully obvious that you haven't by your ridiculous assertions to this point.
"Alright Wesmorris, we're going to play a game right now. You get naked now and lie down on the pile of other naked men. Don't be frightened by the fact that I have a gun pointed at you. Nothing will happen. TRUST ME! Just do this and smile for the camera.n -- oh. next... Put on this dog leash and and lie down on the floor so this women can be seen pulling on the other end. No, seriously.. it's all for fun! TRUST ME!" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your condescension disgusts me. I'm trying to figure this out. I think I have. Do you think repeatedly implying that I'm stupid in any way bolsters your argument? If so, I'd like to propose you as a candidate for stupidity. Oh? Read between the lines. Why is it that you presume it is ME that isn't thinking?
*shrug* What do you expect? I didn't say "hey, what a great idea". I just said "I get it". I believe I understand basically what happened, and as a source of "outrage" in the context I've heard most complaints, I find them wholly unwarrented. Staging them like this is a bad idea depending on who you are. If you're responsible for securing the mandate of the US government's "war on terror", then the idea is much better than if you're someone who hates the administration. Regardless, if the pictures are posed then the majority of the controversy I've heard regarding the topic is false. I do think there are probably some individual dipshit soldiers who were not monitored closely enough and severely abused some prisoners, and they might have taken pictures and those pictures might be mixed into this. I don't know without seeing the remainder of the pictures. If so, I think they should be punished to the full extent of UCMJ and there should be an investigation of the environment that allowed them to behave in such a manner.
She said she was posing. She did not say they were staged. These are two different things. You still haven't answered my other questions.
Perhaps this is too much of a jump in logic: BEING TOLD TO POSE IS STAGING. No? I have already answered your other questions. Read the thread.
