American Cannibalism

"Have we any memory of a man in a suit and tie, nearly three years ago wading through the din and panic amid the morning rubble, assuring millions of stunned Americans that the national headquarters of their armed forces was still intact and capable of defending us after the mass murder of 3,000? And have we no shame in recognizing that should some congressional critics and Washington harpies get their way, Americans will accomplish what bin Laden's suicide bombers could not on September 11: remove America's finest Secretary of Defense in a half century?

The idea that anyone would suggest that Donald Rumsfeld — and now Richard Meyers! — should step down, in the midst of a global war, for the excesses and criminality of a handful of miscreant guards and their lax immediate superiors in the cauldron of Iraq is absurd and depressing all at once.

What would we think now if George Marshall had been forced out on news that 3,000 miles away George S. Patton's men had shot some Italian prisoners, or Gen. Hodges's soldiers summarily executed German commandoes out of uniform, or drivers of the Red Ball express had raped French women?"

Read all of it.

We live in different times, Bribo. That said, I think humiliation is a valid interrogation tactic and this scandal has been vastly overblown. (With a purpose, obviously.)

There are rumors of deeper, more troubling activities (rape, beating, murder) which we of course should investigate and punish if true. But being forced to stand naked in front of female soldiers? Scared by dogs? Told that you'd be electricuted if you step off a box? Exposed to chilly nights and hot, un-airconditioned days? Forced to pose in a naked imbrace with fellow thugs? I don't see a problem. Call me callous. </shrug>

I've frankly become tired of the nationwide mind control sphere of political correctness on this issue.

I just had this very conversion with some colleagues here at work.

My hypothetical question to them: It's 9/10/2001 and you have some people in custody that might know about the 9/11 plot. Would you think it unethical or immoral to subject these people to the humilation torture that's been alleged at Abu Ghraib if you knew that information you obtain might stop that tragedy?

Another question: Do you think that these alleged abuses (humiliation techniques) were justified if information procured saved the lives of American soldiers?

If you want to get into details, I suppose I'd want the more "advanced" techniques reserved for worthy prisoners. I wouldn't want some dude suspected of auto theft to go through the heavier stuff.

But then we start down a slippery slope, don't we? Who decides? Where's the cutoff as to who gets what sort of treatment? There'd have to be some sort of oversight committee, and each prisoner would have to be studied, reviewed, and processed accordingly.

I wrote on my weblog that in order to defeat terrorism, we're going to have to associate with bad guys (undercover work) and in some cases do some bad things to get the information that we require. Ugly stuff that we may not like to hear about.

We can't play by the cold-war rules.

I fear that we won't come to a general concensus on this until the next 9-11.

[sarcasm]
I'm sure if the situation was reversed, the American prisoners would receive much better treatment.
[/sarcasm]

But of course. Everyone knows that Islam is the Religion of Peace (TM).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly

If you want to get into details, I suppose I'd want the more "advanced" techniques reserved for worthy prisoners. I wouldn't want some dude suspected of auto theft to go through the heavier stuff.

---

I thought the prisoners in question were pow's not local iraqi town drunks and the sort. I agree that if we obtain valuable info that saves American lives I am all for using these sorts of interrogation techniques if the end justifies the means. We have to stop going to "war" and play by totally different rules than the enemy. They know the rules we have to adhere to and take a certain level of comfort in those rules knowing they can fight as dirty as they want because we will still stick to the ROE.

I don't know the breakdown of the crimes that they were in there for. I assumed that the bulk of them were "insurgents". I don't consider those guys prisoners of war - I consider them terrorists.

Anyway, I've become disgusted at the media's crusade to tear down our war effort in the court of public opinion. It's become clear - they want us to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly

Anyway, I've become disgusted at the media's crusade to tear down our war effort in the court of public opinion. It's become clear - they want us to lose.

---

I think most if not all of us would agree on that point.

In my previous post I was trying to make the point that I didn't realize that it was a regular prison that had guys there from before the war, if that's the case. I would agree with the insurgents also being terrorists, but we need to stop playing games with these guys and get it done is all I am saying. Oh and by the way "Screw the media!" We should setup a special ops unit to go in and pose as a media crew and do some serious damage, then see how welcome those camera's are in the future :mad:

I believe Saddam let everyone in the prisons go just prior to the invasion. The guys that were in there were guys that we captured. Some of them were probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time (see recently release of 300 or so dudes...) But most of them were terrorists.

As far as the media, get ready for the next load of crap to hit when Michael Moore's movie is released in July. He's had guys over there filming civilian casualties and interviewing depressed/disenchanted soldiers. It's easy pickings for a master reality spinner like Moore. It won't be pretty.
http://www.ananova.com/images/web/44315.jpg