The following was clipped off of a major news site. I heard the Senator speak this morning, and I almost puked when I heard him mention the following:

Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma said he was not the only one who was "more outraged at the outrage" than by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, some of whom "have American blood probably on their hands."

"The idea that these prisoners -- you know, they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cell block 1A or 1B, these prisoners -- they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents," Inhofe said. "Many of them probably have American blood on their hands. And here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

A couple thing that I would like to remind the Senator of:

"Innocent until proven guilty"
"The Geneva Convention"

Do you agree with the statements that Jeff Inhofe made?

Are you more disgusted by the outrage over the photos or by the photos themselves?

If this controversy does go all the way to the top, do attitudes such as Jeff Inhofe's as a member of Congress instigate this type of action?

Absolutely not. It seems to me a person NOT outraged by the photos would be the same kind of person who would perpetrate the abuses in the first place - in their twisted way of thinking, everything is justifiable because "they did it to us first"...a juvenile point of view, imo. Most of us grow out of that stage - maybe the senator never did.

Something else that I find kind of creepy/fascinating; Lyndie (sp?) England, who was the grinning female GI in the photos is now pregnant (the father is the other GI in the photo)....boy, there's nothing like a good round of torture and humiliation to really get ya horny, eh? [shudder]

The photos, by far.

What I find most disturbing is that some people don't see what the "big deal" is.

In some respects I do agree with the statements that Jeff Inhofe made. With the thoughts that these prisoners are exactly what he said they are and they could have US or allied blood on their hands.

I am upset at the fact that US military personel have commited these crimes and at the same time put a taint on the effort on going as well as the fine men and women of the uniform over there trying to carry on the effort. But, for the life of me I have not be able to find myself "outraged" by the few images I have seen. Mind you I don't have cable, and I have not taken time to go search for any of the images the daily news or my regular web-sites have shown.

Now, that isn't me saying I think what was done was right by no means, I just honestly can't look at the images and be disguested by the treatment, I am just disgusted that it was US military personel who did it

If orders flowed from all the way to the whitehouse (which I highly doubt it would have or did) then many heads should roll, and I will be pretty damn mad at those in the white house.

I agree with his sentiment, if not the way he said it. On one count he is dead wrong about these not being traffic violations - our own forces admit that most of these prisoners were probably innocent.

But... If the media orgy over these pictures were matched by their outrage over the sick stuff that Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc., he wouldn't have to make that statement. I think we know better. Another American was just beheaded by terrorists and what do you want to bet that it will be reported low-key and then forgotten, but these photos will stay as lead story for months.

Well it took a bit of doing but Sen. Inhofe's statement (along with the rest of the hearings) will be linked below.

A few "highlights"....


... and another stroke of genius:

Sen. Inhofe and the Senate Hearings
Now then Inhofe's statement show a remarkable level of ignorance and a resounding lack or moral structure. To think that he is a leader in this country makes me shake my head.

I won't however, go so far as to saw he encourages the mistreatment. He did make a point of condemning it (rather lightly, but a condemnation). He's not a monster, he's a moron...

Um, no. They were "crawling all over these prisons" just months after we took over. The IRC and Amnesty International.



Good grief he sounds like he's been chatting up Rumsfeld.





Bzzzt! Wrong answer. I'm sick of pictures of dead Kurds people circulated on message boards for months to guilt trip the anti-war voices into silence on the notion that condemning an attack was the equivalent of condoning Saddam's atrocities. I concur with Taguba:



Republican Senator Inhofe likely is not a moron. He's being a good ol' boy deflecting the outrage over the pictures; the outrage that counts in the coming weeks.

I'm not outraged over anything, not even Sen. Inhofe's remarks. I expect that type of reaction, which makes the reality of it easier to accept. I'm not outraged by the photos, nor am I outraged by the reaction to the photos. I'm dismayed our troops disgraced America, but it was a natural result of war and the psychological effects war has on the minds of people. I'm surprised by the reaction to the photos in that I assumed most people wouldn't be outraged.

However, Sen. Inhofe's comments are similar to this: "This man raped a woman, so it's okay if someone rapes him." That is reprehensible. We should hold ourselves above this kind of mentality--such acts of disregard for humanity should never be excused. If Osama bin Laden was captured and then tortured to the point of near-death, I still would not agree with the acts. He may have caused immense pain and suffering for our country, but he still needs to be dealt with as a fallible human being. I do not propose I am some pro-bin Laden sympathizer, because I know I've been labeled as such. I merely feel we need to lead by example, not by childish games.

Furthermore, the Iraqi prisoners are much like our troops--following the orders of their leader. Do you blame the soldiers or the leaders? For all the money we've spent on this war, these photographs exhibit one thing--we are really no better nor worse than those we are fighting against. Heroes are only made heroes after the fact, not during. We can not be perceived as the force of good until after the war is over. The results, not the intentions, determine how the world perceives our country. A good samaritan can have good intentions, but if he causes more harm than good, they will be remembered as "evil".

*edited to correct overabundant use of the word "perceived"*

Glad to see we're not the only ones disgusted:

I think Senator McCain showed a great deal of restraint.

Does Sen. Jim Inhofe make you sick?

Not nearly as much as this does:

"The video allegedly shows five men wearing black ski masks, standing over a man who is tied up and wearing an orange jumpsuit.

The man himself as Nick Berg, a contractor from Philadelphia.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Susan. I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in Philadelphia," the man in the video said.

After reading a statement, the man was beheaded. "

If this doesn't make his point, nothing will.

Red

Well then I dare say nothing will...

One of Bill O'Reilly's strong points, is that he always points out that one cannot justify bad behavior simply by pointing out that someone else has committed worse behavior.

I think he calls that the "No Spin Truth" or some such...

Edited to fix spelling mistakes, that are equally inexcusable.

There's no excuse for this. There's a reason for "due process":

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-04.htm



so to quote Fargo's example:



It goes even further than that -- we'll round up 10 guys and rape them because one of them raped a woman.

Another thing the good senator has forgotten -- WE invaded THEM. They are defending their homeland. Why are there so many politicians that are acting like it was Iraq that attacked us? Yes, Americans are dying in Iraq, but it's because we attacked them and are occupying them. They wouldn't have died if we hadn't played this neocon game to begin with. Iraqs are dying too, in much larger numbers than Americans, so this revenge business is beyond petty.

Daffygrl said


Yes, I find it remarkably juvenile too -- almost as juvenile as saying "It's okay to do it because they might do it to us someday" (justification for this war).

I think that outrage and disgust is needed when it comes to what these few soldiers did. I don't think such behavior is stereotypical of American soldiers, as Dontredonme has affirmed. I also think that the level of outrage by many in big news has been over the top. I myself was sorely disappointed by the lack of outrage when the innocent contractors were dismembered, burned, filmed, and dragged through the streets of Fallujah. The inconsistency in outrage is stark. I can't help but wonder how much of politics plays into it.

Bad behavior?

A man was knealt before a video camera.

He was then made to identify himself

He was then made to identify his family

He was then bent over and was BEHEADED

The animals then waved HIS HEAD in front of the camera while shouting "GOD IS GREAT"

Yeah, I guess you could call this bad.

I have yet to see anyone ask if he had the right to "due process", or ask if the IRC was given access or the outrage from Amnesty International.

Do you think these "delinquents" will be "investigated" by their supperiors?

Red

These people are NOT Americans. We do not have any control of how they act. We do have control of the actions of Americans, and we should all act accordingly.

We were not as outraged when the four charred american civilians were hanging from the bridge because AMERICANS DID NOT DO IT. We almost expect this behavior from non-americans. Some of us are not OUTRAGED by the latest beheading. We have seen them do this before and it will happen again, right or wrong.

But the difference here is that AMERICANS commited this act, and we do NOT expect this type of activity from Americans.

"Do onto others as you would have done onto you"
NOT
"Do onto others what they have done to you."

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here redliner care to clarify?

If you are trying to compare this incident to the incident with US Soldiers, there is no comparison. The United States holds itself to a higher moral standard and thus there should be an investigation when things like this happen.

Terrorists on the other hand employ these tactics to reign terror on the world, what else would you expect? They were probably commanded from the highest level to do this.

Sounds a little like you are siding with the senator, unless I have misunderstood your point.

The point keeps being missed here.

WE invaded THEM. WE are occupying THEM. Why all this outrage over what they are doing to us when by and large they are suffering much worse at our hands?

Maybe it's the fact that you can visualize those stories of Americans being killed that makes you unable to see what the Iraqis are going through.

For every one American killed because of this war (that WE started), there are 10-15 Iraqis killed.

Maybe a little reading into what the Iraqis are suffering might help:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18391

Now imaging witnessing the deaths of your families, friends, and or neighbors.

We can't keep upping the revenge ante. It's them killing us for revenge for the lives lost by our bombs. Then we kill or torture them for revenge on those killed. Then they killed us for the killing and torture, and on and on and on.

There should be outrage over the prison abuses.

And if you feel outrage at Americans killed in Iraq, maybe you should direct that outrage to the administration for starting a war that has gotten Americans killed.

I most certainly do not agree with his sentiments. It is truly disgusting to equate in any way questioning of the war with a person's patriotism. Likewise, it's equally dishonest and reprehensible to shrug off a war crime by simply stating that it's just a matter that is overblown. It's quite interesting that he uses vague terms like probably in order to say that we should hold people indefinitely.
I visited the Senator's senate website and I found nothing that was inflammatory, but perhaps it's a newly breaking story.

I'm personally more upset about the pictures than reactions to them. If people had been doing their job(supervisory ones as well) then this kind of thing would not have happened and we would not have potential American casualties based on the actions of a wink-and-act military justice system that better resembles a banana republic judiciary than a legitimate, form of justice.

OK. Do you think that this Terrorist organization will:

a. Have public hearings to which their leaders will answer questions?

b. Do you think that this organization will arrest those responsible for this?

c. Do you think that they will have a public trial for these individuals?

d. Do you think their "leaders" will appologize to the family and the world?

or

e. None of the above (Reds answer)

Note, the United States HAS taken responsibility and are doing 1,2,3,4.

We DO HAVE high expectations and TAKE ACTION when when AMERICANS do not meet these.

But WE also demand perspective, which appears LOST due to POLITICS.

Red

The Senator appears to be ill informed as well:

"Coalition military intelligence officers believed 70-90 per cent of Iraqi detainees were "arrested by mistake", according to a leaked Red Cross report on prisoner abuse, further details of which were disclosed on Monday.

The confidential report, given to the US and British governments in February but covering events in March to November last year, describes a pattern of indiscriminate arrests involving destruction of property and brutal behaviour towards suspects and their families.

The report, published in full on Monday by the Wall Street Journal, said arrests tended to follow a pattern. "Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property.

"Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people. Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles."

The report said some coalition military intelligence officers estimated that "between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake"."
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...p=1012571727172

It might be spectacular to get the public all riled up about these being terrorists who deserved such treatment, when the truth is only 10-30% of them were even allegedly guilty of anything. So it wasnt terrorists we were torturing then was it?

Politics has nothing to do with this, what else would you expect from terrorists exactly? This act suited their goals of inflicting terror. Are you offended? Yes? Then it worked. The whole discussion about the video is off topic anyway, there is another thread to discuss this.

Sen. Inhofe was trying to make the point that maybe we should not be not so harsh on these soldiers because some of the prisoners are in prison for killing americans.

Again, I am asking you if you are siding with his opinion.

As Americans we live up to higher standards and are judged accordingly. Also, despite the fact that many on AD keep ignoring this, regardless of what good we have done or will do in Iraq we are seen as agressors here. This alone merits special handling of the situation. If we are ever to do any lasting good in the region we have to shed this image of conqueror.

Redliner,

I did not vote for (or against) senior members of the terrorist organization.

My tax money does not support the activities of the terrorist organization.

I hold MY leaders accountable, and you should do the same.

The laws of this land and the Geneva Convention are not open to "perspective".

It did?

I am not simply offended by the way, I am wayyyyyy past that.

Terrorists goals are to create terror so that you run from them or submit.

Please find the psot that I made that claim.

If anything the opposite is true of me!

I think Senator Inhofe is voicing the opinion that many Americans feel, but may be afraid to express.

Let me elaborate:

The actions which occurred in that Iraqi prison are disgraceful. Conduct unbecoming a US serviceman. No doubt there. The perpetrators and their supervisors are being prosecuted. They will answer for their conduct.

What is outrageous, to me and (apparently) to Senator Inhofe, is the complete lack of context the media is giving this story.

They frame the story as if the US military was covering this up when in fact they were not. The information was disclosed in January, at the Centcomm briefing. It was carried on CNN in January: More details of Army's abuse probe surface

They frame the story to make it appear that the US military was doing nothing to correct the situation when the fact is that the matter had was being addressed.

They frame the story in such a way as to indicate that only AFTER the news became public did the US military do anything to the offenders, which is patently untrue. 17 US servicemen and women were relieved of command BEFORE the 60 minutes II broadcast on April 29th. They were relieved upon release of General Taguba's report, which was initiated by Lt. Gen Sanchez on January 14th, 1 day after the Spc. Joseph Darby slipped an anonymous note to his commanding officer. On January 16th, Centcom announced its investigation at its daily briefing.

They frame the story as if the "misconduct" went all the way up to the Pentagon level, when in fact, it was localized. In fact, Taguba says that the failure went up to the battalion level of command. Taguba specifically blames Karpinski for failing to act upon knowledge she had and failing to follow through on reforms that she ordered:

Army faults leadership for abuse of prisoners



The conduct here was atrocious, make no mistake. But the lack of context given this story by the media is also horrendous. The lack of complete reporting, and instead substituting the outrage and constant calls that Rumsfeld take the fall here is what I personally find offensive.

The US Army has already moved to correct this situation. Unfortunately, if you watch the nightly news, you would never know that.

The other angle of "outrage" that Inhofe expresses is at the notion that somehow we are running Auschwitz here. Comparisons to Saddam's prisons is completely ludicrous, given the fact (not conjecture) that they regularly killed prisoners, raped prisoners, drills holes in prisoners' hands, dipped prisoners in vats of acid, mass murdered prisoners ad infinitum. The worst of these photos shows a simulated torture act (the "electrocution" photo). The others, while mistreatment, are not torture. We will see what the further photos reveal (I am almost certain that they will become public, regardless of the impact... ).

What will be interesting is what the reaction will be (both domestic and international) to the video of the decapitated US contractor. Somehow, I have my doubts that the outrage will reach the level that the story of these mistreated prisoners has garnered .

Mule:



What exactly ARE you talking about?

The Photo's that OUTRAGED the Senator, which were the point of his speach, are the "perspective" that I am speaking of, follow my thread backwards.

I hold my leaders accountable and beleive in the process, which, by the way IS PROCEEDING!

That IS THE AMERICAN WAY!

Not only is there an investigation, the father of one of the MP's wrote to the following congressmen on Feb. 26 with detailed allegations about the abuse and they now are outraged and surprised about something that was faxed to them 2 months ago. Maybe they should read their mail. Why do I doubt that the media will pursue this angle of the story, beyond right-wing fringe radio shows...
---
Senators Jack Reed, Mark Dayton, Robert Byrd, Bill Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, Edward Kennedy, Benjamin Nelson, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, Paul Sarbanes, John D. Rockefeller, Governor Mark Warner and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett.

I'm disgusted by the photos and the fact that the people who are trained by our military and viewed as being competant enough to act in the name of the American people would do such inhumane things to other living beings. I'm disgusted that these soldiers' superiors allowed this to happen, and I'm disgusted by the response to these photos by certain Iraqi individuals who murdered an innocent, civilian man in the name of revenge. Really, I am just plain disgusted in general. What is wrong with people?



I think that the desire for revenge that is so strongly present in some people is what instigates this type of action. Jeff Inhofe's statement is mild, but it comes from that same poisoned well...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but revenge doesn't bring back what was taken away. All that revenge does is turn those who were once victims into monsters.

Shaping opinion by omission is darn fun. I thought the media was "lazy" anyway?



The "disclosure" includes:



No mention of possibility of court martial which invariably leads to more pesky questions. Murky details. Translation: "Nothing scandalous here. After all, if it is as bad as you think it is we would hand over photos." If you'd have said "allegations of abuse" before CBS aired the pictures I'd have thought of something "benign" like roughing up detainees or hand cuffing them to their beds.

The media didn't "make" the military do anything. But, with allegations of abuse coming from the IRC and Amnesty 1-2 months after reopening Abu Ghraib and the first soldiers facing court martial on March 20th, ten days before CBS gets its hands on the photos, I think the media helped speed up the process to a degree.



You forgot to include:

Huh?

From the CNN story which I cited:

Criminal charges equate to court martial. The assumption here is that there WOULD be a court martial (which generally are not carried on Court TV ).

The CNN story refers to Taguba's comments about the CIA, an agency which he has little capacity to investigate. Abuses at the CIA would NOT equate to asking the Secretary of Defense of resign, now would it? Perhaps George Tenet has once again dropped the ball, but there is no evidence at this point for that.

The feeding frenzy in the media continues today, even with the release of that gruesome video.

Tom Brokaw starts his broadcast with a "new video release on an radical Islamic site" and continued investigation into US Army "abuses". I was appalled that he mentioned these two things in the same sentence, as if they were on the same level.

I can understand if Inhofe had objections to media coverage of the event, but that still leaves the fact that he chose to express them in a deeply foolish manner.

Reading his statement, I do no believe he is giving a description of media inaccuracies as you have Amlord but simply lashing out at all involved who choose to express concern over the prison abuse.

The "humanitarian do-gooders" for instance....

What is he, trying out for the part of Snidely Whiplash?!

I stick with my "moron" designation...

I agree media coverage of this issue could easily merit its own thread, it has been...questionable

From Inhofe's questioning:


He then goes on to cite Kerry's newest e-mail, which calls for Rumsfeld's resignation and (probably as a simply matter-of-course) asks for donations.

Inhofe correctly states that the "abuses" here in no way rise to the level of Saddam's prisons (although that inference and allegation has been tossed about in the media):


Senator Inhofe said that these soldiers should be imprisoned, that they were "perhaps perverts". He does not dismiss that they committed crimes. His point, is that the "outrage" that has been non-stop for the past week is disproportionate to the actual offenses, especially when compared to what Saddam has done, or what is being done to those captured by those lovable little fuzz-ball Iraqi insurgents .

His point about the "do-gooders" is the same as mine: the there is a perception out there that this situation has not been corrected, that no action has been taken. People are looking at these prisons as if they continue to be Nazi prison camps. It is simply out of line.

EDIT to add: Turnea, you took 3 sentences out of Senator's Inhofe's statement and label him a moron. I think you owe it to him to deliver his statements in context. He called the soldiers criminals, he is not apologizing for their behavior.

Email from the John Kerry campaign, Friday, May 7.

"Over the past week we have all been shocked by the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. John Kerry has called on Donald Rumsfeld to resign, and today we're asking you to support him by adding your name to the call for Rumsfeld to resign."

"Keep the ball rolling. Donate now!"
-----
John Kerry, Saturday, May 8, discussing Abu Ghraib on CNN.

"[T]his is a moment for America to try to deal with this without any partisan politics. This is not about politics. This is about our country. This is about how we're going to be stronger."
-----
John Kerry. He was in favor of politicizing the Abu Ghraib issue before he was against it.

Updated to add - borrowed from right-thinking

I would point out I never said that the Senator's statement were devoid of respectable points. A little nonsense, however, goes a long way.

The point above is a source for much of it...

As I've said before it was simply a waste of breath to bring up Saddam's brutality when the it really has nothing to do with what the Senate's goal should be. Namely, finding out why and by whom the abuse was committed as well as ensuring it doesn't happen again.

It's moral relativism at work, and sloppy logic...

anther point in his speech you noted...

More justifing bad behavoir with other bad behavoir.
1. He has not established that he knows anything concrete about the "crimes" of these men at all, nor given sufficient justification for his conclusion.
2. Even if they were the worst type of murderers alive, it should not decrease in the least or concern for there treatment. It does not lower the countries standards on bit and he, of all people, should know that.

Why even compare them, what possible point could there be except to minimize the offenses?

Without any clarification given by Inhofe, how do you know this? He just seems to be angry htat prisons are being inspected... as they have been for months.

I included a link to the proceedin in full, which highlighted his portion. I do not believe my quotes distorted his meaning in anyway, I merely pointed out which portions I had a problem with.

I said myelf he didn't apologize for what they have done, but he minimized it by comparing it to other behavoir. That is the tactic of a guilty 10-year-old.

Of course, more schools open, oil profits heading to the general populatian. Soccer Players NOT having toes cut off if they lose a game....

Oh yeah, no more state sponsored mass murders and rape rooms. Girls getting educations, girls allowed to play, women on the way to becoming equals and not property......

"suffering much worse at our hands?"

I guess I am missing your point.

Using faulty logic does not make one a moron...otherwise I know several people (all of whom I know to be intelligent) that would fall into this category .

He may have some facts wrong regarding who the "victims" were (although, since their identities have not been revealed, he may be correct and we just don't know it...). This, also, does not make him a moron.

You use the term "minimize", I use the word "perspective". He said the soldiers here were criminals, we both agree on that. So, let's close the book on that one.

He then goes into a little detail about what really occurred here. Why the outrage here is blown out of proportion. Despite his mental limitations , he has a point.

The brutality in Fallujah in March made headlines for a few days. This has already been a week, and it is getting bigger. I wonder if the decapitation story will even be mentioned on tomorrow's "Nightly News"...

What is missing from the outrage in this story is a sense of perspective. What is missing here is the actions the US Army did take that have been woefully under-reported.

Unfortunately, Senator Inhofe isn't as silver-tongued as Yours Truly .

EDIT to add:

Inhofe's comment concerning do-gooders comes right after he describes the atrocities committed by Saddam's prisons. His outrage comes from two things: 1. That these were very limited in scope (7 out of 700 guards at Abu Ghraib are currently charged). 2. Where the heck were these do-gooders when Saddam was murdering, mutilating and raping?

A sense of perspective is not only a good thing to have here, it is an absolute necessity.

Is that your assumption? Ah, the caveat: "...unless it could be demonstrated they were taken for official reasons related to processing and handling of detainees."

It's funny. If I had ignored the Pentagon's "with some of their clothing removed" bullcrap line back in January and accused the military of taking pictures of stark nude prisoners I'd be just another liberal trying to bring Bush down.

Criminal charges can be addressed in the form of a reprimand, a quiet discharge, non-judicial punishment, and three court martials.



The CNN story I quoted makes no mention of the CIA. I wanted to point out that, since Taguba's investigation was limited (and there's only so much he could do within the timeframe), there is another investigation into military intelligence. It's too soon to tell, but when Rumsfeld admits "military intelligence people" are/were in charge of interrogations after McCain presses him and complains...



...it's not surprising "they frame the story" as if the Pentagon was involved. Wait for the next invasion. The coverage will shift to your liking.

Well he is an Oklahoman republican. When I think of scary right wing Oklahoma is generally the first state that comes to mind. Very stupid comments from a very stupid man.

Anything specific? Or just general feelings and blanket statements here?

I generally like to point out why I think someone daft enough to be a US Senator would make "stupid comments" while being a "stupid man". Maybe it's just me though

I guess my perspective is this- these same right wingers that were all afroth over a consensual sex act on Clinton- are now trying to get us to "put it into perspective" torture acts against, at least some innocent men. I think the whole reason we are seeing this need to put things "into perspective"- is simply to try to protect the person who is ultimately responsible- GW himself.

That is true, of course. Now if he persists in this equivocation game with Saddam's brutality we may have the stuff of a characterization.

Point taken, assesment downgraded from Inhofe as moron to Inhofe's comments as misguided.

And I mantain that misguided they are...

His wording does not suggest (to me) that he was speaking on the basis some privledged information. Rather he was just assuming that is they were in the first cell, they must have commited heinous crimes of some sort.
How that lessens in anyway the abuses committed is beyond me.
Since that seems to be the goal of the statement why exactly did he say it?
I'd say even a basic level of consideration would have pointed this out and it sounds a lot like one of the political ploys that Inhofe is complaining about.

...unfortunately I'd say it goes to the heart of the issue. Perspective is a term that applies only when said "perspective" clears up a distortion..

I hardly think anyone except those beyond help believe that these actions commited are even close to the abuses of Saddam. I sincerly doubt any of them will face even life in prison (wheras it is quite likely Saddam will die). Therefore Inhofe's "perspective" was not really perspective at all.

It was spin. He may have felt that the American media payed to much attention to it, but that is because America's holds itself to higher standard's and of course the US is going to pay more antention to actions of members of the American military.

As for pointing out inaccuracies, he had plenty of chance to that, but I think other Senators, and of course Maj. Gen. Taguba did a better job of that with direct questioning than with (and I heard Inhofe's comments so I think tone plays a part in this) griping about Saddam and other things that we in this board would call off-topic and unconstructive.

It's the nature of the story, much of the action on this abuse deal is domestic, cheaper and easier to cover and there's an on-going process.
The only followup they can do on these slaugthers by terrorists is to repeat statements that the US will hunt them down. I don't think they are being reported as less important, they simply can't last.

It could be politically motivated, but then again I doubt Saddam would welcom in the Red Cross in any case....
It's not really their fault, and there is no reason to lash out at them.

Perhaps Inhofe was operating on the basis on legitimate complaints, but he does not make that clear through his statement, it seemed more like an unfocused rant...

I agree the media has failed to accurately and fully report on this story. If they had, we would have been hearing about it since January (not just in a buried story), including updates on the progress of the court martials, etc. Despite the fact the highest leadership in Washington seemed to know nothing about anything going on (including the senators who are now investigating), the army did take appropriate measures of investigating and relieving the involved soldiers of duty, pending criminal charges (which does mean court marshal). But, the reason the media does not report this is there is a media bias - a bias in reporting only that which is most outrageous and possibly inflammatory to listeners.




Yes, its interesting so many republicans, including Bush, like to compare the US prisons to Saddams - saying, oh, well, we weren't as bad as him...



hmmm... there's that comparison to Saddam again.

What is reallly amazing is that the picture of the dead man packed in ice, waiting to be smuggled out after he was stretched to death is not the picture that is constantly being shown. Despite the inaccurate reporting, the media seems to generally forget to reiterate that there was at least one man who died in our custody, in our US prison, because of a medieval torture method... and then the soldiers tried to hide the circumstances of his death! While, its not quite on the same horrifying scale as Saddam, it is still the US military killing Iraqis. The pictures that are getting the most coverage are the - as Rush puts it - Good, old-fashioned Homoerotic pornography pictures - meanwhile, the pictures of men being tied up and stretched out ala the rack, a dead man being smuggled out and actual sodomy (not simulated) are forgotten - esp by those on the right who like to say, well, what happened isn't that bad. If all that had happened was the sexual humiliation, then perhaps the excess outrage would be unjustified. But that is not the case!



You see, here's the difference so many fail to grasp...

What the terrorists do is horrifying and, gee, terrifying. What they do... the thing that makes them terrorists... is act outside of the established means of government and international diplomacy to try and achieve their ends. The only way to hold a terrorist to account is to seek them out through intelligence and perhaps military means and capture them, prosecute them, and put them in prison indefinitely (or capital punishment if you believe in that).

But what is in these pictures, is our military and intelligence community forgetting what their purpose is... they are neglecting their duty to seek out the terrorist, and instead becoming terrorist themselves! They are rounding up Iraqis, seemingly at random, and then fulfilling some sadistic, juvenile need to inflict harm because they are mad at what terrorist have done to us. If they were truly trying to get information out of these prisoners, it turns out the best way to find out actual information is to ask... not kill them or rape them.

Additionally, there is also the idea that we Americans hold our military personnel, etc, to higher standards than terrorists. The terrorist standard is if you can dream it up, you can do it - no matter how heinous. The outrage over the pictures comes from seeing our (supposedly) trained military police following the exact same standard of behavior!! What happened in Fallujah, and in this latest video is disgusting, and reminds me why we need an intelligent and deliberate method of gathering information and finding terrorists - what it does not do is make me think, gee, I guess it was not quite so bad that these soldiers were messing around like a bunch of sadistic frat boys, when their time could have been spent trying to find the people who had taken American citizens hostage with plans of murder.

Yeah it kind of is a blanket statement. If you listed the quote and you had me guess what state the senator was from I would have gotten it in at the very most the third attempt. This is simply the state that I would picture this type of sentiment to be expressed. You can take that however you want. I am not calling Oklahomians slow or insensitive or anything of the sort its just that the State involved is the exact state I would suspect. The type of person I would expect to say this would be an ultra conservative from a very strict and very pro American anti-everything else region. I see no reason to point out as if every elected politician is immune to being stupid. A man is cunning enough to sell himself into office. I mean wow how is that any difference then a used car salesman? By stupid I am not questioning his IQ. Stupid as in Trent Lott wanting Strom to be prez or stupid like Al Gore inventing the internet. Its just a stupid statement from a stupid man. Only a person out of touch with most of reality and having a lack of common sense would make such a statement on such a major issue.

Well, I think about girls getting education, you are completely on the wrong side here; so far Iraq is headed towards an Islamic state, which means - less rights for women (forget about education!) On the other side :



The quote above is not from some left-wing outfit, but from Christian Science Monitor. See here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1104/p11s01-legn.html

Well, about rape rooms... we better keep quiet on that subject until the prison scandal runs its course. According to various websites, several women were made to undress in the presence of male guards, which, in Islamic country, constitutes rape. Some of them tell much worse tales privately... but as you may know they're very afraid to come forward because it's not only their dishonor - it's dishonor of the entire family.

And here's another quote from the same source:


10,000 of "collateral damage"? That's a little high, isn't it?

Apologies in advance for additional partisan rancor...but are not the same folks saying that "we are Americans and thus held to a higher moral standard" the same folks who insisted that lying to a federal grand jury about sex was a privacy issue?
OK, now apologies afterwards too. That was not helpful.

I heard the Senator on the radio later on and he sounded much more well thought-out than he did when excerpted here yesterday. His point seemed to be that these 1) were not 'atrocities' and 2) why does the media pile on so eagerly when it suits a blame-America agenda

and my own point 3) why is it wrong to point out that 10,000 dead civilians is statistically less than the Baathists in Iraq would have killed anyway had we not invaded? why is pointing out our 'terror' is not as bad as Saddam's 'terror' wrong? Or to paraphrase another poster, man on leash prefers life on leash to human paper-shredder, even if he won't admit it.

I'd love to see your sources on that issue (regarding Baath party killing more than 10000 civilian Iraqis on any given year). That's the same wretched logic that we used when we bombed the hell out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and condemning thousands of future generations - "chances are they would have died anyway".
Look at history - as horrible as Stalin's regime was, with GULAGs, "cleansings", etc., the population of Soviet Union was overwhelmingly unified against Germany during WWII - even though Germany spent a lot on propaganda that they were coming to liberate Russia from chains of communism. Initially, Germans were even trying to improve life of ordinary Russians (non-Jews, of course) by disbanding collective farms, allowing private property, etc. - it didn't matter - the guerilla movement was overwhelming.
It doesn't matter whether your own regime is bad - the occupational regime is always worse.

This is a time for disillusionment. Some of us, dare I say many of us, bought into the popular belief that our fighting men and women are above that kind of conduct. Obviously, some of them were not. That is what makes the pictures of the misconduct so outrageous.



God bless the "humanitarian do-gooders." Is doing good somehow wrong in wartime? Where would we be if there were no standards for conduct toward prisoners of war? There would most certainly be far more atrocities committed.



While I understand this sentiment, it remains imperative that these abuses be seen without editorializing about how these bad acts compare to the bad acts of others.
(And while we're at it, in order to get the true picture, we would also have to include the pictures of innocent civilians, including children, who fell under the category of "collateral damage" as the United States was bombing the Iraqi cities.)

All of these losses, including the mutilation deaths of Americans in Fallujah and the cruel murder of Nicholas Berg, are tragedies, testimony to the fact that human beings are not nearly as civilized as they wish to consider themselves.

The anger and the desire for vengeance are very strong now, so strong that we do not need the defensive, inflammatory rhetoric of Senator Jim Inhofe. We don't need more Toby Keith songs ("We'll put a boot in your a--, it's the American way"); we need cooler heads to work our way through this mess.

As Danya, one of our AD posters, has quoted in her signature here:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...When you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you."--Friedrich Nietzsche

human rights dossier iraq 2002

This document covers about 20 years or so, and includes the deaths of:
- 4,000 political prisoners (1984)
- 2,500 in 'prison cleansing' (97-99)
- 3,000 summary executions (93-98)
- 300 Kurdish children disappeared (1985)
- 100,000 Kurds as reported by Amnesty International (87-88)
note the 100k above includes the gas attacks that killed 5,000
- 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals (1991)
- Report did not quantify the arbitrary torture, extra-judicial beheadings, etc., which I suppose could be tough to do in a police state. Let's see...if Stalin killed millions through starvation and gulags and they still 'rallied against Germany,' but in Iraq it was so bad that they DIDN'T rally against our occupation other than a few wackos here and there, and indeed 15% of the population have fled rather than live in this oppression...I'll call it another 50,000.
So, 160,000 give or take divided by 20 years = 8,000, round up a month or two to 10,000, that's close enough for me.

40,000+ Frenchmen died in the liberation of Normandy and Brittany and they still have US, UK and Canadian flags flying on their bridges.

First of all, Baath party was at power since 1976, I believe, so you got to divide by 27, not by 20. Second, you can not include Kuwaiti nationals (if you go this road, why don't you include Iranian nationals as well killed during Iran-Iraq conflict?). Third, your 50,000 "give or take" are absolutely arbitrary and can not be used in a reasonable argument. Amnesty International managed to get its estimates in a police state, so I wouldn't triple the number of political prisoners just because we feel like it.

I am not defending Baath party - they're just as bad as Stalin's regime was in the Soviet Union. And yet, ask anyone who was born in Soviet Uion - would they like if, let's say, NATO would come and "liberate" them, killing a couple of millions doing so (human costs would be much higher than in Iraq given the size of the country and military power). Ask somebody from Moscow how would he feel if his city would be bombed flat in a process of liberation.

As for France, don't forget that French actively participated in liberation of their country (French liberation movement, Charles de Gaulle, etc.) so I bet 40,000 includes those who fought, not only civilians.

The source for Iraq body counts (Iraq body count or IBC) is only able to name 692 of the civilian victims...out of their claim of over 10,000 minimum deaths. I am, therefore, dubious of their self-touted 'reliable' numbers.

Do you agree with the statements that Jeff Inhofe made? No
Are you more disgusted by the outrage over the photos or by the photos themselves? The photos. The reaction is understandable, and completely predictable.

Please tell me that this statement is overblown. That we should not be outraged that a US Senator would compare the behavior here, however abhorrent, to what occured in Saddam Hussein's torture chambers.


The reaction was completely predictable, AND utterly outrageous in some instances.