I have a question then- since the contractors do not wear uniforms, and have extra-jurisdictional status, such as being legally able to torture POWs- then isn't it okay if all contractors captured are treated as spies?

CruisingRam questioned:



Who exactly are they spying on? Which Country are these contractors allegedly spying on? What Country are they in when they are captured? What force or Governmental body Controls said Country?

The answer is only yes, if the Contractors are caught spying on Iran, in Iran. Jordan, in Jordan. Syria, in Syria. etc. etc.

Of course, they could be spying on the United States, but then that is a completely different subject.

EDITED TO INCLUDE:

Then theres this little tidbit:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13323

I wonder if 60 minutes 2 is doing a story on this

This quote referred to soldiers, who were captured, who were out of their regular uniform, who were spying (committing espionage). It appeared in an editorial article which went on to say

May I ask, are you asserting you believe that we can legally treat the Iraqi fighters as spies under the Geneva Conventions?

Edited to add: Would you mind expanding on that?

Azure:

If they were Soldiers, caught out of uniform, they may well indeed have been spies or agents provocateurs.

If thought to be, some interrogation might be in order.

Do not ask me if I think the methods used were OK. I have said that what was done to them were out of line.

But, do not compare this to someone having his HEAD SLICED OFF, not quickly, but with 5 SEPARATE STROKES.

What you witness, if you see the video, is open and notorious MURDER!

Is there something about my posts that led you to believe I was doing that? I only took issue with labeling the Iraqi fighters as spies and concluding that we could simply start executing them under the Geneva Conventions. Besides being a serious abuse of the customary interpretation of the conventions, can you imagine international perception of that? We don't want to commit war crimes, do we?

Daffy, (sorry to be off topic for the rest , this is to clear up an indescrepancy here)
I need to set the record strait on history in Iraq as far as womens rights and Female Genital Mutilation and stoning.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

It was rarely a practice in this region.

And as far as Iraqi womens rights, the Ba'athist 'Iraqi Family Law' was instilled over the Shari laws of firm adhereance to the Quran. Under the (old) Iraqi constitution, men and women were equal. Under the past secular family law (which has been in practice since the '50s) women had unalterable divorce, marriage, inheritance, custody, and alimony rights.

Under the Coalition government it was decided that secular Iraqi family law would no longer be secular- it is now going to be according to Islamic Shari'a.

This is a disaster for Iraqi women and children and they are fighting it. It turns back decades of work by Iraqi women in the equal rights department.
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000647.php


http://www.madre.org/art_iraq_resolution137.html

Iraq was very progressive in womens rights, all about to be turned around by freedom and democracy.

Also these people who condone Stoning are not people at all, but certain male clerics who interpret Islam in their own particularily sick way. Iran outlawed stoning in 2002 I think. Nigeria and Pakistan have made headway.
Islamic women have been fighting against stoning for a long time. Iraqi women are afraid the new Coalition approved Sharia law could bring back stoning.

Just to set the record straight. We can say a lot about terrorists but Iraq was not in this category, and to be further on topic, this sort of violence is not generally acceptable to people in the region. It is condoned by a small portion of fanatical religious men and depotic male leaders.

Yes indeed:

have I seen your post yet on how the beheading fit into the "Geneva Convention"?

Lets see, I don't see a single uniform on the 5 hooded men?

Oh, and I havn't seen near the "outrage" over this in the foriegn press. It was deep as sin within hours of the photographs being released.

I'll wait to see the way the Egyptian papers, Syrian Papers and our beloved French handle this.

Edited to add:



Then explain the rape rooms, and the french students that were raped (females).

progressive indeed!

Are you saying you believe I would assert that Nick Berg's heinous butchering would be protected under the Geneva Conventions? Where are you getting that from?

Please do not assume that I am not upset and appalled at the man's brutal murder; you have no idea how I feel about it.

The point of my first post was to help avoid misconceptions over spies and how we can legally treat the Iraqis at issue here under the Geneva Conventions. I can only assume that you took that to mean I am siding with them, or that I don't care about what happened to Nick Berg; nothing could be further from the truth. But I do not want to see us resorting to mistaken distinctions that in and of themselves lead to violations of the Geneva Conventions; things are difficult enough over there already. The fact that the killers in the video are not wearing uniforms does not legally make them spies, no matter how angry we are over what was done to an innocent civilian. If we are ever able to clearly identify the perpetrators, there will be other legally sanctioned means for dealing with them. We must set the example by properly following the law.

Okay, lets put the matter behind us, agreed?

I hate this thread.



Just to be equally sardonic. Red is right, Artemise. Better to be beaten in public for speaking against your husband, where you know you're wrong because the "law" says so, than be raped out of sight. Yes, all better.

Now that the terrorists have taken the ammunition provided by the torture of Iraqi prisoner’s and used that to justify their even more atrocious acts of violence what can we as a nation do?

Do they need ammunition? Four people were mutilated and hung from a bridge before Nicholas Berg's life tragically ended. Civilians were taken hostage and faced the prospect of being turned into living pyres. If terrorists wanted to impress us they'd have saved the pièce de résistance for just such an opportunity as Abu Ghraib. (Knock on wood I'm not speaking too soon.) Our troops are shot at on a daily basis. Email from a friend:



I am more concerned with what we do than any terrorist group's illegitimate demands. Whether we stay or leave, attack or pull back, it's on *our* terms. A Mideast Kim Jong with a funny accent won't alter that. The one thing I'm most disappointed in (second to that of the scandal), is the way we've handled Iraq after "mission accomplished." Even conservatives (and worse IMO, neocons) balk at the situation.



This does NOT make me happy. I don't like Bush. Aside from a form of government Redliner finds nothing wrong worth contesting signed into law and Saddam's capture, we've been winging it. I knew we were in trouble when Bush let on that he didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite before the war.

I don't want him in the White House but not at the cost of losing Iraq and flushing billions of dollars down the toilet. I just honestly, simply, don't think he has the capacity to finish the job, all that praying to God and "steady hand" leadership be damned.

Can we fix the wrong [snip]

Prosecute the guilty as far up as necessary.

As for Berg's passing:

Redliner wrote:


-- Redliner


Lesly Responded:

How bout being beatin in public, THEN taken by GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to a RAPE ROOM, having your infant child killed THEN being raped.

I beleive eliminating 2 out of the 3 IS PROGRESS. Lets be clear.

I think you knew what I was speaking about.

Edited to add:

I have read post after post about how Bush is blamed for all these events. Not a word from these individuals about what appears to be the Link between the United Nations "scandal" involving "food for oil".

"Yes, lets let the sanctions have more time to work" these Security Council members mocked the United States, while at the same time funding the Nation that the sanctions were on? How could the sanctions work?

Where is the OUTRAGE for these actions that set into motion all the events that the "Bush bashers" key on?

Regarding "progress" in Iraq in the area of education, etc. : the first thing that coalition did was to fire ANYONE who had any connection to the Baath party - including college professors, researches, teachers, etc. Yeah, that would set things straight. In a country, where to geet any kind of position of prominence (including teaching in the university) was to become a member of the ruling party. If that's not a anti-progress, I don't know what is.

Frankly, I don't see a big deal regarding "scandal" in UN. Everybody knows we were trying to coerce nations to vote for us - promising Turkey money in exchange for the vote and airspace, some African nations, etc. Why does it bother you so much when the other side does the same thing?

English Horn:



1. There were no sanctions against the United States doing so.

2. The sanctioning body became corrupt if taking money from the country IT was sanctioning.

See the difference?

Wheres the OUTRAGE?

I'd LOVE to see the UN imposing sanctions against the United States. Did it EVER happen? During any of our foreign policy transgressions? Vietnam, Chile, Iran, Guatemala, etc. Let's be realistic here. The body can not sanction the country where the body's headquarters are located.

I won't excuse myself for believing women must be granted the same rights as men for a country to be free, or excuse my government for helping install a Mideast government that affords women fewer rights than the dictatorship we disposed. You don't have to like it and I don't feel inclined to marginalize women so I won't upset you.

I wonder if you'll suddenly regard the occupation as atrocious as Saddam's regime if allegations or photos of female rape at Abu Ghraib surface. I'm betting not.



Where? My guess is buried beneath the cynicism of millions Halliburton made in Iraq getting around the spirit of the sanctions by using a subsidiary and providing financial aid to Saddam, being awarded the first contract in Iraq after the invasion, then overcharging the government $27.4 million. Aside from Bush warning Halliburton, have you heard of any charges? Me neither.

Well, to answer the first question, there are two things the US as a nation can do. The first is make the nation,s top priority to clean up the US military, prosecute the offenders and anyone who did or SHOULD HAVE (such as COs) known about the crimes. It should do everything in its power, even if this means a revamping of the military structure, to make sure this kind of thing cannot happen again. The US MUST be seen to take this VERY seriously.

The second thing the US can do is suck it up and take responsability for its actions. Yes, a lot of Iraqis will now be anti-US after what they have seen and heard, and to be blunt, who can blame them? Terrorists can use this as ammunition, anti-US religious figures can use this as anti-US propaganda, and justifiably so. The environment in Iraq will be more hostile and more violent, but these are the consequences of the US military's actions.

With regards to the beheading of Berg, I am somewhat puzzled by the unique nature of the reaction. He was killed by terrorists, and that is of course a tragedy, no question. But the manner of his death was no worse than those who are shot or killed by shrapnel or the like. Indeed, as he was hit in the standard executioner,s stance, from behind, he was probably dead instantly as the blade severed his spine at the neck, regardless of how many strokes it took to actually sever the head itself.

If the US finds something particularily abhorrent about the actual cause of death, then to me that is just one more of many hundreds of reasons that the US should take a very close look at who it calls its friends. Saudi Arabia, longtime ally and source of massive weapon sales fom the US, still publicly executes its criminals by beheading in a city square. Saudi is also one of only two countries in the world that executes more people than the US does, beheading hundreds every year.

You haven't actually read the details of his death, have you? I think you should do that Vermillion and then tell me how someone who is "instantly dead" screams for 30 seconds as a knife is used to saw through their neck.

1) Now that the terrorists have taken the ammunition provided by the torture of Iraqi prisoner’s and used that to justify their even more atrocious acts of violence what can we as a nation do?

We can continue to show our outrage at the evil represented in that video, we can continue to pursue our investigation of our own abuses publicly, we can continue to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We can show the Iraqi people and all Arabs their choices - a country run by radical fundamentalists that would rather cut off the head of an innocent person to get their way or a country run by people who are willing to expose and punish those who would do wrong against other people.

2) Can we fix the wrong without caving into these terrorists?

Yes we can, as long as we keep George W. Bush in the White House.

I think most human beings consider death at the deliberate hands of another human being to be worse than death at the hands of a random incident. There is a terrifying psychological aspect to it that transcends the physical method of killing or death.

Imagine you read in the newspaper two stories concerning two deaths. In one, a man was accidentally killed when an object fell at a construction site and crushed his head, killing him almost instantly. In the other story, a witness at a trial is describing how he saw a murder carried out; the victim was shot point blank between the eyes by the perpetrator as the victim begged and pleaded for his life on his knees.

Both of the people in the hypothetical example above were killed nearly instantaneously. However, for most people there is a difference in each scenario in terms of the human psyche's perception (psychologically and emotionally). This difference is felt by both the victim at hand, and by other human beings after the killing who learn of what happened.

Personally, I would rather be killed by stray shrapnel, than to have another human being butcher me like livestock. It really all comes down to the intensely dehumanizing aspect of it; that is why it is worse.

Not according to the screams you hear if you see the entire video.


I'm worried when I hear broad sweeping general comments like this. The US military already has methods in place to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties unlike any of our present or would be adversaries. I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement, but when someone comments about revamping the structure, which would more than likely be cosmetic anyway, it would probably do more harm than good.


I agree completely, of course I consider the people who did this in the name of their 'god' nothing more than livestock anyway. Well, maybe rodents is a better term.

I can empthasize with the sentiments, but therein lies the ultimate irony, doesn't it? When we learn of horrific acts carried out by other human beings, who dehumanized their victims, our first impulse is to dehumanize the dehumanizers. It helps us vent our frustration and rage, but it perpuates an endless cycle. It is an aspect of human nature that we (the human race) have yet to find a solution for. But I suppose that is best left to another thread...

Firstly, you misunderstand me, I was not trying to equate beheading with being struck by lightning, certainly being killed by deliberate agency of another person is the worse of the two. I was however trying to equate beheading with being shot for example, a fate suffered by tens of thousands in Iraq, US and Iraqi, over the last year: and dispite the desensitising effects of hollywood, being shot is a terribly unpleasant way to die.

I have not seen many specific details of the beheading of Mr Berg. Such grisly details were not recounded on the news sites I tend to visit. Upon receiving the remonstration above, I decided to see what I could find about the specific details. I thought to myself "What news agency deliberatly tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator?"

So I went to Foxnews. sadly the site seems to be down at the moment, so I was unable to read an appropriatly voyeuristic accounting of his last few seconds.


None the less, my point is that much of the 'outrage' about the exact manner of death is artificial in the extreme. outrage about the fact of the death itself is perfectly normal, of course.






How can you make such a comment with a straight face? had this happened under the watch of a Democratic president the Republicans would be calling for HIS head on a plate.

We do not know the extent to which Bush was aware of what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps we never will. But as far as I can see, there are only two options.

Either he was aware, in which case he should be indeibted as a war criminal or:

He was completely unaware, dispite the complaints of the Red Crossover months, the letters from junior officers, the stories that were circulating. in which case he is dangerously incompitent.

Either way, I cannot imagine how letting the man under who's watch this was allowed to happen to CONTINUE in his current role will help anything.



How the US is going to recover from this depends entirely on how open and forthcoming the US senior staff and administration is going to be. An open and relatively transparent swift coyurt action and refit of the US military codes of conduct may do some damage control. Secrecy, cover-ups, wrist-slapping and wagon-circling will just make things worse.

It seems safe to say that these current procedures are not working very well. Given revalations about US treatment of POWs in Iraq and Afghanistan, can you really say that 'cosmetic' changes will be enough?

It has become popular on the right to defend (or at least justify) some of these actions be drawing comparaisons to Iraq,s teatment of prisoners. Well, if that is the benchmark you are setting for yourself, then I suppose that the US is better than its opponents. But is that something to be proud of?

US troops humiliated, abused, tortured, raped and even killed POWs in detainment camps. This is not an isolated incident, it happened cross many camps in two countries. Just HOW widespread it is is still unknown, but every indication is that it is worse than we know. That is fact.

Does the idea of 'changing' the code of behaviour for these troops still scare you? You say it will cause more harm than good, I ask you how it could possibly cause more harm.



Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment. Why do you think this exactly? Is it because of the awful and horrendous things some of your opponents have done in the name of God, because of the Citizens of your country that have been killed that you feel justified in reducing them to cattle?

How do you think these people feel? Lets not forget you invaded THEIR country, killed 50 Iraqis for every US citizen killed, and now have been found to have been torturing and raping and murdering Iraqis in POW camps. is it so hard to understand how IN THEIR EYES, what the US has done is so much worse?

Listen to a Bush speech someday, really listen. How often does he reference, credit, thank or praise God? He cites religion as often as a preacher. He ends every speech with God Bless America. Is that so different from "Allahu Akbar!"

IN THEIR EYES I am sure Bush is doing everything he is doing in the name of God. After all his first reaction was to refer to the invasion as a 'crusade'.


I am not defending the beheading or the actions of the militants at all, but before dehumanising them for fighting back against their invader, perhaps you should take a moment and think about how the Iraqi really views you, reflected by the words and actions of Bush and US soldiers in Iraq.

My mistake then (by assuming you were talking about something more random, like shrapnel or a stray shot). I certainly agree that being shot directly and deliberately, say at a distance of 20-100 meters, is more upsetting (emotionally and psychologically) than a random bolt of lightning.

I would still maintain, however, that being put to death at point blank range by a knife is still a more intensely dehumanizing experience. Proximity of the human victim to the human killer and the helplessness of the victim aggravate and intensify the experience, for both the victim and those that witness or learn of the killing later. Research demonstrating this was presented by Dave Grossman in his book "On Killing," which was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction in 1995 (Grossman is a retired Army lieutenent colonel).

Our current codes of conduct - regulations, field manuals, and other written directives adequately lay out the proper conduct in the handling, treatment and interrogation of prisoners and detainees. I addressed this specific issue in another thread on this forum, referring to AR 190-8 Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees, and FM 3-19.40 Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations as the primary references for Military Police operations in handling of prisoners. We have additional resources in FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, and, of course, FM 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare.

The problem isn't with existing regulations or directives - it is with the leadership failure in which the command failed to properly train and supervise their soldiers in the execution of their duties. Due primarily to the Taguba report and his recent testimony, that command leadership is now under direct investigation as specific soldiers begin lining up for the courts-martial. The only wagon-circling that is going on right now is in the protection of Rumsfeld.

Is this turning into a "how many angels can fit on the head of pin" debate? Does it really matter what type of act is more dehumanizing? Do you want to have a discussion on the relative level of dehumanizing effects of a given type of act (including distance, time and whatever other parameters you may want to introduce)? I suppose as a purely intellectual exercise it may be interesting to develop a table of atrocities and scale the "dehumanizing" levels using independent variables. Perhaps, some sort of statistical analysis could be developed given the history of dehumanizing acts throughout all conflicts. This analysis could then be applied to the current Iraqi conflict so that we could determine how "morally" superior the US is to its enemies. We could develop a set of equations that allow us to calculate appropriate response levels to any type of dehumanizing act. Such as: for one beheading, we will respond with 10 sodomizations & 4 genital electrocutions. Note that I'm not suggesting that that is the actual calculation; just an example of what could be calculated.

This statement made by Bush was in reference to the war on terror after 9/11, not Iraq.


Thank you for implying that I have not done so already. Yes Bush says that, so has every other president, at least in recent memory. And, it certainly is different when the phrase is uttered during a beheading of a civilian.


Perhaps I have, perhaps I've been in Iraq, perhaps I've spent some time in the middle east. I'm by no means a regional expert, but I know that there are different types of people in that area, one of group which would love nothing more than through their interpretation of the Koran, see you dead for not being Muslim. People of any religion who would kill you for the appeasement of their god, are nothing more than rodents to me. You may say I'm a simpleton, you may say I am dehumanizing them, but IMO, they have dehumanized themselves, and I categorically do not care what they think of me. They however are smart enough to know that Nick Berg was no invader. They know that their actions put them on the same plane as a homicide bomber turning women and children into red mist, and they don't care. Why should I?


If we're done slamming the right for a brief moment, let's remember the 'useful idiots' on the left who attempted to justify the same institutionalized policies in communist countries. Now back to our regularly scheduled debate.......

I've been the recipient of many reactionary policies instituted by the Army to attempt to correct an injustice. As Mustang stated, the policies and regulations that are in place work fine, when they are implemented by the leaders. The problem lies, as with the rest of society, when leaders overlook, do not enforce, or are willful in disobeying them. They must be dealt with, and severely, to send a message to the rest of the force. But talking of a revamping of the military structure, which is a mighty vague phrase, is uncalled for. I do not want my Army so hobbled by an overreaction and cautiousness that they are placed in more danger. That's all I'm saying.

The question was: Can we fix the wrong without caving into these terrorists?

I responded: Yes we can, as long as we keep George W. Bush in the White House

Vermillion asked: How can you make such a comment with a straight face?

It is my belief that John Kerry would cave into terrorist demands, thus my statement opined with a very straight face. I don't agree with GW on every issue and anyone who has discussed issues with me here knows that, but I believe with all my heart that John Kerry would be worse x 50.



Look at your statement, specifically the part I highlighted in blue. I thought Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. How could Al Qaeda be fighting back against their invader? You do understand that the beheading was perpetrated by Al Qaeda and not your everyday Iraqis, don't you?

We didn't start this religious war, Vermillion. Radical Islamic fundamentalist did. Bush may have used the word crusade once or twice to describe what THEY were doing and although he stopped using that word because of its negative connotations, he was absolutely right. This is a religious war and Islamic extremists are waging it.

The beheading on that tape was just an example of what we will fight for years. But it is better to fight it tooth and nail now on foreign soil than wait for them to come to our homeland and begin using those tactics on us here like they do in Israel.

The problem isn't with existing regulations or directives - it is with the leadership failure in which the command failed to properly train and supervise their soldiers in the execution of their duties. Due primarily to the Taguba report and his recent testimony, that command leadership is now under direct investigation as specific soldiers begin lining up for the courts-martial. The only wagon-circling that is going on right now is in the protection of Rumsfeld.


I've been the recipient of many reactionary policies instituted by the Army to attempt to correct an injustice. As Mustang stated, the policies and regulations that are in place work fine, when they are implemented by the leaders. The problem lies, as with the rest of society, when leaders overlook, do not enforce, or are willful in disobeying them. They must be dealt with, and severely, to send a message to the rest of the force. But talking of a revamping of the military structure, which is a mighty vague phrase, is uncalled for. I do not want my Army so hobbled by an overreaction and cautiousness that they are placed in more danger. That's all I'm saying.

I agree with both of these statements by Mustang and DTOM- there are regs in place, we don't need to splatter the whole army with this paint- for once in our recent military history, we need to punish those at the top instead of scapegoating those at the bottom. Both these guys know how the military behaves- I have said it on other posts- these guys wouldn't be "making evidence"- really an "orgy of evidence" if they didn't feel they had cover from "upper management"- I could see the ranks E-none to E-4 doing stupid things like this and getting busted by a sarge- but to have the higher up NCOs participating- there had to be a "corporate" culture that said this was okay



Oh- and BD- Al-Quaida wasn't in Iraq- until GW made unique new employment opportunities in Iraq for them......

Indeed you are entitled to your opinion, though I am forced to ask what would make you think Kerry would be soft on, or would readily give in to terrorists. perhaps it is because Bush just spent $50 million on TV ads trying to tell the US that he would, perhaps it is something else.


But ignoring that assumption for the moment, has Bush been so hard on terrorists? The war in Afghanistan is left half-completed, the society is backsliding and fractional, and peackeepers now only patrol small safe areas near kabul and their designated bases, as the rest of the country is too dangerous.

Al Quaida is now in Iraq where they were not before, and is scoring major propaganda points due to the US actions there, and though we now have Hussein in custody, there is still no sign of Bin laden.


It strikes me that had Bush actually KEPT to the war on terror instead of being distracted by his Crusade in Iraq, the war would be going a lot better, and Al Qaeda weakened initially due the war in Afghanistan, would not now be getting stronger again on new recruits and weapons.



Really?

Radical Islamic fundamentalists attacked the US which caused the war in Afghanistan and the war on terror.

Exactly what Islamic Fundamentalists were responsbile for the actions triggering the invasion of Iraq? In fact, if the Us did NOT start the war, when who DID start the war in Iraq? As I recall is was started by a US invasion based on information about WMD that was at best in error, at worse a deliberate lie. The US most certainly did start the war in Iraq.




Great, I agree. And what exactly does Iraq have to do with that again?





Please stop trying to equate Al Qaeda and Iraq as if they were one and the same bogeyman. Al Qaeda already has made an attack on US soil and deserves to be dealt with most harshly.

Iraq never attacked, or had the capacity to attack the US in any way, yet the US president seems to have felt they were SUCH an immediate clear and present danger that he just HAD to invade before the inspectors HE INSISTED UPON were done their work, and at the direct expense of the war in Afghanistan, and even though this directly weakened the war on terror and strengthened al Qaeda.

Yes, it did, in the context that Vermillion and I were discussing; we were talking about the nature of human reaction to the news and description of the killing.


These studies have been done, in an effort to further understand the dehumanizing process and the psychology of killing (for both the victims and the killers). It tells us things about our base human nature, which in turn furthers our understanding of that nature and what we can do to prevent dehumanizing in general. It is not a pointless intellectual exercise to those that have explored the issue.


Why are you proposing that, Locophage? No one else is.

Actually, his most recent reference to the 'crusade' was in March 2004.



But not even close to the extent that Bush has. No president has ever referenced or credited his 'God' as Bush Jr. Think how that must appear to the people of the Middle East. Why is this so necesary for him? How is it that the leaders of other first world nations, even if they are religious, have the ability to make it through a single speech without talking about God all the time? You may not think much of this, but the rest of the world notices.

Is using God to justify an invasion on flase pretexts resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands different from using it to justify the beheading of a man? Yes, because the deaths are a step removed in the former example. I am not in any way trying to equate Bush to these assassins, but I AM trying to give you a glimpse of how the rest of the world, and in particular the Middle East, sees this man.



Odd that not all rules in the military are broken so flagrantly and frequently. Apparently the US military still has the ability to enforce SOME rules. So if these rules are being violated in a systemic way, do you still think there is nothing wrong with the system? If both political and civilian leaders are, through direct order or willful omission, allowing this to happen, do you not think that perhaps the problem is wider than just a couple people who have not read the Geneva convention recently?

It does seem to be the type of discourse on the counting angels, etc.

My only wonder is how long before the American people start demanding a war on Islam, the same way the fundamentalist are demanding and making war on Western culture.

The fundamentalists seem to think that the West will never respond to their actions as harshly as they would.

There was a saying in the Middle East back a few years ago that Allah cursed believers and non-believers for not strictly following the Koran. He gave the West the means to rule the world, and cursed them with the lack of will. Muslims he gave them the will and cursed them with the lack of means.

Now is remains to be seen how long before the West decides that putting up with Islam is hazardous to their health.

I think that's going to happen sooner or later.

How many barbaric acts in the name of the so-called "religion of peace" must we see before people start to second guess the veined attempts at condemnation by Arabs?

I think its about time people start opening their eyes to this. Maybe, just maybe there is a reason that pretty much wherever you go in the world with a war involved, Muslims are are somehow involved....usually fighting to make sure every mosque is under an Islamic state. Maybe, just maybe there is a reason that Democracy is so absent in the Muslim world, even after every other 3rd world area is slowly evolving towards it. This is not PC to say and some probably will call me names of what not...but its the truth...the brutal truth. This "culture", this mentality, that is so widespread in the Muslim world is disgusting and frankly, evil. They are rife with anti-Semitism and violence. They are racist towards everyone except followers of their sick belief system. They hate me and I hate them back.

In the context of this debate topic, I don't believe it matters. I suppose we could create another debate discussing the relative atrocity levels committed by both sides.

Did I suggest that the exercise was "pointless"? I agree that psychological studies such as this, The Milgram Experiment: A Lesson in Depravity, are valuable and informative. Believe me I'm not castigating the usefulness for such things. I do feel that using relative atrocity levels to calibrate moral superiority is bizarre, though.

Umm....that was a bit of a modest proposal.

I actually agree with this. You can't wage an ideological war through conventional means. You can't strong arm anyone into believing what you believe, or follow your lead if they don't want to without turning into animals ourselves. Minus well shoot for genocide and drop the bomb.

I'm kidding.

Sort of.

We can't do what it would take to really neutralize these animals through force, at least not at this time. It may eventually come to that, but at this point, politically we can't take that step.

But, I think what we can do is really bare down on the people trying to come into this country. There should be an FBI file on every Mosque in the US....period. Every Muslim that comes into this country better go through 20 times the amount of security that others do. Do what the Israelis do. The civil liberties whiners be damned.

In the mean time, we should encourage these people to start fighting each other. People sometimes complain that we armed both Saddam and Iran in the 1980's....that is EXACTLY what we should be doing. Have them kill each other off. The idea that we could somehow get these people to form a liberal democracy sounds great and idealistic, but it's living in dreamland. There's a reason that strong-men regimes are the only successful government in the Arab world. Iraq is no different.

The issue of the Abu Ghraib abuse is not a question of Army Codes of Conduct or Training or any such. It does not take a code of conduct or a class by a JAG to tell people not to attach electrodes to genitals, make hooded naked gay pyramids, put underwear on peoples heads. It takes human decency on behalf of the soldiers involved and a give a damn attitude by their commanders.

Can we fix this without giving into the terrorists? Of course. Poor Mr. Berg was a recruiting tool for AlQueda. If it wasn't Abu Ghraib it would have been Najaf or Muqtada al Sadr as the excuse for his death. He was a dead man walking when he was captured.

The problem that will only be exacerbated by our use of Mercenaries or Security Contractors or whatever you want to call them. By our own definition that we are applying to the Taliban/detainees, they are unlawful combatants. No uniform, don't seem to be following the rules of war, if you can believe the reports that it is the contractors causing the troubles. The world and the arab street are not dumb and our double standard will do us much harm...

Be that as it may, as I see it, the Courts-Martial culpability goes all the way to the BG Karpinski level if we are going to give any meaning to the In Re Yamashita 327 U.S. 1 (1946):

It is evident that the conduct of military operations by troops whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders or efforts of their commander would almost certainly result in violations which it is the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its purpose to protect civilian populations and prisoners of war from brutality would largely be defeated if the commander of an invading army could with impunity neglect to take reasonable measures for their protection. Hence the law of war presupposes that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the operations of war by commanders who are to some extent responsible for their subordinates.

They executed Yamashita. I think we should hold our Commanders to at least an equal standard (execution is inappropriate here). But then again, that is just me.

J

In the context of the overall debate topic of this thread, you're absolutely right. Vermillion and I were talking about people's emotional reactions to the news of the beheading versus deaths by shootings and sharpnel, as well as the individual experiences of the persons being killed.


That was me reading into your post. I had trouble understanding what you were driving at and when I got to the part about applying the analysis to the Iraqi conflict to determine "moral superiority," I assumed the worst.


And twisted; something like a scenario in which two people with bloody hands are arguing over whose hands are bloodier.

I note that I mispelled your name in my last post; that was unintentional.


I totally agree... everything in the videotape was staged for maximum propaganda effect.


I've always wondered about Yamashita; I don't think sentencing him to death was really justified, although the underlying message of the case goes to the heart of overall leader responsibility. Do you think Yamashita had more to do with some notion of justice after the atrocities with the Bataan death march, or is it really about general (no pun intended) deterrence?

The Big Karpinski?

In this case is probably the United Nation member states that took big bucks from Saddam, which assisted him in the violation of the United Nations sanctions.

Lets work the events leading up to the beheading backwards, shall we:

1. Mr. Berg Beheaded
2. President apologizes for prisoner abuse
3. Photo's of alleged prisoner abuse shown on 60 minutes 2
4. 4 Civilian contractors killed, drug through street and hung on bridge
5. Iraqi Government falls to coalition troops
6. Invasion of Iraq begins
7. Bush gives final warning prior to invasion
8. United Nations rejects United States request for resumption of hostilities
9. United Nations asserts 14 separate resolutions condeming Iraqi violations of cease fire agreement and creates sanctions.
10. Iraq agree's to terms of cease fire
11. A coalition of nations pushes Iraqi forces out of Kuwait
12. United Nations condems Iraq for invading Kuwait.
13. Kuwait is invaded by Iraq.

Now, add to this History a 9-A, which is:

9-A. Unknown by the United States Administration, the Iraqi "Oil for Food Program" is being used by several member States of the United Nations Security Council to assist Saddam directly and create wealth for themselves, there political parties and their Country's, in direct violation of the UN sanctions.

Mr. Karpinski? Is that a Russian, or a French name?

I hope we never declare a war on Islam. Our country, founded by people who were persecuted because of their religion, should never fall to such a level. It is like taking the heart of our very being and throwing it to the wolves. On principal alone I can, and never will, support a war on any religion. What makes this tricky is the very fact that the Islamic people who are attacking us are doing it in the name of their religion. Sure we can't identify them, they are not wearing uniforms. But not all Muslims are terrorists. We must never forget that. To declare war on an entire religion, I believe, could be even more dangerous. Sure we may be able to identify our enemy (and take a percentage of innocent Hindu and Arab Christians along the way) but we will also be adding fighters to the terrorist side. Those that do not agree with the action of the terrorists will now be inclined to fight for their religious freedom. We must remember exactly what we stand for and religious persecution is not anywhere on the list!

You know I think I am inclined to agree with you. I think John Kerry will be easily swayed by international opinion rather then taking action. I am not happy with George Bush, I think he has made some very serious mistakes while in office. But the fact is, when faced with an adversary, he will not stand idle and wait for International approval before defending us. George Bush hasn't won my vote back yet, but it is in times like these that I seriously doubt whether John Kerry has the will to make the hard decisions that may not be popular.



I, too, do not believe that we need to revamp our entire military. I will be happy enough if those that violated the military laws are prosecuted. If found guilty I hope that they will not get a slap on the wrist. I want jail time. What concerns me, though, is how these contractor's are going to be dealt with. I think the military needs to take a serious look at who they are hiring, what work they performing, and what legal recourse they have should they do something that is outside their guidelines. If there isn't any, then these people should not be in these situations. I have very serious concerns about the Iraqi reaction if these contractor's are not brought to justice.

BG Karpinski as in Brigadier General Karpinski, the "commander" of the 800th MP Brigade.

As to the rest of your post, I hope it was not in response to mine, because if it is (no flame intended) I really have no idea what you are talking about. The Yamashita standard applies to commanders in the field and control over their troops and has nothing to do with the UN or Saddam or oil for food or any other right or left wing whipping boy (girl).

In short: General Yamashita was the commander of the Japanese 14th Army in the Philippines where his troops ran amuck and killed civilians and POWs. GEN Yamashita gave no order to do any of that and claimed at his trial he did not know it occurred. The Tribunal said he was the commander and it was his duty to ensure that this did not happen and he was hung for his crime of failing to maintain a responsible command.

J

Take a look at history before you condemn anyone for there belief system. Was Western Europe any different? The crusades was a holy war against Arabs.
Yes, we did evolve a different belief system and yes we (as in members of the United Nations) did evolve democracy. But does that mean every nation of earth must move to this step instantly? no
So how do you fix this problem? Is it through more violence? no

Jagwease:

I was actually responding to you, but I was also making a statement that, none of this was probably necessary if the United Nations Security Council Members would have ACTUALLY let the sanctions work.

I beleive that the true culprits in all this (the humiliations and the beheading) are the very member States of the United Nations that took bribes, bolstered Saddam, then had the gonads to vote against the United States.

The United Nations is a laugh most of the time, but in this instance............

Red

That's history...I am talking about right now. I am talking about what is happening right now in Nigeria, in the Sudan, in Thailand, in the Philippines, in Russia, in China, in India, in Israel, let alone Afghanistan or Iraq. That is happening NOW, not hundreds of years ago. You and others like you who want to somehow defend these barbarians or not pass judgement on them, constantly bring up the Crusades, an event that happened 1,000 years ago! A 1,000 years ago we also killed people for having sex out of marriage, stoned homosexuals for simply being and executed people for simply questioning the existence of a higher power. THIS STILL HAPPENS IN THE MAJORITY OF COUNTRIES IN THE MUSLIM WORLD!!!

They ARE barbaric because they have not progressed to a minimum level of human decency. They are below us because of their culture. I'm not even talking about democracy or representative government here, I am talking about the terrorist actions celebrated across the Muslim world. Go to a Muslim country and see the number of people STILL buying Bin Ladin t-shirts. They glorify people who knowingly blow up women and children on school buses. They celebrate as heros, terrorists who recruit children to kill themselves. They STILL publish and believe anti-Semitic propaganda used by Nazi Germany. Funny how these views are condemned when they are held by Rednecks in white sheets, but they are excused when the believer is from a 3rd world Arab hellhole. We hear constantly about the poor minority Arab population who have a right to vote in Israel, but don't have the right to become human bombs....ever wonder where the minority population of Jews in Arab countries are? Most of them ended dangling from a rope. And yes, these are the people who decapitated two Jews, alive, on camera. So excuse me if I have a problem with the "belief system" in the modern Muslim world.

First, my original post did answer the question what we should do. The "blanket statements" are no different from the statements made by others against both political parties and the American Army. I sighted specific examples in response to someone who challenged the statement I made about the general culture within the Muslim world. They are common knowledge, but if someone wants help finding sources on legitimate websites, I'll be happy to help them.

Considering the question specifically asks how we deal with this situation and do we have to "give into terrorists", it certainly relates to the recent cultural history of the country we are supposedly helping, including their neighbors.

just in case anyone wants to ACTUALLY SEE the video: Berg video download (zipped file, requires unzip software)

WARNING: VIDEO IS VERY GRAPHIC DO NOT VIEW IF EASILLY UPSET

Now that the terrorists have taken the ammunition provided by the torture of Iraqi prisoners and used that to justify their even more atrocious acts of violence what can we as a nation do?

I don't buy the premise. They may have said that this was revenge or whatever, but just really wanted to kill someone. Slaughtering the infidel wherever they find him is the creed of this sect. They hate us and want to kill us, not because of what we do but because of who we are.

Can we fix the wrong without caving into these terrorists?

The wrong will be used for political gain on all sides and can't really be fixed. Ironically, it only needs to be fixed in the Western media. The arab media is so wacko anyway, what's the difference, for instance:

- they are showing porno from the web and claiming that it's our prison in Iraq.
warning - blurry black and white porn from Boston Globe

...or Prince Abdullah blaming 'Zionists' when Islamists kill oil contract workers?
la times - scoll down to end

Vermillion,

These were your words:



For fighting against their invader.

This seems to imply that Al Qaeda was there when we invaded. Thus my questions:



Your argument is that Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq, yet you say Al Qaeda is fighting against their invader. How can this be?

The militants who beheaded this young man are Al Qaeda located in Iraq. It is Al Qaeda and Sadr militants who are causing the majority of the problems we are having in Iraq right now. So again, if I understand your statement correctly, we shouldn’t dehumanize Al Qaeda or Islamic militants for fighting back against their invader. Did I misunderstand? If so, please explain.

Then you said:



I'm not aware of ever having equated the Iraqi people and Al Qaeda. I have stated plainly that I believed Al Qaeda was in Iraq and that Saddam provided them shelter and I'll get to that in a minute, but that in no way equates the Iraqi people with Al Qaeda.

However, it appears from your statement that I quoted here and highlighted in blue, that you are trying to make them out to be regular Iraqis resisting occupation. That’s how I interpreted your statement. Again, if I am misinterpreting your post, please clarify.

Now, do I believe that Al Qaeda was in Iraq? I think I laid it all out pretty well here:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=6133&st=45#

Do I think Saddam Hussein was a threat to this country? See the same link above.

You may not agree, but it is partly this information of which I base my opinion.

Nothing in my posts should be interpreted as speaking of the Iraqi people, in general. When I speak of radical Islamic fundamentalist, I am speaking of the VERY people who attacked us on 9/11, the same people who killed Daniel Pearl. I am speaking of the Al Qaeda members who were already in and moved into Iraq setting up road bombs, carrying our suicide bombings, and decapitating this young man. I am speaking of the cleric Sadr and his militia who has told his followers to kidnap British female soldiers and keep them as sex slaves.

These people are the bogeyman. If these people are eliminated, we are all safer. They are the enemy and they must be eradicated. We are doing that in Iraq, we are doing that in our worldwide war on terror to include removing Saddam and his sons from power, we are STILL doing that in Afghanistan. We are fighting terror on foreign soil and I wouldn’t care what country it was in - Saudi, the Palestinian territories, or Iraq. I would rather they continue coming to us on foreign soil than come to America.

They will use the abuses at the prison, they will use Bush's words, they will use our support of Israel, they will use whatever excuse is convenient for them. In order for them to understand fully that we will not allow them to taken over the world with their extremism, we must not step down. We must take the fight to them and fix THEIR wrongs.

I fear I'm feeding a troll but in the hope that I'm not...

So, what is your position, Irwin, with regard to the topic of debate? From what I gather, you seem to take the position of "kill them all and let God sort them out". You seem to believe that all Islam is inherently evil. Also, you seem to suggest that there are "minimum level[s] of human decency" which are not followed within the Islamic world. Lastly, you offered a rhetorical fallacy known as a "hasty generalization". In particular:

I'd suggest reading from this link: Fallacy: Hasty Generalization.