Kai ([info]elsewhere_adore) wrote,
@ 2009-05-29 17:28:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
fuck this shit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

So the shine begins to wear pretty quickly off the Golden Boy, huh. Good thing the most powerful nation on Earth is led by a salwart, brave man who isn't afraid to bow to pressure... from the leaders... of a corrupt and broken army... who appear to've institutionalized every sort of torture and abuse... for shits 'n giggles.

After all the only purpose these pictures will serve is a legal one, right? And you know rape and mutilation aren't crimes or anything, at least not if the CIA and the army says you're allowed. We were only following orders, isn't that how it goes? No need to try anyone for this shit. Especially not given that releasing the photographic evidence of egregious human rights abuses that practically everyone knew or assumed was happening anyway might *gasp* tarnish the gleaming reputation of the United States of America!

I'm disappointed in you, Obama. For some reason I thought that 'setting a good precedent as a black leader of a historically racist country' would, somehow, translate to 'being a better person than the disgusting dregs of humanity who rape children in front of their parents'. Apparently not, not if the last few pathetic shreds of shit-soaked dignity that America has left are at stake.

Goddamn men with guns, nothing good comes of a situation when you let men with guns in.

(12 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]bazzalisk
2009-05-29 05:01 pm UTC (link)
The argument (and I'm not saying I support it, but I do understand it) is that releasing these photographs won't help bring the people involved to trial (the investigators already had access to them), it would just serve to increase violence against soldiers who weren't involved. Chances are that the vast majority of service personel have never been involved in this kind of stuff, and didn't even know it was happening until afterwards -- to put them in further danger because of what these people did seems like a bad idea.

As I said, that's the argument as I understand it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]elsewhere_adore
2009-05-29 05:53 pm UTC (link)
Well, as you say, it's an understandable point but I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this sort of reasoning if I thought there was any chance in hell that the people responsible ((not just the people who did it, but the people who OK'd it)) would suffer any consequences for it.

Oh, maybe a scapegoat or two will be made to sit in the Naughty Corner, but serious repercussions? Nah.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]elsewhere_adore
2009-05-29 05:55 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I managed to miss an important chunk of words there: if photos like this and the others keep being suppressed, they will be forgotten, and a lot easier to deny. Out of sight, out of mind, all that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]chemical16
2009-05-29 09:39 pm UTC (link)
Isn't that the point?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]lazy_alex
2009-05-29 07:13 pm UTC (link)
It's rare that something immediately good comes of a situation when you let men with guns in.

But sometimes, it's necessary to use the ones with the fractionally-less evil, corrupt, repressive leadership to kick out the fractionally worse ones. Assuming that havoc can then be un-cried, and the dogs of war re-leashed, it's possible to leave the situation less bad than it was when it started.

Doesn't always work that way, but it is just about possible.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]stagknight
2009-05-29 08:12 pm UTC (link)
But when can we expect to replace the armed forces with hexapod military robots and nuclear-powered space lasers? After all, nothing quite says 'supreme power' like cutting your enemy's heart out from 36,000 km away.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lazy_alex
2009-05-29 09:47 pm UTC (link)
That's classified.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]chemical16
2009-05-30 01:41 am UTC (link)
Hehe, and if the Illuminati won't be told...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]elsewhere_adore
2009-05-30 09:17 am UTC (link)
Unfortunately, even if the leadership is less evil and corrupt, the army is still a bunch of testosterone-crazed young men, taught to be aggressive, given guns, and sent away from the scrutiny of their own people in what I am led to believe is a culture of non-accountability ((in the US army, anyway. I understand the British are somewhat less sociopathic)).

Eh, I don't know, I'm not sure yet whether I believe in the idea of a 'just war'. In principle, fighting for your rights ((to party, at least)) is a sound concept, but when you introduce sadistic cockfucks and power-hungry scum it all goes to shit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
tl;dr
[info]lazy_alex
2009-05-30 10:53 am UTC (link)
Can't really argue with you there, on most of it. However, I think the aggression is an interesting point - certainly recruits are taught to follow orders, to fight, and to kill, which requires overcoming a strong inherent taboo in most people. However, soldiers are taught strongly not to be wantonly reckless, and to look out for their friends. Most people in the modern West don't believe too strongly in fighting for God, or Queen, or a flag, but most will fight to keep them, and their mates, from being killed first.

This moderated aggression is the result of hundreds of years of Drill Sergeants, who generally *are* mildly psychotic, but also do have a pretty solid clue about what works well in battle. Sadly, most of the operations we're seeing currently don't involve traditional pitched battles, and our training is having difficulty keeping step with the pace of change. At least for the British Army, we're making the effort, based on long-standing peace-keeping operations globally, but especially Northern Ireland. Contrast the Septics, whose response to a perceived threat is to machine-gun it. And whatever's around it. And then bomb the area to be sure.

I don't think this will, or can, continue indefinitely. Increasingly wars are fought under close scrutiny, from both sides and from "independents" such as the media. Who of course are no such thing, but that's by the by. The proliferation of real-time and near-real-time imagery means that there's ever less and less room for people to go off on a random killing spree entirely unnoticed. Whether they'll ever be brought to account for one is another question altogether, but one which I personally feel falls within the remit of the courts (both national and international, civil and military) rather than the direct, executive military chain of command.

Finally, in principle, I do believe in a "just war", even an expeditionary one. But there have to be strong controls, including a limited timescale. In practice, in the near future, more or less the only wars that will be truly just are likely to be wars of defence. And that's truly a shame, because there are places we could, and should, intervene to make things fractionally less screwed up than they are now. For instance, in Darfur - we (and here "we" is not Britain, but the international community in general) are not going to be able to undo generations of hate and abuse, nor restore to life and livelihood those who've been killed, maimed, raped, and scarred for life. But we could disarm the militias through a combination of military and policing actions, provide guaranteed safe zones, and security for international aid organisations to bring food, water, medicine, and the all important education to help ensure that the vicious cycles can be broken.

Possible? Just about. Plausible? Sadly not really. A better use of our military than we've seen in the recent past? IMHO, without question.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]centrillium3000
2009-05-30 09:49 am UTC (link)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/05/leahy-rove-truth-and-reconciliation-commission

I read this a while back. Not sure what the latest news is, but Sen. Leahy was still keen on it a month ago http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4969514.shtml .

(Reply to this)


[info]villey
2009-06-02 11:12 pm UTC (link)
I feel a bit sorry for him really - think he's starting to find out how hard it is to be progressive in the USA. Tries to close Guantanamo, the Senate won't fund it, puts a stop to torture as part of the interrogation process and the right wing complain; which they were always going to anyways but I don't get why it's okay for a US soldier to do it but if the Taliban are using the same technique it's all OMGDZ. You can't fight evil with more evil, you're just going to end up with a massive ball of evil. And noone wants that.

I understand people's concern for the troops but what's done is done, and the troops who did it should be immediateley suspended and put on trial, even if the pictures are never shown. I guess the worry is that officials who investigated the pictures know that the cases aren't all that isolated and that it's more than just a select few, which WOULD put the majority of troops at risk, rightly or wrongly.

(Reply to this)

(12 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…