Judge: Abu Gharib images and videos need to be released

[The Man]

A slippery slope applies when the government in question has repeatedly demonstrated its desire to wield more power over the populace. It was the case in Stalinist Russia, it was the case in Fascist Italy, it was the case in Nazi Germany, and it's the case now. It is worth nothing that America's current government meets certain loose criteria for fascism as it currently exists, and when the government decides that Constitutional principles can be thrown out the window at will as it is doing here, that brings us one step closer to a genuine loss of freedom.

Two thousand American soldier deaths is quite disastrous to me, thanks, considering that Saddam didn't have the WMDs and didn't have any ties to al-Qaeda. The terrorists wouldn't even be in that country right now if we hadn't invaded it. And it's not getting any better.

And to say Islam is at its core a combative religion is as erroneous as to say that Christianity is. Granted, there are extremists who have taken selected verses from its holy work and used those to justify unmentionable atrocities. However, to pretend that their behavior is any different from the behavior of religious Europeans is to commit a grave logical fallacy.

You might favour the sort of scenario that's likely, given Iran's stated desire to wield nuclear power, to lead up to global nuclear war, but I'd rather stay away from that path.

[Big D]

The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners of war. For every other person in the world, the relevant documents are treaties like the ICCPR and the Torture Convention, both of which are major international law documents, which the US has signed and ratified. The US is legally obliged to obey these treaties, by reason of a solemn promise to every other state that has ratified. Both treaties prohibit torture of anyone, anywhere. The ICCPR also codifies the ancient rule of innocence until proof of guilt.

If a US soldier tortures a prisoner in Iraq, he commits an international crime that can be prosecuted anywhere in the world. Prisoners, even "suspected terrorists", are protected by the presumption of innocence - they may be "suspects", but unless or until they're convicted by a lawful tribunal, they are innocent of any crime.
Even if they are found guilty, torture remains illegal. The freedom from torture and c/i/d punishment is a universal right, not just an 'optional extra' that can be applied at whim.

"But they're terrorists!"
No they're not, they're suspects, and some of them aren't even that; some innocents are picked up for looking suspicious, or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"But they do it to us!"
Yes, terrorist groups have been known to torture prisoners, so do some Arab states - but not the individuals being held and tortured in facilities such as Abu Ghraib. To say that "an Arab hurt an American, so it's OK for an American to hurt any Arab he chooses" is ridiculous.

One of the biggest excuses motivating the current conflict in Iraq was a desire to "bring freedom" to the Iraqi people. Instead, we're expected to believe that this can be achieved by a continuing removal of the most basic human rights - due process of law, freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary detention. "It's OK for Americans to do it, but it's also OK for America to condemn it and to kill other people for doing it".

The Iraq war has actually been going rather well, from a purely numerical standpoint. We've had about 2,000 of our men die, of which approximately 900 have lost their lives in combat. Quite frankly, any other country at any time in history would do anything for those numbers. I don't particularly care what happens to Iraqi civilians; I'm solely concerned about our personnel.

Estimates vary, but between 20,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the conflict - mainly "collateral damage" from coalition bombs and shells. You say you don't care about them. How would the US react if Al Qaeda said "we never meant to kill anyone in the Twin Towers; the buildings were our real target so those deaths are just collateral casualties, not our fault and not our problem"?

This war is allegedly being fought to "protect the innocent", yet as per usual they sustain the greatest losses, losses that continue to take a toll due to the destruction of national infrastructure and livelihoods.

Besides, we have more than enough power to ruthlessly crush any other country or even combination of countries at the present time. Basically, our good graces are the only reason America isn't a global empire.

The world-wide presence of nuclear arms is also a relevant factor, I believe. The US has... what? 5000 warheads? Out of at least 20,000 in existence. The US has strong financial influence by reason of its status as the global economic superpower, but in the end it's a nation of a mere quarter-billion people. It's military might is significant, but not enough to directly enslave the rest of the world.

[?????]

ALL governments desire power over the populace. If a government cannot control the populace by force, it is not a government.

I somehow doubt that I would stand for having my personal rights taken away; if such a thing happened in America, widespread revolt would ensue, even in the military, because military personnel are not obligated to follow orders that are not in accordance with the Constitution. But the Constitution extends its protections to American citizens ONLY.

Saddam did likely have the WMDs. I'm of the opinion that he carted them off to Syria or one of those other moronic terrorist countries or groups. His ties to al-Qaeda were virtually nonexistent; he and Osama differed substantially in their religious stances. However, considering that both have an open disdain for the U.S., that isn't particularly relevant.

Two thousand American soldier deaths is nowhere near disastrous. It's a drop in the bucket.

And Islam is indeed a violent, combative religion. There exist no other ways to interpret those particular verses. A is A; a thing either is or it isn't. A verse in a holy book either advocates violence or it does not. There is no in-between; contradictions do not exist. Christianity is also a violent, combative religion. Their behavior is not different than that of, say, the Crusaders. Their behavior is different from ours, in that we endeavor not to kill civilians randomly. I don't particularly care if we do or not, at least not because of any humanitarian reason; wanton civilian slaughter wastes resources that could be appropriated to better subdue and destroy the enemy.

5000 warheads is more than enough to basically nuke the crap out of everything.

The 9/11 terrorists' target was both the buildings and as many civilians as they could kill in the process of destroying them.

And, as I stated earlier, upholding the Geneva Convention's anti-cruelty laws and other similar statutes is completely irrational, because terrorists aren't going to be doing it; practical concerns should weigh heavier than all else. Humanitarian concerns should be at the bottom of our list of worries. You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

[Big D]

I somehow doubt that I would stand for having my personal rights taken away; if such a thing happened in America, widespread revolt would ensue, even in the military, because military personnel are not obligated to follow orders that are not in accordance with the Constitution. But the Constitution extends its protections to American citizens ONLY.

The US government has already given itself the right to override numerous Bill of Rights freedoms and protections. Search and seizure, indefinite arbitrary detention, others... all gone, if someone decides you've got a "connection to terrorism". There's been no civil unrest, and very little backlash in the US - anyone who complains about having their freedoms destroyed is simply labelled "unpatriotic", "un-American" or whatever else sounds exciting on the news.

Saddam did likely have the WMDs. I'm of the opinion that he carted them off to Syria or one of those other dumb terrorist countries or groups.

The US government has publically admitted that Iraw had no functional WMDs at the time of the invasion.

His ties to al-Qaeda were virtually nonexistent; he and Osama differed substantially in their religious stances. However, considering that both have an open disdain for the U.S., that isn't particularly relevant.

So... if a country's leader/dictator has a disdain for the US, then it's ok for the US to invade, killing thousands of innocents in the process? George Bush has a "disdain" for France. I doubt that could be used to justify an EU "liberation" of the US...

Two thousand American soldier deaths is nowhere near disastrous. It's a drop in the bucket.

Not to those who died. Or their units, their families, their friends.

And Islam is indeed a violent, combative religion. There exist no other ways to interpret those particular verses.

So is Christianity. The Crusades were religious genocide committed in the name of Christianity. Christian fundamentalists constantly murder in the name of their religion; being Christian also didn't stop IRA terrorists from killing the innocent, nor did it prevent CIA operatives committing and aiding terrorism against pro-Marxist states during the 1980s.

Their behavior is different from ours, in that we endeavor not to kill civilians randomly.

Who is "they"? The fundamentalist terrorists, or every Muslim individual? Mainstream Islam is a non-violent as mainstream Christianity or secularism. The violent acts of a few do not justify the wanton annihilation of the rest; otherwise EVERY subculture would be eligible for destruction.

Incidentally... when an Air Force bombs a building with knowledge that innocents will be killed inside, there's little difference from bombing a building in order to kill the innocent. Both would be murder, under any country's criminal law.

[?????]

I somehow doubt that I would stand for having my personal rights taken away; if such a thing happened in America, widespread revolt would ensue, even in the military, because military personnel are not obligated to follow orders that are not in accordance with the Constitution. But the Constitution extends its protections to American citizens ONLY.

The US government has already given itself the right to override numerous Bill of Rights freedoms and protections. Search and seizure, indefinite arbitrary detention, others... all gone, if someone decides you've got a "connection to terrorism". There's been no civil unrest, and very little backlash in the US - anyone who complains about having their freedoms destroyed is simply labelled "unpatriotic", "un-American" or whatever else sounds exciting on the news.

You're generalizing. Prove the consistency of this statement.

Saddam did likely have the WMDs. I'm of the opinion that he carted them off to Syria or one of those other moronic terrorist countries or groups.

The US government has publically admitted that Iraq had no functional WMDs at the time of the invasion.

Functional, perhaps not. But I'd rather not wait around for them to be functional, considering his attitude towards us.

His ties to al-Qaeda were virtually nonexistent; he and Osama differed substantially in their religious stances. However, considering that both have an open disdain for the U.S., that isn't particularly relevant.

So... if a country's leader/dictator has a disdain for the US, then it's ok for the US to invade, killing thousands of innocents in the process? George Bush has a "disdain" for France. I doubt that could be used to justify an EU "liberation" of the US...

Of course not, because we'd kick their asses into next year and they know it. On the other hand, I'm all for an invasion of France.

Two thousand American soldier deaths is nowhere near disastrous. It's a drop in the bucket.

Not to those who died. Or their units, their families, their friends.

Their family and friends don't matter.

And Islam is indeed a violent, combative religion. There exist no other ways to interpret those particular verses.

So is Christianity. The Crusades were religious genocide committed in the name of Christianity. Christian fundamentalists constantly murder in the name of their religion; being Christian also didn't stop IRA terrorists from killing the innocent, nor did it prevent CIA operatives committing and aiding terrorism against pro-Marxist states during the 1980s.

Yes, I stated this as well. I have no idea what purpose agreeing with me so vehemently on that particular issue serves toward making your argument.

Their behavior is different from ours, in that we endeavor not to kill civilians randomly.

Who is "they"? The fundamentalist terrorists, or every Muslim individual? Mainstream Islam is a non-violent as mainstream Christianity or secularism. The violent acts of a few do not justify the wanton annihilation of the rest; otherwise EVERY subculture would be eligible for destruction.

"They" constitutes fundamentalist terrorists, in this case.

[quote]

Incidentally... when an Air Force bombs a building with knowledge that innocents will be killed inside, there's little difference from bombing a building in order to kill the innocent. Both would be murder, under any country's criminal law.

This isn't particularly relevant.

As I said, the Bill of Rights makes a very clear distinction between American citizens and everyone else. It is not a misconception.

Three thousand CIVILIAN deaths matter, because they're our civilians. Two thousand MILITARY deaths do not.

As I stated earlier, I don't care whether Iraqi civilians are safer or not. As long as terrorists die when our military fires, however many enemy civilians get killed is a complete non-issue. I'm an imperialist; I believe in expanding our power and economy as much as possible. The oil revenues we'll bring in from over there will be massive.

The nuclear issue is why I advocate some sort of a missile defense system. Basically, my desire is no less than to nuke offending countries with impunity and plunder the hell out of whatever's left.

[The Man]

ALL governments desire power over the populace. If a government cannot control the populace by force, it is not a government.

Just because a government exercises force to lock up criminals does not mean that it actively seeks to gain additional power. The difference lies in the ideology of the people running it, and whether they are more concerned for those being governed or for those doing the governing. In this particular case, the vast amount of evidence (most recently, the disastrous responses to Katrina and, to a lesser extent, Rita) suggests that the majority of concern rests with those doing the governing.

I somehow doubt that I would stand for having my personal rights taken away; if such a thing happened in America, widespread revolt would ensue, even in the military, because military personnel are not obligated to follow orders that are not in accordance with the Constitution. But the Constitution extends its protections to American citizens ONLY.

That's a common misconception. Nowhere does the Bill of Rights ever make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

Saddam did likely have the WMDs. I'm of the opinion that he carted them off to Syria or one of those other moronic terrorist countries or groups. His ties to al-Qaeda were virtually nonexistent; he and Osama differed substantially in their religious stances. However, considering that both have an open disdain for the U.S., that isn't particularly relevant.

I've yet to see any solid evidence presented for the "Saddam gave the WMD away" theory. There seems to have been plenty of evidence given that the WMD had been destroyed, exactly as the records said they had. Since we never found the WMD and the Nigerian yellowcakes theory has been thoroughly discredited, I think it's fairly safe to say that the entire war was marketed on a lie, namely that Saddam had nuclear weapons. That, I would regard as a crucial mistake.

Two thousand American soldier deaths is nowhere near disastrous. It's a drop in the bucket.

By that scale, three thousand American deaths on 9/11 is nowhere near disastrous either. Good call.

And Islam is indeed a violent, combative religion. There exist no other ways to interpret those particular verses. A is A; a thing either is or it isn't. A verse in a holy book either advocates violence or it does not. There is no in-between; contradictions do not exist. Christianity is also a violent, combative religion. Their behavior is not different than that of, say, the Crusaders.

I can agree with you here, at least in that they both contain violent verses.

Their behavior is different from ours, in that we endeavor not to kill civilians randomly. I don't particularly care if we do or not, at least not because of any humanitarian reason; wanton civilian slaughter wastes resources that could be appropriated to better subdue and destroy the enemy.

Here I do not, simply because of the reasons Big D cited above that as many as 100,000 Iraqis may be dead. If the 100,000 dead estimate is true, we have killed 100,000 in three years. Saddam killed 300,000 in thirty years, so it wouldn't be far amiss to say that you'd have been safer as an Iraqi citizen under Saddam's regime.

5000 warheads is more than enough to basically nuke the crap out of everything.

But the problem with this is that once we launch nukes, so does everyone else who has them. And then the world gets destroyed.

As I said, the Bill of Rights makes a very clear distinction between American citizens and everyone else. It is not a misconception.

Then I would like you to point out where it says makes this "very clear distinction," because search as I may, I am completely unable to locate it, and when I have asked other trolls such as you to locate it, they too have come up completely blank. Until you do such, I will assume that you are just making this up.

Three thousand CIVILIAN deaths matter, because they're our civilians. Two thousand MILITARY deaths do not.

So we don't have a duty to the people who signed up to protect our country to ensure that they don't spend their lives in vain?

As I stated earlier, I don't care whether Iraqi civilians are safer or not. As long as terrorists die when our military fires, however many enemy civilians get killed is a complete non-issue. I'm an imperialist; I believe in expanding our power and economy as much as possible. The oil revenues we'll bring in from over there will be massive.

The nuclear issue is why I advocate some sort of a missile defense system. Basically, my desire is no less than to nuke offending countries with impunity and plunder the hell out of whatever's left.

Wow. Self-centered much?

[?????]

I'd love to know exactly how I'm trolling. I'm not just saying this stuff to piss people off.

And yes, I am very self-centered. This is not a flaw, but rather a mark of character.

[nik0tine]

You know what I mean. Terrorists and other enemies don't follow the Geneva Convention's rules, so why should we?

Because it's morally wrong to act otherwise? I just have to wonder where you get your moral reasoning from.

My mindset is that as long as I can live my life unimpeded, I really don't care one whit what happens to those people or what our military does to achieve that end. Their lives don't affect me and never will. Torture them, rape them, do weird-ass psychic experiments on them, make them watch endless episodes of Friends for all I care. Just get them out of society and off of my news.

You're worse than the terrorists.

It's something of a fallacy to say that no one in our country understands Islam. I understand Islam quite well.

I thought you were serious until you said this:

It is a religion rooted in conquest, brainwashing, and violence

I can't be assed to read any more posts in this thread at the moment because it's nearly 3:00 am, but I have yet to get my fill of hateful rhetoric and general nonsense, so I'll definetly be back tomorrow with an argument or two.

[Shadow Nexus]

Ah, be caerful not to turn this topic into another US is bad- US is good topic, we're a little bored of that, aren't we?

As for Mr. ????, you are quite dogmatic for having such a nick. I am not going to bother to reply to this right now, because your fossiliced mammonic ideas of the state are despicable enough to be ignored. However, I feel it's good for you to say you are a self-centered imperialist, if there is something I dislike more than ideas that have no respect for life is those same ideas covered in flowers. So keep that make-up off.

Proof. Without it, a lot of people will find it difficult to believe exactly what's going on therein.

It's a reasonable argument, but it's still not a reason heavy enough to counter the fact you are distributing humilliating pictures. I believe Donald Rumsfeld when he says it's horrible, actually it must be one of the few times when I actually buy what he sells. Saying the images are what they are dosen't benefit him at all, and that's the main reason I believe him, I do not know wht he would be lying.

Ah, The Man, that quote you put, I believe it was actually said by Bertolt Brecht.

[?????]

You know what I mean. Terrorists and other enemies don't follow the Geneva Convention's rules, so why should we?

Because it's morally wrong to act otherwise? I just have to wonder where you get your moral reasoning from.

I have to wonder where you get yours from. My moral reasoning comes from the fact that in the absence of a provable morality, the only one we can rationally follow is a morality based on selfishness.

My mindset is that as long as I can live my life unimpeded, I really don't care one whit what happens to those people or what our military does to achieve that end. Their lives don't affect me and never will. Torture them, rape them, do weird-ass psychic experiments on them, make them watch endless episodes of Friends for all I care. Just get them out of society and off of my news.

You're worse than the terrorists.

In terms of methodology, I'm exactly the same. No more, no less.

It's something of a fallacy to say that no one in our country understands Islam. I understand Islam quite well.

I thought you were serious until you said this:

It is a religion rooted in conquest, brainwashing, and violence

I can't be assed to read any more posts in this thread at the moment because it's nearly 3:00 am, but I have yet to get my fill of hateful rhetoric and general nonsense, so I'll definetly be back tomorrow with an argument or two.

No, I am quite serious. I cite these verses from the Koran as proof:

Quran-47:4: When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads.

Quran-9:5: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush.

Quran-2:191: And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

(Source: www.secularislam.org)

How many ways can you think of to reasonably interpret those verses? ONE. Precisely one.

I will give you credit for following your premises to their logical conclusions. However, I submit that your premises (compassion, equality, etc.) are in grave need of adjustment, because they largely do not reflect nature. Is it possible to be completely self-centered? Of course not. But this doesn't change the fact that selfishness and greed is what drives society forward.

[The Man]

I'd love to know exactly how I'm trolling. I'm not just saying this stuff to piss people off.

I'm honestly not convinced you really believe any of the rhetoric you're spouting, in fact, I'm honestly not convinced anyone this side of Hitler could, so yes, that would make you a troll.

And since you responded to my request for a citation from the Constitution with snark, I'll assume you have none and you were just making stuff up. Capital.

[?????]

Actually, on the Constitution issue, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it applies elsewhere. It says nowhere in the document that it applies anywhere outside of the U.S.

I do support eugenics to an extent. It occurs naturally anyway, through evolution; why not help it along? I say this as a possessor of Semitic blood as well as a possessor of Asperger's Syndrome. If it were not for my intellect, there would be no moral reason to allow my existence to continue, for it would be a drain on society.

About me and my philosophy, you're partially correct. In all honesty, I hate my entire philosophy right down to its godforsaken core. I'd be exceedingly happy if someone, anyone, would kindly obliterate it. It's just that it's quite difficult, perhaps nigh-impossible, to punch holes in without invoking emotion-based arguments or an unprovable higher force.

[Shadow Nexus]

I am starting to think you are someone with a sense of humour on a second account.

[The Man]

Actually, on the Constitution issue, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it applies elsewhere. It says nowhere in the document that it applies anywhere outside of the U.S.

Since it says nowhere in the document that it does not apply anywhere outside of the U.S., the rational interpretation is to assume that it applies to non-citizens. Since distinctions are made between citizens and non-citizens in various portions of the Constitution, but are not made in the Bill of Rights, the rational thing to do is assume that they're talking about everyone.

I do support eugenics to an extent. It occurs naturally anyway, through evolution; why not help it along? I say this as a possessor of Semitic blood as well as a possessor of Asperger's Syndrome. If it were not for my intellect, there would be no moral reason to allow my existence to continue, for it would be a drain on society.

About me and my philosophy, you're partially correct. In all honesty, I hate my entire philosophy right down to its godforsaken core. I'd be exceedingly happy if someone, anyone, would kindly obliterate it. It's just that it's quite difficult, perhaps nigh-impossible, to punch holes in without invoking emotion-based arguments or an unprovable higher force.

touché

[Big D]

Actually, on the Constitution issue, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it applies elsewhere. It says nowhere in the document that it applies anywhere outside of the U.S.

Since it says nowhere in the document that it does not apply anywhere outside of the U.S., the rational interpretation is to assume that it applies to non-citizens. Since distinctions are made between citizens and non-citizens in various portions of the Constitution, but are not made in the Bill of Rights, the rational thing to do is assume that they're talking about everyone.

Laws like that usually govern territories, so the entirety of the US - including everyone within it - should be covered. As soon as you start having different laws (and different protection) for separate "groups" of people in the same state, you risk straying into apartheid territory.