Karen, I still think those officers having worked in the Penal System got a lot of practice there before going to Iraq..
Did you ever watch "Oz" when it was on HBO? Boy!... If even a tenth of that is true... Wilma On 5/11/04 10:37 AM, "KAREN ALLEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sharon, > Actually, to compare those people to animals is a gross insult to animals. > > It was interesting how everyone, from Bush and Rumsfeld, on down to > Karpinski, the prison's commanding officer, were so quick to declare that > the soldiers caught in those photos were simply a small group of evil people > acting on their own. Obviously, that was done to try to contain the damage > and to protect the higher-ups. > > Bush has to watch "60 Minutes 2" to know what's going on in his own > government? (yeah, sure, and anyway if that were true how'd he know to > change the channel from "American Idol" or whatever else was on opposite?) > Rumsfeld knew months ago and did nothing; even Colin Powell, a member of > Rumsfeld's own administration, tried to warn him of the abuses. And for > Karpinski to make excuses, pass the buck and play the blame game is > particularly reprehensible--as I understand the military, the commanding > officer is responsible for everything that happens under his or her command. > The "honorable" (yeah, right!) thing for her to have done would have been to > accept responsibility and to accept whatever punishment was due. But as we > can see from Bush on down, responsibility means nothing unless you're at the > bottom. > > If it were true that these were a few rogues acting on their own, why would > they take pictures of themselves and pass them around? They obviously > weren't afraid of getting caught. And some of the backgrounds suggest that > these atrocities took place in open cellblock areas where anyone, including > superior officers could walk in at any time. > > The families of these people are making the usual excuses that "they were > just following orders". Maybe. But to this day, news articles appear about > former Nazi concentration camp guards now in their 70's and 80's being > deported from the US for lying about their wartime service. Their war > crimes occurred more than 60 years ago, when these people would have been in > their late teens or early 20's. Obviously, these people would not have been > top echelon Nazis, but just a bunch of little guys who were "just following > orders". Yet, we still hold them accountable. And so it should be for > these current scumbags, from Lynddie English all the way up the chain of > command (and given the horror of rape and sexual assault that all women have > to fear, especially in wartime, English deserves a special place in hell). > Karen Allen > > >> From: Sharon Nicolary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Sharon Nicolary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> CC: UnivCity listserv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [UC] Proud to be an American? >> Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:50:39 -0400 >> >> Dear Brian: >> >> Your first paragraph is an excuse and one that I find absolutely >> ridiculous. >> There is no distinction, war time or not. As human beings we are meant to >> act >> like human beings not like a bunch of animals. >> -- >> Sharon Nicolary >> >> >> Quoting Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> Wilma de Soto wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Al, >>>> >>>> Wow! >>>> >>>> Having never been in a wartime combat situation, it is difficult for me >>>> to judge what I would do in such a situation. However, I feel that the US >>>> should always take the high road and not participate in these >>>> ÃâÅhi-jinksÃâ?. >>> >>> It's important to draw an important moral distinction about wartime >>> atrocities-- specificially, when it's part of official policy. Wartime >>> is when young men are thrown into a situation where the laws of >>> civilization are suspended, where their lives are in danger, and they're >>> given the weaponry to defend themselves and inflict casualties on the >>> enemy. So it's inevitable that there will be events such as My Lai, and >>> practices like taking ears and skulls as souvenirs. Commanders can try >>> to reduce this sort of thing, and there are soldiers who struggle to >>> _not_ engage in such acts. But this is what happens when you put young >>> men and women into war. Doesn't exonerate anyone when they _do_ do >>> horrible things. >>> >>> But when atrocities are part of actual policy, that's another moral >>> issue entirely. That's when there really is a choice to commit evil >>> acts. Events like Operation Speedy Express in Vietnam weren't the acts >>> of dogfaces in a dangerous field; they were decisions and policies made >>> by people who weren't in the thick of war, who weren't in danger, and >>> who had no real risk if they chose not to raze villages or torture >>> prisoners. >>> >>> And the torture in the prisons in Iraq were, by all accounts, policies >>> set by higher-echelon officers and military intelligence. >>> >>> And the moral horror here is even worse since the establishment of the >>> Geneva Protocols and the Nuremburg Trials. It may seem silly to talk of >>> laws regarding warfare, but they do exist, and they're there for >>> important reasons. These rules should be part of the basic planning of >>> any conflict. And they were explicitly ignored. >>> >>> And let's carry this principle back to my earlier point about how >>> certain kinds of atrocities are inevitable. That point also means that >>> steps can be taken to prevent or reduce them. Soldiers can be educated >>> about conduct in the field, the treatment of prisoners, and in relations >>> with civilians. Prisons in occupied territories can be administrated >>> with explicit, careful attention paid to preventing the kid of abuse and >>> torture we've been reading about. >>> >>> In other words, all of this was easily foreseeable. It was also >>> preventable. The people running this show should have known better. And >>> the Bush Administration invaded Iraq partly because, they claimed, they >>> wanted to prevent these particular kinds of atrocities against Iraqis. >>> This places the people who're running that prison on a _lower moral >>> level than Nazis_. >>> >>> But, as the occupation has demonstrated, the Bush Administration had no >>> conception of how to administrate the occupation of a state. The >>> experience of Bush, Cheyney and Rumsfeld rests solely in the realm of >>> crony capitalism. That's acceptable experience here in America, with its >>> stable institutions and robust economy. But it does not make them the >>> equivalent of a Truman or an Eisenhower, men who had some knowledge of >>> history, and who managed to rebuild Germany and Japan into stable >>> democracies. Even someone as self-concerned as Douglas MacArthur managed >>> to do a decent job of rebuilding Japan. The men of the Bush >>> Administration have never really been responsible for the real nuts and >>> bolts of running amodern state. It's as though an eight-year-old child >>> who'd grown up eating at Le Bec Fin was suddenly put in charge of >>> running agricultural policy. >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the >>> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see >>> <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. >> >> >> >> ---- >> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the >> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see >> <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. > > > ---- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see > <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
