Don't Let 'Em See It!

May 23, 2004 1:22 PM

Ban on Camera Phones in Iraq Q: What do you do if your troops take pictures of physical and sexual abuse in American-run prisons in Iraq? A: Ban cameras, of course. What the people can't see don't happen.
posted by dayvin (73 comments total)

You've entirely missed the point. If they didn't HAVE cameras, they wouldn't feel the NEED to take awful, awful abusive pictures. I mean, that's just common sense.
posted by ColdChef at 1:34 PM on May 23, 2004

I hope they go after the journalists next. Those irresponsible enemies of democracy are just wandering around, embedded and freelance alike, viciously quoting soldiers, maliciously laying out facts about the occupation, and assaulting freedom and aiding terrorists by publishing this as "news" . Once we kick all the journalists our of Iraq everyone will be much happier.
posted by meehawl at 1:42 PM on May 23, 2004

you unpatriotic united states haters make me puke.
posted by quonsar at 1:44 PM on May 23, 2004

If only we had men like Donald Rumsfeld during WWI, nobody would ever have had to worry about those disturbing drawings from Otto Dix...such filthy, horrifying stuff which took away the victory of war.

My name is Josef Stalin and I approve of this ad.
posted by Smart Dalek at 1:49 PM on May 23, 2004

Perhaps also because military facilities have a lot of other things that shouldn't be photographed.
posted by kablam at 1:52 PM on May 23, 2004

Hey, Rumsfeld had no choice. Technology is eeeeevil. It corrupts the pure of heart, making them beat, rape, and otherwise degrade human beings. Once the technology is eliminated, its insidious hold over military minds will be broken. In related news, all computer guided systems are to be immediately replaced with kites.

"Digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq," it said, adding that a "total ban throughout the US military" is in the works.

Meehawl, they already are going after journalists. Those pesky embedded journalists will be so much easier to control now that they have to hand over the cameras and phones just to maintain their "access" to military facilities.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 1:57 PM on May 23, 2004

Does the US go out of its way to find the most obtuse solution to its problems?
posted by chunking express at 2:00 PM on May 23, 2004

No, it just comes naturally.
posted by trondant at 2:15 PM on May 23, 2004

Perhaps also because military facilities have a lot of other things that shouldn't be photographed.

a legitimate concern with some shady timing. or are they just now figuring that out?
posted by mcsweetie at 2:16 PM on May 23, 2004

Nothing new about this rule. Soldiers were banned from carrying cameras during WWII.
posted by nico at 2:21 PM on May 23, 2004

Nothing new about this rule. Soldiers were banned from carrying cameras during WWII.

Well, there is something new, which is the ubiquity of mobile phones and digital cameras and email and web access.
posted by riviera at 2:35 PM on May 23, 2004

nico, kablam - but why now?
posted by andrew cooke at 3:01 PM on May 23, 2004

Thus begins the great digital image technology arms race of the 21st century in which our intrepid inventor class is tasked with producing ever smaller and technologically advanced imaging devices in order to deceive the anit-imaging screening processes of the military, industry, & government of all levels.

In the year 2010 when the first organic cameras became available...
posted by filchyboy at 3:05 PM on May 23, 2004

Anyone know what the penalty might be for carrying one? I presume they are personal phones and the soldiers will have to get a new one (at their personal expense.)
I am going to guess:
Treat POWS poorly - get one year in prison with dishonorable discharge.
Carry modern cell phone - 10 years of hard labor and dishonorable discharge.
Report mistreatment - transfer to Nome, Alaska weather station.
posted by fluffycreature at 4:19 PM on May 23, 2004

One solution to gratuitous mayhem is to require all military personnel to carry digicams from now on.
posted by 327.ca at 4:52 PM on May 23, 2004

"The facts in Iraq are biased."

-- The Daily Show
posted by digaman at 5:02 PM on May 23, 2004

"Remember, it's not important that we did torture these people. What's important is that we are not the kind of people who would torture these people."

-- The Daily Show
posted by mr.marx at 5:40 PM on May 23, 2004

And it was just a few days ago that i was insulted for calling this.

I said: You can be sure that soldiers won't be allowed to have cameras or cellphones from now on.

and Krrrlson said: Yessir, and the black helicopters are coming for you as we speak.


hmmmm...
posted by amberglow at 5:55 PM on May 23, 2004

here is something that is not new. Filming/photographing a military installation, for the most part, is against the rules thus subject to court marshal.
posted by clavdivs at 6:16 PM on May 23, 2004

hmmm, the article relates to camera cellphones. you said cameras AND cell phones.

but I do not see where helecopters are in order.
posted by clavdivs at 6:20 PM on May 23, 2004

Ahhhh the refreshing smell of being in denial ! We're in war but we're not in war, peace activism is terrorist support and the devices that take pictures are weapons of mass distruction, what matters doesn't matter.

Seriously, why shouldn't soldier bring digital cameras ? In my humble opinion because the .mil suddendly realized their internal security and control structure is so laughable an entire prison can derail and turn into a torture camp and some digital camera may slip and document failure.

And of course what do they fix ? The digital camera problem first.
posted by elpapacito at 6:28 PM on May 23, 2004

This is so awful it's hilarious.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Well then, don't do that."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:58 PM on May 23, 2004

Hmm, if you check into it, there is a good chance that cameras are already not allowed. They aren't allowed on flight lines and other areas. Not that such rules stop anything. I once took a picture of the lineup of the AC-130s and MH-53-s in Brindisi, the SP came running over and said, NO PICUTRES! I told him there was no film in the camera and I was just focusing, he said, oh, and walked away.
Not the sharpest guy I guess.
They can ban to their hearts content. No way they can stop the digital cameras, and the subsequent pictures. Not going to happen, no way, no how.
posted by a3matrix at 7:05 PM on May 23, 2004

For now digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds throughout Iraq but a complete ban throughout the military is in the works, the report said.--the washington times' take on it (i know--moonies)
posted by amberglow at 7:37 PM on May 23, 2004

Pretty soon, the US military will require it's service members to live like eco-freak luddites.

In the cause of Freedom™ .
posted by troutfishing at 8:28 PM on May 23, 2004

Photography of restricted areas and/or documents has always been banned on military installations. The soldiers know this as evidenced by the 60 Minutes II, A GI's Iraq Prison Video Diary story where the soldier making the video states:

"I gotta be careful with my video camera because we're not allowed to have video cameras here."

This is nothing new, they're just now cracking down on it because it's clear that soldiers cannot police themselves.
posted by Juicylicious at 8:35 PM on May 23, 2004

yeah, having no cameraphones is a serious factor concerning morale.
posted by clavdivs at 8:35 PM on May 23, 2004

It's so sad that the Daily Show is quoted so often by some of you.

"Remember, it's not important that we did torture these people. What's important is that we are not the kind of people who would torture these people."

-- The Daily Show

The Daily Show can't speak for itself... but "WE" didn't torture anyone. I know that I wasn't there. How about you mr.marx? Were you there? I blame a handful of soldiers. When these insurgents (terrorists) start worrying about how terrible it is to attack coalition forces with car bombs and the like... when they step forward and condemn their own violence against civilians and relief workers, when they apologize for using mosques and human shields to their favor, then I'll worry about how we're treating some of these captured villains. We're not talking about official members of the Iraqi Army here. These aren't innocent Iraqi civilians. These guys are terrorists, many of them aren't even from Iraq. They're thugs that came lookin' for trouble and they found it. I don't feel sorry for them FOR ONE SECOND, for having to show their pee-pees and be led around like dogs on a leash. To continually babble back and forth like the lot of you do, as if to suggest that it is the policy of the U.S. Armed Forces to torture people, is fucking disgraceful.
posted by Witty at 8:55 PM on May 23, 2004

"I blame a handful of soldiers....These aren't innocent Iraqi civilians. These guys are terrorists, many of them aren't even from Iraq. They're thugs that came lookin' for trouble and they found it"

Witty, according to the Tugaba report, over 60% in Abu Ghraib were completely innocent. The Red Cross put the figure at 70-90%

Your words smell like an orifice which isn't a mouth.
posted by troutfishing at 9:01 PM on May 23, 2004

Witty: They're thugs that came lookin' for trouble and they found it.

"We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us" - Pogo
posted by gen at 9:01 PM on May 23, 2004

>then I'll worry about how we're treating some of these captured villains.

Beyond any human rights issues, I think you should be concerned. These representative/unrepresentative acts undermine the moral weight of your military and your government.
posted by philfromhavelock at 9:13 PM on May 23, 2004

Witty is certainly not witty. you need to wake up. One would expect the Land of The Free to ensure it behaved a little better than this.
posted by mary8nne at 9:46 PM on May 23, 2004

Witty, as much as "we" toppled the Taliban and as much as "we" defeated Saddam's forces... that's how much "we" tortured people in our care in that prison.
posted by NortonDC at 9:57 PM on May 23, 2004

Shorter Witty:

"Because some brown people did some bad stuff to us, we can do bad stuff to these other brown people."
posted by Space Coyote at 10:08 PM on May 23, 2004

shortest witty:

my perceived enemies aren't human.

shortest saddam hussein:

my perceived enemies aren't human.
posted by fuq at 10:44 PM on May 23, 2004

How about you mr.marx? Were you there?

Hell no. Did I say I was? I'm not even american, bless me very much.
posted by mr.marx at 7:19 AM on May 24, 2004

then I'll worry about how we're treating some of these captured villains. (...) These guys are terrorists, many of them aren't even from Iraq. They're thugs that came lookin' for trouble and they found it. I don't feel sorry for them FOR ONE SECOND,

Witty -- ParisParamus Doppelganger, But Not As Funny
posted by matteo at 7:55 AM on May 24, 2004

People just gotta understand.

Torture isn't a problem.

Getting caught torturing is a problem.

Banning cameras addresses the problem.

No evidence means the wittys of the world can deny torture ever happened.

Problem solved. Dissonance remains intact.

Too bad these photos were ORDERED taken as a part of the torture process, not soldiers taking tourist mug shots. Kinda blows up the entire "banning cameras" angle.
posted by nofundy at 8:00 AM on May 24, 2004

Witty is certainly not witty.

Good one. You spelled maryanne wrong.

you need to wake up.

I'll "wake up" when knobs like you stop blowing things out of proportion.

One would expect the Land of The Free to ensure it behaved a little better than this.

What? Everyone? Everyone in the Land of the Free has to be an angel? Can anyone just admit that this was an EXCEPTION to the normal behavior of the VAST MAJORITY of soldiers doing their jobs over there? mary8nne, didn't your mom teach your not to take gang bangs from frat boys in college? You're just an exception though right. Or is that how all chicks from Down Under behave?

And you know what, those soldiers DID behave a little better that say... the thugs that BEHEADED a captured civilian. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Beyond any human rights issues, I think you should be concerned.

I am concerned... that letting this behavior go unpunished would be wrong. What those few soldiers did was against the rules and they should pay the conseqences. But I won't blow this up and pretend like this is u.s. military approved. Taking it all the way to Rumsfeld is nothing more than partisan politics and just plain silly. Show an OUNCE of compassion for the 18-year old girl that has obviously lost her shit under the bizarre circumstances for which she finds herself now.

I'm not even american, bless me very much.

Ok Sven... the blessing goes all around.

Witty, as much as "we" toppled the Taliban and as much as "we" defeated Saddam's forces... that's how much "we" tortured people in our care in that prison.

No Norton, but good try. Every soldier was part of toppling the Taliban and defeating Saddam... but only a handful were part of the "torture". It's not the same.

No evidence means the wittys of the world can deny torture ever happened.

You wish that's the way I felt. Believe what you will, asshole. Don't let me stop you folks from the sarcastic rhetoric and silly quips... carry on. Y'all certainly know better, you're full of truth. Oh to be like you.
posted by Witty at 8:25 AM on May 24, 2004

Oh, witty, you're so fucked up...
posted by acrobat at 8:49 AM on May 24, 2004

Ok Sven

Fuck you.
posted by mr.marx at 9:00 AM on May 24, 2004

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

We have respect for other human beings. Damn us to hell.
posted by bargle at 9:22 AM on May 24, 2004

mary8nne, didn't your mom teach your not to take gang bangs from frat boys in college? You're just an exception though right. Or is that how all chicks from Down Under behave?


I believe you owe mary8nne an apology. Does your mother know you talk like this?
posted by caddis at 9:34 AM on May 24, 2004

Ok, I think what witty is trying to say under all that excess hostility is that he believes the torture was an isolated event, which is a valid thing to believe. It might not jive with what many of us believe but that's ok too.
-Now to try and address some points, with the realization that this now sets me up to be attacked...
1. It has ben suggested that from a cultural point of view that killing those prisoners would have been more acceptable than torture (and just because that is not how you feel about the issue does not make it true or valid)
2. Setting aside the fact that most within the prison where innocent. Even if they where those that targeted aid workers et. al, I would venture to guess that the occupation has killed many more bystanders than the insurgents, so where is the line drawn? It's ok for us to "accidently" kill tens of thousands of innocents, but not ok for them to kill hundreds (asking a question, not trying to be snide)?
3. I think there was a small disconnect in your first post witty, by saying it is isolated and implying it is ok to do. If you are saying it is ok to do in the isolated cases than it is ok to do across the board, with every Iraqi prisoner? And if it is ok for us to do it, tjan it must be ok for other people to do it, as long as they believe it is the right thing to do.
4. And everybody (on both sides) ask themselves if this was a different administration would we react differently. I know the answer for myself, and you don't really need to post a reply, but at least think about it.
posted by edgeways at 9:36 AM on May 24, 2004

Witty: Why did you quit taking your pills ? You -need- them dude.

don't feel sorry for them FOR ONE SECOND, for having to show their pee-pees and be led around like dogs on a leash.

Ok you don't feel sorry for terrorist and thugs, fine with me. Therefore you must be 100% confident they are terrorist and toughs. Oh you're so full of truth, oh to be like you !

But let's say that thanks to your divine omniscience and frenology skills you can tell a terrorist from one who looks like one, but isn't one. They're obviously all guilty because they're in a prison, right ? What part of your brain refuses even the possibility of the concept of "wrong arrest" ?

You know, maybe the individuals that humiliated and tortured the prisoners are the same who arrested them ; or maybe not, but who really knows why they were arrested ?

Show an OUNCE of compassion for the 18-year old girl that has obviously lost her shit under the bizarre circumstances for which she finds herself now

Oh good lord take your pills ! We should show compassion for her, but not for the alleged "terrorists" ? What if some of them wasn't a terrorist ? No compassion from you I guess, you can only see enemies (that's a sign of mental illness)

And btw : I can feel compassion for a poor 18 year old girl that goes crazy during war, but I hardly can feel for a 18 year old girl who is a soldier that goes on TV saying something like

"To all of us who have been charged, we all agree that we don't feel like we were doing things that we weren't supposed to, because we were told to do them. We think everything was justified, because we were instructed to do this and to do that"

Yet when you join the army they teach you about illegal orders ; but even if she forgot the rules she definitely didn't see anything wrong in humiliating and torturing..or did she ? She says "We think everything was justified" which means she suspected something can't be justified, therefore she probably knows the difference between wrong and right. She may be a simpleton, but she's not crazy.

But to defend her behaviour she says "because we were instructed" ..she knew that what she was doing was somehow wrong and she's using the justification of being ordered to. Such a lame excuse was the same used by these who worked in WWII concentration camps ; but she didn't have anybody pointing a gun to her head like in WWII , right ?

So why does it go up in the chain of command ? Because soldiers like her must be kept under tight control or not be allowed to be in the military to begin with ; but she somehow entered , so who didn't control her ? Abuse in prison is hardly news it should be standard procedure to check out for abuses : if it isn't the blame goes up to policy makers regardless of their political preferences.

Interestingly enough Rumsfeld went to Iraq to check the prison , which means he didn't trust anymore anybody in the chain of command to do that ; yet what he seems to be worried about ? Digital Cameras because they can be used both to show the good U.S. / Coalition soldiers are doing and the wrong , but they're not under pentagon propaganda control.
posted by elpapacito at 9:50 AM on May 24, 2004

These guys are terrorists, many of them aren't even from Iraq. They're thugs that came lookin' for trouble and they found it. I don't feel sorry for them FOR ONE SECOND, for having to show their pee-pees and be led around like dogs on a leash.

You have me rather curious, Witty. What crime of terror by a 15 to 17 year old boy, rates being raped up the ass as part of interrogation? Please, do enlighten us here.

I am concerned... that letting this behavior go unpunished would be wrong. What those few soldiers did was against the rules and they should pay the conseqences.

That's funny, though the claim of rape by an interrogator has been leveled, I've yet to see anybody charged with the crime. Could it be because no one took pictures, and hence its a deniable charge? Hmmmm...
Just sayin', but it appears that nofundy's charge of "scapegoating" and denial against you has legs after all.
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:18 AM on May 24, 2004

Oh, witty, you're so fucked up...

Not really, no. I just don't agree with you or anyone is this thread... as hard as that is for you to believe.

We have respect for other human beings. Damn us to hell.

Even for those who don't share that same respect? I don't.

Ok you don't feel sorry for terrorist and thugs, fine with me. Therefore you must be 100% confident they are terrorist and toughs.

Huh. That doesn't even make sense. The first is true, the second is not. But they don't even have anything to do with each other.

What part of your brain refuses even the possibility of the concept of "wrong arrest" ?

And what part of your brain determined that I even suggested anything close to that. IF some of those men were innocent, are you sure that they are the ones you saw in the photos? Perhaps it was YOUR divine omniscience that allowed you see the photos that no one else saw, or that somehow you were able to see the difference between and innocent and a guilty in the photos that we ALL saw.

We should show compassion for her, but not for the alleged "terrorists" ? What if some of them wasn't a terrorist ? No compassion from you I guess, you can only see enemies (that's a sign of mental illness)

Again, I never said that. I agreed that what they did was wrong. The point is, the whole situation is fucked up... and fucked up situations cause people to do fucked up things... especially young immature people. A soldier's sense of reality, right and wrong, can become easily and frightenly warped. One has to keep that in mind when they TRY to dissect an event like this from the comfort of their own desk chair. The point is, I see far more boo-hoos going out to the enemy from the people around here... and I don't get it.

Such a lame excuse was the same used by these who worked in WWII concentration camps.

Yea, and if I saw ANYTHING going on that even closely resembled what happened in the camps of WWII, then I might think you were on to something. But you're comparing apples to oranges.

Because soldiers like her must be kept under tight control or not be allowed to be in the military to begin with...

War changes people.

...but she somehow entered , so who didn't control her ?

Well, it wasn't Donald Rumsfeld.

Interestingly enough Rumsfeld went to Iraq to check the prison , which means he didn't trust anymore anybody in the chain of command to do that...

No it doesn't. It just means that he wanted to have a look, since all hell broke loose over this little fiasco. He isn't to blame, simple as that. Somebody lower on the totem pole certainly is. If a line cook spits in a pot of soup, you don't fire the executive chef.

What crime of terror by a 15 to 17 year old boy, rates being raped up the ass as part of interrogation? Please, do enlighten us here.

None. It should never of happened. But it did (assuming your example is true). However, my sympathy for a terrorist doesn't just come gushing to the surface because he was raped... after saying killing a bus load of civilians. Did you feel sorry for Jeffrey Dahmer when he was beaten to death in prison. I didn't.

Just sayin', but it appears that nofundy's charge of "scapegoating" and denial against you has legs after all.

If you say so.
posted by Witty at 10:30 AM on May 24, 2004

Huh. That doesn't even make sense. The first is true, the second is not. But they don't even have anything to do with each other

Of course in your splitted reality the fact that you're not so sure they were guilty or innocent isn't stopping you from showing no compassion for them, or even a doubt. Oh you're so full of truth, oh to be you !

Perhaps it was YOUR divine omniscience that allowed you see the photos that no one else saw, or that somehow you were able to see the difference between and innocent and a guilty in the photos that we ALL saw

Oh so you suggest I can't see, yet you can see because oh you're sooooo sure that :

These aren't innocent Iraqi civilians. These guys are terrorists, many of them aren't even from Iraq. They're thugs that came lookin' for trouble and they found it

Oh my god you're so brilliant you can tell from the photos ? Dude take a couple more pills you could use them, you're condemning people out of presumption that they can't be but guilty because they were in a prison. You're in denial.

A soldier's sense of reality, right and wrong, can become easily and frightenly warped

Indeed soldiers are human being that can fail, but that's predictable. What is a young soldier with zero experience and an evident lack of discerning tought and training doing in a prison ? Why was she placed there to begin with and who placed her ? What policy calls for employing young and unexperienced soldiers in critical positions with a clear evident lack of oversight ?

War changes people
Good point and a predictable one, so where was the double check and control these soldiers evidently needed ?

so who didn't control her ?

Well, it wasn't Donald Rumsfeld

Obvious, unless he worked as a recruiter, which he probably didn't. But if the "bucket" stops at some level in the military hierarchy, what do we keep Rumsfeld for ? Why should he be the leader if he's not responsible for the outcome of the actions of his subordinates ?

No it doesn't. It just means that he wanted to have a look, since all hell broke loose over this little fiasco

Oh I see so he was just sightseeing. Quite a time for war tourism, he probably had some spare time ?

He isn't to blame, simple as that. Somebody lower on the totem pole certainly is. If a line cook spits in a pot of soup, you don't fire the executive chef

Yes you fire it, because the excutive chef is not responsible for the individual behavior, but is responsible for the outcome. If he does nothing to prevent foreseeable behavior, for instance placing somebody to watch over the behaviour of cooks, why do we need an executive chief ?
posted by elpapacito at 12:03 PM on May 24, 2004

Just read what you want to elpapacito.
posted by Witty at 12:24 PM on May 24, 2004

The point is, I see far more boo-hoos going out to the enemy from the people around here... and I don't get it.

No, you do not get it. Human beings in a country we supposedly liberated from "evil" were abused, humiliated and tortured by people supposed to be helping them. Despite your lines about them being "the enemy" or terrorists, some of the prisoners who were abused HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM CUSTODY since then. So is America now releasing terrorists onto the streets of Iraq?
posted by bargle at 12:32 PM on May 24, 2004

Witty: I wish just reading was enough.
posted by elpapacito at 1:05 PM on May 24, 2004

though the claim of rape by an interrogator has been leveled, I've yet to see anybody charged with the crime. Could it be because no one took pictures, and hence its a deniable charge?

Actually I thought it was due to the carefully elaborated complete diplomatic immunity that all CPA-financed "civilian" operatives enjoy while they are working in occupied Iraq. Apparently there are more than 20,000 of them and not a single one has yet been charged with a single crime in Iraq after more than 12 months (according to NPR last week). So either we have the most unbelievably law-abiding large cohort of people yet seen in criminology, or we don't and some people are getting away, literally, with murder.
posted by meehawl at 2:59 PM on May 24, 2004

mary8nne, didn't your mom teach your not to take gang bangs from frat boys in college? You're just an exception though right. Or is that how all chicks from Down Under behave?
Whom are the frat boys here?
posted by thomcatspike at 4:52 PM on May 24, 2004

Witty, I tried to ignore this most of the afternoon. But I think you went too far here, and you owe an apology.

Metatalk.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:18 PM on May 24, 2004

Every soldier was part of toppling the Taliban and defeating Saddam... but only a handful were part of the "torture".

No. If you claim credit for a violent enterprise that forces people to act on their ability to dominate and harm others, you also have to accept credit for everything that comes along with that.

So, again, as much as "we" toppled the Taliban, "we" also tortured those people in "our" care.
posted by NortonDC at 5:39 PM on May 24, 2004

Ya know what? I know where Witty's coming from and why he's saying what he's saying.

Simply put, if I've got him figured, he's saying that shit happens in a war. You put a bunch of people in a war situation, and bad shit happens. And that's okay. It's no one's fault: it's just what happens. And it mostly happens to bad people, ie. the enemy, which is more than okay. Because, you know, bad shit is supposed to happen to the enemy. We are, after all, trying to kill them.

On a practical basis, it's probably the most sane viewpoint. You can't put an eighteen year old in charge of a bunch of adult men who'd just as soon see him dead, and not expect bad shit to happen.

Where the rest of us seem to come from is the perspective that the occupying nation, ie. America, has a responsibility to behave well. Fuckups will happen, but we should be on the lookout for them and dealing with them hard and fast when they do happen. Hold a higher standard, is what we're saying.

It's a clash between hard reality and armchair philosophy.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:06 PM on May 24, 2004

Witty, I think you don't understand that in order to succeed, the US doesn't just have to prove "Hey, we aren't as bad as Saddam", they have to prove they aren't in the same fucking universe as Saddam.

What do you think Saddam would have done with people that were (without fair trial or public evidence) considered by his forces to be potential terrorists?

Which side are you really on?
posted by Jimbob at 6:11 PM on May 24, 2004

Those pictures were taken with a camera phone? Which one? That's pretty good quality from a camera phone.
posted by graventy at 6:45 PM on May 24, 2004

five fresh fish, my point is not "that torture was bad, therefore invading Iraq was wrong." I never said that, because I never meant it. I said that people assigning themselves credit for the good that comes out of America's invasion of Iraq also have to assign themselves blame for the bad that comes out of America's invasion of Iraq. All of it, the good and the bad, goes onto the balance when weighing the outcome.
posted by NortonDC at 6:50 PM on May 24, 2004

I'm not sure what part of my post you're addressing, NortonDC. Certainly my post wasn't addressing yours, and I don't see anything in my post that looks like something you're responding to.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:37 PM on May 24, 2004

fff: The war's long over. And in case you haven't been following along, those people in Abu Ghraib were not "the enemy." They were just prisoners. A lot of them were locked up for no good reason. But of course you could say "You put a bunch of people in a prison situation, and bad shit happens. And that's okay. It's no one's fault: it's just what happens." In fact, adopting that attitude makes life a lot simpler in general.

It's completely fucked up, but it does make life simpler.
posted by languagehat at 9:44 AM on May 25, 2004

Er, I don't think you need concern yourself that I'm in support of the actions in Abu Ghraib, k? I was trying to explain how Witty's writing makes sense from his point of view. That isn't to say he's right or sensible or insightful: just that when you view this situation with a certain perspective, it becomes possible to post what he posts.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:14 AM on May 25, 2004

Well, OK, sure. I'm all in favor of understanding people's point of view. It's just that this one doesn't seem to need much explaining. I mean, 111's comments make perfect sense if you assume homosexuality is revolting and wrong. I'm not sure what we gain by pointing that out; it's pretty obvious. And the way your comment read, to me anyway, it sounded as if you were sympathetic to witty's point of view, especially since "On a practical basis, it's probably the most sane viewpoint" was (if I read correctly) said in your own voice, not in your hypothetical witty's. But clearly I misread you, so my apologies.
posted by languagehat at 12:01 PM on May 25, 2004

Why does Kodak hate Freedom?
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:23 PM on May 25, 2004

Shake him like a Polaroid picture
posted by mr.marx at 9:29 PM on May 25, 2004

One suspects many pictures have been taken:

Abuse of Captives More Widespread, Says Army Survey

An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known.

The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia."

Among previously unknown incidents are the abuse of detainees by Army interrogators from a National Guard unit attached to the Third Infantry Division, who are described in a document obtained by The New York Times as having "forced into asphyxiation numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information" during a 10-week period last spring.

The document, dated May 5, is a synopsis prepared by the Criminal Investigation Command at the request of Army officials grappling with intense scrutiny prompted by the circulation the preceding week of photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. It lists the status of investigations into three dozen cases, including the continuing investigation into the notorious abuses at Abu Ghraib.

In one of the oldest cases, involving the death of a prisoner in Afghanistan in December 2002, enlisted personnel from an active-duty military intelligence unit at Fort Bragg, N.C., and an Army Reserve military-police unit from Ohio are believed to have been "involved at various times in assaulting and mistreating the detainee."
posted by y2karl at 11:10 PM on May 25, 2004

As a last word, un-witty. People who fight against an invader ARE NOT terrorists. If you repeat that a few times you might understand the difference.
posted by acrobat at 3:46 AM on May 26, 2004

Shorter thread:

I blame a handful of soldiers. - Witty

Abuse of Captives More Widespread - Army Survey

posted by soyjoy at 9:58 AM on May 26, 2004

"WE" didn't torture anyone. I know that I wasn't there. How about you mr.marx? Were you there? I blame a handful of soldiers.

Wow. You just don't get it! You *can't* shirk this responsibility. I myself have spoken out against the entire war since the beginning, written to the president and my representatives in congress. I got out into the streets and protested. But all this doesn't somehow make the war "not in my name." That's a stupid bumper sticker if you ask me. It *was* done in my name. Plainly. I am responsible. Fully. We all are.

While I would try to convince an anti-war Iraqi that I agree with his point of view, I would never bullshit him and claim that it wasn't my fault, that I won't feel any benefits the war might bring, that I don't have a responsibility to make sure the occupation ends soon and the right way. I'm damn well not going to try to outrun the consequences of what we've done there, and I'm damn well not going to sit here and scapegoat "a few bad apples" or "outside agitators" for our worst abuses. How very convenient. If only the entire middle east could so easily disassociate itself from the actions of 19 psychopaths.

Take. Responsibility. Witty. If you're an Ameican, that is. You've got to bear the flag through thick and thin if you want to call yourself one. Buck up, coward. It's on your hands now, too.
posted by scarabic at 3:39 PM on May 26, 2004

*applause*
posted by ook at 5:28 PM on May 26, 2004

So, did Rumsfeld ban camera phones or not?
posted by shoos at 7:36 PM on May 26, 2004

there's a follow-up thread in metatalk that seems to show that cameras were not banned.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:03 AM on May 27, 2004

(and it's depressingly unsurprisng that people in that thread moan that this wasn't posted here, but don't crosspost themselves. you'd almost think they didn't want people to know....)
posted by andrew cooke at 8:05 AM on May 27, 2004