How can we call them "barbarians" ?

Why did Senator McCain even bother saying it?

Published on May 12, 2004 By Darius Farrar In Current Events

In response the the recent video of the beheading of an American contractor:

I found this quote from Senator John McCain:

It also shows the stark difference between Americans and these barbarians. We have found instances of mistreatment of prisoners, we are addressing the issue completely. These people have no regard for humanity or common decency, and this is why we have to win in Iraq.

And from another Senator:

I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations while our troops, our heros, are fighting and dying.

Generally I am a very moderate person (independent, they call it), but statements like these really make me think. For one, how is one murder so barbaric, when what we have done is just instances of mistreatment? Here, let me show you the list of what has happened in our prisons:

a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c.   Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. Threatening male detainees with rape;

f.   Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g.   Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h.   Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

(T)he intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a.   Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f.   Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i.   Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j.   Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l.   Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

(source)

To me, it seems like calling that one gruesome act barbaric (and it was terrible), but then downplaying the abuses by Americans, is extremely biased, and well... wrong. Sure, the Americans that preformed these torture acts were only a small amount of people, but so were the al-quieda that preformed the beheading. Additionally, we have an established system of order, where the higher commanders are responsible for what their underlings are doing. With all the technology we have, how can these abuses occur? It's one thing for terrorists to murder someone, but I say it's even worse for Americans, with all of their order and organization, to preform those horrendous acts of barbarity on Iraqi detainees. Are the abuses examples of why we need to NOT win the war in Iraq?

Moreover, that quote by that second senator is even more infuriating. He says we shouldn't allow people to check the military's human rights violations? How can that possibly help us? It is our duty to stop them, and people crawling over the prisons will help to speed the stoppage of violations. Then he throws that pathos in there "while our troops, our heros, are fighting and dying." This addition does not serve to help his statement at all. There is no connection to the troops fighting and people checking human rights violations. That is just a little pathos to make it seem like he is a good guy trying to support our troops.

Don't get me wrong, I am in full support of (almost) all of our troops in Iraq. But that does not give them ANY right to torture detainees, and then have the people back home claim that's any less barbaric than one gruesome murder.

Comments

Draginol

on May 12, 2004

Let me help you out:

THEY CUT THE HEAD OFF OF AN INNOCENT PERSON ON TELEVISION SLOWLY WHILE HE SCREAMED THE ENTIRE TIME, HELD UP THE HEAD TO THE CAMERA AND THEN DUMPED THE BODY BY THE ROAD.

InfoGeek

on May 12, 2004

As I understand it, your question is why the cold-blooded murder of an American is barbaric and the abuses at the prison are not.

I will tell you my take on this. It all comes down to the degree of severity.

Certain Iraqis (people who at one time acted violently against American soldiers were arrested either by MP or soldiers and sent into the prison to be interrogated and detained. Abuses happened to a select few of these people at the hands of their guards who took pictures with their faces in full view. These abuses were degrading and lacking in basic human compassion. These abuses were reported up the chain of command and steps were taken to investigate. The guards have been “arrested” and, very likely, those in the upper echelon will suffer penalties as well.

Nicholas Berg was a civilian contractor working for the betterment of the Iraqi people. He had no ties to the US armed forces and did not pose any sort of threat to any Iraqi hierarchy. Mr. Berg was kidnapped, bound, and without any form of trial was slowly and painfully executed to prove a point. These men are cowards, who hide behind black masks.

The abuses, however repugnant and should not have happened, were done with the intent of acquiring information used to save lives. And the guards governmental superiors detest their actions.

The death of Mr. Berg did nothing but satiate their lust for American blood and anguish.

And THEIR superiors applaud their actions.

That is why they are barbarians.

IG

dharmagrl

on May 12, 2004

Good response, IG.

I would add more, but Draginol and IG have already said anything I would have said.

Capt775

on May 12, 2004

Darius,
Your just breathing everyone elses good air.

Darius Farrar

on May 12, 2004

THEY CUT THE HEAD OFF OF AN INNOCENT PERSON ON TELEVISION SLOWLY WHILE HE SCREAMED THE ENTIRE TIME, HELD UP THE HEAD TO THE CAMERA AND THEN DUMPED THE BODY BY THE ROAD.

According to wikipedia: On the Internet, troll is a slang term for a person who posts messages without contributory content, simply intended to incite conflict.

As I understand it, your question is why the cold-blooded murder of an American is barbaric and the abuses at the prison are not.

Yes, that is my question.

Certain Iraqis (people who at one time acted violently against American soldiers were arrested either by MP or soldiers and sent into the prison to be interrogated and detained. Abuses happened to a select few of these people at the hands of their guards who took pictures with their faces in full view. These abuses were degrading and lacking in basic human compassion. These abuses were reported up the chain of command and steps were taken to investigate. The guards have been “arrested” and, very likely, those in the upper echelon will suffer penalties as well.

I agree... somewhat. Yes, the abuses did occur to only a few people who had attacked Americans, but the fact that it only happened to a few people did not lessen the severity of the acts committed. Saying something like "lacking in basic human compassion" is a understatement, to say the least. Did you read that full list from MSNBC? That seems to be a tad worse than lacking compassion. Yes, the abuses were reported, but in an effective chain of command they either would have NEVER happened, or been stopped after the first or second incident. Lastly, I agree totally that the people committing the acts should be arrested and suffer penalties.

Nicholas Berg was a civilian contractor working for the betterment of the Iraqi people. He had no ties to the US armed forces and did not pose any sort of threat to any Iraqi hierarchy. Mr. Berg was kidnapped, bound, and without any form of trial was slowly and painfully executed to prove a point. These men are cowards, who hide behind black masks.

I agree totally. Though, is it not possible that a few of the Iraqi prisoners were innocent. They too had no trial. Lastly, I wonder what's worse, being a coward when you kill someone, or glorifying in it, basking fully in the light of someone else's pain and agony?

The abuses, however repugnant and should not have happened, were done with the intent of acquiring information used to save lives. And the guards governmental superiors detest their actions. The death of Mr. Berg did nothing but satiate their lust for American blood and anguish.

I'm sure if you as the terrorists who killed the American, the probably did it with the intent of liberating Iraq and saving lives. Intent is irrelevant. What matters is what you actually DO.

And THEIR superiors applaud their actions.

That is why they are barbarians.

Sure. But I leave you with a question: is it more barbaric for a barbarian to be barbaric, or for some who claims to be better than barbarians to be barbaric?

shadesofgrey

on May 12, 2004

O G San

on May 12, 2004

I've been reading a lot of stuff like this recently comparing Abu Ghraib to the killings in Fallujah or the murder of Nick Berg.

What's the point? They're all wrong. The fact that US soldiers are getting killed doesn't justify what went on in Abu Ghraib (I assume my use of the past tense is correct here). Likewise the torture in Abu Ghraib doesn't justify beheading someone.

Why are these issues conflated? No-one is arguing, at least not on Joeuser, that the fact that the US has tortured prisoners is in some way a justification to kill Americans.

Darius Farrar

on May 12, 2004

If anyone has the authority to speak about treatment of POWs it's Senator McCain. Having been a Prisoner of War, he speaks with an authority that few others have--personally, I have utmost respect for him and his opinion. The point is this--the US is different from the terrorist because US soldiers abused prisoners and it has received the attention of every major public policy official since it became breaking news. There is no top member of al Qaeda who is "disgusted" by the murder of Nick Berg--but Pres. Bush, Sec. Rumsfled and many others have publicly and critically condemned the abuses in Abu Ghraib--that is the difference.

Yes, yes, I agree. They criticized, but they didn't call it barbaric, or anything close to that. I'm just saying that I believe the reaction by officials (like McCain) to have been very light in relation to what really happened.

Who was the other senator that you quoted? I'm just being curious because Senator Inhofe said some pretty sketchy stuff yesterday. I have a hard time with any US government official publically stating that the US has the right to violate the Geneva Convention because those "prisoners weren't innocent" and they "had American blood on their hands." That is the precise reason why the Geneva Convention is necessary.

I actually got the quotes from a bbc video at the bbc article on it. However, the video I saw isn't there anymore. I uploaded the .ram, so you can watch it while it's still on my server. The senator is not identified in the video clip.

Darius Farrar

on May 12, 2004

What's the point? They're all wrong. The fact that US soldiers are getting killed doesn't justify what went on in Abu Ghraib (I assume my use of the past tense is correct here). Likewise the torture in Abu Ghraib doesn't justify beheading someone.

Why are these issues conflated? No-one is arguing, at least not on Joeuser, that the fact that the US has tortured prisoners is in some way a justification to kill Americans.

I never said that anyone on JoeUser did. I was specifically commenting on a comment from Senator John McCain and another Senator who DID use both events in the same context.

Capt775

on May 12, 2004

Darius, you confuse me. Let me just say this. If you want to label me a troll, that's fine.
I personally have served in 4 conflicts. I say conflicts because they weren't labeled "wars".

To compare what happend to the Iraqis prisioners to Berg is stupid. Sure the U.S. should be held to a higher standard.
When it comes to getting info that will save American lives though, strip em, flip em, have dogs bark at em, I don't care, they ain't dead.

If the Corps would let me back in right now, "they said I was too old", I'd be over there getting some PayBack.
What Senators say. Polititians bullshit. Let the Soldiers do their jobs. Thats why we can bar-b-que chickens and throw the football with our kids in the park in this country now.

Al queda, terrorist, whatever label you want to put on em, it's not our place to judge them, its God's, (if you believe in him), it's our's to arrange the meeting.

Darius Farrar

on May 12, 2004

Darius, you confuse me. Let me just say this. If you want to label me a troll, that's fine.
I'm sorry, but the comment : Your just breathing everyone elses good air is about as close to trolling as you can get without using all caps.

To compare what happend to the Iraqis prisioners to Berg is stupid. Sure the U.S. should be held to a higher standard.

If a comparison is stupid, then why did McCain use the two examples right after each another? This blog is about McCain's and that other Senator's statement, that's all. I agree that the two situations are not analogous.

When it comes to getting info that will save American lives though, strip em, flip em, have dogs bark at em, I don't care, they ain't dead

That's fine, as long as you admit that it is barbaric "strip em, flip em etc..." and that if you are the type of person who believes that the ends justify the means (ie the ends of saving lives justify the means of being totally immoral towards untried prisoners), that's ok, as long as you admit it.

Let the Soldiers do their jobs. Thats why we can bar-b-que chickens and throw the football with our kids in the park in this country now.

I have great respect for the people in Iraq and other conflicts that have put their lives on the line. What I don't have respect for is when people loose sight of the ends and focus too much on the means. From the point of view of the soldiers that did the torturing, what good is fighting a war to save the Iraqi people from the tortures of Saddam Hussein, when you torture Iraqis yourselves? War is terrible, but that doesn't mean it has to be SO terrible that you do things like that. It works the same from the side of the al-quieda. Only, the mindset of those who are in al-quieda is so foreign to me that I won't even start to speculate on their motives.

InfoGeek

on May 13, 2004

Sure. But I leave you with a question: is it more barbaric for a barbarian to be barbaric, or for some who claims to be better than barbarians to be barbaric?

The former is worse. With regard to the latter, the civilized person can be either made to see the error of their actions and can be rehabilitated or they can be punished by the correctional system and hopefully learn from their actions.

Those barbarians take delight in barbaric actions and show no remorse or culpability cannot be reformed and will always be a hazard to society.

IG

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!