There's two sides to the story'

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Tue May 18, 2004 10:32 am

Originally posted by fable
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, told Wolfowitz his credibility had been undermined because he had "made numerous predictions, time and time again, that have turned out to be untrue and were based on faulty assumptions." Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, accused Wolfowitz of "dissembling and avoidance of answers."

Lying appears to be par for the course for a NeoCon. I recently saw an article about Neoconservatives and their intellectual origins. In particular, it says:

"[Neocons] include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Abram Shulsky of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, Richard Perle of the Pentagon advisory board, Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council, and the writers Robert Kagan and William Kristol [and were influenced by the philosopher Leo Strauss] ....

"Strauss believed that the essential truths about human society and history should be held by an elite, and withheld from others who lack the fortitude to deal with truth. Society, Strauss thought, needs consoling lies. ....

"The ostensibly hidden truth is that expediency works; there is no certain God to punish wrongdoing; and virtue is unattainable by most people. Machiavelli was right. There is a natural hierarchy of humans, and rulers must restrict free inquiry and exploit the mediocrity and vice of ordinary people so as to keep society in order. "

If this is a fair assessment of the NeoCons, then I find it amazing. They would have no qualms about encouraging a war based on trumped-up or false information concerning WMDs. In their minds, torture and abuse in prisons by the US would be acceptable means to an end.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:43 pm

That's not a fair description of the neocons. Like George W. Bush, they believe that "good people" never do bad things. So no matter what "good people" do, there's always a reason why it wasn't a bad thing to do, and in fact, whatever they do is the right thing to do. In fact, God Himself told them to do it.

Neocons place a great deal of faith in other people, as long as they are "good people". That's one reason why things didn't turn out the way the Neocons expected in Iraq. The "good Iraqis" never showed up in huge masses to greet their "liberators" with flowers and say, "Hey, we will do whatever you tell us; now help us start a democracy, oh and by the way, you can have all of our oil." Then there are things like torture. You have to understand that originally, torture was authorized by the U.S. government only in the most extreme cases. For example, if we captured a terrorist who had information that could prevent the next terrorist attack, torture was permitted by the new rules set in place by the Bush administration. The problem is that once permission was given to torture certain prisoners, torture was soon applied to every prisoner. Neocons like Wolfowitz and blockheads like Bush believed that they could trust the "good people" to use discretion and do the right thing all the time, with disastrous results. They fail to understand that even if torture might be morally permissable in certain cases, as a matter of policy it should never be allowed, because such power will always be abused. Neocons have no grasp of the concept of "abuse of power", precisely because they put way too much faith in "good people".

Now that we have seen the atrocious things that "good people" have done, the neocons are of course falling back on their belief that "good people don't do bad things". Our soldiers are on our side, so they must be "good people"; so whatever they have done, it wasn't such a bad thing. The Neocons used to condemn torture, but now they will condone it and tell us why it is justified. Of course, if a "terrorist" or a member of Saddam Hussein's regime had committed the exact same atrocities, then it would be evil. Obviously, whether an act is good or evil depends on who is doing it. It's a strange form of moral relativism, but it is not an indication of cynicism; actually, it shows how "idealistic" they are.

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:13 pm

How many people like this movie?
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/169638

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:18 pm

@VonDondu: That post had me pulling "Mein Kampf" out of the bookshelf again...

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Wed May 19, 2004 6:27 am

@VonDondu: Agree completely. No sinister plots are neccesary to assure this type of widespread abuse. Only a fair bit of misguided idealism and a distorted view of the human mind, and you are 9/10th on your way...

Your last statement also applies to the reason for the invasion to begin with; The fact that Iraq may have WMDs and that it have behaved aggressively in the past is enough to justify an invasion, even though you own WMDs yourself, and have behaved aggressively, just because you are the good guy, and the other one the bad guy.

Its a unbelivable narrow minded way to reason, but unfortunatly I dont think it is something Neocons have a monopoly on.

Even though they certainly seem to be struggling hard to get it atm.

---

Edit: @Bloodthroe: The movie require some sort of plugin, cant watch Im afraid. Is it the one that shows names of killed US soldiers?

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Wed May 19, 2004 7:55 am

The raod to H-ll is paved with good intentions.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 19, 2004 8:21 am

There's no good that can come from demonizing your opponents, but that's always been a very human tendency--pardon the irony. The NeoCons are just too powerful at the moment to be ignored, and they've pretty much taken over the federal governmental landscape. Old-fashioned conservatives for the most part can't stand 'em, but they're not about to stand up and denounce the lot. (Though a few oldstyle Republican conservatives, now out of power and with nothing to lose, have done just that.) It would kill their chances of reelection.

Meanwhile, a sergeant over in Iraq who was ordered like the rest not to speak to the media about the torture/abuse scandal has broken silence. He's made several allegations, claiming that he watched Military Intelligence officers giving instructions to army officers on what to do with the prisoners. When he brought the matter to the attention of his superiors, he was essentially thanked and ignored.

I have to admit, if nothing else, this administration has mastered the art of keeping us perpetually entertained. Whether it's giving the finger to the rest of the world, entering into trade wars, invading nations, turning the largest budget surplus into the largest budget deficit or acting like religiously inspired vigilantes, it always finds some new, different monstrosity to create.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 19, 2004 11:38 am

He got One year... Words fail me. What exactly would the penalty be for someone doing this in a civilian prison? I can't even begin to comprehend the ramifications of this verdict.

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Wed May 19, 2004 12:44 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
Edit: @Bloodthroe: The movie require some sort of plugin, cant watch Im afraid. Is it the one that shows names of killed US soldiers?

It's a Flash Movie about one man's opinion about the middle east. You need to download Flash Player to watch it. http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/dow ... flash.html
Looking at the reviews it got, some people thought the whole thing was stupid, a few more people agreed with it and was worried about their loved ones that are out fighting the war. Some just liked the music and wanted to know if they could get it off him. I was just curious what other people thought about the movie.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 19, 2004 12:57 pm

Originally posted by Moonbiter
He got One year... Words fail me. What exactly would the penalty be for someone doing this in a civilian prison? I can't even begin to comprehend the ramifications of this verdict.

The military in any nation does this; and I wish I could say I didn't see it coming. I'm sure you (and a lot of other people, here) were expecting the same thing. "Justice will be done," the world was told, "those guilty will be brought to justice." We now know that means 1) Those high up on the totem poll get off by saying they're sorry or hiding, while 2) those who 'fess up and play by the rules, and don't mention their superiors, get ridiculously light sentences.

I'm curious what those who reject the government line, like the young lady bucking her courtmartial, will receive. Any bets that she won't get just a year?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed May 19, 2004 2:41 pm

Spec. Jeremy Sivits received the maximum sentence Wednesday for his role

I would say it depends on what charges are brought against the others. Sivits (IMHO) got off lite even though the Military calls this the Maximum.

Maximum to me is death by hanging, while I'm willing to let the creeps off with a minor sentence of 20 years. (No good behavior junk allowed)

(Note this might be a good reason Not to vote for me for ruler of the known world)

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 19, 2004 3:02 pm

Originally posted by Weasel
(Note this might be a good reason Not to vote for me for ruler of the known world)

To the contrary. I'd vote for you in a minute. You've got a sense of morals. You'd crash in burn in Washington, just as Carter (who, somehow, managed to keep a moral sense intact through all his years as governor in Georgia) did. Politicians are by nature (I think) people completely divorced from reality, living in a world managed by motivation and symbols. Everything is cushioned as a euphemism. "Justice" has been rendered to the Iraqis; they've been given "freedom" and "democracy" and they've escaped from the "Axis of Evil." Anyone who can express such terms without applying any reasonable meaning to them is at several dimensions' distance from reality, and probably enjoying their stay. The Gods know, they wouldn't like the result if they saw themselves and their accomplishments in any true light.

EDIT: From the Quickly Overlooked by the Media Archive: A commander giving testimony today about prison abuse since 9/11, passing it off minor incidents, did mention that it had occurred as well in both Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. I wonder if they have any pictures of the latter that will surface soon...?

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Thu May 20, 2004 10:04 am

Okay, I'm a little confused. Recently, they released 300 (I think) prisoners from Abu-Ghraib and I just heard that they are preparing to release 500 more. Why were these people even arrested in the first place if they can so easily be released in such wholesale numbers?

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu May 20, 2004 2:19 pm

Simple. The military has been less than discriminatory when it makes its sweeps - it has been soundly criticised for rounding up virtually every male, including boys, and sometimes the females during their "police raids" (and surely you've read the stories of certain female family members held hostage to encourage surrendering, right? They're in there, too.) So, it should come as no surprise there a lot of people being held simply because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

More bad signs: The military have recently raided the home of the Bush admin's pal, Chalabi.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 20, 2004 2:30 pm

Sojourner's right: the military police had orders to do broad, non-discriminatory sweeps. Thousands of people were rounded up simply on the basis of a "rumor" from "someone unidentified"--usually a matter of revenge in this extremely tempestuous culture where many feuds have simmered beneath a surface of forced calm for years. People who were supposed to be kept overnight were kept for more than a month. Amnesty International has detailed in reports hundreds of examples of this abuse of authority and these extra-legal measures upon civilians whose only crime was having argued with somebody.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu May 20, 2004 2:35 pm

And this makes the prisoner abuse all the more appalling - whatever goodwill we might have had in Iraq has been squandered.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu May 20, 2004 2:40 pm

Just out of curiosity, what's America's current standing with Iraqi civilians? As far as I understand the 'liberation' was never too popular (sure you had people cheering, but they were doing so in the face of armed soldiers), but with recent developments what the average Iraqi feels towards the US is probably beyond loathing.

After the whole mess is over (and it will be at one point or another) and a democratic pro-american government is installed, will the people's view change? Or will Iraq turn into another terrorist-sponsoring state even though it wasn't one before?
Just curious of people's views

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 20, 2004 2:42 pm

Goodwill? Torture and abuse of illegally and wrongly detained civilians, with a cover up that's visible to the world. Yet another incident, yesterday, of a massacre in an Iraqi village during a wedding, where guns were fired in celebration. (The US military is still claiming that the dozens dead were "insurgents." When are they going to learn that MidEastern village culture is weapons-based, and has been for thousands of years?) A former Iraqi friend of the Pentagon, now regarded as a criminal who cosied up to Washington, speaks out against the US, and has his offices smashed in, his computers broken up, his software taken. Rumsfeld declares that although the Iraqis will have elections, many decisions will remain in the hands of the US afterwards.

Show me any cause for goodwill after all that.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu May 20, 2004 2:45 pm

*waves magnifying glass* I'm still looking for it.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Thu May 20, 2004 2:55 pm

Soj & Fable: Re: Prisoner release

Well yeah, Amnesty International and the Red Cross have been saying that most of the prisoners were innocent, but releasing 800 prisoners just like that only proves their point. This doesn't seem like the kinda thing this administration would do. Wouldn't they rather release them more slowly, with no fanfare, in order to at least preserve the possibility that the prisoners were captured under some reasonable grounds of suspicion and that they are only released after some internal process has cleared them? Releasing them because abuse photos have brought more attention to the Red Cross report on the number of innocents in prison seems contrary to this administrations normal tactics. Its almost like they are saying "mea culpa." I guess I'm a little flabbergasted that they would permit such an honorable thing. Maybe the Bush Administration are not as evil and mean as I was starting to think they were....