The Priorities Of The Godly

Posted on Thursday, May 27 at 10:01 by harrisp
My friend lives on the far side of the world, in Tasmania, and he referred me to a website he had located and asked me a simple question that was, more or less: "Is it just me, or do these people have no sense of morals?"; Well, Bernie, it isn't just you; and, yes, they have no sense of morals. Like many of the United States-based news services, ABC (which surely must stand for "America's Best Crap") is running pictures of the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners by America's best and brightest. We have all heard by now of the shocking treatment of detainees in Iraq, particularly at a place called Abu Ghraib. And we are comforted in knowing that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accepted full responsibility for the actions of the American troops, even though we see that "accepting responsibility" is meaningless since it carries no consequences. Americans are forgetting all too easily their own outrage over an incident that occurred at the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war. One of their troops had been captured and was shown on Iraqi television in handcuffs. This prompted cries of outrage from the American side about violations of the Geneva Convention on prisoner treatment and anger arose across America about one of their boys being shown on television as a prisoner. All of that was promptly forgotten, however, when America decided that televising the killing of Saddam Hussein's two sons might make for some cool footage and when poking and prodding the man himself for a world-wide audience prompted peals of glee from Rumsfeld about how "we got him". [Never mind the fact that he was actually "got"; by the Kurds; no matter, they don't mind the Yankees misappropriating the glory.] But now, the whole world is seeing not only how Americans think nothing of the Geneva Convention on prisoner treatment, but how they think nothing of basic human decency. It must be that same moral compass that allows the U.S. to send troops, without any misgivings, anywhere in the world that they feel the local population needs culling. There appears to be mixed feelings in the United States about whether anyone should give a damn about the actions of their troops in Iraq and whether all these photos and videos are horrible or just entertainment. Some condemn them and call for legal retribution against the American troops while others would just as surely pin medals on these brave young men and women. Americans were rightly outraged by the slaying of Nicholas Berg and while there are those who claim the videotape of his alleged decapitation was a distracting staged event, possibly even orchestrated by the Americans themselves, the fact remains Mr. Berg met a tragic end. Thinking people everywhere should be saddened and horrified by his death, no matter how it occurred or who actually perpetrated it, although it seems likely that many Americans will canonize Mr. Berg while believing that all those bloody Iraqis have gotten off far too lightly. But what got my friends' knickers in a knot about the ABC news item was not the photos themselves; they are repulsive, but they are no worse than what any other news outlet has been displaying for the past couple of weeks. What made him, and me, see red was the warning that accompanied the photos. The photos in question are, at the time of this writing, to be found at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/World/popoff/Politics/iraq_prisoner_abuse_040503_ssframeset_1.html and because of the disturbing and sensitive nature of the photos, they are prefaced by a warning for viewers which reads: WARNING: The following graphic depictions include nudity. Viewer discretion is advised. Let me quote directly from my friend's email message to me because he says it as well or better than I would. He wrote that he sees "something distinctly disturbing about a society that can show pix of corpses being gloated over by pretty young army girls, of bloody and battered bodies - the result of torture - and of human beings being humiliated, abused and degraded ... and this to carry a warning that the nudity may offend." (Particularly when said nudity is fuzzed out in the pictures anyway.) Either that, or this is a way of subtly boosting the humiliation of the Iraqi people - "only the sight of your bodies offends us - not what's done to them". Or both. Bernie is right. It is a sick group that will find offense in the sight of a naked body but none in the degradation and torture of that body. The American media is careful to refer to the actions of their troops in Iraq as 'abuse' rather than 'torture' although it only takes a single digit IQ to know that if the prisoners were American and the troops Iraqi, the U.S. would be screaming bloody murder. One would have to presume from the warning accompanying these photos that ABC would have presented no warning at all to viewers if the Iraqi prisoners had all been fully clothed. In other words, so long as the prurient minds of the ABC news team warns people that they might actually see a bare ass on the screen, then there is no need to warn anyone about objects being shoved up that bare ass. Because either the ABC folks are not offended by brutality perpetrated on non-Americans, or they know the American people won't be. So sorry, Mr. Bush, you have been dethroned as the most worthless American alive; the ABC news team is even lower than you. I know the decent thing would be for me to encourage you to keep a stiff upper lip and try harder, but I have little doubt that you will regroup.

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Thu May 27, 2004 7:13 pm
    Your reference to another human being as 'worthless' is repugnant regardless of who that human being is. You are not God.

  2. Thu May 27, 2004 8:03 pm
    That's right Paul only Bush and co. can decide who is worthless, exploitable and easily eliminated! What were you thinking? ha ha

    Great article, the subject is very sad though, and according to anon here, I suspect there are many who feel like ABC, which is really sad. I like to think that the numbers of warped thinkers are a very small group, but it seems that 'do undo others as you please' has become the motto in our modern world!

    ---
    If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

  3. Thu May 27, 2004 10:08 pm
    Anon, get a life ! Just because you don't like anyone criticizing "Dubya" or "Shrub" doesn't mean he is a nice person.

    I know a few people that I choose to not associate with, and it has to do with morals, ethics, you name it.

    If I were American, I would be in Washington every day demonstrating against this little person with the BIG EGO. (and the stupid grin, and the tongue stuck between his lips, and I can go on, but his handlers should have caught this long ago, so they aren't doing their job, just like george).

    Get used to the fact not everyone is perfect.



    ---
    "Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
    Jim Callaghan
    Minden, Ontario
    705-286-1860
    www.misterc.ca

  4. Fri May 28, 2004 2:41 pm
    Stop and look at yourself in the mirror. Using your hatred of Bush & Co. to justify putting a value on some humans and not others is warped, that's the basis for a National Socialist party, you could borrow the German acronym for it. If you believe that some humans are worthless, then you can justify using those people as a means to your end regardless of how immoral or unethical the means are. But, when it comes to human life itself, if the end justifies the means, what is the end?

  5. Fri May 28, 2004 2:50 pm
    I don't know if Ms/Mr Anon of the 27th is the same as Ms/Mr Anon of the 28th (I guess that's the whole point of anonymity) but let me offer she, he, it, or them a suggestion:

    Pick up a dictionary, check out the word 'hyperbole'. Then re-read the article and consider whether the author might just have been applying a little 'poetic license' in order to emphasize the point of the article. Surely Ms/Mr Anon is not so pedantic as to think that the worthlessness, or not, of George Bush was the point being made.

    Paul Harris

  6. Fri May 28, 2004 2:59 pm
    Hyperbole - 'a figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect' - thanks

  7. Fri May 28, 2004 3:09 pm
    Interesting you should say that. The government of the United States seems to pick and choose which human lives have value. Children could starve in Iraq for 10 years, and that was OK. 2 million people are in danger of the same right now in Sudan, and what will Bush and Co. do about it?<p> I also invoke <a href='http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html'>Godwin's Law</a><p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
    "The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

  8. by L. Ray
    Fri May 28, 2004 5:12 pm
    And they consider themselves to be above the law. <br><br> They also did not bother to declare war. So their insistence on international law rings very hollow. <br><br> THE FOLLOWING IS EDITED TO CONFORM TO THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE <br><br> New York Times May 26, 2004 THE LAW "Who Would Try Civilians of U.S.? No One in Iraq By ADAM LIPTAK Though civilian translators and interrogators may have participated in the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, prosecuting them will present challenges, legal experts say, because such <b>civilians working for the military are subject to neither Iraqi nor military justice</b>.......<br><br> It is clear, on the other hand, that neither Iraqi courts nor American courts-martial are available.<br><br> In June 2003, L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American administrator in Iraq, granted broad immunity to civilian contractors and their employees. They were, he wrote, generally not subject to criminal and civil actions in the Iraqi legal system, including arrest and detention.<br><br> That immunity is limited to their official acts under their contracts, and it is unclear whether any abuses alleged can be said to have been such acts. But even unofficial conduct by contractors in Iraq cannot be prosecuted there, Mr. Bremer's order said, without his written permission.<br><br> Similarly, under a series of Supreme Court decisions, civilians cannot be court-martialed in the absence of a formal declaration of war. There was no such declaration in the Iraq war.......<br><br> That leaves prosecution in United States courts. There, prosecutors might turn to two relatively narrow laws, or a broader one, to pursue their cases. A 1994 law makes torture committed by Americans outside the United States a crime. The law defines torture as the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering. But some human rights groups suspect that the administration may be reluctant to use the law, because its officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have resisted calling the abuse at Abu Ghraib torture.......<br><br> "If they don't want to use the word `torture,' " Ms. Pearlstein said, "prosecutions under the torture act aren't likely." ..... <br><br> The broader law, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, allows people "employed by or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States" to be prosecuted in United States courts for federal crimes punishable by more than a year's imprisonment. People who are citizens or residents of the host nations are not covered, but Americans and other foreign nationals are. <br><br> The law has apparently been invoked only once, in a case involving charges that the wife of an Air Force staff sergeant murdered him in Turkey last year. The case will soon be tried in federal court in Los Angeles. <br><br> The law was passed to fill a legal gap that had existed since the 1950's, when Supreme Court decisions limited the military's ability to prosecute civilians in courts-martial during peacetime...... <br><br> <b>In any event, there are gaps and uncertainties in the law. For one thing, it applies only to contractors employed by the Defense Department. Contractors hired by other agencies, like the C.I.A., are not covered.</b>..... In addition to such criminal charges, the companies that provided the translators and interrogators may be subject to civil suits for money, under a 1789 law that allows federal courts to hear "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations." Torture is such a violation, legal experts say. The Supreme Court is considering a case concerning the scope of that law, which has been used to hold American companies accountable for abusive actions abroad. But, in an echo of the defenses offered by several members of the military police who have been ordered to face courts-martial for actions in Iraq, companies may be able to offer a "government contractor defense," in an effort to show they were operating under specific instructions from the government. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

  9. by avatar Flick
    Fri May 28, 2004 7:24 pm
    I'm pretty sure the most sadly hilarious part of all this is that one of the
    torturers was charged with... adultery. Yes, that should send a clear
    message to any US tropps in charge of prisoners. Don't sleep with your
    fellow prison guards, you might get charged with adultery. See, Iraqis,
    we really take care of our problems.

    See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 706679.stm

    Check out Charles Graner's profile. He's charged with adultery because
    of his sleeping with England or whoever.

    ---
    “Sex, Drugs, Love, Marx...”
    Flick Harrison’s new digital feature
    MP3, trailer, scenes and stills at:
    http://www.armedrabble.org/sdlm.htm

  10. Fri May 28, 2004 7:47 pm
    Who's Paul Harris?

    We can do without the silly ad hominem attacks. It's just lazy writing.

  11. by avatar Milton
    Fri May 28, 2004 7:56 pm
    Never mind that, who are you?

  12. Fri May 28, 2004 8:46 pm
    Well, at least they protested when Sudan won a seat on the Human Rights Commission. <p> <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/108368999346.htm">http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/108368999346.htm</a>

  13. by L. Ray
    Fri May 28, 2004 8:57 pm
    but of course never said a word about their criminal behavioour towards the people of the Marshall Islands.
    <br><br>
    They were used as guinee pigs to study the effects of nuclear radiation on humans.
    <br><br>
    Then they were screwed again in the Compact of Association where the people suffering from cancers as a result of US actions were barred from suing in US courts.
    <br><br>
    Now they use their land for missile testing.
    <br><br>
    The only nation actually having used nuclear weapons in war is the USA.
    <br><br>
    Not once but twice.

  14. by L. Ray
    Fri May 28, 2004 8:58 pm
    sorry I forgot to choose html format in the preceding post



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news