Re:Banality of Evil and Digital Photography
« Reply #15 on: 2004-05-17 11:25:57 »
[Jonathan Davis] Yes the Abu Ghraib abusers came from poor backgrounds, but then again virtually all non-ranking soldiers are drawn from the domestic poor. This is why blacks and Hispanics are so over-represented in those ranks.
[rhinoceros] This seems factually correct, but the connective "This is why" leaves you wondering. This is what Naomi Klein attempted to explain:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=5530 <begin quote> Free trade has turned the U.S. labour market into an hourglass: plenty of jobs at the bottom, a fair bit at the top, but very little in the middle. At the same time, getting from the bottom to the top has become increasingly difficult, with tuition at state colleges up by more than 50 per cent since 1990.
And that’s where the U.S. military comes in: the army has positioned itself as the bridge across America’s growing class chasm: money for tuition in exchange for military service. Call it the NAFTA draft.
It worked for Lynndie England, the most infamous of the Abu Ghraib accused. She joined the 372 Military Police Company to pay for college, hoping to replace her job at the chicken processing plant with a career in meteorology. Her colleague Sabrina Harman told the Washington Post, “I knew nothing at all about the military except that they would pay for college. So I signed up.” <end quote>
[Jonathan Davis] The contempt shown world wide for these wrongdoers was coloured by a familiar bigotry. Not only did these people commit these wrongs but worse, they "hillbillies", "backwoodsmen" or "trailer trash". America's white rural poor are the only group one can attack with impunity and let loose the full broadside of bigotry and group hatred. Even the gentlemanly Boris Johnson could not check himself.
Lynndie England is in many ways exemplary. Born to extreme poverty, she worked and planned her way out of poverty. She could have been a perfect American Dream candidate.
[rhinoceros] Naomi Klein addressed this too. It is the Bush administration, not her, who put all the blame on Lynndie England and those detained, the "deviant monsters".
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=5530 <begin quote> The poverty of the soldiers at the center of the prison scandal has been used both as evidence of their innocence, and to compound their guilt. On the one hand, Sgt. First Class Paul Shaffer explains that at Abu Ghraib, “you’re a person who works at McDonald’s one day; the next day you’re standing in front of hundreds of prisoners, and half are saying they’re sick and half are saying they’re hungry.” And Gary Myers, the lawyer defending several of the soldiers, asked The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, “Do you really think a group of kids from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own?”
On the other side, the British Sun tabloid has dubbed Lynndie England the “Trailer trash torturer,” while Boris Johnson wrote in the Telegraph that Americans were being shamed by “smirking jezebels from the Appalachians.”
The truth is that the poverty of the soldiers involved in prison torture makes them neither more guilty, nor less. But the more we learn about them, the clearer it becomes that the lack of good jobs and social equality in the U.S. is precisely what brought them to Iraq in the first place. Despite his attempts to use the economy to distract attention from Iraq, and his efforts to isolate the soldiers as un-American deviants, these are the children George Bush left behind, fleeing dead-end McJobs, abusive prisons, unaffordable education, and closed factories.
<snip>
Donald Rumsfeld? "Doing a superb job," according to the optimist-in-chief. The mission in Iraq? "We're making progress, you bet," Bush told reporters one year after his disastrous "Mission Accomplished" speech. And the U.S. job market, which has driven so many into poverty? "Yes, America Can!"
We don’t yet know who taught these young soldiers how to effectively torture their prisoners. But we do know who taught them how to stay happy go lucky in the face of tremendous suffering --that lesson came straight from the top. <end quote>
[rhinoceros] This final paragraph brings to mind the "Stanford prison experiment" which, although criticised by many as not scientifically rigorous, gives us good clues about how affirmation can easily make a torturer. There is also the newer "BBC prison experiment" which brings up a caveat: Why not everyone is a torturer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3700209.stm)
That said, no psychological study can absolve an ordinary person from their personal responsibility; society mainly cares for the effects on our daily lives.
[Jonathan Davis] Need she be imprisoned and heavily punished? I do not think that would be just. Catch the people who might have murdered prisoners. Catch the people who might have tortured them.
But the people who frightened and humiliated them - people like Lynndie England - their wrongs in my mind and not even crimes. This is the reality of war and interrogation. I suspect that England and company were directed by Military Intelligence and that these interrogation methods were successful.
[rhinoceros] Personal responsibility is an integral part of our Western values, and these deviations are illegal for a reason which already became apparent: They are already being paid in blood.
[Jonathan Davis] If it were discovered that these interrogations saved US lives, would that make a difference? Given a choice would you accept this: One of your soldiers lives saved for 10 of the enemy humiliated?
[rhinoceros] Sure, by stacking "suspects" into prisons, humiliating them and interrogating them without pressing any specific charges is going to get you *some* information, statistically. (Imagine this in the USA, say, during a war on drugs.) The price for this has become apparent even to Bush administration: More lives put in danger in response. As I said, it is illegal for a reason.
[Jonathan Davis] I think we ought to stop the hypocritical finger pointing at these miscreants and face up the messy task of fighting enemies that not only do not share our values or restraint but actively use them against us.
It is time to adapt and that adaptation might mean that the gentlemanly rules of engagement and prisoner care developed by and for civilised people be not apply when facing enemies that scorn those rules.
[rhinoceros] What "hypocritical finger pointing?" I thought those exactly were the values that were supposed to be promoted. "Fighting enemies that don't share our values?" Can you point out any specific values which the occupation troops are currently offering for sharing? And after all, who decides who my enemy is?
This is also a good place to point out that (a) Saddam has already been capture and (b) Al-Sadr with his mahdi army used to be a sworn enemy of his -- Saddam murdered his father. Now Al-Sadr is fighting against the occupation troops and I don't see any civil war in Iraq. Why are the troops there now? Why would I want to fight and defeat anyone in their home because of a shady Lebanese serial killer who is trying to cash-in the anger of the abused? -- and he may too.
[Jonathan Davis] An enemy whose Commander in Chief personally apologises for the wrongdoings of a tiny number of renegade soldiers sets the upper standard. An enemy that beheads captives, ransoms body parts or flies whole plane loads of its prisoners into buildings, sets the opposite, lowest standard.
[rhinoceros] So, they became renegade wrongdoers again? I thought you said they were exemplary. And who is "the enemy" who beheads captives? Not the serial killer I just mentioned? Is "the enemy" a tentacle coming out of the Brown Blob comprising the Middle East? This may sound snide, but remember that it is neither Al-Zarqawi nor Saddam who is kept in Baghdad prison. It's Iraqis with kin and neighbors who have not been accused of anything. You may want to turn back and look for those western values again.
All that said, I have talked with Jonathan in IRC several times and I have noticed that he is actually a sweet and polite person, much unlike myself. I would bet good money that if he was a guard in that Baghdad prison he would stop dead on his tracks as soon as a prisoner talked back to him in human speech. I expect that eventually he will integrate all the personal stories which drive him into a coherent whole.
All that said, I have talked with Jonathan in IRC several times and I have noticed that he is actually a sweet and polite person, much unlike myself. I would bet good money that if he was a guard in that Baghdad prison he would stop dead on his tracks as soon as a prisoner talked back to him in human speech. I expect that eventually he will integrate all the personal stories which drive him into a coherent whole.
[Jonathan] I may get some time to explain my points further and answer your questions tomorrow but in the meantime thank you for a thorough and considered response.
On the matter of my personality and its integrity, I am sorry to report that I am indeed not whole. In fact, in the words of those famous new testament demons, my name is Legion.
I have instructed my most trusted lieutenants to shoot me through head and feed my brains to flesh eating beetles if I ever reach ego integrity and show signs of psychological wholeness, certainty or faith.
Kind regards
Jonathan as found on the 18th May 2004 00:34Zulu sober and fed.
[Jonathan Davis 1 ] The contempt shown world wide for these wrongdoers was coloured by a familiar bigotry. Not only did these people commit these wrongs but worse, they "hillbillies", "backwoodsmen" or "trailer trash". America's white rural poor are the only group one can attack with impunity and let loose the full broadside of bigotry and group hatred. Even the gentlemanly Boris Johnson could not check himself.
Lynndie England is in many ways exemplary. Born to extreme poverty, she worked and planned her way out of poverty. She could have been a perfect American Dream candidate.
[rhinoceros 1] Naomi Klein addressed this too. It is the Bush administration, not her, who put all the blame on Lynndie England and those detained, the "deviant monsters".
The truth is that the poverty of the soldiers involved in prison torture makes them neither more guilty, nor less. But the more we learn about them, the clearer it becomes that the lack of good jobs and social equality in the U.S. is precisely what brought them to Iraq in the first place. Despite his attempts to use the economy to distract attention from Iraq, and his efforts to isolate the soldiers as un-American deviants, these are the children George Bush left behind, fleeing dead-end McJobs, abusive prisons, unaffordable education, and closed factories.
[Jonathan 2] Klien paints a picture of a US where the Bush administration has devastated the hinterland, driving these poor dumb beasts to take refuge in the armed forces only to find themselves killed or arrested in Iraq.
This is specious.
The current economic climate is largely inherited from 15 years of US political and fiscal policies. Also, until recently Bush was accused of distracting attention from the Economy with Iraq? Now that the Economy is growing again she charges him with the reverse!
Most of those soldiers are happy to be fighting for their country and they are happy to enjoy the benefits that service brings them. The state of the country - which is by any standard is rather good - cannot be blamed on this Administration. As career soldiers go the bulk of US servicemen is pampered and safe. I also think that military service is an excellent absorber of the economically adrift sections of society. Incidentally, these people are set adrift not by the relatively powerless Administrations but the enormously powerful macro-economic forces shaping the global economy.
[rhinoceros-ctd 1]
<snip>
Klein's quote contd.
Donald Rumsfeld? "Doing a superb job," according to the optimist-in-chief. The mission in Iraq? "We're making progress, you bet," Bush told reporters one year after his disastrous "Mission Accomplished" speech. And the U.S. job market, which has driven so many into poverty? "Yes, America Can!"
We don't yet know who taught these young soldiers how to effectively torture their prisoners. But we do know who taught them how to stay happy go lucky in the face of tremendous suffering --that lesson came straight from the top. <end quote>
[rhinoceros 1] This final paragraph brings to mind the "Stanford prison experiment" which, although criticised by many as not scientifically rigorous, gives us good clues about how affirmation can easily make a torturer. There is also the newer "BBC prison experiment" which brings up a caveat: Why not everyone is a torturer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3700209.stm)
That said, no psychological study can absolve an ordinary person from their personal responsibility; society mainly cares for the effects on our daily lives.
[Jonathan 2]
Indeed. Milgram's study was groundbreaking and I strongly recommend to you "Opening Skinners Box" by Lauren Slater. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but there are some grumblings about it. See the Amazon review for more - http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747563179/ .
[Jonathan Davis 1] Need she be imprisoned and heavily punished? I do not think that would be just. Catch the people who might have murdered prisoners. Catch the people who might have tortured them.
But the people who frightened and humiliated them - people like Lynndie England - their wrongs in my mind and not even crimes. This is the reality of war and interrogation. I suspect that England and company were directed by Military Intelligence and that these interrogation methods were successful.
[rhinoceros 1] Personal responsibility is an integral part of our Western values, and these deviations are illegal for a reason which already became apparent: They are already being paid in blood.
I do not dispute your statement about personal responsibility, but I do not see its application in this context. As for the illegality of the act - it is illegal if it contravenes a law, simple as that. Another Western (legal) value is "nulla poena sine lege": no punishment without a law.
That the publication of the photos is or will lead to an upsurge in killing remains speculation. I believe the Insurgents are throwing everything they can into the battle now because they believe they are close to a tipping point. Nothing could make them hate more or try harder or kill any better than they are already.
If mere fostering of bloodshed was the core of the wrongdoing - then surely those publishing the photos are culpable for their part too? What of people like Al Jazeera who are seconded only by the former Iraq Information Minister in their hysterical confabulations falsehoods about non-existent Coalition atrocities?
[Jonathan Davis 1] I think we ought to stop the hypocritical finger pointing at these miscreants and face up the messy task of fighting enemies that not only do not share our values or restraint but actively use them against us.
It is time to adapt and that adaptation might mean that the gentlemanly rules of engagement and prisoner care developed by and for civilised people be not apply when facing enemies that scorn those rules.
[rhinoceros 1] What "hypocritical finger pointing?" I thought those exactly were the values that were supposed to be promoted. "Fighting enemies that don't share our values?" Can you point out any specific values which the occupation troops are currently offering for sharing? And after all, who decides who my enemy is?
This is also a good place to point out that (a) Saddam has already been capture and (b) Al-Sadr with his mahdi army used to be a sworn enemy of his -- Saddam murdered his father. Now Al-Sadr is fighting against the occupation troops and I don't see any civil war in Iraq. Why are the troops there now? Why would I want to fight and defeat anyone in their home because of a shady Lebanese serial killer who is trying to cash-in the anger of the abused? -- and he may too.
[Jonathan 2] In the case of Islamists, it is they who have selected us - you and I - as the enemy. You can consider them to be whatever you chose. This is the problem with aggression. You do not get to chose to fight or not. You fight or die.
The hypocritical finger pointing is aimed at we at home who are quick to judge those soldiers and the "Arab Street" by which I mean the spectre invoked when the press needs to reify Islam and Muslims. This is usually represented by Arab hordes demanding death to westerners and the annihilation of Israel or celebrating terrorist attacks or protesting about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners whilst supporting the murderers of Nick Berg and other civilians.
[Jonathan Davis 1] An enemy whose Commander in Chief personally apologises for the wrongdoings of a tiny number of renegade soldiers sets the upper standard. An enemy that beheads captives, ransoms body parts or flies whole plane loads of its prisoners into buildings, sets the opposite, lowest standard.
[rhinoceros 1] So, they became renegade wrongdoers again? I thought you said they were exemplary.
[Jonathan 2] Yes, I meant what I wrote at several levels. What I said was "Lynndie England is in many ways exemplary". What that meant was that she was "born to extreme poverty, she worked and planned her way out of [that] poverty. She could have been a perfect American Dream candidate". She is both "serving as an illustration of a type" and " serving to warn". She was not some lazy arse thick hick but a hard working and determined self-improver. Possibly one night of stupidity has ruined all that. She was an exemplary vision of American self-determined improvement. Now she is an exemplary wrongdoer.
[rhinoceros 1] And who is "the enemy" who beheads captives? Not the serial killer I just mentioned?
[Jonathan 2] Who do you mean?
[Rhinoceros 1] Is "the enemy" a tentacle coming out of the Brown Blob comprising the Middle East? This may sound snide, but remember that it is neither Al-Zarqawi nor Saddam who is kept in Baghdad prison. It's Iraqis with kin and neighbors who have not been accused of anything. You may want to turn back and look for those western values again.
[Jonathan 2] The enemy in Iraq is mostly comprised of Syrian and Iranian agitators, Al Qaeda operatives, Baathist remnants, Tribal Mafia, Shiite power grabbers and a smattering of psychopathic Islamists drawn to a fight.
Those kept in that prison at that time could have been comprised of any of those groups. Some if not most are innocent. They will be released in due course. Most German POW were still being used as slave labour in 1946 the last of them only saw freedom in 1948. Those men are casualties of war.
[rhinoceros 1]
All that said, I have talked with Jonathan in IRC several times and I have noticed that he is actually a sweet and polite person, much unlike myself. I would bet good money that if he was a guard in that Baghdad prison he would stop dead on his tracks as soon as a prisoner talked back to him in human speech. I expect that eventually he will integrate all the personal stories which drive him into a coherent whole.
RE: virus: Re:Banality of Evil and Digital Photography
« Reply #18 on: 2004-05-19 04:37:53 »
[JD]Lynndie England is in many ways exemplary. Born to extreme poverty, she worked and planned her way out of poverty. She could have been a perfect American Dream candidate.
[Mermaid]Huh? born to extreme poverty and 'planned' her way out of poverty? what has that got to do with ANYTHING???
[JD] Most of those soldiers are happy to be fighting for their country and they are happy to enjoy the benefits that service brings them.
[Mermaid]We have a virian fighting for his country. Do you think he'd know better than you whether or not 'most soldiers' are HAPPY to be fighting for their countries? Mercenaries enjoy benefits. American soldiers get flag waving, non combatant citizens supporting them and pretty much..nothing else...the benefit goes to bush, cheney and cronies...you bet they are happy to enjoy the benefits of the service that soldiers bring to them by putting their ass on line for a few good men...
on a totally diff note..whats with the gas prices in UK? Blair dragged you guys to the war and no benefit...
Have you ever donned a military uniform? You seem so well informed...
[JD]I also think that military service is an excellent absorber of the economically adrift sections of society.
[Mermaid]Basically, you are saying that its a great idea to send the poor of a country to fight in wars to bring in riches for the already rich of the country?
[Jonathan Davis 1] Need she be imprisoned and heavily punished? I do not think that would be just. Catch the people who might have murdered prisoners. Catch the people who might have tortured them.
[Mermaid]Is this the same guy who mentioned in his journal that rowdy teenage, south london school girls who traveled ticketless(and were threatened by policeman who wielded batons at them) should be caught and punished severely??? I am speechless!
[Jonathan Davis 1] I think we ought to stop the hypocritical finger pointing at these miscreants and face up the messy task of fighting enemies that not only do not share our values or restraint but actively use them against us.
[Mermaid]Why? How did Iraq use anything against Britain or America? What is wrong with not sharing American values and Blair's puppylove for Dubya?
[Jonathan 2] In the case of Islamists, it is they who have selected us - you and I - as the enemy. You can consider them to be whatever you chose. This is the problem with aggression. You do not get to chose to fight or not. You fight or die.
[Mermaid]Just for a minute, even if you are right..(which you arent)...picking a fight and declaring that its a 'fight or die' sceanario...where does humiliation, torture and abuse enter the picture? killing your enemy is survival...torturing them and especially in the most obscene manner to drain every bit of human dignity from them...to make them 'non people' is....what?? ..what would you call that...the nazis did that to another semitic people some years ago...remember that?
[JD]... or protesting about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners whilst supporting the murderers of Nick Berg and other civilians.
[Mermaid]As we have seen in another thread, this is highly debatable..
[Jonathan Davis 1]An enemy whose Commander in Chief personally apologises for the wrongdoings of a tiny number of renegade soldiers sets the upper standard.
[Mermaid]Bush didnt apologise. Can you give me a quote or transcript of this alleged apology?
[Jonathan 2] Yes, I meant what I wrote at several levels. What I said was "Lynndie England is in many ways exemplary". What that meant was that she was "born to extreme poverty, she worked and planned her way out of [that] poverty.
[Mermaid]At the risk of repeating myself..but for clarification purposes..what has that got to do with ANYTHING?
[Jonathan 2] The enemy in Iraq is mostly comprised of Syrian and Iranian agitators, Al Qaeda operatives, Baathist remnants, Tribal Mafia, Shiite power grabbers and a smattering of psychopathic Islamists drawn to a fight.
[Mermaid]You must be well connected to have all these 'facts' at your fingertips.
Re:Banality of Evil and Digital Photography
« Reply #19 on: 2004-05-19 10:15:21 »
[rhinoceros] I am not an advocate of "having the last word", so I will leave my first reply stand or fall by its merit. There are only a couple of points I want to address.
[Jonathan Davis] Klien paints a picture of a US where the Bush administration has devastated the hinterland, driving these poor dumb beasts to take refuge in the armed forces only to find themselves killed or arrested in Iraq.
[rhinoceros] Do I have to post what Naomi Klein said for a third time? Where are the "dumb beasts" or anything to that effect?
[Jonathan Davis] The current economic climate is largely inherited from 15 years of US political and fiscal policies. Also, until recently Bush was accused of distracting attention from the Economy with Iraq? Now that the Economy is growing again she charges him with the reverse!
[rhinoceros] Everything is inherited from something in the past, but that hardly changes the economic results of the last years. A significant percentage of the American people I have met here in CoV found themselves kicked out of well-paid high-tech jobs, confirming what one can read all over the news. GDP indices prosper but more people are laid off and left behind.
If you read Naomi Klein's article again (a brilliant one -- I don't always defend the articles I post) you will find that Bush's thumbs-up to economy is nothing more than a performance. He did not really deliver to the Americans any way to benefit. On the contrary, he told them that they need no special care because "America can". Did you notice the following?
<quote> No wonder the President’s Economic Report in February floated the idea of reclassifying fast-food restaurants as factories. “When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a ‘service’ or is it combining inputs to ‘manufacture’ a product?” the report asks. <end quote>
[rhinoceros] And who is "the enemy" who beheads captives? Not the serial killer I just mentioned?
[Jonathan] Who do you mean?
[rhinoceros] That was in my immediately preceding sentence in my initial reply: "Why would I want to fight and defeat anyone in their home because of a shady Lebanese serial killer who is trying to cash-in the anger of the abused? -- and he may too."
RE: virus: Re:Banality of Evil and Digital Photography
« Reply #20 on: 2004-05-19 12:24:11 »
This is my final word on this and I am sorry to not have the courtesy to leave this be but I also want to make my final clarifications (then I promise, that's it for this thread).
[rhinoceros] I am not an advocate of "having the last word", so I will leave my first reply stand or fall by its merit. There are only a couple of points I want to address.
[Jonathan Davis] Klien paints a picture of a US where the Bush administration has devastated the hinterland, driving these poor dumb beasts to take refuge in the armed forces only to find themselves killed or arrested in Iraq.
[rhinoceros] Do I have to post what Naomi Klein said for a third time? Where are the "dumb beasts" or anything to that effect?
[Jonathan 2] "Klein paints a picture" said Jonathan.
[Jonathan Davis] The current economic climate is largely inherited from 15 years of US political and fiscal policies. Also, until recently Bush was accused of distracting attention from the Economy with Iraq? Now that the Economy is growing again she charges him with the reverse!
[rhinoceros] Everything is inherited from something in the past, but that hardly changes the economic results of the last years. A significant percentage of the American people I have met here in CoV found themselves kicked out of well-paid high-tech jobs, confirming what one can read all over the news. GDP indices prosper but more people are laid off and left behind.
[Jonathan] We are not a representative sample AND the IT industry was hit by the dot.com bubble. It had nothing to do with Bush. Zero.
[rhinoceros] If you read Naomi Klein's article again (a brilliant one -- I don't always defend the articles I post) you will find that Bush's thumbs-up to economy is nothing more than a performance. He did not really deliver to the Americans any way to benefit. On the contrary, he told them that they need no special care because "America can". Did you notice the following?
<quote> No wonder the President's Economic Report in February floated the idea of reclassifying fast-food restaurants as factories. "When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" the report asks. <end quote>
[Jonathan 2] The US economy is *growing*. Fact.
[rhinoceros] And who is "the enemy" who beheads captives? Not the serial killer I just mentioned?
[Jonathan] Who do you mean?
[rhinoceros] That was in my immediately preceding sentence in my initial reply: "Why would I want to fight and defeat anyone in their home because of a shady Lebanese serial killer who is trying to cash-in the anger of the abused? -- and he may too."
Al-Zarqawi, of course. The shady Lebanese.
[Jonathan 2] Oh sorry, I missed that for some reason.
Bye way of last words from me, let me say that I think Klein's article (like her books) is very interesting. I also happen to disagree with most of it (as we well know).
In my view the real mistakes of the Bush Administration are its fiscal policy - the US needs to take radical action now to stave of the generational accounts nightmare; his attacks on science like stem cells (but not Kyoto - he was right about that as everyone from New Zealand to Russia is coming to see) and his attacks on gay rights.
On foreign policy (except the war on drugs) I broadly agree with him (Bush).
Re:Banality of Evil and Digital Photography
« Reply #21 on: 2004-05-19 15:08:12 »
[Jonathan Davis] Bye way of last words from me, let me say that I think Klein's article (like her books) is very interesting. I also happen to disagree with most of it (as we well know).
[rhinoceros] I think we had a discussion about her book "Fences and Windows" a while back. (The title refers to the paradox of barriers erected within societies as a result of the actual process of globalization.)
THE photographs of torture in Abu Ghraib prison are horrific, as is the behaviour they have revealed. Those involved must be punished severely.
But the effect they are having on attitudes to the war is entirely unwarranted. It reveals an enormous naivety on the part of many of us.
Anyone who wants to know is aware that beatings, degradation and rape are daily occurrences in Australian prisons and always have been. We have the evidence of many ex-prisoners, psychologists, police, prison visitors and guards on this.
What's different in the case of Abu Ghraib is that photos were taken and sent out. The West's superior technology and freedom are being used against it by enemies who possess neither of these things.
Hadi Kazwini is an Iraqi engineer who moved to Australia in 1997 and lives in Sydney with his wife and three children. He is amazed at the gullibility of those Australians who have taken the Arab response to the photos at face value.
This sort of brutality goes on all the time, it is happening now in jails right through the Middle East, he says. But of course there are no photos. This is selective outrage.
Kazwini believes that the behaviour revealed by the photos is awful and the US soldiers involved should be punished. But he says some of the Iraqi prisoners shown were Saddam's killers and torturers. They have been responsible for far worse violations of human rights than the Americans.
Where is the outrage about this, he asks. I haven't seen it referred to in one newspaper.
Kazwini has a different perspective to most of us here in Australia. Seven people he knew disappeared during Saddam's time, never to be seen again. Some were members of his family. No one knows what happened to them. No bodies were ever found.
Kazwini himself was once arrested for a poem he wrote. He was interned for six days and beaten and humiliated. Men were stripped and forced to crawl before their guards.
These days Kazwini uses e-mail and the internet to communicate daily with people in Iraq. He is amazed at the persistent claims in the media here that most Iraqis have responded to the photos by turning on the American occupation.
The main concern of the people he talks to is that the photos, and the beaten-up outrage from the rest of the Arab world, might encourage America to leave.
That would be a disaster for Iraq. People don't understand, he says, that however bad things are now, they were worse under Saddam and they'd be much worse if the allies pulled out now.
And yet, our emotional response to the photographs is hard to deny. Our heads might tell us not to over-react, but our emotions easily over-ride our reason. Remember the Vietnam War. The North finally won because America withdrew its support, particularly its financial help after 1973.
Public support for Vietnam faded partly because of photographs. American, and some Australian, troops often behaved appallingly in Vietnam, using rape, torture and the murder of civilians and prisoners in an almost casual manner. But few others knew of this. What changed the public mood were photos, and two in particular: those of the little girl and the napalm, and the police chief with his pistol shooting a Vietcong suspect in the head.
The indirect effect of these pictures was more powerful than bullets, than money, than diplomacy. This shows how in democracies the heart often rules the head. Images can simplify an issue, brutally, ruthlessly, and unfairly.
A great Australian example of this is the well-known painting of Governor William Bligh being pulled from under a bed during the Rum Rebellion of 1806. The image branded Bligh a coward, thereby attracting considerable support for the rebels.
In fact, Bligh hid in an effort to escape his pursuers so he could rally support to put down the rebellion. But it is the version implied by the picture that has persisted in popular memory.
Hadi Kazwini's anger is understandable. But the effect of the Abu Ghraib photos on attitudes to the war is probably unstoppable.
[JD] Most of those soldiers are happy to be fighting for their country and they are happy to enjoy the benefits that service brings them.
[Mermaid]We have a virian fighting for his country. Do you think he'd know better than you whether or not 'most soldiers' are HAPPY to be fighting for their countries? Mercenaries enjoy benefits. American soldiers get flag waving, non combatant citizens supporting them and pretty much..nothing else...the benefit goes to bush, cheney and cronies...you bet they are happy to enjoy the benefits of the service that soldiers bring to them by putting their ass on line for a few good men...
on a totally diff note..whats with the gas prices in UK? Blair dragged you guys to the war and no benefit...
Have you ever donned a military uniform? You seem so well informed...
[JD 3] Our fighting Virian can comment on his sample. Has he? What was his assessment? Do you assert that soldiers are unhappy to fight for their countries and no benefits from their service? Both my own experiences and the books/comments I have read contradict this. Even the Klein article we are discussing makes the point many soldiers join up for career and social advancement, and I would add, as well as the pride of patriotic service.
[JD]I also think that military service is an excellent absorber of the economically adrift sections of society.
[Mermaid]Basically, you are saying that its a great idea to send the poor of a country to fight in wars to bring in riches for the already rich of the country?
[JD 3] I think it is good to be able to apply manpower where it is needed. This is what the British did very successfully and their efforts laid the foundations of contemporary civilisation across half the world.
Your implied premise about why wars - especially recent wars - are fought, is rejected.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Need she be imprisoned and heavily punished? I do not think that would be just. Catch the people who might have murdered prisoners. Catch the people who might have tortured them.
[Mermaid]Is this the same guy who mentioned in his journal that rowdy teenage, south london school girls who traveled ticketless(and were threatened by policeman who wielded batons at them) should be caught and punished severely??? I am speechless!
[Jonathan 3] Yes, you loyal reader you, I say your comment :-) You know I actually said that "I sincerely hope those girls are caught and punished", not "severely punished" as you have claimed. Like so may out-of-context quotes, this one appears bizarre. Virians can read the post in question here (even though it is irrelevant to this discussion).
You might note Mermaid that you have been rebuked by a young black girl for using the racially insensitive and outdated phrase "coloured". Tut tut. :-)
[Jonathan Davis 1] I think we ought to stop the hypocritical finger pointing at these miscreants and face up the messy task of fighting enemies that not only do not share our values or restraint but actively use them against us.
[Mermaid]Why? How did Iraq use anything against Britain or America? What is wrong with not sharing American values and Blair's puppylove for Dubya?
[Jonathan 3] Why what? Google "Iraq Saddam Hussein torture mass.graves"
[Jonathan 2] In the case of Islamists, it is they who have selected us - you and I - as the enemy. You can consider them to be whatever you chose. This is the problem with aggression. You do not get to chose to fight or not. You fight or die.
[Mermaid]Just for a minute, even if you are right..(which you arent)...picking a fight and declaring that its a 'fight or die' sceanario...where does humiliation, torture and abuse enter the picture? killing your enemy is survival...torturing them and especially in the most obscene manner to drain every bit of human dignity from them...to make them 'non people' is....what?? ..what would you call that...the nazis did that to another semitic people some years ago...remember that?
[JD 3] We are at war. Some tiny number of soldiers abused their power. They were exposed and are being punished. The system works. Alternatives?
[JD]... or protesting about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners whilst supporting the murderers of Nick Berg and other civilians.
[Mermaid]As we have seen in another thread, this is highly debatable..
[JD 3] That most Arabs support Jihadis?
[Jonathan Davis 1]An enemy whose Commander in Chief personally apologises for the wrongdoings of a tiny number of renegade soldiers sets the upper standard.
[Mermaid]Bush didnt apologise. Can you give me a quote or transcript of this alleged apology?
Next apology I expect is your to me for your excess doubt :-)
[Jonathan 2] Yes, I meant what I wrote at several levels. What I said was "Lynndie England is in many ways exemplary". What that meant was that she was "born to extreme poverty, she worked and planned her way out of [that] poverty.
[Mermaid]At the risk of repeating myself..but for clarification purposes..what has that got to do with ANYTHING?
[JD 3] My discussion with Rhinoceros about a Klein article that discusses the soldiers economic backgrounds.
[Jonathan 2] The enemy in Iraq is mostly comprised of Syrian and Iranian agitators, Al Qaeda operatives, Baathist remnants, Tribal Mafia, Shiite power grabbers and a smattering of psychopathic Islamists drawn to a fight.
[Mermaid]You must be well connected to have all these 'facts' at your fingertips.
This sort of brutality goes on all the time, it is happening now in jails right through the Middle East, he says. But of course there are no photos. This is selective outrage.
[Blunderov] I see. Because this brutality goes on all the time we should accept that the USA does the same. Rubbish. Selective outrage is perfectly permissible because the USA has touted itself as representing civilized values.
No, we should hold ourselves to higher standards than our adversaries, and we are in the painful process of doing so, via public acknowledgements (including the release of pictoral evidence), presidential apologies, congressional hearings, prosecutions, and the relieving of military commands. However, it is useful to remind ourselves of the execrable standards of our adversaries, which are widely and routinely indulged in without either apology or regret.
<begin quote> Herostratus, in ancient Greece was a madman who wanted to be remembered. He committed arson and set fire to the great Temple of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of the world. From his name derives the term herostratic fame.
City authorities afterwards forbade the mentioning of his name, on the penalty of death. This evidently did not succeed in preventing him from achieving his goal. <end quote>
My first thought was that if Lynndie England manages to get off the hook without heavy losses, lots of publishers will be waiting for her. There are certain benefits in living in an open society where everything has a price tag.
Too bad that the ones subjected to "liberation" have to drop their own few price tags and fall back to bargaining as best as they can...
RE: virus: Re:Banality of Evil and Digital Photography
« Reply #27 on: 2004-05-24 15:47:51 »
Sent: 17 May 2004 05:26 PM [rhinoceros] This final paragraph brings to mind the "Stanford prison experiment" which, although criticised by many as not scientifically rigorous, gives us good clues about how affirmation can easily make a torturer. There is also the newer "BBC prison experiment" which brings up a caveat: Why not everyone is a torturer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3700209.stm) <snip from site> Most notoriously, the 1971 Stanford prison experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo and colleagues, seemingly showed that young students who were assigned to the role of guard quickly became sadistically abusive to the students assigned to the role of prisoners. </snip from site>
[Blunderov] There is a curious synchronicity in the events that took place at Stanford: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/085240.htm?terms=n620b <excerpt> Within days the "guards" had become swaggering and sadistic, to the point of placing bags over the prisoners' heads, forcing them to strip naked and encouraging them to perform sexual acts. Sound familiar? Sound like anything you have read about recently?
The landmark Stanford experiment and studies like it give insight into how ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, do horrible things - including the mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. ... Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, a leader of the Stanford prison study, said that while the rest of the world was shocked by the images from Iraq, "I was not surprised that it happened. I have exact, parallel pictures of prisoners with bags over their heads," from the 1971 study, he said. </excerpt>
[Blunderov] Could this be explained as indicating that both sets of guards, in spite of their towering authority, nevertheless felt constrained by societal norms against, for the most part, inflicting actual bodily harm? Best Regards
Author
Logged
