January 11, 2005

• Jesus, it's the ridiculous shit like this statement that makes me want to bash my head against the wall. Over and over again.
• I wish they could lock up this guy's lawyer with him in prison as his cellmate when he inevitably loses. Lawyers like this are a danger to their clients. Who knows, maybe the lawyer's using a statement his client made because he knows it's so clearly stupid as to get his client convicted. Maybe he *wants* his client to lose.
• I realize that my statement at the end kind of the post sounds like a NRA wet dream.
• yeah I saw another one in an article at the Guardian about people re-entering Fallujah requiring "pass" cards. The american guy in charge said they would look back on the pass cards as "souveneirs" (because they were only temporary). What a bizarre outlook he must have on life. Your house gets blown down, your city destroyed and your family members killed... but wait! here's a nifty souvenier to stick on your wall once we've left your country. here's a link to the video.
• Michael Jackson's Defence lawyer: Don't men have sex everyday, somewhere. Its not abuse.
• I would like to see naked cheerleaders make a pyramide at.. what do you call it.. superbowl?
• yeah, bring on the naked cheerleaders!!!
• Of course... doesn't everybody has some cheerleader drag them around with a collar around the neck, naked and... oh, wait.
• MonkeyFilter: here's a nifty souvenier to stick on your wall once we've left your country MonkeyFilter: It's not abuse (apostrophe added at no extra charge) MonkeyFilter: bring on the naked cheerleaders!!!
• HA HA HA....HA HAH HAHAHAH HAHAHHAHA...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHHAHAHAHA.....what the fuck is wrong with these lawyers!? you know, I would have thought that the pictures and video would have been enough evidence...silly me!
• Well, to be fair to this guy Womack -- his client isn't giving him much to work with. There's only so much he can do with the hand he's been dealt by his client. (Doesn't mean that the statement isn't patently absurd, though.)
• "This one time at Abu Ghraib camp....." Well at least we know who will be writing the next Bring it on movie script.
• Lawyers saddled with clients who refuse, even in the face of video and photographic evidence of their fetid little bullying and casual degradation, to have even the least shred of personal honor or love of country or thought for anything but their own miserable skin and plead guilty? Must be necessity cork up ridiculous justifications to defend their clients' actions. Count me as one who hopes these pieces of shit get the maximum punishments allowed. Not only have they demonstrated a casual disregard for the captives in their charge, and exhibited the vulpine capacity for toying with those people for their own amusement, they have cast a pall on every honorable soldier who is trying to show the Iraqi people that Americans are not degenerate bullies with guns.
• On the other hand, I took would like to see me some naked cheerleaders. I'm only human, people.
• *cough*
• I believe the naked cheerleader desire is hard-wired into the, um, brain. It can't possibly be a learned behavior. It's far too powerful, like the Dark Side.
• You've seen the naked cheerleader pyramid too? Which was it, Chained Heat 5 or Chained Heat 6?
• *checks tonight's listings on Cinemax*
• Not that I'm even trying to begin to condone these soldiers' behaviors, and I fully expect them to be made examples of and serve lengthy sentences, but soldiers of all sides have been commiting horrific acts of brutality since the advent of war. The jihadists drag our dead through the streets, (civilian, military, and aid workers alike), and we subject "suspects" (and I use the term very loosely) to humiliation and physical abuse. it's just cultural differences. While both sides can agree upon bashing each other in the head with fists, and rifle butts, they've got their beheadings and we've got our sexual humiliation. Due to each parties respective way of life, they are nearly equal in creating outrage in the populaces. Like I said, however, brutality is wrong, but I do understand on a purely clinical standpoint how people would resort to this behavior during war. Acts such as these are inevitable during armed conflict and invasion, which is exactly why one should only wage war when absolutely necessary. As such, I don't blame the perpetrators, I blame the ones who sent them there in the first place.
• Debaser626 - I agree with you regarding the likelihood of abuse occurring in a war situation, but surely that's what a chain of command is _for_. The fact that the abuses occurred at all is evidence for either gross negligence on the part of the military command, or active encouragement on the part of higher ups for the soldiers involved. Even if the officers in charge can demonstrate unequivocally that they did not know that this was happening, they should still be held accountable because they had no reasonable basis, none, for not expecting that events like these could, and would, occur.
• Are any of the commanding officers in trouble? Or are we pretty sure they knew nothing about this and wouldn't have condoned it? I haven't heard anything from the media except a bunch of enlisted people getting court-martialled.
• And if you thought the naked cheerleaders excuse was weak, how about this? "a tether is a valid tool when dealing not only with prisoners but also with children" Nothing like adding some references to parenting techniques (and one I find rather revolting, but that's a derail) to go with the all-American cheerleader comparisons.
• rolypolyman - so far as I know, no senior officers are facing courts martial. I've managed to mix in two issues into my post (yay me). 1) this should not have occurred in a modern military with a functioning chain of command 2) the fact that it did occur is evidence for either orders received from senior officers, or wilful negligence on the part of senior officers. Ignorance of wrongdoing is not an excuse when, as in this case, there is no reasonable basis not to expect wrongdoing to be going on.
• In case anyone is interested Guy has a home page... interesting that he once taught a class for the military on interrogation techniques.... Now, i'm not suggesting that anyone use the e/mail link on his home page (or the phone number) to express an opinion..... that would be a bad thing....
• While I would like to think that a "modern military with a chain of command" would act differently than armies of ye olde, I still think that horrific acts will happen. It's logistically impossible for the chain of command to maintain an assault while not letting their troops "blow off some steam." They must turn a blind eye to certain atrocities (while making an example out of soldiers from time to time to keep things from utterly deteriorating), in order to maintain morale. However, I do see your points on Abu Gharib in particular. If the chain of command condoned, or even encouraged such acts in a controlled environment, it is far different than a situation which happens out in the field. (i.e. the soldier who "executed" the insurgent in Fallujah). I think the actions of soldiers who are suffering from extreme stress, anger and fear, much like the soldiers who emptied their .50 cals into rice paddies in Vietnam, while reprehensible are at least somewhat understandable in a twisted sort of way. I just forget sometimes how utterly fucked our current government is, and the lows they will stoop to.
• As such, I don't blame the perpetrators... How can you not? What they did was despicable and inhuman, and they looked like they were enjoying it. I don't care if they were under direct orders to do this stuff to the prisoners (and I don't think they were), they all seem like sociopathic idiots to me.(probably what attracted them to the army in the first place)
• Rocket.... "...brutality is wrong, but I do understand on a purely clinical standpoint how people would resort to this behavior during war. Acts such as these are inevitable during armed conflict and invasion, which is exactly why one should only wage war when absolutely necessary..." that's how... I didn't say atrocities are acceptable or should be condoned... they just happen during a war, they're as much a part of war as bullets and bombs... you can't have a war without atrocities... I doubt most of these people would have committed such acts if not engaged in war. I'm not excusing their behavior, nor do I think those responsible should go unpunished. I simply hold those who are quick to go to war more responsible for these acts, as they should know that they are eventualities.
• Not to defend Mr. Graner's behavior, but in light of the evidence against him, what other options does his lawyer have? The argument may be a laughable one, but defending the client is a lawyer's job. I see no reason to be outraged. This isn't some official position of the US government, it's just one lawyer doing his duty to his client. Frankly, with the way this whole scandal is being handled (making mincemeat examples of the lowest-level perpetrators, with no serious investigation or consequences for the higher-ups), I don't blame Mr. Graner for deciding to make the toughest stand he can, either.
• I don't get it. What's petebest coughing about?
• A gentle suggestion that maybe this should have gone onto the original thread, and not given a new FPP.
• Would anyone have read it if I had stuck in the original thread? Anywho, this is more about the trials, which are turning out to be their own can of worms.
• "Aw shucks, it was just a game of Twister gone wrong..."
• Quite a few people, Tempest. A lot of us keep up with old threades.
• This statement would rank very low on the list of ridiculous remarks by attorneys.
• Of course the lawyer is supposed to lose this case. Part of the defense is that Graner and others were just following orders. If he loses, that pesky question will go away.
• Atrocities do occur in wartime, debaser, but the crux here is that the invasion of Iraq is not a war: it is a vastly unsupported criminal act perpetrated by a pack of terrorists who aren't even supported in their actions by the majority of people within their own nations. War, as despised as it is, seems like honourable fair play compared to this debacle. Best wishes to the Iraqi people, and I hope that every single person up and down the command chain in the U.S. military and government who has been at all involved in or supportive of the torture, rape and murder of Iraqi citizens suffers the punishment they are due.
• "Part of the defense is that Graner and others were just following orders." Since that approach worked so well for Adolf Eichmann, I'm not surprised that it's trotted out every so often by other criminals.
• Jeez, Coppermac, I heard it rumored in one of the other threads that you were a conservative here on MoFi. They're gonna take away your card and decoder ring...
• Here's what I don't understand. The defense says that he both followed orders of interrogation specialists AND acted alone. What the fuck? How is that possible?