Here it is Memorial Day and I happened upon this article in this mornings paper. It is by Andy Rooney of "60 Minutes" fame. I am not a political animal by a long stretch, but I can't help but agree with this editorial. I am curious to see what other members might think of Mr Rooney's thoughts so I am going to post it here and let it rip.
Here we go:
"We've had alot of good days.
Our darkest days up until now have been things like presidential assassinations...four of them. The stock market crash in 1929, Pearl Harbor and 9/11, of course.
The day the world learned that American soldiers had tortured Iraqi prisoners should be put high on the list of our country's worst. It's a black mark on our record that will be in the history books in a hundred languages for as long as there are history books. It changed the world's perception of us.
The image printed in every newspapaer in the world of one bad young woman with a naked man on a leash did more to damage America's reputation than all the good things we've done ever helped our reputation. Other guards put hoods over the heads of prisoners, stripped them naked, beat them and left them hanging from the bars of their prison cells by their wrists. The hoods made it difficult for them to breathe. Impossible sometimes, and some died of slow asphyxiationl
What were the secrets they were trying to get from captured Iraqis? What important information did that poor devil on the leash have that he wouldn't have given to anyone in exchange for a crust of bread or a sip of water?
One prisoner reported that a guard told him, "I'm going to make you wish you'd die and you're not going to."
Our generals in charge said our guards were "untrained." Untrained at what? Being human beings? Should we excuse the Iraqi who chopped off Nicholas Berg's head because he was untrained?
The guards who tortured prisoners are faced with a year in prison. Great. A year for destroying America's reputation as a nation of decent people.
I don't want them in prison anyway. We shouldn't have to feed them. Take away their right to call themselves American, that's what I'd do. You aren't one of us. Get out. We don't want you. Find youself another country or a desert island. If the order came from someone higher up, take him with you.
In the history of the world, several great civilizations that seemed immortal have deteriorated and died. I don't want to be dramatic, but I've lived a long while and, for the first time in my life, I have this faint, far-away fear that it could happen to us in American as it happenend to the Greek and Roman civilizations.
Too many Americans don't understand what we have here and how to keep it. I worry for my grandchildren and great grandchildren. I want them to have what I've had....and I sense it could be slipping away from them."
*Personally, I find this editorial very sobering and to my mind, very true. Mr. Rooney says quite a few things that I have said myself in conversation with my family. I welcome all your obsevations. Best!!!!
edited for numerous typos.............
Torture American Style
-
susnfx
- Posts: 4245
- Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Salt Lake City
I watched a documentary this weekend on the Bataan Death March. One veteran, in speaking about some of the atrocities he saw committed, said there is a "thin veneer called civilization" that is sometimes stripped away and all the ugliness that may lie beneath is shown.
Any person (at any time or place in history or now) who tortures another in any way, psychologically, physically, or otherwise, or stands by while someone else does it, has torn away this veneer and shown the ugliness within themselves.
No particular point in mind here. I just felt his words were very descriptive.
Susan
Any person (at any time or place in history or now) who tortures another in any way, psychologically, physically, or otherwise, or stands by while someone else does it, has torn away this veneer and shown the ugliness within themselves.
No particular point in mind here. I just felt his words were very descriptive.
Susan
-
claudine
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: Hi, I am a choir singer from Luxembourg trying to get back to Irish flute playing after a few years of absence from ITM.
- Location: Luxembourg
Re: OT:Torture American Style
I don't agree with that part. That would be too easy and this attitude is immature IMO. They are Americans and they do belong to you (and they are not the first evildoers in your history either). But USA - like every other country - must face reality: there is good and bad in every country. The torturers are a part of your national identity just like the liberators of Europe at the end of WW II, or the first man on the moon or any other national hero.andreaz54 wrote: I don't want them in prison anyway. We shouldn't have to feed them. Take away their right to call themselves American, that's what I'd do. You aren't one of us. Get out. We don't want you. Find youself another country or a desert island. If the order came from someone higher up, take him with you.
On one side, every German is called a Nazi (even 60 years after the war!) but on the other side an American criminal is just "unamerican"? No, too easy!
Claudine
The part of my post that you quote was not my opinion but that of the author of the editorial....Andy Rooney.
While I personally agree or at least sympathize with his view, and certainly respect yours....I cannot take credit for something I didn't write!!
I am just passing it on to get others opinions of his views.
Best..Andrea
The part of my post that you quote was not my opinion but that of the author of the editorial....Andy Rooney.
While I personally agree or at least sympathize with his view, and certainly respect yours....I cannot take credit for something I didn't write!!
I am just passing it on to get others opinions of his views.
Best..Andrea
-
Darwin
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:38 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Flower Mound, TX
- Contact:
It's not a new problem--even for Americans.
A friend of mine who was in charge of a team of interrogators in Vietnam in the late '60s told me about having to relieve one of his subordinates for torturing prisoners.
Does the name Andersonville mean anything to folks here? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/US ... nville.htm
Do you know about "the bat"? It was a heavy leather strap, studded with bolts, that was used to beat American prisoners in American prisons--as late as the 1930s, IIRC. During Leadbelly's first time in a Texas prison, his job was to go along with the chain gang, using a machete to cut dead prisoners off the chain, so that their bodies wouldn't slow down the workers.
As far as the soldiers being "untrained", I find that pretty surprising. If it's true, then some folks up the chain of command certainly need to be replaced. During the mid-70s, one of my close friends at Ft. Bragg was constantly being sent off to Reserve units to provide them with interrogation training.
What would this training have involved? During my year (1966-67) with the 529th MI Co (Interrogation), in Ft. Hood, Texas, I received extensive training in Army interrogation doctrine. Not only was the Geneva Convention constantly emphasized, but so was the lack of effectiveness of torture and coercion in obtaining reliable information.
A constant statement was, "If you torture someone, he will tell you whatever he thinks will get you to stop--whether it's true or not." We were taught that there are skills that can be learned that permit the maximum elicitaiton of information without coercion. It's very sad if the US military has lost track of these principles.
Geneva Convention training was also provided to all soldiers during this period. Sometime during my first tour in Japan (1967-72), I recall being sent off to the post movie theater to watch a long movie, with Hollywood production values, that revolved around the fact that it is illegal to obey illegal orders--in this case, the killing of a prisoner of war.
I'm sure it's true that not eveyone gets the training--and that it doesn't always take. Witness what happened in My Lai and Son Thang.
Sometimes I think that Americans are almost like human beings.
"The reader will most likely be left with a disturbing thought. Americans like to believe that atrocities are committed by others, but we are not immune from such things. We like to think we are, but we are not. "
EDWIN H. SIMMONS
Brigadier General, U .S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
Director Emeritus, Marine Corps History and Museums
http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/Programs/Din ... nThang.htm
A friend of mine who was in charge of a team of interrogators in Vietnam in the late '60s told me about having to relieve one of his subordinates for torturing prisoners.
Does the name Andersonville mean anything to folks here? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/US ... nville.htm
Do you know about "the bat"? It was a heavy leather strap, studded with bolts, that was used to beat American prisoners in American prisons--as late as the 1930s, IIRC. During Leadbelly's first time in a Texas prison, his job was to go along with the chain gang, using a machete to cut dead prisoners off the chain, so that their bodies wouldn't slow down the workers.
As far as the soldiers being "untrained", I find that pretty surprising. If it's true, then some folks up the chain of command certainly need to be replaced. During the mid-70s, one of my close friends at Ft. Bragg was constantly being sent off to Reserve units to provide them with interrogation training.
What would this training have involved? During my year (1966-67) with the 529th MI Co (Interrogation), in Ft. Hood, Texas, I received extensive training in Army interrogation doctrine. Not only was the Geneva Convention constantly emphasized, but so was the lack of effectiveness of torture and coercion in obtaining reliable information.
A constant statement was, "If you torture someone, he will tell you whatever he thinks will get you to stop--whether it's true or not." We were taught that there are skills that can be learned that permit the maximum elicitaiton of information without coercion. It's very sad if the US military has lost track of these principles.
Geneva Convention training was also provided to all soldiers during this period. Sometime during my first tour in Japan (1967-72), I recall being sent off to the post movie theater to watch a long movie, with Hollywood production values, that revolved around the fact that it is illegal to obey illegal orders--in this case, the killing of a prisoner of war.
I'm sure it's true that not eveyone gets the training--and that it doesn't always take. Witness what happened in My Lai and Son Thang.
Sometimes I think that Americans are almost like human beings.
"The reader will most likely be left with a disturbing thought. Americans like to believe that atrocities are committed by others, but we are not immune from such things. We like to think we are, but we are not. "
EDWIN H. SIMMONS
Brigadier General, U .S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
Director Emeritus, Marine Corps History and Museums
http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/Programs/Din ... nThang.htm
Mike Wright
"When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place."
--Goethe
"When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place."
--Goethe
-
TelegramSam
- Posts: 2258
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
"Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies within the heart of mankind." - Edward D. Morrison
<i>The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.</i>
-
TonyHiggins
- Posts: 2996
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: SF East Bay, CA
- Contact:
I thought they were getting a year for torturing people. If it didn't harm our reputation, it would be acceptable? I've heard a number of comments from politicians along the same lines- what it did to us, less mention of the Iraqi people who were tortured and/or murdered.The guards who tortured prisoners are faced with a year in prison. Great. A year for destroying America's reputation as a nation of decent people.
If you did those things to people in the US, wouldn't you get more than a year? And, you wouldn't even be ruining the country's reputation.
Every so often, I hear someone mouth off about how dropping a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan or Iraq would solve everything. I wonder if they were handed the button (if no recriminations afterward) would they do it? Some, I suspect, would. Some, I fear, are our government leaders. The cynical side of me agrees strongly that 'civilization' is a thin veneer.
Fortunately, I know a fair number of deeply compassionate, caring people who regard people of other nationalities as human beings, not rabid dogs. If I didn't, I'd be really depressed.
Tony
http://tinwhistletunes.com/clipssnip/newspage.htm Officially, the government uses the term “flap,” describing it as “a condition, a situation or a state of being, of a group of persons, characterized by an advanced degree of confusion that has not quite reached panic proportions.”
-
sturob
- Posts: 1765
- Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Houston, TX
- Contact:
Oh, I know I shouldn't answer the political threads, but at least this time it's an OT thread, and not a hijacked one. 
Remember that under Hussein, inmates were tortured with hand-drills, and their female, non-incarcerated relatives raped and beaten. Probably we're talking about a difference in orders of magnitude. It doesn't mean that US guard actions are any better, but the situation IS different.
It's absolutely horrible that this kind of thing has gone on / is going on in Iraq, but how different is it in the US prison system? We've got more prisoners per capita than ANY other industrialized nation, and the conditions are reportedly atrocious. I mean, heck, one of the guys who stands accused of this behavior in Iraq is a prison guard in his civilian life. And this CRAP about how the soldiers say they weren't advised of the Geneva Convention rules, etc. . . I hope that in addition to shedding light on what's going on in Iraq, this also brings to our attention the problems we have at home in our own prisons, with our own citizens.
And the other thing is that, as mentioned, the soldiers are human.
And yes, Claudine, I think I agree with your problem with Rooney's whole line about deporting the US soldiers found guilty of torturing Iraqis. As an American, and as someone who generally agrees with Rooney, he's way off base with that one. It's inappropriate and highly offensive. We all bear some measure of responsibility of those who commit crimes in the name of the US. However, unlike some of my European friends, we in the US shouldn't all be painted with the same brush. If we're not to stereotype Germans (or German-speaking peoples) with Nazi ideals, then sure as hell no one has the right to slander/disdain/hate US citizens for what the Bush administration does.
Contrary to the supposedly-unbiased BBC view of the US, we're not all supportive of what our government does. Any more than the average Briton approves of Blair.
Phew. Can you tell I've been attacked a lot lately?
Stuart
Remember that under Hussein, inmates were tortured with hand-drills, and their female, non-incarcerated relatives raped and beaten. Probably we're talking about a difference in orders of magnitude. It doesn't mean that US guard actions are any better, but the situation IS different.
It's absolutely horrible that this kind of thing has gone on / is going on in Iraq, but how different is it in the US prison system? We've got more prisoners per capita than ANY other industrialized nation, and the conditions are reportedly atrocious. I mean, heck, one of the guys who stands accused of this behavior in Iraq is a prison guard in his civilian life. And this CRAP about how the soldiers say they weren't advised of the Geneva Convention rules, etc. . . I hope that in addition to shedding light on what's going on in Iraq, this also brings to our attention the problems we have at home in our own prisons, with our own citizens.
And the other thing is that, as mentioned, the soldiers are human.
And yes, Claudine, I think I agree with your problem with Rooney's whole line about deporting the US soldiers found guilty of torturing Iraqis. As an American, and as someone who generally agrees with Rooney, he's way off base with that one. It's inappropriate and highly offensive. We all bear some measure of responsibility of those who commit crimes in the name of the US. However, unlike some of my European friends, we in the US shouldn't all be painted with the same brush. If we're not to stereotype Germans (or German-speaking peoples) with Nazi ideals, then sure as hell no one has the right to slander/disdain/hate US citizens for what the Bush administration does.
Contrary to the supposedly-unbiased BBC view of the US, we're not all supportive of what our government does. Any more than the average Briton approves of Blair.
Phew. Can you tell I've been attacked a lot lately?
Stuart
-
Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
Re: OT:Torture American Style
When I was in junior high, we went on a school trip to Bataan, and I visited the museum, truly another "dark day of history" occurred there.susnfx wrote:I watched a documentary this weekend on the Bataan Death March. One veteran, in speaking about some of the atrocities he saw committed, said there is a "thin veneer called civilization" that is sometimes stripped away and all the ugliness that may lie beneath is shown.
Very true.TelegramSam wrote:"Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies within the heart of mankind." - Edward D. Morrison
No. I believe that June 1, 1921 was among the United States' darkest days. Indeed, the events began on Memorial Day (Decoration Day).andreaz54 wrote:Here it is Memorial Day and I happened upon this article in this mornings paper. It is by Andy Rooney of "60 Minutes" fame. I am not a political animal by a long stretch, but I can't help but agree with this editorial. I am curious to see what other members might think of Mr Rooney's thoughts so I am going to post it here and let it rip.
Here we go:
"We've had alot of good days.
Our darkest days up until now have been things like presidential assassinations...four of them. The stock market crash in 1929, Pearl Harbor and 9/11, of course.
Please note that the following site is very disturbing. I, for one, am not capable of spending much time there. Especially I do not recommend it for children. Human history, American, European, Asian, African, Australian, the islands of the sea... everywhere... has a lot of hatred of one man toward another... one group of men toward another. I pray that it changes... truly changes... http://www.asapnet.net/pclaser/
It speaks volumes of the blindness of history that this atrocity wasn't even mentioned by Mr. Rooney, and that no one, up to now, noticed the oversight.
Reasonable person
Walden
Walden
-
IDAwHOa
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2003 9:04 am
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: I play whistles. I sell whistles. This seems just a BIT excessive to the cause. A sentence or two is WAY less than 100 characters.
I do not se why our COUNTRY is responsible for the actions of INDIVIDUALS. That is a strange thought to me. If we deal with those individuals properly then the history books should also reflect that. Unfortunately, history books are as full of fiction as they are fact. We have had this discussion before.
One other thing that I find odd is MODERN GOVERNMENTS apologizing for and paying recompense for the actions of those that erred decades or centuries ago. That is just plain bizarre to me. WE did not take those actions, why should WE take responsibility for them? I know I do not feel responsible.
Put blame where blame is due and punish those responsible. Remember the past just enough to hopefully make the future better, but don't dwell on it or try to "fix" something that is not fixable from the past. That is counter productive and only digs up skeletons that are best left to lie.
One other thing that I find odd is MODERN GOVERNMENTS apologizing for and paying recompense for the actions of those that erred decades or centuries ago. That is just plain bizarre to me. WE did not take those actions, why should WE take responsibility for them? I know I do not feel responsible.
Put blame where blame is due and punish those responsible. Remember the past just enough to hopefully make the future better, but don't dwell on it or try to "fix" something that is not fixable from the past. That is counter productive and only digs up skeletons that are best left to lie.
Steven - IDAwHOa - Wood Rocks
"If you keep asking questions.... You keep getting answers." - Miss Frizzle - The Magic School Bus
"If you keep asking questions.... You keep getting answers." - Miss Frizzle - The Magic School Bus
-
Caj
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Binghamton, New York
- Contact:
Well, from a pragmatic standpoint, the country is responsible as long as the rest of the world blames the country, and retribution is aimed at the country.NorCalMusician wrote:I do not se why our COUNTRY is responsible for the actions of INDIVIDUALS.
From a less pragmatic standpoint, the country is responsible if its government is ultimately responsible for the atrocities. Sure you always have underlings do the dirty work, but if higher-ups provided the infrastructure or climate or various winks and nods to make it happen, then the higher-ups take the blame.
In the US military in particular, we are pretty religious about blame. Higher-ups take responsibility because this is precisely how the infrastructure is set up, and usually we are proud of this.
One other thing that I find odd is MODERN GOVERNMENTS apologizing for and paying recompense for the actions of those that erred decades or centuries ago. That is just plain bizarre to me. WE did not take those actions, why should WE take responsibility for them? I know I do not feel responsible.
Well, in the case of such programs like affirmative action, the government is not actually paying recompense for past sins. Affirmative action is entirely corrective in nature; it merely seeks to correct a racial income disparity that is not supposed to exist today, and really has nothing to do with blame or responsibility for prior actions.
There are people who view AA as some sort of payback for previous generations, and when viewed that way it may seem unfair; many people came to the US long after slavery was repealed. But AA is not payback for the past; it is simply a corrective measure for the present.
Likewise, poor people qualify for federal student loans. This is not some sort of payback for the poor after being screwed by the rich generations ago---it's just federal loans for people in need, in order to advance the public good. There is no rationale of past deeds involved.
Caj
-
IDAwHOa
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2003 9:04 am
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: I play whistles. I sell whistles. This seems just a BIT excessive to the cause. A sentence or two is WAY less than 100 characters.
That still does not make OUR country (me, you, us) responsible. Only in THEIR minds.Caj wrote:Well, from a pragmatic standpoint, the country is responsible as long as the rest of the world blames the country, and retribution is aimed at the country.NorCalMusician wrote:I do not se why our COUNTRY is responsible for the actions of INDIVIDUALS.
Those are still individuals, and yes, they should be responsible.Caj wrote:From a less pragmatic standpoint, the country is responsible if its government is ultimately responsible for the atrocities. Sure you always have underlings do the dirty work, but if higher-ups provided the infrastructure or climate or various winks and nods to make it happen, then the higher-ups take the blame.
In the US military in particular, we are pretty religious about blame. Higher-ups take responsibility because this is precisely how the infrastructure is set up, and usually we are proud of this.
Those are not really the type of thing I was referring to. I was talking about the class action payout to "pay back" for things that occurred in the past, such as nuclear bombing and the like. Stuff like modern Germany "apologizing" for the way Jews were treated. All that does is dig up the past and open new wounds.Caj wrote:One other thing that I find odd is MODERN GOVERNMENTS apologizing for and paying recompense for the actions of those that erred decades or centuries ago. That is just plain bizarre to me. WE did not take those actions, why should WE take responsibility for them? I know I do not feel responsible.
Well, in the case of such programs like affirmative action, the government is not actually paying recompense for past sins. ....
Likewise, poor people qualify for federal student loans. .....
AA is supposed to be a bridge type of action. Theoretically, it should not even be required based on our Constitution. It's premise is to fix the past, but with progress for the future. That is if ALL parties involved cooperate. I do not think it is really working because those on BOTH sides of the issue are still as prejudiced as ever.
I have a friend (a Caucasian man) that placed 3rd on the qualification list for a position on the SF Fire Department. After he was bumped by AA he was something like 999 (exaggeration) on the list. I do not see that as being progressive or corrective. Where was the "justice" in allowing less qualified people, that took all the same testing, to have a job that HE was qualified for? All it did was jade a few more people to overcoming this issue. So, in essence, this man paid a HEAVY price for the actions of those in the past. THAT was a crime in my books.
Steven - IDAwHOa - Wood Rocks
"If you keep asking questions.... You keep getting answers." - Miss Frizzle - The Magic School Bus
"If you keep asking questions.... You keep getting answers." - Miss Frizzle - The Magic School Bus
I have a friend (a Caucasian man) that placed 3rd on the qualification list for a position on the SF Fire Department. After he was bumped by AA he was something like 999 (exaggeration) on the list. I do not see that as being progressive or corrective. Where was the "justice" in allowing less qualified people, that took all the same testing, to have a job that HE was qualified for? All it did was jade a few more people to overcoming this issue. So, in essence, this man paid a HEAVY price for the actions of those in the past. THAT was a crime in my books.
There is a literature on Afirmative action. The best response in it
to your concern is that your friend was certainly treated
unfairly. But it wasn't a crime, not every unfairness is a
serious injustice--your friend wasn't condemned to a life
of poverty, for example, he probably went on to get
reasonalby good work. Most white folk inconvieninced
by AA do. The principle is that we are entitled to treat
people unfairly, if they will not be seriously harmed,
if there is enormous social utility as a consequence.
So 'eminent domain': the community needs a road, my
house is in the way, I MUST go, the gov pays me, probably
less than I would get if there were no road and I sold
on the market (of course I wouldn't sell, my family
has lived in this house for generations).
That's unfair and I'm inconvenienced
more than the typical white person bumped by AA,
but we need the road. It isn't, however, a serious
injustice or a crime, only unfair.
For me the question is whether AA works.
If it doesnt it can't be justified.
If it does, it must make itself irrelevant.
There is a cost, obviously. It's unfair to whites,
it's bad for race relations, it robs minorities of
the regard they deserve for their achievements.
As it works, as more minorities get intergrated into
good jobs and so on, the costs to society will come to outweigh the
benefits. So we have to be ready to pull the plug.
However it's human nature that people who
benefit from AA will want tokeep it indefinitely.
And we've had it for nearly 40 years, I think
we've reached the point of diminishing
returns, so I favor
reducing it now. Best
There is a literature on Afirmative action. The best response in it
to your concern is that your friend was certainly treated
unfairly. But it wasn't a crime, not every unfairness is a
serious injustice--your friend wasn't condemned to a life
of poverty, for example, he probably went on to get
reasonalby good work. Most white folk inconvieninced
by AA do. The principle is that we are entitled to treat
people unfairly, if they will not be seriously harmed,
if there is enormous social utility as a consequence.
So 'eminent domain': the community needs a road, my
house is in the way, I MUST go, the gov pays me, probably
less than I would get if there were no road and I sold
on the market (of course I wouldn't sell, my family
has lived in this house for generations).
That's unfair and I'm inconvenienced
more than the typical white person bumped by AA,
but we need the road. It isn't, however, a serious
injustice or a crime, only unfair.
For me the question is whether AA works.
If it doesnt it can't be justified.
If it does, it must make itself irrelevant.
There is a cost, obviously. It's unfair to whites,
it's bad for race relations, it robs minorities of
the regard they deserve for their achievements.
As it works, as more minorities get intergrated into
good jobs and so on, the costs to society will come to outweigh the
benefits. So we have to be ready to pull the plug.
However it's human nature that people who
benefit from AA will want tokeep it indefinitely.
And we've had it for nearly 40 years, I think
we've reached the point of diminishing
returns, so I favor
reducing it now. Best
To get back with the original post, I agree with Andy Rooney on this one. I think his paragraph on deporting them all was just wishful thinking-out-loud and not to be taken literally. While possibly lack of training was a factor, I agree with Rooney that the behavior shown by the jailers/soldiers went beyond a lack of training to a basic lack of civilized behavior.
I ran across an article a few days ago and waited to see if there was any follow-up, so far there has not been. It talks about the sexual abuse of women and children by UN peacekeepers. Here is a quote:
A system-wide investigation was triggered by a report from Annan, who says that six out of 48 U.N. agencies operating in the field have received reports of new cases of sexual exploitation or abuse, mostly by blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers, during 2003.
The agencies that received the complaints include the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the U.N. Children's Fund, the World Food Programme and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.
''Sexual exploitation, including all forms of trafficking and related offences, particularly in the case of vulnerable persons dependent on international aid, is completely unacceptable,'' said Margaret Stanley of Ireland, expressing the views of the 25-member European Union (news - web sites).
''It is just intolerable,'' says Norma Goicochea of Cuba, ''because sexual exploitation and abuse is a serious matter threatening the credibility of the U.N.'s humanitarian and peacekeeping operations.''
In presenting Annan's report before the committee, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management Rosemary McCreery said the study represents only a first step in the process of ensuring compliance of U.N. principles and standards.
She specifically singled out the sexual abuse perpetrated by civilian, police and military contingents in Kosovo and in the Bunia region in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). McCreery said preliminary internal investigations this year had revealed ''widespread abuses'' in DRC.
Now I'm NOT trying to say this justifies anything that the US did, I think the US soldiers involved in Abu Ghraib should receive much harsher punishment than it seems they are getting. What I think this does show, though, is how the media drives these issues. On one hand Abu Ghraib receives many hours and column inches of coverage, on the other a scandal that is just as bad (if not worse) receives very little. Where are the calls for resignations or firings?
What is also shows is that the UN is no panacea. Maybe it's our best hope, maybe not.
here's the full link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 743774&e=5
I ran across an article a few days ago and waited to see if there was any follow-up, so far there has not been. It talks about the sexual abuse of women and children by UN peacekeepers. Here is a quote:
A system-wide investigation was triggered by a report from Annan, who says that six out of 48 U.N. agencies operating in the field have received reports of new cases of sexual exploitation or abuse, mostly by blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers, during 2003.
The agencies that received the complaints include the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the U.N. Children's Fund, the World Food Programme and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.
''Sexual exploitation, including all forms of trafficking and related offences, particularly in the case of vulnerable persons dependent on international aid, is completely unacceptable,'' said Margaret Stanley of Ireland, expressing the views of the 25-member European Union (news - web sites).
''It is just intolerable,'' says Norma Goicochea of Cuba, ''because sexual exploitation and abuse is a serious matter threatening the credibility of the U.N.'s humanitarian and peacekeeping operations.''
In presenting Annan's report before the committee, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management Rosemary McCreery said the study represents only a first step in the process of ensuring compliance of U.N. principles and standards.
She specifically singled out the sexual abuse perpetrated by civilian, police and military contingents in Kosovo and in the Bunia region in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). McCreery said preliminary internal investigations this year had revealed ''widespread abuses'' in DRC.
Now I'm NOT trying to say this justifies anything that the US did, I think the US soldiers involved in Abu Ghraib should receive much harsher punishment than it seems they are getting. What I think this does show, though, is how the media drives these issues. On one hand Abu Ghraib receives many hours and column inches of coverage, on the other a scandal that is just as bad (if not worse) receives very little. Where are the calls for resignations or firings?
What is also shows is that the UN is no panacea. Maybe it's our best hope, maybe not.
here's the full link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 743774&e=5
Last edited by Rando7 on Mon May 31, 2004 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.