Huh, it only took twelve hours for GTA 4 to be likened to Abu Ghraib. Too bad cross-cultural prison atrocities aren't imaginary, too.

i put it under scifi as it was a graphic novel written in the 80s, set in a stark black-and-white dystopian science-ridden "future" in London. maybe *dark is a more accurate vord?

and seeing as how the filmmakers added topical references relevant to a 2006 audience, as per the L.A. Times, "with a wealth of new, real-life parallels to draw from in the areas of government surveillance, torture, fear-mongering and media manipulation, not to mention corporate corruption and religious hypocrisy," i think a waronterror tag is justified...

additionally, per wikipedia, there are "numerous references in the film to events surrounding the current American administration. These include the black bags worn by the prisoners in Larkhill that have been seen as a reference to the black bags worn by prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and in U.S.-administered Guantánamo Bay in Cuba."

also in the film, "London is under a yellow-coded curfew alert, similar to the US Government's colour-coded Homeland Security Advisory System, and there is even a brief scene (during the Valerie flashback) that contains real-life footage of an anti-Iraq war demonstration, with mention of President George W. Bush."

lastly, "the film contains references to 'America's war' and 'the war America started' as well as real footage from the Iraq War."

so yeah, *waronterror anyone?

^Thanks for the background, twiddles.

I don't have a problem with our government keeping some secrets. For example, keeping the identity of a covert field agent a secret is probably a good idea. However this administration is run like a freaking star chamber. Cheney refuses to divulge who attended his energy summit. White House aides refuse to testify before Congress. Abu Ghraib is kept hush-hush until a news organization exposes it. Secret prisons are all over the world, and so on. This White House acts like the Kremlin.

And when JFK had someone present evidence at the United Nations, it was REAL evidence.

I agree with your statement Kreegath.

However what is most striking to me is how torture and it's legal application within the current administration goes against American ideals in the 20th century and legally for over 250 years.

During the last century Americans valiantly against these coercive means collectively pointing to them as techniques only utilized by the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the VC and the Soviet Union. The US pushed for and developed the Geneva conventions that abolished torture.

But within the span of a few short years they threw out what took decades to create. The Americans no longer can look at themselves as the good guys when it comes to the issue of human rights.

Worst still the President now puts himself above the law, above the house, above the senate, above the supreme court and the American constitution.

Read more at the Washington Monthly.

"In most issues of the Washington Monthly, we favor articles that we hope will launch a debate. In this issue we seek to end one. The unifying message of the articles that follow is, simply, Stop. In the wake of September 11, the United States became a nation that practiced torture. Astonishingly—despite the repudiation of torture by experts and the revelations of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib—we remain one. As we go to press, President George W. Bush stands poised to veto a measure that would end all use of torture by the United States. His move, we suspect, will provoke only limited outcry. What once was shocking is now ordinary."

Great comment. Thank you for the link; I will watch it later. History is full of examples of people in power using scapegoats, events, or creating events in order to sway the public toward an action they want. I look at the PR campaign leading up to the Iraq war. Anyone who spent anytime researching the claims would have either dismissed the reasons and/or brought up serious objections. Or recognized the very coordinated effort by officials to imply nuclear threat against the US, but then later deny that they is what they meant. The American public was treated as a dupe and responded as one (as a whole.)

I don't agree with the assumption that we must commit evil to end evil. That is the difference between justice and revenge. We both know that Iraq was an unprovoked attack that had nothing to do with justice.

"The Sutras of Abu Ghraib" is a story of an American soldier who finds his belief in Buddhism strengthen over time to where he applies (and eventually gets) a conscientious objector discharge. The author does a good job of showing people, good people, bowing and giving up their morals in the face of group pressure and the stresses of occupying a hostile country. You will find the same type of behavior in this war (with racial slurs, etc.) Could this be a self defense mechanism by the soldier? Dehumanize the country's inhabitants because they can't tell which are hostile and which just trying to live their lives? It seems logical that this psychological defense would arise when you may hurt someone who is just trying to live their life. Winning and losing have little meaning when you lose yourself.

WTF was the first thought that popped in my head as I watched this.

Exceedingly poor judgment by the soldiers. That's the problem when the Iraqi people have become dehumanized in the soldiers' minds (obviously not all the soldiers.) "The Sutras of Abu Ghraib" shows a good example of how war will shift one’s attitude and cause people to do things they would never do back home. I hear many times the objection that "Our troops wouldn't do that", and I think that those people haven't studied the things that people end up doing in the war or consciously experienced that group mentality pulling you in a direction. Normal, good-hearted people will end up do horrible things if left in that environment too long. War is hell not just for the destruction and loss of life, but also for the intense mental assault on the men and women that have to fight it.

I experienced that group mentality when I was in the Navy for 6 years. It felt like a big “boys club.” I ran with the cool kids, but went against them sometimes because I simply thought some of the things they were doing were wrong. But I did do some things that I disagreed with because I wanted to be part of the group. So, I’ve experience that group pull and bowed to it several times. I didn’t have to deal with the increased stress of being in a war at the same time though. My experience may give me a small window for understanding, but I don’t think that I can truly appreciate the level of stress that these soldiers face every day. I would like to think that if I were in the situation I would have acted differently. And I hope I would. And I hope I will never find out.

Gosh, realblankman, you sure know where to find them. I don’t know where to begin. I already found the camel spider video upsetting (but that’s just because I like spiders, and camels spiders do bite but are not really that dangerous and all those vid’s from Iraq try to make them look bigger and more dangerous than they really are, and 10 years ago we believed fish couldn’t feel pain and 50 years ago we thought babies couldn’t, so I guess the jury is still out on what spiders feel and btw spiders are not insects; but that’s all beside the point).

What seriously worries me is that thousands of people being killed doesn't seem to raise the uproar this vid did. And, indeed, is it because there are images available (but then: what about Abu Ghraib?) or because a cute puppy dog is such a nice and easy symbol for pure innocence getting hurt? So, for whatever reason, and even if it’s fake (and if someone is kind enough to replace the dead video), I would upvote this anytime, just because of all the issues it raises.

@quantummushroom.
I like how you picked and choose what evidence the video used to support the points, then dissected that one example instead of looking at the whole issue.

" 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Liberals want foreign invaders (as well as illegal aliens) to automatically be protected by American law. Abu Ghraib was an anomaly, not the norm."

They also talked about, Long prison sentences, general complacency for assassinations and the like. It's funny that you think Abu Ghraid is not the norm. You need to brush up on your history and current events. Your country has more secret prisons in various countries all over the globe than all other countries put together. Your general disdain for human rights is not limited to Abu Ghraid and illegal aliens... all one needs to do is go to a prison to see that (almost 50% of all your prisoners are there for personal addiction) , but thanks for participating.

quantumushroom said:
Torture has its place in the arsenal. I don't think anyone is happy about it, but if it saves innocent lives, it must sometimes be used.


that's a huge sacrifice for an "IF".
recall that one of the founding principles of American Law is "Innocent until proven guilty". Torture assumes guilt from the start. Torture destroys innocent lives. How many convictions arose from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
Since the beginning of the War in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 of which have been released. As of August 09, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remain. More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers. Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.



that's nearly 90% confirmed innocent, and 10% potentially guilty. That's a revolting, and unconscionable rate.

Hmmm, I missed the long tag? I can't believe that.

Great stuff in here by the way, weird stuff about the New Earth Battalion which was inspired by New Age thinking following the withdrawal from Vietnam. Lt Colonel Jim Channon recommended that soldiers carry lambs into occupied areas and have speakers to broadcast friendly messages.
This influence carried over into the use of loud/discordant music as a siege or torture tactic and Ronson's documentary links this to Waco and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

And apparently the goat staring is real - one soldier was able to stop the heart of a goat by just wishing it....

There was an excellent article written about this very idea in Harper's by Garret Keizer titled Specific Suggestion: General Strike, quote:

"Of all the various depredations of the Bush regime, none has been so thorough as its plundering of hope. Iraq will recover sooner. What was supposed to have been the crux of our foreign policy—a shock-and-awe tutorial on the utter futility of any opposition to the whims of American power—has achieved its greatest and perhaps its only lasting success in the American soul. You will want to cite the exceptions, the lunch-hour protests against the war, the dinner-party ejaculations of dissent, though you might also want to ask what substantive difference they bear to grousing about the weather or even to raging against the dying of the light—that is, to any ritualized complaint against forces universally acknowledged as unalterable. Bush is no longer the name of a president so much as the abbreviation of a proverb, something between Murphy’s Law and tomorrow’s fatal inducement to drink and be merry today.

If someone were to suggest, for example, that we begin a general strike on Election Day, November 6, 2007, for the sole purpose of removing this regime from power, how readily and with what well-practiced assurance would you find yourself producing the words “It won’t do any good”? Plausible and even courageous in the mouth of a patient who knows he’s going to die, the sentiment fits equally well in the heart of a citizen-ry that believes it is already dead.

Any strike, whether it happens in a factory, a nation, or a marriage, amounts to a reaffirmation of consent. The strikers remind their overlords—and, equally important, themselves—that the seemingly perpetual machinery of daily life has an off switch as well as an on. Camus said that the one serious question of philosophy is whether or not to commit suicide; the one serious question of political philosophy is whether or not to get out of bed. Silly as it may have seemed at the time, John and Yoko’s famous stunt was based on a profound observation. Instant karma is not so instant—we ratify it day by day.

The stream of commuters heading into the city, the caravan of tractor-trailers pulling out of the rest stop into the dawn’s early light, speak a deep-throated Yes to the sum total of what’s going on in our collective life. The poet Richard Wilbur writes of the “ripped mouse” that “cries Concordance” in the talons of the owl; we too cry our daily assent in the grip of the prevailing order— except in those notable instances when, like a donkey or a Buddha, we refuse to budge.

The question we need to ask ourselves at this moment is what further provocations we require to justify digging in our heels. To put the question more pointedly: Are we willing to wait until the next presidential election, or for some interim congressional conversion experience, knowing that if we do wait, hundreds of our sons and daughters will be needlessly destroyed? Another poet, César Vallejo, framed the question like this:

A man shivers with cold, coughs, spits up blood.
Will it ever be fitting to allude to my inner soul? . . .
A cripple sleeps with one foot on his shoulder.
Shall I later on talk about Picasso, of all people?

A young man goes to Walter Reed without a face. Shall I make an appointment with my barber? A female prisoner is sodomized at Abu Ghraib. Shall I send a check to the Clinton campaign? "

"This last week, the nation’s leading newspaper established that the Bush Administration continues to use torture techniques as a matter of formal policy, crafted at its highest levels. This comes more than three years following the exposure of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and more than two years after the Administration’s lies about the use of torture, unconvincing to start with, were finally exploded by the issuance of a series of internal reports.

We face now a leadership stained with deceit and criminality. More importantly, it is a leadership which can never recognize nor admit its failings and moral errors. Hence, consistent with a tyrannical disposition, it acts to force all to accept its crimes and lawful, and thus to pervert the law and the institutions charged to enforce it.

The use of torture is a criminal act, and its systematic sanctioning by this administration is a matter of the utmost gravity for the country. The nation’s reaction to date fails to accord the issue the seriousness that it deserves; it constitutes a trivialization. The nation’s opinion-makers, and in particular its religious leaders must be held to blame. They fail to see the importance of the issue. And they demonstrate unacceptable cowardice in the face of political power."

- Scott Horton 'We Do Not Torture'

Of course this clip is propaganda. And it's mostly correct, except that the Jesus quote was not meant to be taken literally. It's still repulsive under any reasonable interpretation because it supposes the existence of Hell, God's never-ending abu ghraib.

9/11 and everything that is happening in the middle east today is very good reason to want to persuade people to give up their supernaturalist delusions.

Every point QM raised is thorougly addressed in Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.

Send Sean Hannity to Iraq.

Make him live there and see how it feels to have his door kicked down in the middle of the night by a squadron of troops looking for the guy who actually lives next door, or back behind the alley.

Maybe just to be on the safe side, those troops could drag him down to Abu Ghraib for a little questioning.

No Drachen, the video is not very accurate. It barely even says anything. It tries to make a point on a few of the signs and then just breezes by all the others, sometimes showing a picture or two so that the audience will jump to their own hasty conclusions without any actual evidence having been presented.

Some of you seem to not know what fascism is. It's sad enough that I don't even know why I'm here arguing this. Oh, but I'll continue anyway.

When a fascist government has mass control of the media, it's not one news network (that people can choose to watch or not voluntarily) that has an obvious bias, while there are several others without that bias. A fascist government shuts down any station that disagrees with them and controls any news that gets out.

Disdain for human rights doesn't refer to some bitch at Abu Ghraib pointing at a tied up guy's privates. It refers to massive discrimination against certain groups of people. For example, the genocide at Darfur. Ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. Keeping prisoners of war at Gitmo, while some may find it bothersome in terms of human rights, is nowhere near what a fascist dictator would do.

God, all the bitching and moaning about Bush. He's a fascist! He's a fascist! Go to any serious political forum and start saying this crap. You'll get laughed the hell out for not even knowing what a fascist government is.

Once the government shuts down CNN, MSNBC, and all the other news stations, then you can talk. When they decide to start executing all the Gitmo prisoners instead of releasing them or continuing to detain them, then you can talk. When Bush starts demanding his voice be heard over a loudspeaker in every city and town for a daily prayer, then you can talk.

As it is, you are just humiliating yourself.