The Morality of Abu Ghraib

[ews]

Morality 1.The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.


The last DVD we saw was ‘Ghosts of Abu Ghraib’. Its just out we got it from Netflix. Robert F. Kennedy’s daughter, Rory Kennedy did a great job trying to come to terms with how American boys and girls could have morphed into this unholy nightmarish ugly thing. The movie shows the written documentation of how the horrors of Abu Ghraib were planned the people sent there to get it started. How from the very top it was whitewashed. The convicted MP’s served their months in jail and came back to tell us why they did what they did. Some of the prisoners so humiliated came on camera to tell us about the months they spent in Abu Ghraib. The one brave solder that went to the Chaplin with photographs had to be wrapped in a blanket and smuggled out of the country.

One of the last lines in the movie was after 8-months NOT ONE of the prisoner’s held at Abu Ghraib was ever charged, some died there from interrogation, yes, but never charged.

This Sundance selection is again called, ‘Ghost of Abu Ghraib’. [An adult only film]

 

[chaz345]

But whose standards of right or good conduct apply?

While I would totally agree that the actions at Abu Ghraib fell well outside and below the standards that the US usually sets for itself, I would also say that what went on there is far far less bad than what happens to captured US soldiers or even totally innocent unarmed journalists. Nothing that happened in AG comes even close in severity or wrongness to being publically(videotape) forcibly, and in at least one case very slowly, separated from one's head.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

^Immaterial. Pointing out greater wrongs in no way diminishes the severity if the wrongs in question.

 

[chaz345]

^Immaterial. Pointing out greater wrongs in no way diminishes the severity if the wrongs in question.

Of course it doesn't. But pointing out greater wrongs that are largely ignored by certain segments of the US population, because it suits their purposes to only talk about US wrongdoing is most definitely relevant.

 

[quatona]

But whose standards of right or good conduct apply?

Well, I would expect people to apply their own standards of right or good conduct to their own actions.

While I would totally agree that the actions at Abu Ghraib fell well outside and below the standards that the US usually sets for itself, I would also say that what went on there is far far less bad than what happens to captured US soldiers or even totally innocent unarmed journalists.

So?
For every case in which I violate my own ethical standards I can easily find lots of people who did even worse. I do not think that this is of any relevance.

 

[ews]

But whose standards of right or good conduct apply?

While I would totally agree that the actions at Abu Ghraib fell well outside and below the standards that the US usually sets for itself, I would also say that what went on there is far far less bad than what happens to captured US soldiers or even totally innocent unarmed journalists. Nothing that happened in AG comes even close in severity or wrongness to being publically(videotape) forcibly, and in at least one case very slowly, separated from one's head.

In this film they cover the more severe cases of “interrogation”. Only one death was on film and it was explained by the military as heart failure during detainment. All the others are now just missing. You remember the young smiling girl giving the camera the thumbs-up over the dead body in the body-bag. She now goes on camera and tells you what she saw.

There was documentation from the military telling all to turn in all photos of abuse as they were trying to control the situation. You mention unarmed innocents, well it seem the detainees were also innocent. Many died in Abu Ghraib. The film is well worth a look see.

 

[Phred]

Of course it doesn't. But pointing out greater wrongs that are largely ignored by certain segments of the US population, because it suits their purposes to only talk about US wrongdoing is most definitely relevant.

As U.S. citizens we have no control over those who would maim and torture our fellows to make their points. We do have control over how we as a country respond to their provocations. It seems that the Christian right, led by their poster boy George W. Bush, have no problem stooping down to their level. I would choose not to do so but hey, that's just me. I tend to think that words like morality mean more than just a word to throw out at the ignorant masses around election time. But, you're the party that brings us folks like Ted Haggard so I guess hypocrisy is nothing new to ya.

Seriously, you wonder why I hold my own country to a higher standard than a buncha terrorist nutjobs? Aren't we the nation that executed Japanese generals for waterboarding our troops after WWII? How then can we justify waterboarding people now? Nixon resigned the presidency for tapping people's phones without a warrant and covering it up... Bush taps everyone's phone without a warrant even though the law is built so that he has three days after to get the warrant. Habeas Corpus is suspended... people can now disappear in the middle of the night and not be granted access to a lawyer. And you want me to say that's all ok because some backward fool with a knife beheaded someone. It's most certainly NOT ok.

You are just a hoot... it's all about what God wants and what God means and what God thinks and in the meantime the world is going to hell in a handbasket because the guys who lied to you and said they were doing God's work are taking you to the cleaners. Really, ask yourself, who would Jesus waterboard?

 

[chaz345]

As U.S. citizens we have no control over those who would maim and torture our fellows to make their points. We do have control over how we as a country respond to their provocations. It seems that the Christian right, led by their poster boy George W. Bush, have no problem stooping down to their level. I would choose not to do so but hey, that's just me. I tend to think that words like morality mean more than just a word to throw out at the ignorant masses around election time. But, you're the party that brings us folks like Ted Haggard so I guess hypocrisy is nothing new to ya.

Seriously, you wonder why I hold my own country to a higher standard than a buncha terrorist nutjobs? Aren't we the nation that executed Japanese generals for waterboarding our troops after WWII? How then can we justify waterboarding people now? Nixon resigned the presidency for tapping people's phones without a warrant and covering it up... Bush taps everyone's phone without a warrant even though the law is built so that he has three days after to get the warrant. Habeas Corpus is suspended... people can now disappear in the middle of the night and not be granted access to a lawyer. And you want me to say that's all ok because some backward fool with a knife beheaded someone. It's most certainly NOT ok.

You are just a hoot... it's all about what God wants and what God means and what God thinks and in the meantime the world is going to hell in a handbasket because the guys who lied to you and said they were doing God's work are taking you to the cleaners. Really, ask yourself, who would Jesus waterboard?

Care to stop putting words in my mouth? Where did I say one word about what God thinks about this situation.

As for the rest, your response makes it quite clear that anything I say will be a waste of time.

 

[quatona]

Of course it doesn't. But pointing out greater wrongs that are largely ignored by certain segments of the US population, because it suits their purposes to only talk about US wrongdoing is most definitely relevant.

Relevant for what?

 

[chaz345]

Relevant for what?

Relevant to any discussion that starts off as characterizing US soldiers that way that this one did. Relevant to a balanced discussion of right and wrong as it pertains to horrible actions. I believe that such balance is necessary or relevant when the political motivations are as transparent as they are in this case.

Imo using something like this for almost purely political purpose is nearly as disgusting as the original actions themselves.

 

[quatona]

Relevant to any discussion that starts off as characterizing US soldiers that way that this one did.

Not sure what you mean. The "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." introduction?
Apparently not even you disagree with the notion that there´s a gap between the ethical standards of the US and what those guys did. So I wonder what the wrongdoings of others do to the matter.

Relevant to a balanced discussion of right and wrong as it pertains to horrible actions.

It is utterly irrelevant for the topic at hand: the quality of being in accord with one´s own standards of right or good conduct.

I believe that such balance is necessary or relevant when the political motivations are as transparent as they are in this case.

You must be a mind-reader. I didn´t see any political conclusions or implications in the OP.

Imo using something like this for almost purely political purpose is nearly as disgusting as the original actions themselves.

Which "almost purely political purpose" did you identify in the OP, and how did you manage to do that?

 

[ews]

Another point covered in the film was the famous photograph of the Abu Ghraib detainee standing on an unsteady surface, hooded with electrical wires attached to his extremities. This was pointed out as a CIA position that had its roots with Brazilian Intelligence. Now just how does some average high school educated boys and girls come up with this stuff in their spare time on the night shift?

 

[chaz345]

Which "almost purely political purpose" did you identify in the OP, and how did you manage to do that?

Not so muck political purpose in the OP itself as political purpose in the movie. Consider the likely political loyalties of the person who made the move for a second.

My point is, like I said, not to justify or to lessen by comparison, the wrongness of US actions at AG. I just believe any discussion of that is inextricably intertwined with the actions of the terrorists. The two things are, IMO inseparable. Let me ask this. Have you ever seen any discussion of how bad or evil or immoral the terrorists actions are that was not responded to with "well what we did/have done. are doing? is even worse? I haven't.

 

[ews]

Not so muck political purpose in the OP itself as political purpose in the movie. Consider the likely political loyalties of the person who made the move for a second.

If the remark made about the film maker being Rory Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy’s daughter I will tell you it was meant to be taken as a complement. As I think she did a great job. No politicks were intended.

 

[quatona]

Not so muck political purpose in the OP itself as political purpose in the movie. Consider the likely political loyalties of the person who made the move for a second.

I haven´t seen the movie, I don´t know the persons who have made it, and I won´t make assumptions about their political loyalties.
Either they have their facts right or they haven´t. That´s all I am interested in.

My point is, like I said, not to justify or to lessen by comparison, the wrongness of US actions at AG.

Then how are they relevant for the ethical discussion at hand?

I just believe any discussion of that is inextricably intertwined with the actions of the terrorists.

Last time I checked nations keep to their own legal and ethical paradigms (and hopefully to the Geneva Convention etc), and that´s all that is intertwined.
I fail to see any relevance of what anybody else did for ethical considerations of my behaviour.

The two things are, IMO inseparable.

Those two things are easily separable, they needn´t even be separated, because they are completely distinct issues. The question is rather why you insist on bringing them into the discussion. I don´t understand it.

Let me ask this. Have you ever seen any discussion of how bad or evil or immoral the terrorists actions are that was not responded to with "well what we did/have done. are doing? is even worse? I haven't.

Yes, I have.
But even if every discussion resulted in such comparisons (one way or the other) I still would find it irrelevant.

I personally, however, find it much more important to focus on the ethical issues on my part or the part of "my group". Ymmv, for whatever reason.

 

[chaz345]

If the remark made about the film maker being Rory Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy’s daughter I will tell you it was meant to be taken as a complement. As I think she did a great job. No politicks were intended.

Again I understand that politics may not have been intended by you, but considering who the filmmaker is, I find it an entirely reasonable conclusion that politics were intended by the filmmaker.

 

[quatona]

Ah, poisoning the well.

 

[ews]

Again I understand that politics may not have been intended by you, but considering who the filmmaker is, I find it an entirely reasonable conclusion that politics were intended by the filmmaker.

There are documentary film makers on both/all sides of the political persuasion. But at times in our lives some subjects are so egregious it is hard to find “politics” in the presentation.

However it should be pointed out that in the debates at St. Anselm College by CNN it was only Barack Obama that talked about the horror of Adu Ghraib.

 

[ews]

SIDEBARà I looked in the DVD section at Wal-Mart and they did not carry the DVD. I’m thinking it is too over the top for them. We all have seen the photographs in magazines and on the internet but not the un-retouched. There are NO fuzzy pixels…

 

[JESUSFREAK1354]

In all of these cases with torture in Abu Grahib, it has been non-lethal. Do some of you want another 9/11 ? that's exactly what will happen if the right information is not extracted. Do they treat our troops any better? They behead us,while we toy with them to get information.