In an article on my daily blog at http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/
I look at a title of one of John Cougar Mellencamp's song line which says "I was born in a small town", and the answer coming from soldiers about why they did what they did.

http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/
Monday, May 17, 2004
I was bon in a small town and I was only following orders.
In Iraq, we have seen the pictures of abuse by a small number of our troops, upon Iraqi prisoners (the fine nuance of the word "detainees" will be left to people like Mr. Rumsfeld, who says it was "abuse", not "torture"}.

Who were these soldiers? We were the specially trained black ops torture experts who had been brainwashed to the point that they had no sense of morals? We they especially hard hearted, evil people who were specially shipped in to abuse the prisioners?

No, these were the faces of small town American, middle class kids who were raised to love mom, apple pie, and saluting the flag. These were kids to whom the Pledge of Allegiance was not a foreign creed, but something carved into their souls.

So, what happened?

Lynndie England, the young lady in many of the photos, in an on camera interview said , apparently speaking for the others in her mind, that they (the people involved in the abusing of prisoners), didn't see anything wrong in what they did, and that they were "only following orders". She said that she was told to pose and smile, and she did what she was told.

Why am I even talking about this?

Well, because it brings to mind what the German middle, and lower middle class who were in the military in World War II under the Nazi regime said..."we were only following orders".

The military has countered that if a soldier is given an order to do something they believe is illegal, that they have the power to refuse to do what they have been ordered to do. Anyone who has been in the military knows that doing what you are ordered, is branded into you from the first day of boot camp.

But, since Ms. England said she didn't see anything wrong with what they did,the point is moot. And, someone no less than Joe Lieberman said in an on camera interview that he believes that if information about 9/11 could have been discovered before the fact using abuse or torture, that he believes all Americans would give their approval to do whatever it takes to get the information.

"Whatever it takes to get the information"!!!????

When 9/11 occured, I grieved as did our nation, for the thousands of innocent lives lost. I put up webpages, I sent in my dollars, and I feel horrible that such a thing happened.

But, I get very nervous when a politician who almost became in the second position to president, honestly believes that the people would, to a man , woman, or child, authorize ANYTHING be done to human beings in order to extricate information.

So, when we look into the faces of the people who are going to be courts martialed, who can we blame for these violations of human rights?

Is it all O.K. if the "other side" does horrible things? And, where does the escalation of retribution end? How high does the pyramid of payback get before it stops?

We don't know how high the level of responsibility for the abuse goes, however; apparently, Mr. Lieberman, a Democrat, apparently believes that , to prevent a terror attack, anything is permissible, no act is too heinous to be out of bounds.

People look back at the murder of millions of Jews in World War II and say "How could humans do that to other humans?"

One of my pals in Iraq told me about a woman who took her baby/child and threw it out on the road in front of the HumVee in an effort to force them to stop, because terrorists were intending to ambush them when they stopped.

We have to remember that we are not fighting aliens from outer space. The people we are fighting we call terrorists, and yet, I suspect they were born in small villages, and were told by others to do what they are doing.

There's no Jeffrey Dahmer answer...there's no demon possession that we need to hang this on.

It's very simple...
" They were born in a small town, and they were just following orders . "

Code, I am with you. It really makes me sick that there are so many average Americans who would "just follow the orders" and participate in such acts of evil. It makes me fear for our nation's future. I used to believe that Americans could be above such things, but it was merely arrogant thinking on my part. Warning signs in our culture have been there all along. Witness Tv shows like Jerry Springer and reality shows like "Survivor" where cruelty is worshiped. "Dirty Laundry" would have been another good song for you to use for your points. I need to grow up and stop being so idealistic and proud of my own country-men and women. We have become barbarians and only "pretend" to take the high road about such matters it seems. The number of Americans who approve or forgive the tortures that occured truely bothers me. It is a sad day.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support the humane treatment of all living beings!

A number of important studies in the 1950's were conducted to see if a certain characteristic could be isolated in the German mentality that was predisposed to atrocites and massacre. The results that were rteurned were unsettling.What was called the "Good German" indeed turned out to be the banality of evil. The normal drab workaday citizen could be de-sensitized and transformed into a monster without remorse.

Easily. Like a click of the switch.

Important books are coming out to say "it could happen here."

The tell-tale signs are in order. Create a permanent sense of dread in the populace. Offer them a One Resolute Leader who alone can defend them against a nameless enemy (which changes year to year.) Convince the masses that their economic well-being somehow intertwines with the greed of the Two Percent Elite.

Drums and bugles, glorious songs, speechifying professors, and girls with garlands of flowers convince apple-cheeked teenagers to march away. The basket cases that return are zombies with thousand-yard stares. And not even 21 yet. No human being should have images like that burned into their brain.

Stop the War. Bring them home now. No excuses.

From talkingpointsmemo..com:

White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote to the president in January 2002, saying the following: "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians ... In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Josh Marshall writes in talkingpointsmemo.com


George Bush says:

"I get the newspapers — the New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post and USA Today — those are the four papers delivered," he said. "I can scan a front page, and if there is a particular story of interest, I'll skim it."

The president prides himself on his ability to detect bias in ostensibly objective news stories.

"My antennae are finely attuned," he said. "I can figure out what so-called 'news' pieces are going to be full of opinion, as opposed to news. So I'm keenly aware of what's in the papers, kind of the issue du jour. But I'm also aware of the facts."

Those facts are extracted from news stories each day and presented to the president by a half-dozen aides, Mr. Card among them.

"Since I'm the first one to see him in the morning, I usually give him a quick overview and get a little reaction from him," Mr. Card explained. "Frequently, I find that his reaction kind of reflects [first lady] Laura Bush's take."

Indeed, the president often cites articles that Mrs. Bush flags for greater scrutiny, even when he has not personally slogged through those stories. Mrs. Bush routinely delves more deeply into the news pages than her husband, who prefers other sections.

"He does not dwell on the newspaper, but he reads the sports page every day," Mr. Card said with a chuckle.


Mr. Bush thinks that immersing himself in voluminous, mostly liberal-leaning news coverage might cloud his thinking and even hinder his efforts to remain an optimistic leader.

"I like to have a clear outlook," he said. "It can be a frustrating experience to pay attention to somebody's false opinion or somebody's characterization, which simply isn't true."

What strikes me about this isn't the stuffabout the First Lady or the skimming of articles. It's that, at least from his self-presentation, the president seems to see his news reading largely, if not entirely, as an exercise in detecting liberal media bias. That, and he seems to see shielding himself from opposing viewpoints as a key to maintaining what he calls a "clear outlook" and what Sammon refers to as being an "optimistic leader".

I guess we can all relate to this, can't we?

How 'frustrating' it is to have to listen to "somebody's false opinion or somebody's characterization, which simply isn't true" (i.e., information that contradicts our assumptions and viewpoints)?

It (i.e., critical thinking) really gets in the way of having a "clear outlook", right?

Now, certainly no one is perfect when it comes to subjecting and then resubjecting their viewpoints to fresh facts or challenging their assumptions with intelligently stated contrary views. I can't claim to be. But it's one thing to fall short of the mark and another to work out a system of self-rationalization and denial to ensure you come nowhere near the mark. And this is it in spades.

He doesn't even need the yes-men who "extract" the "facts" from the news articles. He's his own built-in yes-man.

How could we have ignored so many warnings, so much expert advice, so many facts staring us in the face? The president just gave you the answer.

-- Josh Marshall

God help us all.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40D11FB34590C758CDDAC0894DC404482
FOREIGN DESK | May 6, 2004, Thursday
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: PSYCHOLOGY; Simulated Prison in '71 Showed a Fine Line Between 'Normal' and 'Monster'
--------------------------------
http://www.harpercollins.com.au/drstephenjuan/news.htm
"NO WONDER TORTURE IS SO COMMON


Photos of U.S. troops obviously enjoying the torture and humiliation of Iraqis prisoners of war will be images not soon forgotten. The U.S. military's torturing of Iraqi prisoners merely proves yet again that torturing comes easily to humans.

Typically, such torturers do not emerge from under some rock, already pre-disposed towards repression, brutality, and violence. Instead, although not in all cases, the torturer is usually an average, normal individual who becomes a sadistic monster by merely following orders in a culture that encourages such behaviour. Research suggests that it is the rare, exceptional, and highly laudable person who is morally strong enough to refuse inhumane commands by an authority figure.

Be it the Nazi SS officer, the Saddam Hussein henchman, or the U.S. soldier or contract security guard in Iraq, the torturer could easily be your neighbour's son.

A classic film, "Your Neighbour's Son" (198, documents for all time how easy it is to create a torturer. The film depicts the transforming of average Greek young men into political torturers during the years of the Greek military junta (1967-74). It was made by doctors under the sponsorship of Amnesty International and later the subject of an ABC "Four Corners" program. The film shows that only a modest amount of indoctrination by authorities is sufficient to turn ordinary youngsters into murderers.

For at least fifty years, behavioural science research has demonstrated how simple it is to create a torturer.

The grandfather of works in this field is THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY by T.W. Adorno and others (Harper & Row, 1950). Written soon after World War II, this classic study draws frightening parallels between fascist reality in Germany and "potentially fascist" behaviour in California.

A lesser known but invaluable work is LICENSED MASS MURDER by H.V. Dicks (Sussex University Press, 1972). This book artfully delineates the socio-psychological make-up of a group of Nazi SS officers. It is a fascinating study of the intricate workings of the mind of the torturer and shows how all involved are in some sense victimized.

But still the most chilling study of all is based upon experiments conducted at the psychology laboratories of Yale University under the direction of the late Dr. Stanley Milgram.

In OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY (Tavistock, 1974), Dr. Milgram writes, "This is, perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work becomes patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority. A variety of inhibitions against disobeying authority come into play and successfully keep the person in his place."

Dr. Milgram's experiments consisted of making unsuspecting university students participate in a "learning experiment". Under the orders of a scientist (Dr. Milgram), complete with white laboratory coat and surrounded by scientific-looking equipment, a student became the "teacher" whose task it was to administer steadily rising degrees of electric shocks to a "learner". The learner was unseen, but not unheard. The learner was supposedly strapped to a chair in a nearby room in front of a task to be "learned". The learner was to be "conditioned" by shocks to avoid errors ("to learn better").

Of course, the "teacher" was the real subject of Dr. Milgram's experiment. The object being to discover how far a normal person would go in carrying out orders by an authority--even though obviously injuring or killing another human being.

Unknown to the teacher, the learner was not being shocked, but merely acting the part--complete with cries, shouts, and pleas for mercy all coming from the next room. The learner was, in fact, one of Dr. Milgram's assistants.

The situation was made more realistic to the teacher by the elaborate, sophisticated-looking, supposedly "very scientific-looking" electric shock-inducing switchboard that was to be used. It had a keyboard with marked buttons ranging from "slight shock" to "danger--severe shock". And prior to the teacher administering shocks, Dr. Milgram gave each a tiny, genuine shock. Thus, they could understand what sorts of pain the learner would be receiving--but in ever-increasing doses.

Naturally, the learner intentionally made many mistakes so that the teacher would be called upon to administer numerous and steadily more severe shocks.

Therefore, while at one end of the experiment, there was a suffering victim evoking the humane urge to stop, at the other end there was the authority figure instructing the teacher to continue on at whatever cost.

The authority figure would first say "in the interests of science continue", then "please continue", then "the experiment requires that you continue", then "it is absolutely essential that you go on", and finally "you have no choice but to go on". This would proceed until supposedly fatal shocks were being administered--and when no further cries could be heard from the learner.

This experiment was repeated many times. Dr. Milgram found that ordinary young men would invariably obey what were, in effect, criminal orders to torture and murder a complete stranger--someone never even seen. He writes, "even with this low degree of expected zeal or commitment and without prior conditioning, not one participant refused ab initio to go on the moment he knew he was beginning to cause discomfort to another human being. Two-thirds of the subjects obeyed the experimenter to the last and severest shocks--so to speak against all moral imperative."

Dr. Milgram came to the horrifying conclusion that these subjects, just as the Nazi SS officers before them, behaved as "sadistic monsters" who were merely following orders. (1)

According to the latest annual report by Amnesty International covering 2003, 151 nations abuse human rights. (2) Nations that torture during war or times of social unrest range from A to Z. There is torture in Afghanistan and torture in Zimbabwe.

Some governments seek the right to torture. The U.S. government recently requested that its military be exempt from international anti-torturing conventions. The U.S. government in April 2004 argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that no international anti-torturing laws applied to its military prisoners the U.S. holds in Guantanomo, Cuba---an enclave it rents from the Cuban government.

The U.S. military admits that its troops have used sexual torture in Iraq. Sexual torture as an instrument of war is common. This is according to a Dr. Y. Fischman of the Institute for the Study of Psychopolitical Trauma in Palo Alto, California. (3)

Just as torture is sexy, it is profitable. According to U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, U.S. military-oriented businesses make profits from "trade in the tools of torture". (4)

Torture is commonly a part of war strategy. Indeed, it is rare that military prisoners are not tortured. In one study concerning the former Yugoslavia, it was found that torture occurred in 93 per cent of prisoners as only 7 per cent were "rarely tortured". (5)

Famed psychologist Hannah Arendt studied the case of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann and came to the disturbing conclusion that Eichmann thought of himself, not as a monster, but only as a "bureaucrat who simply sat at his desk and did his job."

C.P. Snow once remarked, "more horrible crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than for any other cause or ideology."

I wish I had more than one vote to give for my country.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
Jesus in John 8:32

"The U.S. government recently requested that its military be exempt from international anti-torturing conventions. The U.S. government in April 2004 argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that no international anti-torturing laws applied to its military prisoners the U.S. holds in Guantanomo, Cuba---an enclave it rents from the Cuban government. "

Kinda explains the stuff at Abu G and Gitmo don't it?

I have been somewhat bothered of the fine distinctions that Mr. Rumsfeld made on television when he said that he was not a lawyer, but as he understands the definition, the stuff at Abu G was "abuse" and not torture.

Let's say some of these prisoners were forced to eat ham or bacon. To them, this is "poisoning their soul"....would this be abuse, torture, or just a dietary choice by their captors.

I think I saw one picture of a prisoner with a hood on his head hooked up to wires....

I think when soldiers say they didn't know it was wrong to sodomize a prisoner with a light stick or rape a woman, because they didn't have specialized training to tell them it was wrong...or, when Rumsfeld is trying to draw a fine line between abuse and torture...


This just is not the same as Mr. Clinton asking the definiton of what "is" is...
We are sliding down the slippery slope folks.
I fear for what happens to any of us exercising our free speech when they decide to hold us.

"It really makes me sick that there are so many average Americans who would "just follow the orders" and participate in such acts of evil. It makes me fear for our nation's future. I used to believe that Americans could be above such things, but it was merely arrogant thinking on my part. Warning signs in our culture have been there all along. Witness Tv shows like Jerry Springer and reality shows like "Survivor" where cruelty is worshiped. "Dirty Laundry" would have been another good song for you to use for your points. I need to grow up and stop being so idealistic and proud of my own country-men and women. We have become barbarians and only "pretend" to take the high road about such matters it seems. The number of Americans who approve or forgive the tortures that occured truely bothers me. It is a sad day."

NO! There are still people that can look at a situation objectively and in the end come to a moral conclusion. No matter the idealism, no matter how much people seem otherwise from the media, I refuse to believe that America is hopeless. I'm not fighting for the masses. I'm fighting for the people around me that need my help. Yes, there are a lot of followers and few leaders. But what you do with that type of power is what truely defines us.

I'm shocked and appalled that our US troops have to resort to sexual torture to make people talk. I'm angry that a few bad apples are making us as Americans look bad. But I refuse to give up just because all evidence points to a dark day in hell for all of us.

The facts remain that by all accounts, I should be wearing a doo rag, listening to rap all day. By all accounts, I shouldn't be able to spell as well as another person and speaking ebonics all day.

And yet, I keep my hair low. I listen to jazz, rock, and anything with a good beat (even country), and the one thing that makes me so unique (my skin) isn't what has made me friends. It's been what's inside of me. Even then, I know what's right and wrong because my parents as well as my friends taught me the difference. Maybe a lot of people haven't felt good in terms of that torture situation, but I know that there can be a better way to get information without the degradation of human life.

...

Forgive me, but that did rile me up a bit. Faced with a unique situation, people have no way to react at first. So you go to the next best thing, someone else with more experience. I have no doubt that these things will occur with bad "management" but good management most likely won't be reported. And I'm positive that that element is what is more prevalent. Just hidden for a good story.

Code, I don't want to know that that stuff is true. I would like to think that I myself would not participate in such horrible acts if it were me who was "given the orders." I don't think of myself as being on any higher moral ground than the average U.S. citizen, but I know in my heart that if it were me over there, I would NOT have partook in something so wrong... (and I was a military intelligence specialist in the army during the Gulf War, IT COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN ME that was over there, were it only a few years difference in time!!!)

I am really sickened and horrified by what this war has brought out thus far. I fear what more is to come.

Finding out that otherwise good and moral AMERICAN soldiers have participated in such atrocities as torture and etc. is like finding out your loving dad whom you have always looked up to has been sexually molesting your baby sister.

I say, NOT IN OUR HOUSE DAMNIT!

Don't be wimps America. Just cause we got "stung" on 9-11 does NOT mean we have any right to act like the enemy.

Shmoo

I agree Shmoo...we would all want to have the courage to do the right thing.

Have we had anyone from that Abu G that has come out and said..."It was wrong, they told me to do it and I refused".

Very few German soldiers refused to follow orders in WW II.

Thus what I fear.

I think that the guy who "came out" with the story was one of our troops who was there (and who may have done some of the pix taking) According to some reports I have heard, he (she?) is also being court marshalled and thus taking the lumps too... but had it been me, I woulda said "small price" to expose and (hopefully) halt further abuses.

If such is the case, then that person who reported the crimes (even tho possibly implicated in those crimes) is a TRUE HERO in my book.

AMEN!~

Peer Pressure is for the sheep. Fitting In is for the ditto-heads. Think for yourself (...or I won't be there for YOU!)