Alneck, I apologize; this post will have to be a reply not only to you, but to several other posters above.
First, rlmorel, thanks for the reply about what a troll is. I never engaged in any of that activity so I don't think I am one!! I really don't think I did anything to get kicked off except write a few thoughtful posts. Anyway, no use continuing that discussion . . .
To the above posters: Of course I read the entire article. I am just much more skeptical than apparently everyone else is that A) Abu Ghraib did not extend further up the chain of command OR reflect a general attitude or policy of the commanders toward prisoners and B) the Gitmo incidents that we have heard about were accidental and also were isolated. I have been to MEPs and sat with 20-year-old future marines who "just want to go kill some Iraqis man"--so I have seen the intolerance that can be bred among young soldiers. The question, of course, is whether this is a recurring pattern that represents something systemmatic. Skepticism is normally a good thing, especially in murky situations like those involved here.
My basic thesis is:
A) The administration and to some extent the military believes that we are in a type of conflict that is more serious than any before and which has never occurred before--THIS IS TRUE, BUT LESS SO THAN THE ADMIN. THINKS
B) The administration and to some extent the military feels that this justifies abandoning many old safeguards such as portions of the Geneva Convention--I THINK THEY ARE WRONG
C) That this attitude has seeped down into the ranks of the military, either through direct commands or a lax attitude [it is the responsibility of commanders to maintain discipline among their troops]
I have to vehemently agree with the suggestion above that because I am willing to offer and opposing viewpoint that I am "treasonous" (I know you didn't actually call me treasonous, but the implication was obvious). Labeling dissenting opinion as treason is the quickest way to fascism and groupthink. I suspect that the majority of posters on this board would agree since this board is dedicated to free individuals and free thoughts. Anyway, I will be off the site for several days; I have a weekend to fill up. Adios
So you are better informed about this situation than the Administration and the military? I don't think so.
B) The administration and to some extent the military feels that this justifies abandoning many old safeguards such as portions of the Geneva Convention--I THINK THEY ARE WRONG
You are misinformed. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists. The Geneva Convention has not been compromised one iota.
C) That this attitude has seeped down into the ranks of the military, either through direct commands or a lax attitude [it is the responsibility of commanders to maintain discipline among their troops]
"This attitude" has not seeped down anywhere since it is a figment of leftists' imagination to begin with.
I have to vehemently agree with the suggestion above that because I am willing to offer and opposing viewpoint that I am "treasonous" (I know you didn't actually call me treasonous, but the implication was obvious). Labeling dissenting opinion as treason is the quickest way to fascism and groupthink. I suspect that the majority of posters on this board would agree since this board is dedicated to free individuals and free thoughts. Anyway, I will be off the site for several days; I have a weekend to fill up. Adios
The comment was that the twisting of facts and even outright lies spread in order to undermine our war effort is treasonous, and I stand by that. If you're as curious as you claim, you'll do some digging and come to the conclusion that the "news stories" on which you've based your conclusions are dishonest.