Inhofe: Prisoner abuses OK

[billvon 3,111]

GOP senator labels abused prisoners 'terrorists'
Other lawmakers disavow comment
Tuesday, May 11, 2004 Posted: 6:32 PM EDT (2232 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee dismissed Tuesday the outrage over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops, saying Iraqis depicted in widely broadcast photographs probably had "blood on their hands."

. . .

"If they're in cell block 1A or 1B, these prisoners -- they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents," said Inhofe, a conservative from Oklahoma. "Many of them probably have American blood on their hands. And here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

[Gawain 0]

Come on Bill, at least copy/paste the whole article. Here's AP's version of the story drawn from FoxNews. The context of his comments were part of remarks that were aimed at those using the photos for political gain. He, in no way, condoned the abuse. Nice try though... Edit to add: The CNN article is titled: "GOP senator labels abused prisoners 'terrorists'"

For those that want the whole CNN article -- click here.

Quote

Senator: Abuse Pics Being Used for Politics

Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A Republican senator inflamed partisan tempers Tuesday, charging his colleagues and the media with manipulating the images of Iraqi prisoner abuse for political gain.

Sen. James Inhofe (search), R-Okla., said: "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment."

He said he believed that the individuals responsible for mistreating prisoners should be punished. He also speculated on how the prisoners must feel since Saddam Hussein (search) has been ousted.

"I have to say when we talk about the treatment of these prisoners that I would guess that these prisoners wake up every morning thanking Allah that Saddam Hussein is not in charge of these prisons," Inhofe said.

But Inhofe also said the prisoners in Iraq are being held there for crimes.

"You know, they're not there for traffic violations," he said. "If they're in cell block 1A or 1B, these prisoners -- they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands. And here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

Inhofe read aloud from an e-mail issued by the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (search), D-Mass., that coupled a demand for President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with a solicitation for campaign contributions.

"I'm also outraged by the press and the politicians and the political agendas that are being served by this, and I say political agendas because that's actually what's happening," the Republican senator said at a hearing with the Army general who investigated charges of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

David Wade, a Kerry campaign spokesman, accused Inhofe of "trying to turn official Senate business into a political stunt to divert attention from the serious issues being discussed."

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

It speaks volumes about Billvon's character and ethics that he would reproduce only an inflammatory snippet of an entire article, discount the rest of the message contained in it, and characterize what Inhofe said as "Prisoner abuses OK" in his header.

Did Billvon think that no one would go see the REST of the article and find out that his characterization of it was biased and distorted?

Gawain, thanks for shedding light on the shadiness of this attempt to mislead us here.

Got a question for ya, Bill:

When the article says, "He said he believed that the individuals responsible for mistreating prisoners should be punished," do you really maintain that Inhofe meant, "Prisoner abuses OK"?

I mean, why would he advocate punishing people who did something that was "OK"?

Is this the way you discuss a controversial subject in good faith?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[wmw999 2,587]

Might strong words about Billvon, mr. Telephone. Picking a piece of a news article to quote is pretty common. Since Inhofe made more comments condemning the outrage & publicity than the treatment, it's not hard to think that it's more important in his mind.

Make no mistake -- mistreating prisoners is a serious offense. It is extremely likely to lead to torture in the long (or even short) run. And having the approval of your superiors for the results produced makes it happen sooner. Having a US senator say "man, what you did is wrong, but it's not as bad as what used to happen, and it sucks even more that people found out about it" is probably not a very sturdy condemnation. To some people, it's acceptable as long as he didn't say "kill all hte fuckers" I suppose.

Impugning someone's character and ethics for seeing the parts he thought were more important is pretty dangerous. He read them; but, again, if you count the anti-torture statements, they are overpowered by the outrage at the press and publicity statements.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

He, in no way, condoned the abuse. Nice try though..

No he didn't. What he said was (and here I paraphrase): the army has some bad boys and girls, but it's really OK because these terrorists and murderers deserved what they got.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

No he didn't. What he said was (and here I paraphrase): the army has some bad boys and girls, but it's really OK because these terrorists and murderers deserved what they got.

To some extent I agree..You think they would treat you any better?

I also agree that they are better off then if SH was in charge.

A group of soldiers got big heads and did some stupid shit...That happens..They should be punished.

But I think that it is getting blown out of porpotion....Ever watch "Oz"? This shit happens in the US also. It's the nature of prisons....Think about any prison and you find abuse.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Malfunction 0]

Quote

It speaks volumes about Billvon's character and ethics that he would reproduce only an inflammatory snippet of an entire article, discount the rest of the message contained in it...

Hey, uh, hate to be the one to "shed light" on reality, but it happens all the time. Every newspaper article, every television news broadcast, every radio snippet takes the quotes they want to justify their position. It is nothing new. If you start slamming Billvon's character and ethics, you might want to look at the very sources you begin to hold in high regard, because they chose what they wanted to report. By your standards, nobody has ethics, character or the whole story, and I refuse to believe that.

It doesn't matter which side of the fence you are on, or what side of politics you choose to defend, once you decide on a platform, you get the quotes to back you. People take what they want to hear or remember from an article, that is the underlying idea of media. You will never remember the entire article or the backgrounds, but you will remember if somewhere you read "Abuse of prisioners OK" or "GWB says this" or "Clinton did that." The whole story is always forgotten, so don't blame Billvon for just being human.

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It speaks volumes about Billvon's character and ethics that he would reproduce only an inflammatory snippet of an entire article, discount the rest of the message contained in it, and characterize what Inhofe said as "Prisoner abuses OK" in his header.

Did Billvon think that no one would go see the REST of the article and find out that his characterization of it was biased and distorted?

Gawain, thanks for shedding light on the shadiness of this attempt to mislead us here.

Got a question for ya, Bill:

When the article says, "He said he believed that the individuals responsible for mistreating prisoners should be punished," do you really maintain that Inhofe meant, "Prisoner abuses OK"?

I mean, why would he advocate punishing people who did something that was "OK"?

Is this the way you discuss a controversial subject in good faith?

Actually, I think this little rant says more about you than the original post said about BillVon.

[billvon 3,111]

>Come on Bill, at least copy/paste the whole article.

Well, a) that's illegal per copyright laws, and b) anyone who wants to is free to read the original article. My original comment stands; Inhofe has sought to play down abuses by US servicepeople by claiming that the people tortured were all murderers, terrorists, or anti-US fighters - even though the ICRC's report claimed that 90% of the people detained by the US in Iraq were not even suspected of anything.

From an AP report:

"The report by the International Committee of the Red Cross supports allegations that abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers was broad and “not individual acts” - contrary to President George W. Bush’s contention that the mistreatment 'was the wrongdoing of a few.'

It also quoted U.S. officers as admitting that up to 90 per cent of the detainees had been arrested by mistake."

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Come on Bill, at least copy/paste the whole article.

Well, a) that's illegal per copyright laws, and b) anyone who wants to is free to read the original article. My original comment stands; Inhofe has sought to play down abuses by US servicepeople by claiming that the people tortured were all murderers, terrorists, or anti-US fighters -

That is a far cry from Inhofe saying "it's okay." Plus, you didn't even provide a link for "easy" access to substantiate your point (the story was not a "front pager"). Again, the selective nature of relaying the message serves your viewpoint, but it doesn't even resemble fact.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,111]

>That is a far cry from Inhofe saying "it's okay."

Inhofe is pushing the idea that the detainees deserved it. If you see a big difference there, good for you. If someone posted a suggestion that Nicholas Berg was a criminal and thus might have deserved punishment, I think you'd suddenly decide there's not so much difference between saying "it's OK" and saying that he deserved it.

>Plus, you didn't even provide a link for "easy" access to substantiate
>your point (the story was not a "front pager").

Geez. Copy the first line into Google and it will give you the article.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Again, the selective nature of relaying the message serves your viewpoint, but it doesn't even resemble fact.

I agree with you max. Pretty bad for a greenie.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Might strong words about Billvon, mr. Telephone. Picking a piece of a news article to quote is pretty common.

Yes, and common also is the insincere and dishonest practice of selecting specific parts of a greater whole, screening out other parts that would give a different tone to the discussion overall. Billvon selected a tiny part, then gave a subject header that directly implied that Inhofe said that abuse of prisoners was "OK." At most, what Inhofe did was say, "Since it's not OK, I think that the perpetrators should be punished; but since we're talking about abuse of enemies of our troops, our country, and our way of life, I'm not gonna cry or lose sleep over it."

Quote

Impugning someone's character and ethics for seeing the parts he thought were more important is pretty dangerous. He read them; but, again, if you count the anti-torture statements, they are overpowered by the outrage at the press and publicity statements.

His character, as pertains to this subject, IS in question with me. I don't see how he could feel he was being forthright and honest and not disingenuous to characterize the article in the way he did. Inhofe did NOT say "prisoner abuses OK." but that is verbatim how Billvon typified the article! How am I wrong for questioning the intentions and character of someone who would do that?

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

It speaks volumes about Billvon's character and ethics that he would reproduce only an inflammatory snippet of an entire article, discount the rest of the message contained in it, and characterize what Inhofe said as "Prisoner abuses OK" in his header.

Did Billvon think that no one would go see the REST of the article and find out that his characterization of it was biased and distorted?

Gawain, thanks for shedding light on the shadiness of this attempt to mislead us here.

Got a question for ya, Bill:

When the article says, "He said he believed that the individuals responsible for mistreating prisoners should be punished," do you really maintain that Inhofe meant, "Prisoner abuses OK"?

I mean, why would he advocate punishing people who did something that was "OK"?

Is this the way you discuss a controversial subject in good faith?

Actually, I think this little rant says more about you than the original post said about BillVon.

Yes, and what it should tell you is that I care more about people telling the most objective truth they can than I do about possibly insulting someone who I don't believe made that attempt.

Why not elaborate on what you think my post says about me, instead of being vague and nonspecific?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>That is a far cry from Inhofe saying "it's okay."

Inhofe is pushing the idea that the detainees deserved it.

If you want to reach that far fine. I see it a bit more simply in terms of reminding people whose hearts are gushing empathy that they might want to check their tears and feelings.

If Charles Manson was being beaten in prison, I would say that's wrong, and the prison guards should be punished. To anyone that wailed about human rights abuse and "care for prisoners" I'd say, "Don't you cry for Manson, don't you dare."

Quote

>Plus, you didn't even provide a link for "easy" access to substantiate
>your point (the story was not a "front pager").

Geez. Copy the first line into Google and it will give you the article.

Which first line? Your title? Or, the real title of the column? I'm nitpicking at this point, I know, but the collective internet community won't always think that way..."your way" in finding information. In fact, you and I don't think alike a lot...so I rest my case...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,146]

I don't see that he said they deserve it. He just said it was OK by him (paraphrase).

But I find obnoxious the suggestion that all the detainees are thugs and murderers. How many have been chartged? How many have been found guilty in a fair trial?

All this at a time when the US has been releasing detainees because no evidence of any wrongdoing could be found.

THAT is what is obnoxious about Inhofe's statement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>How am I wrong for questioning the intentions and character of
>someone who would do that?

I don't much care if you do it to me because, well, I just don't care what you think of my character, and often people behave completely differently in person. I'm sure you're a nice guy in person, and would not go around insulting everyone at the DZ you disagreed with. I tend to give people more latitude when it comes to me to avoid using "greenie power" to win arguments, which is not the purpose of moderation.

But to make it very clear - if you attack anyone else's character, or continue in this vein, your posts will be deleted and you will be banned from posting in this forum. Capiche?

[Michele 1]

Bill's greenie status hasn't a whole lot to do with how he miscatagorized the article...I've found him more than fair most of the time as a greenie, while I almost always see things differently from a political/religious perspective.

Matter of fact, he and I've tussled, and in the middle of it, I've seen things which go way over the line, and let him know. I usually get a note back saying "thanks", the issue is addressed, and we go back to tussling. LOL, I find this rather respectable of him as a greenie.

I do find the lack of link to be an issue, though.

And no, Inhofe did not condone the abuse of prisoners.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>How am I wrong for questioning the intentions and character of
>someone who would do that?

I don't much care if you do it to me because, well, I just don't care what you think of my character, and often people behave completely differently in person. I'm sure you're a nice guy in person, and would not go around insulting everyone at the DZ you disagreed with. I tend to give people more latitude when it comes to me to avoid using "greenie power" to win arguments, which is not the purpose of moderation.

But to make it very clear - if you attack anyone else's character, or continue in this vein, your posts will be deleted and you will be banned from posting in this forum. Capiche?

Fine. I'm not in this to attack anyone's character, anyway. And yes, you're right, I am a much nicer person in person than I can come across as online. That's the nature of a faceless, semi-anonymous forum in which you can speak your mind without much in the way of retribution or fear of embarrassment.

I really would like to see you defend the characterization of "Prisoner abuses OK" from what else Inhofe said in that article that Gawain reproduced. Ducking behind, "It would be copyright infringement to reproduce it" doesn't cut it with me. It's called "fair use." And you're not profiting from the reproduction. (Plus, people do it all the time.)

I argue that since Inhofe claimed he wants the perpetrators of the abuse punished, that is PROOF that he is not saying the abuse is "OK." For you to have glossed over that (OMITTED that) is, I think, irresponsible and biased. It makes what you wrote propaganda instead of information. You culled only what you wanted us to know and left out exculpatory remarks. How do you explain that except in terms like "dishonest," "disingenuous," "biased," and "distorted"?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,111]

>I really would like to see you defend the characterization of "Prisoner
>abuses OK" from what else Inhofe said in that article that Gawain
>reproduced.

OK means mediocre, acceptable; not excellent and not really bad. It is clear that he thinks the prisoner abuse is not really bad compared to public reaction to them: "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment."

He has said he approves of aggressive interrogation techniques: ""You've just got to be tough, and you've got to try to get the information out. If you don't get the information out, more Americans can be killed. And then you'd really hear squealing about it." . . .

"We're in a different kind of world than we've ever been in before. And I believe that we need to be tougher than we have ever have been before ... and it's imperative that we get intelligence."

It is clear that he does not wish to spend a lot of effort fixing the problems in the prisons: "I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying."

He mocks those who are concerned about prisoner treatment: "Many of them probably have American blood on their hands. And here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

(additional quote references)

Add all those up, and you have someone who thinks the prisoner abuse isn't great but also isn't so bad in today's world. Which is the definition of OK.

>I argue that since Inhofe claimed he wants the perpetrators of the
> abuse punished, that is PROOF that he is not saying the abuse
> is "OK."

So he's two-faced. Won't be the first politician who is.

[FallRate 0]

God save the trolls...no one else will give a shit.

FallRate

[GravityGirl 0]

BillVons post is just as misleading as you calling yourself "PeacefulJeffrey". IMHO.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

BillVons post is just as misleading as you calling yourself "PeacefulJeffrey". IMHO.

Well, if that's not a personal attack, I guess I don't know what one would look like.

I'm leaving your "gravity girl" name alone, just so you know.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[TheAnvil 0]

Dude - chill. BillVon is a nice guy, even if he does delete/edit my posts for reasons known only to himself on occasion. GravityGirl is a cool chick too.

I agree with you on a lot of things, truth be told, but the tenor of your posts in this thread is really combative and offensive. Passively insulting somebody's DZ.com handle just isn't cool.

Apologize to Bill and Bonnie and let's have some fun sending the lefties into convulsions by making them face facts. They should hold their heads in shame for selectively ignoring facts as they do - but that's no reason to purposefully try and hurt somebody's feelings as you seem to be doing.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Apologize to Bill and Bonnie and let's have some fun sending the lefties into convulsions by making them face facts. They should hold their heads in shame for selectively ignoring facts as they do - but that's no reason to purposefully try and hurt somebody's feelings as you seem to be doing.

Facts? As in:

"The deficit will be small and short lived"
"We know where they are"
"Iraq can attack us in 45 minutes"
"Nation building? Absolutely not!"
"We will create 2.3 million new jobs this year" (2003)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.