RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Here is my take on the whole thing. We went to war on lies and fiction. We need to treat prisoners better then that. War sucks, and bad stuff happens. The only reason it's as much of an issue as it is was that someone took pictures and splattered it all over the tv. War is never pretty, for anyone caught in the middle, or for the combatants. Just that we get to see how ugly war is now that our world is so wired. I dislike that bad things happen, but I can't make it stop. I live my life, cast my vote, pay my taxes, and do what I need to, and don't waste a lot of energy on much else. Best not to throw stones in a glass house, anyways.

**Update2** Points well taken EO. One comment however - to suggest that Iraqi prisoners somehow do not qualify as POWs is difficult for me to accept. We attack, invade, and occupy a sovereign nation without direct provocation. Some Iraqis (the number now is estimated at 200K) choose to fight us. Some of those are taken prisoner. How are they not afforded POW status? Sounds shady to me. **Update** We are not talking about the barbarism of the enemy. They are animals. We are not talking about if their treatment of prisoners is worse than ours. Of course it is. We are not talking about if the US helps out around the world - we are the biggest donor in history. We are not talking about our reputation around the world. We are talking, clear and simple, about torture. Do you support it (ever or in just this case), or do you not? So what's it going to be???? **Original Comment** The more the facts come out, the more that it's clear that what was happening at Abu Ghraib was torture. At least five prisoners died under interrogation, and up to 18 more deaths following interrogations are being investigated. The practices used at Abu Ghraib (sodomizing with broomsticks, electrical shock, sleep deprivation, dog attacks, etc), were also used in other military prisons in places like Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan. In other words, this wasn't a handful of bad seeds playing practical jokes - this was the methodical, systemic use of torture to gain information. Those that wish to defend these actions can say that this doesn't compare to atrocities committed by fundamentalists to prisoners, or the atrocities committed by Saddam. I agree. They might also say that this is a new kind of enemy, so the old rules don't apply. I don't agree. But let's call a spade a spade. This administration has condoned the use of torture as a means of gaining intelligence. My opinion on the matter? I think its immoral, unamerican, and disgraceful. It pisses me off when I think that the man who authorized this policy, Donald Rumsfeld, is still employed, and the man that created the legal justification for these practices is now our attorney general. Do you think that Americans haven't been morally strong enough to face up to tough and scary foes before without abandoning our commitment to the rule of law? What about Hitler? What about the Viet Cong? By being so quick to abandon our commitment to rule of law and give in to barbaric practices, we are doing a disservice to our military, legal, and moral heritage. One final point lest we forget - the reason that we sign treaties like the Geneva Convention is to protect our troops - if that's not important, I don't know what is.

As an item on this list, it doesn't look like this was a particularly significant event during the 2004 election runup. I agree partially with magellan in that it raises political questions about issues our leaders wrestle with when we're at war. I don't think it is reasonable to say, See, we tortured these prisoners. That's wrong. Therefore, the entire war effort is wrong and we should not have gone there in the first place. That's a discussion for another day and tends to obfuscate this one. The NY Times gave it its best shot to use this issue to oust Bush from office and, in so doing, made it a cynical partisan issue. The discussion about whether Islamofascist terrorist prisoners are covered under the statutes of the Geneva Convention is a very valid one with persuasive arguments on both sides. It will not be determined by referendum, it will not go to a popular vote. Diplomatic scholars are fighting it out now, and they will continue to do so. All Europeans are not in theoretical lockstep on one side because they know that there is no easy answer to this conundrum and that Islamofascism isn't going away, and to have some German diplomat lecturing a US President about compliance with the Geneva Convention might be a stitch. That all being said, it is probably time to draw up a new Geneva Convention which can take into account these insurgents who do not wear uniforms, do not fight under any flag and who mercilessly target innocent civilians instead of their enemy's armed combatants.

Like he ordered them to beat the prisoners or something. Riiiiight.

Every voter remembers this. It's what almost everyone thinks of when you meant Iraq. Iraq is THE topic of this election, and in that sense Abu Ghraib may be THE sub-topic.

Again, this should be bad news for the Bush admin, especially with the leak of the Torture Memo. But most people are too busy to connect all the dots of cause and effect. Most do not see how subtle policy wording leads to very direct results, namely torture. People just have a hard time swallowing that the Bush admin is responsible for fostering the attitude that prisoners could be treated in other than humane ways.

What mistreatment?

I do not think this was tied to Bush. Heck, this barely even constitutes 'mistreatment'. Wearing panties and forming pyramids in the nude, and doing other s&m kind of stuff simply doesn't count. I'm not justifying it, just remember to keep it in perspective.

for the love of god, I wish the media would get over this. This was a 2 day news story but it just keeps going... and going... and going... By the way, some call them prisoners. I call them terrorist who were likely there for trying to kill our soldiers anyway.

Can't be tied to Bush. Even though his overly simplified retoric doesn't help.

A side issue. I doubt voters will be thinking of this too much in November. The Iraq situation as a whole will have much more of an effect on Bush's re-election than this incident.

I do not feel that this is directly related to Mr. Bush.

Totally inexcusable and just exactly the kind of thing to fuel the fires of the anti-Bush campaign. Those morons disgracing their uniforms and the U.S. Military made it almost too easy. I agree that the stench of those awful photos will linger and have probably already tainted the re-election campaign somewhat. Of course, the beheadings still serve to remind the world what extremism really is.

Dick Dirk is bang on, 90% of the people in prison were in the prison had nothing to do with anything. You have totally F'd up a situation, by sending troops in there that are driving around and shooting civilians at random. I think it is a sad day when americans can be told invading Iraqi has something to do with terrorism. Kinda like well the Japanese bomb us in Pearl Harbour, but we are attacking Mexico because they are closer, or have better targets. That is what has been done here.

Might not be the most damaging thing for Bush's re-election campaign. Between this and the beheading of Nick Berg in the news, it seems to have impacted the public's opinion of Bush slightly (at least according to various polls) by a few percentage points. Whether or not that is a SIGNIFICANT change is debatable, though.

The Abu Ghraib prisoner crisis could be a potential disaster for Bush's campaign, regardless of whether it is warranted or not. But Saddam Hussein, as Flick01 kindly pointed out, cut off tongues, ordered people thrown off buildings and there is actually evidence to back it up. And you know what...it was done over and over again. I'm definitely not racist (I'd hate to be one) but I get the feeling that the media are publicising this because Bush is white and whites have this really mis-informed 'racist' aura about them. If Saddam did this, I'm betting there'd be no publicity (becuase maybe) his race doesn't have the aura. Anyhoo, Bush shouldn't lose an election just because of a few soldiers who committed unsavory acts.

Saddam cut out tongues, cut off limbs, had people thrown off buildings and there are films and survivors to prove it. In my view that is far worse than just mistreatment. While our soldiers mistreated the prisoners this was not in the strict sense of the word torture as the main stream press would have us believe. This incident happened months before the pictures were made public and the military was already taking steps to discipline those involved. The fact that this incident was kept in the headlines for so long while the death of Nick Berg and the 4 that were killed, burned and displayed as they were distributing food (non combatants) was quickly forgotten is all the proof I need to know that this constant barrage of hand wringing is politically motivated by those who wish Bush to lose the upcoming election. What hypocrisy! 40 years ago there were more hoods at a Robert Byrd birthday party than there ever was at Abu Ghraib.

Torture? These senseless acts were committed by a few individuals who went too far. Our government has gone so far as to investigate these wrongdoings, confess them, and bring these few idiots to justice. This, by no means, is an indictment against our military and the Bush administration. It has become political fodder for the democrats , for sure. No Iraqis have been killed, beheaded, maimed, burned, dragged through the streets, and mutilated like the terrorists over there have done to American soldiers and civilian workers for years.