Philosophy Now Forum

http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... -soldiers/

I've seen this thinking before. After Abu Ghraib, Gore Vidal's fake as shit liberal love poems to the prisoners (absolutely disgusting), etc..... there was a major change in on how detainment centers in Iraq worked. It got stupid ridiculous after a while on the nature of the rules (like no magazines in the guard's rifles, the guys locked up knew what this meant, I usually used a shotgun for that reason, cause you can't tell what is loaded). Our interactions were comic, and would fit a script of the movie Clerks at times. Most boring duty ever, and given my bad knee, I got it a lot.

You could only keep a prisoner for two days, prior to battalion command deciding to prosecute or not, or to turn them over to local authorities, or to let them go. Never was a finger laid on these guys, I'm not joking, the interrogation process more properly belong on a TV show like Seinfeld than in a theater of war.

On rare occasion, they might not be able to find a guy they were looking for, but would drag in a family member. I remember one was a school teacher who just happened to be a cousin of a bad guy, and he believed all the propaganda.... I ended up cursing out some guys much higher ranking than me, as well as out Lebanonese interpreter (he cursed them out, I didn't curse him out, we sided together) as the guy obviously wasn't a insurgent. He is the only one I ever felt really sorry for in that place, and gave my civilian shoes I was going to wear on leave to him, so he wouldn't have to walk barefoot when released (and he was).

If we had anything approaching torture, it was psychological, in the sense we would say if they didn't talk, we would turn them over to the Iraqi police to be prosecuted. This was horrific. I didn't realize it at first, but some guys of local notoriety went down this route, a squad leader would swap pics off his cellphone with IPs (Iraqi Police) of the guys being interrogated. Yes, a man can take in a water bottle up the ass, by being forced to squat down on it at gunpoint.

Middle eastern police forces are known for this, isn't a behavior known to just Iraq. It is culturally engrained. I never liked the idea that we would offer a ultimatum, and turn a blind eye, on the basis it wasn't us doing it, or even ordering.... knowing that it would just happen, due to how twisted our allies approached justice against people they fought with.

I haven't been able to develop however a full fledged legal concept able to detect and break this behavior. We would sometimes hire locals to work on base (not a security risk, given out base was a literal power plant with close to a thousand iraqis in our walls at any given time), but would sometimes see kids in these work crews, doing shoveling.... with black eyes, and old men starring them down. These were more or less bribe contracts to appease some local into making legitimate money laboring his workforce, but we didn't nitpick it too much, other than to put them in nonsentitive spots. They had to pass through out gates, get patted down, the eye noticed, vacant scared stare.

I don't know how to build up a legal framework to process this sort of thing, on a consistent legal basis, where you know statistically or gut feeling, or second hand this stuff would happen, but can't really fully know for absolutely certain. Nobody knows if the IPs will go by the law in processing, or by reputation in advanced. Most likely will be cruel, but how do you absolutely know? Just bizarre our legal system is set up in such circumstance to presume innocence when it isn't usually the case. The culture is well known, and it would be better to presume.

A lot of these guys were really nasty, and deep down inside, given the atrocities they committed, a water bottle up the butt and a few beatings doesn't begin to punish them for what they did to others. Remember, they rarely directly attacked US forces, but civilians. All things being equal, they lived fairly intact. What I don't like is the overall presumption, and how it leaks into child rape now.

Also like to point out in advanced I'm searching for something that can become a principle that could become the basis of US and International Law, something for a court system to back. I'm not looking for delusions of moral superiority by people who never saw the ugly side of life due to silver spooning their way through life, or looking the other way and pretending to a better universe, or who howls because they are ideologically or psychologically off balanced.

I'm looking for a idea that can pass as a general rule, say 1000 years from now, held by multiple countries, or even planners, who inherit our outlook. I don't think war will be abolished even by then, but they will borrow a lot of concepts from us, when dealing with foreign entities.

What I am talking about here, in rejecting the legitimacy of another's political and ethical system because we have to pretend their system can take care of itself, that it isn't corrupt on a de jure level even though it is de facto, goes against concepts we've set up in regards to state sovereignty for centuries.... longer actually. You have more control over a auxiliary than a allied force, but for legal reasons, we treated Iraq in this period like a allied, sovereign state. We do this a lot with training units, we send police and military around the planet to train up local forces to western standards, but I'm sure many have seen something bizarre and nasty command said to overlook, as it would create a international incident if we said something, or acted.

So I need a concept able to go past that. When we know some serious messed up abuse is happening, what the parameters would be to resolve it, other than breaking the alliance. I'm not sure a handful of pedophilic cases warrants the shutdown of a greater alliance that can throw millions of lives into despair. Pulling out at the wrong time can lead to massive refugee situations, mass migrations. Asserting too righteous of a ideology, like with what Bradley Manning and Julian Asante did, asserting their absolute right to reveal the truth, lead to the collapse of several nations, and millions dead or fleeing war zones, some of which have been raging on for years in some of the darkest wars we've seen in modern times, so going full Liberal isn't a option at all.... truth isn't worth much when it results in genocide after genocide, I'll take the life preserving lie, thank you very much.

Same with this abuse. If you are a nation amongst many, a legal system amongst many, and not a strict absolute isolationalist banning contact with the outside world, you gotta deal with other nations. Sometimes war, defensively or offensively, or just military contacts, like trading officers for joint training. Some stuff will be seen. How do you deal with it, scale from minor to major problems? You can't just say go after the major cases when the same principle exists just as vividly for minor cases. A country going on too righteous of a crusade about such things will make many enemies, and few friends. Regional politics and threats, and the pressing need for allies right now, absolutely right now, won't always allow for the preferred ally. So you end up with some nasty allies sometimes.

What kind of law could cover that, while preserving diplomacy? That we can't turn over prisoners from de jure, your jurisdiction, because we have them, and know you are twisted little shits, and even though the prisoner is just as bad, if not worst, we won't play along, or let you do our dirty work? That can backfire miserably when the balance of power isn't lopsided as much as the US is to other nations, and even the US prosecutes it's own soldiers in show trials to appease weak nations at opportune times, so I don't think even the US super power status is enough to give it the claim it can do whatever it wants in this area, given how quick we are to kowtow to disgusting local actions that would constitute high crimes if done by our own forces.

This is a thread for the long term, the rule would apply to eras long after your country, or the US ceases to be, when the English language is fading, as we are considered ancient, but the legal concepts we developed are still around, being taught. How should the legal balance of nations uphold such concerns, realistically?

Shame you didn't get blown up along with the rest of the criminal thugs who destroyed the cradle of civilisation. Fuck you.

I did get blown up, but it only partially hit me because I was turning, trying to run over a dog. I wasn't sitting around mass aborting babies and setting up the the ideology for Wikileaks and the Arab Spromg at the time like you.

So poo on you you little Nazi.

Anyone with a serious perspective?

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:01 pm I did get blown up, but it only partially hit me because I was turning, trying to run over a dog. I wasn't sitting around mass aborting babies and setting up the the ideology for Wikileaks and the Arab Spromg at the time like you.

So poo on you you little Nazi.

Anyone with a serious perspective?

Not blown up enough obviously. You still get to spew your irrational filth in public. My profession isn't abortion doctor, but pro-women's-choice doctors are greatly to be admired for their bravery and respect for women. They certainly need those attributes in a country as full of hypocritical wank-jobs like you as yours is (although the vast majority of abortions are in the first few weeks, when only the abortion pill is required (which should be available over the counter btw) ), so it's basically only a period with a zygote rather than just the egg, and not the flying bits of arms, torsos and legs that your lying misogynistic kkkristian heroes claim is the case. Is your sperm the part that you find 'sacred'? ROFL! The brave kristian warrior who enjoys killing Arab dogs and thinks blowing up Arab children is a noble activity. What about all those zygotes that get flushed every day at fertility clinics? Think of all those sacred sperm going down the toilet.
And why would you try to run over a dog? If you are attempting satirical writing it isn't working.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:07 pm The answer is my proposed American Energy Party (AEP), the only actual political party on Earth (the rest of them merely being political affiliations) whose candidates and elected officials take their marching orders diretly from AEP headquarters. The AEP will be based in and take over a specific State with a modus operandi called the Champaign Sherry Principle, but its membership and influence will extend to the entire world via the internet.

I'll vote for it at the next election.

Another thread lost to drivel. I'll try again in a year.