by Simon 398 Replies latest social current
Simon,
You want instant justice, go to a totalitarian society, in our society, even in the military, defendants have rights...the process takes time...and as to nothing happening...ya mean the officers relieved of command and receiving Letters of Reprimand aren't enough for ya? ya want blood don't you.
Sorry Yeru. "Getting a letter" may mean somethnig to you but it means jack shit to me. My bank send's em to be all the time
SI,
Your career isn't ended by a letter from your bank, A letter of reprimand ends a military career.
But that is not punishment. Lots of people decide to leave the military.
For torturing, raping, abusing and / or murdering people they should face the same things that everyone else faces, ie. prison.
Anything less is a let-off IMO.
But that is not punishment. Lots of people decide to leave the military. And lots of people have dedicated their life to this, and a LOR ends that life.For torturing, raping, abusing and / or murdering people they should face the same things that everyone else faces, ie. prison.
Anything less is a let-off IMO.
Simon,
Those receiving the letter of reprimand are the commanders, who, as far as we know right now, are being reprimanded for not being aware of what's going on in their command, the perps who actually did the (still alleged in the legal sense) abuse are facing up to 20 years at hard labor, isn't that good enough, or would you prefer blood?
Hey, lets find out what all the fact are, first. Like the British incident, I correctly pointed out that I will hold judgement until all facts are out. All this "rush to judgement" is amusing.
british involved also?
Meanwhile, one of al-Sadr's senior aides told worshippers in Basra that anyone capturing a female British soldier can keep her as a slave. Waving an assault rifle, Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli also said anyone capturing a British soldier will receive about $350 and anyone killing one will receive $150.
He held what he said were documents and photographs of three Iraqi women being raped at British-run prisons in Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119292,00.html
aa
We have GOT to find a way to get Yeru to Eman's barbecue.
The American Press has to balance what they present as news, and what is sensationalism. Without the balance, they'll be no more credible than reality TV.
No one will ever be more supportive of a free press than me. As far as I'm concerned, the very fabric of democracy is contingent upon a press that is free to report, investigate and criticize. Without it, there would be no checks or balances. However; at one point, freedom of the press crosses a line where it supercedes journalism to become voyeurism (reality TV) camouflaged as news.
With the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, the media has crossed the line. It is remarkable how every visual news reporting service in print and television can't seem to publish and air too many images of humiliated Iraqi prisoners that make America and Americans look as bad as they possibly can. This is no longer news. The constant display of this sorry event has become nothing more than titillation with the promise of much more to come.
Where in all of this is there value to the people (you and me) who have a right to know? How am I served by seeing the same sordid images virtually every time I open a newspaper, magazine or turn on my televison set? There are several other factors in this orgy of news sensationalism that should also be very bothersome to anyone paying attention. Especially the media double standard!
The Arab/Islamists have been recorded on video and in photographs doing far worse to their victims. Yet; we are virtually always told by the same media serving us this daily diet of how horrible America is, that for the sensitivities of their viewers, they can't show the details of Arab (or other) atrocities because they are too graphic. Or they never make what happens on that side public.
A perfect case in point was the murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl. Even though the execution was carefully recorded by his Islamist murderers, it was too much to be shown on US or Canadian television. Why? Was the media worried, that showing the graphic murder of Pearl would somehow affect the way we viewed Islamists? Shouldn't we have had that option, the same way the rest of the world has the option to decide how to view the Americans?
The same can be said about hundreds (or more) of atrocities that make the Arab world look bad. Especially the murder of Palestinian Arabs at the hands of other Palestinian Arabs for the "crime" of maybe collaborating with the Israelis. It is no secret that the Palestinians take their victims out to places where they murder them in public view, and then either drag the body for all to see, or leave the corpse as a reminder. This the media doesn't show us. Why not?
During the days of Apartheid in South Africa, every image that could be shown to make the White government look bad was published and aired ad infinitum. However; the murders of dissenters to Winnie Mandela, by way of a burning tire placed around the neck of her victims, was mostly kept off the television screens and out of the publications. It is true that the "necklaces" were reported, but virtually never shown in their truly grotesque reality. Why not?
The same can be said about the slaughters in Rwanda. There are vaults of video and photographs that recorded the gruesome murders of some 800,000 people, and the dismemberment of many thousands more. Yet, according to the Western media, these images were too much to be shown. Why?
The media likes to have it both ways. Let's make the Americans and the Israelis look bad. But at the same time, let's not show the other side. To many "journalists", the argument for this double standard, is that we in the West must be held to a higher account. It sounds good. But in reality, it's a crock. If we want truth and integrity in journalism, there is only one standard that fits all.
What the American media (and others) are doing with the images of the Iraqi prisoner abuses is nothing more than self promotion and political posturing. It is simply to sell more publications, get more viewers, and inevitably get Bush. It is unfair, unprofessional, and in the final analysis detrimental to the well being of America, American troops in the field, and America's quest to bring a little democracy to the rest of the world.
Should the media have the right to do what they're doing? Absolutely! Should they be milking this event to the detriment of their country and the safety of their troops? Absolutely Not! But that won't stop them.
The good news, is that the American people are starting to get more pissed-off with the media, than they are with the Bush administration.
George W Bush went on television today (May 10, 2004) with a ringing endorsement for his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. And in the latest polls, it seems that more than 2/3rds of the American people agree with the President. If the media aren't real careful, people will be turning to the late night talk-show hosts and Conservative talk-radio for their daily dose of news.
In the meantime, remember what your parents told you: Don't believe most of what you hear. And only half of what you see.
Richie :*)
The Arab/Islamists have been recorded on video and in photographs doing far worse to their victims. Yet; we are virtually always told by the same media serving us this daily diet of how horrible America is, that for the sensitivities of their viewers, they can't show the details of Arab (or other) atrocities because they are too graphic. Or they never make what happens on that side public.
Didn't you know they have the right and duty to decide what we see and read and what we don't? We're the ignorant American public who'll be guided in whatever way THEY chose.
Honestly, it really reminds me so much of the JW's. They pick and choose what things they want to share/focus on. "Food at the proper time."
