Before and After Abu Ghraib, a U.S. Unit Abused Detainees

[dean moriaty]

yes

[sleeper]

this is rich:

Challenge for U.S.: Iraq's Handling of Detainees
By EDWARD WONG

CAMP JUSTICE, Iraq — The blindfolded detainees in the dingy hallway line up in groups of five for their turn to see a judge, like schoolchildren outside the principal's office.

Each meeting lasts a few minutes. The judge rules whether the detainee will go free, face trial or be held longer at this Iraqi base in northern Baghdad. But Firas Sabri Ali, squeezed into a fetid cell just hundreds of yards from the judge's office, has watched the inmates come and go for four months without his name ever being called.

He is jailed, along with two brothers and his father, solely as collateral, he says. The Iraqi forces are hunting another brother, suspected of being an insurgent. The chief American medic here says that he believes Mr. Ali to be innocent but that it is up to the Iraqi police to decide whether to free him. The Iraqis acknowledged that they were holding Mr. Ali until they captured his brother.

"I hope they catch him, because then I'll be released," said Mr. Ali, 38, a soft-spoken man who until his arrest worked for a British security company to support his wife and three sons. "They said, 'You must wait.' I told them: 'There's no law. This is injustice.' "

Such is the challenge facing the American military as it tries to train the Iraqi security forces to respect the rule of law. Three years after the invasion of Iraq, American troops are no longer simply teaching counterinsurgency techniques; they are trying to school the Iraqis in battling a Sunni-led rebellion without resorting to the tactics of a "dirty war," involving abductions, torture and murder.

The legacy of Abu Ghraib hampers the American military. But the need to instill respect for human rights has gained a new urgency as Iraq grapples with the threat of full-scale civil war and continuing sectarian bloodletting. It is not uncommon now for dozens of bodies, with hands bound and gunshot wounds to the heads, to surface across Baghdad on any given day.

The Americans are pushing the Shiite-dominated Iraqi forces to ask judges for arrest warrants, restrain their use of force and ensure detainees' rights.

The Iraqi officers at this base, the headquarters of the Public Order Forces, a police paramilitary division with a history of torture and abuse, are gradually changing their behavior, American military advisers say. Cases of detainee abuse have declined in recent months, they say.

But detainees can still languish for months without any hope of a legal appeal because of a shortage of judges or, in the case of Mr. Ali, an unwillingness by the Iraqi police to allow detainees to see a judge. Overcrowding is chronic, because the Justice Ministry has been slow in building new prisons.

"The tradition in this country of a law enforcement agency that had absolute power over people, we've got to break them of that," said Maj. Andrew Creel, the departing joint operations officer here. "I think it'll take years. You can't change a cultural mind-set overnight."

Control of the Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, has become one of the stumbling blocks in forming the new national government, with Sunni Arab politicians accusing Shiite leaders of running militias and death squads from the ministry.

Last fall the American military raided at least two police prisons where it said detainees had been abused. This year's State Department human rights report noted that the police, especially the paramilitary forces, had been accused of torture and killings.

Those forces number 17,500. This base — in the heart of Kadhimiya, just blocks away from a golden-domed Shiite shrine — serves as the headquarters for one of the two major paramilitary branches, the 7,700-member Public Order Forces. An 11-member American military team began advising the Iraqi commanders here last spring. It moved into the base in October and is now handing over its duties to a new team.

Here, 650 prisoners are packed into four spartan rooms. They complain of a lack of food and regular access to showers and toilets. A foul odor wafts from each holding pen. To cope with the overcrowded conditions, the police converted the dining hall into a cell; the three other areas were originally built as storage rooms.

Camp Justice was never meant to hold prisoners for more than a few weeks. Iraqi law says prisoners to be tried are to be transferred to a Justice Ministry penitentiary after interrogation. But the ministry has been unable to build enough jails to keep pace with arrests. It has 10 centers across Iraq, which hold 7,500 detainees, and an additional 7 are expected to be built, a ministry spokesman said.

So the detainee population at temporary police prisons like the one here, separate from those of the Justice Ministry, has ballooned to more than 10,000 in Baghdad alone, spread across a shadowy network of about 10 centers, an Interior Ministry official said.

That has ignited concerns among American officials. But Col. Gordon Davis Jr., the head of Camp Justice's departing advisory team, praised the Iraqi commander here, Maj. Gen. Mehdi Sabih Hashem al-Garawi, for showing a willingness to embrace human rights. The general has, for instance, assigned the Iraqi division's only medic to look after the detainees.

"I won't say he's gone 180, but he's realized that the best way of getting information is not to beat or abuse detainees," Colonel Davis said as he stood in the operations room, the walls plastered with maps of Baghdad.

"The current generation has been brought up with a certain code and a certain tolerance for abuse," he said in another interview. "They've got to be constantly worked on."

The academy for recruits to the Public Order Forces has increased the time spent on human rights training to 20 hours from about eight last October, the colonel said.

Lt. Col. Dhia al-Shammari, the chief interrogator and a supervisor of detainee operations, said: "Beating or insults, any policeman can do. Professionals don't use them. This is not allowed, and I myself reject it."

Certain Public Order units have had fearsome reputations, and residents of Baghdad and nearby towns have complained of abuse and torture. From April to June of last year, American advisers found prisoners with bruises at the headquarters of the Second Brigade every couple of weeks, Colonel Davis said.

When confronted with incidents of abuse, the colonel said, the Iraqi brigade commander told the Americans, "Are you more worried about our enemies or about us?"

That officer was replaced at the urging of the Americans. So was a commander of the Third Brigade, in Salman Pak. Prisoner abuse has been relatively rare here at the division level, the advisers say, and became even scarcer after the American team moved in last fall. Before that, the advisers had been living at an American base. If the Americans saw a bruised prisoner back then, they often kept quiet for fear of alienating the Iraqi officers, said Master Sgt. Joseph Kaiser, a medic who regularly examines the detainees.

Now the Americans can be more direct, advisers say. The Americans have trained a 32-man guard force. Sergeant Kaiser helps supervise the Iraqi medic who examines the detainees daily.

The Iraqi division's intelligence chief "said we have to treat detainees, since they're subjected to visits by the press and human rights groups," said the medic, Hazem, 32, who declined to give his full name for security reasons. "He said to me, 'Your main job is to treat the patients, not to check if they're terrorists.' If I know they're terrorists and I'm told to kill them, I'd kill them. But I do what my job requires."

Checking on the Detainees

On a balmy afternoon, as Sergeant Kaiser walked up to a holding pen to make one of his daily health checks, a blindfolded man in a brown leather jacket squatted outside the metal door. The man was awaiting interrogation, said several guards with Kalashnikov rifles.

The guards went into the cell and brought out Mr. Ali, the man whose brother is being hunted by the Iraqi police. Dressed in a blue and pink tracksuit and a black ski cap, he shuffled up to the sergeant. Because Mr. Ali speaks English, he serves as an unofficial cellblock leader.

"How are the people inside?" Sergeant Kaiser asked.

"We need to have more food," Mr. Ali said. Mr. Ali said he dreaded the idea of American advisers leaving this base one day. "That's bad," he said, shaking his head. "That's very bad. We need the sergeant or another American officer here. When we see them we say, 'Please stay here.' "

A reporter asked Mr. Ali whether detainees had been abused or tortured. "Don't ask these questions," he said, lowering his voice. "You know that."

Sergeant Kaiser said that since September, when he joined the advisory team, he had found only "a few" cases of abuse. He recalled two that he had written up. Prisoners have been brought in with baton marks, he said, but they might have been resisting arrest.

Sergeant Kaiser and Mr. Ali stepped into the cell. Some sunlight streamed in through three small windows near the roof. Three ceiling fans whirred. The 140 detainees mostly sat up on blankets; there was not enough room for them to lie down without touching each other. By the door, one detainee used an electric hair clipper to shave the head of another. A man with glasses sat reading the Koran.

The detainees complained that family visits occurred only once every couple of months. The sick lay on blankets. Sergeant Kaiser gave medicine for diarrhea to a man in gray robes and tablets for oral fungus to an inmate with yellowing teeth. He poked at the torso of a man with rib pains.

"Some are innocent," said a guard, Sabah Ali, 21, as he looked around the room. "But some have given their confessions and they are guilty. Those who are innocent, we'll release them."

But those detainees sometimes end up waiting months before being freed, because the division prefers to release detainees in large groups.

Prisoners from the division's field units are funneled to this base "so you can exploit intelligence and take any opportunity for abuse out of the field," said Lt. Col. John Shattuck, the deputy commander of the advisory team.

Seeking Arrest Warrants

Since his appointment to Camp Justice in February, Judge Majid has come for several hours almost every day. He is a nervous man dressed in a dark suit who prefers that his full name not be printed.

Detainees are marched from cells in groups of five to see him in an office. The ringing of his cellphone can keep him up at all hours — he is expected to be on call around the clock to approve an arrest warrant if the Iraqi forces suddenly come up someone they want to detain.

Arrest warrants were mandated by Interior Ministry officials starting last July to provide some accountability, especially among the paramilitary forces. It is unclear, though, how closely field units stick to the requirement.

The Iraqi operations officer at Camp Justice says warrants are needed only for apprehending people on the Interior Ministry's wanted list, not for instances in which the police may be responding to a report of suspicious activity.

Colonel Davis says the warrant policy has had some effect. Because of it, and because the Iraqis are improving their intelligence gathering, the Public Order Forces no longer round up hundreds of people on each raid, he said. On a typical operation, he added, they may take in a dozen.

After being brought here, the detainees are fingerprinted and have their retinas scanned. A photograph is taken, partly to record their condition at the time of arrest. The Americans have asked the Iraqis to deliver a daily report accounting for all detainees held throughout the division; one recent printout listed 896.

The law says detainees are entitled to have their cases reviewed by a judge every two weeks, but there are not enough judges, said Colonel Shammari, the chief interrogator.

The main question, one impossible to answer for now, is whether respect for rule of law will become deeply rooted in the Iraqi forces, despite a tradition of tyranny in this country, as the guerrilla war continues to rage.

Outside one of the prison cells, a blue-uniformed guard, Salim Abdul Hassan, 35, watched as his colleagues led blindfolded detainees to a row of outdoor toilets.

He said that the American training had been of great help, but that "it would be much better if the Iraqis worked on their own without the Americans."

"We wouldn't be tied down," he said. "Three-quarters of the terrorists ask for the help of the Americans. They want to be in the care of the Americans, not the Iraqis."

Khalid al-Ansary and Max Becherer contributed reporting for this article.

it brings up an interesting point, which is that americas moral authority is absolutely shot and that they cant even really convincingly tell someone to stop torturing, mistreating, and secretly detaining without trial or charge someone who they deem to be -- even as the iraqis say -- "terrorist." its such an fascinating little parallel. the iraqi police, and their many, many constituent militias, are all using what the article correctly characterized as "dirty war" tactics and the US can clearly see why thats wrong and has to be stopped, yet at the same time the americans themselves hardly differ in any substantial way from those same practices, apart from scale. and even that, you dont know. its like a convicted murderer trying to credibly lecture a hitman on the heinousness of his crimes. but they do differ in one other way, which is that americans are held to a much higher standard that iraqis, who were born into and know nothing but iron-fisted rule and corruption. the iraqis at least have an excuse for their horrible excesses.

but the point is that the US is setting untenable precedents in its wake in this "war" and this is just one example of how these things will come home to roost. its undercutting american credibility to such ridiculous extents. thats a real worry not only for americans but for the world, i think. its probably gone for good

some key quotes, i think

"We need to have more food," Mr. Ali said. Mr. Ali said he dreaded the idea of American advisers leaving this base one day. "That's bad," he said, shaking his head. "That's very bad. We need the sergeant or another American officer here. When we see them we say, 'Please stay here.' "

When confronted with incidents of abuse, the colonel said, the Iraqi brigade commander told the Americans, "Are you more worried about our enemies or about us?"

[sleeper]

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think the benefits have been, in fact, very few, beyond the obvious one: the removal of Saddam Hussein. But we have undermined our international legitimacy. That's a very high cost to a superpower.

We have destroyed our credibility; no one believes anything the president says anymore. We have tarnished our morality with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. These are phenomenal costs. And there's, of course, blood and money and tens of thousands of Iraqi killed.

definitely a very high cost. i dont think its possible to overestimate that. this a consequence of the war that isnt so visible or flashy, but is real, big, and long term. legitimacy and credibility. those are near-priceless things to have. theyre certainly of much greater importance than some would have you believe. the worst part is that losing it was all so senseless too. it didnt even have to be this way. it was the incomprehensibly gratuitous behaviour on the part of the bush administration that brought it about. just plain stupid, stupid decisions -- where decisions were even actually made, that is. what tactless morons there are running things

[sleeper]

fines range from 35 cents to a live goat

[DeviousJ]

Did you hear about that guy, apparently the one who was famously photographed with the black hood standing on the box, trying to do a publicity tour around the world to speak about his ordeal? I saw a report about him on the news a few weeks back, but it's hard to find any real information on the internet. I think he was a lawyer or something

[sleeper]

yeah i read about him, i can link you to the nyt's article on that guy if you want

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0311-01.htm

the original is on that pay part of the nyt's site

but there was an unfortunate mini scandal with that: that guy has been saying hes the guy in the photo for a long time and vanity fair and some other sources did pieces on him. the times then did a story on him and questions were raised about if it was really him. apparently the one in the famous image actually isnt him. the guy isnt an impostor or something, he verifiably was there at that prison, the US's own records show, and has, you know, the scars to show it, but the idea is that that just isnt him in that exact photo. he maintains that he was put in that position and had photo taken of him, and i dont doubt that he did, but not in that particular photo. its a really inconsequential issue but you shouldve seen how rabidly people on the right came down on the times for it. the times published a brief apology for it and i checked some of the backlinks to that page and there were all these blogs saying like "the nyt's is at it again, lying through its teeth..." and so on. its pathetic. but its interesting because the paper, being as closely scrutinized as it is, has pretty much the exact same amount of errors as it does scandals. an error that wouldnt merit a peep from some other paper, rightly so, is scandalous there. which is good, it keeps them in check. but im just saying that there are like 4 instances like this a year, tiny or large, and that just shows what a high level of a quality the paper is kept at

[DeviousJ]

Yeah, it seems that whenever people hear things that they don't want to be true, they'll jump for anything to discredit it - even if it's some tiny, technical detail - and act as though the entire case or account relies on that one piece of information for its validity. It's cognative dissonance taken to a real extreme. I think the more embarrassing or difficult these things are to deal with, if they actually end up being true, the more angry people become in their denials and the more ridiculously unbalanced their reactions seem compared to the one point they actually address head on. It's like when someone's emotionally unstable and they open the fridge, see the milk's run out and start shouting 'WHERE IS THE FUCKING MILK?!!!' and end up breaking everything in sight. This ain't about the milk, man

Were you able to watch that Question Time broadcast I linked you to, by the way? I was wondering if it's actually available outside the UK

[sleeper]

yes and they take that logic one step further: one inconsequential flaw discredits an entire article, and that same one article discredits an entire paper. there is specifc fallacy for this, im sure, but i dont know what. its kind of straw man-ish, because theyre taking one aspect, its weakest, and acting like its indicative of the whole (and acting like a refutation of that one weak point counts as a refutation of the whole) but it seems like theres something, a fallacy, more tailored for something like this. maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample
the spotlight one

i used to post on this really overzealously conservative forum for the fun and experience of it (where everyone spent, without really any exaggeration, probably 99% of their time talking about how much they hated these mysterious "liberals") and i asked them all once, after they were bashing the times again, who read the paper and not a single one actually read the paper. not just once, but ever. not even an article. its that kind of thinking that makes me lose my mind.

yeah definitely. it becomes personal. its not longer an assualt an idea, its assault on them because they identify with whatever idea. i see stuff like that all the time. i do it too sometimes though, but in a different way because i dont really identify with too much. some ideas i really find totally repulsive and cant help but feel some kind of deeper affront to. like ive been saying a bit rececntly, this kind of cynical attitude on things. that really makes me freak out

i checked out that link right as i was reading it to see if it worked and it did, but i just totally forgot about it since then and havent watched anything from it. should i just watch the latest episode or a certain one? ill watch one today and get back to you

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by sleeper

yes and they take that logic one step further: one inconsequential flaw discredits an entire article, and that same one article discredits an entire paper. there is specifc fallacy for this, im sure, but i dont know what. its kind of straw man-ish, because theyre taking one aspect, its weakest, and acting like its indicative of the whole (and acting like a refutation of that one weak point counts as a refutation of the whole) but it seems like theres something, a fallacy, more tailored for something like this. maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample
the spotlight one

But I think you guys are just showing the opposite and equally inappropriate reaction: instead of overblowing errors in reporting that you disagree with the message of, you tend to disregard or minimize errors in the reporting you tend to believe. Thus all this talk of "inconsequential" flaws. You'll sing an aspect of a story to high heaven, and then when some question is raised about it, you pretend that it wasn't that big a deal and that the story is probably still true even without the evidence. The guy who claims he was in the Abu Ghraib picture wasn't really in it? "Oh well, there's probably another picture somewhere that does have him in it. No big deal. Still no question whatsoever about this guy's credibility! Nope, none at all!" CBS presents fake documents showing that Bush got preferential treatment? "So what? There are probably real documents out there that say the same thing the fake ones said. Doesn't cast any doubt on the story as a whole at all! No sirree!"

Seems to me that liberals are just as succeptible to narrowly focusing in on the things that are favorable to them in a story and carrying them out far past what reason will support as conservatives are.

[DeviousJ]

I think it's this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections

It's like adding weight to this one aspect of the article, to the point where it's portrayed as being the entire basis of the thing, and then knocking that way and saying 'this entire article is flawed! LIES!' And yeah, once the paper's discredited, well obviously everyone who's ever agreed with anything in that paper is discredited and blablabla. It's just bizarre how vehement people can be though - like if you were there in person, they'd be stabbing a finger at the bit that claims he was in that specific photo, shouting 'LOOK at THIS! LOOK! NO DON'T READ THE REST, LOOK!! LIES!' It's pretty childish actually, reminds me of school

You know, I'd like to see if that's reflected in a similar, liberal-themed forum. We've probably all heard that liberal types tend to be represented more in academia, but obviously that means those people are more likely to read the paper, just because they have an education or are more interested in following the news. I'm not saying that liberals are all intelligent educated people and that conservatives are all dumbass hicks, but there does seem to be a skew in that sense. Man I'm gonna get shouted at for this.

Actually they apparently have like a 'best of' clips reel thing on there now, so that might be worth looking at - I haven't seen it myself. I haven't seen this week's show either so I don't know how good that is - the last one was pretty nice though. Someone started a spiel, saying all these positive things and appealing to emotions when it didn't really have anything to do with the question, and the the host interrupted and said 'yes, but so what?' Oh man, they were talking about this leaflet from years back where the government had encouraged people to invest in works pensions, saying they were safe and so on, and people lost a lot of money with them. The minister for pensions was on and she said 'well if I had a copy of the leaflet here I could show you where we stated the risks' and the host produced one and offered it to her. Preparation defends against bullshit, yes

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Corganist

But I think you guys are just showing the opposite and equally inappropriate reaction: instead of overblowing errors in reporting that you disagree with the message of, you tend to disregard or minimize errors in the reporting you tend to believe. Thus all this talk of "inconsequential" flaws. You'll sing an aspect of a story to high heaven, and then when some question is raised about it, you pretend that it wasn't that big a deal and that the story is probably still true even without the evidence. The guy who claims he was in the Abu Ghraib picture wasn't really in it? "Oh well, there's probably another picture somewhere that does have him in it. No big deal. Still no question whatsoever about this guy's credibility! Nope, none at all!" CBS presents fake documents showing that Bush got preferential treatment? "So what? There are probably real documents out there that say the same thing the fake ones said. Doesn't cast any doubt on the story as a whole at all! No sirree!"

Seems to me that liberals are just as succeptible to narrowly focusing in on the things that are favorable to them in a story and carrying them out far past what reason will support as conservatives are.

i favour reacting to errors or wrongdoings in a way that is commensurate with the actual wrongness of the act, thats proportional, and i dont think ive done otherwise. now that thats out of the way: with that abu ghraib picture that flaw was indeed inconsequential in the scheme of things. not only in itself but, again, relative to the reaction it produced by some against the times. (this doesnt really mitigate the error too much, but its important to note that the times were like 4th in line in publishing about this guy, but were the only ones receiving criticism. again, rightly so, because theyre held to a higher standard, but just to put it into pespective). the error in itself didnt really change much at all. as the article said, his being at the prison and being tortured is not even in question. the CPA's own document say as much, and the article is about his experience there and activist work afterwards. the image is just what makes him more notable than any other former tortured prisoner, and, like the articles headline said, makes him just a symbol. in other words, he stands for all the other prisoners there and their legacy. the fact that that isnt him in that specific picture doesnt take that away.
now obviously you cant just 100% take his word on it when he says that he was also placed in that position and photographed, but thats where your own personal judgment comes in and accepting that that was likely the case is a leap of faith i think is well within reason to take. (fucking hell, dont lunge at the words "leap of faith." i can just see it now: "leap of faith eh? so we should all just treat questions about factual claims like a religious person would? just as a "faith"? im sorry sleeper but that just isnt sufficient, even for you..." and on and on. god)

You'll sing an aspect of a story to high heaven, and then when some question is raised about it, you pretend that it wasn't that big a deal and that the story is probably still true even without the evidence

the story, on the whole, was as true as any other, but one claim of it wasnt. im not excusing that error at all, the times shouldve quadruple checked every aspect of it like theyre known for doing, but that part doesnt touch on the other claims made in it (unless youre suggesting that that one error is indicative of the quality of the whole article, which is, at best, unfair considering the general quality of the paper and, at worst, just an undiluted fallacy, as defined in my post above) so dont talk about "the story" as a whole, talk about that claim -- that that one picture depicted him -- becasue the story still exist outside of the claim

youve got that CBS thing way wrong. the issue was that that one erroneous report wrongly wiped out the credibility of the claim that it was making, that bush dodged service, as opposed to just the evidence that was being used in that instance. im not even specifically saying anyone is to blame for that outcome (although i personally wouldnt doubt that it was engineered the way it was) just that thats what ended up being the net result, and that that is illogical and should not have been the case.
this is elementary logic and its getting pretty tiresome having to start from the most rudimentary aspects of a debate with you to make any progress. making a claim is one thing. presenting evidence for that claim is another. one doesnt necessarily discredit the other. a faulty piece of evidence, unless its the only possible evidence one could ever present for soemthing, unless it was the lynch-pin of the entire claim, doesnt render the claim faulty. the question of a claims validity doesnt become isntantly resolved when one faulty piece of evidence is presented for it. thats like saying this (i forget what field of law youre going into but ill just assume criminal):

The Rt. Hon. Corgano, practitioner of law: "john murdered stacy. here, members of the jury, is the testimony of an elderly neighbour who saw him at the scene at the time"
old lady: i saw him at the scene at the time
other lawyer (me): objection, the neighbour is clinically blind and schizophrenic
Corgano: ohshit
judge: well then! case closed, john is innocent, stacy is still alive, im a fag, etc

YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

I think it's this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections

It's like adding weight to this one aspect of the article, to the point where it's portrayed as being the entire basis of the thing, and then knocking that way and saying 'this entire article is flawed! LIES!' And yeah, once the paper's discredited, well obviously everyone who's ever agreed with anything in that paper is discredited and blablabla. It's just bizarre how vehement people can be though - like if you were there in person, they'd be stabbing a finger at the bit that claims he was in that specific photo, shouting 'LOOK at THIS! LOOK! NO DON'T READ THE REST, LOOK!! LIES!' It's pretty childish actually, reminds me of school

You know, I'd like to see if that's reflected in a similar, liberal-themed forum. We've probably all heard that liberal types tend to be represented more in academia, but obviously that means those people are more likely to read the paper, just because they have an education or are more interested in following the news. I'm not saying that liberals are all intelligent educated people and that conservatives are all dumbass hicks, but there does seem to be a skew in that sense. Man I'm gonna get shouted at for this.

Actually they apparently have like a 'best of' clips reel thing on there now, so that might be worth looking at - I haven't seen it myself. I haven't seen this week's show either so I don't know how good that is - the last one was pretty nice though. Someone started a spiel, saying all these positive things and appealing to emotions when it didn't really have anything to do with the question, and the the host interrupted and said 'yes, but so what?' Oh man, they were talking about this leaflet from years back where the government had encouraged people to invest in works pensions, saying they were safe and so on, and people lost a lot of money with them. The minister for pensions was on and she said 'well if I had a copy of the leaflet here I could show you where we stated the risks' and the host produced one and offered it to her. Preparation defends against bullshit, yes

yeah that definitely could be it. that fallacy also covers the kind of diversionary intent of the whole thing. i tell you "bush just skinned 10 kittens alive, its all over the news!" and then you could say "actually it was 9. see here we go again. typical lying and inflating." and then the whole discussion twists onto whether or not i am in fact a liar, and the other instances where i may or may not have lied, and so on, as opposed to the grossly more important fact that bush eats babies. this is done on all sides, surely, but i think the right definitely has the majority claim on it

reminds me of bill o'rielly actually. thats who i thought you were talkign about while i was reading that

well i dont doubt that it happens everywere, by everyone. no one has exclusive claim to this kind of "shoot first ask questions later" attitude, but i do think people on the left, if we want to play with this "left-right" worldview for a minute, are more skeptical of their own knowledge claims and willing to explore issues from the other side than those on the right. i hate talking like this, making these kind of left-right generalization, because its a sure slope to pettiness and a hopelessly clouded debate, but for the sake of practicality ill continue. i mean that board actually used to link all the time to their leftist counterpart board and make fun of them and whatever, and they have little badges saying "i was banned from x" as like a source of pride. i went there and it was pretty silly and partisan but they certainly arent as hostile to opposing viewpoints as people on the conservative board were. genuinely hostile. i know the limitations of taking two boards as evidence for the "two sides", ugh, but you know what i mean. patterns can be seen and arent totally without truth.

that sounds great, ill watch some tonight.

so tell me about blair a bit. i hear hes really under it now. theres that scandal about the trading of honorary titles for money (talk about childishness) and his rival is sharpening his knives and shit. whats that all about

[DeviousJ]

Yeah - that's another thing that was on that show, basically any donations to political parties have to be publicly disclosed, but these guys gave loans of several million each or so, and since they were loans they weren't technically donations, and they did it this way so they nobody would have known about it - except the whole thing was blown up and made public. The big deal is that they all happened to be made peers after their loans, which isn't just a title, they actually get a seat in the House of Lords. Oh, and the government's treasurer didn't have any clue about this, these large cash injections had been made without the guy in charge of the money actually knowing about it. Obviously all fair and above board, and nothing to worry about, no sir.

Blair's on his way out though, you can see him getting visibly tired. His heart's just not in it, and I think he's getting a little belligerent. He just don't give a fuck no mo'. But the other two main political parties have new leaders, they're fresh-faced and upcoming, and basically they have more energy it seems to cause trouble about these things.

Did I tell you about some news report where Blair was doing one of those photo-op things, and he was at some hospital and a nurse gave him a checkup? She was all like 'you're in good shape, your blood pressure's fine' and he gave this look, completely vapid with the barest attempt at a smile, and said 'just as well really' with completely tired disinterest. I mean he was deadpanning which was kinda funny in itself, but he completely meant it too which was hilarious

EDIT: Here's that show actually (link's at the top right, Gateshead)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...me/4815202.stm

[sleeper]

i heard a bbc radio news program a few days ago and it talked about how the labour party came to power partly through their "anti-sleaze" image or platform or whatever and now the roles are reversed and the conservatives are doing the same, correct? so now the labour party is weakened and the other parties are lining up? i know the third party is something of a distant third, right?

this seems to kind of parallel the course of things here in canada. the liberals (equivalent of labour) were in power for many years (much longer than the labour though, since the early 90's) and have just racked up enough scandals and enough of a perception of staleness and corruption that they lost power to the conservatives. the point is that our third party made some ok gains but didnt take power and the votes taken away from the labour that went to the third party indirectly helped the conservatives win. thats what i mean. im not saying thats wrong in itself or that people should have strategically voted, im just pointing out the type of situation. that the dominating party is done, change is needed, but the wrong kind of change will inevitably happen due to the existing political dynamic. is this a correct characterization? what kind of prospect does the third party have for the next election? or are the labour not actually that weak. is the conservative candidate moderate or is he another fucking thatcher or something?


haha hes suicidal

[DeviousJ]

I was looking for a video clip of him on this crappy evening chat show, I probably told you about it before (I couldn't believe he was there, then when he did the quiz part it just reached new heights of surreality). I found this instead, which sums it up pretty well

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/colum...472951,00.html

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by sleeper

i heard a bbc radio news program a few days ago and it talked about how the labour party came to power partly through their "anti-sleaze" image or platform or whatever and now the roles are reversed and the conservatives are doing the same, correct? so now the labour party is weakened and the other parties are lining up? i know the third party is something of a distant third, right?

this seems to kind of parallel the course of things here in canada. the liberals (equivalent of labour) were in power for many years (much longer than the labour though, since the early 90's) and have just racked up enough scandals and enough of a perception of staleness and corruption that they lost power to the conservatives. the point is that our third party made some ok gains but didnt take power and the votes taken away from the labour that went to the third party indirectly helped the conservatives win. thats what i mean. im not saying thats wrong in itself or that people should have strategically voted, im just pointing out the type of situation. that the dominating party is done, change is needed, but the wrong kind of change will inevitably happen due to the existing political dynamic. is this a correct characterization? what kind of prospect does the third party have for the next election? or are the labour not actually that weak. is the conservative candidate moderate or is he another fucking thatcher or something?


haha hes suicidal

Well, thing is Labour when they first came to power were much more socialist. They used to be a real working class party and then they kinda recreated themselves as 'New Labour' which was more dynamic and etc., but as time's gone on they've started sliding further right and becoming closer to what the conservatives were when Labour took power. The conservatives now are more moderate I think, their new leader is younger and was featured in some 'most attractive men' list or something - at the moment really they're focusing on an image more than anything, so it's kinda hard to tell, but he definitely seems more moderate.

The third party is the Liberal Democrats, and they're definitely making up ground - or they were anyway, there was another leadership change there (remember the drunk guy?) but hopefully they'll continue to gain popularity. They've always been that third wheel, in the sense that trying to vote out one party means having to vote for the other main party otherwise the votes end up 'lost', but they did make gains last time and that just makes them a more viable choice, which is good. With the Conservatives going more moderate though, I reckon many people will see them as equivalent alternatives to a degree.

Speaking of question time, maybe I'm just PART OF THE LEFT or something but I usually really like the Lib Dems on that show. Generally it's like this: Conservatives are kinda stuffy and complain about Labour a lot to score points, Labour are more normal but tend to avoid things that might make their government look bad (and complain about the previous Conservative government to score points), and the Lib Dems are actually likeable people who have their own opinions and avoid being partisan about things. Like that Baroness on the show I linked - Labour woman waxes lyrical about how important the children are, every single one of them, oh god the children - Lib Dem woman visibly rolls her eyes in disgust

[sleeper]

theme music is so good hhaha. and that big question mark just sitting there in the middle is hilarious

the whole thing was really really good. its so nice and intelligent. how refreshing for something like this. i skimmed through the first part, about that muslim woman, and i saw one guy in the audience freak out and start spitting but then when the panelist tried to asnwer the host interrupted him, "yes yes, youve said that already, youve made that point" and cut him off. that was cool. and theyre all so articulate and witty too. even the audience, which is rare. the old guy in the middle was great and adorable. i dont know who he is but just the way he talked and his place amongst the newer generations was funny. like the grandpa at some family picnic or soemthing

but now that i saw it it reminds me of this show we used to have here on CBC that was cancelled. it was the same idea but smaller and really ugly. the automatic tone everyone took up was scornful and all these did was attack, not discuss. the audience was even worse with this, except they made no sense half of the time. it was total shit. that show seems like refined or something. it has some experience dealing with crazy guests and bloated panelists. it was just really relaxing to watch and they all brought up some good points

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

I was looking for a video clip of him on this crappy evening chat show, I probably told you about it before (I couldn't believe he was there, then when he did the quiz part it just reached new heights of surreality). I found this instead, which sums it up pretty well

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/colum...472951,00.html

haha dont come on the "sodding" show. what colouful slang you guys use. you daft cow.
the entire article was sharp and hilarious too. what a delightful little world you guys live in. its just novelty value for me, but good novelty value at that

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by sleeper

haha dont come on the "sodding" show. what colouful slang you guys use. you daft cow.
the entire article was sharp and hilarious too. what a delightful little world you guys live in. its just novelty value for me, but good novelty value at that

"His usual arsenal was quite useless in this setting, perhaps because it is rather difficult to fall back on sophistry when being asked to guess the vegetable being described (it was a courgette)."

I love that bit

The Basic Instinct bit was incredible too - I remember seeing it and hearing the caller describe Sharon Stone spreading her legs, and you could SEE on his face he knew exactly what the answer was, but he didn't want to admit it, and eventually he offered this faux-unsure 'uhh... Sharon Stone?' like 'I don't know guys, total guess honestly'. Maybe his mother was watching

[sleeper]

yeah i liked that one too. the author was really clever. you read the guardian daily right? you must jump first thing every day to her columns. im a fan of sarah lyall myself, if you recall, but everyone is free to like your own english journalist.

getting sloshed is cricket, deviousj. sarah could take your lass on no problem. nothing hotter than two pasty englishwomen fighting it out in a tub of jelly

[DeviousJ]

Nah, not every day - I don't actually know about people's columns or anything, I don't really follow the people behind them much. I probably should, just to get an idea of whose work I'm reading. I haven't even looked at the last copy I bought, I should get on that.

That last bit read like when the Simpsons has English dialogue

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Well, thing is Labour when they first came to power were much more socialist. They used to be a real working class party and then they kinda recreated themselves as 'New Labour' which was more dynamic and etc., but as time's gone on they've started sliding further right and becoming closer to what the conservatives were when Labour took power. The conservatives now are more moderate I think, their new leader is younger and was featured in some 'most attractive men' list or something - at the moment really they're focusing on an image more than anything, so it's kinda hard to tell, but he definitely seems more moderate.

The third party is the Liberal Democrats, and they're definitely making up ground - or they were anyway, there was another leadership change there (remember the drunk guy?) but hopefully they'll continue to gain popularity. They've always been that third wheel, in the sense that trying to vote out one party means having to vote for the other main party otherwise the votes end up 'lost', but they did make gains last time and that just makes them a more viable choice, which is good. With the Conservatives going more moderate though, I reckon many people will see them as equivalent alternatives to a degree.

Speaking of question time, maybe I'm just PART OF THE LEFT or something but I usually really like the Lib Dems on that show. Generally it's like this: Conservatives are kinda stuffy and complain about Labour a lot to score points, Labour are more normal but tend to avoid things that might make their government look bad (and complain about the previous Conservative government to score points), and the Lib Dems are actually likeable people who have their own opinions and avoid being partisan about things. Like that Baroness on the show I linked - Labour woman waxes lyrical about how important the children are, every single one of them, oh god the children - Lib Dem woman visibly rolls her eyes in disgust

i thought they named themselves "new labour" before they came to power. like that was part of their campaign, to distance themselves from their old party that was ravaged by thatcher. are you talking about when tony blair first came to power in the 90's? i dont know what going on. i read a bit about this beforee but i forget

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d_Cameron_.jpg

i think hes pretty hideous, i have to say. looks like hes made out of plastic. the coifed hair and everything. repulsive!

i just checked out the election results from last year and its almost identical to the ones we had here. the liberal democrats were at like 22% (popular vote), labour at 35% and conservatives at 32%. so this looks good on paper, but, with out situation, its deceiving because our third party probably wont go any higher for some time. that isnt to say it couldnt, but just that the status quo would have to alter considerable.

is the new leader of the liberal democrats good? i always used to think people overemphasized individuals in politics but im starting to change on that. at least with campaigns and the like. a really, really strong leader could move mountains and erase everything

i liked the smaller guy. not the guy with the big white hair and not the guy that was kind of balding on the left but the little blond guy. who was that? he made some good points i thought. i couldnt read the little titles they put up on the screen because it was too grainy
thats pretty much the same thing here except out third party (im tired of saying that. theyre the new democrats and are politically similar to the liberal democrats id assume. i voted for them in the past two elections) is headed by a guy whos pretty vicious in those debates and things. i mean hes always on the attack and always negative, not that hes cruel or anything. i like him a lot but his political performance is sometimes below par

[DeviousJ]

Yeah, New Labour was their kind of rebranding effort for the election where they came to power. That guy does have a lot of smarm about him, but he's popular with the housewives I guess. As for the new liberal guy, he seems like he's on top of things and he might do pretty well, it's a little early to say I think. I'm optimistic I guess. I think leaders definitely are important in politics though, not necessarily as an end but definitely as a means. For the majority of people I think the leader of each party pretty much is the party. It's kinda dumb (and it's why the ad hominem crap tends to work quite well unfortunately) but hey. And in fairness, these guys are potentially going to lead the country, so some of the personal aspect definitely applies.

I think you're watching a newer show on there, I was talking about last week's I think - I haven't seen the latest one. Usually on the web page it tells you who's on each week, or at the start of the show the host will say the names while the camera shows them, if you care that much

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by sleeper

the error in itself didnt really change much at all. as the article said, his being at the prison and being tortured is not even in question. the CPA's own document say as much, and the article is about his experience there and activist work afterwards. the image is just what makes him more notable than any other former tortured prisoner, and, like the articles headline said, makes him just a symbol. in other words, he stands for all the other prisoners there and their legacy. the fact that that isnt him in that specific picture doesnt take that away.
now obviously you cant just 100% take his word on it when he says that he was also placed in that position and photographed, but thats where your own personal judgment comes in and accepting that that was likely the case is a leap of faith i think is well within reason to take.

The error goes straight to the guy's credibility, so I don't think its nearly as inconsquential as you make it out to be. Yes, the CPA said he was in the prison, but that's all we know from the article. We don't know that he got tortured. (And really, isn't "torture" the main story here?) All we have to back that claim up is his word...but wait a minute, he said he was the guy in that photograph too! Maybe we should think twice before taking this guy's word about anything? Granted, that doesn't make the guy's story false by any means. Nor does it make the Abu Ghraib story go away. But it does call up a lot of questions about the propriety of making this guy a symbol of the greater situation. And I think that's illustrated in the backlash the Times got when the truth was revealed.

the story, on the whole, was as true as any other, but one claim of it wasnt. im not excusing that error at all, the times shouldve quadruple checked every aspect of it like theyre known for doing, but that part doesnt touch on the other claims made in it (unless youre suggesting that that one error is indicative of the quality of the whole article, which is, at best, unfair considering the general quality of the paper and, at worst, just an undiluted fallacy, as defined in my post above) so dont talk about "the story" as a whole, talk about that claim -- that that one picture depicted him -- becasue the story still exist outside of the claim

But as I said above, as far as this one guy is concerned, the story is nothing but his claims, one of which has been proven conclusively false. I don't think its something that breaks the story one way or the other, but you have to at least step back and say that its something that has to be considered. You can't just brush it off as being a little white lie and therefore of no consequence.

youve got that CBS thing way wrong. the issue was that that one erroneous report wrongly wiped out the credibility of the claim that it was making, that bush dodged service, as opposed to just the evidence that was being used in that instance. im not even specifically saying anyone is to blame for that outcome (although i personally wouldnt doubt that it was engineered the way it was) just that thats what ended up being the net result, and that that is illogical and should not have been the case.

True. But my point is that the story necessarily suffers when one minute you've claimed you've found the smoking gun, and then the next minute you're saying "What gun? We never needed a smoking gun!" The fact that people jump so eagerly on these "smoking guns" without properly scrutinizing them just gives an impression that such evidence is needed to make their case, thus its damaging when the evidence turns out to be false.

the question of a claims validity doesnt become isntantly resolved when one faulty piece of evidence is presented for it. thats like saying this (i forget what field of law youre going into but ill just assume criminal):

The Rt. Hon. Corgano, practitioner of law: "john murdered stacy. here, members of the jury, is the testimony of an elderly neighbour who saw him at the scene at the time"
old lady: i saw him at the scene at the time
other lawyer (me): objection, the neighbour is clinically blind and schizophrenic
Corgano: ohshit
judge: well then! case closed, john is innocent, stacy is still alive, im a fag, etc

It'd be more like this:

Me: Here's my witness to the murder.

Witness: I saw the murder.

sleeper Objection! This woman was in another country on the day of the murder, and she's blind!

Me Um....er.....

Judge/Jury That's okay Corganist, we still believe all the other witnesses you presented. We have no reason to think that you coached them too. Why, we wouldn't even think it!

[sleeper]

yes indeed, as means, i agree.

ok it was this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Laws

he looks so so bad in this photo though
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...David_Laws.jpg

haha oh man

[DeviousJ]

I totally missed corganist appearing in this thread - I'm gonna go back and savor this new discourse

[sleeper]

how could oyu miss it, it was huge!

hes back to his old ways again. fallacious as ever, twisting our arguments around (reductio ad absurdum! you know wat im sayin), bush loving. its just like old times

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

But I think you guys are just showing the opposite and equally inappropriate reaction: instead of overblowing errors in reporting that you disagree with the message of, you tend to disregard or minimize errors in the reporting you tend to believe. Thus all this talk of "inconsequential" flaws. You'll sing an aspect of a story to high heaven, and then when some question is raised about it, you pretend that it wasn't that big a deal and that the story is probably still true even without the evidence. The guy who claims he was in the Abu Ghraib picture wasn't really in it? "Oh well, there's probably another picture somewhere that does have him in it. No big deal. Still no question whatsoever about this guy's credibility! Nope, none at all!" CBS presents fake documents showing that Bush got preferential treatment? "So what? There are probably real documents out there that say the same thing the fake ones said. Doesn't cast any doubt on the story as a whole at all! No sirree!"

The point of this story is that this guy is one of the prisoners that photo has come to represent. The guy on the box certainly isn't the only known example of the abuse which happened there, and as such the credibility of the accounts of what happened doesn't rest on that one picture. It works as a strong symbol (the reason the guy uses it on his card), but it isn't the most important thing about the mistreatment and abuse that went on.

The guy was connected to that picture because he had that same experience, and the injuries on the hand of the guy in the picture seemed to match his own. That's why he believed he was in that picture. It's not like they'd get prisoners to do these things, take a polaroid and then let them see it on the way out. 'Here you go man, what do you think?' "Oh god, are my ankles really that skinny?" You're characterizing this as a lie, and using that to cast doubt on the rest of his account, and that's exactly what we're talking about here - giving one aspect far more importance than it really deserves, and then deciding that (based on this skewed interpretation) it's grounds for complete discreditation.

And I don't know anything about this CBS thing, so I don't know why you brought that up. Well obviously I do, you'll try anything huh

[sleeper]

is there anything corganist WONT say?

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by sleeper

how could oyu miss it, it was huge!

hes back to his old ways again. fallacious as ever, twisting our arguments around (reductio ad absurdum! you know wat im sayin), bush loving. its just like old times

I got hit up by the crafty 'page 2' fallacy