South Park Creators Given Signed Photo of Saddam Hussein 1297
Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, were given a very special gift by US marines: a signed photo of Saddam Hussein. During his captivity, the marines forced Saddam to repeatedly watch the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer And Uncut, which shows him as the boyfriend of Satan. Stone said, "We're very proud of our signed Saddam picture and what it means. It's one of our biggest highlights."
Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Had no respect for Saddam, but any lingering respect I has for the US Military just died. What a grotesque and reprehensible institution, if this is what they do behind closed doors - the fact that they do worse (torture legally defined in the US as 'anything less than organ failure') doesn't mean that something like this isn't just plain and simply slimy.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/ICRC_Report_on_the_Treatment_of_Fourteen_%22High_Value_Detainess%22_in_CIA_Custody%2C_14_Feb_2007 [wikileaks.org]
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, bravo that you can imagine worse kinds of torture than having to listen to loud music 24 hours a day or waterboarding.
I guess that makes everything all right then!
Pssst, you know the difference between sex and rape? It's kind of like the difference between your weekend at the frat party and the way the American Military tortures.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Much like your post. We're "soft" "cream puffs". Get over yourself. There's a lot we don't understand about human psychology, but I'm sure there's an unpleasant reason why they use non-stop loud music. I'm willing to believe that the long-term consequences of months of non-stop noise can be worse than those from twenty minutes of simulated drowning.
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the music that is torture, it's the fact that loud music prevents a prisoner from SLEEPING.
It's sleep deprivation, a form of torture.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't think the day would come when I'd talk back on behalf of the likes of Saddam (I was in Kuwait in '91), but you are being sumdumass, today.
Not all torture is alike, and not all our respect for our marines' conduct stems from their lack of engaging in such barbarism as physical torture. Forcing a man -actually forcing him - to repeatedly watch a movie is far worse than forcing him to stand naked in the snow. The humiliation of complete control is a lot more... stark. The more petty the forced action, the worse it is for the actor, not the man being lightly insulted. What animals have we become that our vengeance on foreign tyrants is put in the hands of frat boys like these?
We're not a 'strong race', in the sense you meant, but I'd rather be civilized and strong, than just strong.
Re:Lost respect for marines? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a minute, this is Saddam we're talking about. I HIGHLY doubt that "a few immature soldiers" were even allowed near him. You can bet that EVERY ACTION said or done to him or around him was carefully orchestrated, if it wasn't, that would be a HUGE failour of our military. This wasn't a "prank", this was militarilly condoned humilliation. There was no logical reason for doing this, it was simple done for pleasure and specticle, which is incredibly evil, in my mind. They were basically "fucking around" with one of the most dangerous and powerful men in the middle east for some shits and giggles. If you don't find that disturbing, I don't know what to say.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Let's try to keep this in some perspective. He was forced to watch a movie that a lot of the rest of the world paid good money to see.
The man murdered people by the thousands. He was put to death by hanging. There's a a lot of injustice, immorality, pain and suffering in that range.
I refuse to accept flushing the Koran or being forced to watch a movie which ridicules you, fits the definition of torture. If that is, then K-12 is state enforced torture for children, because honestly it's far worse and far more personal and you don't even get the escape of sweet, sweet death (usually).
Thumbscrews, electrocution, iron maidens, anything involving fingernails...then we can talk.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
The hypocrisy is what got me (Score:5, Interesting)
Bush: "I find it very interesting that when the heat got on, you dug yourself a hole, and you crawled in it." [usatoday.com]
A couple years earlier, a small group of murderers with a handful of commercial jets had managed to immediately drive Cheney into a hole^H^H^H^H^H undisclosed location and Bush into underground shelter. A couple years later, it just took a single report of an off-course plane to send Bush underground again [cbsnews.com]. Was it so tactically unreasonable to expect Saddam to hide from a hundred thousand men armed with the best military technology in the world?
Even if this was propaganda for the Iraqis' benefit, it seems like condescending propaganda. Go for the root of the problem, and persuade people that a strongman ruler is illegitimate if he isn't democratically supported and/or if he violates human rights. Don't just cop out and try to paint yourself as the stronger man.
Using arguments that work (Score:5, Interesting)
Go for the root of the problem, and persuade people that a strongman ruler is illegitimate if he isn't democratically supported and/or if he violates human rights. Don't just cop out and try to paint yourself as the stronger man.
You mean, use arguments that work in the west, based on western culture, to convince Iraqis it is a bad idea to back Saddam and his Baath party?
In Arab culture a ruler is not rendered legitimate by being elected, but by being so strong nobody could topple him. To tell Iraqis that Saddam is an unelected strongman would be as effective as telling people in the US that they should no longer listen to President Obama because he lost the Mandate of Heaven [wikipedia.org].
Showing that the US is stronger than Saddam was a necessary first step in giving the democratically elected government the legitimacy it needs to rule. The second was handing Saddam over to an Iraqi court to be tried under Iraqi law and be executed by an Iraqi executioner.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I thought was weird
Yeah, that's war propaganda... just sort of comes with war. People are very fickle and so you need to keep your side happy while trying to demoralize the other side. God help us if the US government ever started conducting foreign policy based on popular opinion.
Re:Like reading? (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, I can see how "What papers do you read?" is a hostile, "gotcha" question. I guess she should have started with "What is your favorite animal?"
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, the past tense of the word "hang" in regards to the execution of a person is "hanged," not "hung."
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Unless he's still swinging.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer the grammatically correct "swanged".
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
if the rope is too short, the executee will end up being strangled.
if the rope is too long, the head of the executee will pop off like the head of a champagne bottle.
as someone mentions below this post, popping the head off and breaking the spinal cord essentially leads to death in the same way (oxygenated blood cannot reach the brain / heart stops beating).
hanging is easier on the eyes, but imho decapitation by guillotine might be a better way, as hanging can be botched up easily.
fun fact:
it can take up to a minute to lose consciousness after the brain isn't supplied with oxygenated blood anymore, although somewhere around 5-20 seconds is more common. so if you ever get your block chopped off, take a minute to savour the view.
after that, brain death takes around 6 minutes.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
I have read about botched hangings and they can be pretty horrific.
For the audience, maybe. Having your head torn off will result in unconsciousness just as quickly as having your neck broken, but it's a bit harder for the audience to stomach. Moral of the story: If you can't watch people die, don't attend a fscking execution.
Lethal injection at least it seems like a painless death.
Yes, if you count consciously witnessing yourself suffocate because your diaphragm is paralyzed as "painless". Of course, the audience won't notice any of this, so it's fairly painless to them.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the sentiment expressed above extends to the U.S. government?
They were more than happy to overlook the gassings as long as Saddam was putting the boot to the Ayatollah's screaming masses... It wasn't until he got greedy that he became a problem.
That usually the way it works.
I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold. (Score:5, Insightful)
Saddam kills a kid with gas; US/UK kill a kid with a bomb. The kid is just as innocent and just as dead.
Saddam considered himself to be legitimately putting down a Kurdish rebellion. It was bullshit, but that was his claim.
The US/UK did not "slide on ice" into the war in Iraq by accident; they attacked Iraq when Iraq was no threat to them. It was aggressive war, pure and simple. They said it had something to do with WMD. That, too, was bullshit.
In other words, both sides claim legitimacy, and both sides are full of it. But who killed more people?
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we accept this statement as true, how can we universally define when someone is a "Monster"?
Then, how can we take that definition and roll it into a system of laws and government without it becoming corrupted?
See: Michael Portillo (Score:5, Insightful)
A British politician, despite the UK having no death penalty, actually did some research into execution methods [bbc.co.uk] which was televised [bbc.co.uk] as a documentary.
He concluded that the most humane method available was hypoxia, after undergoing a hypoxic experience in a barometric chamber used for Air Force training. The experience was not unpleasant, but euphoric.
In terms of equipment, you just need a mask and a cylinder of nitrogen. It's virtually impossible mis-administer. It's cheap. It's fast - it takes around 15 seconds.
Various figures in the US prison system just weren't interested, on the grounds that the prisoner wouldn't suffer enough. Despite the US constitutional prohibition on "cruel" punishment, it wasn't considered fair to the families of victims to end lives using this humane method.
I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but as Mr Portillo said : -
"As long as the state is going to kill people I think it has the obligation to do it in the way that least resembles murder."
Re:See: Michael Portillo (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus however long the condemned can hold his breath.
Still, that's about the only drawback. Otherwise, it's safe for whomever is administering it, not too harsh on the audience (there may be some struggling, but there's no blood or worse), allows an open-casket funeral, and leaves the organs available for transplantation.
Re:See: Michael Portillo (Score:5, Funny)
I know what you're getting at, but I assure you: It would still be the most entertaining half-hour of television featuring David Blaine, ever.
Re:See: Michael Portillo (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup. From YFA:
Re:See: Michael Portillo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Lethal injection at least it seems like a painless death.
It is reasonable to believe that this is the case but it would appear you are mistaken. I urge everyone to watch the BBC Horizon (a stellar science documentary series) programme entitled "How to Kill a Human Being":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/executions/ [bbc.co.uk]
In this programme, the narrator Michael Portillo goes on a search for a humane method of execution, and finds that it is more difficult than it would first appear. He discovers evidence that the lethal injection, if botched, can cause agonising pain that makes your flesh feel as if on fire. Of course, there are some, including the creator of this execution method interviewed in the programme, who believe that is a feature and not a bug. Hanging and the gas chamber are also examined, and these are not perfect, either.
As a conclusion, Portillo discovers a method that seems to be perfect for carrying out humane executions: nitrogen. While undergoing nitrogen intoxication as an experiment, Portillo is feeling euphoric while being seconds from death. Naturally, such a method, if implemented, would be strongly criticised by those who combine capital punishment with fantasies of revenge and view painless executions as unnecessary or even counter to the ideals behind the death penalty.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be a bit naive of me, but I kind of view the death penalty as less of a punishment, and more of a euthanasia sort of thing. Say you have a dog that is way too aggressive to be adopted or otherwise rehabilitated. That dog should be put down. I don't want the dog to be tortured to death, just to go to sleep and not wake up. And that's just a dog. With a human, all necessary precautions should be taken to make it not only not painful, but as comfortable as possible.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
"the ideals behind the death penalty."
That is a scary combination of words...
Really, you think pacifists (or whatever your preferred brand of idealist) are the only ones with ideals?
How naive.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I disagree with are the people who think that locking someone in a tiny cell for the rest of their natural life is more humane than killing them.
Now, I think we need to be really careful, because you *can* reverse a life in prison penalty (and give them whatever is left of their life after you've just shitted on 20 years of it), but in cases where there is a preponderance of evidence, honestly the death penalty seems more humane to me, unless you're going to make a prison a nicer place to live than most of the people in Saddam's country had, and that seems a little ridiculous as well.
That being said, I think the current methods of execution in the US are criminal (none of them are based in any way on reasonable science, and are not considered humane ways to kill a dog, let alone a human), and the system corrupt (there is far too strong of a correlation between how little money a state spends on public defenders and how many people they execute), so I'm all for trashing our current implementation. But that doesn't mean that sometimes the most reasonable thing to do to someone is to kill them.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hanging is one of the quickest ways to die.
How about a bullet straight through the head? It's ironic how a country so full of guns doesn't consider using them for the death penalty.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
This has never made any sense to me.
If you take an old and terminally sick pet to the vet, they are able to 'put them to sleep', quickly and painlessly. Does this process not work on humans?
We are able to put people into such a deep sleep that we can open them up and switch their organs over, the person having this done to them feels nothing at any stage of the process. How are we not able to apply the same process, but simply end the life of the person that has been rendered into this 'virtual coma'? I do not know about the lethal injection used for executions, but I am assuming it does not go that smoothly if experts would choose hanging.
All of this stuff sounds like it *should* be very easy to achieve. So I suspect that the reason that (in some countries) we persist in running electricity through people etc, is because we believe they *should* suffer a little bit. If that is the view somebody holds, then they are entitled to it, but they should say it, and so should the state sanctioning the execution.
I live in a country that does not have capital punishment, but I believe that it is warrented in certain cases (not going to express my criteria here), but I believe it should be used because that person can never be allowed to roam free, and letting them rot in prison is an expensive and pointless endevour, but I see no need to cause physical pain during the execution process.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
They told him he was going to hell and other insults. Then when he tried to give his last words, a short prayer, they pulled the lever in the middle of it, then cheered some more. It was less like an execution and more like a lynch mob [bbc.co.uk].
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the most ironic thing is that watching Saddam's hanging gave you respect for the man. The shiit thugs killing him were shouting and making fun of a man that was about to die, but Saddam answered them calmly and with more courage than I expect Bush or any of the other people behind the Iraq war would have knowing they are about to die in a minute.
(I remember watching Wolfowitz [wikipedia.org] scared shitless trying to keep it together in front of the cameras after his hotel had been hit by mortar fire in Baghdad. What contrast to the arrogant self-assurance Wolfy had when orchestring a war on false pretenses, a war that he should have known would cause thousand of innocent people and US soldiers to die.)
Then Saddam is hanged before he is able to finish his last prayer to God, a perfect ending to an execution that encouraged Saddam loyalist and ensured that the brutal dictator was transformed into an Iraqi martyr. And again, the beautiful irony that Saddam finally manages to create a picture of himself as a religious leader, after having problems saying the muslem prayers correctly in propaganda shots earlier in his career. Even Saddam's mortal enemy bin Laden must have been proud of the propaganda value of that last prayer cut short.
The thing many people in the US have a problem to understand is the shear stupidity that lies at the bottom of many of the Bush gangs decitions. Bush supporters think "Saddam hanged, yeah!" and consider it done in a manly way. But the fact is because of the incompetence shown in how the trial is performed and how Saddam's life is ended (like so many of the other "manly" things Bush wanted to do) US is instead shown as weak and the opposite message and result of what was wished for is achieved.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
He was hanged. I'm sure I don't want to know if he was hung.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you're the one who needs to read up on his trial. He was tried by Iraqis, NOT by the US. He was executed BY Iraqis, not the US.
That's like throwing a bleeding man into shark infested waters and then claiming it wasn't murder. Its not your fault the sharks got him.
In other words, Saddam was tried by the Iraqis because the US chose that he would be tried by the Iraqis. And the US released him into Iraqi custody for his so-called trial knowing full well that it would be a kangaroo court, and what the outcome would be.
Frankly, I believe the US chose to have him tried by Iraqis precisely because they could have him convicted and executed for more expediently there than in the US.
His trial was a disgusting farce knowingly and deliberately perpetrated by the US. It was on the same level as sending prisoners to secret / foreign prisons for interrogation (torture) -- the US does it precisely to get away with stuff they wouldn't be allowed to do at home. The US is still morally responsible for what happens. They know what will happen. They even take advantage of it.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, I believe the US chose to have him tried by Iraqis precisely because they could have him convicted and executed for more expediently there than in the US.
It wasn't a US trial they were most fearful of, it was a UN trial. The case against Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia was comparatively more clean-cut than the one against Saddam, yet, Milosevic put up an extremely good defence. Had he not died while on trial, there's every chance he would have either left the court a free man or found guilty on only relatively minor charges.
In addition to that, Saddam knew where all the American bones were buried: It was the US who sold him those WMD in the 1980s, and he was hand-shaking chums with Rumsfeld and other bigwigs at the time. All of this would have been thrown into the open in a fair trial and made George W Bush's top brass directly complicit to the commission of war crimes were he found guilty. Far better for the US to have Saddam's trial over and done quickly with a kangaroo court.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue isn't the method of execution, but the incredibly sloppy rules of evidence and courtroom conduct. We ostensibly invaded Iraq to liberate its people and bring them democracy. By applying anything short of our own standards of justice, we betrayed both these purported goals and showed our true colors.
So why did we invade at all? Moral relativism is despicable on any day, but there's a special hell for people who use it only to advance their own goals.
throwing things around (Score:5, Funny)
If evolution fashioned us in such a way as to still feel the drive to be swinging from the trees, hurling our [feaces] at each other, does it follow that it's what we should be doing?
That's what we do here on /. but it is way better than throwing high explosives and depleted uranium at each other.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
We ostensibly invaded Iraq to liberate its people and bring them democracy.
No we didn't! We invaded because we were told they had WMDs and they were a threat to us. Only after the invasion did the reasons turn to "democracy".
quite the opposite I think. You created The WMDs case to give you reason to invade Iraq. And when you ran out of idea on how to prove the existence of the said WMDs, somehow the reason turns to "democracy"
Re:Errata Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
You're just playing word games here, most of the nazis in Europe were/are for the invasion of Iraq, just like most of them hate all Arabs.
Forget the Iraqis, the entire World (except the United States) was against Iraq when they gassed the Kurds (in 1988). The gassing of the Kurds was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Europe (and probably the world). In the US, that particular piece of news got buried. The UN was even going to impose sanctions, but the US vetoed it -- protecting their ally. And finally, the US even loaned Iraq one billion dollars shortly thereafter (if not three billion dollars, I forget the exact number) that Iraq never paid back.
Now I realize that you consider the United States the benevolent father/policeman of the World, but for a benevolent father it's sure sending out mixed messages. When you punish someone, you're supposed to do it right after the act -- not wait fifteen years (and never mind the active protection and lobbying the United States did for Iraq during that time period when the entire World was against them).
Re:Errata Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
You're just playing word games here, most of the nazis in Europe were/are for the invasion of Iraq, just like most of them hate all Arabs.
Forget the Iraqis, the entire World (except the United States) was against Iraq when they gassed the Kurds (in 1988). The gassing of the Kurds was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Europe (and probably the world). In the US, that particular piece of news got buried. The UN was even going to impose sanctions, but the US vetoed it -- protecting their ally. And finally, the US even loaned Iraq one billion dollars shortly thereafter (if not three billion dollars, I forget the exact number) that Iraq never paid back.
Now I realize that you consider the United States the benevolent father/policeman of the World, but for a benevolent father it's sure sending out mixed messages. When you punish someone, you're supposed to do it right after the act -- not wait fifteen years (and never mind the active protection and lobbying the United States did for Iraq during that time period when the entire World was against them).
The news wasn't at all buried in the United States. It was all over the newspapers. We even talked about it in elementary school that year. the United States isn't a homogenized nation that uniformly supports the current regime, whoever it may be.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
You have no idea how true that is [mypolls.us].
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate replying to myself, but I couldn't give up a chance to show the change in inequality [blogspot.com] too.
Careful (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they're the "borrow and spend" party. Because borrowing is so much nicer. "Don't take all that money from me, take it from my kids, their kids, their kids kids, etc".
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, the foreign public will judge you by your dumbest, or at least least desirable, citizen. Americans sue McDonald for hot coffee and believe the Fox network, British love crappy food and their queen, Finns are constantly drunk (unless they code neat kernels) and Russians are commies, mafia members or malware writers.
And of course the Germans are Nazis.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Heeeyyyyy! Wait a minute! I haven't been drunk in over six months and I'm coding shitty business applications. Now take that you Finn hater! ;)
You want real torture? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
This story raises many difficult and complex moral questions. What we need to do is take a step back, and calmly ask ourselves, "what would Brian Boitano do?"
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh.... as much as I get up in arms about due process and rule of law, this is really a tempest in a teapot. Psychological torture is real, but making someone watch a rather silly cartoon is not torture. Unless they set him up like in A Clockwork Orange, calling this torture is stretching the definition to the point of breaking.
There were a ton of other things wrong with his trial, but this wasn't one of them.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't have to qualify as "torture" to be petty, vindictive, and pointless. There was no positive reason for doing this, and it reflects poorly on the professionalism of our soldiers and our entire army.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
"well, it's not like the guy treated his prisoners like honored guests"
It's not about how *he* treated his prisoners, it's about us saying and thinking we are better than he, about our ideals. And not living up to that standard.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of calling ourselves civilized (in fact, civilized enough to give ourself the moral right to depose a foreign government due to human rights violations) means that we must be prepared to honor the human rights of even those who deny them to others.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but what basic right was denied to Saddam by making him watch South Park?
Human dignity.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the point is, regardless of who the person is you are holding in prison, you have to live by your -OWN- standards.
Thinking that you can treat people differently depending on who they are is called class justice. Sadly it happens a lot, but usually people aren't proud of it.
How we treat evil people changes us (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you. How we treat bad people is not about them, it is about us. Saddam deserves to suffer for his crimes. But when we surrender to the bloodthirsty urge for vengeance (which can be satisfying, even - as in this case - fun), it is ourselves we corrupt. Saddam does not matter: he is beyond redemption. It is we who matter. If we treat the foulest human beings with a level of decency (decorum, seriousness), then we make it easy to respect each other. If, on the other hand, we give in to our baser instincts, we lay the groundwork for lashing out selfishly whenever it feels good.
Want to respect Saddam's victims? Then prosecute and punish him with all the seriousness, formality, and consideration you can muster. The kind of immature self-gratification described here ultimately dismisses those he tortured and killed. Their persecutor was an evil man, not a clown.
(P.S.: Just in case someone misreads me, I loved the movie. There's a big difference between that and the legitimate serious acts of the American people's political representatives and government.)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's debilitating for a country's people to think in extremes. Waterboarding is indeed worse than forcing someone to sit through a film over and over. But both are bad, and we shouldn't be doing either as a civilized people.
"Not the worse" is not the same as "good". It's a subtle concept, I know.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think were a tad above that?
This is the kind of crap that 3rd world despots always use in their propaganda to prove to their own people that were are imperialist war mongers - true or not they should have arrested him and treated him like any other person they held in captivity to prove to everyone that we treat everyone equally.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be so great if you are locked in a brightly lit cell/chair and you have a movie with loud sound playing in a loop for days? And then your guard comes after a few days, changes the movie and you don't see him for another few days... Or maybe you prefer naked human pyramids or exploration of dog-human relations? I heard those are fun too!
I had some respect for the authors of the South Park as normal, rational men. But accepting this gift is cruel, unmoral and despicable. Just like torture I mentioned before.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does it matter who it they're guarding? These are marines and we expect them to show all due respect to their prisoners.
When exactly was the last time you ever defused a landmine or stormed a machine gun nest? How many times have you had to decide between saving your own lift by taking cover or risking death by dragging a profusely bleeding friend to safety?
Does behaving childishly towards prisoners somehow make this easier?
No, I didn't think so. Yet you sit there high and mighty talking down on the military.
Because they behaved reprehensibly. Heroic deeds don't excuse you from the right to be a decent human being.
You know what happens in a war? people get hurt and killed. Many of whom don't deserve it and many times the civilians who are caught in the cross fire don't get any compensation. People suffer horribly and soldiers have to make some very hard decisions and do things they're not proud of.
What military objective was achieved by showing a prisoner the same stupid movie again and again?
Sometimes there are not hard lines between what is justified and what goes too far.
This is a line that's quite easy to stay on the "justified" side of. Don't keep showing him the movie.
You may disagree with that becasue your life is not in danger.
Neither was theirs. Prisons are quite safe.
Tell me the same after you've been very narrowly killed and then capture the guy who killed several of your comrads and tried to kill you.
No. Being shot at doesn't give you the right to be a jerk.
You don't think you'd humiliate him, scare him and even punch him in the face if you knew he knew where other snipers were?
No. I don't think I would.
Ugly, unfair, brutal shit happens.
And I don't condone that either.
It happened on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima and it happens in Iraq.
But for clear military objectives.
If you tried to be a prim proper goody goody you'd be dead very quickly.
How many lives were saved by showing the same movie over and over?
You're a pathetic coward. If you think our soldiers are so bad at what they do, why don't you join so you can show them what a great and fair soldier you are.
Because I don't want to get shot at.
Courage gains them a lot of respect. Respect does not give them the right to be childish jerks.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
When exactly was the last time you ever defused a landmine or stormed a machine gun nest?
Yeah, there aren't any combat veterans here. You're the only person on /. who knows what war is like, 'cause you saw Saving Private Ryan twice.
South Park Movie Officially Torture.. (Score:5, Funny)
I recall watching this movie in the theatre, in some strange life imitating art moment a grandmother brought her grandsons and apparently their friends in for the wonderful cartoon..... Making it through the bribe a drunk for movie tickets and the earthen root heart transplant she decided it was just too much when Saddam and the Devil had their musical bit with a floppy dildo...
Up until now I felt that nothing would top that in regards to this movie.....
your tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
well done america, another reason to gain respect from the world
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh, it just shows that, at heart, you're no different from them.
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Needless cruelty isn't justified by the history of the victim.
I always thought (Score:5, Insightful)
...we were supposed to be the good guys?
Seriously you guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am very surprised to see people getting up in arms about this. Is showing a prisoner a satirical movie which mocks him really torture? Not in my book. Hell, going to a regular American prison, and potentially getting raped, for committing a non-violent crime (drug possession for instance) seems much worse than being shown potentially insulting films. Give me a fucking break.
Abu Gharab, Guantanamo, Secret CIA Prisons: all very bad, very wrong, and very embarrassing for the US. Actual torture (waterboarding, sleep deprivation etc.): also very bad, wrong, and embarrassing. It is not a human right not to be mocked. Especially if the person you are mocking is the kind of person who would have had you killed had you done so in his old dictatorship. "How dare they hurt Saddam's feelings like that! What a deplorable, inhumane atrocity!" Oh the shame...
If this article is what made you embarrassed to be an American, then you obviously haven't been paying attention. Yeesh.
Re:Seriously you guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is showing a prisoner a satirical movie which mocks him really torture?
Over and over again? No, it isn't torture, but it's mean, petty, and unprofessional. It reflects poorly upon the soldiers as soldiers, Americans, and human beings. It reflects poorly upon America in general, reinforcing the "drunken frat boy with a shotgun" image we've managed to mint for ourselves. But no, it isn't torture.
Not in my book. Hell, going to a regular American prison, and potentially getting raped, for committing a non-violent crime (drug possession for instance) seems much worse than being shown potentially insulting films.
Stabbing out both of your eyes would be much worse than just one. So you don't mind if I stab out one, right? Not that I'm comparing the movie to eye-stabbery; the point is that "not-as-bad" is not the same thing as "good".
Propaganda reached a new low (Score:5, Insightful)
Cartoons have been a tool of propaganda for about as long as they exist. Take all the WW2 comics, from Bugs Bunny fighting and making fun of Japanese soldiers instead of Elmer Fudd or Donald Duck in the infamous Der Fuehrer's Face [wikipedia.org]. Sure, that was as much propaganda as that Southpark Episodes (and the movie). It makes waging war easier when you see, in a comical setting, that your enemy is something despicable, horrible, and generally wrong.
I just couldn't imagine these movies being shown after the war to the prisoners in Nuernberg. Or even the Tenno. It was propaganda, it was supposed to boost moral at home, and when the war was over it was over.
What happened to decency? Isn't it enough to hang people in a mock trial after you beat them? And don't come with the question whether he "deserves" it. I don't frankly care. It's not about Saddam. It's about your own set of morals and decency. I know it's something I wouldn't do because I would feel like I did something wrong.
A war isn't over until it's over in the head. I'm quite glad, as an European, that the US didn't have the same revenge and hate mindset back after WW2. I like the US, and I enjoy the idea that I can go there and consider the country a 'friendly' nation towards mine. I guess I wouldn't be so lucky if the war didn't end in their, and our, heads in 45.
This is supposed to be funny? (Score:5, Insightful)
We (the US) pretty much pissed on international law the way we treated another head of state (regardless of what you think of Saddam). Throw in the kangaroo court we used to get him executed without the troublesome details of how we helped him establish a chemical weapons program coming out. Yes, the same one we chastised him for and used as a rationale for our bogus invasion.
I would expect the two self-important dolts who created Southpark to relish in the acknowledgment without using their own eye for satire to see what's so very wrong with the whole situation.
From a vet (Score:5, Insightful)
If true, as a vet, I find the Marines' behavior unprofessional and embarrassing to the uniform. I can only hope an investigation occurs, and if guilty, that the Marines responsible are made an example of.
Saddam was a shitbag, but that doesn't mean we need to lower our moral standards and professionalism.
Little Kim probably watched Team America (Score:5, Informative)
Re:hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether he deserved it or not according to you or me or whoever, it's not for the US military to decide what he does and does not deserve, much less force a prisoner to do something they would obviously find very offensive, and to a muslim that would probably amount to psychological abuse, much less again and again.
He was a captured prisoner, the head of state of a sovereign nation (not that the Bushites believe that exists), tyrant or not, it's up to the Iraqis or the world court to decide his punishment and fate, not the guy holding the key to the cell that personally enjoys every second of it.
It is reprehensible and slimy, and I'm totally not surprised by it in the least!
Just look at the average type of egotistical macho jackoff that end up the in army or marines and it explains itself.
No offense to anybody that is or was in the military (some of my best friends have been), but I'm sure you can think of quite a few people that fit the bill, and if you can, you don't qualify as one of them.
Re:hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
I really like how he says roughly that if somebody in the military knows of people that could have that sign hung on them then they themselves are safe. It's like saying most Jews are miserly fascists, but if you happen to be a self-hating Jew and agree, you're safe. People are right to mod that down.
Re:hilarious (Score:5, Informative)
Saddam Hussein was a bad guy for sure, but that whole shredder thing was a classic example of an inflammatory story that is later proved false in the run up to a war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/25/iraq.iraqandthemedia [guardian.co.uk]
and the Labour Party is notionally Left Wing... (Score:5, Insightful)
There was no shredder, there were no WMDs, Saddam was still a bad man - people just seize upon whatever anecdotal evidence they hear that happens to fit with their pre-existing views.
Whilt you might feel The Guardian has a bias, they do raise some rather good points - basically there is no evidence at all, and what there is seems quite fantastically suspect.
Re:hilarious (Score:5, Funny)
I think most people don't know just how bad Saddam was...
He also tried to invade Canada. And not only was he in a relationship with the DEVIL, but he was abusive to the devil as well.
Re:hilarious (Score:5, Informative)
This has been pretty thoroughly debunked, actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein's_alleged_shredder [wikipedia.org]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/25/iraq.iraqandthemedia [guardian.co.uk]
And nobody is fooled except the people who modded up your post.
Re:hilarious (Score:5, Informative)
And the United States were the ones who propped him up in there, gave him weapons, and ignored him until he was of use.
Re:Fucking Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nya nya nya nya nya, you are a fag and the devil's butt monkey" - It's not really adult behaviour is it, and certainly not the behavior of a country that likes to think they are a world leader.
Take the high moral ground guys, don't play childish games like this and maybe the rest of the world might respect you.
Let's hope that the soldiers who did this are brought up on disciplinary charges.
Re:Fucking Americans (Score:5, Interesting)
Too right.
There are an increasing number of cultural messages, and messengers, in US media the subtext of which is "it is OK and even desirable to act like you are ten years old all of the time", the framing of Howard Stern as a folk hero being the canonical example.
I don't think anyone faults the fans of South Park, Howard Stern, etc. for finding them amusing. The problem is that immaturity is increasingly finding a place in public life. Apparently these soldiers think it's OK to act like ten year olds while acting in an official capacity, such that they don't see anything wrong with bragging about it to the media. It will be interesting to see whether their superiors think so too.
And, while this particular incident hardly qualifies as "torture", there does seem to be an immaturity continuum on the part of US actors and decision makers in the Iraq war that starts here, runs through Abu Ghraib, and all the way up to the White House, where apparently torture was not only planned and condoned, but micromanaged, with high level participants apparently doing so at least in part to gain personal satisfaction from the act. There's no credible evidence that any of it was effective, and plenty of evidence that it was counterproductive, but apparently, in times of crisis, the appropriate response is not to act like adults and address the problem effectively, but to act like ten year olds and pull the wings off of flies because we can.
And, while there has certainly been a fair bit of outrage over all of this (underreported) in the US, there are plenty of people who thinks that it is all right and good. It would be interesting to know the correlation between South Park/shock jock/reality show fandom and the condoning of torture among the American public.
But don't get too cocky in your own country. One of America's biggest exports is its media. It's like I tell my kids: what we are, you will be.
Re:Fucking Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, stop it already. The "they're all the same" meme is both pernicious and false. I don't know how any thinking person could claim after these eight disastrous years, there's no substantive difference between the parties. However flawed Gore and Kerry may have been, they at least wouldn't have ignored the rule of law and run the country like a kleptocracy. We should count ourselves lucky if we get excellence, but we should at least demand competence.
If you don't care about politics, the only people elected will be the ones who don't care about you. Indifference toward elections by the general public just enables (and encouraged) politicians to cater to special interest groups at the expense of the general welfare. That's not good for anyone.
Re:Who gave them the photo? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Matt & Trey Advocating Torture? Yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
The slightly conservative leaning duo, if they had any moral integrity...
I'm very liberal, and find southpark annoying the same way I'd imagine conservatives find Jon Stewart annoying, but saying they have no moral integrity is off. They don't share your morals. That should not be taken as a sign that they have NO morals.