To Saddam’s prisoners, US abuse seems ‘a joke’
Ibrahim al-Idrissi, 37, goes to work every day with a handgun in a holster on his hip. In most countries, the line of work Idrissi is in wouldn’t require such firepower. But this is Iraq. Idrissi is the president of the Association for Free Prisoners, an Iraqi non-governmental organization that has been documenting the execution of political prisoners under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
” ‘All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn’t tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen.’
‘This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us.’
‘Amer’s wife didn’t lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer’s throat.’ There is a moment of silence. Then Idrissi says: ‘What we have seen about the recent abuse at Abu Ghraib is a joke to us.’ ”
I remember the Bush rally I attended not so long ago. I remember the lady who rolled down her window, looked directly at me and said, “I’d rather have Saddam in charge than George Bush.”
Do you suppose these liberals realize what they are saying, in their hatred?
Yes- it may well be a joke to them, and I fully understand why. but in the end, it can not be a joke to us, otherwise we become the beast we sought to oust.
It is the horrible, horrible complacency of people like the woman at the rally who takes freedom for granted when attempting to draw some moral (or in this case, immoral) equivilency between President Bush and the ruthless dictator Sadaam Hussein.
It embarasses me, as an American, more that Abu Ghraib ever could.
Ted
Extremely well said, Ted. You took my frustrations and put words to them.
While I agree with what you’ve said; I think as a whole, America has lost a lot if we have to compare ourselves to Saddam to justify our actions. Regardless of what Saddam did, America NEVER should have treated Iraqi prisoners like they were treated in Abu Ghraib.
I agree, Zelda – those US soldiers should never have treated those prisoners that way. I do believe that most thinking and sane people feel the same way.
I think the only people here comparing the US abuse in Abu Gharib to what Saddam did to his people are Saddam’s people (at least in the article). My point wasn’t that it was putting the prison abuse into perspective.
The perspective I was going for here was looking at what Saddam and his men did to their people – - and then the woman’s statement to me at the rally…and wonderng if she really, truly meant what she said? Or if it was just so charged with emotion and hatred that she lost her perspective.
No one here is saying that that US soldiers were justified in their actions by comparing those actions to Saddam.
Zelda,
No one is attempting to justify what happened atAbu Ghraib. While I would not consider it an “atrocity” like some have, I in no way condone it either.
In many instances, and individual’s defining moment of his/her character is not in the fact that they made a mistake, moreso it is defined on how one reacts to the mistakes you make. If you allow yourself to be defined by the mistake and do nothing to correct it, then ones charatcer is flawed. However, if one makes a mistake and confronts it, if they do everything they can to correct it, learn from it and see that it does not happen again then one’s character is not flawed- you cn even say it is steeled and improved.
Now, apply this pricipal to the Administration and to America in the light of Abu Ghraib.
THAT is what seperates us from them. THAT is why our moral character as a nation is definerd as it is today.
Ted
and like I have said all along, we have 135,000 troops in that theatre right now and how many of them committed these acts? 7 maybe 8 at the most…? maybe more, but the point is we have another 134, 990 soldiers over there that are performing with excellence that we expect of our troops… so, take care of the few bad apples and don’t let them spoil your image of the bunch…
Sadam tourtered many and so did the vietkong and all while the liberal left-wing news media was looking the other way and so were the liberal politicians
not to mention the fact that they were, in the same breath, denouncing our troops forefully.
In all the blustering I have heard on various Media / Press outlets, by journalists, by Congressional leaders, by support groups pro or con; I have heard no discussion on the potential affect on children should gay marriage be made legal. In every other part of society the welfare of children is supposedly of prime importance. Children are prime considerations in family health insurance, the house you want to raise your children in, the expenses in raising them, IRS deductions, divorce and custody agreements, family get togethers of aunts, uncles, brothers and sister and education.
I have absolutely not heard of one discussion that was held in consideration of the potential emotional, physical and mental affect of gay marriage on children brought into a gay marriage. Will we have children in school saying. “Your stupid and sick. You have two Daddies. – I have a Mommy and a Daddy.” or “Which Daddy is your Mommy?” or “Which Mom is your Dad?” How many fights might children have over issues like this both as first graders and as teens? How much confusion about relationships and parents in general will there be. Children look at their father and mother as somebody that is going to protect and love them. The present construction of marriage is easy to understand. Gay marriage will not be.
I have not heard one discussion nor have I heard of a discussion being held of the short or long term potential affects of the legalization of gay marriage on society in general. I have not heard one discussion on the pros and cons of gay marriage itself. To be blithely considering an issue that has the potential to profoundly affect every segment of society without protracted debate is ludicrous.
Gay and Lesbian group estimates of the percentage of Gay & Lesbians existing are 10 % or less. It has been shown that all groups tend to exaggerate the percent of people supporting their cause. Many studies have placed the number of Gay & Lesbians at 1% to 2 ½ % and other have placed it at 3 – 5 %. A recent survey in Canada asking how many were Gay or Lesbian resulted in 2%. For conversation sake accept the highest percentage as 10% which I believe it is more like 1 to 3 %/ . HOW CAN AMERICA BE READY TO CHANGE SOMETHING SO FUNDAMENTAL TO SOCIETY ON THE DEMAND OF A MINORITY. Acquiescence is not the answer. This is not time to be experimenting with the fundamental value of society.
Marriage is a fundamental concept of society and all its values. We stand at the doorstep of having it destroyed almost overnight. For all of mans history there has been the taking by a man of a mate to form a union or partnership. At some point in time all societies formalized the concept of one male – one female unions. In some societies if a man could afford it, he could have more than one wife. All of the existing history of civilization has basically revolved around man and woman relationships. All of what has bound society has revolved around this concept.
It would result in an eventual disaster for any society that accepts the idea of the legalization of gay marriage. The deleterious ramifications are exponential.
Lawyers gleefully swoon at the thought of it. They would more than triple or quadruple their business. Why triple? They would be writing new law in State courts for decades. Can you imagine the number of class action suits that would be given birth. They would probably have double or triple the business they would ordinarily get from a heterosexual couple. They could sue everybody for discrimination. Almost any business would be a candidate for a suit. Oh, I didn’t mentions the ACLU. The ACLU would visit every segment of society and not as a friend.
What about the changes in public life. With no taboos, we would see two women or two men caressing each other: on a park bench, on an elevator, in a restaurant, at the beach, at school, in a car at the light, at the train station. We are at a turning point in America. We had theoretically a balance of power. That is rapidly being broken. The courts were supposed to interpret not legislate. Congress wrote laws. The President signed them into law. Today we have rogue courts that are making law as well as blatantly placing impediments to enforcement of law that they disagree with.
If we follow this path, is it possible for groups like ( NAMBLA ) North American Man Boy Love Association to gain legitimacy?
On July 2, 2004 – There existed a nudist camp for children in White Tail Park, Virginia. The State of Virginia intending to shut is down was confronted with a suit from the ACLU to prevent them from shutting it down.
What about ( GLSEN) Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network? They sponsor Gay, Straight Lesbian Recruitment Clubs in High Schools around the country. The ACLU has stated they would defend GLSEN. The ACLU already has a separate Gay & Lesbian department. In Massachusetts ( Senator Kerry’s home state ) GLSEN provided instruction to teens on how to put a fist into a vagina of anus. http://glsen.traditionalvalues.org/additionalresources.php#
The ACLU has been responsible for bizarre court ruling after bizarre court ruling. All have read about them. If Gay and Lesbian Marriage becomes Legal the ACLU may well convert society into a Halloween nightmare.
The ACLU was formed in 1921 by Roger Nash Baldwin, Crystal Eastman and Albert DeSilva. They were alleged communists. The ACLU has always been extremely left since its inception and still is. The problem is they have obtained omnipotent power partly due to misdirected support by large corporations and others. They claim they are defending the Constitution, but actually the general result of what they have done seems to be to fragment and attack the original meaning and intent of the writers of the constitution. They attack everything from a socialistic viewpoint. That is not a defender of the Constitution, it is a destroyer. They have left a wake of destruction in their path in destroying the positive values, morals, religious institutions, family values and societal cohesion in every walk of society.
This Gay & Lesbian legislation will shut down free speech. A majority of Americans do not agree with the legalization of Gay Marriage. The majority of those that say it doesn’t matter have no comprehension of how it could change the basic ideals and social structure of society and the disastrous change that would follow in every segment of society. Would you or I be able to be charged with a hate crime if we openly disagreed with Gay marriage.
In ruling for Roe vs. Wade the Supreme court interpreted the law by legislating law. The woman that originally was the petitioner is now a pro-life advocate. Court decisions in separation of Church and State have been similarly legislated by the court. In ruling for pro abortion no research was done on the affects of abortion on women. We now know that women that have had one or more abortions experience a highly elevated risk of breast cancer as well as other problems. We now know contrary to pro abortion claims that there were thousands of partial birth abortions carried out. This was such a repulsive procedure that Congress is acting. We now know that many women having had abortions experience psychological, suicidal, emotion and physical problems as a result of an abortion. The Supreme Court in its ruling took none of these facts into consideration in arriving at its opinion.
The important factor is that the Supreme court took none of these issues or potential future issues into consideration.
That is the current mentality. Do not consider the impact on society and life in rushing to legalize gay marriage. Appease the extremely vocal and radical element of society. Appease the gay minority and some politicians who support them.
Ignore the majority of Americans. Most of them don’t even have a understanding or appreciation of how it will affect them and their families.
In cases before the Supreme Court both sides of an issue are heard and subsequently a decision is rendered.
The Plaintiffs in these decisions said the founding fathers meant this and that. If we stop for two seconds and ask the questions, How many of the signers of the Constitution would have voted to approve abortion on demand? None.
How many signers would have voted to abolish any mention of religion or church in school, court or Constitutional meetings. None. The separation of church and State in the Constitution was only to prohibit a State church such as England had at that time in the Church of England, not to banish religion .
We can ask ourselves the question, How many signers of the Constitution would have voted to allow the marriage of two men or two women? None for certain.
If gay marriage is legalized it will be a catastrophe for society and America.
I have tried multiple time to try to imagine what society would be like if gay marriage had been legal 2000 years ago.
What would society, nations, churches, laws, family relationships and children be like today?
No matter what I tried to imagine, I came up with disaster.
Ron Ford
119 Fairview
Deerfield, IL. 60015
Ronspecopgrp@ameritech.net
847 945 6079