Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) proved he has not lost his knack for inflammatory rhetoric when he defended “really rough” treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers, including the use of dogs against a prisoner “unless the dog ate him.”
Lott, who lost his job as Senate majority leader in late 2002 after speaking favorably of the late Strom Thurmond’s segregationist campaign for the White House in 1948, wandered into the danger zone again when asked about the prisoner-abuse controversy by WAPT-TV in Jackson, Miss.
Lott condemned what he described as “physical perversion” of prisoners but defended tactics such as sleep deprivation and the use of dogs as sometimes necessary to “save some American troops’ lives or a unity that could be in danger.”
“Hey, nothing wrong with holding a dog up there, unless the dog ate him, scared him with a dog,” Lott said. When WAPT news anchorman Brad McMullan noted that a prisoner died at Abu Ghraib, apparently after a beating, Lott responded, “This is not Sunday school; this is interrogation; this is rough stuff.”
Some of the prisoners “should not have been prisoners in the first place, probably should have been killed,” he added.
So to you, this is the same as “Lott defends treatment of Iraqi prisoners”, the title of this post; that he condemned the perverse stuff (which I’d surmise includes the nudity, photos, covering in poo, and obvious sexual humiliation) but defended other interrogation tactics? They didn’t let a prisoner sleep and a dog barked at him, so call Amnesty fucking International?
seriously, if there isn’t a picture of it, does it mean it didn’t happen? that’s the idea i get when i read the other side calling the stuff at the prison as no big deal. i mean, people are bitching that the news won’t let go of it, but then they go and say the dog just barked at a prisoner, it was just a little naked prisoner pyramid, no biggie. it’s like they don’t even know about the sodomy and dog biting.
At least four photographs obtained by The Washington Post – each apparently taken in late October or November – show fearful prisoners near unmuzzled dogs.
One MP charged with abuses, Spec. Sabrina D. Harman, recalled for Army investigators an episode “when two dogs were brought into [cellblock] 1A to scare an inmate. He was naked against the wall, when they let the dogs corner him. They pulled them back enough, and the prisoner ran . . . straight across the floor. . . .The prisoner was cornered and the dog bit his leg. A couple seconds later, he started to move again, and the dog bit his other leg.”
One of the videos seems to show a G.I. preparing to sodomize a male detainee. A still shot portrays an anguished female prisoner lifting her shirt to expose her breasts. Another photo zeroes in on the face and torso of a detainee smeared with what appear to be feces.
MS: Man were you out of line calling shift6 a racist earlier.
Shift6: Even in the part quoted by MS Trent Lott defended beating prisoners to death as just a natural effect of reasonable interrogation techniques. He also said some of the prisoners should have been summarily executed. Which is not only repugnant in itself, but also displays a repugnant willingness to just lump all those guys together–“I don’t know if they guy we killed deserved it or not, but whatever. Some of the people over there did, and I don’t particularly care whether we got the right one.”
I agree, he’s a steaming pile, with legs. I am simply trying to figure out how MS took what could be classified as “wartime violence” such as killing and intimidation to also mean justifying “perversions” that have been discovered going on there (especially when the accused specifically said the perversions are not acceptable). While I don’t agree with the use of either, I definitely don’t think they are the same thing. Someone choosing to only defend “wartime violence” in this context certainly has a much more defensible position than someone who says covering a guy in poop and making him lay on his naked co-prisoners (or whatever) is OK.
You notice I never even said I agree with Lott, nor did I defend one single thing. Not one, not ever. I simply asked you to clarify a position. That little smiley doesn’t allay my concerns about your implications at all. How many extra bedsheets do I have laying around? Fuck you, jerk. Really.
Not all questions are requests for clarifications. This one, for example, is most definitely making a point:
They didn’t let a prisoner sleep and a dog barked at him, so call Amnesty fucking International?
But nice try playing the innocent victim who’s just trying to get more information.[/quote]
Don’t rewrite history. That was back at the beginning of the thread when I was still using smileys in my post, generally attempting to indicate a decent tone and good faith question, possibly with a touch of dark humor or sarcasm. That was before the unacceptable implications which have since been made. I was trying to get more information before; now I couldn’t possibly care less what this other poster thinks.
It’s so difficult sometimes to make the true meaning of what you meant come out in print, ya know? Shifty, you offended me with your Amnesty Fucking International. I in turn offended you. Then you stoop to name calling! I am offended again! But, I am a forgiving person.
The words “amnesty fucking international” offended you? I’m dying to hear how. I’d also like to see how you think that phrase and you implying I’m a fucking Klan member are basically the same thing. Thanks.
How did I defend anybody?
Heh, no I just don’t consider “perverse” to just mean sexual. For instance, covering the prisoners in poo is (to me) not sexual, just dehumanizing in a perverse way.
shift6- I’m humoring Midnight by allowing that you defended Lott, as in his tiny little mind you effectively did by not calling for his resignation. What I am asking is for any evidence whatsoever that you defended a second person. Reading the thread, I can’t even guess at who second person is.
