Rumsfeld on 'kill team' photos: 'Much worse' than Abu Ghraib

[YankeeFan]

Can't believe this story isn't getting more attention.

Abi Ghraib received tremendous attention. News organizations sued for the right to photograph returning coffins of soldiers, but no one seems interested in these pictures or this story.

Rumsfeld:

You know, I feel such a responsibility as an American that when people are in our custody, we treat them properly. It is always heartbreaking when we see that there are allegations and photographs or suggestions that people have mismanaged that process. And of course the courts will decide in this case. But it is interesting, in the case of Abhu Ghraib, that it was such an important press event and nobody was killed. And in this case, it looks like there are allegations that some people were actually killed.

...

The situation, of course, is much worse if someone dies, but it's a sad thing. It's unfortunate. The overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform are professional. They handle themselves well. They treat people properly in our custody. And no question but that they are punished in the event that the courts and the military commissions under the uniform code of military justice decide that they've done something wrong. They get punished.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/29/video-rumsfeld-kill-team-photos-worse-abu-ghraib/

 

[DanOregon]

It was reported on. Back in September. By NPR.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/20/129996953/5-soldiers-accused-of-setting-up-kill-team-in-afghanistan

And Fox News says this today.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/30/bogus-report-rolling-stone-troops-afghanistan-crying-bullst/

 

[YankeeFan]

It was reported on. Back in September. By NPR.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/20/129996953/5-soldiers-accused-of-setting-up-kill-team-in-afghanistan

And Fox News says this today.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/30/bogus-report-rolling-stone-troops-afghanistan-crying-bullst/

I didn't say it wasn't reported on at all. And, I agree with Michael Yon -- who's reporting from the war zone has been terrific -- that we shouldn't use this event to smear the rest of the unit or our millitary.

But Abu Ghraib was a feeding frenzy. The story went on and on. Every major outlet covered it -- the major papers, the network news casts, and they gave it top billing.

There were calls for Rumsfeld to resign. Bush was blamed. Congressional hearings were called for.

This story has remained mostly below the radar and the reaction to it has been muted.

 

[wicked]

It's partly that we've been desensitized to it. There's a lot of war porn our there now.

 

[DanOregon]

If the kill team story happened first and Abu Ghraib now, I'm sure AG wouldn't have received the same amount of coverage. Remember we were going in as liberators, welcomed and cheered by the Iraqis, we were the good guys and specifically NOT anti-Muslim. AG put a huge dent in that idea. I think Americans can tolerate or at least accept innocent lives lost in the heat of a battle or a bad location of an airstrike - it is all about intent. US forces didn't intend to harm innocents. Not saying the people in AG were innocent at all, but what happened there, and what has been reported with the kill team were US soldiers actively and purposefully doing harm outside of authority (hopefully).

 

[Stoney]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=2

Above is the actual Rolling Stone Kill Team article. There's also another link there where the photos can be seen, but be forewarned, they are gruesome, avoid if at work or squeamish.

For those who've not read about this yet, this is basically about a group of bored U.S. soldiers who decided it would be great fun to start murdering innocent unarmed Afghan civilians and mutilate their corpses.

And, alarmingly, it appears the only reason this group got caught is because the morons couldn't keep their mouths shut and photographed their work and proudly shared the pictures with all their buddies back home. Makes you wonder how many others who aren't so stupid might be doing this and getting away with it, and also makes you wonder what happens when some of these dead end kids with this newly developed bloodlust come home and re-enter American civilian society.

As for why it's not getting Abu Ghraib-like attention, as others have said, it's likely because the American public and world has become jaded and de-sensitized to these stories. Abu Ghraib shocked us most because it was first. Seven years later, we're not nearly as naive.

 

[YankeeFan]

It's partly that we've been desensitized to it. There's a lot of war porn our there now.

I don't think it's that.

If the kill team story happened first and Abu Ghraib now, I'm sure AG wouldn't have received the same amount of coverage. Remember we were going in as liberators, welcomed and cheered by the Iraqis, we were the good guys and specifically NOT anti-Muslim. AG put a huge dent in that idea. I think Americans can tolerate or at least accept innocent lives lost in the heat of a battle or a bad location of an airstrike - it is all about intent. US forces didn't intend to harm innocents. Not saying the people in AG were innocent at all, but what happened there, and what has been reported with the kill team were US soldiers actively and purposefully doing harm outside of authority (hopefully).

Disagree. Fist off, this is Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Secondly, when something bad happens, you're supposed to put in procedures and provide additional training to ensure it doesn't happen again.

When it does happen again, then it should be a bigger story, not a lesser one.

 

[wicked]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/army-lewis-mcchord-platoon-charged-with-killing-civilians-091110w/

 

[poindexter]

It's partly that we've been desensitized to it. There's a lot of war porn our there now.

I don't think it's that.

If the kill team story happened first and Abu Ghraib now, I'm sure AG wouldn't have received the same amount of coverage. Remember we were going in as liberators, welcomed and cheered by the Iraqis, we were the good guys and specifically NOT anti-Muslim. AG put a huge dent in that idea. I think Americans can tolerate or at least accept innocent lives lost in the heat of a battle or a bad location of an airstrike - it is all about intent. US forces didn't intend to harm innocents. Not saying the people in AG were innocent at all, but what happened there, and what has been reported with the kill team were US soldiers actively and purposefully doing harm outside of authority (hopefully).

Disagree. Fist off, this is Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Secondly, when something bad happens, you're supposed to put in procedures and provide additional training to ensure it doesn't happen again.

When it does happen again, then it should be a bigger story, not a lesser one.

Are you getting at that this is an Obama/Bush/media thing? Because that's what I think it sounds like you are getting at.

 

[YankeeFan]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/army-lewis-mcchord-platoon-charged-with-killing-civilians-091110w/

Is this supposed to be evidence that the story was covered sufficiently?

Do you not remember the coverage that Abu Ghraib received?

New York Times, Washington Post, front page, top of the fold. Lead story on th nightly network broadcasts.

Did any of the three Sunday shows even ask gates about it this past week? Has he been asked about it at all? Have hearings been called for or held? Has anyone called for Gates to resign?

This story is very similar to Abu Ghraib, only the coverage is different.

 

[YankeeFan]

Are you getting at that this is an Obama/Bush/media thing? Because that's what I think it sounds like you are getting at.

You tell me. Is that what it is? I don't know.

This is pretty close to an apples to apples comparison.

 

[wicked]

Not at all, YF. But unlike Abu Ghraib, DoD got out in front of the story and is shaping the narrative. Abu Ghraib got out because someone flagged CNN. The military already is court-martialing these guys.

 

[Stoney]

YF, if you're trying to angle this thread toward a debate over liberal media bias, please stop now.

This is an important story that is very worthy of discussion, but not in the form of a left/right political pissing match.

 

[YankeeFan]

Not at all, YF. But unlike Abu Ghraib, DoD got out in front of the story and is shaping the narrative. Abu Ghraib got out because someone flagged CNN. The military already is court-martialing these guys.

That's the best point so far. I believe that Rumsfeld said he didn't see the Abu Ghraib pictures until they were in the media.

YF, if you're trying to angle this thread toward a debate over liberal media bias, please stop now.

This is an important story that is very worthy of discussion, but not in the form of a left/right political pissing match.

Give me a break. If it's so worthy of discussion, then why hasn't it been discussed here yet -- or barely anywhere else.

Abu Ghraib was used as a political club to bash Bush, Rumsfeld, and the U.S. Military at large.

I haven't bashed Obama. I haven't bashed the media or accused anyone of bias.

But, I would like to know why a story like this receives scant attention. And, wr fatigue, or whatever you want to call it is nonsense.

Because prior instances of things like this were trumpeted as such grave mistakes that undermined all of our good work. It was things like this that helped to create terrorists. Is that no longer the case? Is something different? Am I missing something?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Wasn't it the cover-up in Abu Ghraib, not the crime, that caused so much attention? Same thing with Lt. Calley back in the day.

I read this story this week and definitely wanted to know more. I was surprised it hadn't entered my orbit until then, as it was so heinous.

I think there were lots of war crime/court martial stories during the Bush administration that didn't get the attention of Abu Gharib, either. Lots of factors go into why a particular story gets legs and another does not.

 

[Stoney]

If it's so worthy of discussion, then why hasn't it been discussed here yet -- or barely anywhere else.

Perhaps because the Rolling Stone article was only published a couple days ago?

And you're foolish if you don't think the "fatigue" factor impacts coverage. Abu Ghraib shocked the hell out of naive flag-waiving 2004 America, it was something new. But hardly anything over there shocks 2011 America after seven more years of stories about Guantanamo, torture, waterboarding, rendition, the military's sordid lies and cover ups regarding things like Pat Tillman's death and Jessica Lynch's phony heroics, youtube videos of soldiers killing puppies and taunting locals, wikileaks videos of innocents getting gunned down, etc.

Our innocence is long gone when it comes to our Mideast wars, and a large percentage of the formerly-interested no longer want to know what's going on over there. And the media adjusts supply to consumer demand just like any other business.

 

[Dick Whitman]

YF, I don't think that the work-a-day media is nearly as agenda-driven as you think it is. Rolling Stone and the Huffington Post? Yeah, maybe. But papers like the NYT and the Washington Post just want to break big stories. The reporters on the ground, by and large, are not the idealogues that you might think.

 

[Azrael]

Morlock's sentencing was everywhere a week ago.

http://news.google.com/news/more?q=morlock&hl=en&prmd=ivnsu&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dJ6SmP2OLGYr7mM5IWwItgrF02bwM&ei=U4KTTYDjL6rg0gG1t-TMBw&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQqgIwAQ

 

[Dick Whitman]

You can't tell me that the mainstream media is carrying liberal water these days when I had to watch Matt Lauer this morning interview Michelle ****-for-brains Bachmann, with a straight face, about her views on our policy and action in Libya.

 

[deskslave]

You wanna say it, YF? Then just say it. But stop coming here and asking us to say it for you. It's a tired, stupid act.