tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post111774611826568603..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Eyewitness in IraqHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117760303389003442005-06-02T20:58:00.000-04:002005-06-02T20:58:00.000-04:00Tlaloc: I think that if you look at Mr. Elliott's ...Tlaloc: I think that if you look at Mr. Elliott's comment and my response you may be satisfied that we have reached something of a consensus here.—STKS. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117758990763388622005-06-02T20:36:00.000-04:002005-06-02T20:36:00.000-04:00I certainly agree on the principles outlined here ...I certainly agree on the principles outlined here by Mr. Elliott. I would give Mike rather more leeway than Tlaoc does, given that Mike was there and we weren't, but I can accept that other inferences about the reporter's thought processes are quite possible on the basis of the limited information available in Mike's note dashed off in a war zone.—STKS. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117757848400662592005-06-02T20:17:00.000-04:002005-06-02T20:17:00.000-04:00To be totally fair, I don't think Tlaloc was doing...To be totally fair, I don't think Tlaloc was doing any such thing. Rather, he was pointing out a certain presumption of guilt (one that exists not only in soldiers in war zones but among police today, etc.) that can lead to a prediliction to violence, which will, by the law of statistics (which, as Tlaloc pointed out, are staggering) will affect innocents.<BR/><BR/>Tlaloc was not accusing THESE soldiers of anything. However, I think Tlaloc is quite right to be concerned about the mentality indicated by such a statement as the reporter's. His statement was in no way unreasonable. I saw none of the condemnation Mr. Karnick apparently felt was inferred. Soldiers in occupation zones by necessity must be held to high standards of action.<BR/><BR/>In this case, Tlaloc did not appear to have a problem with the soldiers' actions, which, as Mr. Karnick points out, were restrained and proper. He had a problem with the mentality behind the reporter's statement and a pattern of behavior such a mentality appears to lead to with staggering frequency (I am not referring to check-point shootings, which military protocol gives the soldiers little leeway in).James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117756776508596092005-06-02T19:59:00.000-04:002005-06-02T19:59:00.000-04:00Tlaloc: We do see things differently. These soldie...Tlaloc: We do see things differently. These soldiers did no harm at all to the two detainees as far as we know. Does that not matter to you? How is it fair or decent to condemn these soldiers out of hand without knowing the details? Detaining innocent people in a war zone is not an atrocity; it is in fact the norm, on both sides in any war. It is certainly better than shooting first and asking questions later, which you correctly find appalling. Do you seriously contend that these soldiers should simply have left these two men to go on their way and possibly kill other soldiers and Iraqi civilians? Isn't it clearly the lesser of two evils to detain them and attempt to find out their intentions? (And I am absolutely NOT advocating torture or anything like it!)<BR/><BR/>I certainly deplore any and all real wrongs that have been done by our side in this war. Absolutely and without exception. Now, can you meet me halfway and admit that it is unfair to accuse people about whom you know absolutely nothing as being party to atrocities? Are you fair-minded enough to do that?—STKS. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117753744812557672005-06-02T19:09:00.000-04:002005-06-02T19:09:00.000-04:00Anonymous: The entire article by Mike is at the to...Anonymous: The entire article by Mike is at the top of the comments page, as is Tlaloc's gloss, so repeating it was entirely unnecessary. If anything dishonest was done here, it was done by Tlaloc in failing to quote Mike fully. However, I do <I>not</I> assert that what Tlaloc did was dishonest.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your final point, I was not referring to Mike as a soldier, as is quite clear. I think that what Tlaloc said about "good old presumption of guilt" could have been taken as applying to the soldiers, which is indeed how I took it, and I wanted to make sure that such an interpretation would not be left to stand.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from attributing motives to me and in particular of accusing me of dishonesty. Given that I have been perfectly reasonable and polite throughout this discussion, I believe that you owe me an apology, though I do not demand or expect one.—STKS. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117752665592196112005-06-02T18:51:00.000-04:002005-06-02T18:51:00.000-04:00Tlaloc posted a direct quote, so when you inform u...Tlaloc posted a direct quote, so when you inform us about "all" Mike said, and leave out that direct quote, you come across as being quite dishonest. Let's also remember that Mike is a reporter, not a soldier, although I think that "embedded propagana conduit" is probably a better description of his job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117751426150926472005-06-02T18:30:00.000-04:002005-06-02T18:30:00.000-04:00To be fair, war zones are not typically good place...To be fair, war zones are not typically good places to look for the rule of law, and shooting down British choppers and shelling wedding parties are by no means the norm even in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>More importantly for the present discussion, it is essential to recognize that all Mike said was that the U.S. soldiers "nabbed" the two men, which clearly means that they were arrested; he does not say or even remotely suggest that they were executed without trial, or even that anything at all was done to them without further investigation. I think that soldiers under perpetual threat of death deserve better than flippant dismissals.—STKS. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.com