Slashdot Mirror


South Park Creators Given Signed Photo of Saddam Hussein

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."

86 of 1,297 comments (clear)

  1. Huh. by MrMista_B · · 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.

    1. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly.

      After seeing the comments from Matt Stone and Trey Parker I lost any respect for them as well (and yes, I actually did have some).

      What pathetic human beings.

    2. Re:Huh. by Duhavid · · 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.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    3. Re:Huh. by Argumentator · · 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.

    4. Re:Huh. by rev_g33k_101 · · Score: 3, 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.

      You are talking about making a man who gassed his own citizens being forced to watch a movie torture?!?! I hope you are trolling!

      If not you need to get your priorities straight.

      To top it off you have been modded insightful?!?

      Damn! grow up.

      --
      "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
    5. Re:Huh. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His kangaroo trial was conducted by Vichy Iraqis at our urging.

      Besides -- if his trial didn't meet our standards, we should have condemned the result anyway. Principles don't have geographic boundaries.

    6. Re:Huh. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're talking about a guy who _shredded_ dissenters in a giant machine here.

      That's propaganda.

      But for the sake of argument, let's assume Hussein really did that. That act still wouldn't justify our treatment of the man. There is no excuse for adding unnecessarily to the sum of human misery. He was tried (however poorly), found guilty, and executed. That consequence should be deterrent enough. Deliberately harassing him in the meantime does nothing except show the world that we've become petty thugs.

      Do you endorse rape in our own prisons by any chance? I know plenty of people who do, and quite frankly, it's disturbing as hell. Revenge is not a valid public goal, even when you dress it up and call it "justice". Brutality diminishes us, not the criminals.

    7. Re:Huh. by Unipuma · · 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.

    8. Re:Huh. by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow.... I'm going to karma hell for this but... WTF is wrong with you Americans? Have you been SO blinded by the media and patriotism and hatred that you actually believe this? Don't be conned. The US could have stopped the trial at any point.

      That's like saying "Hey! I didn't kill him, I just locked him into a small room with a bunch of people who hate them and gave them all guns. Don't look at me". Don't be a fool.

    9. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No... you should just stop invading nations.

    10. Re:Huh. by sympathy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mass Media is God in America. If you even attempt to classify the big networks as "Main Stream Media," thus implying that alternative information or divergent opinion is available, most people will either be puzzled at best or outright distrustful and angry, calling you a fringe lunatic or conspiracy theorist. At least in China nobody has any illusions, they call it what it is: State-run Media.

    11. Re:Huh. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, 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.

      We need to respect the choices other people make

      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.

    12. Re:Huh. by vux984 · · Score: 4, 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.

    13. Re:Huh. by Daisy+Skye · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow.... I'm going to karma hell for this but... WTF is wrong with you Americans? Have you been SO blinded by the media and patriotism and hatred that you actually believe this? Don't be conned. The US could have stopped the trial at any point.

      Hey, not all of us Americans suck THAT badly.

      Some of us do realize that that Saddam's hearing was a puppet trial, and we had to go through something like three different judges before we found someone who'd mod the case the way we wanted.

      The whole thing was a complete farce. The outcome of the trial was well-known before it began.

      The saddest bit is that there are lots of Americans who like it that way. So much for justice and democracy in Iraq.

    14. Re:Huh. by QuoteMstr · · 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.

    15. Re:Huh. by Demena · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be legally considered torture. Deliberate and repeated humiliation.

    16. Re:Huh. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Huh. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 4, 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.

    18. Re:Huh. by will_die · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hanging is one of the quickest ways to die. You can probably find the article if you search for it but some journalist asked a bunch of people who build and maintain execution machines and that all selected hanging as the method they would prefer to have applied to them.

    19. Re:Huh. by NeutronCowboy · · 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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    20. Re:Huh. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Brutality. A movie. I don't care if he were forced to watch Waterworld or Battlefield Earth, that's still not brutality or torture. Has everybody lost perspective? What's next, the prosecution of prison wardens by the International Criminal Court because they force people to watch over-the-air TV instead of cable? Surely that's a miscarriage of justice, a breakdown of rule of law, etc. etc. I can't even do this. It's just so stupid and ludicrous. Oh no a movie! The brutality of it all!

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    21. Re:Huh. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...calling this torture is stretching the definition to the point of breaking.

      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.

    22. Re:Huh. by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His kangaroo trial was conducted by Vichy Iraqis at our urging.

      Besides -- if his trial didn't meet our standards, we should have condemned the result anyway. Principles don't have geographic boundaries.

      Then people would be criticizing the US for putting a puppet government in place. The whole point of this damn mess (if you're very optimistic) was to free Iraq to make their own choices.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    23. Re:Huh. by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but what basic right was denied to Saddam by making him watch South Park?

      Human dignity.

    24. Re:Huh. by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah because you know... when we're dealing with Saddam Husein or some upper ranking member of Al Queda then it's so awful to have their only choice of television programing be South Park, right?

      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.

    25. Re:Huh. by Rob+Kaper · · 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.

    26. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US invades nations for worse reasons already, not only that, but is also known to sell weapons to both sides of a conflict (Iran/Iraq), regularly interfere in other nations politics (Pinochet, Saddam), make use of depleted uranium, fund and support terrorists (The Mujahideen), regularly interfere in conflicts that don't concern it (Afghanistan, Iraq), and won't hesitate to detain people indefinately in military prisons, try the lucky ones in military court, and subject them to treatment in blatant violation of human rights treaties, etc.

      Obviously imposing its will on other nations and disrespecting their sovereignity has never, ever been an issue to the US, but all of a sudden, when it's a "bad guy" who gets hung, there's talk of respecting other nations' customs and sovereignity?

      What good is establishing and respecting a government when the sole reason that such a government was established, was because the last attempt of establishing a puppet government failed miserably?

      Or was that whole bit forgotten already?

    27. Re:Huh. by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was hanged in Iraq, surrounded by a cheering crowd of Iraqis.

    28. Re:Huh. by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your points are perfectly valid. However, considering the fact that Saddam was responsible for gassing 10,000 civilians to death inside his own country's borders, along with the rape and murder of countless others throughout the country, I'm not going to shed any tears over the method of execution. This is coming from a guy who's always been against capital punishment for various reasons; in his case, fuck him.

    29. Re:Huh. by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, 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.

    30. Re:Huh. by PixetaledPikachu · · 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"

    31. Re:Huh. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An anesthetic is always administered, however...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    32. Re:Huh. by EatHam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      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.

    33. Re:Huh. by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you ever undergone general anesthesia?

      Yes. I've also regained consciousness once before the muscle relaxant had worn off completely. That's a pretty scary experience.

      We know how to knock people out quickly and painlessly very well.

      Well, I sure don't. Do you? An anaesthesiologist should know, but doctors usually don't want to get involved in executions.

    34. Re:Huh. by Curtman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no reasonable form of execution. Unless you live in a barbaric country like Iran, China, or the United States where it is acceptable to murder people.

    35. Re:Huh. by MetaPhyzx · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
    36. Re:Huh. by optimus2861 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not one to defend the profligate spending of the Bush administration. He missed a golden opportunity when the country rallied around him post-9/11 to get federal government spending under control. However to stop the graph at the end of the Bush administration without acknowledging what Obama's proposing is flat-out wrong.

    37. Re:Huh. by oberondarksoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A nation should be judged not upon how it treats its most noble, but how it treats the most deplorable. Anyone can be a monster to someone who deserves it, but far better they who treat such a monster in the opposite.

      --
      And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
    38. Re:Huh. by mokus000 · · 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.

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    39. Re:Huh. by lixee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is this "inside his own country's borders" relevant? Are the deaths due to Iraq's invasion of Iran somehow less outrageous? Are the deaths due to the US invasion of Iraq more excusable?

      I agree with the "screw Saddam" sentiment, but please refrain from relaying blatant propaganda.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    40. Re:Huh. by CrispBH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assuming a bullet through the head is as reliable as you think it is (it is not), a large problem with this method of execution is the unnecessary stress it causes on the executioner. Firing squad executions are provided by a squad in no small part due to the inability to detect who was responsible for the lethal shot (there are other reasons). A point blank shooting causes a lot of psychological issues for most mentally stable people, and anyone working in the death row system should certainly be that.

      It is my opinion that revenge and justice are two very separate ideas, and that state killing (if you accept such an idea; I don't) should be firmly restricted to the latter. Therefore, the quicker and more painless the execution the better, regardless of the crime.

    41. Re:Huh. by mdarksbane · · 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.

    42. Re:Huh. by beegeegee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't kid yourself - murder is acceptable in every country. .

      I can't even begin to decipher this statement except to say that the poster you replied to probably mean "acceptable for the state to murder people". He is absolutely correct. Murder by the state is a barbaric practice common to the countries he mentioned and not to many other civilized countries. If you don't see the difference between state sponsored murder and human on human murder then there is probably nothing to discuss. I am happy you're not American though; we have far too many people of your mind here already.

    43. Re:Huh. by Danathar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because somebody said that (famous or not) does not make it true.

      Monsters should be treated like Monsters. There is no dishonor in that.

    44. Re:Huh. by YeeHaW_Jelte · · 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.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    45. Re:Huh. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    46. Re:Huh. by Everyone+Is+Seth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have always hated this statement, as it's a logical fallacy. If it were true, the greatest nation in the world would not only let all of it's most deplorable citizens do anything they want, it would give them candy in the process. Statements like this garner admiration because they sound neat. They also serve as a tool for people looking to have evidence to support their opinions on any nation, since basically any nation will prosecute their worst criminals.

    47. Re:Huh. by Mab_Mass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Monsters should be treated like Monsters. There is no dishonor in that.

      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?

    48. Re:Huh. by Plutonite · · Score: 4, 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.

    49. Re:Huh. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What disgusting, barbarian thinking. We don't punish people to "get back at them." Hurting somebody doesn't even any scales of justice or undo any damage. The world is not a better place by humiliating Saddam; the world is a worse place.

    50. Re:Huh. by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it incredibly annoying how the US uses violations of international law as a reason to demonize, sanction, or even outright invade other nations, but when the US does them, they're mentioned in passing and even cheered.

      Random example: shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, after the whole statue-toppling incident, the US took the scraps of the statue to an Iraqi artist and paid him to make them a monument out of them, which they shipped to Fort Hood. They also took an intact head, arm, and sword.

      Okay, first off, it's completely illegal to deface artwork in the first place, whether you agree with it or not. But just completely ignoring that, this is outright looting. How many freaking times have we condemned as little more than thuggish brigands armed groups who invade one place and leave carrying out things like that? I couldn't begin to count it. And yet the US press, and the website of the museum at Fort Hood, is outright *celebrating* the looting of Iraqi bronze. WTF?

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
    51. Re:Huh. by Draek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is, however, stupidity. If monsters are such because they treat others as monsters would, then by punishing him likewise makes you, in turn, a monster deserving to be punished in the same way.

      And thus is why the phrase "cycle of hatred" exists.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    52. Re:Huh. by Cormophyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, sadly in this day, forcing someone to shave, to bath, to listen to music they don't like, to watch TV shows making fun of their ideals or image is akin to starvation, braking bones, inserting surgical instruments into the human body or operating with nothing to dull the pain, pulling off fingernails, and threatening someone with death and taking them almost there.

      Shaving and bathing, ok, that's not torture, that's promoting good hygiene in a community environment so that the prisoners don't wind up with lice.

      Being made to listen to music you don't like isn't so bad, but it is when you're made to listen to the same song over and over at a high volume for days. Making fun of their ideals or making them watch a movie for retribution, infantile and not even close to what I expect from professional soldiers, let alone professional soldiers under my employ.

      Now...I know the RIAA will be storming my front door for this, but tonight go torrent any CD published by Disney in the last 10 years and play a random track on repeat as loud as you can, then lay in bed and try your best to sleep. Now imagine being locked in your room for six months (or two thirds of a baby, however you want to think of it) and handing the play button to someone with the mindset of a 10 year old boy poking a dead bird with a stick. Imagine what they could do to you when all you want is a nap. Tell me you wouldn't let someone break your finger to not have that happen. Go ahead, lie to me.

    53. Re:Huh. by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This millitary is composed of 18-24 year old foot soldiers. The sergeants and officers are usually older but the main fighting group is the frat boy age. This is why you don't use the military for civilian operations as it's like taking a hammer to any situation. Put these kids in charge of a detention facility (and don't believe for a minute that those 18 year old foot soldiers weren't his guards) and they do things like play movies that are humiliating to detainees. I would bet that every army in the world does stuff like this under these type of circumstances. The only thing you can do to mitigate it is to simply not put soldiers in control of detention facilities. The military really didn't have that option in this situation because Iraqi guards would have done FAR FAR worse to Saddam. So we end up taking the blame for the military acting like a bunch of Frat boys, which they are. Much of this likely could have been mitigated if other nations had donated veteran soldiers and officers to run these type of facilities.

    54. Re:Huh. by Gabrill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So I guess you missed the grade school class explaining why the executive and judicial branches are separate. There is NO form of punishment or harassment acceptable under the US Constitution that's not ordered by a judge and/or jury. This is to protect you, MightyYar, from police who hate people with Yar in their screen names. Or some other equally ridiculous reason.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  2. your tax dollars at work by inzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    well done america, another reason to gain respect from the world

    1. Re:your tax dollars at work by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Eh, it just shows that, at heart, you're no different from them.

    2. Re:your tax dollars at work by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Needless cruelty isn't justified by the history of the victim.

  3. Re:hilarious by thefoul · · 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.

    --
    The runcible rhythm of ravenous raisins rolled through the rookery rambling and raving.
  4. I always thought by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...we were supposed to be the good guys?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  5. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He could have been satan himself, but it still doesn't change the fact that you should treat others as yourself. A civilisation will be judged according to how it treats its enemies and the powerless. It's easy to treat powerful friends well. At the time of his incarceration, Hussein was both powerless and an enemy. Epic fail by the US marines.

  6. Re:Fucking Americans by glowworm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The parent has sort of a point apart from expressing disgust in an innapropriate manner, it is a little lame that Americans are proclaiming with glee how they insulted a foreign leader to his face before hanging him.

    "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.

    --
    Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
  7. Re:hilarious by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hardly ever post comments like this, but the parent of this post does not deserve negative moderation. The recent worship of the military by one segment of the population is a harbinger of fascism. Soldiers are still human beings, and by criticizing them when they err, we keep them honest and preserve both their honor and the honor of our country.

  8. Re:Fucking Americans by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Take the high moral ground guys, don't play childish games like this and maybe the rest of the world might respect you.

    The ones who give a crap about decorum, dignity, world respect, and well, not being jackasses on the international stage are not the ones who did this. America is just like any other large group of people: there are some idiots, there are a lot of people who know better. It's a mistake to blame the whole group for something a few individuals did. So... quit judging us for the actions of a few immature soldiers and we won't judge you for (insert country-specific national disgrace here).

  9. Re:Matt & Trey Advocating Torture? Yeah. by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, 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.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Seriously you guys... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Seriously you guys... by Quothz · · 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".

  12. Re:Fucking Americans by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    were very slightly 'less worse' than the alternative.

    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.

  13. How we treat evil people changes us by Geof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the point is, regardless of who the person is you are holding in prison, you have to live by your -OWN- standards.

    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.)

    1. Re:How we treat evil people changes us by CarbonShell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'fun'?
      In what world may vengeance ever be fun?

      Sorry, but then you are not really better. You just have a better excuse.

  14. Propaganda reached a new low by Opportunist · · 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. 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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. This is supposed to be funny? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  16. and the Labour Party is notionally Left Wing... by goldcd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Alright - I know anybody familiar with UK politics is sniggering at that.
    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.

  17. Re:hilarious by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stereotyping an entire organization as "egotistical macho jackoff[s]" is not the rational path away from worship. It is one thing to criticize an act, but to attack a person (ad hominem fallacy) or worse a group of people (negative stereotyping) turns this into exactly what it was moderated: hypocritical flamebaiting.

    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.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  18. Re:Matt & Trey Advocating Torture? Yeah. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are actually Libertarians, not Republicans. Or did you miss the all the Pro-Stem Cell Research, Pro-Drug Legalization undertones?

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Just ask the Kuwatis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Damn right, just ask the Kuwaitis.

  21. See: Michael Portillo by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A British politician, despite the UK having no death penalty, actually did some research into execution methods which was televised 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."

    1. Re:See: Michael Portillo by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice to see being a revenge-obsessed sociopath doesn't prevent you from being a 'leading voice' in a major political movement. Truly America is the land of equal opportunities.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  22. Re:Let start out by saying by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gee, I don't remember Americans having a problem with Saddam when WE WERE PAYING HIM with our Tax Dollars to fight Iran for us.

    How about embracing the teachings of Jesus? He who is without sin, cast the first stone. Didn't the United States kill 1000's of it's own people indescriminately? Oh, you must have forgotten. They were called "Native Americans", or at the time... "Indians". And we're a country that for generations endorsed SLAVERY.

    Imagine, if you will.. how this country would be seen if in some kind of Star Trek "Mirror Mirror" universe, we were still doing that to this day, or that American from the 1800's was suddenly catapulted into the year 2000...

    Is it really our place to stick our more developed moralities onto the rest of the undeveloped world? Is Saddam any better than Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and often raped the women (how many Black Americans are part of the Jefferson lineage?)?

    So, while you sit on your high horse dispatching justice as you see fit, tell me how you think this country is so much better than Iraq that we had the right to go in there and destroy everything so that we could make life even more miserable for the average Iraqi, but now they are "free"...

    At what point in your delusion do you realise that all developing nations go through a period, often lasting 100 years or more, where things are shitty? And just because we got past that period, somehow we assume that everyone else has gotten past that period as well?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  23. Like reading? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Palin and her pals like to ignore the Katie Couric interview, where the world quickly learned what real intelligence is. Anyone who can't answer a simple question like "What do you read on a daily basis?" is either phenomonally incurious or just as stupid, and to lash out with nonsense like "Alaska gets the same papers as the rest of the country" after three tries to get a simple answer to a simple question -- well, they are a whackjob. Those who support said whackjob with ever more ridiculous excuses are worse.

  24. Re:damned imperialists by techhead79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't honestly believe how anti-American Slashdot has become. I've been revolted by some of the comments I've seen here lately. Calling our soldiers murderers? The Mods don't seam to be helping any, they've modded up just about every post calling the USA evil. Maybe we should have a nice long chat about what is an acceptable responce for a nation to give after a terrorist attack. And even that comment right there will start an entire new thread about how we had no right to invade Iraq...and blah blah blah. It's getting old. I'd rather just admit I'm an evil murderer to get them to shut up already. Who cares in the bigger picture anyway...I don't think a single nation on the planet doesn't have blood on its hands.

  25. I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold. by EWAdams · · 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?

    --
    I piss off bigots.
  26. Mod parent up by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 4, 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.

  27. From a vet by hkb · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */