Abu Ghraib Question #1

[Hannah Baran (Louisa HS)]

Is Seymour Hersh, the journalist who exposed military abuses in My Lai
(1969) and Abu Ghraib (2004), a hero, a traitor, or something else?
What about Joe Darby, the soldier who reported the actions of his
fellow soldiers to their superiors? If you'd like to finish watching
the video about Joe Darby (about 6 minutes remain), the link is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2972689n&tag=related;photovideo

Respond to one Abu Ghraib question and one reading question by the end
of the day Wednesday.

[Hannah Baran (Louisa HS)]

To receuve full credit, you must include a quote from the New Yorker
article and/or videos.

[Andre]

This question its great for discussion, I honestly believe it will
start an intense arguement. In my opinion, both men, Hersh and a
Darby, are traitors. The revealing of the secrets of My Lai and Aru
Ghraib ruined the lives of many Americans such as Varnardo from the
last discussion topic. I ask, how did these men benefit from bringing
such terrible truths to the light? Darby and Hersh furthered tarnished
" the United States reputation in the world" (Hersh 6). I don't there
were any positive outcomes to Hersh and Darby's acts of "bravery." The
saying "somethings are better left unsaid" fits this situation
perfectly. Although the truths they revealed are horrendously inhumane
and those involved deserve punishment, Darby and Hersh made the
mistake of taking sides against their own team. Both of those men sold
out there country and in Darby's case he sold out his close friends.
Gen. Taguba speaks about the allegstions in Aru Ghraib,"--detailed
witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic
evidence" (Hersh 2). The general states that the solid evidence in the
case is a result of Darby's actions. Darby and Hersh do more damage by
revealing My Lai and Aru Ghraib because nothing will come of it. I
mean the world knew about My Lai yet 35 years later people are still
doing the same cruel things others in times of war.


P.S. I in no way condone or support the inhumane actions taken in My
Lai or Aru Ghraib.

[Shelly]

I completely disagree with Andre. I don't think that Hersh and Darby
are traitors in any way. Just because they brought the actions of the
American soldiers to light, doesn't make them traitors. If anything,
it's a good thing that they did what they did.

Andre, you asked how the men benefited from bringing the truth to
light, and my answer is...they didn't. But, if they would have kept
what they knew to themselves, they would have felt worse than they
maybe already do. By letting out the information that they did know,
it helped them, in a way, to get some peace of mind. You also said
that they "sold out their country and their close friends", but they
didn't "sell" anyone out. By letting these things go unnoticed, these
men would have been saying that it was okay for them to occur. Darby
clearly feels bad when he comes across the evidence of the abuses
against the Iraquis. "Bobeck said that Darby had “initially put an
anonymous letter under our door, then he later came forward and gave a
sworn statement. He felt very bad about it and thought it was very
wrong" (Hersh 2).

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact#ixzz1CoHa7h8m

On Feb 1, 3:25 pm, "Hannah Baran (Louisa HS)" <hannah.ka...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Robin B.]

I agree with Shelly one hundred percent. Both Hersh and Darby did a
good deed that benefited many people except the ones who committed the
crimes. Darby in particular debated whether he should tell what he
knew, in the interview on 60 minutes he said "he tried to disbelieve,
they tried to find a reason why" (Darby). It stayed in their thoughts
all the time and affected them in ways unbelievable. In their cells
they feared Graner, "the ring leader" (Darby). Once Darby put the
letter under Bobeck's door, he felt so terriefied that he found
comfort by sleeping with a gun under his pillow. He believed that if
they ever found out, they would certainly come after him and slit his
throat. Nobody should have to live life so scared. They should not
have to worry about their everyday actions like he did. If Darby and
Hersh had never told of these events, individuals may not heve been
corrected and it could possibly still be going on today!

On Feb 2, 9:04 am, Shelly <lcshellb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I completely disagree with Andre. I don't think that Hersh and Darby
> are traitors in any way. Just because they brought the actions of the
> American soldiers to light, doesn't make them traitors. If anything,
> it's a good thing that they did what they did.
>
> Andre, you asked how the men benefited from bringing the truth to
> light, and my answer is...they didn't. But, if they would have kept
> what they knew to themselves, they would have felt worse than they
> maybe already do. By letting out the information that they did know,
> it helped them, in a way, to get some peace of mind. You also said
> that they "sold out their country and their close friends", but they
> didn't "sell" anyone out. By letting these things go unnoticed, these
> men would have been saying that it was okay for them to occur. Darby
> clearly feels bad when he comes across the evidence of the abuses
> against the Iraquis. "Bobeck said that Darby had “initially put an
> anonymous letter under our door, then he later came forward and gave a
> sworn statement. He felt very bad about it and thought it was very
> wrong" (Hersh 2).
>

> Read morehttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact#ixzz1CoHa7h8m

>
> On Feb 1, 3:25 pm, "Hannah Baran (Louisa HS)" <hannah.ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is Seymour Hersh, the journalist who exposed military abuses in My Lai
> > (1969) and Abu Ghraib (2004), a hero, a traitor, or something else?
> > What about Joe Darby, the soldier who reported the actions of his
> > fellow soldiers to their superiors? If you'd like to finish watching
> > the video about Joe Darby (about 6 minutes remain), the link is here:http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2972689n&tag=related;photovideo
>
> > Respond to one Abu Ghraib question and one reading question by the end

> > of the day Wednesday.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Casey]

I agree with Shelly and Robin. Hersh and Darby were not traitors or
heros, they were just honest people, who felt what they witnessed
needed to be addressed. What these soldiers did at Abu Ghraib and My
Lai were morally wrong. Personally I think that the commanding officer
is more to blame for My Lai than the soldiers, but some of them did go
too far. The difference between the two situations is that one was a
scene of war, while the other was just to be cruel. However, both
situations should have been addressed to reveal a problem in the chain
of command. The revealing of these two acts improves the U.S. military
units because it removes those who aren't right for that position.
Although it was believed that "Frederick, at thirty seven, was far
older than his colleagues, and was a natural leader..." (Hersh 2-3).
Frederick was obviously not a good leader from the acts he
participated in and because Darby said something he was removed from
the military.

[Andre]

I'm not saying what Darby and Hersh did was wrong, nor am I saying
that the soldiers action are justified. I'm saying that by revealing
those secrets Darby and Hersh are traitors towards their friends and
country.

On Feb 2, 2:12 pm, "Robin B." <brizendin...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us>
wrote:

[Rolph Recto]

Andre: I think you are misplacing your loyalties here. There are several assumptions that one has to validate the fact that Darby is a traitor to his friends and Hersh is a traitor to his country. One has to assume that Darby did in fact have a close relationship with his fellow soldiers in Abu Ghraib; neither the 60 Minutes video nor Hersh's article hint at any such relationship. Also, note that the 60 Minutes video mentioned that Darby kept a gun under his pillow in fear that the people he "ratted out" would seek revenge. So even with the assumption that the the soldiers were friends of Darby, he proceeded to dissolve any sort of kinship with them. One could see that he could not be friends with people who actively participate in torture.

In fact, one could say the soldiers were the ones that betrayed Darby and their country: as the Hersh's article stated, "these detentions have had enormous consequences: for the imprisoned civilian Iraqis, many of whom had nothing to do with the growing insurgency; for the integrity of the Army; and for the United States' reputation in the world" (Hersh). Because they tortured prisoners - whether of their own volition or by the command of superiors - the soldiers have undermined the reason why they were in Iraq in the first place. One of the main reasons that American forces were sent to Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein, end his dictatorial reign, and install a democracy there; by performing such barbarity akin to Saddam's actions, the soldiers could've destroyed the trust that the Iraqis (and, to a larger extent, the world) bestowed upon the Americans. Therefore, faulting Darby is wrong; it would be faulting a witness for reporting a crime. One cannot fight for freedom and justice when one's hands are red with the blood and injustice.

As for Hersh: the publication of an inhumanly true story such as Abu Ghraib is inevitable. One could assert that everyone in a modern democratic state expects a great amount of transparency from its government, and, by extension, its military. The fact that Hersh investigated the torture in Abu Ghraib is not a betrayal; Hersh merely had the journalistic responsibility to inform American citizens about actions performed by their military that they would surely find appalling. Again, one must not fault the witness; one must fault the criminal.

--
Rolph Recto 

Louisa County High School

"And when your sorrow is comforted (time soothes all sorrows) you will be content that you have known me. You will always be my friend. You will want to laugh with me. And you will sometimes open your window, so, for that pleasure... and your friends will be properly astonished to see you laughing as you look up at the sky! Then you will say to them, 'Yes, the stars always make me laugh!' And they will think you are crazy. It will be a very shabby trick that I shall have played on you..."

[Andre]

Rolph: In the 60 minutes video we watched in class Darby tells the
interviewer that his unit was very close knit, it was family, guys
with similar backgrounds who grew up and enlisted together, so yes the
were close friends whom Darby betrayed.

[Jarrett Talley]

I agree with you Andre, but at the same time I also agree with
everyone else. I believe that what the soldiers did in My Lai and Abu
Ghraib was wrong, Abu Ghraib more so than My Lai. But I also believe
that acts of war are acts of war, not a public matter. War is not a
pretty thing and in my opinion war is not the public's business;
reporters should not be allowed to tag along with soldiers and write
about war. When a reporter comes and writes of the horrible things
soldiers are doing, no one that is reading it in America truly
understands what the soldiers deal with. After a reporter like Hersh
reveals the horrors of war, people who have no idea what the soldiers
are dealing with day to day frown upon the soldiers and totally turn
their backs on them. The revealing of Abu Ghraib was not a happy
ending for Darby, "Darby's life has significantly changed since then
and the change was for the worse" (60 Minutes). Some people still view
Darby as a traitor to his country and his friends.

On Feb 2, 6:51 pm, Rolph Recto <rro...@brvgs.k12.va.us> wrote:

[Andre]

Well put Jarrett, I agree 100%.

[Conley]

There are good points on both sides of the discussion so far. I
strongly agree with the argument Rolph made against Andre. When harm
is done to someone who does not deserve it, it should not be
overlooked. I would hope anyone in this situation, friend or not,
should bring it to someone's attention. The prisoners were in
thralldom and could not do anything to defend against the violations
of their muslim religion. Darby knew when he found the pictures that
what he saw was wrong; " I have always had a good sense of right and
wrong." He knew what he saw was wrong and wanted to bring it to an
end before it went any farther. When he left the letter under the
door, he did it to stop the cruel acts of his fellow soldiers. He did
not want to be considered a "snitch" or traitor at all. I see him,
along with Hersh, not as traitors or heros but average people doing
what they know is right. Think about this scenario; If one was
brutally beat and robbed while a witness watched, I gurantee he would
want the witness to stand up for him in court. It's considered doing
the right thing and is not looked down upon. If so, why would Darby
and Hersh be seen as traitors? The high level of probity shown by
these two should be expected from any soldier or memeber of the army.
They did the right thing by rerporting the horrible acts at My Lai and
Abu Ghraib
On Feb 1, 3:28 pm, "Hannah Baran (Louisa HS)" <hannah.ka...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Rolph Recto]

Andre, pardon me for that oversight. Even so, Darby still felt like his fellow soldiers weren't his friends anymore after he found out about the torturing of the prisoners because he slept with a pistol under his pillow. Would one be afraid of being among close friends, to the extent that one fears for his own life? Surely not.

And Jarrett - Darby felt a negative change in his life because he was outed as the whistleblower. He had every intention to remain anonymous, but other people so commended his actions that they just had to mention his name; perhaps one can fault that with the journalists.

Also, I am not saying that Americans should be indicting the soldiers; I am just saying that they have the right to know what the soldiers are doing. Citizens have a right to know what is going on and, more important, to understand why such things are happening so that they can hold the military accountable for creating an environment where torturing prisoners is an almost daily event - only then can the atrocious practice end.

[Conley]

Jarrett, I agree with your point on reporters in the war. They do not
belong their and only give a small part of the full story. Like you
said, When sitting at home, one can not fully understand what the
soldiers are going through and the reasons behind their actions. That
is a great arguement!

> > article and/or videos.- Hide quoted text -

[Nojai]

I can see and understand both Andre and Shelly's response, however, I
agree much more with Shelly's response. I understand that their
actions didn't make a change and that it didn't benefit them but, like
Shelly stated, if they didn't tell what they witnessed then they would
possibly have had not only the pictures, but also the guilt of never
telling what unnecessary and ridiculous measures that were being
taken. In my opinion they were both heros. Not only for revealing
their 'friends' actions but for also gaining the courage to know and
report that there was a lot of wrongdoing occuring. Darby could have
kept his thoughts and feelings to himself but he "thought it was very
bad...and later came forward and gave a sworn statement"(Hersh 2). I
believe that Darby and Hersh had every right to expose the actions of
their 'friends', they noticed the actions were wrong and they did not
participate.
On Feb 1, 3:25 pm, "Hannah Baran (Louisa HS)" <hannah.ka...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Natese]

I agree with Shelly. Even though in society, "snitching" is bad,
somethings should just be exposed; especially if what is being done it
puts more than one person in danger. Hersh and Darby made the right
decisions. Darby knew eventually someone was going to find out that he
was the one that told and that is why he "slept with a pistol under
his pillow every night" and he was afraid that someone would come slit
his throat. The truth needed to be revealed and Americans needed to
see the cruel and inhumane acts they were doing to prisoners, and half
of them didn't commit huge crimes. No matter what religion, customs,
or nationality someone has they are all people, and should be treated
the same. The soldiers that worked in the prisons and treated the
detainees horribly couldn't possibly think that they would get away
with something like that. Also, the soldiers at Aru Ghraib were not
given orders to demoralize their Muslim customs, they did that at
their own free will and just for fun. On the other hand the soldiers
in Vietnam that participated in My Lai were given strict orders to
follow, kill or be killed.

[John]

I agree with both Shelly and Andre as these two soldier were traitors
to their fellow soldiers and their own families, but also heroes in
the light of the general public's eyes. Some events are better to be
kept from major publicity, but will take a more devastating toll on
the witnesses. "We had some of our own relatives turn against
us." (60 minutes). Darby's relatives were all close to the the
criminals families, causing them to become angry at Darby for them
losing their friends. Over all Darby did chose the right choice but
should have requested the case to be kept silent from the public and
other military divisions. He is viewed as a hero by the general
public, the deciding factor of what he is portrayed to be. To become
a hero there are multiple sacrifices a person must take, in Darby's
case the loss of his hometown and his friends and family.

[Emily Barnes]

I agree that Derby and Hersh's actions did cause others many problems,
but I feel that what they did was right and just. If one lets a
misdeed go unpunished, that misdeed turnes into corruption, and the
general public can not afford a corrupted army. The danger of a
corrupted army are more dangerous than the dangers of enraged
comrades. Darby knew that if anyone of his comrades knew that he told
on them,they would not show mercy. That's why Darby "slept with a
pistol under his pillow" (60 Minutes). But despite the danger, Darby
still did what he knew was right and motally sound. Hersh felt the
same way, and also knew of the dangers of being the 'tale-bearer', yet
he still did his duty. In summery, I feel that Derby and Hersh were
heros because they did the moral and just thing, despite the dangers.

[Nicole]

I feel that both men are not traitors because they did what was right.
They saw that the soldiers were doing wrong and harming other people
and did what needed to be done to make it stop. Yes, in Abu Ghraib,
they were prisoners and needed to talk, but by violating them and
making them do actions that went completely against their religion was
wrong. The soldiers did need to be punished because they got out of
hand and Darby did do the right thing. There were seven men and women
out of 200 in the platoon there and none of the other 193 people did
anything to stop it, so he did. Hersh is also right in making the
massacre at My Lai known. I understand that you can trust no one
because you can't tell who is bad and who is good. I also understand
that they were told to do it and you do not question your commanding
officer, but it still needed to be known about. Massacring large
numbers of people for no reason except that they don't know if they
are good or not, seems a little grotesque don't you think?

On Feb 1, 3:25 pm, "Hannah Baran (Louisa HS)" <hannah.ka...@gmail.com>
wrote: