Sounds and Fury

I think this is one of the most superficial "commentary" that I have read. The view presented here was already told numerous times a couple years ago, bring up Abu-Garib (sp?) again now seems quite out of place and the essay reads like a direct translation from many commentaries from US news papers and TV reports, frankly, it's unremarkable and sounds like an insipid plagiarism.

Also, for every transgression committed by inidividual soldiers, there are ten if not hundreds of good deeds done by the US soldiers, whether in helping the local Iraqis or in rebuilding infrastructures. Trying to explain actions of these soldiers based on "democracy" and "freedom" is futile at best. Are your eyes covered with shit or what? Didn't the presidential election results showed that a black person won the election fair and square, completely adhering to principles of democracy and whatnot? What do you mean by "美國民主的虛偽," actually US democray is one of the strongest and genuine in the world. I hope your thesis is not based on this shit.

「actually US democray is one of the strongest and genuine in the world」，原來還有人這麼愛美國啊，真是稀奇，難怪寫英文。而且從你的這個立場就知道你前面說人家什麼吵冷飯、抄文章，都是因為其實罵你的美國，所以才這麼多人身攻擊。這問題當然在美國講了很久，但是台灣有討論嗎？這篇是我看到主流媒體上第一篇比較認真的。而且iron 是因為金馬影展演了相關電影所以才在這個時刻寫。
最諷刺的是，你既然苦苦捍衛美國民主的偉大，你的討論卻充滿粗暴的字眼，不知道你有什麼資格來討論民主。
還是我根本搞錯了，其實你是諷刺美國的民主？

Whoa, so I am not qualified to talk about democracy because I used words like "shit" and what not? That's a very strong point you are making! How very poignant of you! I guess I should shut up now.

Well sarcasm aside, it's not that I love the US so much that I type in English, it's just that I am faster that way. To make clear, I am not an American chauvinist if that's what you are gettin at. Anyways, the main point I am making is threefold:

First, explaining actions of individual soldiers and the consequences based on "democracy" and "freedom" is pointless and just plain inaccurate. Because by the same logic, I can make the point that all Taiwanese people and the government are a ultra-violent third-world bunch because of the recent riots. Do you understand now? I don't think I am being unreasonable.

Second, American democracy is not pretentious or fake. Although it's far from perfect, it's one of the strongest, if not the strongest. Can you name one country where it's democratical processes is more robust than America? If you want to say France or Italy or the UK, remember that at least in the US there are no dominant far-right wing racist parties.

Third, the incident at Abu-Garib can be at best construed as an ineffectual military system trying to cover up an embarrassment. Comparing this to the Nazis is quite nonsensical because one big difference is that the Abu-Garib shit (yes, I detest it too) it's not condoned by the state. And it's actions are not promoted in the regular troops.

雖然你說這是老問題，但顯然你既不了解問題本質，也不了解這篇文章重點。你說是個人行為，但這篇文章或者文章提到的電影，恰恰是要說這不是少數爛蘋果，而是高層不斷在法律上要合法化這些行為。用你的類比談台灣，你的問題我會說是。野草莓的訴求正式要說，如果警方執法過當，不是少數景方的問題，而是這是體制所縱容甚至要求的，所以要改變法律、要高層道歉。

至於美國的民主，連美國人都知道他們民主體制的缺陷有多少。任何政治學教科書都會說，美國的政治體制比起歐洲是最不理想的。有沒有極右派是社會條件，不是什麼民主強不強大。

Your reply is timely and not as sensational as your article, which I think is an improvement.

Of course I understand your commentary, your point is that 虐囚並不能歸咎為少數壞蘋果的個人行為，而在其是否是系統性的，是否是被授權或允許的. But before we talk about this, you have to understand that the prison incident was unauthorized and uncondoned, and condemned by both the public and the gov't after a failure to cover up this embarassment. This is in contrast to what's going on in Guantanamo Bay, which is authorized. But regarding the bay, we can argue about whether terrorists count as enemy combatants, which the Geneva Convention directly protects. But that's the details, and I think you are confusing the prison and the bay together.

Also, you make a point, which I think is more prominent as it's the title 美軍虐囚揭露美國民主的虛偽. But you didn't explain it at all. Well, to make this argument true, you have to prove first why torture has to do with American democracy, and second, why American democray is pretentious. Regarding the first point, I think the word you are looking for is "justice" rather than "democracy." As in there's no "justice" for the tortured prisoners if the commanding officers go free, don't you agree? I think you have a tendency to lump all western ideas about democracy, freedom, justice and what not into one hard-to-define word such as democracy. Regarding the second point, you have to prove why American democracy is fake, and how do you define fake. Your argument is not strong enough in the light of recent elections, as for every shit happened in the US system you present, I can present ten other that worked. I think you are just throwing words without really supporting them with evidence.

Also, 有沒有極右派是社會條件，不是什麼民主強不強大 and 美國的政治體制比起歐洲是最不理想的, these are open to interpretation, and please don't tell me what "every" text book would say, because when you make that claim, it's probably not true. I'll give you a simple answer/question: in which of the two, US or Europe, do the current minorities (both legal AND illegal), have more economic freedom, personal freedom, and representation in gov't, the cornerstones of democracy. You think the French Algerians or Italian Gypsies or others enjoy more freedoms than the minorities in the US? I think you know the answer if you are up to date with current events. Also, the situation there in Europe is not getting better for those people with the rise of far-right political groups (which are elected legally, mind you). I don't have time to argue parliamentary vs congressional systems of gov't, but you get my drift.

I am not accusing you of plagiarism, that I have no prrof, but I feel that the whole article is just a direct photocopy and snippets of Susan Sontag's piece in NY Times Magazine which you attributed, and to be honest, I can write a better far left vitriolic crap than you can. This article can probably "wow" the general audience who don't know jack, but it really shows no rigor or critical thinking at all. Too much non-sequitors and nothing is backed by hard evidence, but I am glad to hear your response.

德國作家雷馬克作品"生死存亡的年代"
裡面針對在體制中被賦與權力的個人
會做出什麼的行為有所討論
(幾乎都比虐囚案過火-有興趣可去找來一觀)
故事講述納粹集中營內
從德軍到囚犯本身
在機制內的權力結構下發生多少慘絕人寰的事情
寫得絲絲入扣

這背後關係到的是人性問題
正因為人性無法預測
也個人非常容易在體制的壓力下
做出過去不曾做的行為
甚至有些是違背個人自己的價值觀的事

所以鐵志寫這篇
不管是否因為金馬放映類似題材電影
在當前台灣重返威權的社會氣氛下
在野草莓運動如火如荼的現在
寫這個議題來討論民主的內涵
看起來沒什麼錯啊

我們也得問說
為什麼老牌的民主國家如美國
對內跟對外有如此大的差異
這覺不僅是用政策面可以討論的
我看美國從六零年代黑人民權到現在
其中有太多反人權反民主的狀況
美國人也是經由不斷衝撞國家體制才漸漸發展成現在這個樣子
我想鐵志可針對此議題
多談談美國民主制度中的缺憾
與人權的沿革

美國總統由民選產生，相當程度代表民主的結果，結果搞了一個虐囚總統，確實很諷刺。這邊文章的標題是下的有點重鹹，但不算全無道理。

此外，想想美國這個民主國家，在越南、中東、中南美洲惡搞，又滿嘴漂亮話，不虛偽嗎？請問？