OT- Political Thread, read at your own risk

[Flasch186]

OMG, all you conspiracy theorists. How could you not think it was just a few hillbilly's from NC that did all that abuse stuff, or borderline bad stuff, in Abu Garaib. You and I both know that no one of any real rank wouldve approved that stuff. This is simply a matter of a few bad apples spopiling all of the bunch in the media's biased eyes.....

wait, um, it looks like this part is true....uh oh....Maybe there is more truth to this than the admin's defenders, those that will defend Rumsfeld and Rove and Cheney and Bush to the death, would like to admit. Maybe it is a bunch of spin spin spin control.....I dunno, perhaps, we should think about changing our tune. Perhaps the other side has a point on this one. NO!!! This again is Liberal Media Bias at its best (mind you were the side that has a TV station and radio station dedicated to our cause). It is Those few bad apples AGAIN, They are lying again!!!

(sarcasm above if you couldnt tell, I knew the stories would start coming out, I just had to be patient.)

Use of Dogs to Scare Prisoners Was Authorized

By Josh White and Scott Higham, Washington Post Staff Writers

U.S. intelligence personnel ordered military dog handlers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (news - web sites) to use unmuzzled dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees during interrogations late last year, a plan approved by the highest-ranking military intelligence officer at the facility, according to sworn statements the handlers provided to military investigators.

A military intelligence interrogator also told investigators that two dog handlers at Abu Ghraib were "having a contest" to see how many detainees they could make involuntarily urinate out of fear of the dogs, according to the previously undisclosed statements obtained by The Washington Post.


The statements by the dog handlers provide the clearest indication yet that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved in tactics later deemed by a U.S. Army general to be "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses."


President Bush (news - web sites) and top Pentagon (news - web sites) officials have said the criminal abuse at Abu Ghraib was confined to a small group of rogue military police soldiers who stripped detainees naked, beat them and photographed them in humiliating sexual poses. An Army investigation into the abuse condemned the MPs for those practices, but also included the use of unmuzzled dogs to frighten detainees among the "intentional abuse." (this will be the excuse, that they were already reprimanded so this is all old news...that the system works)

So far, the only charges to emerge have been against seven MPs and do not include any dog incidents, even though such use of dogs is an apparent violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's field manual. The military intelligence officer in charge of Abu Ghraib later told investigators that the use of unmuzzled dogs in interrogation sessions was recommended by a two-star general and that it was "okay."

The newly obtained documents reinforce the picture that the abuse falls into two categories: sexual humiliation and beatings at the hands of MPs, and intimidation using dogs that is clearly tied to military intelligence. The sexual abuse happened weeks and even months before the dog incidents ( This kills the idea that this all happened in a short few days like the DOD wants us to believe), some of which appear to be part of an organized strategy by military intelligence to scare detainees into talking, according to the statements.


Sgts. Michael J. Smith and Santos A. Cardona, Army dog handlers assigned to Abu Ghraib, told investigators that military intelligence personnel requested that they bring their dogs to prison interrogation sites multiple times to assist in questioning detainees in December and January. Col. Thomas M. Pappas, who was in charge of military intelligence at the prison, told both soldiers that the use of dogs in interrogations had been approved, according to the statements.


"I have talked to Col. Papus [sic] and he said it was good to go," Smith told an investigator on Jan. 23.


Neither Smith nor Cardona has been charged in connection with the abuse at Abu Ghraib. "It's all under investigation," said Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman.


The men could not be reached yesterday to comment. Two officers at the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service said that a military lawyer has been assigned to Cardona and that a message seeking a comment would be relayed to the attorney. The officers said they did not know whether a lawyer from the Army's defense service had been assigned to represent Smith.


In Army memos regarding interrogation techniques at the prison, the use of military working dogs was specifically allowed -- as long as higher-ranking officers approved the measures. According to one military intelligence memo obtained by The Post, the officer in charge of the military intelligence-run interrogation center at the prison had to approve the use of dogs in interrogations. There is no explanation in the memo of what parameters would have to be in place -- for example, whether the dogs would be muzzled or unmuzzled -- or what the dogs would be allowed to do. The Army previously has said that the commanding general of U.S. troops in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez -- would have had to approve the use of dogs.


Human rights experts said the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib violates longstanding tenets regulating the treatment of prisoners and civilians under the control of an occupying force, including the Army's field manual, which prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation" by American soldiers.

"Using dogs to frighten and intimidate prisoners is a violation of the Geneva Convention," said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, an international organization based in New York. "It's a violation of U.S. policy as stated in the Army field manual, and it's a violation of the prohibition against cruel treatment."


The dog teams at Abu Ghraib were part of a security detail that also searched for weapons, explosives and contraband. The general in charge of military prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, said the dog teams were under the control of military intelligence but had no training or experience in helping with interrogations.

Cardona's dog, a tan Belgian Malinois named Duco, was trained to be part of a narcotics and patrol team. Cardona told investigators he also helped military intelligence with two interrogations and later was summoned by military police to draw information out of a detainee on Tier 1 of the prison, site of the worst documented abuse.


Smith said military intelligence personnel asked him to instill fear in detainees. He said that he would bring his dog, a black Belgian shepherd named Marco, to the tier specifically to scare prisoners after they were pulled out of their cells. At the behest of interrogators, he said, in some cases he would bring the barking dog to within six inches of the prisoners.


"Is using the dog in this manner an allowable tool by the MI interrogators?" an investigator asked Smith.


"Yes," he replied.

The dog handlers arrived at Abu Ghraib in late November, sometime after the abuse of detainees had been captured in photographs, including the images of the naked human pyramid and forced masturbation.

Master-at-Arms 1st Class William J. Kimbro, a Navy dog handler, said he was summoned to Tier 1 one night in November to help search a cell for explosives using his dog, Nicky, a black and tan Belgian Malinois. Earlier that night -- records indicate it was Nov. 24 -- a prisoner had allegedly been found with a weapon. When Kimbro and Nicky concluded the search, they were called to the second floor of the cellblock to search another cell.

"There was a bunch of yelling going on in the cell and my dog started going ape," Kimbro told investigators, adding that interrogators were yelling at a detainee in the corner. "I remember one of the males saying to the detainee, if the detainee did not provide the information the guy was asking about, then he would have me let . . . my dog go on him."

Kimbro said he was surprised by the comment and tried to calm Nicky down. He soon left, he said, upset that interrogators had tried to use his dog as an interrogation tool.

"I was leaving because this is not what my dog is trained for," Kimbro said in one of three statements he provided to investigators. "We do not use our dogs for interrogation purposes."

Kimbro was singled out for praise in Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's report about abuse at the prison for refusing "to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib."

Smith and Cardona said they complied with the MI requests because they believed the tactics had been approved by Pappas, the military intelligence officer in charge of the prison. They told investigators that they spent time on the cellblocks, allowing their dogs to bark at the detainees.

They said a non-commissioned officer from military intelligence approached them in mid-December.

"He asked us if we could use our dogs for interrogation purposes," Cardona said in a statement. "They were trying to get it cleared. We went outside and saw Col. Pappas. He told us MI wanted to use the dogs for interrogations and he told us that they had received permission to use dogs in an interview."

Smith recalled the same conversation, saying he spoke with Pappas in the parking lot the night after Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured -- Dec. 14. He said he was told that the use of the dogs was permitted.

Later that night, the two dog handlers took their dogs to an interrogation booth holding a detainee. Interrogators told them the dogs did not need to be muzzled, they said.

"When we got to the room the detainee was sitting in the doorway, with his feet in the doorway and the door was open," Smith said. "My dog and Sgt. Cardona's dog were both barking at the detainee and we never got closer than 18 inches. Neither dog had a muzzle on."

Also in mid-December, the dog handlers said they were asked by one of the MPs, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, for help in dealing with an uncooperative detainee. Part of what followed was captured in photographs that have come to define the abuse at Abu Ghraib: A naked prisoner was up against a wall, two dogs squaring off against him.

The detainee, identified in the documents as Ballendia Sadawi Mohammed, said he was suddenly snatched from his bed in cell No. 5 one night and sent into the hallway handcuffed.

"They sent the dogs toward me. I was scared," Mohammed told investigators. "The first dog bit my leg and injured me there and this was bad luck. The bite from the first dog caused me to have 12 stitches from the doctor of my left leg as a result I lost a lot of blood."

Spec. Sabrina D. Harman, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company, said she saw the incident and said the detainee was bitten after he tried to run from the dog and was cornered. Cardona, whose dog apparently bit the detainee twice, once on each leg, justified letting his dog go to the end of its leash because he believed the detainee was fighting with Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr.

Military investigative records show that Frederick and Graner were key participants in the abuse. Harman, who said she saw two other inmates with dog bites around late December, also has been charged.

In early January, Cardona said, he used his dog during an interrogation at the "Wood" facility at Abu Ghraib, a collection of wooden interrogation booths set up behind the prison. Cardona said a non-commissioned military intelligence officer asked him to bring his dog into a booth and make it bark to scare the prisoner.

"I asked him if he wanted Duco to be in a muzzle and he said no," Cardona told investigators. "We went into the booth and there was a detainee in the booth with a bag over his head. Duco barked at him for about two or three minutes and they were asking the detainee questions."

On Jan. 13, Spec. John Harold Ketzer, a military intelligence interrogator, saw a dog team corner two male prisoners against a wall, one prisoner hiding behind the other and screaming, he later told investigators.

"When I asked what was going on in the cell, the handler stated that he was just scaring them, and that he and another of the handlers was having a contest to see how many detainees they could get to urinate on themselves," Ketzer said.


All in good fun

[Flasch186]

quick DOLA:

I just want to say I am for our troops, but for them to set an example to the world of professionalism, behavior, morals, ethics, etc. This sort of stuff, goes all the way to the top and I believe the system needs to change its training techniques for this sort of situation, OR re-emphasize the training these troops must've forgotten about.

[MJ4H]

kirby puckett?

[Flasch186]

Thats why all this is happening? Kirby's in Iraq?

[rkmsuf]

Hey at least they didn't repeatedly show them pictures of Delta Burke.

[Dutch]

quick DOLA:

I just want to say I am for our troops, but for them to set an example to the world of professionalism, behavior, morals, ethics, etc. This sort of stuff, goes all the way to the top and I believe the system needs to change its training techniques for this sort of situation, OR re-emphasize the training these troops must've forgotten about.

The memo hasn't reached Al Sadr or Bin Laden yet, could you fax him a copy? That would help, thanks.

[Jon]

The memo hasn't reached Al Sadr or Bin Laden yet, could you fax him a copy? That would help, thanks.

Oh brother. Come on, if you haven't realized by now, it's okay to be critical of the government and still support the troops. This whole idea of "If you're not for us, then you're against us" is a load of crap. I don't mean to single you out personally, as I like to read your posts, but this is ridiculous. Criticism of those in power and their decision-making is not tacit support for their other side.

This isn't the worst though. Someone in the reserves in my office was activated. Before he left, he sent a LOONNG email telling us not to be opposed to the War in Iraq because it will undermine our efforts in Iraq and will increase the opponents resolve.

It's not true. Those who dislike America as America will dislike us regardless. They hate those of us critical of the government just as much as those who love the government.

By the way, I think showing Delta Burke's picture would cause the unmuzzled dogs to urinate on themselves.

[Flasch186]

Thank you...

I feel that being patriotic IS being critical of our gov't and not showing blind support. But showing Support after critical thought, is equally as patriotic, as showing dissent after critical thought. It is those that show no critical thought prior to either that are the most unpatriotic. I love this country and it is the EASY, most base, way of showing political idealogue by saying if youre not with us then you must be the enemy, ie. If youre not a republican you are for the enemy....that will sway some voters but I hope an equal number of voters will be nauseated by that. I am to the left and equally love the country as those to the right but I would never Say that by being for this admin, youre unpatriotic......just base, manipulated, or swerved. But NOT unpatriotic.....perhaps, you should learn what the "slippery slope" is....because it is quite an open ended argument that can be taken all the way back to when we dissented against the King of England. Use a better argument than, "youre either for us or against us". It truly gets us no where except a divisive country full of fear, anger, and resentment. Perhaps reading all of the things that come out with an open mind, then making your judgemtns and leanings based on the information.

Ill bet I know who you'll vote for equally as much as you know who Ill vote for.

[stevew]

http://www.moveon.org/images/ads/hooded.jpg
http://www.moveon.org/images/ads/censure-200-cutoff.jpg

[Dutch]

Use a better argument than, "youre either for us or against us".

I never said you were against us. I just said that you are helping the enemy.

[Jon]

I never said you were against us. I just said that you are helping the enemy.

For goodness sakes, you are not helping the enemy by criticizing the government. That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read.

[Dutch]

The terrorist Al Zharqarwi said he lopped off the American's head for the crimes in Abu Graib...

[Bubba Wheels]

This stuff is almost ALWAYS politically driven. By that I mean those who don't like George Bush will find every little thing that is wrong in the world and attempt to make him personally responsible (he's the President, he must have the powers of God! This is clearly the thinking of those like Stevew and his ilk hence his adding 2+2 and coming up with 5.)

[stevew]

This stuff is almost ALWAYS politically driven. By that I mean those who don't like George Bush will find every little thing that is wrong in the world and attempt to make him personally responsible (he's the President, he must have the powers of God! This is clearly the thinking of those like Stevew and his ilk hence his adding 2+2 and coming up with 5.)

Oh, I was being funny by posting the Move-on Crap.

[Bubba Wheels]

Oh, I was being funny by posting the Move-on Crap.

Didn't know that, figures that's where it comes from though. George Soros is the Prince of Darkness in America as far as I'm concerned.

[stevew]

The terrorist Al Zharqarwi said he lopped off the American's head for the crimes in Abu Graib...

Not to argue from the Liberal POV, but they would have killed that dude for some other reason. The "outlaws" in Iraq are barbarian scum.

[Warhammer]

I think part of the problem is this, "The Military Intelligence Officer in charge...."

I have been in enough situations where someone in authority says, "We need to do everything we can to get __________" So some over zealous nut goes out and does something stupid. That is not the fault of the person in charge, it is the fault of the one who executes the action.

I think a good deal of the problem was the management at the prison level.

[Dutch]

Warhammer,

You are missing the point, they are trying to pin every evil thing ever done on President Bush right now. There is no time for your logic. ;)

[Flasch186]

I seriously doubt that Zarqawi was sitting around the fire, watching the news, and says, "I cant believe those American's did this. We better go kill that American guy we've had our eye on."

Bush is not personally responsible, although it is interesting that he went to his attorneys and asked if he was immune from War crimes, but his admin. is. Last time i checked i can vote for or against him so that is where I will make my voice heard.

The DOD so far has used the "overzealous few" excuse but its going to come crumbling down and I want all of you who are also biting on that bait to remember that so that at that point, when the DOD is scrambling for its next excuse to keep this at the entry level, will you all swap over to that excuse as well? Well, I wont, the evidence keeps showing that it went much higher than what they keep telling us and I believe the evidence NOT the rhetoric.

I cannot believe you think Im helping the enemy. That is an absolute ridiculous thought and one in which helps countries become so nationalistic that they put people in camps based on their ethnic backgrounds. You have to be able to think for yourself.

[Jon]

Warhammer,

You are missing the point, they are trying to pin every evil thing ever done on President Bush right now. There is no time for your logic. ;)


It's payback for blaming Clinton for everything bad happening, including things that happened after he left office. ;)

[Dutch]

That's fair Jon, blame the President, make him pay for the partisanship (and he is). Leave the troops out of it.

[Chubby]

The terrorist Al Zharqarwi said he lopped off the American's head for the crimes in Abu Graib...

And of course if they weren't ever reported that means they didn't happen right?

[sachmo71]

Question:

I know everyone pretty much universally agrees what happened at Abu Gharab was horrible, but isn't there a point where you have to accept that it happened, learn from it, and move on, hopefully to sin no more?

Here is my point:
This is a new type of war. We are fighting people who can come out of nowhere, kill civilians and military alike, and disappear, or worse, forfit their own lives in an attack.

In a situation where you can't tell friend from foe, you suddenly find yourself holding a number of prisoners that you have been told are the enemy. Then someone tells you to see if they have information. So you try to get them to talk to you. Meanwhile, you have pictures of two huge towers falling down over a major city in your homeland. Or pictures of your buddies dead in a ditch. Add to that an alleged lack of training and supervision, and you end up with a very bad situation.

Now the fingerpointing begins, because no one wants to lose their jobs. Does anyone in the government really understand these people? How does one tell friend from foe in a guerilla war? How far do you go to extract information that may save lives? It seems to me that most of this was brought about by a lack of preparation and understanding on the part of our government as a whole.

I think with this we've learned what lengths we don't want to go to, and what we look like when we are ugly. It seems that we as a country aren't comfortable with winning at any cost. That's who we are, and we should stick to that. Now that we've learned what we won't do, we need to find ways to work within our moral code and still protect ourselves from an unseen enemy. I think it can be done.

[Chubby]

Question:

I know everyone pretty much universally agrees what happened at Abu Gharab was horrible, but isn't there a point where you have to accept that it happened, learn from it, and move on, hopefully to sin no more?



So then you think the same thing about 9/11 right? Aceept that it happened, learn from it, and move on?

[sachmo71]

So then you think the same thing about 9/11 right? Aceept that it happened, learn from it, and move on?


No, I've never compared the two situations.

[Chubby]

No, I've never compared the two situations.

How are they different?

Why is it that we are told to "move on" in regards to bad stuff that we have done but "we'll never forget" or "we'll get the people who did this" when it's bad stuff done against us?

[Dutch]

Now that we've learned what we won't do, we need to find ways to work within our moral code and still protect ourselves from an unseen enemy. I think it can be done.

The problem is that a vast majority of us servicemen do uphold the morale code. We want to protect everybody's civil rights. The media is potraying us like we are SS Gestapo who care little about anything but killing and protecting President Bush's oil reserves. And I've about had enough of it.

What these people did in this prison is something I would never do, never accept, and never remain silent about.....unless....I was protecting Americans. So far as I can tell, these people weren't trying to gain intelligence from the victims or anybody else.

Now, if it comes down to me protecting an Americans civil liberty to be alive vs. the civil liberty of a terrorist getting enough sleep, I'm going to protect my people first. That's the bottom line.

Now, we know these Abu Ghraib stories are horrible, but what new news is coming from each and every one of these stories that is pounding us? Nothing, so far.

[sachmo71]

How are they different?

Why is it that we are told to "move on" in regards to bad stuff that we have done but "we'll never forget" or "we'll get the people who did this" when it's bad stuff done against us?

Hmmm...

I don't see the correlation.

Maybe because I see the 9/11 attacks as something that happened to us and was out of our control, and the Abu Gharab situation as an event that we inflicted on others and is something that is completely in our control.

I still fail to see the correlation, but I guess that's because I never said "we'll never forget 9/11", nor am I simply saying "move on and forget" Abhu Gharab. There is a method to my madness.

[Chubby]

Hmmm...

I don't see the correlation.

Maybe because I see the 9/11 attacks as something that happened to us and was out of our control, and the Abu Gharab situation as an event that we inflicted on others and is something that is completely in our control.

I still fail to see the correlation, but I guess that's because I never said "we'll never forget 9/11", nor am I simply saying "move on and forget" Abhu Gharab. There is a method to my madness.

I know everyone pretty much universally agrees what happened at Abu Gharab was horrible, but isn't there a point where you have to accept that it happened, learn from it, and move on, hopefully to sin no more?

I must be missing something in that last quote then :)

[sachmo71]

The problem is that a vast majority of us servicemen do uphold the morale code. We want to protect everybody's civil rights. The media is potraying us like we are SS Gestapo who care little about anything but killing and protecting President Bush's oil reserves. And I've about had enough of it.

What these people did in this prison is something I would never do, never accept, and never remain silent about.....unless....I was protecting Americans. So far as I can tell, these people weren't trying to gain intelligence from the victims or anybody else.

Now, if it comes down to me protecting an Americans civil liberty to be alive vs. the civil liberty of a terrorist getting enough sleep, I'm going to protect my people first. That's the bottom line.

Now, we know these Abu Ghraib stories are horrible, but what new news is coming from each and every one of these stories that is pounding us? Nothing, so far.

It seems to me that our country is making the choice that we will not accept violating the civil liberties of anyone, friend or foe. I don't believe that the soldiers who did this were just a bunch of psychopaths out for a joyride. I think they were doing what they thought they had to, and it got out of hand.

[sachmo71]

I must be missing something in that last quote then :)


You are. The second paragraph. :)

[MrBug708]

My tag line answers all

[sachmo71]

My tag line answers all

You don't rate a tag line. It's a sig line.

EDIT: Figured it out. :)

[MrBug708]

In LA it's a tag line :)

[Chubby]

You are. The second paragraph. :)
what about it? you are defending the "moving on" with those points. you're justifying the reasons people committed the atrocities at Abu Gharab (I thought there was an I in there but idk) and saying "now we know what limits the american people are willing to tolerate"

Are we going to "forget" the beheading. Oh no, "we'll get the people that did this" - Bush.

[Dutch]

I don't believe that the soldiers who did this were just a bunch of psychopaths out for a joyride. I think they were doing what they thought they had to, and it got out of hand.

I disagree completely with that notion. I want you to go stack up a bunch of naked Muslim prisoners into a pyramid, dive on them, hurt them a little, pretend you are going to fry them with electricity by putting a bag on their head and have wires sticking off of their private parts.

Now do it with a big shit eating grin on your face...

I don't care who told you to do it, I'll bet that last part is impossible.

[sachmo71]

what about it? you are defending the "moving on" with those points. you're justifying the reasons people committed the atrocities at Abu Gharab (I thought there was an I in there but idk) and saying "now we know what limits the american people are willing to tolerate"

Are we going to "forget" the beheading. Oh no, "we'll get the people that did this" - Bush.

Then I didn't make my intentions clear. I am not justifying them at all. I am trying to explain my take on why I believe that they occured. I don't think there is much to gain by pointing out that the government knew that this was happening. I would be surprised if they didn't. What I do believe is that we know as a country that we won't stand for it. We've learned that. Let's go forward, instead of trying to figure out who is lying to whom. Everyone is trying to save themselves, but in the end, I feel it was inevitable.

I apologize for not making myself more clear.

[sachmo71]

I disagree completely with that notion. I want you to go stack up a bunch of naked Muslim prisoners into a pyramid, dive on them, hurt them a little, pretend you are going to fry them with electricity by putting a bag on their head and have wires sticking off of their private parts.

Now do it with a big shit eating grin on your face...

I don't care who told you to do it, I'll bet that last part is impossible.

I see your point, but we'll just have to disagree.

[Chubby]

I disagree completely with that notion. I want you to go stack up a bunch of naked Muslim prisoners into a pyramid, dive on them, hurt them a little, pretend you are going to fry them with electricity by putting a bag on their head and have wires sticking off of their private parts.

Now do it with a big shit eating grin on your face...

I don't care who told you to do it, I'll bet that last part is impossible.

I'll take that bet. I'll use the numerous photos of the situation to win.

[Chubby]

Then I didn't make my intentions clear. I am not justifying them at all. I am trying to explain my take on why I believe that they occured. I don't think there is much to gain by pointing out that the government knew that this was happening. I would be surprised if they didn't. What I do believe is that we know as a country that we won't stand for it. We've learned that. Let's go forward, instead of trying to figure out who is lying to whom. Everyone is trying to save themselves, but in the end, I feel it was inevitable.

I apologize for not making myself more clear.
Well that makes more sense, as I said I read it initially as a defense for the actions.

[Glengoyne]

How are they different?

Why is it that we are told to "move on" in regards to bad stuff that we have done but "we'll never forget" or "we'll get the people who did this" when it's bad stuff done against us?
So Chubby. The attacks on U.S. soil, the mass-murder of over 3,000 people is comparable to American soldiers stacking a bunch of Naked Iraqis in a pile, humiliating, or dehumanizing prisoners as a precursor to interogation, or forcing someone to sit in a squat for 12 hours.

You need to refresh your reality meter. There is a world of difference between those events. I am not condoning what went on at Abu Gharaib. I am not defending those soldiers, nor their commanding officers who most certainly knew what was happening. I am saying that those injustices, while injustices, do not compare to the attacks on the U.S. on 9/11. It is comparing mass murder to mass humiliation.

As for why do we "move on, and sin no more" when we err, and why we "never forget" when we are wronged. To some degree, that is human nature. We don't want to dwell on our wrong doings, and the U.S. does consider the mistreatment of prisoners as wrongdoing. We will continue to punish those who condoned it. On the other hand the Arab street cheered when the towers came down. That is why we can "never forget"

[Chubby]

So Chubby. The attacks on U.S. soil, the mass-murder of over 3,000 people is comparable to American soldiers stacking a bunch of Naked Iraqis in a pile, humiliating, or dehumanizing prisoners as a precursor to interogation, or forcing someone to sit in a squat for 12 hours.

You need to refresh your reality meter. There is a world of difference between those events. I am not condoning what went on at Abu Gharaib. I am not defending those soldiers, nor their commanding officers who most certainly knew what was happening. I am saying that those injustices, while injustices, do not compare to the attacks on the U.S. on 9/11. It is comparing mass murder to mass humiliation.

As for why do we "move on, and sin no more" when we err, and why we "never forget" when we are wronged. To some degree, that is human nature. We don't want to dwell on our wrong doings, and the U.S. does consider the mistreatment of prisoners as wrongdoing. We will continue to punish those who condoned it. On the other hand the Arab street cheered when the towers came down. That is why we can "never forget"

You must be forgetting the reports of murder in trying to get intel in Iraq.

Both things are horrific. "An eye for an eye" doesn't work in internation matters. The beheading is an example of why. Trying to justify the prision abuse because of 9/11 isn't right expecially when it goes against the American ideals we try and push on other countries.

[Flasch186]

This is in stark contrast to the we'll PUNISH the FEW who are responsible defense. NOW its the "ok we did it. Were sorry. Lets move on defense."

Why did Bush have to ask his council if he was immune to War crimes? Why would our leader be worried about that!! Shouldnt he be able to Clearly say (becuase we have used it against other leaders of other countries) I have no worries about the Geneva Conventions because My administration and I, would always uphold the highest standards that we set ourselves.

If it isnt the "FEW" hillbillie's doing it, and it goes higher, I want to know how high it goes.

Obviously if comes down to a choice b/w me sleeping at night and the terrorist, then thats an obvious choice, however most of these people are not terrorists. Shoot, Bremer let out Hordes of them in one day, All the investigations of those people came to fruition that day!? No. There's is just an atmosphere of teflonism and it's time our leaders and our troops walked the talk.

And just because some say "there's no new news here." is an ABSOLUTE cop out bowing to partisan defense. Ill just put these here ear plugs in my ears, put on these rosy colored glasses, and only watch Fox news and listen to Rush. That is so uneducated it reeks of ignorance.

[randal7]

Here's the thing I wonder about: why are many of the people who are outraged (and rightfully so) about the incidents in Iraq not equally or more outraged about things like:

hxxp://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/05/13/kerry_stand_on_abuses_gets_backlash/

hxxp://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

hxxp://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/hughes.kerry.vietnam/

This guy wants to be president and has admitted comitting atrocities, and admitted knowing about rapes and mutilations, and yet said and did nothing until a congressional hearing years later. And yet, for some reason, this does not get the same play as the stuff in Iraq. Could this also be related to earplugs and rosy glasses? :)

[GrantDawg]

Am I the only one who thinks the truth is somewhere in the middle of "a few bad apples" and "Bush watched over satelitte and laughed?"

[Chubby]

Am I the only one who thinks the truth is somewhere in the middle of "a few bad apples" and "Bush watched over satelitte and laughed?"
Nope.

[Flasch186]

What about Bush's Cocaine use, how far in the trough of history do you want to go?

I mean, isnt that a stretch. Deal with what applies. Perhaps we can get mad at Lincoln for something and therefore vote for Bush.

[randal7]

Can we agree that there is a significant difference between putting cocaine in your own body and causing harm to other people/observing serious harm done to other people but doing nothing? (Come on, drug legalization fans, chime in here! :p )

[EagleFan]

Question:

I know everyone pretty much universally agrees what happened at Abu Gharab was horrible, but isn't there a point where you have to accept that it happened, learn from it, and move on, hopefully to sin no more?

Here is my point:
This is a new type of war. We are fighting people who can come out of nowhere, kill civilians and military alike, and disappear, or worse, forfit their own lives in an attack.

In a situation where you can't tell friend from foe, you suddenly find yourself holding a number of prisoners that you have been told are the enemy. Then someone tells you to see if they have information. So you try to get them to talk to you. Meanwhile, you have pictures of two huge towers falling down over a major city in your homeland. Or pictures of your buddies dead in a ditch. Add to that an alleged lack of training and supervision, and you end up with a very bad situation.

Now the fingerpointing begins, because no one wants to lose their jobs. Does anyone in the government really understand these people? How does one tell friend from foe in a guerilla war? How far do you go to extract information that may save lives? It seems to me that most of this was brought about by a lack of preparation and understanding on the part of our government as a whole.

I think with this we've learned what lengths we don't want to go to, and what we look like when we are ugly. It seems that we as a country aren't comfortable with winning at any cost. That's who we are, and we should stick to that. Now that we've learned what we won't do, we need to find ways to work within our moral code and still protect ourselves from an unseen enemy. I think it can be done.



You've totally missed the point. In the liberal fantasy land, all you have to do is go up and ask a terrorist something and they will truthfully answer you and repent of their sins against humanity. If we all just join hands around a campfire and bury our heads in the sand, the rest of the world will do so as well and it will be a utopia. All terrorists will lay down their arms, crime will end, the economy will flourish and orgasms will last for over 2 hours. If I close my eyes, I can almost see that world now...

[Jon]

You've totally missed the point. In the liberal fantasy land, all you have to do is go up and ask a terrorist something and they will truthfully answer you and repent of their sins against humanity. If we all just join hands around a campfire and bury our heads in the sand, the rest of the world will do so as well and it will be a utopia. All terrorists will lay down their arms, crime will end, the economy will flourish and orgasms will last for over 2 hours. If I close my eyes, I can almost see that world now...

Here we go again....rather than make an attempt to actually think about what an opponent is saying, let's just make an ad hominem attack. That'll show 'em....

what happened at the prison is not about a liberal fantasy land nor a conservative utopia. It's about our moral authority. We claim, and we did so going into Iraq, the moral high ground. After the prision incidents, the administration claimed that no one gave any orders. New reports are saying this may not be the case. As Americans, we have the duty to challenge the president, whether he is a democrat or republican, to at least publicly make an effort to see what's going on (and I don't mean public hearing, just acknowledge there may be a problem and he'll check into it). That's not what's being. Instead, it's excuses. When Bush was elected, he said that he would take politics and governance to a higher level than what it was during the Clinton period. Well, he's making excuses, just like Clinton.

As for moving on, this happened several months ago. It's not like the incidents from Vietnam, which we should move on from and learn from. But I have serious questions as to whether we have moved on. And, like many Americans (of both parties), we have questions, including whether the ends justify the means. Does America want to violate its own moral code when fighting? It's a legitimate question, and last time I checked the Constitution, it's an okay question to ask. This isn't 1952.

[Flasch186]

Again, I foresee no retorts to the issues. Simply mindless accusations of lack of patriotism or that Jon just helped the enemy. We have a duty to walk the talk. If we say he has WMD than there better be WMD. If we wouldve just said we have a moral obligation to remove a ruthless dictator who murders his own people, then our task wouldve been so far in that our words rang true. As of RIGHT NOW we entered Iraq under false pretenses, based ona moral high ground that we have failed to show. I understand that a great majority of the troops there have not behaved in this bad light, but that is irrelevant. Orders were given to some to treat people outside of the codes of the Geneva Conventions, which we always have placed great importance on, and now our gov't is big trouble, ethically. So for the admin and its supporters, on here as well, to come back with (2 months after throwing down the "it was just some hillbilly's from hoboken" card, and 1 month after throwing down the "it happened all on one day" card) "we should just move on" card, or "keep your mouth shut or the enemy will hear you" card", or the "Kerry did something bad back in Nam" card....Is terribly weak, partisan, and evasive. The issue is right here on the table. What is the admin. going to do next? What lie will come forth out of the head of this here admin? My favorite one that I see coming is, "Kerry cant do as good a job at fighting terrorism." What is he going to do? Pull all of our troops out of every country, cut the funding for intelloigence and pray a bunch. NO, any monkey we stick in as pres. is going to have to fight terrorism the best that they know how. It is so ridiculous to think that the next guy is just going to lay down for the terrorists. The next guy is going to fight them just as hard as he can, and the guy after him, and the guy after her but ill tell you what....Ill bet this admin thought that as long as the war on terror was going on (which by the way, will go on forever), that they would win hands down this fall and that the RNC would have a stranglehold on the top spot forever. Well, you cant continue to lie to the people and think that it wont come back to bite ya. The DOD is lying about the above, Cheney is lying about his energy meetings, Rumsfeld is lying about his post planning for Iraq, Powell lied about the WMD based on the info. he got from the CIA which they got from a person that they are now trying to say is an Iranian spy, Rice lied to the commission, and the hits keep coming......

[sachmo71]

You've totally missed the point. In the liberal fantasy land, all you have to do is go up and ask a terrorist something and they will truthfully answer you and repent of their sins against humanity. If we all just join hands around a campfire and bury our heads in the sand, the rest of the world will do so as well and it will be a utopia. All terrorists will lay down their arms, crime will end, the economy will flourish and orgasms will last for over 2 hours. If I close my eyes, I can almost see that world now...


I've missed the point of Flasch's post? Or the point of the torture? Or the point of the investigations?

I've read your rant, and I'll still confused about what I don't understand. Also, I don't really see an argument here, but I'm willing to listen if you take a position on this.

Thanks.

[Flasch186]

i thought i was pretty clear :(

[sachmo71]

Again, I foresee no retorts to the issues. Simply mindless accusations of lack of patriotism or that Jon just helped the enemy. We have a duty to walk the talk. If we say he has WMD than there better be WMD. If we wouldve just said we have a moral obligation to remove a ruthless dictator who murders his own people, then our task wouldve been so far in that our words rang true. As of RIGHT NOW we entered Iraq under false pretenses, based ona moral high ground that we have failed to show. I understand that a great majority of the troops there have not behaved in this bad light, but that is irrelevant. Orders were given to some to treat people outside of the codes of the Geneva Conventions, which we always have placed great importance on, and now our gov't is big trouble, ethically. So for the admin and its supporters, on here as well, to come back with (2 months after throwing down the "it was just some hillbilly's from hoboken" card, and 1 month after throwing down the "it happened all on one day" card) "we should just move on" card, or "keep your mouth shut or the enemy will hear you" card", or the "Kerry did something bad back in Nam" card....Is terribly weak, partisan, and evasive. The issue is right here on the table. What is the admin. going to do next? What lie will come forth out of the head of this here admin? My favorite one that I see coming is, "Kerry cant do as good a job at fighting terrorism." What is he going to do? Pull all of our troops out of every country, cut the funding for intelloigence and pray a bunch. NO, any monkey we stick in as pres. is going to have to fight terrorism the best that they know how. It is so ridiculous to think that the next guy is just going to lay down for the terrorists. The next guy is going to fight them just as hard as he can, and the guy after him, and the guy after her but ill tell you what....Ill bet this admin thought that as long as the war on terror was going on (which by the way, will go on forever), that they would win hands down this fall and that the RNC would have a stranglehold on the top spot forever. Well, you cant continue to lie to the people and think that it wont come back to bite ya. The DOD is lying about the above, Cheney is lying about his energy meetings, Rumsfeld is lying about his post planning for Iraq, Powell lied about the WMD based on the info. he got from the CIA which they got from a person that they are now trying to say is an Iranian spy, Rice lied to the commission, and the hits keep coming......


I'm sorry I took you off of my ignore list long enough to read that. :(

Back you go!

[Flasch186]

i enjoy being there. Again, Ignorance is bliss. The more info. to sift through the better your judgment will be.

here's some mo!!!

WASHINGTON - The Army hired private interrogators to work in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) despite the service's policy of barring contractors from military intelligence jobs such as interrogating prisoners.


A policy memo from December 2000 says letting private workers gather military intelligence would jeopardize national security.

An Army spokeswoman said senior commanders have the authority to override the contractor ban.

Some of the dozens of private contractors hired to interrogate prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan are under investigation in connection with abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad and other prisons. Army investigators are looking into whether the contracts were awarded properly.

The Abu Ghraib case also stirred criticism from some Democrats that the Pentagon (news - web sites) was relying too heavily on private contractors, even for military functions such as collecting intelligence.

Thomas White, who quit as Army secretary last year after clashing with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said he opposed hiring contractors to question prisoners.

"The principle that should be applied is that the basic process of interrogation and oversight of prisoners should be kept in-house, on the Army side," White said in a telephone interview. "That's something that would have to be under the direct supervision of the Army."


Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Pamela Hart said Saturday that the contractor ban remains in effect. The policy allows for hiring private interrogators and interpreters if there are not enough of those specialists in the Army.


"Commanders on the ground may use their discretion," Hart said.


The Army's top personnel official, Patrick T. Henry, wrote the policy in December 2000.


Henry cited a "risk to national security" in turning over intelligence functions to private sector workers. Private contractors may work for companies that do business with other countries and are not subject to the same chain of command that soldiers are, Henry wrote.


"Reliance on private contractors poses risks to maintaining adequate civilian oversight over intelligence operations," Henry wrote. "Civilian oversight over intelligence operations and technologies is essential to assure intelligence operations are conducted with adequate security safeguards and within the scope of law and direction of the authorized chain of command."


An Army report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib says problems at the prison included confusion over who was in charge of contractors and a lack of supervision of the private workers.


The report from Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba says one contract interrogator, Steven Stefanowicz of CACI International, and a contract translator, John B. Israel of Titan Corp., were "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib."


Israel's family has declined comment. Henry Hockeimer Jr., a lawyer for Stefanowicz, has said his client did nothing wrong.


A third contractor implicated in the abuses, translator Adel Nakhla of Titan, has been fired. Nakhla's lawyer, Francis Q. Hoang, has not returned repeated messages.


Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported Saturday that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. military officer in Iraq, gave senior officials at Abu Ghraib flexibility to use military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, sensory deprivation and diets of bread and water on detainees. Those techniques could be used without seeking permission of officials outside the prison, The Post said, citing newly obtained documents.





These options were not dropped until prison abuse scandal began in May, the newspaper said.

In September, Sanchez approved a broader list of 32 interrogation tactics, which included more severe methods. But after officials at U.S. Central Command raised objections, Sanchez removed several items and required his direct approval for others.

Among the tactics dropped were taking away prisoners' religious items, controlling their exposure to light and pretending to be from a country that deals severely with detainees, the Post said.

It is not clear if the harsher tactics were ever used. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said several investigations into the abuse are examining not only interrogation procedures, but how they were implemented, the Post said.

[Chubby]

You've totally missed the point. In the liberal fantasy land, all you have to do is go up and ask a terrorist something and they will truthfully answer you and repent of their sins against humanity. If we all just join hands around a campfire and bury our heads in the sand, the rest of the world will do so as well and it will be a utopia. All terrorists will lay down their arms, crime will end, the economy will flourish and orgasms will last for over 2 hours. If I close my eyes, I can almost see that world now...


uh huh :rolleyes: no no, I like it much better that we torutre and murder people for intel yet when the same tactics are used against us it's inhumane and "we'll get the people who did this".

[randal7]

If we say he has WMD than there better be WMD.

hxxp://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

[Chubby]

hxxp://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

posted in another thread with discussion, the article doesn't prove anything.

[Flasch186]

In IRAQ!! there are WMD in NKorea, does that justify the war in IRAQ. Damn, I thought for sure when they went in they would be guaranteed to be there (even if it is a wink wink) there.

Love the new Abu Gharaib card....the alcohol card.

[Bubba Wheels]

What about Bush's Cocaine use, how far in the trough of history do you want to go?

I mean, isnt that a stretch. Deal with what applies. Perhaps we can get mad at Lincoln for something and therefore vote for Bush.

C-Spans Booknotes interviewed the author of the Faith of George Bush last night. He was asked about Bush's supposed 'cocain use.' Author stated very clearly, that thru his personal research with the known dealers/users in and around Austin that Bush probably DID NOT engage in cocain use otherwise they would have known about it.

So your statement is actually just another liberal slanderous charge unless you can come up with even an iota of evidence. But that's not what liberals do, now is it?