A good article that lists incedents that point to institutional abuse:
"James Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator from the Neanderthal wing of the Republican Party, may still believe that the only practitioners of degradation and torture in the U.S. military were seven isolated misfits at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. However, stories suggesting something much different continue to pile up:
* Three Iraqi employees of Reuters and one NBC staffer, also an Iraqi, were detained by U.S. forces in January. They claim they were beaten and humiliated in various ways. After three days, they were released without charges.
* The former commander at the Guantanamo prison camp, Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, says he was relieved of his duties because the Pentagon believed he was too soft on the prisoners. His insistence on humane treatment did not please interrogators who wanted to use harsher methods.
* Thursday, NBC News reported allegations that, at several secret detention facilities in Iraq operated by Delta Force commandos, torture of prisoners is routine and robust.
* Sgt. Samuel Provance, a member of an intelligence battalion stationed at Abu Ghraib, told ABC News the use of torture was not limited to a few renegade MPs. The Army is trying to cover up the fact that abuses are widespread, he said.
* And this from the Los Angeles Times: "Three key witnesses, including a senior officer in charge of interrogations, refused to testify during a secret hearing against an alleged ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves."
These and many other reports indicate that treatment of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions is common among U.S. forces dealing with captives in the war on terror. The apparent efforts to hide these activities would lead to the conclusion that somebody knows they are doing something wrong. But somebody also must think it is a necessary wrong or why else would it be such a pervasive practice?
Here's a Burning Question that needs to be answered by all of us, not just our warriors:
Is torture always a betrayal of American values or are there times when it is justified?"
Now clearly, the Imhoffs of this world, and on these baords, think that betraying American values to get some information (in order, ultimately, to keep American 'Values' safe) is worth it . . . I think that America should strive for higher standards . . . or at least make sure that the prisoners that you are going to interogate are really the sort to have information and even then use only means that are not physically harmful or psychologically long term harmful.
A good article that lists incedents that point to institutional abuse:
"James Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator from the Neanderthal wing of the Republican Party, may still believe that the only practitioners of degradation and torture in the U.S. military were seven isolated misfits at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. However, stories suggesting something much different continue to pile up:
* Three Iraqi employees of Reuters and one NBC staffer, also an Iraqi, were detained by U.S. forces in January. They claim they were beaten and humiliated in various ways. After three days, they were released without charges.
* The former commander at the Guantanamo prison camp, Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, says he was relieved of his duties because the Pentagon believed he was too soft on the prisoners. His insistence on humane treatment did not please interrogators who wanted to use harsher methods.
* Thursday, NBC News reported allegations that, at several secret detention facilities in Iraq operated by Delta Force commandos, torture of prisoners is routine and robust.
* Sgt. Samuel Provance, a member of an intelligence battalion stationed at Abu Ghraib, told ABC News the use of torture was not limited to a few renegade MPs. The Army is trying to cover up the fact that abuses are widespread, he said.
* And this from the Los Angeles Times: "Three key witnesses, including a senior officer in charge of interrogations, refused to testify during a secret hearing against an alleged ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves."
These and many other reports indicate that treatment of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions is common among U.S. forces dealing with captives in the war on terror. The apparent efforts to hide these activities would lead to the conclusion that somebody knows they are doing something wrong. But somebody also must think it is a necessary wrong or why else would it be such a pervasive practice?
Here's a Burning Question that needs to be answered by all of us, not just our warriors:
Is torture always a betrayal of American values or are there times when it is justified?"
Now clearly, the Imhoffs of this world, and on these baords, think that betraying American values to get some information (in order, ultimately, to keep American 'Values' safe) is worth it . . . I think that America should strive for higher standards . . . or at least make sure that the prisoners that you are going to interogate are really the sort to have information and even then use only means that are not physically harmful or psychologically long term harmful.
I find it very interesting the a civil libertarian like Alan Dershowitz seems to not be so troubled about the U.S. torturing terror suspects. Please don't make it out that conservative Republicans are the only people who feel that there are times when such tactics are necessary.
It is a tough world out there and you cannot say with any certainty that such tactics haven't prevented new terrorist attacks from occurring. We are quickly approaching the three year mark in which we have had no new terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and I think the President deserves considerable credit for that. Now you all here aren't so naive as to think that this is the first time that the U.S. has used questionable tactics in wartime do you? This is not some new Bush Administration idea. All through history we can find examples of things that we can be less than proud of - the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, the Bay of Pigs, My Lai, etc. - and the list by no means ends there. I think people are being way too quick to judge this whole situation. It is a big story to be sure but there is a lot of other stuff going on that should be reported as well and it is time that some of the more positive aspects of this war be told. The American people deserve no less than the complete truth - not just what the liberal press wants us to hear.
In any case, it is not as easy as you think to identify who is a high value terrorist target and one who is not. Things can get pretty murky over there. I mean look at this whole Chalabi deal. He is just another example in a long line of people the U.S. has befriended through the years that turned out to be a snake. That is the way life can be sometimes - the world is a big place and it operates quite differently in places like the Middle East or Asia. If you think corruption is big here in the U.S. then think again. I mean, it is pretty clear that South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated as part of a U.S. backed coup in 1966 - so don't think for a minute that what has happened in Iraq is something we have not seen before. Clearly the U.S has a history of sometimes being too naive - they don't realize when somebody is using them personal gain rather than for more altruistic reasons. The key is learning from those mistakes and supporting the right people in the future.
I find it very interesting the a civil libertarian like Alan Dershowitz seems to not be so troubled about the U.S. torturing terror suspects.
Me too. He wrote a book about it, devoting at least a chapter to the concept of "torture warrants." I haven't read it-- but I just thought it was important to tell you about it and to agree that "yeah...hmm" he does have an interesting position to say the least. Contradictory at worst, paradoxical at best, but controversial regardless...
"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Alberto Gonzales wrote Bush. "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Quaint.
This just in: note the last paragraph which I bolded
From the Salon War Room:
"Widespread pattern of abuse
"An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known," the New York Times reports.
"The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on 'blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia.' Among previously unknown incidents are the abuse of detainees by Army interrogators from a National Guard unit attached to the Third Infantry Division, who are described in a document obtained by The New York Times as having 'forced into asphyxiation numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information' during a 10-week period last spring."
" ... The details paint a broad picture of misconduct, and show that in many cases among the 37 prisoners who have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army did not conduct autopsies and says it cannot determine the causes of the deaths. In his speech on Monday night, President Bush portrayed the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers in narrow terms. He described incidents at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which were the first and most serious to come to light, as involving actions 'by a few American troops who disregarded our country and disregarded our values.'"
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that a former military police officer posing as an uncooperative prisoner during a training session at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, last year says he was beaten so badly by four American soldiers that he suffered a brain injury."
Jesus. I just went back and read page 13 of this thread. I will never again argue with NaplesX. Whenever he posts something horribly cruel and insensitive, I will send a PM to the mods to ban him. He is an undeniably sick fuck. I am so angry right now, I wouldn't hesitate to break his jaw, were I in his presence.
Scott I would have a shoutfest with over ten pints of whatever brew he prefers before laughing it all off and pathetically chasing some wagging tail in tandem.
Okay. I'm not angry enough to break someone's jaw now, but I would certainly consider doing my best to try and make him "piss his pants" like a true patriot would.
What exactly did I say that would get this kind of reaction. i went back and reread my posts on page 13 to see what it was. Maybe I don't see it, so please, tell me.
This just in: note the last paragraph which I bolded
From the Salon War Room:
"Widespread pattern of abuse
"An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known," the New York Times reports.
"The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on 'blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia.' Among previously unknown incidents are the abuse of detainees by Army interrogators from a National Guard unit attached to the Third Infantry Division, who are described in a document obtained by The New York Times as having 'forced into asphyxiation numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information' during a 10-week period last spring."
" ... The details paint a broad picture of misconduct, and show that in many cases among the 37 prisoners who have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army did not conduct autopsies and says it cannot determine the causes of the deaths. In his speech on Monday night, President Bush portrayed the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers in narrow terms. He described incidents at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which were the first and most serious to come to light, as involving actions 'by a few American troops who disregarded our country and disregarded our values.'"
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that a former military police officer posing as an uncooperative prisoner during a training session at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, last year says he was beaten so badly by four American soldiers that he suffered a brain injury."
Just so we are all clear, about this whole issue, terrorists and non-uniformed combatants are not afforded the Geneva Conventions. those are for Uniformed state sponsored armies and their personnel.
Again, I don't condone abuses, however I think it is important to take into consideration the mentality of those we are dealing with. Sometimes extreme measures need to be taken to save lives.
I think that many of you complaining would be the same to rapidly point out that a terrorist was let go to wreak death and destruction. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me, I remember something along those lines here before. I will have to do a little research on that.
The majority of these people in custody would turn on their captors in a second a slice a throat, or worse, even before these allegations. I don't think we are dealing with sheepish Gandhi types. Struggles happen, tempers flare, unforeseen circumstances inflict everyone. It is not like the guards are in a "perfect" situation, either. There is also human error to take into consideration. Miscalculations happen all the time. Noone here knows all the facts.
This is why I can't just start pointing fingers as most here seem very comfortable with. I'm sorry if that offends some here. Really.
Just so we are all clear, about this whole issue, terrorists and non-uniformed combatants are not afforded the Geneva Conventions. those are for Uniformed state sponsored armies and their personnel.
Again, I don't condone abuses, however I think it is important to take into consideration the mentality of those we are dealing with. Sometimes extreme measures need to be taken to save lives.
I think that many of you complaining would be the same to rapidly point out that a terrorist was let go to wreak death and destruction. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me, I remember something along those lines here before. I will have to do a little research on that.
The majority of these people in custody would turn on their captors in a second a slice a throat, or worse, even before these allegations. I don't think we are dealing with sheepish Gandhi types. Struggles happen, tempers flare, unforeseen circumstances inflict everyone. It is not like the guards are in a "perfect" situation, either. There is also human error to take into consideration. Miscalculations happen all the time. Noone here knows all the facts.
This is why I can't just start pointing fingers as most here seem very comfortable with. I'm sorry if that offends some here. Really.
in fact . . the red cross and many others have stated that 'the majority of these people" have been arrested by mistake!!!
and what about that "prisoner" who was merely a test subject and in reality another American soldier?!?!
Don't you get it!!!! That shows that these people are acting far below the standards that America should hold itself up to!!!
read the Gore speech . . read the whole thing it is very good!
I disagree with the notion that all soldiers are acting that way. Some yes, but not all. These people have the awesome responsibility of trying to save lives. I would put forth that they have and the sad part is, that is the part of this we will never know about because so many people focus only on the negative. Or maybe it's just that the results are just expected. Who knows.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that a former military police officer posing as an uncooperative prisoner during a training session at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, last year says he was beaten so badly by four American soldiers that he suffered a brain injury."
Which means that they were being trained to beat peole and doing so in such a way that even in training they were causing seriouse injury!!!
the problem with talking to you is that you don't care about the torture: you don't care that up to 37 deaths, that we know about, have happened in our custody
so, it is apparent that you think that torture is ok . . . . you make me sick!!
and you wonder why tonton said what he did . . . .
Which means that they were being trained to beat peole and doing so in such a way that even in training they were causing seriouse injury!!!
the problem with talking to you is that you don't care about the torture: you don't care that up to 37 deaths, that we know about, have happened in our custody
so, it is apparent that you think that torture is ok . . . . you make me sick!!
and you wonder why tonton said what he did . . . .
Where did I say that? I am simply asserting that this not as black and white as you all want to make it. There are a LOT of factors and facts at play here. You want to paint it with a broad "it's the neo-cons fault" brush. I just don't agree with your conclusions.
I keep saying I don't approve of torture, yet you keep saying I do. How can I say any differently. Come on. I don't wanna make you sick. So we disagree, we can continue on.
I disagree with the notion that all soldiers are acting that way. Some yes, but not all.
No one is arguing that all soldiers are acting that way.
Quote:
These people have the awesome responsibility of trying to save lives.
No. These are MPs and PROFESSIONAL PRISON GUARDS who there to detain prisoners. Don't try to argue that they were being shot at or that they were traumatized. These are, for the most part, professional prison guards who did this.
Quote:
that is the part of this we will never know about because so many people focus only on the negative.
There's a positive? You're upset because no one is reporting about all the prisoners we didn't strip down naked and force to simulate (or actually commit( sex acts? All the prisoners we didn't rape? All the dead bodies our soldiers didn't pose with?
You need to face facts, mate. There was, apparently, a systematic torturing of prisoners at multiple detainment facilities. The question now is who knew about it, for how long, and why it was covered up. Heads need to roll for this, and it looks like the soldiers are doing the right thing and taking down everyone with them.
Aside: I snicker every time someone says "The behavior of these few soldiers does not represent 99% of the soldiers in Iraq." That means that it is reflective of the behavior of around 1350 of our soldiers.
No one is arguing that all soldiers are acting that way.
No. These are MPs and PROFESSIONAL PRISON GUARDS who there to detain prisoners. Don't try to argue that they were being shot at or that they were traumatized. These are, for the most part, professional prison guards who did this.
There's a positive? You're upset because no one is reporting about all the prisoners we didn't strip down naked and force to simulate (or actually commit( sex acts? All the prisoners we didn't rape? All the dead bodies our soldiers didn't pose with?
You need to face facts, mate. There was, apparently, a systematic torturing of prisoners at multiple detainment facilities. The question now is who knew about it, for how long, and why it was covered up. Heads need to roll for this, and it looks like the soldiers are doing the right thing and taking down everyone with them.
Aside: I snicker every time someone says "The behavior of these few soldiers does not represent 99% of the soldiers in Iraq." That means that it is reflective of the behavior of around 1350 of our soldiers.
I can go along with most of that, except these were not just shoplifters. These were violent and bad people.
I agree heads should roll, the right heads, but as usual it has turned into a witch hunt.
I am one example: I point out that these were murderers and suspected terrorists, and I am said to be OK with torture and murder and am no better than the terrorists or the abusers. I am a witch, according some here.
I am not convinced that the systematic label applies, yet. I think that force was used many times without checks and balances to keep soldiers from going too far. That is a bit different than systematic torture.
Come on, who would have thought that there would be an outcry over mistreatment of terrorists? That is kind of an oxy-moron, no? Look at any action movie previous to 9/11 and you will see a systematic torture of terrorists and potential terrorists much to the delight of vast audiences. I feel this aside was not even considered.
The good news is that this problem will go away because of constant improvement, that is the way the American people are. That is something you don't see in most other governments.
Comments
Graner replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.' "
"James Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator from the Neanderthal wing of the Republican Party, may still believe that the only practitioners of degradation and torture in the U.S. military were seven isolated misfits at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. However, stories suggesting something much different continue to pile up:
* Three Iraqi employees of Reuters and one NBC staffer, also an Iraqi, were detained by U.S. forces in January. They claim they were beaten and humiliated in various ways. After three days, they were released without charges.
* The former commander at the Guantanamo prison camp, Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, says he was relieved of his duties because the Pentagon believed he was too soft on the prisoners. His insistence on humane treatment did not please interrogators who wanted to use harsher methods.
* Thursday, NBC News reported allegations that, at several secret detention facilities in Iraq operated by Delta Force commandos, torture of prisoners is routine and robust.
* Sgt. Samuel Provance, a member of an intelligence battalion stationed at Abu Ghraib, told ABC News the use of torture was not limited to a few renegade MPs. The Army is trying to cover up the fact that abuses are widespread, he said.
* And this from the Los Angeles Times: "Three key witnesses, including a senior officer in charge of interrogations, refused to testify during a secret hearing against an alleged ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves."
These and many other reports indicate that treatment of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions is common among U.S. forces dealing with captives in the war on terror. The apparent efforts to hide these activities would lead to the conclusion that somebody knows they are doing something wrong. But somebody also must think it is a necessary wrong or why else would it be such a pervasive practice?
Here's a Burning Question that needs to be answered by all of us, not just our warriors:
Is torture always a betrayal of American values or are there times when it is justified?"
Now clearly, the Imhoffs of this world, and on these baords, think that betraying American values to get some information (in order, ultimately, to keep American 'Values' safe) is worth it . . . I think that America should strive for higher standards . . . or at least make sure that the prisoners that you are going to interogate are really the sort to have information and even then use only means that are not physically harmful or psychologically long term harmful.
Originally posted by pfflam
A good article that lists incedents that point to institutional abuse:
"James Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator from the Neanderthal wing of the Republican Party, may still believe that the only practitioners of degradation and torture in the U.S. military were seven isolated misfits at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. However, stories suggesting something much different continue to pile up:
* Three Iraqi employees of Reuters and one NBC staffer, also an Iraqi, were detained by U.S. forces in January. They claim they were beaten and humiliated in various ways. After three days, they were released without charges.
* The former commander at the Guantanamo prison camp, Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, says he was relieved of his duties because the Pentagon believed he was too soft on the prisoners. His insistence on humane treatment did not please interrogators who wanted to use harsher methods.
* Thursday, NBC News reported allegations that, at several secret detention facilities in Iraq operated by Delta Force commandos, torture of prisoners is routine and robust.
* Sgt. Samuel Provance, a member of an intelligence battalion stationed at Abu Ghraib, told ABC News the use of torture was not limited to a few renegade MPs. The Army is trying to cover up the fact that abuses are widespread, he said.
* And this from the Los Angeles Times: "Three key witnesses, including a senior officer in charge of interrogations, refused to testify during a secret hearing against an alleged ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves."
These and many other reports indicate that treatment of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions is common among U.S. forces dealing with captives in the war on terror. The apparent efforts to hide these activities would lead to the conclusion that somebody knows they are doing something wrong. But somebody also must think it is a necessary wrong or why else would it be such a pervasive practice?
Here's a Burning Question that needs to be answered by all of us, not just our warriors:
Is torture always a betrayal of American values or are there times when it is justified?"
Now clearly, the Imhoffs of this world, and on these baords, think that betraying American values to get some information (in order, ultimately, to keep American 'Values' safe) is worth it . . . I think that America should strive for higher standards . . . or at least make sure that the prisoners that you are going to interogate are really the sort to have information and even then use only means that are not physically harmful or psychologically long term harmful.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/132018.shtml
I find it very interesting the a civil libertarian like Alan Dershowitz seems to not be so troubled about the U.S. torturing terror suspects. Please don't make it out that conservative Republicans are the only people who feel that there are times when such tactics are necessary.
It is a tough world out there and you cannot say with any certainty that such tactics haven't prevented new terrorist attacks from occurring. We are quickly approaching the three year mark in which we have had no new terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and I think the President deserves considerable credit for that. Now you all here aren't so naive as to think that this is the first time that the U.S. has used questionable tactics in wartime do you? This is not some new Bush Administration idea. All through history we can find examples of things that we can be less than proud of - the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, the Bay of Pigs, My Lai, etc. - and the list by no means ends there. I think people are being way too quick to judge this whole situation. It is a big story to be sure but there is a lot of other stuff going on that should be reported as well and it is time that some of the more positive aspects of this war be told. The American people deserve no less than the complete truth - not just what the liberal press wants us to hear.
In any case, it is not as easy as you think to identify who is a high value terrorist target and one who is not. Things can get pretty murky over there. I mean look at this whole Chalabi deal. He is just another example in a long line of people the U.S. has befriended through the years that turned out to be a snake. That is the way life can be sometimes - the world is a big place and it operates quite differently in places like the Middle East or Asia. If you think corruption is big here in the U.S. then think again. I mean, it is pretty clear that South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated as part of a U.S. backed coup in 1966 - so don't think for a minute that what has happened in Iraq is something we have not seen before. Clearly the U.S has a history of sometimes being too naive - they don't realize when somebody is using them personal gain rather than for more altruistic reasons. The key is learning from those mistakes and supporting the right people in the future.
Originally posted by 7E7
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/132018.shtml
I find it very interesting the a civil libertarian like Alan Dershowitz seems to not be so troubled about the U.S. torturing terror suspects.
Me too. He wrote a book about it, devoting at least a chapter to the concept of "torture warrants." I haven't read it-- but I just thought it was important to tell you about it and to agree that "yeah...hmm" he does have an interesting position to say the least. Contradictory at worst, paradoxical at best, but controversial regardless...
"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Alberto Gonzales wrote Bush. "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Quaint.
Originally posted by bunge
An explanation.
Some of the provisions are a bit 'quaint' . . . such as, all prisoners are to recieve a stippend in Swiss Francs
Article (reg required: LA Times)
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...4/131401.shtml
(Newsmax is a conservative pro-Bush news outlet).
From the Salon War Room:
"Widespread pattern of abuse
"An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known," the New York Times reports.
"The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on 'blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia.' Among previously unknown incidents are the abuse of detainees by Army interrogators from a National Guard unit attached to the Third Infantry Division, who are described in a document obtained by The New York Times as having 'forced into asphyxiation numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information' during a 10-week period last spring."
" ... The details paint a broad picture of misconduct, and show that in many cases among the 37 prisoners who have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army did not conduct autopsies and says it cannot determine the causes of the deaths. In his speech on Monday night, President Bush portrayed the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers in narrow terms. He described incidents at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which were the first and most serious to come to light, as involving actions 'by a few American troops who disregarded our country and disregarded our values.'"
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that a former military police officer posing as an uncooperative prisoner during a training session at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, last year says he was beaten so badly by four American soldiers that he suffered a brain injury."
Originally posted by tonton
Jesus. I just went back and read page 13 of this thread. I will never again argue with NaplesX. Whenever he posts something horribly cruel and insensitive, I will send a PM to the mods to ban him. He is an undeniably sick fuck. I am so angry right now, I wouldn't hesitate to break his jaw, were I in his presence.
Scott I would have a shoutfest with over ten pints of whatever brew he prefers before laughing it all off and pathetically chasing some wagging tail in tandem.
Okay. I'm not angry enough to break someone's jaw now, but I would certainly consider doing my best to try and make him "piss his pants" like a true patriot would.
What exactly did I say that would get this kind of reaction. i went back and reread my posts on page 13 to see what it was. Maybe I don't see it, so please, tell me.
Originally posted by pfflam
This just in: note the last paragraph which I bolded
From the Salon War Room:
"Widespread pattern of abuse
"An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known," the New York Times reports.
"The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on 'blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia.' Among previously unknown incidents are the abuse of detainees by Army interrogators from a National Guard unit attached to the Third Infantry Division, who are described in a document obtained by The New York Times as having 'forced into asphyxiation numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information' during a 10-week period last spring."
" ... The details paint a broad picture of misconduct, and show that in many cases among the 37 prisoners who have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army did not conduct autopsies and says it cannot determine the causes of the deaths. In his speech on Monday night, President Bush portrayed the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers in narrow terms. He described incidents at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which were the first and most serious to come to light, as involving actions 'by a few American troops who disregarded our country and disregarded our values.'"
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that a former military police officer posing as an uncooperative prisoner during a training session at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, last year says he was beaten so badly by four American soldiers that he suffered a brain injury."
Just so we are all clear, about this whole issue, terrorists and non-uniformed combatants are not afforded the Geneva Conventions. those are for Uniformed state sponsored armies and their personnel.
Again, I don't condone abuses, however I think it is important to take into consideration the mentality of those we are dealing with. Sometimes extreme measures need to be taken to save lives.
I think that many of you complaining would be the same to rapidly point out that a terrorist was let go to wreak death and destruction. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me, I remember something along those lines here before. I will have to do a little research on that.
The majority of these people in custody would turn on their captors in a second a slice a throat, or worse, even before these allegations. I don't think we are dealing with sheepish Gandhi types. Struggles happen, tempers flare, unforeseen circumstances inflict everyone. It is not like the guards are in a "perfect" situation, either. There is also human error to take into consideration. Miscalculations happen all the time. Noone here knows all the facts.
This is why I can't just start pointing fingers as most here seem very comfortable with. I'm sorry if that offends some here. Really.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Just so we are all clear, about this whole issue, terrorists and non-uniformed combatants are not afforded the Geneva Conventions. those are for Uniformed state sponsored armies and their personnel.
Again, I don't condone abuses, however I think it is important to take into consideration the mentality of those we are dealing with. Sometimes extreme measures need to be taken to save lives.
I think that many of you complaining would be the same to rapidly point out that a terrorist was let go to wreak death and destruction. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me, I remember something along those lines here before. I will have to do a little research on that.
The majority of these people in custody would turn on their captors in a second a slice a throat, or worse, even before these allegations. I don't think we are dealing with sheepish Gandhi types. Struggles happen, tempers flare, unforeseen circumstances inflict everyone. It is not like the guards are in a "perfect" situation, either. There is also human error to take into consideration. Miscalculations happen all the time. Noone here knows all the facts.
This is why I can't just start pointing fingers as most here seem very comfortable with. I'm sorry if that offends some here. Really.
in fact . . the red cross and many others have stated that 'the majority of these people" have been arrested by mistake!!!
Originally posted by pfflam
in fact . . the red cross and many others have stated that 'the majority of these people" have been arrested by mistake!!!
Um, OK but your own government thinks differently, namely those in charge over there in Iraq.
Do you as president pflam order potential terrorists be loosed based solely on what the Red Cross says.
I would hope not.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, OK but your own government thinks differently, namely those in charge over there in Iraq.
Do you as president pflam order potential terrorists be loosed based solely on what the Red Cross says.
I would hope not.
Loose?
I didn't say let anybody go.
and what about that "prisoner" who was merely a test subject and in reality another American soldier?!?!
Don't you get it!!!! That shows that these people are acting far below the standards that America should hold itself up to!!!
read the Gore speech . . read the whole thing it is very good!
Originally posted by pfflam
Loose?
I didn't say let anybody go.
and what about that "prisoner" who was merely a test subject and in reality another American soldier?!?!
Don't you get it!!!! That shows that these people are acting far below the standards that America should hold itself up to!!!
read the Gore speech . . read the whole thing it is very good!
I disagree with the notion that all soldiers are acting that way. Some yes, but not all. These people have the awesome responsibility of trying to save lives. I would put forth that they have and the sad part is, that is the part of this we will never know about because so many people focus only on the negative. Or maybe it's just that the results are just expected. Who knows.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that a former military police officer posing as an uncooperative prisoner during a training session at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, last year says he was beaten so badly by four American soldiers that he suffered a brain injury."
Which means that they were being trained to beat peole and doing so in such a way that even in training they were causing seriouse injury!!!
the problem with talking to you is that you don't care about the torture: you don't care that up to 37 deaths, that we know about, have happened in our custody
so, it is apparent that you think that torture is ok . . . . you make me sick!!
and you wonder why tonton said what he did . . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
Which means that they were being trained to beat peole and doing so in such a way that even in training they were causing seriouse injury!!!
the problem with talking to you is that you don't care about the torture: you don't care that up to 37 deaths, that we know about, have happened in our custody
so, it is apparent that you think that torture is ok . . . . you make me sick!!
and you wonder why tonton said what he did . . . .
Where did I say that? I am simply asserting that this not as black and white as you all want to make it. There are a LOT of factors and facts at play here. You want to paint it with a broad "it's the neo-cons fault" brush. I just don't agree with your conclusions.
I keep saying I don't approve of torture, yet you keep saying I do. How can I say any differently. Come on. I don't wanna make you sick. So we disagree, we can continue on.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I disagree with the notion that all soldiers are acting that way. Some yes, but not all.
No one is arguing that all soldiers are acting that way.
These people have the awesome responsibility of trying to save lives.
No. These are MPs and PROFESSIONAL PRISON GUARDS who there to detain prisoners. Don't try to argue that they were being shot at or that they were traumatized. These are, for the most part, professional prison guards who did this.
that is the part of this we will never know about because so many people focus only on the negative.
There's a positive? You're upset because no one is reporting about all the prisoners we didn't strip down naked and force to simulate (or actually commit( sex acts? All the prisoners we didn't rape? All the dead bodies our soldiers didn't pose with?
You need to face facts, mate. There was, apparently, a systematic torturing of prisoners at multiple detainment facilities. The question now is who knew about it, for how long, and why it was covered up. Heads need to roll for this, and it looks like the soldiers are doing the right thing and taking down everyone with them.
Aside: I snicker every time someone says "The behavior of these few soldiers does not represent 99% of the soldiers in Iraq." That means that it is reflective of the behavior of around 1350 of our soldiers.
Originally posted by midwinter
No one is arguing that all soldiers are acting that way.
No. These are MPs and PROFESSIONAL PRISON GUARDS who there to detain prisoners. Don't try to argue that they were being shot at or that they were traumatized. These are, for the most part, professional prison guards who did this.
There's a positive? You're upset because no one is reporting about all the prisoners we didn't strip down naked and force to simulate (or actually commit( sex acts? All the prisoners we didn't rape? All the dead bodies our soldiers didn't pose with?
You need to face facts, mate. There was, apparently, a systematic torturing of prisoners at multiple detainment facilities. The question now is who knew about it, for how long, and why it was covered up. Heads need to roll for this, and it looks like the soldiers are doing the right thing and taking down everyone with them.
Aside: I snicker every time someone says "The behavior of these few soldiers does not represent 99% of the soldiers in Iraq." That means that it is reflective of the behavior of around 1350 of our soldiers.
I can go along with most of that, except these were not just shoplifters. These were violent and bad people.
I agree heads should roll, the right heads, but as usual it has turned into a witch hunt.
I am one example: I point out that these were murderers and suspected terrorists, and I am said to be OK with torture and murder and am no better than the terrorists or the abusers. I am a witch, according some here.
I am not convinced that the systematic label applies, yet. I think that force was used many times without checks and balances to keep soldiers from going too far. That is a bit different than systematic torture.
Come on, who would have thought that there would be an outcry over mistreatment of terrorists? That is kind of an oxy-moron, no? Look at any action movie previous to 9/11 and you will see a systematic torture of terrorists and potential terrorists much to the delight of vast audiences. I feel this aside was not even considered.
The good news is that this problem will go away because of constant improvement, that is the way the American people are. That is something you don't see in most other governments.