If you put out a non-enforceable and so obviously bogus agreement and you have the likes of Iraq. Iran, Syria, you can see how much weight that document has. Did you say it was ratified when, '92, would that have been under Clinton? Why sign something that noone had any intention of upholding.
Treaties like this were traditionally proposed by western nations because they knew they had no problems to fulfil them, but it would strengthen the position of the opposition in dictatorships. This way, even non-democratic countries had to abide by some minimal code of conduct if they wanted to avoid losing all credibility.
The way it worked can be seen by the communist block which signed some human-rights declarations during the KSZE conferences which proved to be a nail to their coffin.
You might be so intoxicated by your neocon lunacy you have completely lost any sense of what it means that the US of all countries has broken any anti-torture convention it has signed - suffice to say that over here, it is seen as a shame to the whole western world. Coincidentially, one of the major hurdles for Turkey joining the EU was widespread torture there...
BTW: to the best of my knowledge, Clinton became president in '93 - but hey, whats a year more or less...
Yeah, the military drove through a Norman Rockwell neighborhood in Iraq and randomly picked peaceful people to fill the jails. There isn't enough bad people to pick from, I guess.
This conversation is stupid because some of you want to believe that 90% of the prisoners are just victims of circumstance. "Mr. soldier man, I don't know how that rocket launcher landed in my hand and accidently went off and hit your Hummer. Excuse please." What a hoot.
I do believe there may be a small percentage that are there wrongly, but that is true anywhere.
Stop the presses this just in:
Quote:
The release today of 617 prisoners from Abu Ghraib was the fourth release this month and the largest, a spokesman for the occupation authorities said, since the publication of photographs showing American soldiers abusing prisoners there.
Over all, several thousand prisoners have been freed, and the numbers are accelerating as the planned transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30 approaches, the spokesman said.
.
.
.
There are now about 3,000 detainees in Abu Ghraib, said the occupation authority's spokesman.
Nada Doumani, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that the organization was told in April by American authorities that there were about 7,000 detainees in Abu Ghraib. She said she could not account for how many had been released and how many might have been transferred.
"Between 70 and 90 percent of the people detained did not have specific charges against them," she said.
Lets see if about 3000 still remain after releasing 617 prisoners then there were about 3600 prisoners detained prior to this release. Pretty simple concept. Lets do some math though:
about 600 realeased so the percentage of the prison population unjustly held can be found by:
prisoners released/total prison pop prior to release x 100%
600/3600 x 100%
which is about 17%.
Now if we look at the 7000 figure given to the ICRCC and compare that to the current population we can say the following:
current number of detainees/max detainees x 100%
3000/7000 x 100%
That's about 43% of the max prison population still remains locked up, or rather 57% of the prison population has been released since the ICRCC submitted its report using US figures in Jan of this year.
Court transcripts and Army investigator interviews provide the broadest view of evidence that abuses, from forcing inmates to stand in hoods in 120-degree heat to punching them, occurred at a Marine detention camp and three Army prison sites in Iraq besides Abu Ghraib.
Why shouldn't our President be impeached for this?
Too bad some very good info. is being sucked into that black hole of fanatical nonsense and ignorance. Smircle, Faust, Pfflam, Giant....brave people you are.
I read this thread, and I think having a discussion with a wall would be more productive.
Lets see if about 3000 still remain after releasing 617 prisoners then there were about 3600 prisoners detained prior to this release. Pretty simple concept. Lets do some math though:
about 600 realeased so the percentage of the prison population unjustly held can be found by:
prisoners released/total prison pop prior to release x 100%
600/3600 x 100%
which is about 17%.
Now if we look at the 7000 figure given to the ICRCC and compare that to the current population we can say the following:
current number of detainees/max detainees x 100%
3000/7000 x 100%
That's about 43% of the max prison population still remains locked up, or rather 57% of the prison population has been released since the ICRCC submitted its report using US figures in Jan of this year.
17% for one realse not insignificant.
57% NOT insignificant.
I feel these releases are a direct result of political pressures. These releases are dumb, and will come back to haunt the coalition if it has not done so already.
I feel these releases are a direct result of political pressures. These releases are dumb, and will come back to haunt the coalition if it has not done so already.
I feel these releases are a direct result of political pressures. These releases are dumb, and will come back to haunt the coalition if it has not done so already.
The your feelings are simply uninformed.
Quote:
From a report generated by General Ryder obtained by the NY Times:
General Ryder, the Army's provost marshal, reported that some Iraqis had been held for several months for nothing more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" toward the American occupying forces. The Nov. 5 report said the process for deciding which arrested Iraqis posed security risks justifying imprisonment, and for deciding when to release them, violated the Pentagon's own policies. It also said the conditions in which they were held sometimes violated the Geneva Conventions.
From a report generated by General Ryder reported on in USNews and world report:
Due process, court system shortfalls and dependence on US military judge advocates
"The majority of courts are operational, but "there is no plan or timeline for withdrawal of JAG assistance."
"Resource and manpower limitations have made it very difficult to get [juvenile detainee] cases reviewed and to release those individuals that pose very little or no danger."
"There exists no Iraqi method by which to investigate allegations of improper conduct and corruption by judges and prosecutors.
"Employees, particularly prison guards, are complaining about not being paid in a timely manner." Report warns that "this situation is likely to deteriorate and result in partial or massive walkout of Iraqi prison guards, staff and others" which would require a massive reintroduction of MPs.
The report notes that CPA has allowed the 72-hour review required by the Geneva convention to be measured from the time that detainees arrive at the central collection point in Baghdad. Soldiers have 14 days to bring those detainees to Baghdad. The report recommends that this period be shortened if possible, and notes that "While this has apparently not been the focus of any ICRC [Red Cross] personnel, itmay be that they have not understood the delay in the 72-hour review."
In other words, the Ryder report suggests that ICRC may not have spotted this Geneva violation.
The report says that some persons ordered to be released have not been released in a timely manner, and some were even moved to another facility instead of being released.
It notes a shortage of JAG and MI personnel for expected volume. It also recommends immediate review and approval of the request for more judge advocates and support personnel to speed up the reviews.
No system for tracking and release of prisoners
"There exists no tracking system for the courts, detention facilities or prisons."
"As a result, some detainees are not being tracked at all, and most detainees are only being tracked at individual camps." The data is not available in a central location.
"There is not an efficient release process in place."
A rehash of reports that have been floating around and verified about the Abu Garaib prison scandal form The Washington Post
The International Committee of the Red Cross said in a February report to U.S. military commanders in Iraq that military intelligence officials had said that 70 percent to 90 percent of those incarcerated in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. The Red Cross also said detainees at Abu Ghraib were frequently "questioned without knowing what they were accused of." It described the U.S.-led military coalition as "uncaring" about international rules requiring notification of families. This behavior "seriously affects the image of the Occupying Powers amongst the Iraqi population," the Red Cross said.
Wake up and smell the roses there killer. Your "feelings" are not based on real information but rather some strange "we are good they are evil thus we are right" emotion.
Wake up and smell the roses there killer. Your "feelings" are not based on real information but rather some strange "we are good they are evil thus we are right" emotion.
Thank you come again.
Did I do something to warrant you acting like a complete ass****?
You can imply that I am wrong, you are, in fact, entitled to your opinion. But my "feeling" is the same. BTW, I did read those accounts, thank you very much.
I really haven't had a ton of time to look into it, but I have some serious questions about the whole RC report:
1. Was the information that 90% of them were arrested by mistake gleaned from the detainees only?
2. How much info taken from the detainees was verified? In other words did we just take what potential terrorists and criminals at face value?
3. If, like some have said, these people that supposedly were held without real reason, are now going to spend their time fighting and killing coalition forces, were they in fact just innocent bystanders, with the noblest of intentions toward those forces? How many of us after being detained, even if it was unwarranted, would plant roadside bombs and fire rocket launchers at authorities, domestic or foreign?
I have heard many people say that these people are now enemies, because they were detained, supposedly wrongly. I suppose we will see how much of a boost the insurgency will get with this large number of people, that supposedly now have even more reason to kill. What moral person condones killing in retaliation for being mistreated?
That is the problem I have with this line of thinking. I hope that I am totally wrong. But I am afraid that I am not.
What moral person condones killing in retaliation for being mistreated?
An eye for an eye and all that. Keep in mind, though, that "mistreated" in this case might have meant, you know, being raped with a broomstick or having electrodes attached to your genitals and being told you were going to be electrocuted. And even if these were isolated cases (they weren't) by a few bad apples (they weren't; it was systematic), it is also torturous to allow a prisoner to think he/she is going to be tortured.
An eye for an eye and all that. Keep in mind, though, that "mistreated" in this case might have meant, you know, being raped with a broomstick or having electrodes attached to your genitals and being told you were going to be electrocuted. And even if these were isolated cases (they weren't) by a few bad apples (they weren't; it was systematic), it is also torturous to allow a prisoner to think he/she is going to be tortured.
So being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death? So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?
Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?
So being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death? So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?
Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?
Look, you asked what kind of people respond to "mistreatment" (a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened) with a desire to kill their those responsible for their treatment. I obliquely responded that people who have been tortured might wish death upon their torturers.
And don't be obscene by trying to even pretend I meant all the soldiers deserve death. Do I think the people responsible for torturing the prisoners ought to get more than a year in the clink? Absofuckinglutely. One year is a laughable punishment for what amounts to a crime against humanity.
You seem to want to think that this is the only thing that's set some/many Iraqis off against us. Do not forget, because the Iraqis sure as hell won't, that we invaded their country, overthrew their (dictatorial) ruler, and imposed freedom on them at the point of a gun. Our soldiers patrol Iraqi streets every night. There are curfews. We destroyed large chunks of the infrastructure in Baghdad, leaving people without power and water for weeks at a stretch. We arrest people who cannot produce the proper paperwork, and when we throw them in prison, there's a chance they'll be tortured.
Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?
For what it's worth, they're not "insurgents." Insurgents come from somewhere else and fight for a cause. These people would more accurately be described as "rebels" who are waging a guerilla campaign against an occupying force.
Look, you asked what kind of people respond to "mistreatment" (a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened) with a desire to kill their those responsible for their treatment. I obliquely responded that people who have been tortured might wish death upon their torturers.
And don't be obscene by trying to even pretend I meant all the soldiers deserve death. Do I think the people responsible for torturing the prisoners ought to get more than a year in the clink? Absofuckinglutely. One year is a laughable punishment for what amounts to a crime against humanity.
You seem to want to think that this is the only thing that's set some/many Iraqis off against us. Do not forget, because the Iraqis sure as hell won't, that we invaded their country, overthrew their (dictatorial) ruler, and imposed freedom on them at the point of a gun. Our soldiers patrol Iraqi streets every night. There are curfews. We destroyed large chunks of the infrastructure in Baghdad, leaving people without power and water for weeks at a stretch. We arrest people who cannot produce the proper paperwork, and when we throw them in prison, there's a chance they'll be tortured.
Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?
For what it's worth, they're not "insurgents." Insurgents come from somewhere else and fight for a cause. These people would more accurately be described as "rebels" who are waging a guerilla campaign against an occupying force.
Yeah, let's not forget they were happily getting tortured (buried alive and and dipped in acid) and mass murdered (actually being gassed by those nonexistent WMDs) before the US deposed their beloved leader.
According to news reports, virtually all of the infrastructure issues have been restored to prewar levels, oil output is above prewar levels.
If the US is so bad, why does it rebuild the damage that they cause?
Of coarse you have to completely exonerate SH and his government of any wrongdoing or fault in order to place all blame at the feet of the US/Coalition.
I guess the US is fixing damage caused by SH. Those heartless bastards.
Look, you asked what kind of people respond to "mistreatment" (a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened) with a desire to kill their those responsible for their treatment. I obliquely responded that people who have been tortured might wish death upon their torturers.
And don't be obscene by trying to even pretend I meant all the soldiers deserve death. Do I think the people responsible for torturing the prisoners ought to get more than a year in the clink? Absofuckinglutely. One year is a laughable punishment for what amounts to a crime against humanity.
You seem to want to think that this is the only thing that's set some/many Iraqis off against us. Do not forget, because the Iraqis sure as hell won't, that we invaded their country, overthrew their (dictatorial) ruler, and imposed freedom on them at the point of a gun. Our soldiers patrol Iraqi streets every night. There are curfews. We destroyed large chunks of the infrastructure in Baghdad, leaving people without power and water for weeks at a stretch. We arrest people who cannot produce the proper paperwork, and when we throw them in prison, there's a chance they'll be tortured.
Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?
For what it's worth, they're not "insurgents." Insurgents come from somewhere else and fight for a cause. These people would more accurately be described as "rebels" who are waging a guerilla campaign against an occupying force.
Oh yeah, A & E is playing some documentaries about SH and his regime. You may want to watch, and if you miss it it I would suggest you order the tapes.
Yeah, let's not forget they were happily getting tortured (buried alive and and dipped in acid) and mass murdered (actually being gassed by those nonexistent WMDs) before the US deposed their beloved leader.
I said nothing about him being beloved. He was a mass-murdering fuckhead.
Quote:
According to news reports, virtually all of the infrastructure issues have been restored to prewar levels, oil output is above prewar levels.
Yay! It's only taken a year!
Quote:
If the US is so bad, why does it rebuild the damage that they cause?
Because that is how you conquer the world.
Quote:
Of coarse you have to completely exonerate SH and his government of any wrongdoing or fault in order to place all blame at the feet of the US/Coalition.
I'll tell you what, mate. You don't accuse me of trying to exonerate SH and his regime when clearly I said nothing along those lines and I won't make up things that you've said and tilt at them? Sound fair? Of course it does.
It's one thing to debate what I say; it's another thing entirely to invent things I say and then debate them.
Quote:
I guess the US is fixing damage caused by SH. Those heartless bastards.
Well, blowing a lot of it up didn't help. And now that we've rebuilt it, we get to keep it!
I'll say it again:
Quote:
Originally written by me and ignored by you:
Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?
I said nothing about him being beloved. He was a mass-murdering fuckhead.
Good, then I will expect to see instances where you place the blame where it lies, no?
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Yay! It's only taken a year!
Most wars take far longer, and then rebuilding takes even longer. So yeah, yay for the Iraqi people they can start to move forward.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Because that is how you conquer the world.
You have been watching too many "Pinky and the Brain" cartoons.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I'll tell you what, mate. You don't accuse me of trying to exonerate SH and his regime when clearly I said nothing along those lines and I won't make up things that you've said and tilt at them? Sound fair? Of course it does.
I didn't say you were trying to do anything, I was trying to point out the choice one has to make to lay sole blame at US' doorstep, MATE. You seem to have made that choice, and you are allowed to. Don't get mad when I point out the flaw in that logic. OK, mate?
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
It's one thing to debate what I say; it's another thing entirely to invent things I say and then debate them.
Read the above statement.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, blowing a lot of it up didn't help. And now that we've rebuilt it, we get to keep it!
I guess we got to keep Germany, Russia, and France? I am not sure what you mean by that, but according to the "conquer the world" and then this, I can only guess you feel that this is imperialistic war. I say history proves that notion wrong. The countries I mentioned have free will and are not tied to the US, as made obvious by their decision to protest the US decision.
History has lots of things to offer. Here are three.
France: we didn't conquer it. We helped chase out a conqueror.
Russia: we didn't conquer it. At all. We did invade (with lots of other countries) in 1919 but wisely withdrew.
Germany: we conquered it and partitioned it with three other countries and we most certainly did control it until it got nominal sovereignty in the mid 1950s. After that, influence was more indirect (and the Cold War was raging [right word for a cold war?], so priorities shifted among all participants).
So being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death? So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?
A few? I know Bush has said words to that effect, but honest and reliable sources have indicated "systematic and widespread" abuse and torture.
Quote:
Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?
It is unheard of for a nation under an oppressive occupation not to resist with guerilla style methods. Turn the tables, and imagine the US people under the thumb of a foreign invader that loots, rapes, plunders and pillages. The patriotic action is to resist, in whatever way you can.
If our own Defense Dept is investigating cases of thefts from Iraqi civilians whose homes have been searched, then the real situation is undoubtedly far, far worse. The tip of a very large and ugly iceberg.
Operation Iraqi Freedom. A big steaming, stinking heap of BS
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you put out a non-enforceable and so obviously bogus agreement and you have the likes of Iraq. Iran, Syria, you can see how much weight that document has. Did you say it was ratified when, '92, would that have been under Clinton? Why sign something that noone had any intention of upholding.
Treaties like this were traditionally proposed by western nations because they knew they had no problems to fulfil them, but it would strengthen the position of the opposition in dictatorships. This way, even non-democratic countries had to abide by some minimal code of conduct if they wanted to avoid losing all credibility.
The way it worked can be seen by the communist block which signed some human-rights declarations during the KSZE conferences which proved to be a nail to their coffin.
You might be so intoxicated by your neocon lunacy you have completely lost any sense of what it means that the US of all countries has broken any anti-torture convention it has signed - suffice to say that over here, it is seen as a shame to the whole western world. Coincidentially, one of the major hurdles for Turkey joining the EU was widespread torture there...
BTW: to the best of my knowledge, Clinton became president in '93 - but hey, whats a year more or less...
*grumbble . . . shift . . . swat*
is that a gnat?!?!
Originally posted by NaplesX
Come on, what are they then?
Cupcake bakers and gardeners?
Yeah, the military drove through a Norman Rockwell neighborhood in Iraq and randomly picked peaceful people to fill the jails. There isn't enough bad people to pick from, I guess.
This conversation is stupid because some of you want to believe that 90% of the prisoners are just victims of circumstance. "Mr. soldier man, I don't know how that rocket launcher landed in my hand and accidently went off and hit your Hummer. Excuse please." What a hoot.
I do believe there may be a small percentage that are there wrongly, but that is true anywhere.
Stop the presses this just in:
The release today of 617 prisoners from Abu Ghraib was the fourth release this month and the largest, a spokesman for the occupation authorities said, since the publication of photographs showing American soldiers abusing prisoners there.
Over all, several thousand prisoners have been freed, and the numbers are accelerating as the planned transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30 approaches, the spokesman said.
.
.
.
There are now about 3,000 detainees in Abu Ghraib, said the occupation authority's spokesman.
Nada Doumani, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that the organization was told in April by American authorities that there were about 7,000 detainees in Abu Ghraib. She said she could not account for how many had been released and how many might have been transferred.
"Between 70 and 90 percent of the people detained did not have specific charges against them," she said.
Source:
Lets see if about 3000 still remain after releasing 617 prisoners then there were about 3600 prisoners detained prior to this release. Pretty simple concept. Lets do some math though:
about 600 realeased so the percentage of the prison population unjustly held can be found by:
prisoners released/total prison pop prior to release x 100%
600/3600 x 100%
which is about 17%.
Now if we look at the 7000 figure given to the ICRCC and compare that to the current population we can say the following:
current number of detainees/max detainees x 100%
3000/7000 x 100%
That's about 43% of the max prison population still remains locked up, or rather 57% of the prison population has been released since the ICRCC submitted its report using US figures in Jan of this year.
17% for one realse not insignificant.
57% NOT insignificant.
Court transcripts and Army investigator interviews provide the broadest view of evidence that abuses, from forcing inmates to stand in hoods in 120-degree heat to punching them, occurred at a Marine detention camp and three Army prison sites in Iraq besides Abu Ghraib.
Why shouldn't our President be impeached for this?
I read this thread, and I think having a discussion with a wall would be more productive.
Originally posted by faust9
Stop the presses this just in:
Source:
Lets see if about 3000 still remain after releasing 617 prisoners then there were about 3600 prisoners detained prior to this release. Pretty simple concept. Lets do some math though:
about 600 realeased so the percentage of the prison population unjustly held can be found by:
prisoners released/total prison pop prior to release x 100%
600/3600 x 100%
which is about 17%.
Now if we look at the 7000 figure given to the ICRCC and compare that to the current population we can say the following:
current number of detainees/max detainees x 100%
3000/7000 x 100%
That's about 43% of the max prison population still remains locked up, or rather 57% of the prison population has been released since the ICRCC submitted its report using US figures in Jan of this year.
17% for one realse not insignificant.
57% NOT insignificant.
I feel these releases are a direct result of political pressures. These releases are dumb, and will come back to haunt the coalition if it has not done so already.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I feel these releases are a direct result of political pressures. These releases are dumb, and will come back to haunt the coalition if it has not done so already.
So lock'em all up and let God sort'em out, eh?
Originally posted by NaplesX
I feel these releases are a direct result of political pressures. These releases are dumb, and will come back to haunt the coalition if it has not done so already.
The your feelings are simply uninformed.
From a report generated by General Ryder obtained by the NY Times:
General Ryder, the Army's provost marshal, reported that some Iraqis had been held for several months for nothing more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" toward the American occupying forces. The Nov. 5 report said the process for deciding which arrested Iraqis posed security risks justifying imprisonment, and for deciding when to release them, violated the Pentagon's own policies. It also said the conditions in which they were held sometimes violated the Geneva Conventions.
Source
From a report generated by General Ryder reported on in USNews and world report:
Due process, court system shortfalls and dependence on US military judge advocates
"The majority of courts are operational, but "there is no plan or timeline for withdrawal of JAG assistance."
"Resource and manpower limitations have made it very difficult to get [juvenile detainee] cases reviewed and to release those individuals that pose very little or no danger."
"There exists no Iraqi method by which to investigate allegations of improper conduct and corruption by judges and prosecutors.
"Employees, particularly prison guards, are complaining about not being paid in a timely manner." Report warns that "this situation is likely to deteriorate and result in partial or massive walkout of Iraqi prison guards, staff and others" which would require a massive reintroduction of MPs.
The report notes that CPA has allowed the 72-hour review required by the Geneva convention to be measured from the time that detainees arrive at the central collection point in Baghdad. Soldiers have 14 days to bring those detainees to Baghdad. The report recommends that this period be shortened if possible, and notes that "While this has apparently not been the focus of any ICRC [Red Cross] personnel, itmay be that they have not understood the delay in the 72-hour review."
In other words, the Ryder report suggests that ICRC may not have spotted this Geneva violation.
The report says that some persons ordered to be released have not been released in a timely manner, and some were even moved to another facility instead of being released.
It notes a shortage of JAG and MI personnel for expected volume. It also recommends immediate review and approval of the request for more judge advocates and support personnel to speed up the reviews.
No system for tracking and release of prisoners
"There exists no tracking system for the courts, detention facilities or prisons."
"As a result, some detainees are not being tracked at all, and most detainees are only being tracked at individual camps." The data is not available in a central location.
"There is not an efficient release process in place."
No emphasis added.
Source
Then there's this:
A rehash of reports that have been floating around and verified about the Abu Garaib prison scandal form The Washington Post
The International Committee of the Red Cross said in a February report to U.S. military commanders in Iraq that military intelligence officials had said that 70 percent to 90 percent of those incarcerated in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. The Red Cross also said detainees at Abu Ghraib were frequently "questioned without knowing what they were accused of." It described the U.S.-led military coalition as "uncaring" about international rules requiring notification of families. This behavior "seriously affects the image of the Occupying Powers amongst the Iraqi population," the Red Cross said.
emphasis added
Source
Wake up and smell the roses there killer. Your "feelings" are not based on real information but rather some strange "we are good they are evil thus we are right" emotion.
Thank you come again.
Originally posted by faust9
The your feelings are simply uninformed.
Source
No emphasis added.
Source
Then there's this:
emphasis added
Source
Wake up and smell the roses there killer. Your "feelings" are not based on real information but rather some strange "we are good they are evil thus we are right" emotion.
Thank you come again.
Did I do something to warrant you acting like a complete ass****?
You can imply that I am wrong, you are, in fact, entitled to your opinion. But my "feeling" is the same. BTW, I did read those accounts, thank you very much.
I really haven't had a ton of time to look into it, but I have some serious questions about the whole RC report:
1. Was the information that 90% of them were arrested by mistake gleaned from the detainees only?
2. How much info taken from the detainees was verified? In other words did we just take what potential terrorists and criminals at face value?
3. If, like some have said, these people that supposedly were held without real reason, are now going to spend their time fighting and killing coalition forces, were they in fact just innocent bystanders, with the noblest of intentions toward those forces? How many of us after being detained, even if it was unwarranted, would plant roadside bombs and fire rocket launchers at authorities, domestic or foreign?
I have heard many people say that these people are now enemies, because they were detained, supposedly wrongly. I suppose we will see how much of a boost the insurgency will get with this large number of people, that supposedly now have even more reason to kill. What moral person condones killing in retaliation for being mistreated?
That is the problem I have with this line of thinking. I hope that I am totally wrong. But I am afraid that I am not.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What moral person condones killing in retaliation for being mistreated?
An eye for an eye and all that. Keep in mind, though, that "mistreated" in this case might have meant, you know, being raped with a broomstick or having electrodes attached to your genitals and being told you were going to be electrocuted. And even if these were isolated cases (they weren't) by a few bad apples (they weren't; it was systematic), it is also torturous to allow a prisoner to think he/she is going to be tortured.
Originally posted by midwinter
An eye for an eye and all that. Keep in mind, though, that "mistreated" in this case might have meant, you know, being raped with a broomstick or having electrodes attached to your genitals and being told you were going to be electrocuted. And even if these were isolated cases (they weren't) by a few bad apples (they weren't; it was systematic), it is also torturous to allow a prisoner to think he/she is going to be tortured.
So being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death? So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?
Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?
Originally posted by NaplesX
So being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death? So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?
Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?
Look, you asked what kind of people respond to "mistreatment" (a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened) with a desire to kill their those responsible for their treatment. I obliquely responded that people who have been tortured might wish death upon their torturers.
And don't be obscene by trying to even pretend I meant all the soldiers deserve death. Do I think the people responsible for torturing the prisoners ought to get more than a year in the clink? Absofuckinglutely. One year is a laughable punishment for what amounts to a crime against humanity.
You seem to want to think that this is the only thing that's set some/many Iraqis off against us. Do not forget, because the Iraqis sure as hell won't, that we invaded their country, overthrew their (dictatorial) ruler, and imposed freedom on them at the point of a gun. Our soldiers patrol Iraqi streets every night. There are curfews. We destroyed large chunks of the infrastructure in Baghdad, leaving people without power and water for weeks at a stretch. We arrest people who cannot produce the proper paperwork, and when we throw them in prison, there's a chance they'll be tortured.
Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?
For what it's worth, they're not "insurgents." Insurgents come from somewhere else and fight for a cause. These people would more accurately be described as "rebels" who are waging a guerilla campaign against an occupying force.
Originally posted by midwinter
Look, you asked what kind of people respond to "mistreatment" (a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened) with a desire to kill their those responsible for their treatment. I obliquely responded that people who have been tortured might wish death upon their torturers.
And don't be obscene by trying to even pretend I meant all the soldiers deserve death. Do I think the people responsible for torturing the prisoners ought to get more than a year in the clink? Absofuckinglutely. One year is a laughable punishment for what amounts to a crime against humanity.
You seem to want to think that this is the only thing that's set some/many Iraqis off against us. Do not forget, because the Iraqis sure as hell won't, that we invaded their country, overthrew their (dictatorial) ruler, and imposed freedom on them at the point of a gun. Our soldiers patrol Iraqi streets every night. There are curfews. We destroyed large chunks of the infrastructure in Baghdad, leaving people without power and water for weeks at a stretch. We arrest people who cannot produce the proper paperwork, and when we throw them in prison, there's a chance they'll be tortured.
Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?
For what it's worth, they're not "insurgents." Insurgents come from somewhere else and fight for a cause. These people would more accurately be described as "rebels" who are waging a guerilla campaign against an occupying force.
Yeah, let's not forget they were happily getting tortured (buried alive and and dipped in acid) and mass murdered (actually being gassed by those nonexistent WMDs) before the US deposed their beloved leader.
According to news reports, virtually all of the infrastructure issues have been restored to prewar levels, oil output is above prewar levels.
If the US is so bad, why does it rebuild the damage that they cause?
Of coarse you have to completely exonerate SH and his government of any wrongdoing or fault in order to place all blame at the feet of the US/Coalition.
I guess the US is fixing damage caused by SH. Those heartless bastards.
I guess Zarqawi is a natural born Iraqi?
Originally posted by midwinter
Look, you asked what kind of people respond to "mistreatment" (a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened) with a desire to kill their those responsible for their treatment. I obliquely responded that people who have been tortured might wish death upon their torturers.
And don't be obscene by trying to even pretend I meant all the soldiers deserve death. Do I think the people responsible for torturing the prisoners ought to get more than a year in the clink? Absofuckinglutely. One year is a laughable punishment for what amounts to a crime against humanity.
You seem to want to think that this is the only thing that's set some/many Iraqis off against us. Do not forget, because the Iraqis sure as hell won't, that we invaded their country, overthrew their (dictatorial) ruler, and imposed freedom on them at the point of a gun. Our soldiers patrol Iraqi streets every night. There are curfews. We destroyed large chunks of the infrastructure in Baghdad, leaving people without power and water for weeks at a stretch. We arrest people who cannot produce the proper paperwork, and when we throw them in prison, there's a chance they'll be tortured.
Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?
For what it's worth, they're not "insurgents." Insurgents come from somewhere else and fight for a cause. These people would more accurately be described as "rebels" who are waging a guerilla campaign against an occupying force.
Oh yeah, A & E is playing some documentaries about SH and his regime. You may want to watch, and if you miss it it I would suggest you order the tapes.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Yeah, let's not forget they were happily getting tortured (buried alive and and dipped in acid) and mass murdered (actually being gassed by those nonexistent WMDs) before the US deposed their beloved leader.
I said nothing about him being beloved. He was a mass-murdering fuckhead.
According to news reports, virtually all of the infrastructure issues have been restored to prewar levels, oil output is above prewar levels.
Yay! It's only taken a year!
If the US is so bad, why does it rebuild the damage that they cause?
Because that is how you conquer the world.
Of coarse you have to completely exonerate SH and his government of any wrongdoing or fault in order to place all blame at the feet of the US/Coalition.
I'll tell you what, mate. You don't accuse me of trying to exonerate SH and his regime when clearly I said nothing along those lines and I won't make up things that you've said and tilt at them? Sound fair? Of course it does.
It's one thing to debate what I say; it's another thing entirely to invent things I say and then debate them.
I guess the US is fixing damage caused by SH. Those heartless bastards.
Well, blowing a lot of it up didn't help. And now that we've rebuilt it, we get to keep it!
I'll say it again:
Originally written by me and ignored by you:
Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?
Originally posted by midwinter
I said nothing about him being beloved. He was a mass-murdering fuckhead.
Good, then I will expect to see instances where you place the blame where it lies, no?
Originally posted by midwinter
Yay! It's only taken a year!
Most wars take far longer, and then rebuilding takes even longer. So yeah, yay for the Iraqi people they can start to move forward.
Originally posted by midwinter
Because that is how you conquer the world.
You have been watching too many "Pinky and the Brain" cartoons.
Originally posted by midwinter
I'll tell you what, mate. You don't accuse me of trying to exonerate SH and his regime when clearly I said nothing along those lines and I won't make up things that you've said and tilt at them? Sound fair? Of course it does.
I didn't say you were trying to do anything, I was trying to point out the choice one has to make to lay sole blame at US' doorstep, MATE. You seem to have made that choice, and you are allowed to. Don't get mad when I point out the flaw in that logic. OK, mate?
Originally posted by midwinter
It's one thing to debate what I say; it's another thing entirely to invent things I say and then debate them.
Read the above statement.
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, blowing a lot of it up didn't help. And now that we've rebuilt it, we get to keep it!
I guess we got to keep Germany, Russia, and France? I am not sure what you mean by that, but according to the "conquer the world" and then this, I can only guess you feel that this is imperialistic war. I say history proves that notion wrong. The countries I mentioned have free will and are not tied to the US, as made obvious by their decision to protest the US decision.
France: we didn't conquer it. We helped chase out a conqueror.
Russia: we didn't conquer it. At all. We did invade (with lots of other countries) in 1919 but wisely withdrew.
Germany: we conquered it and partitioned it with three other countries and we most certainly did control it until it got nominal sovereignty in the mid 1950s. After that, influence was more indirect (and the Cold War was raging [right word for a cold war?], so priorities shifted among all participants).
There's more.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death?
Why not? Do other people that have committed war crimes deserve death?
Originally posted by NaplesX
So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?
No.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?
I'm leaning towards yes.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death? So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?
A few? I know Bush has said words to that effect, but honest and reliable sources have indicated "systematic and widespread" abuse and torture.
Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?
It is unheard of for a nation under an oppressive occupation not to resist with guerilla style methods. Turn the tables, and imagine the US people under the thumb of a foreign invader that loots, rapes, plunders and pillages. The patriotic action is to resist, in whatever way you can.
If our own Defense Dept is investigating cases of thefts from Iraqi civilians whose homes have been searched, then the real situation is undoubtedly far, far worse. The tip of a very large and ugly iceberg.
Operation Iraqi Freedom. A big steaming, stinking heap of BS
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/in...b4f6f62633affe