Rumsfeld Interrogation.

[imported_Kranar]

Anyone know the exact time the Rumsfeld interrogation will begin tomorrow morning?

EST preferrably.

[Parkbandit]

Not sure.. but let the witch hunt begin!!

[Skirmisher]

I'll gather the torches!

[Prestius]

Witch Hunt? Give me a break. God forbid someone at the top actually take some fucking responsibility in this Administration.

Oh .. and BTW .. Kranar ..

Your Sig: There's no place like 127.0.0.1

Gave me a seriously good chuckle!

-P

[J-Tech]

Rumsfeld should donate his life to the earth.

J.T.

[Artha]

I wish I could give Rummy a hug :(

[i remember halloween]

Originally posted by J-Tech
Rumsfeld should donate his life to the earth.

J.T.

we should consider this because you clearly have a grasp on making wise decisions?

[Bobmuhthol]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/rumsfeld3.jpg

[J-Tech]

Originally posted by i remember halloween

Originally posted by J-Tech
Rumsfeld should donate his life to the earth.

J.T.

we should consider this because you clearly have a grasp on making wise decisions?

I never said to consider shit, thats just what I belive.

J.T.

[TheEschaton]

Did you hear what he said today? "Well, I'm not a lawyer...but technically, it wasn't torture..."


Technically, blow jobs aren't sex, either, Rummy. ;)

-TheE-

[Tendarian]

Yeah id say it was torture too. My question though is this; Is sleep deprivation torture too? I dont think so or im suing my girlfriends daughters for blaring music to keep me awake. The whole prancing them around naked and the leashes and all that crap though makes me sick that americans can do that.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tendarian
Is sleep deprivation torture too?Causes pain, will break someone's will, can cause death eventually. Seems like torture enough to me.

[TheEschaton]

Sleep deprivation with the deliberate intent to make them vulnerable and give up information would be torture, I suppose.


-TheE-

[Tendarian]

It can cause death? I always assumed it was like holding your breath. Eventually when you need air(sleep) enough you will just pass out and do it.


Sleep deprivation with the deliberate intent to make them vulnerable and give up information would be torture, I suppose.

How is it hurting them? Ive stayed up for 50+ hours before on my own and while i may have been a lil light headed and slow i was in no pain at all. Just cause the intent is to make them vulnerable to give up info is what makes it torture? Then wouldnt any form of persuasion with the same intent be torture?

[TheEschaton]

Because sleep deprivation is usually never used exclusively.

ANd not to mention, even if you're up for 50+ straight, you can pass out....when you're BEING sleep deprived by another person, my guess is the other person is gonna do his damnedest to keep you up.

And yes, you can die of sleep deprivation. I believe that after 72 hours, the body starts to break down, rapidly.

-TheE-

[Tendarian]

I heard they can still use the sleep deprivation thing as long as they get a supervisors approval. Do you disagree with this since its torture? I think all of the humilating tactics is horrible but to me a hood being used or not letting someone sleep or stuff like that isnt.

And just one more thing. Its not true that the body will shut down on its own when it really needs sleep(before the point of dying)?

What kind of interrogation do you think should be allowable?

[TheEschaton]

The kind that falls under our constitution? Right to lawyer, right not to incriminate, right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.


-TheE-

[Tendarian]

So you think prisoners of war should have the exact same rights as citizens of the USA?

[TheEschaton]

Yes.

If we believe that the Constitution is the fundamental example of what it means to be a democracy, then we should practice it with ALL people, regardless whether they fall under its protection or not. To do otherwise strikes me as somewhat hypocritical.

That's the excuse people give about Guantanemo, "Well, they're not citizens, they don't DESERVE rights". The Constitution is based on a foundation that all people are equal, and thus, are all entitled to said rights. The Constitution merely delineates how it would be done in the American justice system.

-TheE-

What the fuck does Rumsfeld have to admit or apologize about. This is children at play. It's pretty sad that most of our GB's are dispersed in afganistan, i am sure that their counterinsurgency techniques can be deemed as O.K., but naked men and drunk soldiers is just the proverbial straw then?

Seriously, read some Fanon on Violence.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tendarian
It can cause death? I always assumed it was like holding your breath. Eventually when you need air(sleep) enough you will just pass out and do it.You've heard of strangulation of course. Sleep, like air, can be kept from a human.

[TheEschaton]

Heh, they've been TEACHING these sorta things to South American paramilitary types at the WHISC for decades, under the auspices of "counterinsurgency"

-TheE-

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Tendarian
It can cause death? I always assumed it was like holding your breath. Eventually when you need air(sleep) enough you will just pass out and do it.You've heard of strangulation of course. Sleep, like air, can be kept from a human.

Wow if i ever decide to become a serial killer this is how ill kill people then. I honestly didnt think it was possible.

I guess it all just depends on how they keep the sleep from the prisoners then and for how long.

Also if someone is keeping me awake(lets say at least 50+ hours) and i punch em in the face and they call the cops,do you think i could say it was in self defense?

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by Tendarian]

[TheEschaton]

Think about it, Tendarian. You said yourself you've gone sleepless for about 50 hours, a little over two days. I've done 45 hours myself once. You often hear of 50 hours at a time....


....but how many times do you hear 60 hours, with no sleep? Let alone...72? 60 is two and a half days, just a half day more than 48....but the drop off between the two numbers is crazy.

And then imagine a person beating and shocking you, to keep you awake. Not a bad enough beating or shock to hurt you physically...but enough to keep you awake.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And yes, I think you can claim self-defense, if you can show it was done purposefully, with an intent to harm.


-TheE-

[Tendarian]

....but how many times do you hear 60 hours, with no sleep? Let alone...72? 60 is two and a half days, just a half day more than 48....but the drop off between the two numbers is crazy.

True i never really hear of this. Do you know that the military uses the sleep deprivation in this manner though? Id assume after 50 hours would be good. I would have been willing to do just about anything by then to get sleep.


And then imagine a person beating and shocking you, to keep you awake. Not a bad enough beating or shock to hurt you physically...but enough to keep you awake.

Beating or shocking seems extreme to me as well. However what if it was just loud music or someone interrogating you for that period? I guess i would need more info on what they exactly do before i really decided if it was wrong or right.


And yes, I think you can claim self-defense, if you can show it was done purposefully, with an intent to harm.

Sweet that is definately good news :)

[longshot]

These kinds of things happens in wars.

That's why it's good to have wars that are necessary, so when it does happen, you can say those camel shit eating bastards deserve every volt.

We can't really say that this time.

[Tendarian]

As for the original question from this thread i found this at CNN


Rumsfeld starts his day on Capitol Hill at 11:45 a.m. before a two-hour open hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Afterward comes a closed session before the full Senate, followed by a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee at 3 p.m.

And then on tv i saw it as 11:45 ET so there ya go.

[Tendarian]

That's why it's good to have wars that are necessary, so when it does happen, you can say those camel shit eating bastards deserve every volt.

Do you really think many americans would be happy about this kind of treatment even if it was only against Bin Laden?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius
Witch Hunt? Give me a break. God forbid someone at the top actually take some fucking responsibility in this Administration.

-P

You haven't even heard his side of things yet and you want him to resign because he works under the Bush Administration.

Get the facts prior to pronouncing him guilty of something he should lose his job over.

Originally posted by TheEschaton
The kind that falls under our constitution? Right to lawyer, right not to incriminate, right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.


-TheE-

Iraqi's aren't covered by our constitution.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think TheE should sell all his millions of dollars of stock and send aid to them. Maybe the people dismembering our armed forces and parading them along the streets don't have enough clothes or food.

And yes, the above is said with sincere sarcasm. Your holier than thou attitude wears thin on me sometimes (how many times I've written similar responses only to delete them because I know they are petty!).

Seriously though, I believe prisoners of war DO have rights, and they were clearly mistreated. Justice will be swift in this case. I don't however, believe a POW should be given the full rights of a law abiding US Citizen. They have, after all, been trying to kill us. Interogation via sleep deprivation (I've heard on the news) is common in Guantanimo, and I don't see anything wrong with it. If it saves our soldiers lives, its worth it.

Lets be clear here, we are at war.

[quote]Originally posted by TheEschaton
Think about it, Tendarian. You said yourself you've gone sleepless for about 50 hours, a little over two days. I've done 45 hours myself once. You often hear of 50 hours at a time....


....but how many times do you hear 60 hours, with no sleep? Let alone...72? 60 is two and a half days, just a half day more than 48....but the drop off between the two numbers is crazy.

And then imagine a person beating and shocking you, to keep you awake. Not a bad enough beating or shock to hurt you physically...but enough to keep you awake.

-TheE- [/quote

nobody was ever shocked, they simulated the chance that it might happen to scare them and break them so they would talk. Dont fall into the propaganda trap.

Also the body will never be deprived of sleep to the point a person will die. The mind and body has a neat little trick to put itself to sleep for micro seconds as needed if one is not able to sleep. I find it amusing that you feel 72 hours of no sleep is torture. Go though Special Ops training, you get that and have to continue to do hard physical labor as well as keep coherent throughout.

Sleep depravation works, so they use it. It is far from Torture. If they had acuity electrocuted the prisoners that would be torture. Not letting somebody sleep....come on.

[TheEschaton]

SHM, I'm just saying - if we believe in the Constitution, we should believe it applies to EVERYONE.


We afford it to rapists and serial killers who happen to have the good luck of being born here, why not everyone else? If our soldiers were accused of war crimes, you can be sure they would have Constitutional Rights. People can't help where they're born.

Seriously, this is not liberal bullshit. It's pretty strict Constitutionalism. And, of all things, I would think this is one of the lesser things you'd be "worn thin" by.

Sometimes, I just can't believe this country - we raised bloody hell when the Iraqis showed our prisoners tied up on TV...."against Geneva", etc, etc....and then we not only show their leader tied up, and ignore it, pictures of tied up, naked prisoners, with electrodes attached to their genitals, show up, and our SecDef, the same guy who screamed about Geneva, says, "Well, technically, this isn't torture....they've only been charged with abuse."

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And let's be clear: We're at a war that WE declared on THEM. A war they didn't want. A war because of a supposed threat which WASN'T THERE. If I were the Iraqi people, I'd take the U.S. to court.

-TheE-

[Prestius]

Originally posted by RangerD1

Originally posted by TheEschaton
The kind that falls under our constitution? Right to lawyer, right not to incriminate, right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.


-TheE-

Iraqi's aren't covered by our constitution.

No .. but they are covered under that pesky little Geneva Convention.

And .. let me tell you what the problem you guys are missing here - this isn't a problem simply because some MP's abused some prisoners. It's a problem because it's doing serious damage to any chances we had at winning the war in Iraq. The original reports of this have been around since January. The full report came out weeks ago. Until the pictures came out, Rumsfeld and most the senior brass hadn't even read the thing. The President found out pretty much when we all did. And you think that as the head of the DoD Rumsfeld's done a good job on this?

The cultural divide here is also a major issue. You all may think that standing naked with a hood over your head is not that big of a deal, or being put in posed pictures simulating sex is not much as far as torture goes, but in arab cultures it is *extremely* humiliating. Humiliating to the point that, as sad as it sounds, we almost have been better off if we'd just shot them than done this.

And why does that matter? Because if you recall, we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis in specifically and moderate arab world in general, and this has done extremely serious, irreparable damage.

Be interesting to see what happens and what he says today.

-P

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I didn't disagree with you on the torture, I agree it is sad it happened, and am happy to see the country stirred up over it.

I disagree with not interogating the prisoners, we should try to glean, humanely, information to make our soldiers, the United States, and the rest of the world, safer. By humanely, I guess my level of "torture" is less than yours, as I don't see sleep deprivation as described by the press prior to recent activities, as inhumane. I'm not blindly saying "torture them to get info", but interogation should occur here... we are at war, these people have information we need.

While I'd LOVE to live in the perfect world where we didn't have to utilize a tactic like sleep deprivation, I think that our troops and the citizens of Iraq deserve to know that we at least tried to get information that could possibly save their lives.

Rumsfeld's quote was stupid, much like Clinton defining sex. Like other similar quotes, it'll probably haunt him the rest of his career. My hope is he doesn't believe that.

Originally posted by TheEschaton
SHM, I'm just saying - if we believe in the Constitution, we should believe it applies to EVERYONE.

Yes to people who commit crimes in the united states. American laws do not extend outside of the US borders.


We afford it to rapists and serial killers who happen to have the good luck of being born here, why not everyone else?
Refer to above comment.

If our soldiers were accused of war crimes, you can be sure they would have Constitutional Rights. People can't help where they're born. are you fucking kidding me you are not that stupid I wont believe it for a second. <if you need me to explain how wrong you are just ask I will be glad to>


Seriously, this is not liberal bullshit. It's pretty strict Constitutionalism. And, of all things, I would think this is one of the lesser things you'd be "worn thin" by.
your views are imposing laws on lands that are not our own. There is a reason for a MCJ that does not follow the United States constitution. We can not rightfully impose laws upon other lands that are now our own that would be imperialism.


Sometimes, I just can't believe this country - we raised bloody hell when the Iraqis showed our prisoners tied up on TV...."against Geneva", etc, etc....and then we not only show their leader tied up, and ignore it,
grey area there, he being a world leader and the chief of their government and not the military is not really a POW until characterized so by our government, which was done a few days later, and do you notice how no pictures have surfaced since?
[/quote]pictures of tied up, naked prisoners, with electrodes attached to their genitals, show up,[/quote] not released by our government, but that of the news media, it is not against the convention to take the pictures but it is for the government to air them.

and our SecDef, the same guy who screamed about Geneva, says, "Well, technically, this isn't torture....they've only been charged with abuse."

-TheE-

Well I feel a lot of what was done should not have happened as well as being completely wrong, and I expect those who committed the crimes to be punished fully, a lot of it was also just humiliation tactics. The same reasons why they strip search inmates before they transfer them, <aside from personal safety> even the biggest guy after you stick your finger up his butt will be meek as a mouse. <if he isn’t into that kind of thing.>

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by The Edine]

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
And let's be clear: We're at a war that WE declared on THEM. A war they didn't want. A war because of a supposed threat which WASN'T THERE. If I were the Iraqi people, I'd take the U.S. to court.

-TheE-


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN)
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/29/iraq.poll/

However, 61 percent of respondents said Saddam's ouster made it worth the hardships they had endured.

Despite their struggles and the challenges of forming a new government, 63 percent of respondents said they were convinced Iraq will be better off in five years, while 20 percent said they were unsure, according to results released Thursday. Sixty-five percent said they believed their immediate locale will be better off, the poll found.

Seems to me like they dont want to take us to court after all,even if they dont like us much.

[TheEschaton]

I disagree with not interogating the prisoners, we should try to glean, humanely, information to make our soldiers, the United States, and the rest of the world, safer. By humanely, I guess my level of "torture" is less than yours, as I don't see sleep deprivation as described by the press prior to recent activities, as inhumane. I'm not blindly saying "torture them to get info", but interogation should occur here... we are at war, these people have information we need.

I'm not against interrogation. We interrogate prisoners all the time. But they should be allowed a lawyer, at the very least.

Edine, your waffling over the Geneva convention thing with Saddam is appalling. Saddam, like G.W. Bush, was the leader of his military, if only in name (like G.W.), and not actual application. That means he's a POW, regardless of our designation of him as such (or not). If Bush was captured by enemy forces, tied up, and had people prodding him on camera, and the enemy released said video, we'd be screaming "Geneva!" and the "Commander in Chief" bit over and over, even though George W. Bush has never fought for his country...ever.


your views are imposing laws on lands that are not our own.

As for this, I'm not suggesting imposing our laws on them. In fact, that's just a convienant tactic people like you use, Edine, to duck the issue. The whole fundamental idea behind the Constitution is that these rights apply to EVERYONE. The Constitution is a nation-specific document which states how those rights will be given to the American nation. Be clear though, that the idea that "All men are created equal, and endowed with certain unalienable rights" (from the Declaration) is an idea that reaches beyond our border.

And if we believed it, we would give them the same rights - the right to due process, the right to not incriminate (which rules out forced confession/torture), the right to no cruel and unusual punishment.

-TheE-

[imported_Kranar]

<< not released by our government, but that of the news media, it is not against the convention to take the pictures but it is for the government to air them. >>

Have you even read the Geneva Convention?

Might be a good starting point before making outrageous comments like this. Particularly Article 13 which forbids any act of insult or humiliation.

These pictures weren't taken as part of surveillance, or for documentation. It is clear that these pictures were taken with the express purpose of humiliation, with some soldiers giving a happy thumbs up and smiling at the camera.

[Ravenstorm]

Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. 'Nuff said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/opinion/meyer/main616021.shtml

Raven

[HarmNone]

What I see in those pictures disgusts me more deeply than I can describe. It also frightens me. It frightens me to think that someone who might have lived next door to me could find something to smile about, to give a "thumbs up" to, in what was taking place. It frightens and saddens me to realize that the simple grace of respect for human life, in those who perpetrated this crime, is completely lacking.

Those were not orcs, folks. Those were living, breathing human beings. They were forced to stand naked with hoods over their heads, not knowing what might happen next and unable to see it coming. They were piled up like firewood. They were forced to simulate sexual acts against their wills. Their rights as human beings were cast aside like so much garbage, not worthy of consideration.

I am sickened. I am appalled. Mostly, I am shamed to be a member of the human race, if that is what the human race is becoming. I will not excuse it, nor condone it, nor will I see reasons why "it isn't all that bad", or it "could be worse".

This country has a constitution in which we state, quite clearly, that "all men are created equal". It does not say "all Americans are created equal". It does not say "all men who agree with me are created equal". It does not say "all men except <insert your nemesis of choice here> are created equal". What, exactly, does that mean? Why would it have been important enough to include in such a vaunted document? Why does this country get up on its hind legs and howl for the respect of human rights worldwide?

Strip yourself naked, put a bag over your head and stand, helpless, in front of those you KNOW are your enemy. Do it. Then, come tell me it is not torture.

Think about it.

HarmNone has

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think you indignation is well placed HarmNone, I don't think anyone here is advocating it.

I will admit though, everytime I begin to feel as if we shouldn't be there, I remember the dismembered security guards paraded along the streets.


http://aztlan.net/cooked3.jpg

Think about that I guess. We aren't exactly sitting down to have tea with these folks.

Edit: changed servicemen to security

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by Suppa Hobbit Mage]

[longshot]

Originally posted by Tendarian

That's why it's good to have wars that are necessary, so when it does happen, you can say those camel shit eating bastards deserve every volt.

Do you really think many americans would be happy about this kind of treatment even if it was only against Bin Laden?

I don't care who it's against.

War is war. It's ugly.

I never understand people who try to make the absolute ugliest thing people can do to eachother "prettier" with rules.

I don't care if the wires say "left nut" and "right nut". I really don't. I feel it would be justified under the umbrella of war, assuming the war itself was justified.

I have never cared about some camel fucker in Iraq. I think it's rediculous that we send good people there to die.

I don't care about Iraq or the Iraqi people. I never have. Saddam torturing people was not our problem.

If we really were there to stop this imminent threat against our country, who would be oppose to torture? If there were WMD, and it was imperative that we find them, who would hold back any means of getting them? Except the E...

Sorry for the mini rant, but I really wouldn't care what happens if it was tied to a greater good. The whole war is not. I can't see how anyone at this point thinks us being there is a good thing.

As far as Rumsfeld goes, the response that he gave, that "shit happens", is pretty much all he can say. It's a war.

Do I think he should be canned because of this particular occurence? No.

I think he should be canned because he's an arrogant fuck who let his ego get in the way of his duty to the citizens of this country.

[Ravenstorm]

Damn. Just... damn.

Photos. Videotapes. Forget the humiliation. Beatings. Murder. Rape. Fucking wonderful.

Raven

[TheEschaton]

Eh, wot? Did I miss something?

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Rumsfeld Offers Apology to Iraqis
Defense Secretary Fends Off Calls for Resignation
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 7, 2004; 5:00 PM


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, fending off calls for his removal from congressional Democrats and other critics, apologized today to Iraqi prisoners who were abused by U.S. military guards in Iraq and said he was seeking a way to compensate them.


In sometimes testy exchanges with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld also warned that further shocks may be forthcoming, notably from photographs and videotapes of the abuse that have not yet been released and that he saw for himself only last night.

"Apparently the worst is yet to come," Rumsfeld said. "There are lot more pictures and many investigations underway. . . . If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe. Be on notice. . . . It's not a pretty picture."

Asked by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) about whether he had considered resigning, the embattled defense secretary said he had given the matter "a lot of thought" and that "if I felt I could not be effective, I'd resign in a minute." But he added, "I would not resign simply because people try to make a political issue out of it."

Later in the nearly three-hour hearing, however, Rumsfeld was asked whether his resignation might "serve to demonstrate how seriously we take this situation." He replied, "That's possible."

In opening remarks before the Senate committee, Rumsfeld said he was sorry for failing to keep Congress fully informed about U.S. military investigations into the abuses and regretted the damage done to the U.S. armed forces by the scandal.

As defense secretary, he was accountable for the abuses, he said, "and I take full responsibility." He added, "I feel terrible about what happened to those Iraqi detainees." To them, he said, "I offer my deepest apology." Their treatment "was inconsistent with the values of our nation" and was "certainly fundamentally un-American," he said.

As part of the Pentagon's efforts to deal with the scandal, Rumsfeld announced that he was appointing several senior former officials to a new commission. He said the panel would be charged with examining the existing investigations into the abuses and determining whether additional inquiries or studies are needed.

The hearing was interrupted briefly by several protesters who chanted, "Fire Rumsfeld," before they were escorted from the room. "What about the other abuses in Iraq?" one woman yelled at Rumsfeld, who sat impassively through the heckling.

As soon as the hearing ended, Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon officials accompanying him, including Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, trooped off to another hearing this afternoon, this one with the House Armed Services Committee.

After the hearing, Graham said to reporters, "It's going to get worse. You're going to have more things to show people that will make people mad, more angry. So this is going to get worse, and I was trying to tell the secretary, It's going to get worse before it gets better; do you think you can handle this? And he said he thought he could, and I would just ask people who are calling for his resignation, give him a chance.

"But the American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here; we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

A spokesman for Graham said later that the senator has not seen any of the new tapes or photos and does not have any specific information on what they show. The spokesman, Kevin Bishop, said Graham was drawing an inference from an Army report on the abuses. The report mentions, among the acts discovered at Abu Ghraib prison west of Baghdad, "a male MP guard having sex with a female detainee" and "taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees."

In opening remarks, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the committee chairman, called the abuse "as serious an issue of military misconduct as I have ever observed" in 60 years of dealing with the armed forces.

Raven

[TheEschaton]

You know what's horrible of me?

I read this news, I'm not surprised, but rather, I'm squirming in anticipation for the Daily Show, Monday night, to see JS lambast someone.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
And let's be clear: We're at a war that WE declared on THEM. A war they didn't want. A war because of a supposed threat which WASN'T THERE. If I were the Iraqi people, I'd take the U.S. to court.

-TheE-

If they didn't want it.. they certainly had plenty of opportunities to comply with the will of the world. I think 11 years is enough time.. don't you?

Originally posted by Kranar
<< not released by our government, but that of the news media, it is not against the convention to take the pictures but it is for the government to air them. >>

Have you even read the Geneva Convention?

Might be a good starting point before making outrageous comments like this. Particularly Article 13 which forbids any act of insult or humiliation.

These pictures weren't taken as part of surveillance, or for documentation. It is clear that these pictures were taken with the express purpose of humiliation, with some soldiers giving a happy thumbs up and smiling at the camera.

yes karnar but as it stands now I dont believe that the soldiers in question were order by their superiors to do that, nor to take the pictures, thats the point im trying to get across. It comes into a gray area when that happens, it was not the order of our military or our government to do such actions, they were soldiers who acted on their own accord and are corretly being punished for it.

[Tisket]

It pains me to say this but Edine has a point.

[TheEschaton]

If they didn't want it.. they certainly had plenty of opportunities to comply with the will of the world. I think 11 years is enough time.. don't you?

And....they WERE complying. At least with Hans Blix they were. People tend to convienantly forget that fact.

And Edine, you fool, every report published so far says the military guards were told to "soften up" the prisoners. That they enjoyed it, and took pictures, is the irrelevant part (well, the taking of pictures showed an arrogance that is certainly troubling, but still...)

-TheE-

Being told to soften up a prisoner, and being told to rape, murder, stand on top of a box and scare the fuck out of them are two very different things TheE, people have common sense, two of the people involved and that are charged were in civilian life prison guards. The acts they committed if ordered to do so would equate to an illegal order and the brass above them would be the ones going to court marshal.
I think it is horrid what those soldiers did, and I hope to god that they are punished correctly and get the 20 years of hard labor that is coming to them (yes hard labor, not prison time, 18 hours a day of back breaking work for 20 years without a break.) I also feel that they are doing the right thing and holding the superior officers accountable for it as well because of their lack of control over the situation. BUT, the witch-hunt that is going on is making me somewhat upset here. I only caught the BIRD and KENNEDY parts of his speech today but the partisanship in their questions and comments bothers me. The disregarded for the issue at hand so people can further their political agenda as of late is getting out of hand. The 9\11 commission has lost all credibility with me because of both sides actions. <IE this gerelic thing and Kerrey skipping out an hour and a half early during Bushes questioning just as two examples. > Now this issue which people are trying to make a political issue WHY didn’t Bush tell us!!! Why didn’t the army tell us!!! "Excuse me we did tell you right when it happened, you just seemed to have forgotten about it"

[Back]

I'm not in the least bit suprised about any of this. Sure, we want everyone to think life in America is like living in Disneyland... but we all know how ugly it can get here.

Someone did an experiment once where they took normal average everyday people and split them into two groups. Prison guards and inmates. No one had commited any crime, and no one really had any authority over anyone else. Eventually, the average everyday people turned into the roles they were given. The guards were cruel and the inmates were hopeless about their situation.

[Scott]

If some guy over in Iraq tried to kill me, I'd tie him to a pole and beat him with a stick.

Not that I'm excusing anything, however one can expect this to happen. In Vietnam when kids tied bombs to themselves, and ran to soldier and blew themselves, and soldier, up.... you bet your ass if I see a kid running the same direction as me, I'm putting a bullet between his eyes. It's a sad thing, but it's bound to happen. Just like torture, this stuff wears on soldiers. Watching people who are fighting next to you killed, watching as innocent children are thrown in front of tanks in efforts to stop them so they can attack tanks, etc.

If an Iraqi had made plans to blow myself and my unit up, and I captured him.... I don't think prison would put my mind at ease. Tell me, if one of these guys blew up your wife, husband, CHILD, brother, or whoever else is close to you, wouldn't you find it difficult to not humilate that said person, if not kill them. I hardly consider myself a violent person, but I'd have no problems pulling the trigger on some guy who had killed someone close to me.

Wear and tear works both ways. Just as you consider this torture and wrong, being over there and having people that are as close to family as you can get killed, it wears on you. I don't excuse it, but tell me you didn't see it coming. If your guilty, you deserve what you get. Humilation isn't half of what these guys are doing to us. Everyone is not as strong willed as someone else, and everyone has a breaking point. I'd stand on some guy that tried to kill me and smile for a camera.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Gemstone101

Tell me, if one of these guys blew up your wife, husband, CHILD, brother, or whoever else is close to you, wouldn't you find it difficult to not humilate that said person, if not kill them.

You mean, exactly like Americans are doing to the Iraqi families? Before you make allowances for how cruel Americans can be about having their buddies killed, remember that the Iraqis can use the same exact excuse. And since it's also their country, they have a better claim to it.

And I'm sure, at least some of those Iraqis shooting Americans were, at one time, just every day civilians who had a family member killed by our forces. Not all, no. But some using the same exact excuse.

Re: Backlash's post -

http://www.prisonexp.org/

Raven

[TheEschaton]

Edine, when both sides, Republican and Democrat, agree on something, like the 9/11 commission, how is it political?

Furthermore, how is it that Rumsfeld only claimed to see the videos and other pictures last night? I thought we HAD been told this was happening, and we just ignored it, until it was politically convienant to do so? Oh, no, actually, it's just that the Red Cross kept telling the Army, and the Army KEPT ON IGNORING THEM. Hmmm.


If an Iraqi had made plans to blow myself and my unit up, and I captured him.... I don't think prison would put my mind at ease. Tell me, if one of these guys blew up your wife, husband, CHILD, brother, or whoever else is close to you, wouldn't you find it difficult to not humilate that said person, if not kill them. I hardly consider myself a violent person, but I'd have no problems pulling the trigger on some guy who had killed someone close to me.

That scares me, if we let emotion override justice. That is wrong, by any definition of it. Emotion has no say in how we're supposed to treat prisoners. To do so is to say that anything that provokes strong emotion in us, we're allowed to retaliate at will, with no regard for reasonable cause or anything.


If your guilty, you deserve what you get.

If they get what they deserve, we only treat them as we've treated them. I believe in turn the other cheek, love thy enemy, all that - maybe I'm outdated, but hell, supposedly the majority of this country "believes" the same thing.

-TheE-

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Gemstone101

Tell me, if one of these guys blew up your wife, husband, CHILD, brother, or whoever else is close to you, wouldn't you find it difficult to not humilate that said person, if not kill them.

You mean, exactly like Americans are doing to the Iraqi families? Before you make allowances for how cruel Americans can be about having their buddies killed, remember that the Iraqis can use the same exact excuse. And since it's also their country, they have a better claim to it.

And I'm sure, at least some of those Iraqis shooting Americans were, at one time, just every day civilians who had a family member killed by our forces. Not all, no. But some using the same exact excuse.

Re: Backlash's post -

http://www.prisonexp.org/

Raven

When I said it works both ways, it doesn't mean "American and American." :rolleyes:

If German (just an example) troops had killed my family and were walking through my neighborhood, I'd be shooting my guns. If some German had walked into my house and killed someone in my family and got a hold of him, you bet your ass I'd make him suffer. However if I tried to kill German soldiers and they caught me, I don't think I'd expect special treatment. This IS war, not disneyland. Shit happens, and I hardly think sitting on same guy and having your picture taken is some horrible thing. HOWEVER, rape, murder, no... I don't agree with that.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
When I said it works both ways, it doesn't mean "American and American."


Alright, my mistake. I was interpreting it another way: not 'both ways' regarding people but rather actions.

But see, that's the point. It does work both ways which makes it a never ending cycle. So when you invade a country with the claimed purpose of liberating it from a sadistic butcher, you better make sure you don't have sadistic butchers guarding your prisoners.

Hell, one of them was a prison guard in the middle of an abuse scandal here in the States. And if you're going to order anyone to take prisoners and 'soften them up', you better be /exact/ in your instructions on how and what to do. The thread on baking pets and children in locked cars is a perfect example on why 'use your best judgement' (explicitly or implied) should never, ever be used when telling people what to do. Especially in a situation where all the worst emotions run strong.

Heads not only need to roll but they better roll and roll high up the chain of command if the US is to have any credibility with the world in the next twenty years. What this is going to do to our own POWs I don't want to think about. This whole situation is so royally fucked up.

Raven

[Scott]

<<<That scares me, if we let emotion override justice. That is wrong, by any definition of it. Emotion has no say in how we're supposed to treat prisoners. To do so is to say that anything that provokes strong emotion in us, we're allowed to retaliate at will, with no regard for reasonable cause or anything. >>>

I'm just saying, how would you react? I'm sure some people could "turn the other cheek" as you stated below, but I'm sure others can't. I'm not saying that this is acceptable behavior, but I expected it to happen. I don't find the humilation and sitting on some guy to be completely wrong and saying "That soldier should go to jail!" but I do see it's wrong, although I'm sure I'd probably do it too.

[Tendarian]

Im starting to lean for Rumsfeld being fired here. I dont believe he only looked at the pictures or video yesterday. And while Bush is cleaning house he should fire Tenet as well. Maybe they could both write books about Bush or something, i hear there is a need of them.

[Valthissa]

there is no excuse for the actions of the guards.

there is no excuse for he actions of their CO's.

rumsfield should resign.

the guards should face appropriate penalties (who has jurisdiction over civilian contractors supporting the DOD in an overseas action is a very interesting legal question that I won't get into here)

having said all that - I hope those that hold the opinion that this wa an illegal action, that UN sanctions were working, that Saddam was no threat - can admit that one key difference in our system (as opposed to say, any Arab county you can name) is that Rumsfield was on TV explaining his actions, that the photos of the prisoners are on TV, that there will be public inquries into the actions of many of those involved.

There is no excuse for the behaviour. I think we can all be proud that it was exposed.

C/Valth

[TheEschaton]

The thing is, after the whole WMD thing blew up, after Iraq was found to be NOT an imminent threat, etc, the reason for going to war changed. Suddenly, it became "the liberation of the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator". Every day the rhetoric was "Saddam is gone, Alleluia, Allah Akbar, God Bless America for being so benevolent". Everything we said was "The pain, the suffering...is all over."

I'm sure these soldiers/military police/what have you, had heard these sentiments.

I'd hope they'd know what it means.

And yet, they do the exact same thing Saddam was known for, in a prison he was known for doing it in - and then take pictures of it, smiling and giving a thumbs up.

And suddenly, it comes out, and again we look duplicitous. While they may be the vast minority of people in the army - it sends the message that we cannot even be true to our own word. Which we weren't before, but this reason of "liberation from tyranny" was the last leg we had to stand on.

I mean, come on, there's a reason why people are opposing us, and it's not because they're all freedom-hating terrorists.

-TheE-

[imported_Kranar]

<< It comes into a gray area when that happens, it was not the order of our military or our government to do such actions, they were soldiers who acted on their own accord and are corretly being punished for it. >>

But the soldier who did take the picture broke the law. The Geneva Convention applies to soldiers as well, not just governments.

[imported_Kranar]

<< If they didn't want it.. they certainly had plenty of opportunities to comply with the will of the world. I think 11 years is enough time.. don't you? >>

You mean to dismantle the weapons of mass destruction which don't exist?

Originally posted by Kranar
<< It comes into a gray area when that happens, it was not the order of our military or our government to do such actions, they were soldiers who acted on their own accord and are corretly being punished for it. >>

But the soldier who did take the picture broke the law. The Geneva Convention applies to soldiers as well, not just governments.

Yes, and the soldiers are being punished for it accordingly by law. We are not going against the convention saying we did it and we will continue to do it. As soon as it was brought to light The investigation started and the United States Military openly told the world that there were allegations that crimes were committed, and it was being investigated.


And as to your comment TheE I already stated two open examples. Gerelic and Kerrey, as well as the grand standing for the camera's that people are doing. It sounded the exact same to me when I was listening to Kennedy cutting off rumsfeild when he was attempting to answer the question asked.
I agree with what's going on, and the efforts of people to get to the bottom of the problem. I don't agree with people like Kerry sitting there and blaming Bush for allowing it to happen when he "himself" admits to being witness to War Crimes in Vietnam and not even reporting it.

This is not the presidents fault, nor is it Rumsfeld's fault.

As was stated yesterday, before the red cross even came into the prison they had already implemented many of the changed that were suggest BEFORE they came. And took into account what was suggested that they had not addressed. I also understand why ABC was requested not to air the pictures at this time, as you can see it was detrimental to our actions over there. It is bad and it is being dealt with. The fact that congress is now all huffy and puffy about not being given the report from the military seems ludicrous to me. It was announced in a press conference way back in Feb<or march> and the reports or information about the investigation were NEVER requested until it became a news story.

TheE, please play closer attention to the whole story on this and try not to just look at what benifits your argument.

Originally posted by Kranar
<< If they didn't want it.. they certainly had plenty of opportunities to comply with the will of the world. I think 11 years is enough time.. don't you? >>

You mean to dismantle the weapons of mass destruction which don't exist?

I think he means to comply with the orders of the UN. Not kick out those that were there to do inspections, and account for the destruction of the weapons he had. It has been said before, there are very many places that they could hide the WMD if* they are there. One example that needs to be taken into account is that we also have not found the airplanes that they have hidden from our bombers underground and the like.

[TheEschaton]

I think he means to comply with the orders of the UN. Not kick out those that were there to do inspections, and account for the destruction of the weapons he had.

They WERE COMPLYING WITH HANS BLIX.

They kicked out the inspectors in 98 because they thought the U.S. was using them to spy on Iraqi matters of state (which was not the scope of the inspections). Scott Ritter, Head of UNSCOM, says those suspicions were correct, that he was told who and what to inspect, when, and what to look for - often told to look for things which had nothing to do with weapons. We have yet to deny this, even though spying through diplomatic venues is strictly against international law (though the old USSR was pretty fond of making their diplomats spies, I hear).



As was stated yesterday, before the red cross even came into the prison they had already implemented many of the changed that were suggest BEFORE they came. And took into account what was suggested that they had not addressed. I also understand why ABC was requested not to air the pictures at this time, as you can see it was detrimental to our actions over there. It is bad and it is being dealt with. The fact that congress is now all huffy and puffy about not being given the report from the military seems ludicrous to me. It was announced in a press conference way back in Feb<or march> and the reports or information about the investigation were NEVER requested until it became a news story.

TheE, please play closer attention to the whole story on this and try not to just look at what benifits your argument.


Alright, I'll "play" closer attention.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/08/MNG0G6IFIP12.DTL

Months before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld publicly acknowledged the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers, top U.S. officials and several international human rights organizations repeatedly warned the Defense Department to halt the mistreatment of detainees.

From U.S. administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer and Secretary of State Colin Powell to investigators for the International Committee of the Red Cross, a broad array of officials pressed the Pentagon to improve conditions or face a likely Iraqi backlash, officials from the government and the organizations said Friday.

Amnesty International sounded an alarm at a Baghdad news conference in May 2003, only one month after the Iraqi capital fell to U.S.-led troops. Three months later, Bremer pressed the military to improve conditions and later made the issue a regular talking point in discussions with Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, said U.S. officials familiar with the discussions.

The Red Cross delivered repeated warnings during the same period, its president said Friday. It dispatched investigators to 14 detention centers in Iraq and delivered graphic reports about U.S. mistreatment, including evidence of humiliation, physical abuse and excessive use of force.


OOOOOOOOOOOPS. That says they delivered warnings to the Pentagon - and the Pentagon IGNORED them. The American people, the Congress didn't ignore them, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T TOLD.

Here's a nice little juicy bit:

From the beginning, Myers acknowledged [in his testimony Friday], the Pentagon tried to prevent public disclosure.

Why don't YOU "play" a little bit more attention? You fucking dumbass sheep.

-TheE-

you forgot to read this part TheE


As was stated yesterday, before the red cross even came into the prison they had already implemented many of the changed that were suggest BEFORE they came. And took into account what was suggested that they had not addressed. I also understand why ABC was requested not to air the pictures at this time, as you can see it was detrimental to our actions over there. It is bad and it is being dealt with. The fact that congress is now all huffy and puffy about not being given the report from the military seems ludicrous to me. It was announced in a press conference way back in Feb<or march> and the reports or information about the investigation were NEVER requested until it became a news story.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< If they didn't want it.. they certainly had plenty of opportunities to comply with the will of the world. I think 11 years is enough time.. don't you? >>

You mean to dismantle the weapons of mass destruction which don't exist?

And you are sure about this how again Kranar?

Because they have not been found doesn't mean they don't exist.

You assume too much.

..they WERE complying. At least with Hans Blix they were. People tend to convienantly forget that fact.

Not quite, but I'll let you live in your fantasies man.

Originally posted by Kranar
<< If they didn't want it.. they certainly had plenty of opportunities to comply with the will of the world. I think 11 years is enough time.. don't you? >>

You mean to dismantle the weapons of mass destruction which don't exist?

You mean the weapons they ADMITTED to having after they invaded kuwait? OMG WTF!!!!!!!!!!

OOOOOOOOOOOPS. That says they delivered warnings to the Pentagon - and the Pentagon IGNORED them. The American people, the Congress didn't ignore them, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T TOLD.

What you posted says nothing about what the military did or did not do in response to the greivences aired by Bremer and other organizations.

So thats quite a leap of logic your making to assume that the pentagon ignored it.

[Ravenstorm]

To you military types currently serving... Or no longer currently, whatever...

Some of the 'abusers' are claiming they've never ever read the Geneva Conventions or had any idea what was in them. However, I was told by someone in the military that the Geneva Conventions are taught in boot camp as well as what to do about illegal orders.

Note though, that in no way, does ignorance even if true negate personal responsibility. But from what I've read so far, it does indeed seem that they are becoming scapegoats for higher ups who told them what to do. In either case, I'm curious if those are taught in boot camp. Verify?

Raven

Your friend is right. Those guys are trying to cover their ass. To say that a MP has no knowledge of the geneva conventions is so mind boggingly stupid that its laughable.

[Ravenstorm]

Yeah, I pretty much figured that. They're well and truly screwed in all respects.

Just what should you do in the event of being given an illegal order, by the way?

Raven

[TheEschaton]

Not quite, but I'll let you live in your fantasies man.

How is this a fantasy? We found missiles which were NOT against sanctions, but could be modified to such, if they wanted to. We deemed this a threat, and demanded they dismantle them.....AND THEY DID.


You mean the weapons they ADMITTED to having after they invaded kuwait?

....which were, in the words of Scott Ritter, 99.99% destroyed and dismantled, when they left in 1998.


What you posted says nothing about what the military did or did not do in response to the greivences aired by Bremer and other organizations.

So thats quite a leap of logic your making to assume that the pentagon ignored it.

I'm sorry, let me quote again:

"From U.S. administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer and Secretary of State Colin Powell to investigators for the International Committee of the Red Cross, a broad array of officials pressed the Pentagon to improve conditions or face a likely Iraqi backlash, officials from the government and the organizations said Friday.
...
The Red Cross delivered repeated warnings during the same period, its president said Friday. It dispatched investigators to 14 detention centers in Iraq and delivered graphic reports about U.S. mistreatment, including evidence of humiliation, physical abuse and excessive use of force.
...
From the beginning, Myers acknowledged [in his testimony Friday], the Pentagon tried to prevent public disclosure.

I realize it doesn't say explicitly "The Pentagon ignored these reports", but look at the facts - complaints over a year old, before they become public. A blatant attempt to not have it in the public eye. Please, you can have YOUR fantasies.

(BTW, you do know that Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz, the SecDef, and the DepSecDef, head up the Pentagon, right? That's where their offices are).

-TheE-

TheE would it not have been in the best intrest of us and our troops for the pictures not to be made public?
Why would Myers not do what he could within the laws of our land to avoid them from being out there?

Use your head.

[Back]

Don't know why people are freaking out about this. Its a given. Hell, capturing and restricting a full grown adult against their will is inhumane to begin with...

Whats even more laughable is that GW has finally apologized to somebody for something. Oddly enough, it wasn't Americans.

How is this a fantasy?

According to Hans Blix, Iraq was beginning to comply, but he also stated the only thing that was needed was Iraqi's *full* cooperation.

You might very well be right that they were beginning to comply, however how many times do you allow yourself to be juked before you finally say enough is enough.

The fact is, Iraq has played the "We're doing everything" game before, only to changes things back again when the pressure was off. In fact, the abuses of the Oil for food program should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq was anythning but the innocent party.



...which were, in the words of Scott Ritter, 99.99% destroyed and dismantled, when they left in 1998.


The same Scott Ritter who pretty much quit over differences he had with the government? I won't bother posting the dirt thats out there on Iraq and just state the obvious:

One man is not the end all be all of what did or did not happen or what is or what is not. Furthemore, at the point that he quit he was not in a position to say conclusively what did or did not exist in country because Saddam was pretty much barring weapons inspectors from places he did not want them.



I realize it doesn't say explicitly "The Pentagon ignored these reports", but look at the facts - complaints over a year old, before they become public. A blatant attempt to not have it in the public eye.

Surely an intelligent person such as yourself can understand the distinct differences of ignoring a problem, doing nothing to correct it, and attempting to keep it out of the public eye.

Again, that article says nothing about what the government did or did not do in response to those reports.

You can assume what you want but until you find a source or anything else that specifically states that nothing at all was done; you are talking out of your ass.




(BTW, you do know that Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz, the SecDef, and the DepSecDef, head up the Pentagon, right? That's where their offices are).

Thanks for the heads up.

Just what should you do in the event of being given an illeal order, by the way?

This was brought up on the P&R boards at play.net.

You are obligated to not obey the order, and if the commander is insistent or circumvents you then you are obligated to report it.

For more information on the subject go here:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/1997/spring/art2sp97.htm

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

TheE, your memory of the dismantling of the WMD's in Iraq is one sided. Do you remember the huge political scandal, the threats from both sides (US & Iraq), the MAJOR production made of it? Them complying to dismantle wasn't easy.

Do you honestly believe that there were WMD's, and now there are none? From some of your posts earlier, you say they dismantled in 98, they dismantled the rockets recently. Can you honestly say that there are no WMD's, when you say and support that they had them, and dismantled them? We aren't talking about different powers... it was all Sadam, every time. Do you really think he was like "Oh, you Americans are so right, let me destroy all these things, I've seen the light!"

Come on. Are people that gullible?

If I had the world against me about WMD's, I'd SAY I was destroying them too! If I had UN inspectors getting close to finding some WMD's after not complying with destroying them, I'd create an international incident to get them out of the country while I hid them. If I had the world against me years later, I'd SAY we destroyed them all before, also!

Back on topic though... Rape and murder -- regardless if your CO orders you to abuse/humiliate the prisoners... rape and murder is a WHOLE nother ball game. That's sadists. Those people may/may not have been ordered, but either way, no one walks away from rape and murder with "My boss told me too". Can you still hang in the military?, because these folks deserve it.

[TheEschaton]

The same Scott Ritter who pretty much quit over differences he had with the government? I won't bother posting the dirt thats out there on Iraq and just state the obvious:

One man is not the end all be all of what did or did not happen or what is or what is not. Furthemore, at the point that he quit he was not in a position to say conclusively what did or did not exist in country because Saddam was pretty much barring weapons inspectors from places he did not want them.

Ritter was A) working for the UN, and B) I don't see how being of a different opinion than the gov't means your wrong. Maybe that's what they teach you in boot camp, but it's not true.

Furthermore, Saddam was NOT blocking access to weapons sites, he was blocking access to places like Presidential palaces, which had nothing to do with weapons, and, as stated before, were where the inspectors were sent to look for Iraqi state secrets. Saddam had every right as a sovereign leader to reject that request.


One man is not the end all be all of what did or did not happen or what is or what is not.

When that one man is the head of UNSCOM, the U.N. weapons inspection team, a Republican, and a Marine, I think his opinion does count.

As for the "scandal", yes, there were words exchanged. Why wouldn't there be? The missiles actually DID comply with what Iraq was ALLOWED TO HAVE (even by the 98 standards) - it's just that we judged they were dual-use technology, and could be modified (at great expense and effort, which we ignored) to go beyond the range an Iraqi missile was allowed to go. The Iraqi gov't complained because...well, obviously, the missiles WEREN'T in violation of sanctions, and it showed a pretty obvious hostile attitude to demand the dismantling of missiles which weren't illegal.

....but you know what? They still did it.

As for the inspectors leaving in 98, you have to realize that it wasn't an international incident "cooked up" by Saddam. Ritter confirmed it, and the U.S. gov't has been very quiet on the whole thing.

-TheE-

TheE, I have met Scott Ritter in person and have listened to him make his case.<was even able to ask him a few questions, he was at my school making the rounds and only a few people bothered to show up) It has a lot of holes in it, and his actions are politicaly motivated. When asked point blank by another student if they could account for the weapons destruction that Iraq had his answer was NO, and he would not elaborate anymore and skipped over questions bassed on that.
His comments were to proud to have been anything else. I did this, I know that, I say it is untrue, I found this ect. He made it seems as he was the one man who searched the entire country.

[TheEschaton]

and his actions are politicaly motivated.

What political motivation does he have? He's not running for office, he voted for Bush, he's a lifelong Republican.

Funny, he came to my school too, and he had a packed auditorium which he held spellbound for more than 3 hours. Please, please, point out the holes you saw? The same question someone asked at your school, someone asked at mine, and he said "You can never say for sure, that EVERYTHING was destroyed, in an official standpoint. You just never know. But I'll willing to say that 99.99% of Iraq's weapons were dismantled, which is as close you'll ever get to 100%, and EVEN IF THEY DID HAVE AN ILLEGAL WEAPON SOMEWHERE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PROGRAMS, INFRASTRUCTURE, or MECHANISMS TO USE IT [emphasis mine], we destroyed all that."


As for too proud, have you looked at your President recently? The man's the most arrogantly proud man in the public light. How come you don't invalidate his opinions?

-TheE-

They asked if the iraqi's gave proof, and none was given. And he was unable give any examples of proof.
And with the recent examples of the Oil For Food scandle, and his comments on being able to follow all the money trail's which was his explenation for them not having anything, I find his comments even more suspicious. When he does not even know of what Iraq was doing with their money while he was in charge shows that he did not know as much as he tried to make people believe.
And It was in summer time, and outside of the city so most people attened his lecture at UofC.

I dont see the arrogance and pride in president Bush. I see a man who does what he and the majority of americans feel is right.

[Edited on 5-9-2004 by The Edine]

Ritter was A) working for the UN, and B) I don't see how being of a different opinion than the gov't means your wrong. Maybe that's what they teach you in boot camp, but it's not true.

You have no fucking clue what I was taught in boot camp. I can assure you that political topics are usually avoided in the combat arms MOS's.

I never said he was absolutely wrong, I said his opinion was different then other people with access to the same information he had and that he had a beef with the government itself.


Furthermore, Saddam was NOT blocking access to weapons sites, he was blocking access to places like Presidential palaces, which had nothing to do with weapons, and, as stated before, were where the inspectors were sent to look for Iraqi state secrets. Saddam had every right as a sovereign leader to reject that request.

No, Saddam did not have the right to reject those requests. Read the terms of his surrender in the gulf war. He had the right to fully and unequivocally allow inspectors to go anywhere they felt.

Furthermore, there is nothing to say that chemical weapons were not stored in one of the massive palaces and one of the other places they were denied access to. That is the nature of chemical weapons.



t's just that we judged they were dual-use technology, and could be modified

Which was a violation of what they were allowed to have.



As for the inspectors leaving in 98, you have to realize that it wasn't an international incident "cooked up" by Saddam. Ritter confirmed it, and the U.S. gov't has been very quiet on the whole thing.


So quiet, that the liberal Clinton launched attacks.

[Edited on 5-9-2004 by RangerD1]

[TheEschaton]

Quiet in terms of whether they were using the inspectors as spies or not.

-TheE-

Welcome to the world of intelligence gathering.

[DeV]

The actions of the soldiers in question are disgusting to say the least. At least from the photos I've seen, and the news reports released. Its a reflection upon our military and thats how the world views it. The fact that they acted on their own accord is even more disturbing.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
The fact that they acted on their own accord is even more disturbing.

I wouldn't be so quick to leap to that conclusion, actually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3698965.stm

There's still a lot of questions but I'm beginning to suspect they did not in fact just decide that 'hey, this would be fun'. I won't be surprised when the shit truly hits the fan. Though I hope it doesn't.

Raven

The investigation is already done. They are probing again but I dont think there will be any other major action taken against any soldiers. It may result in some uppers getting a reduction in rank or pay, or maybe a forced retirement but beyond that I dont see much happening.

[Tendarian]

I read a story about Pfc England saying she was ordered by her chain of command to pose for these pictures as they would be used for psyops. My question for her would be did her chain of command also tell her to have sex with multiple partners and have them be photographed? Here's a link to a story:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/20802.htm


To be honest ive watched my share of movies and could possibly believe the military had them pose and stuff for pictures to mentally torture the inmates hoping they could get better information. I however cant believe a woman would have sex with multiple partners and be photographed so some inmate might talk. What would be the point of that? I know she aint all that attractive but come on she aint torture ugly. These pictures were with the other torture pictures congress looked at yesterday as well so it seems to me her "I was following orders" has less credibility now than before.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Tendarian
I read a story about Pfc England saying she was ordered by her chain of command to pose for these pictures as they would be used for psyops. My question for her would be did her chain of command also tell her to have sex with multiple partners and have them be photographed? Here's a link to a story:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/20802.htm


To be honest ive watched my share of movies and could possibly believe the military had them pose and stuff for pictures to mentally torture the inmates hoping they could get better information. I however cant believe a woman would have sex with multiple partners and be photographed so some inmate might talk. What would be the point of that? I know she aint all that attractive but come on she aint torture ugly. These pictures were with the other torture pictures congress looked at yesterday as well so it seems to me her "I was following orders" has less credibility now than before.

Unbelievably digusting... especially Pfc English :drunk:

Meanwhile, it would seem that she and others already have gotten the justice they deserve as they become humiliated before the public. Will be hard for friends. family, acquaintances, and strangers, to look at them the same way now.

Unfortunately this has only exposed the ugliness of human nature in general, to the detriment of the US's image. :thumbsdown:

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tendarian
I read a story about Pfc England saying she was ordered by her chain of command to pose for these pictures as they would be used for psyops. My question for her would be did her chain of command also tell her to have sex with multiple partners and have them be photographed?

Here's an LJ entry by a veteran who addresses part of this subject. He doesn't go into the 'having sex' part but rather the following orders one. Credit goes to gridlore (bold highlight is my own).


Folks, on my first day in the United States Army, before my haircut, before my uniform issue, before anything, I and all my fellow proto-soldiers were herded into a theater and given a lecture. The subject of the lecture was "Legal Orders." We covered the concept of a legal order, and what constituted an illegal order. The Geneva Conventions were brought up, along with the UCMJ. They hammered this issue so hard that twenty years later I can still recall the details. The lesson that was highlighted, made crystal clear, to us sloppy civilians trying to be infantrymen, was this:

"I was only following orders" is NOT A DEFENSE!

This lesson was given again and again. During OSUT, some of the trainees were detailed to go score rifle qualifications for some staff officers from Building 4 (post HQ). Some of these officers ordered the brand-new troops to falsify scores. We're talking about career officers dealing with still-new basic trainees. What happened? Several officers were retired. Our guys did the right thing, and reported the illegal order to their chain of command.

Now, we come to the insanity at Abu Ghraib. PFC England claims she was ordered to pose for those pictures, claims it was a pysop. Wrong! It was torture and she had a moral and legal obligation to say no! What if she had been ordered to machinegun children? Would she have shrugged and said "orders are orders"? To a soldier, there is no difference.

We are hearing about breakdowns in command up to the brigade level. To put that in perspective, that means that for PFC English to do what she did required failures at five different levels of command. This passes beyond incompetent and goes directly to malicious. We hear of lack of supervision. Where the hell were the NCOs? We hear about a lack of training. What in the hell is an untrained unit doing in charge of an EPW camp? Now we hear it was our old friends in the CIA and DIA who ordered these pictures taken. Still no excuse. Abu Ghraib is a military facility. It was our responsibility. We dropped the ball.

Frankly, I've never been so ashamed to be a veteran of the United States Army as I was when I saw those pictures. Simply disgusted. I thought about sending my blue cord to Rummy, with a note stating "under your leadership, this has become meaningless."

Our only hope of salvaging anything from this mess is to vigorously prosecute everyone involved in the command and control of that prison, as well as the enlisted people involved in the actual abuses. Careers need to be broken. I don't care if you've got 19 years and 11 months in service. Colonel.. you're gone and so is your pension. Those who performed these abuses need to be jailed, busted to PVT, and given dishonorable discharges. If civilian intelligence agencies were involved, criminal action needs to be taken.

Raven

edited to link to the entry itself:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/gridlore/488378.html


[Edited on 5-13-2004 by Ravenstorm]