some dude takes the fall for Ghraib

so some soldier got like 8 years for this prisoner abuse matter. i bet this is where the issue dies in the media. instead of censuring Bush and the CIA directors for provoking this sort of recklessness and then turning their back on it.

shoot the messenger, cnn. shoot him good. blame the event on the people who were given orders to get the information by any means.

[Gorgo]

Seems to be the way of the world.

He is only the first of man, there are no less then 30 investigations going on...the CO of the Prison was relieved, and there still has not been one shred of corroborated evidence to assert anyone other then localized individuals condoned their treatment...personally...I laughed when they considered humiliation to be cruel...geesh...I have a couple of Vietnam POW's in my American Legion post and they were dumbstruck to think that what those men endured would be considered torture.

[tusaki]

Bob_Dopps, no matter if he was incited to commit what ever he has done. He was still the one who actually did it. He should be punished for that. and 8 years for torture is not that much in my eyes.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by ACause, He is only the first of man, there are no less then 30 investigations going on...the CO of the Prison was relieved, and there still has not been one shred of corroborated evidence to assert anyone other then localized individuals condoned their treatment...personally...I laughed when they considered humiliation to be cruel...geesh...I have a couple of  Vietnam POW's in my American Legion post and they were dumbstruck to think that what those men endured would be considered torture.

Yeah, humiliating captured enemy soldiers, well thats kind of expected, and soldiers should have the strength to laugh it off. But these wern't soldiers. These were civillians arrested on the slightest chance of a crime being committed. And being stripped naked while someone has a guard dog leaning in towards you trying to shred you to pieces is just a bit of humiliation isn't it? What about those who died while in custody, are you suggesting they died of shame?

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by ACause, He is only the first of man, there are no less then 30 investigations going on...the CO of the Prison was relieved, and there still has not been one shred of corroborated evidence to assert anyone other then localized individuals condoned their treatment...personally...I laughed when they considered humiliation to be cruel...geesh...I have a couple of Vietnam POW's in my American Legion post and they were dumbstruck to think that what those men endured would be considered torture.

Your POW buddies are morons. You can't qualify that shit.

Originally posted by Suburbanite,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ACause, He is only the first of man, there are no less then 30 investigations going on...the CO of the Prison was relieved, and there still has not been one shred of corroborated evidence to assert anyone other then localized individuals condoned their treatment...personally...I laughed when they considered humiliation to be cruel...geesh...I have a couple of  Vietnam POW's in my American Legion post and they were dumbstruck to think that what those men endured would be considered torture.

Your POW buddies are morons. You can't qualify that shit.[/b][/quote]

What do you mean you can't qualify it??....lol...please..and personally I'd like to see you reconsider what Vietnam POW's went thur as compared to what those at Gharib went thru...there simply is no comparison..it's ludicrous to call what went on at Gharib as torture...abuse...now you could make a case for that..but torture?...give me a friggin break....they had a cakewalk compared to WW2, Korean, or Vietnam POW's.

Originally posted by G. Adams,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (G. Adams,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ACause, He is only the first of man, there are no less then 30 investigations going on...the CO of the Prison was relieved, and there still has not been one shred of corroborated evidence to assert anyone other then localized individuals condoned their treatment...personally...I laughed when they considered humiliation to be cruel...geesh...I have a couple of  Vietnam POW's in my American Legion post and they were dumbstruck to think that what those men endured would be considered torture.

Yeah, humiliating captured enemy soldiers, well thats kind of expected, and soldiers should have the strength to laugh it off. But these wern't soldiers. These were civillians arrested on the slightest chance of a crime being committed. And being stripped naked while someone has a guard dog leaning in towards you trying to shred you to pieces is just a bit of humiliation isn't it? What about those who died while in custody, are you suggesting they died of shame?[/b][/quote]

Excuse me???..crime?..the men in these wings were captured in combat, that's not a crime..and lest we forget....when Baghdad fell, 3 full Divisions...of Republican Guard and Feyadeen dispersed into the general population...I am under no delusions that many of these "civilians" were former military...even if they were civilians...it still doesn't constitute torture for pete's sake. As for those that died in custody, what more do you want?...Investigations are occuring, men are going to prison..they military system of jurisprudence is being followed?

[PatrickHenry]

ACause, you are excusing murder while in custody. The "accused" had no conviction for any crime, yet were sometimes beaten to death. Maybe you are also in favor of the new rapists in Saddam's "rape rooms." http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...t=0&#entry38395

Will you support any crime if it is in the name of America? Soldiers are obligated by law and by common decency to refuse orders to beat, torture, rape or kill those in custody. Yet these abuses were occurring regularly as a result of US policy in Abu Ghraib and other US detention centers.

You lied in saying the prisoners were captured in combat. They were captured in sweeps and in home invasions. You, sir, are full of opinions, but debate demands facts. And torture has been debated extensively within top US policy circles. Check the above thread for some citations of facts in this case.

[bishop]

Excuse me???..crime?..the men in these wings were captured in combat, that's not a crime..

do you have any PROOF of that? i'm wary of statements from that from partisans whom i don't trust... all that i've seen was that the majority of prisoners in abu ghraib were civilians who were summarily arrested - i.e. they were NOT combatants.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers routinely rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners.

http://www.notinourname.net/war/torture-5may04.htm

Most of the prisoners, however-by the fall there were several thousand, including women and teen-agers-were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpoints. They fell into three loosely defined categories: common criminals; security detainees suspected of "crimes against the coalition"; and a small number of suspected "high-value" leaders of the insurgency against the coalition forces.

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, ACause, you are excusing murder while in custody. The "accused" had no conviction for any crime, yet were sometimes beaten to death. Maybe you are also in favor of the new rapists in Saddam's "rape rooms." http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...t=0&#entry38395 Will you support any crime if it is in the name of America? Soldiers are obligated by law and by common decency to refuse orders to beat, torture, rape or kill those in custody. Yet these abuses were occurring regularly as a result of US policy in Abu Ghraib and other US detention centers. You lied in saying the prisoners were captured in combat. They were captured in sweeps and in home invasions. You, sir, are full of opinions, but debate demands facts. And torture has been debated extensively within top US policy circles. Check the above thread for some citations of facts in this case.

Ahmm.excuse me..will you kindly pointed out where I excused murder?

Now...like any military we have bad apples..what more do you want..those that have committed crimes against Iraqis at the prison were apprehended, relieved of duty, charged, and now convictions are coming down the pike...I fail to see what you think I'm defending?

And no..I did not lie...fully a third of the prisoners in that wing according to the MP unit stationed there stipulate that the wing where the abuse occured were either known terrorists or insurgents.

[bishop]

again, anecdote isn't sufficient..

provide a source for your allegations/statement.. it's the way things work over here.

Originally posted by bishop, again, anecdote isn't sufficient.. provide a source for your allegations/statement.. it's the way things work over here.

By all means..but I had assume that it was commong knownledge...I/'ll look around for you.

[bishop]

i think i speak for several people here when i say that i've never seen any evidence substantiating your statemens - and all of us follow the news quite closely.

But the bottom line is this...the bad apples were relieved of duty, arrested, charged, and now convictions are coming down...the system is working in taking care of these cases...just what more are you gents wanting for the military system of jurisprudence?

[bishop]

to this day, the administration actively seeks to abrogate the geneva convention. they seek to do things just as bad or worse than what happened at abu ghraib. since it doesn't seem like you've read this:

i'll add this to the list....

WASHINGTON -- At the request of the CIA, the Justice Department drafted a confidential memo that authorizes the agency to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation, a practice that international legal specialists say contravenes the Geneva Conventions. One intelligence official familiar with the operation said the CIA has used the March draft memo as legal support for secretly transporting up to a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months. The agency has concealed the detainees from the International Red Cross and other authorities, the official said.

Originally posted by bishop, to this day, the administration actively seeks to abrogate the geneva convention. they seek to do things just as bad or worse than what happened at abu ghraib. since it doesn't seem like you've read this: i'll add this to the list.... WASHINGTON -- At the request of the CIA, the Justice Department drafted a confidential memo that authorizes the agency to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation, a practice that international legal specialists say contravenes the Geneva Conventions. One intelligence official familiar with the operation said the CIA has used the March draft memo as legal support for secretly transporting up to a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months. The agency has concealed the detainees from the International Red Cross and other authorities, the official said.

Again...I say what more are you guys wanting...the bad apples have been or are being taken care of..those who committed any crimes in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as regards treatment of prisoners. So what more do you want?

As for the Geneva Conventions...they were originally penned by nations that stood by their word...in a different time..frankly the art of warfare and their system of targets have changed.....the insurgents don't see the need to follow it....neither should my boys..now..if they wanted to act civilized I would advocate following the Accords...but what is good for the goose..is also good for the gander.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by ACause, Again...I say what more are you guys wanting...the bad apples have been or are being taken care of..those who committed any crimes in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as regards treatment of prisoners. So what more do you want? As for the Geneva Conventions...they were originally penned by nations that stood by their word...in a different time..frankly the art of warfare and their system of targets have changed.....the insurgents don't see the need to follow it....neither should my boys..now..if they wanted to act civilized I would advocate following the Accords...but what is good for the goose..is also good for the gander.

ACause, welcome. You make alot of sense. If only the Koreans, and Japanese, Germans and Viet Cong would have simply humiliated our troops with empty threats. If only those fifty Iraqi soldiers had not been attacked, captured beheaded and shot in the back by Al Qaida Operatives today.

When I think these Iraqis were in basic training to defend their beloved Iraq, it makes my blood boil.

[bishop]

So what more do you want?

i want to see the entire mindset that contributed to abu ghraib removed. obviously you see no connection with what happened there with similar cases in afghanistan and gitmo... moreover, it seems that you don't see the similarity with the article that i've repeatedly posted.

what the hell is the point of court martialling a couple nobody privates when our government continues to practice torture behind very questionable legal interpretations? torture is torture is torture... this is a very simple point that you don't seem to understand.

As for the Geneva Conventions...they were originally penned by nations that stood by their word...in a different time..frankly the art of warfare and their system of targets have changed.....the insurgents don't see the need to follow it....neither should my boys..now..if they wanted to act civilized I would advocate following the Accords...but what is good for the goose..is also good for the gander.

so you want to lower our standards down to those of the terrorists? that speaks volumes.

and let's say that you do want to permit the use of torture wherever our "leaders" deem it appropriate... then FIRST you must legally withdraw from the geneva convention because it IS the law. are you advocating that the u.s. president should disobey the laws of our land???

Originally posted by bishop, i want to see the entire mindset that contributed to abu ghraib removed. obviously you see no connection with what happened there with similar cases in afghanistan and gitmo... moreover, it seems that you don't see the similarity with the article that i've repeatedly posted. what the hell is the point of court martialling a couple nobody privates when our government continues to practice torture behind very questionable legal interpretations? torture is torture is torture... this is a very simple point that you don't seem to understand. so you want to lower our standards down to those of the terrorists? that speaks volumes. and let's say that you do want to permit the use of torture wherever our "leaders" deem it appropriate... then FIRST you must legally withdraw from the geneva convention because it IS the law. are you advocating that the u.s. president should disobey the laws of our land???

What the hell is the point?...It's supposed to reaffirm that we are not the thugs that Saddam was....let's be clear...while acts of torture may have been committed...it was not condoned as policy..that has never been proved..and most if not all of what I've heard, or seen is abuse, not torture..torture is mutilation..torture is beatings..torture is physical pain, but humiliation and standing on a box torture?...please...

And since we have not been able to make the terrorists raise their standards...we must therefore get down and dirty with them....the point is getting the job done.

The laws of this land are in the Constitution of the United States...the Geneva Accords are not laws that my elected officials ever voted on. pure and simple..there is no legally withdrawing too it...I wonder how come you don't cry that their standards are so low?