Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal widens; Pentagon investigating

Bill Sloman · May 7, 2004

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<c7edlr$1jq8$2@news.iquest.net>...

In article <5uok90do13vtd4b9d680m1k1e7p5dcc8at@4ax.com>,
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> writes:
On 5 May 2004 17:32:15 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message news:<n8gh90dnhv026aokr7qqvhdh4lsa7uub30@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 5 May 2004 04:53:29 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

A public execution resulting from EU corruption would be a good
and cathartic action to help to mitigate EU arrogance.

Only one?
How would you choose between Kohl, Chirac and Berlusconi to name just
three utterly corrupt leaders (or former leader in the case of Kohl)
who've been proven to be thoroughly dishonest on a truly awsome scale.

How could you forgot Blair and Thatcher? Major is is an excusable
omission - he seems to have restricted himself to adultery.

I was talking of *financial* corruption, Bill. If you have some dirt
on Bliar and the Iron Bitch then feel free to dish it!

It is definitely PARTIALLY the financial corruption, but the ongoing
support by the French, Germans and the Russians

<snipped the rest of the irrelevance>

Do shut up. Paul Burridge just pointed out that Kohl, Chirac and
Berlusconi were all accused of financial corruption in court. Kohl
negotiated a deal with the prosecutor which effectively involved him
paying a huge fine. The case against Chirac is suspended until he
stops being head of state, and immune from prosecution, while
Berlusconi's self-awarded immunity has only recently been struck down
by the Italian courts.

Blair and Thatcher have not been brought before the courts in the same
way.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · May 7, 2004

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<c7f5q5$1ruf$1@news.iquest.net>...

In article <9HCmc.172126$L31.139870@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> writes:
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:sfdl90lfvqc0kuher6f61d6uo07f7u2ov1@4ax.com...
On 6 May 2004 14:15:59 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

However, we should make NO apologies.

We should make it clear that, given a choice between being
liked and being feared, we will always choose FEARED.

The problem is, with these rape photos, which are widely
distributed, we won't be so much feared, as loathed and
despised. Somehow we need to put this right, find all the
men who did it and fully and publically prosecute. And
apologize, of course, what's the matter with you Thompson?

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

I have an uneasy feeling that quite of few of these photos are fake.
Amazing that they're showing up on porn sites.

Does the state apologize to crime victims?

...Jim Thompson

No, the perpetrator does, if he's got any humanity left in him.
In this case, the perpretrator is the state, so it should, in
fact, apologize.

Actually, since the military personnel weren't following the
rules and/or their lawful orders, then the perpetrator was
well below the level of the 'state.' Instead, the perpetrators
were those who violated legitimate government policy. While
some of the Iraqi/non-Iraqi prisoners were abused (perhaps some
killed), it is true that the prisoners were 'violated' in
some cases. However, the American government was also
'violated' in both a breach of trust and also damage to foreign
policy.

<snipped meally-mouthed acceptance of psychological torture>

Since it is becoming clear that the authorities have been aware for
some months that there was a problem, and have reacted with a
cover-up, rather than a clean-up, the corruption seems to extend a
long way up into the administration. This morning's Dutch newspaper
report suggested that Rumsfeld himself might come under pressure to
resign.

Is anybody calling it Baghdadgate yet?

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Stefan Heinzmann · May 7, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:28:56 +0200, Stefan Heinzmann
stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

My attitude is simply this... if you have to do battle with
terrorists, then do battle as they do.

Ok, but you ought to make sure the others can distinguish between you
and the terrorists.

If we're the only ones adhering to the Geneva Convention what's the
point?

Now that's a statement that worries me deeply. I had to read it thrice
this morning before I could believe what I saw. Think again, Jim! Do you
really mean what you say there?

You seem to imply that the Geneva Convention is some sort of gentlemen's
agreement between parties at war that can (or even should) be disposed
of when the going gets rough.

If so, it would be a gross misunderstanding of what the Geneva
Convention is about. So forgive me if I'm stating the obvious here but I
have to get this off my chest:

(The convention texts are online here if you want to have a look:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebFULL?OpenView
)

The purpose of the Geneva Convention (or rather Conventions, because
there are four) is not to hinder effective warfare. The aim is to lessen
the impact on the people who are not taking part in the combat. That
includes people who never had anything to do with it (civilians,
including children, who just had the misfortune to be in the wrong place
at the wrong time), and people who have laid down their arms (prisoners,
wounded, etc.).

Citation from Article 3:

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including
members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those
placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other
cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any
adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex,
birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned
persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular
humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of
executions without previous judgment pronounced by a
regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."

And, notably, here's Article 5:

"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected
of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State,
such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of
such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is
detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite
suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power,
such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so
requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication
under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with
humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights
of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They
shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected
person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent
with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may
be."

I simply can not see how violating those rules can give you an advantage
in prosecuting terrorists or fighting an enemy at war. And whether your
enemy obeys these rules or not doesn't make the slightest difference.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that these rules lie at the very
heart of civilization. This implies that a State or an individual who
willfully breaks these rules has ceased to be civilized.

I'm not American, but I admire the US constitution; it has served as a
model for many a democratic constitution elsewhere in the world.
So IMHO if you really should advocate breaking those rules when fighting
terrorists you would betray the very values the US were founded on.

It is because of this that things like Guantanamo Bay are a thorn in the
side of many. Converting Iraq into a huge Guantanamo Bay is only going
to aggravate this. I am convinced that such practices give you no
advantage at all in fighting terrorism. On the contrary, they can very
easily be regarded as evidence that the US have no confidence in the
effectiveness of their own system of democracy and justice. In other
words that the campaign to bring this very system to the benefit of
other states would be utterly hypocritical.

Please Jim, suppress the understandable urge to lash out at the
terrorists that threaten the US. You're too likely to hit the wrong
people. Terrorists are a small minority even in Iraq. The war against
them can only be won when you fight for the hearts of the people.

Cheers
Stefan

Daniel Haude · May 7, 2004

On Thu, 06 May 2004 15:01:41 -0700,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote
in Msg. <i8dl90dni5lgq9tg3c1siv1f89cvulm851@4ax.com>

Wait awhile until it's not just the Israeli's being attacked with body
bombs.

What are you going to do when the odds of you being hurt or killed,
when you go to the mall, approach even a few percent?

A few percent? Surely you mean a few ppm (per trip to the mall), which
would be disturbing enough.

Since there is precious little that can be done about suicidal killers
once the exist and are willing to do their deed one should think about
what turns (suitably pre-demented) people into killers and on which
grounds they choose their targets. Based on the knowledge gained by this
thought process one can try to defuse situations which are likely to give
people excuses to blow things up.

Of course you can also go ahead and bomb the tar out of places that
terrorists come from (Afghanistan), or just for the fun of bombing them
(Iraq). You're free to speculate about whether such actions serve to
increase or decrease the number and motivation of potential killers.

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

Anthony Fremont · May 7, 2004

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c7e23v01v63@drn.newsguy.com...

John S. Dyson wrote...

Note that there is little evidence of 'torture' per se in
the pictures. (It could be described as 'wrong', but not
'torture.') I have seen no pictures of electrocutions
(Saddmist) or disemboweling (more of a European thing.)

What about the rape pictures?

I wondered about that as well since they seemed to be far more damaging
than the current "torture" pictures making the TV news rounds. It seems
that they were lifted FROM US and Hungarian porn sites. IOW they seem
to be staged photos that are now being used as propaganda. I could post
some links here, but it's far easier for someone to just Google up
"Iraqi rape photos" and take their pick from the litter of news reports
backing this up.

As for the other "torture" photos, I tend to agree with Jim on this.
They may constitute criminal abuse and misconduct, but IMO it's quite a
stretch to call it torture. Looks more like immature teens acting as
such. Now if they showed burnt/dismembered bodies being dragged thru
the streets by US soldiers I'd have a different opinion.

Please don't interpret this as some kind of excuse or approval of their
behavior. The soldiers involved certainly deserve to be punished for
their mistreatment of the prisoners.

Fred Bloggs · May 7, 2004

On 6 May 2004 12:02:23 -0700, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John S. Dyson wrote...

Note that there is little evidence of 'torture' per se in
the pictures. (It could be described as 'wrong', but not
'torture.') I have seen no pictures of electrocutions
(Saddmist) or disemboweling (more of a European thing.)

What about the rape pictures?

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

You are a pathetic little over-sheltered pussy supreme! What rape
pictures?! This whole non-scandal is 100% political, the allegations
of the so-called abuse are about equivalent to the hazing activity in
your average American college fraternity! Poking a pen light in
someone's butthole is NOT rape. Awww- would this humiliate you, pussy
boy- then again you're a wimp !

Jim Thompson · May 7, 2004

On Fri, 07 May 2004 12:39:47 +0200, Stefan Heinzmann
<stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:28:56 +0200, Stefan Heinzmann
stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

My attitude is simply this... if you have to do battle with
terrorists, then do battle as they do.

Ok, but you ought to make sure the others can distinguish between you
and the terrorists.

If we're the only ones adhering to the Geneva Convention what's the
point?

Now that's a statement that worries me deeply. I had to read it thrice
this morning before I could believe what I saw. Think again, Jim! Do you
really mean what you say there?

You seem to imply that the Geneva Convention is some sort of gentlemen's
agreement between parties at war that can (or even should) be disposed
of when the going gets rough.

If so, it would be a gross misunderstanding of what the Geneva
Convention is about. So forgive me if I'm stating the obvious here but I
have to get this off my chest:
[snip]

I know very well what the Geneva convention is all about. My point is
how can you fight a war against heathens who totally ignore the
convention?

Personally, I would just flatten the place with a nuke, it sure made
an impression on the Japanese ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · May 7, 2004

On Fri, 7 May 2004 09:16:02 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@violet.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

[snip]

[*] I know that line sounds sexist but until the last couple of years the
bombers were all male.

--

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · May 7, 2004

On Fri, 07 May 2004 06:05:30 +0100, Terry Pinnell
<terrypin@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

[snip]

However, we should make NO apologies.

Why am I not surprised to see you making such a contemptible statement
in public?!

This is WAR, not kiss-em-up, politically-correct BS.

We should make it clear that, given a choice between being liked and
being feared, we will always choose FEARED.

...Jim Thompson

The main fear you should focus on is the growing risk that decent
people everywhere will begin to characterize that sort of mindless,
jingoistic bigotry as The American Way.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Frank Bemelman · May 7, 2004

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:ce7n90lmmou3ok44vd5maouf9ogd5jf5f6@4ax.com...

On 6 May 2004 12:02:23 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John S. Dyson wrote...

Note that there is little evidence of 'torture' per se in
the pictures. (It could be described as 'wrong', but not
'torture.') I have seen no pictures of electrocutions
(Saddmist) or disemboweling (more of a European thing.)

What about the rape pictures?

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

You are a pathetic little over-sheltered pussy supreme! What rape
pictures?! This whole non-scandal is 100% political, the allegations
of the so-called abuse are about equivalent to the hazing activity in
your average American college fraternity! Poking a pen light in
someone's butthole is NOT rape. Awww- would this humiliate you, pussy
boy- then again you're a wimp !

Oh, it was a pen light. Yes, I too drop my own trousers when poking
around with a pen light. Didn't know that was even taught in school,
how thoughtful. Thank you for shining your light on these matters.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

Stefan Heinzmann · May 7, 2004

Fred Bloggs wrote:

You are a pathetic little over-sheltered pussy supreme! What rape
pictures?! This whole non-scandal is 100% political, the allegations
of the so-called abuse are about equivalent to the hazing activity in
your average American college fraternity! Poking a pen light in
someone's butthole is NOT rape. Awww- would this humiliate you, pussy
boy- then again you're a wimp !

Then I'm a pathetic little over-sheltered pussy supreme wimp, too.

Having to stand still on a box with a sandbag over my head and electric
wires attached to hands and penis in the very prison where Saddam
Hussein used to torture and kill thousands of people, and being told
that I'd be electrocuted if I fell off the box would most certainly
humiliate me and scare the mickey out of me.

But then, I'm a European, so that may be no surprise to you.

I'm trying to imagine what you'd feel like being captured by a group of
Shiites led by el Sadr, who are starting to poke pen-lights up your
butthole for fun while waving about their guns...

Are college fraternities really that bad? I'm appalled!

--
Cheers
Stefan

Stefan Heinzmann · May 7, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

I know very well what the Geneva convention is all about. My point is
how can you fight a war against heathens who totally ignore the
convention?

In exactly the same way as you would if they *did* obey the rules of the
convention. There's nothing in the conventions that prevents the US army
from doing a good job in combatting terrorism. If you violate the
convention you give the terrorists the best justification for what
they're doing they can possibly get.

I observe that el-Quaida now operates in Iraq where it didn't have a
foothold during Saddam's rule. I think I know why...

Personally, I would just flatten the place with a nuke, it sure made
an impression on the Japanese ;-)

Very impressive, indeed. Surgery successful, patient dead.

--
Cheers
Stefan

lexderr · May 7, 2004

\

It would seem that Gen. Myers live now on TV said they did ask CBS to
hold off on airing story.
Hmmmm

On Wed, 5 May 2004 03:11:24 +0200, Gilbert Mouget
<prenom.nom@free.fr.invalid> wrote:

THE SHAME BE WITH EVERY US CITIZEN

USA IS NOT A CIVILIZED COUNTRY ANYMORE

BUSH = BIN LADIN

WASHINGTON - As investigations into U.S. military abuse of Iraqi
captives gathered steam, Pentagon officials revealed Tuesday that
they have investigated the deaths of 25 prisoners overseas and
labeled two of them homicides.

The widening scandal threatened to seriously damage America's
image abroad, especially in the Muslim and Arab world.
On Capitol Hill, angry lawmakers - some reliable Republican
allies of the Bush administration - demanded that Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld appear at a public hearing to explain
how American jailers could have been allowed to sadistically
abuse Iraqi prisoners.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called the abuse
disgusting and degrading and questioned why Congress had been
kept in the dark.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, called the incidents the most "serious a problem of
breakdown in discipline as I've ever observed."

"Who is responsible for what happened?" asked Sen. Joseph Biden,
the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"I think it starts with Rumsfeld and works its way down."

Biden said the abuse "warrants somebody's resignation" but
declined to say whether it should be Rumsfeld.

Making his first remarks about the abuse at the Abu Ghraib
prison, Rumsfeld on Tuesday called the actions "totally
unacceptable and un-American." He said an internal Pentagon
report that described the prisoners as being beaten, sodomized
and drenched in phosphoric liquid and cold water left him
"deeply disturbed."

Rumsfeld pledged that those responsible would be brought to
justice.

"I have no doubt that we will take these charges and
allegations most seriously," he said.

Photos of naked Iraqi prisoners stacked on top of each other and
forced to simulate sex acts while their American captors looked
on laughing have been broadcast around the world to widespread
condemnation.

Since then, other Iraqis have alleged that they too have been beaten.

Six U.S. soldiers are facing criminal charges and another six have
been reprimanded. Several investigations are under way at the Pentagon.

Appearing at the United Nations in New York City on Tuesday, Secretary
of State Colin Powell said that even though the abuse had been
perpetrated by a small number of troops, he worried about the impact
it will have on U.S. foreign policy.

"I'm deeply concerned about the horrible image that this has sent
around the world," Powell said.

Powell, a retired Army general, called the abuse of detainees
"illegal" and "immoral."

A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity,
said Powell's tough comments were prompted by a concern that other
administration officials, including Rumsfeld, hadn't expressed
sufficient remorse.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice also went into damage
control mode in interviews on several Arab television networks.

"We all feel outraged at these pictures," Rice told al Arabiya.
"I want to assure people in the Arab world ... that the president
is determined to get to the bottom of it."

The White House said Tuesday evening that President Bush also is
planning to do interviews with Arab TV outlets.

But a European diplomat for the United Nations said: "The damage
is overwhelming."

"Clearly it makes things more difficult for the Americans" in the
Arab world and beyond, said the diplomat, speaking on condition of
anonymity.

New revelations on Tuesday about prisoner deaths in Afghanistan and
Iraq seemed certain to add fuel to the fire.

An Army soldier was accused of using excessive force in the shooting
death of an Iraqi prisoner. He was convicted in the U.S. military
justice system but served no jail time. His rank was reduced to
private and he was thrown out of the service.

The second homicide was committed by a private contractor working
with the CIA, said a government official, who spoke on condition
of anonymity. The case has been referred to the Justice Department.

Officials are continuing to investigate 10 deaths and 10 assaults.
A third homicide was ruled justifiable by authorities.

Military coroners ruled that two detainee deaths at the Bagram Air
Base in Afghanistan in December 2002 were homicides. But the results
of military investigations into those deaths haven't been made public.
It has also been reported that a former Iraqi general, Abed Hamed
Mowhoush, died during American interrogations late last year.
It's unknown whether any of those cases is included in the Pentagon
statistics released Tuesday.

Gen. George Casey, vice chairman of the Army, briefed the Senate Armed
Services Committee behind closed doors Tuesday morning. Afterward, he
told reporters that the actions at Abu Ghraib prison - while horrific -
were an aberration.

"What you see on those pictures is not indicative of our training or
values," Casey said.

Still, there were calls for more hearings to investigate further,
including whether civilian contractors should be dealing with foreign
prisoners as some are in Iraq.

"Any incident like this would lead to an overall review of how
prisoners are treated," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman
of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Some warned that the images could spark fresh violence against
U.S. soldiers.

"There is going to be a wave of revulsion that is going to sweep
over us, I am afraid," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the top
Democrat of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"It's going to hurt our troops and make this country a lot less
secure."

Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the Senate minority leader, questioned why
Bush hadn't learned of the incident sooner. He complained that
Rumsfeld and key Pentagon leaders had briefed lawmakers on the
same day that the prisoner abuse story broke on the CBS newsmagazine
show "60 Minutes," but failed to mention the allegations.

"Now, why were we not told in a classified briefing why this happened
and that it happened at all?" Daschle said.

Rumsfeld allowed Tuesday that he hadn't read all of an internal
Pentagon report, completed about a month ago, detailing the abuses at
the Abu Ghraib prison.

And the defense secretary bridled at the portrayal of the guards'
activities as torture. "I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what
has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is
different from torture."

Although the report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba was classified as
secret and not distributed to lawmakers, the Pentagon said there
was no attempt at a cover-up.

"There has been no attempt to hide this," said Gen. Peter Pace,
vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "What we've been trying
to do is find out the truth of the matter so we can get on about
correcting, finding out who did what and then taking proper action."

Human rights groups say they have been kept at arms length from U.S.
military detention facilities. As a result, some say, jailers are
largely unaccountable and a lawless culture has been allowed to develop.

"We've visited prisons in places like Libya, which is not exactly
known for its openness," said Amnesty International spokesman Alistair
Hodgett said. "But with the United States, the answer is no" to access.

The top human rights agency of the United Nations also said Tuesday that
it has launched an investigation into the state of Iraqi civil rights,
which will include a look at the prison abuses.

Frank Bemelman · May 7, 2004

"Stefan Heinzmann" <stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:c7gbrf$cga$00$1@news.t-online.com...

I observe that el-Quaida now operates in Iraq where it didn't have a
foothold during Saddam's rule. I think I know why...

In 'Jim Thompson' language that is 'liberation'.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

Paul Burridge · May 7, 2004

On 7 May 2004 02:50:09 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

Blair and Thatcher have not been brought before the courts in the same
way.

I wonder what the odds are of Bliar being hauled up on war crimes?
--

The BBC: licenced at public expense to spread lies.

TCS · May 7, 2004

On Fri, 07 May 2004 21:24:08 +0100, Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On 7 May 2004 02:50:09 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

Blair and Thatcher have not been brought before the courts in the same
way.

I wonder what the odds are of Bliar being hauled up on war crimes?
about the same as the pope denouncing christianity.

John Fields · May 7, 2004

On Fri, 7 May 2004 01:40:43 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <bqal90d3nd46qk4c451n17g4lsitpmpuem@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

If there were actual rapes and/or pictures of actual rapes, then
there is no excuse (and appropriate punishment is in order.) However,
frankly, I didn't look closely at the pictures, or analyze them
carefully -- junk like that (and even fantasy junk from the
media) severely irritates and repulses me enough that I accept the
description from other, trustworthy people.

---
Unless you were there and actually witnessed the occurrences, whatever
you choose to believe will be merely hearsay, regardless of whom you
trust to deliver the dirty news.

That is almost always true WRT the news, unless you have other info
channels than the retail news. In the past, I have had some other
channels of info. Not today, however.

---
It's _always_ true, regardless of the reporting source. Unless you
saw it happen with your own eyes, it's all just hearsay.
---

In this case, I strongly want the direct chain of command to
be reviewed and appropriately ejudicated. My initial evaluation
is that we had probably overly downsized the military, and
left inadequate training and command/control capabilities
and competency.

---
Your "evaluation" presumes that you are a fit judge of what should and
should not have been done with the military and smacks severely of
Monday morning quarterbacking.

Do you wish to cease all Monday morning quarterbacking and cease all
judgement of misconduct, and just let the system work as it was planned?

---
What I wish is that self-styled "analysts" like you would refrain from
posturing and pretending that you have enough information to come to a
meaningful conclusion about situations about which you know nothing
for certain.
---

Here is my answer: The system hasn't been planned to deal with all
of the various issues encountered.

---
Garbage. Strict adherence, by the officers in charge, to the rules of
the appropriate Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military
Justice and the instilling of proper discipline in the enlisted troops
would have kept the situation from occurring in the first place.
---

Obviously, part of the system had let-down the president and other people
(including that portion of the American public who wish to see success
in the liberation of Iraq.)

---
Mealy-mouthed weasel words, Dyson. The system didn't fail, the
officers in charge did by not properly disciplining their troops, and
they should be held accountable. The troops to a lesser degree,
however, since without discipline they are merely animals on the
loose.
---

What you are stating are opinions
based upon your own prejudices and seem to be, conveniently, late.

Actually, I was worried (contemporaneously) about the excess downsizing
during the 1990s. In some cases, I had only recently found out about
some of the issues (e.g. the reorg that effected a downsizing of the
intelligence community in the 1995-1996 timeframe.)

Off topic: looking at this politically instead of being
interested in American defense, it appears that BJ Clinton
had been trying to score some points in the 'military cost
savings arena' when Bush and very early Clinton had already
done most of the SAVINGS that should have been done.

---
Who gives a rat's ass? All that crap has _nothing_ to do with the
fact that some soldiers decided to get abusive and nothing was done to
stop them.
---

So, it seems, you're an "after the fact" prophet.

Okay, now you are getting personal (with an ad-hominem tendancy during
almost all of your reply.) You do NOT know my contemporaneous interest
in policy.

---
Nor do I care. And yes, it's personal _and_ ad-hominam, since the
arguments you make are ludicrous and it's the flaws in your character
which I'm attacking. Good catch.
---

As such, perhaps you are prejudging my own interest in the
facts, while much of the info about the 1990s errors has been available
to alot of people.

---
1990's errors? Again, you're using your remarkable hindsight and
powers of assumption to come to the conclusion that they _were_ errors
and to try to convince others of it. I do have to give you credit
though, you're a persitent fucking blowhard!
---

Too bad you
couldn't have actually _done_ something when it mattered instead of
merely yapping about it later

Okay -- so, you don't like discussion about these military/intelligence
and political matters -- don't read them.

---
Fuck you, Dyson, I'll do what I damn well please and I'll shove that
shit you preach right back down your throat any time I feel like it.
---

I am NOT the kind of person who hides their head in the sand when they
cannot do anything about the government. A portion of the power of
the electorate is supported by communication and discussion about the
issues.

---
Yes, but this is not the proper venue for your political diatribe.

As a matter of fact you're in direct violation of this group's charter
and raison d'étre, which is the discussion of matters electronic,
particularly issues surrounding electronic design.
---

There are nations in this world (even western ones) where the people
aren't even sovereign!!! It is a responsibility of the people in the
US to be informed and to try to understand the problems so as to help
solve the problems in the future. History of all kinds (recent and
not-so-recent) is helpful to help to avoid repeating mistakes.

---
Cosidering that this group is a mini-nation, one of the things which
seems to have slipped by you is that by posting your inane dialogue
here, in defiance of our charter, you are _creating_ a problem where
none existed before, and by being informed of that fact you should now
understand that by continuing with your unwelcome behavior you are
challenging the sovereignty of the group. If you choose to continue,
now that you have been made aware of the problem you're creating, I'm
sure your ISP can make you see the folly of your continued defiance of
our charter. Something about "Terms of Service" and SPAM, I think.
---

Snipped a lot of self-serving crap...

--
John Fields

Winfield Hill · May 7, 2004

John Fields wrote...

Cosidering that this group is a mini-nation, one of the things which
seems to have slipped by you is that by posting your inane dialogue
here, in defiance of our charter, you are _creating_ a problem where
none existed before, and by being informed of that fact you should now
understand that by continuing with your unwelcome behavior you are
challenging the sovereignty of the group. If you choose to continue,
now that you have been made aware of the problem you're creating, I'm
sure your ISP can make you see the folly of your continued defiance of
our charter. Something about "Terms of Service" and SPAM, I think.

hear, hear!

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

Rich Grise · May 8, 2004

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c19n90djlc2jib699pdr255pfqsbopm8hq@4ax.com...

This is WAR, not kiss-em-up, politically-correct BS.

A war entered into unilaterally by the choice of one man.

There is no rational excuse for the USA to ever have attacked and
invaded Iraq.

I have no qualms about publicly "admitting" that I'm a pacifist,
as if it's anything that has to be "admitted", and so I'm bigoted
in my own way - I hate warmakers, no matter what country they're
in, or what language they speak or what yadda they blah.
They're no different from any other murderer, except possibly by
degree. Add rapist, torturer, kidnapper, and probably every other
conceivable crime. Simultaneously.

I just can't help but hold on to the belief that, fundamental
truth or not, War is Bad. The only people it's good for are Bad
People. People who love war are Bad People. People who can be
convinced war can be justified are not necessarily Bad, but at
the minimum, supremely Stupid. People who believe that there
is ever any excuse for coercion in any form are, if not Bad,
then also extremely Stupid.

Yeah, I guess I'm prejudiced, because I'd fight to the death
before I'd ever change my mind on any of the above.

Call me a bigot, call me anything you want to. "Sticks and
stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me."
Well, sticks and stones might break _my_ bones, but words
can never harm me, either.

My Dad used to say, "I may not agree with what you say, but
I will defend to the death your right to remain uninformed."

I guess I kinda disagree on that - I seem to have a way of
wanting to violate people's right to remain uninformed.

How 'bout that? ?;->

Cheers!
Rich

Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal widens; Pentagon investigating

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Stefan Heinzmann

Guest

Daniel Haude

Guest

Anthony Fremont

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Frank Bemelman

Guest

Stefan Heinzmann

Guest

Stefan Heinzmann

Guest

lexderr

Guest

Frank Bemelman

Guest

Paul Burridge

Guest

TCS

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Winfield Hill

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor