Iraqui Prisoner Abuses

[Snow]

Yeah, so it's a horrible thing what they done. They should court-marshall those responsible and those responsible for those that were responsible and subject them to full effect of the law. Good. Maybe prosecute those who were in charge of those who were in charge too. Don't whitewash it. Really get after it; you know, go medieval of their buttocks.

Beyond that, how big a deal is it really? It not like they raped a young lady, like Kobe Bryant (alledgedly) and then hired a big money bag barrister to blame it on the victim. It's not like they slit anybodies throat and then hired a big money attorney to get them off like OJ. It's not like then got drunk and drove off a bridge with a girl in the car and then left the car underwater for the girl to die while they ran off and then hired lawyers to get them off and then later became a US Senator like Teddy Kennedy. It's not like they surpressed the entire country, sponsered murder and terrorism and stole the countries oil like Saudia Arabia. It is not like they murdered a million Iraquis like Saddam and Company. It not like they bomb and murder innocent civilians like Yasser Arafat has. It is not like they stole billions of dollars like Ken Lay and the boys and girls at Enron and Worldcom. It is not like 1000's and 1000's of people don't do much worse every single day and get off scott free.

Prosecute them fully but try and keep it in perspective, huh.

[shanstress70]

It's not like they BEHEADED SOMEONE!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

The world's outrage over the sadistic homoerotic humiliate-fest perpetrated by the mouth-breathing morons at the Abu Ghraib prison shows yet again that for all their anti-American diatribes, they really do believe that we are better than they are. Call it the Yankee Man's Burden.

Think that's a little over the top? How many people know about the sex trafficking, enforced prostitution, and systematic rape committed by UN peacekeepers in Kosovo? Or the physical torture of children (documented by photographs) committed by Belgian peacekeepers in Somalia? Or the rape, torture, and abuse by peacekeepers on numerous other occasions around the world? There are instances of brutality by representatives of the United Nations that go far beyond what happened in the Iraqi prison. Humiliation and psychological abuse are real, and deserving of punishment (which will happen), but they're of a lesser grade than physical torture. I can only conclude that the incomparably greater outrage over lesser abuses can only be explained because America is held to a higher standard. You hold equals to equal standards. You hold superiors to higher standards.

The truth is that anytime people are given power over other people, there's a potential for bullying. That will happen anywhere, whether you're talking about the internationalist dream of blue-helmeted peacemakers, or the neoconservative dream of an American liberating army, or even in our own prisons in times of peace. (Plenty of state attorneys general with sterling liberal credentials are on record making jokes about, or implicitly condoning, the rape and abuse that is rampant in our domestic prison system.)

There are three groups of people who share the responsibility for the murder of Mr. Berg -- first, and in a class by themselves, the savages who killed him; second, the idiots who gave them their excuse (although al-Qaeda doesn't really need an excuse to kill us infidels); and third, anyone who showboats about this story for political gain, or keeps the story and the outrage burning one ounce more than is necessary to make the necessary changes to reduce the chances of something like this happening again.

[Tr2]

It's not like they BEHEADED SOMEONE!

We can't be making those kinds of comparissons. Those whou would behead an innocent POW are the lowest of the low. We are better than those people and cannot compare our soldiers to the terrorists that have no respect for life whatsoever.

This prisoner abuse is terrible to say the least. It is a complete lack of professionalism among the soldiers who committed such crimes. An excellent example of professionalism in a military prison is what has been shown at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Right after 9/11 when the country was atill very emotional and many wanted the flat out execution of those being held in Gitmo. Stories of prisoner abuse were few and far between at Gitmo. Maybe it's because the ones in charge are Marines and the ones in Iraq are from the Army. What has been revealed is that the Army needs to shape up and instill professionalism in its soldiers. I do hope they make examples of those who have committed crimes. We are better than terrorists for good reasons and stooping to their level spells nothing but trouble for us.

[Guest Starsky]

I just think it shows us that we are not above any other country morally, ethically, nor mentally. We are just animals after all.

I have never been so disappointed in my countrymen as I have been with this abuse, the reportting insesantly of the abuse, and the run for cover attitude of the people who perpetrated the abuse....

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Starsky@May 13 2004, 09:44 AM

I just think it shows us that we are not above any other country morally, ethically, nor mentally. We are just animals after all.

I have never been so disappointed in my countrymen as I have been with this abuse, the reportting insesantly of the abuse, and the run for cover attitude of the people who perpetrated the abuse....

As Tonto once said, "what you mean 'we," paleface?" You didn't abuse anyone. Neither did I, nor did the vast majority of American troops, who are ashamed of the stain on the country's honor the abusive prison guards have left.

So American society contains its share of bullies, whose nastiness comes out when they are put in a position of unfettered authority and those who are supposed to exercise leadership, don't. I still say that the fact that so much of the world is going on and on about this, which is substantially less nasty than things that go unremarked when done by other societies, shows that the world really does regard us as morally higher than other countries.

When our prison guards commit abuse, they're investigated and court-martialed. When soldiers of many other countries commit actual, physical torture, they're either tolerated or promoted -- and world opinion doesn't have a thing to say.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

A Vatican spokesman called the prison abuses worse for America than 9/11.

A New York legislator had a strong response:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_...7p-166794c.html

Ouch.

[Tr2]

We are just animals after all.

Speak for yourself.

You didn't abuse anyone. Neither did I, nor did the vast majority of American troops, who are ashamed of the stain on the country's honor the abusive prison guards have left

Interesting point with one important fact that we must remember. Whenever a person whooses to wear the uniform, they are representing the country. Whatever they do does indeed reflect on every American at home and at war.

A Vatican spokesman called the prison abuses worse for America than 9/11.

What a ###### ######.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Trident -- Check out the response to the Vatican spokesman at the link I posted. Basically, the guy said that the Catholic Church is the last organization that has any right to criticize others for sexual abuse.

Again -- ouch.

[punaboy]

Beating Specialist Baker

By Nicholas D. Kristof

NYTimes Op-Ed

6-7-4

The prison abuse scandal refuses to die because soothing White House explanations keep colliding with revelations about dead prisoners and further connivance by senior military officers - and newly discovered victims, like Sean Baker.

If Sean Baker doesn't sound like an Iraqi name, it isn't. Specialist Baker, 37, is an American, and he was a proud U.S. soldier. An Air Force veteran and member of the Kentucky National Guard, he served in the first gulf war and more recently was a military policeman in Guantánamo Bay.

Then in January 2003, an officer in Guantánamo asked him to pretend to be a prisoner in a training drill. As instructed, Mr. Baker put on an orange prison jumpsuit over his uniform, and then crawled under a bunk in a cell so an "internal reaction force" could practice extracting an uncooperative inmate. The five U.S. soldiers in the reaction force were told that he was a genuine detainee who had already assaulted a sergeant.

Despite more than a week of coaxing, I haven't been able to get Mr. Baker to give an interview. But he earlier told a Kentucky television station what happened next:

"They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and unfortunately one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he - the same individual - reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe. When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was `red.' . . . That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: `I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier.' "

Then the soldiers noticed that he was wearing a U.S. battle dress uniform under the jumpsuit. Mr. Baker was taken to a military hospital for treatment of his head injuries, then flown to a Navy hospital in Portsmouth, Va. After a six-day hospitalization there, he was given a two-week discharge to rest.

But Mr. Baker began suffering seizures, so the military sent him to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center for treatment of a traumatic brain injury. He stayed at the hospital for 48 days, was transferred to light duty in an honor burial detail at Fort Dix, N.J., and was finally given a medical discharge two months ago.

Meanwhile, a military investigation concluded that there had been no misconduct involved in Mr. Baker's injury. Hmm. The military also says it can't find a videotape that is believed to have been made of the incident.

Most appalling, when Mr. Baker told his story to a Kentucky reporter, the military lied in a disgraceful effort to undermine his credibility. Maj. Laurie Arellano, a spokeswoman for the Southern Command, questioned the extent of Mr. Baker's injuries and told reporters that his medical discharge was unrelated to the injuries he had suffered in the training drill.

In fact, however, the Physical Evaluation Board of the Army stated in a document dated Sept. 29, 2003: "The TBI [traumatic brain injury] was due to soldier playing role of detainee who was non-cooperative and was being extracted from detention cell in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during a training exercise."

Major Arellano acknowledges that she misstated the facts and says she had been misinformed herself by medical personnel. She now says the medical discharge was related in part - but only in part, she says - to the "accident."

Mr. Baker, who is married and has a 14-year-old son, is now unemployed, taking nine prescription medications and still suffering frequent seizures. His lawyer, Bruce Simpson, has been told that Mr. Baker may not begin to get disability payments for up to 18 months. If he is judged 100 percent disabled, he will then get a maximum of $2,100 a month.

If the U.S. military treats one of its own soldiers this way - allowing him to be battered, and lying to cover it up - then imagine what happens to Afghans and Iraqis.

President Bush attributed the problems uncovered at Abu Ghraib to "a few American troops who dishonored our country." Mr. Bush, the problems go deeper than a few bad apples.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Tr2]

If the U.S. military treats one of its own soldiers this way - allowing him to be battered, and lying to cover it up - then imagine what happens to Afghans and Iraqis.

It's crap like this that we don't need. Pure speculation without cause. That word, "imagine" has no place here. Deal with the facts and facts alone and leave the storytelling for your grandkids.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Most appalling, when Mr. Baker told his story to a Kentucky reporter, the military lied in a disgraceful effort to undermine his credibility. Maj. Laurie Arellano, a spokeswoman for the Southern Command, questioned the extent of Mr. Baker's injuries and told reporters that his medical discharge was unrelated to the injuries he had suffered in the training drill . . . Major Arellano acknowledges that she misstated the facts and says she had been misinformed herself by medical personnel. She now says the medical discharge was related in part - but only in part, she says - to the "accident."

One of the differences between being an attorney and being a journalist is that the lawyer is supposed to allege dishonesty with specificity -- that is, when he accuses someone of lying, he needs to cite the who, when, and how. Journalists, especially opinion journalists, can go tossing accusations of lying around as soon as they spot any inaccurate statement. Since dueling is no longer in fashion, nothing ever comes of it.

Who "misinformed" the spokeswoman? Did they do so knowingly? What exactly did they say? Mightn't she have simply misinterpreted the information that she was given? Motion to strike for lack of specificity of allegations of deceit granted.

I do like the scare quotes around the word "accident." What was it, then? Did the response team intend to cause a brain injury to a U.S. soldier? It looks to me like what happened was similar to what happens when any ordinary idiot resists arrest by a civilian officer. People who pick fights with cops tend to get taken down hard. Sometimes they get hurt in the process; it's virtually impossible to subdue someone who doesn't want to be subdued without that risk. The mistake was in trying to make the exercise more "realistic" by telling the response team the simulated detainee was a real one.

If the U.S. military treats one of its own soldiers this way - allowing him to be battered, and lying to cover it up - then imagine what happens to Afghans and Iraqis.

The dolt ought to read his own article. The response team did think it was dealing with a real detainee, not "one of its own soldiers." The natural conclusion is that generally, Afghan and Iraqi prisoners get treated the same way unruly American prisoners do.

[punaboy]

Proud Duck:

"The dolt ought to read his own article. The response team did think it was dealing with a real detainee, not "one of its own soldiers." The natural conclusion is that generally, Afghan and Iraqi prisoners get treated the same way unruly American prisoners do."

read carefully:

"If the U.S. military treats one of its own soldiers this way - allowing him to be battered, and lying to cover it up - then imagine what happens to Afghans and Iraqis."

this sentence doesn't refer to the "response team" you mention, but to the commanders who set this fiasco up, and then lied about it.

and yes, Tr2, folks will draw logical conclusions about such things. There is nothing wrong with using logic to extrapolate to conclusion. This is not fantasizing, but deduction.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

this sentence doesn't refer to the "response team" you mention, but to the commanders who set this fiasco up, and then lied about it.

I didn't see anything about "commanders." I saw a reference to the U.S. military -- the whole system. The commanders set up an exercise intended to be as realistic as possible -- namely, one where the simulated detainee would be treated exactly the same way as the response team would treat a real resisting detainee. Obviously, the response team contains at least one hyper-amped meathead who needs a little more training in the professional application of force -- not to mention a hearing check so he can process the code word for "stop the exercise."

(An aside -- Whose idiot idea was it to have a one-syllable word be the code to stop an exercise that the participants thought was real? As if, in the middle a struggle, people of limited intelligence (any veterans, feel free to correct my perception that MPs aren't typically the brightest tools in the military shed) are going to be able to process the meaning of the word "red.")

The article's point (and yours, I suppose) was that if MPs act like this towards a simulated detainee in a training exercise, they must behave worse in real life. I suggest that the very fact that the training officers tried to make this exercise so realistic -- "train like you fight, fight like you train" -- indicates that actual practice is generally similar to what happened to the simulated detainee. That is, people who resist, get taken down hard, and sometimes they get hurt. It's irrational to extrapolate from this training exercise that, if the simulated detainee got slammed on the floor, real detainees are broken on the rack or roasted alive. If anything, the Abu Ghraib abuses resulted from too little training (the guards were all reservists), not too realistic training.

And there you go again, accusing people of lying without evidence. Read the article again. The only misstatements mentioned are by the medical officers, who misinformed the Southern Command spokeswoman. There's no allegation that the training commanders made any misstatement, let alone intentional ones.

[punaboy]

Oh, I see--you not only have no critical thinking skills, you also cannot read for content. Very Sad, dude! Can you take classes for that?

[punaboy]

You're excused from this one, PD. You can color, quietly:

"Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture

Justice Dept. Gave Advice in 2002

By Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, June 8, 2004; Page A01

In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.

If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later.

The memo seems to counter the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, assumption that U.S. government personnel would never be permitted to torture captives. It was offered after the CIA began detaining and interrogating suspected al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the wake of the attacks, according to government officials familiar with the document.

The legal reasoning in the 2002 memo, which covered treatment of al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, was later used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense Department's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked the lawyers to examine the logistical, policy and legal issues associated with interrogation techniques.

Bush administration officials say flatly that, despite the discussion of legal issues in the two memos, it has abided by international conventions barring torture, and that detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere have been treated humanely, except in the cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq for which seven military police soldiers have been charged.

Still, the 2002 and 2003 memos reflect the Bush administration's desire to explore the limits on how far it could legally go in aggressively interrogating foreigners suspected of terrorism or of having information that could thwart future attacks.

In the 2002 memo, written for the CIA and addressed to White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, the Justice Department defined torture in a much narrower way, for example, than does the U.S. Army, which has historically carried out most wartime interrogations.

In the Justice Department's view -- contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post -- inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

By contrast, the Army's Field Manual 34-52, titled "Intelligence Interrogations," sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis.

Human rights groups expressed dismay at the Justice Department's legal reasoning yesterday.

"It is by leaps and bounds the worst thing I've seen since this whole Abu Ghraib scandal broke," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It appears that what they were contemplating was the commission of war crimes and looking for ways to avoid legal accountability. The effect is to throw out years of military doctrine and standards on interrogations."

But a spokesman for the White House counsel's office said, "The president directed the military to treat al Qaeda and Taliban humanely and consistent with the Geneva Conventions."

Mark Corallo, the Justice Department's chief spokesman, said "the department does not comment on specific legal advice it has provided confidentially within the executive branch." But he added: "It is the policy of the United States to comply with all U.S. laws in the treatment of detainees -- including the Constitution, federal statutes and treaties." The CIA declined to comment.

The Justice Department's interpretation for the CIA sought to provide guidance on what sorts of aggressive treatments might not fall within the legal definition of torture.

The 2002 memo, for example, included the interpretation that "it is difficult to take a specific act out of context and conclude that the act in isolation would constitute torture." The memo named seven techniques that courts have considered torture, including severe beatings with truncheons and clubs, threats of imminent death, burning with cigarettes, electric shocks to genitalia, rape or sexual assault, and forcing a prisoner to watch the torture of another person.

"While we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these seven would not constitute torture," the memo advised, ". . . we believe that interrogation techniques would have to be similar to these in their extreme nature and in the type of harm caused to violate law."

"For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture," the memo said, "it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." Examples include the development of mental disorders, drug-induced dementia, "post traumatic stress disorder which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression."

Of mental torture, however, an interrogator could show he acted in good faith by "taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts or reviewing evidence gained in past experience" to show he or she did not intend to cause severe mental pain and that the conduct, therefore, "would not amount to the acts prohibited by the statute."

In 2003, the Defense Department conducted its own review of the limits that govern torture, in consultation with experts at the Justice Department and other agencies. The aim of the March 6, 2003, review, conducted by a working group that included representatives of the military services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence community, was to provide a legal basis for what the group's report called "exceptional interrogations."

Much of the reasoning in the group's report and in the Justice Department's 2002 memo overlap. The documents, which address treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, were not written to apply to detainees held in Iraq.

In a draft of the working group's report, for example, Pentagon lawyers approvingly cited the Justice Department's 2002 position that domestic and international laws prohibiting torture could be trumped by the president's wartime authority and any directives he issued.

At the time, the Justice Department's legal analysis, however, shocked some of the military lawyers who were involved in crafting the new guidelines, said senior defense officials and military lawyers.

"Every flag JAG lodged complaints," said one senior Pentagon official involved in the process, referring to the judge advocate generals who are military lawyers of each service.

"It's really unprecedented. For almost 30 years we've taught the Geneva Convention one way," said a senior military attorney. "Once you start telling people it's okay to break the law, there's no telling where they might stop."

A U.S. law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon group's report, prepared under the supervision of General Counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority."

The Pentagon group's report, divulged yesterday by the Wall Street Journal and obtained by The Post, said further that the 1994 law barring torture "does not apply to the conduct of U.S. personnel" at Guantanamo Bay.

It also said the anti-torture law did apply to U.S. military interrogations that occurred outside U.S. "maritime and territorial jurisdiction," such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it said both Congress and the Justice Department would have difficulty enforcing the law if U.S. military personnel could be shown to be acting as a result of presidential orders.

The report then parsed at length the definition of torture under domestic and international law, with an eye toward guiding military personnel about legal defenses.

The Pentagon report uses language very similar to that in the 2002 Justice Department memo written in response to the CIA's request: "If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," the draft states. "In that case, DOJ [Department of Justice] believes that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

The draft goes on to assert that a soldier's claim that he was following "superior orders" would be available for those engaged in "exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful." It asserts, as does the Justice view expressed for the CIA, that the mere infliction of pain and suffering is not unlawful; the pain or suffering must be severe.

A Defense Department spokesman said last night that the March 2003 memo represented "a scholarly effort to define the perimeters of the law" but added: "What is legal and what is put into practice is a different story." Pentagon officials said the group examined at least 35 interrogation techniques, and Rumsfeld later approved using 24 of them in a classified directive on April 16, 2003, that governed all activities at Guantanamo Bay. The Pentagon has refused to make public the 24 interrogation procedures.

Staff writer Josh White contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[punaboy]

you *might* be able to read this one PD, but if not, your coloring is very nice today :

"US 'Not Bound By

Torture Laws'

BBC News

6-7-4

A Pentagon report last year argued that President George W Bush was not bound by laws banning the use of torture, according to the Wall Street Journal. The document also argued that torturers acting under presidential orders could not be prosecuted, the paper said.

The report was written by military and civilian lawyers for US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

It came after staff at Guantanamo Bay complained normal interrogation tactics were not eliciting enough information.

The document outlined why restrictions on torture under US laws and international treaties might be overcome by considerations for national security or legal technicalities, the newspaper reported.

Vital intelligence

The draft argued that because nothing was more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens" normal strictures on torture might not apply, according to the Journal.

The report contended that the president, as commander-in-chief, has the authority to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, including torture, the newspaper reported.

It said it had reviewed a draft dated 6 March, 2003, and had not seen the full final report.

But people familiar with the final text said there were few substantial changes from the draft version, the Wall Street Journal added.

It is not known whether President George W Bush has ever seen the report.

The Bush administration has said it supports the Geneva Conventions and humane treatment for detainees.

© BBC MMIV http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/378...83869.stm"

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Anyone who wants to pat me on the back for declining to use my Majestic Moderator Powers to delete this sorry ###### to hell and gone, please feel free.

[Faerie]

i think you should exercise to the 10th degree darling :)

[Tr2]

and yes, Tr2, folks will draw logical conclusions about such things. There is nothing wrong with using logic to extrapolate to conclusion. This is not fantasizing, but deduction.

Who are you trying to kid? The authors of those idiotic articles are making every attempt they can to demonize the soldiers that are defending the country that you live in.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by punaboy@Jun 8 2004, 11:47 AM

Oh, I see--you not only have no critical thinking skills, you also cannot read for content. Very Sad, dude! Can you take classes for that?

Could you please do us the courtesy of pointing out exactly where I misstated the content of the article you quoted? You stated that the commanders who set up the training exercise lied about it. I said that statement isn't backed up by the text of the article, which only alleges misstatements -- not necessarily lies -- by medical personnel. If you'd like to offer a rebuttal consisting of something other than third-rate smartassery about coloring books, feel free.

It seems to me, Punaboy, that you've shown your true colors pretty clearly. You're a bush-league wannabe intellectual who thinks that "critical thinking" consists of nothing more than banging away at a perceived right-of-center conventional wisdom. Sorry, mon ami, there's a bit more to it than that. And no, it doesn't consist of those wildly original comparisons of conservative politicians to [surprise!] Hitler. You think you're thinking outside the box, when you're just thinking in a different-colored box.

And it also seems to me that there's something unseemly in the relish with which you focus on the prisoner-abuse issue. I don't think you're criticizing in good faith. I think you're interested in using the abuse scandal to try and make a larger political point. That's dishonorable. The prisoner abuses are a stain on the country's honor. The right thing to do is to address them and remove that stain as much as possible, discussing these things as long as it takes -- and not a word longer -- to get to the bottom of what went wrong, keep them from happening again.

I will let the absurdity of the likes of you presuming to comment on my intelligence speak for itself -- and suggest that there is enough discourtesy on these boards from time to time without the benefit of your puny version thereof.

[punaboy]

Tr2 says:

"The authors of those idiotic articles are making every attempt they can to demonize the soldiers that are defending the country that you live in."

Not so, the authors are trying to demonize the politicians who are ordering your soldiers to commit atrocities.

The fact is, torture is against some very strict US laws, and conspiracy to commit torture is an impeachanle offense. To wit:

Authorization of Torture by Bush an Impeachable Offense

The United States DID ratify the Convention back in 1994.

(CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE)

We also passed a federal statute outlawing it, and assigning severe criminal penalties.

See: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch113C.html and http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2340A.html.

(a) Offense. -

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall

be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and

if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection,

shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(B) Jurisdiction. -

There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if -

(1)

the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2)

the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the

nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

© Conspiracy. -

A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be

subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties

prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the

conspiracy.

So, arguably, it's an impeachable offense for the President of the United States to authorize the use of torture under any circumstances.

I sure hope Dubyah doesn't mind the color orange.

http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2004/05/to...-logic-umm.html

-----------------------------------

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

An excerpt -

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked

as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the

competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

PD says:

"Could you please do us the courtesy of pointing out exactly where I misstated the content of the article you quoted? "

Actually, I invited you to read more carefully, but you refused, and repeated your errors. I am not here to teach you how to read.

"I will let the absurdity of the likes of you presuming to comment on my intelligence speak for itself -- and suggest that there is enough discourtesy on these boards from time to time without the benefit of your puny version thereof."

I will be courteous, when you stop calling me a liar just because I have a different opinion than you.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Punaboy,

I didn't call you a liar before -- but I'm calling you a liar now. You just lied about me calling you a liar. Show me where I did so, and I'll be happy to retract and apologize.

This is all wonderfully ironic, because our whole argument is over your unjustified accusation that "the U.S. military" or "commanders" lied about the training-accident injury discussed in the article you posted. I pointed out that the only misstatements identified in that article were by medical personnel, and there was no evidence that the misstatements were made with knowledge of their falsity. I see no other reasonable way to read that article. Your continued silence as to that point, and your hiding behind that lame "I am not here to teach you to read" is very telling.

Look -- you read into that article something that's not there. Now you're huffing and puffing because that's been pointed out to you. It takes a big man to admit he's wrong. You show no marks of being a big man.

[Snow]

Back on topic:

I was reading a US News today. Under a picture of a female soldier smiling and giving the thumbs up next to the corpse of an Iraqi formerly-alive-person and a US soldier scaring an Iraqi prisoner by having a dog bark at him - it said: "US atrocities... blah, blah, blah."

Give me a break!

Every single day Iraqi murderers are murdering and the media has a fit over that kind of patter - distasteful and worthy of punishment though it may be.

Oh, and ProudDuck,

Do you think anybody thinks that Punaboy is gaining ground in his arguments with you?

[Tr2]

It's interesting how the only country, involved in active war at this time, that actually sticks to the Geneva convention is the one that everybody wants to blame for everything that has ever gone wrong. These soldiers are being blamed for everything except the Kennedy assassination.

The pictures that we've all seen on TV are the best examples of psychological warfare that can be produced. Those photos were meant to demoralize our enemy and lessen their willingness to fight. And I'll bet they worked very well. And if you know the culture of the enemy that we are fighting then you know how well they probably worked. Excellent warfare!!!

Funny how the stories of a few Americans who, for argument's sake we'll say, got carried away, overshadow the people who strap expolsives to their chest and walk into a crowded group of innocent people. The people who teach their children to do the same thing. Are you upset because we aren't treating these POW's better than we treat our soldiers? How about the fact that we don't allow prisoners to have more rights than those who are free? These are people who would kill you, me, and everybody we cared about if they got the chance. If 9/11 didn't prove what kind of enemy we are up against then I don't know what version of reality you are experiencing.

I think the way that the American forces have fought this war should be commended. In no other war has civilian casualties been such great concern to a fighting force than this one. Skill and compassion is why so many civilians have not died. Have some, yes.

The real problem is that the people who have such a problem with war, have never experienced what it is like to fight for your freedom. They have never lost theirs. Because of the men with guns, that you detest so much, you can live the life you are living. There are men and women with automatic weapons preserving your children's futures, and if you don't like it then don't sit under the blanket of freedom and liberty that is freely provided to you and take pot shots at the people who give it to you without asking anything in return.

If you don't like it you have a few options:

1) Leave

2) Keep your mouth shut. Just because you have something to say doesn't mean it's worth hearing. for once in your life think about somebody other than yourself and your own opinions.