posted on May 8, 2004 06:46:52 PM new
::WHAT REPORT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? AS I SAID I DIDN'T HEAR RUMSFELD'S FULL TESTIMONY...ALL I HEARD WERE ABOUT THE PICTURES SHOWN....NOTHING ELSE.::
Linda this is a fast breaking, new info daily story. You seem to want to discuss it but are two days behind in the information. Perhaps you should read on the past dayor two of reports before you continue discussing it because there have been statements from military officials govermental officals attesting to things that you are arguing are "leftist" propaganda. The report in question is the one that Runsfeld did not read for a month, copy of whiich can be found at cbsnews.com
:: DO YOU THINK SADDAM WAS FOLLOWING THOSE RULES? TOR MAYBE YOU COULD TELL ME OF ANY M.E. LEADER WHO'S FOLLOWED THOSE RULES....THAT'S THE POINT. ::
No it's not Linda - THAT is an arguement of desperation. I thought we were supposed to be better than them. Our military code of conduct does not work on a sliding scale according to the foe. There are clearly defined expectations and they were tossed out the window. This is not conjecture, or baseless accusation, this fact and even Top generals and Runsfeld agree. I don't understand why you are still trying to defend it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 8, 2004 06:47 PM ]
posted on May 8, 2004 07:55:05 PM newWHAT REPORT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? AS I SAID I DIDN'T HEAR RUMSFELD'S FULL TESTIMONY...ALL I HEARD WERE ABOUT THE PICTURES SHOWN....NOTHING ELSE.
Linda: unless you live in a windowless box, it is hard to see how you could have avoided hearing the details of what happened, and the report that was written by General Taguba. It is discussed on the news (print, radio & TV) several times a day. Rumsfeld's testimony has also been heavily covered. Heck, just here on the RT there have been a few threads on it that contain links, too. But if you say so, OK.
AGAIN....WHO SAID THAT You posted statements from a source that attempts to deny and/or downplay what happened. Now usually when one posts links or statments for use in a debate, they are one that uphold your belief or argument for subject under debate. So you're saying you don't agree with the statements you posted?
I HOPE YOU'RE NOT SO NAIVE TO THINK THAT MOST OF THE WORLD ESPECIALLY ONES IN THE M.E. FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION RULES. DO YOU THINK SADDAM WAS FOLLOWING THOSE RULES? TOR MAYBE YOU COULD TELL ME OF ANY M.E. LEADER WHO'S FOLLOWED THOSE RULES....THAT'S THE POINT.
No, Linda. The point is that WE should be following the Geneva Convention. WE signed the Convention for a very good reason. And we portray ourselves as being the best country in the world, with the highest standards. Bush says our mission is to spread our ideals & way of life to other countries, whether they like it or not...how can we hold the moral high ground if we stoop to tactics like this? I don't give a rat's patootie how other countries approach this matter--I want to be proud of my country.
NO PROOF. Our own military admits it, Linda. Why can't you?
IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY KILLED HIM INTENTIONALLY. HE COULD HAVE HAD A HEARTATTACK...FROM FEAR...LACK OF SLEEP ANYBODIES GUESS. AGAIN.
If you are interrogating someone in such a manner that you kill them, whether by accident or not, you are using methods that are not and should not be condoned.
WHAT YOU ARE CHOOSING TO IGNORE...IS IT WASN'T OUR MILITARY SOLDIER. NO ONES EXCUSING IT....JUST POINTING OUR WHEN THE LEFT IS TRYING TO BLAME THIS ALL ON AMERICAN SOLDIERS. I'M SURE YOU WANT ALL THE FACTS...LOL...NOT BE LEAD TO BELIEVE SOMETHING IS TRUE WHEN IT'S NOT.
What you choose to ignore is the fact that the man in question was under OUR authority. Our military authority, working in a prison being run by US.
AND ACCORDING TO RUMSFELD...NOT SEEN BY HIM EITHER UNTIL A FEW DAYS AGO...THEY HADN'T MADE IT TO HIS LEVEL YET. HOW SAD YOU ARE ONE OF MANY THAT ARE SO QUICK TO PLACE BLAME EVEN ON THINGS THAT HAVEN'T HAPPENED..
Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. To quote: "The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council." Rumsfeld should have seen the report immediately. If he didn't, why didn't he?!? What the heck is going on that our chain of command is so fouled up?
"Claiming that 9-11 and the "war on terror" justifies our military acting in this manner is also a crock of #*!@." AGAIN....BLOWING THE ACTIONS OF A VERY FEW TOTALLY OUT OF PROPORTION. NO PERSPECTIVE. PARTISAN POLITICS....AT IT'S BEST.
Actually, Linda, I'm pretty middle-of-the-road, politically. I don't belong to either the Republican or the Democratic parties. I will vote for either if they stand for things I believe in or believe should be done--or are just plain the lesser of two evils, as is often the case.
And I do have perspective. More than you, it seems in this case.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 8, 2004 08:04:17 PM new
Since women don't enjoy equal status in the Muslim world, the photos depicting a woman soldier perpetrating crimes against a Muslim male are particularly enraging. The U.S. military will have extreme difficulty recovering from this setback. Rummy needs go!
posted on May 8, 2004 08:43:33 PM new
The Geneva convention says what is allowed...
Just because I agree that what is done was not right, I do not think those prisoners should be set free until such time as ALL conflict is over or the New Iraqi government says to release them.
You have to separate the treatment from the reason they are there...
posted on May 8, 2004 09:54:55 PM new
fenix/bunni/et al -
I had read the Taguba report yesterday. I thought you were talking about some new report. No where that I can see does it address oral copulation. It refers to 'simulating sexual acts'. And that I have seen or read about....there are no pictures showing oral copulation. Not that there won't be....but I've been addressing what we know NOW....not what the press has been 'guessing we might see in the future'.
---------------
fenix -
Aren't you at least a little curious as to why the right wing is trying so hard to find justification for something that not even the military or Bush administration support.
I don't see any one on the right justifying anything. I see them understanding that this country is at war. We're not at a tea party where everything is perfect. And I haven't read one person say what happened was okay or acceptable. But I have read many articles who agree that those who are jumping with joy about this embarassment to our military and to the Bush administration are blowing it all out of proportion. And they're always very quick to condemn America for it's actions...while giving a pass to what our enemies do to us. And I agree with that.
2) How are you reconciling in your mind your consistant assertations of innocent until proven guilty for the americans but not for the Iraqi detainees?
Not clear here on exactly what you're asking. The Iraqi detainess are being held because our military has made the judgement call they need to be there. Reports have listed the reasons for their detainment. And those who have acted inappropriately against them have/or will be disciplined. But if they're there, being detained....it's for a reason. This is war....not our criminal justice system in the US. They're POWs.
3) LInda - you copied, pasted and bolded a statement stating that detainees forced to orally copulate each other suffered nothing more than embarassment.
What the hell does that have to do with anything "leftist"?
You have yet to post where I bolded anything about oral copulation.
'Leftist' = [the anybody-but-Bush-crowd]
It's a shameful position we find our country in and it's being used and exploited, IMO, by those on the left to further their political clout. Those same people who rag against their country's actions....but rarely against the actions of our enemies.
posted on May 8, 2004 10:12:50 PM new
When Bush was going against bin Laden & the al-Qaeda, he had most everyone's support. Few "ragged" on him. When he dropped that as a priority and lied to get us into Iraq was when he lost the support of half the people in the country. And with the scandal going on, that number is going up.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 8, 2004 10:15:19 PM new
Perhaps to better understand what happened some of you may wish to read this:
'Cooks and drivers were working as interrogators'
Witness: private contractor lifts the lid on systematic failures at Abu Ghraib jail
Julian Borger in Washington
Friday May 7, 2004
The Guardian
Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian.
Torin Nelson, who served as a military intelligence officer at Guantánamo Bay before moving to Abu Ghraib as a private contractor last year, blamed the abuses on a failure of command in US military intelligence and an over-reliance on private firms. He alleged that those companies were so anxious to meet the demand for their services that they sent "cooks and truck drivers" to work as interrogators.
This thread presents a good illustration of how the right wing press fails to inform, keeping their readers in the dark. In order to keep yourselves informed about daily events, you should at least read one major newspaper such as the Washington Post or the New York Times....and NO, they are not liberal.
The ignorance displayed on this thread is embarrassing to say the least.
posted on May 9, 2004 06:58:09 AM new
And that charge is getting old and trite, twelvepole and only serves to make you appear silly. Good Americans who care about their country are not anti-American but rather anti-Bush!
I've been waiting for you guys to blame Clinton for the situation in Abu Ghraib. Rather than finding a solution to your never ending bungled operations you usually blame Hillary or Bill.
posted on May 9, 2004 06:59:39 AM new
This may have been posted here previously but perhaps some may find it useful.
PRUTSMAN'S World News provides convenient links to leading North American and international news outlets, as well as certain regional and government-controlled news media which, while of uncertain credibility or objectivity, nevertheless represent important regional and national perspectives.
You can click on Frequent Questions to understand it better if you wish to.
posted on May 9, 2004 07:14:29 AM new
Good links to news sources, kiara. Here are a couple of links to the Rumsfeld testimony for those who missed the TV coverage.
Harman, a 26-year-old Army reservist from Alexandria, said members of her military police unit took direction from Army military intelligence officers, from CIA operatives and from civilian contractors who conducted interrogations
"The Geneva Convention was never posted, and none of us remember taking a class to review it," Harman said. "The first time reading it was two months after being charged. I read the entire thing highlighting everything the prison is in violation of. There's a lot."
In his investigation, Taguba used a portion of Harman's sworn statement to conclude that prisoners had been abused. Harman "stated . . . regarding the incident where a detainee was placed on box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis, 'that her job was to keep detainees awake.' "
It's understandable when you look at the newest picture released by Seymour Hersh, of a naked man cowering in abject terror, how George Bush's America is being compared by some to Nazi Germany.
posted on May 10, 2004 01:51:10 PM new
I think we'll need to wait until an investigation into the whole thing occures. Not jump to conclusions about exactly what has been 'kept from us'.....as first glances aren't always the correct ones.
If Bush followed this advice we wouldn't be at war right now....where are those WMD's??
Good thing Bush originally wanted an investigation into 9/11?
I am surprised that Bush actually wanted an investigation into abuse of the Iraqi prisoners.
posted on May 10, 2004 04:06:51 PM newBush's Backing of Rumsfeld Shocks and Angers Arabs
DUBAI (Reuters) - Arab commentators reacted with shock and disbelief on Monday over President Bush's robust backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation.
Critics had called for him to quit after the furor over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners but analysts, editors and ordinary Arabs were united in their condemnation of Bush who said the United States owed Rumsfeld a "debt of gratitude."
"After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It's just incredible. I am in total shock," said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.
"Bush's praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States...and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world," he added.
Analysts have said the damage from images seen worldwide of U.S. soldiers abusing naked Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison would be indelible, incalculable and a gift to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
What people saw, they said, was the true image of the occupation: humiliation of an occupied people, contempt for Islam, sadism and racism.
"After Mr. Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service," Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. "Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American."
posted on May 11, 2004 11:15:50 AM new
Linda: So are you saying that you believe this President condons the Iraqi abuses?
I never said that.
I was suggesting Bush would never have called for an investigation unless he was pressured to do so. The Red Cross informed the US of abuse before all this came out in the news. If this true, Bush could have done an investigation before now. He should have taken a pro-active approach to prevent further abuse from taking place. Neither he nor any of the other senior military officials did anything to prevent further abuse from taking place once this was discovered by the Red Cross. As "commander in chief" he is supposed to know what is going on with the war. He has daily briefing with his ad visors.
Where is what I am basing my opinion on:
He didn't want a commission investigating the events of 9/11 unless he was pressured. He didn't want Rice to testify before that commission until he was pressured. He and the VP were not going to testify until they were pressured. Bush originally didn't make an apology to the Arab nations, then changed his mind the next day....I wonder why? Why does Bush need to pressured into doing something? What is he hiding? The only thing he wasn't pressured into doing was going to war in Iraq. This he acted alone on.
I bet Bush wishes he didn't made such a big deal about the pictures of the soldier's caskets. Those were a lot less humiliating than the prisoner abuse photos.
posted on May 12, 2004 12:04:59 AM new
"The Red Cross complained last Fall and was ignored" It was not ignored. Press release in Jan. 1st & 2nd investigation completed. Feb. press release 6 charged. ( we had a tread on it.). More charges may be coming. Commanding Gen. removed.
The Geneva Convention does not apply. When the last Prisoners of war were released. all that remain are Terrorist and Combatants. They do not fall under the Geneva accords nor under the International Red Cross unless it is approved by our Government which is in command of the coalition. The Red Cross was the 1st investigation.
posted on May 12, 2004 05:44:12 AM new
There is a very good editorial in today's Washington Post concerning the issue of Geneva and the efforts of the ICRC to monitor it.
The first sentence in the article... THE BUSH administration still seeks to mislead Congress and the public about the policies that contributed to the criminal abuse of prisoners in Iraq.
Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence....assured the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration's policy had always been to strictly observe the Geneva Conventions in Iraq; that all procedures for interrogations in Iraq were sanctioned under the conventions; and that the abuses of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison were consequently the isolated acts of individuals. These assertions are contradicted by International Red Cross and Army investigators, by U.S. generals overseeing the prisoners, and by Mr. Cambone himself.
But if President Bush and his senior officials would acknowledge their complicity in playing fast and loose with international law and would pledge to change course, they might begin to find a way out of the mess. Instead, they hope to escape from this scandal without altering or even admitting the improper and illegal policies that lie at its core. It is a vain hope, and Congress should insist on a different response.
posted on May 12, 2004 08:17:01 AM newone major newspaper such as the Washington Post or the New York Times....and NO, they are not liberal.
Maybe not to YOU lol ....but I'd like to hear of any other 'mainstream' newspaper in the U.S. who's seen as *more liberal*, or leans further to the left than the NYT.
