Posted on 07/03/2004 7:20:27 AM PDT by Brian Mosely
karpinski is the reason women shouldn't be generals in combat zones. her whining is deafening, i didn't trust her when the story first surfaced.
she's respnsible for nothing. as another freeper said...STFU.
The General is responsible for the actions of her troops and if she wasn't aware of what was going on with her little band of pornographers and sex addicts running loose in the prison, then she has been ill-served by her subordinates and they should all be fired. Muddying the waters by insinuating that the Jews are to blame for the scandal is so Nazi-like. These yammering Clintonesque generals think nothing of putting America's foreign policy in jeopardy to save their own stinking hides.
The Israeli's are so good at interrogations I'd welcome their involvement.
The general's not worried about this thread. She's trying to wave the red cape, in the hopes the charging bull goes for it instead.
Which is, of course, lowly, despicable, and a cheap ploy. There is no reason for her to be talking to the press, except to try and stir up public sympathy for herself, at the expense of the Army, the troops, and the dignity of her rank.
What a typical lefty play: Blame the Jooooos.
Her going on the talk show circuit did not elevate my respect for her. You can defend her all you want.
'I speak Arabic but I'm not an Arab; I'm from Israel.'
Depends what the definition of "from" is. From that conversation one could just as easily deduce the guy was a U.S. citizen born in Israel. Or a Frenchman, or anything, without more information.
Ah. The pink one. Altogether true prediction in #3, the resident joo-obsessives are already turning up.
Sure does. We can't leave wounded enemy on the battlefield, much less allies. If by 'protect' you mean 'not divulge classified informatin', then yes, that's true too. However, there is no indication that she's been covering for anyone. To hear her tell it, she didn't know anything anyway.
If Israeli contractors participated in, or directed, any of these illegal interogations, do you wish to see them "take it like a man"?
I expect her to STFU until the investigation runs its course. She's deliberately avoiding the procedures because she thinks she's in trouble, an option that people of lower rank do not have. This is a horrific breach of military discipline, and shows her deep disregard for the justice she'd expect others to stand to.
If seniors at the Pentagon knowingly hired such poeple to lead these interogations of this nature, do you wish to see them "take it like men" too?
After the investigation, we'll know for sure. If anything glaring is left out AFTER the investigatin, like the presence of Israel interrogators, then that would be a good time to bring it up. Doing it now is flat out inappropriate.
As so many supported the techniques (techniques the President felt obligated to apologize for),
There is nothing wrong with sleep dep or stress positions. Those are some of the most gentle physical interrogation methods around, and have been considered perfectly legal interrogator SOP for the last 50 years.
why would they be at all embarrassed about having the identities of all the particpants in the public record?
1 - It's not what she's saying, but how. By trying to circumvent the investigation, and appeal to the public, she's saying that she doesn't trust the military to give her justice. She's also saying it's better to damage the dignity of her rank, the reputation of her service, and credibility of the nation, than to take her chances in court. That's a message that a general has no business giving those below her.
2 - Many, many countries, on many, many different issues, agree to help us, in secret. The mere presence of an Israeli interrogator doesn't mean anything more than he was there. Unless you are under the impression that the Israelis routinely put underwear on the heads of leashed prisoners, I don't see what the point of mentioning them would be, other than to muddy the waters.
Gee, is this the same Karpinski who won the Ice Skating Gold Medal at the Olympics a couple of years back?
Looks like she has fallen on hard times; stood much to close to an ugly stick?
LOL. That didn't take long.
there are a few other generals who have been excoriated ....they have taken responsibility and blamed no one but themselves, and most importantly kept their mouths closed. they are heros, karpinski is a take no responsibility cry baby.
she even had her priest write a letter in her favor after this hit the fan.
waaaa, waaaa, waaaaaa.
Karpinski seems to be an instance of the Peter Principle, which involves promoting people beyond their levels of competence. Her level of competence seems to be somewhere around corporal, but she was promoted to Brigadier because, I assume, she's a woman. Sorry, but it's hard to think of any other possible reason.
She was almost sidelined earlier because her troops were out of control--living together, behaving insubordinately toward visiting officers, not properly dressed, and so forth. But she wasn't disciplined then because she's a woman.
This woman is going to make a lot of trouble before she leaves the scene. It's predictable. The press will butter her up and flatter her, and she'll give them plenty of quotes to run with. It just proves once again: Don't promote people to responsible positions if they can't do the job. Especially don't do it if the media are running around the edges of your administration looking for quislings, traitors, and useful idiots.
P.S. Whether or not the story is true, and I doubt that it is true, there are two really basic problems.
1. As a military officer, she is duty bound to obey orders and keep her trap shut.
2. Blabbing about stuff like this, whether or not it is true (and I don't think it is) seriously damages the war effort and our country. It gives the liars in the Arab press and excuse to say that Israeli monkeys and pigs are torturing Muslim prisoners. If fans hatred and vengeance. It's plain stupid.
I'm confused. If a prisoner objects to sleep deprivation and "stress positions", and refuses to cooperate, resisting passively (simply slumping rather than standing as directed, closing his eyes), what measures are taken against him? Is pain inflicted upon the prisoner, or not?
"...is pain inflicted upon the prisoner or not?"
Good heavens no! The prisoner knows his cause is lost. He is thankful to allah that he is still alive. The prisoner immediately tells the interrogators all they want to know, he co-operates, he is grateful for the three meals a day, the showers and the accommodation. And as long as he is asked ever so nicely ( not humiliated ) he will do all he can to assist the Coalition effort to establish democracy in Iraq. The prisoner knows Saddam was a mass murderer, a criminal. He wouldn't RESIST! Not even passively...
Pain you say? Would tickling with a feather be OK?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.