Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Martial in Iraq (CBS to broadcast images of US troops mistreating Iraqis...)

Posted on 04/28/2004 8:28:36 PM PDT by sonsofliberty2000

(CBS) Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.

But the details of what happened have been kept secret, until now.

It turns out photographs surfaced showing American soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis being held at a prison near Baghdad. The Army investigated, and issued a scathing report.

Now, an Army general and her command staff may face the end of long military careers. And six soldiers are facing court martial in Iraq -- and possible prison time. Correspondent Dan Rather talks to one of those soldiers. And, for the first time, 60 Minutes II will show some of the pictures that led to the Army investigation. According to the U.S. Army, one Iraqi prisoner was told to stand on a box with his head covered, wires attached to his hands. He was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.

It was this picture, and dozens of others, that prompted an investigation by the U.S. Army. On Tuesday, 60 Minutes II asked Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of coalition operations in Iraq, what went wrong.

“Frankly, I think all of us are disappointed by the actions of the few,” says Kimmitt. “Every day, we love our soldiers, but frankly, some days we're not always proud of our soldiers."

For decades under Saddam Hussein, many prisoners who were taken to the Abu Ghraib prison never came out. It was the centerpiece of Saddam’s empire of fear, and those prisoners who did make it out told nightmarish tales of torture beyond imagining – and executions without reason.

60 Minutes II talked about the prison and shared pictures of what Americans did there with two men who have extensive interrogation experience: Former Marine Lt. Col. Bill Cowan and former CIA Bureau Chief Bob Baer.

"I visited Abu Ghraib a couple of days after it was liberated. It was the most awful sight I've ever seen. I said, ‘If there's ever a reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it's because of Abu Ghraib,'” says Baer. “There were bodies that were eaten by dogs, torture. You know, electrodes coming out of the walls. It was an awful place."

"We went into Iraq to stop things like this from happening, and indeed, here they are happening under our tutelage,” says Cowan. It was American soldiers serving as military police at Abu Ghraib who took these pictures. The investigation started when one soldier got them from a friend, and gave them to his commanders. 60 Minutes II has a dozen of these pictures, and there are many more – pictures that show Americans, men and women in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners.

There are shots of the prisoners stacked in a pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English.

In some, the male prisoners are positioned to simulate sex with each other. And in most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up.

60 Minutes II was only able to contact one of the soldiers facing charges. But the Army says they are all in Iraq, awaiting court martial.

"What can the Army say specifically to Iraqis and others who are going to see this and take it personally," Rather asked Kimmitt, in an interview conducted by satellite from Baghdad.

"The first thing I’d say is we’re appalled as well. These are our fellow soldiers. These are the people we work with every day, and they represent us. They wear the same uniform as us, and they let their fellow soldiers down,” says Kimmitt.

“Our soldiers could be taken prisoner as well. And we expect our soldiers to be treated well by the adversary, by the enemy. And if we can't hold ourselves up as an example of how to treat people with dignity and respect … We can't ask that other nations to that to our soldiers as well."

“So what would I tell the people of Iraq? This is wrong. This is reprehensible. But this is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are over here,” adds Kimmitt. “I'd say the same thing to the American people... Don't judge your army based on the actions of a few." One of the soldiers facing court martial is Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick.

Frederick is charged with maltreatment for allegedly participating in and setting up a photo, and for posing in a photograph by sitting on top of a detainee. He is charged with an indecent act for observing one scene. He is also charged with assault for allegedly striking detainees – and ordering detainees to strike each other.

60 Minutes II talked with him by phone from Baghdad, where he is awaiting court martial.

Frederick told us he will plead not guilty, claiming the way the Army was running the prison led to the abuse of prisoners.

“We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain rules and regulations,” says Frederick. “And it just wasn't happening."

Six months before he faced a court martial, Frederick sent home a video diary of his trip across the country. Frederick, a reservist, said he was proud to serve in Iraq. He seemed particularly well-suited for the job at Abu Ghraib. He’s a corrections officer at a Virginia prison, whose warden described Frederick to us as “one of the best.”

Frederick says Americans came into the prison: “We had military intelligence, we had all kinds of other government agencies, FBI, CIA ... All those that I didn't even know or recognize."

Frederick's letters and email messages home also offer clues to problems at the prison. He wrote that he was helping the interrogators:

"Military intelligence has encouraged and told us 'Great job.' "

"They usually don't allow others to watch them interrogate. But since they like the way I run the prison, they have made an exception."

"We help getting them to talk with the way we handle them. ... We've had a very high rate with our style of getting them to break. They usually end up breaking within hours." According to the Army’s own investigation, that’s what was happening. The Army found that interrogators asked reservists working in the prison to prepare the Iraqi detainees, physically and mentally, for questioning.

“What, if any actions, are being taken against the interrogators?

"I hope the investigation is including not only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the people that might have encouraged these crimes as well,” says Kimmitt. “Because they certainly share some level of responsibility as well."

But so far, none of the interrogators at Abu Ghraib are facing criminal charges. In fact, a number of them are civilians, and military law doesn’t apply to them.

One of the civilian interrogators at Abu Ghraib was questioned by the Army, and he told investigators he had "broken several tables during interrogations, unintentionally," while trying to "fear up" prisoners. He denied hurting anyone.

In our phone conversation, 60 Minutes II asked Frederick whether he had seen any prisoners beaten.

“I saw things. We had to use force sometimes to get the inmates to cooperate, just like our rules of engagement said,” says Frederick. “We learned a little bit of Arabic, basic commands. And they didn't want to listen, so sometimes, you would just give them a little nudge or something like that just to get them to cooperate so we could get the mission accomplished."

Attorney Gary Myers and a judge advocate in Iraq are defending Frederick. They say he should never have been charged, because of the failure of his commanders to provide proper training and standards.

"The elixir of power, the elixir of believing that you're helping the CIA, for God's sake, when you're from a small town in Virginia, that's intoxicating,” says Myers. “And so, good guys sometimes do things believing that they are being of assistance and helping a just cause. ... And helping people they view as important."

Frederick says he didn't see a copy of the Geneva Convention rules for handling prisoners of war until after he was charged.

The Army investigation confirms that soldiers at Abu Ghraib were not trained at all in Geneva Convention rules. And most were reservists, part-time soldiers who didn't get the kind of specialized prisoner of war training given to regular Army members.

Frederick also says there were far too few soldiers there for the number of prisoners: “There was, when I left, there was over 900. And there was only five soldiers, plus two non-commissioned officers, in charge for those 900 -- over 900 inmates."

Rather asked Kimmitt about understaffing. "That doesn't condone individual acts of criminal behavior no matter how tired we are. No matter how stretched we are, that doesn't give us license and it doesn't give us the authority to break the law,” says Kimmitt.

“That may have been a contributing factor, but at the end of the day, this is probably more about leadership, supervision, setting standards, abiding by the Army values and understanding what's right, and having the guts to say what's right.” Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinsky ran Abu Ghraib for the Army. She was also in charge of three other Army prison facilities that housed thousands of Iraqi inmates.

The Army investigation determined that her lack of leadership and clear standards led to problems system wide. Karpinski talked with 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft last October at Abu Ghraib, before any of this came out.

"This is international standards,” said Karpinski. “It's the best care available in a prison facility."

But the Army investigation found serious problems behind the scenes. The Army has photographs that show a detainee with wires attached to his genitals. Another shows a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner. Frederick said that dogs were “used for intimidation factors.”

Part of the Army's own investigation is a statement from an Iraqi detainee who charges a translator - hired to work at the prison - with raping a male juvenile prisoner: "They covered all the doors with sheets. I heard the screaming. ...and the female soldier was taking pictures."

There is also a picture of an Iraqi man who appears to be dead -- and badly beaten.

"It's reprehensible that anybody would be taking a picture of that situation,” says Kimmitt.

But what about the situation itself?

“I don't know the facts surrounding what caused the bruising and the bleeding,” says Kimmitt. “If that is also one of the charges being brought against the soldiers, that too is absolutely unacceptable and completely outside of what we expect of our soldiers and our guards at the prisons."

Is there any indication that similar actions may have happened at other prisons? “I'd like to sit here and say that these are the only prisoner abuse cases that we're aware of, but we know that there have been some other ones since we've been here in Iraq,” says Kimmitt. When Saddam ran Abu Ghraib prison, Iraqis were too afraid to come ask for information on their family members.

When 60 Minutes II was there last month, hundreds had gathered outside the gates, worried about what is going on inside.

"We will be paid back for this. These people at some point will be let out,” says Cowan. “Their families are gonna know. Their friends are gonna know."

This is a hard story to have to tell when Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. And for Cowan, it’s a personal issue. His son is an infantry soldier serving in Iraq for the last four months.

Rather asked Cowan what he would say to "that person who is sitting in their living room and saying, ‘I wish they wouldn't do this. It's undermining our troops and they shouldn't do it.’"

"If we don't tell this story, these kinds of things will continue. And we'll end up getting paid back 100 or 1,000 times over,” says Cowan. “Americans want to be proud of each and everything that our servicemen and women do in Iraq. We wanna be proud. We know they're working hard. None of us, now, later, before or during this conflict, should wanna let incidents like this just pass."

Kimmitt says the Army will not let what happened at Abu Ghraib just pass. What does he think is the most important thing for Americans to know about what has happened?

"I think two things. No. 1, this is a small minority of the military, and No. 2, they need to understand that is not the Army,” says Kimmitt. “The Army is a values-based organization. We live by our values. Some of our soldiers every day die by our values, and these acts that you see in these pictures may reflect the actions of individuals, but by God, it doesn't reflect my army."

Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes II received an appeal from the Defense Department, and eventually from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, to delay this broadcast -- given the danger and tension on the ground in Iraq.

60 Minutes II decided to honor that request, while pressing for the Defense Department to add its perspective to the incidents at Abu Ghraib prison. This week, with the photos beginning to circulate elsewhere, and with other journalists about to publish their versions of the story, the Defense Department agreed to cooperate in our report.

TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: abughraib; cbsnews; iraq; iraqipow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last
To: aubergine
Actually, it isn't - otherwise the US would have attacked Saudi Arabia. Iraq actually had nothing to do with 9/11.

Thanks for saving me the trip to DU for the Talking Point of the Day. Nice to see you're still hanging on to that lie like a put bull on a prime rib.

Keep it up. It's going to blow up in your face.

101 posted on 05/01/2004 12:43:10 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: sonsofliberty2000
OK, I just saw the photos of what transpired at that prison and am absolutely disgusted! There is no excuse for this! For a moment I thought I'd been rerouted to the wrong site; that some new computer virus had sent me to twistedS&, only to discover that this sick display of depravity was actually done (and idiotically beyond all comprehension, photographed) by animals unfit to call themselves American soldiers.

How can they possibly claim that they didn't know this was wrong? What kind of person needs a rulebook to explain to them that this is entirely unacceptable? Do they have any idea how much this could harm the war effort? How many of our soldiers could end up dying because of what they did? Do they realize how much ammo they've just handed the Leftists who are literally salivating for any opportunity to return to their Vietnam "glory days" of spitting on American soldiers? How much ammo they've just handed the venom spewing mullahs who keep calling for the destruction of the "decadent" West?

I am equally shocked by some of the posts I've read here. How can anyone excuse such blatantly perverse behavior? You know, I could understand it if our soldiers had roughed these prisoners up a bit, threatened them/ hit them. But, this? Turning a prison into a gay S&M nudist camp??? This is something I don't understand. I don't understand it at all.

102 posted on 05/01/2004 12:59:13 AM PDT by schmelvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deport Billary
The irony is that there are "disgusting" displays at college fraternity initiations throughout the USA each year that make these Iraq prison photos look like a joke.

Those prisoners were in jail for a reason. They were bad people. Criminals, all. Their public nakedness is supposedly a big "shameful" deal in the crazed Arab world (even though the men B.F. each other whenever they get the chance). With a woman present, and delivering the humiliation, it seems to be more of a psych-ops thing than anything else.

I'd still like to know her name, as I've been...very bad!
103 posted on 05/01/2004 2:37:54 AM PDT by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Stacking men in a naked human pyramid. It seems that this excites you. You say that terrorists deserve no do you know they were terrorists? Did they target civilians? No word on that yet. Who were they?

Did they fire at our troops? You don't know. If they did, which they probably did, should they still be stacked naked upon each other? Do these prisoners fall under the laws of the Geneva Convention? I don't know. Do you? Are they Unlawful Combatants? I don't know. Do you? Since the American troops responsible for these actions are being brought up on charges, I would guess no. Since our Commander In Chief calls these actions despicable, I would guess no. Since you gleefully condone these actions, to the contrary of our Commander In Chief, I would guess that you think our Commander In Chief is wrong.

We are AMERICANS. We maintain the highest standard.

Unless you are a sick, sadistic, closet-homosexual, BDSM, bed-wetting, small-handed freak....this type of treatment should be beneath you....and the US of A.

But hey....some people actually get off on seeing a bunch of naked, swarthy men all piled up.
104 posted on 05/01/2004 3:21:51 AM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
These sick soldiers weren't interrogating prisoners. They were doing perverted things to them purely for pleasure. Additionally, in doing so they've made things easier for the anti-war media and thus more difficult for our side.
105 posted on 05/01/2004 3:35:04 AM PDT by k2blader (Some folks should worry less about how conservatives vote and more about how to advance conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive
These Iraqi prisoners were those who are attacking and ambushing our soldiers. Exactly ONE article actually mentioned that in the middle, and I can't find it. All other articles carefully avoid mentioning it.

What the soldiers did was stupid, whoever took pictures and then whoever gave it to the media was even stupider. The media is not presenting all the facts, because, as I said 99.999% of the articles do NOT mention that these are a bunch of terrorists.

Now, if you are facing death every day, at the hands of these terrorists ambushing you, you see your buddies murdered by them, then you finally catch them, you are not supposed to hurt them, so you humiliate them.

I also read somewhere these soldiers were supposed to assist interrogators. How do you know, that instead of pulling out their fingernails, maybe major humiliation is one way of making them to talk.

You swallow the media spin, without even giving the benefit of at least extenuating circumstances.

Why are you so eager to condemn our solidiers?
106 posted on 05/01/2004 8:17:30 AM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: mazinger
Sorry, but I simply don't have the time nor interest to disabuse you of your stupifying ignorance. You should try reading and learning instead of displaying your ignorance on this forum.
107 posted on 05/01/2004 9:22:19 AM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Any day you wake up is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
you guys claiming that ONLY "terrorists" are being held in Abu Ghraib should read a little more. Sy Hersh, who is probably considered a traitor here for exposing the glorious warriors of My Lai, obtained an Army report that sparked this whole story. Major General Antonio M. Taguba, at the command of Lt. Gen. Sanchez wrote the 53-page document and found, among other abuses: "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee." This story didn't come from some commie-symp lefty, but from Specialist Joseph M. Darby, an M.P. who testified against Chip Frederick. Do you guys think the Iraqis didn't know about alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib? That by broadcasting this story CBS was somehow helping the enemy? This was the gossip on Baghdad's streets for months! I talk to Iraqis in Baghdad and here in the states, and I've been hearing these rumors -- for that was all they were until now -- for a while now. Much of the resistance in Fallujah and elsewhere is because of such stories. This merely confirmed them. I'm sickened by this. My brother, father, uncle, grandfather, great-grandfather and best friend have either all served or are serving now -- in Iraq. This shames them. It should shame all of us as Americans. We supposed to be the good guys and know human decency barbarism, right from wrong.
108 posted on 05/01/2004 10:29:16 AM PDT by ctbritt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Do you really think that FReepers are eager to condemn American soldiers? I'm certainly not, but some actions deserve condemnation. Behave like Pat Tillman and I'll praise you forever, behave like Chip Frederick and I'll demand you spend a good long time in the brig (fully clothed and with no fear of ever having a gerbil shoved up your @$$ of course, because we as Americans are [supposed to be] better than that).

Please explain what media spin we could possibly be swallowing. I saw those pictures (each one worth a thousand words, you know). I don't need for anyone to explain to me what happened there; my own eyes told me everything I need to know. You suggest we should give these miserable excuses for soldiers "the benefit of at least extenuating circumstances". My answer is, "No. There are no circumstances that justify turning a prison into a gay S&M nudist camp! None whatsoever. Period."

I'm all for taking the kid gloves off and letting our military hammer these b@$t@rds, I really am. But, it's one thing to "go Medieval" on the enemy, and quite another to "go Sodom and Gomorrah" on them. Can't you see the difference?

109 posted on 05/01/2004 12:48:07 PM PDT by schmelvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ctbritt
It would be so much better to NOT interrogate these guys and lose hundreds of US soldiers in ambush insead, right?

These were a bunch of terrorists, who were interrogated and/or punished. Did you want them to pull fingernails instead -- people would be just as outraged. How do you think people get terrorists to talk?

And if you don't get terrorists to talk, our US soldiers, not to mention innocent civilians may actually DIE instead.


My post from another thread:


To: Destro
"In other words - suspected terrorist detainees were being given the third degree via psychological not physical abuse to get them to break - what went wrong is that they allowed the goobers to take snapshots (I guess intelligence was not there to supervise the goobers 24/7). "



It is amazing how a vast majority of FReepers fell into the trap of the liberal media.

The reason for this type of method is because public nudity is a major humiliation in Muslim societies.

""The worst thing in Arab culture is for a man to be naked in front of another man," said Gulshen Beyatli, director of Arabs Without Borders in San Francisco."

I read somewhere, unfortunately I didn't save THAT link, that prisoners were forbidden to talk with each other, and when they did anyway, this was their punishment.

From one of the incredibly few articles, which even mention who the prisoners were:

"The US military now holds several thousand prisoners at Abu Ghraib, most of them rounded up on suspicion of carrying out attacks against US-led forces."

And from another article:

"60 Minutes also quoted, however, from an e-mail which Frederick reportedly sent to his family, in which he said of Iraqi prisoners: 'We've had a very high rate with our styles of getting them to break; they usually end up breaking within hours.' "

16 posted on 05/01/2004 2:08:14 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
110 posted on 05/01/2004 2:18:51 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ctbritt
Hersh is behind this?

That man is a traitor. Figures.

It was stupid for them to behave this way, but it should have been buried deep and covered up. CBS was unpatriotic to broadcast any of this, which might otherwise have been restricted to the level of rumour.
111 posted on 05/01/2004 6:57:55 PM PDT by victoryatallcosts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
I'm a little confused. Weren't most of the terrorists on the planes Saudi, acting on orders from an exiled Saudi prince?

For example:

states that

"Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. There were significant security weaknesses in the Saudi government’s issuance of Saudi passports in the period when the visas to the hijackers were issued. Two of the Saudi 9/11 hijackers may have obtained their passports legitimately or illegitimately with the help of a family member who worked in the passport office."

Or am I missing something? I'm not trying to be offensive. I really can't see why Saudi wasn't at the top of the list rather than somewhere near the bottom.
112 posted on 05/02/2004 5:17:44 AM PDT by aubergine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: sonsofliberty2000
1) 7 soldiers to 900 prisoners is ridiculous and yes, they should have more.

2) The article states the soldiers had to break the uncooperative prisoners - um, they looked pretty cooperative in the pictures.

3) Each one should be court martialed and held to the highest standards. If the roles were reversed with our people made to make nude pyramids there would not be one on these boards that would have laughed it off as army high jinks. There is no excuse for this behavior.
113 posted on 05/02/2004 5:33:00 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
You swallow the media spin, without even giving the benefit of at least extenuating circumstances

So far, everyone in the chain of command, from the Officers in country up to the President, have treated this event as real.

What have you seen that convinces you otherwise?

114 posted on 05/02/2004 5:43:07 AM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
It is mind numbing how some of the thick-headed cretins here cannot see just how much of a blunder this is...both tactical and political!

We need to crush the enemy's spirt to fight...not strengthen it.

These photos will give many of the enemy their "Remember the Alamo" moment while in the heat of battle.
115 posted on 05/02/2004 5:50:01 AM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: unix; Mo1; FairOpinion
Last time we heard of "torture", it was an officer forcing info out of a rebel that saved many Americans from an ambush.,/I>

But he was man enough to fess up to his misdeeds and turned himself in. He is a man, these otheres are just as bad as SH's henchmen.

116 posted on 05/02/2004 5:51:40 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
Further, the enemy respect such actions as taken by Col. West.

Mocking naked prisoners on camera only breeds contempt.
117 posted on 05/02/2004 5:53:29 AM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
But he was man enough to fess up to his misdeeds and turned himself in

True ..

I wasn't comparing the persons .. just the way the media was reporting on what happened.

I wasn't trying to make excuses for this kind of behavior

118 posted on 05/02/2004 5:58:56 AM PDT by Mo1 (Make Michael Moore cry.... DONATE MONTHLY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
Read the news:

Doubts over authenticity of Iraq abuse photos: BBC

And what I said "benefit of at least extenuating circumstances".

I also read in a few other articles, that these prisoners were terrorists who have been ambushing our soldiers, and this treatment -- which is no worse than what some liberal perverts do voluntarily -- was part of an interrogation "softening up". I personally don't want to know how they get information out of the terrorists, but want to make sure they do get everything they can, because it saves lives: our soldiers and our civilians lives.

So I am not rushing to cry in my beer over some terrorists being humiliated, to get info out of them.

These are NOT POW-d captured in legitimate battle, these are hardened terrorists, of the type who would torture and murder every one of us.

In another article I read, that the terrorists are forbidden to talk to each other -- for good reason, and the naked pyramid was their punishment for disobeying those orders.

These photos may be shocking, but would you feel happier, if they had photos of them pulling fingernails, or beating up the prisoners? Or would you prefer that they don't hurt a hair on the head of these darling terrorists, not obtain info, and let their terrorists buddies continue killing our soldiers or even us with impunity.

I thought the objective was to prevent terrorist attacks.

Note that on the pictures the prisoners are wearing hoods so as not to be embarrassed. One of my theories is that maybe these pictures were taken to help in interrogating other prisoners, by threatening them with the same thing, if they don't talk.

In another article, I read that in this prison they were very successful in getting them to break and give good info.

With terrorists, you use what works. They probably would be stoic under painful torture -- of course if anything like that got out, people would be enraged.

I guess some people would prefer antoher 9-11, and another -- and think about the chemical attack in Jordan, that could have killed 80,000 people, if they didn't foil it. That could happen here. As I said, what is your choice -- many thousands of innocent dying, or a few terrorists get somewhat "mistreated".

119 posted on 05/02/2004 6:49:34 AM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Stupid is stupid. These actions were stupid.

No matter how you spin this.

Nothing! Nothing good will come from these photos! Nothing!

You are going down the DU loon drain by claiming everything is a conspiracy that does not reflect your view of the world.
120 posted on 05/02/2004 6:56:48 AM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson