Posted on 05/13/2004 8:10:39 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Abusive treatment under the supervision of military intelligence officers may have been intentionally used as part of the interrogation of Iraqi captives at the Abu Ghraib prison, according to a previously unpublished photograph of U.S. soldiers and other personnel obtained by NBC News.
The photograph was taken during the interrogation of several Iraqi prisoners who are depicted naked in a heap on the floor, according to a military police officer who faces a court-martial in connection with alleged abuses at the notorious facility on the outskirts of Baghdad.
The officer, Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr., 35, of Greene County, Pa., is leaning against the wall in the photograph, which was provided by his attorney, Guy Womack.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
our people doing this were clearly amateurs--the pics demonstrate this. rumsfeld is an amateur--bush should get rid of him or he's inviting kerry into the white house. if you want to win a war, you need to get some professionals in charge.
Rumsfeld is not a "Professional", and you also hold him accountable for the actions of a few in a prison half way around the world?
You don't suppose the use of the word officer had to do with the slant that higher ups were involved and that it was not simply a careless mistake?
You've lost any and all arguments right here with your very first sentence. If anyone needs a reality adjustment it is you.
Berg was murdered because he is an INFIDEL.
How many years (decades/centuries) have we watched these insane barbarians hopping up and down shouting "God is great" and "Death to the infidels"? How long is it going to take for you ostriches to get your heads out of the sand and realize we are at WAR. How long do you think al-Qaeda would camp in Pakistan if we invaded? A day, maybe 2? They will simply pack their dirtbags and ooze on to the next craphole cave. You will never hunt them all down that way. Especially not when you let the entire middle east fester and breed generation after generation of recruits.
The ONLY way to win the war is to convert the middle east from Islam to secular western government.
maybe we should torture everyone in iraq- because some of them must be terrorists.
so what if it brings down the bush white house and gets kerry in.
Is it that easy to bitch and moan about our involvement when you don't feel your own life at risk?
so then only military action against the serveral hundred actual terrorists threatening America is what we should do? Let's just treat it like a law enforcement problem. Most of the Taliban weren't directly threatening America either, the AQ leadership that fled to Pakistan should be the only targets then, let's just take out those 100-200 guys and we'll be safe, is that it? and when a fresh group of another 200 guys gets together and pulls of an operation to fly a plane into the Sears Tower, we'll take out those 200 guys.
So tell us, how do we win, if the only thing we can do is take out 200 guys at a time, only after they hit us?
Vote for Kerry, he'll conduct the war on terror exactly the way you want. and I guess he reads books too, that should make you happy.
according to the wash post, the interrogation guidelines were approved at the highest levels of defense and justice depts. military lawyers tried to stop the guidelines, but political lawyers in the defense dept got them through. the interrogations going on in iraq and afghanistan are just distortions of rumsfeld-approved policies.
if rumsfeld was so against these interrogations, why didn't he try to stop them. he didn't even warn bush about the pics coming out. he's an arrogant amateur.
Surely you are joshing us JoeSchem.
Whom do you suggest as his replacement?
Well, no. They may be in Pakistan (and Afghanistan), scurrying from cave to cave, trying to stay alive...or they're in Iraq, trying to kill Americans (and being killed, for their trouble).
In any event, their lives are tough. And, often, quite short.
As for the rest of your emission...why bother?
if you want to win the war on terror, you don't allow prisons to be run like this. you don't allow cameras in; you don't let amateurs handle prisoners or interrogations.(our MP's had a sex room set up in the prison--for themselves, the MP's.)
you don't torture anyone but confirmed terrorists, and you don't take any pics.
you can't run a war like rumsfeld is running it because this is a democratic society, which will not allow a war to be run this way.
it is very hard to run an anti-terror war, but rumsfeld is not the person to be running it.
someone with more political ability, who isn't so arrogant, and who wouldn't set bush up like R. did. someone who can handle the press. someone who will appoint professionals to run the iraq operation.
Who else but the expert, drhogan himself?
How about a name?
NICK Berg was killed because he was American, Jewish, and wondering around alone in a country filled with Muslim fundamentalist terrorists.
Not that they would consider murdering a Jew or anything like that...
prisons are probably a waste of time. they just become stages for our enemies to protest.
bribes are probably a lot more effective than interrogations for getting info. don't take terrorists or armed insurgents prisoner. shoot them on sight, like the brits do to the ira, or like santa anna did with the texas insurgents.
there is a good movie from the 1960's about the french campaign against the algerian resistance. the french paratroopers used nasty techniques, but they worked for awhile.
but you can't use national guardsmen to do this.
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.