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intentionally used as part of the interrogation of Iraqi captives at the Abu Ghraib prison, according to a previously unpublished photograph of U.S. soldiers and other personnel obtained by NBC News.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 ...
Do you think that WWII was fought like a John Wayne movie?
Graner is Lynndie England's boyfriend (or one of them...supposedly the father of the baby she's carrying) and reportedly is featured in pictures and video having sex with her.
In fact, it was on MSNBC that I first heard this. You'd think they'd approach his credibility with a bit more skepticism.
if i had the knowledge, i'd volunteer; if i had a name, i'd give you one. (i live in NY and i don't even know any defense people.) there must be somebody in the bush group that knows somebody who could handle this. (if they don't we are all in trouble.)
if you want to win the war on terror, the #1 thing you don't want to do is allow John Kerry to make Carl Levin the Secretary of Defense.
I am sure Rumsfeld didn't issue these guards digital cameras, and point out where they could setup their sex room, he's probably busy with a few other things.
If they pay attention, they will see Democracy and justice at work.
Our system of government does not make a promise that crimes will not be committed, but it does carry with it an expectation (even a promise) of Justice.
That's what the Arab world will fail to comprehend.
i'm a psychologist, not a defense dept expert or a politico. but i can tell when somebody isn't doing president bush any good, and rumsfeld is not helping.
Soldier offers guilty plea, details abuse at prison
Sivits told investigators that the abuse would not have happened had higher-ranking members been present. "Our command would have slammed us," he said. "They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."
You can choose to believe Sivits or not. But argue about actual testimony rather than egregious speculation.
The Central Intelligence Agency has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda that have produced growing concerns inside the agency about abuses, according to current and former counterterrorism officials.
Notice the technique in the above. "Methods" produced "growing concerns." This makes the "method" responsible for the "concern". It sidesteps the fact that the "concern" is a reaction by a particular person or group of people, based on their own beliefs about how things ought to be done, to actions performed by others. It begs the question of whether their assumptions are reasonable or the policy recommendations that flow from them are prudent. High-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda are not grandmothers being probed by ten-year-olds bent on finding out where Grannie hid the sugar cookies.
An interrogation with people like this isn't a prime time Baba Wawa chat fest or an Opra Winfrey emotional high colonic done for the dual purpose of driving up ratings and satisfying the prurient interest of the viewers. The purpose is to use the best means possible to produce reliable information that will enable you to foil the plans of those whose goal in life is the destruction of your nation and civilization. The goal is three-fold: 1. to get them to believe that there is no way out but through you, that their verifiable response is the key to that door, and that feeding you lies will keep that door locked forever. 2. to control them and their environment in such a way as to produce the mental state in which the beliefs in 1 can be planted and then grown to fruition as rapidly as possible, and 3. to do 1 and 2 as quickly as possible in order to uncover and nullify the plans of Al Qaeda (and other Islamofascists).
This is not something that can be done through rational debate based on mutual respect--they don't want to debate you; they want to kill you.
thank you. you made the point clearly. i haven't been able to make any headway on this--i'm probably too angry.
no, but marshall and ike were pros. when patton got out of hand, they slapped him down. and the foolish stuff patton did was gentle compared to this stuff.
Oh my, what a crime! Suspected terrorists depicted naked! Not one terrorist has been decapitated have they?
I haven't seen anything in those photos that showed abuse unless, we call embarrassment abuse, but then, we're talking about criminals.
The terrorists who killed Nick Berg showed us exactly the kind of animals we're dealing with. If our soldiers catch them and take a few naked pictures of them, the media and their puppets will be screaming bloody murder. You see, beheading an innocent man isn't as bad as posing with the enemy
There is. And I know just the guy.
Donald Rumsfeld.
He is clearly the most competent SecDef of my lifetime. Regardless (or, perhaps, because) of the baseless attacks on him by the partisan press.
I'm getting the impression that the only problem you have with Rumsfeld, really, is that he is the lightning rod that the media and the Democrats have chosen to attack at the moment. Hint: they would attack Jesus Christ himself, if He was a member of the Bush administration.
if rumsfeld cares about bush getting re-elected, he will resign. i do not want kerry in the white house.
"David Berg was killed precisely because of these interrogation activities. And how can you possibly imply that his life was saved when in fact he is dead?"
No, he was killed because the Islamofascists are the modern-day Nazis who have been trying to kill every single one of us for years.
These idiots didn't wake up one day, see the photos, and then say "Gosh, this makes me mad. I know, I'll kill an American and release the snuff film!"
EVEN IF the photos had one iota to do with it, then the fault is with 60 minutes and the New Yorker for releasing the photos, after being warned by DoD about the possible consequences.
Additionally you don't know how many lives have been saved by aggressive interrogation.
You are engaging therefore in the fallacy of composition, parlaying the part into the whole.
"You guys are like the incompetent but arrogant doctor who wrote in his surgical report, "The operation was a complete success -- marred only by the patient's death.""
THat is a dumbass comparison, for the reason I just said. Just because ONE person died, doesn't mean that MANY were saved.
"And to repeat for the umpteenth millionth time, these prisoners are not terrorists threatening America. They are people defending their homes from an illegal invader."
They are people from other countries in the area, and people who once ran a country that trained, funded, and cooperated with terrorists who are threatening the US.
"Meanwhile, as we squander our precious military lives and tens of billions of dollars to hold Baghdad for the American Empire, the terrorists threatening America are in Pakistan, safe and sound and laughing their heads off as the President Who Does Not Read Books bumbles from one crisis of mismanagement to another."
That is just stupid, I have seen plenty of photos of him carrying the book he happens to be reading at the moment on his way to Marine One on the white house lawn.
He doesn't read NEWSPAPERS - and I don't blame him. He prefers to be well informed!
Crawl back to your DUh hole, loser.
if Rumsfeld resigns, Bush loses. You are politically tone deaf. Rumsfeld is the face of Bush's military efforts in the eyes of the people, if he is tossed, people will see that as Bush throwing in the towel. Especially over these photos, which most people really could care less about. If Bush is seen as throwing in the towel on military matters, why vote for him? He losees his edge on that issue over Kerry.
We have no idea of the sorts of things that actually happened in the field of battle, things that would be considered war crimes if covered as today's media cover every single second of this war.
I recall the story of the Americans GI's who when faced with the horrible sights of Dachau, machined gunned Nazi POW's in the spot. I'm sure that that was not the only instance.
It's war, it's hell.
One of the best threads, ever, on Free Republic was a knowledgable critique of the Algeria War. It was relevant pre-Iraq, it is even more relevant now.
In the end, the point is that the French taught us how NOT to fight an insurgency.
I strongly commend the article and the thread to you. It is an important source of information and background.
actually, my personal distaste for rumsfeld is not the issue. even his capability as defense secretary isn't the issue--the issue is--will rumsfeld help kerry become our next president? or, even worse, will he so discredit a strong defense policy that, even should bush get re-elected, might hilary win next time around.
look back to what the arrogant politicos of the nixon white house did the repub party. they paved the road for jimmy carter!
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.