[ejdrapes]

I would like to know who at the highest level approved these tactics since everyone from Bush on down has condemed what happened and how it was wrong and will never happen again, ect. It'd be one thing if Bush had come out and said "I'm sorry but were in a war and sometimes these things are necessary. And these were not POW's, they were unlawful combatants, so the Geneva Conventions do not apply." But he didn't. Just last week at the G-8 summit Bush said that his directive was for people to follow US and international law.

If it turns out that Rumsfeld or Myers, or Bush approved these tactics how do they defend approving something they've now condemed?

[oceanview]

what tactics? the use of dogs, are you saying that Rumsfeld/Sanchez should have banned the use of dogs? sleep deprivation, we have to make sure the prisoners get 8 hours of restful sleep now?

You are accepting the media definition of "torture". I'm not.

The humilation tactics - the photos of the human pyramids, the dog leashes, the panties on the head, although they don't rise to the level of torture in my mind, should not have occured simply as a matter of military discipline and maturity, which those soldiers did not uphold.

I don't recall Bush every apologizing for prisoner "torture", just their "treatment". there is a big difference, but the media wants to morph that all into one.

[Petronski]

Dude, what's with the tiny font? Some of us have poor vision. If you expect everyone to read your posts, they ought to be legible.