Was Abu Ghraib a CBS Put Up Job too?

Wachs on the Web ^ | 9-20-04 | Larry Wachs

[GOP_1900AD]

Seems like more than just another scenario. Seems like someone in the know.

[evets]

Dan! You are so busted!

[demecleze]

Actually the convention(s)(there are two, but they are collectively known as 'the geneva convention'), does not offer any rights whatsoever to illegal combatants. That is fact.

There is military code, however, this applies to individuals and not standing orders from the C-in-C. That is, you cannot take it upon yourself to torture but you can be ordered to from high up.

There is also a Clintonian edict that was put into effect in 1996(?) that basically afforded legal combatant rights to illegal combatants(effectively rendering the Geneva convention useless). However, this edict has never been tested and it is the military code that is being used in the present scandal not the Clintonian one.

Go and fight tooth and nail in a combat zone, against insurgents that blend in with the civilian population and who have the undying support of a civilian population that wants nothing more that to see your civilization wiped from the face of the earth. Then you may have an appreciation for why the Geneva convention affords no rights to illegal-combatants. You may even find yourself extracting information from a raghead in a rather unpleasant way.

You can put your high ideas to the test: get a band of people together and start attacks on police in your area. Get caught and see what the police do to you in order to find the rest of your rebels.

In fact, if someone kills a cop then they are dead unless they surrender to a lawyer.

These are just local police, what do you think a military does?

Its called martial law and it is not pretty.

We tie the hands of our military behind their back while most of us are eating at Denny’s.

[Chief_Joe]

What happened at Abu Garab was real.

How it was played up, dragged through the mud, and hyped was entirely an MSM creation led by CBS for political reasons (making the Bush Admin look incompetent).

Okay, I too believe the way the story appears to have been presented by MSM (I never actually watch MSM anymore, but I did see snippets here and there at the health club -TV being ubiquitous) was an attempt to slight the Bush Administration. I also believe air-headed feminist/whorist at the major networks were thrilled with the pictures and couldn't stop themselves from mocking men with the endless posting of those photos -just as gender politics drive policy at the Pentagon it completely dominates MSM agnedas. Nonetheless, the pictures showed in stark detail weakness and poor discipline and membership in our services. There are problems here, and still no one wants to honestly address the issue.

[F16Fighter]

The authority goes pretty high up but it is a setup [Abu Ghraib] to make the president of the United States and to make America look stupid and to be seen with two faces. It is very important for the president to get to the culprit.

While I agree with this assessment, the President and his allies do not appear especially anxious to connect whatever dots are to be had whether is Abu Ghraib OR CBS.

But maybe I'm wrong, and there indeed IS an ongoing investigation about such an "officer" that is not yet completed....

CBS now appears to be vulnerable and the DoJ ought to pursue whatever it can.

[Question_Assumptions]

And the press doesn't talk about the biggest problem with the Abu Ghraib story which is that terrorists were using it as an excuse to kidnap and murder innocent people while it was already being investigated by the military. What did that scandal do for American? Nothing. But it was a real boon for the terrorists.

[Fredgoblu]

Just because someone seems to have not been covered doesn't give you an excuse to torture them.

True enough. I think the point is exactly how these pictures came to be. Did the servicemen photograph their own exploits, or did some Rather/Mapes photographer plant the seed?

As long as C^BS' credibility is drawn into question on one story, you've got to question every story! It's obvious that Dan Rather's main goal is destruction of the Republican party, and that his stories aren't so much reporting as they are the means to his political ends. With motives like that, his credibility should be widely investigated.

[HenryLeeII]

Dan Rather turned me into a newt!! That guy weighs the same as a duck!

And we all know that ducks float because they are made of wood, and anyone made of wood is by definition a WITCH!!! So, we must test if Dan Rather floats, because if he does he's a witch and must be burned! If he drowns during the testing, then he's not a witch and is therefore innocent and may be released. Its all so simple and scientific!

[muawiyah]

You missed the entire point on torture. You can be highminded or lowminded, following orders or disobeying orders, interpreting correctly or incorrectly interpreting the law, of whatever kind, and you will usually get what you want to hear from someone under torture.

That will delay your arrival at the truth.

Until we get some chemistry in place that guarantees truth-telling in all circumstances by all people, you and I are better off using trickery, incarceration, sensory deprivation, and food manipulation to gently "coerce" truthful answers from our prisoners, eh?!

[demecleze]

Certainly torture means any and all means for obtaining information.

I have never seen any data or publications regarding the use of torture, nor would I be likely to believe any that do exist as it does not seem that a researcher would have the option of judging torture highly effective. Nor do I think history covers these sorts of things with any accuracy. For instance, I know from a number of primary sources that German troops, especially SS troops were tortured very badly at the end of WWII, this is not spoken of generally.

So I guess I am speaking on the legality of torturing illegal combatants, not the effectiveness.