Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Group: U.S. military urged abuse in Iraq (Headline from AP & Yahoo!)
The AP via Yahoo! News ^ | July 23, 2006 | David B. Caruso

Posted on 07/23/2006 9:16:29 AM PDT by new yorker 77

The group Human Rights Watch said in a report released Sunday that U.S. military commanders encouraged abusive interrogations of detainees in Iraq, even after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal called attention to the issue in 2004.

Between 2003 and 2005, prisoners were routinely physically mistreated, deprived of sleep and exposed to extreme temperatures as part of the interrogation process, the report said.

"Soldiers were told that the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and that interrogators could use abusive techniques to get detainees to talk," wrote John Sifton, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.

The organization said it based its conclusion on interviews with military personnel and sworn statements in declassified documents.

A Pentagon spokesman, Cmdr. Greg Hicks, said he wasn't aware of the report, but noted the military is reviewing its procedures regarding detainees following a Supreme Court ruling that the Geneva Conventions should apply in the conflict with al-Qaida.

The Bush administration had previously held that certain enemies, including terrorists, were illegal combatants and not protected by those rules.

The conventions prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

Human Rights Watch focused much of its report on a detention facility called Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport.

One soldier, whose name was withheld from the report, described a suspected insurgent being stripped naked, thrown in the mud, sprayed with water and then exposed to frigid temperatures in an attempt to soften him up for interrogators.

Commanders, the soldier said, seemed confident that their treatment of prisoners was legal.

He described computerized authorization forms that had to be filled out before subjecting detainees to strobe lights, loud music, extreme heat or cold, or intimidation by barking dogs.

The allegations of abuse at the camp were first reported in March by The New York Times.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democratsinaction; enemedia; iraq; supportthetroops; treasonpress
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: youallaresofunny

Ooooh oh no not the laughing stock of Europe.....god knows when we grew up we wanted to be just like them. This posting was so disgusting I just had to respone. Your bit of brilliance was so inciteful I felt compelled to write my first reply before I redeploy to the states (sarcasm for the idiot youallaresofunny). I dare you to enlist in the military and find out the truth for yourself. Your ignorance is evident in the leftist blather that you vomit through your diatribe. God knows that war is won on popularity (you must have been that unpopular kid who wanted to be class president) and that we should just roll over to the islamoterrist besotted european countries you hold in such high reguard. I dare you to come to me or my fellow country men when the moops are flooding into your "greatest country" because I will be damned if I will waste one precious bullet saving your sorry ass. I challenge you to tell all of us idiots how you would stop terrorism, and don't tell me you would just get on your knees, tell us the real solution oh brilliant one. As for me I would like to say hi for the first time to all my hard core fellow americans and that I know the truth and I will tell you to be afraid, be very afraid and vigillant.


21 posted on 07/23/2006 11:21:43 AM PDT by interrogatorgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: interrogatorgirl

LOL! Great post, interrogator!


22 posted on 07/23/2006 11:25:31 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: livius

Livus. Thanks for the response. I am new to this forum in fact that was the first time I have EVER responded on a forum like this. I don't even know if this is what is considered a blog. I don't know the rules yet, I am going to try to keep it within the guide lines. That person is so in the dark I can't even tell y'all. I will become more active once I redeploy. Please remember that I am a newbie in fact I am for the first time in a long time the FNG:-) I look forward to sharing a more realistic real world view soon.


23 posted on 07/23/2006 11:42:18 AM PDT by interrogatorgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: interrogatorgirl

Technically speaking its not a blog, but I treat it as one. Its my blog. Yours too, now.


24 posted on 07/23/2006 11:46:42 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: interrogatorgirl

Well, you did a great job! Welcome!


25 posted on 07/23/2006 11:50:31 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: interrogatorgirl

Welcome to FR, sister.


26 posted on 07/23/2006 11:50:56 AM PDT by Spruce (Keep your mitts off my wallet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: marron
I realize that youallaresofunny probably didn't make too many friends with his post, and I surely don't share his point of view, but I noticed he's been banned. I thought this was Free Republic. Since when do we start banning people for holding a different point of view? Personally, I thought that's what made us different than the leftist blogs. We don't shut up those that hold a different opinion than the majority, even if they are wrong.
27 posted on 07/23/2006 12:45:37 PM PDT by RWWarmonger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RWWarmonger

It might have made a difference if he had offered an argument, rather than just an ad hominem. We do get some pretty good discussions going here, if you'll notice we don't all agree with one another, and there are a contingent of "antiwar" conservatives out there.

I'm convinced that all the good arguments are on our side of the aisle, mainly because the folks on the other side seem not to know how to argue. Its fun and its productive to argue with someone who brings something to the party, and is at least reasonably pleasant.

But if the discussion gets ugly its no fun for anyone. Its easy enough probably for him to come back with a new identity, and if he can actually contribute to the discussion, he probably won't get banned quite so quickly next time. I can think of a couple of guys here who are on the wrong side of every argument, but they are not banned, because they keep the adhominems under control.

I can only think of one time when my post got cut by the moderator, and I knew as soon as I hit "go" I had crossed a line. Its not that hard to say what you have to say without getting cut.


28 posted on 07/23/2006 1:02:40 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: youallaresofunny
"I just think..."

You've never had a thought in your life.

29 posted on 07/23/2006 1:09:48 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RWWarmonger

He posted the exact same post in at least one other thread. He was a hit-and-run disruptor and had no intention of discussion or debate.


30 posted on 07/23/2006 1:14:28 PM PDT by Spruce (Keep your mitts off my wallet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Spruce

Oh, that makes sense than. I didn't realize that he did that. Good to see him go in that case.


31 posted on 07/23/2006 1:42:48 PM PDT by RWWarmonger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: interrogatorgirl

Great post, and welcome.


32 posted on 07/24/2006 4:58:55 PM PDT by corlorde (New Hampshire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: corlorde

There was another AP Headline that read:

"Soldiers ordered to kill young men"

I have it bookmarked at home. It went on to state the solders orders and ROE to kill military aged males. they took the liberty to translate that into "young men" for the headline. These "young men" held up women and children as human shields, had weapons, then fought the solder when the were being detained, so the soldiers shot them. the story went on to say the men were unarmed and presented the soldiers didnt follow the ROE. Total BS.


33 posted on 07/25/2006 9:30:47 AM PDT by AmericanYankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: interrogatorgirl

Excellent post, well said!


34 posted on 07/25/2006 10:07:31 AM PDT by Ueriah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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