[Robert_Paulson2]

I approve of terrorist humliation. But don't think we did nearly enough to torture, punish and extract information from the ba$tard$.

MANY AMERICANS feel that the panties and dog leash were not nearly harsh enough for Sadaam's human woodchipper friends.

MOST Americans are more than mildly amused at the pantyboy pictures. Terrorising terrorists is fair and just.

and dont waste your breath with the 'if we do (whatever)we are just like them... ' crap. War is hell. They are lucky they only got the pantiboy and phone booth type of hazing.

They should have been treated a LOT WORSE.

[Rembrandt_fan]

I'm an infantry vet, not a former MP, so I don't know what guardhouse policies are, exactly. I do know that we as infantrymen were given very strict instructions on the treatment of captured PWs. Interrogation was to be handled by personnel trained in such matters, for the most part, although the situation in the field could be such that we could demand information from prisoners based on immediate need to know; e.g., 'Where's your buddies? How many are there?'--that kind of thing. Sexual humiliation or outright torture were forbidden. An order to commit such acts would have been considered an unlawful one.

Lastly, information obtained under extreme duress, particularly when perpetrated by untrained 'amateurs' like Englund, has little or no intel value. She and her pals did it because they could, not because they were experts in extracting information from recalcitrant terrorists.

[sheik yerbouty]

Give them "old crusty and the accompanying double wide panties! "Oh the humanity!"

[joemoe]

so your petty need for revenge outweighs the terrible loss that these pictures represented for our side? your desire to see the enemy humilated is more important than denying propaganda to the enemy? make no mistake, the terrorists love it when we behave in this manner. they adore these pictures of abuse. are you happy to be helping them out?