POL - uh oh, they did flush it!? everyone to the embassies!!!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I was talking about the Abu Ghariab report to show that sometimes a "bad apple's" behaviour does point to higher up.

Perhaps thats not the case with Quran but to white wash the higher ups is not fair either.

We live in America. If our higher-ups are truly at fault, they will be discovered, convicted, and held accountable. Especially Republicans.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Is anyone truly innocent?







(I've never read your posts. Respond with something short that I have the energy to read in less than a minute. Thanks, Mr.Bigglesmirth.)

Yes.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We live in America. If our higher-ups are truly at fault, they will be discovered, convicted, and held accountable. Especially Republicans.

Thats simply not true....and I think you know it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We live in America. If our higher-ups are truly at fault, they will be discovered, convicted, and held accountable. Especially Republicans.

HAHA

...that was tongue-in-cheek, right?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Yes.

Thanks, you've convinced me!!!!!!!

Vote all the way!!!!!!!!!!

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Thats simply not true....and I think you know it.

You are SO persuasive, Flasch!!!!!

Sign me up for 50 subscriptions of Vibe!!!!!

[Schmidty]

Dola.

I think if we keep debating stuff we can't control, we'll change the world!!!!!!!!

Together!!!!!!!!

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Ah, I see. So nobody in Afghanistan would get mad if *you* kicked a Quran?

Nope. Nobody would ever hear about it anyway since what I would do with a Quran is simply is not newsworthy enough to make it to the international news media.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Nope.

I agree, breakthrough!

Of the 20 Quran abuses that have been reported. 15 were done by the detainee's themselves. Nobody cared about that either. So why the hub-bub? Because, as you say, the way it's reported. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

[Flasch186]

90% of media is either controversial or negative to get you and my and the public's attention. When a Dem is in office, Im sure they gripe that the Media is slanted to the right....this applies here too.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Thanks, you've convinced me!!!!!!!

Vote all the way!!!!!!!!!!

You wanted a succinct answer, I gave it to you. Let me know if you want something with more thought put into it.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Because, as you say, the way it's reported. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

I said no such thing.

What I do with a Quran is of little consequence not because the act is no big deal it is because I am no big deal.

If I were an employee of the US military and in contact with military prisoners, and I did something with a Quran, that would be a completely different story. I would be jeopordizing my career doing something against my employer's code of conduct, and since I would be working in a place where my work is already heavily scrutinized to begin with, such activities would be incredibly bad PR moves. Thusly, I would be an idiot on two counts...

[Mr. Sparkle]

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/guantanamo_quran

Probe Finds Cases of Quran 'Mishandling'

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer Fri May 27, 1:21 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Investigators have confirmed five cases in which military personnel mishandled the Qurans of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, but they have found no "credible evidence" that a holy book was flushed in a toilet.
ADVERTISEMENT

The investigation also found 15 incidents in which detainees mishandled or inappropriately treated the Quran, including one case of a detainee ripping pages from his holy book, Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, the Guantanamo Bay prison commander who led the investigation, told reporters Thursday.

Hood emphasized that his probe is not yet complete. It was launched about two weeks ago in response to a Newsweek magazine story that said U.S. officials had confirmed a Quran was flushed in a toilet. The story stirred worldwide controversy and the Bush administration blamed it for deadly demonstrations in
Afghanistan.

Newsweek later retracted its report.

Hood, who has commanded the U.S. naval prison compound in Cuba since March 2004, told a
Pentagon news conference that a prisoner who was reported to have complained to an
FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet has since told Hood's investigators that he never witnessed any form of Quran desecration.

The unidentified prisoner, re-interviewed at Guantanamo on May 14, said he had heard talk of guards mishandling religious articles but did not witness any such acts, Hood said. The prisoner also stated that he personally had not been mistreated but that he had heard fellow inmates talk of being beaten or otherwise mistreated.

The general said he could not speculate on why the prisoner did not repeat his earlier statement about a guard flushing a Quran in a toilet. The statement was contained in an Aug. 1, 2002, FBI summary of an FBI agent's July 22, 2002, interrogation of the prisoner. A partly redacted version of the summary was made public this week.

The prisoner did not specifically recant his earlier allegation; Hood said the prisoner was not asked in the May 14 interview whether he had made the specific statement in 2002 as reported by the FBI. Instead he was asked more broadly whether he had seen the Quran "defiled, desecrated or mishandled."

"He allowed as how he hadn't, but he heard that guards at some other point in time had done this," Hood said, adding that this allegation from the 2002 FBI report was the only one Hood found that involved a toilet.

Other prisoners who were returned to their home countries after serving time at Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects have alleged Quran desecration by U.S. guards, and some have said a Quran was placed in a toilet.

"I'd like you to know that we have found no credible evidence that a member of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay ever flushed a Quran down a toilet," Hood said. "We did identify 13 incidents of alleged mishandling of the Quran by Joint Task Force personnel. Ten of those were by a guard and three by interrogators."

Of the 13 alleged incidents, five were substantiated, he said. Four were by guards and one was by an interrogator. Hood said the five cases "could be broadly defined as mishandling" of the holy book, but he refused to discuss details.

In three of the five cases, the mishandling appears to have been deliberate. In the other two, it apparently was accidental.

Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said at the news conference with Hood that at this point it should be clear that any mishandling of the Quran was largely inadvertent.

"I think it's safe to say that the policies and procedures down there are extraordinarily careful, and they're — as I said — policies that we've released, and people can judge for themselves. But I think people will see that the atmosphere down there is one of great respect for the practice of faith by detainees," he said.

In an indication of the Pentagon's eagerness to discredit the allegation, Hood briefed reporters on the interim findings of his investigation even though the Pentagon's standard practice is to withhold comment on the progress of any official investigation until it has been completed. Hood did not say how much longer his inquiry would last. Earlier Thursday he was on Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress.

Hood said eight of the 13 alleged incidents of Quran mishandling that he looked into were not substantiated. Six of those eight involved guards who either accidentally touched a Quran, "touched it within the scope of his duties" or did not touch it at all. "We consider each of these incidents resolved," Hood said.

The other two cases in which the allegation was not substantiated involved interrogators who either touched or "stood over" a Quran during an interrogation, Hood said. In one case not deemed to be mishandling, an interrogator placed two Qurans on a television. In the other case, which Hood did not describe fully, a Quran was not touched and Hood said the interrogator's unspecified "action" was accidental.

Seems to me like this story acknowledged the 15 cases of detainee abuse of their own book. But let me guess, since it's not in the headline or lead paragraph, it's liberal bias?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sparkle

Posting an article shown on the prior page and dealt with - the link yet again:http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...6&postcount=58

So, how many times are people going to post the same article in this thread?

Seems to me like this story acknowledged the 15 cases of detainee abuse of their own book. But let me guess, since it's not in the headline or lead paragraph, it's liberal bias?

It started out with 13 cases, six were thrown out because a guard "accidentally touched a Quran, touched it within the scope of his dutie" or did not touch it at all. Then two involved putting the Koran on a TV and standing near one. Finally, two others were found to be "accidental" misuse and not in violation. So, we are left with 3 total cases - none of which involved any damage to the book (from another story) - and we still do not know exactly what happened.

Let's not forget what started this whole thing:

Originally Posted by story

The general said he could not speculate on why the prisoner did not repeat his earlier statement about a guard flushing a Quran in a toilet. The statement was contained in an Aug. 1, 2002, FBI summary of an FBI agent's July 22, 2002, interrogation of the prisoner. A partly redacted version of the summary was made public this week.

The prisoner did not specifically recant his earlier allegation; Hood said the prisoner was not asked in the May 14 interview whether he had made the specific statement in 2002 as reported by the FBI. Instead he was asked more broadly whether he had seen the Quran "defiled, desecrated or mishandled."

"He allowed as how he hadn't, but he heard that guards at some other point in time had done this," Hood said, adding that this allegation from the 2002 FBI report was the only one Hood found that involved a toilet.

So, the initial premise that people were "desecrating and flushing" the Koran down the toilets was assumed true by many in the media. Then, after the military does a fine-toothed investigation because of the hub-bub, we find only three possible infractions with none involving desecration or toilets. And, once the investigation is complete and the evidence is gathered, the three involved may very well be punished for violating military guidelines.

Yet, people are saying how the military (esp high ups) are covering up abuses against the Koran and letting everyone get away scott free. It appears that just the opposite has happened as despite the initial claims being baseless and malicious against the military, the "high ups" have sanctioned a full investigation on all activities involving the Koran and may very well hand out punishments on the three still in question if the evidence merits that action.

I wonder how all those criticizing the military would have had them act instead? Perhaps they should have summarily arrested random guards fingered by these prisoners (whom we now know were lying)... The US military took a black eye for something that never happened. Then, after finding out it never happened, they continued to probe for any possible infraction and found three possible ones out of the thousands of interrogations done - with those three still potentially not violating US military rules. But, if they did, the military has stated appropriate actions will be taken to discipline those involved.

This definately looks like a corrupt administration in action given what we know - don't you think?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yet, people are saying how the military (esp high ups) are covering up abuses against the Koran and letting everyone get away scott free. It appears that just the opposite has happened as despite the initial claims being baseless and malicious against the military, the "high ups" have sanctioned a full investigation on all activities involving the Koran and may very well hand out punishments on the three still in question if the evidence merits that action.

I wonder how all those criticizing the military would have had them act instead? Perhaps they should have summarily arrested random guards fingered by these prisoners (whom we now know were lying)... The US military took a black eye for something that never happened. Then, after finding out it never happened, they continued to probe for any possible infraction and found three possible ones out of the thousands of interrogations done - with those three still potentially not violating US military rules. But, if they did, the military has stated appropriate actions will be taken to discipline those involved.

This definately looks like a corrupt administration in action given what we know - don't you think?

It's amazing to me that someone can write paragraphs like these in light of what we know happened at Abu Ghraib, Begram, and the renditions we conduct into Egypt etc. Let's take a look at what we are doing. From the NYT:

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days...

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

The real evil is Newsweek, who dared say in a single sentence in a huge article that someone flushed a Koran (and please forget that the rest of the article is true). The real evil are those that want to hold the military to higher standards. The real evil are those that are questioning Mr. Bush in this time of war. This is America, if people did wrong they will be held accountable, especially Republicans (and please forget that nobody has been held accountable for either the massive intelligence failure or the horrific actions of Abu Ghraib, which were really fraternity pranks). Pay no attention to Bagram, pay no attention to the Downing Street Memo. They are meaningless. Look at how the media is trying to take down the military by publishing potentially false misdemeanors (and please ignore the true felonies that they report on).

What, you think I'm being sarcastic? Why do you hate America?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It's amazing to me that someone can write paragraphs like these in light of what we know happened at Abu Ghraib, Begram, and the renditions we conduct into Egypt etc.

What did your response have to do with the issue of the Koran? It seems you now know this issue a non-starter and are forced to go back to your Abu Ghraib card to justify the slander done to the Military in this case.

Abu Ghraib was a bad experience and one many have been punished for. But you cannot simply hide behind this everytime the media cries wolf on the Military and a sheep comes crowling around the corner. If you want to keep after the military for acts in Abu Ghraib and other sites, have at it. I will read with interest looking for more information and weighing both sides. But don't get all worked up because someone calls out baseless slander against the military in one case - just because you may feel there are other actions that haven't been investigated to your satisfaction. It seems as if you feel any trumped up charge against the military on any issue is OK because of your disdain for the military in regards to other issues that have not been fully disclosed.

The real evil is Newsweek, who dared say in a single sentence in a huge article that someone flushed a Koran (and please forget that the rest of the article is true).

Why is so bad that I want to hold the American press to the same standards you wish to hold our military to?

[Mr. Sparkle]

Arles

First off, I'll post that damn story again if you push my buttons

Second off, all I've ever wanted was the soldiers responsible for the desecrations held accountable for violating the code of conduct set forth by the military as it pertains to holding the Koran. That's not too much to ask, is it?

And a senior Defense official saw the Newsweek story 11 days before it ran and was asked if it was accurate or not. He didn't say anything about the Koran flushing incident. Only after it was linked to protests in Afghanistan did the administration denounce it. That's quite shocking to me that they showed it to anyone in the government before it ran, yet they did. The writer was burned by his source, and he subsequently recanted. What more steps were they to take?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sparkle

...

Second off, all I've ever wanted was the soldiers responsible for the desecrations held accountable for violating the code of conduct set forth by the military as it pertains to holding the Koran. That's not too much to ask, is it?
...

I agree. Should we start with the guy who set it on top of a T.V.? Or just jump right in on the guy who stood next to one?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

Abu Ghraib was a bad experience and one many have been punished for.

Really? Who is that? That General who got knocked down to a Colonel?

Originally Posted by Arles

It seems you now know this issue a non-starter and are forced to go back to your Abu Ghraib card to justify the slander done to the Military in this case....But you cannot simply hide behind this everytime the media cries wolf on the Military and a sheep comes crowling around the corner...But don't get all worked up because someone calls out baseless slander against the military in one case...

You are completely missing the point. This issue is being used to hide the truth of the torture. This issue is inconsequential, yet it is being used to demonize the press. They pick one line out of a report that may not be true and then beat the issue to death. 'Baseless slander'? Are you kidding? There is a ton of base! If you heard that American soldiers beat an innocent man to death, held people indefinitely without trial, used fake menstrual blood to get confessions, led a guy around with a dog collar and leash, and threw the Koran in the toilet, would you even bat an eye at the last one?? The Pentagon didn't when they were shown the Newsweek copy before it went to print. The story might be wrong, so Newsweek retracted it. They did nothing wrong. I realize many conservatives would prefer a media consisting of nothing but White House press releases, but that's not going to work. The media is going to get stuff wrong if they are aggressive in their reporting. It's a fact. Just like the military will make mistakes in a war, that happens too. But using a tiny alleged mistake by a weekly news magazine to distract attention away from widespread abuse is unconscionable. If you want to talk about 'baseless slander', look at the Swift Boat vets, who are lionized by the right wing media. Look at the daily lies and misleading statements coming from the White House about Social Security. Not to Newsweek, who is attempting to do their job.

Originally Posted by Arles

Why is so bad that I want to hold the American press to the same standards you wish to hold our military to?

If you can show me one incident of Dan Rather beating someone to death, you may have a point about me not holding them to the same standards.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Really? Who is that? That General who got knocked down to a Colonel?

I guess all of the soldiers standing trial and court marshalled don't count. For it to work for you, we need some 5-star generals to be thrown in the clink. Heck, we ought to throw in Rumsfeld as well because even though he was shown by the evidence to have no part in it, he's a bad man and has done other bad things so those should factor in this decisions as well - am I close?

You are completely missing the point. This issue is being used to hide the truth of the torture. This issue is inconsequential, yet it is being used to demonize the press. They pick one line out of a report that may not be true and then beat the issue to death.

You mean like picking one incident from the numerous prisons and interrogation rooms used by the military to blanket the entire US military as a group of torturios thugs?

'Baseless slander'? Are you kidding? There is a ton of base! If you heard that American soldiers beat an innocent man to death, held people indefinitely without trial, used fake menstrual blood to get confessions, led a guy around with a dog collar and leash, and threw the Koran in the toilet, would you even bat an eye at the last one??

I'd like to see some sources for beating an "innocent man" to death without an investigation or punshiment and proof for using illegal methods in interrogations. If these assertopms can be shown to be correct, I'll be right with you to penalize those involved that broke the rules. Being part of the military is a tough job, but that doesn't excuse people from poor behavior. But we've seen many of similar allegations fall apart when put under more scrutiny - and rarely is there mention of these developments on the anti-military sites they are first proposed on.

The story might be wrong, so Newsweek retracted it. They did nothing wrong.

Yeah, closing the barn door after all the horses ran out is no biggie.

The media is going to get stuff wrong if they are aggressive in their reporting. It's a fact. Just like the military will make mistakes in a war, that happens too.

Yet, to you, the mistake we (as a society) have the most control over (proper vetting of sources by the media) is significantly less of a concern when compared to any mistakes the military makes - when many end up beyond our control. It's not like a soldier - when being faced in the heat of the battle with a group of the enemy - can stop, call his informant and his senior leadership, and validate that everything is true before pulling the trigger. Mistakes will happen in war and have throughout history and the US has done one of the better jobs at minimizing the chances they occur. There is no reason for a reporter or editor to run an unsubstantiated story with serious political ramifications.

But using a tiny alleged mistake by a weekly news magazine to distract attention away from widespread abuse is unconscionable. If you want to talk about 'baseless slander', look at the Swift Boat vets, who are lionized by the right wing media. Look at the daily lies and misleading statements coming from the White House about Social Security. Not to Newsweek, who is attempting to do their job.

You have done so much deflection in this thread it is borderline comical. You say that some are using a "tiny mistake" by the media to deflect attention away from is normally going on? Welcome to the tactics of the anti-military and some parts of the media against the US Armed forces. Also, in this thread, you are using prior activities and investigations that have not reached your preferred conclusion to give the media a free pass on an issue where they have been showed to not only use poor judgement, but also potentially impact the lives of our servicemen and women abroad (not to mention innocent civilians). Yet, it's no big thing to you - you're acting as if we don't deserve the ire for this situation, then we deserve for others so the ends justify the means.

If you can show me one incident of Dan Rather beating someone to death, you may have a point about me not holding them to the same standards.

To say the media has no ability to impact the lives of people in a time of war is extremely nieve. The media acts to reinforce the world view (primarily made by harping on a few isolated cases) that the US military is a group of mindless Rambos trying to kill and torture anything in their way. How do you think that impacts the way our soliders and civilian contractors (99% of whom have done nothing wrong) get treated in the world?

You can't act as if releasing a retraction weeks after plastering a story on how US soldiers are desecrating and destroying the Koran is somehow "no biggie". These actions impact the treatment and respect our military men and women get worldwide.

We have a military deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops spread out througout the globe. Even if you go to the biggest lefty loon blog, you will find only a handful documented cases of abuse and even fewer that resulted in the death of a prisoner. Yet, some blanked the entire military with the acts of these few - even when most are being investigated or punished.

If you want to spearhead or continue to champion investigations/accountability to those shown to be involved in these illegal acts, I think that's great. But don't tell me that because 0.01% may have done something wrong on a few other cases that it's OK to blanket the entire military with this "goon" tag and slander the military on any unsubstantiated claim that's out there. That's about as valid as me finding 5 plumbers that committed murder and using those 5 guys to slander every other plumber in the US.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You are completely missing the point. This issue is being used to hide the truth of the torture. This issue is inconsequential, yet it is being used to demonize the press. They pick one line out of a report that may not be true and then beat the issue to death. 'Baseless slander'?

Yeah, I tend to be a bit more concerned about things like these than anything having to do with a Koran:

- U.S. takes hostages to coerce relatives into surrendering
- Guantanamo prisoner claims to have suffered violent sexual assaults and near drowning during his captivity.
- Guantanamo prisoner claims that Gitmo tapes would be as explosive as the Abu Ghraib photos
- Guantanamo prisoner claims innocence, details physical mistreatment
- Guantanamo prisoner claims prisoners were handcuffed naked and attacked by dogs
- 15-year-old Guantanamo detainee claims abuse
- Pentagon inquiry confirms use of sexual tactics in interrogations
- Military lawyers at Gitmo try and fail to end physical abuse of prisoners.
- Afghan prisoner, left exposed to the elements by the CIA freezes to death.
- Gitmo prisoner claims torture, assault, near-suffocation
- Mother Jones story details many claims of torture at hands of U.S.
- Navy disgusted by abusive treatment at Gitmo.
- Terror prisoners claim to have been beaten and abused at New York's Metropolitan Detention Center.
- Iraqi prisoner hung from the wrists until dead (Abu Ghraib related)

Unfortunately this Koran thing has been a pretty successful diversionary tactic, so we can all whine and bitch about the biased, anti-military, anti-American press instead of wondering how all this 'gulag of our times' stuff is going to play in terms of our larger objectives in the war on terror, and wondering what in the hell we think we're gaining by conducting ourselves this way that is going to balance the serious damage that we're inflicting on ourselves in the PR war.

...not to mention wondering whether this sort of conduct can be squared with our values of liberty, justice, human dignity, and the 'culture of life'.

[Arles]

And how many of those above listed do you know have not been investigated by the military?

I also find it interesting that many on the left look at all the detainees and terrorists held by the US as "innocent until proven guilty". Yet, when a military member is the one being accused by the detainee, he should be looked at as "guilty until proven innocent".

There are bad people and idiots in small numbers in the military just like there are in every walk of life. All the military can do is try to weed them out and investigate each claim. But, just because the investigation doesn't reach your preferred resolution does not mean it was swept under the rug or not taken seriously.

Detainees can run to their lawyers and make any charge they see fit and it will be printed all over the news. Yet, the results of the investigation that the detainee is involved in doesn't always get that same coverage and sometimes all aspects are not allowed to be released publically for security reasons (ie, classified).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Detainees can run to their lawyers and make any charge they see fit and it will be printed all over the news. Yet, the results of the investigation that the detainee is involved in doesn't always get that same coverage and sometimes all aspects are not allowed to be released publically for security reasons (ie, classified).

It is clear that you are an apologist with no sense of objectivity, but if you believe this last paragraph then you have left reality entirely. "Detainees can run to their lawyers and make any charge they see fit and it will be printed all over the news?" Are you serious? Where the hell did you get this? Detainees have almost no access to lawyers. They have pretty much zero privacy in access to lawyers. Lawyers are now criminally liable for engaging in leaks as you describe. I mean seriously, WTF? The allegations that have come out have been ALMOST ENTIRELY by freed detainees and sources within the U.S. military.

And then to say the coverage is overwhelmingly pro-detainee? Have you noticed that EVERY single statement by the Bush administration gets replayed over and over and over. I mean Cheney actually said he was "offended" by reports of human rights abuses. Maybe he missed the 25+ confirmed murders of detainees and over 100 deaths in suspicious circumstances.

Here is an entry from a very conservative blog condemning the administration:

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1878

It is rational and well thought out, but I'm quite sure you will agree with the morons in the comments section.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It is clear that you are an apologist with no sense of objectivity, but if you believe this last paragraph then you have left reality entirely. "Detainees can run to their lawyers and make any charge they see fit and it will be printed all over the news?" Are you serious? Where the hell did you get this?

Two posts above...

- U.S. takes hostages to coerce relatives into surrendering
- Guantanamo prisoner claims to have suffered violent sexual assaults and near drowning during his captivity.
- Guantanamo prisoner claims that Gitmo tapes would be as explosive as the Abu Ghraib photos
- Guantanamo prisoner claims innocence, details physical mistreatment
- Guantanamo prisoner claims prisoners were handcuffed naked and attacked by dogs
- 15-year-old Guantanamo detainee claims abuse
- Military lawyers at Gitmo try and fail to end physical abuse of prisoners.
- Gitmo prisoner claims torture, assault, near-suffocation
- Mother Jones story details many claims of torture at hands of U.S.
- Terror prisoners claim to have been beaten and abused at New York's Metropolitan Detention Center.

Certainly seems that many (some of which have already been released) have gone to the media with accusations. My point was that just because these accusations were made and no major follow up exists in the media does not mean there is no investigation or punishment.

And then to say the coverage is overwhelmingly pro-detainee? Have you noticed that EVERY single statement by the Bush administration gets replayed over and over and over. I mean Cheney actually said he was "offended" by reports of human rights abuses. Maybe he missed the 25+ confirmed murders of detainees and over 100 deaths in suspicious circumstances.

And the media never held Cheney accountable for those statements? That's the difference, when the Military/Admin says something questionable - the media runs with it and it's front page stuff. When a detainee makes a charge that ends up as baseless, it's rarely reported on - especially not with the same vigor. This leaves an impression that the detainees are always correct.

Here is an entry from a very conservative blog condemning the administration:

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1878

It is rational and well thought out, but I'm quite sure you will agree with the morons in the comments section.

As I said above, if people want to cite individual instances of abuse and torture that were not investigated properly by the Admin, I will gladly read it and see the evidence/support for the claims. If it turns out the military was in the wrong (a la Abu Ghraib) I will certainly support punishment for those involved. But, this does not mean that I will run with every accusation or claim by detainees as the gospel and use it to overlook other attacks on the military shown to be baseless.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Here is an entry from a very conservative blog condemning the administration:

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1878

It is rational and well thought out, but I'm quite sure you will agree with the morons in the comments section.

That's funny. You're using a libertarian blog to make your point? I hate to break it to you, but comparing conservatives with libertarians is like comparing Naderites with modern progressives. Of course they are going to make such an argument because they believe in isolationism. The only way to achieve that is to convince those their policy is the correct solution is to handcuff the military from doing their actual jobs of winning wars (not the torture of detainees). They hope that people get fed up with the currrent ideology that we revert back to 1939.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by duckman

That's funny. You're using a libertarian blog to make your point? I hate to break it to you, but comparing conservatives with libertarians is like comparing Naderites with modern progressives. Of course they are going to make such an argument because they believe in isolationism. The only way to achieve that is to convince those their policy is the correct solution is to handcuff the military from doing their actual jobs of winning wars (not the torture of detainees). They hope that people get fed up with the currrent ideology that we revert back to 1939.

While I agree with you generally and should have been more accurate in my label, I think the difference isn't important in this case. A lot (if not most right-wing) libertarians have been Hawkish on the Iraq war. It is not filled with isolationists.

As for reverting to 1939, huh?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Two posts above...

Certainly seems that many (some of which have already been released) have gone to the media with accusations. My point was that just because these accusations were made and no major follow up exists in the media does not mean there is no investigation or punishment.

"Certainly seems?" Arles, stop reading the second hand rags and actually read the articles. The reports are from whistleblowers and freed detainees. Remember, the freed ones didn't actually do anything wrong.

And read the blog I wrote. Their is punishment and it is a joke. Soldiers have been given "reprimands" as punishment for "murder."

Originally Posted by Arles

And the media never held Cheney accountable for those statements? That's the difference, when the Military/Admin says something questionable - the media runs with it and it's front page stuff. When a detainee makes a charge that ends up as baseless, it's rarely reported on - especially not with the same vigor. This leaves an impression that the detainees are always correct.

Source? I read CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC and didn't see Cheney getting anything but his views made.

Originally Posted by Arles

As I said above, if people want to cite individual instances of abuse and torture that were not investigated properly by the Admin, I will gladly read it and see the evidence/support for the claims. If it turns out the military was in the wrong (a la Abu Ghraib) I will certainly support punishment for those involved. But, this does not mean that I will run with every accusation or claim by detainees as the gospel and use it to overlook other attacks on the military shown to be baseless.

Read the freakin' blog. It goes through all of the individual instances of suspicious deaths (not even run-of-the-mill torture). And we have already seen what your "punishment for those involved" means. For you, it means never punishment anyone above the rank of sergeant.

[JPhillips]

Duckman: What the hell? If you criticize torture you love Hitler?

From the blog entry:

Torture and abuse is not just a moral or legal failure. It is a strategic failure in the War on Terror.

We cannot win the war without the support of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that may be the price of sacrificing our moral high ground to beat up some insurgents.

It deserves bipartisan outrage, especially from those of us who support the Bush administration's execution of the War on Terror.

These guys are very much in favor of the War on Terror, and I'd recommend you read the response to critics like yourself.

Situational Ethics and the Argument for Torture

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

"Certainly seems?" Arles, stop reading the second hand rags and actually read the articles. The reports are from whistleblowers and freed detainees. Remember, the freed ones didn't actually do anything wrong.

And read the blog I wrote. Their is punishment and it is a joke. Soldiers have been given "reprimands" as punishment for "murder."

I am certainly in favor of harsher punishments for murder than a simple reprimand. I read your blog and found some very questionable conclusions:

It is to our credit that CID is looking into this stuff, and pressing criminal charges. But something is causing entire units to mistreat prisoners, torture them, and kill them....Apparently, some of our guys feel perfectly comfortable engaging in barbarism. Since there are no bad troops, only bad leadership, I have to wonder how complicit the chain of command is, at least at the local level, at turning a blind eye to this stuff.

This is a complete fishing expedition. The issue is being looked into, which appears to be the goal of this blog, yet the writer states "there are no bad troops, only bad leadership". Give me a break. Are you telling me that there are no "bad troops" in a group of over 250,000? There are going to be a few bad apples, but their numbers are so insignifcant that there's very little the military can do outside of giving its code of conduct and punishing those that break it.

So that's 21 deaths throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, with penalties ranging from nothing at all to a reprimand to 1 year confinement to 3 years in prison to actual murder charges. 10 more deaths are "Unknown or still under investigation".

Go to the actual story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w113007S95.DTL

Out of these 21 total, 6 are still under investigation by the army - so we don't know what will happen. That leaves 15:

_Mohammed Sayari, Afghanistan, April 28, 2002. Army Special Forces captain reprimanded.
_Mullah Habibullah, about 28, Bagram, Afghanistan, Dec. 3, 2002. Sgt. James P. Boland, 377th Military Police Company, charged with dereliction of duty; more charges possible against others.
_Dilawar, 22, Bagram, Dec. 10, 2002. Pfc. Willie V. Brand, 377th Military Police Company, charged with involuntary manslaughter, according to documents obtained by Human Rights Watch. Boland charged with dereliction, assault and maltreatment, more charges possible against others.
_Unidentified person, Wazi Village, Afghanistan, January 2003. Under investigation.
_Jamal Naseer, 18, Gardez, Afghanistan, March 2003. Under investigation.
_Unidentified person, Camp Bucca, Iraq, May 12, 2003. Soldier reprimanded for not using warning shots before killing someone trying to enter the camp.
_Abdul Wali, 28, Asadabad, Afghanistan, June 2, 2003. CIA contractor David Passaro charged with assault.
_Dilar Dababa, Baghdad, June 13, 2003. Died of head injury. USA Today reported he died during interrogation.
_Obeed Hethere Radad, Tikrit, Iraq, Sept. 11, 2003. Soldier discharged for voluntary manslaughter for not warning escaping prisoner before shooting him.
_Manadel al-Jamadi, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Nov. 4, 2003. Died during interrogation. Several Navy SEALs charged; and two CIA personnel under investigation.
_Abdul Wahid, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Nov. 6, 2003. Badly wounded man dies in U.S. custody. No U.S. charges The Denver Post reported he died at interrogation facility while shackled and gagged.
_Muhamad Husain Kadir, Taal Al Jal, Iraq, Feb. 28, 2004. Pfc. Edward Richmond, 25th Infantry Division, received three years in prison for voluntary manslaughter.
_Karim Hassan, 36, Kufa, Iraq, May 21, 2004. Capt. Rogelio Maynulet, 1st Armored Division, facing court-martial over what he described as mercy killing of wounded Iraq militiaman.
_Unidentified person, 16, Sadr City, Iraq, Aug. 18, 2004. Staff Sgt. Johnny M. Horne Jr., Fort Riley, Kan., sentenced to three years in prison in another purported mercy killing. Staff Sgt. Cardenas J. Alban, also from Fort Riley, convicted and sentenced to one year confinement.
_Three unidentified people, Sadr City, August 2004. Sgt. Michael P. Williams and Spc. Brent May, from Fort Riley, facing murder charges.

Out of those 15, 8 are still under investigation or facing further charges (including murder). This leaves two involving reprimands (one involving an unknown running into a US camp without notice with the soldier repremanded for not firing a warning shot), one court marshall for a "mercy killing of wounded Iraq militiaman", two involving multi-year sentences (one for manslaughter), one found to have involved no US fault (head injury on interrogation) and ONE involving no charges.

Again, I don't see any rampant cover ups or in-proper investigations here. It seems like they are looking into each of these cases and in the ones that have been resolved, many have involved serious penalties from court marshalls to multi-year sentences.

Source? I read CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC and didn't see Cheney getting anything but his views made.

Not looking hard enough:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/04/in...5b7361&ei=5070

Long used to biting criticism, the group said this was the first time one of its reports had drawn the public wrath of the United States president and vice president, its secretary of defense, its secretary of state and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Ms. Gilmore said the response was telling. "When we see a government at this level engaging in rhetorical attacks and avoiding dealing with the details or the facts," she said, "we interpret that as being a sign that we are starting to have an impact."

Just do a google on [Cheney "offended" by reports of human rights abuses] and you will find a large group of media stories and columns taking the anti-administration route on this issue.

Read the freakin' blog. It goes through all of the individual instances of suspicious deaths (not even run-of-the-mill torture).

I did you one better and posted the source for the actual blogger. Again, which of these 4 specific instances (out of over 21 charges) that have resulted in a repremand or no charge do you think was incorrect? And what is your basis for that conclusion?

And we have already seen what your "punishment for those involved" means. For you, it means never punishment anyone above the rank of sergeant.

And, for you, nothing will be enough until you see a major military representative take the fall for this - even if one wasn't behind any of it. Again, we have 21 total charges being investigated for misconduct - some including actions in the heat of the battle. We have had over 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and why do 21 instances make you think that there is some top-level conspiracy to break all of our own internal rules? It couldn't just be that soldiers got caught up in the battle and potentially made a mistake 21 times - and that's if all are found guilty (two have been already cleared).

After reading all this information, it appears that the Military is taken each of these cases seriously and punishing those shown to be in violation (most by significantly more than a reprimand).

[duckman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Duckman: What the hell? If you criticize torture you love Hitler?

No, I was making a reference to America be an isolationist country in 1939. Nothing more.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by John Galt

A lot (if not most right-wing) libertarians have been Hawkish on the Iraq war. It is not filled with isolationists.

Really? Somebody needs to read the Libertarian Party platform. I've been to a couple of their meetings here in Oklahoma. All they talk about is how we need to revert back to isolationist America (circa 1939).

[JPhillips]

Arles:

And, for you, nothing will be enough until you see a major military representative take the fall for this - even if one wasn't behind any of it. Again, we have 21 total charges being investigated for misconduct - some including actions in the heat of the battle. We have had over 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and why do 21 instances make you think that there is some top-level conspiracy to break all of our own internal rules? It couldn't just be that soldiers got caught up in the battle and potentially made a mistake 21 times - and that's if all are found guilty (two have been already cleared).

Here's some examples of why it is a problem with senior leaders and not 21 bad apples as you would believe.

1) The US regularly denies access to prisoners by Red Cross.

2) According to the Taguba Report the US has on more than one occasion moved prisoners around to hide them from the Red Cross.

3) A documented agreement betewwn CIA and Military intelligence to keep some prisoners without information so that they were invisible to outside eyes.

4) In Afghanistan a prison where the, ""purpose is to hold suspected terrorists or insurgents for interrogation and safekeeping while avoiding U.S. or international court systems, where proceedings and evidence against the accused would be aired in public. Some are even held by foreign governments at the informal request of the United States".

5) In Guanatanamo we had interrogations, "rigged to fool the visiting VIPs."

6) An official memo stating, ''As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.'' (note the out clause)

7) Another government saying, ''Any effort to apply Section 2340A in a manner that interferes with the president's direction of such core war matters as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants thus would be unconstitutional.'' (so there is no law that can be broken by the President?)

8) The General in charge at Guantanamo was transferred to Iraq and the interrogation techniques "migrated" with him.

9) This from a Red Cross report, ''Several military intelligence officers confirmed to the I.C.R.C. that it was part of the military intelligence process to hold a person deprived of his liberty naked in a completely dark and empty cell for a prolonged period to use inhumane and degrading treatment, including physical and psychological coercion.'

10) An email from a military intelligence caption saying, ''The gloves are coming off gentlemen regarding these detainees, Col. Boltz has made it clear that we want these individuals broken.''

11) A guard at Abu Ghraib saying, ''The M.I. staffs, to my understanding, have been giving Graner compliments on the way he has been handling the M.I. holds [prisoners held by military intelligence]. Example being statements like 'Good job, they're breaking down real fast'; 'They answer every question'; 'They're giving out good information, finally'; and 'Keep up the good work' - stuff like that.''

12) Sandra Day O'conner in Hamdi v. US talking about the classification of enemy combatants, ''the government has never provided any court with the full criteria that it uses in classifying individuals''

13) We continue to export prisoners to other countries that openly use torture.


And in terms of punishment look at this from Andrew Sullivan,

And the damage done was intensified by President Bush's refusal to discipline those who helped make this happen. A president who truly recognized the moral and strategic calamity of this failure would have fired everyone responsible. But the vice president's response to criticism of the defense secretary in the wake of Abu Ghraib was to say, ''Get off his back.'' In fact, those with real responsibility for the disaster were rewarded. Rumsfeld was kept on for the second term, while the man who warned against ignoring the Geneva Conventions, Colin Powell, was seemingly nudged out. The man who wrote a legal opinion maximizing the kind of brutal treatment that the United States could legally defend, Jay S. Bybee, was subsequently rewarded with a nomination to a federal Court of Appeals. General Sanchez and Gen. John P. Abizaid remain in their posts. Alberto R. Gonzales, who wrote memos that validated the decision to grant Geneva status to inmates solely at the president's discretion, is now nominated to the highest law enforcement job in the country: attorney general. The man who paved the way for the torture of prisoners is to be entrusted with safeguarding the civil rights of Americans. It is astonishing he has been nominated, and even more astonishing that he will almost certainly be confirmed.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by duckman

Really? Somebody needs to read the Libertarian Party platform. I've been to a couple of their meetings here in Oklahoma. All they talk about is how we need to revert back to isolationist America (circa 1939).

Don't confuse libertarians with the libertarian party. A great many self-professed libertarians do not identify with most of the party's platform. You need only look at the libertarian blogs on the net (ie volokh.com) and the libertarian members of this board) to see that they are overwhelmingly pro-war.

And as was pointed out, the blog in question is very much pro-war.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

I guess all of the soldiers standing trial and court marshalled don't count. For it to work for you, we need some 5-star generals to be thrown in the clink. Heck, we ought to throw in Rumsfeld as well because even though he was shown by the evidence to have no part in it, he's a bad man and has done other bad things so those should factor in this decisions as well - am I close?

You are a master at setting up and knocking down straw men.

Originally Posted by Arles

You mean like picking one incident from the numerous prisons and interrogation rooms used by the military to blanket the entire US military as a group of torturios thugs?

Who said the military was a group of murderous thugs? Straw man.

Originally Posted by Arles

I'd like to see some sources for beating an "innocent man" to death without an investigation or punshiment and proof for using illegal methods in interrogations. If these assertopms can be shown to be correct, I'll be right with you to penalize those involved that broke the rules. Being part of the military is a tough job, but that doesn't excuse people from poor behavior. But we've seen many of similar allegations fall apart when put under more scrutiny - and rarely is there mention of these developments on the anti-military sites they are first proposed on.

Is the NYT an "anti-military site"? Because that is where the Bagram article ran.

Originally Posted by Arles

Yet, to you, the mistake we (as a society) have the most control over (proper vetting of sources by the media) is significantly less of a concern when compared to any mistakes the military makes - when many end up beyond our control. It's not like a soldier - when being faced in the heat of the battle with a group of the enemy - can stop, call his informant and his senior leadership, and validate that everything is true before pulling the trigger. Mistakes will happen in war and have throughout history and the US has done one of the better jobs at minimizing the chances they occur. There is no reason for a reporter or editor to run an unsubstantiated story with serious political ramifications.

Another straw man. Though maybe a red herring. We are talking about torture, not mistakes in the heat of battle. Also, the story was substantiated: they had a credible source and the backing from the Pentagon.

Originally Posted by Arles

...but also potentially impact the lives of our servicemen and women abroad (not to mention innocent civilians).

C'mon, do you take the muslim people for fools? Do you think they tolerate murders and illegal detentions, but draw the line at the Koran?

Originally Posted by Arles

The media acts to reinforce the world view (primarily made by harping on a few isolated cases) that the US military is a group of mindless Rambos trying to kill and torture anything in their way.

No wonder you are on a crusade to break the media if this is how you feel about them. It is a terribly misguided attitude. The press is the fourth check of government. Pointing out that soldiers or congressmen or presidents are doing horrible things is their job. Why don't you blame the chain of command that resulted in a worldwide torture network rather than the ones that are pointing out the worldwide torture network? All you are doing now is just shooting the messenger.

Originally Posted by Arles

You can't act as if releasing a retraction weeks after plastering a story on how US soldiers are desecrating and destroying the Koran is somehow "no biggie". These actions impact the treatment and respect our military men and women get worldwide.

Either you didn't read the Newsweek story you have a penchant for overblown rhetoric. I'm guessing some of both. Read the story, and tell me that they 'plastered' it. It was a blurb in a tiny story about something else entirely. It's virtually inconsequential against the other things we have done, so they didn't even do a story on it.

Originally Posted by Arles

If you want to spearhead or continue to champion investigations/accountability to those shown to be involved in these illegal acts, I think that's great. But don't tell me that because 0.01% may have done something wrong on a few other cases that it's OK to blanket the entire military with this "goon" tag and slander the military on any unsubstantiated claim that's out there. That's about as valid as me finding 5 plumbers that committed murder and using those 5 guys to slander every other plumber in the US.

Straw man again. Nobody is blanketing the military with the goon tag. In fact, most criticism doesn't even deal with the military, it deals with the civilian command. Right wingnuts like to paint it as an anti-military thing because it is easier to drum up support that way. Whether you are intentionally perpetuating that or just have swallowed it whole from another source, I cannot say.

Newsweek had what they thought was a credible source, showed it to the Pentagon who did not object, and then went to press with it as an aside in a story. If you can find something evil and/or anti-miltary there, you are searching too hard for something to hang the media with.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

I am certainly in favor of harsher punishments for murder than a simple reprimand. I read your blog and found some very questionable conclusions:


This is a complete fishing expedition. The issue is being looked into, which appears to be the goal of this blog, yet the writer states "there are no bad troops, only bad leadership". Give me a break. Are you telling me that there are no "bad troops" in a group of over 250,000? There are going to be a few bad apples, but their numbers are so insignifcant that there's very little the military can do outside of giving its code of conduct and punishing those that break it.

You are a dumbass. They are using an expression to prove a point that a good commander is ultimately responsible for the actions of their troops. They ARE NOT SAYING THERE ARE NO BAD TROOPS.

And I notice how you completely ignore the statistical analysis of mistreatment. Given how little access there is to detainees and that similar incidents have occurred across the globe, are you really calling this a "fishing expedition?" Hell, you probably thought Rodney King deserved what he got. Even when the evidence is becoming overwhelming (despite the limited access to information), you stick your head in the sand. I can't even imagine a scenario where you would ever find Rumsfeld guilty of anything short of authenticated video of him ass-raping 10 Iraqi prisoners in a military gang-bang. Even the, I bet you would catch one of the detainees smirking and conclude they were asking for it.

Originally Posted by Arles

Go to the actual story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w113007S95.DTL

Out of these 21 total, 6 are still under investigation by the army - so we don't know what will happen. That leaves 15:

Out of those 15, 8 are still under investigation or facing further charges (including murder). This leaves two involving reprimands (one involving an unknown running into a US camp without notice with the soldier repremanded for not firing a warning shot), one court marshall for a "mercy killing of wounded Iraq militiaman", two involving multi-year sentences (one for manslaughter), one found to have involved no US fault (head injury on interrogation) and ONE involving no charges..

Astounding is your intellect. Do you intentionally ignore all of the facts you don't like or is your brain incapable of even reading them?

Originally Posted by Arles

Again, I don't see any rampant cover ups or in-proper investigations here. It seems like they are looking into each of these cases and in the ones that have been resolved, many have involved serious penalties from court marshalls to multi-year sentences.

Resolved? Years from now when this all comes to light, you will say, "Well that was in the past and we are much better now." It's a great system: Zero accountability and complete hero worship.

Originally Posted by Arles

Not looking hard enough:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/04/in...5b7361&ei=5070

Just do a google on [Cheney "offended" by reports of human rights abuses] and you will find a large group of media stories and columns taking the anti-administration route on this issue...

That is an anti-adminstration view? OMG, a journalist investigated all sides of the story and got expert opinions. What is the world coming to? Of course, all the front page stories I saw echoed the administration party line. God forbid, they actually do analysis when the story is breaking.

Originally Posted by Arles

I did you one better and posted the source for the actual blogger. Again, which of these 4 specific instances (out of over 21 charges) that have resulted in a repremand or no charge do you think was incorrect? And what is your basis for that conclusion?

You looked at one source from a blog entry filled with documentation. Going to the cite that wasn't meant to prove that point is idiotic.

Originally Posted by Arles

And, for you, nothing will be enough until you see a major military representative take the fall for this - even if one wasn't behind any of it. ?

No. Unlike you, I believe in personal accountability and don't just use it as meaningless political rhetoric every 4 years. Rumsfeld has created an atmosphere where this was INEVITABLE. He gave intentionally non-specific guidelines that authorized conduct in violation of the Geneva Convention. He has also maintained the view that Convention does not apply. Of course, he is freakin' responsible just as any crime boss would be responsible for the conduct of underlings. It is basic agency theory under the law.

Originally Posted by Arles

Again, we have 21 total charges being investigated for misconduct - some including actions in the heat of the battle.

Quit making stuff up. These are detainees and the point of the blog is that WAY MORE should be investigated. When the military's description is akin to "died while gagged and bound during interrogation," you don't think there should be an investigation?

Originally Posted by Arles

We have had over 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and why do 21 instances make you think that there is some top-level conspiracy to break all of our own internal rules? It couldn't just be that soldiers got caught up in the battle and potentially made a mistake 21 times - and that's if all are found guilty (two have been already cleared)..

Why is that the right-wing seems to only understand conspiracy theories when it comes to being hard on crime? NO ONE IS ARGUING THERE IS A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY COVERUP. A conspiracy occurs when an agent commits conduct authorized or at least encouraged by a higher official within a conspiracy. And yeah, you keep believing in the whole freakin war there have only been 21 mistakes. I mean seriously.

Originally Posted by Arles

After reading all this information, it appears that the Military is taken each of these cases seriously and punishing those shown to be in violation (most by significantly more than a reprimand).

You know a while back there was a discussion of whether someone wouldn't buy one of your games because of your politics. I thought the whole thing was silly. Buying a game is not helping your politics.

However, I've decided that I will no longer buy one of your products not because of your politics, but because of your stupidity. I just don't feel I should subsidize somebody who has absolutely no intention to think for themselves. You are a total moron. You post things that at first I thought were mistaken, but now I can't help but believe they are intentionally dishonest to the board and to yourself. I hope you get help for your condition because stupidity is hard to live with.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

And, for you, nothing will be enough until you see a major military representative take the fall for this...After reading all this information, it appears that the Military is taken each of these cases seriously and punishing those shown to be in violation (most by significantly more than a reprimand).

The Gonzalez memo (PDF) changing (an essentially rendering meaningless) the definition of torture. That's all it really takes to reject the argument that the global torture allegations are more than 'a few bad apples'. Most of it is sanctioned by the government.

The fact that he was promoted to AG should be enough to see that the government doesn't take the charges seriously.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Arles

And how many of those above listed do you know have not been investigated by the military?

I'm not sure it matters whether or not they are being investigated by the military.

a) I'm not sure I trust the military to resolve this problem. It seems clear from whistleblower reports and reports from respected human rights organizations (say whatever they want to say now, the Bush administration frequently cited Amnesty International in the runup to the Iraq war) that this is an ongoing problem. If Abu Ghraib wasn't enough of a wakeup call that military procedures need to be changed, what will be? Do we need an even more attrocious incident? At some point if the military refuses to effectively deal with this it becomes a fox guarding the henhouse affair with regards to the military investigating itself.

b) A substantial element of my concern on this issue is about public perception (particularly among foreign publics). I frankly don't think Iraqis give a flying fuck whether the military has investigated these incidents. They don't trust the military anyway. The administration may be successful in tarring and feather Newsweek and Amnesty International for the domestic audience, but that shit isn't going to fly among foreign audiences. They're more critical and more cynical about the actions and motives of the U.S. government than you or I, and we need to be at the top of our game to win in that arena, and it is critical that we win. We need to clean up our act and bring in respected third-party monitors to prove we cleaned up our act, and military investigations don't accomplish anything in that regard.

I also find it interesting that many on the left look at all the detainees and terrorists held by the US as "innocent until proven guilty". Yet, when a military member is the one being accused by the detainee, he should be looked at as "guilty until proven innocent".

On this you are entirely full of shit. It's apples and oranges. Did I convict someone? Am I sending someone to jail (or more approriately, am I indefinitely detaining someone without access to an attorney or the legal system)? Are we not allowed to discuss things here that haven't been verified in a court of law?

My concern, to a large extent, is that we don't know what's going on there. We have released detainees making claims of abuse, we have military whistleblowers claiming abuse occurred, we have respected NGO's claiming abuse occurred. The military attempts to dismiss all of these claims by saying nobody has substantiated any of this. Of course, they restrict access to the sites and the military is the only entity that could substantiate these claims, and they have a vested interest in not doing so. I don't trust what the detainees say, but neither do I trust what the military says. When the Newsweek story broke, the Pentagon claimed they had never documented a case of abuse of the Koran. Days later that claim was demonstrated to be bullshit. Everybody has an angle to sell here. I think the whistleblowers are probably pretty credible. I think the NGO's are reasonably credible.

Again, part of my interest in this is from a policy perspective. If my perception is that military can't be entirely trusted on this, what's the perception of people who trust the U.S. less (which describes 5+ billion people on this planet). We're looking like shit here. We're being stupid, and we're hurting ourselves. If we're going to go around righting the worlds' wrongs, we need to be purer than pure. "Better than Saddam" isn't nearly good enough.

There are bad people and idiots in small numbers in the military just like there are in every walk of life. All the military can do is try to weed them out and investigate each claim. But, just because the investigation doesn't reach your preferred resolution does not mean it was swept under the rug or not taken seriously.

You're in denial. What would it take for you to think that there may be policy choices at play in what is happening here? Or even if you refuse to believe that policy choices could have affected the frequency of these incidents, can you comprehend that policy choices in investigating and dealing with them carry impacts that affect international perceptions of the U.S., the U.S. military and the war on terror?

Moreover, I don't agree with the implication that we shouldn't do anything about this except have a military investigation. There are a lot of things we could do that could both curtail the problem and score PR points. We could, with little difficulty, increase oversight of our detainment sites, both internally with military personnel as well as by groups like the Red Cross and Amnesty International. We can tighten up our interrogation guidelines. We can end extraordinary rendition and ghost detainment. We can set up a reasonable but secure and confidential process to give detainees the ability to challenge their detention and prove their innocence. We can redeclare our support for the Geneva Conventions. There are a lot of things we can do to fix this situation, and we're not doing any of it. It's purely stupid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

... and Amnesty International.

Ah yes, those fine folks who don't know that every detention center isn't a "gulag".

It's purely stupid.

Well, at least we agree there's a lot of purely stupid things going on surrounding this subject. But we sure disagree on what those are.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You are a dumbass. They are using an expression to prove a point that a good commander is ultimately responsible for the actions of their troops. They ARE NOT SAYING THERE ARE NO BAD TROOPS.

And I notice how you completely ignore the statistical analysis of mistreatment. Given how little access there is to detainees and that similar incidents have occurred across the globe, are you really calling this a "fishing expedition?" Hell, you probably thought Rodney King deserved what he got. Even when the evidence is becoming overwhelming (despite the limited access to information), you stick your head in the sand. I can't even imagine a scenario where you would ever find Rumsfeld guilty of anything short of authenticated video of him ass-raping 10 Iraqi prisoners in a military gang-bang. Even the, I bet you would catch one of the detainees smirking and conclude they were asking for it.



Astounding is your intellect. Do you intentionally ignore all of the facts you don't like or is your brain incapable of even reading them?



Resolved? Years from now when this all comes to light, you will say, "Well that was in the past and we are much better now." It's a great system: Zero accountability and complete hero worship.




That is an anti-adminstration view? OMG, a journalist investigated all sides of the story and got expert opinions. What is the world coming to? Of course, all the front page stories I saw echoed the administration party line. God forbid, they actually do analysis when the story is breaking.



You looked at one source from a blog entry filled with documentation. Going to the cite that wasn't meant to prove that point is idiotic.



No. Unlike you, I believe in personal accountability and don't just use it as meaningless political rhetoric every 4 years. Rumsfeld has created an atmosphere where this was INEVITABLE. He gave intentionally non-specific guidelines that authorized conduct in violation of the Geneva Convention. He has also maintained the view that Convention does not apply. Of course, he is freakin' responsible just as any crime boss would be responsible for the conduct of underlings. It is basic agency theory under the law.



Quit making stuff up. These are detainees and the point of the blog is that WAY MORE should be investigated. When the military's description is akin to "died while gagged and bound during interrogation," you don't think there should be an investigation?



Why is that the right-wing seems to only understand conspiracy theories when it comes to being hard on crime? NO ONE IS ARGUING THERE IS A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY COVERUP. A conspiracy occurs when an agent commits conduct authorized or at least encouraged by a higher official within a conspiracy. And yeah, you keep believing in the whole freakin war there have only been 21 mistakes. I mean seriously.



You know a while back there was a discussion of whether someone wouldn't buy one of your games because of your politics. I thought the whole thing was silly. Buying a game is not helping your politics.

However, I've decided that I will no longer buy one of your products not because of your politics, but because of your stupidity. I just don't feel I should subsidize somebody who has absolutely no intention to think for themselves. You are a total moron. You post things that at first I thought were mistaken, but now I can't help but believe they are intentionally dishonest to the board and to yourself. I hope you get help for your condition because stupidity is hard to live with.

I read none of this thread, and I don't ever care to. I stopped getting in these silly pissing wars--it just isn't worth it.

But I find it astounding eyeballing John's responses here just how personally insulting he is to Arles, and the only thing I can see Arles doing is disagreeing with him.

I thought you were better than that, John.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I read none of this thread, and I don't ever care to. I stopped getting in these silly pissing wars--it just isn't worth it.

But I find it astounding eyeballing John's responses here just how personally insulting he is to Arles, and the only thing I can see Arles doing is disagreeing with him.

I thought you were better than that, John.

This has been John's MO since he's returned to the board. A John Galt he is not.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I read none of this thread, and I don't ever care to. I stopped getting in these silly pissing wars--it just isn't worth it.

But I find it astounding eyeballing John's responses here just how personally insulting he is to Arles, and the only thing I can see Arles doing is disagreeing with him.

I thought you were better than that, John.

No, I'm not. After years of taking personal assault after personal assault on this board with nary an apology (save one), I decided that I was no longer going to take the high ground with those that personally attack me or who outright lie. In this case, Arles has built up a little history with me in the last couple threads and I have decided enough is enough. Without knowing that history (and maybe even with knowing it), my reactions probably seem a little asymmetrical. I'm sure it makes my arguments less persuasive and ultimately detracts from any message I may have. I guess I just stopped caring after the 1000th or so personal attack on me. And, honestly, it makes me feel a little better to vent for a while, because so many crappy things have been said about me on this board and I got tired of swallowing it. And even more, this probably has to do with stuff in my non-FOFC life where, for the first time in life, I'm learning that is ok to be angry.

So far, the only people I think I've gone ape-shit at have been Arles, Dutch (because of his attacks that led me to leave in the first place), and Schmidty (because he just decided to personally attack me out of the blue in a politics thread).

But thanks for the compliment in hindsight (even though I've now ruined it).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by duckman

This has been John's MO since he's returned to the board. A John Galt he is not.

True on both counts.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by John Galt

True on both counts.

No one can accuse me of not paying attention (today).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by duckman

No one can accuse me of not paying attention (today).

True enough.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ah yes, those fine folks who don't know that every detention center isn't a "gulag".

Just another apologist attacking the rhetorical device instead of the facts in the case. Yes, Amnesty went a little over the top in their rhetoric, but they are correct in the facts of their complaints.