quote:

The U.S. general who led the Army's investigation of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal says the Bush administration "has committed war crimes" as a result of what happened to detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay "when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/taguba-bush-adm.html

It's about time that someone in this position speaks out about this. Now, we just need someone to prosecute the criminals.

He obviously hates America.

i'll help out the hawks with their anticipated arguments......

why did he wait so long to speak up, he must want a book deal....

look at his picture he looks like one of the detainees....are you sure he has the country's best interest at heart.....

he's no better now than the dixie chicks or sean penn....i'm not going to buy any of his new albums or go to any of his movies....i bet he believes in global warming too....

did i miss any?

Not that I have much love at all for Johnny Jihad, but why did he wait so long? I would sure like to know.

quote:

Originally posted by Infantry32:
Not that I have much love at all for Johnny Jihad, but why did he wait so long? I would sure like to know.

"....Taguba testified before Congress in 2004 about the abuses at Abu Ghraib after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. His damning report ultimately led to his being pushed out of the Army....."


maybe because in 2004 the GOP controlled congress didn't want to hear it....

....he was reporting it (note: he was still serving at that time), we weren't listening....

quote:

Originally posted by Infantry32:
Not that I have much love at all for Johnny Jihad, but why did he wait so long? I would sure like to know.

That's a darn good question. But, better late than never.

I, however, take no pleasure in the fact that finally someone in a high and official place is reporting on this, and vindicating what people like me and DJ and SacMetal and Metalicatz and lokie and talkleft and others have been saying for the last seven years. It shouldn't have taken this long.

Sac,

Here a newsflash- The Iraq war has been going on just over 5 years, not 7. Judging by that post you somehow seem to be saying that you have a problem with "rough treatment" of the Taliban ******s and other terrosrists who allowed OBL to attack the U.S. Sorry if I don't share your feelings. Since hindsight is 20/20 and had I been involved with the Afghan campaign those w/o intel value would have been dispatched instead of lounging around in Gitmo where we have allowed them to give us a black eye.

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:

quote:

Originally posted by Infantry32:
Not that I have much love at all for Johnny Jihad, but why did he wait so long? I would sure like to know.

That's a darn good question. But, better late than never.

I, however, take no pleasure in the fact that finally someone in a high and official place is reporting on this, and vindicating what people like me and DJ and SacMetal and Metalicatz and lokie and talkleft and others have been saying for the last seven years. It shouldn't have taken this long.

quote:

Sorry if I don't share your feelings.

I wonder if Daniel Pearl would say that these people were treated too harshly.

quote:

Originally posted by Infantry32:
Sac,

Here a newsflash- The Iraq war has been going on just over 5 years, not 7. Judging by that post you somehow seem to be saying that you have a problem with "rough treatment" of the Taliban ******s and other terrosrists who allowed OBL to attack the U.S. Sorry if I don't share your feelings. Since hindsight is 20/20 and had I been involved with the Afghan campaign those w/o intel value would have been dispatched instead of lounging around in Gitmo where we have allowed them to give us a black eye.

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:

quote:

Originally posted by Infantry32:
Not that I have much love at all for Johnny Jihad, but why did he wait so long? I would sure like to know.

That's a darn good question. But, better late than never.

I, however, take no pleasure in the fact that finally someone in a high and official place is reporting on this, and vindicating what people like me and DJ and SacMetal and Metalicatz and lokie and talkleft and others have been saying for the last seven years. It shouldn't have taken this long.

Here's another newsflash. We've been saying they were criminals for the entire length of the Administration. Their crimes don't begin with the Iraq War.

And, regardless of who deserves what, we are either a nation of laws or we are not. If we have to throw out what makes America America, then the terrorists have already won, no matter who we torture.

For those who used to say that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms", apologists like you will ensure that, eventually, they have no more reason to hate us.

I guess we have differing POV's. Part of this problem is the administrations fault for not treating them they way they should have. Last time I checked under the Laws of Land War or the Geneva Convention terrorists do not have to be treated the same as uniformed enemy personnel. Had they just gotten some 5.56 aspirin things would be much better and they could have their 72 virgins.

quote:

Originally posted by Infantry32:
Sac,

Here a newsflash- The Iraq war has been going on just over 5 years, not 7. Judging by that post you somehow seem to be saying that you have a problem with "rough treatment" of the Taliban ******s and other terrosrists who allowed OBL to attack the U.S. Sorry if I don't share your feelings. Since hindsight is 20/20 and had I been involved with the Afghan campaign those w/o intel value would have been dispatched instead of lounging around in Gitmo where we have allowed them to give us a black eye.

what's the point about the length or the war....i must have missed something there...

and as far as your last statement of dispatch rather than putting them in detention....if your meaning of dispatch means kill them outside the rules of engagement....well then i'd say have a good life in leavenworth.....

and dis: bringing up the beheading of daniel pearl.....aren't you the one always preaching "two wrongs don't make a right" maybe in this instance you should practice that.....

Sac, absolutely! And on the surface it might look as though I am willing to play by different rules. But that is not true! When it comes to life and death decisions, if I am to make an error I will make it on the side of safety. Add to that that I don’t think that these terrorists deserve the same rights as Americans and I am consistent as always.

If these animals were Americans they would deserve our rights and the protection granted therein. But these animals are not Americans and should not be protected by the very Constitution they want to destroy. That said, that does not justify real torture. They should not be tortured. And now we come to the BIG dividing line… how do we define ‘torture’? I am willing to bet that you and I will not agree on that definition. And this isn’t like defining ‘is’! This is the center of the discussion.

According to Scott McLellan testifying before congress today the Iraq war planning began around ten days after GWB's inauguration. So, 7 years is not far off.

And several reports have now debunked any intelligence value coming from Gitmo, with the exception of the three "hi-value" detainess now on tribunal.

quote:

Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
According to Scott McLellan testifying before congress today the Iraq war planning began around ten days after GWB's inauguration. So, 7 years is not far off.

Ten days. TEN FREAKING DAYS. In other words, well freaking BEFORE 9/11.

How many times do those of us who were against the war from the beginning have to be proven right before the apologists for murderers give us our due?

sorry dis we don't have to define torture....it's defined in treaties we've signed......the question is then did we step over the line....have not read the treaties i cant say.....i leave that to the lawyers and the generals....and this general says we did overstep.......my guess is ppl generally want to be kept "happy stupid" they dont want to know so they dont have to make a judgement.

instead of looking at the testamony, they immediately attack the intent/alternative motives of the person giving it.

I talked to Raymond today, he is a retired house painter and construction helper,he said it was all politics as usual.

Sac, so is having dogs bark at someone defined as torture? Is placing someone in an embarrassing position torture?

When did we step over the line? Like you, I never read that stuff, either (at least that I can recall at my advanced age). Also, like you, I don’t know exactly what was done or whom it was done to. So, do we believe the ‘detainees’ that were taught how to use the media against us? I would not and I do not.

Personally, and I know that this is going to sound somewhat harsh and outside my norm, I really don’t care if we executed each SOB at Gitmo. They tried their best to kill as many Americans as possible. They would do it today if they could. What are we supposed to do; give them all trials? Okay fine, and what happens when they all get off on a technicality? And, if Osama were there, would he receive the same treatment? And if he did, why are we trying to kill him now if he should be considered innocent until proven guilty? Isn’t ‘innocent until proven guilty’ one of the very right you want to impart upon them? If so, that should also go for Osama. And, as an innocent man, we should net be after him to kill him… period. Sorry, I don’t want Osama and OJ to both get away with murder! OJ is enough!


I have not attacked either side of the coin. Our enemies are animals and I understand the desires of some to want to remain above our enemies. But, if an eye for an eye was ever appropriate, treating these animals as animals is a classic case. Again, that’s my opinion and I usually leave the door open for me being wrong. And on this one, I could be very wrong. But again, I’ll be wrong on the side of safety.


Believe me Sac, I d understand what you are saying. I just disagree with you. But I am willing to listen to your opinion if you want to try and change my mind. My mind remains open.

It's all about articulation. Like I said I believe that terrorists do not have to be treated as uniformed enemy combatants. As soon as I have located the relevant info I'll be more than happy to post it.

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:

quote:

Originally posted by Infantry32:
Sac,

Here a newsflash- The Iraq war has been going on just over 5 years, not 7. Judging by that post you somehow seem to be saying that you have a problem with "rough treatment" of the Taliban ******s and other terrosrists who allowed OBL to attack the U.S. Sorry if I don't share your feelings. Since hindsight is 20/20 and had I been involved with the Afghan campaign those w/o intel value would have been dispatched instead of lounging around in Gitmo where we have allowed them to give us a black eye.

what's the point about the length or the war....i must have missed something there...

and as far as your last statement of dispatch rather than putting them in detention....if your meaning of dispatch means kill them outside the rules of engagement....well then i'd say have a good life in leavenworth.....

and dis: bringing up the beheading of daniel pearl.....aren't you the one always preaching "two wrongs don't make a right" maybe in this instance you should practice that.....

quote:

Originally posted by disagreed:
Sac, so is having dogs bark at someone defined as torture? Is placing someone in an embarrassing position torture?

When did we step over the line? Like you, I never read that stuff, either (at least that I can recall at my advanced age). Also, like you, I don’t know exactly what was done or whom it was done to. So, do we believe the ‘detainees’ that were taught how to use the media against us? I would not and I do not.

Personally, and I know that this is going to sound somewhat harsh and outside my norm, I really don’t care if we executed each SOB at Gitmo. They tried their best to kill as many Americans as possible. They would do it today if they could. What are we supposed to do; give them all trials? Okay fine, and what happens when they all get off on a technicality? And, if Osama were there, would he receive the same treatment? And if he did, why are we trying to kill him now if he should be considered innocent until proven guilty? Isn’t ‘innocent until proven guilty’ one of the very right you want to impart upon them? If so, that should also go for Osama. And, as an innocent man, we should net be after him to kill him… period. Sorry, I don’t want Osama and OJ to both get away with murder! OJ is enough!


I have not attacked either side of the coin. Our enemies are animals and I understand the desires of some to want to remain above our enemies. But, if an eye for an eye was ever appropriate, treating these animals as animals is a classic case. Again, that’s my opinion and I usually leave the door open for me being wrong. And on this one, I could be very wrong. But again, I’ll be wrong on the side of safety.


Believe me Sac, I d understand what you are saying. I just disagree with you. But I am willing to listen to your opinion if you want to try and change my mind. My mind remains open.

The answer to your questions Dis, depending on your viewpoint. Some of these acts I am "comfortably numb" with, however, there are several acts of abuses here that can be unquestionably considered torture.

"That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320thMilitary Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF)."

List of Abuses:

Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and ***** to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

) I reach this finding based on the actual proven abuse that I find was inflicted on detainees and by the following witness statements. (ANNEXES 25 and 26):

a. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company, stated in her sworn statement regarding the incident where a detainee was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and *****, “that her job was to keep detainees awake.” She stated that MI was talking to CPL Grainer. She stated: “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Grainer and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

b. (U) SGT Javal S. Davis, 372nd MP Company, stated in his sworn statement as follows: “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section, wing 1A being made to do various things that I would question morally. In Wing 1A we were told that they had different rules and different SOP for treatment. I never saw a set of rules or SOP for that section just word of mouth. The Soldier in charge of 1A was Corporal Granier. He stated that the Agents and MI Soldiers would ask him to do things, but nothing was ever in writing he would complain (sic).” When asked why the rules in 1A/1B were different than the rest of the wings, SGT Davis stated: “The rest of the wings are regular prisoners and 1A/B are Military Intelligence (MI) holds.” When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about this abuse, SGT Davis stated: “ Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse.” SGT Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: “Loosen this guy up for us.” Make sure he has abad night.” “Make sure he gets the treatment.” He claimed these comments were made to CPL Granier and SSG Frederick. Finally, SGT Davis stated that (sic): “the MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Granier compliments on the way he has been handling the MI holds. 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.”

c. (U) SPC Jason Kennel, 372nd MP Company, was asked if he were present when any detainees were abused. He stated: “I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes.” He could not recall who in MI had instructed him to do this, but commented that, “if they wanted me to do that they needed to give me paperwork.” He was later informed that “we could not do anything to embarrass the prisoners.”

d. (U) Mr. Adel L. Nakhla, a US civilian contract translator was questioned about several detainees accused of rape. He observed (sic): “They (detainees) were all naked, a bunch of people from MI, the MP were there that night and the inmates were ordered by SGT Granier and SGT Frederick ordered the guys while questioning them to admit what they did. They made them do strange exercises by sliding on their stomach, jump up and down, throw water on them and made them some wet, called them all kinds of names such as “gays” do they like to make love to guys, then they handcuffed their hands together and their legs with shackles and started to stack them on top of each other by insuring that the bottom guys ***** will touch the guy on tops butt.”

e. (U) SPC Neil A Wallin, 109th Area Support Medical Battalion, a medic testified that: “Cell 1A was used to house high priority detainees and cell 1B was used to house the high risk or trouble making detainees. During my tour at the prison I observed that when the male detainees were first brought to the facility, some of them were made to wear female underwear, which I think was to somehow break them down.”

US Army 15-6 Report of Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq