"Moral crusades" rings of an oxymoron.
I think we're finally getting close to those responsible for prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The republicans are complaining that we're spending too much time on this issue; the last paragraph says it all.
**********************
Army General Says U.S. Has 75 Prison Abuse Cases
57 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has investigated 75 cases of abuse of prisoners in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) since late 2002, suggesting that mistreatment was more widespread than previously acknowledged, the head of the U.S. Central Command said on Wednesday.
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq Prisoner Abuse Investigation
Human Rights Groups: Release Iraqi Prisoners
(Reuters Video)
Army Gen. John Abizaid, who is responsible for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, told the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) there were systemic problems at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, where U.S. personnel took photographs of detainees being abused and sexually humiliated that have shocked and angered Americans and fueled anti-American anger overseas.
"The total number of detainee abuse cases that have been investigated since I believe the beginning of the conflict in Afghanistan is around 75," Abizaid told the committee.
He said the army was still investigating several homicides in Afghanistan that went as far back as December 2002 and which needed to be resolved quickly.
"Abuse has happened in Afghanistan, it's happened in Iraq, it's happened at various places. I think the question before us: is there a systemic abuse problem with regard to interrogation that exists in the Central Command area of operations," Abizaid said.
He promised to follow the trail of evidence wherever it led and hold accountable those who are responsible
Committee Chairman John Warner told the hearing the Defense Department has located another disc of images related to abuses of Iraqi detainees.
"I've just been informed ... that another disc of pictures has been located, and I'll soon advise the committee on the conditions under which and the timing they can be viewed," the Virginia Republican said.
Also testifying were Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of ground forces in Iraq, and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, deputy commander for detainee operations in Iraq.
Sanchez said that his order putting an intelligence officer in tactical control of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, previously used as a torture center under former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), was for security purposes. It did not place military police at the jail under the control of intelligence officials.
He also said he had issued several directives in 2003 and 2004 making it clear prisoners were to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and requiring that "all interrogations be conducted in a lawful and humane manner, with command oversight."
FACE PUBLIC OPINION
Some of the military police have charged that they were ordered to help "soften up" prisoners for interrogation.
Warner said it was time for top U.S. military leaders to face American and world public opinion.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), a Michigan Democrat, asked about warnings from the International Committee of the Red Cross that Iraqi prisoners were being abused that surfaced as early as May 2003, months before the U.S. military launched its first investigation.
Abizaid said he was aware of the report and sent it for comments to a lower-ranking officer but never received a written reply. He acknowledged that this suggested there was a problem in the way the U.S. military handled Red Cross complaints.
In Iraq, a U.S. special court-martial sentenced Spc. Jeremy Sivits to the maximum possible one year in prison and ordered him discharged from the army for bad conduct over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Sivits, 24, pleaded guilty and promised to testify against some of the six other soldiers indicted. He also confessed to pushing a prisoner into the now infamous picture of a pile of naked Iraqis.
The hearing came as the Pentagon (news - web sites) was disputing a recent report that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners grew out of a secret plan approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to toughen interrogation methods to fight a growing insurgency.
But some Republicans have begun complaining that Congress is paying too much attention to the abuse and distracting attention from the main mission in Iraq.
MyOwnUsername wrote:because it's quite logical to believe the people with first hand knowledge, especially when those people are people that are not connected with Saddams regime in any way.
What is first hand knowledge of that which allegedly doesn't exist? In deed, what is Nth hand knowledge of that which allegedly doesn't exist? I think there is no such thing as first, second, third, ... Nth hand knowledge of that which allegedly doesn't exist.
The existence in Iraq of toxic chemical and biological agents before 9/11/2001 is not disputed. What is disputed is whether or not these agents were totally destroyed, hidden in Iraq, or relocated outside Iraq prior to March 19 or 20 (take your choice), 2003. Does anyone have
first hand knowledge of the total destruction of those toxic agents any time prior to say March 20, 2003?
There appears to be some alleged
first hand knowledge that not all of those toxic agents were destroyed prior to March 20, 2003.
JoanneDorel wrote:.The whole discovery reeks of weirdness to me. As I do not think finding an using a stray weapon of any sort would be unusual in Iraq a country that has been in the midst of one major military action or another for almost 20 years.
This shell was a part of a recently constructed part of a roadside bomb. It was not stray at the time of its explosion and injury of people.
cicerone imposter wrote: ... But some Republicans have begun complaining that Congress is paying too much attention to the abuse and distracting attention from the main mission in Iraq.
What is
the main mission in Iraq?
What ought to be
the main mission in Iraq?
I thought
the main mission in Iraq was to exterminate the TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers) in Iraq and thereby prevent the TMM in Iraq from murdering and maiming Americans in and outside the US. I thought our second mission in Iraq was to prevent more TMM from evolving in Iraq. This second mission is expected by the current Administration to be accomplished by democratizing Iraq. We shall see.
The legal basis for the attack on Iraq has not yet been shown to us.
I believe in the US, it would be illegal to attack another coulntry unless it could be shown that there was a "clear and present danger" that the other country was about to attack the US. That was not the case here, although a lot of effort was expended by Mr Powell among others to show that it was. He has since admitted he was wrong.
In the UK, Tony Blair could not have carried the vote in Parliament if he had not stated that Iraq could attack the UK in 45 minutes with WMDs. That proved to be wrong too. That was the only legal
basis for us going to war, and it was a lie.
So, there is no legal basis for this war. It is illegal and immoral, a crime which will live in infamy for ever.
BillW wrote:War is HELL - it's long but I couldn't stop reading until it was done!!!!!!!
Quote: Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government' By Paul Rockwell -- Special to The Bee
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, May 16, 2004
"We forget what war is about, what it does to those who wage it and those who suffer from it. Those who hate war the most, I have often found, are veterans who know it."... What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And I didn't see any humanitarian support.
...
Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have 80 percent of my lung capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy 32-year-old.
...
if a tank gets hit, crews are detained for a little while to make sure there are no signs or symptoms. American tanks have depleted uranium on the sides, and the projectiles have DU in them. If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said "Holy s---!"
...
Cluster bombs ... are used everywhere. ... are anti-personnel weapons. They are not precise. They don't injure buildings, or hurt tanks. Only people and living things. There are a lot of undetonated duds and they go off after the battles are over. ... It's starting to leak out about the civilian casualties that are taking place. The Iraqis know. I keep hearing reports from my Marine buddies inside that there were 200-something civilians killed in Fallujah. The military is scrambling right now to keep the raps on that. My understanding is Fallujah is just littered with civilian bodies.
...
He asked me something and I said that with the killing of civilians and the depleted uranium we're leaving over here, we're not going to have to worry about terrorists. He didn't like that. He got up and stormed off. And I knew right then and there that my career was over. I was talking to my commanding officer.
...
The above specifics won my particular attention. All this is an intolerable price to ask the Iraqi people to pay for the removal of Iraqi TMM and their replacement with a democracy. While the TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers) have got to be removed for the sake of our own survival, the Iraqi people have got to survive as well. If the TMM cannot be removed without exacting that intolerable price on the Iraqi people, then we must take our chances with
containment and abandon
replacement until we come up with a better way.
McTag wrote:The legal basis for the attack on Iraq has not yet been shown to us.
The
legal basis for the attack on Iraq is identical to the legal basis for the attack on Afghanistan. We attacked Afghanistan to remove/exterminate the TMM(i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers) in Afghanistan, because we had evidence that the TMM in Afghanistan threatened to murder and maim us, did murder and maim us, and were threatening to further murder and maim us. We attacked Iraq to terminate Iraq's ability to continue financing and otherwise sponsoring the TMM.
Many here have claimed we had
no evidence that Iraq's government was sponsoring the TMM. I think that is BS, based on well known evidence at the time plus the defrauding of the UN Oil-for-Food program and the distribution of the defrauded funds to the TMM.
Do not waste your time quoting me the Administration's claims of no evidence when I personally know that evidence and know that you know it too, but insist on denying it (e.g., Palestinian TMM sponsorship).
ican711nm wrote:McTag wrote:The legal basis for the attack on Iraq has not yet been shown to us.
The
legal basis for the attack on Iraq is identical to the legal basis for the attack on Afghanistan. We attacked Afghanistan to remove/exterminate the TMM(i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers) in Afghanistan, because we had evidence that the TMM in Afghanistan threatened to murder and maim us, did murder and maim us, and were threatening to further murder and maim us. We attacked Iraq to terminate Iraq's ability to continue financing and otherwise sponsoring the TMM.
Many here have claimed we had
no evidence that Iraq's government was sponsoring the TMM. I think that is BS, based on well known evidence at the time plus the defrauding of the UN Oil-for-Food program and the distribution of the defrauded funds to the TMM.
Do not waste your time quoting me the Administration's claims of no evidence when I personally know that evidence and know that you know it too, but insist on denying it (e.g., Palestinian TMM sponsorship).
This does not amount to a legal basis for the attack.
With that illogical reasoning, any country in the world has a right to attack Washington to "remove/exterminate the TMM(i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers)" of the Bush Regime. They have now accounted for more bodies and caused more war crimes since Adolph. But, the lemmings move ever closer to the sea. Watch, I bet one pipes up now with glazed over eyes.
Yeah bill, and your Vulcan like logic demonstrates your knowledge very accutely.
As if on que.................
Hmmmm...bad timing if nothing else.
BillW wrote:With that illogical reasoning, any country in the world has a right to attack Washington to "remove/exterminate the TMM(i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers)" of the Bush Regime. ...
Oh, now I understand! Those who in their own self-defense do attempt to, or do actually, remove/exterminate self-proclaimed TMM, are themselves TMM.
Well then, those who in their own self-defense do
not attempt to, or do
not actually, remove/exterminate self-proclaimed TMM, are themselves
what?
McGentrix wrote:Tarantulas wrote:Let me once again refer you to
Public Law 107-243, which contains all the reasons we went to war, as approved by Congress. ... giving aid and shelter to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations ... we were still justified.
giving aid and shelter to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations is for me sufficient justification for the US to attack Iraq and remove the TMM from there.
{McGentrix do you have a speculation you would care to express here regarding why so many on the left fail to understand that there were more reasons than merely the alleged existence of WMD in Iraq?}
It's not a failure. I believe the reasoning lies in the root belief of the left that war is wrong and therefore there can be no reason to wage it. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented, war is just wrong and the US is wrong in trying to justify itself for going to war.
Many see our presence in Iraq as an invasion, an occupation, or the beginning of colonialism. Because we have a republican in office, the left blames the administration for all that is wrong in America and the world.
Therein lies the fundamental difference between the left and the right, in my opinion.
-The right sees it as a liberation of the people in Iraq, the left sees it as a subjugation of the people in Iraq.
-The right sees the downfall of an evil man and regime, the left sees the loss of soveriegnty and occupation.
Of course this is all just speculation.
McG, If you bother to study history, those on the left do not base their opinions on "speculation." However, it seems obvious to the people on the left that this administration attacked Iraq on "speculation" that they had WMDs.
I belive that in honor of the only Bushite (and I even doubt he would allow that relationship) in the inner sanctum - Secretary Colin Powell - the name of this war should be changed to the Bush War. He owns it.....
C.I., go in the parlor and get your glasses and re-read my post. :wink:
