1
   

Why now? It's a campaign year.

 
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 11:02 am
I have nowhere insisted they are innocent. I have repeatedly stated that everyone should be held accountable if they were complicit in the abuse of these prisoners. Including Bush, et al. But to be complicit implies a knowledge of what was going on without acting to investigate or put a stop to them.

I read a report the other day, which I will try to find and post because I don't like making statements I cannot back up, which stated that an investigation was initiated in January concerning these charges. Now, that may be an incorrect story, or I may have it wrong, which is why I will try to look it up. But if that is the case, it certainly indicates that the admin at some level was aware of the charges and were acting upon them. So where is the complicity?

As far as Saddam and his knowledge of what his people were doing within his own country, I will admit that I obviously cannot prove he ordered the mass murders of his people. Nor can I prove he ordered to torture of thousands of his people. So I will stand corrected on that matter until whatever trial he is given is completed. Then we will have the proof. Likewise, I will choose to believe that the Bush admin as a whole is not guilty of complicity in the Iraqi prisoner tortures until a proper investigation is held by a governing authority into his knowledge of these atrocities.

Are we all happy now?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 11:05 am
McGentrix wrote:
PDiddie wrote:
CoastalRat wrote:
Likewise, we cannot sit here and call Bush or anyone else a war criminal without some proof of at least complicity.


Did Hitler order the tortures and killings of the Jews?

Perhaps directly, perhaps obtusely; history is certain on its judgment.

Did LBJ know atrocities were being committed? Most certainly. The evidence lies in the archives of his Presidential library at the campus of the University of Texas, which I have visited, studied and researched a numbe of times.

Did Saddam know? Certainly. Did he order them?

I don't know. Can you prove he did?

And again, this is tangential.

There's evidence Bush was presented with knowledge of atrocities at Abu Ghraib as early as February of this year. Did he move to stop them?

What did Rumsfeld do?

We know what Lt. General Myers did; he called Dan Rather and asked him not to run the 60 Minutes II report, which broke the photographs and tales of torture.

The lessons of these circumstances are always clear.

Bush, Rumsfeld, et al will have to account for their actions or lack thereof in the face of the evidence that they knew what was going on and did nothing.

Stop embarrassing yourself by insisting they are innocent.


If memory serves me correctly, not only did Saddam order the torture of some prisoners, he oversaw and participated as well. His 2 little hell spawned children participated regularly.

It sickens me that someone would even remotely consider comparing Bush to Hussein when speaking about the treatment of prisoners. There is absolutely NO comparison and I think you know that.


Yeah, it is funny McG that in order to vilify Bush some democrats are finding themselves in the unique position of having to defend Saddam. And they think we are the sick ones.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 11:12 am
happy? No.

Saddam was a pig.

Quote:
Torture is systematic in Iraq. The most senior figures in the regime are personally involved.

Saddam Hussein runs Iraq with close members of his own family and a few associates, most of whom come from his hometown of Tikrit.

These are the only people he feels he can trust. He directly controls the security services and, through them and a huge party network, his influence reaches deep into Iraqi society.

All real authority rests with Saddam and his immediate circle. Saddam is head of state, head of government, leader of Iraq's only political party and head of the armed forces.

Saddam presides over the all-powerful Revolutionary Command Council, which enacts laws and decrees and overrides all other state institutions.

Several RCC decrees give the security agencies full powers to suppress dissent with impunity.

An RCC decree of 21 December 1992 guarantees immunity for Ba'ath party members who cause damage to property, bodily harm and even death when pursuing enemies of the regime.

Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other forms of mutilation) for criminal offences.

In mid-2000, the RCC approved amputation of the tongue as a new penalty for slander or abusive remarks about the President or his family.

These punishments are practised mainly on political dissenters. Iraqi TV has broadcast pictures of these punishments as a warning to others.

According to an Amnesty International report published in August 2001, "torture is used systematically against political detainees. The scale and severity of torture in Iraq can only result from the acceptance of its use at the highest level."

Over the years, Amnesty and other human rights organisations have received thousands of reports of torture and interviewed numerous torture victims.



Quote:
Methods of torture:


Eye gouging

Piercing of hands with electric drill

Suspended from ceiling by their wrists

Electric shock

Sexual abuse

Mock executions

Acid baths
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 11:23 am
And, according to some accounts, those prisoners in the portion of Abu Ghraib where the photos were taken included the worst of Iraq's worst including those guys that carried out those tortures.

That does not excuse or condone in any way the behavior of U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib.

But it should at least provide a hope that at least as much consideration should be given to fair treatment of and protection of U.S. troops as we feel sorry for the Iraqi prisoners.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 11:28 am
I was being a little facetious there McG. Sorry if I did not convey that well enough. Anyone who truly believes Saddam had no knowledge and did not order much of what went on under his rule is sadly fooling only themselves. He was one sick puppy who was tolerated way too long.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 11:36 am
CoastalRat wrote:
I was being a little facetious there McG. Sorry if I did not convey that well enough. Anyone who truly believes Saddam had no knowledge and did not order much of what went on under his rule is sadly fooling only themselves. He was one sick puppy who was tolerated way too long.


I know CoastalRat. It's just that the sanctimonious attitude of some people lead me to believe they actually believe some of the tripe that gets written.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 12:00 pm
I just find it strange that the outrage over the photos of Americans torturing Iraqis seemed to have garnered far more outrage than those of Iraqis dragging American bodies through the streets with their heads on wooden pikes. Americans balked in hushed annoyance when the Iraqi photos were released, but barely raised an eyebrow. Now that America has been caught, oh my! This to me seems to represent the endemic racism in the US. It's okay for Iraqis to torture and maim and kill, because it's what we EXPECT of them. When WE do it....shame shame. We are made of better, more godly stuff than that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 12:07 pm
cavfancier wrote:
I just find it strange that the outrage over the photos of Americans torturing Iraqis seemed to have garnered far more outrage than those of Iraqis dragging American bodies through the streets with their heads on wooden pikes. Americans balked in hushed annoyance when the Iraqi photos were released, but barely raised an eyebrow. Now that America has been caught, oh my! This to me seems to represent the endemic racism in the US. It's okay for Iraqis to torture and maim and kill, because it's what we EXPECT of them. When WE do it....shame shame. We are made of better, more godly stuff than that.


Keeping the wmd's away: yes, cav, that's has always been told: we are better, we bring the democracy we experoenced due to our Christian-Judeo heritage.

I mean, when one German cannibal is in court, that gets more outrage than if a tribe in deepest nearly-unknown Africa 'eats' another one. Right?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 12:24 pm
There had better be some outrage over this...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Islamic Web site linked to al Qaeda showed video Tuesday of a man who identified himself as an American being beheaded.

His captors said the United States refused to exchange him for prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison.

"For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage for some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused," says a hooded man standing behind the American.

"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins, slaughtered in this way."

At the beginning of the tape, the victim describes himself as Nicholas Berg from Pennsylvania.

"My name is Nic Berg. My father's name is David. My mother's name is Suzanne. I have a brother and a sister -- David and Sarah," says the man.

"I grew up in Westchester, New York, and moved to Philadelphia."

He is then shown sitting in front of five hooded men. After the statement is read by one of the men, the victim is pushed to the floor and, amid his screams, his throat is cut. Finally, one of the captors holds up the man's severed head.

Earlier in the day, the State Department identified the body of an American found Monday in Baghdad as that of Nicholas Berg of Pennsylvania.

Berg was not a soldier or a civilian employee of the Pentagon, the State Department said.

A senior State Department official also said that the beheaded body of an American had been found but he could not confirm it was Berg.

The web site said the killing had been carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an Islamist terrorist group that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on coalition forces in Iraq.

The voice on the tape could not be verified as that of Zarqawi.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 12:32 pm
I sincerely doubt that any terroristic group is watching any law, especially not the Genava Conventions.
And the more I doubt that these terrorists signed them.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 12:42 pm
Yes McG, there will be outrage. But I fear most of it from the likes of liberals will be to somehow blame Bush and not the poor Iraqi freedom fighters who carried out this gutless, inhuman act.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 12:49 pm
Well we don't know that it was Iraqi 'freedom fighters' but it was obviously terrorists.

But I agree. The lack of outrage from the left re the unbelievable atrocities committed by terrorists both in Iraq and elsewhere is completely mystifying.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 12:51 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
cavfancier wrote:
I just find it strange that the outrage over the photos of Americans torturing Iraqis seemed to have garnered far more outrage than those of Iraqis dragging American bodies through the streets with their heads on wooden pikes. Americans balked in hushed annoyance when the Iraqi photos were released, but barely raised an eyebrow. Now that America has been caught, oh my! This to me seems to represent the endemic racism in the US. It's okay for Iraqis to torture and maim and kill, because it's what we EXPECT of them. When WE do it....shame shame. We are made of better, more godly stuff than that.


Keeping the wmd's away: yes, cav, that's has always been told: we are better, we bring the democracy we experoenced due to our Christian-Judeo heritage.

I mean, when one German cannibal is in court, that gets more outrage than if a tribe in deepest nearly-unknown Africa 'eats' another one. Right?


Well, yes Walter, and it's wrong. If we purport to be a democracy, all atrocities must be addressed equally. I think there is still a bias towards what supposed 'savages' do, as opposed to what the 'civilized world' does, in terms of how it is reported in the media. It's all about mindset. Universal outrage should be unilateral, yes?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 12:59 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well we don't know that it was Iraqi 'freedom fighters' but it was obviously terrorists.

But I agree. The lack of outrage from the left re the unbelievable atrocities committed by terrorists both in Iraq and elsewhere is completely mystifying.


But Fox, they(the left) will claim they are freedom fighters, fighting to throw off the yoke of George Bush's aggression.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 01:01 pm
Quote:
For the first time in a generation, the press has produced a major political scandal without helpful leaks from Republican operatives. All it took was a soldier's father determined to protect his son from being scapegoated. He initiated the process that provided 60 Minutes 2 with the smoking photos. Then came Seymour M. Hersh's blistering account in The New Yorker, with details from a secret military report on prisoner torture that dates from February. Hersh reported that military intelligence had authorized these tactics in order to "set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews."
from The Village Voice
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 03:24 pm
Quote:
But Fox, they(the left) will claim they are freedom fighters, fighting to throw off the yoke of George Bush's aggression.


I know. But theywill claim that no matter how it's phrased so we might as well keep it all as accurate as possible. This latest thing is so vile, so unconscionable, there are not words to describe it.
0 Replies
 
Deecups36
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 03:34 pm
And, according to some accounts, those prisoners in the portion of Abu Ghraib where the photos were taken included the worst of Iraq's worst including those guys that carried out those tortures. foxfrye

Why does foxfrye continue telling this lie about the prsioners at Abu Ghraib other than to be gratuitously provocative and to cause upheavel for her personal enjoyment?

From infowarrior's post this morning:


Coalition military intelligence officers believed 70-90 per cent of Iraqi detainees were "arrested by mistake", according to a leaked Red Cross report on prisoner abuse, further details of which were disclosed on Monday.

The confidential report, given to the US and British governments in February but covering events in March to November last year, describes a pattern of indiscriminate arrests involving destruction of property and brutal behaviour towards suspects and their families
.


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1083180400050&p=1012571727172
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 03:39 pm
I think at this point, both sides should swallow the bitter pill, and vote accordingly.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 04:58 pm
I guess Deecups because that came out at the senate hearing just this morning. Those prisoners being mistreated were no angels; in fact most were people guilty of much worst crimes than the abuse inflicted on them.

That in no way excuses the behavior of the guards. But it is a fact.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 05:02 pm
I would very much like to back off and let the legal system work, Cavfancier. That was my wish in the initial post that started this thread.

But taking a page from Mein Kampf, if you keep repeating a lie often enough, a significant number of people will come to believe it.

As long as the left keep hammering away trying to misdirect the debate on Abu Ghraib, I think the rest of us have to keep the debate focused where it should be.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 12:12:51