MP trials in baghdad

MPs -- SCAPEGOATS -- incident -- POLICY -- S2s

recently; the american army and the american media have decided to revise the words (and thereby the definitions) used in regard to news about the military policy for prisoners of war in iraq. the idea is to revise our understanding of the use of sexual abuse in POW camps. the pentagon and the press want us to understand that this situation of sexual abuse began at the bottom of the command chain, not at the top. it is impossible to be intelligent and also believe that this situation began as one incident at the bottom.

?? what is the difference between an incident and a policy ?? we all know. we should know. an incident is only once, a few incidents is not very different, even a great number of incidents is not a policy. in fact, any number of incidents is not a policy which was planned by those in charge. YES; a policy is planned from the top of a military command chain. whereas, any number of incidents is only incidental. incidents are only what has, somehow, happened at the bottom of a military command chain. !!!! this was not just incidents !!!!

the fact that the sexual abuse of iraqi prisoners was a policy of the american military (originating at the top of the command chain) instead of only incidents (happening at the bottom of the command chain) may be proven by the following SEVEN points :::::::

-1- ?? how may anyone ever believe that all the sexual abuse to the POWs in iraq was only incidents ?? it was not possible for the lower ranking MPs to sexually abuse the iraqi prisoners for over a year; without ever being discovered by their superior officers. we may all clearly understand; IF a great number of incidents occur consistently and constantly for over a year, in the same place, with mostly the same personnel, at all levels of rank, THEN that is not only incidents, that is a policy. because all those incidents became policy by being accepted. YES; we should see this, the very fact that the sexual abuse continued for over a year, makes it a policy not only a few incidents. IF, it had been only a few incidents less than a year ago,and it had been noticed and stopped; THEN, it would not have become policy. BUT; this was a policy because it was approved at the top of the command chain. it was approved by acceptance. ?why was senator dick rumsdale playing with all those photographs at the senate hearings? because he had been collecting those photographs for over a year. it could be seen that he enjoyed them.

-2- ?? why ?? was there no alternative policy ?? why was sexual abuse the only policy ?? IF, the top of the command chain had had an alternative policy; THEN, the lower ranks would have been trained in that alternative policy. BUT, no training had ever been given to the scape goats at the bottom; the PFCs, SP4s, CPLs, SP5s, and SGTs. all the lower ranks were instructed by S2 officers and civilian contractors (those are covert CIA personnel). the S2s and CIAs either instructed the lower ranks to conduct sexual abuse, or found lower ranks who were perverts and then encouraged them and let them continue with their perversions. and now this fact is being covered-up by the pentagon and the major media.

-3- there are 3 forms of training which were possible alternative policies; but they were ignored by the incompetent pentagon command.

-3a- FIRST, the pentagon ignored training in the rules of the geneva convention. before this second iraqi war, the geneva convention was a part of the american military tradition.

-3b- SECOND, the pentagon, and the white house, ignored the fact that the mission of the american army in iraq was to establish a democracy. this had been the same mission in japan at the end of world war two, and this had been the mission in vietnam. in both cases, the american army taught american democracy to the defeated or captured military. for many years, teaching POWs about american democracy has been a part of the american military tradition; long before this second iraqi war.

-3c- THIRD, the pentagon did not train the lower ranks in any form of investigation and questioning support. that is the military term for the sexual abuse which they were doing. BUT, that is not the only way to do it. there is another way to conduct investigation and questioning support. this other way may seem to be against the geneva convention, but it is not sexual abuse. this other way consists of denial of basic needs; rest, sleep, food, water, cleanliness, company, communication, and quietness. this other way does not include any form of physical contact, beatings, electric shock, assistance of animals, or sexual abuse. BUT, even this other way was ignored by the incompetent pentagon.

-4- from the preceding facts, we may see very clearly that it was the very top, the pentagon chief, the secretary of defense, and the commander in chief, who established the policy of sexual abuse by actions of ignorance. and as our last point we may see that ignorance is no excuse; but it was ignorance which established the policy of sexual abuse.

we may conclude that it is the pentagon, the secretary of defense, and the commander in chief who should be investigated and brought to trial for ignoring american military traditions.

??? impossible to replace the top of the military chain of command ??? then the american military must be with drawn from iraq ASAP. as soon as possible.

vlad