blatham wrote:Quote:War Crimes
Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A22
THANKS TO a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups, thousands of pages of government documents released this month have confirmed some of the painful truths about the abuse of foreign detainees by the U.S. military and the CIA -- truths the Bush administration implacably has refused to acknowledge. Since the publication of photographs of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in the spring the administration's whitewashers -- led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- have contended that the crimes were carried out by a few low-ranking reservists, that they were limited to the night shift during a few chaotic months at Abu Ghraib in 2003, that they were unrelated to the interrogation of prisoners and that no torture occurred at the Guantanamo Bay prison where hundreds of terrorism suspects are held. The new documents establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false.
Though they represent only part of the record that lies in government files, the documents show that the abuse of prisoners was already occurring at Guantanamo in 2002 and continued in Iraq even after the outcry over the Abu Ghraib photographs. FBI agents reported in internal e-mails and memos about systematic abuses by military interrogators at the base in Cuba, including beatings, chokings, prolonged sleep deprivation and humiliations such as being wrapped in an Israeli flag. "On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," an unidentified FBI agent wrote on Aug. 2, 2004. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more." Two defense intelligence officials reported seeing prisoners severely beaten in Baghdad by members of a special operations unit, Task Force 6-26, in June. When they protested they were threatened and pictures they took were confiscated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20986-2004Dec22.html?sub=AR
Sometimes I wonder where all this is going to lead. I wonder if impeachment will rear it's head? Or is that a pipedream?
cicerone imposter wrote:Where the mistake began.
**********************
Quote:
Newly Obtained FBI Records Call Defense Department's Methods "Torture," Express Concerns Over "Cover-Up" That May Leave FBI "Holding the Bag" for Abuses
NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union
suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.
"These documents raise grave questions about where the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately rests," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Top government officials can no longer hide from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers."
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206
I hope this kind of thing starts to get more traction now that the election is over. Or will people say that we can't hold ourselves accountable because it will undermine the war effort and hold our troops in harms way? Probably the latter, regardless of the stinky way the administration does it's dealings.
revel wrote:I would like to know why you feel the need to judge people? But as just a matter of curiosity and the fact that I am snowed in literally with ice on the doors, who else here besides McTag falls into the BAFC crowd and who are bush haters and anti war folks that comes here to this board? And what evidence do you have to make those assumptions of posters?
Sorry darlin, I selected McTag for example because I felt confident he'd take it in stride. Even that was probably not entirely cool... so I won't proceed by categorizing everyone for you. You can probably fill in most of the blanks yourself if you try. As for why I do it; don't we all? Frank is the epitome of Anti-Bush and I consider this along with his posts. I probably stretch the definition of warmonger... and I've no doubt people consider this with my postsÂ… so what? Where's the harm?
That picture of the kid holding the sign Geligesti posted? Isn't that the same picture that I've seen numerous times on the internet but with different messages on the sign? It has become an urban legend used to promote whatever propanda, pro and con of Iraq, that people wish to project. It is fairly safe to assume that the average Iraqi kid wouldn't have a clue what was on a sign written in English anyway.
The thing I see here is those of us on A2K all come from a different perspective. Some seem to just wish to discredit, embarrass, insult, etc. other members; and some of all ideologies here I believe really are speaking from heartfelt convictions.
I have no quarrel with those who are honestly conscientious objectors who oppose all armed conflict for whatever reason. I can't subscribe to that ideology myself, but I can respect those who hold it.
I can see that some are unable to see the positive and see only the setbacks, the problems, the challenges, and the mistakes as irrefutable proof that we are a) beaten and/or b) wrong. I can understand that kind of mentality even though I think it is defeatist and must be acknowledged and then ignored.
Then there are those who believe war might be necessary but it must be planned so that everything runs smoothly, our punches are appropriately pulled so no innocent is harmed, and victory is accomplished quickly, finally, and absolutely within a short period of time. I understand this kind of mindset and attribute it to liberal education. (
)
Others honestly do believe that overwhelming force is the lessor of two evils when confronted by an evil enemy who is committed to creating havoc on the innocent and guilty equally. Such do believe such is a just and necessary war.
Are some of us wrong? Most probably. Are all of us wrong? Unlikely but possible.
The best any of us can do is to do our homework, think it through, and then do our best to support the policy we believe to be right.
Bill, nevermind, I think I was just wanting to pick a fight.
How long do you think the pentagon can continue playing Russian Roulette with our armed forces. By Russian Roulette I am referring to the deployment and redeployment of the same people to Iraq.
Since the 40 % of the forces in Iraq are National Guard and reserves whose enlistment is coming to an end. Reports are that enlistment's and reenlistments in those branches of the service are way down it can only get worse should we not be able to extricate ourselves from Iraq.
Despite the denials can a draft be far behind?
Foxfyre wrote:That picture of the kid holding the sign Geligesti posted? Isn't that the same picture that I've seen numerous times on the internet but with different messages on the sign? It has become an urban legend used to promote whatever propanda, pro and con of Iraq, that people wish to project. It is fairly safe to assume that the average Iraqi kid wouldn't have a clue what was on a sign written in English anyway.
More than likely, Fox, that is the point of the picture...that the kids don't know what is written...and the GI is mocking them in a most disgusting and offensive way.
But if you have actually seen this picture with other messages...why not furnish a link so we can all see it for what you say it is.
Quote:I can see that some are unable to see the positive and see only the setbacks, the problems, the challenges, and the mistakes as irrefutable proof that we are a) beaten and/or b) wrong. I can understand that kind of mentality even though I think it is defeatist and must be acknowledged and then ignored.
Well...there are some who acknowlege that although there are some positives that come from damn near anything...on balance, this particular misadventure was a stupid, ill-conceived mistake...and that simply continuing the mistake in order not to acknowledge that the original mistake was made...is another mistake.
We are trying to prevent OTHER MISTAKES...just as we tried to prevent the first one.
While one might initially want to acknowledge, then ignore people whose mindset wants to continue to pile new mistakes on old...it is best to confront them and attempt to wake them up to reality.
WAKE UP, FOX!!!!
Quote:Then there are those who believe war might be necessary but it must be planned so that everything runs smoothly, our punches are appropriately pulled so no innocent is harmed, and victory is accomplished quickly, finally, and absolutely within a short period of time. I understand this kind of mindset and attribute it to liberal education. (
)
And there are people who mock this desire to stop the carnage. I attribute that to a conservative morality (which we all know is the pits)....and to an amazing lack of compassion and empathy.
I suggest people like this simply be pitied...and best if we all try to wake them up.
WAKE UP, FOX.
Quote:Others honestly do believe that overwhelming force is the lessor of two evils when confronted by an evil enemy who is committed to creating havoc on the innocent and guilty equally. Such do believe such is a just and necessary war.
Are some of us wrong? Most probably. Are all of us wrong? Unlikely but possible.
The best any of us can do is to do our homework, think it through, and then do our best to support the policy we believe to be right.
I've got no problem with that...and hopefully, the group in this last category will eventually wake up and smell the coffee. Unlikely considering the concrete they are carrying around in their heads...but possible.
RING! RING! RING!
Quick..someone get the alarm clock before it wakes someone up!!!
I should have posted this under humor since it is a joke
ELECTIONS
Foreign Team Will Watch Vote in Iraq From Jordan
By JOEL BRINKLEY
Published: December 23, 2004
ASHINGTON, Dec. 22 - Representatives of seven nations met in Ottawa this week to recruit international observers for the Iraqi elections and agreed to watch the vote, but from the safety of Amman, Jordan.
They said it was too dangerous to monitor the voting in Iraq, meaning international observers are unlikely for the elections on Jan. 30 - making them the first significant vote of this sort recently with no foreign presence, United Nations officials say.
The United Nations, the European Union and many nongovernmental groups involved in election and democracy projects are helping to organize and administer the vote. As a result, they argue, acting as monitors would be a conflict of interest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/23/politics/23elect.html?oref=login&th
I should have included the group who are unable to see the point of much of anything but would argue with a fencepost.
Foxfyre wrote:That picture of the kid holding the sign Geligesti posted? Isn't that the same picture that I've seen numerous times on the internet but with different messages on the sign? It has become an urban legend used to promote whatever propanda, pro and con of Iraq, that people wish to project. It is fairly safe to assume that the average Iraqi kid wouldn't have a clue what was on a sign written in English anyway.
The thing I see here is those of us on A2K all come from a different perspective. Some seem to just wish to discredit, embarrass, insult, etc. other members; and some of all ideologies here I believe really are speaking from heartfelt convictions.
I have no quarrel with those who are honestly conscientious objectors who oppose all armed conflict for whatever reason. I can't subscribe to that ideology myself, but I can respect those who hold it.
I can see that some are unable to see the positive and see only the setbacks, the problems, the challenges, and the mistakes as irrefutable proof that we are a) beaten and/or b) wrong. I can understand that kind of mentality even though I think it is defeatist and must be acknowledged and then ignored.
Then there are those who believe war might be necessary but it must be planned so that everything runs smoothly, our punches are appropriately pulled so no innocent is harmed, and victory is accomplished quickly, finally, and absolutely within a short period of time. I understand this kind of mindset and attribute it to liberal education. (
)
Others honestly do believe that overwhelming force is the lessor of two evils when confronted by an evil enemy who is committed to creating havoc on the innocent and guilty equally. Such do believe such is a just and necessary war.
Are some of us wrong? Most probably. Are all of us wrong? Unlikely but possible.
The best any of us can do is to do our homework, think it through, and then do our best to support the policy we believe to be right.
Maybe I should have gone with this one........
Oh and here's a starter for you re that photo, Frank. There are lots of others but a photo is kinda hard to Google--though my search engine came right up with this one--but it being Christmas and all, there's other stuff I'd much rather do.
http://hammeroftruth.com/2004/04/06/the-original-iraqi-kid-message
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/boudreaux.asp
Gelisgesti wrote:Foxfyre wrote:That picture of the kid holding the sign Geligesti posted? Isn't that the same picture that I've seen numerous times on the internet but with different messages on the sign? It has become an urban legend used to promote whatever propanda, pro and con of Iraq, that people wish to project. It is fairly safe to assume that the average Iraqi kid wouldn't have a clue what was on a sign written in English anyway.
The thing I see here is those of us on A2K all come from a different perspective. Some seem to just wish to discredit, embarrass, insult, etc. other members; and some of all ideologies here I believe really are speaking from heartfelt convictions.
I have no quarrel with those who are honestly conscientious objectors who oppose all armed conflict for whatever reason. I can't subscribe to that ideology myself, but I can respect those who hold it.
I can see that some are unable to see the positive and see only the setbacks, the problems, the challenges, and the mistakes as irrefutable proof that we are a) beaten and/or b) wrong. I can understand that kind of mentality even though I think it is defeatist and must be acknowledged and then ignored.
Then there are those who believe war might be necessary but it must be planned so that everything runs smoothly, our punches are appropriately pulled so no innocent is harmed, and victory is accomplished quickly, finally, and absolutely within a short period of time. I understand this kind of mindset and attribute it to liberal education. (
)
Others honestly do believe that overwhelming force is the lessor of two evils when confronted by an evil enemy who is committed to creating havoc on the innocent and guilty equally. Such do believe such is a just and necessary war.
Are some of us wrong? Most probably. Are all of us wrong? Unlikely but possible.
The best any of us can do is to do our homework, think it through, and then do our best to support the policy we believe to be right.
Maybe I should have gone with this one........
John F. Kennedy was also a Time magazine man of the year. Are you equating
him with Hitler as well?
And the person who did this one actually confesses that it is a fake.
Fact is...we don't know what the sign read originally.
Right?
Good research, though, Fox...good immediate come-back.
I like that.
I respect it more than I can say.
Maybe you are okay even if you are a conservative!
Oh gee thanks Frank, (I think). And I am so grateful for the compliment, I hearby give you permission to keep yelling at me.
Frank Apisa wrote:And there are people who mock this desire to stop the carnage. I attribute that to a conservative morality (which we all know is the pits)....and to an amazing lack of compassion and empathy.
I suggest people like this simply be pitied...and best if we all try to wake them up.
WAKE UP, FOX.
Is this really coming from the same poster who wrote:
FrankApisa wrote:The question I would ask anyone who doubts that we should simply cut and run as soon as possible is...
...wouldn't it have been better to have done that in Vietnam early on...than to wait and do it after almost 50,000 young men and women had died...and ten times that many had been maimed?
50,000 Frank? There was more than that just counting Americans. That's your idea of "compassion and empathy"? Your count is off by millions Frank.
Millions. And, did you miss the point of this picture?
WAKE UP, FRANK!
Specials > Iraq in Transition
from the December 24, 2004 edition
A hard week in a long Iraq mission
Increasingly, US military experts say Americans need to prepare for a decades-long counterinsurgency campaign.
By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
CAIRO – In a week that saw the deadliest single attack on Americans in Iraq - and the first major US contractor to pull out - more and more military experts are warning that drastic changes are needed to both US strategy and American public expectations if there's to be success there. Tuesday's suicide bombing at a US mess tent in Mosul is only one of the most visible symbols of the deepening challenge. The "ground has fundamentally shifted" in recent months, according to a new report by the International Crisis Group (ICG). Based on field interviews with Iraqis, it says wide-spread disaffection with the US presence is threatening the emergence of stable democracy friendly to the US.
While US troop numbers are rising ahead of Iraqi elections, several analysts, some with close ties to the US defense establishment, say successes in Iraq so far have been minor when held up against an increasingly sophisticated insurgency.
The ICG and others don't expect the insurgents to fade away after Iraq's January 30 election. The best scenarios say it will take years to defeat them. But the game plan so far - including the November assault on Fallujah that killed over 1,000 alleged fighters - has failed to stop the bombings and attacks around the country.
Thursday, Iraqis began trickling back on into Fallujah. More than 200,000 people sought shelter in nearby villages ahead of the Nov. 8 attack. Iraq's interim government said families would be paid up to $10,000 if their homes were damaged in the assault. It warned those returning that the city is without power or water. Reuters reported Thursday that US forces shelled the south and northwest of the city, where they clashed with gunmen. Some returning refugees retreated upon hearing the explosions and seeing columns of smoke.
The US will have to consider fresh options for tackling the insurgency, say analysts.
"I'm sure the [Jan. 30] election will be trumpeted as a great success, but it may not mean much, if the insurgency continues and the government can't deliver on promises, just as the current government has failed,'' says Rob Malley, director of the ICG's Middle East program.
One key element that could get Iraq back on track would be the creation of a credible and effective domestic security force, something that the US has long promised but failed to deliver.
"The coalition's persistent inability to deliver a popular political message, its failures to use economic aid effectively, have continued to aid the insurgents,'' Anthony Cordesman, a security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former senior Defense Department official, wrote in a report this week on Iraq's insurgency.
"The lack of highly visible Iraqi forces... [has] also reinforced the image of a nation where fighting is done by foreigners, non-Muslims, and occupiers. The end result has been that many Coalition and Iraqi Interim Government tactical victories produce a costly political and military backlash. Even successful military engagements can lead to the creation of as many new insurgents as they do kill or capture," writes Cordesman.
MARINE Col. Thomas Hammes agrees that this is critical. "We keep saying that this is the most important thing, but how many Iraqi soldiers have you seen riding around in armored cars,'' asks Colonel Hammes, a professor at the National Defense University, in Washington, and author of the "Sling and the Stone.'' The book on counterinsurgency was recently selected by a panel of retired and serving officers as the most important book for US commanders in Iraq to read.
But Hammes says the most important change to be made now is in the way that American leaders talk to the people about what's going on in Iraq. He says history shows that most insurgencies, whether the Vietnamese against the French and later the US, or the Afghans against the Soviets, last from 10 to 30 years.
He says he sees no reason why Iraq is any different, but worries the American public was ill-prepared for this by the rosy Administration pronouncements for most of the war.
"This isn't pessimistic, but realistic,'' says Hammes. The type of insurgency the US is fighting "is about directly attacking the will of our decision makers, and in America that's the voters."
A joint ABC/Washington Post poll released Monday showed this strategy is apparently working. The poll found 56 percent of Americans now feel the war is not worth its costs, a record high and up from 49 percent in July.
Hammes points to the Mosul attack, while tragic, as more important in terms of what it does to American views of the war than it is in military terms, since insurgent successes are to be expected.
"That's not a military target; it's just another way to get the insurgent message out that this war is too long, too hard, too difficult to win,'' he says. "The single toughest thing is sustaining the will of the American people, the only way to do that is to lay out all the costs and get them to stay in and commit."
But to some analysts, the view from inside Iraq has grown so dim that they advocate a radical shift in approach and expectations of what success could mean.
Steps once potentially capable of turning the situation around "in all likelihood" would now fail, the ICG says in its new report. "If the [Bush] administration does not take the measure of what has changed ... it may well meet its desired end-date, but at the cost of a highly dangerous end-state." The US hopes Iraq will adopt a new constitution and elect a full legislature by the end of 2005.
"Part of the effort has to be to redefine what success means,'' says Malley at ICG. "The original notion that Iraq was going to be a model for the region, of open government, of a liberal, free-market economy, isn't an achievable goal anymore."
Malley and the ICG say the US should make every effort to withdraw troops to bases and get away from heavy-handed counterinsurgency because it appears to be counterproductive. Instead, Iraqi anger at the US has grown so high that the best thing America could do for the government that comes in after the January elections is to allow it to go its own way, Malley says.
"The US may have to allow the government coming in to distance itself from the party that could hurt the legitimacy the most, including to withdrawing troops if that is what they ask for,'' says Malley. "In the past this would have been viewed as a failure for US policy, but now perhaps it has to be seen as a necessary element of success because it would at least preserve, hopefully, a unified country and a government that's seen as legitimate by its people."
Malley says worries that that the January elections could exacerbate tensions between Shiites and Sunnis, and therefore "do more harm than good."
"It's about minimizing harm at this point, for both the Iraqis and US strategic interests,'' he says.
