Who is still convinced only the lower echelon military are responsible for the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From NYT:
May 22, 2005
Army Faltered in Investigating Detainee Abuse
By TIM GOLDEN
Despite autopsy findings of homicide and statements by soldiers that two prisoners died after being struck by guards at an American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, Army investigators initially recommended closing the case without bringing any criminal charges, documents and interviews show.
Within days after the two deaths in December 2002, military coroners determined that both had been caused by "blunt force trauma" to the legs. Soon after, soldiers and others at Bagram told the investigators that military guards had repeatedly struck both men in the thighs while they were shackled and that one had also been mistreated by military interrogators.
Nonetheless, agents of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command reported to their superiors that they could not clearly determine who was responsible for the detainees' injuries, military officials said. Military lawyers at Bagram took the same position, according to confidential documents from the investigation obtained by The New York Times.
"I could never see any criminal intent on the part of the M.P.'s to cause the detainee to die," one of the lawyers, Maj. Jeff A. Bovarnick, later told investigators, referring to one of the deaths. "We believed the M.P.'s story, that this was the most combative detainee ever."
The investigators' move to close the case was among a series of apparent missteps in an Army inquiry that ultimately took almost two years to complete and has so far resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers. Early on, the documents show, crucial witnesses were not interviewed, documents disappeared, and at least a few pieces of evidence were mishandled.
While senior military intelligence officers at Bagram quickly heard reports of abuse by several interrogators, documents show they also failed to file reports that are mandatory when any intelligence personnel are suspected of misconduct, including mistreatment of detainees. Those reports would have alerted military intelligence officials in the United States to a problem in the unit, military officials said.
Those interrogators and others from Bagram were later sent to Iraq and were assigned to Abu Ghraib prison. A high-level military inquiry last year found that the captain who led interrogation operations at Bagram, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, applied many of the same harsh methods in Iraq that she had overseen in Afghanistan.
Citing "investigative shortfalls," senior Army investigators took the Bagram inquiry away from agents in Afghanistan in August 2003, assigning it to a task force based at the agency's headquarters in Virginia. In October 2004, the task force found probable cause to charge 27 of the military police guards and military intelligence interrogators with crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to lying to investigators. Those 27 included the 7 who have actually been charged.
"I would acknowledge that a lot of these investigations appear to have taken excessively long," the Defense Department's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, said in an interview on Friday. "There's no other way to describe an investigation that takes two years. People are being held accountable, but it's taking too long."
http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/900/928.html
the French Kiss-Off
Quote:Peter Robinson: Finally, one last question. These days, does France even matter?
Title: Francs for the Memories
Peter Robinson: John Miller, "In the end it may not even matter whether France is an ally of the United States. As the United States rose to the position of the world's most powerful country, France often has been relegated to the role of a mere irritant." Does it really matter?
John Miller: The only ways that it matters is because they can obstruct and harass through organizations like the UN Security Council. I mean, the problem with Iraq wasn't just a failure to cooperate. It was French obstruction and harassment in this very forum, where they did everything they possibly could to get in the way of what America saw was its national interest. They didn't just sit on the sidelines and say we think maybe this isn't a good idea but whatever. They got in the way. They threatened the NATO alliance. They attempted to form coalitions with other countries to oppose this. They were adversaries.
Robert Paxton: I think this is very interesting because if you were looking for a real adversary in the Iraq conflict, it would be Turkey. Turkey prevented us from having the northern front. And is anybody out there boycotting baklava? I don't think so. The Turks--we just took it. With the French, it gets our goat. Why? I think we expect too much of them. I think we've got this romantic tale in our heads that we, the White Knight, rode off to save them and they spit in our eye. I think that's the wrong level to put this on. We both seek our national interests and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. But they obstructed us a lot less than Turkey. Or even than Germany. The Germans said we would never support you. The French said well let's take four more months and maybe we will.
Ican made me think of this.
The fact of the matter is, the French don't owe us anything. They don't owe anything to the European Union. If you give something to a friend, don't expect to get repaid.
When you found out they weren't ever your friend, you tend to want your stuff back.
Learning to pick the right friends is the key. The US has never learned that lesson, so we'll continue to make friends with the wrong people. Don't forget, the US had Saddam as a "friend" at one time, and also supported the Taliban.
Lash wrote:When you found out they weren't ever your friend, you tend to want your stuff back.
"Oh ****", what am I saying, says Lash, "There goes the Statute of Liberty."
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
Yeah, all those little French school kids, bringing in their sous to make a gift for the Americans . . . damned ingrates . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
ain't life grand . . .
I've long wanted to make her up like a French whore, put her in a super sized California wine bottle and float her back across the pond.
Lash wrote:I've long wanted to make her up like a French whore, put her in a super sized California wine bottle and float her back across the pond.
And who would know better than people of your persuasion just what those parameters are for "making her up like a whore". Sad, too isn't it, when she was sent over made up with lofty ideals and warm human sentiment.
JTT wrote:Lash wrote:I've long wanted to make her up like a French whore, put her in a super sized California wine bottle and float her back across the pond.
And who would know better than people of your persuasion just what those parameters are for "making her up like a whore". Sad, too isn't it, when she was sent over made up with lofty ideals and warm human sentiment.
*posted edited to stay clean*
ican711nm wrote:McTag wrote:I admire Ican. You've got to hand it to a guy who, despite almost constant display of ignorance, prejudice, illogic mixed with pigheaded obstinacy, and unwillingness or inability to see the obvious, can nevertheless almost singlehandedly keep intelligent people tied up in a correspondence.
Some achievement. This correspondence is like a social service which is not reaching its target clientele.
Perhaps your theory is valid. Perhaps these fine folks subconsciously see what they are doing as a kind of social service for me. Well bless their hearts if that be true.
Perhaps my theory is valid. Perhaps these fine folks subconsciously see what they are doing to be a valiant effort to avoid their coming to the conclusion that what they believe to be true is actually false.
Now I have zero evidence to support my theory. Do you have any to support yours?
I lack the ability to read minds, in this case subconscious minds. However, there are recurring symptoms to suggest my theory is more probably valid than is yours. These fine folks, including you McTag, too frequently avoid responding to my posts with rational rebuttals, and choose instead to villify me. That is hardly the behavior one would expect from someone attempting to perform a social service for another person.
I concede that these recurring symptoms exhibited by you fine folks are not conclusive evidence that my theory is valid. They could indicate a number of possibilities, not the least of which is they are merely seeking to shut me up. But nevertheless they do cause me to wonder if my theory is valid, since by this time they should have come to the understanding that their symptoms reduce and do not increase my respect for their opinions.
You can mark this down as another of your posts which does not receive a detailed answer. I have a reluctance to indulge in the game (and I regret the personalisation of arguments, but sometimes the temptation is too great). It reminds me of the childrens' toy which was popular some time ago; an inflatable figure with a big grin on its face and a heavy weight in its ass. Knock it down, it returns to vertical. Hit it all you like, until your arm is sore or until the pointlessness of the game becomes a bore, it keeps coming back with the same vapid grin on its face.
Scenes We'd Like to See...
Defendants in the dock at the Ango-American War Crimes Trial of 2010, held at The Hague under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court...
Well, the defence has been aired a few time here, and found wanting.
So maybe they could argue about the impossibility of getting a fair trial, or an impartial jury.
Jury? What am I saying? The judges could do it on their own- a bit like the US Supreme Court.
Guantanamo Bay for the younger ones, a nice stone cell in a cold european castle for the others.
Nahhh, Abu Ghraib .... excellent room service ... recreation facilities that will leave you screaming for more voltage .... staffed entirely with former guest that are all 'on the job trainees' that have been there ...if you know what I mean.
Only the best will do for these boys and girl..
WITH WHOM DO YOU MORE CLOSELY IDENTIFY?
The castroites work to:
1. Establish different rules for different people;
2. Satisfy everyone’s needs;
3. Equalize everyone’s capabilities;
4. Allege the theories and solutions advocated by their opponents lack sufficient supporting evidence;
5. Vilify their opponents by false description of their opponent’s position, or by vilifying the associates of their opponents.
The adamsites work to:
1. Establish the same rules for everyone;
2. Satisfy everyone’s wants;
3. Increase everyone’s capabilities;
4. Propose theories and solutions;
5. Compare the evidence supporting proposed theories and solutions to identify the better theory and solution.
Theory: The differences between castroites and adamsites are probably irreconcilable. Look at the evidence.
JTT wrote:Lash wrote:I've long wanted to make her up like a French whore, put her in a super sized California wine bottle and float her back across the pond.
And who would know better than people of your persuasion just what those parameters are for "making her up like a whore".
Your mama taught me.
She sure knew the business.
I've always remembered her fondly.
(Perhaps something universally understood.)
That article certainly got a different response than I'd expected.
I guess people saw "French/France" and didn't look any further.
Which is not to be wondered at . . .
