Time to put up or shut up; Upd: Coverup Continues

I wasn't aware "that guy" referred to a group. In America, "that guy" refers to a single individual. Is it different in Europe?

You are the picture perfect leftist described by Prager.

Maybe by European standards Walter. Here, he is a flaming leftist. I thank the good fortunes of the universe we don't have many European leftists in America.

McGentrix wrote:

Maybe by European standards Walter. Here, he is a flaming leftist. I thank the good fortunes of the universe we don't have many European leftists in America.

Huh, flaming leftist. A great example of the childish name-calling I constantly see here, bandied about by proponents of so-called liberal and conservative thought.

American standards were skewed thanks to McCarthy and a paranoia over Communism, everything shifted to the "right".

However, I regard this labelling irrelevant. To say that you don't want European lefists in America, is nearly tantamount to saying you do not approve of Free Speech. It is like you're saying you do not want them to express their views in your country. Am I, right then, in saying that you are against Free Speech?

Am I, right then, in saying that you are against Free Speech?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Am I, right then, in saying that you are against Free Speech?

Yes, McGentrix is against free speech. Freedom terrifies McGentrix, as freedom means uncertainty. Freedom means the possibility of a terrorist attack; freedom means that the terrorists have won.

He would swoon with delirious rapture if all personal freedoms were eliminated and GW Bush personally scheduled every moment of everyone's day.

DrewDad wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Am I, right then, in saying that you are against Free Speech?

Yes, McGentrix is against free speech. Freedom terrifies McGentrix, as freedom means uncertainty. Freedom means the possibility of a terrorist attack; freedom means that the terrorists have won.

He would swoon with delirious rapture if all personal freedoms were eliminated and GW Bush personally scheduled every moment of everyone's day.

You are projecting your desires on others again Drewdad. You should probably go ahead and keep your secret fetishs to yourself.

World News

>> Home >> World News


US military dog handlers face Abu Ghraib hearing


27.07.05 1.00pm


FORT MEADE, Maryland - US Army dog handlers in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison used unmuzzled dogs to threaten naked prisoners and competed to see who could make inmates urinate on themselves, according to testimony at a military hearing today.

Sergeant Santos Cardona, 31, and Sergeant Michael Smith, 24, are accused of maltreating detainees at the infamous Baghdad prison between November 2003 and January 2004.

Today's legal proceedings for the dog handlers at Fort Meade military base outside Washington were part of an Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a pretrial hearing that determines whether the two sergeants face courts-martial.

Disturbing photos of dogs barking and growling at inmates were broadcast worldwide in the abuse scandal. In other trials, several US soldiers have already been sentenced for abusing inmates, with jail terms up to 10 years.

Smith and Cardona told investigators last year military intelligence personnel asked them to bring their dogs to prison interrogation sites. The use of unmuzzled dogs to humiliate and intimidate detainees is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Under Islam, dogs are considered ritually unclean so their use against Islamic detainees could add a deeper layer of fear and apprehension for the prisoners.

Private Ivan Frederick, convicted of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, testified via telephone that in one instance Cardona's dog bit a naked inmate twice on the left and right thighs.

Frederick said the military police dog handlers told him they were in a competition to see how many detainees they could scare into urinating and defecating on themselves.

"They were kind of laughing about it," said Frederick, who is serving an eight-year prison term at Fort Leavenworth prison in Kansas.

But Cardona's civilian defence lawyer Harvey Volzer disputed Frederick's claims and said he was testifying in a bid to have his sentence reduced. He told reporters afterward the urination contest claims were untrue.

Another witness, Spec. John Ketzer, also testified by telephone and said dogs had been used to frighten two juvenile detainees, both of them under 15 years of age.

Questions have been raised over who gave approval for dogs to be used during interrogations.

Staff Segeant Christopher Aston, speaking from Afghanistan, said Colonel Thomas Pappas, head of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade at Abu Ghraib, told him he was given approval from his superiors to use the dogs.

Aston said he asked for specific permission to use dogs to help with the interrogation of three detainees brought in at the same time as ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in mid-December, 2003,

Unmuzzled dogs were placed at the threshold of the interrogation room, but Aston said he did not believe they made any difference in getting the detainees to talk.

- REUTERS

I don't wish to have child molesters in America either. Does that also mean I am against free speech?

Can I help it if either of you confuse an avatar on a forum with inciting thousands of Muslim fanatics for no reason beyond portraying Bush in a bad light?

If it was new, or different, that might be newsworthy, but it's not. It's picking the scap off an old wound to see it bleed again.