[Al Jazeera] U.S. army chief authorized abusive tactics in Iraq

[No Worries]

And the beat goes on ...

U.S. army chief authorized abusive tactics in Iraq (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7765)

U.S. army chief authorized abusive tactics in Iraq
3/30/2005 1:00:00 PM GMT

The former U.S. army chief in Iraq authorized tough techniques to intimidate detainees during interrogations, including using guard dogs and placing prisoners in painful “stress positions”, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

A September 14, 2003 memo signed by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, then the top commander in Iraq, was obtained by the ACLU under court order through the Freedom of Information Act.

The memo shows that Sanchez approved the use of 29 interrogation tactics, including 12 which “far exceeded” U.S. accepted military regulations and the Geneva Conventions covering prisoners of war, the ACLU said.

The interrogation techniques included using military working dogs, or MWD, to "exploit Arab fear of dogs”. It also permitted putting prisoners in painful "stress positions".

The memo also approved methods of isolation and sleep and food deprivation and "environmental manipulation" such as making a room hot or cold or using an "unpleasant smell" to break down the detainees.

Sanchez also approved the "false flag" technique of "convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him".

“Clear violation”

"General Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU lawyer.

Singh called for Sanchez and other senior U.S. officials involved in prisoner abuse in Iraq to be held responsible.

In July 2004, Sanchez quit his job leading U.S. troops following the Abu Ghraib scandal, in which U.S. forces abused and sexually humiliated Iraqi detainees. Gen George Casey replaced him as top commander in Iraq nine months ago.

The existence of Sanchez memo had been known for sometime, but it was obtained by the ACLU from the Defense Department on Friday following several court-backed demands. The department had refused to release the memo on national security grounds.

"It is apparent that the government has been holding this document not out of any genuine concern that it will compromise national security but to protect itself from embarrassment," Singh said.

However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed that the department maintains "full transparency", mitigated only by the demands of national security.

Earlier in March, the ACLU and Human Rights First filed a lawsuit asserting that Rumsfeld was directly responsible for the torture and abuse of detainees held by the U.S. in Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The ACLU has filed similar suits accusing Sanchez and other high-ranking U.S. general of being involved in prisoners abuse.

[No Worries]

US Army Clears 4 Top Officers in Abu Ghraib Investigation (http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-23-voa11.cfm)
By VOA News
23 April 2005

The U.S. Army has cleared four top officers, including a former top U.S. commander in Iraq, of any wrongdoing in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

Defense officials say the Army's inspector general ultimately decided there was no basis for bringing charges against Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez and two generals and a colonel under his command.

The officials said that another military official, Army Reserve Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, has been relieved of her command and given a written reprimand. She oversaw the military police at the center of the prison scandal.

The findings are to be released in an upcoming report.

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal sparked outrage and condemnation in the United States and around the world after pictures emerged of American soldiers physically abusing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners.

[No Worries]

The new math as taught in the Army:

1 + 1 = 0 and how high.

[basso]

you're rapidly approaching glynch status with your last several posts...

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by basso
you're rapidly approaching glynch status with your last several posts...

Pot, meet kettle.

[FranchiseBlade]

I would be interested in reading the report that clears them. A memo in which the chief authorizes torture techniques would be pretty telling evidence.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
you're rapidly approaching glynch status with your last several posts...

And your latest series of tirades nearly puts you on the same level with t_j and texxx.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by No Worries
The interrogation techniques included using military working dogs, or MWD, to "exploit Arab fear of dogs”. It also permitted putting prisoners in painful "stress positions".

The memo also approved methods of isolation and sleep and food deprivation and "environmental manipulation" such as making a room hot or cold or using an "unpleasant smell" to break down the detainees.

Sanchez also approved the "false flag" technique of "convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him".

[/i]

None of this really sounds like the bamboo under the fingernails/cow prods on the testicles class of torture I would be seriously concerned with.

[FranchiseBlade]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HayesStreet
None of this really sounds like the bamboo under the fingernails/cow prods on the testicles class of torture I would be seriously concerned with.

But it still violates the law, regulations, and treaties, the U.S. has agreed to.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
None of this really sounds like the bamboo under the fingernails/cow prods on the testicles class of torture I would be seriously concerned with.
But

The memo shows that Sanchez approved the use of 29 interrogation tactics, including 12 which “far exceeded” U.S. accepted military regulations and the Geneva Conventions covering prisoners of war, the ACLU said.

The article does not clarify the 12 interrogation tactics which stepped way over the line (versus the 17 which probably danced on the line.)

[No Worries]

Activists condemn Abu Ghraib verdict (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/370cff72-b532-11d9-8df4-00000e2511c8.html)
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: April 25 2005 03:00 | Last updated: April 25 2005 03:00

Human rights groups have condemned a Pentagon report that exonerates top army officers over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq and have called for an independent investigation.

The army inspector-general concluded that allegations that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the top US military officer in Iraq when the abuses occurred, was responsible for the abuses were unsubstantiated. "These findings only show that the president must appoint a special counsel who is not beholden by rank or party and who is able to look up the military chain of command," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Six low-level soldiers, but no officers, have pleaded guilty or been convicted over the scandal that forced President George W. Bush to make a televised apology last year. Specialist Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, was given 10 years in prison in January, the harshest sentence to date. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, the reserve officer in charge of prisons in Iraq, has been suspended from command.

The inspector-general's report is the 10th official inquiry into the abuses. The Pentagon says the reports demonstrate that the military did not have a policy of abusing or torturing prisoners. But the ACLU says military documents point to a pattern of abuse occurring from Guantánamo Bay to Afghanistan and Iraq.

"[The documents] clearly show that the command breakdown that led to these abuses was more than the work of one scapegoated officer," said Mr Romero.

An investigation by James Schlesinger, a former defence secretary, concluded that the US did not have a torture policy. Mr Schlesinger said senior Pentagon officials shared some responsibility for confusing policies but he stopped short of calling for resignations.

John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate armed services committee, said on Friday he "strongly agreed" with the conclusion of the Schlesinger report that commanders should be held accountable for their actions and that Pentagon officials "share this burden of responsibility".

Questions also remain on the role of CIA officers.

and

US rights groups call for special prosecutor to probe alleged torture (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2005/April/theworld_April543.xml&section=theworld)
(AFP)
24 April 2005

WASHINGTON - US rights groups called Saturday for a special prosecutor to look into the alleged torture of war prisoners in the wake of a Pentagon report that cleared top US army officers of wrongdoing in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch say responsibility in the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere lies in the top echelons and not just on rank-and-file soldiers.

In the Pentagon report, only Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who commanded a military police unit found responsible for sexually humiliating prisoners, forcing them into stress positions and intimidating them with guard dogs, was relieved of her command and is being recommended for a career-ending reprimand, defense officials said late Friday.

However, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who as commander of US forces in Iraq from June 2003 to July 2004 had briefly issued a set of tough interrogation guidelines that some say had encouraged the abuse, was fully exonerated, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The probe, completed by Army Inspector General Lieutenant General Stanley Green, comes on the heels of a slew of independent and internal Pentagon investigations undertaken since April 2004, when information about the pervasive abuse at Abu Ghraib leaked into the media.

The White House would not confirm the contents of the latest report, but a spokeswoman said detainee abuse would not be tolerated.

“The United States does not tolerate wrongdoing when it comes to detainees. When we find it we act to hold those responsible to account and take steps to prevent it from happening again,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

But the American Civil Liberties Union denounced the report and called for a special prosecutor to look into torture allegations against US troops. The group has released thousands of pages of internal military documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The documents “clearly show that the command breakdown that led to these abuses was more than the work of one scapegoated officer,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said.

“As we continue to receive more information, the government cannot ignore the systematic nature of the torture that implicates the military chain of command to the very top.”

Separately, Human Rights Watch demanded that a special prosecutor be named to investigate US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former CIA director George Tenet and other top officials for possible war crimes related to the torture and abuse of prisoners.

The rights group argues that evidence indicates that decisions and policies made by Rumsfeld and other high-ranking officials facilitated widespread abuse of prisoners in violation of US and international law, notably the Geneva Conventions.

It cited mounting evidence that they knew or should have known violations took place, and failed to act to stem the abuse, making them legally liable for the actions of subordinates further down the chain of command.

The report also cites Sanchez and Major General Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of a military-run detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Seven rank-and-file soldiers who had been assigned to guard duty at Abu Ghraib have been charged with physically and sexually abusing the detainees. Five of them have already been found guilty or pleaded guilty, while two courts-martial are still pending.

Several officers have received non-judicial punishment.

But top US commanders in Iraq have largely escaped punishment despite allegations some of them might have tacitly encouraged soldiers to rough up prisoners in order to “soften” them before interrogation.

The Green report sought to address these concerns, but found fault only with Karpinski, who is accused of failing to provide proper oversight of her troops, the defense officials said.

Though not released to the public, the document is seen as the military’s final word in the year-long saga that has tarnished the reputation of the US armed forces and fueled multiple calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation.

According to defense sources, the other officials cleared include Sanchez’s former deputy, Major General Walter Wojdakowski, who stood accused of failing to staff the prison with better trained guards, Major General Barbara Fast, the former chief intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, and Colonel Marc Warren, the command’s top legal officer.

All continue to hold top jobs in the US military. Sanchez, for example, is now commander of the Army Fifth Corps in Germany, while Fast has been given command of an Army intelligence center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

However, the findings appear to contradict last year’s report by an independent panel led by former defense secretary James Schlesinger, who argued that commanders should be held accountable ”for their action or inaction.”

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by No Worries
The article does not clarify the 12 interrogation tactics which stepped way over the line
Interesting...

Article linked from Al Jazeera .com
Nevermind, that explains it.

[nyquil82]

basso: posts article about FBI looking into Sen. Clinton's possible fraud in her campaign.

No Worries: posts article stating that US army allowed abusive tactics on POWs.

basso: complains, inferring that No Worries is posting alot of one-sided articles.

Ramifications? Hitler is now allowed to accuse President Bush of being racist.

[basso]

Originally posted by nyquil82

No Worries: posts article stating that US army allowed abusive tactics on POWs.


Ramifications? No Worries makes common cause with new organizations that employ terrorists bent on killing americans. fine, if you want to make the point. just use another "news" organization.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by No Worries
But

The memo shows that Sanchez approved the use of 29 interrogation tactics, including 12 which “far exceeded” U.S. accepted military regulations and the Geneva Conventions covering prisoners of war, the ACLU said.

The article does not clarify the 12 interrogation tactics which stepped way over the line (versus the 17 which probably danced on the line.)

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HayesStreet
None of this really sounds like the bamboo under the fingernails/cow prods on the testicles class of torture I would be seriously concerned with.

But it still violates the law, regulations, and treaties, the U.S. has agreed to.

According to the ACLU's allegations.

[losttexan]

Bush stated publicly that the US was not going to follow the Geneva Convention because by not following the convention it would give the us "more freedom".

Everyone who wanted to know knew what "more freedom" meant. Torture.

If a general were convicted, (and not just a low level service person acting on their own, as the story goes) the questions of an institutional policy would be raised, and from there, to the Dept. of Defense and from there to the commander and chief.

So, it becomes apparent that the story has to be, no matter how much evidence is produced, that a couple of low levels were just getting their kicks on a Saturday night.


For all Vets out there, we know how unlikey it would be for a couple E-3's and E-4's to do that in plain sight of everyone if they thought it was not with the permission of superiors.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by basso
Ramifications? No Worries makes common cause with new organizations that employ terrorists bent on killing americans. fine, if you want to make the point. just use another "news" organization.
Image egg. Image your face.

Please explain in great detail how the Al Jazeera article is biased. AJ essentailly carried the same article the US MSM carried word for eff-ing word.

Now, go play on the freeway ;)

[No Worries]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
According to the ACLU's allegations.
which were based on documents that got from FOIA requests. Are you saying that the ACLU is not trustworthy?

[basso]

Originally posted by No Worries
Image egg. Image your face.


i'm sure this is supposed to mean something, but your point is lost on me.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by basso
i'm sure this is supposed to mean something, but your point is lost on me.

It means game-set-match......and you lost.

[basso]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
It means game-set-match......and you lost.

ahhhhhh, clever, if indicipherable, and if by losing i don't make common cause with terrorists, just put a big

<--L

beside my name.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Interesting...


Nevermind, that explains it.

For the last time, people who write off Al Jazeera off the bat, are not familiar with Al Jazeera.

The organization is independent, with a target audience, and different perspective. That perspective does cause some articles to come from one particular angle. That doesn't invalidate them as a source in the least. They aren't on the side of terrorists, or even against the U.S. in general. They work closely with and listen to U.S. military representatives as well as others.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
For the last time, people who write off Al Jazeera off the bat, are not familiar with Al Jazeera.
Why wouldn't they clarify the 12 interrogation tactics which "stepped way over the line?"

Sorry, I didn't mean to write off a story based solely on the source. I know no one around here would ever do anything like that (http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?threadid=94816)...

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Why wouldn't they clarify the 12 interrogation tactics which "stepped way over the line?"

Sorry, I didn't mean to write off a story based solely on the source. I know no one around here would ever do anything like that (http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?threadid=94816)... The not clarifying and way over the line part comes from the ACLU. Al Jazeera can't write what their source doesn't say.

As far as Fox is concerened, I agree that they have a bias, but that everyone should look at the information and decide for themselves. I don't have a problem with articles that come from Fox, because if they are faulty it won't be too difficult to debunk them. The same is true of Al Jazeera.

In the Fox article there was no memo or other official document from Iraq or Saddam authorizing Timothy McV to bomb the fed building.

In the Al Jazeera story they are working off a memo from the Army official in which he ok's methods that go beyond agreements, laws, and regulations that the U.S. supports.

[Svpernaut]

Honestly, we mistreated terrorists? The same ones that ram car bombs into innocent people every day? Cry me a river, just send Jack Bauer in...

[No Worries]

Here is the ACLU copy that they shotgunned to the media ...

Interrogation Techniques Approved by Lieutenant General Sanchez Included Intimidation by Dogs, Stress Positions, Sensory Deprivation (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17852&c=206)
March 29, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

ACLU Obtains September 2003 Memo Central to Abu Ghraib Story

NEW YORK -- A memo signed by Lieutenant General Ricardo A. Sanchez authorizing 29 interrogation techniques, including 12 which far exceeded limits established by the Army's own Field Manual, was made public for the first time by the American Civil Liberties Union today.

"General Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's own standards," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh. "He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."

The ACLU has a lawsuit pending against Sanchez alleging direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody. The existence of the memo and excerpts of it were previously published in The Washington Post, but it is being reprinted in full here for the first time.

The Defense Department initially refused to release the September Sanchez memo on national security grounds. After the ACLU filed legal papers specifically challenging the withholding of the memo on those grounds, the Defense Department reconsidered its position and released the document to the ACLU late in the afternoon on Friday, March 25, 2005. At the same time, the Defense Department released a previously leaked October 12, 2003 Sanchez memo that superseded the September Sanchez memo.

In a letter sent yesterday to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who is overseeing the case, the ACLU said that the Department of Defense (DOD) "has demonstrated a singular disregard for this Court�s repeated orders and has continued to engage in a pattern of delay." DOD has asked four times for extensions in turning over documents.

The Sanchez memo dated September 14, 2003, specifically allows for interrogation techniques involving the use of military dogs specifically to "Exploit(s) Arab fear of dogs," isolation, and stress positions.

The September Sanchez memo is posted online at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17851&c=206.

The October Sanchez memo is posted on line at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17849&c=206.

More than 30,000 pages of other released documents are posted online at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

Earlier this month, the ACLU and Human Rights First filed a lawsuit charging Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody. The action was the first federal court lawsuit to name a top U.S. official in the ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of the charges are based on documents obtained through the FOIA lawsuit. The ACLU has also filed separate lawsuits naming Brig. Gen. Karpinski, Col. Thomas Pappas and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. Details about the Rumsfeld lawsuit are online at www.aclu.org/rumsfeld.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur N. Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky and Jeff Fogel of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.

[Svpernaut]

Lieutenant General Ricardo A. Sanchez is my new hero.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
Honestly, we mistreated terrorists?
Maybe. Maybe not. Due process did not happen.

[basso]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
For the last time, people who write off Al Jazeera off the bat, are not familiar with Al Jazeera.

The organization hires terrorists, and has well documented anti-american agenda.

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
Honestly, we mistreated terrorists? The same ones that ram car bombs into innocent people every day? Cry me a river, just send Jack Bauer in...
Exactly.

Remember we are dealing with liberals here who mourn the death of mistreated terrorists, yet cheer the death/poor health/etc of GOP leaders. A real classy bunch...

[No Worries]

Latest Government Documents Show Army Command Approved and Encouraged Abuse of Detainees, ACLU Says (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18060&c=206)
April 19, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK -- New evidence disclosed in documents released by the Department of Defense confirms that soldiers who abused prisoners were acting with the "seeming approval" of senior command, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.

"These documents provide further evidence that the chain of command in Iraq approved and even encouraged the abuse of detainees held in U.S. custody," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh. "Instead of holding that chain of command accountable for systemic detainee abuse, the U.S. government continues to thwart efforts to bring the full truth about who was ultimately responsible to light."

A CD-ROM of 2,200 documents was released yesterday in response to a federal court order that directed the Defense Department and other government agencies to comply with a year-old request under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

These latest documents include autopsy reports that provide new, often gruesome details about detainee deaths ruled to be homicides, including death by strangulation and "blunt force injuries." Other investigative reports describe a mock execution of a teenage Iraqi boy in front of his father, who begged soldiers not to shoot his son, as well as an Army Medic's description of two Iraqis who were "brutally beaten" by U.S. soldiers, in contrast to a captain's contention that they "just got roughed up a bit."

Significantly, the ACLU said, several documents link the abuses to a "command climate" that encouraged brutality.

A Staff Sergeant with the 104th Military Battalion, 4th Infantry, rebutting accusations that he improperly supervised an interrogator who assaulted an Iraqi prisoner, replied that comments made by senior leaders that detainees are not enemy prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions "have caused a great deal of confusion as to the status of detainees."

"In hindsight," he wrote, "it seems clear that, considering the seeming approval of these and other tactics by the senior command, it is a short jump of the imagination that allows actions such as those committed by [name redacted] to become not only tolerated but encouraged."

The Sergeant also criticized his commanders for soliciting a "wish list" of alternative interrogation techniques and for using phrases such as "the gloves are coming off." His remarks related to a previously disclosed August 17, 2003 e-mail sent by a captain in Military Intelligence asking for a "wish list" of what techniques they would like to use. Interrogators responding to that request sought approval for the use of "low voltage electrocution," "phone book strikes," "muscle fatigue inducement" and the use of dogs and snakes.

Two previously undisclosed responses to the "wish list" e-mail suggest a debate over the morality and legality of the techniques. One unidentified interrogator said that "our intelligence doctrine is based on former Cold War and WWII enemies," and that "today's enemy" understands "force, not psychological mind games or incentives."

A second interrogator with the 501st Military Intelligence Battalion, however, stated: "It comes down to standards of right and wrong -- something we cannot just put aside when we find it inconvenient. BOTTOM LINE: we are American soldiers, heirs of a long tradition of staying on the high ground. We need to stay there."

Singh added: "The record before us establishes beyond any doubt that U.S. forces abandoned moral and legal principles enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and the Army's own field manuals governing the treatment of detainees."

To date, more than 30,000 documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The latest documents are online at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/.

Many of the documents obtained through the FOIA lawsuit formed the basis for a lawsuit filed last month by the ACLU and Human Rights First seeking to hold Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and others accountable for the abuse of detainees. Details about the Rumsfeld lawsuit are online at www.aclu.org/rumsfeld.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Jaffer, Amrit Singh, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur N. Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky and Jeff Fogel of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Remember we are dealing with liberals here who mourn the death of mistreated terrorists, yet cheer the death/poor health/etc of GOP leaders. A real classy bunch...
Yeah, you are right.

We should load our clips full and shoot everyone in Iraq who looks suspicious.

We should torture Iraqis at will and publish the pictures on the Internet so evildoers the world over will know how mentally unhinged we have become.

That's the ticket.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge

Remember we are dealing with liberals here who mourn the death of mistreated terrorists, yet cheer the death/poor health/etc of GOP leaders. A real classy bunch...

Remember we are dealing with conservatives here who mourn the death of a brain dead woman who has no hope for recovery, yet advocate violence against members of the US Judiciary. A real pathetic bunch.....

:rolleyes:

[losttexan]

I find that article too depressing to even make a cynical comment.

Good Post.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
Honestly, we mistreated terrorists? The same ones that ram car bombs into innocent people every day? Cry me a river, just send Jack Bauer in... I take it you aren't familiar with Abu Graihb prison scandal. The vast majority of inmates there were actually innocnet, and not terrorists.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
Lieutenant General Ricardo A. Sanchez is my new hero. Who was your old hero, Saddam?

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
The vast majority of inmates there were actually innocnet, and not terrorists.

Very misleading statistic, FranchiseBlade. The more telling statistic is what % of the 'abused' prisoners were innocent? Likely very few, especially considering that the prisoners who are 'abused' are the ones who are likely acting up and not cooperating. Of course, this assumes that your definition of abuse includes putting panties on a prisoner's head. That's how the liberals define it as at least.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by No Worries
which were based on documents that got from FOIA requests. Are you saying that the ACLU is not trustworthy?

I don't take anything the ACLU says at face value anymore than any other organization. Are you saying that you take as fact every interpretation the ACLU has of every situation?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Very misleading statistic, FranchiseBlade. The more telling statistic is what % of the 'abused' prisoners were innocent? Likely very few, especially considering that the prisoners who are 'abused' are the ones who are likely acting up and not cooperating. Of course, this assumes that your definition of abuse includes putting panties on a prisoner's head. That's how the liberals define it as at least. You are correct that we dont' know the percentage of tortured prisoners that were innocent. By not cooperating that could also mean innocent people not telling information they didn't have.

As far as the panties on the head red herring, that is certainly misleading, since we know that far worse went on their, and judging by these memos worse than that was authorized by Sanchez.

[losttexan]

trade,

How do you any are guilty? They aren't prisoners of war, so the administration says, they are just being held. No one will ever receive a trial, a hearing, or any sort chance to defend himself or herself. Some may be guilty of defending their country; a few may actually be "terrorists". But let's face it we don't know. Why do assume that they deserve to be miss treated?

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by losttexan
How do you any are guilty? They aren't prisoners of war, so the administration says, they are just being held. No one will ever receive a trial, a hearing, or any sort chance to defend himself or herself. Some may be guilty of defending their country; a few may actually be "terrorists". But let's face it we don't know. Why do assume that they deserve to be miss treated?

This is WAR. You don't go around giving people who are trying to kill you the benefit of the doubt. Mistakes happen in war.

Here is the real question: Why do you liberals insist that US soliders are using poor judgment in incarcerating terrorists? How can you possibly believe that you can think of a better way for this to be handled than the people who are on the ground, in the line of fire? I give our troops the benefit of the doubt. THEY HAVE EARNED IT by putting their life on the line.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
This is WAR. You don't go around giving people who are trying to kill you the benefit of the doubt. Mistakes happen in war.

Here is the real question: Why do you liberals insist that US soliders are using poor judgment in incarcerating terrorists? How can you possibly believe that you can think of a better way for this to be handled than the people who are on the ground, in the line of fire? I give our troops the benefit of the doubt. THEY HAVE EARNED IT by putting their life on the line. Nobody is giving anyone a hard time for locking up terrorists. We are giving people a hard time for not following conventions, laws, and treaties signed by the U.S.

It is because I support the troops, that I am against torture. I can think of a better way than the people who are on the ground in charge of the situations where torture is used, because it doesn't work, and the majority of folks on the ground aren't doing this.

Why do you scoff at the brave troops who don't use torture, follow a higher moral code, and follow the Geneva convention by defending the dregs who taint their name and honor with techniques such as these?

[losttexan]

I agree, just treat them as prisoners of war, what's wrong with that?

By the way poor judgement was used in the treatment of the prisoners but it wasn't made by our brave service personal, it was made by the administration that said we will not treat them as prisoners of war. The administration hung those who did that in Abu Grav out to dry. Why don't you defend them.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
I don't take anything the ACLU says at face value anymore than any other organization. Are you saying that you take as fact every interpretation the ACLU has of every situation?
Well ACLU articles did include this hard to read letters from Sanchez as previously noted:

The September Sanchez memo is posted online at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17851&c=206.

The October Sanchez memo is posted on line at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17849&c=206.

ACLU like any other organization is made of humans and thus not without error. The original article imo contained both fact and interpretation.

I posted the above ACLU written articles just for your benefit and amusement. The articles contained mondo links to everything that got from the FOIA request, including the two Sanchez letters.

I also could not find any government source refuting what the ACLU said in its article (which in and of itself proves nothing). The charges that the ACLU made were serious and backed from FOIA documents. The lack of response from the WH, DoD, et. al. is suspicious.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by losttexan
I agree, just treat them as prisoners of war, what's wrong with that?
GWB et al disagree. They are enemy combatants, for whom no law protects.

[gwayneco]

I was wondering if the liberals here would go through each of the 29 technniques at issue here and discuss under what circumstances, if any, would they allow each technique to be used.

[wizardball]

Honestly, we mistreated terrorists? The same ones that ram car bombs into innocent people every day? Cry me a river, just send Jack Bauer in

look its not like these prisoners get a trial.... they are all guilty upon arrest.... some of these people must be innocent.... ....

plus i don't think the U.S should be in Iraq in the first place...all these innocent people would not being dying if the U.S did not go in there in the first place.... i know many will say saddam killed many....well yes he did...there are many screwed up countries though....wanna go to every one of em??...who has the right to interfere???...if you wanted to get rid of WMD...first get rid of the dirt in your own closet then go to someone else ...until then you are being a hypocrite!!!!!

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by No Worries
ACLU like any other organization is made of humans and thus not without error. The original article imo contained both fact and interpretation.


Uh, no. There are no facts in the original article, just quotes from an ACLU lawyer. The ACLU's interpretation is presented. That's it.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by wizardball
i know many will say saddam killed many....well yes he did...there are many screwed up countries though....wanna go to every one of em??

Many charities need money, wanna give to every one of them? Just because you can't go after all the bad guys, doesn't mean you can't go after any of them.

[wizardball]

StupidMoniker....


a charity...and invading a land with human lives at stake are two friggin different things....

anyway my point is that there are innocent individuals as well.... there are no trials..... just cause they got arrested means they are guilty!?...thats inhumane....strange how we can change our philosophical believes when its something very distant to ourselves... you guys hav'nt tasted war so you have no idea of its effects.... and i mean in your home country...not ....going abroad and being at war with someone in foreign lands.... thats not when your family is at risk...your future and your past is all effected when its happening at home.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by wizardball
a charity...and invading a land with human lives at stake are two friggin different things....

They illustrate the same point. If you think it is the right thing to do, you can take action, even if you don't do it in every circumstance. I think that ousting Saddam and bringing Democracy to Iraq is the right thing. Just because there are other bad governments where we have not/will not intervene, that does not make going into Iraq less justifiable.

I never mentioned anything about people being held, so the rest of your post is not germane to my point, but I will address some of it anyway.

Originally posted by wizardball
you guys hav'nt tasted war so you have no idea of its effects.... and i mean in your home country...not ....going abroad and being at war with someone in foreign lands.... thats not when your family is at risk...your future and your past is all effected when its happening at home.

From this we can take that you are against all wars; you're a pacifist. I disagree with that philosophy because I think that wars can be just, and that the consequences of not going to war can be every bit as dire.

I don't think I can convice you that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do, and I don't think you can convice me that it was wrong, so I will leave it at that.

[wizardball]

StupidMoniker


i'm a Canadien... we're against all wars.:D ...though we still have to kiss the americans a$$ since our economy is based around you guys....

i'd say South Korea was/is a lot more dangerous than Iraq could had ever been....why not go there....i guess you know the answer....my point being that the U.S is building another arms race towards nuclear power...

[No Worries]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
Uh, no. There are no facts in the original article, just quotes from an ACLU lawyer. The ACLU's interpretation is presented. That's it.
I disagree. Do you think that Sanchez authorized more than or less than 29 interrogation techniques?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Many charities need money, wanna give to every one of them? Just because you can't go after all the bad guys, doesn't mean you can't go after any of them. But the question then becomes do you give to a charity that fights a special brand of athelete's foot that only affects non-Americans, or do you give money to a charity that aims to wipe out breast cancer.

Because Saddam is like the athelete's foot that affects only non-Americans. Meanwhile we had places like Sudan, Liberia, Pakistan, N. Korea that were doing far worse things, and cooperating with terrorists that were actually a threat to us.

[Svpernaut]

If they aren't American citizens they don't deserve "due process." When was the last time insurgents AKA terrorists took hostages and made sure they stayed in line with the Geneva Convention? That's right, they don't. We didn't chop off anyone's head's and post it all over TV or raise their dead bodies onto a bridge and burn them... and we sure as crap don't ram car bombs into innocent crowds mutliple times a day. We took pictures of them naked and with leashes on and deprived them of sleep... BOO FREAKING HOO!

Some of you guys need to wake up and realize the world isn't all roses. If you aren't man enough to do what needs to be done to save lives then I thank God you're not in the position to make those decisions. You will never convince me that treating known terrorists or their "friends" with the same rights as American citizens is the right thing to do. Are some people wrongly accused and/or treated? Maybe, but for every one of those there are COUNTLESS lives saved from the information taken under said tactics. It's a game of numbers, and in my eyes our numbers are more important then theirs.

Your utopia will never exist, and it's about time you realize that.

[No Worries]

Are some people wrongly accused and/or treated? Maybe, but for every one of those there are COUNTLESS lives saved from the information taken under said tactics.

Please provide a link to the fantasy world in which you live.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
If they aren't American citizens they don't deserve "due process." When was the last time insurgents AKA terrorists took hostages and made sure they stayed in line with the Geneva Convention? That's right, they don't. We didn't chop off anyone's head's and post it all over TV or raise their dead bodies onto a bridge and burn them... and we sure as crap don't ram car bombs into innocent crowds mutliple times a day. We took pictures of them naked and with leashes on and deprived them of sleep... BOO FREAKING HOO!

Some of you guys need to wake up and realize the world isn't all roses. If you aren't man enough to do what needs to be done to save lives then I thank God you're not in the position to make those decisions. You will never convince me that treating known terrorists or their "friends" with the same rights as American citizens is the right thing to do. Are some people wrongly accused and/or treated? Maybe, but for every one of those there are COUNTLESS lives saved from the information taken under said tactics. It's a game of numbers, and in my eyes our numbers are more important then theirs.

Your utopia will never exist, and it's about time you realize that. There are many facts that are wrong here. According the Army's own report it wasn't just pictures of naked bodies. Prisoners were raped, and killed. The pictures we saw were only the ones that caused to yell boo freeking hoo. But far worse happened.

You are correct that we don't ram car bombs into innocent crowds. We shouldn't. We also shouldn't use Sddam's tactics of torture. Sadly we have.

As for American citizens only being given the due process, that doesn't address treating them as prisoners of war, which would also be acceptible.

Are you familiar with the U.S. declaration of independence? In it these words are written We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The rights you claim are only due to American Citizens is not an idea that goes well with our declaration of independence. The inalienable rights are not given by the U.S. but by men's creator. If you don't believe in the U.S. declaration of independence, then that is your choice.

As far as the tactics used saving even one life, we don't know that that is true at all. We also don't know that if it is true there weren't other ways to get the information. Even worse it could be that our torture only fueld the drive and will of insurgents, and aided their resolved to carry out more attacks, and we actually lost lives as a result of those techniques.

If we are fighting for freedom, and democratic ideals we don't win that fight by abandoning those ideals.

[glynch]

I can't believe it. After all this time TJ, and the orginal apologists for torture on the bbs have come out of the closet again. What's next? Another Rush Limbaugh program comparing it all to fraternity initation cermonies?

[Svpernaut]

Did some of the troops go too far? Yup, and they are being punished. Troops have gone too far in every war known to man, it's nothing new... you can't blame the Army or Government for the acts of a few individuals. Those actions cannot be compared to interrigation tactics, because there are not what was condoned. Either way the things that went on there are dwarfed when compared to the atrocities done to our troops and civilians there, so spair me the insurgent pity party.

If what happened there (interrogation tactics, not the criminal acts of individual soldiers) saved one American life, its worth it... if you don't have those views Canada would love to have you. I'm sorry but I will not appologize and act like an American life isn't worth it. Maybe I'm different then some Americans, but I view America as my family and I will do whatever it takes to protect my family from cowardly terrorists. If you don't view it like that then I'd hate to see how far you wouldn't go to protect your own family.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
Did some of the troops go too far? Yup, and they are being punished. Troops have gone too far in every war known to man, it's nothing new... you can't blame the Army or Government for the acts of a few individuals. Those actions cannot be compared to interrigation tactics, because there are not what was condoned. Either way the things that went on there are dwarfed when compared to the atrocities done to our troops and civilians there, so spair me the insurgent pity party.

If what happened there (interrogation tactics, not the criminal acts of individual soldiers) saved one American life, its worth it... if you don't have those views Canada would love to have you. I'm sorry but I will not appologize and act like an American life isn't worth it. Maybe I'm different then some Americans, but I view America as my family and I will do whatever it takes to protect my family from cowardly terrorists. If you don't view it like that then I'd hate to see how far you wouldn't go to protect your own family. It's not a patriot off. If it was I think anyone who approves of torture would lose. As I mentioned the U.S. declaration of independence says that ALL men are born with certain 'inalienable' rights endowed by their CREATOR. I believe in that. That is American. It does not say that if you aren't American you aren't entitled to certain rights. That is the exact thing the founding fathers were trying to break free from. They didn't like being excluded from govt. decisions because they were in a colony or weren't artisocracy. They thought all men had those rights regardless of where they were from. If you don't like it, then you are welcome to go to Canada.

In addition if that torture saved one life in the short term but caused the resistence in Iraq to be prolonged and ended up costing thousands of other lives, then it wasn't worth it.

Further more if that torture saved one life, but cost the honor and ideals that the soldiers were fighting for, then it wasn't worth it. Better to die with honor and ideals intact than to live having shamed all of a nation its armed forces.

A few soldiers certainly crossed the line, but if the general in charge authorized it, then it goes beyond a few soldiers.

[Svpernaut]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
It's not a patriot off. If it was I think anyone who approves of torture would lose. As I mentioned the U.S. declaration of independence says that ALL men are born with certain 'inalienable' rights endowed by their CREATOR. I believe in that. That is American. It does not say that if you aren't American you aren't entitled to certain rights. That is the exact thing the founding fathers were trying to break free from. They didn't like being excluded from govt. decisions because they were in a colony or weren't artisocracy. They thought all men had those rights regardless of where they were from. If you don't like it, then you are welcome to go to Canada.

In addition if that torture saved one life in the short term but caused the resistence in Iraq to be prolonged and ended up costing thousands of other lives, then it wasn't worth it.

Further more if that torture saved one life, but cost the honor and ideals that the soldiers were fighting for, then it wasn't worth it. Better to die with honor and ideals intact than to live having shamed all of a nation its armed forces.

A few soldiers certainly crossed the line, but if the general in charge authorized it, then it goes beyond a few soldiers.

I love how you continue to bring up the Declaration of Independence. Since when do foreign nationals get all rights described within it? They don't, so that is a ridiculous arguement. It wasn't written for anyone other then the American people... and it was especially not written for those at war with our nation. When our founding fathers were penning it I highly doubt they had their enemies in mind.

Since when does a litmus test of how the world "honors" our soldiers depict how we proceed in forgiegn policy and our military actions? Our soldiers have been the targets of billions of foes since the end of World War II, now is no different. Our military and power has been the envy and hatred of the vast majority of the world since the fall of the Nazi regime and other then a few strong allies it is the constant job of the majority of the world to want us to fail.

I just love how you utopians can sit here and say that making the American name look good in the world is more important then a few measily American lives. So, if one of your family member's was raped or thrown in jail you'd disown them so you didn't dishonor your family's name? Pathetic. Since when has American been praised by the other powers in the world? That's right it doesn't happen, and it never will. When you're on top you have a target on your back at all times. They hated us before Iraq and they hate us now.

Some bad things went on at Abu Ghraib but they were done by individual soldiers, not the Army. I don't recall an Army memo mentioning raping prisoners to get information out of them... Jump on your ACLU bandwagon, yeah the same ACLU that faught hard for the freedom of Zacarias Moussaoui and other terrorists. If these are the people that you want to wave your banner of idiocy then so be it. Those same soldiers you lump with criminals are the same ones defending your freedom to banter on.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
If what happened there saved one American life, its worth it...
Still waiting on that link supporting your supposition.

You should trying thinking out of your American centric box. Do you realize the recruiting power those AG pictures have for radical Muslim groups? Do you know how long those pictures will have traction?

If you can't or refuse to make that trip, how about this instead. What do you think would have been the average American's opinion if radical Muslim had published pictures of American soldiers in sexually explicit photos? What would the opinion of a red state American be? How long would they hold onto their hate?

[No Worries]

Some bad things went on at Abu Ghraib but they were done by individual soldiers, not the Army.

Link please. Good luck!!!

[losttexan]

Suvpernaunt,

Do you really believe that a couple of low level military personal did all that you saw in those pictures on their own? For kicks on a Saturday night. That they didn't have orders to do so? Have you ever been in the military?
NO low level military does that in plain sight of everyone without orders.

I know you feel like your back is against the wall and you don't feel like you can acknowledge that this administration gave the ok for such tactics (which they did when bush informed the world that they would not abide by the Geneva Conventions because they wanted "more flexibility") but, just step back and honestly look at the situation and tell me which is more likely.

It's ok to question a party you support; it's a sign of an open mind. Which is a good thing.

[Svpernaut]

Originally posted by No Worries
Still waiting on that link supporting your supposition.

You should trying thinking out of your American centric box. Do you realize the recruiting power those AG pictures have for radical Muslim groups? Do you know how long those pictures will have traction?

If you can't or refuse to make that trip, how about this instead. What do you think would have been the average American's opinion if radical Muslim had published pictures of American soldiers in sexually explicit photos? What would the opinion of a red state American be? How long would they hold onto their hate?

Feel free to show me a link where the Army condoned raping inmates and killing them? There are none, so those were acts of lone individuals. How dare you attack the Army as a whole for the acts of a few. I guess you have an autographed copy of Jane Fonda's book too huh? Pathetic. Once again, the ACLU being praised in this topic is the same one fighting for Zacarias Moussaoui... bravo.

If you don't see how interrogating prisoners who are known terrorists leads to saving lives then you my friend aren't very bright. Imagine what would have happened on 09.11.01 if the FBI was able to openly interrogate Zacarias Moussaoui and read and access his secured computer files months before the attack... that tragedy probably would have never happened. Our "profiling" and interrogation tactics put into place after 9/11 have diverted many catastrophes on our soil and abroad.

I don't care WHAT our actions make muslim extremests think... their thoughts and views are of no concern to me. If we act on how our enemy will perceive our actions rather then what is best for American lives, then the terrorists win. They hated us long before Abu Ghraib and were lining up by the thousands as martyrs. Our backing of Israel is why they hate us and will always hate us, but we don't abandon Israel simply because us backing them helps terrorist recruitment.

[Svpernaut]

Originally posted by losttexan
Suvpernaunt,

Do you really believe that a couple of low level military personal did all that you saw in those pictures on their own? For kicks on a Saturday night. That they didn't have orders to do so? Have you ever been in the military?
NO low level military does that in plain sight of everyone without orders.

I know you feel like your back is against the wall and you don't feel like you can acknowledge that this administration gave the ok for such tactics (which they did when bush informed the world that they would not abide by the Geneva Conventions because they wanted "more flexibility") but, just step back and honestly look at the situation and tell me which is more likely.

It's ok to question a party you support; it's a sign of an open mind. Which is a good thing.

You have no idea the extent of my knowledge of the military and what can go in it. Saying that no low level ranking soldier does anything on their own is ridiculous. There have been war attrocities by low level ranking Americans in every war we've ever fought, but that doesn't take away from the greater good of our entire fighting forces.

I like how you also think you know how I feel or where I stand about the current administration... not to mention the fact that you think because some elements in the military did something wrong it was from direct orders from the White House. There is no proof of that happening and in true NoWorries fashion LINKS!?!?!?! lol.

My entire argument has nothing to do with the current President, it has everything to do with you guys praising people like the ACLU while bashing our US Armed forces as a whole. It's disgusting, it really is. The great thing about this country is you can bash the very aspect of it that gives you the freedom to bash in the first place, and I just love how you all ride on the coat tails of the ACLU and eat it up like children eating cereal and watching the Saturday morning cartoons.

So, go ahead and bash the Armed forces, bash the US, bash Bush and bash me... you have every right too.

[No Worries]

I asked for a link supporting for opinion and got ...

Originally posted by Svpernaut
Feel free to show me a link where the Army condoned raping inmates and killing them?
which is not in response to anything that I have posited.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
If you don't see how interrogating prisoners who are known terrorists leads to saving lives then you my friend aren't very bright.
Link?

I have seen some articles that suggest the otherwise. IOW our interrogation techniques have not lead to accurate, actionable intel on the Iraq insurgency.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
I don't care WHAT our actions make muslim extremests think... their thoughts and views are of no concern to me. If we act on how our enemy will perceive our actions rather then what is best for American lives, then the terrorists win. They hated us long before Abu Ghraib and were lining up by the thousands as martyrs. Our backing of Israel is why they hate us and will always hate us, but we don't abandon Israel simply because us backing them helps terrorist recruitment.
How is our backing of Israel "what is best for American lives"?

Use short words and small sentences. Type slowly.

911 is the direct result of Americans not caring what our politicians did in our "best interests" in the ME. George "they hate our love of apple pie" Bush might disagree, but then again he is just a political tool.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
Once again, the ACLU being praised in this topic is the same one fighting for Zacarias Moussaoui... bravo.
So is that the ACLU hates America angle you are shooting for?

I am not familiar with why the ACLU fought for Zacarias Moussaoui? I suspect that they took issue with corner cutting done by the Bushies.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
I love how you continue to bring up the Declaration of Independence. Since when do foreign nationals get all rights described within it? They don't, so that is a ridiculous arguement. It wasn't written for anyone other then the American people... and it was especially not written for those at war with our nation. When our founding fathers were penning it I highly doubt they had their enemies in mind.
I think there is a fundemental lack of understanding about what our declaration of indepence says. It says specificall the rights they are talking about belong to ALL MEN It does not say Americans. It might have been written for Americans, but the words obviously derive from an understanding that ALL MEN are ENTITLED to CERTAIN RIGHTS. The declaration of independence merely said that unlike other govts. our govt. would recognize that fact. The declaration does not say that only Americans are entitled to certain rights. In fact it says the opposite. Who the document was written for doesn't trump what the document says, and the beliefs behind it.

As for it being for those we are war with, that doesn't really apply here. We are supposedly fighting FOR those innocent Iraqis not against them. Remember that large numbers of those in AG were innocent. The innocent ones are not the enemy we are supposed to be fighting against.
Originally posted by Svpernaut

Since when does a litmus test of how the world "honors" our soldiers depict how we proceed in forgiegn policy and our military actions? Our soldiers have been the targets of billions of foes since the end of World War II, now is no different. Our military and power has been the envy and hatred of the vast majority of the world since the fall of the Nazi regime and other then a few strong allies it is the constant job of the majority of the world to want us to fail.
Our honor doesn't come from how the rest of the world sees us. It comes from our own conduct. If we behave dishonorably by resorting to torture, then honor is lost. Saddam used torture and had no honor.

To claim the rest of the world has mostly hated us since WWII isn't accurate either. Most of Europe had, until recently, a fairly high approval rating of the U.S. That doesn't mean there weren't disagreements, and soar spots. But the U.S. was once respected and our way of life and democracy was beacon throughout the world. We were respected in many cases, loved in some, and despised in some. But it hasn't been us against the world. This was especially true after 9/11.

It isn't about doing what pleases the rest of the world, but carrying ourselves with honor does bring respect with it. Originally posted by Svpernaut

I just love how you utopians can sit here and say that making the American name look good in the world is more important then a few measily American lives. So, if one of your family member's was raped or thrown in jail you'd disown them so you didn't dishonor your family's name? Pathetic.



I would never abandon a family member to prison, rape or anything else. I also wouldn't dishonor them by resorting to the methods of tyrants, dictators and terrorists.

Again you haven't shown that torture and breaking our word, has saved one single person. You haven't shown that it helped in any way at all. There is no evidence to back up your claim.

There is no dishonor in being raped, or imprisoned, but there is dishonor in raping, and falsely imprisoning.

The ACLU memo is only piece of evidence of these things. General Taguba a Major General in the U.S. Army is one place you might look for a report on the other abuses.

I care about our troops. I cared enough that I didn't think they should have to go die for this. I care enough that while they are over there, I am proud of the ones who carry themselves with honor, and outraged by those that don't.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
I love how you continue to bring up the Declaration of Independence. Since when do foreign nationals get all rights described within it? They don't, so that is a ridiculous arguement. It wasn't written for anyone other then the American people... and it was especially not written for those at war with our nation. When our founding fathers were penning it I highly doubt they had their enemies in mind.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."

Where does it say anything about all AMERICAN men? In fact, since America didn't even exist before they penned the Declaration, how could they possibly have intended those words to apply ONLY to Americans?

They specifically said ALL men, not all Americans or all Britons, or all Frenchmen, they said ALL men.

You would have a strong argument if you said that foreign nationals do not get all the protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but trying to claim that the Declaration of Independence applies only to Americans is, to use your seemingly favorite put down, pathetic.

Originally posted by Svpernaut

Since when does a litmus test of how the world "honors" our soldiers depict how we proceed in forgiegn policy and our military actions? Our soldiers have been the targets of billions of foes since the end of World War II, now is no different. Our military and power has been the envy and hatred of the vast majority of the world since the fall of the Nazi regime and other then a few strong allies it is the constant job of the majority of the world to want us to fail.

I just love how you utopians can sit here and say that making the American name look good in the world is more important then a few measily American lives. So, if one of your family member's was raped or thrown in jail you'd disown them so you didn't dishonor your family's name? Pathetic. Since when has American been praised by the other powers in the world? That's right it doesn't happen, and it never will. When you're on top you have a target on your back at all times. They hated us before Iraq and they hate us now.

Wrong.

We were nearly universally supported by all worldwide powers in the aftermath of 9/11. Even Arab nations supported our action in Afghanistan, which was the right action to take given their support of the terrorists who helped plan 9/11.

Then, GWB and his cabal decided to go after Iraq (actually, the evidence shows that they got this idea even before 9/11) by riding the 9/11 sentiment. They were able to bamboozle the populace of America by over-hyping WMD claims and trying to tie Iraq to 9/11, but the people in other countries wanted actual evidence to back up the unsubstantiated "intelligence" (much of which was provided by an agent of a hostile government) being touted by the US government.

When we decided to attack Iraq over the objections from the rest of the world, THAT is when the current antipathy toward the US geared up again. GWB had the good will and support of the world. He could have used that good will to do a lot of great things for the world, but instead turned that good will to hate by invading a country based on faulty "intelligence."

To use your descriptor again, pathetic.

Originally posted by Svpernaut

Some bad things went on at Abu Ghraib but they were done by individual soldiers, not the Army. I don't recall an Army memo mentioning raping prisoners to get information out of them... Jump on your ACLU bandwagon, yeah the same ACLU that faught hard for the freedom of Zacarias Moussaoui and other terrorists. If these are the people that you want to wave your banner of idiocy then so be it. Those same soldiers you lump with criminals are the same ones defending your freedom to banter on.

:rolleyes:

I have nothing but praise for the bravery and courage of our rank-and-file troops. They are doing a job that is the most difficult undertaking you can ask a person to take on and they get all the credit in the world from me.

It is the leadership that is deficient.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by andymoon
Then, GWB and his cabal decided to go after Iraq (actually, the evidence shows that they got this idea even before 9/11) by riding the 9/11 sentiment. They were able to bamboozle the populace of America by over-hyping WMD claims and trying to tie Iraq to 9/11,...

Americans bamboozled no more ...

Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMDs (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000894970)
Published: April 26, 2005 11:45 AM ET

NEW YORK - Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.

"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."

Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.

Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.

[Svpernaut]

Originally posted by No Worries
Americans bamboozled no more ...

Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMDs (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000894970)
Published: April 26, 2005 11:45 AM ET

NEW YORK - Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.

"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."

Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.

Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.

How did those polls work for you on election day? Bah sheep.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
How did those polls work for you on election day? Bah sheep.
Did I detect a sore winner?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Svpernaut
How did those polls work for you on election day? Bah sheep. How does this respond to the points made in the post?