From today's NYT Abuse of Captives More Widespread, Says Army Survey By DOUGLAS JEHL, STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC SCHMITT Published: May 26, 2004 ASHINGTON, May 25 — An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known. The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia." Among previously unknown incidents are the abuse of detainees by Army interrogators from a National Guard unit attached to the Third Infantry Division, who are described in a document obtained by The New York Times as having <b>"forced into asphyxiation numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information" </b>during a 10-week period last spring. The document, dated May 5, is a synopsis prepared by the Criminal Investigation Command at the request of Army officials grappling with intense scrutiny prompted by the circulation the preceding week of photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. It lists the status of investigations into three dozen cases, including the continuing investigation into the notorious abuses at Abu Ghraib. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/26ABUS.html
T_J; I'd answer your question, but we all know you'll just get thumped, run away for a while, come back with a rebuttle sans substance, and if you've been really beaten badly, put me in your sig with a quote as accurate and legitimate as you are yourself. So it's not worth my time.
Oh come on, MacBeth. I asked you a serious question and you respond with insults. I promise I won't involve math in this.
T_J; eventually you'll leanr this; when you avoid substance and resort to sillyness to salve your ego, you might feel you've saved yourself in the short run, but in the long run that's one more poster, or several more, who simply won't take you seriously any more. Do you think people here don't realize what motivates your stunts? If you've got the arm, you don't need to use the spitter.
That appears to be the pattern followed by many on the right (everyone here knows if they are an exception) where they choose a talking point (based in reality or not, it doesn't seem to matter to them) and spout it over and over again until some people just believe it without even the slightest challenge. John Stewart put it well once. JS: People don't know that Bush didn't go to Viet... No, people actually believe that Bush was IN Vietnam. How does Bush do that?
Army investigates wider Iraq offenses Cases includes deaths, assaults outside prisons By Bradley Graham Updated: 10:54 p.m. ET May 31, 2004 Over the past year and a half, the Army has opened investigations into at least 91 cases of possible misconduct by U.S. soldiers against detainees and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, a total not previously reported and one that points to a broader range of wrongful behavior than defense officials have acknowledged. The figure, provided by a senior Army official, extends beyond the much-publicized abuse of detainees in military-run prisons to include the mistreatment of dozens of Iraqis in U.S. custody outside detention centers. It covers not only cases that resulted in death but also those that involved nonlethal assaults. It also includes as many as 18 instances of U.S. soldiers in Iraq allegedly stealing money, jewelry or other property. Previous statistics cited by Army officials have tended to avoid an aggregate number of misconduct cases or have given a lower figure for alleged mistreatment of detainees and civilians outside detention facilities. Officials also have not previously disclosed the number of investigations into reports of soldiers stealing from Iraqis. Taken together, the 91 cases indicate misconduct by U.S. troops wider in type and greater in number than suggested by the focus simply on the mistreatment of Iraqis held at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. The majority of the cases under investigation occurred in Iraq, although the Army has not provided an exact accounting of all the locations. President Bush and other senior administration officials have sought to explain the abuses at Abu Ghraib as reflecting the aberrant behavior of a few low-ranking soldiers last fall, graphically exposed in photographs and an internal Army report that emerged a month ago. But the Army's list of investigations appears to bolster the contention of others, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, that misconduct by U.S. forces has been more extensive -- and its consequences more damaging -- than can be blamed on the troubled actions of a small group. Few specifics Although the new figures show at least 59 of the 91 investigations are now closed, the Army has reported the disciplining of only several soldiers. According to the senior Army official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the assault cases have led to at least 14 courts-martial and seven nonjudicial punishments. But the official had no information on who was prosecuted, for what or with what results. The Army has been slow to make these details public despite requests from Congress and news organizations for more specifics about all the investigations, whether completed or ongoing. The lack of detail about many of the cases has made it difficult to assess the full significance of the reported misconduct. But the few specifics that have emerged about some of the death cases point to the involvement of an assortment of Army units and to abusive behavior that stretches over a long period of time, from late 2002 to spring 2004. Reflecting the concern of senior Pentagon officials that the scope of the misconduct may indeed stem from deeper problems with training, organization and command, the inspectors general of the Army and the Army Reserve are engaged in broad reviews of policies and practices on the handling of detainees. A separate probe of the role played by military intelligence personnel also is being conducted by a senior intelligence officer. The criminal investigations parallel these administrative inquiries. They have intensified in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, with Army investigators taking a new look at some death cases that were initially attributed to natural causes or that have dragged on unresolved for months. Reports about the criminal probes have dribbled out in bits and pieces. Army spokesmen said late last week that top officials were trying to put together a comprehensive record of the probes. Of the 91 investigations, 42 involve alleged abuse inside detention facilities, and 49 deal with allegations of misconduct outside, the senior Army official said. The inside cases can be split into two groups: Thirty of them are related to the deaths of 34 individuals; the other 12 concern assaults -- including kicking, punching or other abusive action -- on an unspecified number of detainees. Half the death cases have been attributed to natural causes or undetermined factors. Four cases, involving eight detainee deaths, were ruled justifiable homicides, meaning U.S. soldiers were deemed to have killed in self-defense or to prevent escapes. Open investigations But 10 other homicides had no such justification. Only one case so far has resulted in disciplinary action, with a soldier being demoted and discharged after shooting a prisoner who was throwing stones at a detention center northwest of Baghdad last Sept. 11. Another homicide case, involving a contractor employed by the CIA, has been turned over to the Justice Department. Investigations into the other eight homicides remain open amid evidence the dead detainees were assaulted before or during interrogation sessions. Of the alleged prison assaults that did not result in death, disciplinary action has been reported in two cases. One is the main Abu Ghraib case, in which seven military police reservists have been charged. In the other case, three military intelligence soldiers were alleged to have sexually assaulted a female detainee at Abu Ghraib in October. Investigators failed to confirm the assault, but the three soldiers were faulted for being in the prison's female wing without permission, fined several hundred dollars each and demoted. Of the 49 cases of alleged misconduct outside detention facilities, three involved deaths, 28 centered on assaults in which soldiers allegedly kicked or punched Iraqi civilians or fired weapons to frighten them, and 18 dealt with thefts that occurred during raids on houses or other operations in Iraq. The theft cases were first reported yesterday by the New York Times. The three death cases were described briefly by U.S. officials at a Pentagon briefing May 21. In one, a soldier shot and killed an Afghani who had attempted to grab a weapon. In another instance, an Iraqi drowned after being forced off a bridge. In the third case, a U.S. soldier shot an Iraqi who had lunged at a sergeant escorting the Iraqi. Investigations into 39 of the 49 outside cases have been completed, the senior Army official said. A large majority of the 91 cases -- 69 of them -- are being handled by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division, which is responsible for probing crimes that may involve Army personnel. As a matter of policy, the organization investigates every death of a detainee in U.S. custody. To shield their work from command influence, the criminal investigators operate independently of commanders in the field. But their reports then go to the commanders, who are responsible for deciding whether to bring charges, take nonjudicial action or do nothing. The remaining 22 investigations, all involving allegations of detainee abuse that occurred outside military-run detention centers, have been conducted by other commands that also have authority to initiate probes. These cases have run the gamut from kicking detainees to trying to intimidate them by withholding water if they refused to cooperate, the senior Army official said. © 2004 The Washington Post Co
How much time do you feel it's worth? This, to me, is among the worst symptoms of contemporary society; limited attention span, especially where convenient. How much time is our army committing torture and murder worth, Faos? A week? 10 days? A month? How long?
It's nothing new. Maybe I misread but has anything happened since the initial reports? Or are they just finding out about tortures that happened during the same time? Let the system take its course. Move on.
Gosh, I'm glad you've got everything about the abuse at Abu Ghraib figured out. You should inform the committees and investigators what you know so that we can wrap this thing up in a little bow and get on with more serious business that you need to discuss
Sounds like a good idea to me. If you have their email addresses I'd be happy to pass along my thoughts and ideas. As always I'm glad you approve.
Sure, here's his contact page, go for it, maybe he'll like your little jokes: http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.htm And I'm glad you're contributing to the discourse by contributing nothing other than inane comments with little to no intellectual value, and then get pissy when we call you on it. Seriously, you've openly admitted in the past that your purpose here in the last few weeks has been to toy with people and get a rise out of them, a tired little troll/flame game that has played itself out here many times. Fair enough, but don't whine when people dismiss you when you do. Either bring something real to the table or stop acting like a fool and then crying when you get called on it.
Why do you continue to think your cutting and pasting is better than mine? You haven't seen me "pissy" on these boards. I never stated that my "purpose" was to toy with people, certainly not on every single occasion. And when I have I'll put the to let someone know it's all in fun. Many of my remarks are based on how I feel about the particular subject. I'm sorry that I can't back everything up with a link to my candidates web site or a liberal newspaper article. Why is it you can make wise ass remarks but anyone else who does it is a flaming troll? I could care less if I'm dismissed by you or anyone else. I have not attacked anyone personally, yet you bring it upon yourself to be the almighty post deputy. "Bring something to the table"? Get over yourself, Sammy.
No, you've actually admitted in the past (last week, I'm pretty sure) that you were here to mess with people. I'd dig it up if I weren't going to bed, myabe tomorrow. The problem with your posts is simple; I called you out on the first thread when you were spouting garbage about how Kerry "had no ideas" or something ridiculous like that, and claimed that you had figured this out on your own. That is actually not the case, he has out lined many of his policies in mind-numbing, eyes glazing over inducing detail. Later you admitted that you were wrong and that you just didn't like him personally. That's fine; however it doesn't change the fact that you were citing facts that you didn't know to be true as the basis of your opinion. You appear to be continuing this pattern in this thread by stating opinions that don't appear to be based on fact. If you're just kidding then fine, but you should be more clear about it. Why am I not a flaming troll? I don't know, I try to make sure that my opinions, though strongly held, have a legitimate logical and factual basis (cue whine about citing to the "liberal"media...spare us please). Occassionally I'll respond with mere hyperbole when somebody like bamaslammer or jorge gets on a long, uncontrollable rant; and I probably shouldn't, but generally I don't try to inintiate that kind of thing in response to a legitimate point regardless of wheter or not I agree with it. Maybe I should get over myself, but I don't think so. It's not cool to admit it, but look, I'm a well read, well informed, well educated individual. I don't see any reason to camouflage that, and won't.
