Generals warned of Prison Abuse at Abu Ghraib early (MSNBC/WP)

One of the important things in this article is that it shows that the practices at prisons like Abu Ghraib weren't productive and were actually making conditions MORE dangerous for our troops.

This flies in the face of the argument that it is ok to torture the enemy because our troops are made safer by getting information that could save their lives.

 

I didn't even think of this as a thread intended to make people sorry Bush won or anything. I just thought it was interesting during the debates about Abu Ghraib how many people were saying that it was ok for us to torture, since the other side did horrible things, and it might spare the lives of our troops, or warn us of future attacks.

This article says it may have caused more danger for our troops, was largely ineffective.

So I wanted to see what people who supported the torture, rape etc. that happened at Abu Ghraib because it was supposedly going to save our troops, thought now that this report says that it creates more enemmies for our troops, and makes those that supposedly support our troops and makes their lives harder. In addition to tarnishing the good name and honor of our fighting forces, it put more of our troops lives at stake.

 

Yes, I have posted several positive threads about them. The one I remember most was about a woman who ran one of the prisons in Iraq, and some of the programs she had where she sought out donations from countries like Kuwait, Turkey, etc. She stopped one soldier from draggin and kicking a prisoner. This woman who was in charge, still gets letters from Iraqis and was genuinely revered by many in the town, and even the prisoners under her authority.

It was a great story.

I was also one of the ones saying that torturing prisoners isn't helping our troops, and voiced my support for them by being concerned of the ill effects this torture was having. So the answer to your question would definitely be, yes.