crozby 0 #26 May 17, 2005 Ron I agree with your entire post. I was just throwing out the question: Considering what has been proved, is it really so unlikely things like this have taken place? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #27 May 17, 2005 QuoteRon I agree with your entire post. I was just throwing out the question: Considering what has been proved, is it really so unlikely things like this have taken place? Possible yes, but they should not have reported that as fact till they had the proof. If in fact it did happen, I want the responsible parties to be punished. But I don't want the media to report things that *could* have happend....Especially when it starts riots that kill 16 people and wound 100, and re-energizes the enemy."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperboy357 0 #28 May 17, 2005 I always find it interesting that those Americans that bash our own nation are the same ones that have never served it. For those of you that bash our "One Nation Under GOD" and have never served you can sleep well. There are a lot of brave soldiers, marines and sailors that provide the blanket of freedom you sleep under and will protect you and your right to whine about politics you really don't understand. I still get that warm fuzzy feeling and the hair stands up on the back of my neck when I see the American Flag and here the national anthem. SSG James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #29 May 17, 2005 >See hear is the thing...you have no PROOF that it has happened. >The news outlet also had no PROOF. They had 'proof' in the form of a source. The source turned out to be wrong. They are guilty of relying too heavily on one source. >Do you want the media to report things thay think might have >happend? Is that responsible journalism? You yourself have defended this very practice when our president engaged in it. "No one knew they DIDN'T have WMD's! They might have!" >They made up a plausible story and then recanted it. The story caused >riots and killed people. Then they admitted they didn't have the proof. Bush made up a story based on scant sources, and went to war based on that story. So far 1700 americans are dead because of it. Will you hold him to the same standards? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #30 May 17, 2005 QuoteThey had 'proof' in the form of a source. The source turned out to be wrong. They are guilty of relying too heavily on one source. OK but then if they made a mistake....and it seems they did....Then why was this thread about how "big bad America" made them recant it? Seems to me that they made a mistake....And admitted it when called on it...I don't see how that says anything about American press being bullied by the government....Maybe I am just stupid and can't see it? Quote>Do you want the media to report things thay think might have >happend? Is that responsible journalism? You yourself have defended this very practice when our president engaged in it. "No one knew they DIDN'T have WMD's! They might have!" Hey Bill...I'm not the media. I didn't "report" anything. I just expressed an opinion, I dd not claim it as fact. They did. Quote>They made up a plausible story and then recanted it. The story caused >riots and killed people. Then they admitted they didn't have the proof. Bush made up a story based on scant sources, and went to war based on that story. So far 1700 americans are dead because of it. Will you hold him to the same standards? Sure, I have said time after time that if you can PROVE to me he was lying I would want to see him punished....So far you have provided nothing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 May 17, 2005 QuoteThe US would never flush a book after all that other torture. Ya, it couldn't be the good ole US of A; we wouldn't do that. Oh boy, more fascists! Your willingness to believe this cockamamie story is telling. Just think about it for a minute. First of all, a book won't fit down a commode - it's physically impossible to flush one. The opening is too small, even for a paperback. So the only way to do it would be to tear the pages out, ball them up, and flush them just a few at a time. And that process would require literally hundreds of flushes. So if it takes the toilet tank a minute to refill after each flush, that method would require several hours to accomplish the feat. The whole idea is ludicrous from the physical impossibility of it. And yet you are so willing to buy into it, because you love to believe in the evilness of "fascist" Americans... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias 0 #32 May 17, 2005 QuoteI notice that your examples all stem from one location, and not from interrogations, but from prison guards inappropriate and illegal behavior... I would find it pretty unlikely that a trained interrogator would vandalize a Koran, or any other religious text... it is counter productive, it only serves to strengthen the subject's resolve, not break it down. J Disagree - Trained Interrogaters WILL use those techniques among others - If they thought trashing a Koran would produce information. They'd do it. I have no problem with that one! CACI and Carlile Group train very very effective "interrogaters" Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #33 May 17, 2005 Quotethey thought trashing a Koran would produce information A trained interrogator with half a brain would know that it would not produce usable information. It goes to understanding your subject... with this target group, it would likely elicit an emotional response initially, and then strengthen the resolve of the subject... not a very effective technique... Emotional comments like "Allah will strike you down" or "OBL is a righteous man" do not a AQ operative make in the face desecrating what they see as God's words, though the act might turn him in to one when he gets out. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 May 17, 2005 Quote>Do you want the media to report things thay think might have >happend? Is that responsible journalism? You yourself have defended this very practice when our president engaged in it. "No one knew they DIDN'T have WMD's! They might have!" It seems like we've covered this one many times. As you well know, Iraq DID have WMDs, and DID actively work to prevent effect monitoring of Iraq after signing a surrender treaty agreeing to such activities. People died from the use of those WMDs. No one died from book flushings until Newsweek jumped to declare it as fact. They were rushing to score the scoop before anyone else. (Not that I accept Afghan claims that Newsweek should pay for their citizens' lack of perspective) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #35 May 17, 2005 >A trained interrogator with half a brain would know that it >would not produce usable information. A trained interrogator with half a brain would also know that physical torture and sexual assault will not produce usable information either. But our interrogators have been convicted of doing just that - so clearly we have interrogators out there with less than half a brain. If an interrogator thinks it's a good idea to rape someone with a broomstick, you really think he's going to consider sticking a Koran in a toilet and then say to himself "no way, that's just too extreme" ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #36 May 17, 2005 >As you well know, Iraq DID have WMDs, and DID actively work to prevent > effect monitoring of Iraq after signing a surrender treaty agreeing to such >activities. Per the last report from the UN inspectors before we invaded, Saddam WAS cooperating, and the inspectors would be able to verify 100% compliance within a few months. And when we invaded, lo and behold, he was in compliance with regulations. Whatever you think might have happened, that's what did happen. So Bush lied the same way Newsweek lied. Or, if you prefer a more PC way of saying things, Bush used incomplete and questionable information to his benefit, just as Newsweek did. >People died from the use of those WMDs. And 1700 americans (and tens of thousands of Iraqis) died due to misinformation propagated about them. But since that supports a favorite plank of republicans (i.e. the war) that gets a pass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #37 May 17, 2005 QuoteBut our interrogators have been convicted of doing just that Interrogators, prison guards, or other soldiers? I haven't seen any convictions, or criminal charges (the the things that you have mentioned) for that matter, against our interrogators. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #38 May 17, 2005 >I haven't seen any convictions, or criminal charges (the the things that >you have mentioned) for that matter, against our interrogators. Google is easy to use. --------------- Friday 11 February 2005 WASHINGTON - A contract interrogator for the Central Intelligence Agency, charged with beating an Afghan prisoner who died the next day, is basing his defense in part on statements by President Bush and other officials that called for tough action to prevent terrorist attacks and protect American lives. Documents unsealed this week in federal court in Raleigh, N.C., show that the interrogator, David A. Passaro, 38, may cite top officials' written legal justifications for harsh interrogation techniques and a Congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon calling on the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to thwart further terrorism. ------------- Richard A. Serrano August 6, 2004 FT. BRAGG, N.C. — U.S. Army intelligence officers often physically and mentally tormented detainees in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, but only once were any held accountable for their misconduct, according to testimony heard Thursday in a military court. The statements contradicted the government's position that only seven rogue soldiers — all military police — were directly responsible for the abuse. The latest accounts in the unfolding scandal came on the third day of a preliminary hearing into charges against Pfc. Lynndie R. England, 21, who is one of six facing possible court-martial. The seventh has pleaded guilty. Until now, interrogators have been largely portrayed as acting professionally at the prison near Baghdad that was once used by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a torture chamber. But several military interrogators and others described for the first time Thursday a variety of harsh treatments they said were meted out by the intelligence squad itself. The torment, they said, ranged from forcing nude prisoners to drag their genitals across a dirty prison floor to scaring prisoners with police dogs and breaking tables in front of them. One interrogator allegedly told a prisoner, "I wish I could kill you right now." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #39 May 17, 2005 Well I only searched for convictions, so you found one that was charged, and he was "contract" so I can't speek to his training or how much of a brain he possesses. From what I have read about him though, he was not a trained interrogator, but rather a former SF medic... The other, also no conviction and no charges, says nothing about murder or rape... it also says nothing about desecrating a koran... Your accusation that our interrogators are out there running amok, en masse, has about as much foundation as the Newsweek story. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #40 May 17, 2005 Quoteranged from forcing nude prisoners to drag their genitals across a dirty prison floor to scaring prisoners with police dogs and breaking tables in front of them. One interrogator allegedly told a prisoner, "I wish I could kill you right now." The first one is the only one I h ave heartburn with, it realy serves no purpose... to the others I say so what? I've seen worse at the local cop-shop. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #41 May 17, 2005 >Your accusation that our interrogators are out there running amok, > en masse, has about as much foundation as the Newsweek story. Google, man, google! Unless you're going to claim that the US Army is involved in a big effort to discredit the military, it's easy to find stories like these: -------------------------------------------------------- Last Updated Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:36:28 EST CBC News WASHINGTON - The U.S. army released details Friday of the suspected or confirmed homicides of 27 detainees who died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan between August 2002 and November 2004. The Army Criminal Investigation Command said in the 16 cases it has completed so far, it found sufficient evidence to support a range of charges against 21 soliders, including murder, negligent homicide and assault. Five of those cases were referred to other agencies, including the case of an Iraqi who died of "blunt force trauma" at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. The navy took the case and filed court martial charges against several navy SEAL commandos and one sailor. There are 24 cases in all, most involving a single person. One case involved two deaths and another involved three. Seventeen of the cases happened in Iraq and seven in Afghanistan. -------------------------------------------------------- On May 19, 2004, a special court-martial sentenced Private Jeremy Sivits to this maximum sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty. On September 11, 2004, Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers. On October 20, 2004, Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private. Specialist Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay. On January 14, 2005, Specialist Charles A. Graner found guilty of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison. On April 30, 2005, Private Lyndie England pled guilty to abuse charges and will be sentenced to 11 years as a result of a plea bargain. --------------------------------------------------- So - it's your position that these people might well torture and kill prisoners, and then try to cover it up, but they would NEVER do something so vile as to desecrate a book? Your position is looking a little shaky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 May 18, 2005 QuotePer the last report from the UN inspectors before we invaded, Saddam WAS cooperating, and the inspectors would be able to verify 100% compliance within a few months. And when we invaded, lo and behold, he was in compliance with regulations. Whatever you think might have happened, that's what did happen. He complied in the 90s too, save when the inspectors were getting close to something. Then he would stop access, stall, and hide the goods. A single good report card doesn't make up for a long established history. and it's pretty inane to treat foreign policy and journalism on the same plane. The US, or any other power, doesn't wait until it's 100% sure it's in danger. It will preempt whenever it can. Go back to Israel bombing Iraq's reactor in the 80s. In the real world, when an enemy is on the ground, you don't wait for him to get up and pick up a weapon. You kick now. Honor and integrity is for those who lack the power to have better choices. Newsweek, otoh, claims to be an objective news magazine. It has a much higher standard to meet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #44 May 18, 2005 QuoteGoogle, man, google! Read, man, read! You still have not listed one trained interrorgator... Of your list, one of the individuals has an intelligence related MOS, and it is not as an interrogator... Private Jeremy Sivits - MP Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick - MP Specialist Megan Ambuhl - MP Specialist Charles A. Graner - MP Private Lyndie England - MP Specialist Armin Cruz - MI (analyst not interrogator) I'll even give you an MI guy not on your list Roman Krol... but I'll bet you a dollar that he is not an interrogator either. I'm not saying we don't have some dumbasses in the ranks, who have done some terrible things... but it is generally not the trained interrogators that are doing it, because they know it is not effective. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #45 May 18, 2005 >He complied in the 90s too, save when the inspectors were getting >close to something. Then he would stop access, stall, and hide the > goods. A single good report card doesn't make up for a long > established history. No, but it does mean a lot when you apply pressure and the pressure accomplishes the stated goal. Unless, of course, you don't care about WMD's and simply need an excuse to invade, one you can get everyone to agree on bureaucratically. >Honor and integrity is for those who lack the power to have better >choices. Funny, you hear right wingers on here talking all the time about those qualities, qualities we apparently do not need because we can kick the crap out of anyone we want. >Newsweek, otoh, claims to be an objective news magazine. It has >a much higher standard to meet. Wow. Newsweek has more of a responsibility to get the facts right than the military leader of the US? If we take the point from your previous paragraph, I suppose that is because Newsweek can't just kill whoever they want when their assertions turn out to be false. (Only weaklings need integrity, right?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #46 May 18, 2005 >You still have not listed one trained interrorgator... Ah, so you need a masters in interrogation before you can be called an interrogator? If you beat/rape/humiliate/kill someone to get information out of them, you're an interrogator no matter what your resume says. What would you call someone who drives a truck up to a bunch of US troops and detonates the explosives within, if he does not have a degree in suicide bombing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #47 May 18, 2005 QuoteAh, so you need a masters in interrogation before you can be called an interrogator? More or less, yes... you need to be a qualified 97E (or WO equivalent, Army), or the other services' equivalent to conduct a military interrogation... there is another group allowed to perform what is called "combat questioning" but that is very limited in its scope... What all of the folks on your list have in common is that they were not conducting interrogations, and in the case of AbuG, specifically, they were not doing it to gather information, they were doing it for kicks... I wouldn't even give them the benifit of having a noble purpose of gathering information. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #48 May 18, 2005 you are confusing doctrine with reality.....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #49 May 18, 2005 Are you suggesting that any of the AbuG bunch were actually involved in iliciting information through their activities? None of them have struck me as smart enough to figure out what to ask, let alone ask it in such a way as to get ta useful answer... I know all sorts of people ask questions on the battlefield, but I also know there are only a few that are actually trained to do it right, and the ones doing it at gitmo are more likely to be the trained ones, given that it is really the only mission going on there, and it seems unlikely to me that they would engage the activities put forward in the now retracted Newsweek article. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #50 May 18, 2005 no. i'm stating that people often work FAR outside their designated job fields. Information comes from many sources, and that pressure is exerted at multiple levels... in the common sense of the term ANYONE who questions a prisoner about anything is an 'interrogator'.. no matter what their actual training or title.. stating 'an interrogator would never do this' is an indefensible statement when applied to reality...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
