A new article at SFTT just went up about the Iraqi prison disaster...the report done on these abuses is, to say the least, chilling:
Abu Ghraib: Bigger than a Mere Scandal By Ed Offley � You think those photographs of MPs abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison are bad? They are, but the words are far worse. � The AR 15-6 report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba on the activities of the 800th Military Police (MP) Brigade and a subordinate unit � the 320th Military Police Battalion, whose 372nd�MP Company was in charge of Iraqi detainees at the Baghdad prison � is a stern and harsh indictment of practically the entire U.S. Army and Central Command for its handling of Iraqi detainees. � Buried in the 53-page report, and obscured by the news media's fascination with the gruesome photographs of MPs assaulting and humiliating Iraqi males, are a number of findings that portray the U.S. military in Iraq and Army support commands back in the United States as clearly derelict in their duty to ensure that soldiers abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare. They include: � Ignored warnings of MP failures: � Taguba's investigation at the request of Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior U.S. military commander in Iraq, began on Jan. 19 as a result of an Army Criminal Investigative Division (CID) probe into allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib. However, there had been multiple indications over the previous eight months that the 800th MP Brigade was an ill-prepared, poorly trained unit led by incompetent officers. � On June 9, 2003, an 800th MP Brigade guard at another detainment facility known as Camp Cropper sparked a riot that overwhelmed his fellow soldiers and led guards to shoot (none fatally) five prisoners. Taguba revealed: � "Several detainees allegedly rioted after a detainee was subdued by MPs of the 115th MP Battalion after striking a guard in compound B of Camp Cropper.�A 15-6 investigation by 1LT Magowan (115th MP Battalion, Platoon Leader) concluded that a detainee had acted up and hit an MP.�After being subdued, one of the MPs took off his DCU top and flexed his muscles to the detainees, which further escalated the riot.�The MPs were overwhelmed and the guards fired lethal rounds to protect the life of the compound MPs, whereby five detainees were wounded.�Contributing factors were poor communications, no clear chain of command, facility-obstructed views of posted guards, the QRF did not have non-lethal equipment, and the SOP was inadequate and outdated." � The on-site AR 15-6 probe into that incident also noted an earlier clash at another detainment facility under the control of the 800th MP Brigade, involving an escape attempt five days earlier where an undisclosed number of Iraqis were shot by MPs. Taguba in his report noted that subsequently "four Soldiers from the 320th MP Battalion had been formally charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with detainee abuse in May 2003 at the Theater Internment Facility (TIF) at Camp Bucca, Iraq." � Between June 4, 2003 and Jan. 19, 2004, there were 17 separate riots or inmate escape attempts at facilities under the control of the 800th MP Brigade. In reviewing the incident reports and interviewing MPs involved, Taguba concluded that poor training, breakdowns in guard procedures and inadequate physical security contributed to most of the violence. � If that weren't enough to set off alarm bells, the U.S. military had conducted two earlier reviews of the operation of detainment facilities months before Taguba was sent in to clean up the stables. � Taguba's report notes that before launching field interviews his team reviewed the "Assessment of DoD Counter-Terrorism Interrogation and Detention Operations in Iraq" that had been conducted by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, Commander, Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO).�This review by experts in "strategic interrogation" spent from Aug. 31 to Sept. 9, 2003 reviewing "current Iraqi Theater ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence." � In addition, Taguba and his team reviewed a report, "Assessment of Detention and Corrections Operations in Iraq," that had been delivered by Maj. Gen. Donald J. Ryder, the Army's Provost Marshal General, on Nov. 6. � Despite those incidents and on-site inspections, Sanchez and the rest of his staff at Combined Joint Task Force Seven (CJTF-7) headquarters remained totally clueless about the 800th MP Brigade's shoddy performance until a soldier turned over photos of the abuse on Jan. 13. It appears unlikely that even Ryder's review finally woke up the generals in Baghdad, although Taguba noted, "Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that surfaced during MG Ryder's Team's assessment are the very same issues that are the subject of this investigation.�In fact, many of the abuses suffered by detainees occurred during, or near to, the time of that assessment." � Lack of training: The entire U.S. Army military police branch is implicitly accused of dereliction in Taguba's assessment of the performance of the 800th MP Brigade. Taguba's conclusions are extremely blunt: � * "There is abundant evidence in the statements of numerous witnesses that soldiers throughout the 800th MP Brigade were not proficient in their basic MOS skills, particularly regarding internment/resettlement operations.�Moreover, there is no evidence that the command, although aware of these deficiencies, attempted to correct them in any systemic manner other than ad hoc training by individuals with civilian corrections experience." � * "I find that the 800th MP Brigade was not adequately trained for a mission that included operating a prison or penal institution at Abu Ghraib Prison Complex. As the Ryder Assessment found, I also concur that units of the 800th MP Brigade did not receive corrections-specific training during their mobilization period.�MP units did not receive pinpoint assignments prior to mobilization and during the post-mobilization training, and thus could not train for specific missions.�The training that was accomplished at the mobilization sites were developed and implemented at the company level with little or no direction or supervision at the Battalion and Brigade levels, and consisted primarily of common tasks and law enforcement training.� However, I found no evidence that the Command, although aware of this deficiency, ever requested specific corrections training from the Commandant of the Military Police School, the U.S. Army Confinement Facility at Mannheim, Germany, the Provost Marshal General of the Army, or the U.S. Army Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas." � Failed leadership: � Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, commander of the 800th MP Brigade, comes under a harsh spotlight in Taguba's investigation. Portrayed as a remote and distant commander who rarely visited the prison camps she ran throughout Iraq, Karpinski failed to monitor and supervise her subordinate officers, failed to issue standard operating procedures for MPs, and ignored a growing list of "accountability lapses" in her command. � Taguba is equally harsh on other officers already implicated in the scandal, calling 320th Military Police Battalion Commander Lt. Col. Jerry Phillabaum "an extremely ineffective commander" and describing two of Karpinski's brigade staff officers as "essentially dysfunctional." � After a four-hour interview with Karpinski, Taguba wrote, "What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers."� � Conflicting Missions: � What directly led to the abuse of Iraqi detainees were two conflicting missions at Abu Ghraib prison, Taguba found. The 320th Military Police Battalion was in charge of guarding the detainees, but the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, under the command of Col. Pappas was in charge of interrogations. The heart of the scandal comes from allegations by soldiers that MI officials persuaded MP guards to "loosen up" Iraqi detainees by physical abuse prior to interrogations. � One MP said in a sworn statement, "In Wing 1A we were told that they had different rules and different SOP for treatment.�I never saw a set of rules or SOP for that section, just word of mouth. � Corporal Granier � stated that the Agents and MI soldiers would ask him to do things, but nothing was ever in writing he would complain (sic). Also the wing belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse." Taguba concluded that "[T]here was clear friction and lack of effective communication between the Commander, 205th MI Brigade, who controlled FOB Abu Ghraib (BCCF) after 19 November 2003, and the Commander, 800th MP Brigade, who controlled detainee operations inside the FOB.�There was no clear delineation of responsibility between commands, little coordination at the command level, and no integration of the two functions.�Coordination occurred at the lowest possible levels with little oversight by commanders." That's probably how the CIA managed to stash their infamous "ghost detainees" � prisoners whose whereabouts were unlogged and identities cloaked � inside a U.S. Army facility. None of this happened in a vacuum. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Abu Ghraib and met Karpinski in a highly-publicized event. There is a clear chain of command linking the lowest-ranking MPs to Lt. Gen. Sanchez and his subordinate generals. CENTCOM commanders in the fall of 2003 were anxious to roll up the former regime leaders still on the lam, including Saddam Hussein, and clearly pressed interrogation experts such as Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller to incorporate stronger techniques to get Iraqi detainees to talk. � A number of officers and senior enlisted men from the 800th MP Brigade have already been relieved of command and received letters of reprimand. Investigators are still looking into the activities of the 205th MI Brigade. Accountability will not stop there, nor should it. There should be courts-martial. � This appalling incident does more than undercut the progress of our mission in Iraq. For years, people familiar with the U.S. military have decried the gap between actual capabilities and the unceasing mission overstretch battering a force slashed by 40 percent after the end of the Cold War. For years, compliant military commanders have covered up the worsening situation with adjectives and adverbs. � What Tagabu's report shows us in unrelenting candor is that the critics were right: the U.S. military is in danger of coming apart at the seams. A scandal such as Abu Ghraib is merely how it plays out. � Ed Offley is Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at [email protected]. Please send Feedback responses to [email protected]. � 2004 Ed Offley.
MY COMMENTS: The most frightening aspect of this report to me is how the chain of command seems to have unraveled here. Someone needs to demand serious accountability for this disaster (this whole business is WAY beyond a mere scandal).
BTW I heard reports that those pictures published are just the tip of the iceberg; there are supposedly not only more photos but videos of abuses as well. Oh, for those who are interested, SFTT has put the entire AR 15-6 report online for your perusal.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Frankly, I don't care too much WHAT the surrounding circumstances were. Lack of guidance, poor training, outdated procedures, unfamiliarity with the Geneva Convention, NONE OF IT excuses this shit. I also don't care WHAT those soldiers went through or WHAT their superiors told them, if you are so fucked up in the head that you would EVER treat another human being like... THAT... if you can't even understand torture is WRONG, then you belong in a mental institute for the rest of your LIFE. And that goes for ANYONE in ANY military force.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
But the MP's were just letting off steam and we should give then a break.
Or so says Rush.
quote:RUSH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?
Well, Rush Limbaugh is, after all, a big fat idiot. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Apparently Mr. Bush did not see the pictures of this until he saw it on television.
But it seems that people were trying to warn Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld for a while.
quote:BROKEN PROCESS OR OFFICIAL POLICY?....Apparently everyone's been trying to warn Bush and Rumsfeld about possible abuse of prisoners in Iraq for months now. And not just the usual bleeding hearts:
David Kay: "I was there and I kept saying the interrogation process is broken. The prison process is broken. And no one wanted to deal with it. It was too, too distasteful. This is a known problem, and the military refuses to deal with it."
Paul Bremer: "Bremer repeatedly raised the issue of prison conditions as early as last fall � both in one-on-one meetings with Rumsfeld and other administration leaders, and in group meetings with the president's inner circle on national security. Officials described Bremer as 'kicking and screaming' about the need to release thousands of uncharged prisoners and improve conditions for those who remained."
Colin Powell: "According to eye witnesses to debate at the highest levels of the Administration...whenever Powell or [Richard] Armitage sought to question prisoner treatment issues, they were forced to endure what our source characterizes as 'around the table, coarse, vulgar, frat-boy bully remarks about what these tough guys would do if THEY ever got their hands on prisoners....'"
Well, maybe these folks really did try to get everyone to pay attention to this issue or maybe they're just covering their own asses after the fact. Who knows?
Besides, Mr. Bush ran as the CEO president, because his previous stints as CEO were so successful.
Can we now add his current office to his list of CEO failures and move on?
Because if the CEO president does not listen to people who are trying to warn him, AND surrounds himself with incompetents who can neither do the task the CEO president has delegated to them or refuse to pass up pertinent information from other subordinates, AND refuses to replace these incompetents � WHY would anyone vote to give the bumbler another try at the office.
This ain�t Arbusto you know.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"But the MP's were just letting off steam and we should give then a break.
Oh, and you can see in that second link that Rush thinks the only reason we're sensitive to this is because of the "feminization" of our culture. I guess he should talk to Anne Coulter, who thinks the exact opposite: the reason the torture happened was partly because women are too "vicious" to be allowed in the military. Not to mention that women are apparently weaklings.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Apparently, the worst is yet to come. NBC said the pictures/videos contain the raping of women and young boys, as well as more of what we've seen. Can this get any more disgusting?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
It is hard to want to live.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Frankly, I don't care too much WHAT the surrounding circumstances were. Lack of guidance, poor training, outdated procedures, unfamiliarity with the Geneva Convention, NONE OF IT excuses this shit. I also don't care WHAT those soldiers went through or WHAT their superiors told them, if you are so fucked up in the head that you would EVER treat another human being like... THAT... if you can't even understand torture is WRONG, then you belong in a mental institute for the rest of your LIFE. And that goes for ANYONE in ANY military force.
Well said, Cartman, well said. US Military procedure is very explicit on this point when it notes that torture is not only inhumane but ineffective as well for interrogation.
The problem I see is that the only people who might be punished will be the soldiers involved; in fact there are reports that private contracters were conducting some of these sessions. Will they be held accountable?
IMHO there should be a widespread crackdown on those commanders who turned a blind eye toward these atrocities or worse, implicitly encouraged such behavior. Those officers who were involved should be cashiered and jailed. The civilian contracters and companies involved should also be punished to the fullest extent of US law.
Also SecDef Rumsfeld should resign; between his handling of the war and his ignoring indications of the atrocites in these prisons, he has destroyed any credibility he has had. His apolgy he made today was far too little too late.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The civilian contracters and companies involved should also be punished to the fullest extent of US law."
Except, US law doesn't apply in other countries. And the contractors aren't bound under military law, either.
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
I know I'm going to stir up a hornets nest with this.
First of all I don't agree with doing that to prisoners. I frankly could find something better to do with my time.
That being said, I also don't give a rats ass. Some of them got the crap kicked out of them and some of the were humiliated by having pictures of them taken while they were naked. Boo Hoo. If I got caught by the Iraqis and that is all they did to me I'd feel damn lucky. It seems to be perfectly acceptable for the Iraqis to kill our troops and civilians then mutilate their corpses as they drag them around the town. But by god we humiliate some of them by stripping them naked and suddenly we are the devils right hand.
Screw that, we are still at war and unfortunatly bad things happen in war. Suprise, suprise people die in war, if that isn't the worst thing to happen to a person I don't know what is. If you want to see how bad things can really get do some research on Vietnam. The things we did to prisoners in Vietnam makes this look tame.
Veers I found no comments anywhere it that link that says that women and young boys were raped. Nor have I heard any such comments on any of the news programs that I watch.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Is there anyone who thinks that it's acceptable for the Iraqis to mutilate the corpses of our forces? I sure as heck don't.
And then there's the concept that we're supposed to have the moral high ground.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Originally posted by Epoch: "It seems to be perfectly acceptable for the Iraqis to kill our troops and civilians then mutilate their corpses as they drag them around the town. But by god we humiliate some of them by stripping them naked and suddenly we are the devils right hand."
Well, it turns out one of those Iraqis shown in the pictures was picked up by American forces last year for being in a stolen car. (Read this article.) He was left in prison and then had this happen to him. This man was not a killer and mutilator--at worst a car thief. How many others were tortured for petty crimes?
Originally posted by Epoch: "Veers I found no comments anywhere it that link that says that women and young boys were raped. Nor have I heard any such comments on any of the news programs that I watch."
I never said those details were in the article. I posted the link saying "there was worse to come," and then said I said NBC (as in "NBC Nightly News") reported that the pictures contained US soldiers raping women, young boys, and posing "inappropriately" with a dead body. Granted, these were from "military sources," but what is there to contradict this report?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I know I'm going to stir up a hornets nest with this."
Good, then you won't mind what I'm about to post.
First, who THE FUCK said that what the Iraqis did and do to troops and civilians was perfectly acceptable?
Second, the difference between the Iraqis "mutilating corpses as they drag them around the town" and the soldiers "humiliating some of them by stripping them naked" is that the soldiers are supposed to be there in the name of HUMAN RIGHTS. How THE FUCK does brutally torturing and KILLING their prisoners make them any better than Saddam? HOW?
Third, just because bad things happen in war doesn't mean you should accept PEOPLE BEING TORTURED TO DEATH BY YOUR OWN FORCES as a fact of life, EVER. Who THE FUCK cares if the things you did to Vietnamese prisoners were even worse by comparison? Does that justify any of these actions somehow?
Fourth... if you'd rather be put in a torture chamber than take a bullet to the head in the field, you're even more ignorant than I already think you are.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Granted, these were from "military sources," but what is there to contradict this report?
A complete lack of evidence showing they raped anyone. (at least nothing so far: hopefully that's at least just a rumor)
Want truly disgusting? Rumsfeld is already talking abot monetary compensation for these poor "victims". Many of wich are in prison for killing or attempting to kill american servicemen.
Lets make them rich!
In no way is torture ever justified, but these guys arent altar boys or "innocent" car thieves (as a rule)....they're combatants and the same thugs that Saddam would send out to make people vanish.
The woman in charge of the prison needs to be courtmartialled for certain: it's her command, after all.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Epoch: Let's have someone pour phosphorus over your body and shove a broom handle up your ass, and let's see how "oh, boo-hoo" you feel about it.
"In no way is torture ever justified, but these guys arent altar boys or "innocent" car thieves (as a rule)....they're combatants and the same thugs that Saddam would send out to make people vanish."
Oh, yeah, I'll bet that seventy-some-year-old woman that they put a leash on and rode around on her back like a donkey was a real bad-ass thug.
This is all the same sick, degraded excuse the administration is trying to pass off on us. "Well, other people have carried out worse torture in the world, so what our people did wasn't as bad, by comparison. So, it's really not a problem." Do we have to surpass Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined before it actually an issue?
We claim we invaded Iraq to save the people there from Saddam's abuse. And then we start doing the exact same things he did in the exact same places he did it, and some people are actually depraved enough to just blow it off. I can't even imagine what sort of extreme psychological maladjustment is required to be capable of that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I had'nt seen anything about an old woman being ridden around: that's just sick.
My friends in the military can hardly believe this sort of shit really happened: it's a nightmare that makes the 99.99% of people serving look like monsters. Everyone I know that has, or is, serving in the military would love to pummell these idiots: all the US deaths in Iraq so far are being made to look justified to the arab world because of this.
I cant believe that BUsh learned about this via news-sources. Either he's so far out of the loop that he has no clue what his commanders in Iraq are up to or he's an accomplice.
What I really cant believe is that these idiots are so dumb as to pose for photos with the victims! They need mandatory jailtime for that alone!
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
First I have yet to hear of anybody getting phosphorus poured onto them then getting a broom shoved up them. And second I've not heard of any old women being ridden.
Now you are comparing us to the ranks of Hitler and Stalin. Man that is a huge leap of imagination. So far we have a bunch of guys being photographed nude, 2 suspicious deaths, and a hand full of others getting beat on. Hmmm oh my god we are worse then Hitler and Stalin combined. Get real. To even consider comparing any of this so far to those butchers is beyond rational thought.
Do I think what happend should have happend? Of course not, I'm not inhuman. Do I think it should just be forgotten? Again or course not, they should be punished. Do I think people are blowing this so far out of proportion that the general public can't tell fact from fiction? Hell yeah. Once again emotion blinds logic. At this point I wouldn't be suprised to hear that our soldiers were cooking children and eating them.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: My friends in the military can hardly believe this sort of shit really happened: it's a nightmare that makes the 99.99% of people serving look like monsters. Everyone I know that has, or is, serving in the military would love to pummell these idiots: all the US deaths in Iraq so far are being made to look justified to the arab world because of this.
No kidding....this puts an unwarrented taint on every good US soldier fighting in Iraq and other areas...from what the report indicated the MP units involved were troubled units anyway with poor leadership,training and discipline; I'd like to know why in hell why the brass did not take steps to rectify these problems.
However there are others who need to be held responsible for this too; as a couple of articles I printed in "The Coporate Military Monster" thread noted, civilian contracters were in part responsible not only for running these prisons but conducting the interrogations as well. One report noted that these companies were cutting corners by using untrained drivers and cooks to conduct interrogations!
To make things worse, there were cases where these contracters were giving orders to soldiers! Now that IMHO is a clear breakdown of the chain of command. Why in hell were civilain contracters giving orders to soldiers in the first place? Soldiers are only to take orders from legal authoity...namely superior officers and civilians designated in the chain of command.
The worst part is, as was noted earlier, that the law is fairly nebulous on these contracters. Who should hold them responsible for their actions? This is something that seriously needs to be addressed.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I cant believe that BUsh learned about this via news-sources. Either he's so far out of the loop that he has no clue what his commanders in Iraq are up to or he's an accomplice.
Reports I saw indicated that Rumsfeld was made aware of problems at that prison as early as January, then informed Bush shortly thereafter (which contradicts their assertion that they found out only after the "60 Minutes 2" broadcast). In fact, "60 Minutes 2" was persuaded by an Air Force General to suppress those photos for two weeks before they learned that the New Yorker was going to publish them. Incredibly, neither Bush nor most of his advisers ever read the report I cited.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: What I really cant believe is that these idiots are so dumb as to pose for photos with the victims! They need mandatory jailtime for that alone!
Thing was, they didn't feel they were doing anything wrong; when they asked for guidance on how they were to deal with these prisoners, they were brushed off by their copmmanders and told to follow the orders of the intel people in the prison. The soldiers involved noted they were not even told about the Geneva Convention accords! Certainly the soldiers should be dealt with, but the officers of the units involved should be called on the carpet also; in addition, action should be taken in regards to the contracters involved also.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Let me start by saying, you might want to do some reading before posting.
quote:Originally posted by Epoch: Veers I found no comments anywhere it that link that says that women and young boys were raped. Nor have I heard any such comments on any of the news programs that I watch.
Read this....
quote:Rumsfeld did not describe the photos, but U.S. military officials told NBC News that the unreleased images showed U.S. soldiers severely beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death, having sex with a female Iraqi female prisoner and "acting inappropriately with a dead body." The officials said there was also a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys.
quote:6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:
a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women�s underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
quote:Originally posted by Epoch: First I have yet to hear of anybody getting phosphorus poured onto them then getting a broom shoved up them.
Read this....
quote:8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):
a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
9. (U) I have carefully considered the statements provided by the following detainees, which under the circumstances I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses:
quote:Originally posted by Epoch: And second I've not heard of any old women being ridden.
Read this....
quote:Guards treated woman like donkey: Bush scolds Rumsfeld over abuse controversy
The latest allegation involved an elderly Iraqi woman said to have been abused by U.S. military guards.
The woman, arrested last July, was reportedly put into a harness and forced to crawl on her hands and knees while a guard rode her donkey-style.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's human rights envoy to Iraq, Ann Clwyd, told the BBC she had investigated the allegation and believed it to be true. The woman was held six weeks and never charged.
"She was insulted and told she was a donkey," Clwyd said, noting the woman was forced to wear a harness. "An American rode on her back."
[ May 08, 2004, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And another thing....
quote:Originally posted by Epoch: Some of them got the crap kicked out of them and some of the were humiliated by having pictures of them taken while they were naked. Boo Hoo. If I got caught by the Iraqis and that is all they did to me I'd feel damn lucky. It seems to be perfectly acceptable for the Iraqis to kill our troops and civilians then mutilate their corpses as they drag them around the town. But by god we humiliate some of them by stripping them naked and suddenly we are the devils right hand.
I can�t believe I even have to write this.
We are supposed to be BETTER than that.
The United States, is supposed to be that shining beacon on the hill.
We are supposed to be the ones the world looks to as an example of human and civil rights. True, we dont always live up to this standard, but to throw our hands up in the air and let our values slip away and give into the sort of 'oh well, they're only Iraqis who did something bad' or 'well, we�re at war' excuses is wrong.
We DO NOT BEAT, ABUSE AND HUMILIATE UNARMED prisoners.
Others might, but we do not.
That is our spirit, our ethos, our fundamental values.
I don't paint the entire military with the brush stained by these MP's, but we should have been above reproach after invading their country to find WMD�s bring them democracy.
[ May 08, 2004, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:No, I don't think for an instant that Bush knew anything about this. That's the problem.
"Now you are comparing us to the ranks of Hitler and Stalin. Man that is a huge leap of imagination. So far we have a bunch of guys being photographed nude, 2 suspicious deaths, and a hand full of others getting beat on. Hmmm oh my god we are worse then Hitler and Stalin combined. Get real. To even consider comparing any of this so far to those butchers is beyond rational thought."
Okay. Well, when you're ready to address what I actually said, let me know.
No wonder you didn't know about all the other things mentioned (and which Jay beat me to posting the references for). Obviously you can't read.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Highway Hoss: Thing was, they didn't feel they were doing anything wrong; when they asked for guidance on how they were to deal with these prisoners, they were brushed off by their copmmanders and told to follow the orders of the intel people in the prison. The soldiers involved noted they were not even told about the Geneva Convention accords! Certainly the soldiers should be dealt with, but the officers of the units involved should be called on the carpet also; in addition, action should be taken in regards to the contracters involved also.
It's not as if soldiers have no clue how to behave: there is the military code of conduct (at least officers know that one backward and forward) and even if the soldiers were'nt advised on the particulars of the Geneva Convention, common fucking sense says that what they were doing is illeagal in the extreme.
What a cluster-fuck this is.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
I can understand why it's hard to educate soldiers in humane treatment and respect. The officers don't want to sound "wimpy" or "feminine", it goes against the general mindset.
They are trained in a fashion that promotes harsh behavior, unceasing reprimands until you "fit the mold" and a system of blame that (often) without problem can "run downwards"; that is, if an officer has a bad day and takes it out on his low-ranking assistant, the low-ranking assistant can take it out on his squad or something. It isn't by the book, and sometimes there are genuinly "good" officers who, when seeing this procedure, manages to talk to the people involved and make them act maturely and more self-consciously.
However, I believe that the general "mindset" in the armed forces across the whole world is that when you're in a battle situation and the opportunity to handle enemy soldiers is given, I suspect a lot of gratuitous "looking the other way" to let the troops have their fun, for morale's sake, is commonplace.
Like Aubrey said in "Master and Commander" about rum; "I won't interfere with a time-honored tradition." Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Phht. Just because soldiers take shit from the occasional power-happy higher-up, does not mean that they somehow lack the ability to make a simple moral judgment call or that these soldiers thought they'd somehow be reprimanded for NOT torturing the prisoners.
Society and immeadeate social environment dont excuse illegal and morally reprehensible behavior.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I can't even imagine what sort of extreme psychological maladjustment is required to be capable of that."
I honestly don't know what's more sickening, the things that were done to those prisoners or that there actually are people bending over backwards to defend the soldiers responsible for them.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Jason: "Society and immeadeate social environment dont excuse illegal and morally reprehensible behavior."
I'm sorry to say it does, in too many people's minds, though they don't think of it as illegal or reprehensible, of course. I've seen too many examples of abuse at the hands of "enlightened" people in everyday society, who thought they were "within their rights", to be surprised that the Iraq prison scandal happened.
It doesn't take "extreme psychological maladjustment" or some fancy psychological illness to make a tormentor or executioner out of your average joe, as long as he's worked-up enough and gets the ok from the brass or his/her colleagues. I wasn't saying that the blame-system in the military always creates monsters, but when you have a chain of command within which bad grudges travel downwards, you create a platform for future lashouts at the base level, with prison keepers and "grunts" who lose their temper with civilians and prisoners.
Since most of the abusers at the pictures were smiling, it wasn't a question of random lashouts but systematic and calculating abuse, with pictures taken as mementos.
I guess these people had simply seen a lot of bad things in the war, created by their enemy, and had no problem exacting justice on them, like poor 'Fuck Hitler' in "Saving Private Ryan" (though that one turned out badly).
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
I guess I should just back out of this discussion since I'm incapable of reading as stated by TSN.
TSN you might want to also check your reading skills. The info that Jay posted did not come from the original link left by Veers. So unless I'm a psychic I had no way of reading that info. Now as for not addressing what your really said you should take your own advice. You have taken what I've said and pulled it out of context using exaggeration just like I did with your comments. But I guess I should just leave this discussion to you guys who are of obviously higher moral standards and larger intellect then I.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
This article notes some of the fallout from the release of the photos; one notable event is the postponing of the State Department's annual report on human rights abuses.
One of the most damaging aspects of this crisis is that it leaves the country open to accusations of double standards where our holier-then-thou posturing is concerned. One grievance that many Arab countries have is that while we denounce them for human rights abuses, we never say anything about Israeli violations...nor ours for that matter.
BTW I understand that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has introduced eight articles of impeachnment against Rumsfeld for not only his handling of the prison abuse crisis but his overall handling of the war. The debate over these resolutions is pretty mch split along party lines.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
No need to be the martyr.
I don't agree that the criticism raised against the US at this point is a case of "emotion over logic". Logic says that all western military forces, even the limeys, degos and frogs, have rules that must be obeyed on penalty of court-martial and/or imprisonment. We "westerners" invented the UN, the human rights and the god-damn Red Cross.
I'm in no moral uproar right now and I detest the way some factions "pay lip service" to politically correct issues in order to be on the right side, but this shit can't be allowed to reach any more systematic proportions without being nipped in the bud post fucking haste.
I know the sympathy for muslim extremists and troublemakers are at an alltime low today, and that there are many who say "they probably deserve it", but the next time it might be your ass, on some sun trip to a nice resort, and then you'd be mighty appreciative if your captor gives you clothes, regular food and resists the temptation to give you cigar-burns and rape your sister down the hall. Not because he didn't want to (boy did he want to) but because he wasn't allowed to, see? On saturdays, he might even have the common courtesy to give you a reach-around, as defined by prophet Ermey.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Note to self: Add Epoch to the people who I don't like, and are too ignorant to live properly list.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The info that Jay posted did not come from the original link left by Veers. So unless I'm a psychic I had no way of reading that info."
That's funny, because I'm not psychic, and I had read about those things long before Jay ever posted them. You come in here and tell us how not-horrible the things going on in Iraq are, and yet you obviously haven't even been keeping up with what is going on.
"You have taken what I've said and pulled it out of context using exaggeration just like I did with your comments."
Well, there's a difference. What I did was exaggeration. Specifically, sarcasm.
What you did was to take something I said, and then claim I said something different. Which is called, I believe, "lying".
See, I addressed the fact that many of the right wing assholes out there are making the arguement "our soldiers can do anything they want, so long as someone else somewhere has done worse". And I asked whether that meant that they would only criticize the soldiers if they become worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined. Note that this was presented as a hypothetical future situation. Therefore, not a condition that exists at this time.
You, subsequently, accused me of claiming that the soldiers' current acts of torture are already comparable to those of the aforementioned baddies.
That's precisely the m.o. of these clowns like Limbaugh et al. Take a few elements of something your opponent said, restructure them into something much worse but with a completely different meaning, and pass it off as what he originally said.
And then, when he corrects you, act all offended and abandon the conversation.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim the Fanciful: Jason: "Society and immeadeate social environment dont excuse illegal and morally reprehensible behavior."
I'm sorry to say it does, in too many people's minds, though they don't think of it as illegal or reprehensible, of course. I've seen too many examples of abuse at the hands of "enlightened" people in everyday society, who thought they were "within their rights", to be surprised that the Iraq prison scandal happened.
It doesn't take "extreme psychological maladjustment" or some fancy psychological illness to make a tormentor or executioner out of your average joe, as long as he's worked-up enough and gets the ok from the brass or his/her colleagues.
Nonsense: decent "adverage joe" people refrain from such behavior under far more extreme circumstances than those in Iraq: no amount of unnofficial "okay" or peer pressure could have convinced those soldiers that what they did was in any way acceptable (particularly as they're from the U.S. where civil rights are the standard everyone is entitled to). These guys have serious problems that the military cant be blamed for causing, to have done these things.
quote: I wasn't saying that the blame-system in the military always creates monsters, but when you have a chain of command within which bad grudges travel downwards, you create a platform for future lashouts at the base level, with prison keepers and "grunts" who lose their temper with civilians and prisoners.
None of wich in any standard of law excuses criminal behavior or behavior not in keeping with military codes.
quote: Since most of the abusers at the pictures were smiling, it wasn't a question of random lashouts but systematic and calculating abuse, with pictures taken as mementos.
I guess these people had simply seen a lot of bad things in the war, created by their enemy, and had no problem exacting justice on them, like poor 'Fuck Hitler' in "Saving Private Ryan" (though that one turned out badly).
No.....people out for revenge dont take momentos that way: besides, unless the prison was staffed solely with family members of 9/11 victims, there'd be zero chance of a "traumatization defense" standing up in court (not to underestimate the power of 12 dumb jurors).
No US Citizen would think such behavior acceptable in a US prison, none should think so of our prisons overseas either.
I get the point you're trying to make about those in command making a bad situation worse (particularly via lack of positive support) but thousands of armed forces members (millions worldwide) would have never subjected their prisoners to that kind of inhumane abuse.
This is a case on an extremely small minority being allowed to indulge in whatever perverse behavior they wanted with no oversight.
Also of note: Arab TV has neglected to even mention that most of the prison's guards are still Iraqi- or that it's the Iraquis that suppoedly raped prisoners (not that our troops there prevented them).
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
Here is an excerpt from the Abu Ghazi prison report:
quote:The recommendations of MG Miller's team that the "guard force" be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees would appear to be in conflict with the recommendations of MG Ryder's Team and AR 190-8 that military police "do not participate in military intelligence supervised interrogation sessions."� The Ryder Report concluded that the OEF template whereby military police actively set the favorable conditions for subsequent interviews runs counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility.
Now we have this same Gen Miller, whose recommendations set the stage for this debacle, put in charge of Iraqi prisons. For God's sake why? For that matter, why is the prison still open? If the US forces have had any sense they would have bulldozed the place to the ground when they first arrived. As I said before, it should not only be the guards who committed these acts that should be punished but the officers (ESPECIALLY GENERALS) involved also.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
A new article in the British newspaper The Guardian notes that the tortures used on Iraqi prisoners were in fact taught to both US and UK forces as part of so called "R2I" (resistance to interrogation) techniques. Many of the atrocities caught in those infamous photos were developed by both US and UK Special Forces as a means of enabling soldiers to resist interrrogation. These techniques were apparently disseminated among both US and UK troops.
THis to me marks the difference between these events and what those Iraqis did to those four contracters; certainly what they did was horrifying and barbaric. However this was a one-time "spur of the monment" event doen by a small group of Iraqis. THe torture of prisoners in Abu Ghazi OTOH was systematic and ongiong and seemed to have the implicit approval and encouragement of at least some highers ups.
BTW I heard GEN Miller's speech about changing procedures to prevent these kind of atrocities...which I find hypocritical because he was the one who recommended these "procedures" in the first place. He should at least be called on the carpet to explain his actions.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You're quoting The Guardian.
I want to see physical evidence (something) before I can believe that both the US and UK forces are being trained to specifically violate the Geneva Convention.
Back to these "contractors" again.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Jason: "thousands of armed forces members (millions worldwide) would have never subjected their prisoners to that kind of inhumane abuse. This is a case on an extremely small minority being allowed to indulge in whatever perverse behavior they wanted with no oversight.
Absolutely, it just better stay that way. Or, NOT stay that way. Damnit, you know what I mean. :.)
I'm not out for blood, I just hope they do nip this one in the bud professionally, not just cosmetically, because if more atrocities (on a grander scale) were to become public, the whole campaign may take a fatal hit, and if the US would be forced through peer pressure to pull out prematurely, chances are you'll have a really hard time dropping down on someone else down the road, without tripled vocal protest from the rest of the world.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Opened the Sunday editorial page in the newspaper...what I find disgusting is that two letters referred to these abuses as "fraternity pranks." These ARE NOT fraternity pranks.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
What I find particularly surprising is the refusal of the US to close Abu Ghraib. I realise there are practical difficulties (where to put the prisoners, etc) but surely this would be secondary to the moral effect upon the Iraqis? While this would have only a minimal effect on the outrage and anger felt, it would at least go some way to persuading the Iraqis that the US is serious in its condemnation of the acts.
A certain amount of 'roughing up' of prisoners might be expected immediately after their capture and especially in the situation immediately after the invasion. But not systematic torture after transfer to a prison. Grauniad article is misleading. Troops were not taught these techniques, merely subjected to them
quote:"The crucial difference from Iraq is that frontline soldiers who are made to experience R2I techniques themselves develop empathy. They realise the suffering they are causing. But people who haven't undergone this don't realise what they are doing to people. It's a shambles in Iraq".
The British former officer said the dissemination of R2I techniques inside Iraq was all the more dangerous because of the general mood among American troops.
"The feeling among US soldiers I've spoken to in the last week is also that 'the gloves are off'. Many of them still think they are dealing with people responsible for 9/11".
That remark is particularly telling; a combination of poor training and the attitude within US armed forces especially towards Iraqis seems to hav contributed towards these events.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You're quoting The Guardian.
I want to see physical evidence (something) before I can believe that both the US and UK forces are being trained to specifically violate the Geneva Convention.
I think you've misunderstood. US and UK forces are not taught those techniques to make them better at torturing people. They are taught them for two reasons. One, to make them understand what such torture is like, so that they won't do it themselves; and two, so that they can better resist those techniques if they are applied to them. It's not "How to torture people in 10 easy steps".
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
TSN it is obvious that you are not familiar with my forms of sarcasm. I have no intention of leaving this discussion yet. I do find it interesting that you consider your exaggeration of my comments to be sarcasm when my exaggerations of your comments are lying. I must admit that my news sources are probably not as vast as yours. I only watch the national and local news and read the local and state papers. I don't spend my days reading online news sources.
Ultra Magnus, I don't really care if I have made your all powerful dislike list. I'm not here for you to like. I'm here to post my thoughts and ideas and read the like. I don't ask to be like, what I do ask is to be respected, just as I respect you for your opinions. Frankly I don't care much for you either.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That's okay. He gets that a lot.
And the reason your so-called "sarcasm" was actually lying is because you were accusing me of saying somthing I never did. And you were using that as an integral part of your argument as to why I was wrong.
On the other hand, I was merely throwing in a random insult just for the hell of it. I think any reasonable person could easily tell that I was not actually implying that you are incapable of reading.
Do you think that those same reasonable people would read your post and think that you weren't actually claiming that I had compared the Abu Ghraib MPs to Hitler?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
As regards news and source material used in arguments, I strongly suggest that everyone post a link to an online source, or a reference to an offline one, for the people who do not read The Guardian or somesuch on a daily basis.
On the other hand, much of what was posted, and not originally linked to, was rather wide spread, at least on the net.
As a result, I would suggest Epoch, and I�m not trying to be snarky, that your expand your circle of news gathering a bit.
Or as Harry Shearer, on his ever so clever Le Show radio program, might put it, get some news from outside the bubble.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Wraith: "Grauniad"
Hello, new RPG-handle!!
Epoch: "TSN it is obvious that you are not familiar with my forms of sarcasm."
Sarcasm taking the guise of "rolling over on back and exposing jugular" is not a hard-hitting form of sarcasm. Pretending to run away with tail between legs actually decreases what amount of respect you have. Best for you to not use sarcasm at all, gives us peace of mind and avoids misunderstanding.
If I were God, sarcasm would be outlawed and I could eat hamburgers and pizza every day and still have mouth abs like Brian Thompson, Fantasy Movie Star.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
As regards the Hitler and Stalin thing...I'm unsure if it was purposeful, but what Epoch wrote...
quote:Now you are comparing us to the ranks of Hitler and Stalin.
which is a complete misrepresentation of what TSN wrote.
Which was...
quote:Do we have to surpass Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined before it [is] actually an issue?
There is no comparison of the United states armed forces to Hitler et al in TSN�s argument. Rather he asks whether or not that is level the abuse has to get to before some right-wingers concede that this is an actual problem.
If you wanted to put his comment in another context or make a different point about it by using sarcasm or exaggeration, well that�s one thing.
But what you wrote seemed pretty straightforward and I do not read any sarcasm or exaggeration into it.
He may have been a bit snarky about it, but I think TSN called you on a legitimate misrepresentation.
[ May 09, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
USA SUPERIOR, SANDNIGGERS INFERIOR.
For the record, because these Assbastards would do the same to USA prisoners, I think that it's within the purview of the United States Military, as the solitary bastion of the Defenders of the Free and Morally Right to do whatever's in their power to stop the Iraqi prisoners and have a little deviant sexual fun while at it.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Do I think what happend should have happend? Of course not, I'm not inhuman. Do I think it should just be forgotten? Again or course not, they should be punished. Do I think people are blowing this so far out of proportion that the general public can't tell fact from fiction? Hell yeah. Once again emotion blinds logic.
The problem here is the US is now in an emotional war, not a logical one. Their task is now to win the hearts, so to speak, of the Iraqi people. Episodes like these will fan the flames of resistance in Iraq, stories will circulate about all kinds of American attrocities now, and all the resistance needed was an episode of this type to give any story "it's grain of credibility." This could be a defining moment in the Iraq war which could defeat any plans that the US has had for democracy in Iraq and other places in the Middle East.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
We'll never "win their hearts". Forget about that one.
What we need to "win" is their respect and that wont happen if we're using Saddam's methods on prisoners.
Liam, thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding: I though someone was accusing US/UK troops of being specially trained in these prisoner abuses (although many Arabs are saying that anyway).
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
In a post titled "Wouldn't want them to get too far ahead of the SecDef," Mark A. R. Kleiman links to a story about a Pentagon memo.
I really liked the last part of the following about not complicating the investigative processes by seeking information.
Ironies are so cute sometimes.
quote:This leakage will be investigated for criminal prosecution. If you don't have the document and have never had legitimate access, please do not complicate the investigative processes by seeking information.
So reads an memo from the Pentagon to personnel ordering them not to try to obtain and read the Taguba report from the Fox News website.
quote:ALL ISD CUSTOMERS SHOULD:
1) NOT GO TO FOX NEWS TO READ OR OBTAIN A COPY 2) NOT comment on this to anyone, friends, family etc. 3) NOT delete the file if you receive it via e-mail, but 4) CALL THE ISD HELPDESK AT 602-2627 IMMEDIATELY
....
Again, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT IS CLASSIFIED; DO NOT GO TO FOX NEWS TO READ OR OBTAIN A COPY.
In a funny, in that the-person-who-wrote-the-memo-just-doesn�t-get-it sort of way, the memo reads like directions about where to obtain and read the Taguba report.
But in that all too serious sort of way, it�s the Pentagon culture at to it�s most opaque as it attempts to stifle information and prevent people from knowing what�s going on.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: But in that all too serious sort of way, it�s the Pentagon culture at to it�s most opaque as it attempts to stifle information and prevent people from knowing what�s going on.
No suprise there, Jay; the Pentagon had been sitting on this report for two months before the photos release forced them to declassify it.
As Sydney Blumenthal notes in this article Bush and his aides were positively inept about handling the situation; most of them never read the report (!)....and when it did became public they floundered about trying to put a positive spin on it. The ineptness and cluelessness of this administration beggars belief sometimes.
As the article noted, what we are seeing in Abu Ghazi is just one part of an entire network of an extra-legal Gulag network that the administration has set up in several areas (including Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay) where suspects are held for long periods of times without being charged and their rights are systematically violated. There have also been cases where prisoners were shipped to other countires that then tortured them.
Thing is both the President and Republican leaders in Congress are doing their damndest to suppress investigations into this matter; but as far as I'm concerned its too late.The genie is already out of the bottle and the battle for hearts and minds is effectively over.
BTW one thing the article notes is the involvement of "independent contracters" in the deaths of a number of prisoners where these detainees are being held. I think there should come a serious reckioning on the involvement of these contracters not only in Abu Ghazi but in other "detention facilities" as well.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oi.
quote:The Price of Arrogance
The basic attitude taken by Rumsfeld, Cheney and their top aides has been "We're at war; all these niceties will have to wait." As a result, we have waged pre-emptive war unilaterally, spurned international cooperation, rejected United Nations participation, humiliated allies, discounted the need for local support in Iraq and incurred massive costs in blood and treasure. If the world is not to be trusted in these dangerous times, key agencies of the American government, like the State Department, are to be trusted even less. Congress is barely informed, even on issues on which its "advise and consent" are constitutionally mandated.
Leave process aside: the results are plain. On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq�troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani�Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world.
Whether he wins or loses in November, George W. Bush's legacy is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe. I'm sure he takes full responsibility.
Right on the mark.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'm sure that what the world thinks of the US doesn't cause Bush to lose much sleep at night.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I notice a British WW1 cemetary in Iraq has been vandelised; some graves destroyed, others have had pictures from Abu Graib. Someone needs to point out that that was US troops...
Also; looks like the Mirror's photos are fakes. Not all that surprising, really; there are a huge number of apparent inconsistancies in them. On the other hand, it is Hoon saying this.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
Senator Patrick Leahy recently spoke out on the floor of the Senate about the Iraqi prison disaster. I agree that Rumfeld should be held responsible for this disaster; but Bush is speaking out in support of him. Why? Simple; if Rumsfeld resigns, he could end up "spilling the beans" on some of this administration's other dark secrets..
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Not that I haven't seen many examples of the real world often surpassing Tom Clancy and Frederick Forsyth, but huh?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
So, American soldiers lashed out against their prisoners because they thought the Iraqis were behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks and wanted to settle the score, and now Iraqis are lashing out against British soldiers (albeit dead ones) because they think the British are behind the AG torture scandal and want to do the same. Symmetry.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The US troops didint lash out against any prisoners for 9/11...that's just a convient excuse from the right. (not that you're from the Right, Cartman)
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
quote: Hack's Target Hanging Out the Troops By David H. Hackworth � As an American citizen, I'm ashamed of the atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq. As a former professional soldier, I'm appalled not only by what has happened in the prisons there, but also by our military leadership. From the very top of the Pentagon down to the 320th Military Police Battalion, the brass have spent months covering up obscene behavior while placing the sole blame on Joe and Jill Grunt. ��������� �� The damage to our country and our just war on terrorism is already devastating. And these war crimes not only diminish the sacrifices of our gallant soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, they place the troops at even greater risk. But I'm certain that these abhorrent acts wouldn't have occurred had the right kind of leadership been exercised by the chain of command. ��������� �� In 1951 in Korea, I was told by my commanding officer to kill four POWs and refused his direct order. I well remembered the Nazi generals' sorry rationale for their despicable conduct: "We were just following orders." I would get booted out of the Army before I went that route. ��������� �� In 1965 in Vietnam, I saw a very connected intelligence captain torturing a POW with a field-telephone wire attached to his testicles and decided my personal belief system outweighed his father's four stars. When I told him I'd shoot him if he didn't cease and desist, the atrocity came to a screeching halt. ��������� �� On both occasions, I knew I had the moral right. I'd been taught from the first day I put on a U.S. Army uniform that American soldiers don't follow unlawful orders and that it was my duty to stop or report an illegal act. I also believed strongly that when dealing with POWs, "There but for the grace of God go I."���������� ��������� �� The vast majority of our regular soldiers today are likewise well-trained, well-disciplined and have similar values. And they've conducted themselves during the occupation of Iraq in a manner that aptly reflects what America is all about. ��������� �� But, unfortunately, this is not always the case with many Army Reserve and National Guard units that have been deployed overseas since 9/11. In fact, I've worn out several drums beating the readiness issue during face-to-face meetings with the top brass. As far back as 1989, I warned Secretary of the Army Mike Stone about the generally sad shape of our Reserve and Guard components.� But while he listened up, little was done to correct the systemic problems. ��������� �� And now, because Mr. Rumsfeld and too many of his generals are into a fast-fix mode, the Pentagon has been dispatching Reserve and Guard units to combat zones even when they aren't good to go. For example, I know of two enhanced infantry brigades that were rated as not combat-ready by Training Center commanders but were still sent to Iraq because boots were needed on the ground. ��������� �� Retired Master Sgt. William Lawson, who brought the atrocity story to SFTT.org, says the 800th Military Police Brigade is a prime example: "My nephew Chip, who's been charged with war crimes, wasn't trained to be a prison guard. He was a part-time soldier marginally trained for even conventional military police (MP) work. But Chip was such a good soldier that he was selected to escort Gen. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Staff, when Chip was guarding the vice president right after 9/11. Myers gave him both great reviews and his personal coin."� ��������� �� "The bedrock truth about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison is that they were so easily preventable," adds SFTT (Soldiers for the Truth) Vice President Roger Charles, who researched this story for CBS News. "But that prevention required a recognition that the top people in the 800th were ill-prepared, incompetent and uncaring. The evidence clearly shows that the Department of the Army mafia was more concerned about protecting the image of the brigade commanding general, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, than holding her and her officers accountable for the terrible situation, which they allowed to fester for months." ��������� �� Speaking of Karpinski, she's received only a mild slap on the wrist as the brass were circling the wagons.� Not a good sign that our country's commanders intend to own up to their respective roles in this catastrophic breach of human rights, which will have consequences we all will have to pay for many years to come.� ��������� Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. For information on his many books, go to his home page at Hackworth.com, where you can sign in for his free weekly Defending America. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts."� � 2004 David H. Hackworth. Please send Feedback responses to [email protected].
Footnotes: 1) I highly recommend reading Hackworth's book "Hazardous Duty" for his thoughts on the National GUard and Reserve. 2)The assigning of MAJ General Miller to comand Iraqi prisons after he made the recommendations that triggered these atrocites can be seen in asimilar light. 3)Rumsfeld's handling of the report on the prison atrocites certainly is not encouraging in this regard.
In many ways, the 800th Military Police is an excellent example of the military axiom "There are no bad troops, only bad officers." Certainly if someone had taken action to deal with the incompetent officers of this unit, this might have been avoided.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Repercussions?
quote:Video Seems to Show Beheading of American
CAIRO, Egypt - A video posted Tuesday on an Islamic militant Web site showed the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq (news - web sites), and said the execution was carried out by an al-Qaida affiliated group to avenge the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers.
The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit � similar to a prisoner's uniform � who identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. contractor whose body was found on a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.
"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Susan," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."
After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu Akbar!" � "God is great." They then held the head out before the camera.
Berg's family said Tuesday they knew their son had been decapitated, but didn't know the details of the killing. When told of the video by an Associated Press reporter, Berg's father, Michael, and his two siblings hugged and cried.
Dont think for a minute that these bastards would'nt have done the exact same thing without the prison debacle.
They would've just used another excuse to act like the savages so many believe all arabs to be.
sickening.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Dont think for a minute that these bastards would'nt have done the exact same thing without the prison debacle.
We'd all like to think that, but we can never be sure. They said they'd kill Thomas Hamill in 12 hours, but they kept him alive for 3 weeks. Who knows. Perhaps the abuse DID cause this man to be killed, or perhaps these sick fuckos would have done it anyway.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
My thoughts on that atrocity, Jay?
Bush and the compliant news media will no doubt publicize this to the skies to distract attention from the ongoing prison furor.
The administration will use this atrocity as a justification for increasing the tempo of military operations in Iraq and cracking down hard.
Some right-wing commentators will scream that the torture of Iraqi prisoners was justified in light of this murder.
As this article notes, many people have been conditioned by a number of factors to percieve Arabs as villians for a long time; how many Hollywood movies protray Arabs in a totally negative light?
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Indeed there are many, "True Lies" being my favorite nominee in that group. And "Cannonball Run". "Ah! Too much cous-cous!!"
But I thought "The Siege" managed to keep the debate very clean, with Tony Shalhoub as a counterweight muslim to the antagonists of the movie, used very wisely as a lesson to the west that "there are other muslims than the fanatics".
As a palestinian, Shalhoub's character got in a few good licks in on the israelis' persecution of them in Israel (the civilian palestinians, that is).
The movie also showed, through outright critique by General Deveraux (Willis) that the army was a blunt instrument where precision attacks by antiterrorist special forces was required.
Considering that this movie was made three years prior to 9/11, I think it is a brilliant entry in the debate, it received far to little accolade.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim the Fanciful: But I thought "The Siege" managed to keep the debate very clean, with Tony Shalhoub as a counterweight muslim to the antagonists of the movie, used very wisely as a lesson to the west that "there are other muslims than the fanatics".
As a palestinian, Shalhoub's character got in a few good licks in on the israelis' persecution of them in Israel (the civilian palestinians, that is).
The movie also showed, through outright critique by General Deveraux (Willis) that the army was a blunt instrument where precision attacks by antiterrorist special forces was required.
Considering that this movie was made three years prior to 9/11, I think it is a brilliant entry in the debate, it received far to little accolade.
Good point, Nim...I am rather suprised no one has brought this movie up in the context of current events. The problem here is that our current military strategy is simply not designed for fighting terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. THe majority of our military doctrine, strategy and tactics is still geared toward a third world war, with huge conventional battles.
As this article notes, the current administration's so called "War on Terror" (a meaningless phrase, since you cannot wage war on emotions or states of mind) has ended up hurting us more than helping us. Overwhelming force is meaningless in this context of war because using such force ends up too often backfiring on its user (The Vietnam War has several notable examples of this). The best way to wage such war is not simply by military force or intelligence work; it must also include a political strategy that has awareness of what fuels support for these terrorist units. For many Arabs, for example, a lot of their hatred for the US comes from several factors:
Our unqualified support for Israeli policies, even if they violate UN resolutions.
Our support of what they consider corrupt, tyrannical regimes.
Our stationing troops in the Mideast, especially Saudi Arabia.
Any strategy to deal with Al-Qadea must address these issues at some point, for it is the resentment that they fuel that drive Arabs and other Muslims to support such groups.
Bush's show of support for Rumsfeld in the wake of the furor over the release of the Abu Ghazi report, for example is considered by many Arabs as an implicit show of support for the US Military's way of runnning those prisons.
This is something that a number of US Army and Marine Corps officers are addressing: they are discussing the evolution of what they are calling "Fourth Generation Warfare." Such discussions are meant to discern how war may be waged in the future.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
Remember what I said earlier about Bush and his supporters using the beheading of Nick Berg as a means of drowning the furor over the torutre of Iraqi prisoners? Well, this article shows some of the backlash by Bush's supporters on this issues.
What galls me are these idiots who keep ranting on about how releasing these these photos was unpatriotic and how leaking the report made us look bad. To those folks I say that this was exactly the kind of thing we were supposed to be stopping by removing Hussien remember? They also forget that classifying reports to hide illegal activities is a crime in and of itself.
WARNING: RANT MODE ENGAGED.What really turns my stomach though is how both supporters and critics are treating this whole thing in terms of how it affects America's image rather than as a human rights issue...to which I say "GET A CLUE, YOU FUCKING MORONS!!!"
If those clueless Washington pundits would get out of that wilderness of funhouse mirrors called Washington D.C. and step out into the real world, they'd maybe realize its not about image, its about the fact that this is an adminiistration systematcially encouraging a climate of lawlessness and contempt while inflaming the very terrorism it says its supposed to be fighting.
If those people had any sense, they'd declare victory and get those troops out of there NOW. After all, in a way we did accomplish what we set out to do, so why keep them there?
RANT MODE DISENGAGED Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Man, do you read any other site for news besides that "Common Dreams" stuff?
Another viewpoint is occasionally enlightening.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
"Common Dreams" is carefully edited to avoid such things, as they cause cognitive dissonance.
quote:For many Arabs, for example, a lot of their hatred for the US comes from several factors: Our unqualified support for Israeli policies, even if they violate UN resolutions.
Translation: We stubbornly refuse to let them kill all the Jews, or put Israel in a position which would make it easier for them to drive the Jews into the sea.
quote:Our support of what they consider corrupt, tyrannical regimes.
Rather than their preferred style of corrupt, tyrannical regimes, like the Taliban and the Iranian Fundie-psychos.
quote: Our stationing troops in the Mideast, especially Saudi Arabia.
Especially when invited.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Translation: We stubbornly refuse to let them kill all the Jews, or put Israel in a position which would make it easier for them to drive the Jews into the sea."
Oh, please. Israel could kill off every last Palestinian in the Levant, and we'd still oppose so much as a UN resolution calling them "naughty".
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: "Common Dreams" is carefully edited to avoid such things, as they cause cognitive dissonance.
I'm sure all the various publications from which they draw articles appreciate that characterization..which IMHO applies more to this invasion anyway.
quote:Translation: We stubbornly refuse to let them kill all the Jews, or put Israel in a position which would make it easier for them to drive the Jews into the sea.
Your translaotion, First of Two. I fully believe that Israle has every right to exist and is in many ways an admirable nation deserving of US support; US support however shoudl not mean turing a blind eye to policies like building illegal settlements or walls in defiance of UN Resoulutions. Also keep in mind we ship them billions in foriegn aid.
quote:Rather than their preferred style of corrupt, tyrannical regimes, like the Taliban and the Iranian Fundie-psychos.
You mihgt want to recall that we created and funded the groups that became the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to fight Soviet occupation of their country. As for the Iranian fundamentalists, they gained support because we propped up a corrupt, brutal ruler in the Shah of Iran and failed to realize the danger until it was too late. Interestingly, there is a growing opposition movement to the Iranian fundamentalist government in the country.
Lastly, this is not the first time we invaded Iraq; we did a similar action 40 years ago to install the Ba'athists in the first place. We also supported Saddam for a long time against Iraq.
quote:Especially when invited.
Invited by a government that has close financial ties to the Bush family and runs a very undemocratic regime in its own right. A government BTW some of whose members may have financed some of the 9-11 suidcide bombers and Al-Qaeda.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"We also supported Saddam for a long time against Iraq."
Iran, you mean.
And, indeed, there is an effort there to overcome the ayatollahs and the theocracy. But does Bush get together with Khatami or whoever and try to work out a way to strengthen the secular (albeit loosely so, as anything over there) part of the government? No. Because, in Bush's mind, countries are either "good" or "evil". And he's already explicitly stated that he thinks Iran is "evil".
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Iran, you mean.
Oops, sorry, my bad; thanks TSN.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: And, indeed, there is an effort there to overcome the ayatollahs and the theocracy. But does Bush get together with Khatami or whoever and try to work out a way to strengthen the secular (albeit loosely so, as anything over there) part of the government? No. Because, in Bush's mind, countries are either "good" or "evil". And he's already explicitly stated that he thinks Iran is "evil".
Which to me shows the fallacy of such a worldview. TReating a country as a monolithic whole strikes me as simpleminded. If our government had any sense, we would be establishing communications with the moderates over there and giving support to them. Such a policy would be more effective in dealing with radical governments than brute force.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Highway Hoss: If our government had any sense, we would be establishing communications with the moderates over there and giving support to them. Such a policy would be more effective in dealing with radical governments than brute force.
Hm.. what makes you think that we're not doing that, besides the fact that you won't find info about it on the commondreams website?
Have you forgotten the events after the quake in Bam?
And what makes you think that our support for Iranian moderates won't be (or even isn't already) portrayed as just more US meddling?
I too, would like to see the Iranian people overthrow the hard-liners. But the result of that aid inevitably being traced back to US influence, well... I don't see how that'd breed any less Bin Ladens than any other events.
Especially if, as you say, governments with close ties to the US are what enrages terrorists.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I don't see how that'd breed any less Bin Ladens than any other events."
Well, first of all, it's "fewer", my dear English major. I hate when people confuse "fewer" and "less".
Now, to the point. "Interference" in Iran may indeed piss off terrorists. (Honestly, I don't know what bin Laden thinks of Iran. On one hand, it's a Muslim government, which he likes. On the other hand, it's Shi'a, which I believe he doesn't like.) But no-one said we should refrain from doing every single thing that might irritate some extremist somewhere. We shouldn't just sever all ties and start pretending the Mid-East doesn't exist. But we should start going about things the right way. Invasions, sanctions that only hurt the regular people, calling countries "evil", and unquestioning support of Israel in everything are not the right way. We need to be diplomatic. And if that still makes a few wackos want us all dead, fine. There'd be no pleasing them, anyway. But at least we'd know we didn't deserve it in any way.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
Let's face it: the linchpin of all the tensions in the Mideast is the Israeli-Palestinian question. Until that is dealt with, there will always be a potential for violence in the area.
Besdies the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, many Arabs are enraged by Bush's one sided support for Sharon's hard line policies. This is a refutation of our previous policies of being an "honest broker" for peace in the area. Certainly though Arafat and the Palestinians are not blameless either; Arafat's unwillingness to crack down on militants in the West Bank only gives Israel justification for its hard line policies.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It appears there is more to the story.
It seems that Mr. Rumsfeld was not being totally honest at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing as he tried to deflect responsibility from Mr. Bush by indicating that he had not "elevate a matter" of prisoner abuse to the "to the highest levels".
quote:Let me be clear: I failed to recognize how important it was to elevate a matter of such gravity to the highest levels, including the president and the members of Congress.
Was he saying Mr. Bush just didn't know? That Mr. Bush wasn't in the loop.
If so, Mr. Rumsfeld is contradicted by Colin Powell.
quote:Powell said that he, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld kept Bush "fully informed of the concerns that were being expressed, not in specific details, but in general terms."
Which brought about a response from Fred Kaplan at Slate.
quote:So much for Rumsfeld's protective claim, at last week's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that he had failed to bring the matter to the president's attention. No wonder Bush, in turn, rode out to the Pentagon and praised his servant-secretary for doing a "superb" job.
But, of course there is more.
Colin Powell not only put Mr. Bush in the loop about the International Committee of the Red Cross's allegations, but he kept him informed.
quote:"We kept the president informed of the concerns that were raised by the ICRC and other international organizations as part of my regular briefings of the president, and advised him that we had to follow these issues, and when we got notes sent to us or reports sent to us ... we had to respond to them, and the president certainly made it clear that that's what he expected us to do," Powell said.
quote:Colleagues of the former editor said Mr Morgan had been called to the office of Trinity Mirror's chief executive, Sly Bailey, in Canary Wharf yesterday afternoon and ordered to issue a public apology. It is understood that he refused and was immediately escorted from the building by security.
HA! They literally threw him out on his ass! Priceless.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Not only that but he wasn't even allowed to clear his desk. Which is very satisfying; I never liked the man anyway. Came across as an arrogant little shit. I'm looking forward to the next edition of Private Eye... Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Anyone named Sly has such a head start on the road toward chief executive-dom it's almost not fair for the rest of the executives.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Bigger than a mere scandal indeed...
Pardon the long-ish nature of this post, but it is a Newsweek article and hard to truncate.
quote:The Roots of Torture The road to Abu Ghraib began after 9/11, when Washington wrote new rules to fight a new kind of war. A NEWSWEEK investigation
NEW YORK - The focus of the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal shifted Sunday with a report in Newsweek magazine on whether the Bush administration established a legal basis that opened the door for the mistreatment.
Newsweek reports that, as a way to prevent a repeat of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, �Bush, along with Defense Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods.�
The story begins in the months after September 11, when a small band of conservative lawyers within the Bush administration staked out a forward-leaning legal position. The attacks by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, these lawyers said, had plunged the country into a new kind of war. It was a conflict against a vast, outlaw, international enemy in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply. These positions were laid out in secret legal opinions drafted by lawyers from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and then endorsed by the Department of Defense and ultimately by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, according to copies of the opinions and other internal legal memos obtained by NEWSWEEK.
----
Cut out of the process, as usual, was Colin Powell's State Department. So were military lawyers for the uniformed services. When State Department lawyers first saw the Yoo memo, "we were horrified," said one. As State saw it, the Justice position would place the United States outside the orbit of international treaties it had championed for years. Two days after the Yoo memo circulated, the State Department's chief legal adviser, William Howard Taft IV, fired a memo to Yoo calling his analysis "seriously flawed." State's most immediate concern was the unilateral conclusion that all captured Taliban were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. "In previous conflicts, the United States has dealt with tens of thousands of detainees without repudiating its obligations under the Conventions," Taft wrote. "I have no doubt we can do so here, where a relative handful of persons is involved."
The White House was undeterred. By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had "requested that you reconsider that decision." Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
Gonzales also argued that dropping Geneva would allow the president to "preserve his flexibility" in the war on terror. His reasoning? That U.S. officials might otherwise be subject to war-crimes prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales said he feared "prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges" based on a 1996 U.S. law that bars "war crimes," which were defined to include "any grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. As to arguments that U.S. soldiers might suffer abuses themselves if Washington did not observe the conventions, Gonzales argued wishfully to Bush that "your policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers."
When Powell read the Gonzales memo, he "hit the roof," says a State source. Desperately seeking to change Bush's mind, Powell fired off his own blistering response the next day, Jan. 26, and sought an immediate meeting with the president. The proposed anti-Geneva Convention declaration, he warned, "will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice" and have "a high cost in terms of negative international reaction." Powell won a partial victory: On Feb. 7, 2002, the White House announced that the United States would indeed apply the Geneva Conventions to the Afghan war�but that Taliban and Qaeda detainees would still not be afforded prisoner-of-war status. The White House's halfway retreat was, in the eyes of State Department lawyers, a "hollow" victory for Powell that did not fundamentally change the administration's position. It also set the stage for the new interrogation procedures ungoverned by international law.
What Bush seemed to have in mind was applying his broad doctrine of pre-emption to interrogations: to get information that could help stop terrorist acts before they could be carried out. This was justified by what is known in counterterror circles as the "ticking time bomb" theory�the idea that when faced with an imminent threat by a terrorist, almost any method is justified, even torture.
With the legal groundwork laid, Bush began to act. First, he signed a secret order granting new powers to the CIA. According to knowledgeable sources, the president's directive authorized the CIA to set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness. Washington then negotiated novel "status of forces agreements" with foreign governments for the secret sites. These agreements gave immunity not merely to U.S. government personnel but also to private contractors. (Asked about the directive last week, a senior administration official said, "We cannot comment on purported intelligence activities.")
John Barry, Michael Hirsh and Michael Isikoff, Newsweek
*Emphasis added.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Man.....if only I could vote for Powell! A good guy serving a bunch of total fuckers.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
Jay here's an article from Reuters that related to that Newsweek article:
quote:US Pushes World Court Immunity Amid Iraq Scandal by Carol Giacomo �WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is pursuing its campaign to protect Americans from International Criminal Court jurisdiction even as it deals with the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal that may involve some of the very war crimes the court was created to handle. So far 89 countries have signed agreements with Washington promising that Americans accused of grave international offenses, including soldiers charged with war crimes, will be returned to U.S. jurisdiction so their cases can be decided by fellow Americans rather than international jurists. Other states may soon be added, officials said this week. "It's never been our argument that Americans are angels," one senior U.S. official told Reuters. "Our argument has been if Americans commit war crimes or human rights violations, we will handle them. And we will," he added. The permanent court was established in 2002 after ad hoc institutions dealt with war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But President Bush opposed it and insisted on so-called Article 98 agreements under which countries guaranteed not to surrender Americans to ICC prosecution. With military and civilians on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions in 100 countries, Washington must preserve its independence to defend its national interests worldwide, U.S. officials said. This position is coming under new scrutiny following publication of photographs showing U.S. army soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. The photos have fueled international outrage and severely damaged U.S. credibility. U.S. officials promise the guilty will be punished but rights experts worry prosecutions will focus on lower-ranking soldiers, not their superiors.
WAR CRIMES PROSECUTION "The political reality is that its going to be harder now to persuade democratically elected leaders to immunize the U.S. military from war crimes prosecution," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. While some states may be more reluctant to sign the bilateral immunity agreements, it is unclear they can avoid it, said Anthony Dworkin, London-based editor of the Crimes of War Project Web site . U.S. law prohibits military aid to countries that do not sign immunity accords and Washington has used this lever to exert "enormous pressure" on countries to sign, he said. Some legal experts disagree with the use of Article 98 agreements and question government insistence that U.S. military interrogation rules in Iraq and elsewhere comply with the Geneva Convention. Washington "is reluctant to test its interpretation" before international jurists, Dworkin said. "All of us are appalled by those prisoner abuse photos and we need to address them," a U.S. official said.
IMHO I have never seen an Administration so hellbent on promoting the view of "Might makes Right" in international affairs. Even Nixon would never have so flagrantly flouted international Law and display such contempt for the UN..
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
There's a William Howard Taft IV? I didn't even know there was a William Howard Taft II.
"Man.....if only I could vote for Powell! A good guy serving a bunch of total fuckers."
I almost have respect for the guy. Certainly more than any of the other big names in the administration. But I sure am confused by how complicit he's been in everything. Loyalty is really no excuse. If he thinks that what they're doing is wrong, he should say so, explicitly. If he doesn't do so, one can only assume he's okay with it all.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Really, that's a matter of how hard they're fucking him: If they tell him something (like there's WMD in Iraq) and he tells congress and reporters, then it looks like HE'S a liar to the world while Chaney and Bush kick back on the ranch.
His careeer military background makes it unlikely he'll get pissed and tell reporters "The president's a lying sack of crap!".
As funny as that would be to watch.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
That, and his total neutrality on almost every issue.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
One man's "neutrality" is another's "profesionalism". After all,he cant just make up policy as he goes: That's Bush's job!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"His careeer military background makes it unlikely he'll get pissed and tell reporters 'The president's a lying sack of crap!'."
Well, that's what I'm saying. If, at his point, he doesn't do that, he's pretty much just as guilty as the rest of them.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I think what we�re seeing now as regards Mr. Powell is an attempt to tidy up his reputation.
I read something once, I can�t remember where, about how Mr. Bush gets other people to fall on the sword for him. In essence, he gets other people to do things that may come back later to ruin a reputation, so he doesn�t have to.
Mr. Powell, long in the military, may or may not have been doing the �I�m a good soldier doing the bidding of the president� routine, but his reputation has been muddied by his association with, and doing the work of, the Bush administration.
It�s been said that if he truly believed he as being taken advantage of, or that he was knowingly doing things for the administration that were wrong, he should have resigned some time ago rather than just go along with the program.
Who knows.
[ May 17, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Why are your apostrophes and quotation marks big and curved like that?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I sometimes type my posts in WordPerfect...spell check is a good thing...and cut and paste them into a new post.
Posted by MirrorCaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i often write long winded responses about nothing in particular, then randomly pick a thread that's not about what i was talking about and paste them there.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Two more stories to add to the list.
And remember, this is all the fault of the liberal media.
quote:Brutal interrogation in Iraq Five detainees' deaths probed
Brutal interrogation techniques by U.S. military personnel are being investigated in connection with the deaths of at least five Iraqi prisoners in war-zone detention camps, Pentagon documents obtained by The Denver Post show.
The deaths include the killing in November of a high-level Iraqi general who was shoved into a sleeping bag and suffocated, according to the Pentagon report. The documents contradict an earlier Defense Department statement that said the general died "of natural causes" during an interrogation. Pentagon officials declined to comment on the new disclosure.
Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents.
Details of the death investigations, involving at least four different detention facilities including the Abu Ghraib prison, provide the clearest view yet into war-zone interrogation rooms, where intelligence soldiers and other personnel have sometimes used lethal tactics to try to coax secrets from prisoners, including choking off detainees' airways. Other abusive strategies involve sitting on prisoners or bending them into uncomfortable positions, records show.
"Torture is the only thing you can call this," said a Pentagon source with knowledge of internal investigations into prisoner abuses. "There is a lot about our country's interrogation techniques that is very troubling. These are violations of military law."
A military intelligence analyst who recently completed duty at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (news - web sites) said Wednesday that the 16-year-old son of a detainee there was abused by U.S. soldiers to break his father's resistance to interrogators.
The analyst said the teenager was stripped naked, thrown in the back of an open truck, driven around in the cold night air, splattered with mud and then presented to his father at Abu Ghraib, the prison at the center of the scandal over abuse of Iraqi detainees.
Upon seeing his frail and frightened son, the prisoner broke down and cried and told interrogators he would tell them whatever they wanted, the analyst said.
We're abusing 16-year-olds to get the father to talk??
We're not only torturing people we're interrogating, but we're killing people with torture that we're interrogating.
I'm not being flippant about this question, but what level do we have to get to till we say this is too much...till we say this is not what America is about?
What level to we get to till we realize that we've become too similar to what we're fighting against?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Y'know what, Jay? It doesn't matter if the military starts going through American city streets pulling Arabs, Muslims, and anyone who looks like a terrorist out and shooting them in the head or rounding them into "internment camps." Let's face it, our country has a population of SHEEP and they're unwilling to look at the lies and misdeeds of our Presidential administration. Why not? Maybe because as long as it's not THEM getting tortured, and not THEM getting shot, it's not THEIR business to worry about and they'd rather turn a deaf ear and murmer platitudes about "the lesser of two evils" and "Saddam did it worse". It's pathetic, but hopefully in six months enough concerned citizens will turn out to the voting booths to give Bush a very clear message: STOP RUINING OUR COUNTRY YOU SPOILED CHICKENHAWK FUCK.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: STOP RUINING OUR COUNTRY YOU SPOILED CHICKENHAWK FUCK
Now I know how to spoil my ballot paper in the June elections! (To avoid confusion, I should point out that I'm British and we have European and local elections. Of course, I may just do what 75% of the population does and ignore them)
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"What level to we get to till we realize that we've become too similar to what we're fighting against?"
I think an even more pertinent question is at what level the Iraqis are going to realize that, because when they do, you'll have pissed away every last bit of goodwill you might have had left with them and you'll have driven the country right back into the already wide-open arms of the fundies.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
If the War On Terror� is about ideals, are these the ideals we�re fighting for?
I think the answer to that is no.
That however, begs the next question, then why are we doing this? Why has the Bush Administration ok�ed torture as a mode of war?
For expediency? For security?
I�m not suggesting that we�ve become a Hitler. Nor am I suggesting that there is not a way to actively seek information from prisoners. But we�ve apparently killed people using methods of torture and we�ve apparently used a child as a pawn to break a father.
Are our ideals so easily tossed aside?
Apparently the petty people in the Bush Administration thinks so.
No, Mr. Bush did not personally sodomize any Iraqis with a chemical light, nor did Donald Rumsfeld asphyxiate unarmed prisoners, but, as the Gonzales memo shows, they fostered a culture and a climate where such events happened.
I think history will judge Mr. Bush harshly as a small man, who in a time of great challenge and change, struggled with problems that he did not grasp and did not care to understand.
Mr. Bush needs to stop acting like the new American Caesar go home to Texas.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Trouble is, none of all this will be remembered in 10-15 years, the only official bits pertaining to GWB's time in office will be: "Firmly led America on the road to justice and retribution in the war on terror, in the wake of Sept. 11th".
Although I recently found one interesting thing about american government that I approve of very much. On www.americanpresidents.org, I counted on the records of past presidents and terms to be totally "positive-only", that is never letting any "bad press" be included in any bio of any of the past presidents, not even Nixon, instead focusing on what good they'd accomplished.
But it turns out no one has toned it down, they included all the bad press and scandals of any president, even mere rumors like that of the one President who died of a stroke in some San Fransisco hotel, on the eve of that oil reserve embezzlement cockamamie.
So I have a faint hope that Official State History's view on GWB at least will try and be as accurate as possible, for better or worse. And that's a comforting thought.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim the Fanciful: Trouble is, none of all this will be remembered in 10-15 years, the only official bits pertaining to GWB's time in office will be: "Firmly led America on the road to justice and retribution in the war on terror, in the wake of Sept. 11th".
Somebody might have something to say about that.
quote:One for the history books
How will historians tell the tale of George W. Bush's presidency? Some history professors aren't waiting 50 years to weigh in. The History News Network conducted an informal poll of professional historians -- eight in 10 said Bush's tenure has been a "failure." Twelve percent said Bush's presidency is the worst in all of American history.
Here's how historians finished the sentence "Bush's presidency is the worst failure since ____" and how they came to their conclusion.
REAGAN: "I think the presidency of George W. Bush has been generally a failure and I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Ronald Reagan--because of the unconscionable military aggression and spending (especially the Iraq War), the damage done to the welfare of the poor while the corporate rich get richer, and the backwards religious fundamentalism permeating this administration. I strongly disliked and distrusted Reagan and think that George W. is even worse."
NIXON: "Actually, I think [Bush's] presidency may exceed the disaster that was Nixon. He has systematically lied to the American public about almost every policy that his administration promotes." Bush uses "doublespeak" to "dress up policies that condone or aid attacks by polluters and exploiters of the environment . . . with names like the 'Forest Restoration Act' (which encourages the cutting down of forests)."
HOOVER: "I would say GW is our worst president since Herbert Hoover. He is moving to bankrupt the federal government on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation, and he has brought America's reputation in the world to its lowest point in the entire history of the United States."
COOLIDGE: "I think his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for the environment, for international relations, for health care, and for working Americans. He's on a par with Coolidge!"
HARDING: "Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice."
McKINLEY: "Bush is perhaps the first president [since McKinley] to be entirely in the 'hip pocket' of big business, engage in major external conquest for reasons other than national security, AND be the puppet of his political handler. McKinley had Mark Hanna; Bush has Karl Rove. No wonder McKinley is Rove's favorite historical president (precedent?)."
GRANT: "He ranks with U.S. Grant as the worst. His oil interests and Cheney's corporate Haliburton contracts smack of the same corruption found under Grant."
quote:Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued
Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department.
The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners.
Re-read that and marvel.
And wonder.
Wonder if those who once yelled about 'the rule of law' and 'we're a nation of laws' at the top of their lungs at Bill Clinton will now say that it is wrong for Mr. Bush not to be bound by laws prohibiting torture.
Continue reading.
quote:The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued. Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or "superior orders," sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense: namely that the accused was acting pursuant to an order and, as the Nuremberg tribunal put it, no "moral choice was in fact possible."
Re-read that.
Continue reading:
quote:To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."
What they are arguing, in cased you missed it, is that the president is above the law in the name of The War On Terror�.
quote:Analysis: Normally, I would say that there is a fine line separating legal advice on how to stay within the law, and legal advice on how to avoid prosecution for breaking the law. DoD and DoJ lawyers often provide this first kind of sensitive legal advice to top decisionmakers in the Executive Branch (regardless of administration) who want to affirm the legality of their actions. Often times, memoranda on these topics can be seen both ways, depending on your perspective. I tend to think that the Yoo memorandum and Gonzales memorandum leaned more heavily towards providing advice about how to stay (barely) within the bounds of the law � not how to break the law and get away with it. But this DoD memo appears to be quite the opposite. It is, quite literally, a cookbook approach for illegal government conduct. This memorandum lays out the substantive law on torture and how to avoid it. It then goes on to discuss the procedural mechanisms with which torture is normally prosecuted, and techniques for avoiding those traps. I have not seen the text of the memo, but from this report, it does not appear that it advises American personnel to comply with international or domestic law. It merely tells them how to avoid it. That is dangerous legal advice.
*Emphasis added.
He also has a Constitutional problem with the memo as reported.
quote:Second, I'd like to counterpose one other key point from the memo against an excerpt from the U.S. Constitution. Compare the following line from the WSJ story:
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president." with this passage from Art. II, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution, regarding Presidential power:
Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The italicized passage is commonly called the "take care" clause by Constitutional Law scholars. It is not a permissive grant of power � it is an affirmative duty to enforce the laws and ensure that subordinate officers of the government do the same. It is the basis for Presidential command and control over the executive branch, and it has been invoked on many occasions to justify prosecution of law violation within the branch. President Truman tried to invoke this clause, in conjunction with his broader power as Commander-in-Chief, to justify the emergency seizure of steel mills during a labor stoppage during the Korean War. The Supreme Court sharply rebuked him, saying that he lacked the Constitutional authority to do so. (See Youngstown v. Sawyer, aka The Steel Seizure Case). I have read a fair amount on this particular area of Constitutional Law, and think the DoD memo gets it wrong. I am not aware of any legal authority which supports the proposition that the President has inherent power to set aside the laws when he deems it necessary. If anything, the opposite is true, according to Supreme Court precedent and treatises on Constitutional Law by scholars such as Joseph Story. Even in wartime, the President's authority to act is limited by the Constitution. There is no general Presidential power to nullify the laws of the United States, nor the laws of war which have been codified in treaties. Advice to the contrary is wrong, and any actions which follow this advice are probably unlawful as well.
quote:But put aside the technical analysis and ask yourself: Why has torture been such a hot topic since 9/11? The United States has fought many wars over the past half century, and in each of them our causes were just as important as today's, information from prisoners would have been just as helpful, and we were every bit as determined to win as we are now. But we still didn't authorize torture of prisoners. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Reagan � all of them knew it wasn't right, and the rest of us knew it as well.
So what's different this time? Only one thing: the name of the man in the White House. Under this administration, we seem to have lost the simple level of moral clarity that allowed our predecessors to tell right from wrong. It's time to reclaim it.
I wonder if Mr. Bush will pay any sort of real political price this.
He never seems to.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Fuck Bush. Fuck his cronies. Fuck the sheep who vote for him, and especially fuck those who think he's "the lesser of two evils." All those people who moan, "Oh, Gore never could've handled the War on Terra'..." Yeah? I bet he could have. I bet he would have made progress, and I bet he wouldn't have to resort to barbaric practices like torture to wage it.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Hear Hear! What's more, fuck foulmouth people in their mouth, so that there is more fuck going in than coming out! ^__^
Also, I'd vote for any presidential candidate that had the guts to appear on "Futurama".
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Much is being said about it in the blogosphere, but I'd just like to harp on two things.
(1) The article reports that Justice Department lawyers reviewed this opinion on specific interrogation practices in or before April of 2003. Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement told the Supreme Court that the Executive did not engage in "mild torture" or "things of that nature" in April of 2004. We now have further evidence that this was a false representation by DOJ. The memorandum described in the WSJ article carefully parses what does and does not amount to "torture" technically defined -- so when the Justice Department told the Court that DOJ does not engage in "mild" torture "or things of that nature," this was at the very least grossly misleading, and more likely recklessly false. (I say "recklessly" because there's still no reason to think that Clement himself actually knew what he was saying was false. But if he didn't know, he certainly could and should have known.)
(2) How any constitutional lawyer could maintain that the President had the authority to authorize these sorts of practices that (even in the eyes of the administration's own lawyers) skate up to the edge of torture (and in my eyes go far beyond the edge) without some sort of congressional authorization is quite simply beyond me.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Two words: Decency Died With Delaney.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
That's four words.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I guess the "two words" part only referred to two of them.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Oh, deja vu. . .
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Oh no! I miscalculated how many words I was gonna use! What an ill turn of events! Jay, you truly are the obscure! Obscurely perceptive, that is!
!! Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Molly Ivins reminds me that when the United States puts out its report on human rights, "we will be a laughingstock."
Here is what the State Department says what we're supposed to be about:
quote:Because the promotion of human rights is an important national interest, the United States seeks to:
Hold governments accountable to their obligations under universal human rights norms and international human rights instruments;
Promote greater respect for human rights, including freedom from torture, freedom of expression, press freedom, women's rights, children's rights, and the protection of minorities;
Promote the rule of law, seek accountability, and change cultures of impunity;
Assist efforts to reform and strengthen the institutional capacity of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Commission on Human Rights; and
Coordinate human rights activities with important allies, including the EU, and regional organizations.
Ask yourself how that matches up to what Mr. Bush and his administration is doing.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
I'll tell you one thing. The cursed "Landmark Education" is pulling out of Sweden! Almost everyone's on to them and their ways here! Your move. Make us proud.
[ June 11, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Nim the Fanciful ]
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Jeff Snayworthy: "Fuck the sheep who vote for him"
Isn't that Lee's area, nowadays?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
What can I say? Lacking any source for easily-assembled Swedish modular furniture, we have to make our own entertainment.
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
And what's the deal with the veneers? I mean, dude, totally make the piece out of wood. None of this poplar covered in birch bullshit.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Good cheap lighting though. Though why they make Japanese looking lanterns is beyond me.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Ah, a Lee-Magnus-Jason Conglomerate? OK, you'll get yours, just you wait.
And rice lamps are nice and harmonious. But campy red-glass lamps are in style too, now. A bit 1968.
Ultra beefstew: And here I thought poplar and birch were forms of wood! I gotta go tell my friends, they'll be up in pants over it.
I'll have you know this veneer that I'm writing on rite now has saved my ass a bunch of times.
T-minus 53 days. Seal pup.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The lack of Ikea remains a problem. Just finding a simple uplighter proved difficult. Fortunately we've located a newish retail park that has a wide enough range of household goods shops. All we need now are bedside tables. . .
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I await the 4th of August with baited breath. To think, I will get a glimpse at the mecca of turnip accoutrements! Not since my parents left me to play in a Swedish meatball pool in 1991 have I been so excited.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
You're going to IKEA on August 4th? Or to Sweden?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
There's a difference?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Not as many Americans in Sweden, I'd wager. Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Not as many Tasteless Americans who buy prefabricated interior design from a single store without a glimmer of individuality, or if there is, it has long since been raped by the idea of convenient, mass-produced plastic knick-nacky shit.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Or, we could just say "Americans" and save a lot of time and effort.
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Pizza and a lack of interior design taste have made this generation fat and selfish.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Oh great, now the whiskey prophet lets out about our generation's pitfalls again. When will this stop???
If only someone could take a car and drive up to that log cabin on the mountain in rural Canada, out where the buses don't run, and get him some detox. He's probably rigged the door.
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I'm not going to have some fat and selfish almost-Danish spinster on cheap eurocrystalmeth, made with horrible synth pop and sunglasses, threaten me with detox. My mountain cabin was previously owned by TV's Michael J. Fox also known Alex P. Keaton on TV's Family Ties starring Michael Gross, who indeed was.
Then he moved, and I moved in.
It's a historical landmark, so to answer your question, no it's not rigged.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Hey, now. My taste in interior design is as individual as One Eye in Blind City.
BECAUSE I AM FAT.
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
o ya i frgt ur fat
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
ur jsut jealus cuz ur nota s big as me lol
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
ya
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Wackiness.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Feel the love.
You could go the minimalist design route I've somehow adopted.
If it's not aquired from work or in some way electronic, it's just omitted.
Except the bed: that's the only thing in my room and it's biiig and springy and where the magic happens -although not nearly as often as I'd like.....mabye it's the Star Trek models?
Hmmm....how can one make Trek models sexy? Soundeffect landed himself a keeper and god knows he's worse than me with the model thing.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Hmmm....how can one make Trek models sexy?"
Dress them in lacy underthings?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmmmm lace aztec patterns.....hmmmmm....
I could make them vibrate, but there'd be no competing with 1:1400th scale Galaxy class nacelles.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Ultra Magpie: Selfish? wtf?
And I could've let the spinster-remarque slide, but "almost-danish"? Hoo boy, that's like calling a canadian almost-Texas, culturally. The die is cast, Alea Jacta Fuck.
Now, Mrs. N�ssbaum, you are going to have to learn the hard way how IKEA could spruce up thy log cabin.
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I'll cut some British Columbian ceder and make my own handmade, Canadian furniture up in this house, and the Danes have pastries I enjoy, so you should wear your blue and yellow trousers with your cellphone pockets and totally just appreciate that Hamlet was set there, and nothing good has ever been centered 'round Sweden, save Tommy Salo ducking under a nice round hockey puck or Dolph Lundgren staining our movies red with the blood of innocents.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"it's biiig and springy and where the magic happens..."
Moses would envy the opening this has presented.
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
The blatantly obvious one that demeans all who attempt an entry?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, what can I say.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Ultra Mercantile: "and nothing good has ever been centered 'round Sweden, save Tommy Salo ducking under a nice round hockey puck or Dolph Lundgren staining our movies red with the blood of innocents."
Oh no. My national pride is challenged by a PTA-chairwoman. I must defend my country in every way possible and play to her fancy. Then I must remember to go down to the post office and cancel opposite-world.
I hear they were planning on destroying that prison where the torture was going on. Any news on that? I suppose the White House wants to put this thing behind them as fast as possible, I guess I don't blaim them. I haven't heard a thing about the affair for some time now. These new Al Qaeda murders on americans in Saudi-Arabia is getting all the attention.
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
You started it.
Weird little weener.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Chase Ultra Magnus:
quote: and nothing good has ever been centered 'round Sweden, save Tommy Salo ducking under a nice round hockey puck or Dolph Lundgren staining our movies red with the blood of innocents.
They have cool turretless tanks.
And wasn't one of the Golden Girls from there?
Marian
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Noisy veneer-cricket.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"And wasn't one of the Golden Girls from there?"
Yes.
Blanche was from the hot deep moisty damp South.
Dorothy was from Sicily (well, her mother was, anyway).
Rose was from St. Olaf in Minnesota which was founded by Scandinavians (and since her last name was Lindstrom and her mother's maiden one was Gerkelnerbigenhoffstettlerfrau, they were probably Swedish).
Why do I know these things?
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
"Gerkelnerbigenhoffstettlerfrau"
That is so totally a german stereotype name.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It was a stereotype character.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "And wasn't one of the Golden Girls from there?"
Yes.
Blanche was from the hot deep moisty damp South.
Dorothy was from Sicily (well, her mother was, anyway).
Rose was from St. Olaf in Minnesota which was founded by Scandinavians (and since her last name was Lindstrom and her mother's maiden one was Gerkelnerbigenhoffstettlerfrau, they were probably Swedish).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
