NationStates Jolt Archive

GIs 'Rode' Elderly Iraqi Woman 'Like a Donkey'
LONDON, Wed, May 05, 2004 - U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.

The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true.

During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.

Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with AlJazeera that she "didn't want to harp on the case because as far as I'm concerned it's been resolved."
.

What, exactly, was the point of cutting and pasting this?

DP

What, exactly, was the point of cutting and pasting this?

Trolling! :P

Ah, well, far be it from me to stand in the way. :D

I haven't been on as of late, and haven't voiced my opinions about this scandal. But I'm extremely disgusted with the soldiers. In a fair world, however, our boys wouldn't recieve a court martial. They'd be tortured, and burned alive. I really am disgusted by this behavior. And whoever's responsible must be punished, even if we have to go to the Pentagon itself. However, I'm doubtful that no more than a few rogue squadrons, and not the entire brigade at Abu Ghiarb, engaged in such revolting acts.

I haven't been on as of late, and haven't voiced my opinions about this scandal. But I'm extremely disgusted with the soldiers. In a fair world, however, our boys wouldn't recieve a court martial. They'd be tortured, and burned alive.

Er, yes, but how do two wrongs make a right or, for that matter, justice?

I haven't been on as of late, and haven't voiced my opinions about this scandal. But I'm extremely disgusted with the soldiers. In a fair world, however, our boys wouldn't recieve a court martial. They'd be tortured, and burned alive.

Er, yes, but how do two wrongs make a right or, for that matter, justice?
Because they've lost the right to live, while at the same time, committed a sort of treason. Also, death penalties work better in the military, as it works real well setting examples. It makes soldiers fear their superiors more, and as Fredrick the Great said, a soldier must fear his officer more than his enemy. And as a popular drill sergeant maxim goes, "We are here to defend democracy, not practice it."

Now don't get me wrong, I support this war all the way. Yet what these soldiers did was commit treasonous acts by humiliating us in front of the whole world, while completely contradicting US military and foreign policy.

Do we have a count of how many personnel were involved? If it's too widespread, then a look must be given to the Training and Recruitment policies- I know the basic-training discipline levels have been relaxed significantly in the last 20 years, and the behaviour being shown is not congruent to a disciplined, trained, military.

I mean, my god, they're acting like arabs!

I haven't been on as of late, and haven't voiced my opinions about this scandal. But I'm extremely disgusted with the soldiers. In a fair world, however, our boys wouldn't recieve a court martial. They'd be tortured, and burned alive.

Er, yes, but how do two wrongs make a right or, for that matter, justice?
Because they've lost the right to live, while at the same time, committed a sort of treason. Also, death penalties work better in the military, as it works real well setting examples. It makes soldiers fear their superiors more, and as Fredrick the Great said, a soldier must fear his officer more than his enemy. And as a popular drill sergeant maxim goes, "We are here to defend democracy, not practice it."

Now don't get me wrong, I support this war all the way. Yet what these soldiers did was commit treasonous acts by humiliating us in front of the whole world, while completely contradicting US military and foreign policy.

All right, but how far up the chain of command should this "discipline" go? I mean, as soldiers are trained to take orders from their leaders, are the leaders of these particular soldiers not also guilty of the crime for they allowed it to happen? Then, to extend that, would the leaders of the leaders, as they're all in the military, also be guilty of the crime as they did not make their subordinates better leaders? Using this logic, one could eventually say we should be torturing and burning Bush.

I'll admit that I do not understand the military mind. I do not see why anyone would choose to live in that climate of induced fear. I respect the decisions of those who do, but can not see how committing the same actions does anything other than further reduce our moral stance in the region.

I almost have to wonder there is any significance to the fact that a fundamentalist Christian sent ponyplaying gerontophiles to fight in a hopeless war. I don't think it's because he favors them.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

...

I haven't been on as of late, and haven't voiced my opinions about this scandal. But I'm extremely disgusted with the soldiers. In a fair world, however, our boys wouldn't recieve a court martial. They'd be tortured, and burned alive.

Er, yes, but how do two wrongs make a right or, for that matter, justice?
Because they've lost the right to live, while at the same time, committed a sort of treason. Also, death penalties work better in the military, as it works real well setting examples. It makes soldiers fear their superiors more, and as Fredrick the Great said, a soldier must fear his officer more than his enemy. And as a popular drill sergeant maxim goes, "We are here to defend democracy, not practice it."

Now don't get me wrong, I support this war all the way. Yet what these soldiers did was commit treasonous acts by humiliating us in front of the whole world, while completely contradicting US military and foreign policy.

Exactly how does one lose his right to live? Who decides? A bunch of tv-addicted kids with guns?

I haven't been on as of late, and haven't voiced my opinions about this scandal. But I'm extremely disgusted with the soldiers. In a fair world, however, our boys wouldn't recieve a court martial. They'd be tortured, and burned alive.

Er, yes, but how do two wrongs make a right or, for that matter, justice?
Because they've lost the right to live, while at the same time, committed a sort of treason. Also, death penalties work better in the military, as it works real well setting examples. It makes soldiers fear their superiors more, and as Fredrick the Great said, a soldier must fear his officer more than his enemy. And as a popular drill sergeant maxim goes, "We are here to defend democracy, not practice it."

Now don't get me wrong, I support this war all the way. Yet what these soldiers did was commit treasonous acts by humiliating us in front of the whole world, while completely contradicting US military and foreign policy.

All right, but how far up the chain of command should this "discipline" go? I mean, as soldiers are trained to take orders from their leaders, are the leaders of these particular soldiers not also guilty of the crime for they allowed it to happen? Then, to extend that, would the leaders of the leaders, as they're all in the military, also be guilty of the crime as they did not make their subordinates better leaders? Using this logic, one could eventually say we should be torturing and burning Bush.

I'll admit that I do not understand the military mind. I do not see why anyone would choose to live in that climate of induced fear. I respect the decisions of those who do, but can not see how committing the same actions does anything other than further reduce our moral stance in the region.

I think the higher-ups have done more than "allow" or "ignore" this behavior. I think, and some of the soldiers are saying this, that they designed it, encouraged it, and rewarded it. This is particularly true for military intelligence, the CIA, and the "contractors".

I haven't been on as of late, and haven't voiced my opinions about this scandal. But I'm extremely disgusted with the soldiers. In a fair world, however, our boys wouldn't recieve a court martial. They'd be tortured, and burned alive.

Er, yes, but how do two wrongs make a right or, for that matter, justice?
Because they've lost the right to live, while at the same time, committed a sort of treason. Also, death penalties work better in the military, as it works real well setting examples. It makes soldiers fear their superiors more, and as Fredrick the Great said, a soldier must fear his officer more than his enemy. And as a popular drill sergeant maxim goes, "We are here to defend democracy, not practice it."

Now don't get me wrong, I support this war all the way. Yet what these soldiers did was commit treasonous acts by humiliating us in front of the whole world, while completely contradicting US military and foreign policy.

All right, but how far up the chain of command should this "discipline" go? I mean, as soldiers are trained to take orders from their leaders, are the leaders of these particular soldiers not also guilty of the crime for they allowed it to happen? Then, to extend that, would the leaders of the leaders, as they're all in the military, also be guilty of the crime as they did not make their subordinates better leaders? Using this logic, one could eventually say we should be torturing and burning Bush.

I'll admit that I do not understand the military mind. I do not see why anyone would choose to live in that climate of induced fear. I respect the decisions of those who do, but can not see how committing the same actions does anything other than further reduce our moral stance in the region.

I think the higher-ups have done more than "allow" or "ignore" this behavior. I think, and some of the soldiers are saying this, that they designed it, encouraged it, and rewarded it. This is particularly true for military intelligence, the CIA, and the "contractors".

So should they be held to the same standard of "justice" that Euclid was endorsing for those who actually, physically committed the crimes?

I haven't been on as of late, and haven't voiced my opinions about this scandal. But I'm extremely disgusted with the soldiers. In a fair world, however, our boys wouldn't recieve a court martial. They'd be tortured, and burned alive.

Er, yes, but how do two wrongs make a right or, for that matter, justice?
Because they've lost the right to live, while at the same time, committed a sort of treason. Also, death penalties work better in the military, as it works real well setting examples. It makes soldiers fear their superiors more, and as Fredrick the Great said, a soldier must fear his officer more than his enemy. And as a popular drill sergeant maxim goes, "We are here to defend democracy, not practice it."

Now don't get me wrong, I support this war all the way. Yet what these soldiers did was commit treasonous acts by humiliating us in front of the whole world, while completely contradicting US military and foreign policy.

All right, but how far up the chain of command should this "discipline" go? I mean, as soldiers are trained to take orders from their leaders, are the leaders of these particular soldiers not also guilty of the crime for they allowed it to happen? Then, to extend that, would the leaders of the leaders, as they're all in the military, also be guilty of the crime as they did not make their subordinates better leaders? Using this logic, one could eventually say we should be torturing and burning Bush.

I'll admit that I do not understand the military mind. I do not see why anyone would choose to live in that climate of induced fear. I respect the decisions of those who do, but can not see how committing the same actions does anything other than further reduce our moral stance in the region.

I think the higher-ups have done more than "allow" or "ignore" this behavior. I think, and some of the soldiers are saying this, that they designed it, encouraged it, and rewarded it. This is particularly true for military intelligence, the CIA, and the "contractors".

So should they be held to the same standard of "justice" that Euclid was endorsing for those who actually, physically committed the crimes?
If this is true, yes. They should be tortured. However, I'm doubtful that it went far up the chain of command. Otherwise, this would've been stopped much earlier. And even if it did go high up the chain, why is it that, only now, they are court-martialing these pricks?

LOL :lol: