NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, yes, *another* Iraq thread. However, this isn't about the justifications or purpose of the war. This is about the responsibility of the people who waged it, and are continuing to fight there.

The recent revelations concerning abuse of prisoners by some elements of the American military calls into question who is responsible for making sure that those elements behave as they are meant to. Donald Rumsfeld recently gave a press conference concerning the abuse, and claims the military has known about similar reports, in Iraq and Afghanistan, since January. However, at the press conference (of which I listened to a part of), he was evasive, and refused to even say whether the prisoners were "abused" or "tortured", quibbling over the precise wording used in a question. He did not, I might note, answer the question after quibbling.

Reports from female soldiers who have been sexually assaulted in Iraq have been overlooked, and the women left in the units with the men who assaulted them (NPR, The World radio broadcast, Monday May 3rd, 2004).
A photo of a pair of Iraqi boys accompanied by an American soldier, with one boy holding up a sign reading, "Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad th(en) he Knocked up my sister!" has also recently come to light (can be seen here (http://karmann.goonsquad.net/img/boudreauxs.jpg)). The military is "looking into" the photo, and the possibility exists that it has been photoshopped. I include it for the possibility that it was not.

This video (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/dontloot.wmv), which I found on eBaum, of a tank unit punishing Iraqi looters, drives the point home, I feel, in a very tangible way.

Who is responsible for the behavior of American soldiers abroad? Who is responsible for making sure American soldiers do not abuse prisoners, crush civillian vehicles arbitarily, and rape other soldiers?

And they get insulted when they are called cowboys... :roll:

No matter what kind of things the enemy are doing..the US has always made at least.....a pretense of conducting themselves in a manner that remains aboveboard.

This means that although for example...the Japanese soldiers were abusing the POW's in WWII, the Americans did not...

In reality...these things happen.
Although, usually these offenders are reprimanded.

Its wrong...and the guilty will be punished.

Are the guilty being punished, though? Since January, the military has begun six investigations into allegations of abuse or prisoners by American soldiers, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The military failed to inform Congress of the investigations, even when Donald Rumsfeld had a meeting with Congress concerning the progress of a war, the day the pictures of the abuse were shown on national television.

I look at everything I've heard or seen from Donald Rumsfeld in the matter, and I see only evasion.

Actually, about the fact that Americans WEREN'T abusing prisoners during WWII, that isn't true. I knew a German man who was detained well after the war was over... many others were tortured as well.... The Americans and English were just as bad as the Germans, but not as bad as the Japanese, I'll give you that much.

And they get insulted when they are called cowboys... :roll:

I love being a cowboy! 8)

Actually, about the fact that Americans WEREN'T abusing prisoners during WWII, that isn't true. I knew a German man who was detained well after the war was over... many others were tortured as well.... The Americans and English were just as bad as the Germans, but not as bad as the Japanese, I'll give you that much.

Actually I've read that the Germans and the English treated each other quite well...In fact they were so nice to each other that it was weird, almost as if they had been playing football... Not shooting at each other.

Are the guilty being punished, though? Since January, the military has begun six investigations into allegations of abuse or prisoners by American soldiers, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The military failed to inform Congress of the investigations, even when Donald Rumsfeld had a meeting with Congress concerning the progress of a war, the day the pictures of the abuse were shown on national television.

I look at everything I've heard or seen from Donald Rumsfeld in the matter, and I see only evasion.

Well thats the thing..Rummy and Bush wont freely admit that torture has taken place, but you can bet that heads are going to roll for this.

Think of it....If you were Bush..and your soldiers were doing this kind od thing..who looks bad?

Thats right....you do.

This is an election year.....Bush will find a scapegoat..and make a public display of putting them on trial.

Atrocities will always happen during wa,r indeed, war, by its very nature, is an atroctiy.

It however, speaks valumes the messaures that Americans take in Iraq.

Suppose another group of protesters gather somewhere, itd be easier to just have an F-15 drop an FAE, or 1000 pounder on them, but they wont

YES, Americans HAVE abused prisinors in the past, in ww2, Korea Vietnam, Desert Storm, and yes even now

But, can England say they didnt?
Can Vietnam say they didnt?
Can Germany, Austria, Korea, China, Iraq, Japan, and any otehr antion Allied, Axis or whatever you wanna call em, say that same?

And, in most of those antions, the people who abused those prisioners were broguht to justice, just as these sick Americans soliders, Intelligence Operatives, and Civillian Contractors, will be. Will every solider and Officer be found, NO, did we catch evey SS officer in WW2 or every Viet Cong in Vietnam, NO!

Note: I am an American AND a military civillian contractor, I had the oppurtunity to go to Iraq, sadly, i passed it up.

Though, on a diffrent topic, what the hell were Civis doing handoling prisioners?

Where are Sadaam's apologies!? Why didn't he ask Uday to resign?!?! :roll:

Actually, about the fact that Americans WEREN'T abusing prisoners during WWII, that isn't true. I knew a German man who was detained well after the war was over... many others were tortured as well.... The Americans and English were just as bad as the Germans, but not as bad as the Japanese, I'll give you that much.

Actually I've read that the Germans and the English treated each other quite well...In fact they were so nice to each other that it was weird, almost as if they had been playing football... Not shooting at each other.

I don't doubt that. I'm referring mainly to the American treatment of POWs...

So, this is what liberation looks like.. what's that old saying?

"With friends like this, who needs enemies" Indeed!

Well, ok, lets go down this baby..

WMD - No
Ties to Al Qadea - No
Liberation of Iraq - No

I wonder what the new story is going to be.. it changes often enough.

I also think any one trying to make the lame ass excuse of "well at least we weren't as bad as these guys.. or Saddam" is really stretching when it's come down to all you got is "well we're not as bad as Saddam was" If that's what it's come down to.. I have no words.. :shock:

"Let's go kill everyone because that's what Saddam did, and he didn't stop until we stopped him."

Where are Sadaam's apologies!? Why didn't he ask Uday to resign?!?! :roll:

Does his abuse somehow make anyone else's O.K.?
Or is torture and abuse always wrong, no matter who is doing it?

No matter what kind of things the enemy are doing..the US has always made at least.....a pretense of conducting themselves in a manner that remains aboveboard.

This means that although for example...the Japanese soldiers were abusing the POW's in WWII, the Americans did not...

In reality...these things happen.
Although, usually these offenders are reprimanded.

Its wrong...and the guilty will be punished.

Errr you'll find that the Americans were executing Japanese prisoners of war...

Who is responsible for the conduct of the US military in Iraq? The US military. The US military has and is conducting/ed investigations. Charges are and have been brought. Punishment will be handed down. Was it made public? No. Militaries, US and all militaries, are not in the habit of making internal matters public. That is a neccessity. Abuse and torture are horrible. But it is so much worse when Americans are guilty? Why?

Not worse when it's our troops, just hypocritical. You'd think the administration would be VERY concerned about this sort of thing.

To my knowledge the administration hasn't tortured or abused anyone. Like Bush or not, he and his administration are not directly responsible for this.The abuse of prisoners in Iraq is a breakdown in military proceedure and discipline, not a failure of intentions or strategy. The administration seems to be a term that is replacing the boogy-man.

I never once said the administration was responsible for the abuse of the prisoners. However, instead of being forthright with the country and with our leaders, they've chosen to try to hide it behind smoke and mirrors, and pick apart the word "torture".

I don't want to know each and every detail of what happens to those being investigated or those under indictment. It would be nice if the military and the administration would come forward, admit it happened. Hell, they could even apologize and promise never to let it happen again.

Instead, and I quote:

"This is an isolated incident. Well, hopefully. We hope it's an isolated incident."- Rumsfeld, at the press conference.

To my knowledge the administration hasn't tortured or abused anyone. Like Bush or not, he and his administration are not directly responsible for this.The abuse of prisoners in Iraq is a breakdown in military proceedure and discipline, not a failure of intentions or strategy. The administration seems to be a term that is replacing the boogy-man.

Yes they are! Or what did you think the army was going to think when Rumsfeld was going around saying "The Geneva Conventions may not apply" Bullsh*t of course they apply.. also for all those who think the USA never declared war on Iraq, seriously need to read up on the Hague Conventions as well.. You declare war on another country if you either A)make a declaration of war or B)Give an ultimatum

Call me crazy, but that sure sounded like an ultimatum that Bush gave to Saddam.. don't ya think?

You can't just keep rationalizing the law away.. Where the hell is the accountability? Can you imagine if this had been Clinton? The Republicans would of drawn up articles of impeachment already! Such a double standard!

I knew you'd see this eventually Steph. Yes, I'm feeling fine. Really. No, I'm not an impersonator.

To my knowledge the administration hasn't tortured or abused anyone. Like Bush or not, he and his administration are not directly responsible for this.The abuse of prisoners in Iraq is a breakdown in military proceedure and discipline, not a failure of intentions or strategy. The administration seems to be a term that is replacing the boogy-man.

Yes they are! Or what did you think the army was going to think when Rumsfeld was going around saying "The Geneva Conventions may not apply" Bullsh*t of course they apply.. also for all those who think the USA never declared war on Iraq, seriously need to read up on the Hague Conventions as well.. You declare war on another country if you either A)make a declaration of war or B)Give an ultimatum

Call me crazy, but that sure sounded like an ultimatum that Bush gave to Saddam.. don't ya think?

You can't just keep rationalizing the law away.. Where the hell is the accountability? Can you imagine if this had been Clinton? The Republicans would of drawn up articles of impeachment already! Such a double standard!"Yes, they are!" what? I'm not following what you meant that they are.

I knew you'd see this eventually Steph. Yes, I'm feeling fine. Really. No, I'm not an impersonator.

*smile*

Hey, people are waking up to this stuff.. it's just been too much, it adds up. There comes a time you have to say.. hey! Just who is in charge.. and if not the people who claim to be.. then move the f*ck over!

Yes, they ARE responsible, as the leaders of the American military. The actions of those under their command are their responsibility.

Steph: I'm not a *Republican* anyway. Conservative, yes, as Americans judge things, but not affiliated with the Republican party. I would have voted for Bush in 200, but only because I couldn't stand the idea of Der Fuhrer Lieberman getting into power. Video games are a big part of my recreational time, and I've never seen anyone else with such a hard-on for OMG BANNING ALL VIDEO GAEMS.

To my knowledge the administration hasn't tortured or abused anyone. Like Bush or not, he and his administration are not directly responsible for this.The abuse of prisoners in Iraq is a breakdown in military proceedure and discipline, not a failure of intentions or strategy. The administration seems to be a term that is replacing the boogy-man.

Yes they are! Or what did you think the army was going to think when Rumsfeld was going around saying "The Geneva Conventions may not apply" Bullsh*t of course they apply.. also for all those who think the USA never declared war on Iraq, seriously need to read up on the Hague Conventions as well.. You declare war on another country if you either A)make a declaration of war or B)Give an ultimatum

Call me crazy, but that sure sounded like an ultimatum that Bush gave to Saddam.. don't ya think?

You can't just keep rationalizing the law away.. Where the hell is the accountability? Can you imagine if this had been Clinton? The Republicans would of drawn up articles of impeachment already! Such a double standard!"Yes, they are!" what? I'm not following what you meant that they are.

The buck stops with the administration, and even more so with the commander and chief. That has been this administrations problem all along.. they refuse to admit they've made any mistakes. Where the hell is the accountability here? "I'm sorry"? WTF is that? Nothing and it's exactly how it's going to be seen around the world. Heads must roll for this!

How does demanding punishiment before any trials or the conclusion of investigations make things better. Due process must be followed. Isn't that at the heart of this entire issue? I'm sorry is a first step. If, it was the begining and the end of the matter, I could understand your position. I think, this administrations problem, in the eyes of the rest of the world, is the same as every other in re4cnt memory, they are American.

How does demanding punishiment before any trials or the conclusion of investigations make things better. Due process must be followed. Isn't that at the heart of this entire issue? I'm sorry is a first step. If, it was the begining and the end of the matter, I could understand your position. I think, this administrations problem, in the eyes of the rest of the world, is the same as every other in re4cnt memory, they are American.

How about we re-evaluate the policies which permitted this sort of this to happen in the first place? None of the guards accused of abusing prisoners had any training on how to be guards, or any experience. They were handed the job because they weren't doing anything else, were wearing American uniforms, and carrying guns. Would you like to be placed into the custody of bored people trained to kill instead of to subdue?

How does demanding punishiment before any trials or the conclusion of investigations make things better. Due process must be followed. Isn't that at the heart of this entire issue? I'm sorry is a first step. If, it was the begining and the end of the matter, I could understand your position. I think, this administrations problem, in the eyes of the rest of the world, is the same as every other in re4cnt memory, they are American.

Because... there is a difference between criminal accountability and political accountability.. Rumsfeld has said more then once that the Geneva Conventions may not apply.. he created the climate with his messed up policy that may have lent people to believe that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply. He is accountable for this! This isn't exactly Rumsfeld's first mess up either!

How does demanding punishiment before any trials or the conclusion of investigations make things better. Due process must be followed. Isn't that at the heart of this entire issue? I'm sorry is a first step. If, it was the begining and the end of the matter, I could understand your position. I think, this administrations problem, in the eyes of the rest of the world, is the same as every other in re4cnt memory, they are American.

How about we re-evaluate the policies with permitted this sort of this to happen in the first place? None of the guards accused of abusing prisoners had any training on how to be guards, or any experience. They were handed the job because they weren't doing anything else, were wearing American uniforms, and carrying guns. Would you like to be placed into the custody of bored people trained to kill instead of to subdue? Training? Really? What amount of training is going to change a person who is capable of that sort of thing into one that isn't? The people who have done these things aren't undertrained, they are sick and sickening. It isn't flawwed training, but flawwed poeple.

How does demanding punishiment before any trials or the conclusion of investigations make things better. Due process must be followed. Isn't that at the heart of this entire issue? I'm sorry is a first step. If, it was the begining and the end of the matter, I could understand your position. I think, this administrations problem, in the eyes of the rest of the world, is the same as every other in re4cnt memory, they are American.

Because... there is a difference between criminal accountability and political accountability.. Rumsfeld has said more then once that the Geneva Conventions may not apply.. he created the climate with his messed up policy that may have lent people to believe that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply. He is accountable for this! This isn't exactly Rumsfeld's first mess up either!This may be one of the many things we differ on, I've never liked the practice of making a political scape-goat to deflect blame or avoid the matter. Rumsfeld is a bad person, in my opinion, but he isn't directly responsible for this. If there is some wrongdoing that Rumsfeld has done, by all means, I hope he is not only dissmissed but charged with crimes for them.

How does demanding punishiment before any trials or the conclusion of investigations make things better. Due process must be followed. Isn't that at the heart of this entire issue? I'm sorry is a first step. If, it was the begining and the end of the matter, I could understand your position. I think, this administrations problem, in the eyes of the rest of the world, is the same as every other in re4cnt memory, they are American.

How about we re-evaluate the policies with permitted this sort of this to happen in the first place? None of the guards accused of abusing prisoners had any training on how to be guards, or any experience. They were handed the job because they weren't doing anything else, were wearing American uniforms, and carrying guns. Would you like to be placed into the custody of bored people trained to kill instead of to subdue? Training? Really? What amount of training is going to change a person who is capable of that sort of thing into one that isn't? The people who have done these things aren't undertrained, they are sick and sickening. It isn't flawwed training, but flawwed poeple.

Oh, I don't know, maybe teaching troops you expect to send into a battle the rules of war according to the Hague and Geneva Conventions.. I think that might be a good part of training, no? Apparently none of these people were taught any of it!.. That's a systemic problem.

How does demanding punishiment before any trials or the conclusion of investigations make things better. Due process must be followed. Isn't that at the heart of this entire issue? I'm sorry is a first step. If, it was the begining and the end of the matter, I could understand your position. I think, this administrations problem, in the eyes of the rest of the world, is the same as every other in re4cnt memory, they are American.

How about we re-evaluate the policies which permitted this sort of this to happen in the first place? None of the guards accused of abusing prisoners had any training on how to be guards, or any experience. They were handed the job because they weren't doing anything else, were wearing American uniforms, and carrying guns. Would you like to be placed into the custody of bored people trained to kill instead of to subdue?
Even though I'm no fan of the US military they have a more rounded training than that.
I know the UK troops have a varied training program and assume the same is true for US forces.
They may not have been the best suited to this detail but comon decency if nothing else should have stopped those involved.
I agree with who ever said that sorry is the start and that we should wait for the military to deal with it as thier rules set out. If at the end we still have an issue then that is when politicians should be involved.

Training? Really? What amount of training is going to change a person who is capable of that sort of thing into one that isn't? The people who have done these things aren't undertrained, they are sick and sickening. It isn't flawwed training, but flawwed poeple.

Training makes all the difference. Studies have been out for *decades* indicating that untrained prison guards become abusers. They don't know how to handle the situation they're in, and lash out at the prisoners.

A study performed by Stanford in the '70s came up with nearly the exact same results as the Iraq abuse cases, forces people to engage in simulated sexual activities for instance. They included only the most upstanding volunteers they could weed out: those without histories of crime or drugs, endorsed by their peers. It took a few days before the volunteers began abusing the prisoners, at night, when they thought they weren't being watched.

Untrained prison personnel turns a prison into a truly grim place.


Even though I'm no fan of the US military they have a more rounded training than that.
I know the UK troops have a varied training program and assume the same is true for US forces.
They may not have been the best suited to this detail but comon decency if nothing else should have stopped those involved.
I agree with who ever said that sorry is the start and that we should wait for the military to deal with it as thier rules set out. If at the end we still have an issue then that is when politicians should be involved.

You'd think it would stop them, wouldn't you? I thought so too.

How does demanding punishiment before any trials or the conclusion of investigations make things better. Due process must be followed. Isn't that at the heart of this entire issue? I'm sorry is a first step. If, it was the begining and the end of the matter, I could understand your position. I think, this administrations problem, in the eyes of the rest of the world, is the same as every other in re4cnt memory, they are American.

How about we re-evaluate the policies with permitted this sort of this to happen in the first place? None of the guards accused of abusing prisoners had any training on how to be guards, or any experience. They were handed the job because they weren't doing anything else, were wearing American uniforms, and carrying guns. Would you like to be placed into the custody of bored people trained to kill instead of to subdue? Training? Really? What amount of training is going to change a person who is capable of that sort of thing into one that isn't? The people who have done these things aren't undertrained, they are sick and sickening. It isn't flawwed training, but flawwed poeple.

Oh, I don't know, maybe teaching troops you expect to send into a battle the rules of war according to the Hague and Geneva Conventions.. I think that might be a good part of training, no? Apparently none of these people were taught any of it!.. That's a systemic problem.Do you really think that those who did these things thought they were acting properly? If they didn't recognise that what they were doing was wrong, they are insane and had no business in any military or near any weapon. Being taught something and adhereing to it are very different things. What makes you think that the US military doesn't teain soldiers in the laws of war? If, you do some reasearch on it you'll find that it is done and done rather well.

A study performed by Stanford in the '70s came up with nearly the exact same results as the Iraq abuse cases, forces people to engage in simulated sexual activities for instance. They included only the most upstanding volunteers they could weed out: those without histories of crime or drugs, endorsed by their peers. It took a few days before the volunteers began abusing the prisoners, at night, when they thought they weren't being watched.

Untrained prison personnel turns a prison into a truly grim place.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143741

Yes, go figure there's already a thread about it. :lol:

How does demanding punishiment before any trials or the conclusion of investigations make things better. Due process must be followed. Isn't that at the heart of this entire issue? I'm sorry is a first step. If, it was the begining and the end of the matter, I could understand your position. I think, this administrations problem, in the eyes of the rest of the world, is the same as every other in re4cnt memory, they are American.

How about we re-evaluate the policies with permitted this sort of this to happen in the first place? None of the guards accused of abusing prisoners had any training on how to be guards, or any experience. They were handed the job because they weren't doing anything else, were wearing American uniforms, and carrying guns. Would you like to be placed into the custody of bored people trained to kill instead of to subdue? Training? Really? What amount of training is going to change a person who is capable of that sort of thing into one that isn't? The people who have done these things aren't undertrained, they are sick and sickening. It isn't flawwed training, but flawwed poeple.

Oh, I don't know, maybe teaching troops you expect to send into a battle the rules of war according to the Hague and Geneva Conventions.. I think that might be a good part of training, no? Apparently none of these people were taught any of it!.. That's a systemic problem.Do you really think that those who did these things thought they were acting properly? If they didn't recognise that what they were doing was wrong, they are insane and had no business in any military or near any weapon. Being taught something and adhereing to it are very different things. What makes you think that the US military doesn't teain soldiers in the laws of war? If, you do some reasearch on it you'll find that it is done and done rather well.

Well, I doubt we are going to meet on this.. or so it seems. Lets get back to this discussion in a while after Rummy testifies today.. I will be watching it live.. (no matter what the man says.. I believe he holds some of the responsibility here) coverage starts at 11:45 AM EST... lets see just how he explains this away.. let also see over the next few weeks/months just how wide spread this becomes.. If you think this was only 6 people, you haven't been following the story very closely..

There was a very big problem with the Stanford experiment. It is also the problem in military prisons, as far as I can see. In the experiment and military prisons the guards have all of the power. Not so in prisons in other situations, believe me. In an American prison, in the US, the inmates basically run the place, because they outnumber guards and are more willing to act on violent impulses. Prison is always a grim place, but it is rarely a place where guards have the run of the place.

To my knowledge the administration hasn't tortured or abused anyone. Like Bush or not, he and his administration are not directly responsible for this.The abuse of prisoners in Iraq is a breakdown in military proceedure and discipline, not a failure of intentions or strategy. The administration seems to be a term that is replacing the boogy-man.

So, the buck stops ......where?

To my knowledge the administration hasn't tortured or abused anyone. Like Bush or not, he and his administration are not directly responsible for this.The abuse of prisoners in Iraq is a breakdown in military proceedure and discipline, not a failure of intentions or strategy. The administration seems to be a term that is replacing the boogy-man.

So, the buck stops ......where?Strsangely enough, with those who perpetrated the crime, go figure.

Where are Sadaam's apologies!? Why didn't he ask Uday to resign?!?! :roll:

Does his abuse somehow make anyone else's O.K.?
Or is torture and abuse always wrong, no matter who is doing it?

I'm saying that everybody's so quick to ask the President for an apology, and to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, but they did nothing to stop the same from Sadaam for the last 10 years.

Where are Sadaam's apologies!? Why didn't he ask Uday to resign?!?! :roll:

Does his abuse somehow make anyone else's O.K.?
Or is torture and abuse always wrong, no matter who is doing it?

I'm saying that everybody's so quick to ask the President for an apology, and to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, but they did nothing to stop the same from Sadaam for the last 10 years.

Strange...I could have sworn that the Shrub has said that one of the reasons that Iraq was invaded was to impose regime change, because of the tyranny of Saddam.
And, with the embarrasing lack of weapons of mass destruction (anyone out there still remember WMDs?), it must be the main reason.
Are you perhaps suggesting that the US should be invaded to impose regime change?
You know, in the interests of fairness.

Where are Sadaam's apologies!? Why didn't he ask Uday to resign?!?! :roll:

Does his abuse somehow make anyone else's O.K.?
Or is torture and abuse always wrong, no matter who is doing it?

I'm saying that everybody's so quick to ask the President for an apology, and to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, but they did nothing to stop the same from Sadaam for the last 10 years.

Strange...I could have sworn that the Shrub has said that one of the reasons that Iraq was invaded was to impose regime change, because of the tyranny of Saddam.
And, with the embarrasing lack of weapons of mass destruction (anyone out there still remember WMDs?), it must be the main reason.
Are you perhaps suggesting that the US should be invaded to impose regime change?
You know, in the interests of fairness.

At least you would find nukes if you invaded! ;)

Sure you'd find nukes..but at least we don't have rape rooms with any of Bush's children snapping up any woman off the streets regardless of age to use like so much property..sure you'd find nukes..but at least Bush hasn't murdered 300,000 of his own countrymen...sure you'd find nukes, but he's never gassed his own people...I could go on.

Yes, yes, *another* Iraq thread. However, this isn't about the justifications or purpose of the war. This is about the responsibility of the people who waged it, and are continuing to fight there.

The recent revelations concerning abuse of prisoners by some elements of the American military calls into question who is responsible for making sure that those elements behave as they are meant to. Donald Rumsfeld recently gave a press conference concerning the abuse, and claims the military has known about similar reports, in Iraq and Afghanistan, since January. However, at the press conference (of which I listened to a part of), he was evasive, and refused to even say whether the prisoners were "abused" or "tortured", quibbling over the precise wording used in a question. He did not, I might note, answer the question after quibbling.

Reports from female soldiers who have been sexually assaulted in Iraq have been overlooked, and the women left in the units with the men who assaulted them (NPR, The World radio broadcast, Monday May 3rd, 2004).
A photo of a pair of Iraqi boys accompanied by an American soldier, with one boy holding up a sign reading, "Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad th(en) he Knocked up my sister!" has also recently come to light (can be seen here (http://karmann.goonsquad.net/img/boudreauxs.jpg)). The military is "looking into" the photo, and the possibility exists that it has been photoshopped. I include it for the possibility that it was not.

This video (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/dontloot.wmv), which I found on eBaum, of a tank unit punishing Iraqi looters, drives the point home, I feel, in a very tangible way.

Who is responsible for the behavior of American soldiers abroad? Who is responsible for making sure American soldiers do not abuse prisoners, crush civillian vehicles arbitarily, and rape other soldiers?
This is starting to get freaky. I'm noticing that the US military is having a fall from grace similar to how other respectable organizations did. Most notably, the Catholic Church. Look at their global problem of sexual abuse. It shook the church right down to the core.
The military is having similar problems. Cadets and soldiers being abused, prisoners being abused and tortured, etc. This issue is one hijacked by antiwar activists, but it really is much more than that. This is a cultural problem.
If you compare the two, the US military and the Roman Catholic Church are very similar. Both are rigid, both are (predominatly) patriarcal, and both demand loyalty. Now don't get me wrong, both institutions teach very good values to their members. The military, for example, teaches loyalty, trust, and honor--all of which Americans hold dear. Yet, for some reason, there's a chink in this seemingly perfect machine. It is, as in the church, only a small minority. Yet it is higher proportionally than something like the staff of a school. What is wrong with the military? Is there something we can do to reform it, while still maintaining its effectiveness? It is all too easy to fall into the trap of the blame game, and yes, I myself have done it before. What we need to do is assess the military's culture--and see to it that pricks like these troops aren't in there.

Sure you'd find nukes..but at least we don't have rape rooms with any of Bush's children snapping up any woman off the streets regardless of age to use like so much property..sure you'd find nukes..but at least Bush hasn't murdered 300,000 of his own countrymen...sure you'd find nukes, but he's never gassed his own people...I could go on.

Yes you seemingly can go on...how about explaining wy the US can have real weapons of mass destruction abd the Iraqis cannot have fake ones without being invaded?
How about explaining why torture by Saddam is wrong, but by the Us is O.K.?

Torture by the some US forces in an organization of over a million is not OK. Bush thinks so. Rumsfeld thinks so. Pretty much everyone thinks so.

Torture by the some US forces in an organization of over a million is not OK. Bush thinks so. Rumsfeld thinks so. Pretty much everyone thinks so.

Any torture, by anyone, in any organisation, or in no organisation, is always wrong.
No excuses, no ifs or buts.

And thats what I said.

And thats what Bush and Co. think.

So I don't know why you asked the question :

How about explaining why torture by Saddam is wrong, but by the Us is O.K.?

As if you thought Bush thought it was ok.

Well, Rummie thought it could be ok..."geneva convention may not apply here"
I'm sure he meant slap and tickle, but it all went oh so wrong...

Bush isn't exactly jumping up and down screaming "it wasn't me, lets investigate and court martial the real toturers"

Cause he knows the orders came from to far up to leave him un-implicated.

Well, Rummie thought it could be ok..."geneva convention may not apply here"
I'm sure he meant slap and tickle, but it all went oh so wrong...

Thats legal talk. Considering he called the torture itself sadistik, cruel, and inhuman - just to name a few - I doubt that he thinks that the torture itself is ok.


Bush isn't exactly jumping up and down screaming "it wasn't me, lets investigate and court martial the real toturers"

Cause he knows the orders came from to far up to leave him un-implicated.

Bush vowed the abusers would face justice. And he committed himself to a full investigation.

Well, Rummie thought it could be ok..."geneva convention may not apply here"
I'm sure he meant slap and tickle, but it all went oh so wrong...


Even still, they are obliged to follow the Geneva convention.


It's good that a military investigation is launched into this manner. Hopefully, those respsonsible will get the maximum punishment from the military and justice shall be served.


Despite the acts of a few, the treatment of Iraqi POWs has already left a black mark on the American military. Their reputation is dwindling and these further allegations and pictures are not what the US needs at this time. The timing couldn't have been worse.

Well, Rummie thought it could be ok..."geneva convention may not apply here"
I'm sure he meant slap and tickle, but it all went oh so wrong...

Thats legal talk. Considering he called the torture itself sadistik, cruel, and inhuman - just to name a few - I doubt that he thinks that the torture itself is ok.


Bush isn't exactly jumping up and down screaming "it wasn't me, lets investigate and court martial the real toturers"

Cause he knows the orders came from to far up to leave him un-implicated.

Bush vowed the abusers would face justice. And he committed himself to a full investigation.

The "full investigation" is by the military. No independence. No one has even been 'stood down" while the "investigation" proceeds - Bush should be committed alright - that's the only bit you got right.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/04/congress.abuse/index.html

I guess that explains the panel being formed, eh? :wink:

Edit : Need to eat dinner, wrong tags. Yes I know its 10:10 where I live, and I'm hungry. :wink:

No matter what kind of things the enemy are doing..the US has always made at least.....a pretense of conducting themselves in a manner that remains aboveboard.

This means that although for example...the Japanese soldiers were abusing the POW's in WWII, the Americans did not...

In reality...these things happen.
Although, usually these offenders are reprimanded.

Its wrong...and the guilty will be punished.

No! That's the whole problem, the guilty will not be punished!