BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,Ooh Aah
Date: 06 May 04 - 07:55 PM

Sorry, forgot to say that last post is from me. (Retires to bunker).

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 04 - 08:24 PM

"Wog" is every bit as nasty a term as "nigger", and used by the same kind of people.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 04 - 08:26 PM

And in this case it is a teacher. I give up.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 04 - 11:49 PM

Metchosin - Until recently, I have followed the Arar case with great interest. The last I heard, his wife was running for political office. Good for her! Wasn't she brave and persistent and intelligent? Wow, was Arar lucky he married her. Thanks to the U.S., Arar would have been stuck in that hell-hole until he died.

I am in awe of that woman. I hope she goes far. I don't think I have ever been so fond of total strangers.

Now, for those of you in the U.S. - if you want to know how the Bush Administration's agenda has effected not only your rights and freedoms but Canadians' too, read the link above.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah
Date: 07 May 04 - 06:34 PM

Oh, I see the problem. Perhaps I should have put 'aargle argle argle'! Here in Australia 'wog' is more affectionate than anything these days, often used by people of Italian and Greek beckground of themselves; and not in the destructive way US blacks sometimes call themselves 'niggas' either.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 04 - 07:04 PM

I thought it might be a linguistic hiccup like that Ooh-Aah. It's a very offensive word indeed, back in this country. Maybe sometimes it's used by people who don't realise how offensive it is. But more often it is used with intent to insult and offend.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,Pigmentally Challenged
Date: 07 May 04 - 11:50 PM

Ooh-Aah, Ooh-Aah, Ooh-Aah, Ooh-Aah.

Are you a chimpanzee?

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,waggoner41
Date: 08 May 04 - 01:11 AM

Let us remember that it was Donald Rumsfeld, with George Bush's blessing, who announced publicly that the United States was not obligated to honor the Geneva Conventions.

Our G.I.'s did not suddenly decide that these acts were the right thing to do. They are trained to operate under orders. As the commander in chief, George Bush bears ultimate responsibility.

Bush is already setting up his "plausable deniability". He didn't know. S**t rolls downhill from the top and so do orders.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 04 - 03:29 AM

Let me see... A number of US troops are charged for actions that are obviously improper conduct, at the least. The "world" demands that they be tried as war criminals, by an Iraqi court, since the crimes were against Iraqis...

According to the Geneva Conventions, it is also a war crime to

1. Intenmtionally target civilian populations

2. Use schools, hospitals or mosques as military headquarters, storage, or staging areas

3. Use marked abulances to transport weapons or troops ( other than the wounded.

So, we send the 20 or so US troops to the Arab world for trial, and they will turn over all the militias in Iraq, most of the Palestinians, and who else to us???

In time of war, a spy can be sumarily executed. This means that a non-uniformed combatant has a far different set of "rights" under the geneva Conventions than the uniformed soldier.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 04 - 07:25 AM

But under all circumstances torture of prisoners is criminal.

If those accused can prove that they were acting under orders when they carried out illegal actions, this is a mitigating circumstance, which could justify reduced penalties - but it is not in any way a defence against a finding of "guilty". There is a legal duty to refuse an illegal order.

Similarly, if it can be demonstarated that someone in a chain of command knew that illegal activities were being carried out by subordinates, even if they had not given orders for those actions, there is a duty to act to stop this happening. Failure to do so is, I believe, equivalent in law to actually ordering the illegal actions.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: ard mhacha
Date: 08 May 04 - 12:04 PM

No Waggoner41, sorry to say, Lynndie England bears full responsibility, well she is being charged with disgracing the US Army along with a few more of the lower ranks.
The buck stops here, my ass.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 04 - 12:21 PM

Lyndie England and her colleagues are fully responsible for their actions. Her superiors are also fully responsible for those actions, together with their own actions (or inaction in some cases) - and so on up the line. The

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 May 04 - 02:42 PM

And it seems we are close to learning what general was responsible for encouraging the MP's in charge of those cell blocks to "soften up" their prisoners before interrogation. He appears to be Major General Geoffrey Miller, commadant of the Guantanamo Bay prison complex, who in the fall of 2003 "conducted an inquiry on interrogation and detention procedures in Iraq and suggested that prison guards could help set conditions for the interrogation of prisoners"; this is according to an initial report this spring by Major General Antonio Taguba. I find this information particularly damning, and it reinforces my concerns about the probable mistreatment of the prisoners in limbo at Guantanamo Bay itself.

Pictures, even edited ones, are worth a thousand and one words.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 04 - 03:54 PM

And now of course General Miller is in charge of Abu Ghraib. Probably charging round trying to impound all the digital cameras and webphones and such.

Here's a link to a piece on BBC news about the way that modern technology is making it much much harder to make sure the outside world never gets to really know about what goes on sometimes. US powerless to halt Iraq net images:

...Mr Rumsfeld was indignant at the publication of such images: "We're functioning with peacetime constraints, with legal requirements, in a wartime situation in the Information Age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise."

However, he admitted that he had not realised the seriousness of the allegations until the pictures were leaked to the media...

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 08 May 04 - 03:59 PM

"We're functioning with peacetime constraints, with legal requirements, in a wartime situation in the Information Age"

I watched him say that, and I thought to myself 'peacetime constraints'? 'Legal requirements'?

Bit of a stretch, that!

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 04 - 04:01 PM

Lack of protection
A report by human rights lawyers found that the Abu Ghraib abuse was not
only lawless -- it was sanctioned by Pentagon political appointees.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason
Click for article

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 08 May 04 - 04:46 PM

There is a very interesting period in the history of conflict, unfolding now as I see it.

To be absolutely realistic about State secrecy for one moment, and to look at the reasons Joe Q Public on average does not get too close to what happens in this area, we have to be fairly open minded as to what is perpertrated in order to keep the World Order roughly where it is.
To be realistic, does not require us to be complicit with it.

If things are going to be 'more open' as a result of this war, then some people are going to get a few illusions shattered fairly quickly, and we will see that it will not really matter which party is sitting in the White House, or in Downing Street at the time, because a lot of it will be condoned 'on high', if for no other reason, than for they have no other choice.
The country will do whatever the country believes it has to do, in other words, and if it is nasty, then that's too badit, but the sensitivities of the public, voter, whichever nerve in them you want to avoid pinching, have to be taken into account, and so it all has to be kept fairly low-key, at the very least.

The 'Information Age' is certainly here, as Rumsfeld's position now, clearly demonstrates. A Democrat Defense Secretary will be privvy to exactly the same knowledge as his Republican counterpart, and will more than likely have to make the same 'judgements'.

I think people will continue to be horrible to others; just as we (as a race) always have been.
In the realm of the secret, where we can imagine the manouverings that take place. We can only imagine what is nodded and winked at behind the closed doors.

The more of it that comes out into the public domain, the more the average Joe gets to join his own dots.

It could spell the end of Democracy, as we know it.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 08 May 04 - 05:23 PM

Been following this for some time. This is not news. American troops have been breaking into private homes in Iraq forcing women and children onto the floor and in general terrorizing them. Now we hear about extracting information through torture. Humiliation, sleep deprivation, rape, and beatings used to extract information defines torture.

This kind of stuff is done in wars. It was done in Vietnam and also here.

Why is it that the Iraqi people don't need US help? There is no case that can be legitimately presented that this is what they want. They want the US out.

There will be more atrocities until this war is ended.

Personally, I trust Amnesty International more than I do the credibility of the Bush Administration on these issues.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Gareth
Date: 08 May 04 - 07:27 PM

Frank - You are, in my opinion, correct to trust "Amnesty" International further than you can throw the US of A Government.

One of the main reason British wquaddies went into Iraq was to stop torture, and abuse of Human rights.

It is wrong that torture/abuse continues, even if it is on a lesser scale than that practiced by the previous regime.

But I will only take criticism on this from them who demonstrate a constant record of support for human rights. Which excludes most governments/regimes in the middle east, and those 'Catters who are more concerned with preserving thier "Clean Hands" and "peace at anybody else's cost" rather than changing a regime whose attitude to "human rights" was less than zero.

We do not live in a perfect world, I wish we did, but I am afraid that there are those amid us whose agenda is my "goverment/country is always wrong" rather than what can we do ?

And personally I find that attitude as dangerous as those who take the attitude "my Country/Government right or wrong"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 04 - 09:50 PM

Like you for instance

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 May 04 - 09:56 PM

And the civil war which will inevitably follow our unilateral withdrawal from Iraq will be no pleasant thing. I do hope that somehow the UN is able to "police" a transition to some kind of Iraq confederation of states. Unfortunately US and British credibility is totally undermined in Iraq.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: ard mhacha
Date: 09 May 04 - 07:02 AM

To-days Observer[uk] gives an account by a British Officer recently returned from Iraq, " Sexual humiliation of prisoners in Abu Ghraib was not an invention of "maverick guards" but part of a system of degradation developed for use by British and US troops called R21- resistance to interrogation- which uses sexual jibes and and stripping prisoners to prolong "the shock of capture" when detainees are at their most vunerable.

What has emerged is the role that US military intellegence officers - and private intellegence contractors- have played in directing the abuse with most of the reservists involved alleging that they thought their duty was to "soften up" the prisoners for questioning."

What really has emerged is that Bush -Blair and their hencemen are all guilty of war crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: ard mhacha
Date: 09 May 04 - 07:07 AM

What more harrowing tales of torture may emerge from Guantanamo, and they will come out, Cuba may be convenient as a hidey-hole for the time being, but this will make

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: ard mhacha
Date: 09 May 04 - 07:10 AM

Iraq`s Abu Ggraib look like a week-end in the Hilton.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 04 - 12:48 PM

But I will only take criticism on this from them who demonstrate a constant record of support for human rights.

What does that mean Gareth? That only people who think that the preemptive attack on Iraq was justified can criticise it when it goes wrong?

I believe that the end result of this war will probably be worse for Iraq and for the world than the end result we could have achieved if we had avoided it. Just as I think that the end result in South Africa or Chile would probably have been a lot worse if we had attempted to overthrow their repulsive regimes by armed invasion.

There are some good results of the invasion, true enough. But there are also some outcomes which are far from good. And the full tally is a long way from finished, good or bad. I think that it is likely that in the final analysis it is only too likely thta, taking everything into account, more harm will have been done than good achieved.

That does not mean indifference towards human rights abuses. As you say, Gareth, we do not live in a perfect world.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 09 May 04 - 12:59 PM

Some more photos are slipping out here and there - found a couple stuffed into a Yahoo slideshow...

It gets worser and worser ... be prepared to vomit as well ...sickening.

Makes me wonder what kind of people I live among! What kind of animals would do these disgusting things to another human being? even in WW2 these kind of things were always the work of the Axis never the Allies.

So we have to bring our troops home and send the sick minded ones to the looney bin - before the rest of the world declares war on the USA!

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 04 - 03:19 PM

"They were only obeying orders" they'll say - and that is probably true, though of course anyone obeying illegal orders is criminally liable.

But it's the people who gave the orders, and who authorised those kinds of orders, with their euphemisms and their selective vision of the details, who most urgently need to be identified and removed. No matter how high their position.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 09 May 04 - 04:00 PM

I was just thinking the same thing.

I can think of a few countries that would probably like to declare war on the U.S., if for no other reason than to liberate the people stateside from a brutal dictatorship. It would be extremely difficult considering the fact that the U.S. has both nuclear capability and weapons of mass destruction.

Sorry folks, I don't think another country can help you. If anything is to change, it will have to be a civil revolution. Hopefully it will be peaceful. Perhaps the multi-nationals will see the light and realize that their prosperity depends on stability in the U.S. ...Or does it?

Maybe this is why the fathers of the constitution included the right to bear arms.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 04 - 06:42 PM

dianavan:
"Maybe this is why the fathers of the constitution included the right to bear arms. "

Yes, but that, like most of the other rights that the founding fathers thought important, is subject to alteration "for the good of the people"

Freedom of speech- unless you want to say something that the majority does not want to hear

Freedom of religion- unless your religion defines marriage other than the majority does

Freedom to assemble- as long as you get a permit: subject to arrest if you do it in any other place

etc...

Just remember, if the chain of command implies that the president is responsible for the actions of any member of the military, then the People, who elect the president, and whose servant the government is supposed to be, bear ultimate responsibility. So, sure, lets jail them all- then ourselves. Just build the prison walls around the US, and don't let anyone in or out...

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Gareth
Date: 09 May 04 - 07:00 PM

What ard mhacha leaves out of his quote, deliberatly I am sure, is that these methods are tought as a means of training troops to resist such means of 'interogation!'

I do get a hard copy of the 'Observer' every week - Perhaps ard M can give us a bliky or scan of the full article - Cos if He don't I will !

But I am not holding my breath for any objective comment from Ard M.

Kevin - Please, you can be more objective. There is a right of those to critcise who's hands are clean.

I believe that you did not approve of the Liberation of Iraq. You, and anybody has a right to criticise. What I will not acept is those Governments and regimes who utilise humiliation and torture as a normal process, and that will include many in the middle east, throwing a wobbly on human rights in Iraq.

Torture is wrong - End of Story ! Not just selective "indignation" when it is politically expedient.

We also have to live in a world which is not perfect, we can only strive to make it less imperfect.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 09 May 04 - 07:15 PM

"To-days Observer[uk] gives an account by a British Officer recently returned from Iraq, " Sexual humiliation of prisoners in Abu Ghraib was not an invention of "maverick guards" but part of a system of degradation developed for use by British and US troops called R21- resistance to interrogation"
ard mhacha Date: 09 May 04 - 07:02 AM

"What ard mhacha leaves out of his quote, deliberatly I am sure, is that these methods are tought as a means of training troops to resist such means of 'interogation!'"
Gareth Date: 09 May 04 - 07:00 PM

Breathe out, Gareth.

...AND PAY ATTENTION!

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 04 - 07:39 PM

I approve of Iraq being free, and I'd like to see it happen. I think it is very open to question whether the end result of the invasion will be to achieve that. I am glad that South Africa is now free - but I think that a foreign invasion to try to achieve that would have been disastrous.
..............

Teaching torture methods in order to prepare people to resist torture is an excellent way to cover teaching them as a way to prepare torturers, and it has been used in that way, as well as forvthe official reason.

Here is a link to the Observer story ard macha refers to Focus: Iraq prison abuse scandal - and here is a link to the Guardian interview it refers to:

"The sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not an invention of maverick guards, but part of a system of ill-treatment and degradation used by special forces soldiers that is now being disseminated among ordinary troops and contractors who do not know what they are doing, according to British military sources.
The techniques devised in the system, called R2I - resistance to interrogation - match the crude exploitation and abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad."

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 04 - 08:00 PM

There are better ways to free people than by shooting their colleagues, torturing their husbands or fathers, invading their cities and disrupting their homes.

It is unfortunate that given the premise that invasion was right, a lot of these other practices would ensure by necessity. That's the nature of war. The point is that war was a LOUSY solution to the problem of Iraq and a STUPID remedy to resort to short of ultimate necessity. I don't care how jaded some people have gotten to it, or calloused by their own participation, or whatever. The objective point is still very much that unilaterally invading is as wrong-headed a diplomatic move as it is possible to make.

A

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 04 - 08:08 PM

A few months ago, the UK/US invasion force was "the armed wing of Amnesty International". Now when it turns out that their methods (some of their methods of course) are counter to everything Amnesty International stands for, pointing this out is "politically expedient", and we have to present our human rights bona fides to be able to open our mouths?!?! Utter crap. Utter, utter crap. You have been betrayed by those you defended. I do not for a minute question your intelligence or commitment to human rights, but I am sorry that you have been so badly used, and understand how you find it hard to face that sad fact.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Mr Happy
Date: 09 May 04 - 09:12 PM

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page13.htm

we know why we didn't/couldn't/wouldn't stop this happening- don't we?

i'm no braver than most to stand up & get me head shot off- that's why!

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 09 May 04 - 09:23 PM

The prisoner on the top right-hand side, "...paraded naked by US Marines 25th April 2003" has "Thief" written in Arabic, across his chest.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 May 04 - 09:50 PM

The war was sold as being about WMD's.
A lie.
Oh, but it was also about the global war on terrorism, but 15 of 19 were Saudis, and exactly 0 of 19 were Iraqis.
Another damn lie.
So, finally, it was about getting rid of a despot who tortures his own people, and I can almost get behind that (or at least will respect those who espouse this veiwpoint, since I agree with the end, but not the means). But now, the torture chambers are simply (as Jon Stewart so aptly put it) "under new management", and the post-facto "liberation" justification is suddenly hollow and hypocritical.
Another goddam lie.

And back to lie number 2 above, the pictures and videos are ready-made posters and recruitment spots for Al Quaeda. Thanks a f-in lot George, Dick, Rummy and Paul.

And, no, I don't hate my country. But I despise the jackasses who have tried to subvert and pervert it. I love MY America. George Bush's is the shits, and he's got to go.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: ard mhacha
Date: 10 May 04 - 04:49 PM

Gareth, I am beginning to worry about you, are you sure you alright?, not being able to understand The Observer`s plain English is serious.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 11 May 04 - 12:26 AM

beardedbruce - It was my understanding that Bush wasn't exactly elected. Or did you miss that?

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Gareth
Date: 11 May 04 - 04:22 PM

I read the full article - Note just the bits that suit.

As challenged before I suggest you post the full article. Or back down.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: ard mhacha
Date: 11 May 04 - 04:35 PM

Gareth son,what do we have to do to placate you, have a good look at McGrath`s blue clicky, have you been taking lessons from Geoff Hoon?.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Gareth
Date: 11 May 04 - 07:00 PM

Ard M - Id I can get thruogh to you - Full post or admit that you are being selective. And don't hide behind Kevin, stand on your own posts - If you can.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Gareth
Date: 11 May 04 - 07:11 PM

Thanks Kevin - For Blickying the full text. Though your Cut and Paste was, shall we say, a little selective.

But no doubt this will enter the ledgends of history, for those whose views, are less than objective.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 04 - 07:18 PM

dianavan: I am sorry if you are unfamiliar with the laws of the US, but according to the Constitution, he did win the election. People can grip about it all they want. Noone EVER said that the Electorial college was fair. Just what we have to work with. If one wants to try to change it, that is fine- but that is what we have NOW.

If Gore had had any sense of fairness, he would have just asked for a recount of the entire state when there were problems- HE DID NOT! He would only settle for a recount JUST of the three ( I think) districts that he thought he should have had a higher vote in, and not the ones where he won by a larger than expected amount. His "recount" was a "heads I win, tails you lose" thing.

The supreme Court made a ruling- by the law of the land, it IS the law of the land. If you don't like it, fine. But don't go on about Bush not winning the election.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: ard mhacha
Date: 12 May 04 - 05:50 AM

Gareth, You are a waste of good space, and remember what Ake says , your spaceship awaits.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Gareth
Date: 12 May 04 - 07:50 PM

It is a pity Ard M can not back upo his statements - but then thats true to his form

The quote he neglected to post - fron the same article he was used selectively.

"He said British and US military intelligence soldiers were trained in these techniques, which were taught at the joint services interrogation centre in Ashford, Kent, now transferred to the former US base at Chicksands.
"There is a reservoir of knowledge about these interrogation techniques which is retained by former special forces soldiers who are being rehired as private contractors in Iraq. Contractors are bringing in their old friends".
Using sexual jibes and degradation, along with stripping naked, is one of the methods taught on both sides of the Atlantic under the slogan "prolong the shock of capture", he said.
Female guards were used to taunt male prisoners sexually and at British training sessions when female candidates were undergoing resistance training they would be subject to lesbian jibes.
"Most people just laugh that off during mock training exercises, but the whole experience is horrible. Two of my colleagues couldn't cope with the training at the time. One walked out saying 'I've had enough', and the other had a breakdown. It's exceedingly disturbing," said the former Special Boat Squadron officer, who asked that his identity be withheld for security reasons.
Many British and US special forces soldiers learn about the degradation techniques because they are subjected to them to help them resist if captured. They include soldiers from the SAS, SBS, most air pilots, paratroopers and members of pathfinder platoons. "

Point taken - and if you cant understand this Ard M get somebody wheo can read to translate it.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 04 - 07:56 PM

Anyone who quotes less than the entirety of anything is quoting selectively. :-) If you agree with him, you'll like his selections. If you don't, you won't.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 May 04 - 09:16 PM

beardedbruce - you said, "...then the People, who elect the president..."

Being elected by the people and being appointed by the supreme court are two very different things. According to your argument, it is the Supreme Court who would be at the top of the chain of command. And yes, I believe the rot goes that far.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 12 May 04 - 10:14 PM

But Gareth does concur with ard macha's assessment, Little Hawk, as is pointed out in A M's post of 09 May 04 - 07:02 AM: " Sexual humiliation of prisoners in Abu Ghraib was not an invention of "maverick guards" but part of a system of degradation developed for use by British and US troops called R2I - resistance to interrogation", however it has take 5 posts from him, and a few corrections from some of us, to make him realise this.

What Gareth is actually is quoting in his 12 May 04 - 07:50 PM post is a description of those same R2I techniques, that Ard macha had already referred to.

If Gareth thinks there is something ambiguous about the Observer article, perhaps he should wax a little more eloquent on it, and tell us where he believes the parallax to be.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 04 - 10:51 PM

dianavan:

"Being elected by the people and being appointed by the supreme court are two very different things"

Noone was appointed by the Supreme Court. They made a ruling on the federal law, as is their resposibility. The election was determined by the Electorial College, as per the Constitution. You may not like the results, but so what? I had to put up with Billary.

Get over it: Try to win the next election, instead of complaing that you did not get your way in the last one.