BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners

Subject: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 09:34 PM

This is a BBC Radio 4 Interview, 'On the ropes' with Gen Janis Karpinski who was I/c of the prisons in Iraq. It is archived on this link for a few days. It makes interesting listening.

Gen Janis Karpinski speaks

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 12:37 AM

I heard this on the BBC America broadcast on our local NPR station. It's pretty ugly stuff--the prisoners "were to be treated like dogs," she said. Made it clear that the policy came from above. And said the guy in charge there now had been involved before.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: mack/misophist
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:19 AM

An interesting and cleverly conducted interview. Her voice seems to indicate that she's in over her head. It might be worth noting that some of the neo-cons around bush have religious views that regard it a sin to place women in authority over men. Also, that the lawyers who said the president has the right to order prisoners tortured may have friends in the Pentagon. The interview proves nothing either way, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 05:12 AM

"I was only obeying orders"

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 06:24 AM

From a government that funded and operated the Infamous "school of Americas" now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation for 55 years its hardly suprising that such attitudes exist.
A school that graduated criminals such as Noriega and Galtieri and promulagted (extraced from their training manuals) blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives to get things done, sounds a bit like Saddam Husseins regime when you think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:50 PM

The US has been illegally interferring in other nations politics for generations. It hasn't mattered if the leadership was Democrat or Republican. We have routinely oppressed struggling democracies, destabilized legitimate governments, propped up psychotic dictators, and generally fiddle-fucked with any country that doesn't do exactly as we want them to (with the exception of Isreal).

Whenever the "shit" has hit the fan, our country's leaders have always been able to tar and feather some unsuspecting mid-management general or politico in order to shift the blame from themselves. General Karpinski is no exception. She was probably following explicit orders from higher ups who's job was to make sure she would take the hit if someone's head needed to roll.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 04:07 PM

I've heard referenced to this interview on the news several times within the past day or so. I think everyone should listen to the BBC interview. I had a little difficulty conjuring it up, but here's what you do:   click in the "LISTEN AGAIN" box (where it says "Listen to the most recent programme") or on the "A to Z Directory" and scroll down to "On the Ropes." [I go into detail on this because I had grope a bit before I found it.]

In essence, the story I've heard on American news say "Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the former U.S. commander of the Abu Ghraib prison, says the decision to abuse detainees was made much higher up the chain of command. Karpinsksi also told the BBC that the current Iraq prisons chief, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, had suggested Karpinksi alter interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib and once said prisoners should be treated 'like dogs'."

Here's more.

Sounds to me like Gen. Miller would feel very much at home back in the fifteenth century conducting an interrogation for the Spanish Inquistion. I wonder why no senators or representatives—or, for that matter, reporters—haven't raised questions about how the "detainees" at Guantanamo, many interred because they were suspected of something, but not charged with anything, held incommunicado and denied benefit of counsel, are being treated. Obviously they are being interrogated. Gen. Miller has said so, and he claims he, unlike Gen. Karpinski, gets results.

If someone were to get off their butt and investigate Guantanamo, they might find out that Abu Ghraib looks like a health spa by comparison.

What the hell has happened to this country anyway!??   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 06:30 PM

It's OK Don, the Pope has come out and said that the Inquisistion was not as bad as people thought! Maybe give it a couple of hundred years and people will say the same about the treatment of prisoners by governments.

Here it is;

Inquisition wasn't quite as bad as people think, says Pope

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: sledge
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 10:50 AM

Typical disigeneous crap from the Catholic church. Of course most burnings were carried out by civil authorities, the trial was carried out by the Church who then released the poor unfortunate to the civil authorities who were bound to carry out the harshest penalty they had on the books which was death. The release often came with a church recomendation for mecry but was backed up with a clause staying that those in power who showed mercy in not applying a death penalty must surely be suspect themselves, catch 22 or what.

For witchcraft alone between 1450 and 1750 an estimated 100,000 were killed either at the stake, hung or died through torture and neglect while awaiting either trial or execution. Factor in the suprsssions of various sects at the urging of the church and its inquisitors then you have a number beyond reckoning.

Going by Church records themselves, an idea of how corrupt the church was at this time and how it used the inquisition to make money. The Prince-bishop Gottfried of Bamburg made 500,000 Florins the goods taken from those condemned and burnt in just 4 years.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 11:20 AM

By mentioning the Spanish Inquisition, I didn't intend that this thread veer from the original subject. Could we return to that, please?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: sledge
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 11:30 AM

Bound to happen I suppose, because nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:20 PM

Nightline was covering this last night, but I fell asleep just minutes in. Did they have any new information?

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 03:14 PM

One point that has only filtered through slowly to my conscious mind is that most of the US troops in Iraq are not professionals, which puts them, as individuals, at a disadvantage in comparison with, for instance, the Brits. All the same, I thought Rumsefeld and others were skating on thin ice with their defence of troops in the field on the ground that they had not been educated in the Geneva conventions, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 07:59 PM

All soldiers, including especially generals, have an absolute duty to refuse to obey illegal orders. Is this rather important aspect of their duty included in their training?

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 08:33 PM

When I was in the army I was told to obey all orders without question, and if I thought they were illegal to complain afterwards to the Inspector General.

Has it changed since then, or were they lying to me? Some of my superiors weren't above lying, as long as they didn't leave a paper trail.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: sledge
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 01:54 AM

During my time in the RN I was told I could choose to refuse to disobey an order if I felt it to be illegal, never had to mind so I have no idea how things work out in that event.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 03:07 AM

Likewise Sledge, I did my time in boats (submarines for non naval types) and we obeyed orders. However I was never put in the position of questioning an orders legality.

Mind you the Chiefs and Petty Officers always had ways of dealing with officers who threw their weight around too much when it came to personal issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:17 AM

I'd have thought that wouldn't so much have been a lie, Clint, as an instruction to you to ignore the law.

Here's an article Do Soldiers Have a Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders? by Patrick F. McDevitt an assistant professor of history at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

The position seems to be that while the law (international and national) is clear, that soldiers have a duty to refuse illegal orders, in practice, in many countries the people in charge have a policy of disregarding the law, in this respect. Unfortunately, this seems to include the most powerful country in the world, the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: sledge
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 08:33 AM

Quite a shame when you consider the US was instrumental in establishing through the Nuremburg war crimes trials that "I was only obeying orders" could not constitute a credible defence.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: mg
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:36 PM

That is General Karpinski, not Corporal Karpinski, not Lieutenant Karpinski. She is not mid-management. She is management. NO, she is command. It does not matter one whit what neocons think about women commanding men. You do it or you get out if you can't. And take a whole bunch of them down with you, which is what she is doing. I am both sympathetic and fairly nonsympathetic towards her. She is a general......She had options she did not use.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:49 PM

Actually, she's a one star general, Mary. In UK parlance, a Brigadier - the lowest rank of general staff. To all intents & purposes, she is middle-management. The highest middle-management, but MM nonetheless. She is someone that makes tactical decisions, not strategic ones, if you see what I mean.

However, what doesn't jibe for me is the fact that she claims she didn't know anything about the abuse until the enquiries started. Nevertheless, she seems to be sure that orders came from above.. What? And said orders bypassed her entirely? She doesn't know what's going on either above or below??!! Not much of a manager, whatever her profession...

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:53 PM

Mary, I think it would be enlightening for you to listen to the BBC interview and hear what General Karpinski has to say, especially about her encounters with General Miller. Karpinski is a Brigadier General and Miller is a Major General. He outranked her. Furthermore, she was removed from her position and replace by Miller.

I'm not that sure what options she might have had, but you know far more about the military than I do. Perhaps you can clarify the matter.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 08:14 PM

"I'd have thought that wouldn't so much have been a lie, Clint, as an instruction to you to ignore the law. "

I didn't know what the law was. I consider it a lie to tell us that obedience to an illegal order was correct behavior. They were telling us that we were not qualified to decide what orders were illegal.

Or let me quote a dialog I heard:

"Sir, I was thinking --"
"You ain't supposed to think, son; you just a peon."

Well, the captain was kidding, but not really. You know, that kind of joke.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 06:27 AM

Just a reminder that this interview will drop off the BBC website about 33 hours from now. I've just listened to it, belatedly, and it's interesting listening. I have just learnt that as well as being just a one-star general, Karpinski is herself a part-timer. (See my post above.)

I don't know how much of her view can be accepted at face value, but she raised some valid concerns and pointed to significant shortcomings in Maj-Gen Taguba's report. I will be amazed if she is ever court-marshalled or tried any other way, as it is plain that whatever her own failings may have been (and I don't know about that), others more senior than her were more directly implicated in these war crimes. This is a can of worms the Pentagon will not want to open.

If her leadership is as weak as is now implied, then that would raise questions about how she was selected, and how so relatively junior an officer, and part-timer to boot, was loaded with the responsibility for 14,000 prisoners. By comparison, the more senior Gen Miller had a mere few hundred to torment at Guantanamo before he was parachuted into Abu Ghraib.

For convenience, here's the BBC link again: Karpinski BBC interview. When you get to the page, click under "Listen Again" - ie where it says "listen again to the most recent program." (Apologies if those stateside have heard Karpinski's story many times, but in the UK this is a first.)

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 08:45 AM

I will back-up the contentions made above by both Sledge and MGOH, in the UK armed forces you are actually told in training that it is your right and duty, not to obey any order YOU believe to be illegal.

I think I mentioned this in another threat, but unlike Sledge in my time in the forces I exercised this right on two occasions. In both instances my decision and reasons were upheld to be valid and correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM

The orders were illegal. The other part of it that bothers me more than that is this:

Torture does not obtain good intel. Fear either. It's an anachronistic procedure that is mainly myth (probably from the days of the Catholic purges). Put anyone in enough pain and they will tell you anything you want to hear. I'd suggest a reading of any of the American prisoners of the North Vietnamese if you doubt any soldiers ability to withstand pain.

To gain good intel requires treating prisoners with respect and dignity. One must be above what the prisoners are expecting and what they have received from their own folks. And intell is what gets people's lives saved, on both sides, by theoreticaly bringing (or at least hastens) the end of the conflict.

I must also say that what has occurred with regard to the Iraqi prisoners is not, in my opinion, torture by and large. The electric wires and beatings certainly are. But stacking them up naked is more of a Frat House prank. The negative side of it is the lack of adherence to a standard of what America purports to be, kind, caring, compassionate, and peaceful, makes the US appear to be no better than the idiots out chopping heads off.

In reality those chopping heads off are much more sadistic than anything I've witnessed. They are torturing the world with their garbage. My guess is they are making more enemies than anything else. Sorry for the thread drift -

And the General is either a National Guard or Reservist. Not regular Army. Just a clarification point from a statement made above.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Metchosin
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 03:02 PM

"stacking them up naked is more a Frat House prank" ....now where have I heard that before?...hmmm....I knew there was some reason or other why my daughter and I did not want to attend an American University when we had the opportunity.....right.....that was one of them!.....Americans have such a bizzarre sense of humour.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 03:08 PM

I agree all the way with what you say, Steve, but I do have to take issue with "But stacking them up naked is more of a Frat House prank." From what I've heard, the Iraqis (perhaps Muslims in general, but I'm not sure) take nudity a bit more seriously than we do. To them (again, from what I've heard), being seen nude is shameful and humiliating. And anything smacking of the sexual, particularly the homosexual (despite what an individual's own orientation might be), is especially repugnant. Perhaps worst of all is being naked and forced to crawl around on all fours with at the end of a leash and being mocked by a woman. I think they regard that as a lot more humiliating than a mere "frat house prank." Completely robbing someone of his dignity, especially in front of his peers, is a form of psychological torture.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 07:01 PM

Snortin' Norton's a Marine!!- as he'll relate ad nauseum. He's used to getting his entertainment by robbing people of their dignity. He's quite comfortable with these sorts of excesses.

He's done it here on this forum- vide earlier threads, re: mouth-breathers & knuckle-walkers, for which he's never thought it appropriate to apologize.

Fortunately, he's not representative of ALL Marines; the ones I fish & hunt with wouldn't approve of his behavior.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 07:19 PM

Unusual to find myself agreeing with Steve/Noron1, but there you go....BTW, Karpinski is a reservist, and she made it clear that she was giving the interview while wearing her civilian hat. If I understood right, she said she had been suspended from her post, but not from the US Army.

I too would just question where Norton1 draws the line between abuse and pranks. From the tone of his other comments I suspect he would agree that cultural differences between the occupiers and the occupied should be respected. It is only a few weeks since we in the UK marvelled at the reaction in the US when someone exposed a nipple on tv! Whatever difference in standards there may be between the US and the UK - partners in the Iraq coalition - they must be hugely eclipsed by the differences between the western democracies and Islam.

Incidentally, I suspect that some difference of standards is evident even within the US and that a huge body of US opinion would be a bit less sanguine than Norton1 about making naked people climb all over each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 07:34 PM

Greg F, Steve's a good man. I know... I've met him in person, and I've played music with him. I don't agree with what he's saying about the treatment of those prisoners being the equivalent of a frat prank. If someone forced me, against my will, to do something like that, and took pictures of it, I could have them arrested for committing a sex crime.

And I think that his way of handling stress has sometimes created awkward situations here in the Mudcat. But his stress has been understandable under the circumstances, and I think he deserves to be cut some slack because of it.

He's not the kind of person you make him out to be, and you don't serve anything good by backing him into a corner the way you're doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: sledge
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 02:56 AM

Lifted from the US NPR website:-

"June 18, 2004 -- Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee lined up Thursday to block a Democratic attempt to subpoena Bush administration legal memos on the use of torture on prisoners." So what have they to hide?


"The same day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged ordering that an Iraqi prisoner be held in secret for more than seven months, violating the Geneva Conventions." Lets not have the Bush administration lecturing anyone again on the rule of law, hypocrisy at this level is nauseating.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 06:14 AM

CarolC, does he take sugar? *G*

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 09:01 AM

I think that if you read my entire post you'll see that I am in a "comparative" mode here. I don't condone any of it. As I stated earlier doing those things, stacking naked, on a leash by a woman, and the indignities, all are unacceptable behavior by American troops. And they will be punished for it. The guards behavior brings us down to a level that in some senses degrades us all. Fionn is correct in his assessment of what I was attempting to say.

Greg F - I did apologise - my apologies that you missed it. And your apology for your general nastiness was where? You and Lepus Rex spent an inordinate amount of time spewing vitriol that was deemed, in part, unacceptable by the Mudcat Staff. My personal apologies to you for responding in kind (kind of like the prison/beheading thing eh?) and my forgivness for anything I may have perceived from you and Lepus.

Let me say this one more time. Compared to beheading captives in a brutal manner the things done to prisoners by American guards was more of a frat house prank. It is still unacceptable at any level. Is that a bit clearer?

I take sugar and cream Fionn.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 09:09 AM

Greg F - My original apology was here. detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=1132062

God bless
Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 12:25 PM

The position seems to be that while the law (international and national) is clear, that soldiers have a duty to refuse illegal orders... (McGrath)

Less clear than you think. I have learned it different in the Army before I refused service and I'm quite confident that this is correct:

Any soldier may refuse an order that is illegal.
The duty to refuse comes only into play when the order is not only illegal but also in violation of human rights.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 02:17 PM

Teribus, Please do tell us of the two occasions you questioned your orders, after all it is unlike you, not to explain in great detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: sledge
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 03:42 PM

Guest,

maybe Terribus is unable to, or at least see's himself as unable to. In the UK servicemen sign the official secrets act and while some see it as worthless and write (bad) books about their exploits, some people see fit to honour the commitment they have made.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 04:06 PM

"The purpose of the Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets. It's to protect officials!"
                                  --Sir Humphrey to Prime Minister Hacker in Yes, Prime Minister

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 06:58 PM

Any soldier may refuse an order that is illegal. The duty to refuse comes only into play when the order is not only illegal but also in violation of human rights.

That's an interesting distinction. I suppose, if one were working in a Sergeant Bilko unit, it might be quite a handy one to bear in mind. At any rate it's good to have it confirmed that, in the German Army, at any rate saying "I was ordered to do these things" would be no kind of defence when it came to torture and degrading treatment of prisoners. And I think that, as Teribus says,that is the legal situation in the British Army too, and many others.

My understanding is that, legally, that applies in the US Army too - but I am much less clear whether it is brought to the attention of personnel in any effective way. If so, I would think that would be a central plank in the defence strategy of those facing trial.
...............
"Compared to beheading captives in a brutal manner the things done to prisoners by American guards was more of a frat house prank. It appears that in some cases prisoners have been killed in the process of "the things done to prisoners by American guards".

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 07:17 PM

Sorry Snortin'- wrong thread!

And pretty poor attempt at obfuscation.

And hollow apology- you pretended you didn't know what I was talking about back in March of this year, too- "Not sure what you've done? Please.

The thread & incident I'm refering to is
(THIS ONE)
and I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers it. For those who don't, it makes interesting and instructive reading. Be sure to check the links too, Carol...

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 08:04 PM

Any links in particular, Greg F?

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 08:44 PM

Re-Read the 2003 thread, Carol- you even posted to it & commented on Snortin's behavior. I can't do all your remembering for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 09:59 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_prisoner_abuse_2

"WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan (news - web sites), and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday.

"The documents were handed out at the White House in an effort to blunt allegations that the administration had authorized torture against al-Qaida prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq (news - web sites). "

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 10:07 PM

Greg F, I believe I was the one who initially posted the particular link that you have in mind. I remember it quite well. Nevertheless, I still stand behind what I said about Steve (Norton1) in my 21 Jun 04 - 07:34 PM post to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 10:12 PM

Mr. Bush was on the news today, and in his unique halting way he denied ever ordering torture, but I couldn't help but notice that he never denied condoning it. What is the phrase, "credible denial" something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 10:17 PM

Plausible deniability.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 11:13 PM

He's not the kind of person you make him out to be

I don't make him out to be anything at all, Carol. His record speaks quite plainly for itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 05:23 AM

Regarding my question to Teribus on his questioning of orders, I was being curious with no malice intended.
I was "banged-up" in Cyprus in 1958 for calling my Sergeant a callous bastard, the circumstances arose during a house search, he accused me of "doing things by half" and then proceeding to pull everything in that house apart, the family looked on in horror, there was no way that he had to go to such extremes.
The rest of the patrol were disgusted with his actions, that`s when I told him what I thought of him.
So I was merely being curious when I asked Teribus to elaborate.

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 04:26 PM

Greg F - Here's how I read this - Will and I were ahving a vicious difference of opinion and without word one in your direction you said this:

"Oh yeah, Right. Poor, poor Snortin' Norton- proponent of the 'Vee know vere you live! You haff relatives in Germany?' school of thuggism. He might try coming across as less of a loud-mouthed schoolyard bully. Sixty years old going on thirteen.

Also, he could try explaining to the members of his family overseas that most folks who are against how the troops are being USED by BuShite Junta don't have any animosity towards the soldiers and sailors themselves and hope they all get back in one piece. Perpetuating the "anti-war = anti-troops" fantasy BS only serves to widen the divide."

Still no reply to you Mr. F but this:

Members of the Marines are incompletely educated about the history of the Corps. In addition to truly heroic efforts, it has been the perpetrator of some truly shameful actions as the shock troops of U.S. imperialism, historically invading foreign countries upon any pretext or whim of the U.S. Government or U.S economic interests. For example:

It would be a real service were they made aware of their entire history- the good AND the bad. They could still be the few and the brave, but possibly a bit less hubristicly proud. t might also provide them with some insight into why much of the world doesn't trust the U.S."

As if the Marines are responsible for our failed overseas policy.

Then this from yourself Mr. F (inresponse to a couple of others who suggested you might tone it down a bit):

"Must the sins of fathers be borne by their children?

Not at all. But the MEMORY of those sins should be kept alive.
Imparts a sense of perspective, cuts down the tendency toward self-righteousness and helps to keep future generations from actiing like complete jackasses." I don't think my children are jackasses. And still nothing towards you from me.

Then you made this comment: "I would observe that Norton's pride must be a frail and fragile thing of little substance indeed if it can be so easily undermined, as you maintain, by my posting of a few facts."

And I still have said nothing to you or about you.


Maybe I'm missing something here Greg F. Please let me know what it is. With one notable exception everyone on that thread and I made our peace. Tempers flare and we all, yes myself included, say things out of emotions without aforethought. So far in that thread it's been a one-sided deal. Just yourself.

And then - "And what precisely are Norton's ranting postings and personal attacks designed to do? I'm sure he appreciates you running to his defense. I rather assumed the rugged, two-fisted, cock-on-a-dunghill, foul-mouthed, thump-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me leatherneck he makes himself out to be would be able to take care of himself. Is this not the case?"

Still nothing towards you sir except a vaugue reference to you and Will as representative of the peaceful side.

Oh I get it!! It was when the Marines came over and raised cain! I see - it's not an apology that I owe you - it's one I owe the Mudcat. I still apologise to you for whatever it is that I did - it's vaugue due to no specific reference but the bitter language you used towards me with no provocation. And I do not intend to start it again.

I am apologising to you. Be well Greg F. And I'll do the public apology to the Cat -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Gen Karpinski re Iraq prisoners
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 06:17 PM

Well, Steve, I can make a few suggestions:

1. Re-read ALL the postings to that thread in order, rather than excerpting bits & pieces like you did above. Some of my responses were to posts other than yours. Its not ALL about you, you know.

2. Re-read your responses to the others in the thread- you really were acting the thug in places.

3. While reading,, try to rein in your paranoia a bit, don't read anything into my posts, & don't assume everything was NECESSARILY directed at you personally.

That should help a bit.

Thanks & take care-

Greg