American POWs

[Gary Sisco]

It was a certainty that this would happen and I've been warning for years now that the Geneva Conventions' protections -- so roundly mocked in the US for being softheaded -- do not extend to the troops of an aggressor nation, which the US clearly is in Iraq. What are the loud-mouthed takes on Geneva now?

U.S. Troops Search for Missing GIs in Iraq
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
4:05 AM PDT, June 18, 2006


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- U.S. troops searched Sunday for two missing soldiers in the volatile Sunni triangle south of Baghdad as witnesses claimed the Americans were led away by masked gunmen after the attack that left one of their comrades dead.

Ground forces, helicopters and airplanes fanned out shortly after Friday's attack and U.S. military spokesman U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Saturday that four raids had been carried out.

ADVERTISEMENTHe said a dive team also was to search for the men, whose checkpoint was near a Euphrates River canal not far from Youssifiyah, 12 miles south of Baghdad -- in the so-called triangle of death, named for the frequent ambushes against U.S. soldiers and Iraqi troops in the area.

Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer who said he witnessed the attack Friday, said three Humvees were manning a checkpoint when they came under fire from many directions. Two of the vehicles went after the assailants, but the third was ambushed before it could move, he told The Associated Press.

Seven masked gunmen, including one with what he described as a heavy machine gun, killed the driver of the third vehicle, then took the two other U.S. soldiers captive, the witness said. The account could not be verified.

The U.S. military said Sunday it was continuing the search but had no new information to provide.

"Coalition and Iraqi forces will continue to search everywhere possible, uncovering every stone, until our soldiers are found, and we will continue to use every resource available in our search," it said.

The New York Times also reported in its Sunday editions that Iraqi residents in the area said they saw two U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by a group of masked guerrillas. It said the two surviving soldiers were led to two cars and driven away.

Falah also said tensions were high in the area as U.S. soldiers raided some houses and arrested men. He also said the Americans were setting up checkpoints on all roads leading to the area of the attack and helicopters were hovering at low altitudes.

He did not give more details and no new raids were announced by the military early Sunday.

The military said Saturday that soldiers at a nearby checkpoint heard small-arms fire and explosions during the attack that occurred at 7:15 p.m. on Friday, and a quick-reaction force reached the scene within 15 minutes. The force found one soldier dead but no sign of the two others.

"We are currently using every means at our disposal on the ground, in the air and in the water to find them," said Caldwell, the spokesman for U.S. forces in Baghdad.

He said blocking positions were established throughout the area within an hour of the attack to keep suspects from fleeing.

He also noted the military was still searching for Sgt. Keith Matthew Maupin, who went missing on April 9, 2004.

"We continue to search using every means available and will not stop looking until we find the missing soldiers," he said.

Maupin was captured when insurgents ambushed his fuel convoy with the 724th Transportation Co. west of Baghdad. A week later, Arab television network Al-Jazeera aired a videotape showing Maupin sitting on the floor surrounded by five masked men holding automatic rifles.

That June, Al-Jazeera aired another tape purporting to show a U.S. soldier being shot. But the dark, grainy tape showed only the back of the victim's head and did not show the actual shooting. The Army ruled it was inconclusive whether the soldier was Maupin.

A 20-year-old private first class at the time of his capture, Maupin has been promoted twice since then.

* __

Associated Press writer Sameer N. Yacoub contributed to this report from Baghdad.

[Monte Smith]

The idea that Arab jihadists would extend humane treatment to anybody is pathetic, Gary, regardless of how well Americans treat captives, which is well.

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

It was a certainty that this would happen and I've been warning for years now that the Geneva Conventions' protections -- so roundly mocked in the US for being softheaded -- do not extend to the troops of an aggressor nation, which the US clearly is in Iraq. What are the loud-mouthed takes on Geneva now?
......

I assume you've done research into the "do not extend to the troops of an aggressor..." bit?

I doubt very seriously that we are abusing the cloth-headed prisoners at Gitmo, nor did we abuse German and Japanese prisoners in WWII; contrary to how our guys were treated, especially by the japanese.

Damn.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

The idea that Arab jihadists would extend humane treatment to anybody is pathetic, Gary, regardless of how well Americans treat captives, which is well.

We do not treat captives well. If you have to compare to total barbarians in order to make us look better something is wrong.

My brother has told horror stories about how "we" treat captives. Don't even try to put it off like it is just about underware on someone's head, or blasting Brittney Spears. There have been lots of clear-cut abuse cases, and it is still going on. It is war and people do really shitty things in war. It should not be justified, but condemned, no matter what the enemy is doing.

The biggest beef that I've heard that the Gitmo prisoners have is the fact there're being confined, kept in jail. All accounts say that they're being fed well, allowed to pray, hygienic conditions, etc. Maybe we ought to move them up to one of those fine NY Park Avenue hotels, think that'd make their lawyers shut the hell up?

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

The biggest beef that I've heard that the Gitmo prisoners have is the fact there're being confined, kept in jail. All accounts say that they're being fed well, allowed to pray, hygienic conditions, etc. Maybe we ought to move them up to one of those fine NY Park Avenue hotels, think that'd make their lawyers shut the hell up?

The Gitmo is a problem. We don't know how they are being treated there, so it is hard to argue that. But the fact that we are holding a ton of people, not formally charging them (many of them are probably totally innoscent), and depriving them of their liberties, is very anti-american and against everything this country stands for. You may say things ain't so bad there, but you wouldn't want to be held there indefinately and uncharged.

Originally Posted by sonic1

The Gitmo is a problem. We don't know how they are being treated there, so it is hard to argue that. But the fact that we are holding a ton of people, not formally charging them (many of them are probably totally innoscent), and depriving them of their liberties, is very anti-american and against everything this country stands for. You may say things ain't so bad there, but you wouldn't want to be held there indefinately and uncharged.

You do know that there's a jihad going on? Do you know that out of the thousands of suspected enemy combatants that only a few hundred were found likely combatants and are the ones being held at Gitmo? There was more of a screening process in whittling the numbers down than most people think, they weren't arbitrarily arrested. You do know that some of these guys were released only to kill and assassinate? I ain't saying that being held against your will is a bowl of cherries, and there might actually be some innocents down there. Heck, to hear prisoners and their lawyers talk there ain't a guilty one among them, they're all innocent.

Maybe this innocent until proven guilty thing needs to be rethought.

[tristano's ghost]

Well, anybody who doubts there isn't an incipient march towards fascism by some on the right just needs to read the above post. Why don't we just throw out the Constitution while we're at it? The Bushies have certainly been working overtime on that... they're a menace to American democracy. And Gitmo is simply the Gulag with a human face.

I would agree w/Monte that it's unlikely that Iraqi insurgents (no evidence yet that the kidnappers were "Arab jihadists", btw--in the Triangle of Death, I think it's more likely they were Sunni rebels) would treat American POWs well. Gary's point that our p*&%ing all over the Geneva Convention will come back to haunt us is well-taken, though; and we are no longer a nation who "treats its captives well." Tell it to the Afghan taxi-driver we beat to death. Tell it to the victims of Abu Ghraib. That's another thing the Bushies have thrown out--our reputation for being a humane country and military. If I were a conservative, I think I'd dislike this administration even more; they've done so much to run this country into the ground, both at home and abroad.

Telling quote from the AP story about the missing American soldiers:

A Youssifiyah resident, who said his house was searched by U.S. soldiers Sunday afternoon, said the Americans were using translators to offer $100,000 for information leading to those who took the soldiers.

The U.S. military denied a reward had been offered. It said only that coalition and Iraqi forces were continuing the search and "will continue to use every resource available."

The man in Youssifiyah said he would not cooperate.

"I will not do it even if they pay one million dollars," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he feared retribution. "They deserve all that they are facing ... we are living a hard life because of them."

Guess we missed the hearts-and-minds boat with this guy.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

Maybe this innocent until proven guilty thing needs to be rethought.

Jazzbluescat--you're guilty. Case closed.

[Gary Sisco]

Monte -- I never said they would, so once again you argue with a strawman. I have, however, been warning for three years that the treatment prisoners -- most of them unknowns and all of them untried -- have received at the hands of the US removes any moral standing the US might have had in the eyes of the world for even demanding humane treatment for its own, much less expecting it.

I'd not be in those guys' boots for anything. It would have been much better to have gone out fighting on the spot than anything they have to look forward to, now. Not only can anyone not help them, cries for their humane treatment or anything like it will fall on deaf ears all around the planet, after the US's behavior of the past three years -- and for no fault of the POWs. They will just pay the price, as soldiers always do, for the fuck-ups in DC, who pay no price, for anything, including especially their own behavior.

[Gary Sisco]

It is very interesting how easily Americans are willing to jettison their own democratic traditions, won with blood, while at the same time insisting that others adopt "democracy" at gunpoint.

[Gary Sisco]

From Sullivan's site:

What's Really Happening At Gitmo?
19 Jun 2006 05:58 am



The truth is: none of us really knows. So much of this war is kept from the people on whose behalf it is waged. Some of that is justified. Too much of it isn't. And the way in which this administration has bungled the detention and imprisonment of suspected and proven terrorists in the war could almost have been designed to erode any trust in them or the system they have constructed. The accumulated evidence certainly doesn't lead one to feel reassured. Here's a list of interrogation techniques reliably documented at U.S. detention centers in Guantanamo or Afghanistan, compiled by medical ethicist, Stephen Miles, in a forthcoming book, "Oath Betrayed." His sources are 35,000 pages of FOIAed government documents or credible witness testimony:


Beating; punching with fists; use of truncheons; kicking; slamming against walls; stretching or suspension (to tear ligaments or muscles to cause asphyxia); external electric shocks; forcing prisoners to abase and to urinate on themselves; forced masturbation; forced renunciation of religion; false confessions or accusations; applying urine and feces to prisoners; making verbal threats to a prisoner and his family; denigration of a prisoner's religion; force-feeding; induced hypothermia and exposure to extreme heat; dietary manipulation; use of sedatives; extreme sleep deprivation; mock executions; water immersion; "water-boarding"; obstruction of the prisoner's airway; chest compression; thermal burning; rape; dog bites; sexual abuse; forcing a prisoner to watch the abuse or torture of a loved one.


These practices failed in one respect for well over 100 documented human beings. They died.

The Washington Post got it right yesterday:


This political and administrative mess stems directly from Mr. Bush's decision in the weeks after Sept. 11 to take extraordinary measures against terrorism through the assertion of presidential power, rather than through legislation, court action or diplomacy. His intent was to exclude Congress, the courts and other governments from influencing or even monitoring how foreign detainees were treated. Senior officials, led by Vice President Cheney, argued that this policy would give the administration the flexibility it needed to fight the war effectively. Instead it has done the opposite: Mr. Bush's policies have deeply tarnished U.S. prestige abroad, inhibited cooperation with allies and prevented justice for al-Qaeda.


The trouble is: the architects of this policy - Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales - are still in power, and unable or unwilling to reverse course and face a real accounting. And so we stagger on, with secrecy lending credibility to the worst possibilities, with abuse documented in every field of conflict, and with the international moral standing of the United States at its lowest ebb since Vietnam. There are two wars right now, it seems to me: one is against Islamist terror; and the other is to protect the constitution and the Geneva Conventions from those who would bypass them to protect us. Both wars are vital; and in some ways, as defenses of our civilization, are the same.

*****************

I would argue that the latter is a far more important fight. There isn't one worth fighting if that one is lost.

[Gary Sisco]

Fire Rumsfeld Now
18 Jun 2006 03:36 pm

Retired Major General John Batiste commanded the Army's First Infantry Division, both in Iraq and in Kosovo. He knows who is accountable for the avoidable mayhem in Iraq:

The secretary of defense got the war in Iraq terribly wrong, and he did not set the conditions for success. He rejected the existence of the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty, and sent America to war with insufficient resources to accomplish the mission. Remember that he alone is responsible for what happens or fails to happen in the Department of Defense...

I am a two-time combat veteran in Iraq with many years of experience in peace enforcement operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. My only motivation in speaking out is our great country, our incredible military and their terrific families. I left the military after 31 years of service despite a promising career and promotion in order to speak out, to turn the lights on in a very dark room. I am honor bound to continue to do so. I have been a lifelong Republican.

America went to war in Iraq with the secretary of defense's plan. He ignored the U.S. Central Command's deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build his plan, which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency.

Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and grow to where it is today. Our great military lost a critical window of opportunity to secure Iraq because of inadequate troop levels and the decision to stand down the Iraqi security forces.

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

Well, anybody who doubts there isn't an incipient march towards fascism by some on the right just needs to read the above post. Why don't we just throw out the Constitution while we're at it? The Bushies have certainly been working overtime on that... they're a menace to American democracy. And Gitmo is simply the Gulag with a human face.
.....

Here we go(again). I doubt there's any abuse happening to prisoners down in Guantanamo Bay simply because of its high profile, simple as that, no political motivation in my assessement whatsoever. That's not to say that I'd approve or disapprove if there was.

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Jazzbluescat--you're guilty. Case closed.

re: maybe rethinking "guilty until proven innocent."

All I mean is if there is evidence and/or probable cause against an accused, why should he be considered innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent for that matter, either way? Seems like the most practical way of thinking would be that there's a 50-50 chance either way. The evidence should make it a different ballgame [from somebody that has no evidence against them]; and, granted the evidence needs to be verified true.
Sounds workable and more reasonable IMO.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

All I mean is [...]

Silence in the court! The prisoner has been found guilty. Gag him, clap him in irons and drag him off to the secret interrogation chamber to be well treated.

[Gary Sisco]

What court?

There aren't even trials.

[tristano's ghost]

Come again on treating captives well?

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. Army has charged three soldiers in connection with the deaths of three Iraqis who were in military custody in southern Iraq last month, the military said Monday.

The Multinational Corps-Iraq said three members of 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division have been charged in connection with the deaths of three male detainees during an operation near Thar Thar Canal in southern Salahuddin province on May 9.

"A noncommissioned officer and two soldiers each have been charged with violating several articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, communicating a threat, and obstructing justice," an announcement said.

It added that "on the day the alleged murders occurred, the unit commander ordered an inquiry to determine the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the three detainees."

It said that a criminal investigation began May 17 and was ongoing.

"The soldiers are currently in pre-trial confinement awaiting an Article 32 hearing to determine if sufficient evidence exists for the case to be referred to court-martial," the announcement said

Once charged, defendants have the right to an Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury investigation.

Last week, the Army said it had opened a criminal investigation into the suspicious deaths of three men in military custody in Iraq.

The investigation was requested by Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, commander of multinational forces in Iraq, who acted after other soldiers raised suspicions about the deaths.

And yes, it's good that it APPEARS they're going to be held accountable--but stories like these seem to be popping up more and more. I don't know if anybody's ever been charged in the death of the Aghan cab-driver (who turned out to be completely innocent, btw). Bound to happen, though, when the leadership throws things like Geneva out the window & gives a wink & a nod to brutality and torture.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

You do know that there's a jihad going on? Do you know that out of the thousands of suspected enemy combatants that only a few hundred were found likely combatants and are the ones being held at Gitmo? There was more of a screening process in whittling the numbers down than most people think, they weren't arbitrarily arrested. You do know that some of these guys were released only to kill and assassinate? I ain't saying that being held against your will is a bowl of cherries, and there might actually be some innocents down there. Heck, to hear prisoners and their lawyers talk there ain't a guilty one among them, they're all innocent.

Maybe this innocent until proven guilty thing needs to be rethought.

Yeah, and when we were at war with Japan people said the same thing about the japanese. We are at war. Sorry but that is no excuse. Nobody is saying they are all innocent. But it is pretty clear that a lot of them were picked up in the confusion of the times, and presumed guilty when they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

And the fact that there is no process to even look at the facts, that we can just hold them and not apply our own understanding of democracy is ludicrous and hypocritical. It is an outright abuse of the liberty of human beings which democracies supposedly stand for.

And regarding jihad: I have been questioning lately how pervasive this supposed jihad is. I mean, it is not like we have done much to prevent things. People from all sides of the political spectrum are shouting how unprepared we are for such an attack, and how vulnerable we are, yet we have not been attacked. I wonder just how much of an enemy is really out there. Unless they are waiting to do something big.

JBC, it is cowardly to question the hallmark ideals of democracy when you are so protected by it. Are we just going to hold up democratic ideals when things are "safe" or can we have the balls to stay free and apply our own ideals to other peoples.

I think americans have become the biggest pussies. Get some balls; democracy isn't just for times of prosperity and peace. If you expect the world to hold these ideals, you have to hold them up yourself, and you cannot use the examples of barbarians to excuse yourself from those standards.

Originally Posted by sonic1

..... But it is pretty clear that a lot of them were picked up in the confusion of the times, and presumed guilty when they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anything's possible. In this situation I'll trust the judgement of those responsible for the arrests, rather than damn civil lawyers.

Originally Posted by sonic1

And the fact that there is no process to even look at the facts, that we can just hold them and not apply our own understanding of democracy is ludicrous and hypocritical. It is an outright abuse of the liberty of human beings which democracies supposedly stand for.

They should be held until the "war's" over; it's not a civil matter [of course the lawyers would like you to think it's a "shop lifting case" and we're torturing the shit out of the poor lads....over a "shop lifting case"...mean americans, bad americans]. And you buy it...tsk. Furthermore, I heard that if those prisoners swore not to engage or help in the fighting that they'd be freed. But, after some of those released went on to kill, I imagine that idea got nixed.

Originally Posted by sonic1

JBC, it is cowardly to question the hallmark ideals of democracy when you are so protected by it. Are we just going to hold up democratic ideals when things are "safe" or can we have the balls to stay free and apply our own ideals to other peoples.

What prompted that, what are you talking about, specifically?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're taking this whole situation out of context. These prisoners are not subject to our civil law. They are in a gray area, are considered enemy combatants, more a military matter, rather than civilian criminals.

[Ron Thorne]

jazzbluescat -

I've been tempted to say the following for months, but resisted. Your avatar suits you to a "T".

Congratulations on a perfect fit!

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

Anything's possible. In this situation I'll trust the judgement of those responsible for the arrests, rather than damn civil lawyers.



They should be held until the "war's" over; it's not a civil matter [of course the lawyers would like you to think it's a "shop lifting case" and we're torturing the shit out of the poor lads....over a "shop lifting case"...mean americans, bad americans]. And you buy it...tsk. Furthermore, I heard that if those prisoners swore not to engage or help in the fighting that they'd be freed. But, after some of those released went on to kill, I imagine that idea got nixed.



What prompted that, what are you talking about, specifically?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're taking this whole situation out of context. These prisoners are not subject to our civil law. They are in a gray area, are considered enemy combatants, more a military matter, rather than civilian criminals.

You have no idea what civil liberty is, even though you are lucky enough to thrive under it.

Democratic ideals, and liberties are for everyone and according to the people who wrote our constitution everyone is born with them, not just those under your nationalistic juristictions.

You can demonize lawyers, but you forget there are lawyers on both sides of the issue. I would argue that forgoing the Geneva conventions is tricky dirty lawyer activity, not insuring that we follow the same rules that we expect the rest of the world to follow.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

The idea that Arab jihadists would extend humane treatment to anybody is pathetic, Gary, regardless of how well Americans treat captives, which is well.

A rightwinger's disengenuous argument for torture.

You are disgusting.

Originally Posted by sonic1

You have no idea what civil liberty is, even though you are lucky enough to thrive under it.

Why do you say shit like that? Doesn't it make you head hurt?

Originally Posted by sonic1

Democratic ideals, and liberties are for everyone and according to the people who wrote our constitution everyone is born with them, not just those under your nationalistic juristictions.

In a perfect world, in your dreams.

Originally Posted by sonic1

..... I would argue that forgoing the Geneva conventions is tricky dirty lawyer activity, not insuring that we follow the same rules that we expect the rest of the world to follow.

When prisoner abuse first came to light I might have agreed with you. But not now, because there's much limelight on the situation that we must be above board. [Personally I think this abuse was made to look much more severe than it was, because of the media and our detractors capitalizing on the differences in values of Western civilization and the Moslem world.]

[lynn]

Well if you haven't heard yet, they have found these two kids' bodies.

Bodies of G.I.'s Show Signs of Torture, Iraqi General Says
Published: June 20, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 20 — The American military said today that it had found the remains of what appears to be the two American soldiers captured by insurgents last week in an ambush south of the capital, and a senior Iraqi military official said the two men had been "brutally tortured."

The two bodies were found in the village of Jarf as-Sakhr, which is on the outskirts of Yusufiya.

Major General William B. Caldwell IV, the American military spokesman, said "the remains" of what are believed to be the two Americans were found near a power plant in the vicinity of Yusefiya, about three miles from the site were they had been captured by insurgents.

General Caldwell declined to speak in detail about the physical condition of those who had been found, but he said that the cause of death could not be determined. He said the remains of the men would be sent to the United States for DNA testing to determine definitively their identities. That seemed to suggest that the two Americans had been wounded or mutilated beyond recognition.

Maj. Gen. Abdul Azziz Mohammed Jassim, the chief of operations of the Ministry of Defense, said that he had seen an official report and that he could confirm the two Americans had been "killed in a very brutal way and tortured."

"There were traces of torture on their bodies, very clear traces," General Jassim said. "It was a brutal torture. The torture was something unnatural."

The general said that he was unable to give any more details.

General Caldwell said the families of the soldiers in the United States had been notified that the bodies of their kin had been found. He said the Army hoped that further testing would reveal the cause of death.

"It pains us to realize what fellow servicemen go through," General Caldwell said at a news conference. "Please keep both of these families in your prayers."

The Mujahedeen Shura, an umbrella group that says it oversees Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia, asserted in a statement posted on the Internet that the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had "slaughtered" the two Americans. The authenticity of the statement, like many that are posted on the Internet, could not be verified. The Arabic word used in the posting — "nahr" — denotes the cutting of the throat, and it has been used by jihadi groups when they have beheaded their victims.

Mr. Zarqawi, the head of the Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was killed in an American airstrike on June 7. His successor, according to the group, is Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, whom the Americans say is an Egyptian who has been fighting in Iraq since 2003.

"With God's blessing, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir carried out the verdict of the Islamic court," which had sentenced the men to death, the statement said.

The American military did not release any information about the identity of those who may have captured the American soldiers. On Monday, the Mujahedeen Shura, or Council of Holy Warriors, had said in a statement posted on the Internet that it had captured the Americans, but it provided no evidence that it had the men in its custody.

The remains of the two Americans were spotted Monday night by a group of American soldiers who were among the 8,000 servicemen who were searching the area. The area where the bodies were spotted was considered so dangerous, General Caldwell said, that the soldiers had to wait until morning to retrieve them.

The general said that the soldiers conducting the search had encountered several roadside bombs during their search, and that one soldier had been killed and 12 wounded.

The two soldiers were identified Monday as Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore. A third soldier, Specialist David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed when insurgents attacked the three at a traffic checkpoint.

Without going into detail, General Caldwell said it was clear that the two men had been killed in a violent way. And he said that the men had died from wounds received during the initial battle with the guerrillas.

"Due to the condition of their bodies, we do not believe it was by natural cause of death," he said. "It did not appear that they had been mortally wounded and moved to a location and died."

Reporting for this article was contributed by Sabrina Tavernise and Richard A. Oppel Jr.from Baghdad,Peter Kieferfrom Rome,and John O'Neil and Christine Hauser from New York.

==================

Some reports stated that they had boobytrapped the area heavily with IED's ( I think that is how they are refered to)

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

Why do you say shit like that? Doesn't it make you head hurt?



In a perfect world, in your dreams.



When prisoner abuse first came to light I might have agreed with you. But not now, because there's much limelight on the situation that we must be above board. [Personally I think this abuse was made to look much more severe than it was, because of the media and our detractors capitalizing on the differences in values of Western civilization and the Moslem world.]

I don't know why I even bother to reason with you.

Originally Posted by lynn

Well if you haven't heard yet, they have found these two kids' bodies.

Bodies of G.I.'s Show Signs of Torture, Iraqi General Says
Published: June 20, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 20 — The American military said today that it had found the remains of what appears to be the two American soldiers captured by insurgents last week in an ambush south of the capital, and a senior Iraqi military official said the two men had been "brutally tortured."

......

All the abuse and torture stuff [Gitmo & prisons] should've been handled internally, at least kept away from the media. We can thank lawyers and the media for their grandstanding. All it did was provide impetus and "justification" for the fucking ragheads to pull this shit.

Nothing like making a bad situation even worse.

Originally Posted by sonic1

I don't know why I even bother to reason with you.

So that's what you call it.

[Daniel]

jazzbluescat is the most blatantly racist person i've ever encountered on the internet. he belongs at stormfront, not a jazz board.

[lynn]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

All the abuse and torture stuff [Gitmo & prisons] should've been handled internally, at least kept away from the media. We can thank lawyers and the media for their grandstanding. All it did was provide impetus and "justification" for the fucking ragheads to pull this shit.

Nothing like making a bad situation even worse.

Don't blame the media for this. The fault falls directly at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld for sanctioning the use of torture. He made the rules now we have to live with them.

[Noj]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

All the abuse and torture stuff [Gitmo & prisons] should've been handled internally, at least kept away from the media. We can thank lawyers and the media for their grandstanding. All it did was provide impetus and "justification" for the fucking ragheads to pull this shit.

Nothing like making a bad situation even worse.

Let me get this straight - Our government, in your opinion, should wrongfully imprison and torture people, hide it from the media, and the media shouldn't report facts concerning our government's activities because it might be used as justification for evil deeds by "ragheads."

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't wrongfully imprison anyone, that we should be able to produce evidence of wrongdoing and properly try anyone we need to imprison. We shouldn't ever torture people because it is a barbaric, subhuman thing to do and doesn't work as a means to procure accurate information anyway. The media should seek truth, no matter what, in an unbiased manner. The media should not be a propaganda tool of the government. Our government shouldn't need any reason for propaganda because its goals and actions should be 100% justifiable and clearly explained. Lastly, "ragheads" is racially offensive. Thanks thanks.

Originally Posted by lynn

Don't blame the media for this. The fault falls directly at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld for sanctioning the use of torture. He made the rules now we have to live with them.

He hedged more than he sanctioned, perse, because he didn't think the situation would get so blown out of proportion, which, on hindsight, was definitely a mistake. The most torture that we've been involved in was more of embarassment and disrespect, except for the dog incident. Too bad the dude didn't let the dogs chew the sonofabitches up.

Damn, this is preposterous. I hope those two guys remained strong til the end.