It was quite the comparison from Limbaugh today. He compared the actions of the soldiers who taunted abused Iraqi prisoners to bad reporters.
So, a few of these people piled prisoners up nude, tied wires to their bodies and forced them into disgusting positions. What's the difference between that and, Jason Biair at the New York Times?
What's the difference between sadistic prison torturers and the reporter at USA Today who plagerized other peoples' work.
That's tough logic to argue with.
Actually, Limbaugh seemed to get a real kick out of this. What's the difference between this and what takes place one stage on a show by Madonna and Britney Spears?
I don't see or "get" the comparison myself either. It's a poor analogy IMO.
What these idiots did was simply make our job all the more hard. Like I said I'm sure they'll be dealt with appropriately. I think they ought to do hard time. Yes prisioners get mistreated and there's no excuse for it. I could even understand it had this happened in the field right after battle, it's not an excuse for it but it's an emotional situation. You're trained to controll those emotions and urges to beat the crap out of these people. This was in a supposed controlled enviroment. The general in charge ought to be accountible.
What does separate us is that it's not a widepsread thing and that the people will be punished. Attrocities happened on much worse levels there for years although there hasn't been many of those stories but that's what makes it harder to understand. These people ought to know better. You can be forceful and intimidating without resorting to that crap. It was a stupid move by a handfull of stupid people. I do wish that the "Arab street" had the same set of standards for their bretheren when it comes to attrocities.
"The official said he believed the seven officers would not face further action or court martial, but the reprimands could mean the end of their careers."
Weren't most of these people reservists? -- So they go back home.
"Another six U.S. servicemembers - all military police - also may face criminal charges."
"May" is the operative word, there. If I would guess, the general who commanded this fiasco is the one that's going to swing for it.
"Another six U.S. servicemembers - all military police - also may face criminal charges."
"May" is the operative word, there. If I would guess, the general who commanded this fiasco is the one that's going to swing for it."
Rick, the letters of reprimand were for other instances not nessicarily related to the Aru Ghraib prision. As for the 6 you're referring to.
The criminal investigation of the Abu Ghraib case was completed on March 15, Di Rita said. On March 20, criminal charges were filed against six military police. As many as three of the six cases has been referred to military trial, and others are in various stages of preliminary hearings, officials said.
The investigation has been going on since the end of January. Military law is similar in many ways to civilian law. The investigation was ordered by Gen Sanchez after a soldier came forward to report the abuse. It's called due process. I'm sure the commanding General will swing as well. She's already been releived of duty and will be no doubt be talking to a review board soon and then prosecutors will decide when if/ to bring charges. My bet says they will. all 6 will eventually face criminal charges as 3 already have. There will probably be more. I hope whomever committed those acts is dealt with severely.
THIS JUST IN!!! Three Marines stubbed their toe in Baghdad this morning! Bush will lose because of it!! Rumsfeld must be held accountable!! Save it, fold.
You didn't make triple top secret?
You're sounding more and more like Kerry. Or vice versa. Vietnam this. Vietnam that. Spare us. We've all heard about your legendary, military, exploits, how many times now? And i'm sure top secret transmissions from a ship go to the exact same places they did 32 years ago.
Well Fold, the president sure said alot in his interview that sounded like he was sorry. Guess what, he did use those words today (link).
Here is something else for you to think about as well, there is a house resolution (HR627) that condemns the actions taken. The really interesting part is HR628 which provides for consideration of HR627 that came to a vote today with it passing. With the exception of a few that did not vote, there was all of the Republicans voting for it while all of the Democrats voted against it. It would appear that the Democrats don't even wish to discuss condemning the actions of those few soldiers in Iraq.
In a related article, the Associated Press is saying that a roll call vote on a resolution (627?) condemning the actions of abuse passed in the house. The vote by the Republicans was all 213 voting for the condemnation with the Dems only able to garner 153 votes. There was 49 democrats who actually voted against condeming the actions of those few soldiers in Iraq.Apparently, to people like McCollum, Oberstar and Sabo, all Democrats from Minnesota, as well as Pelosi, Frank, Conyers, Kucinich (gee, that name sounds familiar) these actions were not worthy of their condemnation.
But let's not look at that, let's focus on the President who says that these actions were "abhorrent" and "does not represent the America that I know." Well Mr. President, apparently it does represent the America that the dems want.
I think Bush did what he had to do to staunch the bleeding with this apology. But I'm wondering how this will play with a wing of his constituency. The right wing rant radio talkers will carry on about how terrible it is he apologized. But they're not standing in his shoes.
If the person running the show in Iraq was some kind of Ego With Four Stars on his Shoulder, Bush might have been heading for a showdown of Truman - Macarthur proportions.
I woke up this morning thinking that with the apology the whole thing could be out of the news cycle by the end of next week. I don't know how these twisted little creeps got past the recruiter, but unless they have some real tales to tell, the incident could still die out soon.
It think Democrats should lay off this Rumsfeld-should-resign song. It's not going to play. They landed a couple good hits and dazed the champ. But the round is over. The problem I have the Democratic leadership is: they always seem to reach a little too high. Take your victory and go back to the corner. They'll be another round.
What I really hope is that we will be spared things like Rush Limbaugh's tortured psychoanalysis of the Cigarette Smoking Woman and her relationship to modern feminism.
She's intelligent, educated and speaks several languages. She didn't know whether the treatment of prisoners in Iraq crossed the line between court marshal and war crimes. Where does the line exist and who draws it? I had no answer.
I've heard people say that if the United States were a country of 10 million people caught up in a brushfire war with a neighbor where would the leaders be now? Would they be in the Hague like Milosovic?
People keep saying: There needs to be perspective. They're the same people who compare this the frat-boy hazing.
Rumsfeld said there are going to be hundreds of pictures coming out. Prisoners have died in captivity.
You have a problem with what appears to be random acts of abuse which are related to war but think it is just fine to butcher children "in our name." Go figure.
It's a fine line no doubt. I think the difference is if the abuse was condoned or encouraged by the top leadership ie; Rumnsfeld, Bush. Also the difference is if the country fails to act or police it's own people. If they fail to stop it or punish those responsible then I beleive it would go to a Hague type tribunal. Some of the abuse was stupid and assinine hunmiliation followed by much worse. I think the best or most recent example would be the My Lai massacre. Lt. Caley (sp) spent time in prision due to his horrid acts as I beleive some of the other officers did. What is sad about the whole thing, aside from the prisioners themselves is the ammo it gives critics and the jihaidiots in Iraq. It's sad for the rest of the decent men and women doing an admirible job.
The soldiers trying to pawn it off on their superiors are just as wrong as the superiors blaming them. The ones who knew first hand real time what was happening are to blame, officer and enlisted alike, the ones who were there are guilty. Perhaps the soldiers even more because they have a duty to disobey an order that's morally objective. If someone had ever told me to do that to a prisioner I'd tell em to go pound salt. That's what they should have done. What they did instead do was denigrate thousands of men and women doing a good job and cost the lives of not only Iraqi's and American troops. I hope they get the max penalty and don't see sunlight for a long long time.
systematic and wide spread are relative terms. again, I know you want to believe that it is as bad as it possibly can be but you really should wait for all of the facts.
so are "isolated" and "a few" Until it can be proven that it is systematic and widespread it must be isolated and few.
I know you want to believe that it is as bad as it possibly can be but you really should wait for all of the facts.
you don't know a goddamn thing.
crabs, I know you. You want it to be as bad as possible
I know that Bush has stated it was a few isolated incidents and I know that was a lie. You do? I see. Just more proof that you want it to be as bad as possible.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Go away sad fuck. heh.
I think these soldiers may have done incalculable damage
I agree. If the powers that be have any brains whatsoever, they'd throw those bastards out of the service, and thrown them in jail for a long time.
We're supposed to be the good guys here.
he must be talking to you, THX
he must be talking to you, THX
LOL
Ok, you got me there.
"throw those bastards out of the service, and thrown them in jail for a long time."
Is this a matter for the Iraqi justice system?
Nothing fatal, of course. Just drop them off and look the other wayfor a little while.
'Bill - Fold' 5/3/04 7:33am
Agreed, well said. They're bad people no matter where you go, the difference is that their own people turned them in as they should.
Rick,
I would bet ALOT of money that these idiots will be dealt with severely.
Care to lay some more money on how many new terrorist cells they created?
No, I don't know how many they "created" I know it certainly hurts our efforts.
It was quite the comparison from Limbaugh today. He compared the actions of the soldiers who taunted abused Iraqi prisoners to bad reporters.
So, a few of these people piled prisoners up nude, tied wires to their bodies and forced them into disgusting positions. What's the difference between that and, Jason Biair at the New York Times?
What's the difference between sadistic prison torturers and the reporter at USA Today who plagerized other peoples' work.
That's tough logic to argue with.
Actually, Limbaugh seemed to get a real kick out of this. What's the difference between this and what takes place one stage on a show by Madonna and Britney Spears?
That's tough logic to argue with.
I gotta agree with you.
I don't see or "get" the comparison myself either. It's a poor analogy IMO.
What these idiots did was simply make our job all the more hard. Like I said I'm sure they'll be dealt with appropriately. I think they ought to do hard time. Yes prisioners get mistreated and there's no excuse for it. I could even understand it had this happened in the field right after battle, it's not an excuse for it but it's an emotional situation. You're trained to controll those emotions and urges to beat the crap out of these people. This was in a supposed controlled enviroment. The general in charge ought to be accountible.
What does separate us is that it's not a widepsread thing and that the people will be punished. Attrocities happened on much worse levels there for years although there hasn't been many of those stories but that's what makes it harder to understand. These people ought to know better. You can be forceful and intimidating without resorting to that crap. It was a stupid move by a handfull of stupid people. I do wish that the "Arab street" had the same set of standards for their bretheren when it comes to attrocities.
So, how severe is a reprimand?
"The official said he believed the seven officers would not face further action or court martial, but the reprimands could mean the end of their careers."
Weren't most of these people reservists? -- So they go back home.
"Another six U.S. servicemembers - all military police - also may face criminal charges."
"May" is the operative word, there. If I would guess, the general who commanded this fiasco is the one that's going to swing for it.
Rick 5/4/04 5:57am
"Another six U.S. servicemembers - all military police - also may face criminal charges."
"May" is the operative word, there. If I would guess, the general who commanded this fiasco is the one that's going to swing for it."
Rick, the letters of reprimand were for other instances not nessicarily related to the Aru Ghraib prision. As for the 6 you're referring to.
The investigation has been going on since the end of January. Military law is similar in many ways to civilian law. The investigation was ordered by Gen Sanchez after a soldier came forward to report the abuse. It's called due process. I'm sure the commanding General will swing as well. She's already been releived of duty and will be no doubt be talking to a review board soon and then prosecutors will decide when if/ to bring charges. My bet says they will. all 6 will eventually face criminal charges as 3 already have. There will probably be more. I hope whomever committed those acts is dealt with severely.
you sure can clear a room. take it personal..be sure to.
THIS JUST IN!!! Three Marines stubbed their toe in Baghdad this morning! Bush will lose because of it!! Rumsfeld must be held accountable!! Save it, fold.
You didn't make triple top secret?
You're sounding more and more like Kerry. Or vice versa. Vietnam this. Vietnam that. Spare us. We've all heard about your legendary, military, exploits, how many times now? And i'm sure top secret transmissions from a ship go to the exact same places they did 32 years ago.
That's all.
You are really dumb then, fold. You told the world a few days ago you were 51. 32 years ago you were 19 and STILL in high school??
Some things never change.
Well Fold, the president sure said alot in his interview that sounded like he was sorry. Guess what, he did use those words today (link).
Here is something else for you to think about as well, there is a house resolution (HR627) that condemns the actions taken. The really interesting part is HR628 which provides for consideration of HR627 that came to a vote today with it passing. With the exception of a few that did not vote, there was all of the Republicans voting for it while all of the Democrats voted against it. It would appear that the Democrats don't even wish to discuss condemning the actions of those few soldiers in Iraq.
In a related article, the Associated Press is saying that a roll call vote on a resolution (627?) condemning the actions of abuse passed in the house. The vote by the Republicans was all 213 voting for the condemnation with the Dems only able to garner 153 votes. There was 49 democrats who actually voted against condeming the actions of those few soldiers in Iraq.Apparently, to people like McCollum, Oberstar and Sabo, all Democrats from Minnesota, as well as Pelosi, Frank, Conyers, Kucinich (gee, that name sounds familiar) these actions were not worthy of their condemnation.
But let's not look at that, let's focus on the President who says that these actions were "abhorrent" and "does not represent the America that I know." Well Mr. President, apparently it does represent the America that the dems want.
this from a man who made fun of and ridiculed a woman he was putting to death.
Twist all you want, but the truth still is against you.
what truth is that?
I think Bush did what he had to do to staunch the bleeding with this apology. But I'm wondering how this will play with a wing of his constituency. The right wing rant radio talkers will carry on about how terrible it is he apologized. But they're not standing in his shoes.
If the person running the show in Iraq was some kind of Ego With Four Stars on his Shoulder, Bush might have been heading for a showdown of Truman - Macarthur proportions.
I woke up this morning thinking that with the apology the whole thing could be out of the news cycle by the end of next week. I don't know how these twisted little creeps got past the recruiter, but unless they have some real tales to tell, the incident could still die out soon.
It think Democrats should lay off this Rumsfeld-should-resign song. It's not going to play. They landed a couple good hits and dazed the champ. But the round is over. The problem I have the Democratic leadership is: they always seem to reach a little too high. Take your victory and go back to the corner. They'll be another round.
What I really hope is that we will be spared things like Rush Limbaugh's tortured psychoanalysis of the Cigarette Smoking Woman and her relationship to modern feminism.
I have an idea, fold. How about the 9th day of a certain month?
It's you with no idea. 6'4" 230.
You're a tough guy here compared to that whining, tail tucked between your legs, message, you sent JT. LOL!
"Tell him to stop it JT" "Tell him to stop it" Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
You called me out, boy! I hope you learned something.
I remember when fold invited me down to St. Paul last winter so he could kill me.
Did i go whining to JT? Nope.
Not to stir the shit, but....
If I recall correctly, didn't Bill Fold post his name & his birth date on the old PP at one time?
Claiming he wasn't afraid or something like that?
OK fold, I promise not to post anything that you have already posted??
Cookies, anyone?
"shut the fuck up"?..."shithead"? I see your idea of contributions.
The bottom line is that you went running full speed to your internet mommy when you "thought" the heat was on. The great and mighty fold, exposed.
Oh, that really hurt.
You're such a victim.
A friend of mine from Canada amd I talked today:
She's intelligent, educated and speaks several languages. She didn't know whether the treatment of prisoners in Iraq crossed the line between court marshal and war crimes. Where does the line exist and who draws it? I had no answer.
I've heard people say that if the United States were a country of 10 million people caught up in a brushfire war with a neighbor where would the leaders be now? Would they be in the Hague like Milosovic?
People keep saying: There needs to be perspective. They're the same people who compare this the frat-boy hazing.
Rumsfeld said there are going to be hundreds of pictures coming out. Prisoners have died in captivity.
What's been done in our name?
What's been done in our name?
You have a problem with what appears to be random acts of abuse which are related to war but think it is just fine to butcher children "in our name." Go figure.
Take your ridiculous gibberish over to the Abortion board and go round and round with Dan and Crabs for about five hours jethro.
I am sorry that you don't see your hypocrisy.
Rick,
It's a fine line no doubt. I think the difference is if the abuse was condoned or encouraged by the top leadership ie; Rumnsfeld, Bush. Also the difference is if the country fails to act or police it's own people. If they fail to stop it or punish those responsible then I beleive it would go to a Hague type tribunal. Some of the abuse was stupid and assinine hunmiliation followed by much worse. I think the best or most recent example would be the My Lai massacre. Lt. Caley (sp) spent time in prision due to his horrid acts as I beleive some of the other officers did. What is sad about the whole thing, aside from the prisioners themselves is the ammo it gives critics and the jihaidiots in Iraq. It's sad for the rest of the decent men and women doing an admirible job.
The soldiers trying to pawn it off on their superiors are just as wrong as the superiors blaming them. The ones who knew first hand real time what was happening are to blame, officer and enlisted alike, the ones who were there are guilty. Perhaps the soldiers even more because they have a duty to disobey an order that's morally objective. If someone had ever told me to do that to a prisioner I'd tell em to go pound salt. That's what they should have done. What they did instead do was denigrate thousands of men and women doing a good job and cost the lives of not only Iraqi's and American troops. I hope they get the max penalty and don't see sunlight for a long long time.
I'm so disgusted by what's come to light lately.
I stole the caption below from Lance.
it appears to be systemic and widespread.
did you know that a lot of the photos we are being shown have been cropped to not show that many other soldiers were witnessing what was being done?
it appears to be systemic and widespread.
I know you hope that but there has been no proof of that.
the Red Cross seems to think otherwise, and told this to the administration as long ago as last year.
systematic and wide spread are relative terms. again, I know you want to believe that it is as bad as it possibly can be but you really should wait for all of the facts.
so are "isolated" and "a few"
you don't know a goddamn thing.
I know that Bush has stated it was a few isolated incidents and I know that was a lie.
so are "isolated" and "a few" Until it can be proven that it is systematic and widespread it must be isolated and few.
I know you want to believe that it is as bad as it possibly can be but you really should wait for all of the facts.
you don't know a goddamn thing.
crabs, I know you. You want it to be as bad as possible
I know that Bush has stated it was a few isolated incidents and I know that was a lie. You do? I see. Just more proof that you want it to be as bad as possible.
you obviously do not.
I don't want it to exist at all.
That's the problem.
I also don't want to pretend it isn't so.
I also don't want to pretend it isn't so.
You pretend so much isn't true, what is one more thing?
you (and Bush and Cheney) are the ones pretending that the torture isn't systemic or widespread.
not me.
Torture?
uh...yea.
more like harassment than torture.
I don't know if that rises to the level of torture.
It doesn't matter. It was wrong.