"Of course Bush lied. He knew they weren't there, then had teams go look for them and tell us they aren't there it's brilliant. Oh wait, he's a moron, oh wait he's evil. Oh wait...well never mind. "
No point in being so defensive.
It's been so long since the search began, and there's so much water under the bridge, I suspect ist's not even much of a disappointment to the White House. Politically, it's not going to cost him much
Maybe has something to do with the 2 weeks (or so... I don't remember) warning that Saddam was given that we were coming here...
Actually, that threat had been there for years. After the talk of war began in earnest this time, a lot of folks wanted us to wait and see what would come from the inspections. This gave him a lot of time to move things if he thought that we were serious this time.
Current timeline is:
Oct. 10, 2002 the president was given authorization to invade:
Nov. 27, 2002 weapons inspections resumed.
Dec. 21, 2002 the president authorizes the movement of troops to the Gulf Region. It is estimated that by March, 200,000 troops will be stationed there. Takes a while to move all that equipment and personnel. (maybe the U.S. is serious this time and violations should be hidden)
Jan. 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix states, “ Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.”
March 17, 2003 President George W. Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.
If none of those items were there, was there enough?
Enough justification for war? Considering the rape, murder and torture of the good people of Iraq by not only his government, but also his piglatin named sons? Considering that for over a decade he did everything he could to sabotage inspections and ignore resolutions that he agreed to? Considering he made a mockery of the oil for food program by using it to steal the funds and bribe officials instead of feeding his own people? Considering that he openly financially supported terrorist and gave them a safe haven?
You tell me. Did we do the right thing by removing Saddam by any means necessary? Are the good people of Iraq better off choosing their own leaders rather than the system of government they had under the rule of Saddam?
This isn't about Bush bashing or party loyalty Rick. It was about dealing with a threat. Sure we could have waited for the bribes to work, sanctions to be dropped and then let him rebuild his arsonal to be a bigger problem than it ever was, but would you have prefered we waited for that? You guys continually point out the fractional percentage of soldiers lost now, but what would it have been if we had given him the time to rebuild as has been documented that he wanted to do? What would the cost in human life on both sides have added up to at that point? And don't try to tell me that he wouldn't have tried something, his history shows otherwise.
Think about it Rick and be honest with yourself if you are unable to be honest with us.
I've been honest. Before the war, I couldn't make up my mind. I'd think one way in the morning, another in the afternoon. Once it started, my tendency was to shut up. It still is. I comment a lot on media coverage, because that's what interests me. Saddam is out of power. Well, of all the things that have occurred in this war, that's one of them.I expected it.
"Are the good people of Iraq better off choosing their own leaders rather than the system of government they had under the rule of Saddam?"
I don't know when this affection for the Iraqi people, and concern over their treatment developed. It's good, but Saddam was their problem, too. Don't people essentially get the government they deserve? That's one of the first things you're taught in Poli Sci 101.
As for your other "what if" questions: I don't know the answer, and neither do you. You might want to try being honest about that.
[Edited 8 times. Most recently by on Jan 13, 2005 at 05:41am.]
U.S. forces did find in their search for banned weapons in Iraq - starting with, for instance, the 1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium Saddam had socked away.
Here's how the Associated Press covered that news last June:
"In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.
"The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis," the AP said.
"Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as 'a major achievement' in an attempt to 'keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.'"
You are correct, it is Scott Ridder. My appologies to everyone.
Before the war, I couldn't make up my mind. I'd think one way in the morning, another in the afternoon.
Yea, I remember you being undecided at times. I also remember you thinking that oil was a part of the reason for war.
I don't know when this affection for the Iraqi people, and concern over their treatment developed.
Probably back in the first Gulf war. At least thatwas when I first realized what kind of leader Saddam was. I always thought that we should have taken him out back then when we had him on the run.
It's good, but Saddam was their problem, too.
A problem that they were unable to handle. When someone like Saddam has that much power, there isn't a lot you can do to stop it. If you were them, what would you have done differently?
Don't people essentially ge t the government they deserve?
That may be what they taught you, but it doesn't always work in the real world. It Depends on the system. We get the gov. we as a society deserve because we vote for them. We have the responsibility and the ability to shape our government in the way we want. Iraq did not have that ability. Look at the joke ballot at the top of this page. It pretty much sums up what their choices were.
As for your other "what if" questions: I don't know the answer, and neither do you. You might want to try being honest about that.
Those were verified goals of his. To bribe officials into lifting sanctions and get things going again. What a disaster that would have been.
I always thought that we should have taken him out back then when we had him on the run.
He was an 'unnoficial' target, from what I saw on some interview a few years back, in the first Gulf War. The 'official' goal was to get the Iraqi Army out of Kuwaiti soil. Supposedly, a call from Schwartzkopf (sp?) to President Bush Sr. that we have met our goal. Evidently there was some misunderstanding; as it's meaning was taken the wrong way. Or something like that....
It's good, but Saddam was their problem, too.
A problem that they were unable to handle. When someone like Saddam has that much power, there isn't a lot you can do to stop it. If you were them, what would you have done differently?
Exactly. The way these people have lived for the last 30(?) years was out of fear. I relate it to Nazi Germany. You may not even be able to trust those in your own home. Your neighbor may tell someone if you speak badly of the government. Members of your own family could have done the same here. Â Â This brings out this thought to me. How difficult is it really going to be to reach our desired end result? Yes, we send out patrols daily to scout out for insurgents, and we catch a fair amount of bad guys. We have a known presence here, and the people seem to respect and appreciate that. But, there are insurgents and their supporters living in their neighborhoods. They come to the cities and towns regularly. You would not believe what kind of headache they make for us here. We may be a huge occupying force here to help, aid, rebuild and protect the Iraqi's, but the insurgents know who they are. They know who their families are, where their children go to school-and when. They know when your house is empty... They still have similar fears as when Saddam was here, because of this. A very tough obstacle, indeed.
Fear is how these people have lived for all of this time while Saddam was in power. It may have gone on longer than that, but by far not to this level. Fear is a part of their daily life and what they know and relate to. A large chunk of their society has never known differently. The insurgents know this, and are taking advantage of this daily.
But, we can help to dissuade this fear. The only way to know if you really won this war will be at least 10 years from now, when the children grow up. They will hopefully be the first generation to grow up without the Saddam fear. We need to win the hearts and minds of the children now, which is why you may see in your news (we see it in ours) all of the time that soldiers hand out candy to children. They give out soccer balls, and toys and stuff for their schools.
Before this gets waaaay too long, I have a story for you. I don't remember where I had heard it, it may have come from here...(I am really tired...)
There was a patrol out in Iraq that gave out gifts to the children ocassionally. One day on patrol, the lead vehicle stopped. This is something that you don't do. There was a child out in the street looking and acting very strange. This child was just sitting there, as if in shock. After a little while of trying to get the child to move, and many very upset calls on the radio from the other vehicles in their small convoy, someone in the lead vehicle gets out to see if the child is hurt, or something. He gets closer and recognizes the boy and sees him clutching one of the teddy bears that were just handed out on one of the last patrols. As the soldier gets even closer, the child, no obviously sitting in fear and crying softly points to a spot a little ways ahead, where the vehicle was going to be driving. He notices a land mine in the road. The child has just saved the patrol, while putting himself in harms way to protect US...
To end in a quote from a popular '80's song... Â "... I believe the children are the future... "
Dan: Probably back in the first Gulf war. At least that was when I first realized what kind of leader Saddam was.
I hope you wrote some letters to Republican leadership in the '90s talking about your sympathy and admiration of the good people of Iraq. Trent Lott and others were denouncing force by Clinton. But we've been through that.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 13, 2005 at 06:46pm.]
Trent Lott and others were denouncing force by Clinton.
Actually, there was questions about the timing, not the attack itself. Wasn't it literally the day before impeachment proceedings began?
Also, remember the "Iraq liberation act of 1998" introduced by Lott?
Congress, on a bi-partisan basis, is fed up with the Clinton administration's do-nothing policy on Iraq...
...It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime...
The questions about Clinton's use of "force" had more to do with it not being enough as well as the timing. They did not question if it was neccessary as you imply.
But we've been through that.
Yes we have in depth, but yet you still try to imply what never was.
But very informative. We seriously lack any such first hand (or almost first hand) news on what is going on over there. I think that you are a valuable asset to us on these boards.
The 'official' goal was to get the Iraqi Army out of Kuwaiti soil.
Yes it was ane that is why they stopped at the border. I still believe we should have made him a goal though. A guy I worked with at the time told me that would be a bad idea as we would have to be there for a decade to sort out the new govt. Well, we screwed around with him for more than a decade and now here we are just getting started on a new govt.
I relate it to Nazi Germany.
In many ways it is exactly like that. He ruled them because of fear of him, not because they "got what they deserved".
How difficult is it really going to be to reach our desired end result?
It will be difficult, but not impossible if they know that the army is on their side. To say things like Kerry and some of his supporters did about pulling troops out only makes it harder to win their hearts and minds. If they worry that the army support will leave them, they won't be as willing to help out. We did it with the Nazi's and the japanese after WWII, we can do it again.
The insurgents know this, and are taking advantage of this daily.
Please, call them what they are - Islamic terrorist. "Insurgent" tends to glorify what they are doing.
which is why you may see in your news (we see it in ours) all of the time that soldiers hand out candy to children.
I have not seen that in our mainstream media here. I have seen it on some blogs and such though. Mainly places that support the war effort. I do not think our media has changed much since you left. They still make frontpage news about number of deaths. Which is sad if it is a loved one of yours, but it is a fraction of a percent of those that have been and still are involved in Iraq. It is also a very small number if you compare it to the 120 deaths a day in the U.S. due to automobiles.
Yes it was ane that is why they stopped at the border.
And the fact that we had a monstrously huge retreating Iraqi Army in one large convoy being bombed intensely... And it was shown on the news. Not one of our best P.R. days......
Something of interest... Did you know that during Saddams power, the people were not given a choice to fight?? Representatvies af the Ba'ath Parties government would come to town and basically pull you away. If you were to refuse, let's just say that it wouldn't be pretty...
Please, call them what they are - Islamic terrorist. "Insurgent" tends to glorify what they are doing.
You are right. And the vast majotiry of these Islamic terrorists are not even Iraqi people. They come to this country from others to support the cause.
I think that's perceptive. Let's hope the U.S. can end its commitment and obligation to the good people of Iraq that early.
You are right. That was said to me by an Iraqi woman who was giving us her portion of our 2 day cultural awareness brief. If you think about it... Saddam preached that the Americans were evil. Whether there are any facts attached to it or not, if you here something long enough you have a great chance of starting to believe it. These children are free from ever having had to deal with that. Hopefully we CAN end our commitment and obligation that early. I appreciate you recognizing it as such. Many people just want us to leave for leavings' sake. We owe a lot to the people of Iraq. Maybe Halliburton could take over for us soon, if the need for military dies down. The people of Iraq wouldn't have to see gun toting Coalition forces all over the place. If they could only spend their money on the reason that we are here, instead of 'fancying' up our Camps, I think that we'd be a lot better off.
Zeph, my belated (I usually only get here Fridays through Sundays) but heartfelt thanks to you for your service. You are indeed a welcome addition to these boards.
I was there in 91' with the 1st Marines and have a few friends and family currently there right now as well in different areas. And what you say is true. Yea we should have just kept going and believe me everyone of us wanted to go right into Bagdhad and get the sonofabitch. I mean we were glad as hell to be done but there was a feeling of not finishing the job even though it was never our mission. I saw the aftermath of what that piece of shit and his henchmen did to Kuwaitis and to his own army, disgusting.
I would guess the percentage to be 40% of the troops we engaged were less than motivated and were glad to give up the day. They were conscripts who were used as cannon fodder. In many cases they would simply drop them off in the middle of nowhere and tell them to stay there or there would be no resupply, meaning they'd die out in the desert if they tried to leave. In many cases they were used as decoys and abandoned. Another 20% fought fairly hard, usually out of fear because Saddam placed his RG in command and they would simply shoot anyone they felt were not fighting hard enough or who tried to run. In one case we came up on an Iraqi infantry unit that simply fragged their own officers and shot them the minute they saw us and surrendered. The other 40% fought very hard, these were the hardcore baathist elements and veterans of the Iraq Iran war and were extremly well motivated and fought hard and were given the best equipment they had and used some nasty tactics.
I didn't realize at the time because you get caught up in just surviving in the minute and being younger I didn't realize the political ramifications of going in were hard to do. With that many countries especially the arab countries didn't want us going in there. We could have been there in 24 hours had we gotten the word. Bush was also told that their would be an uprising. There was and we left them hanging, a very bad move IMO.
Would we have faced the same problems with occupation? I think so. What you guys are doing is 10 times harder than what we ever had to do.
I'd be curious as to your thoughts on the elections.
I think the elections will help speed up the process of getting out of there and I think the election will also see some more Iraqi's step up to the plate. There's already 150 parties on the ballots for local and national elections. IMHO and from what I hear from the locals are starting to turn in these asshole jihadists. They want them out of there more than us. I think Iraq really can succeed. My biggest fear or complaint even is that many times it seems like too many Iraqi's want everything done for them and do nothing but complain in the manner in which it's done. What are your thoughts on the election?
I'd be curious as to your thoughts on the elections.
I get a lot less of the news than you guys do, as you know, and it is maybe a little more biased (the other way) than your news is. It is hard to say. I really think that what happens from here on out is crucially hinged upon how the elections turn out. We have increased security and stuff here, and I read that they are going to great lengths to ensure that the polling places are going to be safe for the Iraqis.
I am hoping that a lot of people get out and vote. It is going to be very hard for them. We complain about having a 2 party system, but how well is the country going to be run, in reference to the wants and needs of the average Iraqi when there are 150+ people on the ballot??
My biggest fear or complaint even is that many times it seems like too many Iraqi's want everything done for them and do nothing but complain in the manner in which it's done
I really can't say how many people are feeling/acting that way, but you see people like that everywhere else, too. It is just the way it is , I guess, that some people are willing to work hard, and get the job done while others sit back and expect to be waited on hand and foot.
I was there in 91' with the 1st Marines and have a few friends and family currently there right now as well in different areas.
Thank you and your friends and family for what you have done, as well.
 am hoping that a lot of people get out and vote. It is going to be very hard for them. We complain about having a 2 party system, but how well is the country going to be run, in reference to the wants and needs of the average Iraqi when there are 150+ people on the ballot??
That 150 is including the local elections. governorships etc. So that's countrywide I beleive. I hear Nader is trying his luck there.
Who ever thought that there would be elections in Afghanistan? The gloom and doom was all over the place from there. Oh it'll never happen, they haven't had elections in 4000 years. The violence and threats will close down the elections. Well it went off pretty smoothly. Perfect? Hell no but I think it will happen and I think it will help.
"I confess to finding this transparency both comforting and chilling, like the photographs that kick-started the public's awareness of the affair. Comforting because only a country that is still free would allow such airing of blood-soaked laundry. Chilling because the crimes committed strike so deeply at the core of what a free country is supposed to mean. The scandal of Abu Ghraib is therefore a sign of both freedom's endurance in America and also, in certain dark corners, its demise."
And:
"I'm not saying that those who unwittingly made this torture possible are as guilty as those who inflicted it. I am saying that when the results are this horrifying, it's worth a thorough reassessment of rhetoric and war methods. Perhaps the saddest evidence of our communal denial in this respect was the election campaign. The fact that American soldiers were guilty of torturing inmates to death barely came up. It went unmentioned in every one of the three presidential debates. John F. Kerry, the ''heroic'' protester of Vietnam, ducked the issue out of what? Fear? Ignorance? Or a belief that the American public ultimately did not care, that the consequences of seeming to criticize the conduct of troops would be more of an electoral liability than holding a president accountable for enabling the torture of innocents? I fear it was the last of these. Worse, I fear he may have been right."
And yet even with evil Bushco at the helm. somehow one of the guys who was the ring leader at AG were just sentenced yesterday.
Maybe Kerry didn't bring it up since he admitted to war crimes. Of course he did nothing to stop them while he was there so maybe he thought people might just see the hypocrisy in that. Who knows, the ring leader at Abu Grihab when he's out in 15 years can run as a Dem for President. They love that.
I think people care a lot. They care more about fixing what happened than the NYT running something like 53 articles in a row trying to bring down a President.
I think people care a lot. They care more about fixing what happened than the NYT running something like 53 articles in a row trying to bring down a President.
I second that motion...
I was very pis... um, upset when that happened, it scared the hell out of me coming here. Can you realize the impact of what could happen to a coalition soldier being captured after that??? Not pretty...
And how are we going to show the Iraqis that we are here for them, and that we can show them a better way to live when we do crap like that...
Pride an honor is as important here, if not more than it was for the Japanese. For example, a girl gets raped. She is not married. Her family will probably kill her to save their honor, and the girls. It does not matter who's fault it is. And it is considered justifiable. It is a totally different world here.
Imagine how their honor was affected by Abu Ghraib. It may not be the biggest news at home anymore, but knowing how important it is here, in their culture... I doubt they will easily forget it.
As far as Kerry not bringing it up during the elections, I can't help you there, I was isolated from the news then, and didn't even vote due to lack of info. I will not vote on party alone.
"I think people care a lot. They care more about fixing what happened than the NYT running something like 53 articles in a row trying to bring down a President. "
Maybe the Timescares about fixing what happened, too.
Many are probably mad at the Timesfor running the story of the sentencing on A-1, above the fold today. But if you're looking for a "good news" story, I don't know why that wouldn't qualify. They caught a ringleader, and now he's going down for it.
But should it end here? All signs point to some Spooks pulling the strings. Is this poor bastard just a scapegoat?
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Jan 15, 2005 at 06:12pm.]
It should be thoroughly investigated all the way to the top. Appropriate punishment should be handed out to everyone involved.
It's disgusting how some people abuse power in sadistic ways. If nothing else, the command structure directly above these guards should be nailed for allowing it to happen, whether they knew about it and didn't stop it or, worse, didn't keep a close enough eye on what these guards were doing.
Clearly some of the abuse was due to Graner's own sick proclivities.
Story reproduced here in full because it requires registration to read it:
January 14, 2005
<NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">
Army Reservist's Defense Rests in Abu Ghraib Abuse Case
</NYT_HEADLINE>
<NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" "> By KATE ZERNIKE
</NYT_BYLINE>
<NYT_TEXT>
ORT HOOD, Tex., Jan. 13 - Lawyers for the Army reservist accused of being the ringleader of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison abruptly ended his defense on Thursday without putting him on the stand to testify, as they had promised throughout his trial here.
The defense rested exactly a year to the day that another soldier slipped a CD with photographs of detainees in sexually humiliating positions under the door of Army investigators at Abu Ghraib, out of fear, he told them later, that the reservist would abuse prisoners again. The photographs set off nine high-level Pentagon investigations and international outrage toward the American military.
"I feel fantastic," the reservist, Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., said, after motioning a reporter over to him in the courtroom after the defense rested. "I'm still smiling."
His lawyers have argued that Specialist Graner, a 36-year-old former prison guard from Pennsylvania, was following orders to "soften up" detainees before interrogations. But on cross-examination, witnesses called by the defense on Wednesday and Thursday almost all ended up reinforcing the prosecution's case that Specialist Graner had abused detainees for sport.
In addition to testimony in the case, including three detainees who gave videotaped depositions, the jury of 10 combat veterans will consider about 10 e-mail messages, retrieved from a cache that Specialist Graner sent from his Army account around November 2003.
The court said it would not publicly release that e-mail, given to the jury by the prosecution on Tuesday, but a person close to the defense provided copies to The New York Times. They include new photographs from Abu Ghraib, sent to Specialist Graner's friends and family, including his young children, with chatty messages to explain them.
"The guys give me hell for not getting any pictures while I was fighting this guy," said one message, titled "just another dull night at work," with a photograph attached of a bound and naked detainee howling with pain, his legs bleeding. To an e-mail message about a Take Your Children to Work Day event, he replied, "how about send a bastard to hell day?" attaching a photograph of a detainee's head bloodied beyond recognition.
With a photograph of him stitching a wound on a detainee's eye, he wrote: "Things may have gotten a bit bad when we were asking him a couple of questions. O well." A similar photograph is titled "cool stuff." It was attached to an e-mail reading, "Like I said, sometimes you get to do really cool stuff over here," ending it "xoxoxoxo to all."
Sending the same photograph to another friend, Specialist Graner wrote, "Try doing this at home, and they'll lock you up if you don't have some type of license," adding, "Not only was I the healer, I was the hurter. O well life goes on." Guy Womack, a lawyer for Specialist Graner, had called him "an outstanding candidate" to testify, saying last week that no one else could explain as well what had happened at the prison. On Thursday, Mr. Womack said he thought other evidence had adequately established that Specialist Graner had been acting under orders. "We came in with a checklist of things we wanted to present to the jury," he said, "Once we accomplished that, there was no reason to continue."
Specialist Graner told the judge, Col. James Pohl, that he was voluntarily giving up his right to testify.
Two defense witnesses had testified Thursday morning that military intelligence ordered Specialist Graner and other military police soldiers to treat detainees harshly.
Megan Ambuhl, who has been discharged from the military for taking part in the events seen in the photographs, said interrogators had ordered her to humiliate male detainees by pointing and laughing at them as they showered. Interrogators, she said, "encouraged us all the time."
"We were all going to save the lives of the soldiers who were outside the wires," she testified. "The detainees had information that the interrogators had to find out."
Questioned by the prosecution, Ms. Ambuhl acknowledged that she had been sexually involved with Specialist Graner for a month before the investigation began, and did not wish to see him convicted. She acknowledged, too, that military intelligence, or M.I., was not present for the photographs that show hooded and naked detainees forced to masturbate, form a pyramid or simulate oral sex.
"M.I. did not direct this, did they?" the lead prosecutor, Maj. Michael Holley asked. "No, sir," she replied.
The second defense witness called on Thursday, Sgt. Kenneth A. Davis, testified that on the night some of the most widely circulated photographs were taken, he discovered military intelligence soldiers and Specialist Graner handcuffing two naked detainees together in an embrace. He said he was told by one of the military intelligence soldiers, "We're M.I., and we know what we're doing." The detainees were told to crawl on the wet ground, Sergeant Davis said. He asked whether these were interrogation techniques, and was told by another military intelligence soldier, "There's different ways to get things done."
"It appeared that M.I. was calling the shots that night, and Graner was following," he said.
But under questioning from the prosecution, Sergeant Davis acknowledged that the military intelligence soldiers ranked below Specialist Graner - he was a corporal at the time - and that the detainees were not interrogated.
Specialist Graner is the first soldier to face a contested court-martial in the abuse scandal, and he could be sentenced to 171/2 years in military prison if convicted.
An e-mail to one of the journalists on NRO's blog The Corner:
"Mr Lowry,
I was in Iraq the same time Chuck Graner and little Lyndie England were. I was the logistics officer for an MP Battalion that thankfully was not attached to the 800th MP Brigade which had responsibility for Abu Ghraib. Our line companies used to drop prisoners off at Abu Ghraib and told us on more than one occasion that things were all F'd up at that place. The abuses there had nothing to do with Don Rumsfeld, nothing to do with Alberto Gonzales or anyone else that high on the food chain. It was piss poor leadership in the 800th Brigade pure and simple. From the unbelieveably incompetent Brigadier General Judith Karpinski down to the section sergeants at the prison, no leadership was exercised.... As for getting orders from MI that’s also a load. MI doesn't give guidance to Spec 4's. It all boils down to the leadership of Graner's unit all the way to the Brigade level being non existent. All the MP's in theatre during that time knew the 800th was a joke. I am thankful I dont have to sport the 800th patch on my right shoulder."
Specialist Graner is the first soldier to face a contested court-martial in the abuse scandal, and he could be sentenced to 171/2 years in military prison if convicted.
That one sentence sums up how we are different than Saddam's Iraq.
And how are we going to show the Iraqis that we are here for them, and that we can show them a better way to live when we do crap like that...
We can point out that under Saddam's rule, these people would probably have been rewarded. Under the style that we rule, they are first considered innocent during a trial. When the facts show overwhelmingly that they are guilty, they are courtmartialed, sentenced to prison and given a dishonorable discharge. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/16/graner.court.martial/index.html
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 16, 2005 at 02:26pm.]
Yes ofending their honor is easily done especially if you are a westerner. Killing a woman who had the audacity to get raped and stoning of adulterers is dark ages stuff that most have a problem grasping.
Sure it's good news that Graner was convicted, I don't think anyone ever condoned it or was somehow glad they did it, I think most wanted justice to be brought but were also shocked at the amount of coverage it recieved. As Zephyrus said it comes down to piss poor command and I'd agree. Lets not forget that it was a fellow soldier who turned them in. I think yes the story was important but to recieve the amount of press that it did? The outrage from some quarters is suspicious IMHO.
I've heard some say essentially that oh where's your concern for the Iraqi's coming from, where was it before? Well I guess I could ask the same of those so concerned about AG.
"Killing a woman who had the audacity to get raped and stoning of adulterers is dark ages stuff that most have a problem grasping. "
I think those are extreme examples and probably not at all that common. I think there are everyday customs that play a bigger part in shaping the culture and the value of honor.
Perhaps a lot of headway could be made by simply having more people there who spoke Arabic.
Perhaps a lot of headway could be made by simply having more people there who spoke Arabic.
Or people in charge and leading us could learn a little more about the traditions, ceremonies, lives, customs, ideology......etc., and rethink a strategy into making this whole transition a little smoother. How can we win their hearts and minds, if we don't know how to get to them? I can't say that this is not happening, but I can say that there should be more work done in this area.
I think those are extreme examples and probably not at all that common.
It was an example of how our society differentiated from theirs, told by an Iraqi woman from Baghdad. Do you think it may not happen here all of the time, because they respect what the consequences are for all involved.??
Not all that common, Rick? You can read about it happening almost every week in Iran. It happened daily in Afghanistan before we got there. There was at least one stadium dedicated to letting the masses watch women being stoned to death.
Extreme examples? What does it say about a society that does it even once?
Jan. 19, 2005 — For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20.
If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below:
ABC killed the link. I read their plea for a family to exploit Funeral to attend. They killed the link after getting some attention. Captains Quarters saved a screenshot of it.
Hmm, How about a funeral for a soldier from Afghanistan? What if the funeral is 2 days after the inauguration? I guess that wouldn't merit any "Honor". The feckless fuckweasles trolling for a funeral. Amazing. Yea it's all about "honoring" them, sure it is.
"Hey, I am coming to hunt you down... It might take a while, so get rid of everything that you've got..."
Yep, works for me...
"Of course Bush lied. He knew they weren't there, then had teams go look for them and tell us they aren't there it's brilliant. Oh wait, he's a moron, oh wait he's evil. Oh wait...well never mind. "
No point in being so defensive.
It's been so long since the search began, and there's so much water under the bridge, I suspect ist's not even much of a disappointment to the White House. Politically, it's not going to cost him much
Maybe has something to do with the 2 weeks (or so... I don't remember) warning that Saddam was given that we were coming here...
Actually, that threat had been there for years. After the talk of war began in earnest this time, a lot of folks wanted us to wait and see what would come from the inspections. This gave him a lot of time to move things if he thought that we were serious this time.
Current timeline is:
Oct. 10, 2002 the president was given authorization to invade:
Nov. 27, 2002 weapons inspections resumed.
Dec. 21, 2002 the president authorizes the movement of troops to the Gulf Region. It is estimated that by March, 200,000 troops will be stationed there. Takes a while to move all that equipment and personnel. (maybe the U.S. is serious this time and violations should be hidden)
Jan. 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix states, “ Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.”
March 17, 2003 President George W. Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.
March 17, 2003 Invasion of Iraq begins.
I suspect ist's not even much of a disappointment to the White House.
Why would it be a disappointment? There was plenty in the reports to make the point that he was a danger to the world. Read David Kays report here http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html Many other things have been found as well:
No BW agents?
This is just part of what david Kay found.
No way of using them?
How about some of the empty warheads found?
No nuclear producing equipment?
Centrifuge system found in Baghdad.
Of course it would be too hard to hide the big stuff right?
One of the MiG-25 Foxbats and Su-25 Frogfoots found burried in the sands.
No ties to 9/11?
Yea, that is David Kay at the Salman Pak terrorist training grounds.
This is only a small list of what was found. Like I said, there is plenty to justify this war.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Jan 12, 2005 at 05:22pm.]
"Like I said, there is plenty to justify this war."
If none of those items were there, was there enough?
Did he need any justification at all? He's the president and Saddam was Saddam.
If none of those items were there, was there enough?
Slippery Rick.
Nevermind that Kerry, Gore, Clinton... all agreed with Dubya that Iraq was a threat and had WMD's.
You want play the partisan politics, go ahead. That's not what I'm concerned with.
I'm not the one playing partisan politics.
"I'm not the one playing partisan politics. "
You dragged out all the Democratic names.
Unless you think Dan is, you're the only one who's doing it.
[Edited by on Jan 12, 2005 at 07:30pm.]
I know it's hard to do when they're constantly flip flopping.
I don't know what you're talking about.
If none of those items were there, was there enough?
Enough justification for war? Considering the rape, murder and torture of the good people of Iraq by not only his government, but also his piglatin named sons? Considering that for over a decade he did everything he could to sabotage inspections and ignore resolutions that he agreed to? Considering he made a mockery of the oil for food program by using it to steal the funds and bribe officials instead of feeding his own people? Considering that he openly financially supported terrorist and gave them a safe haven?
You tell me. Did we do the right thing by removing Saddam by any means necessary? Are the good people of Iraq better off choosing their own leaders rather than the system of government they had under the rule of Saddam?
This isn't about Bush bashing or party loyalty Rick. It was about dealing with a threat. Sure we could have waited for the bribes to work, sanctions to be dropped and then let him rebuild his arsonal to be a bigger problem than it ever was, but would you have prefered we waited for that? You guys continually point out the fractional percentage of soldiers lost now, but what would it have been if we had given him the time to rebuild as has been documented that he wanted to do? What would the cost in human life on both sides have added up to at that point? And don't try to tell me that he wouldn't have tried something, his history shows otherwise.
Think about it Rick and be honest with yourself if you are unable to be honest with us.
I've been honest. Before the war, I couldn't make up my mind. I'd think one way in the morning, another in the afternoon. Once it started, my tendency was to shut up. It still is. I comment a lot on media coverage, because that's what interests me. Saddam is out of power. Well, of all the things that have occurred in this war, that's one of them.I expected it.
"Are the good people of Iraq better off choosing their own leaders rather than the system of government they had under the rule of Saddam?"
I don't know when this affection for the Iraqi people, and concern over their treatment developed. It's good, but Saddam was their problem, too. Don't people essentially get the government they deserve? That's one of the first things you're taught in Poli Sci 101.
As for your other "what if" questions: I don't know the answer, and neither do you. You might want to try being honest about that.
[Edited 8 times. Most recently by on Jan 13, 2005 at 05:41am.]
Yea, that is David Kay at the Salman Pak terrorist training grounds
I don't think that was a picture of David Kay:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094687
U.S. forces did find in their search for banned weapons in Iraq - starting with, for instance, the 1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium Saddam had socked away.
Here's how the Associated Press covered that news last June:
"In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.
"The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis," the AP said.
"Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as 'a major achievement' in an attempt to 'keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.'"
[Edited by on Jan 13, 2005 at 12:43pm.]
Man this place is slow today.
I don't think that was a picture of David Kay
You are correct, it is Scott Ridder. My appologies to everyone.
Before the war, I couldn't make up my mind. I'd think one way in the morning, another in the afternoon.
Yea, I remember you being undecided at times. I also remember you thinking that oil was a part of the reason for war.
I don't know when this affection for the Iraqi people, and concern over their treatment developed.
Probably back in the first Gulf war. At least thatwas when I first realized what kind of leader Saddam was. I always thought that we should have taken him out back then when we had him on the run.
It's good, but Saddam was their problem, too.
A problem that they were unable to handle. When someone like Saddam has that much power, there isn't a lot you can do to stop it. If you were them, what would you have done differently?
Don't people essentially ge
t the government they deserve?
That may be what they taught you, but it doesn't always work in the real world. It Depends on the system. We get the gov. we as a society deserve because we vote for them. We have the responsibility and the ability to shape our government in the way we want. Iraq did not have that ability. Look at the joke ballot at the top of this page. It pretty much sums up what their choices were.
As for your other "what if" questions: I don't know the answer, and neither do you. You might want to try being honest about that.
Those were verified goals of his. To bribe officials into lifting sanctions and get things going again. What a disaster that would have been.
He was an 'unnoficial' target, from what I saw on some interview a few years back, in the first Gulf War. The 'official' goal was to get the Iraqi Army out of Kuwaiti soil. Supposedly, a call from Schwartzkopf (sp?) to President Bush Sr. that we have met our goal. Evidently there was some misunderstanding; as it's meaning was taken the wrong way. Or something like that....
Exactly. The way these people have lived for the last 30(?) years was out of fear. I relate it to Nazi Germany. You may not even be able to trust those in your own home. Your neighbor may tell someone if you speak badly of the government. Members of your own family could have done the same here.
  This brings out this thought to me. How difficult is it really going to be to reach our desired end result? Yes, we send out patrols daily to scout out for insurgents, and we catch a fair amount of bad guys. We have a known presence here, and the people seem to respect and appreciate that. But, there are insurgents and their supporters living in their neighborhoods. They come to the cities and towns regularly. You would not believe what kind of headache they make for us here. We may be a huge occupying force here to help, aid, rebuild and protect the Iraqi's, but the insurgents know who they are. They know who their families are, where their children go to school-and when. They know when your house is empty... They still have similar fears as when Saddam was here, because of this. A very tough obstacle, indeed.
Fear is how these people have lived for all of this time while Saddam was in power. It may have gone on longer than that, but by far not to this level. Fear is a part of their daily life and what they know and relate to. A large chunk of their society has never known differently. The insurgents know this, and are taking advantage of this daily.
But, we can help to dissuade this fear. The only way to know if you really won this war will be at least 10 years from now, when the children grow up. They will hopefully be the first generation to grow up without the Saddam fear. We need to win the hearts and minds of the children now, which is why you may see in your news (we see it in ours) all of the time that soldiers hand out candy to children. They give out soccer balls, and toys and stuff for their schools.
Before this gets waaaay too long, I have a story for you. I don't remember where I had heard it, it may have come from here...(I am really tired...)
There was a patrol out in Iraq that gave out gifts to the children ocassionally. One day on patrol, the lead vehicle stopped. This is something that you don't do. There was a child out in the street looking and acting very strange. This child was just sitting there, as if in shock. After a little while of trying to get the child to move, and many very upset calls on the radio from the other vehicles in their small convoy, someone in the lead vehicle gets out to see if the child is hurt, or something. He gets closer and recognizes the boy and sees him clutching one of the teddy bears that were just handed out on one of the last patrols. As the soldier gets even closer, the child, no obviously sitting in fear and crying softly points to a spot a little ways ahead, where the vehicle was going to be driving. He notices a land mine in the road. The child has just saved the patrol, while putting himself in harms way to protect US...
To end in a quote from a popular '80's song...
 "... I believe the children are the future... "
-----Zephyrus.... going to bed now
Sorry....
"I also remember you thinking that oil was a part of the reason for war."
I still do. If it were not an oil-rich region, I don't think the U.S. would be making this kind of commitment.
"When someone like Saddam has that much power, there isn't a lot you can do to stop it. If you were them, what would you have done differently?"
I probably would have spent my days in a steady, low-level fear. I'm no hero.
"The only way to know if you really won this war will be at least 10 years from now, '
I think that's perceptive. Let's hope the U.S. can end its commitment and obligation to the good people of Iraq that early.
Dan: Probably back in the first Gulf war. At least that was when I first realized what kind of leader Saddam was.
I hope you wrote some letters to Republican leadership in the '90s talking about your sympathy and admiration of the good people of Iraq. Trent Lott and others were denouncing force by Clinton. But we've been through that.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 13, 2005 at 06:46pm.]
Of course oil is a large part of the reason for going to war, but it's not the "Blood for oil" bullshit that the nutjobs are spewing.
Trent Lott and others were denouncing force by Clinton.
Actually, there was questions about the timing, not the attack itself. Wasn't it literally the day before impeachment proceedings began?
Also, remember the "Iraq liberation act of 1998" introduced by Lott?
The questions about Clinton's use of "force" had more to do with it not being enough as well as the timing. They did not question if it was neccessary as you imply.
But we've been through that.
Yes we have in depth, but yet you still try to imply what never was.
Holy Cow!! That was huge!
But very informative. We seriously lack any such first hand (or almost first hand) news on what is going on over there. I think that you are a valuable asset to us on these boards.
The 'official' goal was to get the Iraqi Army out of Kuwaiti soil.
Yes it was ane that is why they stopped at the border. I still believe we should have made him a goal though. A guy I worked with at the time told me that would be a bad idea as we would have to be there for a decade to sort out the new govt. Well, we screwed around with him for more than a decade and now here we are just getting started on a new govt.
I relate it to Nazi Germany.
In many ways it is exactly like that. He ruled them because of fear of him, not because they "got what they deserved".
How difficult is it really going to be to reach our desired end result?
It will be difficult, but not impossible if they know that the army is on their side. To say things like Kerry and some of his supporters did about pulling troops out only makes it harder to win their hearts and minds. If they worry that the army support will leave them, they won't be as willing to help out. We did it with the Nazi's and the japanese after WWII, we can do it again.
The insurgents know this, and are taking advantage of this daily.
Please, call them what they are - Islamic terrorist. "Insurgent" tends to glorify what they are doing.
which is why you may see in your news (we see it in ours) all of the time that soldiers hand out candy to children.
I have not seen that in our mainstream media here. I have seen it on some blogs and such though. Mainly places that support the war effort. I do not think our media has changed much since you left. They still make frontpage news about number of deaths. Which is sad if it is a loved one of yours, but it is a fraction of a percent of those that have been and still are involved in Iraq. It is also a very small number if you compare it to the 120 deaths a day in the U.S. due to automobiles.
And the fact that we had a monstrously huge retreating Iraqi Army in one large convoy being bombed intensely... And it was shown on the news. Not one of our best P.R. days......
Something of interest... Did you know that during Saddams power, the people were not given a choice to fight?? Representatvies af the Ba'ath Parties government would come to town and basically pull you away. If you were to refuse, let's just say that it wouldn't be pretty...
You are right. And the vast majotiry of these Islamic terrorists are not even Iraqi people. They come to this country from others to support the cause.
You are right. That was said to me by an Iraqi woman who was giving us her portion of our 2 day cultural awareness brief. If you think about it... Saddam preached that the Americans were evil. Whether there are any facts attached to it or not, if you here something long enough you have a great chance of starting to believe it. These children are free from ever having had to deal with that.
Hopefully we CAN end our commitment and obligation that early. I appreciate you recognizing it as such. Many people just want us to leave for leavings' sake. We owe a lot to the people of Iraq. Maybe Halliburton could take over for us soon, if the need for military dies down. The people of Iraq wouldn't have to see gun toting Coalition forces all over the place. If they could only spend their money on the reason that we are here, instead of 'fancying' up our Camps, I think that we'd be a lot better off.
[Edited by on Jan 14, 2005 at 01:14am.]
Zeph, my belated (I usually only get here Fridays through Sundays) but heartfelt thanks to you for your service. You are indeed a welcome addition to these boards.
(I really do)
Zephyrus,
Thanks for your insight.
I was there in 91' with the 1st Marines and have a few friends and family currently there right now as well in different areas. And what you say is true. Yea we should have just kept going and believe me everyone of us wanted to go right into Bagdhad and get the sonofabitch. I mean we were glad as hell to be done but there was a feeling of not finishing the job even though it was never our mission. I saw the aftermath of what that piece of shit and his henchmen did to Kuwaitis and to his own army, disgusting.
I would guess the percentage to be 40% of the troops we engaged were less than motivated and were glad to give up the day. They were conscripts who were used as cannon fodder. In many cases they would simply drop them off in the middle of nowhere and tell them to stay there or there would be no resupply, meaning they'd die out in the desert if they tried to leave. In many cases they were used as decoys and abandoned. Another 20% fought fairly hard, usually out of fear because Saddam placed his RG in command and they would simply shoot anyone they felt were not fighting hard enough or who tried to run. In one case we came up on an Iraqi infantry unit that simply fragged their own officers and shot them the minute they saw us and surrendered. The other 40% fought very hard, these were the hardcore baathist elements and veterans of the Iraq Iran war and were extremly well motivated and fought hard and were given the best equipment they had and used some nasty tactics.
I didn't realize at the time because you get caught up in just surviving in the minute and being younger I didn't realize the political ramifications of going in were hard to do. With that many countries especially the arab countries didn't want us going in there. We could have been there in 24 hours had we gotten the word. Bush was also told that their would be an uprising. There was and we left them hanging, a very bad move IMO.
Would we have faced the same problems with occupation? I think so. What you guys are doing is 10 times harder than what we ever had to do.
I'd be curious as to your thoughts on the elections.
I think the elections will help speed up the process of getting out of there and I think the election will also see some more Iraqi's step up to the plate. There's already 150 parties on the ballots for local and national elections. IMHO and from what I hear from the locals are starting to turn in these asshole jihadists. They want them out of there more than us. I think Iraq really can succeed. My biggest fear or complaint even is that many times it seems like too many Iraqi's want everything done for them and do nothing but complain in the manner in which it's done. What are your thoughts on the election?
See and you thought your posts were long :()
I get a lot less of the news than you guys do, as you know, and it is maybe a little more biased (the other way) than your news is. It is hard to say. I really think that what happens from here on out is crucially hinged upon how the elections turn out. We have increased security and stuff here, and I read that they are going to great lengths to ensure that the polling places are going to be safe for the Iraqis.
I am hoping that a lot of people get out and vote. It is going to be very hard for them. We complain about having a 2 party system, but how well is the country going to be run, in reference to the wants and needs of the average Iraqi when there are 150+ people on the ballot??
I really can't say how many people are feeling/acting that way, but you see people like that everywhere else, too. It is just the way it is , I guess, that some people are willing to work hard, and get the job done while others sit back and expect to be waited on hand and foot.
Thank you and your friends and family for what you have done, as well.
 am hoping that a lot of people get out and vote. It is going to be very hard for them. We complain about having a 2 party system, but how well is the country going to be run, in reference to the wants and needs of the average Iraqi when there are 150+ people on the ballot??
That 150 is including the local elections. governorships etc. So that's countrywide I beleive. I hear Nader is trying his luck there.
Who ever thought that there would be elections in Afghanistan? The gloom and doom was all over the place from there. Oh it'll never happen, they haven't had elections in 4000 years. The violence and threats will close down the elections. Well it went off pretty smoothly. Perfect? Hell no but I think it will happen and I think it will help.
>I hear Nader is trying his luck there.
That is too funny!
Andrew Sullivan on two studies on Abu Grhaib in the New York Times
"I confess to finding this transparency both comforting and chilling, like the photographs that kick-started the public's awareness of the affair. Comforting because only a country that is still free would allow such airing of blood-soaked laundry. Chilling because the crimes committed strike so deeply at the core of what a free country is supposed to mean. The scandal of Abu Ghraib is therefore a sign of both freedom's endurance in America and also, in certain dark corners, its demise."
And:
"I'm not saying that those who unwittingly made this torture possible are as guilty as those who inflicted it. I am saying that when the results are this horrifying, it's worth a thorough reassessment of rhetoric and war methods. Perhaps the saddest evidence of our communal denial in this respect was the election campaign. The fact that American soldiers were guilty of torturing inmates to death barely came up. It went unmentioned in every one of the three presidential debates. John F. Kerry, the ''heroic'' protester of Vietnam, ducked the issue out of what? Fear? Ignorance? Or a belief that the American public ultimately did not care, that the consequences of seeming to criticize the conduct of troops would be more of an electoral liability than holding a president accountable for enabling the torture of innocents? I fear it was the last of these. Worse, I fear he may have been right."
And yet even with evil Bushco at the helm. somehow one of the guys who was the ring leader at AG were just sentenced yesterday.
Maybe Kerry didn't bring it up since he admitted to war crimes. Of course he did nothing to stop them while he was there so maybe he thought people might just see the hypocrisy in that. Who knows, the ring leader at Abu Grihab when he's out in 15 years can run as a Dem for President. They love that.
Below the belt, Rob.
Bush wasn't in the paragraphs I referenced. You're the one turning this partisan.
Sullivan wondering why Kerry didn't bring it up, why he was timid. Maybe he was afraid most Americans wouldn't care.
Do you think most Americans care what when on there?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 15, 2005 at 11:06am.]
I think people care a lot. They care more about fixing what happened than the NYT running something like 53 articles in a row trying to bring down a President.
I second that motion...
I was very pis... um, upset when that happened, it scared the hell out of me coming here. Can you realize the impact of what could happen to a coalition soldier being captured after that??? Not pretty...
And how are we going to show the Iraqis that we are here for them, and that we can show them a better way to live when we do crap like that...
Pride an honor is as important here, if not more than it was for the Japanese. For example, a girl gets raped. She is not married. Her family will probably kill her to save their honor, and the girls. It does not matter who's fault it is. And it is considered justifiable. It is a totally different world here.
Imagine how their honor was affected by Abu Ghraib. It may not be the biggest news at home anymore, but knowing how important it is here, in their culture... I doubt they will easily forget it.
As far as Kerry not bringing it up during the elections, I can't help you there, I was isolated from the news then, and didn't even vote due to lack of info. I will not vote on party alone.
"I think people care a lot. They care more about fixing what happened than the NYT running something like 53 articles in a row trying to bring down a President. "
Maybe the Timescares about fixing what happened, too.
Many are probably mad at the Timesfor running the story of the sentencing on A-1, above the fold today. But if you're looking for a "good news" story, I don't know why that wouldn't qualify. They caught a ringleader, and now he's going down for it.
But should it end here? All signs point to some Spooks pulling the strings. Is this poor bastard just a scapegoat?
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Jan 15, 2005 at 06:12pm.]
It should be thoroughly investigated all the way to the top. Appropriate punishment should be handed out to everyone involved.
It's disgusting how some people abuse power in sadistic ways. If nothing else, the command structure directly above these guards should be nailed for allowing it to happen, whether they knew about it and didn't stop it or, worse, didn't keep a close enough eye on what these guards were doing.
Clearly some of the abuse was due to Graner's own sick proclivities.
Story reproduced here in full because it requires registration to read it:
January 14, 2005
<NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">
Army Reservist's Defense Rests in Abu Ghraib Abuse Case
</NYT_HEADLINE>
<NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" ">
By KATE ZERNIKE
</NYT_BYLINE>
<NYT_TEXT>
The defense rested exactly a year to the day that another soldier slipped a CD with photographs of detainees in sexually humiliating positions under the door of Army investigators at Abu Ghraib, out of fear, he told them later, that the reservist would abuse prisoners again. The photographs set off nine high-level Pentagon investigations and international outrage toward the American military.
"I feel fantastic," the reservist, Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., said, after motioning a reporter over to him in the courtroom after the defense rested. "I'm still smiling."
His lawyers have argued that Specialist Graner, a 36-year-old former prison guard from Pennsylvania, was following orders to "soften up" detainees before interrogations. But on cross-examination, witnesses called by the defense on Wednesday and Thursday almost all ended up reinforcing the prosecution's case that Specialist Graner had abused detainees for sport.
In addition to testimony in the case, including three detainees who gave videotaped depositions, the jury of 10 combat veterans will consider about 10 e-mail messages, retrieved from a cache that Specialist Graner sent from his Army account around November 2003.
The court said it would not publicly release that e-mail, given to the jury by the prosecution on Tuesday, but a person close to the defense provided copies to The New York Times. They include new photographs from Abu Ghraib, sent to Specialist Graner's friends and family, including his young children, with chatty messages to explain them.
"The guys give me hell for not getting any pictures while I was fighting this guy," said one message, titled "just another dull night at work," with a photograph attached of a bound and naked detainee howling with pain, his legs bleeding. To an e-mail message about a Take Your Children to Work Day event, he replied, "how about send a bastard to hell day?" attaching a photograph of a detainee's head bloodied beyond recognition.
With a photograph of him stitching a wound on a detainee's eye, he wrote: "Things may have gotten a bit bad when we were asking him a couple of questions. O well." A similar photograph is titled "cool stuff." It was attached to an e-mail reading, "Like I said, sometimes you get to do really cool stuff over here," ending it "xoxoxoxo to all."
Sending the same photograph to another friend, Specialist Graner wrote, "Try doing this at home, and they'll lock you up if you don't have some type of license," adding, "Not only was I the healer, I was the hurter. O well life goes on." Guy Womack, a lawyer for Specialist Graner, had called him "an outstanding candidate" to testify, saying last week that no one else could explain as well what had happened at the prison. On Thursday, Mr. Womack said he thought other evidence had adequately established that Specialist Graner had been acting under orders. "We came in with a checklist of things we wanted to present to the jury," he said, "Once we accomplished that, there was no reason to continue."
Specialist Graner told the judge, Col. James Pohl, that he was voluntarily giving up his right to testify.
Two defense witnesses had testified Thursday morning that military intelligence ordered Specialist Graner and other military police soldiers to treat detainees harshly.
Megan Ambuhl, who has been discharged from the military for taking part in the events seen in the photographs, said interrogators had ordered her to humiliate male detainees by pointing and laughing at them as they showered. Interrogators, she said, "encouraged us all the time."
"We were all going to save the lives of the soldiers who were outside the wires," she testified. "The detainees had information that the interrogators had to find out."
Questioned by the prosecution, Ms. Ambuhl acknowledged that she had been sexually involved with Specialist Graner for a month before the investigation began, and did not wish to see him convicted. She acknowledged, too, that military intelligence, or M.I., was not present for the photographs that show hooded and naked detainees forced to masturbate, form a pyramid or simulate oral sex.
"M.I. did not direct this, did they?" the lead prosecutor, Maj. Michael Holley asked. "No, sir," she replied.
The second defense witness called on Thursday, Sgt. Kenneth A. Davis, testified that on the night some of the most widely circulated photographs were taken, he discovered military intelligence soldiers and Specialist Graner handcuffing two naked detainees together in an embrace. He said he was told by one of the military intelligence soldiers, "We're M.I., and we know what we're doing." The detainees were told to crawl on the wet ground, Sergeant Davis said. He asked whether these were interrogation techniques, and was told by another military intelligence soldier, "There's different ways to get things done."
"It appeared that M.I. was calling the shots that night, and Graner was following," he said.
But under questioning from the prosecution, Sergeant Davis acknowledged that the military intelligence soldiers ranked below Specialist Graner - he was a corporal at the time - and that the detainees were not interrogated.
Specialist Graner is the first soldier to face a contested court-martial in the abuse scandal, and he could be sentenced to 171/2 years in military prison if convicted.
</NYT_TEXT>
An e-mail to one of the journalists on NRO's blog The Corner:
"Mr Lowry,
I was in Iraq the same time Chuck Graner and little Lyndie England were. I was the logistics officer for an MP Battalion that thankfully was not attached to the 800th MP Brigade which had responsibility for Abu Ghraib. Our line companies used to drop prisoners off at Abu Ghraib and told us on more than one occasion that things were all F'd up at that place. The abuses there had nothing to do with Don Rumsfeld, nothing to do with Alberto Gonzales or anyone else that high on the food chain. It was piss poor leadership in the 800th Brigade pure and simple. From the unbelieveably incompetent Brigadier General Judith Karpinski down to the section sergeants at the prison, no leadership was exercised.... As for getting orders from MI that’s also a load. MI doesn't give guidance to Spec 4's. It all boils down to the leadership of Graner's unit all the way to the Brigade level being non existent. All the MP's in theatre during that time knew the 800th was a joke. I am thankful I dont have to sport the 800th patch on my right shoulder."
Specialist Graner is the first soldier to face a contested court-martial in the abuse scandal, and he could be sentenced to 171/2 years in military prison if convicted.
That one sentence sums up how we are different than Saddam's Iraq.
And how are we going to show the Iraqis that we are here for them, and that we can show them a better way to live when we do crap like that...
We can point out that under Saddam's rule, these people would probably have been rewarded. Under the style that we rule, they are first considered innocent during a trial. When the facts show overwhelmingly that they are guilty, they are courtmartialed, sentenced to prison and given a dishonorable discharge. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/16/graner.court.martial/index.html
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 16, 2005 at 02:26pm.]
Aljazeera is running a different story: Iraqis astonished that Graner got a slap on the wrist for dishonoring Islam.
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=6687
I'm no expert, but I've been to the Middle East a few times, most recently last month. And I spend time talking with people there.
Zephyrus has the value of honor pegged. As a Westerner, we're not aware of how much it's valued, and in what ways.
[Edited by on Jan 16, 2005 at 02:38pm.]
As you'd expect from Jihad T.V.
Yes ofending their honor is easily done especially if you are a westerner. Killing a woman who had the audacity to get raped and stoning of adulterers is dark ages stuff that most have a problem grasping.
Sure it's good news that Graner was convicted, I don't think anyone ever condoned it or was somehow glad they did it, I think most wanted justice to be brought but were also shocked at the amount of coverage it recieved. As Zephyrus said it comes down to piss poor command and I'd agree. Lets not forget that it was a fellow soldier who turned them in. I think yes the story was important but to recieve the amount of press that it did? The outrage from some quarters is suspicious IMHO.
I've heard some say essentially that oh where's your concern for the Iraqi's coming from, where was it before? Well I guess I could ask the same of those so concerned about AG.
[Edited by on Jan 17, 2005 at 08:57am.]
"Killing a woman who had the audacity to get raped and stoning of adulterers is dark ages stuff that most have a problem grasping. "
I think those are extreme examples and probably not at all that common. I think there are everyday customs that play a bigger part in shaping the culture and the value of honor.
Perhaps a lot of headway could be made by simply having more people there who spoke Arabic.
Or people in charge and leading us could learn a little more about the traditions, ceremonies, lives, customs, ideology......etc., and rethink a strategy into making this whole transition a little smoother. How can we win their hearts and minds, if we don't know how to get to them? I can't say that this is not happening, but I can say that there should be more work done in this area.
It was an example of how our society differentiated from theirs, told by an Iraqi woman from Baghdad. Do you think it may not happen here all of the time, because they respect what the consequences are for all involved.??
Not all that common, Rick? You can read about it happening almost every week in Iran. It happened daily in Afghanistan before we got there. There was at least one stadium dedicated to letting the masses watch women being stoned to death.
Extreme examples? What does it say about a society that does it even once?
[Edited by on Jan 17, 2005 at 01:22pm.]
I wasn't thinking of Afghanistan as much as other parts of the Arab world.
I wasn't thinking of Afghanistan as much as other parts of the Arab world.
Like Iran?
"The outrage from some quarters is suspicious IMHO."
What do you suspect, Rob?
ABC Trolling for a funeral.
Honoring Fallen Heroes on Inauguration Day
Jan. 19, 2005 — For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20.
If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below:
ABC killed the link. I read their plea for a
family to exploitFuneral to attend. They killed the link after getting some attention. Captains Quarters saved a screenshot of it.http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/story.htmÂ
Hmm, How about a funeral for a soldier from Afghanistan? What if the funeral is 2 days after the inauguration? I guess that wouldn't merit any "Honor". The feckless fuckweasles trolling for a funeral. Amazing. Yea it's all about "honoring" them, sure it is.
Â