From the ROP in Australia

[Larkinn]

So you agree with the media coverage of Abu Ghraib. Do you realize that the criminals involved at Abu Ghraib represent less than one percent of ALL US military personnel, and ZERO percent of ALL US military active duty personnel?

Actually you mean the criminals prosecuted. Nobody really knows how many were involved, there are varying claims about different amounts. But lets assume for the sake of this that only those prosecuted were guilty.

I would think someone attempting to pass himself off as being impersonal and factual as you are would accord them the same argument you are making for Islamic terrorists.

I would. What does media coverage have to do about the difference between some soldiers, and all soldiers? Some US soldiers have tortured, raped, and killed Iraqis. I would never say that US soldiers should be profiled as torturers, rapists, or killers of civilians.

You've pointed out something amusing to me. A higher percentage of US soldiers in Iraq have been successfully prosecuted for violent crimes (rape, torture, murder) against Iraqis than Muslims who commit violent acts against US forces.

Still want to generalize?

Tagabu is a non-player. He has nothing to substantiate his allegations except his opinion.

Of course he doesn't. The Bush administration is very good at hiding things, and the Republicans let him have free reign. The Democrats aren't doing much better. But he is the one who really investigated what happened, so I think he has a bit better insight into it that you or I, yes?

 

[Gunny]

Actually you mean the criminals prosecuted. Nobody really knows how many were involved, there are varying claims about different amounts. But lets assume for the sake of this that only those prosecuted were guilty.


I would. What does media coverage have to do about the difference between some soldiers, and all soldiers? Some US soldiers have tortured, raped, and killed Iraqis. I would never say that US soldiers should be profiled as torturers, rapists, or killers of civilians.

Look at the media coverage since the incident took place. A majority of it is an indictment against the US military in general, not the actions of criminals who were violating military law. In other words, an extreme minority.

You've pointed out something amusing to me. A higher percentage of US soldiers in Iraq have been successfully prosecuted for violent crimes (rape, torture, murder) against Iraqis than Muslims who commit violent acts against US forces.

Hardly. Less than 1% is less than 1%.

Still want to generalize?

Who's generalizing? I've successfully used your own argument against you. You admittedly place far more importance on the actions of less than 1% of US military service personnel than the less than 1% of muslims who are terrorists you are trying to downplay.


Of course he doesn't. The Bush administration is very good at hiding things, and the Republicans let him have free reign. The Democrats aren't doing much better. But he is the one who really investigated what happened, so I think he has a bit better insight into it that you or I, yes?

I think until Tagabu produces some evidence to support his allegations, they aren't worth squat. When and if he does, THEN I will give more credence to what so far amount to his opinions.

 

[Larkinn]

Look at the media coverage since the incident took place. A majority of it is an indictment against the US military in general, not the actions of criminals who were violating military law. In other words, an extreme minority.

I have never read anything that said that all US soldiers were at fault for what happened at Abu Ghraib. What I have seen is a general perception and worry that this was institutional and that these soldiers may have just been following orders, as they claimed. It was also the case that these crimes were known, and nothing was done about them, for some time. Its also not like this was occurring in the middle of the desert somewhere. This occurred in an area where a lot of soldiers were, all the time, with Iraqi detainees. They need oversight for this. This should have been known about FAR before pictures came out.

Hardly. Less than 1% is less than 1%.

No, actually its not. Less than 1% in America die of terrorism, but yet we've waged a massive WoT to stop terror.

However, if you feel that way, then generalizing Muslims should be the same as generalizing soldiers, right?

Who's generalizing? I've successfully used your own argument against you. You admittedly place far more importance on the actions of less than 1% of US military service personnel than the less than 1% of muslims who are terrorists you are trying to downplay.

You were defending the generalization.

No, you haven't successfully used my own argument against me. As I stated before, I would not generalize all US soldiers on the actions of a few, and I will not generalize all Muslims on the actions of a few.

Please...quote me where I "admitted" to placing far more importance on the actions of 1% of US soldiers than the 1% of Muslims. You think I don't find 9/11 to be a significant event?

I think until Tagabu produces some evidence to support his allegations, they aren't worth squat. When and if he does, THEN I will give more credence to what so far amount to his opinions.

What evidence do you think he could produce that you would find credible? I mean its highly unlikely that more pictures will appear, especially now.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I did not realize there was a statute of limitations on atrocity and mass murder. I am sure the familes of the murdered Marines would have no problem with DeadCanDance's explanation that Hezbollah was "pissed" when it blew up the Marines in their sleep.

It's a simple statement of fact, that the shia militia in lebanon were pissed that we were on their soil. Gotta problem with facts? Do you think that truck bomber of the marine barracks was coming over for a friendly game of tiddly winks?


Please, we need to calm down, and stop looking for imaginary monsters under the bed. Hezbollah hasn't been a threat to the united states since the marines left in 1985. Hezbollah is a problem for israel. Their goals are regional. There's not a shred of evidence that hezbollah ever has intended to attack cities in the united states. They haven't killed an american in twenty years.

We need to stop running around like chickens with our heads cut off, and seeing enemies everywhere. If we want to be smart, we'll focus on the muslims that really do intend to do us harm. Its a waste of resource to go chasing after groups that pose no direct threat to the american homeland.

 

[Gunny]

I have never read anything that said that all US soldiers were at fault for what happened at Abu Ghraib. What I have seen is a general perception and worry that this was institutional and that these soldiers may have just been following orders, as they claimed. It was also the case that these crimes were known, and nothing was done about them, for some time. Its also not like this was occurring in the middle of the desert somewhere. This occurred in an area where a lot of soldiers were, all the time, with Iraqi detainees. They need oversight for this. This should have been known about FAR before pictures came out.

It WAS known about AND being investigated before the pictures came out.

There is nothing "institutional" about it. The UCMJ (military law) and the Laws of War are drummed into our heads repeatedly from Day One.

As far as "just following orders," it's my opinion one of them would have squealed had that been the case. Second, it is no excuse. It is unlawful to carry out an unlawful order and the servicemember's duty to refuse to carry it out and report it immediately to the next higher up in the chain of command. The law is explicit on this, and part of the aforementioned "drumming into our heads."

It is not that "nothing was done about them." It's that the wheels of the military justice system don't turn as fast as the civilian justice system. When first sensationalized in the media, the incident was already under investigation.

No, actually its not. Less than 1% in America die of terrorism, but yet we've waged a massive WoT to stop terror.

How many is enough?

However, if you feel that way, then generalizing Muslims should be the same as generalizing soldiers, right?

I generalize neither.

You were defending the generalization.

No, you haven't successfully used my own argument against me. As I stated before, I would not generalize all US soldiers on the actions of a few, and I will not generalize all Muslims on the actions of a few.

Please...quote me where I "admitted" to placing far more importance on the actions of 1% of US soldiers than the 1% of Muslims. You think I don't find 9/11 to be a significant event?

I didn't mention 9/11, nor your opinion of it. You agreed that the media coverage of Abu Ghraib was just, when it is probably the biggest case of oversensationalizing in the 21st century, while attempting to minimize through argument the impact of radical Islam on Muslims in general.

You just as much with your fear that criminal activity such as happened at Abu Ghraib is institutional.

Clearly, you are saying suspect US servicemembers, but don't suspect all Muslims.


What evidence do you think he could produce that you would find credible? I mean its highly unlikely that more pictures will appear, especially now.

As it pertains to Rumsfeld, I think his opinion of what he felt Rumsfeld should know stands for itself. It's his word against Rumsfeld's.

All that would be required to substantiate any claim that more were involved in the prison crimes would be evidence proving that more were involved. Evidence could be eyewitness accounts by two or more people, paperwork, and/or pictures.

 

[onedomino]

Interesting that Hezbollah managed to kill US soldiers before the group was even organized.

Ah, an Hezbollah apologist. Hezbollah was formed in 1982. It murdered the Marines in 1983: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1148 Hezbollah published its manifesto (A Primer on Mass Murder, Indiscriminate Atrocities, and the Destruction of Israel 101) in 1985.

 

[onedomino]

It's a simple statement of fact, that the shia militia in lebanon were pissed that we were on their soil. Gotta problem with facts? Do you think that truck bomber of the marine barracks was coming over for a friendly game of tiddly winks?


Please, we need to calm down, and stop looking for imaginary monsters under the bed. Hezbollah hasn't been a threat to the united states since the marines left in 1985. Hezbollah is a problem for israel. Their goals are regional. There's not a shred of evidence that hezbollah ever has intended to attack cities in the united states. They haven't killed an american in twenty years.

You and Larkinn make a great pair. They have not killed an American in 20 years makes them less of an enemy? Are you insane? They have vowed to destroy our ally Israel through mass murder, homicide bombings, and indiscriminate rocket killings. They are a proxy of Iran and have destabilized the elected government of Lebanon. Hezbollah is not an enemy? You need to buy a clue.

 

[Larkinn]

It WAS known about AND being investigated before the pictures came out.

It was known about, it was NOT really being investigated. Once the pictures came out, suddenly they got their asses into gear.

There is nothing "institutional" about it. The UCMJ (military law) and the Laws of War are drummed into our heads repeatedly from Day One.

Thats your opinion. Other people have different opinions.

As far as "just following orders," it's my opinion one of them would have squealed had that been the case. Second, it is no excuse. It is unlawful to carry out an unlawful order and the servicemember's duty to refuse to carry it out and report it immediately to the next higher up in the chain of command. The law is explicit on this, and part of the aforementioned "drumming into our heads."

Why didn't someone sqeal anyway? And of course it was no excuse. That would not have removed their culpability, it just would have made other people culpable as well.

It is not that "nothing was done about them." It's that the wheels of the military justice system don't turn as fast as the civilian justice system. When first sensationalized in the media, the incident was already under investigation.

Yes...but they knew about it much earlier. At least according to some reports. Part of the problem with t his is that nobody really knows the timeline of who knew what, and when.

How many is enough?

You missed the point. That is that 1% still matters and less than 1% is not the same as less than 1% if we are talking about different things.

I generalize neither

Good, that is commendable. I find it interesting that you chose to attack me and try and trap me for my condemnation of others generalizing Muslims, however.

I didn't mention 9/11, nor your opinion of it. You agreed that the media coverage of Abu Ghraib was just, when it is probably the biggest case of oversensationalizing in the 21st century, while attempting to minimize through argument the impact of radical Islam on Muslims in general.

The biggest case of oversensationalizing in the 21st century? Try Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson or Paris Hilton. Abu Ghraib was horrendous crimes by US troops where there may have been direct knowledge by high ranking US officials. I find it hard to oversensationalize that.

Again, there is a difference between the media and its treatment of individuals in the army and whether there is a correlation between them and higher ranking officials and fingering all Muslims for what a few radicals have done. Besides that, you must realize that there is a much stronger connection between 140,000 individuals who are all in the same organization, same country, and take their orders from the same folks, than 1.3 billion people who have 1, and only 1, thing in common.

You just as much with your fear that criminal activity such as happened at Abu Ghraib is institutional.

Clearly, you are saying suspect US servicemembers, but don't suspect all Muslims.

No. I am saying find out if its institional. Don't go and investigate them just because they are US servicemembers, investigate what is happening behind the scenes. THEY are all linked, unlike the Muslims.

Ah, an Hezbollah apologist. Hezbollah was formed in 1982. It murdered the Marines in 1983: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1148 Hezbollah published its manifesto (A Primer on Mass Murder, Indiscriminate Atrocities, and the Destruction of Israel 101) in 1985.

Ah, an idiotic overgeneralizer. Hezbollah was loosely formed in 1982 and was a shadowy organization then. Even US government officials don't know whether Hezbollah did the '83 attacks.

You and Larkinn make a great pair. They have not killed an American in 20 years makes them less of an enemy? Are you insane?

How about 40 years?...should we invade Vietnam since they killed Americans 40 years ago? Are they our enemy?

They have vowed to destroy our ally Israel through mass murder, homicide bombings, and indiscriminate rocket killings. They are a proxy of Iran and have destabilized the elected government of Lebanon.

So Israel is our "ally" but yet Hezollah isn't because Hezbollah is destabilizing Lebanon?

Gee, you think that massive invasion and destruction of Lebanon by Israel might have destabilized it just a bit?

 

[onedomino]

Ah, an idiotic overgeneralizer. Hezbollah was loosely formed in 1982 and was a shadowy organization then. Even US government officials don't know whether Hezbollah did the '83 attacks.

That's a flat out lie. Hezbollah and Iran have even been found guilty in a court of law for being responsible for the murder of the Marines: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/. But I suppose that a legal finding would have no meaning to someone who excuses Hezbollah.

 

[Larkinn]

No, actually they weren't found guilty. They were found to have responsibility for the attacks. It was not a criminal suit that was filed against them, but a civil suit, in which plaintiffs have a lower burden of proof required.

By the way, the legal finding was default, since Iran never responded to the claims.

 

[onedomino]

No, actually they weren't found guilty. They were found to have responsibility for the attacks. It was not a criminal suit that was filed against them, but a civil suit, in which plaintiffs have a lower burden of proof required.

By the way, the legal finding was default, since Iran never responded to the claims.

Can you read?

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah with the approval and funding of Iran's senior government officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/

 

[Larkinn]

Can you ?

Noting that Iran was served with the lawsuits in 2002 but failed to file any responses, Lamberth wrote that the court entered default judgments against the defendants in last December but was required to study the matter further under federal law regarding lawsuits against other countries.

 

[onedomino]

Can you ?

What part of "U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah with the approval and funding of Iran's senior government officials." do you not understand? It is amazing the degree that you will go to deny Hezbollah's guilt for the murder of the Marines in Beruit. What can be your motivation for attempting to excuse mass murderers? Read carefully the words, "suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah" and try to grasp their meaning.

 

[Larkinn]

What part of "U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah with the approval and funding of Iran's senior government officials." do you not understand? It is amazing the degree that you will go to deny Hezbollah's guilt for the murder of the Marines in Beruit. What can be your motivation for attempting to excuse mass murderers? Read carefully the words, "suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah" and try to grasp their meaning.

It was a civil case, with only one side presented. It is quite easy to tar Hezbollah with a negative brush, this just is a foolish way to attempt to do it.

 

[Gunny]

It was known about, it was NOT really being investigated. Once the pictures came out, suddenly they got their asses into gear.

The investigation was proceeding, like all military investigations proceed. Slow, and with little fanfare.


Thats your opinion. Other people have different opinions.

And most "other people" I know registering opinions don't have 20-or-more years military service. Several others on this board as well as myself do, and not one of US, who WOULD know, think it's institutional that I am aware of. Each and every military person on this board, left or right, would have to agree that military personnel are educated on the UCMJ, Law of War, Code of Conduct, all of which specifically deal with treatment of POWs, except the latter which is a code of conduct should you become a prisoner.


Why didn't someone sqeal anyway? And of course it was no excuse. That would not have removed their culpability, it just would have made other people culpable as well.

If there's nothing to squeal about, there would be no one TO squeal.


Yes...but they knew about it much earlier. At least according to some reports. Part of the problem with t his is that nobody really knows the timeline of who knew what, and when.

Part of the problem here is your understanding of the justice system, and believing the military justice system works as fast. It doesn't. The right to a speedy trial is one right not in the UCMJ.


You missed the point. That is that 1% still matters and less than 1% is not the same as less than 1% if we are talking about different things.

We are comparing comparable circumstances where stereotyping and over-sensationalizing are concerned; which, is the crux of your argument. All muslims aren't terrorists. All military service personnel are not war criminals. In both cases, the crimes have been committed by less than 1% of the general population.

Good, that is commendable. I find it interesting that you chose to attack me and try and trap me for my condemnation of others generalizing Muslims, however.

I am neither trapping nor condemning. I am trying to get you to see that what is fair for one is fair for all.


The biggest case of oversensationalizing in the 21st century? Try Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson or Paris Hilton. Abu Ghraib was horrendous crimes by US troops where there may have been direct knowledge by high ranking US officials. I find it hard to oversensationalize that.

OJ was 20th century. Neither Michael Jackson nor Paris Hilton are going on four consecutive years of the same accusations and stories resurfacing every six months or so.

Wht happened at Abu Ghraib was criminal. Horrendous is a bit much. The criminals were prosecuted and are serving sentences, some FAR exceeding being commensurate with their crimes.

Again, there is a difference between the media and its treatment of individuals in the army and whether there is a correlation between them and higher ranking officials and fingering all Muslims for what a few radicals have done. Besides that, you must realize that there is a much stronger connection between 140,000 individuals who are all in the same organization, same country, and take their orders from the same folks, than 1.3 billion people who have 1, and only 1, thing in common.

I don't see the relevancy to my point. I am well-aware that Muslims do not represent the US serviceperson just the US serviceperson does not represent Muslims.

I was addressing what they have in common insofar as the media is concerned.


No. I am saying find out if its institional. Don't go and investigate them just because they are US servicemembers, investigate what is happening behind the scenes. THEY are all linked, unlike the Muslims.

The investigations have been made. Following Abu Ghraib, and in the past. What you are failing to see is it is against the law for military personnel to mistreat POWs. Period. It's not only against international and US law, it is against military law. The training exists.

You have a case where six National Guardsmen, lest unsupervised in a position of supreme authority abused their power for their own amusement. No evidence to support anything else has surfaced in 3 years. How long do you propose to investigate?


Ah, an idiotic overgeneralizer. Hezbollah was loosely formed in 1982 and was a shadowy organization then. Even US government officials don't know whether Hezbollah did the '83 attacks.

The Beiruit Barracks bombing was carried out by an Iranians.

http://www.answers.com/topic/1983-beirut-barracks-bombing


How about 40 years?...should we invade Vietnam since they killed Americans 40 years ago? Are they our enemy?



So Israel is our "ally" but yet Hezollah isn't because Hezbollah is destabilizing Lebanon?

Gee, you think that massive invasion and destruction of Lebanon by Israel might have destabilized it just a bit?

Syria and the PLO are as much to blame if not more than Israel since they destabilized Lebanon prior to Israel invading.

 

[Larkinn]

The investigation was proceeding, like all military investigations proceed. Slow, and with little fanfare.

And from the bottom up, considering Rumsfeld claimed that he had not seen the pictures or the report until the night before he testified before Congress.

And most "other people" I know registering opinions don't have 20-or-more years military service.

Congratulations on that. Were you active duty in the past 5 years in Iraq? Because that seems to be where the problem lies.

Each and every military person on this board, left or right, would have to agree that military personnel are educated on the UCMJ, Law of War, Code of Conduct, all of which specifically deal with treatment of POWs, except the latter which is a code of conduct should you become a prisoner.

That does not preclude certain higher ups encouraging subordinates to break those codes.

If there's nothing to squeal about, there would be no one TO squeal.

Err about Abu Ghraib?

Part of the problem here is your understanding of the justice system, and believing the military justice system works as fast. It doesn't. The right to a speedy trial is one right not in the UCMJ.

I am aware of that, and its irrelevant.

I am neither trapping nor condemning. I am trying to get you to see that what is fair for one is fair for all.

Which you tried to get me to see...before I ever said anything about Abu Ghraib. Hence you are attempting, and failing, to set me up.

OJ was 20th century. Neither Michael Jackson nor Paris Hilton are going on four consecutive years of the same accusations and stories resurfacing every six months or so.

Lmao...yes OJ was the 20th century, it was oh so long ago. And no that has not happened with Abu Ghraib either. Considering the accusations hit the public in around march of '04, it has not been four consecutive years. And no this has not surfaced every 6 months or so, it surfaces when there is something significant to report.

And the standard wasn't sensationalizing, it was OVER-sensationalizing. Considering that Abu Ghraib was US service members torturing people in a land we invaded to "free", I think that deserves a bit more publicity than Paris Hilton doing...well nothing really. Just sort of existing she gets coverage for.

Wht happened at Abu Ghraib was criminal. Horrendous is a bit much. The criminals were prosecuted and are serving sentences, some FAR exceeding being commensurate with their crimes.

Horrendous is a bit much? Sorry I find torture to be horrendous. Perhaps you find it more palatable than I do. And please, tell me which criminals are serving sentences far exceeding their crimes.

I don't see the relevancy to my point. I am well-aware that Muslims do not represent the US serviceperson just the US serviceperson does not represent Muslims.

A random US serviceman has a lot more in connection and in common with another random US serviceman than 1 muslim has in common with another muslim. Get it now?

The investigations have been made. Following Abu Ghraib, and in the past. What you are failing to see is it is against the law for military personnel to mistreat POWs. Period. It's not only against international and US law, it is against military law. The training exists.

They weren't POW's. That is part of the problem, this administration does not want to classify anyone as POW's because then they are afforded legal protection.

You have a case where six National Guardsmen, lest unsupervised in a position of supreme authority abused their power for their own amusement. No evidence to support anything else has surfaced in 3 years. How long do you propose to investigate?

12 really...at least 12 recieved punishments as a result of the investigation.

You didn't answer my question from before as well. What evidence do you think they could come up with. More pictures? What evidence would you believe? All they have is what people say...

 

[DeadCanDance]

You and Larkinn make a great pair. They have not killed an American in 20 years makes them less of an enemy? Are you insane? They have vowed to destroy our ally Israel through mass murder, homicide bombings, and indiscriminate rocket killings. They are a proxy of Iran and have destabilized the elected government of Lebanon. Hezbollah is not an enemy? You need to buy a clue.

Israel has the best military in the middle east. They can defend themselves. And we can help them. Where do you think they get their military from? Hezbollah is a problem for israel.

As for the United States directly going to war against hezbollah in lebanon....WHY? There's not a shred of evidence that they want to attack american cities. Their leader has forbade attacks on innocent american civilians. Thousands of american expatriates live in lebanon dude. Have you heard of one of them being killed or beheaded by hezbollah? NO, you haven't.

Why are you trying to distract us from fighting international jihaddists that really DO want to directly harm americans? Are you an al qaeda troll, trying to distract us into fighting people who aren't really a threat to america?

 

[Gunny]

And from the bottom up, considering Rumsfeld claimed that he had not seen the pictures or the report until the night before he testified before Congress.

Investigations ALWAYS proceed from the bottom up. That's the way it works. A preemptive investigation from the top down is out of the ordinary.


Congratulations on that. Were you active duty in the past 5 years in Iraq? Because that seems to be where the problem lies.

A relativist argument. The rules haven't changed since the 50s, when the Code of Conduct was written after the Korean War. Neither has the education. My daughter is in the army NOW, and she knows the rules.


That does not preclude certain higher ups encouraging subordinates to break those codes.

Yes it does. If the senior has any regard for his own ass it damned-sure does. I will repeat, it is unlawful to carry out an unlawful order, and if given one, the servicemember is to refuse and report it immediately. That is law.

I don't know too many senior NCOs or officers willing to put their careers in teh hands of troops.


Err about Abu Ghraib?

In context, dropping names NOW. If there is nothing further to tell, then there is no one to tell it.



I am aware of that, and its irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. You have made the statement the investigation wasn't moving fast enough. The military justice system moves at its own speed, not yours nor anyone else's.



Which you tried to get me to see...before I ever said anything about Abu Ghraib. Hence you are attempting, and failing, to set me up.

No, you already got set up and took the bait. That's water under the bridge. You have a double standard.


Lmao...yes OJ was the 20th century, it was oh so long ago. And no that has not happened with Abu Ghraib either. Considering the accusations hit the public in around march of '04, it has not been four consecutive years. And no this has not surfaced every 6 months or so, it surfaces when there is something significant to report.

It surfaces whenever it comes back around on the left-wingnut schedule of regurgitating already-beaten-to-death events. There has been nothing significant to report in 3 years. Yet, here it is again.

And the standard wasn't sensationalizing, it was OVER-sensationalizing. Considering that Abu Ghraib was US service members torturing people in a land we invaded to "free", I think that deserves a bit more publicity than Paris Hilton doing...well nothing really. Just sort of existing she gets coverage for.

Over-sensationalizing or sensationalizing = same shit. I haven't compared Abu Ghraib to Paris Hilton. My argument centers solely around your willingness to argue for muslims since terrorists represent less than 1%, but do not hold the same standard for US military personnel when the criminals at Abu Ghraib represent less than 1% of total US military personnel.


Horrendous is a bit much? Sorry I find torture to be horrendous. Perhaps you find it more palatable than I do. And please, tell me which criminals are serving sentences far exceeding their crimes.

The SSgt got 9 years. A bit much for humiliating, not torturing, prisoners.


A random US serviceman has a lot more in connection and in common with another random US serviceman than 1 muslim has in common with another muslim. Get it now?

Nope. An airman in the Air Force has about as much in common with an enlisted Marine as a Sunni muslim has in common with the Nation of Islam.


They weren't POW's. That is part of the problem, this administration does not want to classify anyone as POW's because then they are afforded legal protection.

What legal protection are POWs afforded?

12 really...at least 12 recieved punishments as a result of the investigation.

You didn't answer my question from before as well. What evidence do you think they could come up with. More pictures? What evidence would you believe? All they have is what people say...

I gave you examples of evidence; which, answered your question. You know as well as I do hearsay is not admissible in court. I see no point in believing unsubstantiated allegations; especially, politically motivated ones.

 

[Larkinn]

Investigations ALWAYS proceed from the bottom up. That's the way it works. A preemptive investigation from the top down is out of the ordinary.

Considering this was an investigation of possible torture/murder/rape by US soldiers, I think maybe the Pentagon should have known about it and seem the report and the pictures before the public, yes?

A relativist argument. The rules haven't changed since the 50s, when the Code of Conduct was written after the Korean War. Neither has the education. My daughter is in the army NOW, and she knows the rules.

It is not relativist at all. The rules and what actually happens are different. Nobody has claimed that Rumsfeld changed the rules so you can torture people (although he definitely lessened them and made it easier to justify). No, instead what is claimed is that they gave subtle orders and encouraged an atmosphere where the rules were broken.

Yes it does. If the senior has any regard for his own ass it damned-sure does. I will repeat, it is unlawful to carry out an unlawful order, and if given one, the servicemember is to refuse and report it immediately. That is law.

And what if the order isn't direct? Again nobody is saying that Rumsfeld went down to Abu Ghraib and said "hood that prisoner". No instead that he encouraged and atmosphere where abuse and law-breaking would occur and soldiers were encouraged to do "whatever necessary" to break detainees.

No, you already got set up and took the bait. That's water under the bridge. You have a double standard.

I am neither trapping nor condemning. I am trying to get you to see that what is fair for one is fair for all.

Really keep your lies consistent at least.

It surfaces whenever it comes back around on the left-wingnut schedule of regurgitating already-beaten-to-death events. There has been nothing significant to report in 3 years. Yet, here it is again.

Please tell me which left-wingnut brought up Abu Ghraib in this conversation again?

I haven't compared Abu Ghraib to Paris Hilton

Actually you compared the coverage of the two and said that the coverage around Abu Ghraib was less justified.

My argument centers solely around your willingness to argue for muslims since terrorists represent less than 1%, but do not hold the same standard for US military personnel when the criminals at Abu Ghraib represent less than 1% of total US military personnel.

There are different circumstances, as I've pointed out time and time again, and you've ignored time and time again.

The SSgt got 9 years. A bit much for humiliating, not torturing, prisoners.

There were pictures of detainees who were forced to have sex with each other. That is rape.

Oh, and he got 8 years, not 9 years. Among his crimes punching someone so hard they had to be recucistated. Sorry but that goes a bit past humiliation. Oh, and that also includes keeping these horrendous things that were done secret.

Nope. An airman in the Air Force has about as much in common with an enlisted Marine as a Sunni muslim has in common with the Nation of Islam

Does an airman in the Air Force take his orders at the top from the same people as an enlisted Marine?

Does a sunni Muslim take his same orders at the top from the Nation of Islam?

Hey, actually one has more in common than the other.

What legal protection are POWs afforded?

I suspect some under US law, but I only know the ones under international law:

"POWs must be humanely treated at all times. They must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults or public curiosity. POWs must be kept in facilities "under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power in the same area."

"While POWs the detaining power may interrogate them, POWs are only required to provide their surname, first names, rank, birth date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. POWs, cannot be punished if they do not but are not required to provide additionalany other information. "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

I gave you examples of evidence; which, answered your question. You know as well as I do hearsay is not admissible in court. I see no point in believing unsubstantiated allegations; especially, politically motivated ones.

Correct hearsay is not admissible in court. But considering Taguba was forced to resign after his report, do you really find it surprising that they are having trouble finding witnesses?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Hezbollah bombed a u.s. military base in 1983, along with other attacks, i do believe they want to attack america, but want israel off the map first. Im not sure if they are as dangerous as al queda, but they should be wiped off the map

Israel has the best military in the middle east. They can defend themselves. And we can help them. Where do you think they get their military from? Hezbollah is a problem for israel.

As for the United States directly going to war against hezbollah in lebanon....WHY? There's not a shred of evidence that they want to attack american cities. Their leader has forbade attacks on innocent american civilians. Thousands of american expatriates live in lebanon dude. Have you heard of one of them being killed or beheaded by hezbollah? NO, you haven't.

Why are you trying to distract us from fighting international jihaddists that really DO want to directly harm americans? Are you an al qaeda troll, trying to distract us into fighting people who aren't really a threat to america?