US military dog handlers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison say they were ordered to use their animals to intimidate detainees They made the allegation in statements provided to military investigators, the Washington Post newspaper says. The handlers also said the jail's top military intelligence officer had approved the tactic, the paper reports. Pentagon officials have said abuses at Abu Ghraib were confined to a small group of military police soldiers. But the Washington Post says the statements reinforce the view that there were two kinds of abuse at the jail - sexual humiliation and beatings at the hands of military police (MPs), and intimidation using dogs during interrogations under the auspices of military intelligence.</blockquote> After all, what's a few wogs anyways? Presidential counsel, Alberto Gonzales, declared the Geneva Conventions to be "quaint" and "obsolete", so what need has this administration to adhere to them? In a legal brief, a DOJ lawyer said that torture is sometimes justified, so any means are accceptable so long as the ends of the Administration are met. So, what does it matter if some rag-head is tortured and/or humiliated? I'll tell you why it matters. America helped develope and signed those treaties to prevent our soldiers from suffering such abuses. In abandoning the moral high ground, the Administration has descended to the level of the terrorist, and America cannot win on that level. America must take, and retain the moral high ground. But if retaining that ground cost more American lives than we are willing to sacrifice we must ask, "Is the cause a just one?"