Lynndie and the Left

[Mr. P]

While leftist critics entertained high hopes of deeply wounding the Bush administration over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, they will now have to shelve their hopes for another day. Testimony from the MPs involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, including key figure Lynndie England, indicates that no higher officials were involved; a fact the independent commission investigating the scandal confirmed in Washington last week.
Naturally, the left and those who hate America have never considered the possibility that Bush administration officials did not orchestrate the abuse and that the Abu Ghraib MPs acted alone. To do so would blunt one of the best anti-Bush weapons that have recently come into their possession.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14883

A scandal? It sure has been made into one. Abuse of Iraqi prisoners? NO, not in my opinion.
It's a war damn-it! How do folks think we obtained intelligence from POWs in past wars...by being courteous?

Why did a portion of my training include much worse than this?
Because, we knew what the other guy did to the POWs.
Did we abuse our own troops? No, it was training...important training...possibly life saving.

I really haven't thought any more of this so called "abuse" than it simply being a left-wing anti-Bush campaign to just... "GET BUSH".

I'm tired of it!
That's my 2 cents.

 

[Merlin1047]

From 1971 to 72 I had the privelige of commanding an Infantry basic training company at Ft. Leonard Wood MO.

Part of the program of instruction involved the Geneva Convention and an exposure to the kind of treatment soldiers might anticipate if captured and interrogated.

Two interrogation stations were set up in a mock POW camp. Station One had the "bad" interrogator and Station Two the "good" interrogator. When the trainees entered station one, they were confronted with a bullying, loud, obnoxious Sergeant who shoved them around, made them kneel on a 2x2, banged a knotted rope close to their heads, threatened them and generally heaped mental abuse on the trainee. Without exception, he got nothing with this technique. Matter of fact, of few trainees, forgetting that this was merely a training exercise, had to be restrained or they would have attacked the NCO.

At station two, trainees were welcomed as if they had just walked into the USO. They were offered a seat on a comfortable couch, lemonade, cookies and allowed to smoke if they wished. The interrogator then asked them seemingly innocuous questions like "How do you feel? Are you tired? Did you walk far today? Are you hungry? Do you need a new pair of boots? Are any of your friends sick or wounded and in need of medical attention?"

All these questions were designed to determine the composition and condition of the unit, how far it had moved that day, the status of its equipment and the status of the supply train. Without exception, every trainee cheerfully spilled his guts. They never intended to betray their unit, quite the opposite, but they simply didn't correlate how the questions and their answers would be put to use.

Sometimes putting physical or mental pressure on a captive can yield results. But most often a little devious manipulation is far more productive.

 

[nakedemperor]

We also signed something called the Geneva convention, which says its illegal to do lots of the stuff we did to the prisoners. You were taught to withstand enemy interrogation, but notice you were not taught HOW to torture people for information. Its because we're different from this enemy. We DON'T kill 5,000 innocent civilians, and we sure as shit don't torture people for information. But then again, "If the president does it, its not illegal".

 

[Annie]

We also signed something called the Geneva convention, which says its illegal to do lots of the stuff we did to the prisoners. You were taught to withstand enemy interrogation, but notice you were not taught HOW to torture people for information. Its because we're different from this enemy. We DON'T kill 5,000 innocent civilians, and we sure as shit don't torture people for information. But then again, "If the president does it, its not illegal".

Go read them, nakedemperor. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView then you might understand what others are saying.

 

[insein]

We also signed something called the Geneva convention, which says its illegal to do lots of the stuff we did to the prisoners. You were taught to withstand enemy interrogation, but notice you were not taught HOW to torture people for information. Its because we're different from this enemy. We DON'T kill 5,000 innocent civilians, and we sure as shit don't torture people for information. But then again, "If the president does it, its not illegal".

When did the president do it?

 

[Merlin1047]

We also signed something called the Geneva convention, which says its illegal to do lots of the stuff we did to the prisoners. You were taught to withstand enemy interrogation, but notice you were not taught HOW to torture people for information. Its because we're different from this enemy. We DON'T kill 5,000 innocent civilians, and we sure as shit don't torture people for information. But then again, "If the president does it, its not illegal".

Frankly, I don't think you're qualified to lecture me on any of the topics in your misguided and distorted post.