Abu Ghraib Torture Signed Off by Rumsfeld
 

terrorists need hugs.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Yep, because Rummy used a standing desk and stood at it all day long, he figured why only force them to stand for 4 hours? I do it all day long.. what a dick that guy is/was.

Best source IMHO is pbs.org/frontline
They do a fantastic job. Far far better than any other news source.

torture is torture..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...pentagon/view/
There ya go. Watch the whole thing sometime. Much of what you see there you simply wont find on mainstream news.

Yes...it was signed by Rumsfeld on 2 December and because of concerns expressed by all four branches of the military he orally recinded the order on 12 January and officiially signed on 15 January recinding the order.

and kisses .......

The order that he signed and recinded six weeks later had zero to do with the Abu Ghraib scandal and the Abu Ghraib scandal had zero do do with interrogation.

Are they going to let those soldiers who are in jail go now? They hung those people out to dry.

quick reminder to those who quickly lose sight of reality.... these guys want to murder you and your family and consider it their duty to do so. over 80 of them were so bad that their own governments wouldn't take them back... and many which have been released ended up on the battlefield again, some of them becoming suicide bombers. but forget all that... its about being nice right? if you be nice enough to the guy who wants to murder you, all will be ok. obviously, he'll see things your way eventually and come on board with your way of thinking and subscribe to your world view.

http://vermontdailybriefing.com/wp-c...mages/cage.jpg

No...because what the thread starter posted is not true...and because the soldiers that were invovled in the scandal acted on their own and what they did...did not have anything to do with interrogation.

You forget a very large chunk of them did nothing.They were picked up on bad intel or because the US was offering bounties people were given up for money even though they weren't terrorists. A cameraman was held for a couple of years and they finally let him go.

Nah, it's about Rummy sitting before congress and telling them that in the Iraq theater, the geneva conventions applied fully when he knew full well what was going on, because he approved it right at his desk, including hand written notes. He's a fucking liar, just like the rest of this corrupt regime currently in our white house.

Get it straight.

Whats wrong with torturing people if they are determined to destroy you and your way of life? I hope America votes in Obama and goes soft for 4 years, because you can guarantee you guys will grow a pair after that ;)

Lets hug the guys with bombs strapped to their chests ... thats gotta solve things ! Idiots.

They really dont care,the man who was responsible for the death of 3000 americans is still free making audio tapes.

Does that goes both ways .... ???

ok.. lets say i agree with you. the problem with terrorism is that it was treated as a criminal matter in the US. that did not work. you can't give someone who considers it their life's duty to murder you all the rights and protections of a legal system and constitution (that doesn't apply to them anyway) as if somehow "justice" is going to be done.

i understand all the issues. i understand and believe that its very complex and the issues are very complex. they are unique to our time. I think its a huge mistake to treat this category of people as if the criminal justice system can provide a solution to the terrorist threat.

You can say people were held on faulty intel etc.. that also goes the other way. Many ended up on the battlefield killing people and even carrying out suicide attacks and many are so violent and dangerous that their own countries refuse to take them back... you are pointing to the exception... i am pointing to the general rule.

whats the answer? dunno. it has to be something in between military justice and kidnapping and killing them.

if i am a guy catching people on the battlefield after a major firefight ... why wouldn't i just put a bullet in his head? why would i want to see that guy put on a plane and treated like gold while some attorney allows him to walk on a technicality so he can go back to trying to kill people?

this issue is not so simple as everyone wants to make it out to be.

and lets be very clear here... i just had the federal government tell me to stop a hoax site. when asked about "the first amendment", i was told "i don't care, we're going to shut it down no matter what". when it was said "its clearly satire" the response was "then it serves no purpose and has no reason to exist".

i don't have any love for bush, republicans, killing brown people or anything else people want to redirect the argument to.

for me its about a simple question of how do you adequately deal with people who want to die trying to kill you and will keep trying every chance you give them? "The Constitution" doesn't provide a great answer to that question. If anything, it weights the odds in their favor of ultimately succeeding. you don't have to hate freedom, the constitution or support fascism to understand that simple issue.

i love this rationale..

a few are innocent so let them all go.

its called collateral damage.. they are lucky they are just being detained rather than killed

and some good olllllll fucking in the ass :1orglaugh

Who said let them go please dont put words in my mouth and I wont put them in yours. Sound good.

funny how we call it collateral damage when civilians get killed due to our action but when they kill civilians it is called terrorism.
sounds to me like a sentance made up by a good lawyer that works for bush. :1orglaugh

Easy to say when it isn't you or your family.

They let you off early today ...

and you wonder why they hate us....


Obama (may) have the answer. We can only kill so many at a time, gotta open up some dialog.

And lates face it, as N American zealots get all twisted and righteous, WE create our own Taliban.

Thanks for the post Mik...

so whats the perfect answer?

There is no perfect answer. But that answer is the simplest one when it isn't you or your family or friends being held in that fashion.

Do you think it would be reasonable for an Iraqi to come across the pond, snag you off the street because one of your neighbours said you support the terrorists and drag you to a foreign country to be held indefinitely?

The process needs to be fixed.

There's another guy responsible for a lot more deaths that is still living free and chilling in a big fancy white house.

If you have a target and you hit that target anyone killed that was not intentionally targeted is collateral damage. When you target civilians that is not collateral damage...because the target was civilians.

quick reminder for you. The vast majority of them have never been proven to have done a single thing.

That is dead on the money.

Another is "insurgent" used to describe someone who is fighting a FOREIGN country who has invaded their homeland. If they fight back, they are an insurgent and a terrorist.

I would like to see how many "insurgents" the United States would have if they were ever invaded by someone. Of course then it would be "freedom fighters protecting their homeland" and everyone would be applauded.

The hypocrisy of American democracy is humorous, and this is exactly why so many around the world currently HATES the United States.

Pigshit.

So by that logic it's ok for Iraqis to torture American soldiers who invaded their land?

sure, except for the insignificant fact that they were on the battlefield fighting for the Taliban. its not like they were selling apples on a highway or something... or there was a mass campaign to snatch people out of their homes in the dead of night.. or maybe you will argue they were and the UN, Red Cross and everyone else that has been observing them just didn't catch on.

get informed .... A big chunk where not even in Afghanistan ... And for those that were there, where should they have been ... London ? Paris ? Washington ?

Here is one of many :

So , in your thinking, any american should be kidnapped and sent to Iran for torture .... :thumbsup

a bit more :

need more ??????

In fact, since the 6 years of gitmo, how many were convicted ????

None...because they could not be tried until recently...because the right to try them by military tribunal has been tied up in the courts until recently. In addition several hundred have been released and more would be released except their home countries will not take them back. At least one was offered release but he declined.

perfectly believable. just a taxi driver... driving along.. .snatched from the streets by the US military for absolutely no reason at all. and how do we know? because he says so.

bla bla bla ....

Bla...bla...bla is a better response than the bla...bla...bla...you copy and paste which is the only thing you have expertise in. Incapable of an original thought...now aren't you?

America has always tortured people, but they've done it secretly. It's just that this administration and our intelligence agencies have become so fucking inept that everything they touch turns into a giant public disaster.

Our intelligence agencies haven't gotten a damn thing right in nearly 40 years. They've been wrong on EVERY major intelligence issue. From the phony build up of the Soviet military to the WMDs in Iraq. It's no wonder everything they do blows up in their face.

God bless America. Piss on everyone. I wonder what would have happened if one of the Americans got captured in battle field and kept in prison for 7 years. Jesus fucking christ.

Thats lovely

Have you ever heard of WW1...WW2...Korean Conflict...Vietnam Conflict? Americans have been captured on the battlefield and have been held for the duration...which is SOP. Senator McCain for example was held for more than 5 years during Vietnam and others were held longer than he was.

I have no problem with this. I have a few suggestions actually:

• Deep cycle marine batteries
• Intra-muscular penetration testing of new rounds
• Cauterization
• Those pinheads at G.E.
• Buttafucco, Buttafucco, Buttafucco!

In Iraq they are called insurgents because they are fighting against their own freely elected government...not because they are fighting against a "FOREIGN" country. Iraqi's are killing more Iraqi's than they are ayone from a "FOREIGN" country.