Rummy!

[Tireur]

the "real value" is to mitigate the damage in the arab world (hopefully, but I doubt it). The long term solution to the war on terror is to undercut support in the arab world by improving our image in the arab world. this is a complicated goal, but certainly mitigating damage from this incident would be very helpful.-m

Well, that's why you don't take the actions of a few and plaster it all over the world as "proof" that Americans hold all Arabs in "contempt" and see them only as "objects"

Instead of putting this in context, the news media has made it into an anti-Bush tool.

Plus you want to elect a man who claimed, until he was running for President himself, that he committed atrocities. I guess he saw Vietnamese only as objects to be held in contempt.

[Tireur]

can you at least admit your error in your characterization of it as "a little humiliation"?-m

I already have, on at least some of the charges, see above.

[epeemike81]

Well, that's why you don't take the actions of a few and plaster it all over the world as "proof" that Americans hold all Arabs in "contempt" and see them only as "objects"

Well, it's the posters that Al Quaeda can now plaster that I'd be worried about.

Instead of putting this in context, the news media has made it into an anti-Bush tool.

why is it that when there's bad news, it's called bad media?? don't shoot the messenger, especially given that the media's descriptions of the abuses have been FAR less critical than the internal army report which Philistine linked to.

Plus you want to elect a man who claimed, until he was running for President himself, that he committed atrocities. I guess he saw Vietnamese only as objects to be held in contempt.

I may get into this issue more later, as I actually like to check my facts BEFORE I post, but for now I would just caution you that there's a difference between "atrocities" in a combat situation, where there's a dangerous enemy trying to kill you as well, and atrocities in a prison, where you hold all the power, for the purpose of pure entertainment.

-m

[a517dogg]

Well, that's why you don't take the actions of a few and plaster it all over the world as "proof" that Americans hold all Arabs in "contempt" and see them only as "objects"

Instead of putting this in context, the news media has made it into an anti-Bush tool.

Plus you want to elect a man who claimed, until he was running for President himself, that he committed atrocities. I guess he saw Vietnamese only as objects to be held in contempt.

I dont think the only way to commit wartime atrocities is to hold your opponent in contempt and then shove chemical lights up their ***. Some people view war itself as an atrocity.

What context would you put systemic prison abuse in to shed favorable light on Bush's handling of the war?

[Tireur]

I may get into this issue more later, as I actually like to check my facts BEFORE I post, but for now I would just caution you that there's a difference between "atrocities" in a combat situation, where there's a dangerous enemy trying to kill you as well, and atrocities in a prison, where you hold all the power, for the purpose of pure entertainment.

-m

Surprise, surprise, Kerry gets an out.

I suppose the killing of whole villages of innocent civilians (free-fire zones), when you're not sure whether or not there are enemy combatants there, is not an atrocity in your book. My Lai ring a bell?

Kerry says he took part in this, among other things. Is this not worse in your book than even the worst violation we've read about here?

[Tireur]

What context would you put systemic prison abuse in to shed favorable light on Bush's handling of the war?

Systemic? You've got me there. I was under the mistaken idea it was only a small handful of guards involved. I didn't realize it ran rampant throughout the system. Was that in the report?

I don't think it would shed favorable light on anyone's handling of it. You could say, but you won't, that Bush has done more than most would have.

[a517dogg]

Systemic? You've got me there. I was under the mistaken idea it was only a small handful of guards involved. I didn't realize it ran rampant throughout the system. Was that in the report?

I don't think it would shed favorable light on anyone's handling of it. You could say, but you won't, that Bush has done more than most would have.

Abu Ghraib is not an isolated incident - remember Camp Buca? Three MP people were found guilty of having abused Iraqi prisoners of war back in January. The commander of that prison was relieved of command and put in charge of Abu Ghraib.

[Tireur]

Abu Ghraib is not an isolated incident - remember Camp Buca? Three MP people were found guilty of having abused Iraqi prisoners of war back in January. The commander of that prison was relieved of command and put in charge of Abu Ghraib.

Well, three more certainly makes it sound systemic to me.

[Philistine]

Systemic? You've got me there. I was under the mistaken idea it was only a small handful of guards involved. I didn't realize it ran rampant throughout the system. Was that in the report?

The report dealt only with the 800th MP Brigade at Abu Grhaib. It concluded that the actions were caused by a number of individual soldiers and a general failure of the leadership. I would call those systemic issues (at least at the local level.)

The Red Cross Report is broader, dealing with all of Iraq, and implicates more systemic issues.

--Philistine

[jeff]

Even that right wing tome, the Weekly Standard has come out thundering against this, saying "Bush supports Rumsfeld - for now". When even the true believers say he's smeared himself, then that's a powerful statement.

They also say refer to Bush as "All Hat And No Cattle". They want him re-elected (they're not capable of taking that ultimate step), but they refer to his burgeoning deficit and out of control non-military spending (they even thank the Dems for helping restrict his spending), his energy policy that doesnt reduce dependency on his Saudi friends, the overconfidence of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz stretching the military to its limits and ignoring Korea, &etc.

When the true believers (reluctantly) say there's a lot amiss you know things have changed.

[epeemike81]

Systemic? You've got me there. I was under the mistaken idea it was only a small handful of guards involved. I didn't realize it ran rampant throughout the system. Was that in the report?

I don't think it would shed favorable light on anyone's handling of it. You could say, but you won't, that Bush has done more than most would have.

"The International Committee of the Red Cross said on Friday there had been widespread abuse and violations of human rights law in U.S.-controlled Iraqi detention centres." (source provided in earlier post)

go to google and search for the ICRC report.

-m

[epeemike81]

Surprise, surprise, Kerry gets an out.

I suppose the killing of whole villages of innocent civilians (free-fire zones), when you're not sure whether or not there are enemy combatants there, is not an atrocity in your book. My Lai ring a bell?

Kerry says he took part in this, among other things. Is this not worse in your book than even the worst violation we've read about here?

I can find nowhere that Kerry says he participated in My Lai. please give me a link to these statements.

If he did say this, you've got him dead to rights for lying, considering that My Lai happened on Mar. 16th, 1968. On that day, Kerry was serving on the USS Gridley (though he had already requested duty in Vietnam). He didn't enter Vietnam until Nov. 17 of that year, EIGHT MONTHS LATER!.

Really, is it so hard to check facts before you post? it took me all of two minutes to find John Kerry's war record (on his website) and the date for the My Lai massacre.

So, not knowing what "attrocities" he commited, I don't know whether they're as bad, but I'd guess not. Please note that I didn't say he had an excuse for whatever he did, just that many acts which would be considered acceptable in battle are very unacceptable when dealing with unarmed prisoners.

Feel free to read about his years of naval service, and more specifically about the four months in which he earned 3 purple hearts, a silver star and a bronze star with V:
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities...s/service.html

-m

[Tireur]

Here you go again. I didn't say he was at My Lai, I was using it as an example of a "free-fire" zone, in case you didn't know what one was. Kerry has said he took part in those (plural). I would imagine that might be worse than the photos I've seen of the Iraqi prisoner "atrocities".

Unless Kerry was lying to beef up his testimony before Congress, which apparently he did do some embelishing of. I did have my facts straight.

[epeemike81]

Here you go again. I didn't say he was at My Lai, I was using it as an example of a "free-fire" zone, in case you didn't know what one was. Kerry has said he took part in those (plural). I would imagine that might be worse than the photos I've seen of the Iraqi prisoner "atrocities".

Unless Kerry was lying to beef up his testimony before Congress, which apparently he did do some embelishing of. I did have my facts straight.

My Lai ring a bell?

Kerry said he took part in this, among other things.

gee, wonder how I EVER could have thought you were saying Kerry was at My Lai. Either way, give me a link to the comments. if you're gonna say something, be prepared to back it up.

-m

[Tireur]

gee, wonder how I EVER could have thought you were saying Kerry was at My Lai. Either way, give me a link to the comments. if you're gonna say something, be prepared to back it up.

-m

Yes, when you edit it just so, I can see how you might have missed it.

[URL=http://http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4771873]

He said it when it fit his agenda years ago, now that he's running for President, he's backpeddling.

[Tireur]

ooops. Oh well, cut and paste

[Soldier]

I can find nowhere that Kerry says he participated in My Lai. please give me a link to these statements.

If he did say this, you've got him dead to rights for lying, considering that My Lai happened on Mar. 16th, 1968. On that day, Kerry was serving on the USS Gridley (though he had already requested duty in Vietnam). He didn't enter Vietnam until Nov. 17 of that year, EIGHT MONTHS LATER!.

Really, is it so hard to check facts before you post? it took me all of two minutes to find John Kerry's war record (on his website) and the date for the My Lai massacre.

So, not knowing what "attrocities" he commited, I don't know whether they're as bad, but I'd guess not. Please note that I didn't say he had an excuse for whatever he did, just that many acts which would be considered acceptable in battle are very unacceptable when dealing with unarmed prisoners.

Feel free to read about his years of naval service, and more specifically about the four months in which he earned 3 purple hearts, a silver star and a bronze star with V:
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities...s/service.html

-m

Just a minor point...don't you think the source http://www.johnkerry.com might be just a bit biased in regards to his war records?

[epeemike81]

Just a minor point...don't you think the source http://www.johnkerry.com might be just a bit biased in regards to his war records?

no doubt, but what's there is excerpts from his official military record (not to mention PDFs of the original documents). that source isn't biased. His website was just a convenient place where I knew I could find his records.

-m

[epeemike81]

Yes, when you edit it just so, I can see how you might have missed it.

[URL=http://http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4771873]

He said it when it fit his agenda years ago, now that he's running for President, he's backpeddling.

you're going back to 1971 for this???

you've got to give allowances for youthful indiscretions. and if you're not going to, I think there are certainly more serious indiscretions we could talk about (such as cocaine, DUIs, AWOL guard service, S&L scandals). The media DOES talk about these, but they're very far down on my list of reasons not to re-elect Bush. Everybody made mistakes in their life, and I'm willing to look past them on BOTH sides. I'd say that's pretty generous given that Kerry would come out looking a lot better than Bush in a fight of past scandals.

-m

[Inquartata]

I don't think the 90% stat helps you here. it implies that it takes a very strong case for them to even bring charges, which minimizes the meaning of NOT bringing charges.

It may imply that to those whose knowledge and experience is largely confined to the civilian justice system, but in fact military justice is a wholly different animal than the civilian species, "JAG" to the contrary notwithstanding. A 90% plus conviction rate means just that: the standards favor the government so heavily that only a blatantly weak case will usually manage to miss a conviction on at least some counts. The prosecution really has to do a shoddy job, in other words.

Now you are right that fewer cases go to court-martial than would be so in the civil system, but that has less to do with a higher standard for bringing charges than with the availability of a whole separate avenue for addressing the less serious infractions: so-called non-judicial punishment. Typically only the more serious cases go to court-martial in the first place ( and perhaps cases against officers---I'm unsure whether Article 15 applies to them or not ).

Were I the HEAD of said organization, I well might do what CEO's used to do frequently, in the good ol' days of responsibility: resign and claim responsiblity as it happened on my watch.

Er, not that I doubt you or anything, but---which days were those? When did CEOs do such things?

note the BBC scandal earlier this year. when the commision was highly critical of the BBC, the head of the BBC resigned. if nothing else, it allows for somebody new to set a different tone. it is much harder for an entrenched head of an organization to change tone than it is for a new head.

True, but in that case the BBC was thought to have an endemic problem. I don't think the entire DoD is implicated in the current shenanigans in Iraq. At least not yet...

Thus far, from what I've read, all of the abuses have taken place at one prison, in one brigade, and in fact all of the soldiers charged belonged to a single MP company of that brigade. One "dysfunctional" ( according to a fellow soldier's account ) unit does not taint the whole of the US military, does it?