be prepared for the new Hitler, Mr. Adolf Bush.(new pictures)

[Mr Spinkles]

They only judged the people who appeared in the old pictures and thier INVESTIGATIONS failed or to be more specific "ignored" the others who involved in this crime including using a prey to cover a higher level rank.

The only evidence you have presented to support your allegation is a claim made by one of the defendants--hardly compelling. How do I know the defendant wasn't simply claiming that he was under orders to get himself off the hook?

I don't know about you, "The Truth", but I'm more interested in "The Truth" than baseless allegations. Get back to me when you have some evidence, and I'll gladly reconsider.

 

[TashaN]

Except, of course, where the term "abuse" refers to beheadings, barbaric violence, screetching condemnations of free speech and the freedom of the press.

Of course, If there was no free speech so we wouldn't about to see these pictures.

 

[TashaN]

The only evidence you have presented to support your allegation is a claim made by one of the defendants--hardly compelling. How do I know the defendant wasn't simply claiming that he was under orders to get himself off the hook?

I don't know about you, "The Truth", but I'm more interested in "The Truth" than baseless allegations. Get back to me when you have some evidence, and I'll gladly reconsider.

The photographs, some of which had been posted on the SBS website, are the subject of a legal battle to prevent their publication in the United States, SBS said.

"When the original Abu Ghraib photographs were leaked to the press, members of Congress were given a private viewing of photographs including the images which appear in this Dateline programme….They were shocked by what these extra images revealed of the full horror of the abuses taking place at Abu Ghraib," SBS said.

• “Public interest”

A U.S. Judge ruled in September that the Abu Ghraib abuse pictures should be released under the Freedom of Information Act. He was responding to a request from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for access to 87 unseen photos.

"The photographs have to be released so the public have some idea of what happened at Abu Ghraib,” ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh told SBS Dateline. “It is for the public to decide on looking at them what needs to be done."

SBS also defended broadcasting the images. Mike Carey, executive producer of Dateline, told AFP news agency they would be broadcast "because it is an important matter of public interest that the full story of abuse at Abu Ghraib be told".

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_ID=10658

A handful of low-level military personnel were indeed prosecuted; but the leaders of the prison and of the interrogation project never faced charges. And meanwhile, we learned from our leaders: Oh, by the way, there were many more photos, cataloged by the Pentagon and shared with some congressional leaders. But they weren't fit to be seen by the American public. So the government hid them away, and continues to do so -- despite losing in federal district court to a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights seeking release of the images.

Had the Pentagon and the White House done all that, maybe this would have been behind us almost two years ago. But of course, they didn't. This is an administration known for obsessive, scandalous secrecy; Abu Ghraib is just one point on a long continuum of cover-ups. As we create an Abu Ghraib archive, we will aim to shed light on what the administration has determined to keep dark. In giving the American electorate the information it needs, we'll try to provide some of the transparency our government has so sorely lacked.

http://www.salon.com/letters/editor/2006/02/18/abu_ghraib/index1.html


and more ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2004/051404editorsacked.htm

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/02/salon_obtains_a.html

http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=en&q=australia%2BSBS%2BAbu+Gharib&spell=1



CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

The Navy appears to be more concerned that the photos were taken, rather than what the photos themselves depict – more gross human rights abuses under the watch of recently re-appointed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In a related case, a confidential report to a top general in Iraq raised concerns over abuse of prisoners by members of a joint special operations-CIA task force before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed to AFP on Wednesday.

The Washington Post said the report by retired colonel Stuart Herrington found that members of Task Force 121 had been abusing detainees throughout Iraq and had been using a secret interrogation facility to hide their activities.

Aljazeera reports that so far only seven U.S. military police reservists faced trial over Abu Ghraib prison scandal which first emerged in April, when photos showing U.S. soldiers torturing and sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners were released, sparking international outrage.

The photos were originally discovered by a reporter working for The Associated Press. Out of fear some Navy SEALS may seek revenge, the news organization refuses to identify the woman who posted the photos on the website.

http://www.whywehatebush.com/news/04_12_seals.html




and finally read this one carfully ..

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

I like the above link. Very inforamtive. Frubals to you for the research work.

TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB
American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2004-05-10
Posted 2004-04-30

The above questions is the same as the one I asked in another thread regarding the cartoon, and one posters claim that my stand on responsibility is twisted base on the scenario: if you think the husband is also to be held responsible to the death of his wife murdered by his neighbour as a consequence of his refusing to pick up the poop of his dog......Therefore in the culture of North American, especially US mentality on the responsibility, the guilt lies only to the immediate persons who executed the crime, in this case those six soldiers such as England and others, whereas the next in line Karpinski bear very little responsibility (not to mention many of those higher ranking Military Intelligence implicated in the report), other than being reprimanded and relieved of the duty/position. Going further higher up, Rumsfield can deny any knowledge or any responsibility at all, and Bush has nothing to do with it. To me, the failure of the Abu Graib prison reflect failure of the whole Army system, and the head commander President Bush (and the general American public who elected Bush , you put him there didn't you?) should shoulder some responsibility , and take a token punishment of a cut of $1 in his pay.:149:

Last June, Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. General Karpinski, the only female commander in the war zone, was an experienced operations and intelligence officer who had served with the Special Forces and in the 1991 Gulf War, but she had never run a prison system. Now she was in charge of three large jails, eight battalions, and thirty-four hundred Army reservists, most of whom, like her, had no training in handling prisoners.

General Karpinski, who had wanted to be a soldier since she was five, is a business consultant in civilian life, and was enthusiastic about her new job. In an interview last December with the St. Petersburg Times, she said that, for many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, “living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to leave.”

A month later, General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system, authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under way. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Those responsible for the appointment and or promotion of General Karpinski to head the Abu Graib prison should be reprimanded for failure to appoint the appropriate person to do that duty!! This is obviously a case of failure of the Army to find the right person to do the right job unless that is actually the right decision, and Karpinski was placed there for the exact purpose of what subsequently happened. In that case, the soldiers that was punished for the incident are actually only guilty of taking pictures/video and showing off their master pieces. To be cynical, if no pictures and no video were taken, there will not be any Abu Graib problem, and no one (the American public) will ever be aware of these incidents, and all will live on happily thinking of how great is American Army doing the most beautiful and tough job of defending democracy all over the world especially in Iraq etc etc.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A handful of low-level military personnel were indeed prosecuted; but the leaders of the prison and of the interrogation project never faced charges. ...

http://www.salon.com/letters/editor/2006/02/18/abu_ghraib/index1.html

Officers and soldiers alike were removed from duty. Seven soldiers got federal prison time. The Brig. General who was the commanding officer of the prison was removed from her command and demoted. Brig. General is a very high rank, so I would agree with you that there was a failure of leadership here that went pretty high, but I would say that something needs to be said for the fact that an investigation was conducted and people in high places were punished.

I don't see any evidence that people above the commanding officer of Abu Ghraib were responsible.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

The Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and seven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault, and battery. Between May 2004 and September 2005, seven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to federal prison time, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Pvt. Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer at the prison, Brig. General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of colonel on May 5, 2005.


http://www.whywehatebush.com/news/04_12_seals.html

Aljazeera reports that so far only seven U.S. military police reservists faced trial over Abu Ghraib prison scandal which first emerged in April, when photos showing U.S. soldiers torturing and sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners were released, sparking international outrage.

Yes, but that's not the whole story. In addition to those seven, seventeen soldiers and officers were removed from duty, and a Brig. General was removed from duty and demoted.

The photos were originally discovered by a reporter working for The Associated Press. Out of fear some Navy SEALS may seek revenge, the news organization refuses to identify the woman who posted the photos on the website.

Not true. The photos were known to government officials who were already investigating the reports of abuses before the AP got ahold of them.

and finally read this one carfully ..

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

I read this article, but I see no evidence that people above Brig. General Karpinski were responsible for the Abu Ghraib abuses. The article's best evidence is Taguba's report, which it quotes extensively, but the highest ranking officer Taguba blames for the abuses (to my knowledge) was Brig. General Karpinski, the commanding officer of the prison, who, again, was relieved from her duty and demoted.

 

[Smoke]

I don't see any evidence that people above the commanding officer of Abu Ghraib were responsible.

Bush and Cheney have both made it very clear in public statements that they consider torture a necessary tool of their foreign policy. There may not be a paper trail, but the implications are clear.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Huh?

When i mentioned Hitler i didn't know that will hurt you because Hitler wasn't an enemy for Jewish only, but for the entire area which was affected by his crazy power to destroy.

I'm really sorry if that offended you but i didn't know that once i mention him you will be offended, maybe one day you will explain more about it for me maybe through PM.

I apologize again, maybe the problem is that i didn't meet Jewish before so i don't know what makes them feel good and what makes them feel bad to avoid it in the future.

I just meant that Bush is evil when he see his army doing these acts and he never question them for doing it.

I didn't post this because i hate america, No. I have alot of muslims and christians american friends. It just that i don't like how Bush is managing his government, how he used to decieve the people who trusted him twice electing him, and how he deal with the middle east.

I know there are good guys overthere as much the bad guys but the problem is when they feel it's ok if some of them did it.

That doesn't mean that we are perfect, if we just used to throw things to each other we will never live in peace.

We all must work for a better future, even though we didn't love each other or respect each other. Peace is important not only for us, but for our children in the future, to not inherit the hate toward others whatever they did and to forgive each other.

Nevertheless, if we remained silent about what happen to those people then thier families and nation will not be silent after them and here the violence come to destroy the human beings relationships, just when people forget that there are people out there who deserve and have the same exact right to live in peace.


Peace ...

Don't wear your shoes out dancing around the issue.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Bush and Cheney have both made it very clear in public statements that they consider torture a necessary tool of their foreign policy. There may not be a paper trail, but the implications are clear.

Give me some specifics. What comments have they made, or actions have they taken, that indicate this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's interesting to come back and read this thread, four years later.....

I don't see any evidence that people above the commanding officer of Abu Ghraib were responsible.

Bush and Cheney have both made it very clear in public statements that they consider torture a necessary tool of their foreign policy. There may not be a paper trail, but the implications are clear.

Give me some specifics. What comments have they made, or actions have they taken, that indicate this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious.

It's clear to me by now that Midnight Blue was exactly right. Bush or Cheney may not have specifically handed down orders to stack naked Iraqi prisoners, sleep deprive them, humiliate them, etc....but their statements and policies clearly precipitated widespread abuse of detainees by our military and intelligence agencies. This has become especially clear in the case of waterboarding.

I don't blame you, Midnight Blue, for not being inclined to fill in my ignorance with all the facts that clearly demonstrated you were correct.

I hope the next administration will put a swift end to these practices and prove to the rest of the world that we do have the moral highground over the Jihadis who behead journalists, blow up tramloads of civilians, and rail against democracy and secularism.

 

[.lava]

Naw rob, I'm not saying that. It's just that both sides are in knee deep over there and we need to remember that.

true but the problem is one side is called 'terrorist' and the other side is called 'government' that's official, accepted and supported.


.

 

[kai]

It's interesting to come back and read this thread, four years later.....



It's clear to me by now that Midnight Blue was exactly right. Bush or Cheney may not have specifically handed down orders to stack naked Iraqi prisoners, sleep deprive them, humiliate them, etc....but their statements and policies clearly precipitated widespread abuse of detainees by our military and intelligence agencies. This has become especially clear in the case of waterboarding.

I don't blame you, Midnight Blue, for not being inclined to fill in my ignorance with all the facts that clearly demonstrated you were correct.

I hope the next administration will put a swift end to these practices and prove to the rest of the world that we do have the moral highground over the Jihadis who behead journalists, blow up tramloads of civilians, and rail against democracy and secularism.

i think the current administration has put an end to the practises at Abu Graib and people who behead journalists, blow up tramloads of civilians dont have ANY moral grounds high or low

 

[Mr Spinkles]

true but the problem is one side is called 'terrorist' and the other side is called 'government' that's official, accepted and supported.

That's true. There's no question that the coalition governments, and the Iraqi government, has done awful things, just as the terrorists have done awful things. But the situation is NOT symmetric. One side really is morally superior, on the whole, to the other side.

As a case in point, consider the actions of the U.S. military at Abu Graib: they were a failure and an embarrassment to the U.S. government. However, the car bombs that killed Iraqi men, women and children as they stood in line to vote for their own constitution was a success and a victory for the Jihadists (a word distinct from 'Muslims'). See the difference?

I think kai said it best, as usual:

i think the current administration has put an end to the practises at Abu Graib and people who behead journalists, blow up tramloads of civilians dont have ANY moral grounds high or low

 

[.lava]

That's true. There's no question that the coalition governments, and the Iraqi government, has done awful things, just as the terrorists have done awful things. But the situation is NOT symmetric. One side really is morally superior, on the whole, to the other side.

As a case in point, consider the actions of the U.S. military at Abu Graib: they were a failure and an embarrassment to the U.S. government. However, the car bombs that killed Iraqi men, women and children as they stood in line to vote for their own constitution was a success and a victory for the Jihadists (a word distinct from 'Muslims'). See the difference?

I think kai said it best, as usual:

i respect Kai too

i am afraid that we do not know everything. Abu Garib is just one thing. we heard about it so it ended, hopefully. what about incidents that never had a place in your media? Iraqi papers write but Western papers don't.

whenever a bomb goes off, media immediately blames Muslims. almost automatic...noone knows who killed himself, where he got the information, where he got his bomb from...it is all unknown. just a bomb goes off, and in the center of all unknowns everyone says it is Bin laden! ghost of the opera!!

terrorsits are criminal people. but in case if a government were doing the same or the similar, i just can not believe they have superior morals. they have superior powers. but morals, no. morals are morals. superior morals do not exist. they have licence to kill, they are not judged.


.

 

[kai]

i respect Kai too

i am afraid that we do not know everything. Abu Garib is just one thing. we heard about it so it ended, hopefully. what about incidents that never had a place in your media? Iraqi papers write but Western papers don't.

whenever a bomb goes off, media immediately blames Muslims. almost automatic...noone knows who killed himself, where he got the information, where he got his bomb from...it is all unknown. just a bomb goes off, and in the center of all unknowns everyone says it is Bin laden! ghost of the opera!!

terrorsits are criminal people. but in case if a government were doing the same or the similar, i just can not believe they have superior morals. they have superior powers. but morals, no. morals are morals. superior morals do not exist. they have licence to kill, they are not judged.


.

Lava, western governments are judged ,they are judged by thier own people , if they do something secret it does not stay secret for long, and people judge them, they lose support , lets take what happened at Abu Graib that was outragious it was an insult to everyone concened , it was an insult to Iraqis and an insult to every soldier of the coalition that set foot in iraq, and if someone blows himself up in a car bomb then i can assure you its very unlikely its the coalition behind it.

 

[sandandfoam]

Lava, western governments are judged ,they are judged by thier own people , if they do something secret it does not stay secret for long, and people judge them, they lose support

I think the history of Northern Ireland suggests otherwise Kai. A lot of murky stuff went on that will never come out.

and if someone blows himself up in a car bomb then i can assure you its very unlikely its the coalition behind it.

I strongly suspect that the British government through it's agents has been involved in the use of car bombs in Ireland, I don't see why they or the Americans would be above their use in Iraq?

 

[herushura]

Arabs are Innocent, they are Framed by CIA

 

[kai]

I think the history of Northern Ireland suggests otherwise Kai. A lot of murky stuff went on that will never come out. it all comes out in the end stephen, trust me




I strongly suspect that the British government through it's agents has been involved in the use of car bombs in Ireland, I don't see why they or the Americans would be above their use in Iraq?

thats a bold statement, is there some reason why you personaly suspect the british government of being involved in car bombs?

i can tell you catagorically that the IRA through thier agents have definately been involved in car bombs.

 

[kai]

Arabs are Innocent, they are Framed by CIA

what you dont know is the CIA is really a front for the Mossad , which is a front for the brother hood of man ,who won the eurovision song contest

 

[sandandfoam]

thats a bold statement, is there some reason why you personaly suspect the british government of being involved in car bombs?

One reason 'Troubling questions' at heart of the Nelson inquiry - Local & National, News - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk
And another New evidence of collusion in Dublin and Monaghan bombings: ThePost.ie

i can tell you catagorically that the IRA through thier agents have definately been involved in car bombs.

I agree. I consider them murderous scum. I do support Sinn Fein since the cease fire but my support is dependent on the cessation of violence.

 

[herushura]

what you dont know is the CIA is really a front for the Mossad , which is a front for the brother hood of man ,who won the eurovision song contest

Zbigniew Brzezinski not long ago revealed that on July 3, 1979, unknown to the American public and Congress, President Jimmy Carter secretly authorized $500 million to create an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and "de-stabilise" the Soviet Union... The CIA called this Operation Cyclone and in the following years poured $4 billion into setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (Taliban means "student"). Young zealots were sent to the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where future members of al-Qaeda were taught "sabotage skills" - terrorism. Others were recruited at an Islamic school in Brooklyn, New York, within sight of the fated Twin Towers. In Pakistan, they were directed by British MI6 officers and trained by the SAS. The result, quipped Brzezinski, was "a few stirred up Muslims" - meaning the Taliban. The Wall Street Journal declared: "The Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace. Moreover, they were crucial to secure the country as a prime trans-shipment route for the export of Central Asia's vast oil, gas and other natural resources." No American newspaper dares suggest that the prisoners in Camp X-Ray are the product of this policy, nor that it was one of the factors that led to the attacks of September 11. Nor do they ask: who were the real winners of September 11? The day the Wall Street stock market opened after the destruction of the Twin Towers, the few companies showing increased value were the giant military contractors Alliant Tech Systems, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon (a contributor to New Labor) and Lockheed Martin. As the US military's biggest supplier, Lockheed Martin's share value rose by a staggering 30 per cent. Within six weeks of September 11, the company (with its main plant in Texas, George Bush's home state) had secured the biggest military order in history: a $200 billion contract to develop a new fighter aircraft. The greatest taboo of all, which Orwell would surely recognize, is the record of the United States as a terrorist state and haven for terrorists. This truth is virtually unknown by the American public and makes a mockery of Bush's (and Blair's) statements about "tracking down terrorists wherever they are." They don't have to look far. Florida, currently governed by the President's brother, Jeb Bush, has given refuge to terrorists who, like the September 11 gang, have hi-jacked aircraft and boats with guns and knives. Most have never had criminal charges brought against them. Why? All of them are anti-Castro Cubans. Former Guatemalan Defence Minister Gramajo Morales, who was accused of "devising and directing an indiscriminate campaign of terror against civilians", including the torture of an American nun and the massacre of eight people from one family, studied at Harvard University on a US government scholarship. During the 1980s, thousands of people were murdered by death squads connected to the army of El Salvador, whose former chief now lives comfortably in Florida. The former Haitian dictator, General Prosper Avril, liked to display the bloodied victims of his torture on television. When he was overthrown, he was flown to Florida by the US government, and granted political asylum. A leading member of the Chilean military during the reign of General Pinochet, whose special responsibility was executions and torture, lives in Miami. THE Iranian general who ran Iran's notorious prisons, is a wealthy exile in the US. One of Pol Pot's senior henchmen, who enticed Cambodian exiles back to their certain death, lives in Mount Vernon, New York. What all these people have in common, apart from their history of terrorism, is that they either worked directly for the US government or carried out the dirty work of US policies. The al-Qaeda training camps are kindergartens compared with the world's leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, its graduates include almost half the cabinet ministers of the genocidal regimes in Guatemala, two thirds of the El Salvadoran army officers who committed, according to the United Nations, the worst atrocities of that country's civil war, and the head of Pinochet's secret police, who ran Chile's concentration camps. There is terrible irony at work here. The humane response of people all over the world to the terrorism of September 11 has long been hijacked by those running a rapacious great power with a history of terrorism second to none. Global supremacy, not the defeat of terrorism, is the goal; only the politically blind believe otherwise.