Bushites Split As Gitmo Abuses Continue

[Daisy]

Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
OHHHH I get it....this is really a post about how a select few can bait the rest and then claim offense when they are refuted. My bad.

Pot, kettle; mote, beam.

Odd. Those al queda detainees down in Gitmo use the same tactics. Four guards search a cell for some known contraband, the detainee beats three of them up, takes the eye out of the fourth, and when others rush in to help subdue him, he throws up his hands and therefore he cannot be touched. Yet he still held the soldier's eye in the palm of his hand.

Wow, one detainee beat up four prison guards??? All by himself? While he was in custody??? And the poor, helpless guards were unable to "touch" him even while he held a bloody eyeball in his evil hand? They gotta stop feeding these guys spinach.

And the your source for this, um, amazing and horrific story of evil personified is....?

I guess that is perfectly okay with some of you. Just not me. You can accept that kind of stuff in your lives all you want and twice on Sunday, but do not expect me to think that is fine and dandy.

Calm down; no one is beating you up here.

If you want to have 'salient' (since this is obviously the vocabulary word of the day) points, ...

Weren't you the one to bring this WOTD into the conversation? Salient or subtle, points are good to make in a debate.

... might want to see the big picture before you just jump on your old hate soapbox.

My soapbox is not "hate", although I have been unjustly accused of it, but the humanity of man and loving one's enemy.

Hate existed long before we ever got here, and it amazes me that some of you think that Americans have the corner market on that.

I haven't seen that expressed here. Since America is the mightiest nation, at the moment, some of us believe she should be held to the highest standard.

We were never perfect and we will never be perfect. But there is always worse.

"We are not as bad as them" is not quite the standard I'd like to see us adopt.

My best suggestion to some of you is get out there and see for yourself, providing youve enough personal courage to endure your ideas of humanity shaken to the core.

And what are your ideas of humanity?

Have you personally experienced great horror? It's not something I'd wish on you or anyone, not even the really smug, self-righteous ones. You seem really troubled, the way you lash out at people. Would you like to talk about it?

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Wisdom lost

Irvine doesn't buy Bennett's "anomaly" argument - or the contention the Defense Department is prepared to deal with abuses.
"The Army explanation that these acts are being ginned up by a half dozen low-ranking reserve soldiers just doesn't ring true," he said, noting that the photographs of abuses in Abu Ghraib have been followed by descriptions of abuses in other prisons - implicating many dozens of other soldiers andmaking the purported ignorance of senior officers implausible.
"It is obvious that there has been a complete breakdown of command discipline and a complete departure for the Army's policy on treating prisoners of war," he said.
Irvine disregards claims of those who say tougher techniques are necessary to extract information from religious zealots, noting that Israel, which "got very good at torture" in its struggle against its Arabic enemies, has banned the practice. The former chief interrogator for Israel's General Security Services, Michael Koubi, has said the most important skill for an interrogator is to know the prisoner's language - something the U.S. military has struggled with.
Since his retirement, Koubi has questioned whether torture, as a means of extracting valuable intelligence, is worth its moral price.
Others have no doubt whatsoever.
"Torture," said McCain, whose five years in a North Vietnam prison gave him some experience with the matter, "doesn't work."
Nonetheless, in the classes Irvine taught, there was always someone who felt the Field Guide's provisions didn't go far enough. "There are always going to be those who feel that the ends justifies the means," he said. "Those who feel the training they got was too Mickey Mouse for the circumstances they find themselves in."
Acting on such seductive thinking, he said, results in the forfeiture of "any moral objection to similar kinds of treatment."
And that scares him most of all.
"We've lowered the bar ourselves - if X-Y-Z is OK for us to do, it's OK for the same treatment to be meted out to our people if they're captured," he said. "It's not rocket science; it's the Golden Rule."

man of integrity

"Had the manual been followed across the board, we would have been spared the pain of the prisoner abuse scandal," the officers wrote.
McCain agreed.

my comment: Brig. Gen. David Irvine should be
brought back out of retirement as a consultant
to lead us out of the darkness and going back
the golden rule.imho

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
Wisdom lost

I already addressed everyone of these points in detail in previous posts. You're repeating the same empty argument that something needs to be found out, understood, and addressed that's already been found out, is and was clearly understood, and has been and is being addressed. Even this most recent source acknowledges it!

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Actually the point of the article is to bring
this man back and get back to doing it right.

So I will post what I post and it is a new
article besides you are not in charge of anything

and people can decide for themselve if they
like this guy or not...I do and he is a breath
of Christian fresh air. imho

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
Actually the point of the article is to bring
this man back and get back to doing it right.

So I will post what I post and it is a new
article besides you are not in charge of anything

and people can decide for themselve if they
like this guy or not...I do and he is a breath
of Christian fresh air. imho

You really need to turn these statements onto yourself, ASLANSPAL, because it seems to me it's you who thinks this is your private forum from which to advocate your own views.

We're all free to challenge one another's views and you can bet I'm going to do that with your's so long as they fit the lies, exaggerations, and distortions you've been repeating and spreading on this subject.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Actually the links are from legitimate news
media, so are you calling me a liar or them
a liar.(look in the mirror)

Again for the 100th time this is not you're
own personal propaganda board ..what I post
is legit and current and adds new details.

The salient point of my last post was about a
very righteous man bemoaning the fact the American
military had lost its way and should go back
to how he conducted interrogations...he had the
opinion as well that higher ups where responsible.

so is he a liar..the Brigadier General??


So do I call you a liar... who
spins humiliation and torture ..who is so Clinton
nesque and rovian in his excuses.

Debate and discuss what the Brigadair General
is trying to do.

But to cast aspersions and attack the messenger
only shows you are losing the debate and are
a quitter.

Which I hope is not the case

"We're all free to challenge one another's views"

amen to that now minus the attack that is a
great statement.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

This guys voice is worth listening too Dragoon ..besides he outranks you The article
in current and new and this Brigadair General
cares and is not trying to silence the debate
he wants to solve the problem. amen

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
Wisdom lost

Irvine doesn't buy Bennett's "anomaly" argument - or the contention the Defense Department is prepared to deal with abuses.
"The Army explanation that these acts are being ginned up by a half dozen low-ranking reserve soldiers just doesn't ring true," he said, noting that the photographs of abuses in Abu Ghraib have been followed by descriptions of abuses in other prisons - implicating many dozens of other soldiers andmaking the purported ignorance of senior officers implausible.
"It is obvious that there has been a complete breakdown of command discipline and a complete departure for the Army's policy on treating prisoners of war," he said.
Irvine disregards claims of those who say tougher techniques are necessary to extract information from religious zealots, noting that Israel, which "got very good at torture" in its struggle against its Arabic enemies, has banned the practice. The former chief interrogator for Israel's General Security Services, Michael Koubi, has said the most important skill for an interrogator is to know the prisoner's language - something the U.S. military has struggled with.
Since his retirement, Koubi has questioned whether torture, as a means of extracting valuable intelligence, is worth its moral price.
Others have no doubt whatsoever.
"Torture," said McCain, whose five years in a North Vietnam prison gave him some experience with the matter, "doesn't work."
Nonetheless, in the classes Irvine taught, there was always someone who felt the Field Guide's provisions didn't go far enough. "There are always going to be those who feel that the ends justifies the means," he said. "Those who feel the training they got was too Mickey Mouse for the circumstances they find themselves in."
Acting on such seductive thinking, he said, results in the forfeiture of "any moral objection to similar kinds of treatment."
And that scares him most of all.
"We've lowered the bar ourselves - if X-Y-Z is OK for us to do, it's OK for the same treatment to be meted out to our people if they're captured," he said. "It's not rocket science; it's the Golden Rule."

man of integrity

"Had the manual been followed across the board, we would have been spared the pain of the prisoner abuse scandal," the officers wrote.
McCain agreed.

my comment: Brig. Gen. David Irvine should be
brought back out of retirement as a consultant
to lead us out of the darkness and going back
the golden rule.imho

 

[ASLANSPAL]

For the single person who questions the posting
of issues dealing with humilation and torture.


1. This article is current 03Aug.2005
2. Sleeping bag death at Qaim equates with
Abu Gharib.
3.Involves CIA and Special Forces
4.Higher ups and bad policy
5.Possible cover up
6.A seque Brig. Gen Irvines ways are the right way
proves a point.
7. Legitimate debate for Americans who do not
want to be poisoned by a bad policy and want
it changed and the culture rooted out.
8.Humilation and torture is not a American
Christian Value.

newly released information


William Cassara, who represents Williams, cited Mowhoush's brutal encounters in the days before he died as possibly leading to his death. He said Williams, who was not trained in interrogation tactics, had little to do with the case.

"The interrogation techniques were known and were approved of by the upper echelons of command of the 3rd ACR," Cassara said in a news conference. "They believed, and still do, that they were appropriate and proper."

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Here is the correct Link for page one
of article Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html

Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by GIs


snippet:
Hours after Mowhoush's death in U.S. custody on Nov. 26, 2003, military officials issued a news release stating that the prisoner had died of natural causes after complaining of feeling sick. Army psychological-operations officers quickly distributed leaflets designed to convince locals that the general had cooperated and outed key insurgents.

 

[hillclimber]

Oh please AP.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Oh you want more from the Associated Press
Hillclimber. okay I will google you some
more from the AP

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP Writer

AP
WASHINGTON -- The White House and Republican Senate leaders are rumbling toward a defense showdown with their GOP rank and file that could embarrass President Bush and take a rare wartime slap at Pentagon authority.

When the Senate returns this fall and resumes debate on a defense bill, several Republican senators plan to continue trying to tack on amendments that would impose restrictions on the Pentagon's treatment of terror suspects in U.S. custody and delay proposed military base closings. There's no indication the White House will drop its veto threats against those efforts.



That could make for a confrontation fueled by members of the president's own party. Such a standoff was averted last month when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., abruptly pulled the defense bill from the floor after efforts to kill the amendments failed.

"We look to the future," said a clearly disappointed Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that crafted the bill. "We'll take it up again in September."

Together, the looming fights over detainees and base closings suggest an increasing reluctance by some GOP lawmakers to give Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- and by extension Bush -- carte blanche during wartime.

As the Iraq war drags on, more Republicans could join Democrats in challenging the president, especially if the conflict's popularity among U.S. voters continues to fall as American casualties mount.

The efforts also reflect a deepening inability by Frist to keep his Republicans in line, and a burgeoning independence by some members of Bush's own party that could threaten other parts of the second-term president's agenda as he battles lame-duck status.

It's unclear how much support the detainee and base-closing amendments have.

The chief proponents of the detainee proposal -- GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Warner -- have credentials that boost their credibility. And lots of senators are leery of closing military bases in their home states, especially during wartime.

The defense measure, called an authorization bill, sets Pentagon spending and policy for the coming year but provides no actual dollars. Historically, Congress has used the legislation to force the Pentagon to make operational changes, creating prime conditions for a high-stakes political fight.

"The attitude by the administration and the Pentagon is we don't need an authorization bill -- that they don't do anything but tie our hands anyway," said Powell Moore, a Defense Department official during Bush's first term. "The administration has leverage by saying they'll just veto it."

That's exactly what the administration has threatened to do if the detainee or base-closing amendments are added to the bill. Following through, however, would put the president in the sticky situation of killing a measure that includes military pay raises and other benefits for troops while the country is at war.

Before it comes to that, the White House likely will try pressuring Republican sponsors of the amendments to back off.

The amendments -- by McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, and Graham, an Air Force lawyer for 20 years -- would regulate the Pentagon's interrogation and prosecution of detainees. Warner, a former Navy secretary and chairman of the Armed Services panel, supported the effort.

The trio decided Congress needed a say in the treatment of detainees amid allegations of mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. They also sought to derail growing support for a Democratic amendment creating an independent commission to investigate operations at those facilities and others.

Fearing its authority would be usurped, the Pentagon resisted any involvement by Congress. Yet intense lobbying by the White House didn't persuade McCain, Graham and Warner to drop the effort.

"Nothing has changed," McCain said.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., facing the loss of his state's Ellsworth Air Force Base, recruited a bipartisan group of lawmakers to support another amendment delaying the Pentagon's plan to close hundreds of military bases across the country.

Frist and the White House clearly didn't want to take a chance last month that the amendments would pass. When Frist couldn't get enough support in his own caucus to derail them, he simply put off further consideration of the defense bill until fall.

He then took up firearms legislation -- prompting Democratic accusations that the potential 2008 presidential candidate was pandering to the gun lobby.

The switch allowed Frist and the White House to avoid votes that would have put the spotlight on the president's defense policies as he faces low approval ratings in polls -- and put a damper on the GOP's celebration of legislative victories it enjoyed before Congress' recess.

* ____

EDITOR'S NOTE -- Liz Sidoti covers Congress and national security for The Associated Press.

btw not old news and pertinent to the debate and
future debates on humilation and torture which
of course is not an American Christian value.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
Actually the links are from legitimate news media, so are you calling me a liar or them a liar.(look in the mirror)

Many of your "legitimate news media" stories are lies, exaggerations, and distortions and, yes, you are spreading them.

Again for the 100th time this is not you're own personal propaganda board ..what I post is legit and current and adds new details.

That's correct, ASLANSPAL, it isn't anyone's personal propaganda board despite how much you'd like it to be yours. I don't recall ever telling you that "you can't post on my board" so why don't you stop that childish accusation right now. Post all you want but be prepared for responses from others including me.

The salient point of my last post was about a very righteous man bemoaning the fact the American military had lost its way and should go back to how he conducted interrogations...he had the opinion as well that higher ups where responsible. so is he a liar..the Brigadier General??

I do not agree with all the conclusions made by the commentators from the comments of this officer but I do not disagree with all the officer's comments per se. He made points from a legal perspective on a few specific matters. In the context made, it was good input. Others had different views. When asked about his own opinion he gave his answer. That's fine but he's not answering for the final decision maker on the policy decision.

Consensus decisions must be reached in difficult matters and there's always dissenting views. There are always differences in opinions. Legal officers give their opinions to commanders for decisions. Legal officers don't make the final policy decisions. One a team makes consensus recommendations to a commander, that commander must make a decision. The Secretary of Defense made some decisions regarding the degree of aggressive interrogation techniques that would be permissible for specific categories of detainees. Those decisions were correct and in accordance with the law of land warfare as best could be determined.

Unlike you, ASLANSPAL, I'm not looking to crucify these people for doing things that were in the best interests of our nation and completely within the law. Therefore, I don't read "rat" or "snitch" in the place of every player's names.

If you'd read the work done by some of the teams put together to study these issues you'd have a better understanding why one officer or more might be more concerned about one issue than another. You'd also clearly understand that everyone wants to stay within the law but also apply the maximum permissible effort towards combating our enemies. Their are views from a pure legal perspective and views from an operational perspective. All input has to be considered to make a good decision.

The point is when you take that out of context to suggest that this officer "warned" the whole military that what was going to be done was "evil" that is nothing more than a lie, exaggeration, or distortion. That's what's wrong with what you're endorsing, ASLANSPAL.

So do I call you a liar... who spins humiliation and torture ..who is so Clinton nesque and rovian in his excuses.

No, but I'd call you a liar is you said that I support torture because I do not and nothing I've written would support such a claim. I support aggressive interrogation techniques - the maximum permitted by law for terrorists - but I demand humane treatment of all persons even those who are to be executed for crimes.

Do you have some thoughts about "Clintonesque" - Where do you guys get all those "cute" terms? - that you're confusing with me here, ASLANSPAL. Just for the record, in case someone might not be able to discern it, President Clinton is not among my list of "heroes".

Debate and discuss what the [Brigadier] General is trying to do.

Read the large amount of information I've provided on this subject and maybe you can find some answers on this. I've made additional points above on this.

If I had enough time and energy - and didn't have other things to do - I could provide a whole lot more. Regrettably, I don't think it would mean anything to you, ASLANSPAL, and it would be rather lengthy for this forum so most people wouldn't read it.

But to cast aspersions and attack the messenger only shows you are losing the debate and are a quitter.

Which I hope is not the case "We're all free to challenge one another's views" amen to that now minus the attack that is a great statement.

Go try your line of "losing the debate" or being a "quitter" on someone else who's weak enough to break under such comments. I'm not the least be detracted from my goal of the truth by these words. Further, I don't care about winning or loosing a debate with you, ASLANSPAL. I'm not here to convince you of anything. You have your opinions already.

I just want to be sure others get to know the other view as solidly as it can be presented. I care about the reputation of our military, our leaders, and our country. I only care about the truth and what's best for our country. I've been down some of the roads our military is taking right now, ASLANSPAL, and I have a vested interest in it that burns very deep.

Yes, indeed, we are all free to challenge one another's views. You can bet I'll going to challenge views such as you present on this subject. You can also bet that I'll tell you what I think of your comments within the permissible limits of conduct on this forum. Get use to that, ASLANSPAL, and stop whining about it.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

No, but I'd call you a liar is you said that I support torture because I do not and nothing I've written would support such a claim. I support aggressive interrogation techniques.


here we go again ..humilation lite and torture lite...like I said Dragoon you are being Clintonesque and spining it.

did you even read the Washington Post article

no! becasuse you are paranoid and only trust

Fox news and the military brass ..along with

bad policy the Pentagon and the President approve

of..you continue to apple polish and suck up

to people in power and do not question them

even after failure after failure and deception

after deception.

I think Col. David Hackworth was on to something
and is correct that higher ups promoted this
fear mongering and unchristlike treatment of others...so the point is to expose them and bring
about change.

For the record I am not a liar and that is offensive...and I ask you kindly to discuss the
issues and not lash out.

We can sincerely disagree but to call people liars
is over the top.

I care about the truth too and it is good to hear you say that so let keep shining the light on
it ..agreed.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... here we go again ..humilation lite and torture lite...like I said Dragoon you are being Clintonesque and spining it .... For the record I am not a liar and that is offensive...and I ask you kindly to discuss the issues and not lash out.
...

You just wrote a big lie, ASLANSPAL, and most any honest person who's followed this thread knows it.

Therefore, on that point I say that you have lied about my postion on torture even though it's been clearly, frimly, and completely explained right here in this thread.

The intent, ASLANSPAL, is not to offend you but to reveal the truth about what you're writing.

You've also once again side stepped all the rational discussion and information to continue your tired lines.

You, ALSANSPAL, are the one "lashing" out with lies, exaggerations, and distortions whether of your own creation or just those you pass along from others.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Dragoon68 I have read your posts from the
very beginning and you advocated humiliation and
torture lite as I see it...you define it with some Clinton style spin...I see it as torture and humiliation with Jesus Christ as my touchstone)

and I have always said any kind of humiliation
and torture is un christian ..period..but you
spin it as acceptable because it is okay by
the government..now there is where we disagree
humiliation is humiliation is humiliation ..I don't
spin it like you..as letting a bad seed germinate.

You spin it as acceptable and approve tactics
that is Clinton style spin in my book..that is
what I am saying...still not acceptable Draggoon
and you know it...WWJD and the Golden Rule apply.

some of your comments support my contention you
justify and spin torture lite and humiliation lite.

Here's what I think about these terrorists: They are non-uniformed combatants captured in a war zone.They are not entitled to the same treatment and protections as uniformed combatants.(either you mean that or you don't)

Liberals activists "jump on" anything critical of what Americans do. The liberal news, entertainment, and academic venues are very aggressive about making or spreading lies, exaggerations, and distortions.(paranoia imho)

Friends, this is the key point! These terrorists are not "regular military forces" and don't "deserve" the same level of protection afforded by the Geneva Conventions.{I say they
do, it is the Christian thing to do and the Golden
rule and you must prove they are terrorists not
just assume..what about innocents)

Congress probably does need to "clean up" the rules a bit on how to handle the terrorist prisoners.[so what happened at Qaim,Afghanistan,
Abu Gharib,Gitmo was good Christian policy again
WWJD and the Golden rule ..do we have the highest
standards)

Torture is not an American value. Stupid "sexual" pranks are not American values. Humiliation - properly defined - is an acceptable tool to bring our enemy - this type enemy - to their knees.(this is the big one Draggoon68..
I see that as compromise and allowing bad seed
to germinate..again WWJD and the Golden Rule
remember we are bought with a price Draggoon we
are not to be cruel to anyone..we are called to
be set apart and not join the world)

Other types of "humiliation", such as sleep depravation, isolation, intimidation, fear, etc., with proper approval, were and are legal interrogation techniques.(I see it differently
draggon68 this is not American Christian values and should be rooted out before it germinates
and poisons the soul)

Then you should have no problem agreeing that the terrorists are NOT being tortured. You should stop using that word to describe the actions reported. By using the word "torture" you imply that this practice needs to be stopped when it fact it has never started. By using it you associate that conduct with people that have not had and would not have any part of it.[From
a Christian perspective draggon68 torture and
humilation were used..you cannot spin around that!}

The vast majority of military troops - leaders and followers - do not and would not condone any of the foolish that went on at Abu Ghriab by a handful of misfits gone wild. They would also recognize, from a purely practical standpoint, that such conduct is most probably counterproductive to successful interrogation.
Some of those guilty have tried to use the bogus excuse that they were forced to do these things but that hasn't held up in their trails. That never does hold water because it's nothing more than an attempt to pass blame to others.{I agree
with some of your posts but I still agree with
Col.David Hackworth that policy from higher up
set the culture and standard and common soldiers
obeyed those orders which they should have rebelled against if they were Christians so I disagree with you that "misfits gone wild" those
misfits were encouraged by higher ups imho)

They do, however, permit aggressive interrogation which isn't very comfortable for the person being interrogated. Some persons would like to expand the definition of humiliation to include these tactics. That would be a fatal mistake which would harm our ability to obtain valuable intelligence from detainees. Approval of the extraordinary tactics, which are completely legal, is required to provide just one more safeguard for the proper handling of detainees.
(Again spin on humiliation lite and torture lite again away from the worldly view it's not something Jesus would do...he suffered from humiliation and Christians who know their bible know this)

I've made it clear where I stand on these things. I stand with the law of war and no where else.{is
that compromising your faith? again who do
you follow Jesus Christ or the Military)

I'm not sure what Jesus would say about all this. I'm sure, overall He is rather displeased with mankind.( I am sure what he would say ..repent
turn from it ..it is wrong ..follow me instead)


The "evil" is not in a "culture" nor does the culture "advocate this behavior". The evil was manifested by individuals - sinful human beings like you and me acting as undisciplined misfits - who did things they knew were wrong. The military - our military - does not condone this conduct{Again I agree with Col.David Hackworth
this has come down from higher ups and the policy
of General Irvine ruled the day..see bump post)

The best we can hope for is to deal with it according to the law of war and with the hope that each conflict might somehow be the last.
(What about the Holy Spirit vs the law of war
again you compromise Dragoon68)

Yes, even among us there are those who deceitfully seek to destroy our nation by lies, exaggerations, and distortions.(paranoia much this
has moved across all spectrum and you know it
dragoon ..are you saying
John McCain ,John Warner, and Lindsey Graham are
part of your weird conspiracy theory)

Among men, however, there are degrees of evil and we can clearly judge them by the acts of mankind. It's great to be a citizen of a nation, that for now at least, still stands tall in its dealings on this earth.
{then lets not go backwards lets not lower ourselves to their level ...the policy on high
coming down to the soldier was wrong and it needs
to be rooted out..how are we standing tall if
Christian advocate torture and humiliation}

President Bush is doing his duty as our top civilian leader in the war on terrorism{I would
not suck up that hard but do pray for him but
he works for me ..not unless you still wear a
uniform dragoon68...you might want to remove
that control chip from your brain marked Stepford)

Colonel Hackworth did a lot of blaming and complaining whilst a lot of officers and non-commissioned officers continued on with the real business of actually straightening out the problems that grew within the military during the Viet Nam war era{Count me his brother! amen..and
did you know he won the Congressional Medal of
Honor ..oh I guess that slipped your mind )

For the "one millionth time", ASLANSPAL, the few incidents of misconduct have and are being dealt with. Several persons - including two high ranking officers - have been punished for it(wait
a minute before it was just a few misfits now
it is high ranking officers..what policy where
they following or were they off the reservation)

The Lord Jesus Christ has already saved the souls of those he's chosen.(what bizarre theology is this..in other words it is okay to humiliate and
torture the un chosen??)

So I have read your posts again Dragoon68 and
you still come off as advocating torture lite
and humiliation lite from what I see from
a Christian perspective...your perspective may
be of the world and what seems to me a religion
of the military which is fine but even in that
you can compromise a Christ perspective which
is torture and humiliation however you define it
is not an American Christian value..period.

And I do see you spinning it Clintonesque like
the definition of what "is" is.

I do present current and relevant links to this
topic and they have mostly been from conservative
voices like John McCain,Lindsey Graham, and John
Warner...along with a major relevant link about
Brigadier General Irvine which supports my
supposition the policy got polluted and he had
the right policy to begin with and that is why
we need a fine man like him back ..and I will
repost that and bump it since you seem to like
it also glad we can agree on the good General.

Sincerely
Aslanspal

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Bump!

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
Wisdom lost

Irvine doesn't buy Bennett's "anomaly" argument - or the contention the Defense Department is prepared to deal with abuses.
"The Army explanation that these acts are being ginned up by a half dozen low-ranking reserve soldiers just doesn't ring true," he said, noting that the photographs of abuses in Abu Ghraib have been followed by descriptions of abuses in other prisons - implicating many dozens of other soldiers andmaking the purported ignorance of senior officers implausible.
"It is obvious that there has been a complete breakdown of command discipline and a complete departure for the Army's policy on treating prisoners of war," he said.
Irvine disregards claims of those who say tougher techniques are necessary to extract information from religious zealots, noting that Israel, which "got very good at torture" in its struggle against its Arabic enemies, has banned the practice. The former chief interrogator for Israel's General Security Services, Michael Koubi, has said the most important skill for an interrogator is to know the prisoner's language - something the U.S. military has struggled with.
Since his retirement, Koubi has questioned whether torture, as a means of extracting valuable intelligence, is worth its moral price.
Others have no doubt whatsoever.
"Torture," said McCain, whose five years in a North Vietnam prison gave him some experience with the matter, "doesn't work."
Nonetheless, in the classes Irvine taught, there was always someone who felt the Field Guide's provisions didn't go far enough. "There are always going to be those who feel that the ends justifies the means," he said. "Those who feel the training they got was too Mickey Mouse for the circumstances they find themselves in."
Acting on such seductive thinking, he said, results in the forfeiture of "any moral objection to similar kinds of treatment."
And that scares him most of all.
"We've lowered the bar ourselves - if X-Y-Z is OK for us to do, it's OK for the same treatment to be meted out to our people if they're captured," he said. "It's not rocket science; it's the Golden Rule."

man of integrity

"Had the manual been followed across the board, we would have been spared the pain of the prisoner abuse scandal," the officers wrote.
McCain agreed.

my comment: Brig. Gen. David Irvine should be
brought back out of retirement as a consultant
to lead us out of the darkness and going back
the golden rule.imho

 

[emeraldctyangel]

Oh for heaven's sake, who would want to read that twice? My stars.

Dragoon, just let him have his little dream there. I suspect we could pony up enough cash between us to send him to anyone of the places he stresses importance of 'straightening out' and he would likely come up with something else to complain about.

Pot, kettle; mote, beam.

Wierd.

Wow, one detainee beat up four prison guards??? All by himself? While he was in custody??? And the poor, helpless guards were unable to "touch" him even while he held a bloody eyeball in his evil hand? They gotta stop feeding these guys spinach.

And the your source for this, um, amazing and horrific story of evil personified is....?

Personal knowledge. As a side note, because I know youre a fan, they dont really eat spinach down there either. Not totally sure if it is a dietary confinement, they dont like it, or it stinks up the area because it is so hot.

Guards are neither poor or helpless, but if it makes a better cocktail party joke, I am sure you will feel free to edit it at will.

The point which youve missed twice now is that they arent all that fabulously innocent as perhaps someone that seems to have preferences for the alleged underdog would like to believe.

quote:

I guess that is perfectly okay with some of you. Just not me. You can accept that kind of stuff in your lives all you want and twice on Sunday, but do not expect me to think that is fine and dandy.

Calm down; no one is beating you up here.

Oh wow. Thanks. I will sleep much better tonight.

Weren't you the one to bring this WOTD into the conversation?

No.

My soapbox is not "hate", although I have been unjustly accused of it, but the humanity of man and loving one's enemy.

Unjustly accused? Oh no. Not you too. (I actually was talking to someone else on that one too, but I guess the shoe fit...)
Humanity of man? Tell that to those jokers in Iraq or the detainee with the souvenier American eyeball.

Since America is the mightiest nation, at the moment, some of us believe she should be held to the highest standard.

"We are not as bad as them" is not quite the standard I'd like to see us adopt.

We are currently at the highest standards in comparison to our past acts and the acts of other states. We are a nation that holds itself to a much higher standards than anywhere else I have ever seen. If that were not true, neither one of us would really understand the concept of right and wrong and we would never have so many statistics for our fine friends to post. Twice.

And what are your ideas of humanity?

Humane people do not slit throats, cut heads off, hijack airplanes, etc. They also, while in detention centers do not throw feces, spit in the faces of medical personnel, or sharpen a rock to cut the arms or face of the next person delivering their meals.

Have you personally experienced great horror? It's not something I'd wish on you or anyone, not even the really smug, self-righteous ones. You seem really troubled, the way you lash out at people. Would you like to talk about it?

1. Yes. 2. Good for you. 3. That is not lashing. 4.I think we already have. Thanks for being interested.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... So I have read your posts again Dragoon68 and you still come off as advocating torture lite and humiliation lite ... And I do see you spinning it Clintonesque like the definition of what "is" is. ... I do present current and relevant links to this topic and they have mostly been from conservative voices like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner...along with a major relevant link about Brigadier General Irvine which supports my supposition the policy got polluted and he had the right policy to begin with and that is why we need a fine man like him back ..and I will repost that and bump it since you seem to like it also glad we can agree on the good General. ...

You still can't comprehend the facts, ASLANSPAL, and you are absolutely lying over and over about my position on torture.

You're incapable of discerning the difference between what is inhumane treatment and what is legal aggressive interrogation technique.

Your view would tie our hands behind our backs and give to terrorists the full legal protection of prisoners of war. That would be a fatal mistake.

You do not understand any element of war fighting, ASLANSPAL, and are lost in a fantasy world generated by entertainment and news media. You take bits of information and turn them into lies, exaggerations, and distortions.

When you present some information and it is challenged, you ignore those challenges and repost the same information such as you've done with BG Irvine's, COL Hackworth's, and Senator McCain's and with the various quotations from official documents on the subject.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
... Dragoon, just let him have his little dream there. I suspect we could pony up enough cash between us to send him to anyone of the places he stresses importance of 'straightening out' and he would likely come up with something else to complain about. ...

Good advice, emeraldctyangel! There are times in this discussion when I've felt it wasn't worth continuing. In so far as ASLANSPAL is concerned that's a firm conclusion. He has his fantasy world and he'll continue living in it.

However, for the benefit of others, I've tried to continue the thread with factual information to help them reach good conclusions based on facts and not lies, exaggerations, and distortions.

We know that, on this subject, the news media will only hit the "spectacular" revenue generating side of the issues. It's very easy for an uniformed public to reach broad - and completely incorrect - conclusions from the information presented. I believe with a few more facts most people can see through the smoke to the truth.

This is the only reason I continue participating in this thread. I feel it's a duty whether enjoyable or not.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... You spin it as acceptable and approve tactics that is Clinton style spin in my book..that is what I am saying...still not acceptable Draggoon and you know it...WWJD and the Golden Rule apply. ... you still come off as advocating torture lite and humiliation lite from what I see from a Christian perspective...your perspective may be of the world and what seems to me a religion of the military which is fine but even in that you can compromise a Christ perspective which is torture and humiliation however you define it is not an American Christian value..period.

War is the result of mankind's evil nature but it is a fact of our existence on this earth. Good people will also have bad people to fight against to protect other good people.

The Bible records many instances of it including God's hand in directing it.

The treatment of those captured in war has progressed to much more humane treatment than that of Biblical times. Our nation has lead the way in humane treatment of prisoners of war and prisoners in general. We have nothing to be ashamed about from that perspective.

Christ did not condemn those who serve their nations in the military for the purpose of upholding a system of government that assures justice for its citizens. By doing so, I'm certain He is aware of the purpose the military has. So long as our government acts for just cause we are on the right side of God's law in the context of life on this earth.

Only when He comes again will we have no further need of war. That will be a wonderful day. Until that time we must keep our swords sharp because our enemies certainly are working on theirs.

The "What Would Jesus Do" question is one I often ponder. Not being Jesus I don't know for certain. However, I think it's easy to read only some of the Bible and conclude only one thing from it. Reading the entire Bible and getting the overall picture is another thing altogether. God's love is balanced by His wrath. God's rules for loving our enemies is balanced by His ordaining of civil government with the sword of justice.

That sword of justice involves inflicting death upon enemies that would harm us. The act of war is about killing or capturing the enemy. The fact that we spare them torture, enslavement, etc. goes beyond the historical treatment granted to them. I think - I hope - Jesus looks favorably upon our extra compassion we give to our enemies. I hope He does not regard us as fools for not wiping them off the face of the earth even as the Father had once instructed the Israelites to do and which they disobeyed.