Rough interegation works for some and not for others.
We have saved many lives by being rough with these terrorists.
The fact that some don’t talk is not a reason to stop it for all of them.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Partisans/insurgents, semantics, …
This shows where your sympathies are. They are not insurgents or partisans. They are terrorists pure and simple.
When they found it was tougher to kill American soldiers they started killing anyone they could.
They intentionally blow up car bombs in crowds of innocent people.
Are you fucking kidding me? My sympathies? They’re murderers, plain and simple. Whether you call them partisans, or insurgents, or terrorists, or militants, or rebels, or whatever the hell you want, they’re Islamic fascists who delight in killing. The wording is irrelevant. I didn’t realize having problems with our Army torturing even the worst kind of enemy made me a terrorist sympathizer. Good to know.
If you claim you don’t think words and labels have an effect you are being dishonest.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty blanket statement. I don’t think calling terrorists anything short of “freedom fighters” really matters. This whole “War on Terrorism” thing is kind of a misnomer, because it’s really a war on Islamic extremism. But for you to think that calling Al Qaeda and the ex-Baathists by any other word than “terrorist” implies sympathy with them is just dumb.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Unless I missed something, there wasn’t anything new here. It’s just now there is a former assistant to Powell making the same conclusions based on the same information that was previously available: there were abuses of detainees that occurred; our policies did not explicitly sanction such abuse but the author thinks they didn’t go far enough in the other direction in terms of specifying that all prisoners receive kid-glove treatment; so thus the Administration is at fault for creating a “climate” that lead to abuse.
There is no allegation here that official U.S. policy was in any way in violation of the Geneva conventions or any other binding obligations on the U.S.
I guess this is my long-winded way of saying refer to all my previous posts on other threads about prisoner abuse.
GDollars37 wrote:
It’s a lot more serious than that. Obviously someone like Durbin is out of line, but there’s enough of this stuff that it isn’t just isolated incidents or a few bad apples anymore. They had Justice and Jon Yoo and Gonzalez draw up a memo, as I’m sure you’re aware, to parse the term torture and decide what they could get away with. If this Administration is opposed to torture, why are they threatening to veto the McCain Amendment (we all know how much Bush loves to use his veto after all)?[/quote]
I’m familiar with the memos – they did analyze what the definition of torture was, and they let the administration know what they could do that WASN’T torture – policy was set based on approval of items that AREN’T torture.
I’ll have to look into the McCain Amendment, as I’m not sure what that is right now.
Without specifics attached to these claims, it still looks like bad apples to me.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Alongside the issue of how this affects people’s (i.e. Muslim) views of the US, which do matter, is the question of how torture even helps us. Most of this stuff isn’t done for information gathering. Even torture for interrogation purposes may be pointless though. Certainly a big school of thought that it’s counter-productive, even with the real hard cases. The Atlantic did a short article on this a couple months back, I’ll see if I can find it.[/quote]
I don’t think torture does help, in all but the most dire hypotheticals (i.e. we have someone in custody who absolutely knows where a nuke will be planted within the next week in the U.S. and refuses to talk). But the policies don’t allow for torture, so it’s a moot question.
Let’s torture those afghan shepards, they got to be terrorists…
Torture is a waste of time.
Now I dont agree with torture.
But, the way detainees are treated over there is pretty damn good. So they may beat a few of them to get some info out of them. Big deal. If it would save my fire teams ass for me to get the info I needed from a detainee by roughing him up, then so be it. Does it happen alot? Well, more than you think. But, To the degree of torture. I dont think so. But, my deffintion of torture is cutting fingers and toes off. And putting bamboo splinters under fingernails and shit.
If they punch a guy in the face in the field to try to get more out of him then so be it. Now in the prison it is different and a little harder to beat someone. Does it happen yes. Im not gonna sit here and say it doesnt. In my 8M that I spent in detainee ops I never seen an actual beating. Now did we rough them up when one of them got sent to Isolation for punching a guard or trying to stab one of us. Well, lets just say that there was a path that you had to walk through to get to Iso and it was covered and no one could see what happend. Now before you go off and say oh you sorry SOB. We never hit them or any thing like that. But we would give them commands to fallow and if they didnt fallow them then we would put them on the ground. And not very easy either.
Now did they deserve that kind of treatment. Well, you tell me what you would have done when you cant hit them other than selfdefence. And they just tried to kill you. And now you have them not following orders and still resisting.
Now as far as everone there being a terroist. No everyone in the prison system is not a terroist. Some of them are just poor old men that cant afford any kind of medical treatment so what they do is house weapons or fire at a convoy going by then get picked up and sent to Bucca prison or Abu Guraib. And they get any kind of medical treatment they can imagine for free. Paid for by the USA. So some of them are just people who cant afford anything so they decide to pick up a weapon or just house them. So when they get caught they can get 3 meals a day and clothing and a place to stay. And the ones that really didnt care one way or the other about the US being there are now being recruited by the terroist that are in there.
So when they get out they get sent right back in. We had detainees leave to go to trial on a regular basis now when they would get set free They would do the same thing that got them in there in the fist place and come right back. I know I seen at least 5 that where in our compound come right back about 3 weeks after they got out. When I asked them what they did and why they said it was better to be in with food and clothing and most of there family was in there any way so why not.
But, me personaly after being there and seeing what the detainees do to us and how they treat us and act toword us I could care less what they do to them. Now do all of them deserve that. No. But, they are in there for the same reason that most of them are in there for. I mean, we didnt pick them up on the side of the road for eating icecream and cake.
Goku
WMD[/quote]
you again make many good points W, and i have to be honest and say i do not disagree with all of them. especially about why bush decided to go to war, and i also agree with much (not all though) of how you said the war should be prosecuted.
what i think frustrates you and others having a debate with somebody like me, is i refuse to accept the premise on which many of your arguments reside.
i am not very good a grammar or expressing myself in text, so apologies in advance if i cant make this make sense.
what i mean is, so you say “ah-ha!!! see there were no WMD’s in Iraq” or Ah-ha!!! see, we went in for other reasons(like you stated above)" and again i say “so what?” the premise of your argument does not hold water with me cuz i do not care how he sold the war to the ignorant masses, i think we had every right to invade and capture him anyway. breaking resolutions/treaties he signed during the first gulf war gave us that right. period. you will not make any headway with on that with me. now how we are going about things now, and how poorly it was planned is fair game, as i really agree with you that it is a “tar-baby/cluster fuck” LOL.
and lets get something straight, I DO NOT ENDORSE TORTURE, the point i am making is that you guys want me to be as appalled as you for the abuses a minority of our troops have inflicted on them, when i simply do not let it bother me that much in the context of how they have treated us when we are their prisoner, burning alive, slowly sawing (not beheading, beheading is actually humane form of execution)a persons head off on camera while fully alive and conscious, etc. like i said, maybe that is wrong of me and i should take the higher moral ground, but i just do not feel that way. not trying to say you are wrong for thinking the way you do, hell you are probably right, i am just telling you how i feel, instead of just flaming back and fourth i am just trying to get you to understand where i am many like me are coming from.
i think more than you realize think like me. we are not big fans of the war, this administration, or how things are being done, but at the same time we are not fanatical about how bad we are relative to them.
hope that made a little sense, if not, tell me where you lost me and i will try to explain myself better.
Michael
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We don’t get the full story from Iraq because the terrorists have specifically targeted the media with torture and beheadings.
They have done this for a reason. They don’t want the American people to see what is going on.
They would rather the media report on the miltarys problems and a body count.
I suspect if the media had free access in Iraq some peoples perceptions of the mission would change.[/quote]
i totally agree, but no matter how many good stories the right puts out and how many bad one the left puts out, i still say the truth is in between, and that in between in my opinion is not a good as it should be if we had thought about things more. now i totally realize that no matter how well or which administration was running the show, some of the trouble we are in over there would be unavoidable, i can admit that.
Thanks for the response, a lot more thoughtful than some of the knee-jerk assholes above. But if this truly is a clash of civilizations, do you really think we can win with military might? Do you think a U.S. Army that is way understrength in Iraq and is wrecking the Guard and Reserves can hope to defeat radical Islam in every country in the Middle East by force of arms? Winning in Iraq and Afghanistan with force is one thing, but don’t you think to defeat Muslim terrorism we need to win a battle of ideas? And does America stand for anything if it stands for torture?[/quote]
you make a pretty good point, and no, it is a pretty big world and i do not think even our military can bring all of radical fundamental Islam to heel.
but i do think if we get more aggressive with states that sponser terrorism we can improve things. now what i want to say is that PROVING x-state sponsored y-terrorist is nearly impossible, and though i do not want our government bombing and invading countries indiscriminately, my feelings on the burden of truth we have to produce is probably much less than yours and or other people more on the left.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
GD
Justified under current US laws, no.
Explains the motivation behind it yes.
I was answering your question re: total war in the previous posts.
I don’t care about the legal issues too much, in the same way that people who fretted about whether we had the legal right to invade Iraq were idiots. Do you think it (torturing terrorists) is morally justified is the question?[/quote]
Well GD I guess my answer is it depends. Would I say it ok to torture someone rounded up or turned in by an informant that is thought to have some basic tactical information, the answer is no.
However, if it is a high value target with high value information then I think much more extreme methods would be justified. For example someone with information regarding a WMD on US soil or a pending attack. I don’t believe maiming or more ancient types of torture should be used, however some of the deprivation techniques, forced fatigue, drugs and conditioning are certainly within reason.
So my answer is, in some cases yes.
Hard edged, probably but I lived in NYC during the attacks and I have a lot less tolerance for terrorism since it is a little more likely to impact me then others. For example, I love NH, it’s a beautiful state. Other then Seabrook you don’t have a lot of targets. Manhattan, North Jersey, is target rich for a terrorist. It’s a lot more likely to happen here so I think all means capable should be used to prevent it.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
Thanks for the response, a lot more thoughtful than some of the knee-jerk assholes above. But if this truly is a clash of civilizations, do you really think we can win with military might? Do you think a U.S. Army that is way understrength in Iraq and is wrecking the Guard and Reserves can hope to defeat radical Islam in every country in the Middle East by force of arms? Winning in Iraq and Afghanistan with force is one thing, but don’t you think to defeat Muslim terrorism we need to win a battle of ideas? And does America stand for anything if it stands for torture?
[/quote]
We will never defeat the “idea” of terroism. It will be here long after we are gone. Like I have said before the extreamist group that are known as Wahabi will always be the way they are. I mean do you think I could come to your house and change your whole beliefes and religion. No. So why do you think we could change them. Even though it is a small percent of the population there it is still enough to cause conflict between US troops and the other religiuos groups such as the Sunni and Sheitt. But, they dont discriminate they hate all who dont believe there way of life.
I dont think America stands for torture.
But, I think my definition of torture is different than yours. Like I said if it saves my fire team and keeps my men and women alive by roughing up a detainee then so be it.[quote]
you make a pretty good point, and no, it is a pretty big world and i do not think even our military can bring all of radical fundamental Islam to heel.
[/quote]
Indeed[quote]
but i do think if we get more aggressive with states that sponser terrorism we can improve things. now what i want to say is that PROVING x-state sponsored y-terrorist is nearly impossible, and though i do not want our government bombing and invading countries indiscriminately, my feelings on the burden of truth we have to produce is probably much less than yours and or other people more on the left.
[/quote]
Yes, we should be more aggressive with the countries that harbor terroist. But, at the same time. There are terrorist in almost every nook and cranny in the middle east. The majority being in the Sunni triangle. That is in the middle of Iraq extending from Tikrit, Ramadi across to Bagdad down to Fallujah. Now what about all the other insurgents that come from the bordering countries. We know they are there so why cant we get more aggressive with them? Well, that would lead us to being in every 3rd world country in the middle east. I am willing to say that just about all the counties over there have some kind of terroist ties. The local government may not no it or support it but they are still there. So if we got aggressive with all the countries that had terroist we would be there for the rest of our lives and then most of our childrens lives.
Now like you said we just cant bomb the crap out of everybody. Or invade who ever we want to. So how do we get more aggressive with them without bombing or invading? We know they are there. So why not just go in and get them out? I dont know the answer to that one. But, that is a question Im glad I dont have to answer. And to tell you the truth, Im alittle afraid of what the answer might be.
Goku
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
WMD wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We don’t get the full story from Iraq because the terrorists have specifically targeted the media with torture and beheadings.
They have done this for a reason. They don’t want the American people to see what is going on.
They would rather the media report on the miltarys problems and a body count.
I suspect if the media had free access in Iraq some peoples perceptions of the mission would change.
Would you elaborate a bit on this? I’m not clear what you mean about the perception of the mission.
Some people actually think we are losing and are not having any success.
[/quote]
Gotcha…
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
WMD
you again make many good points W, and i have to be honest and say i do not disagree with all of them. especially about why bush decided to go to war, and i also agree with much (not all though) of how you said the war should be prosecuted.
what i think frustrates you and others having a debate with somebody like me, is i refuse to accept the premise on which many of your arguments reside.
i am not very good a grammar or expressing myself in text, so apologies in advance if i cant make this make sense.
what i mean is, so you say “ah-ha!!! see there were no WMD’s in Iraq” or Ah-ha!!! see, we went in for other reasons(like you stated above)" and again i say “so what?” the premise of your argument does not hold water with me cuz i do not care how he sold the war to the ignorant masses, i think we had every right to invade and capture him anyway. breaking resolutions/treaties he signed during the first gulf war gave us that right. period. you will not make any headway with on that with me. now how we are going about things now, and how poorly it was planned is fair game, as i really agree with you that it is a “tar-baby/cluster fuck” LOL.
and lets get something straight, I DO NOT ENDORSE TORTURE, the point i am making is that you guys want me to be as appalled as you for the abuses a minority of our troops have inflicted on them, when i simply do not let it bother me that much in the context of how they have treated us when we are their prisoner, burning alive, slowly sawing (not beheading, beheading is actually humane form of execution)a persons head off on camera while fully alive and conscious, etc. like i said, maybe that is wrong of me and i should take the higher moral ground, but i just do not feel that way. not trying to say you are wrong for thinking the way you do, hell you are probably right, i am just telling you how i feel, instead of just flaming back and fourth i am just trying to get you to understand where i am many like me are coming from.
i think more than you realize think like me. we are not big fans of the war, this administration, or how things are being done, but at the same time we are not fanatical about how bad we are relative to them.
hope that made a little sense, if not, tell me where you lost me and i will try to explain myself better.
Michael
[/quote]
Thanks. I hear what you are saying. I struggle with my own rage at the horrific actions by terrorists. My fear is that by responding in kind, we are going to lose ourselves and our ideals. Maybe I believe too much in America, but I want us to be the “light of the world”. We are a remarkable nation, something unique that has never been on the earth before. I want us to live up to our ideals, as much as is humanly possible. That won’t happen if we allow ourselves to become brute savages like our enemies. I guess that is at the bottom of my outrage. I feel outraged by the terrorist actions and outraged by our own. I had to discipline more than one of my soldiers for this sort of thing when I was in because my commanders made it clear that abuse was unacceptable. That didn’t mean I didn’t empathize or understand why they felt like punching out the occasional prisoner. The war I fought in was conducted differently than this one, which colors my perceptions of what is happening now. That and I’m still something of an idealist, despite everything.
Peace to you.
WMD
I’m not coming down one way or the other on the topic. I’m completely torn.
I know that if torturing the shit out of some Islamic terrorist was CERTAIN to save even 1 innocent American life, I’d be all for it. The problem is, I don’t think I have the grapes to do it, and the people who are capable of it worry me.
Ignoring the big picture, when it gets right down to the individual who is willing to torture another human being–it freaks me. No matter what the justification, it’s just fucked up.
Keep in mind, I have no problem with carpet bombing entire cities to send a message. It’s the one-on-one torture that bothers me.
[quote]WMD wrote:
heavythrower wrote:
WMD
you again make many good points W, and i have to be honest and say i do not disagree with all of them. especially about why bush decided to go to war, and i also agree with much (not all though) of how you said the war should be prosecuted.
what i think frustrates you and others having a debate with somebody like me, is i refuse to accept the premise on which many of your arguments reside.
i am not very good a grammar or expressing myself in text, so apologies in advance if i cant make this make sense.
what i mean is, so you say “ah-ha!!! see there were no WMD’s in Iraq” or Ah-ha!!! see, we went in for other reasons(like you stated above)" and again i say “so what?” the premise of your argument does not hold water with me cuz i do not care how he sold the war to the ignorant masses, i think we had every right to invade and capture him anyway. breaking resolutions/treaties he signed during the first gulf war gave us that right. period. you will not make any headway with on that with me. now how we are going about things now, and how poorly it was planned is fair game, as i really agree with you that it is a “tar-baby/cluster fuck” LOL.
and lets get something straight, I DO NOT ENDORSE TORTURE, the point i am making is that you guys want me to be as appalled as you for the abuses a minority of our troops have inflicted on them, when i simply do not let it bother me that much in the context of how they have treated us when we are their prisoner, burning alive, slowly sawing (not beheading, beheading is actually humane form of execution)a persons head off on camera while fully alive and conscious, etc. like i said, maybe that is wrong of me and i should take the higher moral ground, but i just do not feel that way. not trying to say you are wrong for thinking the way you do, hell you are probably right, i am just telling you how i feel, instead of just flaming back and fourth i am just trying to get you to understand where i am many like me are coming from.
i think more than you realize think like me. we are not big fans of the war, this administration, or how things are being done, but at the same time we are not fanatical about how bad we are relative to them.
hope that made a little sense, if not, tell me where you lost me and i will try to explain myself better.
Michael
Thanks. I hear what you are saying. I struggle with my own rage at the horrific actions by terrorists. My fear is that by responding in kind, we are going to lose ourselves and our ideals. Maybe I believe too much in America, but I want us to be the “light of the world”. We are a remarkable nation, something unique that has never been on the earth before. I want us to live up to our ideals, as much as is humanly possible. That won’t happen if we allow ourselves to become brute savages like our enemies. I guess that is at the bottom of my outrage. I feel outraged by the terrorist actions and outraged by our own. I had to discipline more than one of my soldiers for this sort of thing when I was in because my commanders made it clear that abuse was unacceptable. That didn’t mean I didn’t empathize or understand why they felt like punching out the occasional prisoner. The war I fought in was conducted differently than this one, which colors my perceptions of what is happening now. That and I’m still something of an idealist, despite everything.
Peace to you.
WMD[/quote]
I feel exactly the same way, and that’s what I was trying to get across with this thread. Like Captain Ian Fishback wrote in his letter to John McCain, aren’t we losing part of America if we justify or even condone the torture of our enemies, no matter how bad they are? Maybe it’s idealistic, but again, this war (in the bigger picture) won’t be won by raw military force.
[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
Now I dont agree with torture.
But, the way detainees are treated over there is pretty damn good. So they may beat a few of them to get some info out of them. Big deal. If it would save my fire teams ass for me to get the info I needed from a detainee by roughing him up, then so be it. Does it happen alot? Well, more than you think. But, To the degree of torture. I dont think so. But, my deffintion of torture is cutting fingers and toes off. And putting bamboo splinters under fingernails and shit.
If they punch a guy in the face in the field to try to get more out of him then so be it. Now in the prison it is different and a little harder to beat someone. Does it happen yes. Im not gonna sit here and say it doesnt. In my 8M that I spent in detainee ops I never seen an actual beating. Now did we rough them up when one of them got sent to Isolation for punching a guard or trying to stab one of us. Well, lets just say that there was a path that you had to walk through to get to Iso and it was covered and no one could see what happend. Now before you go off and say oh you sorry SOB. We never hit them or any thing like that. But we would give them commands to fallow and if they didnt fallow them then we would put them on the ground. And not very easy either.
Now did they deserve that kind of treatment. Well, you tell me what you would have done when you cant hit them other than selfdefence. And they just tried to kill you. And now you have them not following orders and still resisting.
Now as far as everone there being a terroist. No everyone in the prison system is not a terroist. Some of them are just poor old men that cant afford any kind of medical treatment so what they do is house weapons or fire at a convoy going by then get picked up and sent to Bucca prison or Abu Guraib. And they get any kind of medical treatment they can imagine for free. Paid for by the USA. So some of them are just people who cant afford anything so they decide to pick up a weapon or just house them. So when they get caught they can get 3 meals a day and clothing and a place to stay. And the ones that really didnt care one way or the other about the US being there are now being recruited by the terroist that are in there.
So when they get out they get sent right back in. We had detainees leave to go to trial on a regular basis now when they would get set free They would do the same thing that got them in there in the fist place and come right back. I know I seen at least 5 that where in our compound come right back about 3 weeks after they got out. When I asked them what they did and why they said it was better to be in with food and clothing and most of there family was in there any way so why not.
But, me personaly after being there and seeing what the detainees do to us and how they treat us and act toword us I could care less what they do to them. Now do all of them deserve that. No. But, they are in there for the same reason that most of them are in there for. I mean, we didnt pick them up on the side of the road for eating icecream and cake.
Goku
[/quote]
I appreciate your post, it’s good to hear from somebody who was over there. But slapping a guy around in the field is hugely different from having a tent set aside for beating prisoners with baseball bats. And do you think that there aren’t some (certainly far from the majority, but more than a few) innocents in US detention as well? Especially the way we’re fighting this war, with sweeps instead of area security?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
fatsensei wrote:
Why is it the media never says squat about the way the terrorists treat our soldiers?
Our own media just beats up on our own military.
Sorry, fuck them and fuck you. Those bastards don’t hold anything back when it comes to fucking with us, so an eye for an eye.
FatSensei
Woohaa, US soldiers are held as POW in Iraq?
Are you sure you aren’t ThickSensei?
[/quote]
Did you see where I wrote “US soldiers are held as POW in Iraq?”
Are you sure you can read?
FatSensei
Not happy finding myself on the same side as the ACLU, but this, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan’s website, is chilling:
Over a hundred detainees have died in captivity. The ACLU looked at the records of 44 such deaths and concluded that 21 were homicides and that “at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or ‘blunt force injuries’, as noted in the autopsy reports.” This is the minimum we are likely to know about. Let’s see how the government itself has accounted for some of the deaths. In the following, the term “OGA” or “Other Government Agency” refers to the CIA:
An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by ?OGA.? He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as ?Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint.? (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)
-
A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists ?asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression? as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as ?Q by MI, died during interrogation.?
-
A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and ?OGA.? A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was ?blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.? New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as ?Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.?
-
An Afghan civilian died from ?multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities? on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)
-
A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Not happy finding myself on the same side as the ACLU, but this, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan’s website, is chilling:
Over a hundred detainees have died in captivity. The ACLU looked at the records of 44 such deaths and concluded that 21 were homicides and that “at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or ‘blunt force injuries’, as noted in the autopsy reports.” This is the minimum we are likely to know about. Let’s see how the government itself has accounted for some of the deaths. In the following, the term “OGA” or “Other Government Agency” refers to the CIA:
An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by ?OGA.? He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as ?Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint.? (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)
-
A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists ?asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression? as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as ?Q by MI, died during interrogation.?
-
A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and ?OGA.? A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was ?blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.? New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as ?Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.?
-
An Afghan civilian died from ?multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities? on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)
-
A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)
[/quote]
Ok.
Now Im gonna try and tell you what I saw when I was there for 8M and how our detainees were interrogated.
Now the Army used the CID mostly for there talks with detainees. CID is like the FBI just in DCU’s no black.
Now the detainees were always brought over in handcuffes. when we got there the cuffes came off and the detainees go to get something to drink and eat. Mostly it was Gatorade and something sweet to eat.
Now I have escorted alot of detainees to JDIG.(Joint Detainee Interrogation Group)Now this is were your OGA work with the CID. Now I never seen anything that even looked like torture when I was there and neither did anybody else. We had to stay there for the protection of the CID and the OGA. I dont think any of them even raised there voice at one of the detainees.
Now Im not trying to say that the stuff you have said never happened. Im just tying to say that maybe alot has changed since June 6 2003 to when I was there in Dec 2004 to July 2005.
Im just telling you what my experiences were and what Ive seen.
Goku
I don’t know… look, you can be angry and hate the “enemy”, when you can tell who that is, but why not just kill them instead of torturing them.
I mean, if a rabid dog bit you, would you torture it or simply kill it?
I propose we stop calling ourselves human until we can at least learn to hang onto our “humanity” during times of strife.