Abu Ghraib

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

http://www.bloggerheads.com/abu%5Fghraib/

 

 

 

Go here and see the video they put together as well. I'm very afraid of the photos and videos still yet to be released. The ones that are out are bad enough. I could have done without the Benny Hill theme though. But it makes its point strong.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

ABU GHRAIB: WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

 

"It puts its bag on its head and it gets into the truck."

 

If you've watched Silence Of The Lambs, you'll know exactly what I mean by this. 'Bagging' or 'hooding' was standard operating procedure in Iraq. You cannot blame a few 'bad apples' for standard operating procedure. Hooding not only served to disorientate and distress prisoners, it also helped to dehumanise them. The process of torture began as each person was taken into custody. This was US policy, to set the foundation for interrogation during the process of detention - and the practice was also adopted by the British. Did this practice stop when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke? No. It only stopped nearly a full year after the first abuses came to light.

 

(Telegraph 11 May 2004) - Troops broke ban on hooding PoWs: British troops serving in Iraq broke a 33-year ban on hooding prisoners for interrogation, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told the Commons yesterday as he offered an "unreserved" apology to any Iraqis who had been mistreated.

 

(Guardian 3 Sep 2004) - U.S. Changes Arrest Techniques in Iraq: The U.S. military is avoiding once-common arrest techniques like bagging suspects' heads, the U.S. commander in charge of the Iraqi capital said, because such actions are considered humiliating by Iraqis and pushing new recruits into the insurgency.

 

Well, duh. Even if you can somehow forget about the moral argument, how can you ignore the practical one? This very public practice served then and serves today as a recruitment tool for rebels in Iraq and terrorists abroad.

 

Also note Geoff Hoon's "unreserved" apology. General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the British Army, said during the interview referenced here that: "The abuse of any individual is to be condemned without qualification. However, I would observe that if the leaders of a country, or the leaders of an alliance, talk in terms of 'them', 'the enemy' rather than treating them as people, how can they expect the lowest common denominator, the basic soldiery, to interpret it in any other way? Leadership comes from the top and soldiers at the lowest level will interpret their need to act from the guidance given by leaders. They are either well led or badly led. Ultimately the responsibility for the actions of soldiers must come back to the leaders."

 

Compare this attitude with that of Donald Rumsfeld, who's still busy qualifying for the troops in the field and the folks at home...

 

(MSNBC 13 Sep 2004) - Rumsfeld defends Pentagon in abuse scandal: Amid allegations he fostered a climate that led to the prison abuse scandal, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday that the military’s mistreatment of detainees was not as bad as what terrorists have done. "Does it rank up there with chopping someone’s head off on television?" he asked. "It doesn’t."

 

Is Torture OK for Terrorists?

 

(Guardian Jun 24 2004) - Bush memos show stance on torture: The most damning document is an August 1 2002 memo from Jay Bybee, then assistant attorney general, which argues that torture - and even the killing - of prisoners could be justified to protect US security. It gives the president legal authority to override rules on torture. The memo proposes a narrow definition of torture, saying it would apply only to excruciating pain. Officials tried to distance the White House from the memo. But its author was made a federal judge last year.

 

OK, this is a very long debate. Myself, I'd finish it with; "Doesn't using terror make us as bad as the terrorists?"... but here's the kicker - the people who were tortured in Iraq were not terrorists. In fact, the U.S. held many Iraqis hostage in an attempt to get their relatives to surrender, and were at this for quite some time. Some of the 'detainees' that were abused appear to have been women taken hostage in order to make their husbands surrender.

 

This Is Where It Gets Really Evil

 

OK, take a moment to study the picture below, taken in Abu Ghraib sometime in late 2003. My, my, my... doesn't everyone look ever-so-serious and ever-so-busy? Does this look like a late-night lark to you? Does this look like the work of a few out-of-control troopers who just happened to be stupid enough to take pictures of their crimes... or does this look like a professional set-up?

 

Prepare yourselves. The word 'abuse' has been transplanted for 'torture', but you're about to see this ever-so-useful replacement word in a whole new light...

 

(Salon 15 July 2004) - Hersh: Children sodomized at Abu Ghraib, on tape: "Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."

 

There it is.

 

Abuse.

 

Not so bad, right?

 

Child. Abuse.

 

Whoops.

 

Why Do These Pictures Exist?

 

Before the Nazis started gassing Jews and other 'undesirables', they shot them. In large numbers. But bullets were expensive and manpower cost money. The Nazis also found that this practice had a distinctly negative effect on the troops doing the shooting. That's why they got high-tech and used selected prisoners to do most of the dirty work. Fast forward to the 21st century. Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons in Iraq. Thanks to the wonders of technology, soldiers operating under the direction of the CIA (and British intelligence operatives) could torture a few detainees and show the results to many as a softener.

 

Hello, and welcome to Abu Ghraib. We have a few questions for you, but first I'd like you to draw your attention to this laptop. Here are some JPEGs of some fellow Iraqis being sexually humiliated. Not enough for you? OK, here's a nifty MPEG of a woman who watches as her child is sodomised. Now, before we take you for similar processing, let's get back to those questions...

 

Why Were These Detainees Interrogated?

 

The US were probably trying to find Saddam. Or perhaps they wanted to find out where these people went after choir practice. But most likely, they were after evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

 

Where Are The Weapons of Mass Destruction?

 

There aren't any. There weren't any. But my uncle Abdul once made a petrol bomb out of a drink bottle and some kerosene he soaked up with a rag. I'll give you his address. Just please stop hitting me.

 

Established Media: The Willing and the Whipped

 

By now you may be wondering why this is the first you've heard of this. I'll tell you why; it comes down to the overwhelming power of media and the Bush administration's control over it. I'll get some proof to you in a moment. In the meantime, let's be charitable and operate under the assumption that the media by and large is objective or maybe even wildly liberal...

 

Even though Rumsfeld hid many detainees from the Red Cross, they picked up what was going on, reported it to the US authorities, and the UK authorities as early as February 2004.

 

A lot of this information reached the internet. Some of it even made it to print. But nobody took any notice until there were some pretty pictures to see:

 

Memory Hole - Photos of Iraqis Being Abused by US Personnel

Memory Hole - Photos of Iraqis Being Abused by US Personnel - Page 2

 

All of a sudden, we saw - some - action (and, of course, a chase for a handy scapegoat or two). Bush had to go on TV and be ever-so-human in the hope that few enough people would remember one of his favourite moral justifications for war, that he was removing from power a man who detained people illegally, then had them raped and tortured.

 

Now, let's get back to the media's role...

 

The Myth Of Liberal Media

 

Even journalists who don't like what's going on in the world and work for a relatively independent newspaper have their problems. This has been the case since well before the September 11 atrocities. And beyond 'professional' methods of intimidation, there's also this to consider; any criticism that actually threatens to do damage to the Bush administration draws the attention of right-wing nuts (online, they are known as Freepers or digital brownshirts). Many journalists have given accounts of harassment, career sabotage and death threats (take Robert Fisk for example).

 

Then there are the editors and journalists who are equally willing - but pretty much work for the establishment. There are many players in this game, but the most powerful player is Rupert Murdoch. In the US, his strongest weapon is FOXNews (for more information about how this outfit operates, you really can't do better that the documentary Outfoxed). In the UK, it's the tabloid newspaper The Sun.

 

The Sun helped Blair to power and has been the official mouthpiece of the government since they came to power (except when Rupert feels that Tony needs a slap over issues like immigration or Europe). The Sun helped to sell the WMD lie. The Sun has semi-naked girls on Page 3 that feed the public editorial content. And (you'll need to scroll down on this one, but it's worth it) The Sun gave more coverage to a puppy being thrown off an overpass than it did to human beings being tortured in Iraq.

 

They Shoot Voters, Don't They?

 

I'd like to introduce you to an image that I first saw when I was 10 years old and visited Dachau. It was quite a wake-up call for a white-bread Christian boy from the Lucky Country, I must say - and it has stuck with me ever since. The image is by the artist A. Paul Weber, and is titled "Mit den Wölfen mußt du heulen" - roughly translated as "Howl with the wolves you must."

 

I had a lot of questions about the Holocaust, but what really puzzled me at first was how it came to be; how a country full of human beings would allow something so inhuman to happen. The answer is there when you look for it. It's a slow but steady creep, and the main factor is propaganda and its cumulative effect on the populace.

 

I've actually had someone say to me that I should get back to him "when they start shooting people for voting." People like this should get a grip. Seriously. We're not being beaten into submission here, folks - we're being smothered. And that smothering is dressed up as love.

 

The Threat of Terrorism Is Real - The War on Terror Is a Lie

 

You must fear the terrorists. They want to hurt you. We will protect you. You must not question us, because this helps the terrorists. Who want to hurt you. We will protect you. And so on...

 

But who are the terrorists? The line has already started to blur, and that beating I mentioned before is yours for the taking if you'd care to step outside of a Free Speech Zone. Yes folks, if you so much as raise your voice, you become a terrorist....

 

(Salon Dec 16 2003) - This is not America" - "There is a pattern developing cross-country with regards to the interaction between police and protesters," says Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the Miami chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "That pattern sadly involves the police viewing protesters as terrorists and treating protest situations as crisis situations akin to war or combat."

 

In the US, money earmarked for the War on Terror has actually been spent fighting protestors. In the UK, anti-terror powers were used against protesters at an arms fair.

 

And that's why you should care about this folks....

 

1. The War on Terror is a lie that will not protect you from terrorists

2. The War on Terror is being used to curb civil liberties and human rights

3. The War on Terror has been used by the Bush administration to justify torture

4. Including the torture of people who aren't terrorists

5. One day, it will be you with a bag on your head, and you'll wonder how it all came to be

 

A Plea To Americans

 

You came in rather late, but thanks for saving our asses in WW1.

 

Again with the lateness, but you did it again in WW2. It's appreciated.

 

Now, if it's not too much trouble, we need you to save us from WW3.

 

It's going to take more than your vote. You also have to reach out to the people around you and show them what's really going on. And that's not going to be easy.

 

Tim Ireland, 17th September 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I thought this kind of thing only happened in OTHER countries. Least thats what they told me in school. Thats what I grew up thinking. Fuck thinking, KNOWING! Guess I was wrong. But hey, they are all sub-human monkeys right? They deserve what they get right? Go ahead Mike, tell me this is justice. You'll probably just try to minimise this as not being that big a deal. Or something John Kerry did was worse. You tell me how MY country is doing things any better than OBL or Saddam or any of the other assholes out there. Maybe my expectations are too high?

[Guest Cerebus]

Why do you insist on posting articles written by people with a 9th grade reading level?

[Guest MikeSC]

Why do you insist on posting articles written by people with a 9th grade reading level?

Couldn't he at least post shorter, ill-thought out pieces?

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

I'm not surprised the only thing being criticized about this whole atrocity, is the author's writing skills. Strange times we live in.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm not surprised the only thing being criticized about this whole atrocity, is the author's writing skills. Strange times we live in.

No, it's just that the point is obviously bullshit. It's startling how poorly this bullshit is written.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Oh yeah, the soliders handed out lolly-pops and staged musicals for the Iraqi prisoners. I totally forgot about that. Yup, the content of that article is bullshit no doubt.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh yeah, the soliders handed out lolly-pops and staged musicals for the Iraqi prisoners. I totally forgot about that. Yup, the content of that article is bullshit no doubt.

This was discussed months ago.

 

Didn't care then.

 

Don't care now.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Of course you don't, Mike. As long as it's not happening to you or anyone else in the Western world, it's really insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

 

More fun examples of how the Iraqi's are benefitting from this war. Human rights? What?:

 

 

The Most Tragic Victims of the Iraq War

by Dr. César Chelala

 

 

Recent information on the consequences of the Iraq war on civilians and children only confirms a devastating picture of the situation. According to an article in the medical magazine The Lancet, there has been an excess of 100,000 civilians deaths since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The deaths have included a substantial number of children. Carol Bellamy, UNICEF's Executive Director, has called the death of 34 children in recent bomb attacks "an unconscionable slaughter of innocents."

 

Many of those deaths have been the consequence of coalition forces' actions. According to the authors of the study published in The Lancet, there has been substantially more deaths in Iraq since the war began that in the period immediately before the conflict. The killings of dozens of children in Baghdad's recent bombings show, according to UNICEF, "a disregard for innocent lives that recalled the recent massacre of children in Beslan, Russia."

 

This is the third time that Iraqi children have been victims of war in that country's recent history. The two conflicts previous to the present one were the eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s and the Gulf War in 1991, which caused considerable damage to Iraq's infrastructure. In addition, the country has been under over 12 years of comprehensive United Nations' sanctions.

 

Although after it was introduced in 1996 the Oil for Food Program (OFFP), which allowed the Iraqi government to sell oil and use the revenue to purchase humanitarian supplies, contributed to reduce the impact of the sanctions, it had significant shortcomings. Among them was Saddam Hussein's decision to use the funds for personal gain rather than to improve the basic services' infrastructure in the country.

 

Previous to this last conflict, Iraqi children were already highly vulnerable to disease and malnutrition. One in four children under five years of age was chronically malnourished, and one in eight children died before their fifth birthday. This was happening on a population where almost half is under the age of 18.

 

A limited post-war nutritional assessment carried out by UNICEF in Baghdad found that acute malnutrition has nearly doubled to what it was before the war. That assessment also found that seven out of ten children suffered from various degrees of diarrhea, which led to a loss of nutrients and often to death if not properly treated. Following this last war an already deteriorated water and sanitation system practically collapsed, leading to loss and/or contamination of piped water and greater susceptibility to contracting diarrhea.

 

It was estimated that 270,000 children born after the war had none of the required immunizations and routine immunization services were all but disrupted. In addition, the existent stock of vaccines became useless as a result of the destruction of the cold-chain system.

 

Hundreds of thousands tons of raw sewage are still pumped into the Tigris and Euphrates rivers every day. Because water cleaning chemicals have been looted or destroyed, the quality of water being pumped into the homes is extremely poor and leads to more frequent illness and malnutrition among children.

 

As a consequence of all these factors, Iraq is the country that has least progressed in reducing child mortality since 1990. In the 1990s, the most significant increases in child mortality occurred in southern and central Iraq, where under-five child mortality rose from 56 to 131 per 1,000 live births. Due to lack of security, many babies are now delivered at home, and many mothers do not receive any pre-natal care.

 

In the main cities, every day children are killed or injured when in contact with unexploded ordnance (UXO), land mines and other kinds of live ammunition littering the country. In Baghdad alone there are approximately 800 hazardous sites related to cluster bombs and dumped ammunition.

 

The Iraq Education Survey, carried out by the Iraqi government with support from UNICEF, describes how children educational opportunities have been affected by the war. In the most affected governorates, more than 70 percent of primary school buildings lack water service. The survey shows that since March 2003, over 700 primary schools had been damaged by bombing, more than 200 had been burned and over 3,000 had been looted. After a year and a half of hostilities the suffering of civilians seems to increase, rather than decrease. Even more poignantly, that over half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces are women and children is a severe indictment against this senseless war.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1030-23.htm

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course you don't, Mike. As long as it's not happening to you or anyone else in the Western world, it's really insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

 

More fun examples of how the Iraqi's are benefitting from this war. Human rights? What?:

 

 

The Most Tragic Victims of the Iraq War

by Dr. César Chelala

 

 

Recent information on the consequences of the Iraq war on civilians and children only confirms a devastating picture of the situation. According to an article in the medical magazine The Lancet, there has been an excess of 100,000 civilians deaths since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The deaths have included a substantial number of children. Carol Bellamy, UNICEF's Executive Director, has called the death of 34 children in recent bomb attacks "an unconscionable slaughter of innocents."

 

Many of those deaths have been the consequence of coalition forces' actions. According to the authors of the study published in The Lancet, there has been substantially more deaths in Iraq since the war began that in the period immediately before the conflict. The killings of dozens of children in Baghdad's recent bombings show, according to UNICEF, "a disregard for innocent lives that recalled the recent massacre of children in Beslan, Russia."

 

This is the third time that Iraqi children have been victims of war in that country's recent history. The two conflicts previous to the present one were the eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s and the Gulf War in 1991, which caused considerable damage to Iraq's infrastructure. In addition, the country has been under over 12 years of comprehensive United Nations' sanctions.

 

Although after it was introduced in 1996 the Oil for Food Program (OFFP), which allowed the Iraqi government to sell oil and use the revenue to purchase humanitarian supplies, contributed to reduce the impact of the sanctions, it had significant shortcomings. Among them was Saddam Hussein's decision to use the funds for personal gain rather than to improve the basic services' infrastructure in the country.

 

Previous to this last conflict, Iraqi children were already highly vulnerable to disease and malnutrition. One in four children under five years of age was chronically malnourished, and one in eight children died before their fifth birthday. This was happening on a population where almost half is under the age of 18.

 

A limited post-war nutritional assessment carried out by UNICEF in Baghdad found that acute malnutrition has nearly doubled to what it was before the war. That assessment also found that seven out of ten children suffered from various degrees of diarrhea, which led to a loss of nutrients and often to death if not properly treated. Following this last war an already deteriorated water and sanitation system practically collapsed, leading to loss and/or contamination of piped water and greater susceptibility to contracting diarrhea.

 

It was estimated that 270,000 children born after the war had none of the required immunizations and routine immunization services were all but disrupted. In addition, the existent stock of vaccines became useless as a result of the destruction of the cold-chain system.

 

Hundreds of thousands tons of raw sewage are still pumped into the Tigris and Euphrates rivers every day. Because water cleaning chemicals have been looted or destroyed, the quality of water being pumped into the homes is extremely poor and leads to more frequent illness and malnutrition among children.

 

As a consequence of all these factors, Iraq is the country that has least progressed in reducing child mortality since 1990. In the 1990s, the most significant increases in child mortality occurred in southern and central Iraq, where under-five child mortality rose from 56 to 131 per 1,000 live births. Due to lack of security, many babies are now delivered at home, and many mothers do not receive any pre-natal care.

 

In the main cities, every day children are killed or injured when in contact with unexploded ordnance (UXO), land mines and other kinds of live ammunition littering the country. In Baghdad alone there are approximately 800 hazardous sites related to cluster bombs and dumped ammunition.

 

The Iraq Education Survey, carried out by the Iraqi government with support from UNICEF, describes how children educational opportunities have been affected by the war. In the most affected governorates, more than 70 percent of primary school buildings lack water service. The survey shows that since March 2003, over 700 primary schools had been damaged by bombing, more than 200 had been burned and over 3,000 had been looted. After a year and a half of hostilities the suffering of civilians seems to increase, rather than decrease. Even more poignantly, that over half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces are women and children is a severe indictment against this senseless war.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1030-23.htm

Says the guy who, if he had his way, Saddam would still be in power, happily butchering his people.

 

And, you'd be wise to stop posting anything referencing that joke of a study in Lancet.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The people involved have been and are being punished.

 

End of story.

[cbacon 0]

Donald Rumsfeld is still at large.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Oh yes because I'm sure he was making secret trips to Iraq to partake in the activities and was giving advice on what to do.

[cbacon 0]

Says the guy who, if he had his way, Saddam would still be in power, happily butchering his people.

Ah yes, the Saddam card. Because something evil existed before, it's justifiable now, even if it's much worse.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

God, I really hope most foreigners are smarter than you.

 

Can someone without the initials KR make me feel like the rest of the world actually knows what the fuck is going on and is not full of idiots like INXS and C-Bacon?

[bob_barron 0]

Donald Rumsfeld is still at large.

Rumsfeld had nothing to do with it. The minute it was discovered everyone involved was rightfully punished and we've tried to make sure this doesn't happen again.

 

It's a shame it did happen but there are bad apples in every lot

[cbacon 0]

Except Rummy did claim responsbility after such incidents.

 

Mad Dog: Enough of the flame baiting. Just because you have your head up your ass dosen't make my opinion invalid. Especially when you don't even know what your talking about half the time, as evident in replies such as that . On the contrary, it makes you look like more of an idiot. That's all im gonna say in regards to you, unless you post something that's remotely on topic.

[bob_barron 0]

Because he's the Secretary of Defense- so it was admirable that he did take responsibility for it.

 

What happened was bad but it's pointless and irrelevant in the long run

[cbacon 0]

Rumsfeld had more of a hand in these crimes.

 

Rumsfeld Gave Go-Ahead for Abu Ghraib Tactics, says General In Charge

by Julian Coman in Washington

 

 

The former head of the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad has for the first time accused the American Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, of directly authorizing Guantanamo Bay-style interrogation tactics.

 

Brig-Gen Janis Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade, which is at the center of the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal, said that documents yet to be released by the Pentagon would show that Mr Rumsfeld personally approved the introduction of harsher conditions of detention in Iraq.

 

In an interview with The Signal newspaper of Santa Clarita, California, which was also broadcast on a local television channel yesterday, Gen Karpinski was asked if she knew of documents showing that Mr Rumsfeld approved "particular interrogation techniques" for Abu Ghraib.

 

Gen Karpinski was interviewed for four hours by Maj- Gen Antonio Taguba, who was ordered to investigate abuse at Abu Ghraib and produced a damning report, which heavily criticized Gen Karpinski for a lack of leadership at the prison.

 

During inquiries into the scandal, she has repeatedly maintained that the treatment of Iraqi detainees was taken out of her hands by higher-ranking officials, acting on orders from Washington.

 

"Since all this came out," she replied, "I've not only seen, but I've been asked about some of those documents, that he [Mr Rumsfeld] signed and agreed to."

 

Asked whether the documents have been made public, Gen Karpinski replied "No" and went on to describe the methods approved in them as involving "dogs, food deprivation and sleep deprivation".

 

The Pentagon has consistently denied that Mr Rumsfeld authorized the transfer of harsher techniques of interrogation and detention from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib, where all prisoners are supposed to be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

 

Replying to Gen Karpinski's allegations, a spokesman for the Pentagon told The Telegraph: "Mr Rumsfeld did not approve any interrogation procedures in Iraq. The Secretary of Defense was not in the approval chain for interrogation procedures, which would have remained within the purview of Central Command, headed by Gen John Abizaid."

 

The Bush administration has been dogged by suspicions that harsh interrogation methods employed at Guantanamo were transferred to Abu Ghraib, as Iraqi insurgents began to score significant hits against coalition forces last year. In May, before the Senate armed services committee, Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of Defense for intelligence, publicly denied charges that Mr Rumsfeld had approved Guantanamo-style interrogations in Iraq.

 

Last month, the White House took the unusual step of releasing hundreds of internal documents and debates concerning interrogation procedures at Guantanamo. Extreme interrogation techniques at the camp, it was revealed, now require the explicit approval of Mr Rumsfeld. The Bush administration insists, however, that the notorious abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was an aberration on the part of a handful of rogue soldiers. A Pentagon spokesman said that all relevant documents on interrogation techniques in Iraq would be made public but could not say when.

 

Gen Karpinski has been suspended from duty pending ongoing investigations into abuse of prisoners at the Baghdad prison. In a recent interview with the BBC, she complained of being turned into a scapegoat for the scandal, arguing that the running of the prison was taken out of her hands.

 

In a separate embarrassment for the Department of Defense last week, six recent studies, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, heavily criticized the military for failing to screen adequately potential recruits with violent and even criminal backgrounds.

 

The reports were written by a senior Pentagon consultant. One was delivered in September 2003, weeks before the worst abuses of Iraqi prisoners took place. The title of the report was Reducing the Threat of Destructive Behavior by Military Personnel.

 

In it the author, Eli Flyer, a former senior analyst at the Department of Defense, stated: "There are military personnel with pre-service and in-service records that clearly establish a pattern of sub-standard Behavior These individuals constitute a high-risk group for destructive Behavior and need to be identified."

 

According to a 1998 report by Mr Flyer, one third of military recruits had arrest records. A 1995 report found that a quarter of serving army personnel had committed one or more criminal offences while on active duty. In his 2003 study, Mr Flyer said that military personnel officers had been reluctant to toughen up screening procedures, fearing that the result would be a failure to meet recruitment goals.

 

Curtis Gilroy, who oversees military recruiting policy for the Pentagon, told the Los Angeles Times: "It's hard to pick out all the bad apples, but we are striving to improve the system and are doing so."

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0705-01.htm

[Guest MikeSC]

Except Rummy did claim responsbility after such incidents.

 

Mad Dog: Enough of the flame baiting. Just because you have your head up your ass dosen't make my opinion invalid.

No, you having your head imbedded in your own ass makes your opinion invalid. Your borderline psychotic lack of knowledge of America makes your opinion invalid. And you posting insepid bullshit from inane sites makes your opinion invalid.

Especially when you don't even know what your talking about half the time, as evident in replies such as that.

You have proven, over and over, that you don't know a damned thing what you're talking about.

On the contrary, it makes you look like more of an idiot. That's all im gonna say in regards to you, unless you post something that's remotely on topic.

Why don't you post something that wouldn't insult the intellect of a slow four-year old?

 

And, you clearly are clueless as to the concept of passing blame (Karpinski) or the status of investigations of the whole problem.

-=Mike

[Guest PlatinumBoy]

Says the guy who, if he had his way, Saddam would still be in power, happily butchering his people.

Ah yes, the Saddam card. Because something evil existed before, it's justifiable now, even if it's much worse.

So on the scale of which act was worse, one prison and stuff that happened to a few Iraqis--which was horrible no doubt > 20 years of torture and millions of deaths? That makes as much sense as saying that Waco was worse than Mao killing millions and millions of people.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Yes, this was bad. But the people responsible were punished for it. This is a dead story. I don't see why people are so hung up on it.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Yes, this was bad. But the people responsible were punished for it. This is a dead story. I don't see why people are so hung up on it.

Because people like C-Bacon latch on to any little tidbit to fuel their bigotry towards a certain culture. No outcome will please them because they're completely blinded by hatred.

[bob_barron 0]

Wow- Common Dreams isn't biased at all. Nope not a bit.

 

Why am I not surprised that a general would immediately pass the blame to someone higher up?

[Justice 0]

Of course you don't, Mike. As long as it's not happening to you or anyone else in the Western world, it's really insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

 

More fun examples of how the Iraqi's are benefitting from this war. Human rights? What?:

 

 

The Most Tragic Victims of the Iraq War

by Dr. César Chelala

 

 

Recent information on the consequences of the Iraq war on civilians and children only confirms a devastating picture of the situation. According to an article in the medical magazine The Lancet, there has been an excess of 100,000 civilians deaths since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The deaths have included a substantial number of children. Carol Bellamy, UNICEF's Executive Director, has called the death of 34 children in recent bomb attacks "an unconscionable slaughter of innocents."

 

Many of those deaths have been the consequence of coalition forces' actions. According to the authors of the study published in The Lancet, there has been substantially more deaths in Iraq since the war began that in the period immediately before the conflict. The killings of dozens of children in Baghdad's recent bombings show, according to UNICEF, "a disregard for innocent lives that recalled the recent massacre of children in Beslan, Russia."

 

This is the third time that Iraqi children have been victims of war in that country's recent history. The two conflicts previous to the present one were the eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s and the Gulf War in 1991, which caused considerable damage to Iraq's infrastructure. In addition, the country has been under over 12 years of comprehensive United Nations' sanctions.

 

Although after it was introduced in 1996 the Oil for Food Program (OFFP), which allowed the Iraqi government to sell oil and use the revenue to purchase humanitarian supplies, contributed to reduce the impact of the sanctions, it had significant shortcomings. Among them was Saddam Hussein's decision to use the funds for personal gain rather than to improve the basic services' infrastructure in the country.

 

Previous to this last conflict, Iraqi children were already highly vulnerable to disease and malnutrition. One in four children under five years of age was chronically malnourished, and one in eight children died before their fifth birthday. This was happening on a population where almost half is under the age of 18.

 

A limited post-war nutritional assessment carried out by UNICEF in Baghdad found that acute malnutrition has nearly doubled to what it was before the war. That assessment also found that seven out of ten children suffered from various degrees of diarrhea, which led to a loss of nutrients and often to death if not properly treated. Following this last war an already deteriorated water and sanitation system practically collapsed, leading to loss and/or contamination of piped water and greater susceptibility to contracting diarrhea.

 

It was estimated that 270,000 children born after the war had none of the required immunizations and routine immunization services were all but disrupted. In addition, the existent stock of vaccines became useless as a result of the destruction of the cold-chain system.

 

Hundreds of thousands tons of raw sewage are still pumped into the Tigris and Euphrates rivers every day. Because water cleaning chemicals have been looted or destroyed, the quality of water being pumped into the homes is extremely poor and leads to more frequent illness and malnutrition among children.

 

As a consequence of all these factors, Iraq is the country that has least progressed in reducing child mortality since 1990. In the 1990s, the most significant increases in child mortality occurred in southern and central Iraq, where under-five child mortality rose from 56 to 131 per 1,000 live births. Due to lack of security, many babies are now delivered at home, and many mothers do not receive any pre-natal care.

 

In the main cities, every day children are killed or injured when in contact with unexploded ordnance (UXO), land mines and other kinds of live ammunition littering the country. In Baghdad alone there are approximately 800 hazardous sites related to cluster bombs and dumped ammunition.

 

The Iraq Education Survey, carried out by the Iraqi government with support from UNICEF, describes how children educational opportunities have been affected by the war. In the most affected governorates, more than 70 percent of primary school buildings lack water service. The survey shows that since March 2003, over 700 primary schools had been damaged by bombing, more than 200 had been burned and over 3,000 had been looted. After a year and a half of hostilities the suffering of civilians seems to increase, rather than decrease. Even more poignantly, that over half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces are women and children is a severe indictment against this senseless war.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1030-23.htm

Point in case, there's a lot of questions surrounding that, since it comes out around 85,000 more than any other study done today. I'd seriously stop using that until there's some confirmation with another study, otherwise it's just an extemely bad outlier. The best ones put it around 15,000. Of course, we are talking about commondreams.org, here, so it really doesn't surprise me that you'd take their word over just about everyone else out there.

 

Also, I find it quite laughable that the author blames the 34 deaths of children not on bombers, but on coalition forces. It'[s all about American Imperialism and all that, not those glorious freedom fighters who love to target the bourgeois running the country.

[Guest Cerebus]

C-Bacon...I just lost any respect I had for you.

 

Karpinski will probably go down as the most inept commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom AND YOU BELIEVE THE CRAP COMING OUT OF HER MOUTH? If this bitch told me the sky was blue, I'd have to go outside and check it for myself.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Wow- Common Dreams isn't biased at all. Nope not a bit.

 

Why am I not surprised that a general would immediately pass the blame to someone higher up?

SO you are saying that due to bias and bias alone is enough reason to not at least LISTEN to someone? That is a shallow arguement. If that were how it worked than no one would have ever listened to Fox News or Micheal Moore cuz they wouldn't be allowed speak. Because afterall, truth is determined by what? Objectivity?

[bob_barron 0]

Citing Michael Moore is a bad example.

 

I just find it hard to take news articles from sites like that seriously since you know it's going to be spun with some bias

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow- Common Dreams isn't biased at all. Nope not a bit.

 

Why am I not surprised that a general would immediately pass the blame to someone higher up?

SO you are saying that due to bias and bias alone is enough reason to not at least LISTEN to someone?

Yup. When people reference "The Articles of the Elders of Zion", I dismiss them, too. Kookery should not be given the aura of respectability.

That is a shallow arguement. If that were how it worked than no one would have ever listened to Fox News or Micheal Moore cuz they wouldn't be allowed speak. Because afterall, truth is determined by what? Objectivity?

Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

 

Nobody is saying they lack the right to post brain-dead drivel. Just that you'd be a fucking moron of the highest level to buy it.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Citing Michael Moore is a bad example.

 

I just find it hard to take news articles from sites like that seriously since you know it's going to be spun with some bias

Mike will take whatever the FNC says as gospel. Nope, no bias there! Same with CBS. Liberals do the same shit. You guys are coming from the point of view that there IS objectivity out there. Its what you SAY you expect. But apparently only from those you perceive to be on the left. The media is a huge problem since its not there to serve a public interest instead to make money from adverts. Big corporations folks. They have agendas.

 

 

All that aside the point of my post was that what went down in AG makes me sick and I think that MY country should be taking the higher ground in cases like this. I'm really disappointed, because i see this as a bad setback when we are supposed to be winning the Iraqis "hearts and minds". Is that not a priority anymore? So that later down the road fewer of them will take the leap to terrorism and attack soldiers and other innocents. Its preventative maintenance folks. It was a fucking stupid mistake from which we will likely never be forgiven. Instead, we have a shitload of them pissed and fucking OBL has more ammo to rile them up.

 

 

 

 

"Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

 

Nobody is saying they lack the right to post brain-dead drivel. Just that you'd be a fucking moron of the highest level to buy it."

-=Mike

 

Oh I get it alright. Cuz no matter what anybody on the other side says you'd just tell them to shut up anyway regardless of "their right to speak". You'd have to be a fucking moron to only listen to one side of the story in the first place. Yanno, cuz things like listening and asking questions tend to get in the way of agendas. Besides don't assume that everything that everybody posts is something they 100% endorse as the gospel truth. Just differing opinions that I think should be heard and done with whatever the reader thinks. I don't blame you or anyone for being skeptical, Mike. But you cavalier attitude to just dismiss everything is tired. But I doubt you give a shit right? Thought so.

[Guest Cerebus]

I ask only two things for articles to be posted:

 

1. They are written for an audience older than middle school.

2. They don't use bullshit evidence, sources, or unverifiable facts.

 

All the articles posted in this thread have neither.