Originally Posted by Redneck

What's a "mental perturbated?"

Funny that you think that the perpetrators of the crimes at Abu Ghraib should go to prison staurofilakes, apparently my government agrees with you, logical conclusion being that these acts were and are not supported by a) the military, b) the government as a whole, and c) the Bush administration. What with all the practice with conspiracy theories we apparently have (from viewing the topics you and a couple others constantly post here), one would be kind of pushed to believe that if we had wanted to, we could have made Abu Ghraib disappear, h**l if we can hide the systematic extermination of all minority groups for near on 100 years, a couple al-Q's getting kicked around should have been no problem. Kind of seems like a case of having your cake and eating it too there buddy.

With mental perturbated I meant crazy.

Why are you stranged that I think that thay should go to prision?? According to the report, which is a summary of the military's internal investigation of the abuses, soldiers testified that they had been ordered to abuse the prisoners, to prepare them for interrogation.
These orders allegedly came from both military intelligence officers and civilian consultants -- members of that class of Iraq warrior ever-so-euphemistically referred to as "private contractors," which is Pentagon-speak for paid mercenaries and "security" experts.

http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib/

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

No.
As for the welfare of those guys, I really don't care.

So you think this is the right wat to treat a prisioner??

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.


Wowwwwwwwwwwwww!! You must be really mean!!!

Originally Posted by Big_Z

Let me guess, you would rather have America submit to terrorist and let them pick our leaders too? You think you have the world figured out but I don't think you have a clue. If I thought a terrorist had information that could save lifes I would kick his teeth in to get it.

I wouldn't kick them out but I might consider using a spring loaded center punch and do them one at a time.

I understand that using the force sometimes is necesary, but from there to what happened in Abu Ghraib there is a big distance, and if you do not agree you have serious problems

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

Why are you stranged that I think that thay should go to prision??

It was sarcasm there high speed.

The central problem with your position is you are assuming that the actions of a handful of INDIVIDUALS (I can make this bright red and flashing if that would help) who were PUNISHED (this too) for their actions are representative of the entire military and by extension my entire nation.

CFS, bud.

Originally Posted by Redneck

It was sarcasm there high speed.

The central problem with your position is you are assuming that the actions of a handful of INDIVIDUALS (I can make this bright red and flashing if that would help) who were PUNISHED (this too) for their actions are representative of the entire military and by extension my entire nation.

CFS, bud.

Would you please show me were did I say that those acts are representative of all US citizens? Do not put in my mouth words that I did not say. I have to remember you that in Guantanamo is probably happening the same, US is violating human rights constantly, the thing is that we cann´t see photos of there,may be the soldiers there are not as stupid as in Abu Ghraib.
I just said that the soldiers were following orders.

The central problem with your position is you are assuming that the actions of a handful of INDIVIDUALS (I can make this bright red and flashing if that would help) who were PUNISHED (this too) for their actions are representative of the entire military and by extension my entire nation.

Its kind of amusing a year or so ago I used the same argument however unfortunately this is not the case, torture is seen as routine and systematic within all area's of the "war on terror" and it is carried out by both the US and its allies.


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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan24.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3739561.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706050.stm

http://afghannews.net/index.php?acti...e=news&id=2157

Now I personally agree with a few people here that IF the person has information that can prevent and attack and save innocent lives then by all means extract it in any way necessary BUT many of the people in these prisons are not charged with anything, are denied methods of proving innocence and in some cases are there on extremely dodgy evidence.

So the question I have for you is:
Would you accept the same rules of detention for any crime in the US ie if the authorities suspected you of comitting a crime they can arrest and detain you without trial or legal representation indefinately?.

Mod edit: You most certainly can. And when I am no longer a member of the staff of this forum, your suggestion might hold water.

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

Would you please show me were did I say that those acts are representative of all US citizens?

Ok, here you go:

I have to remember you that in Guantanamo is probably happening the same, US is violating human rights constantly, the thing is that we cann´t see photos of there.

Got anything else?

And you constantly jump from "allegations" and "probablies" to statements that the United States IS doing or HAS done something. I realize there is a language barrier here, so hopefully this will help future discussions:

allegation: al·le·ga·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-gshn)
n.
(1) Something alleged; an assertion: allegations of disloyalty.
(2) The act of alleging.
(3) A statement asserting something without proof


alleged: al·leged ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ljd, -ljd)
adj.
Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.

Mod edit: You most certainly can. And when I am no longer a member of the staff of this forum, your suggestion might hold water. Laughing

So you are saying the rules dont apply to all?.

Got anything else? Laughing

Yes just one thing:

You didnt answer the question I asked of you.

ques·tion Pronunciation Key (kwschn)
n.

1. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.
2. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture.
3. A subject or point open to controversy; an issue.
4. A difficult matter; a problem: a question of ethics.
5. A point or subject under discussion or consideration.

Once again the question.

Would you accept the same rules of detention for any crime in the US ie if the authorities suspected you of comitting a crime they can arrest and detain you without trial or legal representation indefinately?.[/b]

I didn't answer your question because we posted at the same time and your question (1. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply. ) did not exist when I was writing my reply.

Answer 1) No, I am saying that it is not your job to regulate myself or any other moderator or member of this forum. If you feel I need some regulating, contact Redleg, that's his department.

Answer 2) No, because the crimes for which these people are being detained are in an entirely different class than normal criminal law, and the perpetrators and suspected perpetrators are themselves in a different class and are not protected by the rights of citizenship. You seem to be under the impression that the detainees were chosen at random, rather than being legitimately bad people, you don't really get your name on the type of s**tlist that would send you to Gitmo without doing some pretty definitely bad things.