West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Ant on January 23, 2005, 08:33:32 PM
-
Excerpts taken from The American Prospect: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9044
That afternoon, the American officer lit a mixture of human feces and urine in a metal container and gave Selwa a heavy club to stir it. She recalls, “The fire from the pot felt very strong on my face.” She leans forward and sweeps her hands through the air to show how she stirred the excrement. “I became very tired,” she says. “I told the sergeant I couldn’t do it.”
“There was another man close to us. The sergeant came up to me and whispered in my ear, ‘If you don’t, I will tell one of the soldiers to fuck you.’”
____
“Whenever I remember, it’s like a fire goes out,” she says. “Once I saw the guards hit a woman, probably 30 years old. They put her in an open area and said, ‘Come out so you can see her.’ They pulled her by the hair and poured ice water on her. She was screaming and shouting and crying as they poured water into her mouth. They left her there all night. There was another girl; the soldiers said she wasn’t honest with them. They said she gave them wrong information. When I saw her, she had electric burns all over her body.”
____
Another woman held in Abu Ghraib was Mithal, a 55-year-old supervisor at an electrical company. Arrested on February 26, 2004, she was taken to Al-Sijood Palace, in Baghdad’s “Green Zone,” and asked about her neighbor, a retired government worker. “I think they were confusing him with some big, important person,” she says.
“When they didn’t get the answer they wanted, they would put the hood on my head and yank it and make me run across a yard,” she says. “I was barefoot, and the yard was filled with sharp stones. The American soldier said if I didn’t cooperate, they’d put me in prison for 30 years. He said if I were his mother, he would kill me. This lasted for eight hours. Then they put me in a wooden room and sat me on a chair. They said bad words -- hurtful words. They covered me in blankets, one after another until I couldn’t breathe. Eight blankets. I pounded my feet against the floor because I was suffocating.
“After that, they took me to [a detention center near Baghdad International Airport]. There, I heard a young woman crying out from her cell, telling an American soldier to leave her alone. She said, ‘I am a Muslim woman.’ Her voice was high-pitched and shaky. Her husband, who was in a cell down the hall, called out, ‘She is my wife. She has nothing to do with this.’ He hit the bars of his cell with his fists until he fainted. The Americans poured water over his face and made him wake up. When her screams became louder, the soldiers played music over the speakers. Finally, they took her to another room. I couldn’t hear anything more.”
Afterward, Mithal says, she was taken to Abu Ghraib. “They stripped me and searched me,” she remembers. “Then they gave me blankets and put me in solitary confinement in a room 2 meters by 1 and a half meters. There was no light in the room. I was there for three months.”
____
Were Iraqi women raped or sexually assaulted by Americans at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities? None of the women I interviewed would talk about it. “You’re asking this question in a culture that kills you for being raped,” explains Khoshaba, referring to so-called honor killings, in which women are slain for behaving “dishonorably,” which can mean they’ve had the bad luck to be sexually assaulted.
There are no reliable statistics on honor killings in Iraq. But Yanar Mohamed, 43, president of the Baghdad-based group Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, has opened shelters in Baghdad and Tikrit for women who are afraid of family members. About 10 women, including a 24-year-old former soldier, Liqwa, who claims an American soldier raped her, have stayed in the shelters.
____
Nabil is a 37-year-old human-rights lawyer married to Selwa’s oldest daughter. He is a tall man with a high forehead, and he is dressed in a white shirt, cufflinks, a wool vest, and wire-rimmed glasses. (He asked me not to use his real name “so I can sleep soundly at night.”) He was arrested on September 28, 2003, and held at various detention facilities, including Abu Ghraib, until May 28, 2004. A military official confirms that Nabil was released from Abu Ghraib on that date.
“In November or December, I really can’t remember, I was in a room and could hear sounds coming from outside,” he says, drinking tea in an Amman hotel room. “The windows were broken, and they were covered with wooden panels. Sometimes I could hear screams and shouts. Women were calling for mercy. There were also children between the ages of 10 and 12. The children became hysterical. I was told the women were tortured in front of their children. One day, a sheik came back from a medical clinic where he’d been treated. He was in tears. ‘What happened?’ we asked. He told us he had seen a young girl, 15 years old, with internal bleeding. She had been raped over and over again by the soldiers, and she could no longer talk. He is a deeply religious man. But that night, he shouted at Allah. ‘How is it possible that you are there and these things are happening?!’ he said.”
____
This is the stuff pussies like woodrow and trauma support.
-
This is the stuff pussies like woodrow and trauma support.
And most clearly, you attempt to replace intelligence with some pathetic form of online aggression in just about every post you write, as if, the nastier your post is the more credibility it will garner. I should have added insecure to the list, but I didn't bother at the time.
That's funny. I never remember supporting abuse of any kind!
-
This is the stuff pussies like woodrow and trauma support.
And most clearly, you attempt to replace intelligence with some pathetic form of online aggression in just about every post you write, as if, the nastier your post is the more credibility it will garner. I should have added insecure to the list, but I didn't bother at the time.
That's funny. I never remember supporting abuse of any kind!
I disagree with Engel on a lot of things, but I don't remember him ever supporting abuse... Trauma the faggot does though.
-
This is the stuff pussies like woodrow and trauma support.
And most clearly, you attempt to replace intelligence with some pathetic form of online aggression in just about every post you write, as if, the nastier your post is the more credibility it will garner. I should have added insecure to the list, but I didn't bother at the time.
That's funny. I never remember supporting abuse of any kind!
You imply your support by supporting GWB, his administration, and Alberto Gonzales. You've also displayed your admiration for Rush Limbaugh who has on record condoned the Abu Graib abuses. Don't try to play politician. You saying you don't support toture and abuse is akin to a southern who has never on record said anything racist supporting the KKK but claiming not to condone racism. If you support the people who are responsible for this scandal, then you condone these acts. You should be embarassed at yourself and your party. But feel free to give you own opinion on this scandal and who is accountable. Maybe I am wrong.
Trauma has condoned these activities.
-
You imply your support by supporting GWB, his administration, and Alberto Gonzales. You've also displayed your admiration for Rush Limbaugh who has on record condoned the Abu Graib abuses. Don't try to play politician. You should be embarassed at yourself and your party. But feel free to give you own opinion on this scandal and who is accountable. Maybe I am wrong.
Trauma has condoned these activities.
Oh I get it. Since I supported the war, that means I support Abuse?!!
Please show me where I've shown my "admiration for Rush Limbaugh"
Keep making shit up. It's funny to me!
-
You imply your support by supporting GWB, his administration, and Alberto Gonzales. You've also displayed your admiration for Rush Limbaugh who has on record condoned the Abu Graib abuses. Don't try to play politician. You should be embarassed at yourself and your party. But feel free to give you own opinion on this scandal and who is accountable. Maybe I am wrong.
Trauma has condoned these activities.
Oh I get it. Since I supported the war, that means I support Abuse?!!
Please show me where I've shown my "admiration for Rush Limbaugh"
Keep making shit up. It's funny to me!
you quote him. i'm not going to go diggin through threads... you posted a whole article by Rush Limbaugh once. if you support something you are responsible for its consequences, of course republicans no longer understand the concept of responsibility.
-
This is the stuff pussies like woodrow and trauma support.
And most clearly, you attempt to replace intelligence with some pathetic form of online aggression in just about every post you write, as if, the nastier your post is the more credibility it will garner. I should have added insecure to the list, but I didn't bother at the time.
That's funny. I never remember supporting abuse of any kind!
I disagree with Engel on a lot of things, but I don't remember him ever supporting abuse... Trauma the faggot does though.
that's what i loved about his support and defense for that retarded boy in that picture. rape, torture and murder OK! name calling bad!
-
You imply your support by supporting GWB, his administration, and Alberto Gonzales. You've also displayed your admiration for Rush Limbaugh who has on record condoned the Abu Graib abuses. Don't try to play politician. You should be embarassed at yourself and your party. But feel free to give you own opinion on this scandal and who is accountable. Maybe I am wrong.
Trauma has condoned these activities.
Oh I get it. Since I supported the war, that means I support Abuse?!!
Please show me where I've shown my "admiration for Rush Limbaugh"
Keep making shit up. It's funny to me!
you quote him. i'm not going to go diggin through threads... you posted a whole article by Rush Limbaugh once. if you support something you are responsible for its consequences, of course republicans no longer understand the concept of responsibility.
i think it was me that quoted Rush that got you all bent out of shape.
but honestly, if engel did quote Rush once, how would that effect his posistion on abuse? just because he identified with one thing a man says, doesn't mean he idolizes the guy
i'm in the same boat...i quoted one article from Rush and i'm also against torture
-
You imply your support by supporting GWB, his administration, and Alberto Gonzales. You've also displayed your admiration for Rush Limbaugh who has on record condoned the Abu Graib abuses. Don't try to play politician. You should be embarassed at yourself and your party. But feel free to give you own opinion on this scandal and who is accountable. Maybe I am wrong.
Trauma has condoned these activities.
Oh I get it. Since I supported the war, that means I support Abuse?!!
Please show me where I've shown my "admiration for Rush Limbaugh"
Keep making shit up. It's funny to me!
you quote him. i'm not going to go diggin through threads... you posted a whole article by Rush Limbaugh once. if you support something you are responsible for its consequences, of course republicans no longer understand the concept of responsibility.
i think it was me that quoted Rush that got you all bent out of shape.
but honestly, if engel did quote Rush once, how would that effect his posistion on abuse? just because he identified with one thing a man says, doesn't mean he idolizes the guy
i'm in the same boat...i quoted one article from Rush and i'm also against torture
no he quoted rush too, and again... if you vote for people who allow and condone racism you condone racism. Just like if you support an administration that condones torture, and if torture was a consequence of a war you support, you are implicit in your support of torture.
you may not want to support abuse, but its part of personal responsiblity, which republicans claim to adamantly believe in, to take responsiblity for your actions or the actions of those you support.... its unfortunate that the war you support resulted in the torture of thousands of iraqis, but the truth is it did, and if you want to say your decision have positive results you also have to take responsibility when the decisions you choose to make have negative consequences. you support GWB, you support a war for WMD that never existed, you are also accountable for these scandals.
-
Bush didn't have anything to do with the tortures going on in these prisons and the people that have done these acts will see prison time...agains, it shouldn't have happened....but since it did the best we can do is try to resolve it and make sure the guilty people pay the price...
i know someone's argument is going to be "it's easy for you to say, you weren't raped....blah blah blah"...well until someone can go back in time and fix this situation, it happened and nothing is going to change it
also ALL of the US military now has to go through 38 hours of prisoner handling training because of these fuck ups, i support the war because it's my job. morale is a key factor in every form of military and dissention causes lives to be lost
-
Ant, you can't say that a person who voted for Bush is automatically supporting everything that happens while he's in power.
-
That would be like saying "Everyone who voted for Clinton supports adultery and cheating on their wives."
-
Crazy!
First I support abuse,
Then I worship Rush Limbuaguh
Now I'm a racist!
-
now there's the intelligent Jamal up there, those are perfect points
-
now there's the intelligent Jamal up there, those are perfect points
There only exists one kind of Jamal, which is the intelligent one.... the same one who sonned you in that other thread. :-*
-
That would be like saying "Everyone who voted for Clinton supports adultery and cheating on their wives."
no it wouldn't. you are not voting for what the candidate does in his personal life, but for his policies and actions. if the president likes bowling my vote for him does not mean i also like bowling. My vote for clinton had nothing to do with who he is fucking. If he fucks fat brunettes it is silly to say i also support fucking fat brunette. on the other hand, if clinton recklessly ran a deficit and damaged our long-term ecnomic stability I bear some responsibility for my decision to support him. The Bush Administration allowed, and condones torture, woodrow played the politician and never said yay or nay on the issue. he has yet to speak out against torture, but at this point his opposition to it is only political.... its embarassing to say your in some way responsible for this, but supporting the war makes you implicitly responsible for its consequences.
If a german knew hitler was genociding the jews and still supported him but said "hey i support him for other reasons" you still are condoning genocide. the party of personal responsibility should learn to actually practice what it preaches.
-
Bush didn't order people to torture those people though, so technically it's not even a "policy" or "action" as you call it. Yeah, I think he's a horrible president, but I don't agree with the fact that everyone who voted for him supports abuse. That's absurd.
-
Bush didn't order people to torture those people though, so technically it's not even a "policy" or "action" as you call it. Yeah, I think he's a horrible president, but I don't agree with the fact that everyone who voted for him supports abuse. That's absurd.
thats your opinion, and he may not have cast the order, but it came from the administration, and when you vote you vote for the whole enchilda... anyways, while i can agree with your arguement in regards to the casual bush voter. woodrow not only voted for bush, he supported the war. if you support something you are responsible for its consequences. and as we all know this war had consequences: tens of thousands of iraqs have been killed or seriously injured, 10,000 americans have been killed or seriously injured, and then there is abu graib.
if this war went well, republicans would have rubbed it in everyon's face and enjoyed the fact they supported a successful war. now that its a failure they think they can run from the negatives and say "well hey i didnt want that to happen" while still desiring accolades for the few positives that may come from the mess. if iraq ever is a free and propserous society they will no doubt brag about "their" accomplishment, but they want to say the failures aren't theirs.
so yeah, i agree casual republicans can be let off the hook, die hards like woodrow share in the responsibility for the iraqi mess. there are republicans who are actually arguing and fighting for change in their party, woodrow is not one of those people.
-
now there's the intelligent Jamal up there, those are perfect points
There only exists one kind of Jamal, which is the intelligent one.... the same one who sonned you in that other thread. :-*
nah there's the delusional one that picks arguments that he can't win and there's this jamal....there's a thin line between the two
-
Bush didn't order people to torture those people though, so technically it's not even a "policy" or "action" as you call it. Yeah, I think he's a horrible president, but I don't agree with the fact that everyone who voted for him supports abuse. That's absurd.
-
They were probably asking for it. Everyone knows ALL women are liars. Dick teasings cunts.
-
They were probably asking for it. Everyone knows ALL women are liars. Dick teasings cunts.
Like your mom?
-
They were probably asking for it. Everyone knows ALL women are liars. Dick teasings cunts.
LMAO
-
They were probably asking for it. Everyone knows ALL women are liars. Dick teasings cunts.
Like your mom?
Jamal.... [snigger]
-
They were probably asking for it. Everyone knows ALL women are liars. Dick teasings cunts.
So I take it you like the dick?
-
They were probably asking for it. Everyone knows ALL women are liars. Dick teasings cunts.
this has to be an alias
-
Ant, you can't say that a person who voted for Bush is automatically supporting everything that happens while he's in power.
But a person like woodrow won't admit mistakes made by the bush administration he's a die hard like rush or hannity.
They'll find ways to justify republicans.
-
They were probably asking for it. Everyone knows ALL women are liars. Dick teasings cunts.
So I take it you like the dick?
CHOMP
You fucking joey.
-
You imply your support by supporting GWB, his administration, and Alberto Gonzales.
Speaking of racism, Ant's "Logic" doesn't really work out and he contradicts himself even in the above statement.
Ant: Everybody who voted for Bush implies their support of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales and every other minority in Bush's cabinet.
How can the Republican Party be "Racist" like you portray it, but support these figures?
-
if you support something you are responsible for its consequences, of course republicans no longer understand the concept of responsibility.
More hypocrisy
-
You imply your support by supporting GWB, his administration, and Alberto Gonzales.
Speaking of racism, Ant's "Logic" doesn't really work out and he contradicts himself even in the above statement.
Ant: Everybody who voted for Bush implies their support of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales and every other minority in Bush's cabinet.
How can the Republican Party be "Racist" like you portray it, but support these figures?
Republicans as a whole aren't racist. But the republican party enjoys the support of racist america, and has no problem promoting racist individuals to leadership positions, as in the case of Trent Lott, or Strom Thurmond.
Modern racists speak in different terms than historical racists. Traditional racists hate all niggers, and to them all blacks are niggers, modern racists still hate all nigers but as their logic goes (there are black people and there are niggers). I've heard it said to me many a time by a modern racist republican: I don't hate black people, I hate niggers.
And your logic regardless of my pervious point remains faulty. There are two political options in america, both have black people in their party. So the option for a racist american isn't: do i vote for the white party or the party with blacks in it. That choice never existed... so racist america still votes republican, because even though there are "black people" in the republican party, the republican party isn't filled with "niggers." Or at least that is how it is often explained.
Racist voters aren't voting for the party of Jesse Jackson, but they can tolerate voting for the party of colin powell as long as its still pushing politicies that they believe are in the best interest of white america (ie ending affirmative action).
That having been said, I have yet to hear you give your opinion on the use of torture or share your thoughts on who is responsible and how we can best assure the world this was actually an isolated incident. Appointing Alberto Gonzales surely isn't the correct option.
-
Republicans as a whole aren't racist. But the republican party enjoys the support of racist america, and has no problem promoting racist individuals to leadership positions, as in the case of Trent Lott, or Strom Thurmond.
I'll show you an example of Robert Byrd, who's a grand dragon in the KKK, and used the word Ni**er on television as recently as 2001. He's not a republican, but a democrat. You can just forgive him for using these types of words, and having those type of associations, but you can't forgive republicans?
Or at least that is how it is often explained.
I guess you must hang out with a lot of racists because I've never heard anything remotely like this come from anybody I know or associate with.
That having been said, I have yet to hear you give your opinion on the use of torture or share your thoughts on who is responsible and how we can best assure the world this was actually an isolated incident. Appointing Alberto Gonzales surely isn't the correct option.
What do you REALLY think I'm gonna say about torture? It's a good idea? It should be done? Get the fuck outta here. It's clear as day that I don't support torture.
-
Republicans as a whole aren't racist.
You do realize that a large portion of the conservative base is actually racist?
You actually belive the tripe you write don't you?
-
1) Regardless of the fact that I've pointed out previously that you took Byrd out of context, you still continue to do so. Byrd never called black people niggers. He was criticizing the hypocrisy of white supremacists, in a rather vulgar way, by reminding white supremacists that there are "white niggers too." You continually say Byrd called Black people 'niggers' which is entirely untrue he said there are "white niggers" or in other words, just like their are lazy, incompentent black people, the same is true of the white race.
But you continually take this story out of context despite the fact ive corrected you more than once. It's pathetic and a blatant display of the blinding ignorance your partisanship imparts on you.
2) Who is responsible foe the abu graib scandal and how can we insure it never happens again, and is no longer occuring? You have nothing to say except giving BS political answers.
-
1) Regardless of the fact that I've pointed out previously that you took Byrd out of context, you still continue to do so. Byrd never called black people niggers. He was criticizing the hypocrisy of white supremacists, in a rather vulgar way, by reminding white supremacists that there are "white niggers too." You continually say Byrd called Black people 'niggers' which is entirely untrue he said there are "white niggers" or in other words, just like their are lazy, incompentent black people, the same is true of the white race.
But you continually take this story out of context despite the fact ive corrected you more than once. It's pathetic and a blatant display of the blinding ignorance your partisanship imparts on you.
2) Who is responsible foe the abu graib scandal and how can we insure it never happens again, and is no longer occuring? You have nothing to say except giving BS political answers.
we were taught the first rules about prisoner handling and i must admit they were very vague, if you were to just take account of those rules it would make most of the things that happened in abu gharib seem normal then on the other hand the ROE states pretty much the opposite.... but then again the UCMJ still has rules against assault and all those other rules that were broken, plus there's the geneva convention that the US has signed up to...
so bottom line is the people that commited the torture are responsible...they choose to follow certain rules and forget about all the others.
the only way we can ensure it doesn't happen again is redesigning the laws, making them more specific and prisoner handling training is currently being held in utmost important military wide.... almost 40 hours of lectures pertaining to just this one subject....plus they keep pressing the ROE on us to make sure we understand those also....i think if it's still occuring, it isn't as open or as broad as happening to a whole prison anymore
-
1) Regardless of the fact that I've pointed out previously that you took Byrd out of context, you still continue to do so. Byrd never called black people niggers. He was criticizing the hypocrisy of white supremacists, in a rather vulgar way, by reminding white supremacists that there are "white niggers too." You continually say Byrd called Black people 'niggers' which is entirely untrue he said there are "white niggers" or in other words, just like their are lazy, incompentent black people, the same is true of the white race.
I don't know much about the KKK, but I'd think it would take more than an "honest mistake" to rise to the rank of grand dragon. I don't care what context he used it in, the fact is, and he used a racial epitat with derogatory intent. If he uses this word on national television, well knowing the commotion it will cause, what do you think the chances are he uses it in private? I'd say pretty good.
But you continually take this story out of context despite the fact ive corrected you more than once. It's pathetic and a blatant display of the blinding ignorance your partisanship imparts on you.
Sorry I find the word Ni**er offensive. Seems you don't. But all racists are republicans right?
2) Who is responsible foe the abu graib scandal and how can we insure it never happens again, and is no longer occuring? You have nothing to say except giving BS political answers.
The soldiers that committed the abuse are responsible. Better education and more review up the chain of command can help make sure this never happens again.
-
1). Byrd never called it an honest mistake, and yes he did use the word nigger in a 'derogatory manner', towards white people though. Also, occasionally people shift ideologies during their lifetime. He admitted to being an extreme racist, but your talking about things he did in the 60's im talking about this republicans do in 2004.
2) I've always been talking about majorities. I think we can come to an honest agreement that there are racist democrats, and racists republicans, but the majority of racist americans vote republican. It makes very little sense for racist individuals to vote democrat. Democrats for years supported welfare, they support affirmative action, and democrats have embraced the black population. Your party has people still making racist remakrs in 2004, and you even seemed to condone comments during the Bush inauguration that blantantly made fun of americans that live in poverty (and coincidentally poverty in america is a huge problem for the black and minority communities). To rejoice at the poor "losing the war on poverty" is to say your happy people are going to remain in the ghettos. It shows an utter lack of respect for your fellow man, and a selfish care only for your own personal well-being.
3) If the soldiers are responsible why is it so widespread? Its entirealy irresonsible putting the blame on the american soldier (who are that the bottom of the chain of command), when members of the Bush Administration have been the one's orchestrating a rationale for torture. Bush wants Gonzales for Attorney General, and gonzales in early 2002, began drafting legal justifications for the torture of detainees. And it was Bush who took away the POW status of detainees when he chose to instead call them "enemy combantants" in an effort to strip away the protect the Geneva Accords gives to POWs. Bush made the choice to take away POW status from people at Gautanamo. And Gonzales made the choice to draft a legal rational for condoning torture. Bust made the choice to nominate him to Attorney General. So why don't you stop burying your head and educate yourself on the reality of whats occuring in modern day america.
-
[The soldiers that committed the abuse are responsible. Better education and more review up the chain of command can help make sure this never happens again.
Interesting comment Englewood.
So do u think its an amazing coincidence, that torture had been systematically used in Guantanomo and Afghanistan before the Iraq war was launched?
Wait a minute, Let me rebuke myself for u englewood.
In Afghanistan, Iraq AND Guantanamo, low level soldiers administered torture without superior/higher up knowledge. In all 3 places at 3 different times, low level soldiers acting ALONE administered torture.
LOL
-
It's crazy to me:
People the commited these crimes are being arrested, punished, and changes are being made so it doesn't happen again.
On the other side, Heads are cut off, people kidnapped, and torutre rooms are being found in Iraq, there's little to no opposition. In fact, a large number of muslims and their leaders support the actions.
I don't get it.
-
[The soldiers that committed the abuse are responsible. Better education and more review up the chain of command can help make sure this never happens again.
Interesting comment Englewood.
So do u think its an amazing coincidence, that torture had been systematically used in Guantanomo and Afghanistan before the Iraq war was launched?
Wait a minute, Let me rebuke myself for u englewood.
In Afghanistan, Iraq AND Guantanamo, low level soldiers administered torture without superior/higher up knowledge. In all 3 places at 3 different times, low level soldiers acting ALONE administered torture.
LOL
Its much more than a coincidence that torture and abuse occured in all three of these places. But I'd add to the list a few other facts:
1. To be clear, similiar incidents of torture occured in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanmo.
2. Bush made a clear choice to deny certain individuals POW status.
3. Bush nominated Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General. Gonzales, a long time friend and advisor to Bush, began drafting legal justifications for torture in 2002.
4. The International Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch, both submitted reports to the Government well in advance of the Abu Graib scandal documenting these problems. In fact, HRW posted a report on their website in early spring 2003 that detailed exactly what turned out to be happening. Yet, when the pictures leaked, Bush said "oh this is an isolated incident, i had no knowledge this was going on." How exactly did I know about this when the president and no one in his administration did?
5. HRW released a new report documenting the continued abuse of detainees in Iraq on january 25th.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/26/iraq10053.htm
____
I'll leave you with one last quote from Alberto Gonzales:
Alberto Gonzales has asserted to the Senate committee weighing his nomination to be attorney general that there's a legal rationale for harsh treatment of foreign prisoners by U.S. forces.
In more than 200 pages of written responses to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who plan to vote Wednesday on his nomination, Gonzales told senators that laws and treaties prohibit torture by any U.S. agent without exception.
But he said the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/10732627.htm?1c
So please tell me where this line gets drawn? What is the difference between torture and "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" actions? And when you say you don't support torture do you follow Bush Logic in saying: yes, torture is illegal, and wrong, but we are still allowed to treat people in a "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" manner?
-
“There was another man close to us. The sergeant came up to me and whispered in my ear, ‘If you don’t, I will tell one of the soldiers to fuck you.’”
wtf, they threat soldiers like that, that just fuckin nasty. I bet all soldiers would go on the run when one of them had to fuck her.
Cant wait for ur reaction, common!