[Lerkfish]

this CNN story

is interesting.

One source said "less than two dozen detainees" were subjected to the alleged abuse, which was reported by U.S. Army soldiers who witnessed it.

Draft charge sheets have been prepared, but it's not clear yet if the charges have been formally filed against the soldiers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Nine additional military personnel and two civilian employees may also be facing severe administrative action, according to U.S. military sources.

Eight of them are expected to receive letters of reprimand that effectively will end their military careers.

A civilian translator and a civilian interrogator are expected to be fired.

now, what was that again about no need for purview at Gitmo because we americans would never abuse the prisoners?


spin this one. I'll grab the popcorn.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this CNN story

is interesting.



now, what was that again about no need for purview at Gitmo because we americans would never abuse the prisoners?


spin this one. I'll grab the popcorn.

Lerkfish, regardless of the topic, I think the thread title is a bit confusing. I see the connection you are drawing, believe me, but the title seems mangled.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Lerkfish, regardless of the topic, I think the thread title is a bit confusing. I see the connection you are drawing, believe me, but the title seems mangled.

sorry, I was shortening the actual headline of the article. I am not sure how its confusing.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sorry, I was shortening the actual headline of the article. I am not sure how its confusing.

Well, because Guantánamo Bay is not mentioned in the story. The story concerns incidents in Iraq.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this CNN story

is interesting.



now, what was that again about no need for purview at Gitmo because we americans would never abuse the prisoners?


spin this one. I'll grab the popcorn.

Lerk, you are committed. Or should be.

"A source indicated that taking pictures would be considered criminal activity unless it could be demonstrated it was done for official reasons related to processing and handling of detainees."

They are in trouble for taking pictures. Ouch. Painful. It goes to public ridicule, and the
fact that they are in IRAQ, not Gitmo, you git.

American POWs are treated so nicely by the IRAQis now aren't they?

The Middle East has no Uniform Code of Military Conduct.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Shait snipped.

Lerk you FLAMEbaiteR

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Lerk you FLAMEbaiteR

Enough of that garbage. Give it a rest.

As to the topic, for future reference, Gitmo is staffed by sailors and Marines. If it involves a bunch of soldiers, it more than likely isn't happening at Gitmo. Or you could just read the first paragraph of the article

Criminal charges are being prepared against six U.S. Army soldiers for alleged abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Gharib prison in Baghdad, U.S. military officials told CNN. (emphisis mine)

And since the article states the abuse was reported by other soldiers, I would say that means that they are policing themselves and that seems to be a good thing. No spin here, I haven't heard of a prison in the world that doesn't have some sort of abuse by staff of inmates. In this case, the abusive persons have been identified and are being disciplined, no matter how you try and spin it.

Please excuse any typo's, I busted my wrist at work thursday, and typing is a bit of a be-yatch at the moment

[Lerkfish]

Ahhhhhh....thanks, I stand corrected, and somewhat embarrassed. My apologies....
I misread the article. I had several tabs open at once in safari and had just finished an article on Gitmo, so they blended together in my mind.
Thanks for everyone being more observant than I on this one.

However mistaken I was about the location, though, it still makes my point: that potential for abuse exists, therefore the more purview the better for all concerned. I was posting this because if you recall, many bush apologists claimed there was no need for purview on Gitmo because as americans, we would never abuse prisoners.

I was just pointing out the fallacy in that position.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I was posting this because if you recall, many bush apologists claimed there was no need for purview on Gitmo because as americans, we would never abuse prisoners.

I was just pointing out the fallacy in that position.

Well, you misunderstood what people argued. There is oversight in the military. It's called the Chain of Command. Every military member is subject to the Chain of Command, and to military discipline. There is nobody in uniform who isn't supervised. That supervision is a lot more intensive than civilians ever experience.

What you seem to be doing is falling for your own fallacy. You seem to assume that if the civilian federal courts don't have jurisdiction, then no court has jurisdiction, and no law or oversight applies. Nothing could be further from the truth. The military has its own criminal justice system that is parallel to the civilian one. In general, civilian courts don't get involved in military discipline. If soldiers, sailors, marines, etc commit crimes, it is the military which takes care of it by investigating through its own independent criminal investigation services. If there is probable cause, the JAG corps prosecutes the servicemembers. And as Thinkisane pointed out, that is exactly the process happening here, which indicates that the system is working.

Nobody to my knowledge ever suggested that Americans are incapable of abusing prisoners. All I recall is that people (including me) have suggested that the federal courts aren't the correct venue.

[Developer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nobody to my knowledge ever suggested that Americans are incapable of abusing prisoners.

Actually there have been some that argued that Americans could never abuse prisoners, because they are righteous people. I remember that from another thread.

[Captain Obvious]

I would beat them too. Sounds like fun.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Developer:
Actually there have been some that argued that Americans could never abuse prisoners, because they are righteous people. I remember that from another thread.

psst.

over here.

that's right...Spliffdaddy's opinion is the foundation of your argument.

good luck. you'll need it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nobody to my knowledge ever suggested that Americans are incapable of abusing prisoners. All I recall is that people (including me) have suggested that the federal courts aren't the correct venue.

spliffdaddy said:

As long as they're held by Americans, we don't have to worry about how they're treated.

dcolton said:

I am referring to treatment. We treat these detainees better than any other nation would treat American POW's. I don't want to hear how horrible and evil the United States is in treating killers of the innocent, catalysts of destruction, fanatical hate mongors. Maybe we should let them all go...I say we drop them off in France.

and....

That is where you are wrong and where your utter hate towards America is eveident. It actually shows the strength of our system! It proves the strength of our system when it comes to the protection of American interests. Why would we "try" every "detainee"? Is that prudent? Is it efficient? Is it necessary?

Do you think if these "scumbags" remained in Afghanistan as "detainees" it would be different? Do you think any other countries want these scumbags living in their borders? (Except terrorist nations)? No. These assholes are the scum of life, and they are being treated better than they deserve.

dcolton again:

When you win a war, you don't make mistakes. If there is a problem, let the international community bring ip war crime charges against the American Players.

As for releasing English citizens. They are our ally. We trust that if we release a prisoner in their capable hands, they will handle the situation as they see fit. As for releasing others from countries of questionable integrity, I don't think so. Have you ever thought that perhaps detaining some of these people is for their protection as well.

Despite what a lot of you may think, the United States is not an evil nation. We are just and we do care...even right wing zealots like myself. Nonetheless, what I can easily say is that in my world...America comes first, and the United States is in the business of protecting it's citizens from those who kill innocent civilians.

and this is only after mining two threads....there are many more, but I have run out of time...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Those people can speak for themselves. However, I don't read them as saying that Americans are in some way by birth incapable of doing wrong. Rather, that we tend to put in place systems that are self-policing.

The military has such a system in place, and frankly, it is probably more effective than the one in place in most state prison systems. Consequently, if you find yourself in the custody of American soldiers, you are likely to have your rights protected much more than is the case in much of the world. The way I read them, that was all they were saying.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Lerkfish, regardless of the topic, I think the thread title is a bit confusing. I see the connection you are drawing, believe me, but the title seems mangled.

You think?

[Ayelbourne]

Don't forget Colin Powell (who I actually kind of like) who stated just the other day that Americans "don't abuse people who are in our care".

[Spliffdaddy]

I'll go on record as saying that any American who is guilty of abusing any prisoner should be punished very severely.

By virtue of being an American you are obligated to maintain the highest standards of conduct - else you need your ass kicked.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'll go on record as saying that any American who is guilty of abusing any prisoner should be punished very severely.

By virtue of being an American you are obligated to maintain the highest standards of conduct - else you need your ass kicked.

The sentiment (minus the ass-kicking) is appreciated, but why can't we simply say "by virtue of being a human being..."?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
The sentiment (minus the ass-kicking) is appreciated, but why can't we simply say "by virtue of being a human being..."?

Because it doesn't sound as patriotic.

Everyone can just scribble the name of their own country in there, instead.

Taking pride in your country is important. It builds a sense of community - and, thereafter, the desire to assist their 'neighbors' - people who would otherwise have nothing in common aside from their close proximity on a map.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'll go on record as saying that any American who is guilty of abusing any prisoner should be punished very severely.

By virtue of being an American you are obligated to maintain the highest standards of conduct - else you need your ass kicked.

Is this an adjunct to:

As long as they're held by Americans, we don't have to worry about how they're treated.

?

how do you reconcile your two statements "on the record"?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Because it doesn't sound as patriotic.

Okay, that's honest.

[Spliffdaddy]

"how do you reconcile your two statements "on the record"?"

You don't have to worry because, obviously, Americans will be held accountable for your treatment.

As opposed to other situations where *nobody* is accountable for your treatment.

While glaringly apparent to the average MacNN member, this clarification will undoubtedly still not be adequate for the left-leaning anti-dubya liberals who seek to prosecute me instead of coming up with halfway decent arguments to support their unreasoned opinions.

[3gg3]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"how do you reconcile your two statements "on the record"?"

You don't have to worry because, obviously, Americans will be held accountable for your treatment.

As opposed to other situations where *nobody* is accountable for your treatment.

While glaringly apparent to the average MacNN member, this clarification will undoubtedly still not be adequate for the left-leaning anti-dubya liberals who seek to prosecute me instead of coming up with halfway decent arguments to support their unreasoned opinions.

Sigh, and you were on a streak!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"how do you reconcile your two statements "on the record"?"

You don't have to worry because, obviously, Americans will be held accountable for your treatment.

As opposed to other situations where *nobody* is accountable for your treatment.

While glaringly apparent to the average MacNN member, this clarification will undoubtedly still not be adequate for the left-leaning anti-dubya liberals who seek to prosecute me instead of coming up with halfway decent arguments to support their unreasoned opinions.

asking you how you reconcile two apparently contradictory statements is prosecuting you?

Heh. You couldn't walk a mile in *MY* macNN moccasins, then, if that is enough to make you feel set upon.