Drop charges against Lynndie

[Pure]

Thanks, abs,

I've heard of the story, and 'copper green', but not seen the details.

did you read the Cambone testimony before congress; he is an arrogant asshole, who does dirty work for Rummy.

if Rummy cant be gotten, maybe Cambone will take a fall.

there's some interesting stuff on this fellow 'Graner' (whose trial starts soon); documented former wife abuser; background as a prison guard.

that the higher ups found a few psychos to break heads and sodomize does not excuse these higher ups.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Thanks, abs,

I've heard of the story, and 'copper green', but not seen the details.

did you read the Cambone testimony before congress; he is an arrogant asshole, who does dirty work for Rummy.

if Rummy cant be gotten, maybe Cambone will take a fall.

there's some interesting stuff on this fellow 'Graner' (whose trial starts soon); documented former wife abuser; background as a prison guard.

that the higher ups found a few psychos to break heads and sodomize does not excuse these higher ups.

Your welcome Pure, they are saying now, that the article isn't exactly correct...duh, of course they would.
rummy will use his duck like coat that allows blame to slide off his back to keep face.
Cambone is just a lackey nut, but these people are still scary to have in any kind of authority position.

I'll have to find out more about Graner, he sounds colorful.

 

[SlickTony]

you make some good points elsewhere in your post, but who is this 'you' that pops up repeatedly. please state whom you are addressing.

He was addressing me, because I made a reference to it all of twice, for all he's carrying on like I referred to it again and again and again. I already said that I meant no offense to this readership; and I still don't. Do bear in mind that I have read a lot of snide remarks about Texas, as a hellhole in which no intellectual/intelligent, sophisticated person would wnt to live, and I came up there, and consider it one of my homeplaces, because I was carried there at the age of 6 weeks and didn't know from anywhere else until I went overseas. Nevertheless, I don't rabbit on about "clever, clever..." when I read said remarks.

I think it's been pretty well established that you can, under the right conditions, condition just about anybody to be inhuman to his/her fellow man, i.e. the Stanford experiment.

And it doesn't suprise me that the guys lower down on the food chain are going to be the ones to take the fall. A lot of the time we don't want to know how governments operate.

 

[Pure]

This fellow T Pappas, is one to keep an eye on.



INTERROGATIONS
M.P.'s Received Orders to Strip Iraqi Detainees
By ERIC SCHMITT and DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: May 18, 2004


ASHINGTON, May 17 — The American officer who was in charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison has told a senior Army investigator that intelligence officers sometimes instructed the military police to force Iraqi detainees to strip naked and to shackle them before questioning them. But he said those measures were not imposed "unless there is some good reason."

The officer, Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, also told the investigator, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, that his unit had "no formal system in place" to monitor instructions they had given to military guards, who worked closely with interrogators to prepare detainees for interviews. Colonel Pappas said he "should have asked more questions, admittedly" about abuses committed or encouraged by his subordinates.

The statements by Colonel Pappas, contained in the transcript of a Feb. 11 interview that is part of General Taguba's 6,000-page classified report, offer the highest-level confirmation so far that military intelligence soldiers directed military guards in preparing for interrogations. They also provide the first insights by the senior intelligence officer at the prison into the relationship between his troops and the military police. Portions of Colonel Pappas's sworn statements were read to The New York Times by a government official who had read the transcript.

Testimony from guards and detainees at a preliminary hearing for a soldier accused of abuse said that orders from interrogators at Abu Ghraib had stopped short of the graphic abuse seen in the photographs at the center of the prison scandal.

The interrogation techniques Colonel Pappas described were used on detainees protected by the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit inhumane treatment of prisoners. Military officials said on Monday that the United States had months ago quietly abandoned an early plan to designate as unlawful combatants some of the prisoners captured by American forces in Iraq. No prisoners in Iraq were classified as unlawful combatants.

That means that even foreign fighters and suspected Al Qaeda members captured in Iraq, along with Iraqis captured as prisoners of war and insurgents, have remained protected by the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Pure]

Problem Solved

at Abu Ghraib.

The number of prisoners still at Abu Ghraib, now about 3,800, is to be roughly halved.

And the prison is to be renamed Camp Redemption.

{NYT-5-19}

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: Problem Solved

at Abu Ghraib.

The number of prisoners still at Abu Ghraib, now about 3,800, is to be roughly halved.

And the prison is to be renamed Camp Redemption.

{NYT-5-19}

Who the hell comes up with these names? Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Infinite Justice, Operation Bombs of Mercy?

Even The Department of Homeland Security. They all sound like they're right out of George Orwell.

---dr.M.

 

[Couture]

George Orwell? I think you make be reading to much into it, Dr. M. Did you ever think that maybe Camp Humiliation was already taken?

 

[Couture]

Speaking of which. If this thing goes all the way to the top. And I suspect it does.

Isn't it ironic, don't you think . . . that the same people who believe that homosexuality is such a sin, condoned forcing men to engage in homosexual activity?

 

[Pure]

First sentence, probably not typical, since he rolled over on the others. Pappas' and maybe Miller's asses deserve to be in the big sling Any bets on that happening?


First Soldier Pleads Guilty in Iraq Prisoner-Abuse Case

By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: May 19, 2004 [NYT]


BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 19 — Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, the first person to stand trial in connection with the prisoner mistreatment scandal, pleaded guilty here today to abuse charges and was sentenced to the maximum one year in prison, reduction in rank and a bad-conduct discharge from the military.

"I would like to apologize to the Iraqi people and to the detainees," he said during the special court-martial. "I want to apologize to the Army, to my unit, to the country. I want to apologize to my family. I let everybody down. This is not me. I should have protected the detainees. I've learned a huge lesson: You have to stand up for what is right."

Specialist Sivits, 24, a military police reservist, was found guilty of two counts of mistreating prisoners, dereliction of duty for failing to protect them from abuse, cruelty and forcing a prisoner "to be positioned in a pile on the floor to be assaulted by other soldiers," the military said after the proceedings, which were open to members of the news media, including reporters from Arab news services, but not representatives of human rights groups who had asked to attend.

American military officials said Specialist Sivits had agreed to testify against others under a plea agreement. [...]

According to his testimony, Specialist Sivits, who said he was sent to Iraq as a mechanic, was only briefly involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, and as a result of happenstance.

On Nov. 8, he said he was putting gasoline in a generator at Abu Ghraib prison when he struck up a conversation with Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II, one of three other soldiers who have been ordered to stand trial in connection with the case.

Sergeant Frederick led him to a cellblock where he saw prisoners being abused, the defendant said, adding that five soldiers, in addition to Sergeant Frederick, were present: Specialist Megan M. Ambuhl, Sgt. Javal S. Davis, Pfc. Lynndie R. England, Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. and Specialist Sabrina Harman.

Specialist Sivits said that on that same day he witnessed prisoners — some naked, some hooded — stacked in a human pyramid, and saw Sergeant Frederick punch a prisoner so hard that he thought it had caused the man to go into cardiac arrest.

He said he took a photograph of Specialist Graner with a prisoner in a headlock, faking a punch.

Specialist Sivits had earlier told investigators about brutal conduct by Sergeant Frederick and Specialist Graner, who, in turn, called him a liar.

"I should not have taken that picture," Specialist Sivits said. "I love the Army. I love the flag. All I ever wanted was to be an American soldier. I want to stay in. I think I can teach other soldiers the difference between right and wrong. I am truly sorry. I am truly sorry for what I did."

At least twice during his testimony, Specialist Sivits choked up, apparently holding back tears. He was contrite and apologetic throughout rigorous, extended questioning by the presiding judge, Col. James Pohl.

[end excerpts; todays nytimes.]

 

[Pure]

Couture,

How about 'Camp Sodom' (nice li'l resonance there, given most Americans' pronunciation.).

 

[ABSTRUSE]

First sentence, probably not typical, since he rolled over on the others. Pappas' and maybe Miller's asses deserve to be in the big sling Any bets on that happening?


First Soldier Pleads Guilty in Iraq Prisoner-Abuse Case

By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: May 19, 2004 [NYT]


BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 19 — Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, the first person to stand trial in connection with the prisoner mistreatment scandal, pleaded guilty here today to abuse charges and was sentenced to the maximum one year in prison, reduction in rank and a bad-conduct discharge from the military.

"I would like to apologize to the Iraqi people and to the detainees," he said during the special court-martial. "I want to apologize to the Army, to my unit, to the country. I want to apologize to my family. I let everybody down. This is not me. I should have protected the detainees. I've learned a huge lesson: You have to stand up for what is right."

Specialist Sivits, 24, a military police reservist, was found guilty of two counts of mistreating prisoners, dereliction of duty for failing to protect them from abuse, cruelty and forcing a prisoner "to be positioned in a pile on the floor to be assaulted by other soldiers," the military said after the proceedings, which were open to members of the news media, including reporters from Arab news services, but not representatives of human rights groups who had asked to attend.

American military officials said Specialist Sivits had agreed to testify against others under a plea agreement. [...]

According to his testimony, Specialist Sivits, who said he was sent to Iraq as a mechanic, was only briefly involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, and as a result of happenstance.

On Nov. 8, he said he was putting gasoline in a generator at Abu Ghraib prison when he struck up a conversation with Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II, one of three other soldiers who have been ordered to stand trial in connection with the case.

Sergeant Frederick led him to a cellblock where he saw prisoners being abused, the defendant said, adding that five soldiers, in addition to Sergeant Frederick, were present: Specialist Megan M. Ambuhl, Sgt. Javal S. Davis, Pfc. Lynndie R. England, Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. and Specialist Sabrina Harman.

Specialist Sivits said that on that same day he witnessed prisoners — some naked, some hooded — stacked in a human pyramid, and saw Sergeant Frederick punch a prisoner so hard that he thought it had caused the man to go into cardiac arrest.

He said he took a photograph of Specialist Graner with a prisoner in a headlock, faking a punch.

Specialist Sivits had earlier told investigators about brutal conduct by Sergeant Frederick and Specialist Graner, who, in turn, called him a liar.

"I should not have taken that picture," Specialist Sivits said. "I love the Army. I love the flag. All I ever wanted was to be an American soldier. I want to stay in. I think I can teach other soldiers the difference between right and wrong. I am truly sorry. I am truly sorry for what I did."

At least twice during his testimony, Specialist Sivits choked up, apparently holding back tears. He was contrite and apologetic throughout rigorous, extended questioning by the presiding judge, Col. James Pohl.

[end excerpts; todays nytimes.]

Can you say 'scapegoat'?

 

[SlickTony]

This ought to go up the chain of command, as surely as fire goes up a rope. Nixon ended up resigning over Watergate--who knows what could happen?

Actually, Homeland Security reminds me of a slightly predatory lending institution.

 

[SensualCealy]

This is only some what related to this thread but made me think.
My 13 yr old came home and said to me (not knowing if he came up with it or heard it somewhere).

Someone starting a war for peace is like sticking a pin in a balloon to get more air in it!

How interesting!
Almost hope he did come up with it on his own.
Cealy

 

[mcfbridge]

Can you say 'scapegoat'?

No, he is not the scapegoat, he is the lucky one.


The others involved will get much stiffer penalties. He was fortunate to be able to make a deal.


As to letting anyone off for this, I can't even contemplate it.


The difference between us, and the scum that used to rule Iraq, and the ones that want to stop us now. is NOT that we never do bad things.

The difference is that we admit it when we do something wrong and attempt to fix it and hold those responsible accountable.
This is very differenct from the group who slowly beheaded that poor civilian. I don't hear anyone on the Arab side condemning that or attempting to find the ones responsible.

 

[cantdog]

No, he is not the scapegoat, he is the lucky one.


The others involved will get much stiffer penalties. He was fortunate to be able to make a deal.


As to letting anyone off for this, I can't even contemplate it.


The difference between us, and the scum that used to rule Iraq, and the ones that want to stop us now. is NOT that we never do bad things.

The difference is that we admit it when we do something wrong and attempt to fix it and hold those responsible accountable.
This is very differenct from the group who slowly beheaded that poor civilian. I don't hear anyone on the Arab side condemning that or attempting to find the ones responsible.

And you aren't likely to. Reportage of Iraqi reactions to this has been lacking in the U.S. papers, but you cab read Al-Ahram online, That's a Cairo paper,

and the fellow who did the beheading is not Iraqi and is resented and decried by Iraqi opinion. Some Iraqi opinion. Some U.S. opinion is still that nothing was done wrong in the torture chambers at the 3 Iraqi prisons.

Including Rumsfeld.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Not to defend the animals that beheaded Berg, but from what I understand of Iraqi Arab culture, being killed outright is either not as bad as being humiliated and photographed naked or at least on a par with it. Or maybe I should say it this way: death is the usual payback in cases where someone in your family is humiliated like they were in Abu Ghraib.

One of the problems in Iraq is the clash of cultures. We really don't understand them, and they don't understand us. We operate in a culture of affection, they operate in a culture of respect. We're convinced that democracy is the only way to go, they prefer aligning themselves in strong clans and tribes. I think that the idea of each person voting for their own choice for ruler must seem kind of silly and pointless to them. You belong to a kind of extended family or tribe, and that's who you owe your alliegence to.

We've run into this kind of thing before. It's hard for us to appreciate that to a good part of the world, the very idea of democracy is kind of horrifying: it seems like nothing more than mob rule, where the lowest beggar is given as much power as the highest chief.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Not to defend the animals that beheaded Berg, but from what I understand of Iraqi Arab culture, being killed outright is either not as bad as being humiliated and photographed naked or at least on a par with it. Or maybe I should say it this way: death is the usual payback in cases where someone in your family is humiliated like they were in Abu Ghraib.

One of the problems in Iraq is the clash of cultures. We really don't understand them, and they don't understand us. We operate in a culture of affection, they operate in a culture of respect. We're convinced that democracy is the only way to go, they prefer aligning themselves in strong clans and tribes. I think that the idea of each person voting for their own choice for ruler must seem kind of silly and pointless to them. You belong to a kind of extended family or tribe, and that's who you owe your alliegence to.

We've run into this kind of thing before. It's hard for us to appreciate that to a good part of the world, the very idea of democracy is kind of horrifying: it seems like nothing more than mob rule, where the lowest beggar is given as much power as the highest chief.

---dr.M.

Not only that, but our women are uppity.

 

[cloudy]

Not only that, but our women are uppity.

Damn straight!

 

[mcfbridge]

Not to defend the animals that beheaded Berg, but from what I understand of Iraqi Arab culture, being killed outright is either not as bad as being humiliated and photographed naked or at least on a par with it. Or maybe I should say it this way: death is the usual payback in cases where someone in your family is humiliated like they were in Abu Ghraib.

One of the problems in Iraq is the clash of cultures. We really don't understand them, and they don't understand us. We operate in a culture of affection, they operate in a culture of respect. We're convinced that democracy is the only way to go, they prefer aligning themselves in strong clans and tribes. I think that the idea of each person voting for their own choice for ruler must seem kind of silly and pointless to them. You belong to a kind of extended family or tribe, and that's who you owe your alliegence to.

We've run into this kind of thing before. It's hard for us to appreciate that to a good part of the world, the very idea of democracy is kind of horrifying: it seems like nothing more than mob rule, where the lowest beggar is given as much power as the highest chief.

---dr.M.

I don't know if this is the most offensive argument I've ever heard or just the stupidest one.


First, while cultures certainly do vary from country to country, there are still some absolutes as to decency, and right and wrong.

I know of no culture where murder is generally accepted as an act of legitimate protest. (Yes I know some Indian cults are based on assissination, but even they are not generally tolearted in that country.)

Second, they didn't just kill that man, they tortured him to death for almost half a minute.


While this certainly doesn't make what the American MPs did right, comparing this to what happened to those prisoners is like comparing a burglary, to a fatal carjacking. Both deserve punishment, but let's not lose perspective.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier, the difference between us and these animals, is not that we never do anything wrong. It is that we take responsibility for our actions and do our best to seek justice and repair the damage.

 

[shereads]

And you aren't likely to. Reportage of Iraqi reactions to this has been lacking in the U.S. papers, but you cab read Al-Ahram online, That's a Cairo paper,

and the fellow who did the beheading is not Iraqi and is resented and decried by Iraqi opinion. Some Iraqi opinion. Some U.S. opinion is still that nothing was done wrong in the torture chambers at the 3 Iraqi prisons.

Including Rumsfeld.

On the contrary, something was seriously wrong. "We were blindsided by those little digital cameras. Of course we were shocked."

A note on the courts martial/official scapegoating of the underlings: Attorneys for the defendants have been denied access to the prisoners who are the only witnesses to these incidents and who might have some knowledge of who was calling the shots - and whether the photographs were really used in the interrogation process. If that's true, it would support the defendants' claim that they were ordered to take the pictures.

I'm not excusing their actions, of which taking photos is only a part. I'm only questioning why their attorneys shouldn't be allowed to talk to witnesses. As for the quick guilty plea by the first defendant, I might plead guilty too if it would get me back to a military prison in the U.S. and away from an environment where nobody can guarantee my safety. We can't protect these MPs' lives if we can't protect members of the governing committee we appointed.

 

[cloudy]

I don't know if this is the most offensive argument I've ever heard or just the stupidest one.


First, while cultures certainly do vary from country to country, there are still some absolutes as to decency, and right and wrong.

I know of no culture where murder is generally accepted as an act of legitimate protest. (Yes I know some Indian cults are based on assissination, but even they are not generally tolearted in that country.)

Second, they didn't just kill that man, they tortured him to death for almost half a minute.


While this certainly doesn't make what the American MPs did right, comparing this to what happened to those prisoners is like comparing a burglary, to a fatal carjacking. Both deserve punishment, but let's not lose perspective.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier, the difference between us and these animals, is not that we never do anything wrong. It is that we take responsibility for our actions and do our best to seek justice and repair the damage.

I'm not defending acts on the part of either side here, but I think what Dr. M was trying to say (and I may be way off base) is that death, in some cultures, is not dishonorable.

The Clan or Tribe culture is hugely different than ours, and death is looked at differently as well.

An example that comes to mind is the defeat of Custer. The tribes dismembered their fallen enemies after they slaughtered them (highly deserved in my book, but that's another story).

White/European society was horrified at what they saw as disrespect.

The reality was that it was not disrespect at all. To the Sioux/Lakota culture, these fallen enemies were ones they didn't want to have to meet up with again in the afterlife. They dismembered them to prevent them from being warriors next time. That comes mighty close to respect.

You can't understand what someone in that type of culture is thinking - ever. Not even if you lived there for umpteen years. It's bred into you or it isn't.

He wasn't saying it was right, or even justifiable. Only that we don't know.

(forgive me, Dr. M, if I misinterpreted you)

 

[mcfbridge]

I'm not defending acts on the part of either side here, but I think what Dr. M was trying to say (and I may be way off base) is that death, in some cultures, is not dishonorable.

The Clan or Tribe culture is hugely different than ours, and death is looked at differently as well.

An example that comes to mind is the defeat of Custer. The tribes dismembered their fallen enemies after they slaughtered them (highly deserved in my book, but that's another story).

White/European society was horrified at what they saw as disrespect.

The reality was that it was not disrespect at all. To the Sioux/Lakota culture, these fallen enemies were ones they didn't want to have to meet up with again in the afterlife. They dismembered them to prevent them from being warriors next time. That comes mighty close to respect.

You can't understand what someone in that type of culture is thinking - ever. Not even if you lived there for umpteen years. It's bred into you or it isn't.

He wasn't saying it was right, or even justifiable. Only that we don't know.

(forgive me, Dr. M, if I misinterpreted you)

I agree with you that death is looked at differently in many cultures. However, what you are referring to is the different ways of treating dead bodies of your enemied killed in battle.

This is very different from simply murdering non-combatants. I know of no culture that actually honors this. In fact, in the Koran, the killing of civillians is a mortal sin.

 

[cloudy]

I agree with you that death is looked at differently in many cultures. However, what you are referring to is the different ways of treating dead bodies of your enemied killed in battle.

This is very different from simply murdering non-combatants. I know of no culture that actually honors this. In fact, in the Koran, the killing of civillians is a mortal sin.

Yes, but......

In their eyes, he might not have been seen as a non-combatant. Just as in history, women and children were considered fair game - they could either breed more of the enemy, or would grow into one.

They may not have known who he actually was. Even if they knew - did they believe it?

Not defending them, here, I promise. I think it was heinous. I'm just trying to get my mind around the whole thing.

 

[cantdog]

I don't know if this is the most offensive argument I've ever heard or just the stupidest one.


First, while cultures certainly do vary from country to country, there are still some absolutes as to decency, and right and wrong.

I know of no culture where murder is generally accepted as an act of legitimate protest. (Yes I know some Indian cults are based on assissination, but even they are not generally tolearted in that country.)

Second, they didn't just kill that man, they tortured him to death for almost half a minute.


While this certainly doesn't make what the American MPs did right, comparing this to what happened to those prisoners is like comparing a burglary, to a fatal carjacking. Both deserve punishment, but let's not lose perspective.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier, the difference between us and these animals, is not that we never do anything wrong. It is that we take responsibility for our actions and do our best to seek justice and repair the damage.

You keep saying "these animals," mcg.

Make some elementary distinctions.

The fellow with the knife who killed Berg is not Iraqi.

As with most terrorist actions, this is a provocation, pure and simple.

You're now supposed to be so blinded with outrage that you blame the Iraqis and avenge yourself on them. The al-Qaeda have been telling the Iraqis that we hate every muslim, and the Berg killing is a provocation by a foreign terrorist to make us fly off the handle and prove them right.

If our government bites this bait they are being used as puppets just as surely as if they had al-Qaeda's hand up their ass.

As to the relative nastiness of each side's crimes. hooey! The al-Qaeda who did this is surely not on the side of the Iraqis! If it works, the Iraqis will suffer insane reprisals!

You don't like him. Good. You don't like Iraqis. They didn't do this.

You may not like kohlrabi. But kohlrabi isn't on the same side as the Iraqis, either. You are lumping everyone together.

The charges at the three Iraqi prisons where the torture and abuse took place include some homicides and rapes, after weeks of touture and less serious abuse. It aint all panties and pigpiles, pard.

 

[Pure]

I just saw that picture of Ms Harmon grinning over the dead body, packed in ice.

Now THAT is truly gross. VERY heavy-duty hazing, certainly NOT like most frats.

Or in the words of a reporter, a case where an Iraqi is "gitmo-ized to death."