DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Appalling new prison photos!!!
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 326 - 350 of 550, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/13/2004 10:28:45 PM · #326
And you don't know Bill Clinton, but that didn't stop you from saying many things about him. Not that I'm a backer of BC, mind you.

Originally posted by RonB:

And YOU don't know HIM, but that didn't stop YOU now, did it?

Ron
05/13/2004 10:36:10 PM · #327
Good point...and the more you make them alienated and hardline the greater the chance that terrorism will strike yet again.

Originally posted by orussell:


I do know, the more the west makes this a fight, a fight against Islam, the more alienated you make the entire Muslim world, even those who are not hardline.
05/13/2004 10:56:19 PM · #328
One place to start is to ask them what beef they have with America...then we can tell them our side and have some meaningful discussion. I don't see anyother way of doing this other than honest communication. The Palestinian issue may be something we have to deal with as well.

Other long term issues we will have to face as a country is energy.

Originally posted by rcrawford:

Of course I know it is the extremists that we are talking about but when and where do you intend to stop them?
05/13/2004 11:00:16 PM · #329
Originally posted by rcrawford:

Of course I know it is the extremists that we are talking about but when and where do you intend to stop them?


Well a start would be to appease the Muslim community in your own counrty. I know Bush has said in the past that he and his government have no qualm with the Americam Muslim population; he has to continue to extend that olive branch. Next he has to get his forces out of the Middle East and work on building bridges within the Islamic world with diplomacy rather than force. But it's likely we are past the time for diplomacy; that time was when the UN resolution called for it.

That it not to say that you shouldn't protect your borders and do whatever is necessary to prevent terrorism in your country.

As I see it, at present what the US and Allied forces are doing is inflaming the situation. They are not welcome in Iraq particularly and every day hatred for America builds. Is that what America wants? Is it stopping the terror? Or is it merely inciting more violence and retaliation?
05/13/2004 11:02:11 PM · #330
We may also need to see more of Dick Cheney's energy plan that he's guarding so tightly. It may disclose what plans there are for some of the US's energy companies in Iraq and the rest of the middle east.
05/13/2004 11:11:16 PM · #331
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

We may also need to see more of Dick Cheney's energy plan that he's guarding so tightly. It may disclose what plans there are for some of the US's energy companies in Iraq and the rest of the middle east.


Very good point. Nearly the entire world, even most Americans, are skeptical of America's reasons for being in the Middle East. Show a little good faith, be honest, and tell us why you are actually in Iraq.
05/13/2004 11:11:46 PM · #332
Achiral...yesterday you said that you don't consider war as an atrocity (see below). What did you mean by that and is this related at all to the Christian "rapture?"

Originally posted by achiral:

yeah so was germany's carpetbombing of london before dresden. oh and germany's killing of 6 million civilians. you consider war an atrocity, i don't.
05/14/2004 08:13:17 AM · #333
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

And you don't know Bill Clinton, but that didn't stop you from saying many things about him. Not that I'm a backer of BC, mind you.

Originally posted by RonB:

And YOU don't know HIM, but that didn't stop YOU now, did it?

Ron


Everything that I said about Bill Clinton was true and can be corroborated by the facts. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

Ron
05/14/2004 08:43:28 AM · #334
Originally posted by RonB:

Everything that I said about Bill Clinton was true and can be corroborated by the facts. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.


don't you know that the F word (facts) is a dirty word to liberals :)
05/14/2004 08:46:36 AM · #335
This story is false BTW, but it IS routed in truth:

Call me barbaric, but I'm all about anything that will actualy work. This feel good lets talk about what we want crap is pathetic at best and just simply won't work!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
General "Black Jack" Pershing was born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede, MS. he died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, DC
Highlights of his life include:
1891 Professor of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska
1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War
1901 Awarded rank of Captain
1906 Promoted to rank of Brig. General
1909 Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines
1916 Made Major General
1919 Promoted to General of the Armies
1921 Appointed Chief of Staff
1924 Retires from active duty Education West Point.

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists. Muslims detest! pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their byproducts. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to hell. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th man go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world. Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq? The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?

Assalaam Alaikum-"peace be unto you"

= = = = = = = =
Edit: here is a link to the SNOPES website with more details:
//www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

Message edited by author 2004-05-14 08:55:02.
05/14/2004 10:54:38 AM · #336
Originally posted by Russell2566:

This story is false BTW, but it IS routed in truth:

Call me barbaric, but I'm all about anything that will actualy work. This feel good lets talk about what we want crap is pathetic at best and just simply won't work!


Even your own link states that it is a stupid idea, based on watching too many horror movies.

Like all religious extremists, its easy just to move the goal posts


Palestinian Muslims reacted with scorn to the idea, saying the soul went to paradise and was unaffected by any taint to the body.

"The keys to heaven are not in the hands of settlers," said Sheikh Hassan Youssef, for Hamas, whose military wing has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel.

Islamic reference books say the body of a martyr who dies for the faith is so pure that it does not need to be washed before burial, in contrast to the usual Muslim practice.

05/14/2004 04:15:12 PM · #337
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

One place to start is to ask them what beef they have with America...then we can tell them our side and have some meaningful discussion. I don't see anyother way of doing this other than honest communication. The Palestinian issue may be something we have to deal with as well.

Other long term issues we will have to face as a country is energy.

Originally posted by rcrawford:

Of course I know it is the extremists that we are talking about but when and where do you intend to stop them?


I try to live in the world of reality rather than fantasy. I can give you endless examples where just having honest communication has not worked especially when dealing with religious fanatics.

This from orussell earlier in this thread:

"Fanatics are fanatics no matter what colours they wear. Whether they are Muslim fundamentalists or Christian Fundamentalists, right wing or left wing, they all defy logic. Ever heard of a rational fanatic? So yeah, here goes, George W. Bush and his boys are just as fanatical as Bin Laden and his group of crazies."

I agree that they defy logic and are irrational.

I'm no fan of war. I have a 21 year old son and a 13 year old son. I have no desire to see them face the horrors of war. I too would like to believe that the problems we are facing from the radical religious Muslims could be peacefully resolved through diplomacy and understanding but history has taught me that that is a pipe dream.
When in history has religious fanaticism been defeated through diplomacy?

P.S. I agree that we need to address the energy problem and I think the Bush administration has dropped the ball there.

Message edited by author 2004-05-14 16:19:05.
05/26/2004 08:40:09 PM · #338
An article from Amnesty International entitled:

Iraq: Amnesty International Reveals a Pattern of Torture and Ill Treatment

Some excerpts:

"The publication of photographs of Iraqi detainees being physically and mentally abused at Abu Ghraib prison has caused shock and outrage across the world. However research carried out by Amnesty International (AI) reveals that the abuses allegedly committed by US agents in the Abu Ghraib prison facility in Baghdad are not isolated cases.

For over a year AI has been investigating human rights violations including allegations of torture and ill-treatment of detainees by Coalition forces. Testimonies from former detainees indicates a similar pattern of abuse. Detainees were forced to lie face down on the ground, handcuffed, hooded or blindfolded during arrest. During interrogation they were reportedly repeatedly beaten, restrained for prolonged periods in painful positions, while some were also subjected to sleep deprivation, prolonged forced standing, and exposed to loud music and bright lights.
Addressing these incidents must be a priority if the Iraqi people are to live free of brutal and degrading practices. For Iraq to have a sustainable and peaceful future, human rights must be a central component of the way forward."

"Among detainees who died in custody, some died in circumstances suggesting that torture was the cause of death."

"Amnesty International has presented consistent allegations of brutality and cruelty by US agents against detainees in Iraq and other US detention facilities across the world at the highest levels of the US Government, including the White House, the Department of Defense, and the State Department for the past two years. In July 2003 Amnesty International issued the report Iraq: Memorandum on concerns relating to law and order, which formed the basis for talks with officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad. Among the concerns raised with the officials were allegations of torture of detainees.

On 14 November 2003 Amnesty International wrote to Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld following press reports that eight Marine Corp reservists had been charged in connection with allegations of ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees. In the letter Amnesty International also sought information about any other investigations relating to excessive use of force, torture or ill-treatment of Iraqi civilians, including detainees, by military officials. No response has been received.

In an open letter to US President George W Bush, on 7 May 2004, Amnesty International said that abuses allegedly committed by US agents in the Abu Ghraib facility in Baghdad were war crimes and called on the administration to fully investigate them to ensure that there is no impunity for anyone found responsible regardless of position or rank.

The United Nations Committee against Torture, the expert body established by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has expressly held that restraining detainees in very painful positions, hooding, threats, and prolonged sleep deprivation are methods of interrogation which violate the prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

"

05/26/2004 11:10:45 PM · #339
I usually like Dave Ross' summarizations ...

Dave Ross Commentaries
=======================================
May 24, 2004
CAMERAS BANNED


Blame the cameras. This is Dave Ross ...

It's reported that some of the notorious pictures from Abu Ghraib prison were taken by camera phones. And so, the defense department has come up with a solution. Ban them.

According to one news report, digital cameras of all kinds are now prohibited in military compounds in Iraq, and MAY be banned throughout the military.

At the same time, the Guardian of London, reported that the first hint of the scandal came not from a photograph, but in a letter that a female prisoner managed to smuggle out in December 2003.

Few people believed the note, but according to the Guardian, it claimed that US guards had been raping women detainees and that several of the women were now pregnant. The note also urged the Iraqi resistance to bomb the jail to spare the women further shame.

That last line explains something I was told during my week in Baghdad -- that for some inexplicable reason, one of the favorite targets of the Iraqi insurgents was Abu Ghraib prison.

So banning cameras will certainly make it a lot harder for the Washington Post to get incriminating pictures, but Iraq has an excellent grapevine, and if the abuse continues, they'll know. The only question now is, will WE?

THE PICTURES -- LEAKED BY A SOLDIER WITH A CONSCIENCE -- WERE WHAT finally got Secretary Rumsfeld's attention.

I have to think that if he really wants to make sure this kind of behavior stops, so that we don't create any MORE enemies, if he wants to show Iraq how an open society operates -- the answer isn't to take the cameras away from the troops. The answer is to issue them TO the troops.

========================================

May 25, 2004
PRESIDENT'S SPEECH


Counting to ten. This is Dave Ross ...

Like him or not, I don't think any of us can quite imagine the pressure President George W. Bush is under right now.

The continued violence in Iraq, the attack on the wedding party, the prison photos, former generals saying "I told you so" -- it's all hit the fan.

And he MUST be tempted to say, that's it, "Gloves come off."

But he didn't do that.

In his speech last night the swagger was gone, replaced by sober warnings of tougher times to come.

And even though the official line is that we're staying the course, there have been some adjustments in that course.

General Sanchez, top American officer in Iraq, will be replaced. I know it's a routine rotation. But it's happening.

The President willing to send more soldiers, to start cooperating with local militias, and to demolish Abu Ghraib. He also talked about full sovereignty. He didn't go so far as to say that would include the power to kick out US forces, but he did use the phrase "full sovereignty."

Now there will be people who will say this is wimping out. Backing down.

They want to see the swagger back. I've even gotten calls saying we should just have leveled Falluja.

But it was because we backed down in Falluja that we stopped a full-scale insurrection. It's because exposed the abuses at Abu Ghraib that we still have a moral leg to stand on. Or at least hop around on.

And if this all gets salvaged, it will be because WE did what the terrorists do not: we CONTROLLED our anger, instead of succumbing to it.

===========================================

May 26, 2004
INTEL


It was IRAN? This is Dave Ross ...

According to the Guardian of London, the FBI is now investigating whether the reason we ended up in Iraq... was manipulation by IRAN.

Yes!

As you may remember, Iran fought Iraq to only a stalemate in the Iran-Iraq war -- and the allegation, by some CIA officials, is that Iran then hatched a plan to get a certain superpower to finish the job.

To get that superpower to go after Iraq, there had to be some compelling reason. And according to the article, Ahmed Chalabi, and his right hand man were the conduits.
Sources in the CIA believe that this right hand man, a Mr. Habib was actually in the employ of Iranian intelligence. Which would be bad because this same Mr. Habib was also being paid by the Pentagon to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. And, boy, did he ever find it!

Of course what we never found was the weapons themselves, leading some in the CIA to conclude that Iran used the Chalabi connection to PLANT the information to goad the United States into getting rid of an arch-enemy.

Wow. A third-world country using US as a proxy. That's karma.

Not everybody agrees with this analysis -- but man, if this is true ... you got the CIA, you got the DIA, the NSA, all those different intelligence agencies, all snookered...by two guys!

Don't they double-check each other? And if they're not double checking each other, maybe we could close up one or two, and get a bigger tax refund.

In any case I hope these allegations pan out, because years from now when my grandkids ask me how we got into this I want to be able to look 'em in the eye and say - well sonny, it was IRAN.
05/26/2004 11:56:55 PM · #340
Roger, please forgive me for responding so late to your post, but I didn't see it until tonight.

Could you give me examples of any kind of negotiations with any extremists during the recent history? All we have done with extremists around the world is arm them to the hilt in order for them to do our "dirty work." Osama Bin Laden knows that well when we armed the Mujahhaddin and then abandoned them when the Soviets left Afghanistan. But he didn't become angry with the US until 1991 when we built a number of military bases in Saudi Arabia that he thought was an insult to his religion. That would certainly be one of the issues that would have to be negotiated between the US extremists and al Qaeda.

Another issue that will have to be addressed is the Palestinian question and Israel. That's a big bone of contention with all Arab states.

And, as I said earlier, and you acknowledged, reduction of oil from the middle east...

I think that's what's really scary in this country is that the Bush administration has already stated that there is going to be perpetual war...they are one pugnacious and imperialistic lot.

Secondly, war will bankrupt this country and your descendents will be paying it off...it could destroy our economy. How long can we go without paying our bills...

Finally, there is a fear in this country that the real threat to our country doesn't just come from the terrorists, but to the powers that be who want to hijack our constitution and take away our civil liberties. I'm not saying that, but many intellectuals are.

Do you really think war will stop the terrorists, or make them more determined to destroy us?

Originally posted by rcrawford:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

One place to start is to ask them what beef they have with America...then we can tell them our side and have some meaningful discussion. I don't see anyother way of doing this other than honest communication. The Palestinian issue may be something we have to deal with as well.

Other long term issues we will have to face as a country is energy.

Originally posted by rcrawford:

Of course I know it is the extremists that we are talking about but when and where do you intend to stop them?


I try to live in the world of reality rather than fantasy. I can give you endless examples where just having honest communication has not worked especially when dealing with religious fanatics.

This from orussell earlier in this thread:

"Fanatics are fanatics no matter what colours they wear. Whether they are Muslim fundamentalists or Christian Fundamentalists, right wing or left wing, they all defy logic. Ever heard of a rational fanatic? So yeah, here goes, George W. Bush and his boys are just as fanatical as Bin Laden and his group of crazies."

I agree that they defy logic and are irrational.

I'm no fan of war. I have a 21 year old son and a 13 year old son. I have no desire to see them face the horrors of war. I too would like to believe that the problems we are facing from the radical religious Muslims could be peacefully resolved through diplomacy and understanding but history has taught me that that is a pipe dream.
When in history has religious fanaticism been defeated through diplomacy?

P.S. I agree that we need to address the energy problem and I think the Bush administration has dropped the ball there.
05/27/2004 12:39:42 AM · #341
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Finally, there is a fear in this country that the real threat to our country doesn't just come from the terrorists, but to the powers that be who want to hijack our constitution and take away our civil liberties. I'm not saying that, but many intellectuals are.


Like the second amendment?
05/27/2004 12:43:16 AM · #342
Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Finally, there is a fear in this country that the real threat to our country doesn't just come from the terrorists, but to the powers that be who want to hijack our constitution and take away our civil liberties. I'm not saying that, but many intellectuals are.


Like the second amendment?

I might be willing to grant you your interpretation of the Second, if you and your friends will keep your hands off the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth. By the way, how often DO people go hunting with an AK-47?
05/27/2004 01:07:21 AM · #343
I think the best reading material for the 2nd Amend. comes from the era surrounding the Empowerment Act. The era is post civil war, early KKK. Both the Executive and Legislative branches argue before the U.S. Supreme Court in favor providing 2nd Amdend. protection to blacks in the south, and of their right to bear arms.
06/04/2004 04:24:52 PM · #344
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Russell2566:

From the talk of the dems you'd think we were actualy torturing the prisoners...

Embaressing and humiliating yes, torture, NO!

In your culture.

It clearly and explicitly violates the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners ... I believe even our government admits that. Do you really want to be an apologist for actions which even the President calls "abhorrent" and "nauseating?"

Or maybe they "were just following orders."

But since Mr. Bush has somehow finally managed to spit out the actual word "sorry" I guess everything is OK and we can all go home now ...


Following orders? I think not. That would have been an unlawful order, and you DO NOT have to follow unlawful orders. As a matter of fact, if you do and whoever gave you the order gets caught, you're just as guilty. My two cents.

June
06/04/2004 04:37:05 PM · #345
Originally posted by Sheila_Lawson:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Did you see those appalling new prison photos from Iraq? The one were the poor guy is tied down naked and has a pair of underwear pulled over his head. I'm telling you, this could only be the evil genius of my older brother. Oh, the hours I spent in that position. Except the underwear over my head usually involved some sort of a stain. God forbid those photos ever make it on 60 Minutes II!


Our crime wasn't that we were "torturing" these ANIMALS, it's that we got caught doing it. Kick the reporters and the media out and it solves our problem! Did these animals think about our FEELINGS when they used our planes as bombs? Do you think they gave a rat's ass about us when they killed our men and drug them through the streets until their skin peeled away from their bones?? HELL NO! It's really easy to sit here in the states and say "Oh....look at those horrible photos of torture!" WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! They despise us and would torture and kill every single one of us if given the chance.....women....kids....babies....they don't care about our feelings!!!! I have spoken


I think you need to take a step back think about what you just said......See the opinion you have of them? That is the same opinion they have of us. Now, can you see where the problem lies? Until angry, bitter, racist people like you learn not to hate a whole country or region of the world beacause of the actions of a few, we're not gonna get anywhere. Just beacuse those people didn't care who they killed during 9/11, doesn't mean that every other Muslim/Iraqui/Middle Easter/whatever is the same. Trust me, I've experienced this myself. So, in their eyes, WE are the ANIMALS who deserve to die, even though 99.99% of us isn't out killing Middle Easterns just for sport. I'm not, are you? Let's keep things in perspective and treat other like you would like to be treated yourself.

June
06/06/2004 06:37:37 PM · #346
from The New York Times:

June 5, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Beating Specialist Baker
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The prison abuse scandal refuses to die because soothing White House explanations keep colliding with revelations about dead prisoners and further connivance by senior military officers — and newly discovered victims, like Sean Baker.

If Sean Baker doesn't sound like an Iraqi name, it isn't. Specialist Baker, 37, is an American, and he was a proud U.S. soldier. An Air Force veteran and member of the Kentucky National Guard, he served in the first gulf war and more recently was a military policeman in Guantánamo Bay.

Then in January 2003, an officer in Guantánamo asked him to pretend to be a prisoner in a training drill. As instructed, Mr. Baker put on an orange prison jumpsuit over his uniform, and then crawled under a bunk in a cell so an "internal reaction force" could practice extracting an uncooperative inmate. The five U.S. soldiers in the reaction force were told that he was a genuine detainee who had already assaulted a sergeant.

Despite more than a week of coaxing, I haven't been able to get Mr. Baker to give an interview. But he earlier told a Kentucky television station what happened next:

"They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and unfortunately one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he — the same individual — reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe. When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was `red.' . . . That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: `I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier.' "

Then the soldiers noticed that he was wearing a U.S. battle dress uniform under the jumpsuit. Mr. Baker was taken to a military hospital for treatment of his head injuries, then flown to a Navy hospital in Portsmouth, Va. After a six-day hospitalization there, he was given a two-week discharge to rest.

But Mr. Baker began suffering seizures, so the military sent him to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center for treatment of a traumatic brain injury. He stayed at the hospital for 48 days, was transferred to light duty in an honor burial detail at Fort Dix, N.J., and was finally given a medical discharge two months ago.

Meanwhile, a military investigation concluded that there had been no misconduct involved in Mr. Baker's injury. Hmm. The military also says it can't find a videotape that is believed to have been made of the incident.

Most appalling, when Mr. Baker told his story to a Kentucky reporter, the military lied in a disgraceful effort to undermine his credibility. Maj. Laurie Arellano, a spokeswoman for the Southern Command, questioned the extent of Mr. Baker's injuries and told reporters that his medical discharge was unrelated to the injuries he had suffered in the training drill.

In fact, however, the Physical Evaluation Board of the Army stated in a document dated Sept. 29, 2003: "The TBI [traumatic brain injury] was due to soldier playing role of detainee who was non-cooperative and was being extracted from detention cell in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during a training exercise."

Major Arellano acknowledges that she misstated the facts and says she had been misinformed herself by medical personnel. She now says the medical discharge was related in part — but only in part, she says — to the "accident."

Mr. Baker, who is married and has a 14-year-old son, is now unemployed, taking nine prescription medications and still suffering frequent seizures. His lawyer, Bruce Simpson, has been told that Mr. Baker may not begin to get disability payments for up to 18 months. If he is judged 100 percent disabled, he will then get a maximum of $2,100 a month.

If the U.S. military treats one of its own soldiers this way — allowing him to be battered, and lying to cover it up — then imagine what happens to Afghans and Iraqis.

President Bush attributed the problems uncovered at Abu Ghraib to "a few American troops who dishonored our country." Mr. Bush, the problems go deeper than a few bad apples.
06/06/2004 08:10:13 PM · #347
There are more incidents of torture and murder that started with the "war on terrorism," and not just in Iraq. A film has been made by Jamie Doran, an Irish filmmaker, called: Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death, which provides eyewitness testimony that U.S. troops were complicit in the massacre of thousands of Taliban prisoners during the Afghan War. You can read about it
here,, and here.
06/17/2004 09:57:17 AM · #348
from The New York Times:

Rumsfeld Issued an Order to Hide Detainee in Iraq
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER

Published: June 17, 2004

WASHINGTON, June 16 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, acting at the request of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, ordered military officials in Iraq last November to hold a man suspected of being a senior Iraqi terrorist at a high-level detention center there but not list him on the prison's rolls, senior Pentagon and intelligence officials said Wednesday.

This prisoner and other "ghost detainees" were hidden largely to prevent the International Committee of the Red Cross from monitoring their treatment, and to avoid disclosing their location to an enemy, officials said.

Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, the Army officer who in February investigated abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, criticized the practice of allowing ghost detainees there and at other detention centers as "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law."
06/17/2004 01:34:35 PM · #349
Originally posted by Russell2566:

From the talk of the dems you'd think we were actualy torturing the prisoners...

Embaressing and humiliating yes, torture, NO!


So you figure those wires attached to the prisoner standing on the bench were just to help him stand up? I kind of thought it was evidence of torture...
06/17/2004 02:19:55 PM · #350
Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Russell2566:

From the talk of the dems you'd think we were actualy torturing the prisoners...

Embaressing and humiliating yes, torture, NO!


So you figure those wires attached to the prisoner standing on the bench were just to help him stand up? I kind of thought it was evidence of torture...


Yes, but unlike the previous regime the wires were never actually attached to a power source.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:37:11 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:37:11 PM EDT.