Should Rumsfeld keep his job?

[sechs]

Do you actually think at this point that anything will bring a "prompt end" to the war in Iraq?

Yes I do.

I think that he's refering to nukes.

 

[flagreen]

Abu Ghraib Guard Paints Harrowing Portrait of Abuse

Fri May 14, 7:55 AM ET Add Top Stories - Los Angeles Times to My Yahoo!


By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The first soldier scheduled for court-martial in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal has told military authorities a harrowing tale of abuse, including an episode in which a guard used a nightstick to beat an Iraqi detainee who had been shot in the legs and handcuffed to a bed.

As the prisoner screamed, "Mister, Mister, please stop!" Military Police Spc. Charles A. Graner struck him twice with a police baton, fellow guard Spc. Jeremy Sivits told military investigators.

Sivits, whose statements are contained in investigative records obtained by The Times, provided the most detailed account to become public by one of the defendants in the abuse scandal. He described an atmosphere in which several military policemen repeatedly laughed, joked and mocked Iraqi detainees as they stripped them naked, struck and kicked them and forced them to hit each other.

Seven military police troops have been accused in the scandal that has shaken the Bush administration's efforts in Iraq (news - web sites) and at home, and investigations are continuing. Sivits, who faces lesser charges than his colleagues because of his cooperation with prosecutors, is expected to plead guilty at a special court-martial next week in Baghdad.

Sivits portrayed Graner, a former Pennsylvania prison guard who was accused of misconduct there, as a ringleader of the Abu Ghraib abuses. He said Graner was always "joking, laughing, pissed off a little, acting like he was enjoying it."

Once, Sivits added, "Graner said in a baby-type voice" to an injured detainee, "Ah, does that hurt?' "

Graner denies military charges of maltreatment and indecent acts, said his civilian attorney, Guy Womack. Womack has said Graner was following orders and would not have known his conduct might be illegal.

Sivits also gave fresh details about the other suspects in the beating of prisoners, for the first time describing their moods as Iraqis were stripped and abused.

And he said all of this was done without the knowledge of their superiors in the Army chain of command.

"Our command would have slammed us," he said. "They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."

Some of the guards have said they acted on orders from above or from military intelligence to soften up inmates for questioning.

Sivits said Graner told him not to say anything.

Sivits said he first became aware of the abuse, and began photographing much of it, on Oct. 3, 2003, a month earlier than Nov. 7, the date previously thought to have marked the beginning of harsh treatment in the overcrowded and often-chaotic prison outside Baghdad.

Another guard tipped off criminal investigators Jan. 13 of this year, and Sivits was interviewed before noon the next day by military detectives at Abu Ghraib.

His interview with Army investigators, which is likely to be a key element in prosecution of the other six guards, noted the coldness of guards and the anguished cries of detainees. It also makes it clear that investigators focused from the start on Graner and Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II as the ringleaders.

In addition to Graner, the five other defendants have declared their innocence and were not available for comment.

Sivits said Frederick seemed "mellow" as he hit prisoners and watched other guards join in. "He was really not saying too much. Just kind of enjoying it," Sivits said.

He described Pfc. Lynndie England, the woman seen smoking and smiling in some of the photos, as "laughing at the different stuff that they were having the detainees do."

England has contended that she was ordered to pose in front of the abused inmates.

Sivits said Spc. Sabrina Harman, seen next to a pile of naked male prisoners, was sometimes smiling, but "there was a few times she had a look of disgust on her face."

"She did write the word rapist on the side of the leg of one of the inmates. She did this after she had found out from the processing sheets that he had raped someone. She wrote it with a dry erase black marker," he added.

The one defendant Sivits did not mention was Spc. Megan Ambuhl. She is not seen in any of the photos yet made public, and a military hearing officer has recommended that two of the four charges filed against her be dropped.

"Their weakest case involves her," said her lawyer, Harvey Volzer. "She was just watching. Nevertheless she is worried about having a conviction, which would basically be for guilt-by-association."

Sivits emphasized that it was Graner and Frederick who led the guards in nightly revelries.

"I was laughing at some of the stuff that they had them do," he conceded. "I was disgusted at some of the stuff as well. As I think about it now, I do not think any of it was funny."

Asked specifically what was not funny, he said, "The tower thing" — referring to prisoners being forced to strip and form a pyramid on the floor.

He described Graner striking inmates, and Sgt. Javal S. Davis, another of the suspects, running across the floor and jumping on them when they were handcuffed and piled on the floor.

"A couple of the detainees kind of made an 'ah' sound as if this hurt them or caused them some type of pain when Davis would land on them," he said. "After Davis had done this, Davis then stomped on either the fingers or toes of the detainees. When he stomped the detainees, they were in pain, because the detainees would scream loudly."

Sivits recalled that the prisoners usually were reluctant to strip in front of each other, and that Graner forced them to do so anyway. He said Graner once punched a detainee in the head so hard the man fell unconscious. "His eyes were closed and he was not moving," Sivits said.

They later had to check to see that he was still breathing.

Later still, Graner was shaking his fist, saying, "Damn, that hurt."

Another time, Sivits said, Graner punched a detainee in the chest.

"The detainee took a real deep breath and kind of squatted down," Sivits said. A medic was called and Frederick thought the man was having a heart attack, Sivits said.

"I tried to show the detainee how to breathe slowly," Sivits said. "It was as if his breath was gone."

Sivits said Frederick forced naked detainees to masturbate, showing them how to move their hands back and forth until "one of them did it right." Then, Sivits said, "Harman and England would put their thumbs up and have the picture taken."

Another, he said, was handcuffed to a bed, with wounds on his legs from where "he had been shot with buckshot." He said Graner did not care, and instead would wield a police baton and "strike the detainee with a half baseball swing."

Said Sivits, "The detainee would beg Graner to stop by saying, 'Mister, Mister, please stop.' "

Another time two inmates were told to strike each other. At first, they refused, Sivits said, then complied. "One of the inmates punched the other, then the other struck that one back. They hit each other once each."

Sivits told the investigators that he now believed the behavior of guards was wrong, including his own, and in violation of the Geneva Convention prohibiting prisoner abuse.

"To be honest, it was mistreating the prisoners," he said. "I know the war has stopped, but I know if they are POWs that is abuse of the Geneva Conventions."

He was asked why he did not report the abuse when it was happening.

"I was asked not to," he said. "And I try to be friends with everyone. I see now where trying to be friends with everyone can cost ya."

Even though some of the abuse was directed at prisoners who had caused a riot, and some who were found with knives, or "shanks," Sivits said, "I was in the wrong … I should've said something."

In another development Thursday, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) (R-Pa.) released copies of e-mail sent to him in March and April from Lt. Col. Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th Military Police Battalion who was relieved of duty and given a recommendation of reprimand.

Phillabaum said he assisted Army investigators in putting together the case at the prison he helped run, and yet he said, "I feel that I am being made a scapegoat by the Army."

He added, "I have suffered shame and humiliation for doing the best job that anyone could have done given the resources I had to work with." He also complained that military authorities were rushing to conclude that "the incident was a leadership problem and not the responsibility of the seven soldiers who took the photographs."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...guardpaintsharrowingportraitofabuse&printer=1

 

[Tannin]

Prompt end to the war in Iraq? I don't think so. It's going to fester and leak the puss of human greed, cruelty and conflict for decades to come. Nothing is more certain.

We should note, however, that the US is not to blame for this. America took a country that was a walking human rights and economic disaster and turmed it in to ... er ... a walking human rights and economic disaster. Better since the invasion? Or worse? Toss a coin. Pick an answer.

What Bush & his team are to blame for is (a) the gross damage to the US reputation in the world, and (b) scuppering any faint change of there being a moderately prompt end to the misery that is Iraq. Only a genuinely international intervention (i.e., UN-backed and multi-laterial) could have done that. (Note that I don't say "would", I say "could" - it was a faint hope, but at least a faint hope was better than no hope at all.)

Prompt end to the war in Iraq? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Prompt end to the Bush-Cheney administration? You bet. Bush's chances of being a two-term president look very, very slim. I hope that Whatisname the Democrat candidate is a half-decent man, as he is virtually certain to be the next president. I've heard him on the radio and he is an extremely unimpressive speaker, but maybe he is a reasonable administrator. Sure hope so.

 

[flagreen]

Tannin,

Greed? Good lord are you still on that "it's all about the oil" bandwagon?

This war will be over in no longer than two years provided Bush wins reelection - which I believe he will. If Kerry wins then all bets are off. BTW by "over" I mean not only that the resistance will have been eliminated but that Iraq will be economically and politically stable and will have a representative form of government.

What do you think America's reputation was before this war began? I don't see how it is any different today then it was before the war. Not that I particularly care anyway as our economic power is such that we will never be short of folks willing to deal with us. And our military power secures us as a nation to be reckoned with.

 

[CougTek]

BTW by "over" I mean not only that the resistance will have been eliminated but that Iraq will be economically and politically stable and will have a representative form of government.

:rofl:

It must be funny to live in a bubble.

Sure it will be stable and blablabla. I hope you'll believe it hard enough to spend your summer vacation there in two years.

 

[Tannin]

Flagreen, what on earth are you talking about? You really need to practice reading posts before you respond to them instead of reading things into them that ain't there. Nowhere in that post did I mention, or even think about, American greed for oil or anything of the like. I'm talking about the greed of the petty warlords and mullahs and gang leaders of Iraq. I'm talking about the cycle of self-destructive violence and torture and destruction that the nation has spiralled into. It will go on for years now, just as it does in Ireland.

And for once in my life I wasn't even bothering to look at the greed of the USA, wasn't even troubling to ask why the US went into Iraq.

I see from your post that you are defining "war over" as something meaning "Americans no longer serving in Iraq". That's not how I would define it. Nor how the people of Iraq would define it. The war will be over when Iraq is peaceful and stable.

I suppose you define the Afganistan war as "over" too. "Over" it seems, means "not on TV anymore".

Oh yes, make no mistake. America's reputation has suffered terribly from Bush's actions. It was never very good, but it's a lot worse now. Hell, if you started another war next week, I don't think you'd even get your usual lapdogs (Australia and the UK) to take part in it. The revelations of the torture of prisoners by US troops was a huge blow to US prestige, and the casual attitude of the administration to those revelations was the final nail in the coffin.

If the new administration does everything right, it will take a very long time to recover from that damage, something in the order of a decade. If the old administration is returned ... well ... it won't be. Rumsfeld has probably unseated two governments: the Bush regime in the US, and the Howard administration in Australia.

Despite very lack-lustre opposition in Mark Latham, if there was an election held here today, Howard would lose in a landslide. Although not a particularly bright opposition leader, Latham in his young and carefree days as a junior representative did at least provide the best one-line description of John Howard on the public record. It is difficult to imagine how to improve on Latham's: "Howard is George W Bush's arselicker." Latham has sworn off such language now that he is leader, but just the same, any politician who could say that can't be all bad.

 

[flagreen]

Flagreen, what on earth are you talking about? You really need to practice reading posts before you respond to them instead of reading things into them that ain't there. Nowhere in that post did I mention, or even think about, American greed for oil or anything of the like. I'm talking about the greed of the petty warlords and mullahs and gang leaders of Iraq. I'm talking about the cycle of self-destructive violence and torture and destruction that the nation has spiralled into. It will go on for years now, just as it does in Ireland.

Tannin you ignorant pudwhacker. I need to practice reading posts? Like you do you mean? I think not! If you would be so kind as to read back through this thread you will discover than it was none other flagreen who introduced the word "prompt" into this discussion. The context in which I used the word was in that of one possible unforseen consequence should Rumsfeld resign as the American Secretary of Defense. As a self-confessed tree-hugger I would have thought that the first thing you would have done was check you own eye for a plank of wood before you tried to extract a sliver from mine.

I see from your post that you are defining "war over" as something meaning "Americans no longer serving in Iraq". That's not how I would define it. Nor how the people of Iraq would define it. The war will be over when Iraq is peaceful and stable.

I suppose you define the Afganistan war as "over" too. "Over" it seems, means "not on TV anymore".

American forces will be serving in Iraq for many years to come though their mission will change as time goes by. I spelled out quite clearly what my definition was of "war over" and it did not include bringing home U.S. troops. Perhaps you "read that into" what I said?

Using your definition of what will signify the end of the war obsolves the U.S. of having started it in the first place as there were ethnic factions fighting there for many years before the U.S. invaded.

make no mistake. America's reputation has suffered terribly from Bush's actions. It was never very good, but it's a lot worse now. Hell, if you started another war next week, I don't think you'd even get your usual lapdogs (Australia and the UK) to take part in it. The revelations of the torture of prisoners by US troops was a huge blow to US prestige, and the casual attitude of the administration to those revelations was the final nail in the coffin.

If the new administration does everything right, it will take a very long time to recover from that damage, something in the order of a decade. If the old administration is returned ... well ... it won't be. Rumsfeld has probably unseated two governments: the Bush regime in the US, and the Howard administration in Australia.

ZZZZzzzzzzzz........

 

[flagreen]

It must be funny to live in a bubble.

Sure it will be stable and blablabla. I hope you'll believe it hard enough to spend your summer vacation there in two years.

Oh boy you've got me there. I might as well admit it - I do live in a bubble - it is funny, and I am planning on vacationing in Iraq in two years. :roll:

 

[Mercutio]

Bush administration, and Mr. Bill Green, re-define the word "soon" as == Two Years.

As in "I plan to pay my mortgage company again soon, like maybe April 2006."

or

"Soon the child I'll be conceiving 15 months from now, through some kind of goddamn miracle, will be born."

or

"That Glacier that covers Greenland will have moved almost a foot relative to its current position soon."

Uh, was that sarcastic enough, or do I need to do more?

 

[flagreen]

What significance are you attaching to the turning over of authority for the Iraqi Army and police to the interim government?

By the way, the article says January 2006 at "the latest".

 

[Mercutio]

Looks to me like a drop-dead date for the US to end its operations. The words "End the mandate for the muiti-national force" are a good clue. We are still a "multi-national force", right? "Coalition of the Willing" ring any bells?

I seem to recall some discussion about the US pulling out at the date of the handover of power to the interim government that's supposed to happen at the end of June - maybe something about turning over to a UN-backed coalition?
But it doesn't matter, since at this point Administration officials have already said that military operations will continue after that deadline.
And that was back in February, back when 30 June 2004 was a long way away.

One of my cousins just had his enlistment upped an additional 18 months. I know he appreciates the Bush administration's idea of "a prompt end" as much as I do.

So, Bill, are you looking for a timeshare in Tikrit or a Bungalo in Baghdad?

(Yes, that's intended as gentle ribbing. Sarcasm or no, it's right there on my screen, with your name on it. )

 

[flagreen]

Looks to me like a drop-dead date for the US to end its operations. The words "End the mandate for the muiti-national force" are a good clue. We are still a "multi-national force", right? "Coalition of the Willing" ring any bells?

I seem to recall some discussion about the US pulling out at the date of the handover of power to the interim government that's supposed to happen at the end of June - maybe something about turning over to a UN-backed coalition?
But it doesn't matter, since at this point Administration officials have already said that military operations will continue after that deadline.
And that was back in February, back when 30 June 2004 was a long way away.

One of my cousins just had his enlistment upped an additional 18 months. I know he appreciates the Bush administration's idea of "a prompt end" as much as I do.

So, Bill, are you looking for a timeshare in Tikrit or a Bungalo in Baghdad?

(Yes, that's intended as gentle ribbing. Sarcasm or no, it's right there on my screen, with your name on it. )

Again, I ask what is the significance of this and how does it relate to anything which I have said? You seem to have implied in your post before last that I had said the war would be over when the troops came home. I outlined a few posts ago what my definition was of "war over" and that definition does not include any time table for the withdrawal of troops. In fact I have said that I fully expect U.S. troops to be there for many years to come, though not at the current level. If you define "war over" as the moment the troops are withdrawn then that is your definition - not mine.

The UN "mandate" btw does not as yet exist. It is to be established when and if the resolution proposed to the security council passes (fat chance). I don't recall anyone saying that the troops would come home when the interim government took over. Certainly I have never said such a thing and I don't recall Bush having said it either.

 

[Mercutio]

So whose fault is it that there's no UN mandate for peacekeeping in Iraq?

 

[sechs]

I blame the British. So many other things that are wrong today can be traced to them, this must be their fault, as well.

 

[Mercutio]

Nope. No. It was the former Enron executives.

 

[flagreen]

So whose fault is it that there's no UN mandate for peacekeeping in Iraq?

What makes you think I care? As far as I am concerned the UN can shove it.

 

[sechs]

It was the former Enron executives.

These are Britain's fault. Therefore, it is ultimately only the British to blame.

 

[Mercutio]

So whose fault is it that there's no UN mandate for peacekeeping in Iraq?

What makes you think I care? As far as I am concerned the UN can shove it.

So you think the US, one of 192 countries in the world, should act unilaterally at any time its interests are challenged?

 

[Mercutio]

So whose fault is it that there's no UN mandate for peacekeeping in Iraq?

What makes you think I care? As far as I am concerned the UN can shove it.

So you think the US, one of 192 countries in the world, should act unilaterally at any time its interests are challenged?

 

[flagreen]

So whose fault is it that there's no UN mandate for peacekeeping in Iraq?

What makes you think I care? As far as I am concerned the UN can shove it.

So you think the US, one of 192 countries in the world, should act unilaterally at any time its interests are challenged?

You mean like the other 191 nations do?

 

[sechs]

He's implying that the Central African Republic would invade Belize to protect its interests.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

It was the former Enron executives.

These are Britain's fault. Therefore, it is ultimately only the British to blame.

It's the friggin Canadians! They just can't be trusted.

 

[time]

So you think the US, one of 192 countries in the world, should act unilaterally at any time its interests are challenged?

You mean like the other 191 nations do?

Whoops! I must have been asleep for the last couple of years. How exactly were US interests challenged by Iraq (pre invasion)?

 

[sechs]

It was the former Enron executives.

These are Britain's fault. Therefore, it is ultimately only the British to blame.

It's the friggin Canadians! They just can't be trusted.

I'd just like to point out that Canada is *also* Britain's fault.

I think that everyone can see where everything here is going.

 

[flagreen]

So you think the US, one of 192 countries in the world, should act unilaterally at any time its interests are challenged?

You mean like the other 191 nations do?

Whoops! I must have been asleep for the last couple of years. How exactly were US interests challenged by Iraq (pre invasion)?

The primary interest is that of self-defense.

It is the Bush administration's belief that the best way to address the root cause of Islamic terrorism is to transform the middle east from a collection of dictatorships and absolute monarchies into democracies. This has already begun to happen. Iraq was one of several totalitarian regimes in the middle east an area which which breeds Islamic terrorists. The difference between Iraq and the other regimes in the region was that there was sufficient justification legally and morally for taking whatever measures necessary including military action to overthrow Saddam's government.

Democracy, it is believed will lead to economic prosperity through the distribution of wealth which will inevitably follow. Self-determination will give hope to the people of the middle east. It will also provide the people in those nations with a voice in their foreign policy.

 

[CougTek]

I'd just like to point out that Canada is *also* Britain's fault.

Actually, only the modern Canada is. Originally, Canada was the name given to what's now Québec by French explorers. Canada is a bad translation of "village" in some autochthonous language. When the French arrived here and asked when they were, the indigeous told them they were in "Canada" (village). The erroneous translation has resulted in the name of THEIR country nowadays.

When the British invaded the place here between 1760 and 1764, they called Canada theirs. IIRC, they've changed the name of the French part (they had British colonies in the Hudson bay) in the 1770's (think it was 1774, but I'm not sure). A few years later, 1776 IIRC, you American fellows kicked the asses of some one hundred thousand Queen-loving betrayers, then called the loyalists, back to north, where Britain gave those a spot where Ontario currently is. Canada was then plit in two, the high-Canada for the loyalists and the low-Canada for the French-speaking Québécois. So the gross of current Canadians are descendants of people who betrayed their own kind for a foreign power. Nice neighbors to have, really. And we never asked to be merged with them, we've been forced to. Anyone still wondering why we've been talking about separation since the early 1900's?

Canada originally wasn't the fault of the British, but the mess that it is nowadays is.


P.S. my history classes are many, many years back, so the dates might not be 100% accurate.

 

[CougTek]

Iraq was one of several totalitarian regimes in the middle east an area which which breeds Islamic terrorists.

That's freaking bullshit. Tell me how many Iraqi were in the planes of September 11th and then compare it to "U.S.-friendly" Saudi Arabia's nationals.

Self-defense was a poorly built-up show to lure the gullible mass into invading a country with vast naturals ressources dear to the heart and pockets of the bunch of bastards leading your country.

BULLSHIT!

 

[flagreen]

Iraq was one of several totalitarian regimes in the middle east an area which which breeds Islamic terrorists.

That's freaking bullshit. Tell me how many Iraqi were in the planes of September 11th and then compare it to "U.S.-friendly" Saudi Arabia's nationals.

Self-defense was a poorly built-up show to lure the gullible mass into invading a country with vast naturals ressources dear to the heart and pockets of the bunch of bastards leading your country.

BULLSHIT!

You have gotten yourself all upset because you have read into what I wrote other then what is actually written. This tends to happen when folks react emotionally rather than behaving in a rational fashion. Re-read my post when you have calmed down - you'll have a better chance that way of undrestanding what is actually written.

 

[sechs]

Actually, only the modern Canada is. Originally, Canada was the name given to what's now Québec by French explorers.

I'd like to point out that France is, in fact, Britain's fault. If England hadn't spent hundreds of years trying to conquer the country, the power of the king would not have been consolidated nearly so quickly.

Trust me. All modern issues can be linked to Britain. It's kind of like a nasty, historical version of six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

 

[flagreen]

Actually, only the modern Canada is. Originally, Canada was the name given to what's now Québec by French explorers.

I'd like to point out that France is, in fact, Britain's fault. If England hadn't spent hundreds of years trying to conquer the country, the power of the king would not have been consolidated nearly so quickly.

Trust me. All modern issues can be linked to Britain. It's kind of like a nasty, historical version of six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

From whence did the Normans come forth?

 

[JSF]

Why is the Poll closed?

 

[sechs]

Are Normans a modern issue? They're British anyway...

 

[Mercutio]

<url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040625-2.html>Why isn't our press like this?</url>

 

[P5-133XL]

Why is the Poll closed?

Because polls have time limits and this one has already expired.

 

[sechs]

What do the Irish care if they piss off our government?

 

[Mercutio]

Anyone seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet?

The theater I saw it in - an 11:30AM showing, mind you, was half full. Not only did we the audience applaud at the end, applaud someone for saying things desperately needed to be said, we applauded in middle of the movie. We cried and laughed at the same time.

It is a very powerful film.

 

[sechs]

I was going to see it opening weekend, but all of the theatres that were easy to get to sold out.

I have a friend that I lent Bowling for Columbine to... he was dumbfounded by it. I'm sure we'll be seeing Fahrenheit 9/11....