home

Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler

Washington Post Photo

Bump and Update: Sgt. Michael Smith got a six month sentence today for abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib and using his dog to engage in lewd acts. Is anyone else outraged?

Bump and Update (3/21 7:09 pm): What should Sgt. Smith's sentence be? There was a lot of emotional testimony from his father and sister-in-law as the sentencing hearing got underway today. Prosecutors said they will wrap up tomorrow. Their witness was "not available."

Prosecutors had planned to call a civilian expert to testify that terrorist groups are recruiting and inciting violence with the help of the infamous snapshots of U.S. troops mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But the witness was not available.

Sgt. Smith testified at the sentencing, but it doesn't sound like a real acceptance of responsibility to me. He said if he had it to do over again, he'd get his instructions in writing, to cover his as*:

Smith did not specifically express regret for the wrongdoing involving detainees at the U.S.-managed prison in Baghdad, Iraq. "One thing I wish I could do as Sgt. Smith," he said, " is that I'd like to go back and pull young Specialist Smith over, and say, 'Let me talk to you. You need to get something in writing to CYA or you're going to end up in a heap of trouble.'"

Here's something I didn't see in this morning's news of the trial. He was convicted of an indecent act involving his dog:

Smith also was found guilty of allowing his dog to participate in videotaped lewd acts involving two other U.S. soldiers at the prison....Soldier Jennifer Scala testified on the first day of the court-martial that she allowed Smith's dog to lick peanut butter she had placed on her bare chest as part of a dare by another soldier, who videotaped the stunt.

During the same incident, a second soldier allowed Smith's dog to lick peanut butter from his genitals on videotape.

Smith apologized for the act with the dog, calling it "juvenile", "foolish" and "stupid" -- everything but wrong and shameful.

******
Original Post:

Sgt. Michael J. Smith has been convicted at his courts-martial trial of maltreatment of prisoners and five other crimes at Abu Ghraib. He faces up to nine years in jail and is the 9th soldier to be convicted of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

Smith was accused of using his black Belgian shepherd to intimidate five prisoners for fun. He was accused of competing with another dog handler to try to make detainees soil themselves.

The counts of conviction were:

  • Two counts of maltreatment involving three detainees.
  • One count of conspiring to make a contest of making detainees soil themselves.
  • Dereliction of duty.
  • Assault.

Background on Sgt. Smith's trial is here.

< 'Photo Cop' Gets Fired in Mpls | How to Avoid the Perp Walk >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    But surely, the higher-ups in no way encouraged, knew about, or could even conceive of such abuses. Ahem. At what point do all these mere "bad apples" take down the obviously infected, twisted, diseased, dying tree? Not friggin' soon enough. Not nearly. I need a Celexa.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#2)
    by theologicus on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    Here's what former Army interrogator Anthony Lagouranis had to say recently in the New York Times ("Tortured Logic," Feb. 28): When an Army investigator asked Col. Thomas Pappas, the top military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, how intimidation with dogs could be allowed under this treaty, he gave the chilling reply, "I did not personally look at that with regard to the Geneva Convention." Colonel Pappas later testified that he was taking his cue on the use of dogs from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who took over detainee operations in Iraq after running them in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. General Miller has denied recommending the use of guard dogs to intimidate prisoners during interrogations in Iraq. He also recently said he would not testify in the courts-martial of Sergeants Cardona and Smith, invoking his right to avoid self-incrimination. As someone who voluntarily spoke at length about my actions in Iraq to investigators, without a lawyer present, I can't have a favorable opinion of General Miller. By doing the military equivalent of "taking the Fifth," he's decided to protect himself, apparently happy to let two dog handlers take the fall -- a stunning betrayal of his subordinates and Army values. He also worried out loud that perhaps he too should be prosecuted. But he clearly believes what is increasingly hard to deny, namely, that the responsibility goes all the way up the chain of command -- up to and including the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President, if not higher. Aas a nation we stand at the crossroads. Much depends on whether decent Americans can be mobilized who do not want torture to be carried out in their name. National Religious Campaign Against Torture

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#3)
    by Al on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    Perhaps it's a bit early yet to say this, but on the other hand the sooner the healing process begins, the better. The United States is experiencing something that other countries have gone through, and their experience is valuable: Having an authoritarian government that does truly evil things that horrify most of its citizens. The feeling that your institutions and some of your fellow citizens are doing things that go entirely against your nature is very disconcerting and even painful. This behavior on the part of the authorities takes a heavy toll. It sets people against each other, it's demoralizing, it rots the moral foundations of a healthy society. Countries like Chile and Argentina, or South Africa, have experienced this, and have of necessity found ways to cope with this and heal. To succeed, (a) you must never give up; you must continue to go after the criminals long after they are gone from power. That means you have to go after people like Bush or Rumsfeld for as long as it takes. And (b) the whole truth must come out, the whole story must be told. Only in this way is healing possible. See for example South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. If Americans go into denial and never revisit this portion of their history, they will never be able to get past it. Good Americans must persevere in this, for their own good and for that of their children.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    Al - In related news the Left continued to deny that the government is doing anything about the claims of torture... (Ignore that man being sent to prison.)

    What about the cretin or cretins whose orders he was acting on? Why are they still wasting oxygen?

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#6)
    by Al on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 02:58:18 PM EST
    PPJ, of course that thug should go to prison, and I hope he gets the full nine years. But the countries I'm referring to didn't just stop at the lower ranks. Chileans, for example, are still going after Pinochet after thirty years or so. They are still investigating crimes that he committed. What I'm saying is that the US should do the same with people like Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. These are the American equivalents of Pinochet. Also, I've said this before, and I don't think you will ever understand it, but that's OK. This is not about left or right or up or down or any other ideological divide. This is about basic moral values. Torture is just unacceptable under any circumstance. And there are more victims than the poor sod in the orange jumpsuit. All the American people are victims of this abuse, because it is done in their name, and it goes against their most fundamental values. It's like having someone in your family who beats his wife, and everyone knows about it and it is shameful and disgusting, and yet nobody dare say anything, and they all pretend the abuse doesn't exist, or it's not such a big deal. What I'm saying is that the American family needs to face the abuse and deal with it. Some people will never be able to; sadly, I think you're one of them. But that shouldn't stop everyone else from trying to heal.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:53:54 PM EST
    Al and charlie... Problem is, I see no evidence that he was ordered to do the deed. When you can show some proof, come back and see me.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:49:14 PM EST
    U.S. military commanders in Iraq authorized the use of dogs for interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison five months after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld barred the practice for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to classified military documents.
    On Dec. 2, Rumsfeld approved 16 of 19 stronger coercive methods. Now the interrogators could use stress strategies like standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, playing on "individual phobias" (such as dogs)
    Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the U.S. commander in Iraq, allowed dogs to be present during interrogations beginning Sept. 14, 2003. In an update of his order a month later, Sanchez allowed dogs to be used at the discretion of interrogators without his specific approval,


    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimcee on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:51:10 PM EST
    And I'm all for jailing miscreants like this dog-handler soldier when they abuse thier charges. And if they were ordered to do it then I would want thier superiors tried as well, with a preponderance of evidence regarding thier orders. So if someone has evidence that it was ordered from the top, I can't imagine that he would withhold it as he would become a hero in the press and thus protected from harm. That there hasn't been anyone with real evidence to prove that fact I'll have to assume that there hasn't been any. Although as in the Pinochet mold time will tell.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#10)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:02:42 PM EST
    PPJ: I see no evidence that he was ordered to do the deed. Having served in the military, the idea that a soldier would do this kind of thing without authorization is laughable, although I would not be surprised if the orders came without a paper trail. If a soldier "accidentally" killed a prisoner after being told not to harm him, he would know he was in for a long prisn term. Why would these people risk that? The idea that these individuals would hit on all thge same techniques independently is laughable. The idea that after John Yoo and Donald Rumsfeld found justification for harsh treatment of prisoners, the soldiers were not influenced by those at the top is laughable. We have already seen that prisoners were sent for torture to foreign countries. The facts that the deeds were done in identical fashion, by soldiers who were supposed to be acting independently and without authorization or communication does not pass that laugh test. There's your "evidence."

    Jim, I'm sure you saw no evidence that the guards at Auschwitz had any orders to do what they did either and that they were acting independently and on their own. Fortunately, we don't limit ourselves to the things that you can or are willing and able to see. The World is not as limited in scope as your mind.

    Whoa. I am going to say something unpopular. We on the left have been really careful not to criticize soldiers, because, mostly, I guess, of the wounds left from Vietnam. I get it that people who go into the military take huge risks and are willing to defend their country, etc. But...not in this case. Something is also very, very wrong here. I just read about the Marines killing a family of 11, then blowing up the house, killing the animals, etc., all in the search for an insurgent. No doubt having IEDs go off and kill your friends is stressful and would make folks want revenge. But that's inexcusable. And this whole dog-handler conviction, the idea that this kid was in "contests" with another dog handler to see who could literally scare the sh*t out of prisoners, that two other soldiers let his dog lick peanut butter off their private parts--okay, there is something seriously depraved about all of this. It's not just some intellectualized argument about torture and the Geneva Convention; it's about American soldiers crossing the line into criminals. I completely see that the chain of command is accountable--that is, disciplined, well-commanded soldiers would not dare to do such things. This tells me that our military is broken. It's allowing those who are thugs among the ranks (not all are, of course) to act like it. How are the Marines who took out that family any better than the Janjaweed, or any other so-called "Third World" paramilitary group that harasses/kills/rapes/destroys innocent women and children? I'm sorry, but I think we can't give the enlisted men and women who this f-ed up a pass, either. That's not to say they should take the fall for Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush, but they should also be punished and kicked out on their asses. I say all this as the wife of a former Army reservist, who is ashamed of the Army these days.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#13)
    by Al on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:20:28 PM EST
    PPJ:
    Al and charlie... Problem is, I see no evidence that he was ordered to do the deed. When you can show some proof, come back and see me.
    PPJ, you will never see any evidence of anything. At some point you may realize that really, nobody cares very much.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:23:03 PM EST
    Repack writes:
    Having served in the military, the idea that a soldier would do this kind of thing without authorization is laughable,
    I really have to wonder what miliatry you served in. The one I served in had a cross section of Americans, which is to say the vast amount of people were good, a few were not. Sailor writes:
    U.S. military commanders in Iraq authorized the use of dogs for interrogations
    And I see no problem with that. Unauthorized games playing, such as this man did, is off limits because he is likely to, sooner or later, let the game get out of hand. BlueUU writes:
    How are the Marines who took out that family any better than the Janjaweed, or any other so-called "Third World" paramilitary group that harasses/kills/rapes/destroys innocent women and children?
    Uh, let me see. They were on a raid against terrorists to a house they believed, correctly, to contain same. Approaching the house they were fired upon. They then returned fire. Now note something, Blue. They were fired upon, then they returned fire. That means the terrorists shot first. See? Get the concept? You shoot at me? I'll blow the hell out of you. So, what would you have done? Turned tail and ran? (Sorry, we know the answer to that.) In a war where the enemy practices terror tactics against civilians and doesn't meet even the bare minimum of being considered protected by the GC, you can not let them be protected. When you find'em, kill'em. Otherwise you will be letting them fight when, and where they want to fight. BlueU, that is insanity.

    Posted by Al March 21, 2006 08:20 PM PPJ:
    PPJ, you will never see any evidence of anything. At some point you may realize that really, nobody cares very much.
    That point has come and gone. I remember it distinctly. 3/20 10:30AM. It was 1970, I was a Junior in HS, I was bored, it was Study Hall, and I'd almost cut my hair.

    Ignore that man being sent to prison.
    Heard of scapegoats? If the "higher ups" did not instigate this type of behavior, then why did Bush after almost three years accept an amendment protecting anyone in U.S. custody from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Think Jim!!!

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:07:02 PM EST
    charlie - Your taunts don't bother me. But I hope the spirits of those I knew who died come live with you for the rest of your life. Think about it. debbie - Can you say, "politics?" Al writes:
    and I'd almost cut my hair.
    Yes Al, that's what children do. Worry about cutting their hair.

    Then why are they up on charges, Jim? [remainder deleted for insults]

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:08:41 PM EST
    BTW, charlie. Did you serve? If so, what service and for how long?

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#22)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:12:33 PM EST
    Jim writes, Problem is, I see no evidence that he was ordered to do the deed. When you can show some proof, come back and see me. This is almost smart. Ask for proof that cannot be provided. Certainly we will never see or hear the words "I orderd Sgt. Smith and other dog handlers to use their dogs to intimidate the prisoners to the point of uncontrolled defecation." Nice try.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#23)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:13:25 PM EST
    Should say: When you can show some proof, come back and see me.

    Jim, give us some proof that the "higher ups" did not instigate this type of behavior.

    Here'sthe article I read about the Marine attacks. [links must be in html format, we fixed this one, but please see instructions in comment box]

    "...an indecent act involving his dog." As opposed to the indecent acts involving his dog and that poor prisoner.

    Having served as a legal clerk in the US Army I say BS to the no order given. The Colonel in this case was given immunity, the commanding General has invoked his right to silence. The Colonel admits he was wrong. This smells of a coverup,with the order comming from as high as the pentagon and Rummy.

    One other thing to note, the use of dogs can only be done with the order of the commanding General. Army regs if you care to look em up.

    Prosecutors had planned to call a civilian expert to testify that terrorist groups are recruiting and inciting violence with the help of the infamous snapshots of U.S. troops mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
    That argument was never going to fly anyway. After all, terrorists are motivatad only by pure and irrational hatred of American freedom.

    Posted by Jesurgislac March 22, 2006 12:40 AM
    Why is anyone bothering to debate JimakaPPJ any more - especially on this topic? Jim has made clear in the past that as far as he is concerned his first rule is that Bush can do no wrong, and his second rule is that anyone held by the US military deserves everything they got. You will never get him to acknowledge either that the Bush administration is pro-torture, or that giving orders to torture people is wrong.
    Well, of course all that's true. All I can say is, it's like being on the Sopranos. You would never pick on someone so "challenged" in real life. This way, you can whack the idiot SS officer in a cyberspace sense, get it outta your system, go to Vesuvio's and have a nice dinner with the family and sleep with a clear conscience knowing you've done the Lord's work.

    Posted by BetterDeadThanRed March 22, 2006 02:12 AM
    Having served as a legal clerk in the US Army I say BS to the no order given. The Colonel in this case was given immunity, the commanding General has invoked his right to silence. The Colonel admits he was wrong. This smells of a coverup,with the order comming from as high as the pentagon and Rummy.
    I don't doubt it for as second. In fact, the only thing I'm absolutely sure of is that the only innocent party in this is the dog. He/She's the only one or ones who can legitimately invoke the just following orders defense.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#31)
    by john horse on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 05:50:07 AM EST
    Reback, re: "Having served in the military, the idea that a soldier would do this kind of thing without authorization is laughable..." Your comments are echoed by former Vietnam POW Pete Peterson.
    But my military experience reminds me that low-ranking personnel do not establish methods of interrogation, treatment or punishment on their own. Military personnel know precisely their authority and responsibilities. The military manual on how to clean a toilet likely requires 100 pages. Prisoner interrogation and treatment is no less regulated. Top officers and their civilian counterparts must have directly or indirectly signed off on the disgraceful torture at Abu Ghraib. The Bush administration's disdain for our allies, its haste to invade a sovereign nation without honest justification, its abrogation of the Geneva Conventions and international law, and now the revelations of torture, have cost America our moral high ground.
    Also according to Peterson, the abuse at Abu Ghraib wasn't just as bad as what our POWs experienced in North Vietnam. It was worse.
    Life in a Vietnamese prison was hell, but I was never subjected to such degrading sexual humiliation. The human body can withstand enormous physical pain and recover. But the human mind is different: One seldom fully recovers from ruthless psychological or sexual torture.


    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:22:34 AM EST
    RePack writes:
    ...a soldier who knew he was violating orders by mistreating a prisoner would be very worried about a long prison term. Jim doesn't like those goalposts where they are.
    Now, you are telling me that people don't break laws they know, if caught, will get them put in jail. Are you serious? And yes, some did it "routinely" until caught. And as I said, military folks are just people. The vast majority are good, a very small number are bad. And yes, some people in every squadron I was in violated some rules. It is the human condition. Jesurgilac - And you epitomize fairness and reason? Puleaseeeee. betterredthandead - I thought that war was over, guess not. Since you were a legal clerk, can you truthfully say that no one every violated rules unless his superior said do it? mar - I think that is the argument the Left has been using. Are you saying the Left has wrong? Gasp. Wow. And yeah. They do dislike us a bit. I mean, I guess they do. Would you kill 3,000 people if you didn't dislike them? charlie - The Sopranos are a TV show. Just wanted you to know. debbie - In the world, it is considered proper and correct that those making a charge against a person/group/thing are responsible for proving that charge. et al - Again we have a situation in which the Left throws away one of the bedrock principles - innocent until proven guilty - of our justice system, indeed of our society, to rant and make claims.

    Jim, you made the charge that the soldiers did this all on there own - prove it.

    Jim said:
    mar - I think that is the argument the Left has been using. Are you saying the Left has wrong? Gasp. Wow.
    Actually the argument in itself is true. There is a reason why Al quaida don't need to pay any recruitment bonuses or college stipends: because the U.S. military is kindly doing all the motivational work for them in Abi Ghraib and other places. Totally another matter is how many people actually get the argument.

    charlie - The Sopranos are a TV show. Just wanted you to know.
    Gee, thanks for clearin' that up, Jim. It's also rooted in fact, unlike our mission in Iraq. I just thought ya should know.

    et al - Again we have a situation in which the Left throws away one of the bedrock principles - innocent until proven guilty - of our justice system, indeed of our society, to rant and make claims.
    Nice try, Jim. That only applies to the Criminal Justice System - not the court of public opinion - and I don't recall you lot even applyin' it there with all the farcockteh Clinton's a convicted rapist, perjurer, murderer, serial killer of watermelons, yada, yada, yada nonsense those crazy kukluxkristian preachers were hawkin' on TV when they weren't advocatin' assassination of foreign leaders or flyin' to their African Gold and Diamond Mines in private Jets bought with skimmed tax free funds, so spare me the sanctimonious crapolla, 'cause the only thing more odious than your penchant for dealing in untruths is your capacity for rank hypocrisy.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    "The left wants to rant and make claims." And you want more Muslim kids splattered on walls while you enjoy the vicarious sense of power. Chickenhawkus Americanus.

    I've tried to wade through all the links to find the answer to this question but have had no success, were the prisoners bitten by the dog, or only scared by it?

    It looks like they were not bitten, just scared.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    6 freakin months!? wrist, meet slap.

    Posted by sarcastic unnamed one March 22, 2006 03:12 PM
    I've tried to wade through all the links to find the answer to this question but have had no success, were the prisoners bitten by the dog, or only scared by it?
    Tell me, suo. If a gun is just brandished and not fired in the commission of a robbery, is it still considered armed robbery? That's what I thought.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:30:48 PM EST
    mar writes:
    There is a reason why Al quaida don't need to pay any recruitment bonuses or college stipends: because the U.S. military is kindly doing all the motivational work for them in Abi Ghraib and other places.
    And what was that reason pre 9/11? Jondee - Told any lies on me today? debbie writes:
    Jim, you made the charge that the soldiers did this all on there own - prove it.
    debbie, debbie, you make it so easy. A charge is a statement of a specific act. The Left has charged that everyone up to and including Bush is involved in torture. I haven't made a charge. I have merely said, prove it. You know, like: The prisoner is charged with murder, The defense: Prove it. Try to remember. People aren't required to prove a negative. You know, like: The prisoner is charged with murder and must prove that he did not. It doesn't work like that. (Thank God!) charlie - You have never seen me attack Clinton for his escapdes with Monica. Heck, he is married to Hillary, anyone should understand. So knock of the BS until you can, otherwise I'll have to place you into the same category as Jondee. You know, making things up. Also known as lying. BTW - I have nailed him for the disaster of North Korea and his inept handling of national security. i.e Gorelick's memo, failure to arrest OBL when he could have, turning tail and running after loosing a helicopter, etc. And his "depends on what the meaning of what "is," is, has now entered into folklore. Oh yeah. Public opinion. Do you really want that? Okay. "Hey guys! Cut the soldier loose. Same rank, same pay, all benefits.." You also wrote re the Sopranos:
    It's also rooted in fact,
    What? How dare you profile Italian Americans. I am outraged. Despicable at best. Apologize immediately.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#45)
    by Al on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    "Soldiers are not supposed to be soft and cuddly", said Mr. Smith. Soldiers are not supposed to be cowards, either. It doesn't take much courage to use a dog to threaten an unarmed, bound prisoner. If Mr. Smith ever found himself face to face with a real fighter and on an equal footing, I'm not so sure who would crap his pants first.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#46)
    by Rational on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    "...You know, like: The prisoner is charged with murder,.. The defense: Prove it." Oh you mean Saddam has WMD's Prove it? Or You mean saddam is working with shrubs boyhood friend Osama bin ladan ( the first family to allow him to steal money from them) Prove it. An illegal act in an illegal war they should of fried the bastard trash that he is. Probably got off with the dog after he used it to terrorize prisoners.

    charlie - You have never seen me attack Clinton for his escapdes with Monica. Heck, he is married to Hillary, anyone should understand.
    I've never seen you do much of anything, Jim, what's your point? Frankly, at this stage of the game, you don't even evidence much aptitude to even talk a good game. All I've seen from you is 10th rate rewrites of my cousin vinnie and the usual same old warmed over shrub shill slop on shingle ya always serve up. I really don't pay that much attention anymore.
    So knock of the BS until you can, otherwise I'll have to place you into the same category as Jondee. You know, making things up. Also known as lying.
    Ouch. Mama Mia. Morte! Morte! Weren't you so proud of yourself 'cause ya caught me usin' the wrong form of through instead of threw this mornin', Jim? The Surf's always up with you, sport. I never have to wait long for the perfect wave, so knock OF the BS.
    BTW - I have nailed him for the disaster of North Korea and his inept handling of national security. i.e Gorelick's memo, failure to arrest OBL when he could have, turning tail and running after loosing a helicopter, etc. And his "depends on what the meaning of what "is," is, has now entered into folklore.
    As opposed to: "Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to hurt America and neither do We."? or "Is our Children Learning?" or "It all Depends on What the Meaning of WMD Is?" But it's nice to know that you've pinned the rap on jondee for North Korea. Anybody but Shrub. How did jondee go about LOOSING a helicopter and why would he turn tail and run. All I know is, Gorelick's Memo is just another red herring right wing fantasy along with able danger and that whack job weldon. He also says bin laden's dead, too. He's got as much evidence of that as anything else. He's got no evidence of that. The 9/11 Commission was bipartisan. 50/50. No wonder shrub didn't want it. If he can't stack the deck, he's got no shot. It's also rooted in fact, What? How dare you profile Italian Americans. I am outraged. Despicable at best. Apologize immediately.
    My Brother-in-Law's name is Dominic. I grew up with a bunch of Italians amongst others. Their father taught me every Italian Joke I know. There's more than a handful of 'em in the Garden State. A very small percentage of them are mobbed up. There's rumors about 30 percent of 'em. That's the way they like it. It makes people afraid to rob them and it makes life interesting because nobody wants to find out the hard way, ya follow? I also wrote as opposed to our mission in Iraq. Selective quotation is dishonest, Jim. Why is the right dishonest?

    To answer the question about the dog bitting anyone, the answer is 1 person bit, skin not broken to JimakaPPJ
    I thought that war was over, guess not. Since you were a legal clerk, can you truthfully say that no one every violated rules unless his superior said do it?
    What does a war being over have to do with anything? This wasnt a declared war by congress was it? Now your using Bush's straw man argument to ask if ANYONE violated rules without orders? There is clear evidence in this case that involved the Colonel and commanding General What other people have done has no bearing on this case.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#49)
    by john horse on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:57:09 PM EST
    PPJ, Here is the problem with the "few bad apples" defense. All of the abuse that these guards have been charged with (and in some cases convicted of) occurred only after the rules had been changed by their military commanders and the White House. If these cases only involve bad people disobeying rules then why didn't any abuse occur prior to the change in rules? Lets assume that these are bad people. The old rules provided restraints on abusing prisoners. The new rules removed those restraints. Therefore, you can only conclude that those who changed the rules bear some of the responsibility for what occurred. narius, Regarding the harm that was done to these prisoners, you ignore psychological harm. Please see my post above quoting former POW Pete Peterson.

    I couldn't have explained it better John Horse, but PPJ will not be able to understand. He worships at Bush's feet and nothing will get him off his knees.
    And what was that reason pre 9/11?
    Jim, we still had our troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf war. This upset the freaks, because they think Saudi Arabia is holy land - you know the Mecca thing.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 05:14:51 PM EST
    BetterRedThanDead - The operative word was "That" war.. Going to fast for you? Declared war? You mean like Kosvo? Desert Storm? Vietnam? Korea? All of these, including this one, were approved by Congress. charlie - And you further demean Italian Americans by claiming 30% of them are mobsters. Even worse you claim to speak for them? How can a non-Italian speak for an Italian? Profiling. That's what you are doing. How despicable. How shabby. How dare you. You write;
    But it's nice to know that you've pinned the rap on jondee for North Korea.
    Huh? Trying saying: Clinton. Guess we are going to fast for you. Please try to keep up. You also write:
    He also says bin laden's dead, too. He's got as much evidence of that as anything else.
    We're going to the court of public opinion here, charlie. I mean you like it so much I'm sure you won't disagree. Excuse me... I'm laughing to hard at you to continue. rational writes:
    An illegal act in an illegal war they should of fried the bastard trash that he is. Probably got off with the dog after he used it to terrorize prisoners.
    Hmmm. I see you are not living up to your name.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    some folks will never get the difference between a UN action we are involved in and an illegal war, like this quagmire and VN.

    charlie - And you further demean Italian Americans by claiming 30% of them are mobsters. Even worse you claim to speak for them? How can a non-Italian speak for an Italian? Profiling. That's what you are doing. How despicable. How shabby. How dare you.
    I did, eh? Ya sure about that, slugger? My Brother-in-Law's name is Dominic. I grew up with a bunch of Italians amongst others. Their father taught me every Italian Joke I know. There's more than a handful of 'em in the Garden State. A very small percentage of them are mobbed up. There's rumors about 30 percent of 'em. That's the way they like it. It makes people afraid to rob them and it makes life interesting because nobody wants to find out the hard way, ya follow? Am I goin' TOO fast for ya now, laddy?
    You write;
    I can. But it's nice to know that you've pinned the rap on jondee for North Korea.
    Huh? Trying saying: Clinton.
    Sure. It's easy for me to say. It's the name of the last competent, legitimate President this Country had. It also happens to be the name of the Town I grew up in and my brother still lives in. They weren't Nuclear when he was President. They are now. Shrub's been President for over five years. Don't you think it's about time he started taking some responsibility for the shambles he's left things in? At this rate, you're gonna still be blamin' Clinton for stuff in his last week in office. Come to think of it, that may be sooner than later.
    Guess we are going to fast for you. Please try to keep up.
    No, I think we've clearly established just who's goin' TOO fast for whom.
    You also write: He also says bin laden's dead, too. He's got as much evidence of that as anything else.
    We're going to the court of public opinion here, charlie. I mean you like it so much I'm sure you won't disagree. Excuse me... I'm laughing to hard at you to continue. Well, if I were to find it that humorous, I'd be laughing TOO hard once again. That's strike 3, Jim. You've gone down swinging once again and I haven't even begun to tally up your various and sundry flubs and foibles. Live by the sword, die by the sword, Jim. Ya wanna come after a big leaguer, make sure ya make the HS Varsity next time, slugger. Ah, but since weldon is a congressman looking to establish findings of fact, he's got to provide some evidence. He hasn't. NEXT!

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:24:43 PM EST
    Uh sailor.... Clinton went into Kosovo without UN approval.. Just thought you would want to know. Truman went into Korea with UN approval, but only because the Soviet rep was absent.. charlie - How dare you. First you demean Italian Americans, then you claim 30% are in the mob, and now you use the lame excuse that an Italian Amerian taught a bunch of racist jokes. Shame. Shame on you. Shame on your profiling. charlie writes:
    They weren't Nuclear when he was President
    charlie - Clinton gave them the material. Quit spouting nonsense. Everyone knows better. You are just making yourself look silly. BTW - If you are going to use the "blockquote" function, why don't you learn how to do it properly? Guess we're still going to fast for you.

    How many times ya gonna misread it, Jim? We know who's goin' too fast for whom. Actually, it was that fella from Pakistan that hooked N. Korea up, Jim. So, the questions. Ya gonna answer or what? Is Shrub the People's Choice? Are they behind the War in Iraq? The Polls, Jim. Spit it out.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#56)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    sorry ppj, this thread about a dog handler getting a slap on the wrist after being given the greenlight for war crimes by rummy. please stop hijacking the threads.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 08:47:12 PM EST
    charlie, charlie... The dude from Pakistan may have given them the receipt, but Clinton gave them the ingredients! sailor - So? Why did you bring it up?

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#58)
    by bad Jim on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 12:58:44 AM EST
    What could be better evidence of intellectual bankruptcy than playing the Clinton card? You got nothing.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#59)
    by john horse on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 01:33:01 AM EST
    PPJ, As I mentioned before, here is the problem with the "few bad apples" defense. All of the abuse that these guards have been charged with (and in some cases convicted of) occurred only after the rules had been changed by their military commanders and the White House. If these cases only involve bad people disobeying rules then why didn't any abuse occur prior to the change in rules? Lets assume that these are bad people. The old rules must have provided some sort of restraint on abusive behavior which is why there was none prior to the change in rules. The new rules removed those restraints. Therefore, you can only conclude that those who changed the rules bear some of the responsibility for what occurred. Let me ask you a more theoretical question. What moral compromises are you willing to make in order to "win" the war in Iraq? If "winning" means that we must excuse torture or abuse on our part or on the part of the new Iraqi government, are you willing to make that moral compromise?

    March 22, 2006 09:47 PM charlie, charlie... The dude from Pakistan may have given them the receipt, but Clinton gave them the ingredients! So, Kahn just gave 'em the receipt, eh? Nice try, Jim. All the shrub shill BS and gratuitous exclamation marks in the world don't change the facts, Jim. Ya just conjure up the same slop, different day. A tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing, to borrow from somebody who could turn a phrase or two. I'm sure Peggy Noonan or David Frum will try to lay claim to it. Maybe they can arm wrestle. Lord knows reptiles try to take credit for everything else. OBTW, Your inability to read for comprehension is breathtaking. That explains a great deal. It doesn't excuse it, mind you, but it does explain it. Furthermore, those would be ethnic jokes, not racist. Italians are Caucasians, in spite of what Northern Italians say about any Italians from South of Rome to say nothing of Sicilians. Shame on you, Jim. You owe those people an apology. They just might give you a Palermo shave. Ask Albert Anastasia. sailor - So? Why did you bring it up? Because you pull this caper all the time, Jim. Especially when you're trapped, nailed, stuck for an answer trying to dodge the question or questions put to you for another, hour, day, week or month. You pull this caper all the time, Jim.
    What could be better evidence of intellectual bankruptcy than playing the Clinton card?
    You got nothing.
    Well, we're talking about Jim here. That's a given. However, there are varying degrees of nothing. In this case, in the words of Elvis Costello, he's got less than zero.

    Jim, Prove your charge that Clinton gave them the ingredients. Pllleeeassee!!! As I said before you worship at Bush's feet and nothing will get you off your knees. Before you scream, I don't worship Bush - it is WORSHIP when no matter what Bush or his minions do you support them. You sit in your home and look (hopefully) at the disasters facing our nation: Iraq invasion - over 2,300 dead and many wounded and monetary cost through the roof, Katrina - we saw people suffering on TV for days and the rebuilding is becoming like "Iraq" a slush fund for Bush's base (the rich), jobs being outsourced, healthcare, immigration, etc. You sit there in front of your computer and type NONE OF THIS IS BUSH'S FAULT. The funny thing is you will sometimes blame Clinton or Carter when the disasters are happening under Bush's watch. What is Bush? I thought he was the president. Is he responsible for anything?

    Jim-proof, responsibility, intellectual honesty. That's a good one.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#63)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 07:52:52 AM EST
    The sentence was handed out to the wrong person(s). This should do wonders for troop morale. I'm sorry, just who exactly is supporting the troops? Certainly not their commanders. Jim, The Agreed Framework that the Clinton team negotiated included reactors that could not produce fissile material (light water), nor could the byproducts of those reactors be used for bombs. They were contracted out to be built by the Swedes, among others. The IAEA was monitoring every atom of uranium that went into NK. The agreement was stalled, I'll give you that. But to say Clinton gave them the technology to build the bomb shows what a propagandist you are. What you are flatulating is actually a pathetic defense of Bush's axis-of-evil blunder, which, in spite of complete containment in 2000, spurned both NK and Iran to restart their active pursuit of the bomb. You promulgate the kind of false information here that is typical of the lying, fascist neoconservatives. You see the facts, but continue to defend the liars like Bush. But we already knew that. Maybe if your boss Mehlman could take his tongue out of Guckert's poop chute long enough to read your posts, he would quickly realize that he's paying you way too much.

    BlueUU We on the left have been really careful not to criticize soldiers, LOL...that's a good one. It's all you guys ever do! Read down a few posts. The soldiers accused of killing those 11 ("obviously innocent") people are already being tried and convicted on here.

    No BB, you and Jim are convicting the soldiers. You say it is all their fault. Most here are saying that the fault lies with the higher ups because of their policies. Why do you guys hate the troops?

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 09:45:50 AM EST
    "Why do you guys hate the troops?' Because if they were still home,they'd be unemployed factory workers. B.B and Jim know how to put these guys to good use.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    B.B - "America hating zealot". How long would it take for you to turn into a hating zealot if the U.S was invaded, or you saw one of your kids blown to bits as a result thereof? ILMMFAO etc etc.

    Jondee.... How long would it take for you to turn into a hating zealot if the U.S was invaded Nice try... but as usual...you are waaay off base. However, I do love the way you guys have the gift of transposing thoughts and twisting them to your (imagined) advantage. Yes...if my country was invaded...by people that wanted to take over.... I would be zealous in its defense... However...you and I both know that's not the case here is it? Most everyone (not connected to Saddam & his regime) are happy we are there. Stop the typical liberal mindset of thinking everyone is dumber than you are and can't think for themselves. You obviously have no clue how many people he tortured, imprisoned & killed do you? The average civilian in Iraq sees us as freeing them from oppression. I'd bet, if this guy hates us, he hated us long before we arrived in Iraq. BTW...none of you have answered the question so often posed... if they hate us now, for all the supposed atrocities we have brought upon them since the 'invasion' (as you put it) ...what was the excuse for the 9/11 guys? Oh and one other thing..... I'm sure (in your mind) we also 'invaded' France in WWII huh? I mean, we did land on their shore...we did shoot people in their country... we did 'occupy' it for some time.... Innocent "French" people (yes, women & children) were killed.... And guess what.... None of the people we captured there ever had access to our legal system.... Go figure.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 02:49:05 PM EST
    France was previously invaded and was occupied by quite possibly the most formidable military juggernaut in history which was also threatening the rest of Europe and Russia. What the hell does the liberation of France have to with the invasion of Iraq which, would have had trouble posing a threat to the Ethiopia during the famine? If you really think thats an apt comparisom, youve definatly confirmed the "liberal mindset that thinks everyone is dumber than they are."

    Jondee....sez What the hell does the liberation of France have to with the invasion of Iraq I guess I'll have to spell it out for you... "liberation" being the key word. So, in your mind we didn't invade France...we liberated it, from outsiders who came in and tried to take over? It seems the difference between invasion and liberation is directly proportional to how liberal you are! And ALL the 'insurgents' in Iraq fighting us now are from there? Nobody from any other country is in there wanting to take over Iraq? Are you getting any of this yet or do I need to continue?

    Well, bb, if nothin' else, you're consistently ignorant of the facts. You certainly never let them get in the way of a good whack job wet dream or psychotic screed. Tell us, oh, bigot boy, just what percentage of Iraqi Insurgents are foreign-born fighters, 6-7 percent? Do share with us your phenomenal grasp of the facts on the ground that can only come from prolonged exposure to flush, inshanity and bor. Ignorance like that must be cultivated. You can show yourself out.

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#75)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    BB, Your position on this war is doomed to failure because you do not listen to Robert McNamara in "Fog of War". To win this conflict one has to empathize with the enemy. Put yourself in his shoes and see what his motivation is. If you can't look beyond Bush's "they hate our freedom" BS, then there is no help for you. Unfortunately the neocons have no interest in the realities exposed by this endeavor, and so they too will fail. Are failing. Have failed. Miserably.

    Che, so, what is our opposition's motivation?

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 06:44:22 PM EST
    How "liberal you are". Go look up the word liberal in the dictionary, or, dont use words you dont know the meaning of.... [insult deleted, commenter warned, there are quite a few of these today.]

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#77)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 08:47:12 PM EST
    Find out for yourself.

    Most everyone (not connected to Saddam & his regime) are happy we are there.
    Wrong! BB April 2004 - As coalition forces vowed to take Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr dead or alive, the radical Muslim leader agreed to meet a U.S. demand to end the standoff in southern Iraq. August 2004 - Al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia and U.S. and Iraqi forces had been fighting around the Imam Ali Mosque for three weeks. August 2004 - Much of the country's Shiite south veered closer to a full-fledged uprising like the one Sadr's men engaged in last April when they briefly held at least six southern cities and engaged in battles that left about 300 insurgents and dozens of US forces dead. October 2004 - Militiamen fighting under the banner of radical Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are pumping themselves up with drugs before confronting coalition forces, according to U.S. military reports and State Department and Iraqi sources. Who is al-Sadr? Al-Sadr is the son of a Shiite leader gunned down by Saddam Hussein's henchmen in 1999 and he has close ties with Iran. He was working underground to build a network of clandestine cells with the goal of overthrowing the Hussein regime and establishing a Shiite theocracy.

    Charlie....sez you're consistently ignorant of the facts. OK..so enlighten me oh great pervayor of truth! (I was trying to make a point and you obviously didn't get) Che'.... sez Put yourself in his shoes and see what his motivation is. I know what his motivation is (and always has been)... the constant bombardment (ever since they were very young) by their religious leaders telling them that anybody that doesn't follow islam should die.... the West is the "Great Satan"... etc..etc. If you think for one second all this hatred just started when GW showed up... then you my friend are the one beyond help. Debbiehamil... I know you meant to 'prove' something but what you sent didn't do it.

    Which part of you don't know what the hell you're talkin' about is givin' you trouble, bb?

    Charlie... Someone that doesn't know what they're talking about telling me I don't know what I'm talking about gives me no trouble at all.. I ignore them. Kind of like a crazy person calling someone else crazy.... LOL

    Re: Six Month Sentence for Abu Ghraib Dog Handler (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:34:45 PM EST
    Whats the point in argueing with someone who dosnt know the difference between occupied France in WWII and pre-invasion Iraq? All those inconvenient details(and unintended consequences) that wingnuts and chickenhawks cant be bothered with..