ACLU Releases Army Documents on Soldiers and Iraqi Killings

For a year, the ACLU has been trying to get documents from the military on the killings of Iraqis by U.S. Troops. It is filing a lawsuit today because to date, only the Army has complied with their FOIA request.

Also today, the ACLU released 10,000 pages of documents it received from the Army in a searchable database here.

Those documents include new evidence of coalition forces’ involvement in civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nearly 10,000 pages that the ACLU is making public today include courts martial proceedings and military investigations regarding the possible wrongful death of civilians.

The files in many instances show a lack of proper training. From the New York Times report on the released documents:

They show repeated examples of troops believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.


Example: Wrapping an electrical cord around a prisoner's neck is an approved technique:

The killings include the drowning of a man soldiers pushed from a bridge into the Tigris River as punishment for breaking curfew, and the suffocation during interrogation of a former Iraqi general believed to be helping insurgents.

In the suffocation, soldiers covered the man’s head with a sleeping bag, then wrapped his neck with an electrical cord for a “stress position” they said was an approved technique.

The latter instance involved the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush:

“The simple fact of the matter is, interrogation is supposed to be stressful or you will get no information,” [Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer] wrote in a letter to the court asking for clemency. “To put it another way, an interrogation without stress is not an interrogation — it is a conversation.”

I'm still not sure we're getting the whole truth here. Some of the troops' actions were so over the top that it's hard to believe they thought they were sanctioned.

For example, Mowhoush died during an interrogation:

"It is estimated that MG Mowhoush was interrogated at least once each day he was in custody," the investigative summary says. "Approximately 24 to 48 hours prior to (Nov. 26), MG Mowhoush was questioned by (other governmental agency officials), and statements suggest that MG Mowhoush was beaten during that interrogation." A CIA spokeswoman declined to comment.

When Welshofer and his partner took over, they slid a sleeping bag over Mowhoush's head and rolled him from his back and to his stomach while asking questions, the documents allege. Then, Welshofer sat on Mowhoush's chest and placed his hands over the general's mouth, the report says. Mowhoush died during the interrogation, and both officers were reprimanded, the documents say.

At Welshofer's trial, a CIA agent testified from behind a curtain:

He said Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, accused of suffocating an Iraqi general during an interrogation, didn't seem to care.

On the other hand, the CIA agent also testified,

The man with the secret identity told the six-officer jury that interrogation rules in Iraq forbade such techniques without permission from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top Army boss in the war zone.

Welshofer got off with a reprimand, which had soldiers in the courtroom cheering.

The Tigris (Tigeris) River drowning was just as bad. Two young men whose truck, filled with bathroom equipment, had broken down at night, were arrested for a curfew violation. The troops forced them into the river at gunpoint.

Marwan Fadil, who was forced off the bridge along with his cousin, Hassoun, testified on Wednesday that the soldiers tossed the two at gunpoint into the water after they begged for mercy and then laughed as Hassoun drowned.

Sgt. Tracy Perkins got 6 months in the death. At his trial,

Witnesses called by the prosecution said they heard Perkins say over the radio, "Somebody is going to get wet, tonight."

It sounds to me like a blend of soldier cruelty and of acting on orders from higher-ups.

They should all be held accountable, the soldiers and the brass.

< Nebraska Sup. Ct. Debates Electric Chair | Not Funding The Iraq Debacle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "over the top" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Andreas on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    Jeralyn wrote:

    Some of the troops' actions were so over the top that it's hard to believe they thought they were sanctioned.


    They acted as planned and intended by war criminals George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney and other members of the US government.

    Not lack of training (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by koshembos on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    Throwing an Iraqi into the Tigris is a violent, brutal and arrogant act. Training doesn't mitigate or eliminate any of this attributes.

    I strongly oppose the idea that the military's lack of training is the culprit in all the horror stories we hear. The vast majority of soldiers have the needed values to know that these acts are unacceptable in civil society. They, however, exist in an occupied army with substantial degree of lying going on, in particular, by the generals.

    History is replete with examples of people lacking any education and living under terrible regims doing the right thing.

    The soldiers acts are a reflection of occupation, the Administration and the military leadersship that has lost its rudder.

    The torture memos (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:52:03 PM EST
    helped pave the way to lawlessness.

    As Jeffery Rosen notes in his "Conscience of a Conservative" article,

    "The conflict over the Geneva Conventions was just the beginning. About six weeks after he started work, Goldsmith became aware that there might be what he calls "potentially problematic" opinions drafted by the Office of Legal Counsel. These were the "torture memos," one of which was written in August 2002 and the other in March 2003. The August opinion defined torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." Goldsmith concluded that this opinion defined torture far too narrowly. He also had concerns about the March 2003 opinion, the contents of which remain classified but which dealt with the military interrogation of aliens held outside the United States."

    The rot began at the top, clearly, and equally clearly, the Bush Administration has not been held accountable, nor the top military brass who sanctioned such treatment. It's undoubtedly the directives the troops received, not the training they didn't that is the real issue.


    UN Peacekeepers (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by diogenes on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:05:14 PM EST
    When UN Peacekeepers committed raped civilians in multiple instances in Africa, this wasn't depicted as a reason to never mobilize UN Peacekeepers, nor was Kofi Annan defined as a "war criminal".  In a large enough sample, you'll find bad eggs.  Next you'll use police racist brutality to prove that the police should withdraw from urban inner cities.

    I agree in part (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:24:39 PM EST
    When we went into Iraq though there was such a feeling of we can do no wrong no matter what we do.  I remember it all too well because BushCo bellowed it out to the press that they were going to handle the looting problems by shooting looters......at the same time in Iraq my husband is telling his Command he will not shoot looters because it is against the Geneva Conventions and he felt really alone and then sort of panic scared standing in that room that day in the silence that almost swallowed him.  By the dawn of the next day people all over the world had freaked out about the proud Bush free for all shooting of looters in Iraq.  George Bush didn't know his Geneva Conventions nor did he care, neither did Rumsfeld nor did he care, and ONE two towers crashed and Saddam helped hopped up military left our ports and landed Kuwait and had an adrenaline laced race across the desert of the evil doers.  Everyone was out of their freakin minds back then.

    Hmmmm Questions abound. (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:50:03 PM EST
    Given that the war was over and Baghdad under martial law, why did your husband think the GC applied??

    These were looters, not POW's...

    Perhaps you can explain this further???

    Have you mis-spoken??

    BTW - I thought your husband was a helicopter pilot.

    Was he concerned he would be ordered to shoot POW's from a gun ship????

    Are you funning us?? Little joke on the boys and girls??? Audioning for TNR??


    Look Jim, my husband did not lose (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:42:10 AM EST
    the fight that for some reason you still want to carry on here.  It already happened and the choices have already been made.  It only demonstrated how nuts the administration was and how lost in the moment the military was, and by the way looters are noncombatants and the war had not been declared over.  My husband is an apache pilot and he spent many many nights running people out of Saddams ammo dumps in the Sunni triangle when this administration also didn't care those ammo dumps that supplied most of the shells used to make IED's with now.  He argued with his command about patrolling those and they said fine.  If you and Wiley want me to put up some of the video out there showing apaches taking out individual people on the ground in Iraq I can, they do have a 50 cal and gunships do it when they need to and he was told to do it to looters.  Here is where you display YOUR lack of military knowledge.

    My questions remain. (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:55:51 PM EST
    Show me where the GC applies to a civilian population during occupation.

    And my point wasn't about the capabilities of the Apache, but this.

    Did he think he was going to to be ordered to shoot looters??

    And if he was, why wouldn't it be a legal order?

    Frankly Tracy I don't trust your accuracy. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's just the way it is.

    As to the ammo dump claim, that's an old one. Most of the stuff was pulled well beyond the time frame that we had any kind of control over them. But if you want to argue that the military war planners made a mistake, fine. Just knock off the Bush Bad, etc. Most people here understand that Bush didn't select the targets..

    BTW - I bet you are also one of the ones who claimed we let looters carry off "national treasures" from the musei=um...


    About that Convention (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by roy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:35:24 PM EST
    The Fourth Geneva Convention, which the US ratified in 1955 with some tangentially related caveats, deals with civilians.

    But I don't think it applies here.  It's the whole "only other signatories" thing again.

    I haven't read the whole thing, and don't intend to because I only need to kill a little time before leaving work for the evening.  From skimming, Articles 2 and 4 seem to say the Convention only applies when we're dealing with another party to the Convention, or with a Power that "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Convention.

    If we are bound by it, however, it seems to pretty clear bar a general policy of shooting looters.


    Roy (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:32:58 AM EST
    I remember it all too well because BushCo bellowed it out to the press that they were going to handle the looting problems by shooting looters......at the same time in Iraq my husband is telling his Command he will not shoot looters because it is against the Geneva Conventions and he felt really alone and then sort of panic scared standing in that room that day in the silence that almost swallowed him.

    Tracy doesn't give us any date, so we really don't know. My belief is that she was auditioning for TNR. But that aside.

    Remember these are looters. They are not military or terrorist/guerillas.

    Article 3 In the case of armed conflict

    At that point the armed conflict was over.

    Article 4  Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of, a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

    They are not prisoners. They are not in the "hands of."
    Iraq at that point was under martial law. They were looters.

    Now, if someone wants to make the argument that looters should not be shot, they can. I happen to disagree, believing that if a person can not be secure in the ownership of their property, then that person can not be free, and a constitutional republic can not last. The biggest person will just take what they want.

    BTW - I would try and arrest/stop them before they were shot.

    BTW - How's the move and job??


    Link for Jim (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    First google and a very good one that came up, didn't even have to move down the list.  But, if you should choose to google a bit yourself I bet you can find lots Jim.  It is very sad when people use selective memory trying to make serving the darkness less painful for themselves.  I have no opinion about the what happened to didn't happen at the museum.  I know nobody who was in the area or part of anything that took place where the museum is concerned.

    The NY Times has an excellent story (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    about it but you have to pay because it is Times Select.  Here is a pdf link though to the Seattle Post Intelligencer carrying the story.  NPR has an interview you can listen to where it is discussed.  Commondreams (which I know is left leaning) has a breakout from the Times story

    Now, in the dawn of the 21st century, when this nation above all others is supposed to be a model of progress and fairness and justice and due process, the U.S. military was to be given the high sign to start shooting Iraqis like dogs in the street.

    The news article, by The Times's Patrick Tyler, said the authorization to shoot looters on sight would be part of "a tough new security setup" that included the hiring of additional police officers and curbs on the use of high-ranking Baath Party officials in public service positions.

    Mr. Tyler wrote:

    "The far more muscular approach to bringing order to postwar Iraq was described by the American administrator, L. Paul Bremer, at a meeting of senior staff members [Tuesday], the officials said."

    This government, I thought, is losing its mind. I went to the computer and began to put this column together. The president, the secretary of defense, military authorities and anyone else in a position of command should know that a policy of shooting looters on sight is wrong, and if it was being considered it needed to be stopped in its tracks.

    I'm familiar with the story though because my husband lived it.


    Tracy - Proof please (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:10:25 PM EST
    Your original claim was that your husband called down his command structure stating that shooting looters would be a violation of the Geneva Convention.

    I expressed by deep skepticism of your comment and asked for details. You have failed to provide any. What you have done is wandered off regarding the type helicopter he flies and noting his actions re ammo dumps, etc.

    As I have said before, I honor his service. Military aircraft are dangerous and will kill you just by accident, more so when people are shooting at you.

    But you have provided no information that the order to shoot looters was a violation of the Geneva Convention. Your links are just conventional condemnations of the war and Bush by the usual suspects.

    I do note that since the letter by Ramsey Clark was dated 5/14/03, I will made an educated guess that your husband was in Iraq and made his statement sometimes around 5/12/03. This is important because it clarifies that the "war" was in fact over, and that Baghdad was under martial law.

    This was also right after the looting problems at the Iraq  national museum and our forces had not returned fire at the builidng to avoid damage. We received severe criticism for not stopping that looting. It appears you want afrmed looters stooped by some method not previously known.

    See my comments to " Roy (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:32:58 AM EST" in this thread.

    So I again ask. Where is the proof that the GC would have been violated.

    BTW - You told us a few months ago he would be deployed back to Iraq in Sept. Has he left yet??
    Either way I wish him well and God's protection.


    I don't understand why I need to have (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    this argument with you about this proof you demand for self.  My husband refused to shoot looters, other pilots under the same command heard him out and made the same choice shortly after that briefing.  Later, BushCo rescinded the military authorization to shoot looters.  It doesn't matter what you think now or then for that matter, the soldiers disagreed with you, the world disagreed with you and BuchCo pulled the authorization to shoot looters after everyone had to remind them about silly things like the Geneva Conventions.  Abu Ghraib still happened though because if they didn't get caught they didn't feel like they needed to obey the Geneva Conventions.

    You don't need to, or have to.. (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:26:56 PM EST
    my point is that I don't believe you.

    I can see someone asking questions re Rules of Engagement, but not the GC.

    As I noted, I think you are auditioning for TNR.


    Tracy be caught (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:31:26 PM EST
    Move & Job (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by roy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    Thanks for asking.  The move itself was a freakshow of miscommunication, incompetence, bad assumptions, and hemorrhaging cash.

    But that's over, and Oregon is as nice as I had hoped.  Even the rainy days are pretty.  The Communists you warned me about are nowhere to be found, maybe they're all in a Starbucks drinking "fair trade" coffee and over tipping the baristas.

    The new job is shaping up well.  I'm a QA Engineer now, so I spend all day finding fault in others' work without offering anything constructive.  Suits me pretty well.


    You have found no commies??? (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    See. They have brainwashed you already...

    And yes QA would be a perfect spot for you.



    Ah ha (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:09:44 PM EST
    From the ICRC's commentary on the Convention:

    The expression "in the hands of" is used in an extremely general sense. It is not merely a question of being in enemy hands directly, as a prisoner is. The mere fact of being in the territory of a Party to the conflict or in occupied territory implies that one is in the power or "hands" of the Occupying Power.

    The source they cite is not available online, and alarmingly expensive as a hard copy, but I think the ICRC is a good enough source for this sort of thing.


    More Convention (none / 0) (#35)
    by roy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:51:51 PM EST
    Article 3's reference to "armed conflict" is not relevant:

    In the case of armed conflict not of an international character ...

    Emphasis added.  Since the conflict in Iraq is international, the article simply doesn't apply.

    The Convention explicitly goes beyond the "armed conflict" stage for international conflicts.  Article 2 states:

    The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party ....

    As for Article 4's "in the hands of", maybe that's your point, maybe it's mine.  As I read up on this stuff, I see lots of people apparently assume that the entire population of the occupied nation is "in the hands of" the occupying military.  "In any manner whatsoever" is a broad enough phrase to make that interpretation plausible.  It mostly comes from organizations whose agenda is to extend as much protection as possible to as many people as possible, which isn't a bad thing, but it kind of gets in the way of dry technical reading.


    Some good points (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:03:39 PM EST
    I think you are correct when you say that the meaning does come from people/organization that have an interest in expanding their power, thus everything is seen as broad as possible.

    As for me, I prefer to go back to common usuage. And "in the hands of" is not a broad encompassing statement. That is:

    We are in the hands of God.

    We are in the hands of fate.

    And no, the ICRC is not an acceptable source.

    Then we have:

    Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State

    At the time of the order Iraq was under the control of the US, and as such was a "terrority" of the US.

    BTW - Go to McCormick and Schmidt's  and have a big order of salmon for me, washed down with some Chateau Ste Michael... I prefer the reisling... others may prefer the chardonnay.. or for a more informal setting, go out to Salty's on the Columbia.. This time of year get a seat outside for a wonderful view..

    I'll pay the bill next time I'm in Portland..


    Do you mean to claim... (none / 0) (#49)
    by roy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    ... that looting is "hostile to the security" of Iraq, and that attempting to detain looters rather than shooting them on sight is "prejudicial to the security" of Iraq?

    We're talking about people looting all manner of goods, not just weaponry.  I think you're reaching a bit too far.

    Re: "in the hands", let's go to the French, which is "equally authentic":

    Sont protégées par la Convention les personnes qui, à un moment quelconque et de quelque manière que ce soit, se trouvent, en cas de conflit ou d'occupation, au pouvoir d'une Partie au conflit ou d'une Puissance occupante dont elles ne sont pas ressortissantes

    As translated by Babelfish:

    are protected by Convention the people who, at one unspecified time and in some manner that it is, are, in the event of conflict or of occupation, with the capacity of a Part to the conflict or an occupying Power to which they are not amenable.

    ... which is nigh unreadable.  Drat.

    I know a pittance of French, enough to say that there is no literal "in the hands of" equivalent here.  More speculatively, there is nothing here related to custody or imprisonment.  I'd say the crux is "au pouvoir d'une Partie", which would be better translated as "under the authority of a Party".

    A list of potential English equivalents to "pouvoir" can be found here.  Some highlights:

    being allowed
    to be permitted
    full power
    general authorisation
    legal authority
    power of attorney
    stock power
    Never mind!
    temporal power

    There are some strange items on that list -- what does "mights" even mean? -- but I gotta tell ya Jim, I think I'm winning this argument.  The English inclusion of "in any manner whatsoever", plus the directly related commentary from the ICRC citing a primary source, plus the plainer French phrasing, equals me feeling darned smug.  All you've got is your own hyper-literal reading of the text.

    (I'm stepping over the idea that Iraq is a US territory, as the idea is just to weird to fit in my head, like blue smelling loud)


    Here's a link to a very (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    "popular" video that my husband also shows in one of his classes Jim and Wile.

    Guess it's been awhile since (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    you two served huh?

    I asked (none / 0) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:57:45 AM EST
    what helo he flew.  Just answer the question.  I retired last year.  

    He is a Longbow pilot (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure you've asked this before.  At the start of the Iraq War and the deployment where this incident occurred he was an Ah-64D pilot.  He now flies Longbow.  He started his career flying Cobras, then the Ah-64D, and now the Longbow.

    Sorry so snotty (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    Jim tends to get on my nerves a bit sometimes.

    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:37:22 AM EST
    I see you still haven't answered my questions.

    I have a real life too ya know Jim (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    Answering to you is not high priority, sorry.  You are gnat pesky and not in my Maslow's triangle.  My answering your nonquestions is done as a courtesy and is not a need on anyone's list but yours I guess.  For me it's just about unspinning spin.   I did eventually answer you though and good luck with that.

    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:13:37 PM EST

    Tracy doesn't have an answer.

    Tracy be caught.


    Whatever dude (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    It's your world and you're sticking to it.

    Good (none / 0) (#14)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    deal.  I would have loved to fly either the snake or the Apache.  

    I give (none / 0) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:06:46 AM EST
    what helo does he fly?

    Just curious (1.00 / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    Is anyone saying there are cases our there that haven't been investigated and action taken on?

    Please note the "action taken on."  By that I mean dismissed or charged and/or not convicted??

    If there are not, what is the purpose in all of this??

    Just curious (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    are you that naive or that disengenuous?

    Actually, it's a rhetorical question. Kinda like asking how many foot taps distinguish Ralph Reed from Grover Norquist.


    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:56:56 PM EST
    Actually, it was a real question that no one has answered....

    A "real question" (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    fromthe guy who cant even force himself to admit that forceing a halogen bulb up someones rectum, (and no, Im not bringing Sen Craig into this), is a form of torture.

    Define "real", Jim.


    Is it now fair game to (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Pancho on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:23:43 PM EST
    make fun of homosexual activities?

    So you can't answer the question (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    Is anyone saying there are cases our there that haven't been investigated and action taken on?

    Please note the "action taken on."  By that I mean dismissed or charged and/or not convicted??

    If there are not, what is the purpose in all of this??

    Is that simple enough??


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    Is that simple enough?

    Are you claiming that war crimes are always, without fail, "investigated and action taken on"?

    As if Abu Ghraib and My Lai wouldnt have been buried if those photos hadnt surfaced and been circulated.

    You're a joke too funny to laugh at.


    Now answer my simple question: (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:48:43 PM EST
    Is jamming a halogen bulb up someone torture? Yes or No.

    It's a simple question.


    You won't get an answer from Jim on torture (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by glanton on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:41:09 PM EST
    As you know.  He sticks to the "bad apples" lie, it's always a bad apple, there's nothing awry with the orchard.

    But there's a bigger problem.  Most Americans, even those who don't follow politics very closely, recognize that this government has been torturing detainees.  

    And a great many are on board with it. Look at the rave reviews for 24, how all the GOP pundits and websites adore the lead character's tactics.  Say "it's just a television show" all ye want, but the fact is the "ticking time bomb theory" has big currency.

    I was doing my daily drop-in on LGF last night, they were typing away like mad during the GOP debate.  One of the most consistent positions they were taking was disgust with McCain's opposition to American torture.  A few of the more "sympathetic" ones reasoned, let's forgive him, he was himself tortured so he cannot be objective about it.

    The deniers aren't even close to the problem.  


    Why do you go to LGF? (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    A few reasons (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    Reason most relevant to this current conversation:

    As more and more Americans are, sadly, coming to endorse torture, those of us who are against it had better know the terms with which it is being endorsed.



    Know thy enemy (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:51:37 AM EST
    Begs the question..why do you come here, Jim?

    No subject changing (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:48:16 AM EST
    I asked a simple question regarding the reason why the reports have been brought back out, and asked if anyone could name some acts that have not been investigated.

    No one has answered.

    Instead I have seen ducking and weaving and attempts at subject changing.

    But I'll be fair. I'll answer yours when you answer mine.


    Quit speaking in the past tense. (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:29:39 PM EST
    My question is present tense.

    Do you think the documents are about any acts that HAVE NOT been investigated?

    I so, what are they??


    Common Sense (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:32:33 AM EST
    as opposed to recycled neocon sophistry, dictates that where there's smoke and an endless supply of flammable material, there's fire. "I so", then there are acts and events that HAVE NOT been investigated--YET. We'll just have to wait until another conscientious soul sneaks the pictures past your he-roes.

    "No subject changing" (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    and no effing guts.

    I answered your question Sean, now answer mine.