It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: Cheerleaders at Abu Ghraib

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Unless you have been living under a rock or on vacation at Mars, we all know about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. While debate carries on to the legality of such practices for retrieving information, a defense lawyer for one of the alleged ringleaders asked, "Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" .
 




Al-Jazeera

Charles Graner's attorney, Guy Womack, told the 10-member US military jury at the Texas court martial on Monday that leashing detainees was also an acceptable prisoner control.

In opening arguments at the reservist sergeant's trial in Fort Hood, Womack asked: "Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?"

Graner and Private Lynndie England, with whom he fathered a child and who is also facing a court-martial, became the faces of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal after they appeared in photographs that showed degraded, naked prisoners.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




Is it me, or am I the only one that finds this ridiculous? Cheerleaders? Last time I checked, the inmates did not sign up to root for any sports teams in Iraq. This is really comparing apples and oranges. You have people who were degraded for some fun. While I believe interrogation needs to occur, this is over the line. The whole point of this trial is being overlooked and is now being made even more of a mockery. I am willing to bet my life that in any interrogation handbooks of the US, one of the ways does not say "Make Pyramids out of inmates". What is not being addressed is whether the US changes and makes policy ready available to everyone, or backs up current policy and fires anyone in the chain of command that had knowledge of, or ordered this. Somehow I don't think either one will happen.




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The comment is an obvious, but in the end embarassing, attempt to trivialise what should never have happened. Of course, the many attempts to exaggerate it into something worse are just as wrong.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
the many attempts to exaggerate it into something worse are just as wrong.



Where has there been exaggeration?

Not many of the documented records of abuse at Abu Ghraib have surfaced for public attention at all, we see the tip of the iceberg.

Why not throw this pathetic excuse for a legal professional in the can with the rest of the guilty, Gonzales, Rumsfeld and Bush included?

[edit on 10-1-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
He actually asked that????


I don't see how you can logically compare cheerleaders forming a pyramid and piling prisoners of war on top of eachother for whatever reason - especially in conjunction with other photos that have surfaced. He's just making himself look like an idiot by trying to downplay the events that transpired at the prison.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Why not throw this pathetic excuse for a legal professional in the can with the rest of the guilty, Gonzales, Rumsfeld and Bush included?


I personally think Gonzalez is being set up to take the fall, I don't know how, but have suspicion. I still can not believe this was even mentioned. Cheerleaders?


Sep

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Maybe the good lawyer should be forced to be naked, at gun point, and be forced to form a pyramids with other men. Then he can undrestand what the diffrence between cheerleading and torturing is.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Sep]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
I personally think Gonzalez is being set up to take the fall, I don't know how, but have suspicion. I still can not believe this was even mentioned. Cheerleaders?


If Gonzalez does fall, then it's the opening salvo in the first ever Republican civil war. The shot across the bow, as it were.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Dear Mr Graner, if you are reading this, take a word of advice. Change counsel IMMEDIATELY !



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Poor analogy. I would think the court will view it as insult to its intelligence and sense of justice. There are times when the best defense is to admit what one has done, acknowledge its wrongfulness, express remorse, and ask for leniency. This seems like such a case.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
dubiousone, that's not a defence you are advocating. It's a plea for mercy in sentencing. That's what is known as mitigation.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
You're right, Dixon, under a narrow view of "defense". However, in a broader sense, making a realistic assessment of your case at the outset is the best "defense". A defendant who vigorously denies culpability at trial and waits until the penalty phase to acknowledge wrongfulness and express remorse is going to be viewed with suspicion, i.e. you're sorry only because you got caught and are about to be punished. That's likely to draw a harsher punishment than one who expresses remorse at the outset. Of course, from a tactical aspect, whether or not to do this depends on whether you have a viable legal defense thta has a chance of avoiding conviciton or gaining conviction on a lesser charge. And, yes, this "defense" serves to mitigate. But isn't that an aspect of defense, gaining the most appropriate and least harsh form of punishment when it's clear that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of avoiding conviction? The guy is on video. The "cheerleaders" are in a pyramid, naked, with a licentious infidel female enjoying a full view of their naked bottoms.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Okay, so you're saying that because of the video evidence, he has no defence whatsoever. Agree on that point. And you are saynig that because he has no defence, he should plead guiilty to the charges and ask for mercy so that he may receive a lighter sentence. Save everybody time and have a quick if not graceful outcome for him from this unholy mess. Works for me.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   
How can anyone continue to compare "sawing off heads" with supposed "torture" at Abu Ghraib. There was not torture there. The big mistake the US made was taking prisoners in the first place.

No one should be on "trial" for anything.


Sep

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
How can anyone continue to compare "sawing off heads" with supposed "torture" at Abu Ghraib. There was not torture there. The big mistake the US made was taking prisoners in the first place.


If you werent in Iraq, no heads would have been sawn off, and no torture would have taken place. Now that you are there you have to obey the international rules. Dont forget, you are there to promote peace, love and democracy, and so far you are not doing a very good job.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep

Originally posted by DrHoracid
How can anyone continue to compare "sawing off heads" with supposed "torture" at Abu Ghraib. There was not torture there. The big mistake the US made was taking prisoners in the first place.


If you werent in Iraq, no heads would have been sawn off, and no torture would have taken place. Now that you are there you have to obey the international rules. Dont forget, you are there to promote peace, love and democracy, and so far you are not doing a very good job.


Typical, but have you forgotten about a guy named Saddam. Something about vast torture facilities and RAPE rooms. The US isn't there for peace, love and democracy. The US is there to kill terrorist. Period! International rules are moronic. War is War. The geneva convention is complete BS.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Typical, but have you forgotten about a guy named Saddam. Something about vast torture facilities and RAPE rooms. The US isn't there for peace, love and democracy. The US is there to kill terrorist. Period! International rules are moronic. War is War. The geneva convention is complete BS.

So what youre saying is the US went into Iraq because of a murderer, torturer and rapist?
Then its ok for the US to do exactly the same things as you described?

Of course I bet you think US prisoners desverve proper treatment but not foreigners but thats ok because they arent American.

Moronic jingoism at its finest, you are on the same level as the terrorists that you hate.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Typical, but have you forgotten about a guy named Saddam. Something about vast torture facilities and RAPE rooms. The US isn't there for peace, love and democracy. The US is there to kill terrorist. Period! International rules are moronic. War is War. The geneva convention is complete BS.

So what youre saying is the US went into Iraq because of a murderer, torturer and rapist?
Then its ok for the US to do exactly the same things as you described?

Of course I bet you think US prisoners desverve proper treatment but not foreigners but thats ok because they arent American.

Moronic jingoism at its finest, you are on the same level as the terrorists that you hate.


Treaties are useless. Libs think that passing a law or signing a treaty makes everything go away. It doesn't. We have seen how the terrorist treat prisoners. Sawing off heads. These animals in that prison should not have been there at all. They should be still on the battlefield, rotting.

This is a WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not some TV show. There is a huge difference between crimminal justice and WAR! Get that through your heads people. This isn't a game. There is a difference between COPs arresting some drug addict and WAR! The Geneva Convention is complete BS. The "bad" guys don't go by the "rules". The best solution for this idiocy is no prisoners at all..........



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
You are not fighting a country, they didnt sign the Geneva convention, the US did and should abide by it otherwise they are on the same level as the people you hate so much.

Well I hope you will say its ok for the terrorists to nuke a US city then if theres no prisoners taken.

After all, if killing innocent people on one side is ok, it must be ok for the other side unless you are a hypocrite of the highest order.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
You are not fighting a country, they didnt sign the Geneva convention, the US did and should abide by it otherwise they are on the same level as the people you hate so much.

Well I hope you will say its ok for the terrorists to nuke a US city then if theres no prisoners taken.

After all, if killing innocent people on one side is ok, it must be ok for the other side unless you are a hypocrite of the highest order.


The GC is a treaty "bewteen" countries. There is nothing to "abide by". The US will get nuked because it is stupid.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I can think of a few major differences....first, the major news networks would really be in trouble if they knowingly aired the superbowl with naked cheerleaders, and well more importantly, if one of the cheerleaders decided she didn't want to be part of a human pyramid, well, she could just walk away without the fear of being shot in the head!!!

Did anyone else catch any the hearings with the congress and Mr. Gonzolas? A few kept asking him, over and over again.....if the president felt that a law that congress had signed was wrong, could he order others to disobey it, or ignore it himself.....he never did answer it to my satisfaction. it was also pointed out that not only did such conduct defy international treaties but also set policies within the armed services...like the uniform code of conduct (not sure if I got that name right) . And, well, I'm sorry, but if people like Gonzales (and probably Bush) actually believes they can pass down orders that defy the laws and policies that have been in place in this country for the past few decades, well, then they should also be the ones facing the court martial also when the crap hits the fan.

Ya know, kind of like how the husband in old testament times was held responsible when his wife was doing wrong.....and well, stoned with her.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join