It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:10 AM

Originally posted by dawnstar
"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."

I heard that they were told by their higher ups to produce these pictures, then the prisoners were threatened that they would be let out to the Iraqi population if they weren't cooperative...
Thus, our administration appears to have been in the porn business.

and I am sorry, but chaining someone's legs and hands together and making them stay in that position for hours IS TORTURE, don't believe me, well, let someone do it to you, tell me how much pain you are in afterwards.

And, well, a beheading, if done by a trained profession, can be quit painless....and well, it not, the pain doesn't last long enough for the person to sneak a note out to the family asking them to come and kill them!!
Beheading isn't torture, since well, the primary purpose of torture is to inflict as much pain on the person as posible WITHOUT KILLING THEM!

Watch this and then we can take about "torture"

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:28 AM
can that dead head tell secrets?? I'm under the impression that the primary purpose of torture is to get them to act in a manner you prefer or to tell you the facts that you want to hear. In case I am wrong, I went to a dictionary and looked it up....

Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.

well, I guess it would qualify for the last on.....but then, so wouldn't many methods of dying, either by the hand of another or by any number of diseases. For some reason, when we are talking about torture in the respect we are now, we are talking about inflicting pain as a method of coercion. this is what the geneva convention bans, this is what we have a few laws on the book outlawing. Obviously it isn't:

"Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish. "

since those things are naturally a part of war.

So, do you think that at any point in time that the victims of these beheading are led to believe that they can avoid their fate if they if they themselves do anything whatsoever? or do you think that it's basically that their fate is in the hands of the terrorists, or the powers that be in general?

I still think that it is a very barbaric practice by the way. It just doesn't fit into the legal defination of torture.

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:33 AM
It just doesn't fit into the legal defination of torture.

If you can watch that video, the horror of it and make a statement like that, there is no hope for the world.

I pray for Christ's rapid return and end this EVIL planet.........

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:42 AM
hey, keep on praying, just remember,
God moves according to HIS timetable. He ain't gonna let a bunch of fools hurry him. So, whatever mess that is created in an attempt to rush him on his way, well, we will probably have to live with until he does return.

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 02:15 PM
It is amazing to hear some of you defend what OUR representatives did to detainees at Abu Ghraib! No wonder this administration feels encouraged to continue its determined march toward the dehumanization of anyone from whom it wants to extract information. If you folks continue to express yourselves this way you will be among those responsible when these practices become standard police interrogation techniques right here at home. It's acomin' right around the bend!

[edit on 1/13/2005 by dubiousone]

[edit on 1/13/2005 by dubiousone]

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:00 PM
Well He was found guilty on 9 of 10 counts.

The supposed "ringleader" of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal has been found guilty on all five counts by a military court. Grainer may face up to 17 years in a military prison. The Abu Ghraib scandal has sorely tainted the reputation of some of the military and has been a sore thumb for the Bush Administration.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Now, putting this Idea of a defense argument on the side, was He a sitting duck? Was He going to be found guilty regardless of what kind of defense he had, just to make an example? Or was justice served? I'm very interested in hearing everyones comments on this...

Me personally, think it was a little of both. You have an obvious situation that caused an uproar in the International Community, and one that also goes against U.S. code. So whether I think the torture was justified or not, based on what information I have seen, I think the right verdict was reached. At the time of this posting I do not know if a sentence had been handed out, but I would think he would get the least amount of time.

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 06:47 AM
I don't know, by what I heard his lawyer was complaining that the government docs that he needed to defend in was so censored (security concerns) they were useless...maybe this is why he resorted to such a blame defense as the cheerleaders...

That being said, I am sure that these people knew at least that this kind of thing was morally wrong, and should have known that it was probably illegal, if orders were handed out, then well, their fate probably would have been the same.....military hearings...but I probably would have just ignored the orders.

Tell ya what, they do a in depth investigation to find out just what orders were handed down from whom, and well, if they find one that basically says that they should humilate the prisoners and take pictures that they can then use to blackmail the prisoners into cooperation, well, the persons who sent those orders down shoud get five times the amount of time as these do.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in