U.S. Holding 51,000 Iraqis In Prison, Most Illegally

COOLHAND

A very brief search of AI produced the follkowing:
Detention

Crimes

Here's some more.

Now please provide evidence to support your assertions, and contribute something instead of just posting "where's the proof"

If you can, which I rather doubt.

[edit on 15/5/2008 by budski]

[edit on 15/5/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by budski
COOLHAND
Now please provide evidence to support your assertions, and contribute something instead of just posting "where's the proof"

I did, did you not read my last post?

If so, go back and read it and then let me know if there is anything else I can explain to you.

reply to post by COOL HAND


I don't consider an interview with a perpetrator and co-conspiritor and armed forces member to be proof.

Time magazine is also part of the AOL Time Warner group and has had legal issues in the past for libel.

Can you post anything by a neutral 3rd party organisation?

Originally posted by budski
I don't consider an interview with a perpetrator and co-conspiritor and armed forces member to be proof.

So what are you saying? Members of the military are not trustworthy or to be believed?

Time magazine is also part of the AOL Time Warner group and has had legal issues in the past for libel.

Show me a major news organization that does not have libel issues.

Can you post anything by a neutral 3rd party organisation?

If by "neutral third party organization," you mean one that supports your position? No, I cannot.

Here is some more info about the prisons over there, this time from the Iraqi side.

LINK



[edit on 15/5/08 by COOL HAND]

reply to post by COOL HAND


If the head of an LA gang was on trial, would you trust his lieutenants to tell what really happened, or only their side of it?

High ranking military officials stick to the party line - they have to if they want to keep their career.

As for your other link - what's that supposed to prove?
That's from iraqi prison officials - the same applies to them as it does to military officers.

I mean a neutral link, like amnesty international, the red cross, human rights watch or even the UN human rights people (at a pinch - the UN is pretty much controlled by the US)

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by hinky

 

So for thinking that the proven detention of innocent civilians is bad, a person is either a simpleton or anti-american?

Do you also condone the proven torture of innocent civilains?

Tell me how you would feel if armed forces invaded your home, took away your male family members, held them without trial or charges, tortured them, granted them absolutely no rights, then released them a few years later as innocent.

The kind of thinking that you have displayed, with apparently no knowledge or comprehension of the situation is what has allowed bush to ride roughshod over the US constitution.

Perhaps you'll be happy when they have real nazi-style concentration camps not only for "terror suspects" but also for any who dare to disagree.

Two quick points:
1- Did Iraqi's live any better before? Atr least now they have a slight chance of a future when they start defending themselves and can control their contry.
2- Why don't I see you posting threads about the atrocities of the IDE and suiside bombers? They also are breaking international treaties (Geniva convention), hold poeple with out trial (until they cut off their heads), kill inocent civillians, and on and on ... Where's your outrage about that? Never mind the injustices that go on in many other countries around the world.

reply to post by eyes2open


They are not signatories to the geneva convention - we're supposed to be the good guys and as such we have to be clean, and not doing what we are.

BTW - since the coalition invaded, the average iraqi's life has become far, far worse.
Very little food, no jobs, little healthcare, water and electricity for a couple of hours a day and a mortality rate that is far above what the MSM reports, as well as over 4 million displaced persons.

If someone invaded your country, promising freedom and a better life and then delivered exactly the opposite how would YOU feel?

The insurgency came about because of US policies and mistakes - they had NO plan for re-building the infrastructure after saddam was got rid of.

Perhaps a little research might be in order before you start posting about how others feel.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by eyes2open

 

They are not signatories to the geneva convention - we're supposed to be the good guys and as such we have to be clean, and not doing what we

So, your saying that as long as you haven't signed a treaty you can do all the horific things you want?!?

BTW - since the coalition invaded, the average iraqi's life has become far, far worse.
Very little food, no jobs, little healthcare, water and electricity for a couple of hours a day and a mortality rate that is far above what the MSM reports, as well as over 4 million displaced persons.


If someone invaded your country, promising freedom and a better life and then delivered exactly the opposite how would YOU feel?
The resistance and terrorists never stopped to give the Iraqi's a chance. Before, with Sadam there was no hope, at least now there is hope. I guess it depends on the news reports you read (liberal or conservative). The truth usually lies somewhere in between.

The insurgency came about because of US policies and mistakes - they had NO plan for re-building the infrastructure after saddam was got rid of.
Everytime the Iraqi's and US build something the "Bad Guys" blow it up alomg with theiir own countrymen. But that's OK, they just want what's best for thier fellow Iraqi's.

Perhaps a little research might be in order before you start posting about how others feel.
Where's your research, posting an opinion piece as fact and you have not exactly shown any proof now have you.

reply to post by eyes2open


Oh I've shown plenty - open the links and read them.

And like I said - we're supposed to be the good guys.
Which means we have to have the moral high ground - I don't like what the insurgents are doing, but they are not doing it in my name.

You are showing a profound lack of understanding of what's going on in iraq.

Can you provide links to support your assertions that the iraqi's are blowing up things the americans have built?Other than main stream media which has been proved to be government sponsored lies...

I also find it interesting that you immediately want to label everything either liberal or conservative - I'm afriad my viewpoint is rather more complex than the simple labels you choose to use.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by eyes2open

 

Oh I've shown plenty - open the links and read them.

And like I said - we're supposed to be the good guys.
Which means we have to have the moral high ground - I don't like what the insurgents are doing, but they are not doing it in my name.

You are showing a profound lack of understanding of what's going on in iraq.

Can you provide links to support your assertions that the iraqi's are blowing up things the americans have built?Other than main stream media which has been proved to be government sponsored lies...

I also find it interesting that you immediately want to label everything either liberal or conservative - I'm afriad my viewpoint is rather more complex than the simple labels you choose to use.

Well everything I had to say didn't post (above). Tell the truth it's not worth retyping. I can answer all the questions, post all the links with other opinions, and it wouldn't matter one bit. I can tell you have made up your mind that the US is a terrible country no mattrer what, and everyone else is the victim.

On to something worth while....

Originally posted by budski
If the head of an LA gang was on trial, would you trust his lieutenants to tell what really happened, or only their side of it?

His testimony would be considered truthful until proven otherwise. Either that or he is at risk of perjury.

High ranking military officials stick to the party line - they have to if they want to keep their career.

No they don't. Do you think all high ranking military members are robots or something?

As for your other link - what's that supposed to prove?
That's from iraqi prison officials - the same applies to them as it does to military officers.

Uhh, that there is corruption in the Iraqi legal system which is why so many folks are behind bars. Translation for you, the US is not the sole reason for all the Iraqis who are being detained.

I mean a neutral link, like amnesty international, the red cross, human rights watch or even the UN human rights people (at a pinch - the UN is pretty much controlled by the US)

You consider those to be objective organizations? Wow.

reply to post by eyes2open


This is in no way a criticism, but for the sake of clarity and to help you with your post, might I suggest having a read of this

Just click on the blue word and it will take you to a link which is part of the ATS handbook.

The whole handbook can be found here

And here are some usefull guidelines about the terms and conditions.

Just trying to be helpfull, not critisizing.

BTW - I don't think that the US is a terrible country, nor do I think americans are bad people, but I DO dislike what bush&co have done and continue to do.
The war in iraq was never about wmd's (they never found any) or about terrorists (saddam had NO links to al qaeda) it was about grabbing iraqi oil and getting a foothold in the region in order to wage more war for more oil.

[edit on 15/5/2008 by budski]

reply to post by COOL HAND


Sorry, but ranking officers toe the party line - I speak from experience, and I say this with complete certainty.

Do you not consider the red cross and amnesty international to be more neutral then?

I think I see the blinkers you're wearing.

Only warmongers despise peacefull organisations which have humanitarian goals as their mission statement.

BTW, this isn't about what the iraqi's do - this is about US detention camps - your point is irrelevant.



[edit on 15/5/2008 by budski]

Seriously, what crime could any of them have committed against us if we never went in there?


50,000 in jail, at least 120,000 dead... all because???? Because of nothing. They didn't do anything to us. We went in there and did it to them.


So they fight back. (I have to say I can't blame them) And now they're "criminals" against us for attacking us in defense.


It's all BS if you ask me.

Originally posted by budski
Sorry, but ranking officers toe the party line - I speak from experience, and I say this with complete certainty.

What experience is that? You have gotten to meet with senior officers before and hear them talk about supporting the party line? Whatever. I have heard plenty of Officers talk against the "party line."

Do you not consider the red cross and amnesty international to be more neutral then?

Those are organizations that are designed to find and exploit the bad, not the positive. I support their mission, just not their methods.

I think I see the blinkers you're wearing.

Wow, did you come up with that yourself?

Only warmongers despise peacefull organisations which have humanitarian goals as their mission statement.

Finally, something we agree on.

BTW, this isn't about what the iraqi's do - this is about US detention camps - your point is irrelevant.

The article that started this whole thing mentioned Iraqi prisons and US ones. My TIME article only spoke of US camps, which one of your articles spoke only of US camps?

[edit on 15/5/08 by COOL HAND]

reply to post by COOL HAND


My experiences have nothing to do with you, and it would be a mistake to think you know anything about me because of a few lines in a discussion forum.

If the red cross etc are so bad, please provide evidence to support this.

For a person who constantly questions other peoples sources, you seem remarkably poor at providing decent sources to refute those of others.

The only way to get terrorists to terrorize is to make them angry. We tried dropping bombs on them, no luck. We tried shooting children and all sorts of ways to make them form up and fight us. They prefered to be peaceful. So the next step was to arrest them and put them in terrorist factorys. Even with all the torture they still refuse to band together and fight the US. How can we make war profits if we don't have an enemy? How can the conservatives continue to gain power without someone to hate? Our efforts to construct an enemy have been largely futile. They just won't rally against us like Bush thought they would.

Originally posted by budski
My experiences have nothing to do with you, and it would be a mistake to think you know anything about me because of a few lines in a discussion forum.

All I am interested in is what kind of proof do you have that you have any knowledge of senior military leaders having to toe the party line.

If you don't have any, than just admit you lied.

If the red cross etc are so bad, please provide evidence to support this.

I did not say that they are bad, now you are just trying to put words in my mouth. All I said is that they are designed to find and point out the bad. When was the last time that you heard about those organizations praising a country for its humane treatement of prisoners?

For a person who constantly questions other peoples sources, you seem remarkably poor at providing decent sources to refute those of others.

Wow, I can almost hear the desperation from here.

I am sorry that my sources do not meet your strigent requirements, but they seem to be just fine for everyone else here since no one else has asked me for more info.

[edit on 15/5/08 by COOL HAND]

reply to post by eyes2open


I starred you. At last, another reasonable voice in the sea of anti-Americanism.

I see these arguments all the time and how terrible we are. If we are such a bad country, you'd think we would have people fleeing the land instead of 20 to 25 MILLION illegal immigrants with millions more wanting to come to such a terrible place.

God, folks, get real.... Take your anti-America propaganda and place it in the proper receptacle... No just bend over... you know were to put it.