Originally posted by jd140Been to Iraq twice and have met very few, maybe 10 in my two tours who didn't appreciate what we have done for them.
Originally posted by LDragonFire
I do wonder why Obama would go so far to protect the last administration, other than if these photos where to be release the world would demand justice, and that justice would come at the end of a rope!
I guess these children were terrorist and we should just ignore this?
Originally posted by deessellClose Guantanamo Bay but expand Bagram. I'm sorry but it's really just business as usual.
May 13, 2009 at 18:20:40
They must be horrific. So violent, in fact, so obscene, so counter to even the basic tenets of human decency that President Barack Obama sought today to block the release of hundreds of photos showing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan being abused, violated, tortured. He ordered this reversal of his position -- he had been in favor of the decision to release this further evidence of war crimes committed under orders from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney -- after military commanders warned that the images could inflame anti-American sentiment and endanger U.S. troops.
But, it is far worse than that. The reality is this: Anti-American sentiment could not be more "inflamed" than it already is in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Our policy of indiscriminate bombing after the location of a "target" has been determined has caused the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our policies of providing weapons of terror -- such as white phosphorous, concussion bombs, advanced jet fighters, massive tanks bristling with the power to annihilate anything in its path, explosives packed in cases made of depleted uranium -- to be used by Israel against an utterly defenseless Palestinian population is known throughout the Middle East, throughout the world, except, of course, here in the U.S.
No, the release of the photos and videos in question would do more than "inflame anti-American sentiment and endanger U.S. troops." If we are to believe reports that began circulating four years ago, reports from investigative journalists such as Seymour Hersh, their release would unleash a wave of anti-American hatred that would endanger the lives of not just U.S. soldiers, but the lives of all Americans, civilians as well as military personnel. Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention:
"Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men ... The women were passing messages saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.' Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They [the Bush Crime Family] are in total terror it's going to come out."
At today's White House press briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that the president was concerned that the photos' release would pose a national security threat. In other words, these unreleased photos and videos
show acts of degeneracy so vile there is no way they can be explained or rationalized. They contain images of children -- some of them the children of detainees -- being raped and sodomized as a means of forcing confessions from the adult detainees that would provide the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Quaeda that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush insisted were the basis of their orders to invade and occupy Iraq.
Children of detainees being raped and sodomized as a means of obtaining confessions. In testimony before Congress five years ago no less a war criminal than the murderous former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."
Two months ago, Hersh, speaking at the University of Minnesota, said the following in trying to reveal yet more of the incredible depravity and lawlessness of Dick Cheney:
"After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet. That does happen. Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command - JSOC it's called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him.
"... Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths. "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."
[Note: The former head of JSOC -- Lt. General Stanley McChrystal was named this week to replace Gen. David McKiernan as U.S Commander and Commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan.]
Torture conducted by the CIA. The rape and sodomizing of children. Sending detainees to countries whose methods of torture are medieval in their scope and techniques. Assassination squads that answered only to Dick Cheney. This was your country. This was your country in the grip of a madman. This is your country trying desperately to deny, to hide, to bury, the evidence of war crimes on a massive scale.
Mike Malloy is a former writer and producer for CNN (1984-87) and CNN-International (2000). His professional experience includes newspaper columnist and editor, writer, rock concert producer and actor. He is the only radio talk show host in America to have received the A.I.R (Achievement in Radio) Award in both Chicago and New York City, the number three and number one radio markets in the country
Originally posted by TheEndofEvolution
It's all speculation and conjecture there is no proof of anything other than the photos in question have never been released to the public and they are from investigations into alleged abuses inside Abu Ghraib.
For Usamaizn, Does your heart bleed every time a suicide bomber bombs a market? If we would have killed half of the civilians that they do we would have been forced out of Iraq by now. Saddam was murdering them before we got there and Al-qaeda will be doing it after we leave.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience."
Originally posted by Sonya610
Originally posted by jd140Been to Iraq twice and have met very few, maybe 10 in my two tours who didn't appreciate what we have done for them.
Seriously, do you really think they are going to tell you they resent you? Heck no, the ones that REALLY resent you are going to smile and say "Thank you Sir". They won't waste their words, or risk being labeled "insurgents", they know action and support of the Mujahadeen means far more than wasting words on the enemy.
Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Once again a person who can't read
At the bottom of my post I said very clearly...
I was a moron about this too... we all were
all I'm saying is stop talking sh and wake up, it's going to be UGLY now to get rid of this and if you don't do something NOW it's going to be too late to do it ever.
No... not only didn't I say a word I cheered it on because I was at 9-11 on the Brooklyn Bridge and when I watched MY FRIENDS DIE,
I was mental over what I saw right in front of my face for a long time and i'm pretty pissed I was obviously duped by emotion
I'm one of the biggest American patriots alive...
How would I be able to say these words dead on if they didn't fool me too?
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Here is the compromise.
I too feel that these pictures don't necessarily need to be released... not just yet.
It truly would radicalize many... many who might even be us.
However, the people responsible, from the top down should be brought to trial and the recordings used in that court.
Once the trials have been had, and the sentences passed down, then release them.
If we have convicted people on this and justice has prevailed, then it will be merely a very sad day in American history, but one that Justice has been served for.
However, if there are no convictions, and the pictures are indeed that horrific... I pray for all of us.
The Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly established Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for the former British prime minister’s prosecution
These are extraordinary times. With the United States and Britain on the verge of bankruptcy and committing to an endless colonial war, pressure is building for their crimes to be prosecuted at a tribunal similar to that which tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. This defined rapacious invasion as “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes [sic] in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”. International law would be mere farce, said the chief US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, the Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, “if, in future, we do not apply its principles to ourselves”.
That is now happening. Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and Britain have long had “universal jurisdiction” statutes, which allow their national courts to pursue and prosecute prima facie war criminals. What has changed is an unspoken rule never to use international law against “ourselves”, or “our” allies or clients. In 1998, Spain, supported by France, Switzerland and Belgium, indicted the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, client and executioner of the west, and sought his extradition from Britain, where he happened to be at the time. Had he been sent for trial, he almost certainly would have implicated at least one British prime minister and two US presidents in crimes against humanity.
The Spanish high court is currently investigating a former Israeli defence minister and six other top Israeli officials for their role in the killing of civilians, mostly children, in Gaza. Henry Kissinger, who was largely responsible for bombing 600,000 peasants to death in Cambodia in 1969-73, is wanted for questioning in France, Chile and Argentina. Yet, on 8 February, as if demonstrating the continuity of American power, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, said: “I take my daily orders from Dr Kissinger.”
Like them, Tony Blair may soon be a fugitive. The International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, has received a record number of petitions relating to Blair’s wars. Spain’s celebrated judge Baltasar Garzón, who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentinian military junta, has called for George W Bush, Blair and the former Spanish prime minister José María Aznar to be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq – “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history – a devastating attack on the rule of law” that had left the UN “in tatters”. He said: “There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation to start without delay.”
These are extraordinary times. Blair, a perpetrator of the epic crime of the 21st century, shares a “prayer breakfast” with President Obama, the yes-we-can man now launching more war.
“We pray,” said Blair, “that in acting we do God’s work and follow God’s will.”
Investigation against top Bush Administration lawyers involved in Guantanamo policy has been reopened for investigation regarding torture and crimes against the humanity. The lawyers are:
-Jay S. Bybee, United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
-Douglas Feith, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
-William J Haynes, Chief Corporate Counsel, Chevron Headquarters
-John Yoo, UC Berkeley School of Law
-Alberto R. Gonzales
The action means that if these lawyers travel to Spain or to the 24 countries that participate in the European extraditions convention outside the U.S., they could be arrested. They could also be arrested in other countries, but that would require more extensive extradition proceedings.
The action was taken by Judge Baltasar Garzón, referred to as "Europe's counter-terrorism magistrate."
The action parallels a criminal probe into allegations of torture involving the American CIA that was opened this week in the United Kingdom.
Spain operates under the principle of "universal jurisdiction," a doctrine that allows courts to reach beyond national borders in cases of torture, terrorism or war crimes
The Nuremberg Principles, a set of guidelines established after World War II to try Nazi party members, were developed to determine what constitutes a war crime. The principles could also be applied today, when judging the conditions that led to the Iraq war and in the process to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children, and to the devastation of a country’s infrastructure.
In January of 2003, a group of U.S law professors warned President George W. Bush that he and senior officials of his government could be prosecuted for war crimes if military tactics violated international humanitarian law. The group, led by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, sent similar warnings to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
Although Washington is not part of the International Criminal Court (ICC), U.S. officials could be prosecuted in other countries under the Geneva Convention, indicated Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Ratner likened the situation to the attempted prosecution by a Spanish magistrate, Baltazar Garzón, of the Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was held under house arrest in London.
Both former President George W. Bush and senior officials in his government could be tried for being responsible for torture and other war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. In addition, should Nuremberg principles be followed by an investigating tribunal, former President Bush and other senior officials in his administration could also be tried for violation of fundamental Nuremberg principles. In 2007, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, told The Sunday Telegraph that he could envisage a scenario in which both British Prime Minister Tony Blair and then President George W. Bush could face charges at The Hague.
While at The Hague, I felt myself standing in a long line of American prosecutors working for a world where international standards restricted what one nation could do to another during war, stretching back to at least Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. Those standards protected our own soldiers and citizens. They were also moral and right. So I didn't understand why, a few months after the attacks in 2001, the Bush administration withdrew its consent to joining the International Criminal Court. Wasn't accountability for war crimes one of the things America stood for? Although staying with the court did mean that the United States would be subject to being charged in that court, how likely was that to happen? Surely we would never do these things. And, in any event, the court could only assume jurisdiction over a person whose own government refused to prosecute him; surely, that would never happen in the United States.
I watched with horror the changes that were happening back home. The events are now well known: Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo; secret "renditions" of prisoners to countries where interrogators were not afraid to get rough; secret CIA prisons where there appeared to be no rules. I tried to answer, as best I could, the questions from my international colleagues at The Hague about what was happening in and to my country. But as each revelation topped the last, I soon found myself without words.
I hope that the United States has turned the page on those times and is returning to the values that sustained our country for so many years. But we cannot expect to regain our position of leadership in the world unless we hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of others. That means punishing the most senior government officials responsible for these crimes. We have demanded this from other countries that have returned from walking on the dark side; we should expect no less from ourselves.
Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by whaaa
So its "guilty until proven innocent"?
And: How did boys get there in the first place? Who raped them and why?
I guess its more important to call for the Destruction of America than to be asking for some evidence.