[nomad]

Originally Posted by Proto

And keep you damned Yankee hand away from our virgins.

You have those over there? Man... you blokes need to get to work!

[luvtolean]

So it starts. For only taking pictures, and cooperating for a plea bargain, he gets the absolute maximum penalty. Assholes.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...soner_abuse_15

BTW, for those that don't know, these guys were rioting, and this was their punishment.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by Proto

And keep you damned Yankee hand away from our virgins.

Always the clever one...

I'm only going to be in the UK for 3 nights...with most of that spent anchored off her fair shores. It's safe to assume the local "virgins" will be safe, unless I happen upon one with her head stuck in the fence....

[Baketech]

Sivits apparently did not state that he was following orders....

I can't seem to find a story with that much detail....anyone?

[Proto]

Not exactly following orders maybe but:

"Fighting back tears, Sivits testified that colleagues at the prison told him senior officials had ordered the abuse to get the prisoners to talk. "


BBC

[Baketech]

So in other words, he did not testify that he was ordered?

[Proto]

Originally Posted by Baketech

So in other words, he did not testify that he was ordered?

So it would seem.

[nomad]

Blah... what a mess.

[luvtolean]

Did you guys read the whole article?

At the bottom:

"All of them consistently said that he was to follow the order and not question it. So he didn't," the lawyer said.

Womack added that Sivits also was simply following orders.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

So it starts. For only taking pictures, and cooperating for a plea bargain, he gets the absolute maximum penalty. Assholes.

Geez, I wonder who recommended that ?!

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Did you guys read the whole article?

At the bottom:

"All of them consistently said that he was to follow the order and not question it. So he didn't," the lawyer said.

Womack added that Sivits also was simply following orders.

Yes, but that refers to what his "peers" said the orders were....he did not testify that the order was given to him by a superior.

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Geez, I wonder who recommended that ?!

Fess up.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Fess up.

Got one!!!

Don't know exactly who (yet), but it sure wasn't a fellow private...

[Mo Noyz]

Just remember Bacchus.

You.

Me.

Mizzou.

[SuperDave]

I'm afraid I'm flip flopping on my original opinion on those soldiers. At first I blamed no one but the soldiers, especially the slut one. But now I'm starting to wonder.

I saw Face the Nation/Meet the Press and was first made aware of Operation 'Copper Green'?

Sounds as if some Pentagon stradegist/intelligence experts thought it would be a good plan showing photos to Iraqi civilians and rebels to somehow convince them of trading sides or recruiting them to spy on the rebel forces for the US. I'm confused on the logic of this whole thing but, somehow the pictures were to show either how bad things could be or "these bad guys aren't so tough - look how humilated they look here". Either way, there seems to have been an approved operation 2 years ago to use pictures of prisoners in humiliating poses to somehow achieve intelligence gathering or recruiting. They knew very well of the religous and social values, humiliation worse than death, dogs, females, leashes, nudity, etc.

The question was asked, 'Why would a reservist come to Iraq with a dog leash in his duffle bag?' I'm starting to believe that maybe they were ordered to "pose" with these prisoners in front of a camera. The pictures were never meant to be leaked to the media, but were to be shown and used in the streets of Iraq. Again, I'm not clear of the logic how those pictures could help the US cause, but I know the government knew all this before the story broke.

[nomad]

I think perhaps it's a mixture of blame here, not all or nothing. Although orders to interrogate the prisoners in this type of manner is a plausible event, I doubt orders came down to have sex... perhaps that was some adlib'ing, no?

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Just remember Bacchus.

You.

Me.

Mizzou.

Sorry Mo, can't afford a trip to Mizzou this year. Though I'd love to take you up on your generous offer, you could always come to Tucson! You sound like a rather volatile sort, eh? And you may as well bring Chain, 'cause he wants to stuff me into a mailbox anyway .

[Mo Noyz]

Actually, it's funny that you mention that. My wife and I are kinda kickin around a trip to the Grand Canyon this summer.

If so, I'm going to bring my bike with me, natch. Maybe I'll have to look you up if we decide to go.

You can show me some of those killer roads you've got down that way.

THEN I'll kick yer ass. And if I can find a mailbox small enough, I'll allow Chain to live vicariously through me.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

THEN I'll kick yer ass. And if I can find a mailbox small enough, I'll allow Chain to live vicariously through me.

"THEN I'll kick yer ass"... Is that before, or after, the ride?

Chaiin would be proud of ya.

If you are serious about getting down this way let me know, I have room and board for a right wing dickhead for a couple of hours...

[nomad]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

If you are serious about getting down this way let me know, I have room and board for a right wing dickhead for a couple of hours...

Do I hear banjo's playing in the background? "You sure do look purty, boy."

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

"THEN I'll kick yer ass"... Is that before, or after, the ride?

Chaiin would be proud of ya.

If you are serious about getting down this way let me know, I have room and board for a right wing dickhead for a couple of hours...

Who you callin right wing you son a bitch???!!!!!



I'll keep you posted. We haven't really made any serious plans yet, but it does look promising.

[ER]

Originally Posted by zenblader

ER,
I maintain that, although the beheading was another hideous example of terrorists trying to get attention thru a terrible act (which by itself gives reason not to overplay it), in many ways the news that American troops who are supposed to know better, who represent all of us by wearing the uniform, were mistreating detainees in such a manner was more shocking than Berg's death. I'm not equating the severity of the act of gruesome murder and prisoner abuse, just suggesting that one was the more "unexpected".

I watch CNN, read Reuters, subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, read BBC News online, CBS, FOX, MSNBC. etc. We can certainly disagree about the level of lean. But isn't it ironic that every time a story puts out information that hurts the left, the left screams bias, and every time the news comes out with something that may hurt the right, the right screams bias. I just hear alot of complaining but not much logic. It is very typical of the media to be critical of a current administration, or of any Congress. Republicans control Congress and the Whitehouse. Now why do you think they may be getting some negative attention?

I just now saw this response. Hey, you have a valid point in that in a small regard, the media can't win. Leftists scream "Bias to the Right!" and Righties scream "Bias to the Left!" I was reading this opinion from TownHall though, and I wanted to point out this one fact:

From May 11 to May 19, there were more than 6,600 stories in the Lexis-Nexis news database with "Abu Ghraib" somewhere in the text. During the same span, there were just over 3,000 with both "Berg" and "Iraq."

To fully appreciate the significance of those statistics, though, the prisoner abuse story was already two weeks old at that point, and the news of Berg’s beheading broke on May 11.

Why is this important? Because the “noise”—the collective impact of news from various sources—has been so focused on Abu Ghraib, the political backdrop is the savagery of Americans, not that of the terrorists we are fighting.

In some respects, the terrorists are winning more favorable coverage...

So what happened? The abuse story was two weeks old when Berg was beheaded, yet in the week immediately following his beheading, his murder appears to have received 50% of the coverage that the abuse story might have. His murder was breaking news at that time-frame too! Would this be an example of media bias or a misuse of Lexis-Nexis?

IMHO, most of the mainstream media in this country is against the war in Iraq. Pretty much all of the media in Europe is. While they're entitled to their own opinions as individuals, it's bias when their opinions show up in their selective coverage and reporting that they pawn off as "news". If a Democrat were in office, would our media be doing what it's doing now? That's something to consider...

Have you considered the possibility that the prison abuse scandal gets more press than the heinous beheading because we are all aware that terrorists commit despicable acts, but very few people in this country were aware that our own people could commit the acts documented in the pictures by the press?

I suppose that's an option, but I don't buy it. Come on - we bomb what the Pentagon calls a terrorist hideout and the headlines of some of these major outlets read something along the lines of "US bombs wedding party". Yet weapons, large amounts of cash, and satellite communications have been found. Furthermore, the "party" was being held at 3:30am in the middle of nowhere....well, you know the rest of the story. Hey, I don't know what happened anymore than you do, but it's funny how the lead stories automatically assume that we're in the wrong.

Most people right-of-center will claim that the media (such as NBC, CBS, CNN, NYTimes, LATimes, etc) has had an inherent bias to the left for a long time. I think it's only recently that you hear accusations from those left-of-center now that the Internet and cable-TV have brought differing points of view. CNN is owned by super-Liberal Ted Turner and some Lefties accuse them of favoring the Right. I love it!!