Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:48:03 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:

So what's your point? They're finding out who's culpable and charging
them. That's how the justice system works and it IS obviously working.

The "system" is exceedingly slow, and appears to need prodding.

Sure, and if they hurried and you didn't like the outcome, you'd be
complaining that they "rushed to judgment". Again, you're trying to have
it both ways. Do you want justice or not?

Excuse me? I don't recall ever saying that there were a specifically
limited number of people involved. Again, the investigation is finding
the culprits and bringing them to justice. What the hell do you want?

Maybe not you specifically, but I have heard th "6 or7" number quoted
often, especially on C-Span where I saw a move to limit the investigation
to those "6 or 7" involved. It was last week, and even though I did not
get to watch it all, I think it involved a resolution in the House to limit
the investigation.

I haven't heard of any such resolution passing, nor is there a
snowball's chance in Hell of that happening.

So what does that have to do with anything?

Noting that the general or the colonel were not in the photographs is ample
proof that more than just those in the photographs were involved.

I don't see anyone arguing to the contrary.

There
were a bunch of folks in the photographs alone, indicating much more
involvement than just a "handful."

I said there were a handful of people (relatively speaking) who
perpetrated the acts. That certainly doesn't mean that they're the only
guilty parties.

Investigations from several sources now indicate that the "abuse" was at
more than one prison facility.

And lo and behold, it's being investigated! Imagine that!?

I have an honorable discharge from the USAF. While I was just a ground
radio repairman, and I can't say it was the first day, very early on in
basic training we were told about the Geneva Conventions especially as it
related to us and handling prisoners, though there was no expectation we
would ever be in combat or at all responsible for detainees or PoWs. In
the military, especially if you are enlisted, you are told where to go,
what to wear, when to be places, what to do, etc. You can't hardly breathe
without permission. It is inconceivable to me that a bunch of enlisted
folk could get it together to do such stuff without at least the tacit
approval of a lot of higher ups. At a minimum a lot of folks had to look
the other way.

Again, no one is arguing otherwise. You're once again trying to create
the appearance of a problem where none exists.

Exactly what do you know about me? For that matter, what do you know
about military investigations?

I don't know anything about you except what it seems you have written in
this newsgroup.

Yet you seem perfectly willing to presume to know how I think and insert
your own meaning into my words. One thing is for certain, you and I
don't think alike.

As far as military investigations, I have served, and have
even been of interest to OSI police (before I joined). My father was a
career officer in the USAF and my brother a career officer in the USMC.
The JAG school was located on the grounds of the university where I used to
work. It was not uncommon for me to overhear conversations of lawyers,
both in the military and not.

Does that qualify you to make judgments about military justice? My
father was a career officer in the USAF and flew covert missions, but I
don't presume to be an expert on related subjects.

So what? Where did I indicate that I thought that they were the only
ones involved? What I said is that the investigations were ongoing and I
expected more people to be charged.

It is going extremely slowly, especially considering the gravity of the
situation.

Extremely slowly by your "instant gratification" standards, perhaps. It
doesn't seem to me to be going any more slowly than civilian
investigations often do. Why should this take any less time? Just
because you're outraged by it (as am I), doesn't mean that the
investigation should be rushed. It's quite obvious that it's a very high
priority for the military and the administration.

No, you are distorting what I've said and reading what you want into my
statements. Your inferences have NO bearing in fact.

My apologies if I have misrepresented you or what you have said, but I
believe I have supplied many verifiable facts.

You're also acting as if you know some "ultimate truth" that none of the
rest of us are privy to. All you actually have is suspicion and
cynicism, neither of which are legal grounds for charging anyone with a
crime.

I don't think that several, or even many, low ranking soldiers were
entirely responsible, I'm suggesting that there were probably a lot of
"higher ups" involved. I am not charging anyone with a crime, just
pointing out that this all is much, much bigger than some folks would like
us to believe. That much is pretty obvious.

Certainly "some folks" would like that, but the genie is out of the
bottle and there's no going back to that position. This is too high
profile of a case for anyone involved (Congress, the military, the
Justice Dept.) to allow it to become a whitewash. At the very least, I'd
say your concerns are unfounded.

You're trying to make an ongoing investigation that's apparently doing
its job quite well look like some kind of sham. The justice system is
working as it's supposed to and people are being charged as evidence
against them is found. You're crying and complaining about the
investigation before the outcome is even known! Get a grip, will ya? Let
the investigation run its course, then we'll see if justice is served.

Yup. It strikes me as somewhat similar to the way crime on blacks was
"investigated" in Mississippi a few years back. I was born in Mississippi.
Don't tell me THAT should have waited for "investigations" to be complete
before someone squawked.

I addressed this a couple of paragraphs back. It ain't gonna' happen
that way. It's not even remotely possible.

Again, based on your other posts in this thread, this is all "classic
Galen". To wit:

- Complain if nothing is done.
- Complain if something is done.
- Complain about how it's done.
- Complain that things haven't been done when they already have been.
- Complain about the outcome before it's even known.

You can't read or comprehend very well, can you?

Quite the contrary, I think I've boiled it down pretty well. It sure
seems that all you're really interested in doing is complaining about
the Bush administration, whether it's justified or not. You don't like
them and WE GET THAT, OK?

In other words, complain, complain, complain, complain, complain,
regardless if there is justification or if you have any better ideas,
simply because you don't like the people in control.

Granted, I don't think very much of the people in control, but believe me,
I would be squawking no matter whose administration it was. It isn't
simply a matter of who is in charge.

After everything you've said in this thread, I find that a bit difficult
to believe. That is, unless you just like complaining, regardless of the
situation.

All of this stems from your hatred of the Bush administration and your
zeal to discredit them in any way possible. These irrational statements
and arguments show the depth of your desperation and make you look
ridiculous. You really need to get your emotions under control and try
to look at the situation dispassionately. In the real world, you simply
can't have it all ways at once.

I think your rhetoric has run away with you.

Your words say otherwise.