JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


Dave Hall wrote:



On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out
a written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army
report issued last September said investigators could not find any
copies of any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of
documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.




Ahem.....
========================================
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of
spin, listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his
investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in
"The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level
Leaders and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and
Iraq Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of
the article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But
the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not
directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no
policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan,
Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York
Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied
the Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy
of abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics,
Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon
Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005:
"High-ranking Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse,
Military Officials Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the
conclusion of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper
has been reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse
of prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe
in the presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true
without hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in
Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is
designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n.
Everybody got it?

============================================= =

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html for full story
and workable links found in O'Rielly's comments posted above.

Yep, from Bill O'Rielly, FOX news..... ;-)

Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


Don't change the subject. The GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.


OK -- I'll pull a Clinton -- Define *"directly responsible"*

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:15:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Jim, wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to
hold a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records.
The documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at
Abu Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA
worked out a written agreement on how to handle unreported
detainees. An Army report issued last September said investigators
could not find any copies of any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're
winning the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she
replied: "Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Parts of Karpinski's transcript indicate that US soldiers were
holding 8-9-10 and 11 year old children in that damned prison. One
can only imagine what kinds of abuse the children received.



I would imagine (assuming it's true) that those kids were treated
better than those soldiers were, who were on the receiving end of
bombs that other children deployed.



You might imagine that. I would imagine something totally different.
The record indicates that we had brutal, sadistic, sexual perverts in
charge of that prison, and the enlisted personnel weren't any better.
There's no reason to believe children were treated any differently than
adult prisoners.


More from the article (suggest you all read it before commenting)

"Another soldier said in January 2004 that troops poured water and
smeared mud on the detained 17-year-old son of an Iraqi general and
"broke" the general by letting him watch his son shiver in the cold."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:51:38 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an unnamed
Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Note that the Pentagon *has* acknowledged keeping "ghost detainees."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:08:44 -0500, P.Fritz wrote:

I'll pull a chucky.......Saloon??? what a credible
source.................NOT

How about the BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4339511.stm

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:19:00 -0500, JimH wrote:


Don't change the subject. The GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.

In point of fact, an investigation couldn't have found them guilty. In
this country, only a trial can do that.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."

You need to talk to some folks who know Karpinski. I have, and they think she
was a pure dip**** that must have given a good blow job to get where she was.
Putting any stock in what she says is probably a mistake.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:51:38 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."


Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

I really believe they'll believe anything that is written as long as it puts
down the military or the administration.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:19:00 -0500, JimH wrote:


Don't change the subject. GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.

In point of fact, an investigation couldn't have found them guilty. In
this country, only a trial can do that.

You are correct. I should have said "The recent investigation of Abu
Ghraib by Vice Admiral Albert Church found that GWB and his senior military
brass had no involvement in or knowledge of the prisoner abuses, as have the
previous 8 investigations in this matter.."

This will probably be investigated till the Democrats get the results they
are looking for....that Rumsfeld and Bush were aware of the abuses and
turned the other cheek.

Unfortunately for them, they will be spinning their wheels. ;-)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:16:59 -0500, JimH wrote:


This will probably be investigated till the Democrats get the results they
are looking for....that Rumsfeld and Bush were aware of the abuses and
turned the other cheek.

Unfortunately for them, they will be spinning their wheels. ;-)

Time will tell. As we speak, Rumsfeld is being sued over the abuse. It
might be an interesting case to follow.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JimH wrote:

Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?

*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."