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


"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. ;-)


The Dems will try to hire Harry and Jimcomma.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

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?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."

''''''Then why hasn't the Commander in Chief explained why he
failed to defend the country on 9-11-2001?'''''''


he is krause

your leader,, commander in chief is defending your country you fool,, you
criticize him all day long like a bad American that you are,, bad parent,,
bad husband,, bad son,,, bad liar,,,


krause you fool,, can you imagine if your Commander in Chief wasn't
defending you now??? lol,,, krause you fool,,,, ask the little darling what
to do krause,,,,













"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
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.


Hmmm. Is the Commander in Chief responsible for the defense of the
country? He is? Then why hasn't the Commander in Chief explained why he
failed to defend the country on 9-11-2001?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

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?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."

Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


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?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?
And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


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?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?
And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.

Why would they have allowed you to do it?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



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?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?
They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



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?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?
They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.

If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given
that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing?

As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you
damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance.
But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little,
ten-year-old Mary Sue?

A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents,
much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the
child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing
the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child
to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting.

Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also
nicely twisted.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:02:30 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

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.


Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

Dave

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:34:47 -0500, thunder
wrote:

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.

What's interesting is that some here feel more concern over the
treatment of enemy combatants, and the rights of enemy prisoners than
they are for our own soldiers.

I find it bordering on insanity, that at a time of war, there are
people looking to sue our leaders for the conduct of the war, and are
also seeking to criminally prosecute some of our soldiers for "murder"
when they are actively fighting an enemy. I mean, it's the job of
soldiers to kill the enemy. Duh!

It's like living in an episode of the Twilight Zone..........

Dave