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?

"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.

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.


I'll read that as cynicism. GWB and the administration is general is
never guilty of anything. In fact GWB made a comment to the effect that
he couldn't remember making a mistake as POTUS

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"*

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.

"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 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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:21 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


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.

Dave, you are making the assumption that all detainees are
enemy combatants. They are not. Many are innocent citizens who were in
the wrong place at the wrong time. Even the government admits to this,
and has started to release many of those detainees.


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!

Kill the enemy, yes, torture, rape, and murder, no. I am quite
sympathetic to the soldier in the field, who has to make an instant
decision. I would generally give that soldier the benefit of any doubt,
but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about
soldiers, in a relatively secure facility, abusing those placed in their
charge.

In case you haven't noticed, this bungling administration has made a
problem for itself. What to do with all those detainees in Guantanamo?
They don't have the evidence to charge them with any crime, so the plan is
to ship them off to countries that don't care about any rule of law. Just
lovely, they are hoping to sweep their incompetence under the rug.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4340921.stm


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

You might consider, how we treat our captives, reflects on us. Are we
civilized, or barbarians?

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."