posted May 30, 2006 03:57 PM            

Child Abuse - Mullah Style
By Philip Sherwell
Telegraph.co.uk | May 30, 2006

A leading Iranian pro-democracy and women's activist, who was jailed on trumped-up charges last year, has revealed how the clerical regime cynically deploys systemic sexual violence against female dissidents in the name of Islam.

Roya Tolouee, 40, was beaten up by Iranian intelligence agents and subjected to a horrific sexual assault when she refused to sign forced confessions. It was only when they threatened to burn her two children to death in front of her that she agreed to put her name to the documents.

Perhaps just as shocking as the physical abuse were the chilling words of the man who led the attack. "When I asked how he could do this to me, he said that he believed in only two things - Islam and the rule of the clerics," Miss Tolouee told The Sunday Telegraph last week in an interview in Washington after she fled Iran.

"But I know of no religious morality that can justify what they did to me, or other women. For these people, religion is only a tool for dictatorship and abuse. It is a regime of prejudice against women, against other regimes, against other ethnic groups, against anybody who thinks differently from them."

Miss Tolouee's account of her ordeal confirms recent reports from opposition groups that Iranian intelligence officials use sexual abuse against female prisoners as an interrogation technique and even rape young women before execution so that they cannot reach heaven as virgins.

Few women from the Islamic world are willing to discuss such matters, even with each other, but Miss Tolouee said that the regime routinely committed sexual attacks against female detainees.

She dropped her voice to a whisper and sobbed quietly as she described her experience, hoping not to upset her six-year-old son, Nima, as he picked at a piece of pizza in a hotel restaurant.

But he tried to comfort her. "I don't like it when my mummy talks about prison. It makes her cry," he said sadly. Miss Tolouee, who founded a women's group in Iranian Kurdistan and then launched a monthly magazine that was closed down by the judiciary last summer, was detained in the city of Sanandaj in August after taking part in anti-regime demonstrations that spread across Kurdish areas.

"Four armed men and three armed women barged into my house at night and took me away," she said. "My kids were terrified and crying. I was questioned all night by different interrogators and then thrown alone into a cell."

She was held in solitary confinement in the prison of the feared internal intelligence service, with only a blanket and a cup that often had to serve as a lavatory.

For the first six nights, she was taken to a basement where interrogators demanded that she admit to organising the protests, and also that she identify co-conspirators on a list of names they put to her.

"When I wouldn't do what they wanted, they slapped me. But after the sixth night, the routine changed. I was left alone in a small dark room with two men. One was the assistant prosecutor and called himself Amiri. The other had a filthy mouth and said terrible things. They started slapping me again. For the rest of the night they did to me what no woman should ever experience. Amiri said, 'I'm going to hang you, but before I hang you, I will make an example of you so that no woman will dare to open her mouth here again'." He then sexually assaulted her.

When she asked Amiri how he could act like that, he told her that only Islam and clerical rule were important to him. The attack left her badly bruised and bleeding internally, but she refused to sign the papers they put before her. To her assailants' fury, she demanded to see a lawyer and cited international treaties on human rights.

The following night they did not sexually molest her again as she was still bleeding - and hence "unclean". Instead, they told her that they would kill her children by setting them on fire before her eyes.

Finally, she admits, she cracked. "I threw myself at Amiri's feet and begged him not to harm my children. I said I'd do anything they wanted. Whatever they wanted, I would sign." She admitted to conspiring against the regime by giving interviews to the foreign media and leading the protests, but said that she did not implicate others.

After several more nights in solitary confinement, Miss Tolouee was moved to a general women's prison, where she saw horrendous festering wounds inflicted by lashings on other detainees.

Trying to maintain her dignity and strength, she taught the women about their basic human rights and helped to secure the provision of sanitary supplies for the first time. "We had a great feeling of camaraderie," she recalled.

Miss Tolouee was released on bail after 66 days in jail because, she said, "The regime had got what it wanted". But she still feared for her children's lives and decided to flee. She made it first to neighbouring Turkey with Nima and then her daughter Shima, 14, was smuggled out to join them.

Fearful of the reach of regime agents, who have killed exiled dissidents, an opposition group called the Alliance of Iranian Women helped them to reach the United States last month.

Miss Tolouee has been granted political asylum and intends to maintain her campaign against Teheran. She still has relatives in Iran - she does not want to go into details for reasons of security - but says that they have given her their blessing to speak out, despite the possible consequences.

The world's attention is currently focused on Iran's nuclear ambitions under its hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who came to office while Miss Tolouee was in prison. But inside Iran, she says, little has changed.

"Sometimes the regime seems a bit better, sometimes a bit worse, but for the people of Iran, the suffering continues," she said.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22670

posted May 30, 2006 04:42 PM            

Following Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush
By MEMRI
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 30, 2006

In response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's May 9, 2006 letter to U.S. President Bush, the well-known expatriate Iranian satirist Ibrahim Nabavi published an open letter to President Ahmadinejad, in the online Persian daily Rooz.
The following are excerpts from Nabavi's letter: [1]

"Oh Adorable Little Boy Who Makes Noise and Needs Attention!"

"...Oh adorable little boy who makes noise and needs attention!

"...In your explanation [about this letter], you said that you had written to [President] Bush to present a solution to the problems in the world. What an excellent idea. But have you noticed that the problem in the world is you yourself? Do you know that it is you who are the cause of most of the bad luck and punishments now descending upon the free peoples and the countries of the world? [Do you know] that if there is a problem that must be solved, it is called Ahmadinejad?...

"My dear son Mahmoud!

"You wrote to George Bush: "...[You intend to] establish a single global society which is to be ruled by Jesus and by the righteous of the earth..."

"My good boy! Do you really think that George Bush wants to establish a single global society so that Jesus and the righteous of the earth will rule it? Who told you this? Who said that Bush and the Americans - whose regime, thought, and laws are based on secularism - want Jesus and the righteous of the earth to rule the globe?...

"All Westerners, including the Americans, have for 200 years been diligently saying that they are not interested in a religious regime, and that they advocate secularism. Now you say that they are interested in rule by Jesus? Where is Jesus? Who was talking about Jesus? On your mother's life! Go find the nutcase who taught you these things, fire him, and don't listen to him any more. [Those who taught you] see that you are naïve, so they want a laugh at your expense. They say these things in jest - and you publish them?!..."

"If the Guantanamo Prisoners Don't Have Access to Attorneys - At Least in America Attorneys Aren't Thrown Into Jail Every Other Day"

"Dear Mahmoud, [you] kid who is looking to make a name for himself!

"In your letter to George Bush, you wrote: 'There are prisoners in Guantanamo who have not been tried; they have no access to attorneys, their family cannot visit them, they are being held outside their country, and there is no international supervision [of their treatment in prison].'

"My young friend!

"What business is this of yours? Such a statement should be made by the president of a country with no political prisoners, and whose prisoners have trials, and access to attorneys... If the Guantanamo prisoners don't have access to attorneys, at least in America attorneys aren't thrown into jail every other day. The president of a country that imprisons the likes of Abd Al-Fattah Sultani, [2] Shirin Ebadi, [3] Mehrangiz Kar, [4] and other attorneys has no right to criticize [prisoners'] lack of access to attorneys in the prisons of another country.

"Did Akbar Ganji [5] have the right to family visits [when he was in] Evin prison? At this very moment, isn't there in Evin a philosopher named Ramin Jahanbegloo [6] - who has no connection whatsoever to terrorism, violence, etc? Why are you pushing your nose into this matter?

"Is there international supervision in the prisons in Iran, for you to complain of the lack of the same at Guantanamo?..."

"If You Listen to Me, and From Now on Ask the Adults Your Questions, You Will Avoid Embarrassment"
"My small, young son!

"In your letter to George Bush, you wrote: 'The E.U. inspectors confirmed that there are secret prisons in Europe as well.' My dear Mahmoud! What don't you understand here? Don't you know what a secret prison is? The answer to this question is very simple. You can ask people like Ezatollah Sahabi [7] and Hanif Mazroui [8] to tell you what a secret prison is. A secret prison is a place where they imprison people without anyone knowing about it. According to Iran Judiciary head [Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi], all these years there have been many secret prisons in Iran - particularly Prison No. 59 and Prison No. 39... Ask Siamak Pourzand [9] to explain to you what a secret prison is, and don't embarrass us on an international level. If you listen to me, and from now on ask the adults your questions, you will avoid embarrassment - embarrassment that [makes] the public in the world laugh at you and say that Iran's president has several secret prisons yet criticizes America's [secret prisons]..."

"The Reason for the Lack of Security in America is Groups Like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
"In your letter to George Bush, you wrote: 'All countries have an obligation to protect the lives, property, and honor of their citizens. They say [America] has extensive security and intelligence apparatuses at its disposal, and that it hunts down its opponents even outside its borders. The 9/11 operation was not a simple one. Could the planning and execution [of 9/11] have been possible without coordination with [America's] intelligence and security apparatuses, or by means of their extensive influence? Of course, this is a reasonable guess. Why have dimensions of this matter remained secret so far? Why don't they [i.e. the American authorities] clarify who is responsible for the failures in this event? And why are the elements [involved] and those guilty not brought forth and tried?...'

"My dear Mahmoud!... [Let me] explain a few things to you. First, the reason for the lack of security in America is groups like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and so on. You cannot voice the slogan 'Death to America' on a daily basis, and plan to destroy it, and then ask the president of America why the American public has no security. Smarty pants, why can't you see that it is because of you that they have no security? The cause of the lack of security is you yourself, as well as the people you love and whose success elates you [i.e. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc.]. Second, you are the one who plans and wishes to destroy America..."

"My Dear Mahmoud! Your Effort to Convert George Bush to Islam is Admirable..."
"My Dear Mahmoud!

posted May 30, 2006 10:01 PM              

ElBaradei: Iran not an immediate nuclear threat By Thom Akeman
39 minutes ago

Iran does not pose an immediate nuclear threat and the world must act cautiously to avoid repeating mistakes made with Iraq and North Korea, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said on Tuesday.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the world shouldn't "jump the gun" with erroneous information as he said the U.S.-led coalition did in Iraq in 2003, nor should it push the country into retaliation as international sanctions did in North Korea.

"Our assessment is that there is no immediate threat," the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize told a forum organized by the Monterey Institute of International Studies south of San Francisco. "We still have lots of time to investigate."

"You look around in the Middle East right now and it's a total mess," he said. "You can not add oil to that fire."

The recent violent history in Iraq bears an important lesson for diplomacy with neighboring Iran, the diplomat said. "We should not jump the gun. We should be very careful about assessing the information available to us," he said.

The Bush administration led a coalition into Iraq in 2003 saying President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were found.

"I ask myself every day if that's the way we want to go in getting rid of every single dictator," ElBaradei said.

While it was unclear whether Iran ultimately intended to redirect its development of nuclear power into a weapons system, it was clear there was no danger of that right now, he said.

The five U.N. Security Council permanent powers and Germany, trying to curb Tehran's nuclear program, are planning to meet in Vienna on Thursday to try to finalize a package of incentives for Iran to halt uranium enrichment along with penalties if it keeps defying international pressure.

ElBaradei said he believed a majority in the Iranian leadership was still interested in a negotiated solution and normal relations with the world. The United States is pressing for tough U.N. sanctions if Iran does not comply.

"It would be terrible" to try to strengthen sanctions, which could force Iran to retaliate, he said.

"We have learned some lessons from North Korea," he said. "When you push a country into a corner, you are giving the driver's seat to the hard-liners there."

posted May 31, 2006 12:13 AM            

Infiltrate Iran with whom? Commander Corruption sent the CIA on a different course. You know, a bunch of desk bound analysts pouring over satellite pictures and attempting to intercept, translate and interpret electronic communications.

Not very many feet on the ground anywhere around the globe. You know, the US had an image to uphold and couldn't be seen to be dealing with less than pure alter boy types...the very types who could only infiltrate a Sunday School Class.

posted May 31, 2006 12:57 AM              

(...but if I can help change that - more and more of us will be aware of it....)

- but - there WAS and may still be, horrible torture and sexual abuse going
on among many of our own women and children right here in our own country.

For example, take our government's CIA....and their MK-Ultra Project Monarch
trauma-based mind control operation, of which Cathy O'Brien and her daughter
Kelly found themselves helpless victims.

Cathy's book TRANCE Formation of America is so sickening that one is just
STUNNED by what she reveals....

Here is what my wonderful late friend Gregory from the Conscious
Evolution Website had to say about Cathy and her book....archived
from his website....

**********************

April 21, 2002.....Gregory from Conscious Evolution....

quote:

---

Yes, Cathy's story is so horrifying that the most common first reaction
is "this must be a hoax of some kind" -- and of course that's exactly
the reaction the guilty parties are counting on.

But consider this: Cathy's book name specific individuals high in the
government, past and present, and openly accuses them of specific
horrible crimes, backed up by names, places, events and other evidence.

If these charges were not true, can you think of any reason why Cathy
would not have been immediately arrested and charged with libel or worse?
Can you think of any reason why the government would respond to Mark
and Cathy's filing of criminal charges against the CIA, with all these
government leaders named as co-defendents, with the official legal
response that the CIA and these officials are immune from prosecution
for these crimes under the terms of the 1947 National Security act
"for reasons of National Security?"

I can't either. Yet this was exactly the government's response to their
criminal charges, and the charges were immediately dimissed
(I have copies of the documentation for these legal proceedings).
The LAST thing the government wants is a public trial about the
CIA's Mind-Control programs, because that would blow their cover
to kingdom come ... so you may be sure the official position will
always be "these people are nut cases, pay no attention to them."

If they were really nut cases, they'd be in prison (or worse) at
this very moment for making such public accusations.

The only thing the government CAN do is ignore them completely,
and attempt to silence them by roundabout means (any direct
attempts to silence them would lend enormous credibility to their
story, and risk bringing them to mainstream media attention - and
that includes fatal "accidents" or mysterious disappearance).

It is well known that sickeningly abused children are routinely
exploited by criminal elements for pornography and prostitution.
That clandestine powers within our own govenment would not
only exploit innocent victims in these and other ways, but would
deliberately initiate such vile abuse for their own purposes -
and call it "national security" - is disgusting beyond belief.
I strongly feel that this is something that MUST be insistently
brought to public attention, regardless of what risks or ridicule
that might involve.

---

Abuse and torture is not limited to certain geographical areas or "religions."
It's global and has happened and may still be happening right here in our
own country.

posted May 31, 2006 11:43 AM            

The torture and rape of dissenters in Iran IS official government policy.

You and others are attempting to suggest torture is the unstated official policy of the United States but it's not going to fly.

So, how about you cease attempting to establish a moral equivalence between the United States and Iran..at least on this issue.

I know the press and the democrats want everyone to think the orders to abuse prisoners came from George Bush himself. They want everyone to think they..the press broke the torture ring open themselves, to believe they investigated and they exposed a wide spread conspiracy within the military to abuse captured Iraqis.

That's bullsh*t.

"General, I don't care what it takes to make those prisoners talk, you got that?

Mr. President, we operate within the law and within the UCMJ.

Screw the law and screw the UCMJ, I'm the law and I'm the decider; when Rumsfeld tells you to jump, you jump, you got that?

Yes Mr. President, I'll pass the word down through the ranks, anything goes, right Mr. President?

Damned right General and don't you forget it!"

In fact, the military itself broke the news of the investigation to the press. The military began an investigation the day after the abuse was reported to CID and a press briefing was given very early on.

This is the sequence of events. You will notice that general, the woman reservist in charge of the prison was demoted..not for any direct knowledge of what was happening but because it was deemed "she should have known". That's a pretty high standard but it really means she lost control of her troops. Let's see, she's in her quarters asleep and some of her troops are abusing prisoners..and she should have known that.

The punishment was appropriate for what was done and was harsher than a US criminal court would have handed out for similar offenses.

Article follows:

posted May 31, 2006 11:52 AM            

JURIST Contributing Editor Jeffrey Addicott of St. Mary's University School of Law, formerly a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps, says that the convictions of nine US soldiers for Abu Ghraib abuses and the various official investigations of the scandal testify to the strength of the military justice system, and should dispel allegations that there is any secret Pentagon "culture of permissiveness" toward prisoner abuse.

There is no such thing as a “clean” war. As the War on Terror continues into its fourth year, America has suffered a significant number of tactical errors in the use of its military, ranging from friendly fire incidents that have killed American soldiers and the soldiers of its coalition partners, to the unintended deaths of non-combatants by coalition military fire power. While these tragedies have been leveraged by some to criticize the legitimacy of the American led effort to employ force against its enemies on the battlefield, all such attempts to denigrate the war polices and credibility of the United States pale in the wake of the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Not only did the photographs of American soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq create a firestorm of allegations concerning illegal interrogation practices, but it provided terrorist groups and other anti-American groups a “propaganda bonanza” that threatened to derail fundamental legal and policy pillars upon which America conducts the War on Terror. Many even suggested that there was a moral equivalency between the systemic tactics of the terrorists and the modus vivendi of the United States.

Was the prison abuse a reflection of a systemic policy – either de jure or de facto – on the part of the United States to illegally extract information from detainees, or was the abuse simply isolated acts of criminal behavior on the part of a handful of soldiers amplified by an incompetent tactical chain of command at the prison facility? Now that Lynndie England, the “poster child” of the Abu Ghraib scandal and the last of the nine members of the 372nd Army Reserve unit to be convicted, has been sentenced (to three years confinement) the answer is clear - the legal and policy pillars that support the War on Terror are still standing strong.

The public was first shown the infamous photographs taken inside of the U.S. military run prison at Abu Ghraib in the CBS show 60 Minutes II aired on April 28, 2004. The widely circulated photos showed a handful of U.S. military police soldiers engaged in a variety of abusive and sexually sadistic acts against mostly blindfolded Iraqi detainees. Among other things, the photos showed naked prisoners stacked in pyramids, connected by wires, on a dog leash, and threatened by dogs. In addition, a handful of U.S. military police charged in the abuse scandal had forced naked prisoners to simulate sex acts.

The chronology of how the Abu Ghraib abuse story shows that the military self-reported the crimes. On January 13, 2004, Army Specialist Joseph Darby, a military policeman at Abu Ghraib, gave a computer disc containing the abuse photos to a military investigator. On January 14, 2004, the Army immediately initiated a criminal investigation and the United States Central Command (the four-star combatant command located in Florida) informed the media in a press release on January 16, 2004, that it was investigating detainee abuse at an unspecified U.S. prison in Iraq. On February 23, 2004, the military informed the U.S. press that 17 Army personnel had been suspended of duty pending further criminal investigations about the detainee abuse. Then, on March 20, 2004, the military reported to the media that it had charged six soldiers with detainee abuse to include criminal charges of assault, cruelty, indecent acts and mistreatment. Interestingly, however, the press did not fully respond to the growing story as the mere fact that soldiers were being punished for misconduct did not constitute news that was out of the ordinary – the military regularly punishes soldiers who violate the law. In fact, the media only became energized on April 28, 2004, when 60 Minutes II aired the photos.

Pursuant to evidence of criminal misconduct contained in a U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Report, nine enlisted reserve soldiers all from the 372nd Military Police Company, 320th Military Police Battalion, 800th Military Police Brigade were charged and convicted for an assortment of violations of provisions of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. The central figure in the scandal was Private First Class Lynndie England who is known for poses in which “she pointed at the genitals of a naked detainee while a cigarette dangled from her lips” and “holding a [dog] leash around a naked prisoner’s neck.” All of those charged were reservists and all worked the night shift at Tier 1 in Abu Ghraib, where the abuses took place in the last months of 2003.

The particulars relating to the Abu Ghraib abuse story are now well settled thanks to the CID’s criminal investigation and a number of collateral administrative investigations. To include: (1) the April 2004 Taguba Report, prepared by Major General Antonio Taguba; (2) the July 2004 Army Inspector General Report, prepared under Lieutenant General Paul Mikolashek (3) the August 2004 Fay Report, prepared by Major General George Fay; and (4) the August 2004 Schlesinger Report, headed by the former Secretary of Defense in the Nixon administration, James Schlesinger.

The overriding question regarding the prisoner abuse echoes the thoughts of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Armed Services Committee: “How could we let this prison melt down and become the worst excuse for a military organization I’ve seen in my life?” None of the Reports have found that there was an official policy - either written or oral - to torture or abuse prisoners. According to the Schlesinger Report, the most far reaching investigation to date and the one which the Wall Street Journal deemed the “definitive assessment of what went wrong,” “no approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred.” In fact, the Schlesinger Report found: “There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities.” In addition, none of the Reports cite any direct abuse of prisoners by officers or by superiors ordering subordinates to commit the abuses. In short, the Schlesinger Report concurs with all the Reports to date in finding that the individuals that conducted the sadistic abuse are personally responsible for their acts.

Nevertheless, taking a broader examination of what happened at Abu Ghraib, the Schlesinger Report did find fault with the senior levels of command; there were “fundamental failures throughout all levels of command, from the soldiers on the ground to [the United States] Central Command and to the Pentagon” that set the stage for the abuses.

The Schlesinger Report agreed with the calls for disciplinary action in the Fay Report for a number of officers in the immediate tactical chain of command who knew, or should have known, about the abuses at Abu Ghraib. “The commanders of both brigades - 800 Military Police Brigade Commander Janis Karpinski and Military Intelligence Brigade Commander Thomas Pappas - either knew, or should have known, abuses were taking place and taken measures to prevent them.” Certainly, however, this would include not only Brigadier General Janis Karpinski and Colonel Thomas Pappas, but those subordinate commanders and on down the chain of command to the battalion, company and platoon level. The chaotic environment at the prison existed in large part due to the dereliction of tactical commanders on the ground at Abu Ghraib.

Apart from the issue of individual responsibility the factor that weighed the heaviest in explaining the abuses at Abu Ghraib was clearly the total break down in the immediate chain of command. While the Schlesinger Report provides some blame to all levels of command, it is certain that a key causative factor was the failure at the Brigade – both the military police brigade and the military intelligence brigade. This dereliction in leadership extended to the subordinate officers in the command and the senior non-commissioned officers as well. These individuals are certainly responsible for what occurred in the light of culpability by omission; at a minimum they were guilty of dereliction of duty. The primary responsibility for ensuring adherence to the law rests in the officer corps. As noted, the Schlesinger Report followed suit with all the Reports and found that there was a “failure of military leadership and discipline.”

Understanding the stresses of combat and the fact that the soldiers involved in the abuse at Abu Ghraib were untested reservists, the leadership should have taken greater precautions to ensure that a strong and dedicated chain of command was in charge to “inspect what was expected.” Accordingly, the officer corps must be filled with only the finest available men and women; only officers of the highest moral caliber and military skill should be assigned the responsibility of command. In commenting on leadership skills for combat officers, World War II General George S. Patton, Jr. correctly stated: “If you do not enforce and maintain discipline, you [officers] are potential murderers.”

At the end of the day, it seems improbable that the United States military engaged in command directed torture or ill-treatment at Abu Ghraib, particularly when it was the military itself that self-reported to the media the fact individual soldiers were being investigated and punished in accordance with the rule of law for wartime abuses at the prison. Clearly, the best indicator that the senior leadership is not culpable is found in its continuing commitment to criminally investigate and prosecute those soldiers accused of committing detainee abuses. Numerous soldiers have already been prosecuted and sentenced for their crimes, and criminal trials will continue for others.

When one considers that the number of detainees in the War on Terror - including Afghanistan, Iraq and other operations - is about 50,000, it is unrealistic to expect that abuses will not occur. Violations of rules occur in every human endeavor, to include war. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, James Schlesinger correctly noted that the “behavior of our troops is so much better than it was in World War II.” The so-called “bad apple” syndrome is in fact the primary causative issue at Abu Ghraib – a handful of closely knit reserve personnel engaged in acts of sadism as they worked the night shift from October to December of 2003. Former U.S Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell provided the most pointed assessment of the entire affair: “I don’t know how the hell these people got into our Army.”

It is equally true that the Abu Ghraib story has been devastating to the United States. While each and every case of abuse is repulsive to American standards of decency and justice, terrorists and other opponents of the United States have certainly become “media-savvy” in their quest to parlay these individual cases into marketable propaganda. For example, many nations that are opposed to the United States are quick to exploit the individual cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib by painting the entire conduct of all American soldiers as immoral and illegal. Of course, Americans do not need to be told that the abuses are beyond the pale of conduct expected of its military. A CNN Gallup poll taken in May 2004, showed that three in four Americans agreed that the abuses at Abu Ghraib could not be justified.

The investigative Reports and the convictions of the nine soldiers have done a great service to the American people and the world by dispelling the shrill cries of those who blame a secret Pentagon “culture of permissiveness,” for the abuses at Abu Ghraib. While the Schlesinger Report found institutional and even personal responsibility in the tactical chain of command for allowing conditions for abuse to occur at Abu Ghraib, the Report specifically found that “[n]o approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities.”

posted May 31, 2006 11:57 AM              

I'm trying awfully hard to read the rest of your post but can't quite seem to make it past this particular statement. You'll need to give me a moment.

posted June 01, 2006 01:34 AM              

Pidaua keeps saying she wants to hear the other side but did not even respond to the information that I posted concerning how Israel treats the Palestinians. Neither did Jwhop. The truth is they don't want to know. It would distort their worldview to look at the other side.

I don't know anyone who ever said here at LL that the president of Iran was a nice guy. However, he does not represent the Iranian people anymore than Bush represents the vast majority of American citizens. And in fact, he is not even the real leader of Iran. We don't have to go in and take over the country or blow them all up just because they are not nice guys. I know it's difficult for Bush to put two words together without putting his foot in his mouth but talking with the true leaders of Iran who have offered to talk couldn't hurt. We don't have to go in and take over the country or blow them all up just because they are not nice guys. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are not nice guys either. There are a lot of leaders in the world who aren't nice guys.

The story is terrible if in fact it is true and it may be. But I take anything that the Jewish people say regarding Iran or any Arabic nation with a grain of salt because I am aware of their tactics and Israel is one of the biggest oppressors on this planet. Until they clean up their own act they have no right to condemn any Arab nation. They are no better.

posted June 01, 2006 02:20 PM            

A US criminal court would not have handed out stiffer punishment for those soldiers involved. Far from it.

First the general. No court would hold her responsible for actions taken by others without her knowledge..even if they worked for her. She would be charged with nothing at all.

Humiliating someone is not punishable by law.

Forcing someone to take off their clothes would amount to a misdemeanor or a low grade felony..unless sexual assault were also involved.

Kidnapping would get you big time punishment..except none of those being held were kidnapped...they were captured.

Someone dying of injuries while under the control of others would be considered manslaughter...unless their death was intended and that would have to be proved. In no cases I know of, was death intended for any of the prisoners.

Making someone stand on a box with a hood over their head while they were hooked up to an electrical device would be considered assault and possibly battery.

Hitting someone without cause would be considered battery.