[VanillaGorilla]

The Red Cross's operation principles mandate neutrality and impartiality. RC is very very discreet about releasing news unless it has exhausted diplomatic avenues behind closed doors despite what what some may think. So it had to be extremely bad for the RC to get involved.

Didn't we already have a debate about the red cross Marcus? The red cross is not exactly non partisan.

I can't see how pictures/video of prisoners with panties on their heads is useful information.

Do you consider putting panties on someone's head torture? Judging from other stories coming out they were probably trying to extract information from them and if putting panties on a prisoners head got information that saved American solders lives.......... I am all for it.
You are also assuming that the majority of the prisoners at the prison were innocent. When you have terrorist dressed in civilian clothes setting of bombs and taking pot shots at our troops it's hard to know who the enemy is. I am for doing what ever it takes to save American troops lives. War in a foreign country does not have the same rules that the constitution gives us here.

[MarcusG]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Didn't we already have a debate about the red cross Marcus? The red cross is not exactly non partisan.

Do you consider putting panties on someone's head torture? Judging from other stories coming out they were probably trying to extract information from them and if putting panties on a prisoners head got information that saved American solders lives.......... I am all for it.
You are also assuming that the majority of the prisoners at the prison were innocent. When you have terrorist dressed in civilian clothes setting of bombs and taking pot shots at our troops it's hard to know who the enemy is. I am for doing what ever it takes to save American troops lives. War in a foreign country does not have the same rules that the constitution gives us here.

I don't recall a debate about the IFCRC.

Head panties/naked twister pics were the ones released to the public and thats torture too.

Did the US authorities ever deny that most of the prisoners were merely innocent bystanders being rounded up? Didn't a whole bunch of them get released right after the story broke?

[VanillaGorilla]

I don't recall a debate about the IFCRC.

We did .......remember the same IRC that wanted the United States to either Charge or release Sadam.

Did the US authorities ever deny that most of the prisoners were merely innocent bystanders being rounded up? Didn't a whole bunch of them get released right after the story broke?

They released some after the story broke. The prison holds about 3000 to 4000 people and they periodically release prisoners or groups of them. I don't recall any story about them releasing 2000 prisoners. I have read that they released any where from 100-400 periodically. That doesn't mean they have stopped picking up Iraqi's either. That's hardly a mass exodus and doesn't give any legitimacy to your argument that every prisoner there is 100% innocent. I am sure some of the people they are releasing will be informants for us. I will reiterate my point this is a war in a foreign country not the United States. If a bomb goes off the military has the right to detain anyone they deem suspicious.

[VanillaGorilla]

Head panties/naked twister pics were the ones released to the public and thats torture too.

I disagree with you........I wouldn't call that torture. Let's say you know that Iraq terrorist are going to set off a large bomb but you don't know where or when. You capture terrorist the know information about it. The bomb could kill 100's of people. What would you do?

[CrAzyOttER]

cut off one finger at a time with a rusty blade until the basterd talks.
but thats just me

[MarcusG]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

We did .......remember the same IRC that wanted the United States to either Charge or release Sadam.

They released some after the story broke. The prison holds about 3000 to 4000 people and they periodically release prisoners or groups of them. I don't recall any story about them releasing 2000 prisoners. I have read that they released any where from 100-400 periodically. That doesn't mean they have stopped picking up Iraqi's either. That's hardly a mass exodus and doesn't give any legitimacy to your argument that every prisoner there is 100% innocent. I am sure some of the people they are releasing will be informants for us. I will reiterate my point this is a war in a foreign country not the United States. If a bomb goes off the military has the right to detain anyone they deem suspicious.

How would charging and trying Saddam be so difficult? Is Saddam somehow supposed to be treated differently from any other criminal? Saddam was one of the reasons for invading Iraq right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May28.html
They released 600 in a day and wanted to cut the prison population by half.

If the military could use the argument that the prisoners were tortured for time sensitive information, why wasn't it sufficient to acquit the soldiers?

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../05/12/1420257
A former contractor who left CACI said up to 90% were innocent. And raises questions on the rising problem of PMCs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4339511.stm
Karpinski tells of the culture of "releasophobia".

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle7508.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8441.htm
Delgado an c.objector tells of the torture, culture of racial superiority starting from boot camp, routine abuse.

[VanillaGorilla]

How would charging and trying Saddam be so difficult? Is Saddam somehow supposed to be treated differently from any other criminal? Saddam was one of the reasons for invading Iraq right?

The point is at the time we were deciding what to do with him, the IRC thought we should "charge him or let him go". Let him go? That is insane. Sadam is not a simple criminal and the rules of the constitution don't apply to him. He is a war criminal... there is a big difference.

A former contractor who left CACI said up to 90% were innocent. And raises questions on the rising problem of PMCs.

The article said he "confirmed 70 to 90 % were innocent and they were not talking to Torin Nelson. They are getting that information second hand. Nelson has been very critical but he also said that there were thousands of people in the prison that hated us. There is also a 20 % difference there. The original 70 to 90% came from a flawed report in the New Yorker where the author misread the report, which I pointed out in our last debate about this. Again if we feel that we need to detain people for what ever reason we have a right to do so. This is a war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004May28.html
They released 600 in a day and wanted to cut the prison population by half.

It's not surprising that they would do that because of all the political pressure. I hope they didn't let anyone go they shouldn't have.

[VanillaGorilla]

You also didn't answer my question marcus.

Let's say you know that Iraq terrorist are going to set off a large bomb but you don't know where or when. You capture terrorist the know information about it. The bomb could kill 100's of people. What would you do?

[MarcusG]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

The point is at the time we were deciding what to do with him, the IRC thought we should "charge him or let him go". Let him go? That is insane. Sadam is not a simple criminal and the rules of the constitution don't apply to him. He is a war criminal... there is a big difference.



The article said he "confirmed 70 to 90 % were innocent and they were not talking to Torin Nelson. They are getting that information second hand. Nelson has been very critical but he also said that there were thousands of people in the prison that hated us. There is also a 20 % difference there. The original 70 to 90% came from a flawed report in the New Yorker where the author misread the report, which I pointed out in our last debate about this. Again if we feel that we need to detain people for what ever reason we have a right to do so. This is a war.



It's not surprising that they would do that because of all the political pressure. I hope they didn't let anyone go they shouldn't have.

First I don't see how the question of Saddam is germane to the issue.

But if Saddam's status as a war criminal like you said was never in any doubt, then shouldn't be charged as per the Geneva Convention? How is his status any different from those put on trial at Nuremberg?

This is the IRC report which caused the furor:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aq_feb2004.htm
See the 70-90% M.I. assessment which have never been refuted by C.F.
IRC comments about their leaked report:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...256E8D005D3861

What are you talking about? Nelson agreed with the IRC report. The interview reads:
"..his name is Torin Nelson. He [Nelson] left Abu Ghraib fearing for his life. He confirms what the report says that 70% to 90% of the people inside the prison were innocent. He said that sometimes the soldiers would Go out and grab innocent people in - like that so they can fill the prison with people that they want to interrogate.."
And again I say we do not have a right to run subject innocent people including children to arrest in random cattle drives and brutal torture for any reason.

Its not surprising some were released after the embarrasing revelations about the large number of innocent civilians. Who would have thought the whole situation involving a few thousand soldiers could've even existed before the leaked IRC report...

Yes, I never answered your rhetorical question about 'a terrorist with a ticking time bomb'. You are making up some hypothetical situation to skirt around the fact that innocent people were being tortured and murdered. If the soldiers charged could use your excuse then they wouldn't been in hot water that they were, would they.

The ACLU documents released from the US Govt under the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit:
http://www.aclu.org/International/In...?ID=13962&c=36
Some of the interesting bits:
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/012405.html
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/030705/
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/030905/

What did you think of Delgado's interview?

Edit: Taguba's Army investigation report
http://wikisource.org/wiki/US_Army_1....28PART_ONE.29
Soldiers Back in U.S. Tell of More Iraqi Abuses
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1131704/posts
1,800 new pictures add to US disgust
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...215645,00.html

[VanillaGorilla]

First I don't see how the question of Saddam is germane to the issue.

But if Saddam's status as a war criminal like you said was never in any doubt, then shouldn't be charged as per the Geneva Convention? How is his status any different from those put on trial at Nuremberg?

He was charged eventually but it's ridiculous for an organization even suggest to let him go.

What are you talking about? Nelson agreed with the IRC report. The interview reads:
"..his name is Torin Nelson. He [Nelson] left Abu Ghraib fearing for his life. He confirms what the report says that 70% to 90% of the people inside the prison were innocent. He said that sometimes the soldiers would Go out and grab innocent people in - like that so they can fill the prison with people that they want to interrogate.."
And again I say we do not have a right to run subject innocent people including children to arrest in random cattle drives and brutal torture for any reason.

My point was that was Pratap Chatterjee telling you that Nelson told him that not Nelson himself. If you type Chatterjee's name in you will find that it's not to hard to figure out what side of the political isle he resides on. I could not find from any other source that Nelson "confirmed" your 70 to 90 % innocent people. As I said before he has been very critical of Abu Graib but he did say there were thousands in the prison that hated us. The context of that statement was a direct quote. Again if you are right, there are 4000 people in there that is a difference between 400 and 1200 people that belong there. So lets say someone coming from your view point lets all of the prisoners out but keeps 400 but it turns out your wrong and it's 70% not 90%. You just let out 800 people that can do harm. As I said before the original 70 to 90 % was reported in the new yorker which the reporter read wrong. The word innocent never appeared in the report with the percentage.

Its not surprising some were released after the embarrasing revelations about the large number of innocent civilians. Who would have thought the whole situation involving a few thousand soldiers could've even existed before the leaked IRC report...

The political scandal was over the pictures of the naked pig piles not that everyone there was innocent.

Yes, I never answered your rhetorical question about 'a terrorist with a ticking time bomb'. You are making up some hypothetical situation to skirt around the fact that innocent people were being tortured and murdered. If the soldiers charged could use your excuse then they wouldn't been in hot water that they were, would they.

Again I don't consider putting a bag on someone's head and making them stand naked torture. Don't you think your are going a bit to far with the murder accusation? That's funny I never did see your answer to my question please answer it again because I looked and can't seem to find it.

The ACLU documents released from the US Govt under the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit:

The aclu is a great organization........... aren't they defending NAMBLA?

I will say this again. This is a war Marcus. You have terrorists in civilian clothes that are doing all the damage. The people our solders are dealing with would strap a bomb to their own child. So our solders never know when someone is going to attack. If that is the situation they have a right to detain anyone that looks at them funny regardless if they are innocent or not. You want to believe that every single person who is in that prison is innocent which isn't the case even by your own numbers. You also want to believe that the solders are all bad and even went as far as to make an accusation of murder. I asked you that question because I would like to know how you would handle a situation where you know a person has information that will save lives but isn't willing to talk. Would you say pretty please please please?

[MarcusG]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

He was charged eventually but it's ridiculous for an organization even suggest to let him go.

My point was that was Pratap Chatterjee telling you that Nelson told him that not Nelson himself. If you type Chatterjee's name in you will find that it's not to hard to figure out what side of the political isle he resides on. I could not find from any other source that Nelson "confirmed" your 70 to 90 % innocent people. As I said before he has been very critical of Abu Graib but he did say there were thousands in the prison that hated us. The context of that statement was a direct quote. Again if you are right, there are 4000 people in there that is a difference between 400 and 1200 people that belong there. So lets say someone coming from your view point lets all of the prisoners out but keeps 400 but it turns out your wrong and it's 70% not 90%. You just let out 800 people that can do harm. As I said before the original 70 to 90 % was reported in the new yorker which the reporter read wrong. The word innocent never appeared in the report with the percentage.

The political scandal was over the pictures of the naked pig piles not that everyone there was innocent.

Again I don't consider putting a bag on someone's head and making them stand naked torture. Don't you think your are going a bit to far with the murder accusation? That's funny I never did see your answer to my question please answer it again because I looked and can't seem to find it.

The aclu is a great organization........... aren't they defending NAMBLA?

I will say this again. This is a war Marcus. You have terrorists in civilian clothes that are doing all the damage. The people our solders are dealing with would strap a bomb to their own child. So our solders never know when someone is going to attack. If that is the situation they have a right to detain anyone that looks at them funny regardless if they are innocent or not. You want to believe that every single person who is in that prison is innocent which isn't the case even by your own numbers. You also want to believe that the solders are all bad and even went as far as to make an accusation of murder. I asked you that question because I would like to know how you would handle a situation where you know a person has information that will save lives but isn't willing to talk. Would you say pretty please please please?

What is relevant is that ICRC had been informed by the US Military Intel themselves that approx 70-90% were innocent so its not "by my own numbers". Karpinski herself said the culture was one of "releasophobia".

If a prisoner of Saddam's stature can be held incommunicado with no charges indefinitely, then what does it say for any other person? And Your assessment of ICRC and Chatterjee by shooting the messenger is totally flawed. Can anyone refute Chatterjee's claims of corporate gouging in Iraq?

And you've chosen to ignore ACLU's website (granted NAMBLA is repugnant) although the documents were procured under FOIC came from the US government agencies FBI/DoD/Army/etc.

Ok, I did a search and Nelson exact quote was - "many of the detainees at the prison are actually innocent of any acts against the coalition and are being held until the bureaucracy", which Chatterjee took as supporting the ICRC report. Nelson even mentions 30-40% already were simply innocent bystanders being bundled in, one example was a neighbour being bundled in when a suspect was not found.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...211374,00.html

??? The scandal blew up when the world found out the majority of prisoners held were innocent (I never said all - is it always all or none?), the brutality of torture including death and children being held.
And you must be extremely obtuse to think torture and murder did not take place. Read the links on eye-witness testimoney from prisoners, M.I./M.P./etc about shootings, people being routinely beaten to an inch of their lives, forcible sodomy etc.

Your imaginary hypothesis of a ticking time bomb is false. Did it in fact exist and did it help the US soldiers pretty please please please?

I know its war. I know mistakes happen and I know sometimes distasteful work has to be carried out for the imminent greater good. But what is shocking is that you have confused actions borne out of hatred, evil malice and racism with the above.

[VanillaGorilla]

What is relevant is that ICRC had been informed by the US Military Intel themselves that approx 70-90% were innocent so its not "by my own numbers". Karpinski herself said the culture was one of "releasophobia".

My guess is the IRC got the number from the report. The problem is that the report did not say 70 to 90 % were innocent.

If a prisoner of Saddam's stature can be held incommunicado with no charges indefinitely, then what does it say for any other person? And Your assessment of ICRC and Chatterjee by shooting the messenger is totally flawed. Can anyone refute Chatterjee's claims of corporate gouging in Iraq?

Is Sadam still being held with out being charged Marcus ? The answer is No. At a time when we were deciding if we should charge him international court (which would have been a bad idea because he paid off the UN and several other countries) , bring him here, or let him stand trial in Iraq the IRC stood up and said charge him or let him go. This is a mass murder. That stance is not only asinine, it shows were they stand. Why weren't the IRC concerned when Sadam was lopping off peoples hands and raping and killing families?As far as Chatterjee my point was he was reporting second hand what Nelson said and I could not find in any other news article Nelson saying this. The default positions for liberal activist such as IRC and Chaterjee is anti America, anti military, and anti capitalism. Chatterjee heads a liberal organization called corpwatch.org. Coming from that view point I am not going to take their word for it.

Ok, I did a search and Nelson exact quote was - "many of the detainees at the prison are actually innocent of any acts against the coalition and are being held until the bureaucracy", which Chatterjee took as supporting the ICRC report. Nelson even mentions 30-40% already were simply innocent bystanders being bundled in, one example was a neighbour being bundled in when a suspect was not found.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1211374,00.html

Many and 30 to 40 % don't equate into 70 to 90% and that everyone there is innocent. Obviously they don't know how many people are "innocent" because the number you repeat over and over again is a range from 400 to 1200.

??? The scandal blew up when the world found out the majority of prisoners held were innocent (I never said all - is it always all or none?), the brutality of torture including death and children being held.
And you must be extremely obtuse to think torture and murder did not take place. Read the links on eye-witness testimony from prisoners, M.I./M.P./etc about shootings, people being routinely beaten to an inch of their lives, forcible sodomy etc.

No Marcus the scandal blew up because of the pictures..... end of story. Murder is a serious charge Marcus. Can you provide a credible news story to back this up with out solely relying on the testimony of Iraqi prisoners?

Your imaginary hypothesis of a ticking time bomb is false. Did it in fact exist and did it help the US soldiers pretty please please please?

It's not an imaginary scenario and it's funny that You can't answer a question I have asked you two or three times. Are you telling me you honestly believe that we have never caught a terrorist or a solder that had information that could save lives and won't talk?
You consider what happened at the prison torture and obvious have the same position politically as the ACLU, IRC, and Chatterjee. How do you suggest we handle prisoners who have information who won't talk? This is about the fourth time I have asked you this.

I know its war. I know mistakes happen and I know sometimes distasteful work has to be carried out for the imminent greater good. But what is shocking is that you have confused actions borne out of hatred, evil malice and racism with the above.

You obviously don't because you repeatedly act as if the prisoners are American citizens and are being held on American soil. As I said before I don't think what happened can be described as torture, abuse maybe but not torture. Seeing that our solders are being attacked by people in civilian clothes they have the right to lock up or detain anyone that looks at them funny.

[MarcusG]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

My guess is the IRC got the number from the report. The problem is that the report did not say 70 to 90 % were innocent.

Is Sadam still being held with out being charged Marcus ? The answer is No. At a time when we were deciding if we should charge him international court (which would have been a bad idea because he paid off the UN and several other countries) , bring him here, or let him stand trial in Iraq the IRC stood up and said charge him or let him go. This is a mass murder. That stance is not only asinine, it shows were they stand. Why weren't the IRC concerned when Sadam was lopping off peoples hands and raping and killing families?As far as Chatterjee my point was he was reporting second hand what Nelson said and I could not find in any other news article Nelson saying this. The default positions for liberal activist such as IRC and Chaterjee is anti America, anti military, and anti capitalism. Chatterjee heads a liberal organization called corpwatch.org. Coming from that view point I am not going to take their word for it.

Many and 30 to 40 % don't equate into 70 to 90% and that everyone there is innocent. Obviously they don't know how many people are "innocent" because the number you repeat over and over again is a range from 400 to 1200.

No Marcus the scandal blew up because of the pictures..... end of story. Murder is a serious charge Marcus. Can you provide a credible news story to back this up with out solely relying on the testimony of Iraqi prisoners?

It's not an imaginary scenario and it's funny that You can't answer a question I have asked you two or three times. Are you telling me you honestly believe that we have never caught a terrorist or a solder that had information that could save lives and won't talk?
You consider what happened at the prison torture and obvious have the same position politically as the ACLU, IRC, and Chatterjee. How do you suggest we handle prisoners who have information who won't talk? This is about the fourth time I have asked you this.

You obviously don't because you repeatedly act as if the prisoners are American citizens and are being held on American soil. As I said before I don't think what happened can be described as torture, abuse maybe but not torture. Seeing that our solders are being attacked by people in civilian clothes they have the right to lock up or detain anyone that looks at them funny.

Then post your proof source if the MI did not state approx 70-90% or where US authorities specifically refute that ICRC statement.

You simply shoot the messenger. The US govt has conveniently ignored Saddam loping off heads. The ICRC has never shirked their duties and abided by principles of neutrality and impartiality otherwise they wouldn't have been allowed into Abu Ghraib. Care to tell me instead why Chatterjee is mostly wrong in his assessment of corporate gouging. And the ACLU can't be believed even if the documents came from the FBI/Army/MI/DoD/Navy/etc

You must be intentionally obtuse. 30-40% represents people known to be innocent _even_before_ brutally snatching them, like a curious neighbour peering across to see whats going on. 70-90% represents an estimate of the US MI out of the total prison population after putting them through the grinder.

Read/listen the links I posted earlier if you didn't think anyone got murdered.

Then care to tell me how often that imaginary scenario occurs. Can you give me percentages? What about testimonies of US soldiers being charged and sentenced? What about testimony not involving biased US soldiers intent on saving their own skin? Its funny you can't actually prove your scenario is relevant.

If snatching large numbers of people _at_random_ including curious neighbours (who aren't suspects) and the occasional journalist are meeting 'suspicious' standard for torture then you are the one who has not got it.