1 Does it police itself? The report named twenty-some people, including officers several layers above the individuals committing the abuse, as at least partially responsible for either knowing about abuse and not reporting it, for giving directives that either clearly encouraged abuse or were obviously vague enough to be interpreted as allowing abuse. So far only the grunts have been indicted -- same as at Abu Ghraib. And when you consider that some of the treatments described in the report -- and previously reported at Abu Ghraib -- were cleared by Rumsfeld and/or suggested by the Gonzalez draft memo, it's hard to escape the conclusion that responsibility OUGHT to extend, at a minimum, up to Rumsfeld -- even if it's not criminal liability, it IS responsibility. If he were a man of honor, he would've resigned in disgrace by now.

2 So far only the grunts have been indicted -- same as at Abu Ghraib. The officer overseeing prisons in Iraq, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski has been busted back to Colonel, which is a career-destroying demotion. She wasn't there and took no part in the abuse and so hasn't been indicted, but she was judged derelict in her duty. Five other officers have also been the subject of disciplinary action over Abu Ghraib. The New York Times report mentions that no officers have been indicted over the abuse in Afghanistan, but doesn't say anything else. I expect that the situation is much like Abu Ghraib: Officers not directly involved in the abuse but who should have taken action to stop it have been dealt with short of court-martial. blah blah Rumsfeld blah blah Gonzalez blah No. Nothing in that paragraph is either factual or logical. Sorry, but you are an idiot.

3 Says you. "Despite autopsy findings of homicide and statements by soldiers that two prisoners died after being struck by guards at an American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, Army investigators initially recommended closing the case without bringing any criminal charges, documents and interviews show." Part two of the same article, published this morning.

4 Was the case closed? The case was not closed. Were charges brought? Charges were brought. Did you have a point? No, I thought not.

5 Before you congratulate yourself, you should also note that if it weren't for ONE decent individual taking the in initiative to see the CIC because he was dissatisfied with the military's own inquiry, ONE decent individual who then leaked the CIC report to the Press, the military's "self-policing" would have wound up nought. Most of the soldiers were charged last week, probably because of imminent media exposure, and NONE for causing the deaths. "Our military is imperfect, but it does police itself, and it does hold itself accountable."??? I wouldn't call it self-policing if it exonerates itself in its own inquiry and takes no further action until a whistleblower leaks information to the CIC and the press. "In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command. Until then, he had never been interviewed." "Even though military investigators learned soon after Mr. Dilawar's death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the Army's criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram interrogators, led by the same operations officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to a high-level Army inquiry last year, Captain Wood applied techniques there that were "remarkably similar" to those used at Bagram. Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case. So far, only the seven soldiers have been charged, including four last week. No one has been convicted in either death. Two Army interrogators were also reprimanded, a military spokesman said. Most of those who could still face legal action have denied wrongdoing, either in statements to investigators or in comments to a reporter. "

6 Before you congratulate yourself Eh? you should also note [unsupported assertions] Your quotes directly undermine your claims.

7 Not a chance. My quotes were actually gleaned from the NYTimes quoting the CIC report. Note, it isn't the military's own internal report investigating the deaths of prisoners, but the CIC's investigation instigated by a whistleblower. If there were no whistleblowers, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, no one would even know about the military's torture and abuses. According to the Red Cross, it seems many more complaints were lodged and reported to the military, but we hear nothing about them. And I wouldn't call a system which relies on whistleblowers sticking their necks out to report abuses a "self-policing" one. It's akin to saying the tobacco companies are self-policing simply because a whistleblower came out to the media and authorities and they were then reprimanded in court. By definition, any organisation that covers up its abuses and is only called into account by the stray whistleblower reporting to an outside, higher authority isn't self-policing.

8 From the same article, Mr. Pick-and-Chooser: Citing "investigative shortfalls," senior Army investigators took the Bagram inquiry away from agents in Afghanistan in August 2003, assigning it to a task force based at the agency's headquarters in Virginia. In October 2004, the task force found probable cause to charge 27 of the military police guards and military intelligence interrogators with crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to lying to investigators. Those 27 included the 7 who have actually been charged. "I would acknowledge that a lot of these investigations appear to have taken excessively long," the Defense Department's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, said in an interview on Friday. "There's no other way to describe an investigation that takes two years. People are being held accountable, but it's taking too long." There are valid criticisms to be made against the military over both the incident and the handling of the investigation. The problem is, you aren't addressing those points, you are instead choosing to press claims that have no basis in fact. On the other hand, the military is addressing those points. Which is exactly what I said in the first place. You say: If there were no whistleblowers, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, no one would even know about the military's torture and abuses. That's completely false. Not only was the Abu Ghraib incident the subject of a military investigation months before it became the liberal media's number-one chew toy, it was specifically included in press briefings. Military 4, Liberal Media 0

9 You are seriously deluded. It was another whistleblower, Darby, that exposed Abu Ghraib, and Seymour Hersh broke it before the Pentagon was forced to admit it. In the case of Bagram, "In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command." This is the whistle blower. Two months later "Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case." Before then, the internal miitary inquiry ended with no recommendations to take any action. If it weren't for the whistleblowers, one or two men out of hundreds and thousands, not a squeak would have been heard. Any respectable self-policing org would have started immediate investigations into dead prisoners and STOPPED any further abuses and brought those responsible for torture and manslaughter to justice. Instead, the torturers and killers at Bagram were sent to Abu Ghraib to repeat their stellar performance AFTER the deaths of the two innocent Afghans by their superiors. You still haven't explained how the Red Cross reports about torture and killings went IGNORED by the Pentagon for years. This isn't a self-policing entity. Unless self-policing means getting away with murder. The refutation isn't personal or meant to undermine you, but many of us no doubt find it troubling you invest such faith in a military that has repeatedly been exposed as perpetrating crimes with impunity. In effect, you are saying that things are just great and dandy in the military. If not for the "liberal" media you despise, Hersh and NYTimes, all would have remained buried. It is strange how instead of appreciating them for speaking truth to power, you would belittle them. I have enough of this rah, rah, rah, ain't we great stuff. Enjoy more of the same from your Bush.

10 Sorry, no. This is the whistle blower. An army sergeant, reporting to an army investigative body. In other words, even when the inital investigation failed, the military could be trusted not only to reopen the investigation, but to launch an inquiry into its own procedures. Which means that we have a whole new level of trust established - the old "Quis custodiet ipso custodes" is answered. Instead, the torturers and killers at Bagram were sent to Abu Ghraib to repeat their stellar performance AFTER the deaths of the two innocent Afghans by their superiors. That is the first intelligent thing you have said. That is a very legitimate criticism that I haven't seen addressed by the military. Even ignoring your slant, it should never have been allowed to happen. You still haven't explained how the Red Cross reports about torture and killings went IGNORED by the Pentagon for years. The Red Cross reports have been investigated. In almost - not quite, but almost - every case they have been determined to be unfounded. Unfortunately in recent years the Red Cross has developed the same brain-eating anti-Americanism that is so widespread elsewhere. It doesn't matter that you can't tell right from wrong; you're just one idiot. It does matter that the Red Cross has lost all sense of proportion. This isn't a self-policing entity. A 2000-page report proves you wrong. In effect, you are saying that things are just great and dandy in the military. In effect, you can't read. If not for the "liberal" media you despise, Hersh and NYTimes, all would have remained buried. Hah. Hersh is even more loosely connected to reality than you are. He is hopelessly unreliable. The NYT as a whole is just hopelessly biased. Fortunately, we do not need to rely on either one for anything. It is strange how instead of appreciating them for speaking truth to power, you would belittle them. "Speaking truth to power"? That pathetic line, again? With Hersh and the NYT, we see not so much speaking truth to power, as speaking falsehoods to the insane. Which includes you, I'm afraid. Read part one of this piece, which details your mental problems. Or better, read Bill Whittle's Sanctuary.

11 ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net