American Captive Beheaded in Iraq

[johnny]

Originally posted by Link: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: As for Propoganda USA, ABC (the American Broadcasting Channel) was the FIRST network to issue an internal memo stating that their news personnel should STOP wearing American Flag pins on thier outfits shortly after 9/11, because it might offend some of the Muslim audience. EXCUSE ME??? The American Broadcasting Channel doesn't want their employees to wear American flag pins because it might offend a minority of their audience???

I'm sorry Cerek, but what idiot patriotic broadcasting channel lets its employees wear American Flag pins??? What's the supposed reason for that? Because Americans feel proud for their country? You got to be kidding me!

I'm not trying to offend you or attack you here, but I think Americans are taking it one step too far by doing these type of things... even if it's just about a pin. American Patriotism is closer to fanaticism if you'd ask me. [/QUOTE]You wanna see fanatics who take pride in their nationality ? Go to Portugal next month, and watch the streets get overflown with people all dressed up in silly orange outfits, waving the red white and blue colours.

[Lanesra]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If an American flag pin offends someone here, including but not limited to Muslims, they can simply leave. You don't have to like the US -- we have that freedom, and you can voice your dislike all you like. But, you can't whine that some of us love our country and take pride in it.

Stop pouting Timber. Nobody said you shouldn't wear flag pins.

In Britain we require the BBC to be "fair and balanced" in it's reporting. Flag pins are out, as are flags in the top left hand corner of the screen when the news is on. [/QUOTE]But what about when they show Australian flags? [/QUOTE]That's in comedy shows. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: On another note, I think that all countries should have a great deal of national pride and unity. You should at least love your country as much as you love your local sports team, for criminey's sake. And, while we may be under the gun for it these days, we're not the only country to have this level of national pride. I think British, Aussie, German, French, and Iraqi national pride are examples of ones that run pretty high as well.

I don't want to get too caught up in the pros-and-cons of this debate for obvious reasons, but this comment I can agree with. Nothing wrong with loving your country. Criticising it doesn't mean you don't love it, just as wearing American flag pins is not a sign that you do. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I can't believe the way you're representing the US media, Skunk. I mean, every news station tries to present the news most relevant to its viewers, of course, but our news sources here include many that are very critical of the government.

Would you mind giving me a few examples please Timber?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Skunk: The US army does not take nine months to do anything. Whatever charges anyone levels on the US military, laziness and slowlessness are not ones that could stand up and be taken seriously.

Skunk - where do you keep coming up with this figure of 9 months during which no action was taken? According to Timber, the first reports he found of any allegations was 12/03 and the official investigation started on 01/09/2004 (the process of assembling the investigative team began before then of course). So this means that the actual investigation began just over 2 months after the first of the abuses listed occurred (according to Timber's sources. Even if that isn't true (although it also corroborates what I've heard regarding when the actual investigation started), it still has not been 9 months since the first reported abuses occurred (11/01/2003 --> 05/14/04 = 6 months and 2 weeks ). Since you question the validity of Timber's sources, could you provide a link (or an excerpt with appropriate documentation) for your sources supporting the 9 month allegation?

Originally posted by Skunk: From the moment that the allegations were made PUBLIC, the tree was shook, the officer commanding was relieved from duty, charges were issues and working practices changed at the prisons. All in a space of a couple of weeks.

"From the moment the allegations were made PUBLIC, the tree was shook" - Well no shizzle Dick Trizzle. From the moment the "Propoganda TV" started posting pictures of abused prisoners and implying the military did nothing about the abuses (and indeed even encouraged them) "the tree was shook'. That's because the American public DEMANDS and instant fix to such problems - even though that is logistically impossible. However, it is NOT impossible to have a knee-jerk reaction and to throw a sacrificial goat to the angry mob. Now it is quite possible that the commanding officer deserved to be relieved of his duties, but it is also possible that it was done JUST to satisfy the frenzy whipped up by the media - which presented the Abu Ghraib story in the same manner you are - that these abuses were occurring with the full knowledge AND encouragement of the military brass. But the facts are that the military had already started an independent investigation at least 3 months before the pictures were leaked to the media (again, according to Timber's sources.

So the military HAD already begun to take action about allegations that they obviously DID take seriously. But once the media got involved, they DEMANDED "immediate action" be taken - and the only acceptable solution was to fire the commanding officer at the site. Now it's quite possible their investigation had led them towards that decision already, but there is no denying that the media forced their hand into taking that action before they were fully prepared to.

You can claim the military was dragging their heels to protect their brass if you want, but any lawyer will tell you that they NEVER want to take ANY action until they have ALL the facts needed to make their case. At the very least, the media frenzy caused the military to act before they were completely ready (In My Opinion {obligatory C.E. disclaimer}).

[pritchke]

One thing I will say is that the Administration had removed safe guards that prevent that kind of thing from happening. Last night I was watched the news with two experts one military another human rights. The administration removed JAG officers among other safe guards from the prisoner interrogation process. The sole purpose of that officer was to oversee that the interrogator did not step out of bounds. JAG complained and warned what could happen without their presence. With noone to watch them they can practically get away with anything, and they could do things that they don't even know is wrong. An environment has been set up were these things can now take place. My point is the administration, military brass is not completely blameless weather they knew of these things or not. Ignorance is not an excuse for lack of accountability. The problem is not going to go away by charging and dismissing a few privates the process of interrogation will have to be fixed from the top down.

[ 05-14-2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

Removing JAG officers was a bad idea. From the law enforcement side, I know prosecutors often spend a lot of time either helping the police do something within the bounds of the law, or explaining to them why what they did was illegal after the fact. Where torture is concerned, I think we all would want to know ahead of time.

Cerek, you mention "Timber's sources" a lot. Just to let you, and everyone know, on this particular issue I don't have confidential sources that know anything more than anyone else does. Just to clarify -- when I said I had "confidential sources," I was simply trying to show that I don't just watch Foxxx News for my headlines and that in some cases (not this one) I do get info that I can't share.

Shamrock, as for examples of alternative news, well, there's always John Stewart if nothing else. But, all of our news sources here have different flavors, from the local nightly news to hardball to meet the press to nightline to 60 minutes to NY Times to Wash. Post. Some are much aligned with the party line, and some are much maligned with the party line.

Okay, back to the investigation and the dates -- someone here posted the link to The Smoking Gun website, where they have the military's report about the abuses. It looks to me like it'd take 3 months just to type that damned thing.

[ 05-14-2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Link -- provided by Rokenn

Let's talk about foot-dragging.
1/19/04 -- Lt.G. Sanches requests CENTCOM to appoint Investigating Officer (Major General or higher) to conduct investigation of 800th MP Brigade actions from 11/1/03-present. Seeks all-encompassing inquiry based on allegations of abuse.

1/24/04 -- CENTCOM directs Cmdr. D. McKiernan to conduct the investigatation -- including all facts/circumstances surrounding recent reports of detainee abuse.

1/31/04 -- McKiernan direct A.M. Taguba to conduct the investigation under AR 15-6, including all instances of abuse, any escapes, training/operations of MPs, and recommended corrective actions.

Background -- US Army criminal investigation of the 372nd Co. and 320th Btn. (both part of the 800th) had resulted in 4 soldiers being charged with detainee abuses in 3/03 (yep -- during the war).

The IO Team begany by analyzing 11/03 reports, including numerous interviews and documnents

2/2/04 -- IO Team inspects Abu Ghraib

3/3/04 -- Exit briefing

YEP - LOTS OF HEEL-DRAGGING THERE!!

And Skunk, a big F-U for making allegations out of thin air and forcing me to do homework, twit. Do your own research next time. And please read the report before replying.

[Link]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Link: I'm sorry Cerek, but what idiot patriotic broadcasting channel lets its employees wear American Flag pins???

One that's in a nation that just suffered it's worst attack ever. One just dealt a massive kick in the guts that needed every bit of solidarity it could get.

Would you condemn Spainish for wearing flags after the train attack? Show some sensitivity. Or is your memory deficient to the point that 9/11 holds no relevence or meaning to you?

Certainly your inability to understand little human things like grief, bonding, loyalty, pain and suffering are bewildering to say the least. [/QUOTE]

First off: my frustration (note that I never ever even used the word anger in my post) came from the fact that everywhere I look, listen and point my direction to I see American people totally glorifying their country. And I don't care a damn thing about America; I don't need to know how great it is, how rich it is, how powerful it is, or how many people in America wear white socks for the same matter. Patriotism is one thing, Yorick, fanaticism (as I described) is taking the love for your own country too far. Sure, I'll cheer for my home country when the European Championships football will start in Portugal, but [insert exquisite exaggeration] I won't walk about screaming "I love the Netherlands" like a blatant idiot constantly all day [/exquisite exaggeration]
Second: I honestly can't believe you brought 9/11 into this whole thing. It has utterly nothing to do with the discussion, and it sure as hell doesn't make the use of (in this particular example) flag pins legitimate. Once again: I was shocked when 9/11 happened, but that doesn't mean I have to think about it 24/7 anymore. Moreover, you have got to move on.
Third: you're lucky I've grown up enough to ignore your totally ignorant flame to me about being insensitive. What in the blazing hells would you know about me? Have you ever spoken to me, met me up to some point? I believe not.

What's the supposed reason for that? Because Americans feel proud for their country? You got to be kidding me! quote: I'm not trying to offend you or attack you here, but I think Americans are taking it one step too far by doing these type of things... even if it's just about a pin. American Patriotism is closer to fanaticism if you'd ask me.

Why should one culture criticise another Link? You're being bigotted. American patriotism makes perfect sense given the DIVISIONS within the nation. Divisions you clearly don't understand, or you would see American patriotism as necessary to the very fabric of the country.

In short mind your own business and leave a patriot to wear a flag if he feels so moved. It shows meanness of spirit, pedantism and bitterness to condemn or ridicule a person for have LOVE.

LOVE of country is a wonderful thing. Love is a wonderful thing. So Americans are proud of their country? Perhaps you're jealous? That's all it seems to be when you rant like this. A little jealous person who is envious that their country isn't as good.

If not, you should think about the picture you're presenting when you ridicule LOVE of country. [/QB][/QUOTE]Again: patriotism is love for your country, chivalry and fanaticism is taking things too far. I do not believe the wearing of flag pins to be something patriotic. It's something that's totally unnecessary: the flag pin cannot even begin to resemble the ('so-called') patriotism you are talking about. Patriotism is a feeling, not something that can be expressed by wearing a stupid pin: that only makes you boast about your own country.
And no, I'm not jealous. Actually I'm quite glad my country isn't the way America is. I'm glad we try to solve the problems in our own garden before tending to someone else's is what I'd say to that.

[Skunk]

[quote]Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
[QB]

Originally posted by Skunk: Since you question the validity of Timber's sources, could you provide a link (or an excerpt with appropriate documentation) for your sources supporting the 9 month allegation? [qb]

My mistake - I thought that the delay was only nine months - but as it turned out, it WAS LONGER. The Red Cross began filing complaints in MARCH 2003 - AND REPEATEDLY COMPLAINED since then.
"The Red Cross has emphasized that the report was only a summary of its repeated attempts in person and in writing from March to November 2003 to get U.S. officials to stop abuses. Those earlier interventions by the Red Cross far preceded the Pentagon's decision to investigate after a low-ranking U.S. soldier stepped forward in January.
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040511/ap/d82g22a00.html
*slaps head* - Sorry, I'll try to more accurate next time.