The Iraq thread 3

[SpongeBob 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please post factualy

Quote[/b] ]There is a rumour (not proven) that they were part of Paul Bremmers security detail. Blackwater provides his body guards.

ROTFLMAOAPMP

[MLF 0]

they were civilian contractors, im not sure what there job was i thinking it was truck drivin or sumim.

Hi MLF

Your statement is factualy incorrect

They were Mercinaries employed by Blackwater Security Consulting.

They were all armed.

They were all ex US millitary; Blackwater Security Consulting only employs such.

http://www.blackwatersecurity.com/ A search of their site reveals their services as

.

Quote[/b] ]SECURITY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND RISK ANALYSIS

TRAINING

...for security and protective operations...

MOBILE SECURITY TEAMS

PROTECTIVE SOLUTIONS

Several if not all had dog tags on so that their remains could be identified in the event their remains were disfigured by a bomb or some such.

A further examination of the identities and previous jobs of the men killed leads me to state my belief that they were a Mobile Security team.

There is a rumour (not proven) that they were part of Paul Bremmers security detail. Blackwater provides his body guards.

Please post factualy MLF let us leave fantasy in the Sun newspaper and other such tabloids.

Kind Regards Walker

O yea Walker, sorry i was not 100% sure what they were, o btw whats with the cheap dig's eh so what if they where Part of the Blackwater Secuirity firm does that mean they were fair gain, IIRC they do not act in an Offensive role like most True Mercenaries, are you in some way trying to defend the acts of those who mutilated them, are you saying they deserved it in some way?

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please post factualy

Quote[/b] ]There is a rumour (not proven) that they were part of Paul Bremmers security detail. Blackwater provides his body guards.

ROTFLMAOAPMP

That is rather amusing.

Kind Regards MLF

[brgnorway 0]

It shows the immense importance of independent media. And that's what ultimately saves the US from being equal to Saddam. The greatest enemy of democracy is censorship. The greatest enemies of democracy are those that censor and twist news because they find it 'unpatriotic' or "anti-American'. Those that voted for Bush should take a note of that.

Yes, this is true of course, however there is a big "but" . Having an "independent press" is not sufficient unless the climate of the proffesion is critical. Several factors can play a decisive role in the final outcome. You have recent examples of nationalism playing down the critical and analytic tone in the press such as the early post-911 period. And you have political ownership interests such as Mr. Murdoch and Berlusconi.

[MLF 0]

Click Me

its 31 meg so i suggest all 56k ppl eat shoe polish, or just wait it out.

[walker 0]

O yea Walker, sorry i was not 100% sure what they were, o btw whats with the cheap dig's eh so what if they where Part of the Blackwater Secuirity firm does that mean they were fair gain, IIRC they do not act in an Offensive role like most True Mercenaries, are you in some way trying to defend the acts of those who mutilated them, are you saying they deserved it in some way?

What digs where?

Please point out these so called 'digs' against mercinaries.

My point through out has always been that employing such mecinary companies to do what is under the Laws of War an occupation is obviously fraught with dangers for Iraqis and coalition troops.

The plane fact is they are not covered by the Laws of War or the geneva convention.

It is a fact that any White House official who sanctioned their employment has opened them selves to criminal prosecution both in the US and in Iraq for any laws they break while in the US government's sub contracted employ.

If they were soldiers such White House employees right up the chain of command would be potected by the Laws of War. Because they are mercinaries those protections do not apply.

The Laws of War are why the UK generals want to leave as soon a possible after the June handover. As at that point UK law does not apply in their area of control Iraqi law does.

I have always reserved my aprobrium for TBA and TBA2.

I have never aimed my ire at members of the armed forces or even against the mercinaries; with the one exception of those who commited and condoned acts of torture instigated by another 'contractor company', They I do not consider soldiers; they are the muck I wipe off my shoe.

I recognise The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. has ripped off veterans benenfits and left their country in such a dire economic state with massive debts and unemployment that they are driven to take up work as mercinaries

I have always made it clear that blame TBA and TBA2 for the gross stupidity of the invasion and decimation of Iraq.

I blame TBA and TBA2 for the 866 coalition lives lost and for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian lives lost.

And all for what? So Dodgy Dick Cheyney's former company Halliburton can win billions of dollars of no bid contracts to fish them out of bankruptcy and other companies with former employees and directors who now are part of the administration can rip off the the US tax payer and the pentagon by overcharging millions on the price of oil to the millitary.

Halliburton and its ilk have been the only winners in the Iraq invasion. I just wonder which revolving doors TBA will be walking through when they leave office.

Kind Regards Walker

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]THIS IS NOT A HOAX. I SAW IT, I WAS THERE

May 3 2004

PROOF THAT ABUSE PICS WERE REAL

THE two soldiers who disclosed shocking photos of British troops abusing an Iraqi last night rejected claims the shots were fakes.

They insisted pictures they gave the Mirror showing a hooded prisoner being urinated on and battered with rifle butts were real.

CLAIM: Floppy hats as worn by this soldier hitting

the helpless prisoner in the groin are rarely,

if ever, used by British troops serving in Iraq

PROOF: Troops wear the same style of hat arriving

in Basra last year. The men in this picture have

no connection with the disclosures of abuse

Referred to as Soldier A and Soldier B, one of the pair said: "This happened, it is not a hoax and the Army knows a lot more has happened." Soldier A added: "I was there, I saw what happened."

The men from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment spoke out after BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams and Tory defence spokesman Nicholas Soames suggested the pictures were fake.

Adams claimed he had been told of inconsistencies in the shots by "sources close to the regiment".

And Soames criticised the Mirror for publishing them when, he said, "there was clearly a question mark over their veracity".

But yesterday an unnamed officer told GMTV that senior ranks had turned a "blind eye" to mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

"People were literally getting serious beating or kickings... you're talking broken ribs, punctured lungs sort of thing."

Asked whether incidents such as those depicted in the photographs had occurred, he replied: "Yes, I'm sure it has. I know. Yes. Yes."

And Sky TV defence analyst Francis Tusa insisted there was no evidence to suggest the pictures were fake.

Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan yesterday defended publication of the photos, which sparked a worldwide outcry, in Saturday's paper.

He said: "There was clearly a small rogue element of soldiers who committed totally unacceptable acts against Iraqi civilians.

"Acts which have made our battle to win the hearts and minds of this country's people so much more difficult.

"The Mirror makes no apology for exposing this outrageous and unlawful behaviour, which has been common knowledge among disgusted British servicemen in Basra for many months.

"The vast majority of our troops in Iraq have done an outstandingly brave job in incredibly difficult circumstances and the Mirror will always support our soldiers unequivocally, even though we opposed the political decision to wage this war."

The two squaddies admit they cannot answer questions regarding minor details in the photos, which were taken months ago.

But here they respond to the allegations they are fake.

CLAIM: The man's T-shirt was too clean and not of a type worn in that part of Iraq.

REALITY: Soldier B: "We saw dozens of Iraqis wearing exactly those T-shirts." Soldier A: "The man was wearing some sort of Arab dress over his T-shirt and it was ripped off during his arrest."

CLAIM: The man's legs are not in a foetal position as they would have been if he had been attacked in a sensitive region.

REALITY: Soldier A: "That's how he was. I can't say why they aren't. His arms were tied behind him."

It appears the victim, who had a sack over his head, would not have been prepared for the blow.

CLAIM: The webbing and pouches worn by the soldier pictured urinating on the victim aren't very full or even well used.

REALITY: Soldier A: "On raids, kit wasn't the issue. We had also returned to our compound, the soldier might have removed stuff."

CLAIM: Rarely did QLR troops wear floppy jungle hats in Iraq. Though all had them, they were encouraged to wear either berets or helmets.

REALITY: Soldier B: "We wore floppy hats all the time. A beret was too hot, helmets cumbersome."

The Mirror has seen pictures of QLR troops, including themselves, in Basra in floppy hats.

CLAIM: No divisional mark is visible below the Union flag on the rifle-butting soldier's left arm. If he was in Iraq, he should have also had a divisional marking, a triangle.

REALITY: Soldier A: "We weren't going around sewing badges on. I might have had one shirt with the correct badges which I'd get out if I was on parade. The others had no badges. Perhaps just a Union flag."

CLAIM: The truck, the soldiers' uniforms and boots, and the Iraqi are too clean.

REALITY: Soldier A: "That's the way it was."

CLAIM: The SA80 in the picture is allegedly a Mark One. All troops in Iraq had Mark IIs. The rifle in the pics has no shoulder strap - unusual for troops in Iraq.

REALITY: Soldier A: "I was carrying an SA80-A2. I think the one in the picture is that model as well. I can't explain why it may not be.

"Some soldiers wore rifle slings, many others didn't.

"Some found that in a situation where you might have to open fire a sling made moving the weapon to the firing position very awkward."

CLAIM: A rifle in the picture was too clean, with no scratches or marks.

REALITY: Soldier A: "We cleaned our rifles all the time. It could have been cleaned that afternoon."

CLAIM: The truck appears to be a Bedford model, rather than a Leyland, which was the type the QLR had in Iraq.

REALITY: Soldier A: "It was a four-ton truck, I'm not sure what make. We always used that sort of truck when we were on raids as did other units. It was standard practice."

CLAIM: The sandbag on the Iraqi's head is too clean and looks almost ironed. Sandbags used as hoods by troops were kept crumpled up in their pockets or pouches for quick use as necessary.

REPLY: Soldier A: "I can't answer that. That was the hood the man had on."

The Mirror has seen another picture of one of the soldiers with another arrested Iraqi - the sandbag appears identical.

CLAIM: The troops' uniforms and equipment are too neat and not dirty.

The Mirror has been shown another picture of an arrest in which the soldiers' uniforms appear exactly the same.

CLAIM: There are no visible bruises or marks on the Iraqi.

REPLY: Soldier A: "I can't explain that."

CLAIM: Boots were not laced in the correct fashion.

REALITY: Soldier A: "I never even noticed that. I think people lace the boots the way they are most comfortable with."

The Mirror has seen archived pictures of Basra soldiers with laces done up in many different ways.

About the T-shirst,I`ve seen a Resistance Fighter picture with a Manchester United T-Shirst on him so what kind of bs is that he couldn`t have an Iraqi flag?

and where did you get this source from?

mirror news website itself.

they got a lot to loose if this is false report, so they will start defending their report.

Quote[/b] ]Once again you went for the white horses instead of answering my post.

Your argument:

then why are you blankly assume that it is CIA?

My answer:

Because it was their cell block?

"Noticed how I used the term "cia agents" btw but I guess you disregarded that completly"

I was merly trying to point out that I was criticizing the specific CIA agents and not CIA as a whole all though THEY were also acting under higher command instructions

you were pointing fingers at specific CIA agents, not CIA itself. however, on above post upon question of "why are you blankly assume that it is CIA?", you said, "Because it was their cell block?"

so who is to blam, CIA or CIA agents? i see contradicting posts here.

Quote[/b] ]You make me laugh..Why should they respect it,because they signed the frigging thing as all the other countries did.If there was no Geneva Convention the US POWs could have been thorn to little pieces and the examples are countless.Think before posting!

Again last time I`ve heared during the war the US POWs weren`t forced to commit one of the most biggest sin in the Bible,urinat*d on,beated like a rag etc. they were all in excelent health when freed.

in that case thousands of IRaqi soldiers would have been easily disposed of too. think before posting! it's mutual agreement and implementation that will get the convention working.

i was refering to 1st Gulf war, when US/UK soldiers were sexually harassed or forced to do rather degrading actions.

Quote[/b] ]You are loosing it my friend.Give me examples,show me the pictures of US POWs mutillated you need to give me something.For the last time your word is almost nothing to me as you have never been able co come up with any sort of proof.

show proof that FOX is biased.

show proof that CIA was infact the mastermind behind the torture

show proof that Bush is working on divine intervention

maybe Iraqis knew that they would loose anyways, so they did not mistreat US POWs? but then again, Hamil was not supposed to be captured like that.

Quote[/b] ]I feel sorry for you,you are answering to your own lies.Who the hell said it is ok to mistreat US POWs?YOU!I just said that in current conditions is impossible to call Red Cross to visit the POW as they would risk to much.

You can not compare how the Resistance treats POWs to the way US millitary treats them.We don`t know who the Resistance fighters are,for all we know they could be foreign fighters who captured the US soldier.

It has been prooven there are many factions in Iraq.As I said before you can not compare the ones blowing themselves off killing civillians to the Iraqi resistance fighters that fighted the Marines in Fallujah.

Anti-US?You should get some immidiate attention Ralph.Last time I checked criticizing the CIA agents and soldiers who tortured Iraqis,TBA lies and maniplation means for starting an illegal war,the US soldiers shooting civillians and destroying taxis doesn`t equal hating a population of 275 million citizens.

Just like the comic posted by Denoir a few pages back..

IR can visit without getting followed by US. US troops are busy doing other things. "if situation permits..."argument is nothing but an excuse.

by not wearing a distinguishable uniform, the insurgents are letting go of protection from Geneva conention. so what if US mistreats insurgents then?

anti-TBA and anti-US is different. your comments are nothing but a thinly disguised attempt to extend your bias against there is nothing that you post that puts things in different perspectives.

you claim that it is in CURRENT war. where on the article is that?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR....49A.htm

Quote[/b] ]The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has said "Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist."

Quote[/b] ]They had all the reasons to check the car as it was their teritory.Last time I checked all cars entering US compounds(GreenZone) and passing US checkpoint are extremly carefully checked.

I already stated it wasn`t their fault as they were advised by their guide so I don`t see your point.

i guess next time some foreign travelers come to US i can pull them off and do same thing.

Quote[/b] ]Innoecent no,but crimes have different grades of seriosity that`s why we have different penalties for them.

As you can not compare stealing a dollar bill with robbing a bank you can not compare a stick rattled against a war with mutillation,humilliating and torturing prisoners atleast from my point of view.

edit:Hats of in front of the Marine.It takes big courage to do such a thing.It reminded me of a scene in Band of Brothers if someone else seen it.I am surprise he got so little media attention compared to the NFL football player.

both are crimes, and severty differs, but both need to be punished. i see no one supporting arrest of those who rattled the stick.

no wonder it got no media coverage. if it did, i bet there were people who would have said 'Media is putting these human interest stories instead of crim realities of war.'

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey MLF !

I guess I made clear what position I stand at !

Neither did I post the article and images in question, nor did I say that they are real. Goddamnit !

I didn´t even comment those pics.

Quote[/b] ]your hatred of those who went to war is blurring your judgement

And your incompetence to read and understand goes below my limit. One more flamatory post like this and I will activate mods. It´s not acceptable that you try to put me somewhere , where you think I should be.

So read and understand and pls refrain from bashing me.

There´s just no legitimate reason, other than your hate.

I also assume that you will not join our server again. I don´t want to play with guys like that. Thank you.

[theavonlady 2]

One more flamatory post like this and I will activate mods.

LOL!

(batteries not included)

[Balschoiw 0]

I guess mods here don´t need batteries to do their business.

They are driven by OFP, not 1,2 Volts

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]and where did you get this source from?

mirror news website itself.

they got a lot to loose if this is false report, so they will start defending their report.

I am getting used to this kind of answers from you.

Great answer Ralph,to bad you never thought of it the other way around.So ask yourself WHO has alot to loose if this indeed true?Who`s image is going to get another slap on the face and even more questions will arise from the public as to the legitimacy of this war?Hmm...

I was just showing the other side of the story.Or from your point of view they should be immidiatly ignored and not given the chance to reply because "British millitary says the pictures are fake"

Quote[/b] ]you were pointing fingers at specific CIA agents, not CIA itself. however, on above post upon question of "why are you blankly assume that it is CIA?", you said, "Because it was their cell block?"

so who is to blam, CIA or CIA agents? i see contradicting posts here.

That is your fault only,because of your misleading question

My post was strictly refering to CIA agents as per my words but when you asked me "Why do you blankly assume it is CIA" I actually assumed you took the time to read my post and understood I was talking about the agents involved.Sorry, Ralph for being foolish enough to belive you are reading my posts.

Quote[/b] ]i was refering to 1st Gulf war, when US/UK soldiers were sexually harassed or forced to do rather degrading actions.

We are talking about THIS war.Comparing Iraqi soldiers actions from GW 1 to GW2 is as stupid as comparing US soldiers from this war to those in Vietnam

Quote[/b] ]maybe Iraqis knew that they would loose anyways, so they did not mistreat US POWs? but then again, Hamil was not supposed to be captured like that.

Using maybe in your sentences is not at all healthy in a debate.

"Maybe the Iraqis soldiers were acting on Saddam`s direct order to not harm the POWs.

Quote[/b] ]show proof that FOX is biased.

show proof that CIA was infact the mastermind behind the torture

show proof that Bush is working on divine intervention

White horses Ralph,white horses.You always go for them when you lack the abillity of providing any proof.

Quote[/b] ]IR can visit without getting followed by US.US troops are busy doing other things. "if situation permits..."argument is nothing but an excuse.

Hogwash!Ralph are you part of US millitary?Do you know what their concerns are?From your post in seems you ado.Who made you spokesman of US millitary to claim they "are busy doing other things".

Forgive my for not trusting your words but I actually belive they will do anything possible to end the shame of having a POW one year after "The mission was accomplished".

BTW you claimed I said it is ok to mistreat POWs.Please point out where I said that.

Quote[/b] ]by not wearing a distinguishable uniform, the insurgents are letting go of protection from Geneva conention. so what if US mistreats insurgents then?

Your right,so what if they mutillate,torture,humilliate,force them to comit homosexual acts,bah who cares.They are not human beings,are they?Intresting that no one elses seems to agree with you.(I am refering to US millitary,TBA etc)

Quote[/b] ]anti-TBA and anti-US is different. your comments are nothing but a thinly disguised attempt to extend your bias against there is nothing that you post that puts things in different perspectives.

In my country we call this toilet paper words.I`ve asked you how does criticizing the CIA agents and soldiers who tortured Iraqis,TBA lies and maniplation means for starting an illegal war,the US soldiers shooting civillians and destroying taxis equal hating a population of 275 million citizens.

And you give me this answer,low Ralph,low..

Quote[/b] ]you claim that it is in CURRENT war. where on the article is that?

Oh boy..CPJ is an organisation that protects current journalists not the ones who reported in the Vietnam War, Falkalnds,Mogadishu,Gulf War1.So put this togehter with

Quote[/b] ]The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has said "Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist."

Now do you understand?They were refering to current journalists reporting in the present...

Quote[/b] ]guess next time some foreign travelers come to US i can pull them off and do same thing.

You mean the next time Syrians pass a U.S checkpoint, pretend they are Iraqis and their passaports are found prooving otherwise.Hmm,I am sure they will be let to go along their buisness

Quote[/b] ]both are crimes, and severty differs, but both need to be punished. i see no one supporting arrest of those who rattled the stick.

So,you think when the kidnappers will be seen by US soldiers they won`t be shot on sight?Do you think they don`t want to find them?

Quote[/b] ]no wonder it got no media coverage. if it did, i bet there were people who would have said 'Media is putting these human interest stories instead of crim realities of war.'

Get real!So,if what you say its true why did it happen in the case of the NFL footbal player?He got intensive media atenttion for doing alot less then the Marine who jumped on a grenade to save his collegues.

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]When/If the British Troops pics are proved fake

I don´t think Tony the Blair, knight of Londonberry would send his investigators out only for some fake pics, don´t you think ?

The paper already released an interview and they´ve said to post follow-ups. Well, there´s money to be made.

You must know that if an allergation is made in the Military whether it be fake or true they are investigated at FACE VALUE until proven otherwise, your hatred of those who went to war is blurring your judgement, if you have seen the pictures they look extremely dodgy, and it aint Tony's men who are investigating its the RMP, so plz actually get your facts right.

i really don't see where i was bashing you? and i never talk about politics on the server and just because our opinions differ why does that stop us from playing COOP together?

I was merely pointing out that the RMP is carrying out the Investigation into the Abuse/Torture and that the investigation is not being carried out by Tony Blair's "Investigators"

but if because out opinions differ and you are telling me i canot play Coop with others from the forum then i will not join the game tonight.

[denoir 0]

What White House budget payed for CACI International Inc. and Titan Corp to provide the perverts that instigated the torture of Iraqi detainees?

Hardly. The people that were there put the blame on 'military intelligence'. In Iraq it could mean one of two things. One is the DIA and the other is Army Intelligence. First we can rule out DIA as they deal in analysis of military intelligence and SIGINT, not HUMINT. So it's Army Intelligence.

They are financed by the Army whose budget is controlled by the Senate Committee on Armed Services and approved by several congressional oversight committies.

The White House has very little do do with it.

[MLF 0]

denoir, do you have any infomation on when they say they actually hired Civilian Interrorgators, i doubt i could look in the yellow pages under I for them, what companies specialise in interroragation that are in the public sector like Blackwater.

[denoir 0]

AFIK there has been no information about civilian interrogators. I suppose it's possible, but it's nothing that I've read about.

[MLF 0]

Yeah i was a put aback a bit when i heard about, but they are supposidly workign along CIA Agents in the particular wing of the Prison, also out of the 8,000 people held in the prison only 1,000 are help as actual criminals/insurgents/Terrorists (whatever you want to call em) but the rest are classed as "Secuirity" detainees.

[MLF 0]

BBC News Online

Quote[/b] ]The editor of the Daily Mirror is being invited for questioning by MPs about his publication of photos allegedly showing UK troops abusing an Iraqi.

The Commons defence select committee says the hearing will give Piers Morgan "a chance to substantiate" the claims.

No date has been set for the session but the committee wants it to happen "at any early opportunity".

The newspaper is standing by its allegations despite doubts expressed about the pictures' authenticity.

Announcing its decision to call Mr Morgan, the committee said: "It will enable us to satisfy ourselves whether he and his staff have acted responsibly in how they have handled this matter.

"We will hold this session in the context of our already announced inquiry into the continuing operations in Iraq."

Mr Morgan is unlikely to resist the invitation as the committee has the power to summon "people and papers".

But he may shun any efforts to get him to reveal his newspaper's sources.

Committee chairman Bruce George floated the idea of questioning Mr Morgan on Tuesday evening, saying it could "clear the air".

Mr George told Channel 4 News some of the questions which could be raised: "Was there any payment made? Is he convinced these pictures are genuine? What efforts did he make to ensure these pictures were genuine?"

The pictures, published this weekend, appear to show a hooded and bound Iraqi prisoner being mistreated.

'No stone unturned'

The Daily Mirror, in Wednesday morning's editorial, said: "The Mirror still believes the truth of the story and the pictures which substantiate it.

"That gives us no pleasure. On the contrary, we, like the squaddies who came to us, are shocked by what went on."

The paper said it would refuse to hand over its sources, while at the same time praising the government's "balanced and responsible position" on an inquiry.

The armed forces minister Adam Ingram promised MPs on Tuesday that "no stone will be left unturned" in the investigation into the pictures.

In a Commons statement, Mr Ingram said the newspaper had handed over 20 photographs of alleged abuse.

There was anger among both Labour and Tory MPs at the way the paper had chosen to publish the pictures despite the concerns over their authenticity.

Labour MP Mark Hendrick warned that if the photographs proved not to be real, the Mirror would become known as the "dodgy daily".

Fellow Labour backbencher Janet Anderson called for Mr Morgan's resignation as editor if they proved to be fake.

Shadow defence secretary Nicholas Soames called for "the most vigorous and detailed investigations to restore the good name of the British Army".

'Not genuine'

The Royal Military Police are investigating in the UK, in the southern Iraqi city of Basra and in Cyprus, where the regiment in question - the Queen's Lancashire Regiment - is based.

Sources close to the regiment insist the photographs are not genuine.

Their suspicions focus on the troops' clothing, weaponry and equipment, the quality of the photos, and the lack of sweat, dirt or injuries on the body of the alleged victim.

The newspaper says the sources for its photos are two members of the regiment who are standing by their account of what happened.

[walker 0]

Hi all

@ Denoir and MLF You realy need to read the report of the U.S. Army on Iraqi prisoner abuse. Get your facts straight please gentlemen. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001

I quote directly from the report.

Quote[/b] ]11. (U) That Mr. Steven Stephanowicz, Contract US Civilian Interrogator, CACI, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, be given an Official Reprimand to be placed in his employment file, termination of employment, and generation of a derogatory report to revoke his security clearance for the following acts which have been previously referred to in the aforementioned findings:

Made a false statement to the investigation team regarding the locations of his interrogations, the activities during his interrogations, and his knowledge of abuses.

Allowed and/or instructed MPs, who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by “setting conditions†which were neither authorized and in accordance with applicable regulations/policy.  He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse.  

12. (U) That Mr. John Israel,Contract US Civilian Interpreter, CACI, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, be given an Official Reprimand to be placed in his employment file and have his security clearance reviewed by competent authority for the following acts or concerns which have been previously referred to in the aforementioned findings:

Denied ever having seen interrogation processes in violation of the IROE, which is contrary to several witness statements.

Did not have a security clearance.

13. (U) I find that there is sufficient credible information to warrant an Inquiry UP Procedure 15, AR 381-10, US Army Intelligence Activities, be conducted to determine the extent of culpability of MI personnel, assigned to the 205th MI Brigade and the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib (BCCF).  Specifically, I suspect that COL Thomas M. Pappas, LTC Steve L. Jordan, Mr. Steven Stephanowicz, and Mr. John Israel were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and strongly recommend immediate disciplinary action as described in the preceding paragraphs as well as the initiation of a Procedure 15 Inquiry to determine the full extent of their culpability.

My use of bold in the quoted section.

That is not some scutlebut from people who claim they were there or the lies of suspects trying to cover their backs. That is the real report.

Plane as day it is why the White House refused to read it when it came out in February. That is how long the White House have sat on it.

The Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba leads to the conclusion that any person involved in employing the civilian contractors and placing them in charge of the US soldiers is in clear violation of the Laws of War and the Geneva Convention and can now be prosecuted.

Perhaps you should look up what a Procedure 15 Inquiry is.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Ok, thanks for the quote Walker, but it changes very little. Those are on Army budget. As the report say those were working for the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade [ 205mi website ], which is a part of US Army Intelligence. It's commanded by Col Thomas M. Pappas (also mentioned in the report).

It is the Army that does the recruitment and financing of such contractors. The White House has absolutely nothing to do with it.

As usual you are looking at the right thing but in the wrong places. The White House did not bother with the reports because they did not want the PR trouble.

[MLF 0]

Hi all

@ Denoir and MLF You realy need to read the report of the U.S. Army on Iraqi prisoner abuse. Get your facts straight please gentlemen. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001

I quote directly from the report.

Quote[/b] ]11. (U) That Mr. Steven Stephanowicz, Contract US Civilian Interrogator, CACI, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, be given an Official Reprimand to be placed in his employment file, termination of employment, and generation of a derogatory report to revoke his security clearance for the following acts which have been previously referred to in the aforementioned findings:

Made a false statement to the investigation team regarding the locations of his interrogations, the activities during his interrogations, and his knowledge of abuses.

Allowed and/or instructed MPs, who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by “setting conditions†which were neither authorized and in accordance with applicable regulations/policy.  He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse.  

12. (U) That Mr. John Israel,Contract US Civilian Interpreter, CACI, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, be given an Official Reprimand to be placed in his employment file and have his security clearance reviewed by competent authority for the following acts or concerns which have been previously referred to in the aforementioned findings:

Denied ever having seen interrogation processes in violation of the IROE, which is contrary to several witness statements.

Did not have a security clearance.

13. (U) I find that there is sufficient credible information to warrant an Inquiry UP Procedure 15, AR 381-10, US Army Intelligence Activities, be conducted to determine the extent of culpability of MI personnel, assigned to the 205th MI Brigade and the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib (BCCF).  Specifically, I suspect that COL Thomas M. Pappas, LTC Steve L. Jordan, Mr. Steven Stephanowicz, and Mr. John Israel were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and strongly recommend immediate disciplinary action as described in the preceding paragraphs as well as the initiation of a Procedure 15 Inquiry to determine the full extent of their culpability.

My use of bold in the quoted section.

That is not some scutlebut from people who claim they were there or the lies of suspects trying to cover their backs. That is the real report.

Plane as day it is why the White House refused to read it when it came out in February. That is how long the White House have sat on it.

The Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba leads to the conclusion that any person involved in employing the civilian contractors and placing them in charge of the US soldiers is in clear violation of the Laws of War and the Geneva Convention and can now be prosecuted.

Perhaps you should look up what a Procedure 15 Inquiry is.

Kind Regards Walker

could you elaborate what this has to do with me and my posts?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Plane as day it is why the White House refused to read it when it came out in February. That is how long the White House have sat on it.

You got proof that the White House got the report. Only Rumsfeld admitted that he had it but did not read the report because it had to many annexes or something (cannot remember what he said but it was something too many).

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps you should look up what a Procedure 15 Inquiry is.

http://www.dod.mil/atsdio/documents/52415.html

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Calling it a "high priority," President Bush on Wednesday asked Congress for an additional $25 billion to cover military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CNN

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

I sort of agree with you the chain of command does lead up the millitary chain but I draw to your attention that at the top of that chain is Donald Rumsfeld who read the reports findings back in February.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a White House nominee who you may sort of see at the White House, once in while; maybe he only sees the president once a year or something.

Aparently it was one of the CACI contractors who raped the young boy detained in the prison.

Quote[/b] ]Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, speaking for central command, told the Guardian: "One contractor was originally included with six soldiers, accused for his treatment of the prisoners, but we had no jurisdiction over him. It was left up to the contractor on how to deal with him."

She did not specify the accusation facing the contractor, but according to several sources with detailed knowledge of the case, he raped an Iraqi inmate in his mid-teens.

Col Morgenthaler said the charges against the six soldiers included "indecent acts, for ordering detainees to publicly masturbate; maltreatment, for non-physical abuse, piling inmates into nude pyramids and taking pictures of them nude; battery, for shoving and stepping on detainees; dereliction of duty; and conspiracy to maltreat detainees".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

Aparently under Bremmers Free Democratic Iraq Pedophiles can not be prosecuted if they work for CACI international.

Completley unrelated is a link to CACI International a wonder round their site can prove quite intresting.

http://www.caci.com/business/intel.shtml

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

I sort of agree with you the chain of command does lead up the millitary chain but I draw to your attention that at the top of that chain is Donald Rumsfeld who read the reports findings back in February.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a White House nominee who you may sort of see at the White House, once in while; maybe he only sees the president once a year or something.

"Top of the chain" is a bit complicated expression. If we take a look at what happened in Iraq:

The mightly 'war plan' stipulated that once Saddam was overthrown the Iraqis would be happy to be liberated and that the rest would be smooth sailing. They axiomatically assumed that the problem with the war was the invasion itself, not the occupation phase. When it did not turn out the way they expected they had to do some very serious changes in very little time. One of the more significant ones was the agressive recruitement of civilian contractors working for the military. It has the benefit of not requiring additional mobilization and the unavoidable media coverage. It's also cheaper than re-deploying existing forces. Rumsfeld certainly was in on the decision and gave after consultation with the White House an approval. The idea was hardly his though and the practical implementation was most certainly not. That's handled by the military. In practice the top there is the joint chiefs of staff. These are not political appointments but military ones. They, and the chain of command below them would be responsible for the actual implementation.

The secretary of defence's role is financing the military. He has very little say on operational matters.

So, if Rumsfeld knew about the report, why did he not tell Bush? It would be very strange if he had told Bush. The president must have deniability. He does not touch such matters.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Calling it a "high priority," President Bush on Wednesday asked Congress for an additional $25 billion to cover military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CNN

     

Look, spend $25 billion here and $25 billion there and soon it will amount to real money!

Anyway, glad it's not my money. I wonder how far the deficit can be pushed until they'll have to tax the hell out of everything that moves for 20 years.