Why do you hate America?

[Squid]

US Army says prison deaths are homicides

Iraqi, Afghan detainee cases documented

By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times | March 26, 2005

 

WASHINGTON -- The Army has concluded that 27 of the detainees who died in US custody in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2002 were the victims of homicide or suspected homicide, military officials said in a report released yesterday.

 

The number is higher than Pentagon officials have previously acknowledged, and it indicates that criminal acts caused a significant portion of the dozens of prisoner deaths that occurred in US custody.

 

Thus far, the Army has found sufficient evidence to support charges against 21 soldiers in 11 cases on offenses that include murder, negligent homicide, and assault, according to the report released yesterday by the Army Criminal Investigation Command.

 

The other completed investigations involve personnel from the Navy, other government agencies, and foreign armies, and the cases have been turned over to them for possible action.

 

Overruling recommendations by its own investigators, the Army has decided not to prosecute 17 soldiers implicated in the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004, The New York Times reported today.

 

Army investigators had recommended that all 17 soldiers be charged in those cases, the newspaper said. While none will face any prosecution, one received a letter of reprimand and another was discharged after the investigations.

 

Most of the 27 cases cited in the Criminal Investigation Command report had come to light previously.

 

Three of the deaths cited in the documents occurred after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq revealed serious abuses in the military detention system and prompted several high-level investigations into the US military's prison system worldwide.

 

The 27 confirmed or suspected homicides occurred during 24 separate cases -- 17 of them in Iraq and seven in Afghanistan. The Criminal Investigation Command has determined that there were homicides in 16 of the cases and is continuing to investigate the other eight.

 

''We are equally determined to get to the truth, wherever the evidence may lead us and regardless of how long it takes," said Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army.

 

The homicides documented in the report included the January 2003 shooting of an Afghan detainee by a special forces soldier after he attempted to stand up while he was being questioned; the shooting by a soldier of an Iraqi prisoner who approached the perimeter wire of a forward operations base detention camp in September 2003; and the alleged execution of a wounded prisoner by an Army sergeant after a firefight near Mosul, Iraq, in November.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit over the detainee abuse that forced the Pentagon to release thousands of pages of documents.

 

The ACLU said in a news release yesterday that the Pentagon was trying to bury the report by releasing it on the day before a holiday weekend.

 

 

I think 27 deaths is more than an accumulation of isolated incidents. From the start, Bush has tried to wriggle free of the constraints of the Geneva Convention- and implicitly condoned torture.

 

This shit is common knowledge, and publicized, but people (like you) consistently claim wide-eyed surprise when it is pointed out.

 

If you feel that adultery is morally more reprehensible than condoning torture & murder, then you & I agree to disagree.

[aint_this_great]

Hate to break up the hate party, but this is one reason I love America...people who write stuff like this exist:

(and of course the general theme is hating America)

 

> > Dear President Bush:

> > Congratulations on your victory over all us

> > non-evangelicals. Actually, we're a bit ticked off

> > here in California, so we're leaving. California will

> > now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue

> > States with us. In case you are not aware, that

> > includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota,

> > Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the

> > Northeast.

> >

> > We spoke to God, and he agrees that this split

> > will be beneficial to almost everybody, and

> > especially to us in the new country of California. In

> > fact, God is so excited about it, he's going to shift

> > the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday.

> > Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be

> > back in their states by then.

> >

> > So you get Texas and all the former slave

> > states. We get the Governator, stem cell research

> > and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get

> > Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get

> > OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get

> > WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

> >

> >

> > We get 85% of America's venture capital and

> > entrepreneurs. You get all the technological

> > innovation in Alabama. We get about two-thirds of the

> > tax revenue, and you get to make the red states

> > pay their fair share.> >

> >

> > Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the

> > Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy

> > families. You get a bunch of single moms to

> > support, and we know how much you like that.

> >

> > Did I mention we produce about 70% of the

> > nation's veggies? But heck, the only greens the

> > Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their BigMacs.

> > Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving

> > California wine at your state dinners. From now on

> > it's imported French wine for you. (Ouch, bet that

> > hurts!)

> >

> > Just so we're clear, the country of California

> > will be pro-choice and anti-war. Speaking of war,

> > we're going to want all Blue States' citizens back

> > from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your

> > evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're

> > willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no

> > purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of

> > their kids' caskets coming home.

> >

> > Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next

> > four years and we hope, really hope, you find those

> > missing weapons of mass destruction. Seriously. Soon.

> >

> > With the Blue States in hand, the Democrats

> > have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh

> > water, over 90% of our pineapple and lettuce, 92% of

> > all fresh fruit production, 93% of the artichoke

> > production, 95% of America's export quality wines, 90%

> > of all cheese production, 90% of the high tech

> > industry, most of the US low-sulfur coal, all living

> > redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven

> > Sister schools, plus Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech and

> > MIT. We can live simply but well.

> >

> > The Red States, on the other hand, now have to

> > cope with 88% of all obese Americans (and their

> > projected health care cost spike), 92% of all US

> > mosquitoes, nearly 100% of all tornadoes, 90% of all

> > hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, 100%

> > of all Televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones

> > University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. A

> > high price to pay for controlling the presidency.

> > Additionally, 38% of those in the Red states

> > believe Jonah was actually eaten by a whale, 62%

> > believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the

> > death penalty or gun laws, 44% believe that evolution

> > is just a theory, 53% that Saddam Hussein was

> > involved in 9/11 and - most hard to grasp - 61%

> > believe that Bush is a person of moral conviction

[Couloir]

US Army says prison deaths are homicides

Iraqi, Afghan detainee cases documented

By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times | March 26, 2005

 

WASHINGTON -- The Army has concluded that 27 of the detainees who died in US custody in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2002 were the victims of homicide or suspected homicide, military officials said in a report released yesterday...

 

 

I think 27 deaths is more than an accumulation of isolated incidents. From the start, Bush has tried to wriggle free of the constraints of the Geneva Convention- and implicitly condoned torture.

 

This shit is common knowledge, and publicized, but people (like you) consistently claim wide-eyed surprise when it is pointed out.

 

If you feel that adultery is morally more reprehensible than condoning torture & murder, then you & I agree to disagree.

Yeah, I think adultry is morally more reprehensible than condoning torture & murder. I was simply making a statement about his Presidency outside of this overall discussion.

 

Second, when I spoke of mistreatment, though I wasn't explicit, I meant death (or as the DOD puts it, Homicide) too. I'm not wide-eyed surprised at all. What's the count up to, 2986 that were killed at the WTC, Pentagon and PA? The detainees weren't innocent civilians picked up at random off the street. There were captured trying to kill us or our allies. Some of them were killed? It's a WAR. 27 killed compared to 2986 killed.

 

What continues to puzzle me is how quick some are to defend the rights of those that are trying to kill us, yet so amazingly slow to defend those that are trying to protect our own country. Why is this?

 

And taking a step back from all of this, and realizing how fortunate we are to live in this country, how could the question even be asked, "Why do you hate America?"

 

Sorry for the rant. I usually just lurk and laugh in Spray, but this thread just struck a nerve. Sorry if I pissed anyone off.

Edited June 2, 2005 by Couloir

[Couloir]

Hate to break up the hate party, but this is one reason I love America...people who write stuff like this exist:

(and of course the general theme is hating America)

 

> > Dear President Bush:

> > Congratulations on your victory over all us

> > non-evangelicals. Actually, we're a bit ticked off

> > here in California, so we're leaving. California will

> > now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue

> > States with us. In case you are not aware, that

> > includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota,

> > Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the

> > Northeast....

Yeah, there have been a lot of letters like this directed at Kerry and his "followers" too. And they were just as stupid.

 

Funny how the extremes think each side is a complete idiot, and they just don't get it. It's really quite ridiculous and it certainly doesn't do our country any good. I believe the vast majority of this country believes and values most of same things in life. It's too bad we have the far right and the far left working so hard to make us think otherwise.

[pope]

But he was the President. I don't think any of us would have done that, again, out of respect for the office.

 

I lost respect for the office when we stuck a chimp in there.

[slothrop]

The detainees weren't innocent civilians picked up at random off the street. There were captured trying to kill us or our allies. Some of them were killed? It's a WAR. 27 killed compared to 2986 killed.

 

Many of the detainees are and have been innocent civilians. The military's own estimates put the percentage of useful prisoners (those with actual intelligence information) at something less than 25%. I'm sure the Marines and Army kill the ones actually caught trying to kill them. That's their job.

 

We've killed thousands more innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan already than were killed in the WTC and in all other terrorist attacks on US civilians or soldiers since then. Innocent people, not insurgents/terrorists/assorted bad guys. Oops, right? Just a part of war.

 

I just can't wrap my feeble little mind around how people equate fighting the insurgency in Iraq with defending the USA. Soldiers fighting in Iraq are defending each other, their possessions, and Iraqi civilians. We lost in Vietnam but magically, somehow, the Reds didn't take over the world. There are policy choices other than "unjustifiable, expensive, embarrassing, interminable war."

[Ireneo_Funes]

Comparing numbers of innocents killed isn't very useful.

 

The real question at stake is one of principle: is it OK for the US military to be murdering and torturing civilians and POWs in the name of some greater good? Are the armed forces going to have to become terrorists to fight terrorism?

 

I find it depressing that these questions are part of our national discourse, that they aren't just dismissed out of hand on account of being obviously ridiculous.

[Alpinfox]

Alpinfox say, "it not right to torture and kill any prisoner for any reason ever".

 

Alpinfox say, "The Iraqis didn't attack the WTC".

 

Alpinfox say, "GWB is war criminal".

 

 

Thank you for allow Alpinfox to post on warmonger website.

[aint_this_great]

Well, John Adams said not long after this country came into existence that the two-party system would always be the ideal. Why? Because people find it easiest to choose one side of the fence or the other, whether they're a foot or a mile away from it. It doesn't surprise me that cc.com falls along the same lines, and you're right couloir, there's no reason to dislike each other for it. If I read something as funny as that essay I posted directed towards Kerry, I'd laugh at that too. Unfortunately, the Bush supporters seem to lean more towards evangelism than humor. And you're right, I think you're just as stupid for supporting Bush as you think I am for supporting Kerry. It scares me that a president who wasn't actually elected by a majority of individual voters the first time around won by 2 million votes the second time. It scares me that we're trying to become the police of the world again. Unlike those Bible-thumpers down in Mississippi, I'd like to travel the world, and I'd like to do it without being an object of derision wherever I go. Would having Kerry in office have changed any of that? I think so. But we can agree to disagree.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well, John Adams said not long after this country came into existence that the two-party system would always be the ideal. Why? Because people find it easiest to choose one side of the fence or the other, whether they're a foot or a mile away from it.

 

In the past there have been third parties. Historically the third party supplants one of the existing two parties, and equilibrium is reestablished...

[Stonehead]

My two cents...

 

 

First, war is a necessary ‘evil’. A country must use forceful means (the big stick) to defend its interests or suffer at the hands of other nations who have no reservations concerning the use of power. For those who believe otherwise, a certain naivety about the world is displayed in one’s understanding of how the world actually operates. In the same vein as the opening sentence, it was John Adams who said, "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy."

 

Now, I do have some reservations concerning the use of pre-emptive force because in some cases a regional balance of power is a better stabilizer than an imbalance. For instance, Israel has nuclear weapons which many believe is necessary in order for it to protect itself. Yet, this imbalance of power is a source of friction. While the Israeli government cannot be blackmailed by the threat of nuclear extortion, the governments (or perhaps the military) of Arab nations see strategic advantage in acquiring nuclear capacity. Our fear in this scenario is that somehow the governments of Arab nations will not act responsibly with this power because we have been so negatively influenced by the image of the wild-eyed fanatical Islamist fundamentalist. As I see it, it is the terrorists, the unlawful combatants, who represent the wild card. Governments, even those such as Kim Jong’s North Korea exercise some rational basis to decision making. They may perform a seemingly outrageous act but it is designed to elicit a particular response in accordance with their strategy.

 

Regarding pre-emptive action, it was John Adams who said, "The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea." Might we not take this as justification for assassination? The justification follows the utilitarian ethic of the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ or the death of one or few individuals in order to save the lives of many. In the case of Saddam, it seemed that taking out the head was not enough, that we had to strike the body of the organism, the Baathist Party structure, and to reconfigure it. We would point out that Saddam was a ruthless dictator because who in his right mind could support such a monster? This was the rationale presented and sold to the public, ‘here is a tyrant who kills his own people with impunity and who has proven his willingness, if not the capacity, to cause great destruction.’

 

Here we venture into situational ethics or moral relativism. Machiavelli pointed out that ‘a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous.’ Similarly, so must we respond as a nation. We must protect our interests around the world however disfavorable it appears in your eyes. We must protect our way of life, our free access to oil, because I know damn well that all of you would be singing the same tune if your standard of living were to change drastically. It was Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearing who said, “covert actions are necessary to maintain a viable democracy.” And yes, overt action is sometimes necessary though I disagree with a pattern of sustained military aggression.

 

Political strategist, Newt Gingrich, once said, “Politics and war are remarkably similar situations.” So it is and this is a battle of words, of ideas. But it was Mao Tse-Tung who said it better: “Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.” I am a believer in the dialectical process of conflict and the resolution of that conflict that leads to solutions. We lack the ‘crystal ball’ to see the future but may we have the fortitude and conviction to have political battles in the hopes of limiting the potential for future bloodshed.

[Couloir]

Wow. Very well put Stonehead. Nice job in raising this up a few notches. Thank you.

[ken4ord]

I don't hate America, I just hate the dipshit who has been "leading" our country.

[Dechristo]

For those who are aghast or thrilled by the title of this thread: don't get your panties in a bind or lubricious with cream... as we all know, hate is the flip side of love in a dualistic environment. Akin to a kid, in a fit of anxious passion, yelling "I HATE YOU!" to his mother.

 

All of the things I hate (dislike strongly) about America are present everywhere else in the world; America only has the affluence to flaunt and brandish, in an unparallelled manner, the frailty of the human condition.

 

Utopian ideals are nurtured by those that lack intimacy with human nature; you should find as much satisfaction shoveling sand against the tide.

[archenemy]

as we all know, hate is the flip side of love in a dualistic environment. Akin to a kid, in a fit of anxious passion, yelling "I HATE YOU!" to his mother.

 

If I may posit a slightly different take on this (and I'm bored with the 'hate ourselves, we are sooo bad bulls++t'): Detachment is the opposite of love, not hate. A powerful emotion like love may binds two people together, but another powerful emotion like hate will cement them forever. Those who whine about hating America love the ability and freedom to do so. Chances are, they will be here for quite a while. If they really didn't like it here, they would simply detach themselves and leave. Sans emotion.

 

I have a slow day at work and plan on writing a bunch of worthless drivel today, so gird up your loins and be ready (or hit the ignore this user button and save yourself the headache).

[bunglehead]

...I have a slow day at work and plan on writing a bunch of worthless drivel today, so gird up your loins and be ready (or hit the ignore this user button and save yourself the headache).

 

Sweet!

[olyclimber]

loins girded. now bring it.

[Jim]

For those who are aghast or thrilled by the title of this thread: don't get your panties in a bind or lubricious with cream... as we all know, hate is the flip side of love in a dualistic environment.

 

Actually it was sarcasm and refering to Bush's quote regarding those who criticize any of his policies.

[archenemy]

Oh lighten up.

 

But go on with the lubricious part...

[Stefan]

Why do you hate America......?

 

Our arrogance.

[Jim]

Oh lighten up.

 

But go on with the lubricious part...

 

Chill. I thought you misunderstood the title

[selkirk]

You spelled that wrong. It should be misunderestimate, phhtt, come onget it right buddy.

[bunglehead]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!

 

[Double_E]

Alpinfox say, "GWB is war criminal".

 

dood. no shit. but never mind his war crimes... anyone who can't friggin pronounce "nuclear" or "peninsula" shouldn't be allowed to run a country. plain n' simple.

[Dechristo]

Detachment is the opposite of love, not hate. A powerful emotion like love may binds two people together, but another powerful emotion like hate will cement them forever.

 

I'm really fuckin' knackered, right now, but, I'll give it a shot:

 

Jim pointed out an element of sarcasm in the "hate" aspect of the thread title, but, it relates to my notion of Love and Hate in a dualistic world (wtf, I guess this is a digression from the thread subject. On the other hand, a definition of terms can be corellative.).

 

By dualistic rules of opposites, you gain complements of Good & Bad, Love & Hate, ad infinitum. Surficial ideas of Love are supported by personal categorizations of quantity and quality of Good; Hate is supported similarly by assessments of Bad. Detachment demurs or ignores involvment in the subject.

 

Perhaps, the perception/experience that Hate is a stronger emotion than Love is due to its scaffolding of Bad: the unforgivable.

 

It is the unforgiveness that...

...will cement them forever.

 

My comment, in this regard, with America as the subject, alludes to no monopoly by nation, nabob, or prole in intrinsicalness of Good and Bad; affluence the exponent: power, corruption, waste, and arrogance result.