SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Graner Gets 10 Years. I've about had it.
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scotty61 wrote:
Cortney Massengale? Tell me that you're refering to the character in "Once an Eagle". It would be too much to have a flaming @ss like that in real life and with the same name.


Best example of a Martinet I could think of. I note you've read the book. The military academies use it in instruction on leadership (from what I understand) There are real life Massengales, Clark is just one.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coldwarvet
Admiral


Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Minnetonka, MN

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We have over 150,000 troops in a very violent war zone. Most of them are in their late teens and early 20's. This is the age when hormones are at the highest levels. Yes, there is abuse when a society of this demographic is created. On any of our liberal University campuses we can find outrageous behavior and how much time does the MSM spend on these occurrences. So a handful of the 150,000 who behaved badly and the MSM can't get enough of the handful while the accomplishments of the 150,000 are largely ignored.

This thing is so out of context. Just because John Kerry might have killed a young child does not make all who served in Vietnam baby killers.

CWV
_________________
Defender of the honor of those in harms way keeping us out of harms way.

"Peace is our Profession"
Strategic Air Command - Motto

USAF 75-79 Security Police
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:27 pm    Post subject: Prisoners no longer taliking. Reply with quote

I've changed my mind, maybe 10 years isn't enough as the damage includes possible loss of life for our own due to the stupidity of some self serving jerks.


Why Iraq prisoners
no longer talking
Sources blame Abu Ghraib scandal, weakness of female interrogators

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 18, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

U.S. military interrogators in Iraq tell Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin prisoners are doing far less talking since the publicity of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the crackdown on harsh techniques used in questioning them.

"Do you want to know why there are so many successful attacks – attacks that are not averted because of good intelligence?" asked one military source familiar with the situation. "Because we're getting next to nothing out of the prisoners. Our information flow has dried up."

That's the story told by several military sources, all of whom work closely with prisoners or interrogators.


But some counterintelligence analysts in Baghdad see other problems with recent interrogations.

A memo obtained by the premium, weekly, online intelligence newsletter G2 Bulletin, published by WND, from a source in Centcom reveals the general ineffectiveness of female interrogators in Iraq.

"(Female) interrogation techniques are ineffective because they fail to provide useful information, and the detainees, once released, communicate to other (insurgent) personnel that there is nothing to be afraid of from (female) interrogators: just maintain your innocence and give no information and they will release you in 72 hours," said the memo.

However, there are exceptions, the memo suggests. Women interrogators at Abu Ghraib and some other detention facilities use more effective techniques. As a result, the terrorists have specifically targeted these women for attacks.

The memo says there have been at least three documented reports in the last month of captured insurgents stating that female interrogators are not effective because they do not threaten or intimidate the prisoners.

Last spring, in a story on Iraq headlined, "U.S. losing 'hearts, minds,'" WND reported that the Army was switching to kinder, gentler interrogation tactics of Iraqi detainees. This was before several U.S. guards at a Baghdad prison recently were criminally charged with abusing detainees.

At that time, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq put limits on harsh questioning tactics. Sanchez passed around a memo saying interrogators could use no harsh techniques – no "Mutt-n-Jeff" approaches or any "pride-and-ego-down" approaches – without his permission, said the official, who asked not to be identified.

"Mutt-n-Jeff" refers to a good-cop, bad-cop routine to pry information out of a detainee. And "ego down" involves deflating a defiant detainee whose pride is his armor against questioning.

WND also first reported – even before the war started – the shortage of those trained to be military police and Arabic-language interrogators. The military brass now says the prison abuse in part stemmed from these shortages.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me#1You#10
Site Admin


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In due course, interrogation of prisoners will be handled by Iraqi intelligence services. I presume that their interrogation techniques will be somewhat less attuned to the sensitivities of Ms. Mapes, SeeBS News, the Senator Durbins and the defeatists of MSM.

A nice overview in today's WSJ....

Quote:
REVIEW & OUTLOOK

'Torture' on Trial
The Graner jury just rejected the media's Abu Ghraib narrative.
Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, January 18, 2005

The conviction of Army Reserve Specialist Charles Graner is hardly the last word on what really happened at Abu Ghraib prison. But the 10-year sentence for the abuse ringleader shows that the military justice system is taking the issue as seriously as it should. And the Army jury that handed it down clearly didn't buy his "just-following-orders" defense.

We doubt Specialist Graner's peers would have packed him off to prison for so long had he produced any evidence at all that his actions had something to do with interrogation practices approved by his superiors. Particularly telling was the fact that he didn't seem to have enough confidence in his own story to take the stand and face cross examination.

Senior officers are still being investigated, as they should be, but so far the military trials have done nothing to prove what writer Heather Mac Donald recently described on this page as the "torture narrative." That is, they have not supported the widely promulgated theory that Bush Administration legal discussions about the range of permissible interrogation techniques for al Qaeda detainees outside the Iraqi theater of operations somehow led to Abu Ghraib.

And yet none of this evidence seems to stop the effort, in the media and Congress, to use Abu Ghraib to hamstring American interrogators in the war on terror. Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, went so far as to try to write language into last year's intelligence bill demanding that the CIA report to Congress on what interrogation methods it's using. The White House quietly sought to have this removed--which it reluctantly was--only to be tarred once again last week in some news reports with promoting "torture" for having done so.

We wish that the White House had challenged Senator Durbin publicly for compromising the executive branch's ability to fight the war on terror. A requirement to involve Congress in the particulars of interrogations is one of the worst ideas we've seen in a long time from Capitol Hill, which is saying something.
As a practical matter, it is a form of micromanagement that would make it harder to get information from detainees. It's akin to requiring an Army brigade commander to report to Senator Soundbite on how he engaged the enemy in Mosul. Interrogators are almost certainly going to be cowed by the prospect of being invited up for their own interrogation before Senator Durbin, perhaps to the point of being too restrained in getting vital information.

This has already been happening, as the Washington Post described in a story last summer headlined: "CIA Puts Harsh Interrogation Tactics on Hold." The U.S. does not in fact torture people, but ambiguity about what is possible can be an important tool in gaining cooperation. Such headlines tell the next KSM or Abu Zubaydah that he has nothing to fear from capture and should keep quiet.

What's really going on here is that Mr. Durbin wants to set a political trap for the Bush Administration. His proposal would in practice limit U.S. interrogation techniques without him having to take responsibility for having done so. Mr. Durbin can get good press coverage for deploring "torture" and condemning the Bush Administration, but he won't be blamed if our interrogators fail to elicit the information needed to deter another terrorist attack. His proposal is the war on terror's version of the Boland Amendment, the 1982 language that ambiguously sought to bar U.S. aid to the Nicaraguan Contras. If anyone in Congress really wants to ban certain kinds of interrogating, then they ought to stand up and say so specifically--and see if the public agrees with them.

Perhaps sensing the damage they've done, some in the media have started arguing that "torture doesn't work anyway" because detainees just lie. Well, yes, but nobody outside of academia is proposing torture. We're talking about coercive interrogations involving good-cop bad-cop routines, stress positions such as kneeling for a long time and the like, which are used by every serious military and police force in the world because they do work.

Rather than keeping quiet and absorbing all of this political criticism, maybe it's time for the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress to demand some legal and moral clarity for those in the CIA and military who are responsible for breaking the likes of KSM, who did after all plan the September 11 attacks. In President Bush's first term, that task would have fallen to John Ashcroft, who didn't mind bucking the Democratic-media consensus. We hope soon-to-be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has learned from his own rough confirmation hearings that failing to fight back gets you nothing but more abuse.

Wall Street Journal
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AMOS
Senior Chief Petty Officer


Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 558
Location: IOWA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:33 pm    Post subject: Sounds to me Reply with quote

Kinda sounds to me, if there ain't nothing to fear the sand gooks ain't gonna talk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group