US' new standards
 

The General’s Report
How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties.

Sure... as long as the US is ok with our soldiers being treated this was when they are captured.

When did the US soldiers cut off heads?

Clearly those enlisted men did not arrive in Iraq with dog collars and leashes. Exceptions to a well proven guideline do not happen. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. The Taguba report made it apparent that Abu Ghriad was directly traceable to highest levels of government - also called people who TheMercenary would love to have sex with.

Do these people know the difference between sex and torture? We should ask our resident expert on perversion. TheMercenary. How much torture no longer constitutes sex? Or as a voyeur, do you get off when the torture is most extreme? Just trying to understand what perversions propel your kind of people to torture, then deny it, and then blame the little people.

Let's see. If heads were not cut off, then it is not torture; just consensual sex. Cannon fodder sure has a weird way of thinking.

I'm not saying it wasn't from the top, but I looked into this "dog collar" theory the last time you used this thinking.

It turns out the Army does stock dog collars and leashes. Because the Army uses dogs.

In fact there are several dogs amongst the Abu Ghraib photos.

Actually you would have to go here for that: http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14043

Clearly they did.
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/feat...ogs/index.html

The reserve units deployed to Abu Ghriad had no dogs. Just because the Army has dogs proves that reserve units in Abu Ghriad had dogs? Well yes when TheMercenary must say anything to blame the enlisted men; claim that Rumsfeld, Miller, et al were totally innocent. Clearly those with his wacko extremist agendas did not condemn Taguba for reporting the truth. And that is TheMercenary's political agenda. Lying is important when his sexual preferences are more important than reality.

TheMercenary - did you have multiple organisms when all those naked bodies were piled together? You previously called that patriotism. But then another already suggested you are a pedophile who wants to do Duck Duck.

This post now in the tone of the new Cellar that started with TheMercenary's postings. Demonising as Rush Limbaugh does and ask TheMercenary does with Hitlery is now acceptable in The Cellar. Now longer is reality more important than a political agenda - and hate.

Since other units in the Army had dogs, then that proved reserve units in Abu Ghriad were also deployed with dogs. After all, a poitical agenda proves it.

Amazing how those dogs appeared once Gen Miller, et al began applying Guantanamo tactics in Abu Ghriad. Gen Janet Karpinski did not have nor need dogs when she was in charge. Why was Gen Miller dispatched to Iraq? Because Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al were not finding Saddam's WMDs that "we knew existed". That picture 'proves' reservists brought dogs and dog collars? Bull.

Meanwhile, what does Taguba say? Those enlisted men did not have creativity to perform that torture. Which brings us right back to rkzenrage's original post. Who then started the torture, abuse, and murder of Iraqi prisoners? According to George Jr lovers, torture and abuse were only by some misguided enlisted men who had no dogs but brought those dogs, dog collars, and leashes with them. Clearly there was no official sanction Guantanamo tacits in Abu Ghriad <cough>.

Now let's be clear, UT. Are you saying that Abu Ghriad was only the actions of a few misguided enlisted men? That is the obvious conclusion from your post. Is that what you are claiming?

It's really simple man. You repeatedly - for years, probably - singled out dog collars and leashes asking why there were no dogs.

I pointed out dogs.

End of point, man. That's it. You were wrong. There's nothing further to be proven here. Merely, you were wrong. There's no need to thrash about with all kinds of misdirection or changing the basic point. You were in error, incorrect, made a boo-boo.

You know what would really help, if you just admit you were wrong. Clearly you were, and everybody sees it, so copping to it is not that big of a deal. It might even make your stock rise amongst the regulars.

There were no dogs or dog collars until when? How curious. Clearly those enlisted men also brought dogs with their dog collars with the intent of performing torture and sexual absuse.

Gen Miller arrives to implement Guantanamo procedures in Abu Ghriad. Suddenly dogs and dog collars appear - consistent with my posts years ago. But since enlisted men were only guilty, then those dogs and dog collars were brought by enlisted men? No. Those dogs and dog collars appeared when torture and sexual abuse began. But officers had nothing to do with it.

Clearly those enlisted men requested those dogs and dog collars.

Those dog collars and dogs did not arrive with the reservists; were not brought by those enlisted men. Curious, no officer or George Jr official was involved in implementing Guantanamo tactics in Abu Ghriad. According to UT, since enlisted men did not bring dog collars with them, then enlisted men ordered those dogs and dog collars on their own initiative.

Really UT. You have been blaming torture and sexual abuse only on some misguided enlisted men for years. When will you admit how repeatedly wrong you have been about "Mission Accomplished"? When will you admit the defeat comes from those who did what you approved of? Because those dog collars (and dogs) appeared after torture and murder started, that is proof it was there all along? Of course not - and you know that is not true.

How curious that dogs and dog collars arrived with Guantanamo torture tactics. However only enlisted men were guilty. General Taguba does not believe it. Why do you?

So UT... You support this??These are the standards you are holding me up to here? Heh.

tw:"...did you have multiple organisms when all those naked bodies were piled together? You previously called that patriotism. But then another already suggested you are a pedophile who wants to do Duck Duck."

Well see the problem here is that you have no real experience on which to base your statements. Because one reserve unit was at the prison does not really say much. How about the other units that were stationed there? how about the MPs? Intell guys? Medical support? One area has numerous deployed and assigned people. Most MP orgainzations have dogs. :D

800th MP Brigade
320th MP Battalion
372nd MP Company
OGA's
"Much of the abuse was conducted by members of the 372nd military police company who arrived at the prison in September, but the documents record the presence, direction and participation of military intelligence as well. They also describe members of covert intelligence agencies and military units hiding some detainees"

http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/...uba_Report.pdf

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=396

TheMercenary - you complain when one finally posts at you as you were doing repeatedly? The big black kettle sees itself in the mirror - and complains? Suddenly you don't like when tw duplicates your own agenda?

TheMercenary. You do yourself a big favor by learning the difference between logical replies verses emotional and poltically inspired attacks. Suddenly you don't like a mirror image of yourself? I would have ignored it except that a TheMercenary attitude was even being used on a sixteen year old - Duck_Duck.

Appreciate a different TheMercenary who provided a logical discussion of factors that may contribute to crime. That posted for factual discussion and information rather than to attack others with a political agenda.

I like Duck_Duck and have said so from the beginning. So what's your point?

"American soldiers are given dog collars and leashes to torture prisoners." here

(with ironic tone) "...we all know those enlisted men brought those dog collars and leashes with them to Iraq." here

(with ironic tone) "Clearly those enlisted men brought dog collars and leashes to Iraq." here

(with ironic tone) "After all, those lowly enlisted men did not bring dog collars and leashes with them to Iraq." here

"...her troops did not come to Iraq carrying dog collars and leashes." here

So I'm thinking, why is ol' tw so concerned with dog collars and leashes? The Army stocks dogs, so clearly they're going to stock dog collars and leashes. This is not the puzzling final straw evidence. This is not Perry Mason's sudden twist.

Call him on it, and suddenly the subject changes. You ever see him do this, xoB?

Well why would an overcrowded prison use dogs? I can't think of a reason, can you? It must be a fuckin' conspiracy from the fuckin' top!

Whether you like Duck_Duck is obviously and clearly irrelevant. I need not repeat a point you clearly understood and intentionally deny. You have just posted something irrelevant so as to avoid a bluntly posted reality. Your latest post repeats a deception and deceit that are, for you, situation normal.

You know exactly what my point is. Trying to avoid that reality by deceptive replies is so characterisitc of those driven by a political agenda. How curious. You have just replied as Rumsfeld did everytime he was accused providing too few troops. He also put a political agenda ahead of reality. Deceptive replies don't change reality. You know exact what my point is.

The Army also stocks nuclear weapons. Does that mean reservists in Abu Ghriad also had nuclear weapons? That is your reasoning.

Did you notice where dogs and their handlers eventually came from? In various reports, dog handlers were from other units such as Army Signal Corp, Navy, etc. These dogs and dog collars were not assigned to MPs in Abu Ghriad.

So how did those enlisted men get dogs, dog collars, and leashes? According to official responses, enlisted men must have taken action to obtain dogs, etc. People such as Gen Miller who took over Tier 1A and 1B did not institute that torture, sexual abuse - officially did not Gitmoize the place. Clearly only enlisted men were guilty and the only one's prosecuted. Or maybe implications in Gen Taguba's investigation are accurate? Maybe torture and sexual abuse was advocated at the highest levels and known even to Rumsfeld. After all, these same people (including AG Gonzales) openly advocated torture. But somehow only lowly enlisted men are guilty of initiating torture and sexual abuse?

As for Gen Taguba as a result of a report that implied guilt at highest levels: He got too close to the truth. Too close to the sun (light of day). His stars melted because he was honest. Same people who intentionally lie about Saddam's WMDs would routinely advocate torture, sexual abuse, extraordinary rendition, murder, and what else? And not one is even investigated for criminal acts?

A fox is in the hen house - and nobody cares. Screw Gen Taguba. He simply tried to be honest and do what any patriot would do. Instead blame some enlisted men. Then no real crimes occurred.

Well they should have booked 'em the minute they ordered dogs! There's only one reason why you'd use dogs in an overcrowded prison, and that's for torture!

Because dogs and dog collars and leashes can be used for torture!

I'm not sure exactly how! Every time I've worn a dog collar it was all in fun!

But I'm sure they can, and only the most devious mind can figure out how to use dogs for torture, which is why it's proof it came to the top!

Maybe the dogs apply hot irons to the prisoners! I don't know! These are Army dogs, they're really smart!

Somewhere in the so many reports about Abu Ghriad, I recall a Navy dog handler withdrew his dog and refused to participate with the abuse in Tier 1A and 1B. I remember wondering why Navy dog handlers might be more responsible than Army ones.

Go Navy. Beat Army ... instead.

Navy dogs are not nearly as smart as Army Dogs. But Navy dogs swim better.