Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
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.
|
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:
Quote:
|
A retired four-star Army general later told Taguba that he had been sent to the job in the Pentagon so that he could "be watched." Taguba realized that his career was at a dead end.
|
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.