US Army Intel Specialist Admits Torture in Iraq; Marines, Navy SEALS also Torturing

[Berzerker]

* Force Recon was breaking bones

Our forces cannot be held responsible for the fragile bones of Iraqis who suffered malnutrition under Saddam

* Most "terrorists" picked up were innocent civilians

Just a pre-emptive strike, they will be terrorists when we're done in Iraq

* Most prisoners that were picked up supplied almost NO useful intelligence whatsover after being tortured

If you are lost and the first person you ask cant give you directions, do you stop asking others?

* they use an anal thermometer to make sure the prisoners don't get too cold to the point they die

Free health care, should make the left happy

* CIA agent beat to death a prisoner at Abu Ghraib

Just one? The guy was clearly trying to get away

* The FBI is doing interrogations in Iraq. WTF is the FBI doing in Iraq??

Fighting terrorism... You gotta a problem with that?

* Reports of prisoner abuse were discarded

Or taped for the Daily Show

[Seeker]

Because it's tradition

Oh, and I see the Americans are up to the usual shameless evil.

Why is everyone surprised at the results of a unilateral, illegal aggression? Isn't this exactly what I predicted would happen?

The world needs a permanent standing UN army, paid for by UN taxes, with the right to enter any country and arrest war criminals indicted by the International Court.

That would make the next crop of Little Caesars, yankee or otherwise, think twice and give International Law the teeth and credibility it has so sadly been lacking.

[SlowwHand]

Let me get this all processed.
Military is getting blown up on roadsides by altered munitions.
Civilians are being decapited. Suicide bombers hitting civilian as well as military. (No uniform wornby these bombers.)
Ib spite of all this, you want my main concern to be for those doing these things I described above?
I don't think so.

[Ted Striker]

Unilateral??? Whatever, we have the Poles (who are running a CIA torture prison for us) and the Salvadorans, who also were pretty good at death squads themselves back in the day.


Wait...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Let me get this all processed.
Military is getting blown up on roadsides by altered munitions.
Civilians are being decapited. Suicide bombers hitting civilian as well as military. (No uniform wornby these bombers.)
Ib spite of all this, you want my main concern to be for those doing these things I described above?
I don't think so.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Most "terrorists" picked up were innocent civilians

THANK YOU FOR PAYING ATTENTION

GRADE: F

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What's the problem, Boris?

My guess is your reading comprehension?

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases".

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

"Enemy combatants" are people, some might say.

Whether or not WP is illegal isn't the issue, it's the point that despite our supposed righteous crusade against Saddam for his possessing chemical weapons, here we are using something that many consider to be one as well.

And if it's a-okay, why did the military flat-out deny using WP until being forced to admit it?

[notyoueither]

Right. WP is a wide area chemical weapon.

Do you have a clue?

[notyoueither]

If harm to enemy combatants is the concern, why fire bullets at them?

[SlowwHand]

How do you tell, Ted?

[Ted Striker]

You can't, shoot 'em all and let God sort it out, I say.

[DinoDoc]

Why isn't the question of its legality the issue?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Right. WP is a wide area chemical weapon.

Nobody said it was.

If harm to enemy combatants is the concern, why fire bullets at them?

Obviously, the U.S. military doesn't feel that such weapons are o.k. to use, hence the their self-ban of using napalm. There's not much difference between WP and napalm in its effect.

Did we also fail to note that Fallujah was a city full of innocent civilians? In fact, the news reports from RAI that sparked the outrage in Italy indicated evidence for large civilian casualties due to WP:

"I heard the order being issued to be careful because white phosphorus was being used on Fallujah. In military slang this is known as Willy Pete. Phosphorus burns bodies, melting the flesh right down to the bone," says one former US solider, interviewed by the documentary's director, Sigfrido Ranucci.

"I saw the burned bodies of women and children. The phosophorous explodes and forms a plume. Who ever is within a 150 metre radius has no hope," the former soldier adds.

Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, show exactly what the former [US] soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved .... or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

Why isn't the question of its legality the issue?

Because whether or not the U.S. has signed on to a particular treaty that most other countries have doesn't diminish the fact that WP is a very nasty, indiscriminate weapon that most countries (i.e., all those who signed Protocol III of the Geneva Convention) think should be prohibited.

[DinoDoc]

Why is that an issue?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
For KrazyHorse...

Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

Wikipedia may be wrong, but it jives with everything else I've read on the issue.

I believe both you and NYE are misconstruing my position on this.

[Drake Tungsten]

WP is a very nasty, indiscriminate weapon that most countries (i.e., all those who signed Protocol III of the Geneva Convention) think should be prohibited.

How could anyone who has read the protocol think that? It obviously tries to prohibit the use of incendiaries on civilians, not their use in general.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

Also note that Protocol III is part of the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons". WP is covered under that convention because it is a conventional weapon, not a chemical weapon.