Mercenaries Third Largest Force in Iraq

[Kodiak]

As far as hypocrites, if that was directed at me, I have said on more than one occasion in this thread, that I don't think its all good or bad per se, but that the issues raised need to be addressed rather than denied.....

Sort of...

I find it interesting that you DO NOT think "that the issues raised need to be addressed rather than denied" (as evidenced by you not creating or contributing to an 8-page thread second guessing the use of paid contractors and mercenaries) when the issue pertains to the U.N., instead of a Republican-led United States.

 

[subgenius]

Sort of...

I find it interesting that you DO NOT think "that the issues raised need to be addressed rather than denied" (as evidenced by you not creating or contributing to an 8-page thread second guessing the use of paid contractors and mercenaries) when the issue pertains to the U.N., instead of a Republican-led United States.

Frankly I can't quite make grammatical or logical sense out of this sentence. I didn't "contribute to an 8-page thread"??

The issues I, and some others, see in the use of mercenaries is the same regardless of who is using them, R, D, or UN.

By your approach apparently this administration is above any comment, much less criticism, lest be libeled by you as a "lapdog", "propagandist", or whatever you will come up with next. Poor, and transparent, substitute for a substantive response.
Sticks and stones....

 

[Kodiak]

Frankly I can't quite make grammatical or logical sense out of this sentence. I didn't "contribute to an 8-page thread"??

The issues I, and some others, see in the use of mercenaries is the same regardless of who is using them, R, D, or UN.

By your approach apparently this administration is above any comment, much less criticism, lest be libeled by you as a "lapdog", "propagandist", or whatever you will come up with next. Poor, and transparent, substitute for a substantive response.
Sticks and stones....

Exactly. You missed my entire point. While I disagree with your criticism (arm-chair quarterbacking) of the current administration regarding the use of mercenaries and contractors, I couldn't care less if you comment or criticize Bush on it. What is telling is the fact that while you suppposedly consider the issue important enough to "address and not deny", your bias prevents you from taking your focus from the administration and shining your "light of truth" anywhere else (like the cherished United Nations).

 

[subgenius]

I was unaware of the UN thing until you posted it therefore I couldn't shine my light of truth on it. I let your post stand without comment or attempting to diminish or minimize what your point was.
Guess I can't win for trying.

 

[aerocontrols]

I was unaware of the UN thing until you posted it therefore I couldn't shine my light of truth on it. I let your post stand without comment or attempting to diminish or minimize what your point was.

I believe that was my post.

Guess I can't win for trying.

Well, I tried to engage you on the issues raised by the New York Times article after you complained that all that was going on was quibbling over definitions which led to a lack of a serious discussion. Did you miss it? It's been there for nearly 2 days, and it's only about 5 posts back.

It seems to me that you have a choice of which posters and what posts to respond to, and which to ignore.

MattJ

 

[subgenius]

I believe that was my post.



Well, I tried to engage you on the issues raised by the New York Times article after you complained that all that was going on was quibbling over definitions which led to a lack of a serious discussion. Did you miss it? It's been there for nearly 2 days, and it's only about 5 posts back.

It seems to me that you have a choice of which posters and what posts to respond to, and which to ignore.

MattJ

Well looking back on it I did read it, and felt you made your point. I don't have an argument with someone's position if its reasonably put. There's more than two sides to the issue. I'm not into quibbling just for the sake of quibbling.
Sorry if you felt ignored.

 

[subgenius]

Graphic photographs showing the torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners in a US-run prison outside Baghdad emerged yesterday from a military inquiry which has left six soldiers facing a possible court martial and a general under investigation.
The scandal has also brought to light the growing and largely unregulated role of private contractors in the interrogation of detainees.

According to lawyers for some of the soldiers, they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenary interrogators hired by the Pentagon.
.....

Lawyers for the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability.

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein.
....

But this is the first time the privatisation of interrogation and intelligence-gathering has come to light. The investigation names two US contractors, CACI International Inc and the Titan Corporation, for their involvement in Abu Ghraib.
CACI, which has headquarters in Virginia, claims on its website to "help America's intelligence community collect, analyse and share global information in the war on terrorism".

According to the military report on Abu Ghraib, both played an important role at the prison.

At one point, the investigators say: "A CACI instructor was terminated because he al lowed and/or instructed MPs who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by setting conditions which were neither authorised [nor] in accordance with applicable regulations/policy."

Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, speaking for central command, told the Guardian: "One contractor was originally included with six soldiers, accused for his treatment of the prisoners, but we had no jurisdiction over him. It was left up to the contractor on how to deal with him."

She did not specify the accusation facing the contractor, but according to several sources with detailed knowledge of the case, he raped an Iraqi inmate in his mid-teens.
...
"We know that CACI and Titan corporations have provided interrogators and that they have in fact conducted interrogations on behalf of the US and have interacted the military police guards at the prison," he said.

"I think it creates a laissez faire environment that is completely inappropriate. If these individuals engaged in crimes against an Iraq national - who has jurisdiction over such a crime?"

"It's insanity," said Robert Baer, a former CIA agent, who has examined the case, and is concerned about the private contractors' free-ranging role. "These are rank amateurs and there is no legally binding law on these guys as far as I could tell. Why did they let them in the prison?"

The Pentagon had no comment on the role of contractors at Abu Ghraib, saying that an inquiry was still in progress.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

Ah, the joys of "privatization".
Get the bully boys to do what you can't do legally.

And I guess that ex-CIA agent is an idiot for having concern about the issue?

 

[Kodiak]

Ah, the joys of "privatization".
Get the bully boys to do what you can't do legally.

And I guess that ex-CIA agent is an idiot for having concern about the issue?

If the investigation shows that any mercs, contractors, or technicals were involved in the torture of prisoners, or guilty of any other war crimes or Geneva convention guidelines, then they, along with the soldiers currently being held should be prosecuted to the fullest extent first by an American court, and then held and offered up for prosecution by any appropriate foreign and/or world court.

 

[subgenius]

And meanwhile the US suffers the political and military ramifications from what our contractors did. Quite a savings.

 

[Kodiak]

And meanwhile the US suffers the political and military ramifications from what our contractors did. Quite a savings.

Again you blow things out of all proportion...

If any contractors were involved, it was a fraction of a percentage of the total number doing important and dangerous work in Iraq.

You'd be a fool to castigate all of them because of the actions of a handful...

 

[subgenius]

The world and the Iraqi people will not make a distinction between what our soldiers did, and what our hired hands did.

 

[Kodiak]

The world and the Iraqi people will not make a distinction between what our soldiers did, and what our hired hands did.

Irrelevant drivel...

Regardless of whether they were soldiers, or mercs, or contractors, or whatever, those responsible are a fraction of a percentage of the total number of our people currently "in country" working and fighting to bring stability and freedom to ALL the people of Iraq.

The world and the Iraqi people will, and should demand, that those responsible be punished.

What you posted above is just wishful hoping on your part.

 

[subgenius]

To those in the land of bliss: the reaction of the Iraqi people will hardly be limited to a demand for legal redress.

 

[Kodiak]

To those in the land of bliss: the reaction of the Iraqi people will hardly be limited to a demand for legal redress.

I know you're hoping beyond hope, but...

Evidence please.


As I've already said, this is a rare example where liberals have chosen to position themselves to profit politically from any failure of either the War on Terror or the Invasion of Iraq and the replacing of Saddam with a freely elected representative democracy. They view each dead coalition soldier as just another possible nail in Bush's electoral coffin. Each successful terrorist attack is another possible blow to the Bush campaign. Each disagreement among the Iraqi governing council is a potential drop in Bush's latest percentages. Each small misstep is eagerly grasped as possibly leading to some catastrophic failure that can be laid at Bush's feet. Some are even actually hoping that Bin Laden isn't captured until after the election.

The only thing sadder than this fact is that most of them see nothing wrong with this...

 

[subgenius]

Far be it from me to try to get through to someone with a rigid view of the world, I'm speaking to the audience:

It is a projection of the highest order to attribute such motives to me, and is nothing but a continuation of slimy personal attacks.

I take no joy whatsoever in the probable increased resistence, insurgency, violence, and resulting deaths to our service people that is likely to result from the recent revelations.

To suggest otherwise is contemptible.

 

[Kodiak]

Far be it from me to try to get through to someone with a rigid view of the world, I'm speaking to the audience:

It is a projection of the highest order to attribute such motives to me, and is nothing but a continuation of slimy personal attacks.

I take no joy whatsoever in the probable increased resistence, insurgency, violence, and resulting deaths to our service people that is likely to result from the recent revelations.

To suggest otherwise is contemptible.

Avoid the strawmen please. I never said you took joy, I only blame you and other liberals for taking political advantage.

I, and other conservatives, and the administration, on the other hand, benefit politically when the War on Terror and the Invasion and occupation of Iraq shows progress and/or success.

 

[Kodiak]

Far be it from me to try to get through to someone with a rigid view of the world...

"Rigid" as in "strictly observed reality"?

Thanks for the complement...

 

[tramper]

Far be it from me to try to get through to someone with a rigid view of the world, I'm speaking to the audience:

The audience in the cheap seats applauds

 

[Kodiak]

The audience in the cheap seats applauds

Welcome to the Forum.

 

[subgenius]

"In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib.
...

In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called “O.G.A.,” or other government agencies—that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees—was brought to his unit for questioning. “They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away.” The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison’s inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, “and therefore never had a number.”
.....
Army intelligence officers, C.I.A. agents, and private contractors “actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses.”
.......
General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen “who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ which were neither authorized” nor in accordance with Army regulations. “He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse,” Taguba wrote.

He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had “received no formal communication” from the Army about the matter.)

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact