Certainly you have a less "positioned" source than a guy that walked 2,300 miles for the anti-war candidate:)

Oh, thats right I forgot. Anyone who supports a candidate that you do not support can not be trusted to tell the truth, even if they have a security clearance and have spent years serving our country in the military.

:rolleyes:

I didn't say that, but to think a man that passionate would be able to report with total objectivity is laughable. That's like sending you over there and expecting a balanced review:)

So, lendaddy, you are ignoring the CPT source and the Guardian source as well?

What's your reasoning for that?

No, not discrediting. But they are an anti-violence group period. They also have an agenda. Look, I agree that some of this happened, ofcourse. But you're implication that a large percentage of the detainies are "random pickups". It just doesn't make ANY sense. Are you implying that our guys are just evil asses? What do you imagine the reasoning for such action would be?

I didn't imply. I stated quite clearly. Untrained troops are being employed.

Did you read the Guardian article?

Shall I find you more?

"U.S. aims to ease Iraq detainee tension
by_Paul Garwood,_Associated Press/Boston Globe
March 8th, 2004



TIKRIT, Iraq -- An American commander unveiled a plan Monday aimed at defusing tension over Iraqis held in U.S. military custody, which tribal leaders in Saddam Hussein's hometown say is the leading cause of anti-American animosity.

Between 500 and 900 Iraqi males from Tikrit and surrounding areas are said to be in U.S. military detention facilities and larger Iraqi jails in Umm Qasr and Abu Ghraib. They were rounded up, blindfolded and taken away by American soldiers during raids on suspicion of attacking coalition forces.

In many cases, innocent Iraqis have been arrested in such sweeps, but getting them out of jail has been difficult: No formal system exists to easily track them down, verify their stories and hear representations by family members wanting them returned home.

With many Iraqis believing coalition forces are wrongly holding their loved ones, tribal leaders complain that tensions are reaching boiling point in their communities.

"We have no problems with the Americans at all, except for what is happening to our people sitting in prisons," Sheik Hammadi al-Kassami, a Tikrit tribal leader, told The Associated Press.

"There are innocent men in jail with families, crying babies being left alone in their homes," he added. "Solving this situation is the biggest problem facing the Americans here."

Lt. Col. Steve Russell, commander of the Tikrit-based 4th Infantry Division's 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, outlined the new system to al-Kassami and about 20 other tribal leaders from this city and surrounding areas. It aims to speed up attempts by Iraqis to find detained family members and possibly secure their release.

Russell told the gathering at Tikrit's governor's office that he understands the detainee issue is "emotional" but that a procedure must be established to assist in identifying and freeing those wrongly in custody.

"This has been a concern since we entered Tikrit" nearly a year ago, Russell told AP. "Families have been rightfully concerned about knowing where their loved ones are, what they have been accused of and if they are alive."

He, however, stressed that detainees suspected of attacking American soldiers or aiding anti-coalition activities would not be freed until being dealt with by Iraq's legal system.

Until now, people seeking detained relatives would usually approach the gates of military bases or contact local leaders and urge them to take up their cases with American forces.

Instead, Russell's plan lays out an official path of action:

--Relatives report a capture the president of the recently formed provincial sheik council, a U.S.-created advisory body of tribal leaders who work closely with the regional government.

--The council president contacts tribal leaders responsible for the area where the detained person lives to learn if he has been involved in anti-coalition activities.

--The sheik council seeks details or the release of the detainee by applying to American forces, the Coalition Provisional Authority, regional governor and, if they are in the area, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Iraqi equivalent, the Red Crescent.

--At that point, authorities will decide whether there is just cause to detain the person.

"We need some system to get this situation resolved, because so many of the detained are innocent," said Sheik Naji Hussein al-Jbouri, the sheik council's inaugural president.

He added, however, that the system would slow down the release of innocent detainees "because we have to deal with so many groups."
© Copyright 2004 Associated Press."

I don't doubt that you can find people who claim they are being detained for "no reason" but what else would they say? You still havn't said what you believe the reasoning is. Obviously they believed these people a threat or to hold valuable information. Or again I say, do you think our guys are just evil? There are two sides to these stories, I am sure.

Lendaddy, One does not have to believe that all of our soldiers must be "evil" in order for there to be a lot of innocent people behind bars in Iraq. How about this instead: 100 some odd thousand (mostly young) troops who have zero training in the job of being Police officers are made to "keep order" in an absolutely chaotic place, in fact an entire country that is in a complete power/authority vacuum thanks to a rushed and horribly planned invasion and occupation.

Bush and company had basically no intelligent plan to run Iraq, it is as though they really don't give a ***** about anyone unlucky enough to actually live there. I know, they talk a good BS game about "liberating" the people, but if they really cared they would have planned the occupation using reality-based, instead of faith-based information. :rolleyes:

When people started looting the ***** out of the place in the first days after we "liberated" them, anyone w/ any understanding of Iraq knew that we had f'ed up already. :cool:

"Lendaddy, One does not have to believe that all of our soldiers must be "evil" in order for there to be a lot of innocent people behind bars in Iraq. "

Agreed, but remember I was only refuting the "high percentage" claim. It just doesn't make sense. The humiliation/torture makes sense, there would be a purpose (regardless of the method). It's just this picture that is being painted that bothers me. Our guys deserve more trust from us.

In guerilla warfare, by definition, there is no clear distinction between combat troops and non-combatant civilian personnel. When our people are being maimed and killed daily by "improvised explosive devices" and other non-state-sponsored militant efforts, I cannot blame them one iota for potentially taking inappropriate prisoners. When you are in that kind of environment, paranoia = survival as everyone really COULD be out to get you at any moment.

It still just begs the questions that we all seem to be dodging: (a) why did we go there in the first place and (b) why in the hell are we still there? What could possibly happen if we pulled-out that would be worse than the present situation?

I am no scholar of middle-east history, but my guess is that no matter what we do in the next few months or years in Iraq, in a few decades the local political system will re-attain equilibrium in its own way; i.e., new dictatorships, civil wars, genocides, and oil wars will arise. Yawn. Why is this our problem?

Len, I guess that it depends on whether you consider 70-90% to be a "high percentage". From today's L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-redcross11may11,1,3173652.story?coll=la-home-world

Lendaddy: in my post, I said "large percentage"

What I'd read indicated 30-40% of detainees were not brought in for substantive reasons, other than the soldiers believed they were supposed to bring back Iraqis when they went out on raids.

It was a leadership issue.

Just like the guards in the prison were not clearly told the limits of their jobs.

I'm not blaming the grunts -- entirely. I don't think we had a plan after "victory" when we went to Iraq and every day I see proof that was indeed the case.

(I can't get the LA Times article to load, but clearly the Red Cross thinks more were improperly detained.)

I think our disagreement is about the phrase "for no reason", and many of these articles site the raids on homes. Our soldiers are given intel that a certain home is being used as a weapons cache or a meeting place for the enemy. They go in and round up everyone in there. What else are they to do? When the police raid a drug house, guess what.... even the "innocent" brother in law who was just returning tupperware goes to jail. He also gets interrorgated. When he is found to be innocent he is let go, though his stay was still unpleasant. Even your own articles claim many were released quickly, in as little as three days. I would not consider presence in a "marked home" for no reason, that is the difference. To add, if you are opposed to this, then i guess we cannot raid enemy strongholds any longer? Since the "innocent" brother in law may be there:)

No, our disagreement was over this "phrase" of yours. And the figures in the article come directly from our senior intel officers, not the Red Cross, in case anyone is "reading comprehension challenged".

As for where they found all of these innocent people, I didn't notice that info in the article. Can you direct me to that link?

The bottom line is that we have a collosal mess on our hands, and the fault is w/ some ass-faced neo-cons enjoying pate and caviar at a Halliburton lobbiest's home as we speak, not the lowly soldiers that Bush is trying to pin it on now, that cowardly sack of *****. :)

That was special

Glad you liked it, that was for you baby. :cool: