Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 12/08/2004 View Tue 12/07/2004 View Mon 12/06/2004 View Sun 12/05/2004 View Sat 12/04/2004 View Fri 12/03/2004 View Thu 12/02/2004
1
2004-12-08 Iraq-Jordan
US documents report further abuse of Iraq prisoners
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by God Save The World 2004-12-08 8:22:47 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 GSTW - Your nym sucks. You sure you aren't Mikey in dysguyse?

Piss off, wankers.
Posted by .com 2004-12-08 1:57:56 AM||   2004-12-08 1:57:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 awww, poor you. Read something you didnt like ? awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Get over yourself
Posted by God Save The World 2004-12-08 3:19:42 AM||   2004-12-08 3:19:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 If you had the option of matching my i.p address with Mikey, im sure you would discover im not the person your claiming me to be.
Posted by God Save The World 2004-12-08 3:22:52 AM||   2004-12-08 3:22:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 This article is a doozy. NY Times Agenda/reporting without all the fuzzy good feeling. Since it is in an Aussie newspaper, it could a plant given the source (ACLU)

Try this on for size:

Vice Admiral Jacoby wrote that two unidentified DIA agents, who worked as interrogators and debriefers at a detention facility in Baghdad, saw task force officers "punch a prisoner in the face to the point the individual needed medical attention". Vice Admiral Jacoby said that "the debriefer was ordered to leave the room". The date of the incident was not stated.

Now the article's premise is that 'abuses' of Iraqi prisoners took place after April 2003, after Abu Ghrab: So, the date of the incident is not known? Is the location unknown as well? Is the event even real?

Since this story is premised that government documents were released and information for this article are 'revelations' why is there no detail? Could it be there are no details (details that include facts ) becuase there are actually no documents?

Enquiring minds wanna know.
Posted by badanov  2004-12-08 6:14:05 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2004-12-08 6:14:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Or there are no details because the details would counter the thrust of the story. IE, it turns out the alleged abuse was actually self defense.

(And someone who names themselves "God Save The World" saying "get over yourself" is ironic as hell.)
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-12-08 8:03:25 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2004-12-08 8:03:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 RC heh heh
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-08 8:06:19 AM||   2004-12-08 8:06:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 GSTW - Lol! Awwwwww - didn't like what you read? Lol! Wotta cheesedick. FOAD

RC - ROFLMAO!!! I bow to your superior pithiness and dead-solid-perfect insight! :-)
Posted by .com 2004-12-08 11:13:27 AM||   2004-12-08 11:13:27 AM|| Front Page Top

06:02 reesh
23:52 Carl in N.H.
23:33 Bomb-a-rama
23:30 anonymous2U
23:21 Uleque Glavise4887
23:12 Alaska Paul
23:11 Bomb-a-rama
23:10 2b
23:06 Alaska Paul
23:06 Uleque Glavise4887
23:02 2b
23:00 True German Ally
22:57 gromky
22:54 Uleque Glavise4887
22:47 Uleque Glavise4887
22:46 Alaska Paul
22:36 Laurence of the Rats
22:23 gromky
22:13 Alaska Paul
22:09 Asedwich
22:07 smn
22:04 Frank G
21:43 Uleque Hupavise4887
21:42 Anonymoose









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com