"...justify the borderline systematic and sanctioned torture as "necessary" to fight terrorism." To whom, exactly, are you referring as trying to "justify" systematic and sanctioned torture? Along those lines, you say, "...but to justify or ignore American abuses is to stoop to their level." Again, who? "... this pattern of torture and abuse does not stop or receive quick condmentation [sic]by the most vocal supproters [sic]of this war..." I clearly recall the POTUS, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Gen Chiarelli making comment and/or taking immediate and severe institutional actions. The commandant was on a plane to Iraq within a day of the Haditha story breaking, Chiarelli has instituted re-training for every soldier in Iraq-all 160,000 of them, and the President could barely contain his anger. Herodotus, your comments don't reflect ground truths here, ONLY YOUR DESIRE TO BELIEVE that our military, as an institution, possesses these abhorrant values. In short, the tone of your commentary is typically disembling, duplicitous, and misleading. You know better, particularly in light of the IMMEDIATE reaction of the aforementioned gentlemen. What a shame.

One last point. It doesn't seem to stop you from continuing to draw a monthly paycheck from DoD. Put your money where your mouth seems all too consistently to be, for a change. Resign. Today. THAT's "quick condmentation [sic]..."

"To whom, exactly, are you referring as trying to "justify" systematic and sanctioned torture? Along those lines, you say, "...but to justify or ignore American abuses is to stoop to their level." Again, who?" "The detainee directive was due to be released in late April along with the Army Field Manual on interrogation. But objections from several senators on other Field Manual issues forced a delay. The senators objected to provisions allowing harsher interrogation techniques for those considered unlawful combatants, such as suspected terrorists, as opposed to traditional prisoners of war. The lawmakers say that differing standards of treatment allowed by the Field Manual would violate a broadly supported anti-torture measure advanced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain last year pushed Congress to ban torture and cruel treatment and to establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for treatment of all detainees. Despite administration opposition, the measure passed and became law. For decades, it had been the official policy of the U.S. military to follow the minimum standards for treating all detainees as laid out in the Geneva Convention. But, in 2002, Bush suspended portions of the Geneva Convention for captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Bush's order superseded military policy at the time, touching off a wide debate over U.S. obligations under the Geneva accord, a debate that intensified after reports of detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Among the directives being rewritten following Bush's 2002 order is one governing U.S. detention operations. Military lawyers and other defense officials wanted the redrawn version of the document known as DoD Directive 2310, to again embrace Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. That provision — known as a "common" article because it is part of each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 — bans torture and cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all detainees — whether they are held as unlawful combatants or traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture. The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees. The Pentagon tried to satisfy some of the military lawyers' concerns by including some protections of Article 3 in the new policy, most notably a ban on inhumane treatment, but refused to embrace the actual Geneva standard in the directive it planned to issue. The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of Geneva." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture5jun05,0,877738,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines "I clearly recall the POTUS, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Gen Chiarelli making comment and/or taking immediate and severe institutional actions. The commandant was on a plane to Iraq within a day of the Haditha story breaking, Chiarelli has instituted re-training for every soldier in Iraq-all 160,000 of them, and the President could barely contain his anger." I am certain he is angry yet at the same time he is making it easier to relax the Geneva Conventions, and thus blurring the lines between what is acceptable conduct in military and post-military operations and what is not. It was not I who stated the "Geneva Conventions were a quaint idea," that ignoble honor belongs to our current AG. "Herodotus, your comments don't reflect ground truths here, ONLY YOUR DESIRE TO BELIEVE that our military, as an institution, possesses these abhorrant values." My connection with the US military is above reproach, you know nothing of my life history so do not be quick to make snap judgments about my “beliefs”. Suffice it to say my beef is not with the US military it is with this administration and its reckless policies. "In short, the tone of your commentary is typically dissembling, duplicitous, and misleading. You know better, particularly in light of the IMMEDIATE reaction of the aforementioned gentlemen. What a shame. " Yet it is the policies implemented by one of the aforementioned gentlemen that as I have said blurred the line of acceptable behavior, and now he acts shocked and outraged when these "atrocities" occur. He is either an imbecile or duplicitous and you are no better for defending him. Secondly, I never stated I work for DoD I work for a non-profit government contractor, some o

But for all the talk of Islamic babrbarism and how justified our invasion of Iraq is it does seem hypocritical to ignore the pattern of abuses,.... But if this pattern of torture and abuse does not stop or receive quick condmentation by the most vocal supproters of this war,.... ---- Snore. The incident is receiving immediate, high-level, significant attention. The guilty will fry. Some measures are already being taken to prevent any re-occurance, and undoubtedly more will be taken in the future. As for "pattern," wake me up when it actually happens more than once in two years of heavy insurgency and terrorism. Displacedjim

Wake up, it happened again. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060603/wl_nm/iraq_ishaqi_dc_2 My point isn't merely that the US is involved in these supposed crimes, it's the perception that we should all be really worried about. But from killing protestors in Fallujah in April 2003, to completely destroying that town, to random midnight raids, to indiscriminate air raids, to photographing abuses at Abu Ghriab prison, to killing unarmed insurgents in front of video cameras, to pushing civilians off bridges, to covering up a supposed massacre, to absolving blame in another, we are certainly not "changing hearts and minds" and we are not helping matters in trying to cultivate a future ally in Iraq. If Iraq is to become a true democracy as is the hopes and dreams of the neocons then it is answerable to its people...right now a sizeable portion of the Iraqi people are pretty pissed off at the US. So why are we continuing to antagonize the problem by allowing a weakening of the Geneva Conventions, and this paltry slap on the wrist punishment for low-level personnel, only to see the behavior repeated again and again? The problems have not been corrected and they are only exasperating the insurgency and ensuring more antagonism toward the US.

"Yet it is the policies implemented by one of the aforementioned gentlemen that as I have said blurred the line of acceptable behavior..." Not so. Haditha IS the subject which you've introduced. Should this investigation reveal conduct not IAW the established ROEs, those troops will be prosecuted. Nothing is "blurred" to the appropriate behavior of those marines, whether engaged in battle or otherwise. Glad you don't work for DoD. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, nor does resigning benefit any of us, as such. Sorry that I misunderstood your employer. Certainly you harbor concerns about the policies and procedures that govern our definitions and detention of detainees. I don't. You are welcome to prove detainee abuse as an institutional practice of our forces. You'd be hardpressed to do so. As to the Atty. Gen. "ignoble honor", I note that much of your aforementioned L.A. Times article was selectively edited. 1.) the article clearly notes that considerable discussion and dissension resides within DoD concerning the policy formulation STILL IN PROGRESS. 2.) You fail to note the administration's argument to the definition and use of Article 3 as it applies to unlawful combatants in a global war, not civil insurgency. Further, "The senators objected to provisions allowing harsher interrogation techniques for those considered unlawful combatants, such as suspected terrorists..." As the article points, there is considerable debate as to these "harsher interrogation techniques". Most centers around the use of "humiliation". Sorry, laughable in the article's context. Both Abu Ghraib and Bagram do not represent this argument. One was frat-house abuse, ungoverned and unsanctioned. The other was inhumane, brutally so, but again unsanctioned and both prosecuted by our government. "He is either an imbecile or duplicitous and you are no better for defending him." No. The POTUS is neither. He, and his administration recognize the new realities of the GWOT that aren't defined nor governed by the Geneva Convention's Article 3. Hardly imbecilic. It is the crux of the argument. That the debate exists at all, much less part of a greater national debate clearly and neatly sidesteps your charge of duplicity on his part. Transparent for ALL to see, should they wish. As for the parallels to myself, conclude as you wish. But to use Haditha as the basis for THIS debate is disembling. Re-format your topic and display your concern with greater clarity. It might help the discussion. As currently configured, it's just using Haditha as a RED HERRING to your true interests. If my perception of these matters upon your reading still rings of an "imbecile", you are welcome to leave it be, and not REPLY. But, if you do, please do so as a new topic as Haditha is not a detainee discussion of humiliation. It is marines in combat under the worst stress imaginable, violating established rules of engagement, and acting to cover up-for FEAR of prosecution, their behaviour. That's a criminal matter still under investigation.

I've just read your comments to displacedJim. It's clear that you see things as you want. April 29, 2003- A "night-time" demonstration. Hmmm. U.S. troops, unprovoked, fire upon innocent demonstrators, bystanders, and medical personnel. Sure, Herodotus. If you say so. In Fallujah. "completely destroying that town". You mean in Oct. 2004? Oh well. Not without more than fair warning. Meanwhile, I assume destroyed means what-Hamburg or Tokyo, as it is completely re-inhabited. An unarmed wounded insurgent (with an AK-47 next to him) got whacked in the course of a full-blown unban battle? Well prosecute me, cause I'd whack him too. And that's a fact. I saw that footage just like you. I REALLY like my solution better. We went, by October, 2004, there to pacify? Sorry, anybody there was an unlawful combatant in a battle situation precluding detention. His sorry ass is gone. He should have split with his leaders when the chance was there. Seeking martyrdom at the hands of our forces, he found it. FERK HIM!! RANDOM midnight raids? Quit talking like Kerry. Why do I think that when we go through the door of a house at midnight there just may be a reason? Imbecilic me, I guess. So many doors, so little time. Indiscriminate air-raids. Uh-huh, a real strategic bombing campaign we've got going in Iraq. Do you mean like "the wedding party" in Tal Afaar? Or the recent attack in Afghanistan where Taliban took to the homes of these peasants, firing from their roofs? You know, the air-strike called in by our allies? Your tirade is just so much gnashing of teeth. That you show so little dispassionate balance to your perspective reminds me more of a petulant child not having his way than a professional analyst versed in the nuances of modern assymetric warfare and it's attendant diffusion. Surprising, actually.

>> We act shocked and outraged at what the terrorists do, and rightfully so, but to justify or ignore American abuses is to stoop to their level. << Oh, Jesus Christ...

Weren't those the words of Interim Prime Minister Allawi in addressing Iraqi troops prior to battle in Fallujah, October 2004? Glad we could oblige.

Herodotus, You've built some mighty strawmen here in the thread - 1. You rant on about how unlawful combatants can be treated, and yet, this doesn't apply to insurgents caught in Iraq (I don't know how the AQIZ members are being treated, but AFAIK, they haven't been evaced into the Gitmo system). 2. You talk about changing the Geneva Convention with regards to unlawful combatants, and yet, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to unlawful combatants. I'll respond with some of my thoughts about Haditha and some of the other items that you mentioned, but I just wanted to throw out this very "technical" response.