Breaking legs with a baseball bat: torture? [Archive]

Hurin_Rules

09-24-2005, 01:51

The army is currently conducting its own (not independent) investigation of new abuse allegations regarding Iraq:

Army to probe new Iraq abuse allegations
Rights group report details severe, routine beatings of detainees

Updated: 8:01 p.m. ET Sept. 23, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Army has opened an investigation into a Fort Bragg soldier’s allegations that he witnessed and heard about widespread prisoner abuse — including torture and a beating with a baseball bat — while serving at a base in Iraq.

The announcement Friday came as a human rights organization prepared to release a scathing report on three 82nd Airborne Division soldiers’ accounts of prisoners being beaten, forced to hold five-gallon jugs of water in their outstretched arms, and denied sleep, food and water.

The abuse, one of the sergeants said, was like a game and a way for soldiers to work out their frustrations. The soldiers said there was a great deal of confusion about what types of treatment were allowed under the Geneva convention, and senior officers provided little guidance.

The report was compiled by Human Rights Watch from interviews with a captain and two sergeants who were stationed at a military base called Mercury near Fallujah. The captain said his complaints were ignored for 17 months, and he was denied a pass to leave his base after planning to meet with Senate staff members, the report said.

Army officials, however, said they began their investigation into the matter as soon as it came to their attention.

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said the soldier, whose name was not released, told superiors about the allegations and was then referred to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command. The investigation began at least two weeks ago, he said.

Boyce said the soldier is allowed to contact or visit Congress members or staff but was stopped from traveling to Washington from Fort Bragg in North Carolina on one instance because he had not requested either administrative leave or a pass to leave the base.

Report: Soldiers told to 'smoke' detainees
The Human Rights Watch report detailed severe, routine beatings of detainees by the 82nd Airborne Division. One of the sergeants told the group that military intelligence personnel, eager for information, often instructed soldiers to “smoke” detainees — called Persons Under Control or PUCs — during questioning, according to the report. “Smoking” prisoners meant physically abusing them until they lost consciousness.

Frustrated soldiers would often beat the Iraqis as a stress release, the sergeant said.

“In a way it was sport,” the sergeant said. “One day (another sergeant) shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy’s leg with a mini-Louisville Slugger, a metal bat.”

The soldier said anything short of death was acceptable. “As long as no PUCs came up dead, it happened,” he said. “We kept it to broken arms and legs.”

Lack of guidance on detainee handling
In the report, Human Rights Watch said the soldiers accounts demonstrate that troops were not given clear guidance on how to treat detainee. The group called for Congress to create a special commission to investigate the issue.

Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said the report differs from the previous accounts and lurid photographs the public has seen detailing prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

“A lot of people have heard about this before. But I don’t think they have heard a West Point-educated officer who fought on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan say what happened was wrong, what happened was systemic, and was the result of leadership failures,” he said.
Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. John Skinner criticized the report as a predictable effort to try to “advance an agenda through the use of distortions and errors in fact.”

Skinner said the military has investigated all credible allegations of detainee abuse and “looked at all aspects of detention operations under a microscope.”

To date, the military has conducted 400 investigations of prisoner abuse allegations, and 230 soldiers have been court-martialed or faced nonjudicial punishment or another administrative action.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

My question: this seems oddly similar to Gonzalez et al.'s redefinition of torture. Would such abuse fall under the Bush administration's new definition of torture? They had said for it to be torture it would have to have the possibility of ending in organ failure of death. Breaking legs with a baseball bat, it seems to me, could be considered by the Bushies not to be torture. Could this perhaps have been ok'd then?

Kaiser of Arabia

09-24-2005, 02:25

If breaking legs with a baseball bat is tortrue, then attempting to do so is attempted torture, so I guess I'm an attempted torturer ~D.

No, it's not. It's fun for the whole familY!

Reverend Joe

09-24-2005, 03:05

Uh... is this an argument? Can anyone actually argue this effectively? I think that it is indisputable that smashing a man's legs is fun.

Strike For The South

09-24-2005, 03:08

HERE HERE ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:

Zharakov

09-24-2005, 04:19

PanzerJaeger

09-24-2005, 05:57

Breaking legs with a baseball bat: torture?

Depends on whose legs are being broken..

bmolsson

09-24-2005, 05:58

No. Why?

Did the Terrorists sign the Genevia Convention? No. Then they are not protected.

Now, this does not make it the right thing to do. But then why is it ok for the Terrorists to behead you'r workers... Cut the noses off of Russian Soldiers? And why was Saddam Husain able to get away with brutaly killing his own people with no protests from you Americans?

Why did you Americans *And Europeans* Protest the treatment of the Talibon to there people?

Or the N. Korean to his?

Think carefully about your views...

I think you miss the point. A society sets the moral standard and fight to keep this standard. The moment an enemy forces the society to deviate from its standards, the whole identity, which people are fighting for, are destroyed and the society are disfunctional.
In the case of the west, we don't use torture, even if the enemy does, because we are better than them.

Redleg

09-24-2005, 06:34

I think you miss the point. A society sets the moral standard and fight to keep this standard. The moment an enemy forces the society to deviate from its standards, the whole identity, which people are fighting for, are destroyed and the society are disfunctional.
In the case of the west, we don't use torture, even if the enemy does, because we are better than them.

Actually I think your missing his point.

According to the some we in the west are all worse then they are, even before going into Afganstan or Iraq.

Kanamori

09-24-2005, 08:07

breaking leags is nn now way a violation of human rights mperiocs.

Kanamori

09-24-2005, 08:11

I apoolig9ze in advance.!

PanzerJaeger

09-24-2005, 08:28

Somebody call a cab for Kanamori... :barrel: :laugh4:

KafirChobee

09-24-2005, 08:37

Actually I think your missing his point.

According to the some we in the west are all worse then they are, even before going into Afganstan or Iraq.

I expected more from one that defended the principles of this nation. Seems, some rights are only for some folks, while others can be deprived of the very humanity of being a human - if the appropriate administration says it is OK to abuse a said race.
[end of talk to red.]

It is like proclaiming freedom is a wonderful thing; and then classifying it by stating only certain people can be experience it or live in it - those that believe in jesus come to mind that would outright accept such a premise and abide by it. Out own little haven of Ayatolas - we just call the ministers instead.

As for torture, it can be depriving a person a bible, prayer book, Koran, beads of assorted colors - or, breaking bones with a BAT!

Laughing about such behavior pretty much defines a persons position in the scale of humanity. It certainly explains their perception of what is humane - which may explain why the rest of the world views us as an oddity. On the one hand Americans demand everyone in the world know they are free - or else. On the other, it is Ok if no one else in the world is, as long as the government says they are. :dizzy2:

scooter_the_shooter

09-24-2005, 12:27

Well...if they Used it in the interrogation room....more power to them!

If they Used it else where....MORE POWER TO THEM it will soften them up for interrogation. And if a few insurgents getting beat up saves an american....who cares who got roughed up?

Tribesman

09-24-2005, 13:35

Redleg

09-24-2005, 15:49

What the hell? You're ignoring this crap because you disagree with his political viewpoint?

This is barbaric torture, plain and simple. And crap like this is what makes the whole "Fighting for Democracy" such BS.

LOL - misreading will do that all the time. Did I say I agreed with his view or torture.

DOn't read into the statement for something that is not there.

Have a nice day

Redleg

09-24-2005, 15:54

I expected more from one that defended the principles of this nation. Seems, some rights are only for some folks, while others can be deprived of the very humanity of being a human - if the appropriate administration says it is OK to abuse a said race.
[end of talk to red.]

Another one that only read into the statement what he wanted to read in it - or to but it simply another who does not read - did I agree with his point or did I say bmollson misread Zharakov point - your a smart guy figure it out.

It is like proclaiming freedom is a wonderful thing; and then classifying it by stating only certain people can be experience it or live in it - those that believe in jesus come to mind that would outright accept such a premise and abide by it. Out own little haven of Ayatolas - we just call the ministers instead.

just like you are for overacting to what was stated because of what you wanted to read into it.

As for torture, it can be depriving a person a bible, prayer book, Koran, beads of assorted colors - or, breaking bones with a BAT!

Torture requires a specific occurance - only the breaking of bones in your list can be defined as torture. The rest is emotional appeal.

Laughing about such behavior pretty much defines a persons position in the scale of humanity. It certainly explains their perception of what is humane - which may explain why the rest of the world views us as an oddity. On the one hand Americans demand everyone in the world know they are free - or else. On the other, it is Ok if no one else in the world is, as long as the government says they are. :dizzy2:

Only thing that you stated that makes sense.

Redleg

09-24-2005, 15:56

According to the some we in the west are all worse then they are
Well when you read some of the comments in this thread Red it would be entirely accurate to say that some in the west are just the same as they are .

I see at least one individual did not read into the statement - but read it for what it was.

My hat is off to Tribesman congrats for actually reading the statement and not just reacting.

Lemur

09-24-2005, 17:40

This thread won't really warm up until an extreme-right member declares that breaking legs is fine and dandy.

No, I take that back, nobody would be that obvious. Perhaps a sliming of the officer who came forward, an attack on the source, or a general attribution of this whole "torture" thing to a vast left-wing conspiracy? When in doubt, one can always blame Clinton. (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/19/clintons-fault/) It's all his fault. Or her fault, depending on the issue.

Redleg

09-24-2005, 18:31

This thread won't really warm up until an extreme-right member declares that breaking legs is fine and dandy.

Would you like me to play devil's advocate just so that the topic will heat up and become something of a flame feast. It wouldn't be hard since at least two individuals have already mis-read what my statement was.

No, I take that back, nobody would be that obvious. Perhaps a sliming of the officer who came forward, an attack on the source, or a general attribution of this whole "torture" thing to a vast left-wing conspiracy? When in doubt, one can always blame Clinton. (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/19/clintons-fault/) It's all his fault. Or her fault, depending on the issue.

That would be even easier. However it seems your the first to put Clinton into the thread - not the group in which you would like to blame for it.

:dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

09-24-2005, 19:47

Yes it is torture; morally depraved and I'm ashamed if this is real.

At the same time, terrorists are not protected by Geneva (you may have seen their interpretation).

I think sleep deprivation, psyche techniques, etc., should be allowed, as they get info without actual torture. But I know some blissaninnies in the US would whine if the terrorists didn't get a koran, prayer rug, etc., and many whine even if they do.

Crazed Rabbit

Colovion

09-24-2005, 20:26

People are disgusting creatures. Rarely does a day go by that I am free from that pang of reminder of the dispicable things we are capable of, and readily practice.

Meneldil

09-24-2005, 20:30

I think sleep deprivation, psyche techniques, etc., should be allowed, as they get info without actual torture. But I know some blissaninnies in the US would whine if the terrorists didn't get a koran, prayer rug, etc., and many whine even if they do.

Crazed Rabbit

Torture may be physical aswell as psychological... (though I admit the 'Koran abuse' is a bit silly, sleep deprivation is - I think - clearly considered as torture.

At the same time, terrorists are not protected by Geneva (you may have seen their interpretation).

Does the Geneva Convention work only if the 2 parties apply it ? Most treaty need reciprocity in applying. Is it the same with the GC ?

Soulforged

09-24-2005, 20:47

Torture may be physical aswell as psychological... (though I admit the 'Koran abuse' is a bit silly, sleep deprivation is - I think - clearly considered as torture. Certainly true. But the military laws function different to those of the civilians, for instance they can commit this, even physical torture if necessary, but always looking for the safety of the life of the tortured. I don't agree with this, because i totally disagree with anything military, but they can do it, and they can do even extended phycological torture. But there's prescription for everything.

Does the Geneva Convention work only if the 2 parties apply it ? Most treaty need reciprocity in applying. Is it the same with the GC ? That's true.

Meneldil

09-24-2005, 20:57

Certainly true. But the military laws function different to those of the civilians, for instance they can commit this, even physical torture if necessary, but always looking for the safety of the life of the tortured.

Actually, I haven't read the whole convention (doing it atm), but

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Now, terrorists or 'freedom fighters' aren't considered as POW's mainly because they don't respect the laws and customs of war and don't wear a recognizable distinctive sign I think.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-24-2005, 21:07

Now, terrorists or 'freedom fighters' aren't considered as POW's mainly because they don't respect the laws and customs of war and don't wear a recognizable distinctive sign I think.

That is my interpretation as well.

I would distinguish terrorists from freedom fighters - a terrorist doesn't have to be a freedom fighter, and vice versa. If it were up to me, freedom fighters should be POWs but terrorists shouldn't be.

A terrorist being one who deliberately targets noncombatants, generally speaking. That's too loose of a defintion to use legally, but thankfully I'm not in charge.

Meneldil

09-24-2005, 21:23

I'm fairly sure terrorists in Irak call themselves freedom fighter, or some crap like that. The distinction (if there's one) must be really thin in our case.

Partisans during WWI were called Terrorists by the Axis. Terrorism is a subjective word (although I remember hearing that an international convention was suppsoed.

Furthermore, the GC don't mention terrorist or freedom fighters. I guess it means it would be time to update it, but since the 2 current superpowers (the US and China) don't really [care] about it, this is not gonna happen anytime soon.

Soulforged

09-24-2005, 21:28

Steppe Merc

09-24-2005, 21:32

Soulforged

09-24-2005, 21:52

Alexander, what happens when a terrorist is a member of a genuie army? It certaintly can and has and will happen.

I think that breaking someone's legs is certaintly torture. It's just crazy to think it isn't. And it should not be practiced, regardless of who the captive is. And if it is practiced, those who commited the torture and those who allowed that torture to happen need to be punished. It's Steppe, but the question is that if it's justified. In the case that the torture decreases significatively the health of the victim then it's not justified. Anyway to me it's not justified, this may leave many a person invalid for the rest of their lives.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-25-2005, 00:05

Well, what I meant was that "terrorist" is a absolute, not a relative.

IE, even though the IRA may have been considered "freedom fighters" as well as "heroes" by some (not all) in Northern Ireland, they were terrorists when they bombed a store. Even if they were never labelled as "terrorists."

As to terrorists in uniform, that becomes a stickier situation.

If the action by the terrorist is the actions of an individual not under orders, the individual should be prosecuted by the military organization he or she is a part of. There is certainly no excuse for hosing down a non-hostile and unarmed village, for example. Something like that should mean court-martial and at least imprisonment.

Of course, someone will bring up the bombing of Dresden (not to mention the bombing of London and Britain) to which I have no real answer. I don't know if that is terrorism or not.

But we aren't dealing with that in the Geneva Convention right now, are we?

Tribesman

09-25-2005, 00:32

Well, what I meant was that "terrorist" is a absolute, not a relative.
But what is an absolute ?
Is it OK to blow up a bridge to disrupt transport infrastructure , but not OK to blow up a train station to do the same ?
Is it OK to bomb an industrial complex to damage a countries economy , but not OK to blow up a retail centre to do the same ?
Is it OK to blow up a truck full of soldiers with a roadside bomb , but not OK to make a truck into a bomb and drive it down the road into an army post ?
Is it OK to shell a civilian area because there are terrorists there , but not OK to do it because there are soldiers there ?

Are there any absolutes or is it all relative ?

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-25-2005, 01:12

But what is an absolute ?
Is it OK to blow up a bridge to disrupt transport infrastructure , but not OK to blow up a train station to do the same ?
Is it OK to bomb an industrial complex to damage a countries economy , but not OK to blow up a retail centre to do the same ?
Is it OK to blow up a truck full of soldiers with a roadside bomb , but not OK to make a truck into a bomb and drive it down the road into an army post ?
Is it OK to shell a civilian area because there are terrorists there , but not OK to do it because there are soldiers there ?

Are there any absolutes or is it all relative ?
I don't know if I can explain what I mean, but here goes.

I don't really know what actions make a terrorist, except generalizations like "intentionally causing harm to civilians or noncombatants." So I don't really know for sure which of the actions you listed are terroristic actions - at the very least some clarifications are in order for some of them.

However, once an individual crosses the line and commits a terrorist action - whatever they may be - they cease to be a "freedom fighter."

So a terrorist is absolutely a terrorist, no matter whose side he or she is on, just that I don't have any concrete or fool-proof definitions of what those actions are.

Does that make any sense?

Devastatin Dave

09-25-2005, 01:19

If this is true, than it is truelly sickening and those responsible should be punished for their crimes, again, if this is true...

Tribesman

09-25-2005, 01:27

Does that make any sense?
Yep , thats why the recent attempt to define terrorism and internationally legislate about it failed .
It seems an impossible thing to absolutely define .
Take the first example I gave .
You target a bridge with precision laser guided munitions , there just happens to be civilians on the bridge . Is that terrorism or can you say that they are collateral damage and you only meant to disrupt transport ?
You target a train station with a bag full of explosives , there just happen to be civilians at the train station (surprisingly) . Is that terrorism or can you say that they are collateral damage and you only meant to disrupt transport ?

Kaiser of Arabia

09-25-2005, 01:35

*hides bat behind back*

It's not torture, it's...

its...

its.... a stress releiver! Yes, a stress releiver, that's it. *shiftey eyes*

Kaiser of Arabia, bring much needed extremist comic releif and satire to the Org since March of 2004.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-25-2005, 01:35

Another dimension is the perpetrator of those actions.

If the military of a legitimate (another debate!) nation targets a vital bridge of another nation, and in the process kills some civilians, is that terrorism? I would say no, because the object is destroying something vital to the enemy.

But if someone blows up a bomb in a train station just to kill people, I think that would be terrorism, be it with a home-made bomb, or a smart-bomb off of an F-16.

Soulforged

09-25-2005, 02:08

No, I think that the terrorist is a new modern and curious definition to a subversive. Only that this subject doesn't only marches and makes conventions against an state, he also kills people (or only kills people) to bring generalized terror. I really don't think that the people in the IRA can be generalized as terrorists, ones might only want to spread fear, others want freedom, it's more a subjective definition than an objective one. As well with any other terrorists. The ones in Al Quaeda, could be but not absolutely, some really think that this is about gaining a place in heaven, well I really think that all the "intruments" in this kind of organization really believe that.

Kraxis

09-25-2005, 02:14

Of course, someone will bring up the bombing of Dresden (not to mention the bombing of London and Britain) to which I have no real answer. I don't know if that is terrorism or not.
That is indeed a sticky one.
Remember the phrase "Terrorbombing"? Well that was what the bombing of Dresden was coined (as were a number of other bombings prior to that).
What does a terrorist do? He deals in terror. Terror being a deepseated fear, one you have even when you might not have a 'need' for it. There is no doubt in my mind that specific bombings during WWII were indeed terrorist acts. But the winners do win, even Curtis LeMay said that he was sure he would have been tried for warcrimes had the allies not won.

Who are the terrorists? I like to believe that he is in general one who is fighting, not so much for something, but rather against something. Like not for an Iraq free of America, but against America itself.

Also, we should be careful to lump people together. It would be a sad case if a group that was captured, were guys who had done nothing against civilians, but were the guys with ambushes against police and military. Should they be treated like terrorists? No of course not, but they do look a lot like them, and they speak alot like them too (their curses are quite similar). Bah, they have got to be the same anyway.

Dangerous slide...

So in the end it is quite hard to destinguish the freedom fighter from the terrorist. Thus we should not use torture or use the captives as punchingbags. We just end up stepping on our own toes.

Tribesman

09-25-2005, 02:20

Remember the phrase "Terrorbombing"?
Would that be a similar phrase to "Shock and Awe" ?

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-25-2005, 02:38

There are other things that cause terror as well.

The sheer power of an M1A1 Abrams tank surely causes terror in those who are not friends of the US. If a column of them are driven through a village purely to keep the villagers in line, is that terrorism?

Your definition (like everyone's definition) is limited, Kraxis. What if someone thinks that he is fighting for the unification of Ireland by leveling a full apartment? Is he a terrorist? Of course. I think that your defintion is a good general defintion, just like others have. However, there are far too many ways to get around that defintion. :shrug:

So in the end it is quite hard to destinguish the freedom fighter from the terrorist. Thus we should not use torture or use the captives as punchingbags. We just end up stepping on our own toes.
Certainly, we should not torture our captives to begin with. The next issue is the defintion of torture ( :help: ).

No, I think that the terrorist is a new modern and curious definition to a subversive. Only that this subject doesn't only marches and makes conventions against an state, he also kills people (or only kills people) to bring generalized terror. I really don't think that the people in the IRA can be generalized as terrorists, ones might only want to spread fear, others want freedom, it's more a subjective definition than an objective one. As well with any other terrorists. The ones in Al Quaeda, could be but not absolutely, some really think that this is about gaining a place in heaven, well I really think that all the "intruments" in this kind of organization really believe that.

The term "terrorist" is not a modern term. I think it came from the reign of, well, terror by the Jacobins in France around the late 1700s. Or at least "terrorism" came from that period. I think "terrorist" was more recently applied to the Jewish, uh, people in Palestine in the late 1940's trying to force the British to leave through violence. So it isn't really new.

While members of groups like the IRA and Al Queda may not be individually "terrorists" they are indeed members of groups that are terroristic, dedicated to using terrorist tactics. Membership in such groups are guilty by association, since they must know of the actions of their group.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-25-2005, 04:00

Was that an intended part of the process?

Zharakov

09-25-2005, 04:11

This is why breaking someone legs is not torture.

During my duties and a Tank officer, I had the "pleasure" of witnessing the "interogations" of some Chechnyian Rebels. They were not pleasant...

Or the Gulogs here... and the work camps in China... Terrible places...

... To save you the details... Breaking someones legs is Merciful compaired to some other methods that caould be emploied.

Breaking a persons legs with a bat... Civilized...

Productivity

09-25-2005, 04:26

Zharakov

09-25-2005, 04:38

Yes it is.

Because the people who are being tortured at your prisons have no rights.

They are not people. When they decided that killing innocent women and children and Men, all for a few Virgins after deth, was ok. They gave up there human rights.

When the terrorists decided to kill people for no reason. They lost there human rights.

The terrorists are the ones at fault, and must be punished. And I know some one will say that your troops are at fault, or you'r presedent.

So I ask, did your Presedent fly the planes into the towers? Did your presedent drive the carbomb into the crowd of people? Did your solders open fire on pro-American supports in Bagdad? Did your troops fire morter shells into the city during the elections? Did your troops use civilians as human shields as they escaped like cowards? No.

There for, why not shut up. And let your troops do there jobs.

bmolsson

09-25-2005, 04:50

They are not people.

Do you really think you are better than the terrorists ? The above statement doesn't exactly put you in heaven........

Furthermore, history shows that abusive occupation will always fail in the end. Being good and do the right thing will win......

Zharakov

09-25-2005, 05:02

Acculy... I feel the same as some people *cough*YOU* cough* feel about a fetus...

So, as I said. Shut up and let the soldiers do there job.

And, this is not an abusive occupation. America will let Iraq go in the end. Who do you think they are? Europeans?

Strike For The South

09-25-2005, 05:07

And, this is not an abusive occupation. America will let Iraq go in the end. Who do you think they are? Europeans?

going right in the siggmister

Reverend Joe

09-25-2005, 05:09

:wall:

Zharakov

09-25-2005, 05:10

Strike for Russia... :medievalcheers:

Now bmolsson, how can you not stand for a fetus right to live and not be killed...

But you will let someone who would kill you for not reason, live?

Same to some other people on this page. Are your "morals" just diffrent?

AntiochusIII

09-25-2005, 05:41

But you will let someone who would kill you for not reason, live?Congratulations on trying to defend people hitting each other with a baseball bat just for fun by bringing in the issue of abortion.

:dizzy2:

Just shut up and let [Stalin's] soldiers do their job, is that what you mean?

Strike For The South

09-25-2005, 05:42

Just shut up and let [Stalin's] soldiers do their job, is that what you mean?

I believe Putin is the president now

AntiochusIII

09-25-2005, 05:47

I believe Putin is the president nowLike I don't know...

Do you agree with him, then, that we should shut up and let torture be considered what a soldier could use for "their jobs?"

Strike For The South

09-25-2005, 05:49

Like I don't know...

Do you agree with him, then, that we should shut up and let torture be considered what a soldier could use for "their jobs?"

Well that depends I mean its not like there not just going to give it up and if means saving lives than by all means yes

Strike For The South

09-25-2005, 06:02

How the hell is what's in the article saving lives? It's sociopathic soldiers beating on prisoners for no discernable reason. If anything it endangers lives by sending out yet another message to the world that we have no qualms about being barbaric.

I dont know if this is 100% true do you and of they are doing this just for fun its wrong but it aint like I cant see where they are coming from

Strike For The South

09-25-2005, 06:09

Even if they were doing it to get information, you have to consider who is in these prisons. As I understand it, they don't just take combatants, and are rather indiscriminate with the imprisonment. I'll have to check up on that some more, but I don't like the idea of a Shopkeeper who speaks out against the US Military being picked up and tortured.

But these are terrisots you know those guys who kill women and children and Im stil not sure if this is 100% accurate

Strike For The South

09-25-2005, 06:22

Our boys kill plenty of civilians as well. We can't take the high horse here. Torture is barbaric, and if we are to promote democracy then we must be better than everyone else, and prove we are worthy of that high horse. That includes being better to your enemies than they are to you. Does not your bible teach something along those lines?

not intentionally the US dosent run into plazas or toy stores and press a button and we are being much better to our enemies If we wanted we could curcify them or cut off the heads like those terriosts but we dont you guys seem to coinvently forget that they want us dead BTW I love how you weave your attacks on my faith very nicely done IMO

Strike For The South

09-25-2005, 06:31

[/QUOTE}It wasn't an attack on your faith. It was an attack some peoples' alleged adherance to it.[/QUOTE}

Are we sure your bible seems direct to me

Like I asked above: It's now okay to kill Civilians, if you "Didn't mean to do it?" They're just as dead either way. They didn't ask to die for democracy, did they? They did not live their lives looking forward to the day that a bomb lands on their house, did they?

Dead is dead. And you people defending this need to realize that, unless the US is willing to clean up it's act entirely regarding all of this barbarity, it should not proclaim the high road. This is not a clean war, and it should not be touted as such.

There is a big difference this is war and unffrotantely people die regular joes it sad to say but it happens and it isnt good but it hapens the diffrence is the US dosent sit there and wonder how many civilans can we maim today

Mongoose

09-25-2005, 06:36

Well, you can see how taking out 3 Civilians while destroying 20+ Military personnel would be very different from destroying 1,000+ Civilians with out any intent of destroying a Military target, right? Targeting Civilians is wrong, but in war some things are inevitable.

Question:If smashing some ones legs could save hundreds of lives, would it be O.K?

would you be happy? Would you see this differently?

Happy? Of course not. but it wouldn't be a war crime...

Strike For The South

09-25-2005, 06:47

You tell me whether it was directed at you. Do you adhere to all the things taught in your bible? Have you ever stolen? Lied? Disrespected your parents? Fornicated before marriage? Bombed civilians?

HMMMMMMM...I plead the 5th ~D

Mongoose

09-25-2005, 06:48

Alright... If you are driving and run 3 people over by a mistake, does that make you evil or incompetent?

If china ed the US and missed a target that resultes in several Civilians losses, that would not be a war crime. Just like if the US ed a target in the middle east and destroyed Civilians by mistake, that would also not be a war crime. There isn't some double standard here.

If it was saving thousands of lives, sure. But we both know that's not the case here.

Perhaps not thousands, but it could easily be dozens. The point is that beating the kind of people who plant under school buses CAN save Civilian lives.

Soulforged

09-25-2005, 07:30

The term "terrorist" is not a modern term. I think it came from the reign of, well, terror by the Jacobins in France around the late 1700s. Or at least "terrorism" came from that period. I think "terrorist" was more recently applied to the Jewish, uh, people in Palestine in the late 1940's trying to force the British to leave through violence. So it isn't really new. Yes now i remember that, thank you anyway. Then the actual aception of it has not varied to my knowledge.

While members of groups like the IRA and Al Queda may not be individually "terrorists" they are indeed members of groups that are terroristic, dedicated to using terrorist tactics. Membership in such groups are guilty by association, since they must know of the actions of their group. Actually the lower members are not responsables not guilty about anything, the higher memebers of any organization are always held as responsable (if the lower member acted in the lines of the organization function). On the other hand I was talking about creating a functionable and certain definition for terrorist. I think that it has to be subjectevely. Because if you don't then the bombing on Irak, the menace of nuclear attack in Hiroshima, the dissapeared here, all will be terrorism, but in this case terrorism of state (though i really don't know if I actually don't like this significate ~:confused: It might be proper...)

Meneldil

09-25-2005, 08:58

Our boys kill plenty of civilians as well. We can't take the high horse here. Torture is barbaric, and if we are to promote democracy then we must be better than everyone else, and prove we are worthy of that high horse. That includes being better to your enemies than they are to you. Does not your bible teach something along those lines?

Everything is pretty much said here. Breaking a leg for the sake of having some fun is similar to what happened in Concentration Camps or Gulags.
And you wonder why people from all over the world dislike the US ? ~:rolleyes:
Of course, this is (likely) an incident caused by some dumbass soldier, and not representative of the US army, but still. Every single people who hear that will think 'wow, they pretend to be promoting democracy and they torture prisonners for no reasons'. Way to go.

Tribesman

09-25-2005, 10:51

So I ask, did your Presedent fly the planes into the towers? Did your presedent drive the carbomb into the crowd of people?
So I ask Zharkov , did your President , who was Prime Minister at the time know that it was the agency that he used to run that was planting bombs in civilian buildings in Russia and blaming it on Chechens , when you were sent off in your little tank to Chechnya to stop the bombings ?

There for, why not shut up. And let your troops do there jobs.
There fore , what is this "job" the soldiers are supposed to be doing ?
If they wanted to strike at the bombers then they should have rolled their tanks straight through the Kremlin and the FSB headquarters .

bmolsson

09-25-2005, 12:34

Acculy... I feel the same as some people *cough*YOU* cough* feel about a fetus...

I have not spoken for the use of baseball bats against fetus, have I ?

So, as I said. Shut up and let the soldiers do there job.

Their job doesn't include torture, so there are no reason to shut up. In your case as Russian military it might be different, baseball bats might be a part of your job description.....

And, this is not an abusive occupation. America will let Iraq go in the end. Who do you think they are? Europeans?

If it's not an abusive occupation, why use torture.....

bmolsson

09-25-2005, 12:44

Strike for Russia... :medievalcheers:

Russia have not had any strikes since the tsar so I don't think so mate..... ~;)

Now bmolsson, how can you not stand for a fetus right to live and not be killed...

Once again, fetus should have their legs broken with a baseball bat either.....

But you will let someone who would kill you for not reason, live?

I would defend myself and kill him first. Also we are not talking about combat situations here, so your comments are not really relevant.

Same to some other people on this page. Are your "morals" just diffrent?

My morals are very simple. Abortion is an affair for the woman and torture is not something we allow in a western society.

Kagemusha

09-25-2005, 12:47

My morals are very simple. Abortion is an affair for the woman and torture is not something we allow in a western society.

In that sentence bmolsson hitted the nail in the head.I agree :bow:

Zharakov

09-25-2005, 17:56

Ok, first off no, in Russian Gulogs... You would have your fingers cut off... Then have your arms cut and left to bleed. And then IF you were lucky, you would be killed... You don't want to know what happines if you are unlucky...

Everything is pretty much said here. Breaking a leg for the sake of having some fun is similar to what happened in Concentration Camps or Gulags. .

And Bmolsson. First off I do not live in a western Socity, I live in Siberia... Which is in Asia. And Russia is barely considered Western. So it is not just a western Ideal.

In fact, Asians seem to be the best at doing horrible things...

Once again, fetus should have their legs broken with a baseball bat either.....

But you do believe in Abortion.

I would defend myself and kill him first. Also we are not talking about combat situations here, so your comments are not really relevant.
Ahh, so its ok to kill... But not break legs? No wonder you support Abortion.

My morals are very simple. Abortion is an affair for the woman and torture is not something we allow in a western society.
Abortion is killing. Torture is not just a western ideal.

I have not spoken for the use of baseball bats against fetus, have I ?

But you do belive its ok to kill a fetus.

Their job doesn't include torture, so there are no reason to shut up. In your case as Russian military it might be different, baseball bats might be a part of your job description.....

How do you get information from a prisoner? Ask them?
"Ohh please mister Iraqi Terrorists, tell me where your secret base is..."

FOOLISH!

If it's not an abusive occupation, why use torture.....
Its not torture, torture is casterating a person with a hot spike.

It is an interogation.

You stand for the rights of Terrorists and murderers. But would happly kill an innocent child for real reason.

I don't understand.

Soulforged

09-25-2005, 18:51

And Bmolsson. First off I do not live in a western Socity, I live in Siberia... Which is in Asia. And Russia is barely considered Western. So it is not just a western Ideal.

In fact, Asians seem to be the best at doing horrible things... Well I wonder why is that everybody always puts western culture above eastern culture, always this separation makes me sick...

How do you get information from a prisoner? Ask them?
"Ohh please mister Iraqi Terrorists, tell me where your secret base is..."
Its not torture, torture is casterating a person with a hot spike.
It is an interogation. There's various ways to interrogate somebody. Of the ones that I know, putting him in a cube of water until the point when he can barely reason is enough to make him speak. However if you pass the time and kill him then it will be wrong. I think that many ones here are confusing things. The autorities sadly have the right to torture captives until certain degree, and without causing any permanent nor serious damage. However breaking the legs is serious damage (wheter they do it for fun or not) and in some cases it could be permanent too. So the problem here is again: Is this torture? Of course there's no doubt about it. Is this justified? Hardly.

You stand for the rights of Terrorists and murderers. But would happly kill an innocent child for real reason.
I don't understand. So again for you the ones that you profile as terrorists and murderes like an allknowing person don't have rights :dizzy2: . In regards to the possition on abortion you must talk of this in another thread, but I'll give you a hint that you seemed to miss everytime: the fetus is not a person for us, so it's not murder, hell the fetus is not a person for any legislation that I know...(if you want to continue this then come to the other thread)

bmolsson

09-26-2005, 03:18

Ok, first off no, in Russian Gulogs... You would have your fingers cut off... Then have your arms cut and left to bleed. And then IF you were lucky, you would be killed... You don't want to know what happines if you are unlucky...

I am pretty sure I disagree with its use though.

And Bmolsson. First off I do not live in a western Socity, I live in Siberia... Which is in Asia. And Russia is barely considered Western. So it is not just a western Ideal.

Russia want's to be a part of the western society so I can't see it be an excuse here.

But you do believe in Abortion.

It's not a question of believing in abortion. It's about supporting a womans rights to her own body.

Ahh, so its ok to kill... But not break legs?

Don't you think that this statement was a bit stupid ?? ~:grouphug:

Torture is not just a western ideal.

Torture has never and will never be a western ideal.

But you do belive its ok to kill a fetus.

It's a necessity to protect the womans right to her own body.

How do you get information from a prisoner? Ask them?
"Ohh please mister Iraqi Terrorists, tell me where your secret base is..."

FOOLISH!

Its not torture, torture is casterating a person with a hot spike.

It is an interogation.

I assume that all criminals always plead guilty in Russia as well ? Are you guilty or do you want me to crush the other knee cap as well ?? ~:handball:

You stand for the rights of Terrorists and murderers. But would happly kill an innocent child for real reason.

I don't understand.

I am sure you understand. It's just that you want to defend your own view by comparing abortion with torture, which has nothing what so ever to do with each other. :book:

Zharakov

09-26-2005, 03:38

Ok, alow me to say it like this.

From my past history, from things I have seen. Breaking a persons legs is not that bad.

Second, I do not understand why you care about what happins to a person who has sold there soul. *In a matter of speaking* And are willing to protest your soldiers getting information from them. But when other nations do such atrosities, you sit back and say things like "Its there right" or "Its there internal affairs...". Saddam Hussain killed MILLIONS of his people, and you said NOTHING. But when your troops and leader go in to kill Hussain and his terrorist folowers your suddenly care. And not for the innocent of Iraq, but for the Terrorists.

I do not understand... Why? Your stance makes no sence to me... Western ways are strange indeed...

Papewaio

09-26-2005, 03:50

Reciprocity, equity etc.

Read the USA consitution and about the age of enlightenment.

The very fact that we try and minimise these things happening in our society means things like facism and communism is less likely to take root.

They are part and parcel with why the west has such good living conditions.

Strike For The South

09-26-2005, 04:24

bmolsson

09-26-2005, 04:40

From my past history, from things I have seen. Breaking a persons legs is not that bad.

I really hope you are joking. :help:

Second, I do not understand why you care about what happins to a person who has sold there soul. *In a matter of speaking* And are willing to protest your soldiers getting information from them. But when other nations do such atrosities, you sit back and say things like "Its there right" or "Its there internal affairs...". Saddam Hussain killed MILLIONS of his people, and you said NOTHING. But when your troops and leader go in to kill Hussain and his terrorist folowers your suddenly care. And not for the innocent of Iraq, but for the Terrorists.

I do not understand... Why? Your stance makes no sence to me... Western ways are strange indeed...

To make you understand. We are better than them, we don't use torture.

Furthermore, nobody has protested soldiers getting information from terrorists, just protested torture of prisoners, regardless who they are. Also nobody have defended the terrorists because they are using torture against our soldiers. They should be prosecuted and punished for that.

If you re-think it a bit, I am sure you understand the western ways just fine.... ~:grouphug:

Soulforged

09-26-2005, 04:49

The very fact that we try and minimise these things happening in our society means things like facism and communism is less likely to take root.
. Nobody and no idea can save you from the inevitable. Communism will rise again, and the workers will be free of the opression of those damn capitalists ~D . No I mean it (sometime my precious sometime :devil:) some time we'll see real rights here.

Ja'chyra

09-26-2005, 08:28

Is it torture?

I would say yes, initially I thought that it was only torture if it was used as a means of gaining information but after some investigation it seems that torture is:

tor·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr)
n.

Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish

So going by those definitions how can anyone deny that it's torture?

It should also stop any complaints about captured US soldiers being tortured, if you can do it why can't they?

Tribesman

09-26-2005, 12:16

From my past history, from things I have seen. Breaking a persons legs is not that bad.
What you mean like obliterating whole villages , murdering any male , raping any female, tying people between tanks and ripping them in half .
Yes breaking someone legs is nothing compared to the barbarity your forces are using .
So therefore it must be OK :furious3:

Second, I do not understand why you care about what happins to a person who has sold there soul.
Sold their soul?????? In what way ?
In over 90% of the cases of people being detained in Iraq , they are eventually released without charge .
Why ? because they detained the wrong people .
Therfore they are torturing innocent people .
So tell me , how many people did your unit release after they found out they were innocent ?
Or did they find it a little difficult to release them after they had murdered them ?

Saddam Hussain killed MILLIONS of his people, and you said NOTHING.
Think again Zharkov , I think you have become slightly detatched from reality .

Adrian II

09-26-2005, 14:40

Did the Terrorists sign the Genevia Convention? No. Then they are not protected. (..) Think carefully about your views...Did the 9/11 victims in the Twin Towers sign the Geneva Convention? Think carefully now.

Beirut

09-26-2005, 14:48

Did the 9/11 victims in the Twin Towers sign the Geneva Convention? Think carefully now.

No, my dearest AdrianII, they did not, but those authorized to wage war on their behalf did.

Adrian II

09-26-2005, 15:02

No, my dearest AdrianII, they did not, but those authorized to wage war on their behalf did.On their behalf? You really think one's 'war on terror' is waged on behalf of the victims of 9/11? How frightfully frivoulous of you, old chap. And haven't you heard that one's 'new paradigm' has rendered the Geneva Conventions 'obsolete'? It's all over the White House memoranda these days. If Donnie and Georgie can't be bothered with the old muck, why would suicidal Ali bother with it? I say old chum, why don't you and I go out and break someone's legs in Hyde park on grounds of national security. Let's all have some fun!
:toff:

Beirut

09-26-2005, 18:35

On their behalf? You really think one's 'war on terror' is waged on behalf of the victims of 9/11? How frightfully frivoulous of you, old chap.
:toff:

My dearest AdrianII, always a pleasure to retort in your direction. :bow:

I was offering no moral or philosophical implications with my statement. I was merely saying that the US government controls the US armed forces, and the US government uses those forces to wage war on behalf of the people through the authority the people invest in their government. So if the US signed the Geneva Convention, though the victims of 9/11 obviously did not sign the convention themselves, they gave their authorization to it by electing a government and being citizens in a country that did sign it.

Zharakov

09-26-2005, 20:22

I do not remeber anything being said about the horrible treatment of the Iraqis by Saddam. And when people say that your Presedent went to war to seave them, other people get defencive and claim that the war was for oil.

It simply makes no sence to me... War is a bad thing, and bad things happin during war that not manny are proud of. But if it takes breaking a persons legs to get the information about a secret enemy base, or when the next car bombing will be... I am willing to alow that to happin.

But feeding your own people to snow blowers... That I will not stand for.

Tribesman

09-26-2005, 20:30

I do not remeber anything being said about the horrible treatment of the Iraqis by Saddam.
Lots was said by lots of people against Saddam , including many politicians in the west .
But the governments said nothing as Saddam was their friend , some even went so far as to blame Iran for some of Saddams atrocities .

Zharakov

09-27-2005, 00:28

Not my problem.

Saddam deserved mcuh worse then he got. And anyone who sands in the way of Freedom for the Middle East deserves a similer fate.

Tribesman

09-27-2005, 01:56

anyone who sands in the way of Freedom for the Middle East deserves a similer fate.
What freedom ?
The freedom to be beaten with bats because you are a local ?
Freedom for a Sunni , Shia or Kurdish State ?
What is this freedom you are on about ?

The freedom of independance like Chechnya or Georgia ?

Zharakov

09-27-2005, 02:32

Freedom from Terror. Freedom for Women to whear what they want, when they want. Freedom for people to go to sleep at night and not wake up dead *Wich is still being worked on*.

Terrorism is not welcome anymore. Weather the Terrorists are Chechnyians, Iraqs, Al Kida, or Koreans. They will all die.

Tribesman

09-27-2005, 03:47

Freedom from Terror. Freedom for Women to whear what they want, when they want.
So freedom from the terror of being dragged away , locked up for months for nothing and being beaten while you are detained , freedom to not have an Iranian backed government installed and enforcing Sharia law and making women cover up .
What was this freedom you were on about again ?

Oh yes , freedom to torture , but it isn't really torture as they could do a lot worse ~:confused:

Terrorism is not welcome anymore. Weather the Terrorists are Chechnyians, Iraqs, Al Kida, or Koreans. They will all die.
Yes , possibly , but I notice you ignore the fact that it was your own government planting the bombs that "justified" sending you off to fight terrorism .

Soulforged

09-27-2005, 04:20

Just like the russian people saw real rights? Or the cambodians? Or the North Koreans? Or the Chinese? :dizzy2: Oh yes I forgot how wonderful capitalism is, even in teory capitalism tries to separate society by the material medium for relationships (ie work, money-product), so I don't know if you really understand the purpose of communism, fachism is another thing that I don't like, but communism uses despotism to force the begging of society (real society). In anycase this has nothing to do with the topic, and I've done all in my power to make you see this, and also anarchism. That's all I can say.

Soulforged

09-27-2005, 04:25

Freedom from Terror. Freedom for Women to whear what they want, when they want. Freedom for people to go to sleep at night and not wake up dead *Wich is still being worked on*. *cough*wich comes from religious dogma*cough* Not certainly terrorism. Well I asure you that here you can end up dead the same way, and we're a neo liberalist country.

Terrorism is not welcome anymore. Weather the Terrorists are Chechnyians, Iraqs, Al Kida, or Koreans. They will all die. And what if the terrorists are the states? Like your communist Russia, the imperialist Britain or the neo imperialist USA...
And you keep on saying kill them all? God...you're trully a piece of art Zharakov, I wonder if this is a result of years of despotism. Like Nietzche said: "He who gazes to long in the dark, the dark gazes in him" (or something like that). :dizzy2:

Redleg

09-27-2005, 04:33

but communism uses despotism to force the begging of society (real society).

Thinking about making that a new sig - I know you actually meant to use the word beginning - but begging of society is so much better from my point of view of communism as it has been implemented in the real world using marxist doctrine.

Soulforged

09-28-2005, 05:09

Thinking about making that a new sig - I know you actually meant to use the word beginning - but begging of society is so much better from my point of view of communism as it has been implemented in the real world using marxist doctrine.
Ha! You couldn't hold yourself. Don't you?... ~;) ~D

KafirChobee

09-28-2005, 09:25

not intentionally the US dosent run into plazas or toy stores and press a button and we are being much better to our enemies If we wanted we could curcify them or cut off the heads like those terriosts but we dont you guys seem to coinvently forget that they want us dead BTW I love how you weave your attacks on my faith very nicely done IMO

Attempting to read thru the honest responses to this post, I ran into this stone wall and stopped. I did so because of the obvious predjudious behind the comments. Personally (as an American), I find it almost sureal that less than 30 years after Vietnam we find our nation in the same situation. We have the same people that supported that fubar supporting this one - and claiming those not supporting the troops are anti-American ..... it is like Dejavu. it is like a Republican propaganda film reinforced by the ignorance of the Democratic Party (that, it seems; no owns its alliegianceto). Basically, it leaves the American people with no choice, but attempt to choose between the two evils. It leaves the ignorant to vote against themselves, and the intelligent to just go along with the flow.

It makes it a good thing to corrupt out rights as laid down by the Constitution. It makes it, OK, for the military to take the place of civilian rule - especially when the "State's" (i.e. Louisiana) NG are in Iraq. It makes turning back 150+ years of law seem the right thing to do - even if it is infact illegal by constitutional law.

Seems, maybe, all this is about faith. Don't you think? Faith in that our Nation has free will, or that some have the ability to bend it to theirs. What do you think? South?

You must of course accept the premise that breaking someone elses legs will somehow benefit you. How, why, or by whom you would accept this practice - was not specified. I assume, that any actions performed to preserve your personal being is acceptable for you. Regardless of its legality, or it being investigated by any level beyond one acceptable by your own - being forced down on your knees to show your ID.

The privileged, have never had a problem. The priviledged are the ones with the bats. They be the ones that can commit crimes and make sure others pay for them. After all, it is the American way - of late anyway.

What I find curious, is how one can justify the use of torture, while still argueing the righteousness of an illegal war. For me, a 'nam vet, it ain't like this whole thing ain't familiar. As, on your hand it is.

Hurin_Rules

09-29-2005, 00:28

New information just reported today:

Army captain calls prisoner abuse ‘systemic’
Soldier says he reported abuses but was ignored by chain of command

NBC News
Updated: 6:32 p.m. ET Sept. 28, 2005

Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent

FORT BRAGG, N.C. - The Pentagon has been actively prosecuting every soldier involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. But in an exclusive interview an active duty U.S. Army captain says it's not just rogue, low-level soldiers behind the abuse of detainees in Iraq. He says there's a culture in the high ranks of the military that allowed the abuse to occur.

Capt. Ian Fishback is a highly decorated soldier — a West Point graduate, with two Bronze Stars and training for special forces. He has never talked on camera until now.

"Stripping detainees is unacceptable," explains Fishback. "Leaving detainees outside overnight is unacceptable."

Fishback charges that while at three bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, he and his peers and subordinates witnessed abuse of detainees. He says the abuse included everything from "physical beatings of detainees, to death threats, to harsh exposure to the elements, vigorous physical exertion to the point of fainting."

Is he saying the abuse of detainees was not just a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib prison?

"Yes," says Fishback, "there was a systemic problem, and it was widespread."

He says that when the shocking photos came out from Abu Ghraib, he thought some were abhorrent and over the line, but many techniques looked familiar.

"I thought those were acceptable interrogation techniques," says Fishback, "based on the interrogation techniques that I had seen in Afghanistan."

Did his superiors know about the abuses that he now believes violated the Geneva Convention?

"I believe some of the abuses listed were approved or condoned by the chain of command," he says.

Fishback says for 17 months he has tried to get the military to clarify what is and isn’t allowed in dealing with detainees — to no avail.

Recently, out of frustration, he gave information to Human Rights Watch and then to key senators, which finally caused the Pentagon to investigate his allegations. The Pentagon says most of Fishback’s information is second- and third-hand.

"That is true," admits Fishback.

Then why should anyone believe him?

"Because," he says, "the second- and third-hand information comes from men who I believe are both honorable and intelligent."

How does Fishback respond to some soldiers, who view what he’s doing as highly unpatriotic?

"In my mind," says Fishback, "this is clearly an act of patriotism."

Wednesday, a U.S. Army spokesman tells NBC News, "we have new investigative leads that we are following up on right now."

The Pentagon says it’s investigating these allegations vigorously and that if someone did something wrong they'll be punished.

Lisa Myers is NBC's senior investigative correspondent.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9519538/