New F.B.I. Files Describe Abuse of Iraq Inmates

[DEMON CUNT]

New F.B.I. Files Describe Abuse of Iraq Inmates
By NEIL A. LEWIS and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - F.B.I. memorandums portray abuse of prisoners by American military personnel in Iraq that included detainees' being beaten and choked and having lit cigarettes placed in their ears, according to newly released government documents.

The documents, released Monday in connection with a lawsuit accusing the government of being complicit in torture, also include accounts by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who said they had seen detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, being chained in uncomfortable positions for up to 24 hours and left to urinate and defecate on themselves. An agent wrote that in one case a detainee who was nearly unconscious had pulled out much of his hair during the night.

More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/21/politics/21abuse.html?ei=5006&en=5c03bc4bced03ea3&ex=1104210000&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=)

If Saddam was a brutal dictator with torture and rape rooms. What does this make Bush?

[LoungeMachine]

The irony lies within the soldier pictured holding the leash.

SHE has testified that her confession should be thrown out because it was taken "under duress"

She cries that she was denied food, sleep, and was made "uncomfortable" by military investigators.

incredible


Abu Grahib = Under New Management

[Big Train]

Please tell me how voting for Bush=acceptance of these events. I don't remember seeing that on my ticket stub.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
Please tell me how voting for Bush=acceptance of these events. I don't remember seeing that on my ticket stub.

The devil's in the fine print, BT:D

[Loki]

curs and scoundrels deserve no less. huzzah.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
Please tell me how voting for Bush=acceptance of these events. I don't remember seeing that on my ticket stub.

Didn't you vote for Bush? You knew how his administration has been running this war, you just chose to ignore it.

Ticket stub? Did you go to the movies?

[Big Train]

Cunt,

What the fuck are you talking about? I know and agree with WHY we went to war, not exact specifics of how things were being fought (neither did you I might add, before the scandals broke). Tell me what I am supposed to know also about logistics, supply lines, aircraft routes and ammo supplies, so I can be fully up to date. Fucking moron....

"Ticket stub" is a figure of speech, for someone like you who must have everything explained slowly to him.

[BITEYOASS]

:D

[BITEYOASS]

Damn pic didn't show! What I was gonna say is this: Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian! :D

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
Cunt,

What the fuck are you talking about? I know and agree with WHY we went to war, not exact specifics of how things were being fought (neither did you I might add, before the scandals broke). Tell me what I am supposed to know also about logistics, supply lines, aircraft routes and ammo supplies, so I can be fully up to date. Fucking moron....

"Ticket stub" is a figure of speech, for someone like you who must have everything explained slowly to him.

You voted for Bush, right? The abuse scandals broke before the election, right? It was Bush's nominee for AG that wrote the argument that claimed Geneva Convention rules did not apply to the U.S., right?

That's what the fuck I am talking about. If Saddam was labeled a "brutal dictator" who's enemies were tortured, what is Bush?

A "rhetorical question" is a figure of speech, for someone like you who must have everything explained slowly to him.

[DLR'sCock]

So, basically since you Bush voters condone these actions by voting for Bush, if any US soldiers get captured and tortured, well then it's your fault...have a great day!!!

[ELVIS]

Shut up and shut up!

Have a rotten day...

God bless you...


:elvis:

[diamondD]

You genitals are nuts.

[Big Train]

So cunt,

Bush ran on this platform? "Torture arabs-vote for me?". Shut up. We aren't condoning anything, if we were, we would DEMAND that no trials take place. Try a little harder.


Cock, once again you type and stupidity comes out...HAVE A NICE DAY..

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
So cunt,

Bush ran on this platform? "Torture arabs-vote for me?". Shut up. We aren't condoning anything, if we were, we would DEMAND that no trials take place. Try a little harder.


Is that the only thing you considered when you voted for him? What was on his platform? What about the first 3 years of his administration? Were you paying attention?

Do you really vote for ambiguous things like "A Safer America", "More Jobs", etc? Cliche politics?

Don't you think that the Commander in Chief_should be held accountable for the actions of the military?

[Big Train]

I said try a little harder.

I voted for him based on his platform and on his actions thus far. I have my reasonings for that decision.

I judge a "devil by his deeds". Those abuses were not done by Bush or his cabinet, they were done by military personell, who are being punished for their actions as they should be. I understand your MO, to tie EVERYTHING directly to Bush, but in this case, it just doesn't apply.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
I said try a little harder.

I voted for him based on his platform and on his actions thus far. I have my reasonings for that decision.


What actions are you talking about? C'mon! List them for us!

So why blame Saddam for the torture that occured there?

I'll ask it again even though you are unable to ever answer most of my questions.

Saddam was a "brutal dictator" because his enemies were tortured. What does this make Bush when his enemies are tortured?

[Big Train]

Sorry, I'll try to respond in a fashion you like more sire.

Pick a question your ACTUALLY asking instead of shifting the debate every time I respond.

On the original question, the difference is this. Saddam's power was based on torture and intimidation of his own people, Bush's is not (spare me the fear and consumption speech). The torture that happened was unfortunate and caused by some sick people within our ranks.

[DEMON CUNT]

Really, you understand how Saddam maintained his power? Were you the Ambasidor? How long were you in Iraq? You must know several Iraqis! Tell us more!

Do you think there could have been sick people in Saddam's ranks?

So it's OK to torture in the name of democracy? A democracy based on torture and intimidation?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train

The torture that happened was unfortunate and caused by some sick people within our ranks.

Did these soldiers fly to Iraq with the dog collars and hoods in their duffel bags?

Why is it everytime there is a scandal in the Bush administrations Military is it the Grunt that takes the fall?

Why isnt the Leader of our military held accountable for the myriad of fuck ups over the last 2 years?


This torture was approved of from the top.

The top should be held accountable, and a reasonable person such as yourself would say the same thing IF RUMMY WAS A DEM.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT


Don't you think that the Commander in Chief_should be held accountable for the actions of the military?

No.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine


This torture was approved of from the top.

The top should be held accountable, and a reasonable person such as yourself would say the same thing IF RUMMY WAS A DEM.

No.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Did these soldiers fly to Iraq with the dog collars and hoods in their duffel bags?



Yes.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yes.

BULLSHIT, AND YOU KNOW IT

NO FUCKING PRIVATE/CORPORAL/SGT BROUGHT LEASHES AND HOODS WITH HIS BOXER SHORTS


unless he's into that shit like you, B3:D

[Big Train]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Did these soldiers fly to Iraq with the dog collars and hoods in their duffel bags?

Why is it everytime there is a scandal in the Bush administrations Military is it the Grunt that takes the fall?

Why isnt the Leader of our military held accountable for the myriad of fuck ups over the last 2 years?


This torture was approved of from the top.

The top should be held accountable, and a reasonable person such as yourself would say the same thing IF RUMMY WAS A DEM.

Well, as a reasonable person, I also can't rule out that these items weren't ALREADY THERE in Saddam's torture chambers. These acts were commited by individuals. Why did some who were under the same "directive" (if in fact that is true), report it and raise a stink while others just did it. They obviously weren't facing a firing squad for not doing it.

I feel the immediate commanders certainly should be held accountable. That has nothing to do with the affiliation of the top. The people who commited the crime should do the time.

[Little_Skittles]

First off ANYONE who participated in these events are sick humored individuals who've no respect or morals. Big T I do agree though that the people who did the crime should do the time and I don't mean 4 or 5 years of cupcake prison, I mean hard time, like when alcatraz used to be in business.

[DaveIsKing]

Fuck Iraq. Fuck Bush. Fuck this whole fucking thing.

People over here need our goddamn government to spread freedom in America by staying the fuck out of our business and lives. Let Bush "spread freedom" all over the world---fuck that. George Washington said for us to steer clear of "foreign entanglements", George W. Bush said that America's duty is to "spread freedom" over the world.

NOT FUCKING QUITE!! GODDAMN BUSH.

You are a sell-out. Fuck you! Fuck the Republicans. Fuck the SOCIALIST COMMIE-CRATS as well.

I will never again vote for anything OTHER THAN Libertarian. Never again. NEVER AGAIN.

[Little_Skittles]

couldn't agree more except for the voting part.

[DaveIsKing]

You don't vote?? ;)

[Little_Skittles]

well I would if I could but i'm underage lol . But no my family doesn't vote.

[DaveIsKing]

Too bad. You need to check into the LIBERTARIAN PARTY. :D

[Little_Skittles]

yep sure is what's the libertarian party, aren't those the people who are liberals and that everyone complains about?

[DaveIsKing]

Hell no!! Libertarians are NOT Liberals. Liberals are advocates of the Nanny State. Libertarians are the EXACT OPPOSITE.

www.larryelder.com - CHECK THIS SITE OUT.
or www.lp.org

Libertarians want you to be in control of your life and your money.

[Little_Skittles]

awesome something we're not already lol .

[Little_Skittles]

umm where do ya'lls stand on seperation of church and state?

[DLR7884]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
well I would if I could but i'm underage lol . But no my family doesn't vote.

Criminal records? Or just ignorance?

DLR7884
Everyone who can vote, should vote!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

Don't you think that the Commander in Chief_should be held accountable for the actions of the military?


Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No.

Even if the FBI claims that the interrigation orders came from a menber of his administration?

You are unable to think beyond the partisan view you have been programmed with. "We Report, You Recite."

[Big Train]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT


You are unable to think beyond the partisan view you have been programmed with. "We Hate Bush, You Recite."

[Little_Skittles]

dlr7884 NO ONE in my family has a criminal history we're good law abiding citizens, and yes anyone and everyone who can should vote.

[DLR7884]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
dlr7884 NO ONE in my family has a criminal history we're good law abiding citizens, and yes anyone and everyone who can should vote.

Why doesn't your family vote then?
(I'm not being a smartass, it just boggles my mind why someone wouldn't)

DLR7884
?

[Little_Skittles]

they could care less I guess.

[DaveIsKing]

Church & State??

We believe that your religion is your business. You ought to have the right to pray, sing or whatever. But, we don't believe in State-sanctioned religion being forced on anyone.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Well, as a reasonable person, I also can't rule out that these items weren't ALREADY THERE in Saddam's torture chambers. These acts were commited by individuals. Why did some who were under the same "directive" (if in fact that is true), report it and raise a stink while others just did it. They obviously weren't facing a firing squad for not doing it.

I feel the immediate commanders certainly should be held accountable. That has nothing to do with the affiliation of the top. The people who commited the crime should do the time.

This is Seymour Hersh's article he wrote for the New Yorker. He alleges that there was a high level "Special Access Program" or SAP that led directly Rummy and, by extention, Bush:



THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story. He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.” The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can bullshit anyone.”

The Abu Ghraib story began, in a sense, just weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks, with the American bombing of Afghanistan. Almost from the start, the Administration’s search for Al Qaeda members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came up against major command-and-control problems. For example, combat forces that had Al Qaeda targets in sight had to obtain legal clearance before firing on them. On October 7th, the night the bombing began, an unmanned Predator aircraft tracked an automobile convoy that, American intelligence believed, contained Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader. A lawyer on duty at the United States Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, refused to authorize a strike. By the time an attack was approved, the target was out of reach. Rumsfeld was apoplectic over what he saw as a self-defeating hesitation to attack that was due to political correctness. One officer described him to me that fall as “kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors.” In November, the Washington Post reported that, as many as ten times since early October, Air Force pilots believed they’d had senior Al Qaeda and Taliban members in their sights but had been unable to act in time because of legalistic hurdles. There were similar problems throughout the world, as American Special Forces units seeking to move quickly against suspected terrorist cells were compelled to get prior approval from local American ambassadors and brief their superiors in the chain of command.

Rumsfeld reacted in his usual direct fashion: he authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate “high value” targets in the Bush Administration’s war on terror. A special-access program, or sap—subject to the Defense Department’s most stringent level of security—was set up, with an office in a secure area of the Pentagon. The program would recruit operatives and acquire the necessary equipment, including aircraft, and would keep its activities under wraps. America’s most successful intelligence operations during the Cold War had been saps, including the Navy’s submarine penetration of underwater cables used by the Soviet high command and construction of the Air Force’s stealth bomber. All the so-called “black” programs had one element in common: the Secretary of Defense, or his deputy, had to conclude that the normal military classification restraints did not provide enough security.

“Rumsfeld’s goal was to get a capability in place to take on a high-value target—a standup group to hit quickly,” a former high-level intelligence official told me. “He got all the agencies together—the C.I.A. and the N.S.A.—to get pre-approval in place. Just say the code word and go.” The operation had across-the-board approval from Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser. President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the former intelligence official said.



The people assigned to the program worked by the book, the former intelligence official told me. They created code words, and recruited, after careful screening, highly trained commandos and operatives from America’s élite forces—Navy seals, the Army’s Delta Force, and the C.I.A.’s paramilitary experts. They also asked some basic questions: “Do the people working the problem have to use aliases? Yes. Do we need dead drops for the mail? Yes. No traceability and no budget. And some special-access programs are never fully briefed to Congress.”

In theory, the operation enabled the Bush Administration to respond immediately to time-sensitive intelligence: commandos crossed borders without visas and could interrogate terrorism suspects deemed too important for transfer to the military’s facilities at Guantánamo, Cuba. They carried out instant interrogations—using force if necessary—at secret C.I.A. detention centers scattered around the world. The intelligence would be relayed to the sap command center in the Pentagon in real time, and sifted for those pieces of information critical to the “white,” or overt, world.

Fewer than two hundred operatives and officials, including Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were “completely read into the program,” the former intelligence official said. The goal was to keep the operation protected. “We’re not going to read more people than necessary into our heart of darkness,” he said. “The rules are ‘Grab whom you must. Do what you want.’”

One Pentagon official who was deeply involved in the program was Stephen Cambone, who was named Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in March, 2003. The office was new; it was created as part of Rumsfeld’s reorganization of the Pentagon. Cambone was unpopular among military and civilian intelligence bureaucrats in the Pentagon, essentially because he had little experience in running intelligence programs, though in 1998 he had served as staff director for a committee, headed by Rumsfeld, that warned of an emerging ballistic-missile threat to the United States. He was known instead for his closeness to Rumsfeld. “Remember Henry II—‘Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?’” the senior C.I.A. official said to me, with a laugh, last week. “Whatever Rumsfeld whimsically says, Cambone will do ten times that much.”

Cambone was a strong advocate for war against Iraq. He shared Rumsfeld’s disdain for the analysis and assessments proffered by the C.I.A., viewing them as too cautious, and chafed, as did Rumsfeld, at the C.I.A.’s inability, before the Iraq war, to state conclusively that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction. Cambone’s military assistant, Army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, was also controversial. Last fall, he generated unwanted headlines after it was reported that, in a speech at an Oregon church, he equated the Muslim world with Satan.

Early in his tenure, Cambone provoked a bureaucratic battle within the Pentagon by insisting that he be given control of all special-access programs that were relevant to the war on terror. Those programs, which had been viewed by many in the Pentagon as sacrosanct, were monitored by Kenneth deGraffenreid, who had experience in counter-intelligence programs. Cambone got control, and deGraffenreid subsequently left the Pentagon. Asked for comment on this story, a Pentagon spokesman said, “I will not discuss any covert programs; however, Dr. Cambone did not assume his position as the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence until March 7, 2003, and had no involvement in the decision-making process regarding interrogation procedures in Iraq or anywhere else.”

In mid-2003, the special-access program was regarded in the Pentagon as one of the success stories of the war on terror. “It was an active program,” the former intelligence official told me. “It’s been the most important capability we have for dealing with an imminent threat. If we discover where Osama bin Laden is, we can get him. And we can remove an existing threat with a real capability to hit the United States—and do so without visibility.” Some of its methods were troubling and could not bear close scrutiny, however.

By then, the war in Iraq had begun. The sap was involved in some assignments in Iraq, the former official said. C.I.A. and other American Special Forces operatives secretly teamed up to hunt for Saddam Hussein and—without success—for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But they weren’t able to stop the evolving insurgency.



In the first months after the fall of Baghdad, Rumsfeld and his aides still had a limited view of the insurgency, seeing it as little more than the work of Baathist “dead-enders,” criminal gangs, and foreign terrorists who were Al Qaeda followers. The Administration measured its success in the war by how many of those on its list of the fifty-five most wanted members of the old regime—reproduced on playing cards—had been captured. Then, in August, 2003, terror bombings in Baghdad hit the Jordanian Embassy, killing nineteen people, and the United Nations headquarters, killing twenty-three people, including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the head of the U.N. mission. On August 25th, less than a week after the U.N. bombing, Rumsfeld acknowledged, in a talk before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, that “the dead-enders are still with us.” He went on, “There are some today who are surprised that there are still pockets of resistance in Iraq, and they suggest that this represents some sort of failure on the part of the Coalition. But this is not the case.” Rumsfeld compared the insurgents with those true believers who “fought on during and after the defeat of the Nazi regime in Germany.” A few weeks later—and five months after the fall of Baghdad—the Defense Secretary declared,“It is, in my view, better to be dealing with terrorists in Iraq than in the United States.”

Inside the Pentagon, there was a growing realization that the war was going badly. The increasingly beleaguered and baffled Army leadership was telling reporters that the insurgents consisted of five thousand Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein. “When you understand that they’re organized in a cellular structure,” General John Abizaid, the head of the Central Command, declared, “that . . . they have access to a lot of money and a lot of ammunition, you’ll understand how dangerous they are.”

The American military and intelligence communities were having little success in penetrating the insurgency. One internal report prepared for the U.S. military, made available to me, concluded that the insurgents’“strategic and operational intelligence has proven to be quite good.” According to the study:

Their ability to attack convoys, other vulnerable targets and particular individuals has been the result of painstaking surveillance and reconnaissance. Inside information has been passed on to insurgent cells about convoy/troop movements and daily habits of Iraqis working with coalition from within the Iraqi security services, primarily the Iraqi Police force which is rife with sympathy for the insurgents, Iraqi ministries and from within pro-insurgent individuals working with the CPA’s so-called Green Zone.


The study concluded, “Politically, the U.S. has failed to date. Insurgencies can be fixed or ameliorated by dealing with what caused them in the first place. The disaster that is the reconstruction of Iraq has been the key cause of the insurgency. There is no legitimate government, and it behooves the Coalition Provisional Authority to absorb the sad but unvarnished fact that most Iraqis do not see the Governing Council”—the Iraqi body appointed by the C.P.A.—“as the legitimate authority. Indeed, they know that the true power is the CPA.”

By the fall, a military analyst told me, the extent of the Pentagon’s political and military misjudgments was clear. Donald Rumsfeld’s “dead-enders” now included not only Baathists but many marginal figures as well—thugs and criminals who were among the tens of thousands of prisoners freed the previous fall by Saddam as part of a prewar general amnesty. Their desperation was not driving the insurgency; it simply made them easy recruits for those who were. The analyst said, “We’d killed and captured guys who had been given two or three hundred dollars to ‘pray and spray’”—that is, shoot randomly and hope for the best. “They weren’t really insurgents but down-and-outers who were paid by wealthy individuals sympathetic to the insurgency.” In many cases, the paymasters were Sunnis who had been members of the Baath Party. The analyst said that the insurgents “spent three or four months figuring out how we operated and developing their own countermeasures. If that meant putting up a hapless guy to go and attack a convoy and see how the American troops responded, they’d do it.” Then, the analyst said, “the clever ones began to get in on the action.”

By contrast, according to the military report, the American and Coalition forces knew little about the insurgency: “Human intelligence is poor or lacking . . . due to the dearth of competence and expertise. . . . The intelligence effort is not coördinated since either too many groups are involved in gathering intelligence or the final product does not get to the troops in the field in a timely manner.” The success of the war was at risk; something had to be done to change the dynamic.



The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents. A key player was Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo, who had been summoned to Baghdad in late August to review prison interrogation procedures. The internal Army report on the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in February, revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that “detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation.”

Miller’s concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to “Gitmoize” the prison system in Iraq—to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba—methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in “stress positions” for agonizing lengths of time. (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.)

Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the sap, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation.

“They weren’t getting anything substantive from the detainees in Iraq,” the former intelligence official told me. “No names. Nothing that they could hang their hat on. Cambone says, I’ve got to crack this thing and I’m tired of working through the normal chain of command. I’ve got this apparatus set up—the black special-access program—and I’m going in hot. So he pulls the switch, and the electricity begins flowing last summer. And it’s working. We’re getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world. We’re getting good stuff. But we’ve got more targets”—prisoners in Iraqi jails—“than people who can handle them.”

Cambone then made another crucial decision, the former intelligence official told me: not only would he bring the sap’s rules into the prisons; he would bring some of the Army military-intelligence officers working inside the Iraqi prisons under the sap’s auspices. “So here are fundamentally good soldiers—military-intelligence guys—being told that no rules apply,” the former official, who has extensive knowledge of the special-access programs, added. “And, as far as they’re concerned, this is a covert operation, and it’s to be kept within Defense Department channels.”

The military-police prison guards, the former official said, included “recycled hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.” He was referring to members of the 372nd Military Police Company. Seven members of the company are now facing charges for their role in the abuse at Abu Ghraib. “How are these guys from Cumberland going to know anything? The Army Reserve doesn’t know what it’s doing.”

Who was in charge of Abu Ghraib—whether military police or military intelligence—was no longer the only question that mattered. Hard-core special operatives, some of them with aliases, were working in the prison. The military police assigned to guard the prisoners wore uniforms, but many others—military intelligence officers, contract interpreters, C.I.A. officers, and the men from the special-access program—wore civilian clothes. It was not clear who was who, even to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, then the commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, and the officer ostensibly in charge. “I thought most of the civilians there were interpreters, but there were some civilians that I didn’t know,” Karpinski told me. “I called them the disappearing ghosts. I’d seen them once in a while at Abu Ghraib and then I’d see them months later. They were nice—they’d always call out to me and say, ‘Hey, remember me? How are you doing?’” The mysterious civilians, she said, were “always bringing in somebody for interrogation or waiting to collect somebody going out.” Karpinski added that she had no idea who was operating in her prison system. (General Taguba found that Karpinski’s leadership failures contributed to the abuses.)

By fall, according to the former intelligence official, the senior leadership of the C.I.A. had had enough. “They said, ‘No way. We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan—pre-approved for operations against high-value terrorist targets—and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets’”—the sort of prisoners who populate the Iraqi jails. “The C.I.A.’s legal people objected,” and the agency ended its sap involvement in Abu Ghraib, the former official said.

The C.I.A.’s complaints were echoed throughout the intelligence community. There was fear that the situation at Abu Ghraib would lead to the exposure of the secret sap, and thereby bring an end to what had been, before Iraq, a valuable cover operation. “This was stupidity,” a government consultant told me. “You’re taking a program that was operating in the chaos of Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, a stateless terror group, and bringing it into a structured, traditional war zone. Sooner or later, the commandos would bump into the legal and moral procedures of a conventional war with an Army of a hundred and thirty-five thousand soldiers.”

The former senior intelligence official blamed hubris for the Abu Ghraib disaster. “There’s nothing more exhilarating for a pissant Pentagon civilian than dealing with an important national security issue without dealing with military planners, who are always worried about risk,” he told me. “What could be more boring than needing the coöperation of logistical planners?” The only difficulty, the former official added, is that, “as soon as you enlarge the secret program beyond the oversight capability of experienced people, you lose control. We’ve never had a case where a special-access program went sour—and this goes back to the Cold War.”

In a separate interview, a Pentagon consultant, who spent much of his career directly involved with special-access programs, spread the blame. “The White House subcontracted this to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon subcontracted it to Cambone,” he said. “This is Cambone’s deal, but Rumsfeld and Myers approved the program.” When it came to the interrogation operation at Abu Ghraib, he said, Rumsfeld left the details to Cambone. Rumsfeld may not be personally culpable, the consultant added, “but he’s responsible for the checks and balances. The issue is that, since 9/11, we’ve changed the rules on how we deal with terrorism, and created conditions where the ends justify the means.”



Last week, statements made by one of the seven accused M.P.s, Specialist Jeremy Sivits, who is expected to plead guilty, were released. In them, he claimed that senior commanders in his unit would have stopped the abuse had they witnessed it. One of the questions that will be explored at any trial, however, is why a group of Army Reserve military policemen, most of them from small towns, tormented their prisoners as they did, in a manner that was especially humiliating for Iraqi men.

The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was “The Arab Mind,” a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at, among other universities, Columbia and Princeton, and who died in 1996. The book includes a twenty-five-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression. “The segregation of the sexes, the veiling of the women . . . and all the other minute rules that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world,” Patai wrote. Homosexual activity, “or any indication of homosexual leanings, as with all other expressions of sexuality, is never given any publicity. These are private affairs and remain in private.” The Patai book, an academic told me, was “the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.” In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged—“one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.”

The government consultant said that there may have been a serious goal, in the beginning, behind the sexual humiliation and the posed photographs. It was thought that some prisoners would do anything—including spying on their associates—to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends. The government consultant said, “I was told that the purpose of the photographs was to create an army of informants, people you could insert back in the population.” The idea was that they would be motivated by fear of exposure, and gather information about pending insurgency action, the consultant said. If so, it wasn’t effective; the insurgency continued to grow.

“This shit has been brewing for months,” the Pentagon consultant who has dealt with saps told me. “You don’t keep prisoners naked in their cell and then let them get bitten by dogs. This is sick.” The consultant explained that he and his colleagues, all of whom had served for years on active duty in the military, had been appalled by the misuse of Army guard dogs inside Abu Ghraib. “We don’t raise kids to do things like that. When you go after Mullah Omar, that’s one thing. But when you give the authority to kids who don’t know the rules, that’s another.”

In 2003, Rumsfeld’s apparent disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate General’s (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on International Human Rights. “They wanted us to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation,” Horton told me. “They were urging us to get involved and speak in a very loud voice. It came pretty much out of the blue. The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and it’s going to occur.” The military officials were most alarmed about the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process, Horton recalled. “They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels in the Pentagon. The jag officers were being cut out of the policy formulation process.” They told him that, with the war on terror, a fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions had come to an end.



The abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed on January 13th, when Joseph Darby, a young military policeman assigned to Abu Ghraib, reported the wrongdoing to the Army’s Criminal Investigations Division. He also turned over a CD full of photographs. Within three days, a report made its way to Donald Rumsfeld, who informed President Bush.

The inquiry presented a dilemma for the Pentagon. The C.I.D. had to be allowed to continue, the former intelligence official said. “You can’t cover it up. You have to prosecute these guys for being off the reservation. But how do you prosecute them when they were covered by the special-access program? So you hope that maybe it’ll go away.” The Pentagon’s attitude last January, he said, was “Somebody got caught with some photos. What’s the big deal? Take care of it.” Rumsfeld’s explanation to the White House, the official added, was reassuring: “‘We’ve got a glitch in the program. We’ll prosecute it.’ The cover story was that some kids got out of control.”

In their testimony before Congress last week, Rumsfeld and Cambone struggled to convince the legislators that Miller’s visit to Baghdad in late August had nothing to do with the subsequent abuse. Cambone sought to assure the Senate Armed Services Committee that the interplay between Miller and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, had only a casual connection to his office. Miller’s recommendations, Cambone said, were made to Sanchez. His own role, he said, was mainly to insure that the “flow of intelligence back to the commands” was “efficient and effective.” He added that Miller’s goal was “to provide a safe, secure and humane environment that supports the expeditious collection of intelligence.”

It was a hard sell. Senator Hillary Clinton, Democrat of New York, posed the essential question facing the senators:

If, indeed, General Miller was sent from Guantánamo to Iraq for the purpose of acquiring more actionable intelligence from detainees, then it is fair to conclude that the actions that are at point here in your report [on abuses at Abu Ghraib] are in some way connected to General Miller’s arrival and his specific orders, however they were interpreted, by those MPs and the military intelligence that were involved.. . .Therefore, I for one don’t believe I yet have adequate information from Mr. Cambone and the Defense Department as to exactly what General Miller’s orders were . . . how he carried out those orders, and the connection between his arrival in the fall of ’03 and the intensity of the abuses that occurred afterward.


Sometime before the Abu Ghraib abuses became public, the former intelligence official told me, Miller was “read in”—that is, briefed—on the special-access operation. In April, Miller returned to Baghdad to assume control of the Iraqi prisons; once the scandal hit, with its glaring headlines, General Sanchez presented him to the American and international media as the general who would clean up the Iraqi prison system and instill respect for the Geneva Conventions. “His job is to save what he can,” the former official said. “He’s there to protect the program while limiting any loss of core capability.” As for Antonio Taguba, the former intelligence official added, “He goes into it not knowing shit. And then: ‘Holy cow! What’s going on?’”

If General Miller had been summoned by Congress to testify, he, like Rumsfeld and Cambone, would not have been able to mention the special-access program. “If you give away the fact that a special-access program exists,”the former intelligence official told me, “you blow the whole quick-reaction program.”

One puzzling aspect of Rumsfeld’s account of his initial reaction to news of the Abu Ghraib investigation was his lack of alarm and lack of curiosity. One factor may have been recent history: there had been many previous complaints of prisoner abuse from organization like Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross, and the Pentagon had weathered them with ease. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had not been provided with details of alleged abuses until late March, when he read the specific charges. “You read it, as I say, it’s one thing. You see these photographs and it’s just unbelievable. . . . It wasn’t three-dimensional. It wasn’t video. It wasn’t color. It was quite a different thing.” The former intelligence official said that, in his view, Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials had not studied the photographs because “they thought what was in there was permitted under the rules of engagement,” as applied to the sap. “The photos,” he added, “turned out to be the result of the program run amok.”

The former intelligence official made it clear that he was not alleging that Rumsfeld or General Myers knew that atrocities were committed. But, he said, “it was their permission granted to do the sap, generically, and there was enough ambiguity, which permitted the abuses.”

This official went on, “The black guys”—those in the Pentagon’s secret program—“say we’ve got to accept the prosecution. They’re vaccinated from the reality.” The sap is still active, and “the United States is picking up guys for interrogation. The question is, how do they protect the quick-reaction force without blowing its cover?” The program was protected by the fact that no one on the outside was allowed to know of its existence. “If you even give a hint that you’re aware of a black program that you’re not read into, you lose your clearances,” the former official said. “Nobody will talk. So the only people left to prosecute are those who are undefended—the poor kids at the end of the food chain.”

The most vulnerable senior official is Cambone. “The Pentagon is trying now to protect Cambone, and doesn’t know how to do it,” the former intelligence official said.



Last week, the government consultant, who has close ties to many conservatives, defended the Administration’s continued secrecy about the special-access program in Abu Ghraib. “Why keep it black?” the consultant asked. “Because the process is unpleasant. It’s like making sausage—you like the result but you don’t want to know how it was made. Also, you don’t want the Iraqi public, and the Arab world, to know. Remember, we went to Iraq to democratize the Middle East. The last thing you want to do is let the Arab world know how you treat Arab males in prison.”

The former intelligence official told me he feared that one of the disastrous effects of the prison-abuse scandal would be the undermining of legitimate operations in the war on terror, which had already suffered from the draining of resources into Iraq. He portrayed Abu Ghraib as “a tumor” on the war on terror. He said, “As long as it’s benign and contained, the Pentagon can deal with the photo crisis without jeopardizing the secret program. As soon as it begins to grow, with nobody to diagnose it—it becomes a malignant tumor.”

The Pentagon consultant made a similar point. Cambone and his superiors, the consultant said, “created the conditions that allowed transgressions to take place. And now we’re going to end up with another Church Commission”—the 1975 Senate committee on intelligence, headed by Senator Frank Church, of Idaho, which investigated C.I.A. abuses during the previous two decades. Abu Ghraib had sent the message that the Pentagon leadership was unable to handle its discretionary power. “When the shit hits the fan, as it did on 9/11, how do you push the pedal?” the consultant asked. “You do it selectively and with intelligence.”

“Congress is going to get to the bottom of this,” the Pentagon consultant said. “You have to demonstrate that there are checks and balances in the system.” He added, “When you live in a world of gray zones, you have to have very clear red lines.”

Senator John McCain, of Arizona, said, “If this is true, it certainly increases the dimension of this issue and deserves significant scrutiny. I will do all possible to get to the bottom of this, and all other allegations.”

“In an odd way,” Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, “the sexual abuses at Abu Ghraib have become a diversion for the prisoner abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions that is authorized.” Since September 11th, Roth added, the military has systematically used third-degree techniques around the world on detainees. “Some jags hate this and are horrified that the tolerance of mistreatment will come back and haunt us in the next war,” Roth told me. “We’re giving the world a ready-made excuse to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld has lowered the bar.”

[DaveIsKing]

Say that again....I wasn't listening.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train


Is that the best you can do, douchebag? Too bad. Keep reading, little bitch, someday you'll actually be able to contribute something to the discussion.

[Big Train]

Nice quote, fuckstick. I always contribute something, opinions you may not like, but it is loads more than you do.

Your nothing but bitch looking for a fight. Keep trying..

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
Nice quote, fuckstick. I always contribute something, opinions you may not like, but it is loads more than you do.

Your nothing but bitch looking for a fight. Keep trying..

fuckstick? Do you kiss your pastor with that mouth?

[Big Train]

The only thing weaker than your arguments are your comebacks..

[LoungeMachine]

What is one to do when 2 people you like, whose different opinions you respect, keep hurling schoolyard taunts at each other?




Get more popcorn!!!!!

[Big Train]

I'm willing to stop whenever..or continue on.

[JCOOK]

BOOHOOHOOFUCKINGHOO!

[DEMON CUNT]

HA! HA! HA!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
What is one to do when 2 people you like, whose different opinions you respect, keep hurling schoolyard taunts at each other?




Get more popcorn!!!!!

And BEER! (or coffee this time of the morning.)

[Little_Skittles]

boy you need something stronger than beer (that way it's way funnier)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
boy you need something stronger than beer (that way it's way funnier)

How would YOU know?

[Little_Skittles]

hahaha you should know that "Things" go on in small towns on friday nights.

[Phil theStalker]

They voted for more than that, but they don't know it.

They voted for the fall of America. They voted for the "leveling off" of the greatest nation (i.e., not "Homeland") in the world with the two poor, totalitarian, socialist, communist nations Russia and China.

To "level off" the power in the world of the America with Russian and China the two socialist, communist totalitarian police state darlings of the "one world government" must move people and military resources as you see them doing today* by orders of your governement officials who are "useful idiots" working towards a TREASONOUS loss of U.S. sovereignty to a "one world governement" for everybody.
*the writing's on the wall, i.e, watch the movements of people and resources -- they're coming for your freedom and world wealth and power, America.

You just futhered the Fall of America in the fast track with your Bush/Cheney vote.

And it's not going to be bloodless. Although, they will TRY to make you believe you were ATTACKED by "terrorists" and you NEED UN "foreign assests." You will actually be attacked, just as you were on 9/11, by the "one world governments" movement of people and military resources to create a "9/11 Day."

Isn't everybody happy they voted for that?


P


Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
New F.B.I. Files Describe Abuse of Iraq Inmates
By NEIL A. LEWIS and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - F.B.I. memorandums portray abuse of prisoners by American military personnel in Iraq that included detainees' being beaten and choked and having lit cigarettes placed in their ears, according to newly released government documents...
More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/21/politics/21abuse.html?ei=5006&en=5c03bc4bced03ea3&ex=1104210000&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=)

If Saddam was a brutal dictator with torture and rape rooms. What does this make Bush?
IT MAKES BUSH AND CO. A "ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT" TREASONOUS REGIME
[B]Nick, you sound like a reasonable guy.

Please answer this: Why do you think Presidents, senators, and other citizens like their aides, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Strobe Talbot, etc., who openly talk of TREASON by their day-to-day word and deeds of the relinquishing U.S. national sovereignty, and all nations sovereignty "to a one world governemt?"

And, Strobe Talbot is quoted in TIME about the plans [U]they are working on saying, "...national sovereignty wasn't such a good idea after all."

Isn't this treason?

Why do I have to ask?

OF COURSE IT'S TREASON.

IT'S CRIMINAL AND HE SAYS IT RIGHT IN TIME MAGAZINE.

AND, HE'S NOT TRIED AND SENTENCED FOR WHAT HE'S ALREADY DONE TO DESTROY AND TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM, NICK. He and all the rest, including U.S.Presidents who are CFR members.

The Council on Foreign Relations has published in it's charter it's goal of forming a "one world government" by removing the national sovereignty of the U.S. and every nation on earth.

They're talking and planning bloodshed on a scale never seen before.

They're talking and planning the overthrow of U.S. national sovereignty right from within the White House and they are using OUR high office of the President of the United States of American to take away, overthrow, dissolve the national sovereignty of the U.S..

And while they're doing that 24/7 day-to-day and out in the open they walk freely while some traffic cop wants to give you and me a lesson in the law about speeding. Speeding, what a terrible offense to national sovereignty.

What kind of LSD are they feeding Talbot, Bush, Rice, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, and so on?

Why isn't Talbot and the rest of them in prison for treason to overthrow the soverienty of the United States of America for a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT?

THEY SAY SO!

You tell me that, Nick.

Why do they get to commit treason inside of OUR, THE PEOPLE'S, White House and you and I can't go over the speed limit by 5 miles per hour.

It's later than everybody thinks.

What do you think about these TREASONOUS "one world government" deeds, writings, laws passed to facilitate a "foreign asset" military TAKEOVER of America?

I think it sucks and blood will run in the streets over it.

I've read history and I know freedom is more important than the 6-pack of beer, a sports game, and SUV crowd believes. People in this country will fight the loss of national sovereignty. They will kill for freedom and for sovereignty. Killing means blood in the city streets and all over the countryside.

But don't tell any of that to soccer parents Sally and Bill who can never envision it happening -- the bloodshed that goes along with fighting for freedom and sovereignty. They have portfolios and children and they live in "soccer mom and dad, suburban kids land." Okay.

They will give up national sovereignty for their kids and their lives.

They will sell out America and George Washington in a heartbeat.

They're scared, but they don't know what to do.

It's too late.

It's already later than they think.


P
PS
[B]ANYONE CAN ANSWER WHY THEY THINK THESE "PARTICULAR" PEOPLE CAN SPEAK AND DO DEEDS THAT ARE WORKING FOR THE POWERS IN THE WORLD OF A "ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT," BUT IF I TYPE ON LITTLE WORD ABOUT "TAKING BACK" THE ENTIRE U.S. GOVERNMENT FROM THESE TRAITORS TO THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD I GET THESE SILLY LITTLE THREATS ABOUT "YOU CAN GO TO JAIL FOR THAT, PHIL."[/COLOR]

Hey let me tell all you "useful idiots" that threaten ME on this little message board something.

When you are fighting for freedom and national sovereignty you can get KILLED.

So who cares about prison?

Not me.;)


P

FREEDOM, LIBERTY, SOVERIENTY
[B]GEORGE WASHINGTON FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY --
STROBE TALBOT CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY THAT EASILY --
THAT MEANS BLOODSHED IN THE STREETS AND IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF AMERICA --
TRAITOR PRESIDENTS
TRAITOR SENATORS
TRAITOR "USEFUL IDIOTS"

THEY'RE NOT GETTING THE COUNTRY GEORGE AND MY FATHERS DIED TO CREATE.

NO, TALBOT.

NO, TIME MAGZINE.

NO, REPUBLICAN VOTERS

NO.

NO.

But they want a fight, they want a "one world government" so bad they will take you down the bloodshed road in our lifetimes...it's already started.

The writing's on the wall and the building downtown are already coming down and their steel, a crime scene of evidence about how the steel failed, what caused the steel to fail from steel that was not supposed to fail...their crime scene of 3,000 murders was SOLD TO GROWING CHINA with no testing of the "EVIDENCE" from the worst mass murder act of terror and violence on this country's soil.

But it's not going to be "this country" much longer according to Strobe Talbot so "nothing has been lost" to cry about and those people AND MORE OF YOU TO COME have to die in order to usher in their planned, TREASONOUS, "one world government Strobe is so PROUD about their WORK on it, and in his mind 9/11 was a good thing.

That's the real world.

It's later than you think.


P

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How would YOU know?
Watch out. She's identified herself as jailbait, Nick.

Whether she is or not doesn't matter.

She/he could be a cop.

These govenment informants are all over this board.


P

[Phil theStalker]

You cannot have the freedom and national sovereignty of this country Talbot, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, etc..

You can't have it.

But you want it.

You want to create a "one world government."

You want to make us bleed.

And you will make us bleed and die right here...again. For freedom and national sovereignty.

As much as Talbot's mouth, deeds, and quotes go I'm surprized that no patroit has blown off his head yet to send a message up to the more "guarded" treasonous traitors he works for.

Amen.

[lms2]

Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Watch out. She's identified herself as jailbait, Nick.

Whether she is or not doesn't matter.

She/he could be a cop.

These govenment informants are all over this board.


P

She is jailbait.

She is not a cop.

She is my daughter.

She has little idea about the difference between beer and anything stronger as we are not real drinkers in our family...

Phil, did you have a merry Christmas? You seem to be awfully full of it today!

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
yep sure is what's the libertarian party, aren't those the people who are liberals and that everyone complains about?
Look, honey...you don't learn anything parroting trigger words like "liberals." There are no liberals or conservatives. There are only socialists=neocon, or socialist=liberal, but they are all simple minded socialists who don't give a damn about conservativism or liberalism, they only give a damn about their "one world government."

Skittles, read before you type.

You're really too young to have any opinions worth merit due to your lack of education and experience through no fault of your own. You're just young and you have much to learn.

And learning comes from keeping your mouth closed and your eyes and ears open.

You should only open your mouth here to type a question about the many things you do not know.

It's like saying, think before you speak.

I'm giving you a good word.


:spank:

[Little_Skittles]

it's ok philly boy i understand it's not you're fault that youra paranoid asshole SOMETIMES it's just coz you're old and have learned to hate anyone and everything. I understand that i'm young and need to keep my mouth shut but that what teenagers are known for is spouting off. :d have a nice day!

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by lms2
She is jailbait.

She is not a cop.

She is my daughter.

She has little idea about the difference between beer and anything stronger as we are not real drinkers in our family...

Phil, did you have a merry Christmas? You seem to be awfully full of it today!
I'm not full of anything and I don't like to be taunted about my moods.

I'm sorry I'm alive.

How about you?

They are not taking away the freedom and national sovereignty George Washington and the land where our father's died fought for.

Strobe Talbot is a traitor.

Full of it? I FED UP WITH IT.

Another good word, mom.

If your daughter is waaay under 18+ you, or anybody, don't have the right to feed minors beer and pornography even if it's your daughter.

Get your "14" year old off of this message board before Human Services in your state takes your child away from you.

I wouldn't be proud my child is 14 looking at a bunch of gangbang and gay porn sodomy.

There are sodomy laws.

There are minors laws.

Don't get yourself caught breaking laws about minors.

I'm an old guy and I've got a friend that "gave permission" to his minor aged son to have a "beer" party and now his life is ruined. Yes, it was his kid, but he doesn't have the right to provide his minor kid liquor or drive his car or serve any other parent's minor kids alcohol. That was his biggest problem, the other parents minor kids.

He'll never do that again.

It's a good word.

Don't get in trouble with Human Services. They're not the cops and they're much stickier to deal with.

And from what I read of her typing she should be out doing more important things at this time in her young developing life or if she has to type on a board she should find her own "peer" group, mom.

Go, be good.


=PtS=
:spank:

2003 POSTER BEFORE ELECTION AND FALL OF AMERICA
"FOREIGN ASSETS" ARE HERE AND COMING IN MASS SOON

[lms2]

I am not sorry you are alive, I enjoy your company on occasion.

I am sorry you are having a bad day.

Fight the good fight Phil, and if the good lord is willing, you will see it through to the end, but if its not meant to be, then it aint gonna happen. I believe in a higher power, and the things that are happening were ordained a long damn time ago.

Normally, I don't feel the need to defend my parenting skills, but since I like you, what the hell. She is not 14, she is 16.

She should be out doing other things, but she would rather be home with me.

She doesn't visit the dump, nor does she get off on the pornography here. She does enjoy the views she reads on the front line. I see nothing wrong with her hearing the expressions of other people. It is a higher education of sorts. There are other sites she hangs out at, and other people her own age she chats with.

People may think it is wrong that I "let" her post here, but what those people need to be aware of is that I know full well where my daughter goes, what she does, who she talks to and what she thinks about what she hears. That may not be much, but its a hell of a lot more than I can say for a lot of people.

Further, where did I ever say that I allowed her to drink? You are making assumptions. I said she knows little difference between beer and something stronger.... Her logic is that if something is funny on beer, it would funnier on something stronger.

Don't tell me about social services... I was a foster parent for ten years, I have a pretty good inkling of how the system works.

I hope you feel better soon.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by lms2
I am not sorry you are alive, I enjoy your company on occasion.

I am sorry you are having a bad day.

Fight the good fight Phil, and if the good lord is willing, you will see it through to the endI hope you feel better soon.
I'm not having on of those day.

I'm having one of those lives.

You took my "good word" and didn't feel offended.

That's very mature of you.

You're probably too mature for this board.

But I guess you've found your "peer" group.:)


=PtS=
:spank:

[lms2]

You may be right.

Why are you having one of those lives.

That is a defeatest type statement and coming from a fighter, it surprises me.

The power of your life is in your hands. What are you going to make of it?

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by lms2
You may be right.

Why are you having one of those lives.

That is a defeatest type statement and coming from a fighter, it surprises me.

The power of your life is in your hands. What are you going to make of it?
Okay, you're getting to me -- making sense. If you keep this up I may have to call you on the phone.:rolleyes:


=PtS=
:spank:

[Little_Skittles]

mama aka lms2 says pm her instead she's there for ya buddy! :D

[Katydid]

All I can say is with all the dissing of our president and government you'd think we lived in the worst place on earth.

But most countries you'd be beheaded or shot for speaking your mind.

No system is perfect, but I think the "War on Terror" throughout the world will slow down suicide bombers and Hamas and Al Queida.

I'm sure there are a few journalists who hate Bush (who knows, maybe they are even Iraqi sympathisers or Islamic ghad). They play up anti American propaganda much like this site does.

[Nickdfresh]

OMG! Who left the door open! Get back to the Dump ye wench!

[Katydid]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
mama aka lms2 says pm her instead she's there for ya buddy! :D


I don't think the FBI call you on the phone.

[Katydid]

Originally posted by Katydid
I don't think the FBI call you on the phone.

Tap your phone maybe.

[lms2]

Let them tap my phone, I never talk on it anyway!

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by lms2
Let them tap my phone, I never talk on it anyway!
..is da FBI tailing mme agin?

..why am i always da last t2o know it?


=PtS=
:spank:

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
I like this card

[flappo]

jesus h christ

more joe rogan is the anti-christ bs

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by flappo
jesus h christ

more joe rogan is the anti-christ bs
..is joey rogan da anitchrist?

..i've been looking f4or him..

hehe<marquee scrollamount=2 direction=up>;) </marquee>
=PtS=
:spank:

[Little_Skittles]

doesn't that dude host fear factor or is that another joe somebody?