11 year old in military prison

[Relbeek Einre]

And here comes Eid to lower the signal-to-noise ratio further, and of course he completely bypasses the documented cases of minor abuse at Abu Ghraib because that would reflect poorly on his heroes, the mighty hero Donald Rumsfeld and his Lord and Saviour George W. Bush.

It would have helped if Eid had bothered to read the article:

As another possibility, he could simply be there because his guardian or closest family member is a prisoner there for unrelated reasons, and it was deemed best for the child not to take his parent away and simply leave the boy to make his way alone on the streets.

Uh, the boy rotting in prison would cry and beg to be allowed to see his mother. I'd say you're, uh, what's the word, oh yeah - WRONG.

But you really just made me shake my head sadly when you actually tried to foist this piece of shit as an argument.

Some of the tales of childnappers prowling the area in the wake of the recent Tsunami, looking for parentless kids, provide a chilling realization that there might be worse places than a prison to grow up.

That's right, folks, Eidolon's New Policy for Iraqi Children - raise them in battle-riddled prisons, where it's safe! With astoundingly great ideas like those, I'm amazed Bush hasn't appointed you to something.

[Rsak]

Dear lord Relbeek, get over you bigotry.

Eidolon is under no obligation to respond to the cases of abuse to other minors when we are specifically talking about this 11 year old.

And since when is a mother not a "closest family member"? The fact that he has a mother does not invalidate Eidolon's argument, but then again you would have to actually read it to understand that. Shame your hypocrisy got in the way.

[Relbeek Einre]

Nice monkey! Grind that organ!

[Rsak]

At least all I am grinding is an organ compared to your axe.

[Relbeek Einre]

HAHAHAHA Nice monkey! Delusional monkey!

[Partha]

Thank you for the info on the 11 year old, Rsak, I was not aware of it.

And I don't particularly care what you do with your organ, just keep it off the boards, kthx.

[Rsak]

You can rest your mind that my organs will never make it onto this board.

[Relbeek Einre]

snausages

[Rsak]

You really need some work. You used to be funny, but this is really just sad!

[Relbeek Einre]

damn, I knew I should have said "cocktail weenies."

[Torakus]

Relbeek is now citing as a reliable source one B. General Janis Karpinski, who was relieved of her command in the wake of the "torture" incidents. The same general who claimed to know nothing of the alleged incidents. The same general whose reprimand was re-investigated and approved twice now. The same general who is now taking her case to the media, saying that she was relieved unjustly, that she is a great leader and it was not her fault.

If General Karpinski was so concerned about women and children being in the prison, why didn't she move them? She was in-fucking-charge, of all of the detention facilities! One of the primary reasons Karpinski was relieved of command was her complete inability to accept responsibility for the actions of her subordinates. She blamed everyone up and down the chain of command in Iraq for her failures, alternatively claiming that MI was in command of Abu Garhib and then that she was in command but Maj. General Wodjakwoski and Sanchez were calling the shots.

Partha has been screaming for the heads of the bosses for months now in this case. Well there it is, and the only reason she isn't on trial.............? Yep probably.

As far as me not considering what happened as torture. I am sorry you feel that way, but I refuse to group simple humiliation that the vast majority of these cases involved with true torture. If we continue to water down the definition of torture we risk losing the ability to interrogate prisoners at all. You hold me in contempt for this. I accept that, but my contempt for a self righteous prick with no frame of reference to base a credible opinion on what does and does not constitute torture, knows no bounds.

I don't defend what happened in Abu Garhib, but I also do not fall victim to the sensational media hype that equates what happened there to the very real torture that millions of Jew suffered in WWII, that thousands of Americans suffered in Vietnam, that countless thousands suffered in Serbia and again in Iraq at the hands of Saddam's regime and in hundreds of other incidents in nations around the world that we barely mention because it doesn't suit our current partisan political crusade.

As a side note, I am happy to say that the Navy is taking over detention operations in Guantanamo, from the other services at all levels. Capt. Nygard, a former CO of mine, is going to be in command down there. He is a good man who runs a tight ship, understands how to be an intrusive leader but isn't afraid to tell his bosses where to stick it if they are wrong. I doubt you will hear of any more problems down there.

Tora

[Eidolon Faer]

I ask you to provide evidence or argue the case regarding this particular child's circumstances, and you fling poo and make personal attacks.

You lose. And, perhaps more-tellingly, you're really off your game today. I'm no longer going to post to this thread, as you seem to be on the warpath and headed towards bad, Saphdia-like things for anyone in the vicinity.

Have a happy St. Patrick's Day, Relbeek.

[Relbeek Einre]

Perhaps you missed the fifteen or so times where I told you I don't want to debate politics with you, Eidolon. You will not get respectful debate out of me, especially when you enter the debate with a piece of flung poo of your own. Don't like it? Stay away.

[Saevrok]

Relbeek, all trolling and bullshit aside, take a prozac, off the deep end is a mild way to cite what is happening here. With little to no proof besides assumptions and the basic idea that children are the same all over the world, you're fighting your waterloo (SP?)

[Chants Evensong]

Chants -

In all fairness to Beek, that's not really valid response. It shouldn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, because (I hope) we're not trying to use him as some sort of standard to measure ourselves by.

It does beg the question, however, as to just what, exactly, have Human Rights First and the ACLU done to seek monetary redress for the victims of Saddam's human rights abuses, besides sue the people responsible for putting an end to those abuses.

It's not our standards that concern me.

[Relbeek Einre]

Chants, that's ridiculous. You know what the A in ACLU stands for, right? Foreign matters are outside the scope of their organization.

Jesus man. I can get a little agitated when I'm stressed out, but what's your excuse?

Stay on focus here. We have facts in evidence.

1) Children of both sexes are or were being held at Abu Ghraib for periods of a year or more.
2) The children are ages 11-17, and possibly younger.
3) Abu Ghraib is in the middle of a warzone and is attacked daily by arms and shells.
4) The commander of Abu Ghraib was ordered to release nobody, even if innocent.
5) Abu Ghraib is a prison whose command structure allowed, condoned, and even encouraged torture of its prisoners.
6) There have been so far at least two documented cases of abuse or torture of a minor
by American personnel - one sexual, one to coerce the youth's father.

From these facts, we can conclude:

A) Since the general population of Iraq is not under daily attack, anyone at Abu Ghraib is at an elevated risk of being killed by an attack at the facility.
B) Children being held at Abu Ghraib are being held in an active battlefield.
C) Children being held at Abu Ghraib cannot be taken outside or near windows without increasing their risk of harm by an attack.
D) Therefore, children at Abu Ghraib either haven't seen the light of day for over a year or are being consciously placed in harm's way to a greater degree than they are simply by being held there.
E) The system that allowed torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib did not insulate minors from that torture and abuse.

None of this can be justified, no matter how much the Bush throne-sniffers try to do so.

[Chants Evensong]

First of all, Human Rights First brought this lawsuit with the ACLU. It has no such jurisdictional limitation. That is why I mentioned them by name.

Second the ACLU, is a powerful American lobby. It has a team of crack lawyers out there capable of lobbying the American Provisional Governemnt in Iraq to help ensure that the Iraqi Special Tribunal has jurisdiction over cimes and torts commited by the Baathist Regime.

Third, if foriegn matters are outside of the scope of the ACLU (I agree that they are), why have they teamed up with an an international human rights organization (Human Rights First) to file a suit rooted in international law on behalf of foriegners for torts commited in a foriegn country during a foriegn war?

[Kulaf]

Point one is not in evidence that I read. They said women and children have been kept in the prison since 03. That is not the same as saying any single woman or child spent a year there. Point two is technically correct. Three "children" are talked about.....although a 17 year old in Iraq might argue whether or not they are a "child", but technically you are correct by the legal definition of a "minor."

[Relbeek Einre]

The suit, last I checked, was rooted in American law, not international law, and they're involved because it's our government's actions the ACLU is taking issue with. C'mon, Chants, you could answer these questions yourself, why are you wasting my time?

[Aabe]

3) Abu Ghraib is in the middle of a warzone and is attacked daily by arms and shells.
A) Since the general population of Iraq is not under daily attack, anyone at Abu Ghraib is at an elevated risk of being killed by an attack at the facility.

Just one small point. We know that random bombings are killing Iraqi men, women and children regularly. Have ANY of the prisoners been killed by the shelling and small arms fire at the prison? If not I would have to strike these two points of your arguement.