10,000 of "collateral damage"? That's a little high, isn't it?
The source for Iraq body counts (Iraq body count or IBC) is only able to name 692 of the civilian victims...out of their claim of over 10,000 minimum deaths. I am, therefore, dubious of their self-touted 'reliable' numbers.

Do you agree with the statements that Jeff Inhofe made? No
Are you more disgusted by the outrage over the photos or by the photos themselves? The photos. The reaction is understandable, and completely predictable.

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.


ata extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work in opposite directions.

Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that each incident is differentiated from proximate incidents with which it could be potentially confused.
Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of both production and public scrutiny.
Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same information is available for the vast majority of incidents. This is best guaranteed by restricting the number of items of information per incident to the core facts that most news reports tend to include.
The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the following information only for each incident:

Date of incident
Time of incident
Location of incident
Target as stated by military sources
Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)
Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should further details become available at a later date.

"Does your count include deaths from indirect causes?"

Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources.

Won't your count simply be a compilation of propaganda?

We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths in our sources. These sources, which are predominantly Western (including long established press agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press) are unlikely to suppress conservative estimates which can act as a corrective to inflated claims. We rely on the combined, and self-correcting, professionalism of the world's press to deliver meaningful maxima and minima for our count.

Please tell me that this statement is overblown. That we should not be outraged that a US Senator would compare the behavior here, however abhorrent, to what occured in Saddam Hussein's torture chambers.

Please tell me that this statement is overblown. That we should not be outraged that a US Senator would compare the behavior here, however abhorrent, to what occured in Saddam Hussein's torture chambers.

Are you saying this statement is overblown because Ted Kennedy, a democrat, made it?  Or are you saying it is overblown because you think he might be right and you don't want that to hurt Bush in an election year?
Ted Kennedy was absolutely not out of line here.  Looking at this statement objectively, forgetting you are a republican for a second, how can you argue with it?

On the other hand, according to the report, this abuse scandal was not caused by direct orders, but by undertrained, immature troops.

Pfc. Lynndie England told KCNC-TV in Denver on Tuesday that her superiors gave her specific instructions on how to pose for the photos. Asked who gave the orders, she would say only, "Persons in my chain of command."

“It implies too much knowledge of what would be particularly humiliating to these Muslim prisoners. And that is why, even though I do not yet have the evidence, I cannot help but suspect that others were involved, that military intelligence personnel were involved, or people further up the chain of command.”

Don't tell me that a girl from a trailer park in Virginia knows enough about Arab culture to know how to make things the most humiliating. Here's what S. Collins (a republican, BTW) said about that at yesterday's hearings:

It would be the adventure of his life – five days of intense football in the woods of Pennsylvania. More than 60 players attended the camp, including the boy’s best friend – Patty and Jimmy’s son – who was also just 13.

“We went out. We got all new things to bring to pack. He had his little list. We’re checking it off. We’re going to all the sports stores. And he was very excited,” recalls Patty.

But the happy boys these parents sent to camp last summer didn’t return that way.

“All of a sudden, you get this child who’s been broken. And I can’t ever get that back from him,” says Patty. “He was robbed of his innocence. And his youth. He really was.”

Over the course of five days, their sons were brutally sodomized by their teammates. Broomsticks dipped in mineral ice, a kind of liquid heat, golf balls, pine cones and toothbrushes, were all pushed into the boy’s rectums. All the while, older players watched and laughed.

This document covers about 20 years or so, and includes the deaths of:
- 4,000 political prisoners (1984)
- 2,500 in 'prison cleansing' (97-99)
- 3,000 summary executions (93-98)
- 300 Kurdish children disappeared (1985)
- 100,000 Kurds as reported by Amnesty International (87-88)
   note the 100k above includes the gas attacks that killed 5,000
- 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals (1991)
- Report did not quantify the arbitrary torture, extra-judicial beheadings, etc., which I suppose could be tough to do in a police state.  Let's see...if Stalin killed millions through starvation and gulags and they still 'rallied against Germany,' but in Iraq it was so bad that they DIDN'T rally against our occupation other than a few wackos here and there, and indeed 15% of the population have fled rather than live in this oppression...I'll call it another 50,000.
So, 160,000 give or take divided by 20 years = 8,000, round up a month or two to 10,000, that's close enough for me. 

40,000+ Frenchmen died in the liberation of Normandy and Brittany and they still have US, UK and Canadian flags flying on their bridges.

FWIW- the best take on this was on the Daily Show with Tim Russert- Tim Russert said "Of course the press needs to jump all over this- those national Guardsmen didn't bring the leashes and hoods from the US with them in thier Rucksacks- someone gave it to them and taught them how to use it- the press needs to be all over it, and everyone needs to be outraged, because, we, as a nation, are supposed to have a higher moral center, we expect those other nations bad behavior, but we should be outraged when we do it ourselves".

His point being- they didn't bring this attitude and behavior with them from Virginia, they got it that it was okay from someone over there- which I wholeheartedly agree- there has been many posts and news articles where military intelligence and CIA were encouraging them to "soften up these prisoners"- and if these guys didn't feel thier behavior was sanctioned from the very highest levels, they never would have taken pics.

Do you agree with the statements that Jeff Inhofe made?

Are you more disgusted by the outrage over the photos or by the photos themselves?

If this controversy does go all the way to the top, do attitudes such as Jeff Inhofe's as a member of Congress instigate this type of action?

What Sen. Kennedy is doing here is playing at the same game that Inhofe is running, just in reverse.

Kennedy's statement that the rape rooms are under new management are unsubstantiated.
1. No credible charges of rape have yet been put forth.
2. Even if hey were the scales of offenses are grossly mismatched.
3. Most importantly, rape rooms under Saddam were a matter of policy even to the highest level.

Well, if you want to chalk it up that way, you have to add the 1/2 million + children(estimated as of 1996) to die from sanctions to "our side", and we should share the responsibility of the Kurdish massacre since we provided the weapons and didn't punish Saddam for using our weapons, so that would be at least 50% our fault.

However, this is taking it off topic. I brought up the idea that the Iraqis are dying in greater numbers than the Americans from this war to show why the senator's remarks were completely wrong. I was trying to point out that we are the ones that are occupying the country, and we are the ones that attacked that country --  Americans that have been killed have been done so by people who are  either defending themselves, or who are extracting revenge for those that have been killed in a war that WE started.

(why has no one addressed the fact that 70 - 90% were falsely arrested? see my first post for link)

   
I agree with his sentiment, if not the way he said it. On one count he is dead wrong about these not being traffic violations - our own forces admit that most of these prisoners were probably innocent.

1. Hmm, well given the pictures that have circulated thus far, do you really think rape is that much of a stretch?  I saw one the other day depicting a rape, but it may have been a hoax.  Besides, what way do we have of knowing rape wasn't being committed?  In our justice system, you generally need a complaining vicitim to prosecute rape.  Think any Iraqi women (or men) are going to stand up and point a finger at their jailers?  Come on.

2.  So what you are saying is:  we did some bad things but the things Saddam did were much worse?  I fail to see the distinction here Turnea.  If you conquer a country under the humanitarian banner (as Bush is now waving since WMD and the terrorist links failed him) you can't commit the same abuses, albeit to a lesser degree, and then say "well, atleast Saddam isn't in power or it would be worse".

3.  You say tomato I say tomatoe...  I believe the report by Gen Tabuga stated that the abuse went up to at least the brigade level.  Therefore, while the President of the United States did not explicitly order this torture the people in charge of the prison were at the very least knowledgeable about it and are guilty by inaction.

The point is Turnea that while you feel Sen Kennedy may have been a little blunt, he does have a very good point.  We removed a dictator and we are committing some of the very same atrocities we removed him for!

Let's see...guilty until proven innocent... 

1. No credible charges of rape have yet been put forth.

A US military investigation, carried out by Major General Antonio Taguba, uncovered evidence of war crimes against the inmates, including: breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; sodomising a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

Or are you going to stick with the new Conservative party line that rape by intrumentation isn't rape. It's just good clean all American fun, these soldiers were just "blowing off a little steam", right?

I think Grendal is referencing the Rush comments about the soldiers "having a little fun, blowing off some steam"- and Rush is basically the main mouthpiece and campaigner for the GW administration and Republican party- the new spin that this isn't "torture" begins there.

I think Grendal is referencing the Rush comments about the soldiers "having a little fun, blowing off some steam"- and Rush is basically the main mouthpiece and campaigner for the GW administration and Republican party- the new spin that this isn't "torture" begins there.

And once again, Amlord and others don't seem to have a problem with "guilty until proven innocent" when it is an iraqi---

It is torture. If it was your family, you would call it torture. If it happened to you, you would call it torture. Imhoffe and anyone that calls it "abuse" instead of torture, IS trying to minimize what it is. So it is not flaying alive with hot pokers- but it is just a more sophisticated way of torturing, that is all. To call it anything else is just delusion.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.

"They were trying to humiliate us, break our pride. We are men. It's OK if they beat me. Beatings don't hurt us, it's just a blow. But no one would want their manhood to be shattered," he said.

"They wanted us to feel as though we were women, the way women feel and this is the worst insult, to feel like a woman," al-Shweiri said.

He didn't want to feel like a woman...apparently Iraqis treat women in this manner all the time... 

I guess if being naked for 15 minutes is an attempt to break his spirit, he must suffer from low self esteem to begin with...  Maybe we need more counsellors in Iraq?

The paper cites one case of a detainee who was subjected to a technique known as water boarding, in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe that he might drown.

Some have been hooded, soaked with water, roughed up and deprived of food, light and medication.

At least one CIA employee was disciplined for threatening a detainee with a gun during an interrogation.

"Some people involved in this have been concerned for quite a while that eventually there would be a new president, or the mood in the country would change, and they would be held accountable"

Imagine Allies killing only 1000 Jews per month instead of 30000 after WWII and then claiming that it was "so much worse when Hitler was in power".

While I'll admit that our 'abuse' vs. Saddams 'torture' (murder, etc.) is semantics in that abuse is bad, and yes, we are the bad guys in thise case... It would be refreshing NOT to hear moral equivalency with Nazis. Bush does NOT equal Hitler, for God's sake.

Not to pick on this particular post, but this tactic is used over and over as some sort of comparison, and is particularly offensive when Jews are being actually blown up and beheaded in real life. It seems designed to de-sentitize people to the point where they can't tell the difference between hatred of a race and "softening up" some interrogation subjects. Wow - nudity - that's just like a death camp.

Sen Inhofe doesn't make me sick. His point is crystal clear - the media doesn't pile on when the evil terrorists fail to respect the Geneva Convention, but when it's America they have a field day. After all, these guys have already been charged with crimes by us, the self-investigating champions of democracy. Why not give ourselves the benefit of the doubt once in a while?

(prostrating myself as I await vitriolic but well thought-out responses from articulate fellow posters)

In another thread there is a discussion of wheither the further and much harsher pictures and videos of US rape and torture of Iraqi prisoners should be released to the public.

Though I do not feel there is any precident for releasing what are essentailly crime scene photos to the public, I did comment that it might serve to silence those people who still seem able to maintain that the torture inflicted on Iraqi prisoners to date is 'no big deal' or 'exaggerated' or 'not that bad'.


Please correct me if I am mistaken, but this seems to be what your last statement and your 'what real torture is like' link is trying to convey.

It seem that the rest of the world, including the US polititians and senate, have accepted that this behaviour is cruel, barbarous and inhumane, and certainly qualifies as torture. Hopefully the far right will now as well.

On May 4, the same day WND reported on the fake rape photos, the BBC ran a story entitled "Arab anger at torture photos" which reported a set of rape photos were circulating in the Middle East that "apparently shows two Iraqi women, both wearing traditional black robes, being raped at gunpoint by men ... wearing US Army uniforms." The BBC added that the pictures did not seem geniune because "the uniforms do not seem right." Paul Wood, BBC Middle East correspondent in Cairo added, "The pictures of British soldiers abusing Iraqis might not be genuine either. But the damage has been done."

P.S. Also, if you read my post carefully, I was not comparing us with Nazis, but with Allies.

Why is it being ignored that the accusations of rape and murder were largely carried out by Iraqis brought in to serve as prison guards: NBC: Worst Abuse at Al Ghraib Done by Iraqi Recruits. I know, now it's even WORSE because American DIDN'T do this, but weren't quick enough to stop others from doing it...

But this "abuse" is worse than "while jailed by Saddam's regime, he was electrocuted, beaten and hung from the ceiling with his hands tied behind his back."
-- Amlord

(Washington, DC) – A new Amnesty International report charges that in 2002, the Bush Administration violated the spirit of its own export policy and approved the sale of equipment implicated in torture to Yemen, Jordan, Morocco and Thailand, despite the countries' documented use of such weapons to punish, mistreat and inflict torture on prisoners. The US is also alleged to have handed suspects in the 'war on terror' to the same countries.

The total value of US exports of electro-shock weapons was $14.7 million in 2002 and exports of restraints totaled $4.4 million in the same period. The Commerce and State Departments approved these sales, permitting 45 countries to purchase electro-shock technology, including 19 that had been cited for the use of such weapons to inflict torture since 1990.

"Although torture is endemic in Saudi Arabia, Smith and Wesson had no qualms about exporting approximately 10,000 leg-irons to Riyadh, and apparently sharing this lack of concern, the Bush Administration approved the sale," said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). "For decades, human rights groups and the US State Department have documented Saudi Arabia's cruel use of leg-irons and shackles to inflict torture and force confessions. With this shameful shipment, we can expect the torture of religious minorities and peaceful protestors to continue for years to come."
-- US Exports $20 million of Shackles, Electro-Shock Technology

I would rather be humiliated, bound naked and gagged, than be electrocuted. Then again if given a choice I'd rather someone put a bullet between my eyes than rape me.

Sure, let them release the rape photos to the public... wait, what rape photos?

I watched a number of the senators who viewed the photos be interviewed yesterday, there are no acts of rape depicted in any of the photos

Why are you defending this point? Firstly, nearly every news agency I can check online told the same story today, of senators being repelled and disgusted by horrific acts including homosexual rape.

Secondly, listen to their escriptions of what they saw: Evil, horrific, nausiating, beyond belief... I think as a whole we can accept that the US troops have acted in a heinous manner. As none of us have seen the actual pictures of these worse crimes, why debate what exact act was or was not done as if it made any diference? We should just accept that there have been many very serious cases of abuse and torture, and possibly murder across prisons in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would rather be humiliated, bound naked and gagged, than be electrocuted. Then again if given a choice I'd rather someone put a bullet between my eyes than rape me.

We're implicated whether our guards or Iraqi employees are responsible for the worst of it. The Iraqi guards were working for us, representatives of what we're trying to accomplish in Iraq.

For your information, I have listened to what the senators who viewed the photos have said and they all agree they are horrible, but as McCain put it 'more of the same' that the public has seen.

"I expected that these pictures would be very hard on the stomach lining and it was significantly worse than anything that I had anticipated," said Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. Take the worst case and multiply it several times over."

"The whole thing is utterly disgusting and it's hard to believe that this actually is taking place in a military facility," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"Democratic Senator Bill said some of the images were "more disturbing" than the pictures that have already been released."

(CBC Newsworld - May 12)


Apparently McCain is in the minority opinion then...

"More of the same. They're terrible, just terrible," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., after seeing the pictures.

"Same as the others. Disgusting," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., agreed that the pictures deepen "the conclusion that this was a cellblock that had gone wild, had no standards."

Some of the pictures contain depictions of sexual intercourse between military personnel. Other pictures were also sexually graphic, but Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said he saw no clear instance of rape or sodomy, though some photos depicted abusive techniques worse than those already seen.

Here's from the other side of the aisle:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., agreed that the pictures deepen "the conclusion that this was a cellblock that had gone wild, had no standards."

I know you're eager to condemn the US from your perch in Canada

To paraphrase you, 'heh, all Republicans'.




Not sure what this was meant to prove. Considering this was clearly not all pictures from the same cellblock, or even the same prison, that issue was not up for debate.


As for your edit, I will have to wait and see. I don't know what the pictures represented, we have several news sources saying there was homosexual rape, and FoxNews (that basion of journalistic integrity) saying there was not. I will wait for a day or so and see what the reality is.


My point earlier however still stands. Why are you defending individual aspects of what specific act happened or did not happen? lest say for the sake of argument that FoxNews (for once) is correct and that there is no evidence in thos pictures of actual rape. We DO have evidence (and in fact several court martials for Murder. We also have senators, both sides of the isle saying how heinous and repulsive these acts are, how utterly reprehensible and cruel the Soldiers behaviour was.

So why are you trying to defend them on the specifics? In the end I don't really care if they actually raped these POWs or not. NOBODY who has seen the pictures, Democratic or republican, is claiming these troops were NOT brutalised or tortured. So if we accept that as a given, why are you arguing as if to diminish their crimes?

This is a widespread and growing investigation into abuse, torture and murder of people in the custory of US forces. Nobody is debating that... except possibly you, I'm not sure.

EDIT to add:



Oh very clever.

Don't be an idiot, keep the debate civil or I will report your post.

Back to the issue: My 'perch' in Canada has nothing to do with anything. I am not 'eager' to condemn the US, but nor am I 'eager' to deny what everyone else seems to have accepted; that the actions of these US troops in prisons around Iraq and Afghanistan are heinous and illegal, and they are not a couple isolated good-ole boys who lost control.

In the end, what are you even trying to argue exactly? What is the point you are trying to make? By accusing me of ,eagernedd to condemn the US' I assume therefore you are somehow trying to DEFEND the US troops in these actions? Thats certainly what it seems like...

I know you're eager to condemn the US from your perch in Canada

Don't be an idiot, keep the debate civil or I will report your post.

But instead, you, and people of like mind pick up on these issues and bandy them about as if they were true, despite assertions to the contrary by senators who have viewed the photos.

These fake photos that were picked up by the media as legitimate, which have been proven to be otherwise, and yet the media refuses to acknowledge this

Please, read what I posted carefully.

You are the only one here making any reference to the fake pictures posted by the Globe. I have never referenced them, the CBC Newsworld citation I posted was referring diectly to the pictures senators had seen yesterday. Similar quotes can be found on MSNBC, ABCNews and a half dozen other sites, all referring to images of homosexual rape. (EDIT: actually, not similar, identical. They may all be quoting one AP report, I am not sure)

You posted one report from FoxNews which seems to contradict it. My response, I don't know, we will have to wait and see in a day or so when the reporting clears up. Given FOXNews' reputation, I am certainly not about to instantly take its word over every other major news source.

NONE of my quotes or citations made any reference at all to the Globe hoax, please stop dragging it in as if it had anything to do with my comments.



Interesting comment, easily reversable. You, and people of like mind (I dont even know what you are referring to with that little jibe) pick up on these issues and bandy them about as if they were false, dispite assertions to the contrary by almost all the major news outlets in North America.

Even if your little allegation is true, you seem just as convinced of your own infallability of opinion based on one FoxNews report.

I personally have been saying for about 6 posts now that I don't know if its true, we shall have to wait and see given the contradictory reports.



Not actually true at all. No, The globe has not recanted its allegations of abuse, because those allegations are true, and have been accepted by everyone who has seen these photos, even all the Republican senators YOU quoted.

The Globe HAS however printed a retraction of that news story admitting the pictures were fake, and its error. I note you failed to notice that.



For the third time, I am forced to ask, what are you arguing here? I will tell you what, for the sake of argument, I will for the moment entirely accept that the allegations of homosexual rape are not proven, and that no pictures exist to verify them. (charges and allegations still exist of course).

SO WHAT? Murder has been evidenced, and already been charged, Torture, brutality, humiliation, all of these have been aknowledged openly and admitted to by everyone up to an including Rumsfeld himself. Everyone who saw the pictures admitted they were heinous and appauling, nobody no matter how partisan has tried to defend the actions of those troops as anything other than criminal and inhuman. You seem to be the only one trying to minimise the charges. Why is that? What is your point, exactly?

Oh, and not that it matters, but the CBC is one of the most respected and reputable news sources on the planet, consistently sourced by other media outlets and commended for objectivity. But if you disagree, am sure you will provide us with some source to corroborate your comment?