h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dead right crazyhorse... But they won't.

Lentilla they are not mall crawlers, not low pay security types.

Ex military special forces trained.
That is why I think the US surely knew what they were doing, who they were sending and what might result. Mercenary types trained and were popular for decades in the southern states, para- military and survivalist (Idaho and Nw areas too)

Like the ones in Texas or Georgia who had some sort of *security* trouble just after 9-11 at one of those places. They had weapons they should not, have had.

There was an increase in announcements a few weeks ago on the newsy-like shows about groups like this going as civilians.

Crazyhorse, I've been on the fence about leaving Iraq. We've really screwed things up by applying force to a situation that needed delicate diplomacy. We're not going to fix things by applying more force. But leaving Iraq in its current condition would be a worse act than what we did in the first place! If the U.S. could hand the military aspects of the war over to the UN, and take over the rebuilding of Iraq, we might even be able to make ourselves look better to the rest of the world. I think the best thing the U.S. could do right now is help to rebuild what has been destroyed.

> Ex military special forces trained.

Oo-er... You think they're working with the military police? That would explain a few things...

I do not know about all the divsions.
I do not think they were military police.
Some were interrogators (private contrators)

Here is a link from a retired Viet Nam officer explaining some of it.
''Iraq déjà vu Vietnam''
By David Antoon, Colonel, USAF Ret. - YT Guest Columnist (United States) http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1914

um contractors!

the only reason to rebuild is to fill the pockets of the greedy contractors...why should the u. n. cl. clean upn up the mess they voted againsinst invasion to begin with give the conracts to local iraqui firms as and pay for reconstruction

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/06CABI.html?8br
Pentagon said it had conducted more than 30 criminal investigations over the last 16 months into misconduct by American captors in Iraq and Afghanistan,

Bushs statement;
"We're a society that is willing to investigate, fully investigate in this case, what took place in that prison," Mr. Bush told Al Hurra. "That stands in stark contrast to life under Saddam Hussein. His trained torturers were never brought to justice under his regime. There were no investigations about the mistreatment of people."


He also kept saying - "you must understand the US"....
It struck me as condescending especially since he did not apologize.
The White House apaologized but he did not. What does that mean? The house talks?

There was a 53 page report on the prison abuse in Febuary or March that nobody in the administration seems to have read! There was no reason to believe the President should not to have known this.
If he did not then he really should stop trusting his advisors and start watching more TV. Several sites said it is available on the internet too.
***********
Oops correction ;the civilions did not try to bomb the prison they tried to set it on fire. I intended to say fire bomb in the first post.

Mayby after this fiasco the US will sign up to the International Criminal Court .

this whole sad mess shows us exactly why the US did not sign on for the the International Criminal Court. The people involved now face reprimand by the US military, some senior officers in Military Intelligence may have their careers ended (I know, I know, I'm　just heartbroken about that too) If the International Criminal Court had jurisdiction they would be among the many Americans facing trial for war crimes.

of course Americans *cannot* commit war crimes can they...

<>
A very good idea, IMHO. The Iraqis will not stop fighting the invaders for less.

It was reported here, that one prisoner who was killed, was killed by a "CIA contractor" and nothing was done, because s/he wasn't military, and so the "military had no jurisdiction." Is that a reason for nothing being done?

Couple of things. First off I think the biggest threat to world justice is the huge increase in contracted *security personnel* who are plainly and simply mercenaries, in flagrant violation of international law. Second, the torture and humiliation was abominable but please don't think that any country is above it. All countries who continue to take teenagers and early twentysomethings, teach them how to kill and then set them loose can expect some violations when they take prisoners. Canada, Britain, Australia, we all have history along those lines. Saudi prisons do ten times as worse every day. No excuses, but just a slightly different frame of reference. As Patton said *No one won a war by dying for their country, they made some other poor son of a bitch die for his.* *That* is the mindset we're dealing with.

<< As Patton said *No one won a war by dying for their country, they made some other poor son of a bitch die for his.* *That* is the mindset we're dealing with.>>
Which is the main reason why, I, for one, am against all war at all times. Period.

Yup. I'm not going to say that war is never justified. There's only been one war that was fought for the right reasons... WWII. Everything else is grandstanding, power grabbing, and manifest destiny bull

Two small points, if I may:

1) If a country, whether signatory to the ICC treaty or not, prosecutes one of its own citizens for a violation of international law, the ICC claims no jurisdiction. (If the U.S. (not a signatory) prosecutes these individuals, just as Canada (a signatory) prosecuted the individuals involved in the Arone affair, then the ICC would have no interest).

"The ICC will not replace national courts, but will be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The Court will only investigate and prosecute if a State is unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute. This will be determined by the judges. Unjustified delays in proceedings as well as proceedings which are merely intended to shield persons from criminal responsibility will not render a case inadmissible before the ICC." http://www.icc-cpi.int/ataglance/whatistheicc/jurisdiction.html

2) "There's only been one war that was fought for the right reasons... "

The reason that WWII was fought was because Herr Hitler wanted to rule the world. Doesn't sound like a good reason to fight a war to me. Sounds like a good reason to be put away in an institution. If that had happened (instead of him getting elected to head a political party and then elected to head a country) maybe it wouldn't have been fought. Seems to me that WWII was exactly the same as the rest: grandstanding, power grabbing, and manifest destiny, etc. It's just that we were on the other side.
I've often heard people say "Hitler had to be stopped". My feeling when I hear that has always been "well, yeah. But he never should have been allowed to start."

I don't think that any war has ever been fought for the right reason. Some have been finished for the right reasons, but they've always been fought for the bull

i saw on the news that at one soldier killed an iraqui with a rock ..his punishment was to to be busted down to private and sent home discharged

,

It´s a mess.

> Doesn't sound like a good reason to fight a war to me. Sounds like a good reason to be put away in an institution...

Good point. If the UN hadn't been so eager to set harsh reparations for Germany after WWI, then they wouldn't have felt so isolated from the rest of the world. I think that was much of the problem right there - that the Germans felt like they had to help themselves, because nobody else would do it. Perhaps they were thinking to themselves "Sure, Hitler's crazy, but at least I have a job now."

"the UN"?

(http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm)