The CIA and the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush

[Dom Heffner]

The CIA and the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush
When former Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush died in U.S. custody on Nov. 26, 2003, American military officials issued a press release saying that he had passed away of natural causes after complaining of feeling sick.

That wasn't exactly the truth.

As Josh White explains in today's Washington Post, Mowhoush died while stuffed in a sleeping bag, wrapped in an electrical cord, after a CIA-sponsored group of Iraqi paramilitaries, working with Army interrogators, had beaten him severely with their fists, a club and a rubber hose.

Do you recognize your country now?

As White writes, Mowhoush's interrogation and death "paint a vivid example of how the pressure to produce intelligence for anti-terrorism efforts and the war in Iraq led U.S. military interrogators to improvise and develop abusive measures, not just at Abu Ghraib but in detention centers elsewhere in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba." And the aftermath of Mowhoush's ordeal, White says, sheds light on the extent to which the United States has tried to conceal abusive interrogation techniques and hide the very existence of small teams of CIA-sponsored Iraqi paramilitary squads used to rough up -- and that's the polite term -- uncooperative detainees.

Two Army soldiers from Fort Carson, Colo., have been charged in Mowhoush's death, and two more who allegedly played a role face other military punishment. As for the CIA's role? The agency's inspector general has launched an investigation, White says, but the agency itself won't comment.

www.salon.com

[RedFanAlways1966]

Do you recognize your country now?

Yes. It is a country with lots of liberals who write things and make movies. And lots of their followers believe them... no matter what they write or what they put in our cinemas. This all seemed to start around the time of the Vietnam War. It has gotten "worse" every decade since the Vietnam War. These followers love to complain and protest. They think protesting does good somehow. They think anything Repub is evil and must be a violation of the laws. Oh... war is not a clean thing. Never has been. This story kind of make me think of Cincy native Matt Maupin. Gee, wonder how abused he was and where the hell his body is located? Perhaps Josh White can share some details with us American citizens? But perhaps Josh feels the treatment of a Saddam loyalist is more important? Personally, I care more about Maupin. I do not think Matt ever led troops who rape and murder innocent civilians.

Do you call car bombs abusive? Do you call suicide bombers (targeting civilians) abusive? Do you call leaders feeding lies to their suicide bombers abusive?

But remember... everyone in this great country is free to leave at their desire. Do not let that red-white-and-blue door hit ya in the buttocks on the way out. Good luck finding the liberal utopia that you all desire. GOOD LUCK!

[ochre]

There are rules to warfare.

In an unconventional war car bombs, suicide bombs, and civilian casualties are part of the cost. Killing prisoners of war, or even criminals without a trial is unacceptable behavior. The fact that its happening on both sides is immaterial. Nobody said "republicans are bad" in that article, in fact, I'd expect a fine upstanding republican to be outraged that these types of actions are being carried out in their (all of our) name.

All the non sequiturs, ad hominems, ad nauseams, Bifurcations, Red Herrings, and shiftings of the burdens of proof in the world will not make this issue go away. Notice they have already placed the onus on a couple of soldiers from Ft. Carson. Plausible Deniability defense being lined up?

[pedro]

You can't claim we are spreading freedom and liberty throughout the world and then condone these actions, if indeed they are true.

If we, as a country, are going to claim the moral high road, then we must be held to higher standard. I don't see what is so complicated about this.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Ignorance is bliss.

We don't want to know about this kind of thing, don't want to believe it when it's shoved in our faces, and have so much invested in our support of God, King, and Country that to admit their faults is to admit our own. The battle lines have been drawn so clearly in the past decade, we've come to identify ourselves by our political identification, it becomes who we are. "Who am I? I am a ." And [i]we can't be wrong, not when we believe so fervently in our convictions... therefore, whatever our Country does is right, no matter how vile or reprehensible it is.

IMO. :D

[Johnny Footstool]

These followers love to complain and protest. They think protesting does good somehow.
Things would be better if we all just goose-stepped in line?

Also, did you do any complaining when Clinton was in office? I'll bet you did.


They think anything Repub is evil and must be a violation of the laws.
I must have missed reading the attack on Republicans in the article. Can you point it out to me?


Do you call leaders feeding lies to their suicide bombers abusive?
How interesting that you would write this, considering the fact that our own leaders lied about WMDs and sent plenty of Americans to their deaths. Do you call that abusive?


But remember... everyone in this great country is free to leave at their desire.
We're also free to stay and give our dissenting opinions, even though that seems to bother you.


Good luck finding the liberal utopia that you all desire.
We're already living in it, thanks. BTW - there was a conservative utopia at one point in recent history, but I'm pretty sure it was dissolved in 1945.

[Falls City Beer]

We're liberals. And we ain't going anywhere. Deal.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Johnny, are you saying that I favor the Nazi way? You are so wrong (but you know that). But a good case in point to the way our country has become. If I disagree with you, then name-calling starts and I must adhere to the Nazi way. Some Repubs, that are extremists, call those who disagree with them Socialists. I do not revert to the name-calling.

I was not a President Clinton supporter. I also felt that Pres. Clinton always had good intentions. But I did not complain like today's grown babies scream, blubber and cry. But that is their way. If it does not turn out my way, then I protest and call people names. I label my country as bad and as a Nation of Liars.

If you cannot read the Repub attcak that is blatantly between the lines, then I cannot help you. What our country has become {since George W. Bush won the presidency}. There... is that easier to understand?

Lied or were misinformed about WMD? I guess it depends on if you are liberal or not. Sent plenty of Americans to their death? I do not like the way that is phrased... but it is par for the course to what my first sentence in post #1 above said. Thanks for confirming that sentence. Back to your Prtes. Clinton reference... I am sure you feel JFK and LBJ sent many Americans to their deaths after the Gulf of Tonkin incident? I thought soldiers signed up willingly and with the knowledge that they may face combat. Is this not true? Perhaps the liberals can get the soldiers a Union and allow them to negotiate and go on strike when they so desire? Then more campaign donations to the Dems!!

Your opinions are fine. And expect others to disagree. I hope that thing that some were calling the "elitist attitude" is not happening here. That supposedly turns people off and loses votes. When will we learn?

BTW... I don't agree with the opinions sometimes, but I do not ding rep points for not agreeing. It is the nature of politics. Can all of your political allies here say the same (Johnny has not dinged me, but XXXXXs have)?

[RedFanAlways1966]

We're liberals. And we ain't going anywhere. Deal.

And right back atcha, liberal REDS fan. Deal!

[registerthis]

I don't see why there is even discussion on this.

Either this type of behavior is tolerated, or it isn't. If we claim to be this beacon of hope for liberty, justice and freedom...and in turn commit acts like this, set up camps at Abu Ghraib, falsify intelligence to create a war...then we come off as complete hypocrites to the international community.

As Johnny wrote, the article above never mentions Republicans or conservatives--so I'm not sure what RFS66's beef with it is. Either you support it, or you don't. And if you don't, stories like that above must make you sick--because it is not the actions of a nation I want to be a citizen of.

[registerthis]

Things would be better if we all just goose-stepped in line?
No dissent here, Johnny. It's unpatriotic!!! :usa:

[pedro]

I honestly don't see why Liberal vs. Conservative has to come into this issue.

All Americans should be appalled by such actions IMO, and I'm not so sure all conservatives would appreciate your take on this RFA1966.

Certainly, the article may, as you say RFA1966, be a thinly veiled attack on the current administration, but you need to take a step back and realize that just because the Bush admin may be Republicans, they do not get a free pass or a failing grade on all their actions along party lines. If you want to put the world in such neat little boxes, go ahead, but don't expect everyone else to approach the world with the same level of simplicity you appear to want to.

[Blimpie]

I don't see why there is even discussion on this.

Either this type of behavior is tolerated, or it isn't. If we claim to be this beacon of hope for liberty, justice and freedom...and in turn commit acts like this, set up camps at Abu Ghraib, falsify intelligence to create a war...then we come off as complete hypocrites to the international community.

As Johnny wrote, the article above never mentions Republicans or conservatives--so I'm not sure what RFS66's beef with it is. Either you support it, or you don't. And if you don't, stories like that above must make you sick--because it is not the actions of a nation I want to be a citizen of.I am sure that RFA1966 doesn't need anyone to speak for him. But if I were forced to guess, I would say that after reading the source for the story was the Washington Post, one could immediately draw several conclusions as to which direction the rest of the article might be heading.

I have seen quite similar reactions once a story appears on this board that is sourced from the Drudge Report....People who identify themselves as liberals are immediately on the defensive.

[Johnny Footstool]

If you cannot read the Repub attcak that is blatantly between the lines, then I cannot help you.
So every time we argue against the war, every time we frown on atrocities, it's "an attack on the Republicans?" Are the Republicans somehow *in favor* of atrocities? I don't know any who are.

But I did not complain like today's grown babies scream, blubber and cry.
Considering how vocal you are even when your own party is in power, I have a very, very hard time believing that.

Lied or were misinformed about WMD? I guess it depends on if you are liberal or not.
Classic. Let's debate the meaning of individual words. Maybe you're a Bill Clinton fan after all.

And I'm sure there are *no* conservatives who think Bush lied.

Perhaps the liberals can get the soldiers a Union and allow them to negotiate and go on strike when they so desire?
You really have no idea about how liberals view the world.

[registerthis]

I am sure that RFS66 doesn't need anyone to speak for him. But if I were forced to guess, I would say that after reading the source for the story was the Washington Post, one could immediately draw several conclusions as to which direction the rest of the article might be heading.
Really? I wouldn't. Just yesterday they ran a prominent editorial about how the Democrats were out of place to block the Bolton nomination. On Sunday they ran a front page story extolling the recent successes Republicans have had pushing bills through Congress. And, lest we forget, the Post supported Bush's call for war in March 2003.

Matt Drudge and the Washington Post aren't even in the same league. I could understand if the article posted was from Michael Moore's page or something similar...but the Post is a legitimate news source. And, again, I fail to see why an argument between conservatives and liberals needs to come up in an article describing the torture and death of a prisoner held by the U.S. Is the story fabricated? Embellished? Inaccurate? If so, then these inaccuracies should be pointed out. But discrediting it simply because it doesn't fit within your view of our nation, or the world, is misplaced.

[Redsfaithful]

I am sure that RFS66 doesn't need anyone to speak for him. But if I were forced to guess, I would say that after reading the source for the story was the Washington Post, one could immediately draw several conclusions as to which direction the rest of the article might be heading.

I have seen quite similar reactions once a story appears on this board that is sourced from the Drudge Report....People who identify themselves as liberals are immediately on the defensive.

I don't even know what to say to someone who'd compare The Washington Post with Matt Drudge.

[dsmith421]

I have seen quite similar reactions once a story appears on this board that is sourced from the Drudge Report....People who identify themselves as liberals are immediately on the defensive.

Oh, COME ON.

On the one hand you have one man with a website who has become notorious for posting half-truths and "developing..." crap, most of it overtly slanted toward this person's political views.

On the other hand, you have one of the ten most read and respected newspapers in the Western world. Although its editorial board slants liberal, its news department is wholly credible.

See the difference?

[Falls City Beer]

I don't even know what to say to someone who'd compare The Washington Post with Matt Drudge.

The right's act of martyrdom, the "we get no representation in the 'mainstream media'" act is frankly unbearably tired. I'm no longer outraged with the right's insistence that up is down and black is white, I'm just bored with it.

[Blimpie]

Honestly, you guys need to gear it down a notch. Perhaps you should re-read my post. Nowhere in it did I compare the Drudge Report to the Washington Post in either style or content.

My ONLY point was that the mere mention of either name in a dateline of a story now elicits a firestorm of knee-jerk overreactions from both sides of the political spectrum. I feel that people are intrinsically lazy and just read the source of the story and then skip straight to crafting their rebuttals--without the benefit of actually reading and/or absorbing the content of the story. I agree with the statement that the posted article did not mention Republicans or Democrats. I was simply saying that it is possible that RFA1966 "felt" as though the Republicans were being targeted once he read the source for the story.

Basically, you all proved my point within minutes of me mentioning Drudge. So, consider my case study non-partisan and complete in its entirety.

[Redsfaithful]

My ONLY point was that the mere mention of either name in a dateline of a story now elicits a firestorms of knee-jerk overreactions from both sides of the political spectrum.

And everyone else's point seemed to be that the mention of the name The Washington Post shouldn't elicit such a reaction from anyone.

[Blimpie]

I don't even know what to say to someone who'd compare The Washington Post with Matt Drudge.Actually, you shouldn't even feel compelled to respond. From where I stand, there is a difference between "mentioning" the two entities and "comparing" them. BTW, is it okay with you if I refer to Drudge as an "entity?"

[Blimpie]

And everyone else's point seemed to be that the mention of the name The Washington Post shouldn't elicit such a reaction from anyone.No. Actually, that was MY point, not yours. The subsequent series of posts from "everyone" were far different in nature. To be accurate, I was immediately accused of espousing my feelings that Drudge was "comparable" to the Washington Post:

(Post # 15) Matt Drudge and the Washington Post aren't even in the same league

(Post # 16) I don't even know what to say to someone who'd compare The Washington Post with Matt Drudge.

(Post # 17) Oh, COME ON.

On the one hand you have one man with a website who has become notorious for posting half-truths and "developing..." crap, most of it overtly slanted toward this person's political views.

On the other hand, you have one of the ten most read and respected newspapers in the Western world. Although its editorial board slants liberal, its news department is wholly credible.

See the difference?

[ochre]

I have seen quite similar reactions once a story appears on this board that is sourced from the Drudge Report....People who identify themselves as liberals are immediately on the defensive.

Basically, you all proved my point within minutes of me mentioning Drudge. So, consider my case study non-partisan and complete in its entirety.

I'd rather not.

Your similitude was in fact a similitude. Whether you meant it to be or not, what you posted compared the Drudge Report to the Washington Post. Your intention was to establish a premise. This premise breaks down on a few levels. The first of which is ignoring the fact that stuff posted from the Drudge report might be deserving of the scorn that it receives (the comparison is necessary to validate your premise). Additionally itsa Tu quoque fallacy to say "so, you do the same thing".
(http://Tu%20quoque%20fallacy%20to%20say%20%22so,%20you%20 do%20the%20same%20thing%22.%3Cbr%20/%3E%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E)

[registerthis]

I'd rather not.

Your similitude was in fact a similitude. Whether you meant it to be or not, what you posted compared the Drudge Report to the Washington Post. Your intention was to establish a premise. This premise breaks down on a few levels. The first of which is ignoring the fact that stuff posted from the Drudge report might be deserving of the scorn that it receives (the comparison is necessary to validate your premise). Additionally its a Tu quoque fallacy to say "so, you do the same thing".
Exactly. The comparison was made when Blimpie raised the issue that seeing the source was the Washington Post should elicit the same type of scrutiny applied to stories which appear on the Drudge Report.

Let's turn this around a bit and see if it makes any more sense:
I am sure that **** doesn't need anyone to speak for him. But if I were forced to guess, I would say that after reading the source for the story was the Cincinnati Enquirer, one could immediately draw several conclusions as to which direction the rest of the article might be heading.

I have seen quite similar reactions once a story appears on this board that is sourced from Michael Moore's website....People who identify themselves as conservatives are immediately on the defensive.

[Falls City Beer]

I'd rather not.

Your similitude was in fact a similitude. Whether you meant it to be or not, what you posted compared the Drudge Report to the Washington Post. Your intention was to establish a premise. This premise breaks down on a few levels. The first of which is ignoring the fact that stuff posted from the Drudge report might be deserving of the scorn that it receives (the comparison is necessary to validate your premise). Additionally itsa Tu quoque fallacy to say "so, you do the same thing".
(http://Tu%20quoque%20fallacy%20to%20say%20%22so,%20you%20 do%20the%20same%20thing%22.%3Cbr%20/%3E%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E)

This would get rep, but the Man's keeping me down. :thumbup:

[RedFanAlways1966]

Perhaps the member who started the thread has a trend on the non-BB side? Would those who question me in this thread say that I, RFA1966, have a trend on the non-BB side? I am pretty sure that Dom does and so do most of those who question my intentions in this thread. Funny to see you all get all up-in-arms b/c someone from "the other side" has the nerve to say certain things. Sure you argue against them (some of you). No problem with that. That is why we hit that "submit a post button", right? Some of you just lob one-liners in an attempt to degrade (I am used to that and not bothered). You can pick apart my words as you please. I think most understand the 1st paragraph in this post.

And before I get too worked up and start badmouthing my country, I'll wait for all the facts to be released. All U.S.-involved wars have had crimes committed by our military. ALL OF THE WARS. Do I think it is justifiable that these crimes happen? No. Do I think my entire country has a problem and the country is bad b/c of these isolated incidents? No. But I have studied war and understand that these things happen. Worse things happen everyday in our own cities. But that is no reason to label the entire country. It is good to see that we punish those found guilty of these war crimes though. Something that did not happen when this Major General was in charge. As a matter of fact... I wonder how many innocent people (women & kids included) died at the hands of him and/or his troops?

[Johnny Footstool]

The guy was no saint -- he probably deserved what he got. But the point is that the US is trying to show Iraq and all the Middle East that our way of life is better than that of their old regime. It comes off as duplicitous for us to condemn torture, then torture Iraqis (however deserving) to death. It only fuels the fires of terrorism.

[ochre]

Perhaps the member who started the thread has a trend on the non-BB side?
that is the foundational position to justify ad hominem?

Evaluate the situation and find fault with the facts presented. Don't prejudge the issue based on who posted it here. It does happen from both sides. It still isn't a proper way to debate.

I tend to think this report is most likely accurate. What do you think about it if it is true?

[registerthis]

I tend to think this report is most likely accurate. What do you think about it if it is true?
I've been trying to ascertain this for the entire thread, all I'm getting in return is a bunch of gobbledy-gook.

[Rojo]

And before I get too worked up and start badmouthing my country, I'll wait for all the facts to be released.

A quick prediction: when the "facts" you eagerly await arrive, your silence will deafen.

[PickOff]

When former Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush died in U.S. custody on Nov. 26, 2003, American military officials issued a press release saying that he had passed away of natural causes after complaining of feeling sick.

As Josh White explains in today's Washington Post, Mowhoush died while stuffed in a sleeping bag, wrapped in an electrical cord, after a CIA-sponsored group of Iraqi paramilitaries, working with Army interrogators, had beaten him severely with their fists, a club and a rubber hose.

Two Army soldiers from Fort Carson, Colo., have been charged in Mowhoush's death, and two more who allegedly played a role face other military punishment. As for the CIA's role? The agency's inspector general has launched an investigation, White says, but the agency itself won't comment.

www.salon.com

Since two Army soldiers have been charged in Mowhoush's death, then it would stand to reason that Mowhoush did not 'pass away of natural causes after complaining of feeling sick' like American military officials claimed in a press release back in '03.

Three things:

1. Don't use torture. John McCain will tell you why.
2. If you do use torture don't proclaim it, but definantly don't out and out lie and say someone died of natural causes because then even more credibility is lost.
3. Punish those that made the decision to utlilize torture, not those that were ordered or coerced or manipulated to do so.

[Dom Heffner]

Perhaps the member who started the thread has a trend on the non-BB side?

Yeah, and it isn't bringing up Ted Kennedy or ad hominen attacks, either. :)

[registerthis]

A quick prediction: when the "facts" you eagerly await arrive, your silence will deafen.
Rojo, by "facts" I that means a softened/fact-deprived version that appears in a right-wing mouthpiece, ala the Drudge Report.

[Blimpie]

Rojo, by "facts" I that means a softened/fact-deprived version that appears in a right-wing mouthpiece, ala the Drudge Report. :deadhorse

[Rojo]

You can drag a dead horse to knowledge but you can't make him think.

[CrackerJack]

If we, as a country, are going to claim the moral high road, then we must be held to higher standard. I don't see what is so complicated about this.

I don't either....<shrugs>

[Blimpie]

You can drag a dead horse to knowledge but you can't make him think.Truer words were never spoken.