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 [insert political party here]." And 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.

[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!!!

[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.