Washington Post
13 June, 2004

By Josh White and Scott Higham

U.S. intelligence personnel ordered military dog handlers at the Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq to use unmuzzled dogs to frighten and intimidate
detainees during interrogations late last year, a plan approved by the
highest-ranking military intelligence officer at the facility,
according to sworn statements the handlers provided to military
investigators.

A military intelligence interrogator also told investigators that two
dog handlers at Abu Ghraib were "having a contest" to see how many
detainees they could make involuntarily urinate out of fear of the
dogs, according to the previously undisclosed statements obtained by
The Washington Post.

The statements by the dog handlers provide the clearest indication yet
that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved in tactics
later deemed by a U.S. Army general to be "sadistic, blatant and
wanton criminal abuses."

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:00:51 -0700, Oracle
wrote:

Washington Post, 13 June, 2004
By Josh White and Scott Higham

U.S. intelligence personnel ordered military dog handlers at the Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq to use unmuzzled dogs to frighten and intimidate
detainees during interrogations late last year,...

What a horrible waste of time, and undue stress on mighty fine dogs. We
should have just lopped off the detainees's heads--on video--and sent
the tapes, heads and all, back to Iraq. Iraqis seem to enjoy beheading.

Incidentally, what's your point, and what's it got to do with dog
behavior.



________________________
Jihad Joe--fighting man, from towel to toe.

On Jul 21, 10:59 am, Michael A. Ball wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:00:51 -0700,Oracle wrote:
U.S. intelligence personnel ordered military dog handlers at the Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq to use unmuzzled dogs to frighten and intimidate
detainees during interrogations late last year,...

What a horrible waste of time, and undue stress on mighty fine dogs.

I notice, you post on suicide and depression groups allot.
Perhaps, it is due to your lack of caring for the human suffering of
any one--but your own kind--that makes you despondent.

We should have just lopped off the detainees's heads--on video--and sent
the tapes, heads and all, back to Iraq. Iraqis seem to enjoy beheading.

Abu Ghraib prison, is in Iraq.
How could heads be: "lopped off," in Iraq: "and sent back to Iraq"???
Overdosing on meds, Michael?
"Iraqis seem to enjoy beheading"???
It is you that is promoting beheading here....
And, video-taping the beheadings!
It is you that seems to enjoy beheading...as long as it is beheading
of Muslims, of course.

Incidentally, what's your point,

All people--and all dogs, deserve to be treated with respect.
In war situations, the Geneva Convention of conduct--permissible to
prisoners of war, apply to all peoples.
The above abuses, spit in the face of the Geneva Convention rules of
conduct.

and what's it got to do with dog behavior.

The above, is not how military dogs are to be used in war.
Your own words: "undue stress on mighty fine dogs."

________________________
Jihad Joe--fighting man, from towel to toe.

G-I Joe--comes home in a body bag--dead...from head to toe.

www.costofwar.com

Use of highly trained dogs in a war is a common practice and to
intimidate POW is infact a far more common practice. Possibly, even
post vietnam war, the armed forces continue to use dogs as equipments
of war rather than a living being is a sad state of affairs. This
aspect had been strongly codemned by Vietnam veterans and
recommendations were infact approved by senate. But, my friend, the
use of military dog to intimidate POWs has nothing to do with a dogs
natural behaviour but reflect about the instinctive fear of human. I
do not agree with the statement "sadistic, blatant and wanton
criminal abuses" as dogs were merely used as weapons. And further that
calling it a criminal abuse is infact a greater crime as army has to
use weapons which is necessary to gain a strategic advantage..even
usage of military dogs.

However, unlike U S Soldiers, dogs did not do any thing wrong and does
not reflect the actual personality of a dog.

On Jul 22, 9:30 am, Sanjay wrote:
Use of highly trained dogs in a war is a common practice and to
intimidate POW is infact a far more common practice. Possibly, even
post vietnam war,

Intimidation of Prisoners Of War, is forbidden, by the Geneva
Convention--on treatment of POWS'

the armed forces continue to use dogs as equipments
of war rather than a living being is a sad state of affairs.

The use of dogs in wars, used correctly, helps tremendously. Saves
lives, sniffs out land mines, sees and smells dangers that humans are
not aware of, etc...
It is the use of military dogs to intimidate POWS', that is wrong, not
only morally, it is illegal according to the Geneva Convention on
treatment of POWS'.
The use of intimidation and aggression by dogs in combat, is
different.

This aspect had been strongly codemned by Vietnam veterans

As it should be.

and recommendations were infact approved by senate.

After the fact--and at much embarrassment to the USA, world wide.
For, how is it any different, what was done in Abu Ghraib prison--by
Americans, than what Saddam Hussein did?
President Bush, said: "We will win their hearts and minds."
Same, same--as Saddam.
Iraq, is worse off now, than before the war.
Now, THAT, is really something, only America and it's allies--could
make Saddam look good!

But, my friend, the use of military dog to intimidate POWs has nothing to do with a dogs

No.
It has to do with dogs and humans--who authorized the use of dogs to
inimidate POWS', by the highest-ranking American military intelligence
officers.

natural behaviour but reflect about the instinctive fear of human. I
do not agree with the statement "sadistic, blatant and wanton
criminal abuses" as dogs were merely used as weapons.

"Merely used as weapons"?
POWS', according to the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWS',
forbids sadistic, blatant and wanton
criminal abuses.

And further that calling it a criminal abuse is infact a greater crime as army has to
use weapons which is necessary to gain a strategic advantage..even
usage of military dogs.

Not on POWS'.

However, unlike U S Soldiers, dogs did not do any thing wrong and does
not reflect the actual personality of a dog.

I agree, the dogs were following orders, it is the US soldiers,
ordered by the highest-ranking American military intelligence
officers, that used dogs as weapons on POWS'.
It does not reflect on the personality of the dogs, it does, however,
corrupt the dogs temperament.

Oracle wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:30 am, Sanjay wrote:
Use of highly trained dogs in a war is a common practice and to
intimidate POW is infact a far more common practice. Possibly, even
post vietnam war,

Intimidation of Prisoners Of War, is forbidden, by the Geneva
Convention--on treatment of POWS'

[a response to this article has been posted to talk.politics.misc.]

Oh, and: Plonk.

--
Mark Shaw (And Baron) moc TOD liamg TA wahsnm
================================================== =======================
"Things that upset a terrier may pass
virtually unnoticed by a Great Dane." -Smiley Blanton

On Jul 22, 7:17 pm, Mark Shaw wrote:
Oracle wrote:

Intimidation of Prisoners Of War, is forbidden, by the Geneva
Convention--on treatment of POWS'

[a response to this article has been posted to talk.politics.misc.]

Here is the response:

"Captured terrorists/insurgents are not legitimate prisoners of
war. They are, in modern parlance, "illegal combatants."
Time was, these people would just be summarily executed. "

--
Mark Shaw (And Baron) moc TOD liamg TA
wahsnm
================================================== =======================
"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." -Robert A. Heinlein
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Any Arab will do?
Until charges are laid, evidence is examined--in a legal court of law--
no one is guilty, unless proven so in a legal court of law.
How is what you recommend, any different than what Saddam did?

"Time was, these people would just be summarily executed."
You are suggesting America go back to the days of: "The Wild West."
Democracy say's otherwise.




Oracle wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:30 am, Sanjay wrote:
Use of highly trained dogs in a war is a common practice and to
intimidate POW is infact a far more common practice. Possibly, even
post vietnam war,
Intimidation of Prisoners Of War, is forbidden, by the Geneva
Convention--on treatment of POWS'

[a response to this article has been posted to talk.politics.misc.]

Oh, and: Plonk.

--
Mark Shaw (And Baron) moc TOD liamg TA wahsnm
================================================== =======================
"Things that upset a terrier may pass
virtually unnoticed by a Great Dane." -Smiley Blanton