Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/16/2008 3:04:14 PM EDT
blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/us-military-fre.html


Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was released today, more than two years after he was first detained  by the U.S. military.

Hussein was accused of having ties to the insurgency. The U.S. military never filed formal charges, and an Iraqi panel ordered his release earlier this month.

"I want to thank all the people working in AP. ... I have spent two years in prison even though I was innocent. I thank everybody," Hussein told the wire service.

AFP says the U.S. military accused Hussein, a 36-year-old Iraq, of being a "terrorist media operative."

“After the action by the Iraqi judicial committees, we reviewed the circumstances of Hussein’s detention and determined that he no longer presents an imperative threat to security,”  Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone said in a statement.  “I have therefore ordered that he be released from Coalition force custody.”

Reporters Without Borders welcomed that decision.

“We urge U.S. authorities to follow up Hussein’s release by freeing Sudanese journalist Sami Al-Haj, an Al-Jazeera cameraman held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba since 2002, and Afghan journalist Jawed Ahmad, who has been held at a U.S. airbase in Afghanistan for the past five months,” the group says in a statement.


Is it disturbing that a photographer, of all people, was detained for two years without charges?  "Terrorist media operative"?  WTF is that?  A guy that talks bad about the US?  This warrants imprisonment for two years?  I don't get it.

I'm all about chasing down AQ/OBL and any active sympathizers, but I really don't get this one at all.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:05:29 PM EDT
I hear what you're saying, but alot of people on this board won't.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:07:13 PM EDT
he wasn't an American citizen? if not my care-functions are somewhat limited, but its still not right and the guy should defintly get some monetary compensation for his lost time/waterboardings.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:10:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 3:10:33 PM EDT by mcgredo]
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:10:13 PM EDT
Sometimes when an organization demands results and fails to punish people for dishonorable behavior, weird stuff happens.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:11:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PreBanPatry:
he wasn't an American citizen? if not my care-functions are somewhat limited, but its still not right and the guy should defintly get some monetary compensation for his lost time/waterboardings.


No, I think he was an Iraqi civilian--not that it matters much after you've been imprisoned for two years for what was apparently nothing at all...
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:14:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


Hmmm.  Maybe he was not so innocent after all.  Those are not photographs that, say, you or I could have taken and survived...  How the hell were they unable to charge this guy?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:41:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TerribleTom:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


Hmmm.  Maybe he was not so innocent after all.  Those are not photographs that, say, you or I could have taken and survived...  How the hell were they unable to charge this guy?


Possibly because he wasn't directly involved with ops.

In Beirut, there were lots of local stringers that were related (usually literally) to local crooks, terrorist, psychos, and other "freedom fighters".  They did show up, take (often staged) pictured, and the almost certainly had advanced knowledge, sometimes quite explicit.  They were also good about tipping off the US if they were paid enough, and they were a valuable resource.  Were they the enemy?  Or were they are neutral as they could be and looking to make a buck?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:43:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


They should just have shot him.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:45:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swede1986:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


They should just have shot him.


We should have put him on the payroll.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:48:29 PM EDT
In fact, he wasn't cleared of charges. The crimes for which he was going to be charged were covered under an amnesty. The Iraqi government said "anyone doing X between the times A and B is given an amnesty", and the crimes for which he was going to be charged occurred in that period.

He was found with bomb parts and with two insurgent leaders, including one who was an al Qaeda in Iraq leader.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:49:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swede1986:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


They should just have shot him.


Well if Michelle Malkin says it's so then it must be true.

I posted this earlier. A few months ago the usual crowds told me this was a slam dunk case and that the guy should be convicted and sent to rot.

They never bothered to turn up and defend themselves in my thread, either.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:51:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
In fact, he wasn't cleared of charges. The crimes for which he was going to be charged were covered under an amnesty. The Iraqi government said "anyone doing X between the times A and B is given an amnesty", and the crimes for which he was going to be charged occurred in that period.

He was found with bomb parts and with two insurgent leaders, including one who was an al Qaeda in Iraq leader.


The "bomb parts" were electronics that you could pick up at any Radio Shack.
The insurgent leaders are who he was embedded with.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:54:03 PM EDT
So should a journalist that interviews anyone deemed to be the enemy be subject to imprisonment?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:54:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:55:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 3:57:09 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:03:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By swede1986:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


They should just have shot him.


Well if Michelle Malkin says it's so then it must be true.

I posted this earlier. A few months ago the usual crowds told me this was a slam dunk case and that the guy should be convicted and sent to rot.

They never bothered to turn up and defend themselves in my thread, either.


I responded that you assertion that him being released equaled him being innocent was a failure of logic. Released does not=innocent. Released=we didn't see a need to hold you longer. Given there is an ammnesty program going on there, it is even more foolish to assume release=innocence.

You never bothered to turn up and respond to that.

I know you "press" guys seem to feel your comrades can do no wrong, but a press badge does not equal anything more than who you work for.


I realize that a press badge doesn't confer angel wings. But the whole case stunk to high-heavens. And, as I said, plenty of people showed up to say this guy was guilty as sin and should swing.

So much of the case seemed predicated on "he took pictures of the other guys" that it was simply ridiculous.

Pardon my skepticism that they simply had used him up and were letting him go. This had been a huge smudge on the military's reputation with the press corps. They tried stonewalling some of the best investigative journalists in the field and found out that doesn't work too well and wound up with egg on their face.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:08:23 PM EDT
OST
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:09:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By swede1986:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


They should just have shot him.


Well if Michelle Malkin says it's so then it must be true.

I posted this earlier. A few months ago the usual crowds told me this was a slam dunk case and that the guy should be convicted and sent to rot.

They never bothered to turn up and defend themselves in my thread, either.


I responded that you assertion that him being released equaled him being innocent was a failure of logic. Released does not=innocent. Released=we didn't see a need to hold you longer. Given there is an ammnesty program going on there, it is even more foolish to assume release=innocence.

You never bothered to turn up and respond to that.

I know you "press" guys seem to feel your comrades can do no wrong, but a press badge does not equal anything more than who you work for.


I realize that a press badge doesn't confer angel wings. But the whole case stunk to high-heavens. And, as I said, plenty of people showed up to say this guy was guilty as sin and should swing.

So much of the case seemed predicated on "he took pictures of the other guys" that it was simply ridiculous.

Pardon my skepticism that they simply had used him up and were letting him go. This had been a huge smudge on the military's reputation with the press corps. They tried stonewalling some of the best investigative journalists in the field and found out that doesn't work too well and wound up with egg on their face.


Who cares what the media thinks of the troops?  They bend over backwards to hang the troops out to dry anyway.

They should still shoot the guy.  And if he keeps taking the pictures he is magically able to take, he may yet get shot.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:10:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Pardon my skepticism that they simply had used him up and were letting him go. This had been a huge smudge on the military's reputation with the press corps. They tried stonewalling some of the best investigative journalists in the field and found out that doesn't work too well and wound up with egg on their face.


Not speaking for the .mil or the press, but when it comes to reputation, the press has none.

Before you get all butthurt, stop and consider about all the newshounds sticking their mics in front of a medic or firefighter who has just come out of a bad scene. Gotta get that story.

The press should be thankful for lawyers & politicians, because otherwise they would be the most despised people on the planet.

Seriously, the press whining about someone else's reputation is like a crackwhore admonishing others for promiscuity.

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:15:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 103:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By swede1986:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


They should just have shot him.


Well if Michelle Malkin says it's so then it must be true.

I posted this earlier. A few months ago the usual crowds told me this was a slam dunk case and that the guy should be convicted and sent to rot.

They never bothered to turn up and defend themselves in my thread, either.


I responded that you assertion that him being released equaled him being innocent was a failure of logic. Released does not=innocent. Released=we didn't see a need to hold you longer. Given there is an ammnesty program going on there, it is even more foolish to assume release=innocence.

You never bothered to turn up and respond to that.

I know you "press" guys seem to feel your comrades can do no wrong, but a press badge does not equal anything more than who you work for.


I realize that a press badge doesn't confer angel wings. But the whole case stunk to high-heavens. And, as I said, plenty of people showed up to say this guy was guilty as sin and should swing.

So much of the case seemed predicated on "he took pictures of the other guys" that it was simply ridiculous.

Pardon my skepticism that they simply had used him up and were letting him go. This had been a huge smudge on the military's reputation with the press corps. They tried stonewalling some of the best investigative journalists in the field and found out that doesn't work too well and wound up with egg on their face.


Who cares what the media thinks of the troops?  They bend over backwards to hang the troops out to dry anyway.

They should still shoot the guy.  And if he keeps taking the pictures he is magically able to take, he may yet get shot.


You're living in a dream world. If the press wanted to hang the troops out to dry it would be easier than you think.

Ever seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib the press didn't run? I have.
Want to send photographers to military hospitals to get shots of guys without faces, without arms, dickless, basket cases? Want to see recruiting dry to a trickle?
Press coverage of these conflicts hasn't been glowing because it's not supposed to be. It's not my job to shill. But if the press wanted to stab the military in the back (it doesn't, BTW) there are ample ways to do it.

But they should still shoot the guy? Is this the sort of democracy and justice you're hoping to install in Iraq? Nice product you're selling.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:16:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:17:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Pardon my skepticism that they simply had used him up and were letting him go. This had been a huge smudge on the military's reputation with the press corps. They tried stonewalling some of the best investigative journalists in the field and found out that doesn't work too well and wound up with egg on their face.


Not speaking for the .mil or the press, but when it comes to reputation, the press has none.

Before you get all butthurt, stop and consider about all the newshounds sticking their mics in front of a medic or firefighter who has just come out of a bad scene. Gotta get that story.

The press should be thankful for lawyers & politicians, because otherwise they would be the most despised people on the planet.

Seriously, the press whining about someone else's reputation is like a crackwhore admonishing others for promiscuity.



I've covered fires, robberies, emergencies, etc..., I didn't stick a mic in anyone's face. Look to the clowns at cable news if you want to point fingers.

Sometimes unpopular things need to be said and questions that piss people off need to be asked, I'm not going to apologize for either.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:23:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By swede1986:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


They should just have shot him.


Well if Michelle Malkin says it's so then it must be true.

I posted this earlier. A few months ago the usual crowds told me this was a slam dunk case and that the guy should be convicted and sent to rot.

They never bothered to turn up and defend themselves in my thread, either.


As far as i remember Uncle Sugar refused to release any information about the case. So you made a thread based on your personal bias.  
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:23:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:


I realize that a press badge doesn't confer angel wings. But the whole case stunk to high-heavens. And, as I said, plenty of people showed up to say this guy was guilty as sin and should swing.

So much of the case seemed predicated on "he took pictures of the other guys" that it was simply ridiculous.

Pardon my skepticism that they simply had used him up and were letting him go. This had been a huge smudge on the military's reputation with the press corps. They tried stonewalling some of the best investigative journalists in the field and found out that doesn't work too well and wound up with egg on their face.


And those best investigative journalists only took the case because he was "one of them" and they were determined to prove his innocence...no bias there at all. And even then, they couldn't do it. Instead, they spun things just like you did right here with the "stuff you can buy at radio shack" line. That line in itself is clear spin...because you can build an entire EID initiation system with "stuff you can buy at radio shack" and many are built of exactly that. In certain combinations, it is easy to tell what the intent was. We detained several folks on posession of IED materials, and it was more than just having some random componets, it was having items where the clear common use in that area was IED construction. To spin that as "just stuff from radio shack" shows a very, very clear bias.

Posession doesn't mean he was building IED's, hell he could have been trading componets for access. In fact, that would be my guess... wanting the story bad enough he is buying or transporting those componets to gain trust and access with our enemies.

It also shows bias to assume his release, at a time when the Iraqi government has declared ammnesty for those very thinsg during that time period, is someone an admission of his innocence of the result of pressure by the press.

If his detention was a "hudge smudge" on military/press relations, I just lost a little more of what little respect I have for the press in general.


Just stuff from Radio Shack is correct. You forgot to mention they arrested him in an apartment above an electrician's workshop. Where they found *gasp* electronic components.

That the people who knew him and worked with him, at peril to their own lives, had some doubts about the official story is surprising? You don't think there's a communal bond among war journalists just like there is among soldiers? Do you think a different blood pumps through their veins or what?

How could it not be a smudge? "Hey this is our guy and this evidence is half-baked."
"Eat shit."
What is the next logical response?
"Gee, THANKS!"
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:26:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FMJshooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By swede1986:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


They should just have shot him.


Well if Michelle Malkin says it's so then it must be true.

I posted this earlier. A few months ago the usual crowds told me this was a slam dunk case and that the guy should be convicted and sent to rot.

They never bothered to turn up and defend themselves in my thread, either.


As far as i remember Uncle Sugar refused to release any information about the case. So you made a thread based on your personal bias.  


All I asked, and all the AP asked for two years. Is for the military to present evidence. I don't think it's too much to ask that when you hold someone you at least admit why.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:28:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:30:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:32:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 4:34:15 PM EDT by JonasWright]

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:


You're living in a dream world. If the press wanted to hang the troops out to dry it would be easier than you think.

Ever seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib the press didn't run? I have.
Want to send photographers to military hospitals to get shots of guys without faces, without arms, dickless, basket cases? Want to see recruiting dry to a trickle?
Press coverage of these conflicts hasn't been glowing because it's not supposed to be. It's not my job to shill. But if the press wanted to stab the military in the back (it doesn't, BTW) there are ample ways to do it.


I have direct experience with the press in a combat zone. 70-80% of them are scum, looking for anything that looks bad that will get them a story that draws attention. It is not about the story or the truth for them, but about what story will get them noticed....pure vanity in story choice. One guy we had at our FOB for 2 weeks. He was offered to go on a medical aid mission..not interested. Offered to go to the opening of a new school we build... said naah, no story. Interviewing our guys working with the ANA all he kept asking about were problems looking for bad news. But when a medevac chopper came in, he had to be physically restrained from running out to shove a camera in the wounded Soldiers face. He was locked down and sent out on the next thing flying after that incident.

He was the worst case, but there were other bad ones. Such as taking pictures critical areas of a FOB's defenses and posting them on the web. Climbing in the back of our vehicle looking at sensitive equipment after being told to stay out.

Every once in a while a good one would come around. But the most were not.


Sadly, journalists aren't excused from my general philosophy that 80% of any given dynamic is full of morons.

I'm glad you tossed his ass out. I don't have time for any asswipe who uses press rights to push their agenda.

That being said, he should have jumped at every opportunity for a story, including the wounded soldier. War has a cost.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:34:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:36:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Ever seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib the press didn't run? I have.
Want to send photographers to military hospitals to get shots of guys without faces, without arms, dickless, basket cases?


I've spent more than a few hours with Docs & Medics who were over there patching up folks (both ours and enemy)

I think they would have a few choice words for you, referring to their pts as "dickless basket cases"

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:37:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:38:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:


Just stuff from Radio Shack is correct. You forgot to mention they arrested him in an apartment above an electrician's workshop. Where they found *gasp* electronic components.
So your safe to posess IED making materials and hang aroudn with insurgents if you happen to live near an electrician? Gotcha. We had elictricians in teh towns we patrolled, and we could tell who was up to no good and who was not. And I am willing to bet that those who found those componets are in a far better position to judge what they were than a bunch of "journalists"(and I use the term lightly in this case) who never saw them at all.


That the people who knew him and worked with him, at peril to their own lives, had some doubts about the official story is surprising? You don't think there's a communal bond among war journalists just like there is among soldiers? Do you think a different blood pumps through their veins or what?

How could it not be a smudge? "Hey this is our guy and this evidence is half-baked."
"Eat shit."
What is the next logical response?
"Gee, THANKS!"


Once again, you seem to think the military has to justify its actions to the press. They do not.


The case became more than the military justifying actions to the press, it became why the U.S. military was using Soviet legal practices when it was supposed to be in the business of spreading democracy.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:39:08 PM EDT
GS... does it bother you at all that the guy was held for two years without charges being filed?  Is that right?

If the guy was guilty of something, charge him with a crime and throw him in jail.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:39:45 PM EDT
Well I'm pretty much screwed if having electronic parts can get you jailed. I even have.looks both ways and with hushed voice says; a multi-meter
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:41:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:41:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Pardon my skepticism that they simply had used him up and were letting him go. This had been a huge smudge on the military's reputation with the press corps. They tried stonewalling some of the best investigative journalists in the field and found out that doesn't work too well and wound up with egg on their face.


Not speaking for the .mil or the press, but when it comes to reputation, the press has none.

Before you get all butthurt, stop and consider about all the newshounds sticking their mics in front of a medic or firefighter who has just come out of a bad scene. Gotta get that story.

The press should be thankful for lawyers & politicians, because otherwise they would be the most despised people on the planet.

Seriously, the press whining about someone else's reputation is like a crackwhore admonishing others for promiscuity.



I've covered fires, robberies, emergencies, etc..., I didn't stick a mic in anyone's face. Look to the clowns at cable news if you want to point fingers.

Sometimes unpopular things need to be said and questions that piss people off need to be asked, I'm not going to apologize for either.


Not the cable news clowns that crowd accident scenes (and airspace, requiring Medevac helos having to call ATC for a little elbow room)


Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:41:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Ever seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib the press didn't run? I have.
Want to send photographers to military hospitals to get shots of guys without faces, without arms, dickless, basket cases?


I've spent more than a few hours with Docs & Medics who were over there patching up folks (both ours and enemy)

I think they would have a few choice words for you, referring to their pts as "dickless basket cases"



I wasn't referring to them as "dickless basket cases" as a pejorative. There are people who have no nuts because of war (not just this war.) There are people who are basket cases because of war (not just this war.) There are horrors the press has not shown. And to claim that the press is against the military, given all of this, is bizarre.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:41:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
GS... does it bother you at all that the guy was held for two years without charges being filed?  Is that right?

If the guy was guilty of something, charge him with a crime and throw him in jail.


Combat zone.  I want Patton.  He would have just had the guy shot right there.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:41:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
So should a journalist that interviews anyone deemed to be the enemy be subject to imprisonment?


If they're not Americans or operating in America then they have no rights under the freedom of the press. Fuck 'em.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:43:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:


The case became more than the military justifying actions to the press, it became why the U.S. military was using Soviet legal practices when it was supposed to be in the business of spreading democracy.


Wartime practices in the war zone are not the same as peactime back home. You are expecting the military in a war zone to pretend they are beat cops in Mayberry? In a war zone, you get caught doing bad things, you get locked up until they choose to let you go. That is how every war has been done, and will be done.


Prisoner detention in this case far surpassed accepted standards of Prisoner of War detention.
Christ, the residents of my hometown used to trade the German POWs cigarettes for the bread their baker was making.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:43:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Ever seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib the press didn't run? I have.
Want to send photographers to military hospitals to get shots of guys without faces, without arms, dickless, basket cases?


I've spent more than a few hours with Docs & Medics who were over there patching up folks (both ours and enemy)

I think they would have a few choice words for you, referring to their pts as "dickless basket cases"



I wasn't referring to them as "dickless basket cases" as a pejorative. There are people who have no nuts because of war (not just this war.) There are people who are basket cases because of war (not just this war.) There are horrors the press has not shown. And to claim that the press is against the military, given all of this, is bizarre.


And you tell me I live in a dream world.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:44:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:


The case became more than the military justifying actions to the press, it became why the U.S. military was using Soviet legal practices when it was supposed to be in the business of spreading democracy.


Wartime practices in the war zone are not the same as peactime back home. You are expecting the military in a war zone to pretend they are beat cops in Mayberry? In a war zone, you get caught doing bad things, you get locked up until they choose to let you go. That is how every war has been done, and will be done.


Prisoner detention in this case far surpassed accepted standards of Prisoner of War detention.
Christ, the residents of my hometown used to trade the German POWs cigarettes for the bread their baker was making.


He wasn't a POW.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:44:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:47:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:50:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
GS... does it bother you at all that the guy was held for two years without charges being filed?  Is that right?

If the guy was guilty of something, charge him with a crime and throw him in jail.


This was not Mayberry, it is a war zone. You are applying US legal standards back home to military operations in a war zone.

We never have charged prisoners during a war except in rare circumstances. You got caught/captured, you got held till we were ready to let you go.

Had he been a US citizen on US soil, I would be outraged. He was an Iraqi in a war zone caught with bomb making materials and hanging around with insurgents. Not the same by a long shot.

Or do you think all the Germans we held during WWII shoudl have been either charged or released?


So what you're saying is that the military can arrest anyone it wants, without charges, and hold them as long as they want on their own say so?  And they don't have to provide evidence of any wrong-doing?  They don't have to prove any sort of justification for arrest and imprisonment?  Their allegation is enough, in your eyes?

This is completely different from World War II and I think you know it.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:53:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
GS... does it bother you at all that the guy was held for two years without charges being filed?  Is that right?

If the guy was guilty of something, charge him with a crime and throw him in jail.


This was not Mayberry, it is a war zone. You are applying US legal standards back home to military operations in a war zone.

We never have charged prisoners during a war except in rare circumstances. You got caught/captured, you got held till we were ready to let you go.

Had he been a US citizen on US soil, I would be outraged. He was an Iraqi in a war zone caught with bomb making materials and hanging around with insurgents. Not the same by a long shot.

Or do you think all the Germans we held during WWII shoudl have been either charged or released?


So what you're saying is that the military can arrest anyone it wants, without charges, and hold them as long as they want on their own say so?  And they don't have to provide evidence of any wrong-doing?  They don't have to prove any sort of justification for arrest and imprisonment?  Their allegation is enough, in your eyes?

This is completely different from World War II and I think you know it.


Non-Americans in a war zone: yes.  And that's exactly how we did it in WWII with one big exception: we tended to simply execute on the spot people like this.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:53:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TerribleTom:
blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/us-military-fre.html


Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was released today, more than two years after he was first detained  by the U.S. military.

Hussein was accused of having ties to the insurgency. The U.S. military never filed formal charges, and an Iraqi panel ordered his release earlier this month.

"I want to thank all the people working in AP. ... I have spent two years in prison even though I was innocent. I thank everybody," Hussein told the wire service.

AFP says the U.S. military accused Hussein, a 36-year-old Iraq, of being a "terrorist media operative."

“After the action by the Iraqi judicial committees, we reviewed the circumstances of Hussein’s detention and determined that he no longer presents an imperative threat to security,”  Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone said in a statement.  “I have therefore ordered that he be released from Coalition force custody.”

Reporters Without Borders welcomed that decision.

“We urge U.S. authorities to follow up Hussein’s release by freeing Sudanese journalist Sami Al-Haj, an Al-Jazeera cameraman held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba since 2002, and Afghan journalist Jawed Ahmad, who has been held at a U.S. airbase in Afghanistan for the past five months,” the group says in a statement.


Is it disturbing that a photographer, of all people, was detained for two years without charges?  "Terrorist media operative"?  WTF is that?  A guy that talks bad about the US?  This warrants imprisonment for two years?  I don't get it.

I'm all about chasing down AQ/OBL and any active sympathizers, but I really don't get this one at all.


He is a terrorist and AQ/IAI media operative. He was freed, not because he was innocent, but because he fell under an Iraqi amnesty for captured insurgents.

Fuck him, they should have shot him in the field.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:55:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
In fact, he wasn't cleared of charges. The crimes for which he was going to be charged were covered under an amnesty. The Iraqi government said "anyone doing X between the times A and B is given an amnesty", and the crimes for which he was going to be charged occurred in that period.

He was found with bomb parts and with two insurgent leaders, including one who was an al Qaeda in Iraq leader.


The "bomb parts" were electronics that you could pick up at any Radio Shack.
The insurgent leaders are who he was embedded with.


You can make an IED with a cell phone and some parts from Radio Shack. Your point is?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:56:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By FMJshooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By swede1986:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Fucker was guilty as hell. He got off because of an amnesty, not because he didn't do the crime.

michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-bilal-hussein/

Including the famous MC Hammer mortar picture.


They should just have shot him.


Well if Michelle Malkin says it's so then it must be true.

I posted this earlier. A few months ago the usual crowds told me this was a slam dunk case and that the guy should be convicted and sent to rot.

They never bothered to turn up and defend themselves in my thread, either.


As far as i remember Uncle Sugar refused to release any information about the case. So you made a thread based on your personal bias.  


All I asked, and all the AP asked for two years. Is for the military to present evidence. I don't think it's too much to ask that when you hold someone you at least admit why.


Why?  Because he was considered somewhere between a POW and a criminal in a country where there is a war on.

But let me ask an honest question.  

Imagine this AP photographer started coming up with really good photo's of NeoNazis.  

-He gets to take photo's of skinheads shooting at a synagogue full of people in Atlanta.  

-He gets exclusive staged shots of two Nazi wannabees holding guns over a tied up black kid they later behead in Utah.  

-NeoNazis shooting at a Baptist church that condemmed them?  He's got that photo too.  

-Pics of NeoNazis planting bombs?  Do you prefer pipe bombs in Texas or truck bombs in Oregon?  

-Dead cops, dead Jews, dead kids.  He's got before and after photos of it all.

But he's just a journalist...    ...with an apartment full of plumber's pipe.

Would we be having this discussion?

If he got arrested here, he'd have habeas corpus.  Get arrested in a warzone, all bets are off.

Tex78
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:56:57 PM EDT
yeah, we should have held him just long enough to string a rope...


Or go straight up haji on the fuckhead and take his tongue, eyes and ears. *shrug*

Two years in a box don't hardly fit the crime.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top