Was Abu Ghraib a case of terrorism?

[Senior citizen]

Even if the chimp disregards it or changes it to suit himself, we do have some foreign intelligence. We must have known that there were no terrorists with ties to Al Queda in Iraq before we invaded. We also probably knew that there were no WMD, and given Al Qaaqaa, we certainly weren't interested in weapons anyway. Since there was no useful information that we could torture out of them (we already had Sadaam), it looks to me like the only purpose of Abu Ghraib was to terrorize a civilian population so that they wouldn't protest when it became obvious that we weren't there to help them, but only to take their oil. I think the administration must have figured that if Sadaam could keep Iraqis oppressed, we could do the same. Nobody realized that it would be similar to the difference between when a parent punishes a child, and when a stranger does it. It was poorly thought out, and it backfired big time.

[shraby]

1. Two words

War crimes.

[despairing optimist]

2. It sure was for the inmates

For guards taking pride in their ability to make people wet their undies, I'd say no. I'd say that's criminal, and so do the courts.

[Sinnerman]

3. This crime is impeachable why hasn't he been impeached

[REP]

4. Because Torture is Not As Bad As A Blow-Job

Where are the hand-wringing articles about 'how do we explain torture to the chiiiiiildruuuuun?'

[ezekiel333]

5. Um...

Because the Congress has to do it and the fascists have the majority.

[Senior citizen]

6. Not for long, they don't.

Every reason people have for voting Kerry, is a reason to also vote a straight Democratic ticket at the Congressional level.