thedrifter
01-14-05, 07:28 AM
The Real Atrocities of Abu Ghraib
January 14, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Frank Salvato
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“He laughed. He was whistling. He was singing.” This was the testimony of Amin al-Sheikh in the Court’s Martial hearings against Army Spc. Charles Graner. Graner is charged with being the ringleader of a band of rogue American soldiers who forced Middle Eastern terrorists to commit humiliating acts in an effort to extract information regarding terrorist activity. Al-Sheikh is a Syrian terrorist who was captured while committing acts of terror against the Iraqi people and acts of aggression against the allies in Iraq. He is currently being detained at the Abu Ghraib prison, a facility that, until the liberation of Iraq, incarcerated political prisoners. Today it houses terrorists.
My words today are not in complete defense of Spc. Graner. If laws were broken and orders usurped then a fair and just punishment should be administered. Unlike the civilian court system that is routinely manipulated by the semantics of high-priced lawyers and the legislation of activist judges – a mockery of what our legal system was intended to be – the military justice system tends to be more equitable in its proceedings and more rigid in its punishment. What makes Spc. Garner’s case different from the military norm is that the mainstream media has mandated that the bastardized version of our civilian system be injected into our military system of justice.
Our civilian legal system has fallen into a pattern of relying on the testimony of those who have been convicted of committing crimes. We see it every day and from both sides of the aisle, the aisle being the dividing line between the prosecution and the defense. Invariably one side or the other will introduce a “witness” who can testify beyond a shadow of a doubt as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The only problem is that many times the “witness” is someone who resides behind bars and whose testimony will result in personal gain. We have grown accustomed to accepting the statements of these individuals as they attempt to gain favor with those on whose behalf they are testifying or who have something to gain by affording those who “employ” their testimony the information they want the jury to hear. We accept the testimony of those who have proven themselves untrustworthy and we do so to prosecute or defend those accused of crimes, sometimes with their lives hanging in the balance.
In the case of Spc. Graner the question begs to be asked, is there anyone in the world who believes that al-Sheikh would have testified any differently? After all, he is an insurgent terrorist who was caught by the allies committing acts of murder, acts of terror and acts of aggression against the Iraqi people and their allies. If there is anyone in the world besides the blinded-by-hate, “blame America first” crowd, the French government and the terrorists themselves who believe that al-Sheikh would have ever said, “No, Spc. Garner didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, in fact, he was quite professional in his duties,” then we have truly found the land of the imbecile. Al-Sheikh is a terrorist. He knows that he and his ilk are at war with the Western World and he will do anything to win the battle in order to win the war. He already has committed acts of aggression, terrorism and murder. What makes anyone think that telling a lie about his enemy in order to remove him from the battlefield would be beyond possibility? Quite frankly, anyone with half a brain should expect that al-Sheikh would be lying.
I will reiterate that I am not giving Spc. Graner a pass. If he has done something wrong then appropriate action should be taken. I will, however, say this in his defense. Whether the cowardly anti-war left in this country and around the world care to admit it or not, the West – not only the United States, but the entire Western culture – is at war with fanatical Islamic terrorists. They want our way of life extinguished and they want us either converted to radical Islam or dead, infidels that we are, there is no in between. This war has been going on for thousands of years dating back to before the Crusades and it has been proven throughout time that fanatical and radical Islamic jihadists don’t employ rules of engagement, they wage war to win at all costs, humanity be damned.
As the champions of freedom and democracy, we need to understand that sometimes, in our efforts to defend, attain and enable those very principles, we might have to do distasteful and perhaps “politically incorrect” things (insert sarcastic eye-roll here). But when the choice is between the evils of whistling while you make naked terrorists form a human pyramid and hooded cowards sawing the heads off of innocent kidnap victims the choice should be clear. It is astounding that for some people it is not.
Keeping all this in mind let’s ponder this question: whose word should we suspect to be more truthful, the word of an American soldier or the word of an incarcerated Syrian terrorist? Come on, people, this questions shouldn’t be so hard.
Frank Salvato
Ellie
January 14, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Frank Salvato
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“He laughed. He was whistling. He was singing.” This was the testimony of Amin al-Sheikh in the Court’s Martial hearings against Army Spc. Charles Graner. Graner is charged with being the ringleader of a band of rogue American soldiers who forced Middle Eastern terrorists to commit humiliating acts in an effort to extract information regarding terrorist activity. Al-Sheikh is a Syrian terrorist who was captured while committing acts of terror against the Iraqi people and acts of aggression against the allies in Iraq. He is currently being detained at the Abu Ghraib prison, a facility that, until the liberation of Iraq, incarcerated political prisoners. Today it houses terrorists.
My words today are not in complete defense of Spc. Graner. If laws were broken and orders usurped then a fair and just punishment should be administered. Unlike the civilian court system that is routinely manipulated by the semantics of high-priced lawyers and the legislation of activist judges – a mockery of what our legal system was intended to be – the military justice system tends to be more equitable in its proceedings and more rigid in its punishment. What makes Spc. Garner’s case different from the military norm is that the mainstream media has mandated that the bastardized version of our civilian system be injected into our military system of justice.
Our civilian legal system has fallen into a pattern of relying on the testimony of those who have been convicted of committing crimes. We see it every day and from both sides of the aisle, the aisle being the dividing line between the prosecution and the defense. Invariably one side or the other will introduce a “witness” who can testify beyond a shadow of a doubt as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The only problem is that many times the “witness” is someone who resides behind bars and whose testimony will result in personal gain. We have grown accustomed to accepting the statements of these individuals as they attempt to gain favor with those on whose behalf they are testifying or who have something to gain by affording those who “employ” their testimony the information they want the jury to hear. We accept the testimony of those who have proven themselves untrustworthy and we do so to prosecute or defend those accused of crimes, sometimes with their lives hanging in the balance.
In the case of Spc. Graner the question begs to be asked, is there anyone in the world who believes that al-Sheikh would have testified any differently? After all, he is an insurgent terrorist who was caught by the allies committing acts of murder, acts of terror and acts of aggression against the Iraqi people and their allies. If there is anyone in the world besides the blinded-by-hate, “blame America first” crowd, the French government and the terrorists themselves who believe that al-Sheikh would have ever said, “No, Spc. Garner didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, in fact, he was quite professional in his duties,” then we have truly found the land of the imbecile. Al-Sheikh is a terrorist. He knows that he and his ilk are at war with the Western World and he will do anything to win the battle in order to win the war. He already has committed acts of aggression, terrorism and murder. What makes anyone think that telling a lie about his enemy in order to remove him from the battlefield would be beyond possibility? Quite frankly, anyone with half a brain should expect that al-Sheikh would be lying.
I will reiterate that I am not giving Spc. Graner a pass. If he has done something wrong then appropriate action should be taken. I will, however, say this in his defense. Whether the cowardly anti-war left in this country and around the world care to admit it or not, the West – not only the United States, but the entire Western culture – is at war with fanatical Islamic terrorists. They want our way of life extinguished and they want us either converted to radical Islam or dead, infidels that we are, there is no in between. This war has been going on for thousands of years dating back to before the Crusades and it has been proven throughout time that fanatical and radical Islamic jihadists don’t employ rules of engagement, they wage war to win at all costs, humanity be damned.
As the champions of freedom and democracy, we need to understand that sometimes, in our efforts to defend, attain and enable those very principles, we might have to do distasteful and perhaps “politically incorrect” things (insert sarcastic eye-roll here). But when the choice is between the evils of whistling while you make naked terrorists form a human pyramid and hooded cowards sawing the heads off of innocent kidnap victims the choice should be clear. It is astounding that for some people it is not.
Keeping all this in mind let’s ponder this question: whose word should we suspect to be more truthful, the word of an American soldier or the word of an incarcerated Syrian terrorist? Come on, people, this questions shouldn’t be so hard.
Frank Salvato
Ellie