And so the trials begin...

bonkey

I see the trials concerning the Abu Ghraib prison have started in Baghdad.

I was pleased to note that there was such a large amount of representation from Arab media, even from those such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya which the US Administratoin is frequently critical of.

I was also pleased to note that of the 51 seats, a full 34 were assigned to the media, even if they were prevented from making any audio or TV recordings.

However...and this ties back to a thread some may remember...it is disappointing to note that Human Rights Watch have yet again pointed out that no Iraqi or international Human Rights organisation has geen given access. Remember this issue from before, when they were "jumping the gun" about saying they had been refused access to the Gitmo trials? Well...this time it looks like they're not jumping the gun.

51 seats in total. 34 assigned to media. Of that, 9 to arabic media. 17 assigned to non-media. Not one assigned to Human Rights organisations.

Considering these are supposed to be trials concerning Human Rights abuses, I find that somewhat unfathomable. Surely one less media person could have been allocated a seat to allow a single HR observer?

Also, as pointed out in the article I copied below from that AP news feed I reference quite a lot, doesn't it send somewhat the wrong signal. The US makes a big noise about how big a stain all of this is on its honour, and how much it wants to set things right, and then insists on no recordings or Human Rights observers.

I don't believe for a second they have anything to hide in these trials - nor could they with so many observers - but the signal such actions are sending have to be contradictory.

jc

bonkey

and here's that articles I copied...

Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:27:06 +0200

First American soldier to go on trial in Abu Ghraib prison

abuse scandal; three others defer pleas
Eds: RECASTS; UPDATES with Marine comment; mortar near

trial venue
AP Photos KBS103-104, CDH103, PABED201

By ANTHONY DEUTSCH

Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) _ Three U.S. soldiers charged with
abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib prison deferred entering
pleas at their arraignments Wednesday, ahead of the start
of the first court martial in a case which President George
W. Bush called a «stain» on America's honor.
The trial of Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits of Hyndman,
Pennsylvania, a member of the Army Reserves' 372nd Military
Police Company, will be the first of seven against soldiers
in the scandal.
Sivits allegedly took pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners
being sexually humiliated at Abu Ghraib, and is charged
with maltreatment of detainees and failure to protect
detainees from maltreatment. He could face up to one year
in jail, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay and a bad
conduct discharge.
Before his trial began, three other U.S. soldiers deferred
entering pleas at their arraignments Wednesday for
mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A mortar shell
exploded about 300 meters (yards) from the trial venue as
the arraignments were underway but caused no casualties.
The judge, Col. James Pohl, set a new hearing in the cases
for June 21. A large explosion was heard in central Baghdad
as the proceedings began but the cause was unclear.
Explosions are common in Baghdad and it was uncertain
whether the latest one was related to the legal
proceedings.
Sgt. Javal Davis, 26, of Maryland, Spc. Charles Graner
Jr., of Uniontown, Pennsylvania, and Staff Sgt. Ivan L.
Frederick of Buckingham, Virginia, appeared in the
courtroom at the Baghdad Convention Center, located in the
heavily guarded Green Zone.
All three waived their right to have the charges read in
court.
Davis' lawyer, Capt. Scott Dunn, claimed he had been
denied access to two victims of abuse who were government
witnesses.
Judge Pohl asked prosecutor John McCabe for «legal
reasons for why access is being denied.»
Graner is charged with conspiracy to maltreat detainees,
dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assaulting
detainees, indecent acts, adultery and obstruction of
justice.
Frederick is charged with conspiracy to maltreat
detainees, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees
and committing an indecent act. Davis is charged with
conspiracy to maltreat detainees, dereliction of duty,
maltreatment of prisoners and falsifying statements to
investigators.
Judge Pohl entered and exited the room for each of the
three arraignment proceedings, which lasted between five
and 10 minutes each. There were 51 seats in the audience,
including 34 for the international, Iraqi and Arabic media.
Most of the other seats were taken by military lawyers.
The audience was silent; some people wore headsets so they
could listen to the Arabic translation. There was a U.S.
flag near the judge's bench.
Sivits is believed to have cooperated with prosecutors by
providing accounts of abuse by fellow soldiers between
October and January.
The U.S. military hopes allowing news coverage of the
proceedings will demonstrate American resolve to determine
who was responsible for the abuse and punish the guilty.
Nine Arab newspapers and the prominent Arab television
networks Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya are among 34 news
organizations being allowed to have reporters in the
courtroom. No audio or TV recordings will be allowed in the
courtroom, however.
On Wednesday, Human Rights Watch said that U.S. occupation
authorities have refused to allow Iraqi and international
human rights groups to attend the court martial.
«Barring human rights monitors from the court martial is
a bad decision in its own right,» Sarah Leah Whitson,
executive director of Human Rights Watch Middle East and
North Africa division, said in a statement. «It also sends
a terrible signal to Iraqis and others deeply concerned
about what transpired in Abu Ghraib.»
The case has been closely followed by many of the 135,000
U.S. troops in Iraq _ with varied opinions.
«If these people are guilty, it should come out,» Marine
Gunnery Sgt. Tracey Reddish, 34, of Jessup, Georgia, said.
«Court-martials are very fair.»
Another Marine, Lance Cpl.. Kyle Morgan, 20, of Beaumont,
Texas, said the case was pushed by «the people in
Washington sitting in their cushy chairs, judging our men
here who are trying to save lives...But the politicians are
just worried about their own necks.»
The scandal broke last month with the broadcast and
publication of pictures of prisoners suffering sexual
humiliation and other brutality at the hands of American
MPs serving as guards at Abu Ghraib.
The pictures generated a wave of international outrage and
called into question the Bush administration's moral
standing in its campaign to bring democracy to Iraq.
One photo showed a naked, hooded prisoner on a box with
wires fastened to his hands and genitals. According to
Fredericks' indictment, the detainee had been told he would
be electrocuted if he touched the ground.
Another picture showed a female MP holding a leash
attached to the neck of a naked prisoner on the floor.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, which
inspects prisons in Iraq and elsewhere, issued a report on
conditions at Abu Ghraib that said some acts against
detainees were «tantamount to torture.» It said the abuse
included brutality, forcing people to wear hoods,
humiliation and threats of execution.
The report also said intelligence officers of the U.S.-led
coalition had told Red Cross officials that up to 90
percent of Iraqi detainees had been arrested by mistake.
A day before Sivits' court-martial, relatives of those
still held at Abu Ghraib said the only suitable punishment
for the soldiers charged in the case would be death.
«If they actually committed such offenses, they should be
executed,» Odai Ibrahim, 55, said while waiting in a line
with hundreds of other people to visit relatives held at
the grim, Saddam Hussein-era prison on the western
outskirts of Baghdad.
____
Associated Press correspondents Scheherezade Faramarzi in
Baghdad and Katarina Kratovac in Fallujah contributed to
this report.

Wrestlemania

To be honest a Military Court Marital should not have camera's or media there as it contravenes Military Law as the case would be deemed to have undue amount of media attention.

The Soldier should stand trail in the USA and not Iraq as he is going to be locked up in either Germany or the USA.

There should only be independant observers in the trail and not camera's as it is merely appeasement for the Iraqi people and the Greater Arab Community in the Middle East.

Yes he should goto trial and if he is found guilty which he will we let Military Justice dish out the Sentence.

But it is not a civilan court and hence again rules are being bent and adapted for the new media hype.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
To be honest a Military Court Marital should not have camera's or media there as it contravenes Military Law as the case would be deemed to have undue amount of media attention.

Are you sure? every reference to it I see at the moment has Kimmit saying that "it has not been our practice", not "it would be illegal".

The Soldier should stand trail in the USA and not Iraq as he is going to be locked up in either Germany or the USA.

I don't disagree that he should be tried under American (military) law.

as it is merely appeasement for the Iraqi people and the Greater Arab Community in the Middle East.

And you don't think they deserve some appeasement after the treatment they have seen fellow arabs / fellow muslims suffer?

Yes he should goto trial and if he is found guilty which he will we let Military Justice dish out the Sentence.

He's already pleaded guilty, proven his guilt (as is required by US military law when making a plea) and been sentenced to a year in prison and loss of rank.

But it is not a civilan court and hence again rules are being bent and adapted for the new media hype.

Yes indeed they are.

Kimmit also confirmed that it is usual practice to allow family members, observers and print recorders into the trial. Apparently its ok to bend those "rules" (practices).....

jc

pork99

I hope they'll get lenient sentences because they've agreed to "name names".

Then I hope this goes as far as that "arrogant asshole" Rumsfeld, for that is where the buck ultimately stops.

chewy

ok we got a speedy trial and it was held in baghdad as appeasement but i feel that may be instead of something else better should have been held in america... those guys will be made sacpegoats as usual....

your right about the hr should be there and fewer or no media

Wrestlemania

Bonkey I meant by the trial being held in the states, yes under Military Law but it was to high risk in Baghdad.

Yes they should be brought to trail but also should the insurgents or forigen fighters commiting far worse and horific crimes against both the coaltion and there own people.

Yes what they did was wrong and disgusting but there is far worse being done by the other side. I am not saying the yanks are right in what they did but beheading, hanging and burning, setting huge car bombs of in civilan area's and taking hostages is a lot worse than belittling and demoralising the enemy.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Yes they should be brought to trail but also should the insurgents or forigen fighters commiting far worse and horific crimes against both the coaltion and there own people.

Ah yes - they would be the people that Abu Ghraib is filled with. No, hang on...by the US' own admission, up to 90% of those people are innocent of any wrongdoing.

So its the other 10% in Abu Ghraib etc. who should be tried, and the rest of them as they are caught.

No disagreement from me.

What should be done with the remaining 90% of the prisoners though?

Yes what they did was wrong and disgusting but there is far worse being done by the other side. I am not saying the yanks are right in what they did but beheading, hanging and burning, setting huge car bombs of in civilan area's and taking hostages is a lot worse than belittling and demoralising the enemy.

Firstly, you haven't been paying attention to all of the information about how outrageous these acts are to Muslims if you think its just "belittling and demoralising" the enemy.

Secondly, if you are going to pick a litany of different abuses from one side, and compare it to one discrete type of abuse from the other, then of course its not as bad.

Thirdly, who cares even if it isn't as bad. It doesn't excuse it. It doesn't make it any better. After all, which of the two sides waded in complaining about the evil of the other side which had to be stopped by the peace, freedom and life-loving good guys? I'm pretty sure that wasn't the Iraqis.

jc

Wrestlemania

I am not excusing it.

Would you rather Saddam there and let him wipe out a few hundred thousand.

To me the Coaliton there is the better of 2 evils.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
I am not excusing it.

Would you rather Saddam there and let him wipe out a few hundred thousand.

To me the Coaliton there is the better of 2 evils.

I agree. THe coalition is the better of 2 evils.

Unfortunately, I'm not willing to accept any evil.

I wouldn't have supported a Chinese invasion of Iraq to put teh Iraqi's under Chinese rule, despite the fact that this would have been better than Saddam's rule.

And just as similarly, I won't accept an American evil as being acceptable because its a lesser evil than Saddam's rule of tyrrany was.

What I want - and what the Americans are actually capable of delivering - is a genuine effort to make the place better, and a rejection of all that is unacceptable. Not what is unacceptable by the other side. Not what is unaceptable unless deemed useful. What is unacceptable. Full stop, end of story.

Making any sort of cop-out excuses (which is how they appear to me) like "but at least we're/they're not as bad" is the first step in my eyes to accepting the lesser evil, the unacceptable.

I'm not trying to have a go at you over this....its just something as an argument that really irks me. I mean..the US could have used that same excuse to blanket-bomb Baghdad. "Hey - Saddam did this to the Kurds with chemical weapons, so at least we're not as bad as him, right".

jc

pork99

I agree Wreslemania. THe best thing that could happen in Iraq is that they get a stable democratic goverment regardless of wherther it's an American puppet state or not.

However this is a war which needs to be fought sucessfully on not just the military dimension but on paralell political, cultural and economic dimensions.

The "all guns blazing" approach is going to be counter-productive

From the link I posted above

Do you see any similarities to the U.S. engagement in Vietnam?

The mistake in Vietnam was we failed to understand the nature of the war and we failed to understand our enemy. In Vietnam we were fighting World War II. Up to now in Iraq we have been fighting Desert Storm with tank brigade attacks. The tanks move into a village, swoop down, the tank gunner sees a silhouette atop a house, aims, fires, kills and it turns out to be a 12-year-old boy. Now, the father of that boy said, "We will kill 10 Americans for this." This is exactly what happened in Vietnam; a village was friendly, then some pilot turns around and blows away the village, the village goes from pro-Saigon to pro-Hanoi.

What kind of weapons would you be using in this war if you were running it? Would you trade the pistols for grenade launchers? Would you bring in more Apache helicopters, more snipers, what?

You have to use surgical weapons, not weapons that can reach out and strike innocents. The American Army is trained to break things and kill people -- not the kind of selective work that is needed. You don't use a tank brigade to surround a village; instead, you set up ambushes along the route. It is all so similar to what I saw in Vietnam, this tendency to be mesmerized by big-unit operations. But if you fight like a G, everything is under the table, in the dark, done by stealth and surprise; there is no great glory -- except the end result. America has never been capable of fighting the G; from [Gen.] Custer who ****ed it up, you can fast-forward to today. [In Iraq] they are proving it again. The U.S. military never, never learns from the past. They make the same mistake over and over again.

This is not some whinging 21 year old trendy-lefty student but the most decorated officer in the US Army with an outstanding record in Vietnam.

As thing are now Al Queada have loads of material to back up their case that the is a Western crusade against Islam. THe only way to counter this is to fight a smarter war in which the military, the political, the cultural and the economic fronts are mutually supporting. For example how can you promote democracy as the way forward on one hand and then blow up weddings on the other? Need to fight "smarter not harder"

Also you would expect the US to take the opportunity to put pressure on Israel to come to an agreement with the Palestinians. It's the logical move in terms of a broad-front attack on Al Queada. Instead of which it seems to be;

Sharon: "Thanks for looking after our security by removing Saddam for us. You have made the Middle East much safer for us. Maybe we have an opportunity to revive the peace process. Ah no we'll go on being b*stards anyway"

Bush: "That's just swell. Best of luck with that"

Disasterous.

Sack Rumsfeld, Put Col. Hackworth in charge.

Wrestlemania

What worries me how do they withdraw, it will send the country into further chaos.

The chances of it becoming a Islamic Republic could come through. Then a huge problem.

To be honest there damned if they do and damned if they dont.

Only time will tell.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
What worries me how do they withdraw, it will send the country into further chaos.

Yup. And if they don't withdraw, they're never likely to have a country at peace. Sounds a bit like Ireland when the English were here, in that sense.

Interestingly, this is an argument that was put forward by those nutty anti-war lefty types before this all started. It was laughed at then as being hopelessly pessimistic and ridiculous.

The chances of it becoming a Islamic Republic could come through. Then a huge problem.

Why? Whats wrong with Islamic Republics. Are you saying that the existing Islamic republics in the world are a huge problem?

To be honest there damned if they do and damned if they dont.

Again - one of the many reasons offered by those at the start of it all why this was fundamentally a bad idea with an almost zero chance of success. Again, it was laughed at.

jc

Wrestlemania

In my Opinion Islamic republic tend to be fanatical and extremely anti-west and unofficial harbours for Islamic terrorists.

A monarchy, total rubbish people are nothing.

Democracy, to me it seems hard to install it in the middle-east.

The Like of Iran is in my eyes a fanatically state and is an Islamic republic (correct me if I am wrong)

Was'nt Afghanistan under the Taelban aswell ??

Also a UN force to replace the coalition would have to be huge and in my pass experiences totally ineffective in such a climate. It would take a Multinational Un force of 150K + troops to stablise such a country and the UN does not have that power. :mad:

pork99

Originally posted by bonkey
Yup. And if they don't withdraw, they're never likely to have a country at peace.

If they do withdraw soon you'll have

1. A civil war which could go on for 20 years like the one in Lebanon (great opportunty and base for Islamicist terrorists)

2. Even if one faction wins a civil war quickly there would most likely be a terrorist harbouring rogue state a la Taliban Afghanistan.

I will give the anti-war camp one thing - without the support of the UN the invasion was very unsound. This was not obvious when the tanks were rolling into Baghdad last year but is coming home to roost now.

Hopefully after the handover to the transitional Iraqi government there will be new UN resolutions to support them and more countries will contribute troops. Troops from other Islamic countries would be particularily desirable there.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
In my Opinion Islamic republic tend to be fanatical and extremely anti-west and unofficial harbours for Islamic terrorists.

Well, I'd generally have a low opinion of any nation which doesn't seperate religion and state, and wouldn't think the Muslims have any sort of monopoly of making a poor job of mixing the two.....but hey...we're each entitled to our own opinions.

Was'nt Afghanistan under the Taelban aswell ??

Yup. For whatever relevance it has.

Now its back under control of the same warlords that the Taliban mostly kept in check, only without the Taliban keeping them in check. The nominal ruling government is from the NA, who were little different to the Taliban, and controls relatively of the overall nation.

Oh, and its still Islamic. Just not fundamentalist. So I guess the US etc. don't share your general opinion that Islamic nations are a bad idea.

Also a UN force to replace the coalition would have to be huge and in my pass experiences totally ineffective in such a climate. It would take a Multinational Un force of 150K + troops to stablise such a country and the UN does not have that power.

The only way the UN could "replace" the coalition would be for the coalition to hand over controlling authority to the UN, but keep its assets in place to be bolstered by the plethora of nations who have said they would support ongoing intervention in Iraq if and only if it was done under the auspices of the UN.

I'm not sure they could do it either, though. I'm not sure that too much damage hasn't already been done, or that simply going in in the first place wasn't alrready "too much damage" to be undone.

Originally posted by pork99
If they do withdraw soon you'll have

1. A civil war which could go on for 20 years like the one in Lebanon (great opportunty and base for Islamicist terrorists)

2. Even if one faction wins a civil war quickly there would most likely be a terrorist harbouring rogue state a la Taliban Afghanistan.

3. Probably an insurrection by the Kurds to establish a Kurdish nation, leading to

4. An Invasion by Turkey into Northern Iraq to ensure the Kurds don't set up a Kurdish nation

5. Possible invasions from Kuwait and/or Iran seeking to settle old scores and/or get their hands on some of that oil that everyone else is fighting over.

6. Sooner or later, some Iraqi power-group with enough hatred of Israel getting their hands on weapons to actually launch an attack against said nation, leading to

7. Inevitable (and justified) retaliation by the Israelis...

8. I'm depressed. I'm stopping now.

Didn't some guy do a flash animation on this a year-ish ago? Or did he do it over the invasion of Afghanistan?

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
To be honest a Military Court Marital should not have camera's or media there as it contravenes Military Law as the case would be deemed to have undue amount of media attention.

Nothing of the kind- the Pentagon put out a statement saying that showing the trial on television would be inappropriate. Although part of me wonders that if this is not to be a show trial conducted in front of the world's media, then why in those pictures were not the faces of the soldiers and prisoners involed- blurred out?

There should only be independant observers in the trail and not camera's as it is merely appeasement for the Iraqi people and the Greater Arab Community in the Middle East.

That's complete cr@p. I would surmise that the majority of the Iraqis don't want to be "appeased" they want justice to be seen to be done. Suppose I were to suggest to you that the main reason behind allowing western journalists into the hearing is to feed our public's insatiable appetite for seeing war from all sides- the noblest and the ugliest. Given that our reason amounts to a morbid curiousity and their reason amounts to appeasement, sh1t, let's take all the cameras out. Or here's a better idea- let's close all the documents relevant to the proceedings- that'll get ol' uncle Joe Stalin laughing in his grave alright! Well, that and Patriot II.




[

Wrestlemania

Bonkey,

your later points in your last post interesting, we have to agree, Iraq is now a huge problem, which could bring the entire region into dismay.

In rational terms how do we solve it, i dont see any solutions yet??

Vietnam yes we are back.

Magnolia_Fan

Calling it Vietnam is a bit of a stretch..it was 7 out of 150,000 troops! plus when troops return to the U.S they are greeted with parades and hero like welcomes not spitting and yelling "Go to hell Man!....Far Out...Shaaa"

Vietnam is sometimes taken out of proportion it was a huge mistake and a disgrace to The United States but some people take the ball and run with it. Has anyone seen the movie "The Quiet American"? I saw an interview with Micheal Caine about it and he was asked was it all fact and he said yes except for the car bombing in the middle of the city that wasn't The U.S Army....I don't know what anyone else who saw that movie thought but that was one of the most graphic and important scenes of the entire movie!

Also I saw that an Iraqi Translator at the trial was shocked because the first guy prosecuted got a year and was found to have only taken pictures of it...He said "A year in jail for just taking a picture!?! But I feel it was fair myself..he probably should of got more simply for not stopping it

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Calling it Vietnam is a bit of a stretch..it was 7 out of 150,000 troops

Sorry to state the obvious here, but that's terribly misleading. 7 reservists from West Virginia don't specifically think of the exact set of procedures that involve just about every humiliating element to Arab culture. More to the point, every single one of the soldiers involved described specific instructions from G2 military intel and psy-ops specialists, some of whom have been identified by name in the press here.

No, it's not just 7 wackos, it goes a hell of a lot higher than that Magnolia. How high- we'll find out, whether it's today or a year from now. Either that or an Oliver North style cover-up. Fact is, you have to start from the bottom and work your way up- that's what happened with My Lai and Nuremberg- both cases *also* establishing that saying you were ordered to act is no defence when the order itself is illegal.

The biggest pointer in this is the fact that Lt. General Sanchez specifically authorized the use of illegal methods in the case of at least 1 detainee. Command influence directives apply- approval for one might well be seen by the G2 and their civilian counterparts as direct consent from the CG for activities then carried out. It's fundamentally disgraceful- to our army, flag, country and the values we represent. We have no business occupying another nation, but we have even less business discussing American values when two pictures of smiling servicepersons squatting over the body of a dead Iraqi detainee packed in ice were released today.

Also, to the specious argument that the beheading of Nicholas Berg provides a degree of moral equivalency, I say rubbish. The b@stards who beheaded the poor guy were Al-Qaeda, one Jordanian, two Syrians, and two Saudis positively identified. Not one Iraqi. In case anyone hasn't noticed, even the CPA has admitted that 80-90% of the detainees were picked up in random sweeps. Random sweeps have an INCREDIBLY low probability of actually catching insurgents. If anything, they are so extensive that intel of their existence will spread like wildfire to the point where 99% of the insurgents will p1ss off to another location rather than hang around and get caught. Iraqi detainees abused have absolutely ZILCH to do with the beheading of a contractor by foreign terrorists.

More to the point, saying you have moral equivalency because of it simply says that we are somewhat better than foreign Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq. Oh yay, now there's a ringing endorsement of our values if ever I saw someone. I can just see the tourist board now- "Come visit us, we're a bit better than Al-Qaeda!".

Victor

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
The Soldier should stand trail in the USA and not Iraq as he is going to be locked up in either Germany or the USA.

They are being held, as they say in "little America". Why move someone 8,000 miles before they are found guilty?

halkar

After seeing the latest images and hearing the stories of Abu Ghraib, they should put these people and Bush Administration into Abu Ghraib to give them taste of some of their own medicine. Maybe then we might find out about the truths of Iraq's invasion.
Sick b@stards, should go back home and learn democracy themselves first before they try to teach others.
I don't see much of a difference between Saddam and Bush co.
Yes, Saddam killed many thousands, so did Bush.
Yes, Saddam abused and torture people, so did Bush.
Yes, Saddam jailed people without trial, so did Bush.
Yes, Saddam was stealing Iraqis oil money, so does Bush.
Yes, Saddam was evil, so is Bush.

Unfortunately what I don't understand about Iraq is, why does these people that can fight against US to death did not fight againts Saddam for many years? The only difference between Bush and Saddam are, Saddam was Iraqi, Bush is American.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

halkar

Originally posted by daveirl
So you support the torture and abuse of some people then?

Maybe you give them medals for that?
Look and read what they did and they will more likely get away with it.
Maybe next year you will be able to buy their books and read while they are becoming millioners with their sick minds.
Yes, I say put them in the same jail and let the Iraqis deal with them before they go and sell their stories to make millions from other people's miseries! Also Bush should be trial in Iraqi court along with Saddam.