Statement of Abu Ghraib soldier in dog attacks (on detainees)

[Solly Mack]

News Story

Witness: Dogs Bit Abu Ghraib Detainees

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_dogs




SGT Michael J Smith (statement)

http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/AbuGhraib/Abu23.pdf

Edit to add: Additonal statements

http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/AbuGhraib/Tag44.pdf

[cry baby]

1. Trying to see who could make the detainee urinate on themselves first...

disgusting to the max! How could Americans do this to other human beings? *rhetorical question*

[Solly Mack]

2. I'd like to see Bush scared enough to piss himself

At the very least, he deserves a small taste of what he sanctioned for others.

I know I shouldn't feel that way but I do believe Bush deserves the same fate he has brought to so many.

[G_j]

3. kick

[BeHereNow]

4. I heard this on the radio this morning-

Also the report (related) about the
soldier who shot a radiator or something,
then held the gun to a DETAINEE's head
(I cap, because detainees are not even CHARGED
with anything) and said, "You're next"
He then held the gun to the DETAINEE's head,
moved it slightly awy and fired.
The poor man is probably now deaf- and WHAT
was he charged with to be treated so?
He was a DETAINEE.

This can't be my country- I don't recognize it anymore.
BHN

[Solly Mack]

7. I'm still scouring the net collecting reports

I'm afraid they'll start disappearing.

[two gun sid]

5. SGT Smith's statement is kind of interesting to me...

regarding not wanting to work with Navy dog handlers. Small point but, in the Taguba Report I remember reading that the only dog handler that refused to use his dog for softening up prisoners was Navy. He refused because he felt it was not correct procedure and not a Lawful Order. I never read were he was disciplined for refusing a Direct/Lawful Order.

[Solly Mack]

6. He probably didn't get in trouble since that use of the dogs

isn't lawful. Not to say they didn't give him a hard time for refusing though.

[two gun sid]

8. That's my point , use of dogs 'not lawful'...

That Navy puke's ass would be in a sling if he would have disobeyed a lawful order. Even though they had written orders for the use of dogs, under Geneva it is not lawful. The command that issues unlawful orders is in violation of the UCMJ. Violating Geneva is a violation of the UCMJ.

Even though Gonzo said we do not have to follow Geneva, it appears to me that they are really not so sure of that. I guess it doesn't really matter unless we get these thugs to The Hague.

This is really not important, it just struck me as odd that every dog handler follows orders except one and that one guy is not punished. That is not the military I know. Something just strikes me as wrong.