I'm sure that's true, Mike, or something like it. Have you had a chance to listen to the NPR segment? Ot have a quick look at the other link?
I'm actually surprised it's so few.
I'd have imagined that an experience like that would have radicalized a lot more of them, and I'm almost shocked it didn't. If 10% was the number of actually guilty people that were caught, that would make more sense to me, but then I'd still be at a loss to explain why there weren't more people radicalized by the experience.
You don't think it was only 10% that were guilty, do you?
Even I think that would be a bit low.
If you or I were innocent and put through an experience like that, I'd like to think that we'd at least consider joining the anti-British resistance or the anti-Nazi resistance or whatever.
I'm not about to tell you things that make sense to me are silly, simply because you say them.
It would be nice if you acknowledged that I did actually come up with real deaths, by the way. You don't have to take my word for it; all you have to do is google Deaths at Abu Gharib or Torture at Gitmo and have a look around.
There are actually defense department studies on the subject. The Army was very upset about the way the prison was run, though it was more or less forced to do a cover-up. The army doesn't like this sort of thing at all because they know that when their own guys get captured, they'll have a worse time of it if the U.S. has a bad reputation. And that enemy soldiers (with information to share) are less likely to surrender if they feel they're in danger of ill-treatment. It's bad policy.
Go back 2500 years and Sun-tsu, the Chinese general who wrote The Art of War, the classic text on warfare that's still studied at war colleges around the world, including West Point, makes a point of emphasizing how important good treatment of captives is. It's not recent knowledge, and it's not simply theory.
When you say, by the way, back working with al qaeda, you must mean non Iraqi prisoners, since there were no al qaeda folks in Iraq until at least a year or two after the invasion. And those were mostly foreign imports. While Cheney was still claiming that there were al qaeda in Iraq, Bush was saying that he'd never said any such thing, and that there were no al qaeda in Iraq.
There were no al qaeda in Iraq except for in Kurdish territory, which Sadam Hussein was excluded from; it was part of the no-fly zone, and his troops were barred from that area as well. Cheney was actually lying, as a look at Google will tell you if you look at reliable source material — Christian Science Monitor, BBC, The Economist, and avoid the far left or far right sources with drums to beat.
Our Military and our country were betrayed by our government in any number of difficult ways.
The Democrats will not be the world's best solution. I are one, I ought to know. But the errors will have at least some corrective elements to them. Stopping torture as an element of national policy is a good start/ Heck, trying to stop torture as an element of national policy is an improvement. That isn't asking so much, is it?
You'd think I was asking people for money, or their first born.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven