Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (570850)	5/1/2004 8:13:10 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Photos Show Abuse by British Soldiers By THE NEW YORK TIMES Published: May 2, 2004 LONDON, May 1 — The Ministry of Defense announced that it was starting an investigation into allegations of abuse by British troops in Basra, Iraq, after the publication on Saturday of photographs that appeared to show a hooded Iraqi prisoner being beaten with rifle butts and being urinated on by British soldiers. The photographs were published in The Daily Mirror, which said soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment had brought them to the newspaper. One told the newspaper: "We are not helping ourselves out there. We are never going to get them on our side. We are fighting a losing war." According to the soldiers' accounts in The Mirror, the prisoner was arrested for stealing, and, during an eight-hour interrogation, his jaw was broken and his teeth smashed. The photographs show the hooded man being beaten with rifle butts in the head and groin. One shows a gun barrel placed through the hood into his mouth. One soldier is seen urinating on him. The final few photographs show the man lying limp. He was eventually driven away from the army camp and then dumped off the back of a moving vehicle, the soldiers told The Mirror. They did not know whether he survived. Prime Minister Tony Blair, in Dublin, called the images of the British soldiers "completely and utterly unacceptable." nytimes.com