24,500 Today: Number Detained Iraqis Grew 50 Percent After Surge

NY Times :

The number of detainees held by the American-led military coalition in Iraq has swelled by 50 percent under the troop increase ordered by President Bush, with the inmate population growing from 16,000 in February to 24,500 today, according to American military officers in Iraq.

Nearly 85 percent of the detainees in custody are Sunni Arabs, the minority faction in Iraq that ruled the country under the government of Saddam Hussein, with the other detainees being Shiite Muslims, the officers say.

Read the whole story: NY Times

Comments

[Captain EdwardGraham]

08:50 AM on 08/26/2007

Iraq prepares reconciliation document


Published: Aug. 26, 2007 at 7:08 AM
BAGHDAD, Aug. 26 (UPI) -- The future of 42,000 Iraqi prison inmates tops a national reconciliation document aimed at easing the political tension in Iraq, it was reported.

The fate of the prisoners -- many jailed at U.S. and Iraqi-run facilities without court orders -- is a priority at the talks among Iraqi's five most influential political parties, the Kuwait News Agency, KUNA, reported Sunday.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/26/iraq_prepares_reconciliation_document/4212/

====

Please note that their are 42,000 prisoners in IRAQ not '18,000' as reported by the MSM and the Pentagon. More Pentagon lies?

[dax49]

01:21 AM on 08/26/2007

detained for what? if there are that many terrorists in one city, we are in more trouble than i thought

[DallasNE]

01:52 PM on 08/25/2007

Yesterday the LA Times reported that since the start of the surge another 600,000 refugees have been added to internal refugee camps. That averages out to be roughly 3,000 per day. Slate, in a Today's Papers writup, called this a "stupefying" rate.

I haven't seen recent figures but the refugee total, internal and external, must now be in the 5 million range or 1 in 5 Iraqi's now living in a refugee camp somewhere. Where is the outrage.

[StillAmused]

04:19 AM on 08/25/2007

... and, Georgie The Lesser would have you believe, every one of the 24,500 a key player, a 'high-value' detainee with intimate planning knowledge of the next big strike on U.S. soil.

That's how it is when you try to make it through life without a frontal lobe.

[TRYKER]

10:47 PM on 08/24/2007

The surge has proven to be terribly detrimental to the Iraqis in every report that has come down. 1 million more displaced and thousands more in prisons.
That alone should be sign enough that no matter what Bushco says, US is NOT good for Iraq and should LEAVE.
We should not use terms like "insurgents" for Iraqi citizens. We should understand that citizens have a right and a duty to defend their land from invaders/occupiers.

We've displaced the equivalent of 4 NW states worth of civilians. Take Mont, Wo, No Dak, So Dak and empty them...would we "insurge"?

Hell no, we'd bow and scrape like the Iraqis should...we'd never fight back, the nerve!

[HurryUp1212009]

10:18 PM on 08/24/2007

So
That
Means
If
We
Lock
Up
25,000,000
Iraqi
Men
Then
Violence
Will
Drop
And
Bush-The-Liar
Can
Allege
His
Surge
Is
Working

You aren't THAT gullible, are YOU????

[wcfar]

10:11 PM on 08/24/2007

Just run out there and put everybody in prison and you have a surge that works! That's it!

[fact finder]

07:04 PM on 08/24/2007

24,500 new insurgents PLUS their relatives = Bushies unending war or at least until all the poor people are killed or crippled. Unending war= more profits.

[ownsthepodium]

07:23 PM on 08/24/2007

So just pull out and that's it? War over? No more jihadists, no more vows of death to the Great Satan and slaying or subjugating all non-muslims? The middle east will be a star-speckled, rainbow-trimmed, cotton candy, cloud world that's as brightly beautiful as a summer sunset and as snug and loving as a mother's hug?

Scratch a huffkid, find a dhimmi.

[Nyland8]

08:05 PM on 08/24/2007

Uh ... no. It's another false debate.

There is much that must be done in the world to deal with radicalism ... but staying in Iraq makes the problem worse.

Remove all of the party-before-country Republicans and let some statesmen run our foreign policy for awhile. Throwing gas on a fire will just get you - and everyone else - burned. How many people have to tell you that we're not making ourselves, or the world, any safer by occupying Iraq? When will you get it?

8

.

[StillAmused]

04:06 AM on 08/25/2007

You just quoted the neocons.

Scratch an asshole, find an asshole with a scratch.

[JoJoGunner]

06:08 PM on 08/24/2007

I have a pretty clear memory of the Clinton years and I don't think we invaded and occupied Iraq. Clinton knew that was madness. Old Man Bush knew it was madness. Then along comes Mad Dubya and his Mad Neo-con Svengalis. And the rest is sad history.

[ownsthepodium]

06:52 PM on 08/24/2007

If Bush I wasn't stopped by the U.N. we wouldn't be in this bigger mess today. If Bush II didn't have the balls to do this today our children would be in yet a bigger mess come their time.
Why do huffkids hate children?
The huffkids are just selfish children themselves. They know their chances of meeting a terrorist is slim, thanks to others fighting for them unappreciated, so the huffkids are happy to help the jihadists and just kick the can down the road.

[lornejl]

09:25 PM on 08/24/2007

How old are your kids peav ?

[JoJoGunner]

06:00 PM on 08/24/2007

I never objected to bombing the hell outa Sadam if he was getting cantankerous and if the Iraqis had overthrown him that would have been for the better. But invading and occupying the country was madness - nothing less.

[ownsthepodium]

06:54 PM on 08/24/2007

For a self proclaimed military man you're not very up on tactics and positioning are you.
Take a look at a map. Check out Afghanistan and Iraq. Pretty good positioning for anyone else that gets uppity and takes a murderous swipe at American civilians.

[Destin]

07:11 PM on 08/24/2007

An assassin's bullet can do the job much cheaper than the bullshit invasion that Bush pulled.

[Neoknot2u]

05:48 PM on 08/24/2007

I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world…

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.

Give you three guesses who said that.

[lornejl]

05:57 PM on 08/24/2007

Neo said it ! ( Neo is a well known plagerizer )

[Neoknot2u]

06:00 PM on 08/24/2007

I didn't plagerize anything. I very clearly asked WHO SAID IT? Once again, simple things need to be explained to you.

Bill Clinton said it in 1998.

Night night all.

[JoJoGunner]

05:58 PM on 08/24/2007

I don't see the words invasion and occupation in there - do you?

[ownsthepodium]

06:56 PM on 08/24/2007

Did you see these words: "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government"

The bombing tactics didn't work. The invasion did.

Any questions?

[Gordon]

05:33 PM on 08/24/2007

Iraq is on it's way to becoming more like America. Yeah!

[JoJoGunner]

05:28 PM on 08/24/2007

What made the Neo-cons think they could fly Democracy over to Aye-rack and drop it on them like a smart bomb? They think Democracy comes from the top down. Just hold elections and the people will develop the Democratic spirit. Any one who's read American history knows it works the other way - from the bottom up. First the people develop Democratic values - then they hold elections and write constitutions. The Iraqis will be ready for Democracy some day - a century from now - maybe.

[ownsthepodium]

06:57 PM on 08/24/2007

I agree with you on that, but the world can't say they weren't given a chance, and not everyone has given up on them.
For what it's worth (yes, I know) I think the country should be split up.

[JoJoGunner]

05:17 PM on 08/24/2007

Here's an honest question for trolls - What the hell does the war in Iraq have to do with the 'warren terra'? 9/11 came out of Afghanistan, and Afghanistan ain't in Iraq.

[Neoknot2u]

05:21 PM on 08/24/2007

isn't that cute how you play with words.

[JoJoGunner]

05:23 PM on 08/24/2007

Talk about a room-temperature IQ.

[robodweeb]

05:26 PM on 08/24/2007

Well Afghanistan may not be in Iraq but al Qaeda which used to be in Afghanistan is now in Pakistan AND Iraq AND Afghanistan.

Somehow I can't understand how that's supposed to make us safer.

[Gordon]

05:28 PM on 08/24/2007

they have always been in pakistan, pakistan was (and still is) their underground railroad.

[JoJoGunner]

05:15 PM on 08/24/2007

Why do we liberals always support the 'terrists' you ask? Because we all have death wishes of course. Sure, I can hardly wait to have a building dropped on my head. Maybe I could leap out of the 60th floor window flapping my arms all the way down to the sidewalk. What fun! Or what if you were on the plane that got highjacked? "Let's roll!" Ha-ha. Yep, as an liberal I'm certainly looking forward to a horrible agonizing death at the hands of my good buddies the 'terrists'. (For you room-temperature IQ trolls, I don't really mean this. I'm just pointing out how absurd it is for you to suggest we support the 'terrists'.)