PDA

View Full Version : Iraqi POW Abuse



Crimson
May 20th, 2004, 05:32 PM
"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."-- Geneva Convention, Part 1, Article 3

As of now Spc. Sivits was giving the maximum sentence of 1 year in prison and a honorable discharge. There are photographs of the Soldiers standing behind piles of naked Iraqi POW's. There are also pictures of POWs with panties on there head and this distinctly goes agaist the Geneva Convention, Part 1, Article 3.

As I mentioned earlier one Soldier has already been Court Marshalled. Do you think they they should Court Marshall the rest of the Soldiers involved or should they have only Court Marshall the Officer that gave the order? What do you think? Why?

Dionysus
May 20th, 2004, 06:24 PM
I believe there's nothing that they cold do to these soldiers in question short of public and violent execution that would even begin to send a satisfactory message to the people of Iraq. These people want to be angry and they especially want to be angry at the United States.

As far as sending a stern message to the soldiers themselves, I suppose court marshal would be appropriate.

KneeLess
May 20th, 2004, 06:26 PM
I always wondered why when on January 11, 2002 when America announced (http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml) that it would not abide by the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, no one took notice, paid much attention, etc. They violated human rights almost exactly the same as the ones in Abu Ghraib Prision. And I'm positive that it's happened before, and it will happen again. America sometimes really hates civil rights when it comes to people it doesn't like. But we must remember that in 1954 America did not sign the Geneva Convention, we've been merely abiding by it to look good.

I really have no opinion of what they do with those bigots that beat those prisoners. Although I did hear that Rumsfeld okayed the beatings. Anyone have any solid links for that?

Apokalupsis
May 20th, 2004, 06:45 PM
Sometimes, you can't play by the rules, especially when you are dealing with others who have no interest in said rules.

What they did was wrong...but it is WAY overblown. People are just looking for excuses to bag on the US.

As stated before in a previous post...IF it came down to intel that was believed could be had, and that intel was of high priority (could save lives)...I'd have no problem doing far worse than putting panties on someone's head.

/awaits for fevered backlash

Slipnish
May 20th, 2004, 06:52 PM
Weeeeellllllllll....

To us it looks kinda stupid. I mean, a butt crack pyramid, faked oral sex, panties on the head, threatened by a dog??? Hell, I live in a college town, I've seen much worse than that at parties.

But that's cultural reativisim I guess.

The stupid part is, those idiots should have known doing this would create an international incident. There is literally nothing we can do to appease some of these people over there, no matter how "nice" we play.

What a bunch of morons. They deserve whatever penalty they get, for being stupid, if not for being cruel...

KneeLess
May 20th, 2004, 07:05 PM
Sometimes, you can't play by the rules, especially when you are dealing with others who have no interest in said rules.
So you support the beating and torture of prisoners of war, if they are America's enemy? An interesting point, albeit a hypocritical one. (Oceania, anyone?) And what about the prisoner(s) that died? Do they deserve what they got?

Crimson
May 20th, 2004, 07:11 PM
I don't think he is saying that he supports thr beating and torture of POWs if they are Americas enemy. I think all he is saying is that they do not deserve a break. I mean these are people who commit suicide bombings and obviously have no regardes for human life. People like that are savages and savages deserve nothing. Therefore I do not see as Geneva Convention, Part 1, Article 3, Section 1, should not apply to them.

Telex
May 20th, 2004, 07:31 PM
How is not humiliating or torturing them "giving them a break?" Are humiliation and torture the new standard for the prison system there?

Slipnish
May 20th, 2004, 07:45 PM
This just in: They are saying now they are going to tear down the prison.

WOW! I wonder if Haliburton's check has come in yet...

Apokalupsis
May 20th, 2004, 07:50 PM
So you support the beating and torture of prisoners of war, if they are America's enemy? An interesting point, albeit a hypocritical one. (Oceania, anyone?) And what about the prisoner(s) that died? Do they deserve what they got?
Scenerio: An Iraqi insurgent POW may or may not know the locations of his superiors. To find out, US Military uses physical abuse to verify whether or not he has this information.

This is wrong. Those conducting such "interrogation" should be held accountable.

Scenerio: A known terrorist was captured while trying to kill a group of people. It is highly suspected with a very high probable cause, that he knows of a future attack that will result in the loss of death of hundreds or even thousands of people. To attain this intel to prevent such loss of life, the US Military uses mental, psychological, and/or physical abuse.

This is right, this is necessary.

Now, specifically, where is the hypocricy? Support it or retract it.

Crimson
May 20th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Apokalupsis: I have agree with you. Sometimes physical force is needed, but in alot of situations it is not and extensive use of it should be punishable.

Apokalupsis
May 20th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Absolutely. Also, I would never suggest that physical force is the first and only method of such interrogation. It should be used as a last resort...and it should NEVER be used if the the captor is cooperative.

Slipnish
May 20th, 2004, 10:55 PM
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need such things. Of course, we don't live there. Psy Ops, the CIA, and all of those other acronym orgs., exist for a reason. We don't play any more fair than they do. The reasoning is circular of course, but no less real for its lack of logic.

The enemy does what it does, and we do what we do. Its an ugly, brutish world, but then, "war is hell."

sjjs
May 21st, 2004, 01:40 AM
But... does it look to you that the joking soldiers taking the piss out of the Iraqi prisoners were actually trained professionals extracting vital military information from a dangerous enemy?

You say the tried soldier was given an honourable discharge?

kwinters
May 21st, 2004, 05:16 AM
Washington -- Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70 to 90 percent of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake," according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.

Of the 43,000 Iraqis who have been imprisoned at some point during the occupation, only about 600 have been referred to Iraqi authorities for prosecution, according to U.S. officials.

The Red Cross report described a wide range of prisoner mistreatment -- including many new details of abusive techniques -- that it said U.S. officials had failed to halt, despite repeated complaints from the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose headquarters are in Geneva.

-Los Angeles Times

These aren't terrorists or insurgents we're talking about. Possibly 90 percent of these men knew nothing-and that's how many the GOVERNMENT will admit they wrongly arrested! It's probably more.

The United States is arresting, torturing and killing innocent people. Weren't we better than that? Weren't we going to show people what living under a democracy is like? And this is what we offer them? Photos of dead men with smiling Americans giving a thumbs up? Possible rape videos? Torture and humiliation of innocents?

This is not being overblown. As Bush said "I have been disgraced." We've all been digraced and only a full investigation and removal of those who have authorized these actions will begin to redeem us in the eyes of the world, and in our own.

Apokalupsis
May 21st, 2004, 06:36 AM
Killing? Please support that the United States of America is killing its prisoners. Furthermore, it is the US? Or is it out of control servicemen? Does the US condone or condemn such activity?

I know it's "fun" to America bash...but let's use at least a little objectivity here.

sjjs
May 21st, 2004, 06:52 AM
Manadel al-Jamadi died during interrogation. His body was covered with bruises. Draw your own conclusions.

Apokalupsis
May 21st, 2004, 07:20 AM
That's the first I heard of him. And those responsible, should be charged with war crimes against humanity. There is no excuse for such behavior.

However, this does not support the argument that "The USA kills prisoners". It's like claiming "The USA rapes girls" when a couple military serviceman wander off base in Japan and rape a woman. It's like saying "Christians bomb abortion clinics." It's like saying "Liberals are protestors."

It's the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I find it interesting that liberals believe this is logical, despite their claims or cries of foul that it isn't, when it is applied to them. Now THAT is what is hypocritical here.

sjjs
May 21st, 2004, 08:17 AM
That's the first I heard of him. And those responsible, should be charged with war crimes against humanity. There is no excuse for such behavior.

He was pictured in the papers this morning with two grinning idiots giving the thumbs up over his dead body.


However, this does not support the argument that "The USA kills prisoners". It's like claiming "The USA rapes girls" when a couple military serviceman wander off base in Japan and rape a woman. It's like saying "Christians bomb abortion clinics." It's like saying "Liberals are protestors."

I think the original poster you're objecting to used this as a figure of speech. Obviously the USA can't do anything as it's a country. The USA can't invade a country, for example, but the US Government can decide to send the US army into another country.

Next to this is the idea that these soldiers were acting under the orders of some US government authority. In other words a representative of the US government authorised the killing of prisoners which has yet to be proven one way or the other.

I've heard that Rumsfeld authorised a special snatch and batter squad to deal with suspect individuals in Afghanistan and this was extended to Iraq. I'm sure there are more revelations to come out yet, but were this to be the case then we could say that the a member of the US government authorised the abuse of prisoners.

CC
May 21st, 2004, 09:23 AM
There are killings, there is rape, there is sexual humiliation and physical torture. It is not only at one prison camp and it is not only done by "7" individuals.

Why is this being overblown? IT IS NOT! While we preach that as a country we are benevolent and fair this poor example of such does MUCH to further aid the image of the USA as an overgrown starved rabid pitbull.

Therefore, since we are in fact concerned about our image, espeically now, this story should be followed to the top with all the results laid out for all to see. I don't understand how anyone can point a finger at another peoples unless we show the world that we will not tolerate such acts committed by us......we can do better, and should...(find my replies about USA accountability if you don't understand why)................................:O)

kwinters
May 21st, 2004, 10:03 AM
Killing? Please support that the United States of America is killing its prisoners.

Two Afghan prisoners were killed while in US custody at their base at Bagram, a military coroner has concluded.

The report said "blunt force trauma" had contributed to the deaths.

The detainees had spent about a week in the detention facility when they died last December.

--BBC

The US military says there have been investigations into 25 deaths in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In two cases the dead men were found to have been murdered by Americans, according to a US army official.

--BBC



Furthermore, it is the US? Or is it out of control servicemen?

Thursday, May 06, 2004


WASHINGTON The Justice Department is examining the involvement of Central Intelligence Agency officers and contract employees in three suspicious deaths of detainees, two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, according to federal law enforcement officials.

--International Herald Tribune


As the investigation expands, officials tell NBC News that special operations forces, including both Delta Force and Navy SEALs, were possibly also involved in abusing prisoners in Iraq.

In fact, one prisoner, Mon Adel al Jamadi, died while being interrogated in Abu Ghraib by a CIA officer last November, shortly after being captured by Navy SEALs. Al Jamadi was being questioned about a plot to attack U.S. forces with plastic explosives.

An autopsy revealed al Jamadi had broken ribs and had been “badly beaten.” His CIA interrogator has told investigators the prisoner was injured before he was turned over to the CIA — something the Navy denies.

---MSNBC


Does the US condone or condemn such activity?
I know it's "fun" to America bash...but let's use at least a little objectivity here.

There are your objective facts Apok.

Booger
May 21st, 2004, 10:13 AM
What they did was wrong...but it is WAY overblown. People are just looking for excuses to bag on the US.

I just can't understand this perspective. How is this story being overblown? I suppose I can understand the perspective that "story saturation" is unnecessary, but the stories of abuse are not overblown. In fact, I would argue that the stories of torture and abuse are "underblown." However, the Wash Post released more photos and video of abuse and torture. See them here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43785-2004May20.html

From the article:

In a collection of hundreds of so-far-unreleased photographs and short digital videos obtained by The Washington Post, U.S. soldiers are shown physically and emotionally abusing detainees last fall in the Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad.

The new pictures and videos go beyond the photos previously released to the public in several ways, amplifying the overt violence against detainees and displaying a variety of abusive techniques previously unseen. They show a group of apparently cavalier soldiers assaulting prisoners, forcing detainees to masturbate, and standing over a naked prisoner while holding a shotgun. Some of the videos echo scenes in previously released still photographs -- such as the stacking of naked detainees -- but the video images render the incidents more vividly.

In one video clip, five hooded and naked detainees stand against the wall in the darkness, each masturbating, with two other hooded detainees crouched at their feet. Another shows a prisoner handcuffed to the outside of a cell door. He repeatedly slams his head into the green metal, leaving streaks of blood before he ultimately collapses at the feet of a cameraman.

In one photo, a soldier is seen co_cking his fist as he holds a hooded detainee in a headlock amid a pile of several detainees. Later, he is seen kneeling atop the same pile, flexing his muscles, a broad smile on his face, posing.

Another soldier is seen in a photo brandishing a black baton as a naked prisoner -- cuffed at the ankles and smeared with a brown substance -- stands at the center of the prison hallway and holds his arms spread to either side. [Hmmm...I wonder what that "brown substance" was? I know...let's play hangman to figure it out: S H __ T. Can you guess what the third letter is?]

The photos continue, showing an array of abuse in what appear to be different rooms, cells, showers and hallways of Abu Ghraib.

Hooded and cloaked men are handcuffed to hallway rails. A prisoner in flexible handcuffs is made to use a banana to simulate anal sex. Two naked male detainees are handcuffed to each other. A naked detainee hangs upside down from a top bunk. Another naked detainee grimaces, his face pressed against the ground, a soldier bending his arm behind his back. Blood covers the detainee's left knee, and another soldier grabs his right leg.

In one photo, a detainee is stripped to his underwear, in a hood. He is standing, crouched, on top of two boxes of MRE military meals, his arms cuffed around his left knee, his right ankle chained to a cell door.

Another detainee appears to be the victim of a cruel joke: A photo shows the man's deformed left hand emerging from an orange jumpsuit, the words "The Claw" written in English on his left breast pocket. A crude drawing of the man's hand appears on the back of his jumpsuit in another photo, with "The Claw" scrawled across his shoulder blades in black ink.


let's use at least a little objectivity here.

I would caution you to take some of your own medicine. ;)


Sometimes, you can't play by the rules, especially when you are dealing with others who have no interest in said rules.

So where/when/how do we not play by "the rules"? Your example about the "terrorist" who knows when an attack will take place is ridiculously simplistic and has no applicability to the real world. And...no where has it been proferred that any of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were terrorists that were "highly suspected with a very high probable cause, that [they knew] of a future attack that will result in the loss of death of hundreds or even thousands of people."

In short, you must draw the line some where, so draw it. And draw it as if you were a Pentagon official issuing guidelines that soldiers in the field are to follow.


I mean, a butt crack pyramid, faked oral sex, panties on the head, threatened by a dog??? Hell, I live in a college town, I've seen much worse than that at parties.

You really believe that is the extent of the abuse? Abu Ghraib was just a big college party?

And anyone who believes that these acts were perpetrated by just a "few loose cannons" is, in my opinion, a complete idiot.


The United States is arresting, torturing and killing innocent people. Weren't we better than that? Weren't we going to show people what living under a democracy is like? And this is what we offer them? Photos of dead men with smiling Americans giving a thumbs up? Possible rape videos? Torture and humiliation of innocents?

This is not being overblown. As Bush said "I have been disgraced." We've all been digraced and only a full investigation and removal of those who have authorized these actions will begin to redeem us in the eyes of the world, and in our own.

All exellent points. This is a disgraceful episode in American history; there are no ifs, ands or buts about that.


I don't understand how anyone can point a finger at another peoples unless we show the world that we will not tolerate such acts committed by us......we can do better, and should...

This reminds me of a question posed by a British reporter at a Tony Blair press conference with Premier Wen of China. The reporter asked Blair,

"Prime Minister, who are we to talk to the Chinese about human rights when we are in active Coalition, who have detained without trial, without access to lawyers, often in inhuman and we now know in degrading conditions, both in Iraq and in other places in the world, what right do we then have to question the Chinese about human rights?"

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I44079-2004May20
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pics/r21abuse.JPG
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040521/040521_wp_photos_bcol8a.vmedium.jpg

kwinters
May 21st, 2004, 10:45 AM
Thank you Booger. You have summed up my feelings about the horrific nature of this episode better than I could.

Apokalupsis
May 21st, 2004, 10:53 AM
Well...it would appear I need to pay better attention to the news now wouldn't it? ;)

Unfortunately, due to my schedule, pretty much the ONLY news I'm getting is that which is linked by members of this site.

As I have stated from the get-go, these actions are wrong and those responsible should be held accountable regardless of how high up the chain of command this goes.

If these events are true as stated, then yes, it would appear to be more than a few out of control servicemen and I could see the argument where in order for this to be on the scale that is purported, there would have to be a policy for its implementation. And if that were the case, then most definitely, it would be a very sad, and disgraceful time for the US.

While some may already see this as being the case, I prefer a bit more research on it before coming to such a conclusion. However, I am not above admitting that it is the case if it is truly found to be.

Part of my hesitation, is the fact that the mainstream media has been oppositional to the war from the start IMO. We constantly hear about the negative things, very, very rarely hearing about the good that we do and have done there. I would wager, that most of the members in this thread haven't heard anything whatsoever in way of progress and positive actions that we have done. Not because they refuse to hear it, but because it simply isn't heard in the thunder of the constant anti-US sentiment and opposition to the war which includes reporting of every negative thing possible in this war.

One could report mostly negative, mostly positive, or all possible events. I do not see ANY media organization reporting mostly positive, nor all possible events. For what good we have brought to the Iraqi people and Iraq, I have to hear or read it from Iraqi's, blogs, or a few independent sites, and that is rather disturbing.

kwinters
May 21st, 2004, 11:01 AM
"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

GWB
2003 State of the Union address

See also:
Terrorism interrogations and torture
We know right from wrong
By TOM MALINOWSKI

http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/mar03/125707.asp

KneeLess
May 21st, 2004, 03:03 PM
Scenerio: An Iraqi insurgent POW may or may not know the locations of his superiors. To find out, US Military uses physical abuse to verify whether or not he has this information.

This is wrong. Those conducting such "interrogation" should be held accountable.

Scenerio: A known terrorist was captured while trying to kill a group of people. It is highly suspected with a very high probable cause, that he knows of a future attack that will result in the loss of death of hundreds or even thousands of people. To attain this intel to prevent such loss of life, the US Military uses mental, psychological, and/or physical abuse.

This is right, this is necessary.

Now, specifically, where is the hypocricy? Support it or retract it.
What you said is just it. Let's beat, torture, sleep deprive, humiliate and cause much physical pain to all detaines! Now you said this using Military Intelligance (oxymoron, anyone? :p), well what about the people in Abu Ghraib? They were simple POWs fighting agaisnt the US in support of their cause. Yet they were beaten, tortured, and at least one was killed. You may make the point that this was a few bad seeds. Wrong. CIA opertives, Sergeants, and people as high as Rumsfeld are accused (with varying levels of veracity).

And in responce to the second scenario: the point may be argued that his is using Urban Guerilla Warfare, and is infact a POW, not a terrorist. Therefore this violates the Geneva Convention, and violates human rights, no matter how many people it may or may not save. Who cares if this goes agaisnt human rights, right comrades? And if I may add:

So where/when/how do we not play by "the rules"? Your example about the "terrorist" who knows when an attack will take place is ridiculously simplistic and has no applicability to the real world. And...no where has it been proferred that any of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were terrorists that were "highly suspected with a very high probable cause, that [they knew] of a future attack that will result in the loss of death of hundreds or even thousands of people."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part of my hesitation, is the fact that the mainstream media has been oppositional to the war from the start IMO. We constantly hear about the negative things, very, very rarely hearing about the good that we do and have done there. I would wager, that most of the members in this thread haven't heard anything whatsoever in way of progress and positive actions that we have done. Not because they refuse to hear it, but because it simply isn't heard in the thunder of the constant anti-US sentiment and opposition to the war which includes reporting of every negative thing possible in this war.
Well, negative things make news. An volcano eruption that kills thousands is much more interesting than police in Iraq doing their jobs to most Americans, and that makes money. And we have heard good things. Remember the fall of Saddam? For weeks the news said nothing but how good America was doing and how much the Iraqi people liked us. How quickly we forget. :)

Apokalupsis
May 21st, 2004, 04:13 PM
What you said is just it. Let's beat, torture, sleep deprive, humiliate and cause much physical pain to all detaines!
I never said any such thing.


Now you said this using Military Intelligance (oxymoron, anyone? :p), well what about the people in Abu Ghraib? They were simple POWs fighting agaisnt the US in support of their cause.
NO they were not. The prison held many prisoners for many reasons. Those held in that particular area of the prison were considered to be high security detainees.


Yet they were beaten, tortured, and at least one was killed. You may make the point that this was a few bad seeds. Wrong. CIA opertives, Sergeants, and people as high as Rumsfeld are accused (with varying levels of veracity).
We'll see how far it goes. But being accused isn't equitable to being found guilty.


And in responce to the second scenario: the point may be argued that his is using Urban Guerilla Warfare, and is infact a POW, not a terrorist.
He could be the President of France for all I care. His status doesn't absolve him of any crimes or intent. However, most rational people are capable of recognizing a terrorist when they see one, especially experts in the field. I don't think there could be any confusing someone who just killed a schoolbus full of children, attempted to kill more, and is known to be a part of a fanatical-religious organization that insists anyone not like them must be destroyed...with an "urban guerilla".


Therefore this violates the Geneva Convention, and violates human rights, no matter how many people it may or may not save.
1) Not all situations will violate the conventions.
2) If the President of France attacks the US killing millions, is captured, and we know that HE knows when, where and how the next attack will come about that will result in the loss of life of more millions...SCREW his rights. I'll cut off his fingers myself.


Who cares if this goes agaisnt human rights, right comrades?
When it comes to situations above, right. Welcome to the real world where evil doesn't PLAY by your rules...and when you play by such black and white rules...you lose.


And if I may add:
Thanks for reminding me...



So where/when/how do we not play by "the rules"? Your example about the "terrorist" who knows when an attack will take place is ridiculously simplistic and has no applicability to the real world. And...no where has it been proferred that any of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were terrorists that were "highly suspected with a very high probable cause, that [they knew] of a future attack that will result in the loss of death of hundreds or even thousands of people."

1) Straw man fallacy. Absolutely NOWHERE have I argued that these poor, innocent, random, illegally detained "prisoners" were terrorists. NOWHERE have I justified "torture" to them. In fact, I've argued to the contrary.

2) An argument was inferred about it being morally wrong to "torture" others. Show me where the philosophical breakdown is of the argument that under some circumstances it could be necessary and right, then this objection will hold validation. Until then, it is irrelevant.

kwinters
May 22nd, 2004, 02:01 AM
NO they were not. The prison held many prisoners for many reasons. Those held in that particular area of the prison were considered to be high security detainees.

As a reminder:

Washington -- Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70 to 90 percent of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake," according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.

Of the 43,000 Iraqis who have been imprisoned at some point during the occupation, only about 600 have been referred to Iraqi authorities for prosecution, according to U.S. officials.


If these high security detainees were so dangerous, why are they now releasing hundreds?

The Independent - UK
5-5-4

Hayder Sabbar Abd is the man in the hood. He was one of the Iraqi prisoners stripped, humiliated, beaten and abused by American reservists and interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison in what is arguably the worst scandal to engulf the United States military since the massacre of Vietnamese villagers at My Lai in 1968.

Having been freed from prison <u>without charge</u> several months ago, the slightly built father of five is now talking about his abuse and, with the help of the photographs that have shocked the world, identifying those who carried it out.

"Americans did not mistreat me in general," he said. "But these people must be tried. I can't tell you my feelings. The Americans got rid of Saddam Hussein. They told us about democracy and freedom. We are happy about that. Then [the soldiers] did this to the seven of us. I am asking 'Is that democracy, is that freedom?'."

(emphasis added)

How many of these abused men were ever charged with anything? That might be a good thing to research.

FruitandNut
May 22nd, 2004, 04:41 AM
As the great and smacked up Bob Dylan once said, 'When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?'

Don't politicians or senior officers think in the round any more?

Bet it will be juniors who carry the can!

ps. As the UK is in a unique position of trying to 'nanny' the power blocks of USA and the EU, Blair is finding himself between a rock and a hard place.

The UK is using up huge amounts of goodwill and trust in the Arab world at present. It would be wonderful if the British Army had enough troops to allow Uncle Sam to slide quietly out of its mess.

sjjs
May 22nd, 2004, 05:47 AM
The UK is using up huge amounts of goodwill and trust in the Arab world at present. It would be wonderful if the British Army had enough troops to allow Uncle Sam to slide quietly out of its mess.

It would be even more wonderful if the UK could get out now before any more crap happens. Were the Tories to promote this agenda they would landslide the next election. Unfortunately only the LibDems are anti-war which makes the possibility of us getting out somewhat remote.

Apokalupsis
May 22nd, 2004, 09:21 PM
*sigh*
Not looking very good.

9 homicide investigations underway...


he nine prisoner homicides apparently under investigation:

—Abdul Jaleel, 46, who died Jan. 9, 2004, at Forward Operating Base Rifles near Al Asad, Iraq. He died of "blunt force injuries and asphyxia."

—Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a former commander of Saddam Hussein's air defenses, who died Nov. 26, 2003, during interrogation at Qaim, Iraq. His death may have involved a CIA officer who is an interrogator. Doctors attributed his death to "asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression."

—Manadel Al-Jamadi, who was being held at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison in which the well-known abuse of prisoners took place. He died Nov. 4, 2003, of "blunt force injuries complicated by compromised respiration," doctors said. Two CIA personnel, an officer and a contract translator, were present when he died. The agency and Justice Department are investigating.

—Abdul Wali, a prisoner at Asadabad, Afghanistan, who died June 21, 2003. The CIA's inspector general is conducting an inquiry into this death; it is unclear whether the Army still is.

—Dilar Dababa, who was being held near Baghdad. He died June 13, 2003, of what doctors determined was a head injury.

—An Afghan listed only as Dilawar, 22, held at Bagram, who died Dec. 10, 2002. Doctors attributed his death to "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease."

—Mullah Habibullah, about 28, an Afghan held at Bagram, who died Dec. 3, 2002. Doctors attributed his death to "pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries to the legs."

—Two additional deaths of unidentified prisoners, at least one of which occurred in Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120644,00.html

KevinBrowning
May 22nd, 2004, 10:37 PM
*sigh*
Not looking very good.

9 homicide investigations underway...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120644,00.html

I hadn't heard that there were that many suspected homicides of Iraqi prisoners. The only way we can save face now is to punish the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. And I think we're doing this, as we have already given the maximum sentence to the first soldier to be court-martialed.

Shadow Fury
May 22nd, 2004, 10:47 PM
*sigh*
Not looking very good.

9 homicide investigations underway...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120644,00.html


it's hard to believe, indeed. yet, you can always find a handful of fools in just about any big group. so horrible how we treated them, that should have never happened. this is not doing us any good whatsoever, just more publicity for the news. >_<

FruitandNut
May 23rd, 2004, 07:33 AM
Shadow Fury - what were the people doing further up the the ladder of command while such things were happening - yea, even unto the Oval Orafice itself. Bet that lot have an army of spin doctors brushing out their trail markings as I type.

Shadow Fury
May 23rd, 2004, 10:32 AM
Shadow Fury - what were the people doing further up the the ladder of command while such things were happening - yea, even unto the Oval Orafice itself. Bet that lot have an army of spin doctors brushing out their trail markings as I type.

obviously it was a break down in the chain of command, the commanders should have been on top of this, having secruity checks and have supervision over these groups, but obviously it wasn't enforced enough. Pretty sad.

FruitandNut
May 23rd, 2004, 10:36 AM
Yes, but the spin doctors will make sure those most responsible (higher up), will not carry the can.

sjjs
May 23rd, 2004, 12:16 PM
obviously it was a break down in the chain of command, the commanders should have been on top of this, having secruity checks and have supervision over these groups, but obviously it wasn't enforced enough. Pretty sad.

The talk on the walls at the moment is that those at the top did know what was going on and if they didn't organise it themselves they at least turned a blind eye to what was going on.

I don't think we'll find a breakdown in the chain of command here.

kamakaze
May 24th, 2004, 10:40 AM
Apok,
You said sigh, there are 9 murder investigations or whatever you had said, that meant you actually believe it. But here is an update, there are over 25(closer to 30) prisoner deaths by US- either in questioning or just after- in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another note is, the pic of the dead guy- I believe it was him-, his death was at first ruled "death by natural causes". It is now being ruled "death by homicide" and there is an investigation into why the death certificate was faked-originally- , how he died, and who-exactly- killed him.

Slipnish
May 24th, 2004, 11:45 AM
You really believe that is the extent of the abuse? Abu Ghraib was just a big college party?

No, but at the time, it was all that I was aware of.


And anyone who believes that these acts were perpetrated by just a "few loose cannons" is, in my opinion, a complete idiot.

Funny, I feel the same way about people who overgeneralize or jump to conclusions.

FruitandNut
June 30th, 2004, 05:25 AM
In regard to prisoner abuse, first refer to Stamford Uni. faculty of Psyco. Prisoner-Guard experiment (summer 1971) (replicated many times since by other organisations).