US and British abuse of prisoners in Iraq

[Kyran]

I see we have two threads on this subject. No problem. I will enjoy quoting myself from the other thread as I beat the living crap out of this issue.

My post in it's entirety can be read here: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...opic=1418&st=30

We will begin with this one.

Originally posted by Kyran,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm not apologizing for what our troops are doing. I'm demanding an apology from everyone who has a problem with it.[/b]

This is where I am right and everyone else is wrong: including the left and the right, Bush, the libertarians, and the mainstream media. You can all STFU.

Originally posted by Kyran,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It takes no courage whatsoever to sit here and play "I say you do" with our military units. They risk their lives and we give them OUR opinion of how they treat prisoners? Who do you think you are? Remember, they are out there in a Kill-or-be-killed zone, not a comfy couch with a TV or computer in front of them.[/b]

Dubya Tee Eff is your problem people? Wake up.

Originally posted by Kyran, These POWs who's buddies are shooting our troops from mosques and homes have information. I say we beat their asses so badly that they tell us who, what, when, and where the enemy is coming from. The enemy is not honoring any damn convention. They have killed our reporters, our volunteer workers, our contractors, their own people, and our military personnel, and have captured and tortured our people before. Need I remind you?

Even the CBS article quotes the following reason why Frederick abused prisoners:
Frederick's letters and email messages home also offer clues to problems at the prison. He wrote that he was helping the interrogators:

"Military intelligence has encouraged and told us 'Great job.' "

Who here read to this part of the article? And who here read up until the point where they decided to jump to conclusions? Not me. I jumped to conclusions just like the rest of you. I thought they were gathering intelligence without having heard ANYTHING suggesting such. It just goes to show ya...Men understand Men. Boys do not understand Men.

<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran,@
Ah, but nobody told us why our troops were "torturing" prisoners did they? I demand you accusers explain why our troops committed this act that you would have their heads on a platter, and explain how this is beneficial to our military operation and an end to the violence in Iraq. I know what you're thinking, children. You think those men and women in arms are "out of control" and committing violence because they are bloodthirsty.[/quote]

The article DOES tells you why those troops are trying to win the war. It just focuses on the negative instead of the positive. The Israeli occupation has been such a success for the mainstream media that our corporate friends, YOU, want more! Fanatics are killing people while the beaurocrats protect the offenders instead of the victims. Well I hope you are entertained. Because you get what you pay for and you have paid for a quagmire where our troops cannot use the force necessary to end the violence.

<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran,
Our troops have the Right to Win, using any means they decide they need to employ, and especially if the cowards back home are too pampered to understand the necessary usage of force in a war-zone. They were ORDERED to win, not to create news for the leftist media.

Suddenly this has become a problem for GOVERNMENT to solve, even among so-called limited government advocates. And why? Because somebody's "rights" are being violated. Oh dear God, we need Government now that innocent Iraqi insurgents are being harmed! To think that we might not see more dead Americans on the evening news if we do not control their every thought and behavior!

Never never NEVER argue with the Fusionist.

War is not Peace. You do not win a war by obeying the rules, you win by using the most force effectively. When you do not use enough force, you get another Vietnam. You get troops dying every day as both sides continue to fight endlessly, using only enough force that a few people will die. Only bloodthirsty madmen would desire such a horrendous and inhumane treatment of opposing sides in conflict.[/quote]

So, who here is willing to go be a soldier in our forces at Fallujah? I am. But I'm not going to obey YOU punks if I go there. You tell me to stand guard like a sitting duck and protect the friggin enemy and I will pull the following:

I will enter a detainee camp and ask everyone who knows the LEAST. I will tell them that the person who knows the least has to be released. Once the detainees point their finger at the person who knows nothing, I will kill him. Then the other detainees will understand that they are not dignified prisoners with special rights to kill us and hide information. The war will be over in a matter of days and I will be arrested for being a war criminal...and ending the violence that the bloodthirsty warmongerers enjoy so much. I would regret nothing.

What I would regret is sitting here putting up with a bunch of pompous bloodthirsty pantywaists who want to see more dead Americans on the evening news. You are all out of line. What our troops in Iraq are doing is NOT WORKING numbskulls! If it did work, this would be over. They have to use Force to win this War. It's not like the troops are torturing civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict. You have no argument. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

If you want the violence to end either get out the way of our men in uniform, or go legislate the terrorists. Pass a law against THEM for a change why don't you? You're all so READY to hand them your Right to a Trial by Jury, make them pay taxes while you're at it.

Yeah...I am Me.

[Dieval]

Here's an interesting article I found on this very subject...
Article

Excerpt:

Originally posted by Article without minimizing the seriousness of these apparent transgressions, we need to take a breath, get a grip, and put the sordid incident in some perspective beyond its initial 24-hour news cycle. • First, investigations are not yet completed. Lurid pictures, hearsay and leaked accounts to the New Yorker magazine are not yet proof of torture, either systematic, brutal, or habitual. • Second, already the self-correcting mechanisms of the U.S. government and the American free press are in full throttle. Responsible parties, from Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt to President Bush himself, have condemned the accused guards and promised swift punishment when and if they are found guilty. Although all are innocent until convicted by a military court, the media, government, and officer corps by their initial public pronouncements have apparently erred on the side of the soldiers' guilt. • Third, we must keep the allegations in some sort of historical context. Even at their worst, these disturbing incidents are not comparable to past atrocities such as the June 1943 killing of prisoners in Sicily, the machine-gunning of civilians at the No Gun Ri railway bridge in Korea, or My Lai. Beatings and rumors of sexual sadism, horrific as they appear, are not on a par with executions that have transpired throughout all dirty wars -- such as the simultaneous reports that Macedonians are now accused of murdering Pakistanis -- but so far have not been attributed to Americans on either the Afghan or the Iraqi battlefield. • Fourth, there is an asymmetry about the coverage of the incident, an imbalance and double standard that have been predictable throughout this entire brutal war. • Fifth, we are now in an uncertain peace in Iraq. Gone are ranks of the uniformed Republican Guard and the terrible clarity of the three-week war when there were at least lines of combat. Those who have killed over 400 Americans since last April have no uniforms. They shoot from mosques. At night they place bombs indiscriminately on public thoroughfares, and have blown up hundreds of innocent Iraqis who were guilty of nothing more than trying to restore civilian services under the auspices of what promises to be a consensual government.

Sure, it's not looking good for our heros, but before everyone goes and passes judgement, maybe we should wait for the trial and actually hear ALL the facts...

[commonsense]

Kyran,
I think what I just expressed above puts us on the same page is in this matter doesn't it? Except I did it more briefly. (There's a first time for everything)

[VXerick]

I'm sorry to have to tell you people this, but good people don't turn bad. The people involved in these incidents were either weak-minded zombies, who would follow the leader no matter what, or they were already seasoned abusers. I'd bet if someone checked back into their lives pre-joining the military, they would find that the people involved in this abuse, had already abused other people or got a thrill out of the idea of doing it.

The blame is on absent Moms and Dads, shoving kids into daycare, relinquishing parental control onto other entities like schools and shopping malls. The blame is on a society that loves pornography, argues about baring breasts on TV encourages open sexual behavior between the normal and not so normal, and thinks oral sex performed on a President in the Oval office was ok.

[Mia]

Traumatic experiences can't change a persons behavior? I suggest you take a psych 101 course.

Am I allowed to mention my degree in it?

If you're going to go to war and kill people, you first have to dehumanize them - otherwise you won't be able to shoot. So of course this is going to have other effects on your other behavior with them as well.

[PatrickHenry]

Anyone wishing to read a transcript of Taguba's report can find it here
The first part of this document alleges that the report was classified in order to cover up wrong doing, which is itself a violation. Let's see what becomes of that story.

[PatrickHenry]

Torture is American policy. This is dishonor. This is not the country we thought we knew and loved, but rather an alien land governed by vicious and unaccountable rulers.

Thank God for the Torturers
By Steve Weissman
Excerpt

But for all the honeyed words and hurried reforms, American torture will not stop. The CIA and military intelligence will continue to hurt, humiliate, and attempt to break the prisoners they want to question, and - if they can get away with it - so will our homeland security forces, whether the FBI, a new version of Britain's MI5, or even our local police. Why so sure? Because the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Bush Administration have made torture an undeniable tool in their all-embracing War on Terror. When Don Rumsfeld repeatedly told us during the Afghanistan War how much the world had changed, torture was one of the post-911 "changes" he was telegraphing. In fact, there was less change of direction than natural evolution. The CIA and military intelligence began training foreign armies and police forces in torture techniques many years before. Much of what Americans now do in Iraq comes right out of the CIA's KUBARK Counter-intelligence Interrogation Manual, published in 1963, and their updated Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual, published in 1983. Both became public in 1997, when the Baltimore Sun won an epic Freedom of Information battle against the CIA in an investigation of the agency's involvement in Central America. From the opening battles in Afghanistan, American troops used these same techniques, having obviously learned them months and years earlier. Only before September 11, any use had to be limited and hush-hush, while in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo, the soldiers and CIA advisors employed them on an industrial scale, often in partial view. The first clue became visible at Bagram Air Base near Kabul, when American soldiers systematically put cloth sacks over the heads of their captives, whether al-Qaeda, Taliban, or some poor Afghan villager mistakenly taken prisoner. Mistakes might - or might not - be sorted out later. We were fighting a War on Terror. In part, a hood, blindfold, or spray-painted goggles made prisoners easier to control. But the visual deprivation began the process of disorienting them, enhancing psychological stress as the CIA's torture manuals recommended. The troops kept the prisoners standing or kneeling in painful positions for hours at a time, forced them into other agonizing postures, often stripped them naked, humiliated them non-stop, threatened them, deprived them of sufficient food and sleep, or left them in freight containers, where they suffered extremes of heat and cold. The soldiers also withheld medical treatment and needed medication, especially painkillers, and kicked their prisoners around a bit, just to show who was boss.

[PatrickHenry]

Here is a story about one of the abused prisoners.
Iraqi Recounts Hours of Abuse by U.S. Troops
By Ian Fisher
New York Times

Wednesday 05 May 2004
Excerpt

The shame is so deep that Hayder Sabbar Abd says he feels that he cannot move back to his old neighborhood. He would prefer not even to stay in Iraq. But now the entire world has seen the pictures, which Mr. Abd looked at yet again on Tuesday, pointing out the key figures, starting with three American soldiers wearing big smiles for the camera. snip But Mr. Abd's account differed in one crucial way from the substance of a report, written by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba and first reported last week by The New Yorker magazine and the CBS News program "60 Minutes II." While the report says the military police in the prison often mistreated prisoners to help military intelligence officers gain information during interrogations, Mr. Abd said his case appeared to be punishment for bad behavior, in this case a jail-yard fight. snip About 10 days after it started, the nightly abuse ended, for no explained reason. "Joiner" just stopped coming to the cell block, and about a month later, Mr. Abd and two others among the seven were transferred to a civilian Iraqi prison in Baghdad. Two weeks or so after that, an American military investigator came to visit him. He showed Mr. Abd the pictures and said he needed him to make a statement against the military police who had mistreated him. Mr. Abd trusted him. "He said, 'Don't be afraid. Tell us what happened. We are on your side,' " Mr. Abd remembered. " `Tell us everything they have done.' " Mr. Abd was released in mid-April. Looking back, the only explanation he can imagine for the mistreatment is that "Joiner" had been drinking. "Americans did not mistreat me in general," he said. "But these people must be tried." "I can't tell you my feelings," he said. "The Americans got rid of Saddam Hussein. They told us about democracy and freedom. We are happy about that." But then he tapped the photos again. "Then this man did this to the seven of us," he said. "I am asking: Is that democracy? Is that freedom?"

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Mia, Traumatic experiences can't change a persons behavior? I suggest you take a psych 101 course. Am I allowed to mention my degree in it? If you're going to go to war and kill people, you first have to dehumanize them - otherwise you won't be able to shoot. So of course this is going to have other effects on your other behavior with them as well.

Then what you are saying is every serviceman or woman is a sadistic monster????

[Mia]

Is that what I said? I said "other effects". The size and scope depend on a variety of factors, including the pre-disposition you mentioned.

I was pointing out that it IS possible for people with NO pre-disposition to turn due to trauma.

[Kyran]

Pat, thanks for clarifying "He said, 'Don't be afraid. Tell us what happened. We are on your side,' " Mr. Abd remembered. " `Tell us everything they have done.' "

Yeah, it takes a real man to tell an enemy unit "We are on YOUR side." And LOOK, isn't it sweet? That unit that didn't want to share his intelligence is READY to talk about what those BAD BAD soldiers did to him. Is everyone happy now that they have supported the enemy? Can we have a National Holiday named after this? How about "National Backstabbing Traitor Day?"

I LOVE the way your truthout.org writer sends the message that "if they can get away with it - so will our homeland security forces, whether the FBI, a new version of Britain's MI5, or even our local police". This is no more than absolute speculation. You think if Bush and the military themselves prosecute torture offenders, that somehow civilian police will get away with it? How does one reach this conclusion?

Doesn't anyone think it's strange that: Our soldiers can kill an enemy on the field unless they capture him.

While this may serve as an incentive to encourage surrender, the enemy we are currently fighting is not surrendering. They have all the time in the world to recruit more cannon fodder because of the lax reaction-fighting we are doing.

Now besides the British urinating on Iraqi prisoners, take a look at U.S. soldier Frederick's account. He talks about breaking tables and fearing them up in the CBS article. Nobody can scare the enemy anymore into talking now that they know public opinion will protect them from our own military. They are going to abuse your kindness; a kindness that they never earned.

War is not about "fairness" or "holding the moral ground." It is about using the most force to win. I say this as someone who hates war and hates being forced to use force. But the facts are clear:

1. We are fighting a quagmire, and each side is losing incrementally day-by-day in a "fair fight."
2. Our strategy is "let the Arabs take care of it themselves."
3. Our tactics are "don't get any information if it harms our image."
4. Our interrogation methods are now futile.
5. Our enemy is advantaged by Fog of War; we don't know where their leader is.

What's the goal people?

[commonsense]

How many American petty thieves or "political enemies" have had their hands chopped off?

How many, (or better, what percentage of the entire population!) have in Arab countries?

I don't recall anyone on this site thinking the U.S. had any legitimate national security interest in Iraq, but these arguments seem to be broader, societal arguments, and am I the only one who sees the difference between us and them?

And you're right, Mia, the vast majority of those functioning in any capacity, way before you shave their head, dress them in uniform and pin-on a tin star, will readily condone and/or commit all manner of atrocities all under the umbrella of "just following orders"....
We're all familiar with the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments...
That's why I think there's creative, nonviolent popular methods to geting the domestic terror situation under control that would be short-term, self-limiting in severity and effective, without creating the larger and more pernicious sociological after-effects of our present strong-arm tactics that we'll never get rid of.

By the way, before you even remotely advocate anything to do with hiring any government agent for whateverpurpose, especially "security", remember that the boys in the Zimbardo experiment or the average men in the Milgram experiment were carefully screened and not already motivated by being short, having had their lunch money stolen, or being picked-on in the schoolyard growing-up as are the poorly-educated snot-nosed, head-shaved punks swarming my college campus going into "criminal justice"

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Kyran, Pat, thanks for clarifying: That unit that didn't want to share his intelligence is READY to talk about what those BAD BAD soldiers did to him. Is everyone happy now that they have supported the enemy? Can we have a National Holiday named after this? How about "National Backstabbing Traitor Day?" What's the goal people?

Well, my goal is to see US troops home alive.

Did you read Mr. Abd's story? He had no intel to give.

Critics supporting the "enemy?" You're so blind you won't recognize him when he shows you his Federal badge... You are the traitor to the American principle of rule of law. If "might makes right" then human slavery is "right"...

Get a clue, you moral black hole.

[Mia]

Commonsense, you're not answering my question about why you were spreading around false words on Arabic or Muslim nations' flags.

I addressed it in "Are muslim nations terrorist..."

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio The difference is, teh actions of a few soldiers that are being complete dirt bags, is not the equivilent of an entire regime of sanctioned like behavior. The USA does not condone or promote such behavior. Does it happen? Yes. Why? Cause people suck. Teh difference, we don't tolerate such on an instituional level. While crap does happen, its localized to small groups.

Sorry, Vicchio. You have been refuted by the International Red Cross. In their report on what has been transpiring at Gitmo: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=588470
Or at truthout: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120204B.shtml

The Red Cross has accused President George Bush's administration of overseeing the intentional physical and psychological torture of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Furthermore, they say the US is using medical personnel in the torture/interrogation regimen. This reminds me of WW II's Dr. Mengele. How can a formerly highly regarded nation like the US descend into barbarism? Are Nazi-like methods now acceptable in the search for those opposed to the wars of choice in the 21st Century?

The generals were advised early on that abuse of prisoners was occurring, yet they found it acceptable apparently: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...30.html?sub=AR
or truthout: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120204C.shtml

A confidential report to Army generals in Iraq in December 2003 warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees, a finding delivered more than a month before Army investigators received the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison that touched off investigations into prisoner mistreatment. The report, which was not released publicly and was recently obtained by The Washington Post, concluded that some U.S. arrest and detention practices at the time could "technically" be illegal. It also said coalition fighters could be feeding the Iraqi insurgency by "making gratuitous enemies" as they conducted sweeps netting hundreds of detainees who probably did not belong in prison and holding them for months at a time.

Not only that, but there has apparently been a practice of siezing and holding innocent hostages, relatives of those sought by the Occupying Forces. Female relatives. In a prison known for RAPE. Translation = "We will RAPE your wife and daughter until you surrender."

Unless you can find solace in the pronouncement by the US Propagandist in Chief that the "rape rooms" have been closed. Oh, wait. That didn't mean rapists from the US. http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/stor...220673,00.html

And now the person who finds torture acceptable, Alberto Gonzales, is named to head the DoJ, becoming America's top Lawman.

[OberonDOtherseid]

What I saw was a quote that the red cross has accused Bush's administration of overseeing the intentional physical and psychological torture of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Now tell me how that constitutes a fact? Accused equals fact?

[PatrickHenry]

Well, Oberon. The Red Cross did physically visit Guantanamo Bay. They ARE an internationally recognized humanitarian organization, not Joe Crackhead's blog. Maybe this gives them no cred to you. But then, no one is blinder than the guy who won't open his eyes...

On the other hand, why would the Bush Administration lie to cover up torture? They could just as easily be telling the truth and the RC are a bunch of liars who just want to piss of the most powerful government on earth.*

It's okay, just keep believing Washington DC. And go back to sleep, it was only a bad dream...




* Denotes irony.

[OberonDOtherseid]

Patrick why don't you stop the ad hominem and answer the question straight. Does accusations that are unfounded become fact? If they were there, which I have no doubt, and I have no reason to doubt the Red Cross or anyone, they said it happened, they can provide the proof. Telling me I am just blind is weak and baseless, if the accusation is so obvious it should be obvious to prove.

[PatrickHenry]

Oberon, we are just debaters. We don't furnish proof, we provide evidence. Facts exist. Do you dispute that people many times refuse to face facts, because of a previous mindset?

I haven't been to Guantanamo, probably not you either. Does that mean that all discussion should cease?

Similar to last weeks discussion on sources, what constitutes proof differs from one individual to another. I find the Red Cross credible on this issue. I find the Bush Administration a pack of liars. If you think the opposite, say so and we'll call it our opinions.

The "blindness/eyes closed" statement wasn't directed to only you. It is a general observation, thus not an ad hominem. Have you become sensitive to the ad hom issue now? You weren't when we first met...

[bullshitdetector]

Some people become sensitive to it when they are told they can't engage in it and are warned for it while others continue to get away with it, it's called human nature. Nobody likes to be singled out and nobody likes to follow guidelines while others wilfully do as they please. I think OBE has been very respectful of you and yet you come back with nonsense like "Go back to sleep". It doesn't bother me in the least but YOU are the one who plays the game of the great debater who is above such nonsense when someone does it to you, why the change in attitude? Have you become more lax for some reason?
The reason for OBE and I arguing the source issue is because no matter what any conservative says it is met with "Go back to sleep, keep following the party line" etc etc etc, and the discussion becomes a bashfest of how stupid the conservative is with ad hominems and jabs. Nobody on this thread said the Red Cross is full of it, PH. But the Red Cross was all full of it with the money from 9/11 until they were forced to account for what they were doing with the cash. Nobody is perfect, not the Red Cross, the media, the government, nobody. Accusations come in many forms, it can be accusatory to see something and misconstrue what is seen. In my opinion, I can't speak for OBE on this, but an accusation smacks of a conclusion to something they suspect, not something they are sure of. Doesn't that concern you?