US and British abuse of prisoners in Iraq

[PatrickHenry]

BSD, I am not a big fan of the IRC either. They have credibility issues, true.

Have you ceased from the ad homs of your early presence here, too? That is a good thing, so that we can stay with issues. You may notice that in the thread above I called Kyran a "moral black hole." Not a very nice thing to say. My excuse: I was new to this forum, and failed to understand the difference between a personal attack and an issues-based argument. My opinion of Kyran hasn't changed, but I wouldn't direct it so pointedly these days. It would end with a generalization, allowing the inference to do the job. Fine tuning to take advantage of the forum doesn't disallow sharp disagreement. Our opinions of one another simply need to be expressed with more civility.

Back to the issue: How can we be sure of anything? Our experience of reality is based on the preponderance of evidence and a logical analysis of the likelihood of true testimony from the people and organizations involved.

The Red Cross report is actually not a publicly published paper. It was leaked and the material is confidential to the US gov. Red Cross is apparently not trying to make political hay, but rather to change the government's mind regarding the use of torture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/po...rtner=homepage
or truthout for a copy: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120104Z.shtml

The New York Times recently obtained a memorandum, based on the report, that quotes from it in detail and lists its major findings. It was the first time that the Red Cross, which has been conducting visits to Guantánamo since January 2002, asserted in such strong terms that the treatment of detainees, both physical and psychological, amounted to torture. The report said that another confidential report in January 2003, which has never been disclosed, raised questions of whether "psychological torture" was taking place. <snip> "The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture," the report said. <snip> The conclusions by the inspection team, especially the findings involving alleged complicity in mistreatment by medical professionals, have provoked a stormy debate within the Red Cross committee. Some officials have argued that it should make its concerns public or at least aggressively confront the Bush administration.

And it seems others in leadership are hoping to pursue a more back-channel diplomatic course. Either way, Red Cross is unequivocal about the use of torture as a US policy. Not just a few bad apples as Vicchio asserted.

Our government is engaged in torture as a policy.

[Nono]

Quote by: BSD The Red Cross was all full of it with the money from 9/11 until they were forced to account for

Don't confuse the American Red Cross with the International Committee of the Red Cross. True, the Red Cross and Red Crescent "movement", as they call it, is a pretty complicated affair (for historical reasons) but an effort should be made if you're going to discuss it. The relationship between the ARC and the ICRC is sort of the same as between a state government in the US and that country's federal government: not unconnected by any means, but not at all synonymous either. Apart from anything else, they largely have different tasks.

When the ICRC visits prisoners -- as it does all over the world -- one if its conditions is that its delegates be able to speak in private with the prisoners of their choice. They notice consistencies and discrepancies in what they hear and they compare these with their own findings, including the medical examination of prisoners. The ICRC's interest in not making false charges is obvious. If it says there's torture, there's torture.

The ICRC's reports to the governments of the many countries it works in are confidential. The reason for this is pretty obvious too: if they weren't, this would destroy the relationship of trust that has to exist. My guess is that this report was leaked by one of Rummy's many enemies in the Pentagon. There was a similar leak to the Wall Street Journal six months ago.

[Zeebadee]

The Red Cross report gains enormous credibility when you consider the fact that senior members of the Bush administration have continually claimed that the protections of the Geneva Convention do not apply to prisoners we have taken.

"THE BUSH administration pretends, and many Americans may believe, that the abuse of U.S.-held prisoners abroad ended after the release of sensational photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Sadly, it did not. While blaming the crimes at Abu Ghraib on a small group of low-ranking soldiers, the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA have fought to preserve the exceptional and sometimes secret policies that allow U.S. personnel to violate the Geneva Conventions and other laws governing the handling and interrogation of foreign detainees. Under those policies, practices at odds with basic American values continue -- even if there are no sensational photos to document them." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62801-2004Oct25.html"

Why would any nation claim the right to violate the Geneva Convention unless it was going to exercise that right?

[rmnunez]

I was wondering whether it might be a PR stunt.

Some new pictures apparently of Marines beating up some suspected terrorist with a bag on his head wearing a dress, got me wondering. Given the adverse impact on military careers resulting from prior publication of similar pictures, why would members of the US armed forces, pose in their uniforms while beating up a captive? If it were me making a fist and someone pulled out a camera I'd take it away.

These seem like rather dumb intelligence officers (I'm guessing that is their responsibility and that the victim is a suspected terrorist) unless there could be some ulterior motive to their baffling disconcern for the impact on their continued military service. This got me thinking how the military could use these pictures.

We don't have a readily recognizable prescription for terrorism. Some say their fate is revolutionary sacrifice in armed struggle for unattainable quests followed by criminal prosecution, full due process of law and lengthy incarceration upon capture, maybe they can write their memoirs and become the next generation's Che.

The pictures offer a graphic rendition of one of the fates befalling terrorists; their sexual humiliation publicly displayed as they get beaten by their enemy's amused big bullies. The whole sexual thing seems directed at causing the greatest offense to the most fundamentalist and the whole mess probably is a strong caution against the more faint-hearted considering careers in terrorism.

Maybe the pictures are posed or even real action shots taken on orders with the understanding by these guys its for a better cause, to discourage Muslim youths from signing up for the Jihad and provoke as incautious an answer as possible from the most fanatical among the fundamentalists. I also imagine they could show them to the suspects when trying to identify team members, maybe help encourage some cooperation by seeing what could happen to them if they don't.

[Devout_Muslim]

I prefer to call a "muslim terrorist" a freedom fighter, and to call the western invaders terrorists.

[Nono]

Proverb: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[bullshitdetector]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim I prefer to call a "muslim terrorist" a freedom fighter, and to call the western invaders terrorists.

What would you call a muslin invader? Maybe the muslims you are calling freedom fighters are doing exactly that, fighting freedom. :p

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim I prefer to call a "muslim terrorist" a freedom fighter, and to call the western invaders terrorists.

I can see where some would side with you regarding iraqi insurgents as they are fighting the invading military, but are you lumping in the people who blow up buses, trains and buildings? A "freedom fighter" can be called that only if there is something to be gained from the people they are actually fighting, such as making an army withdraw. Civilian targets have NOTHING to give the terrorists! They have no power to influence what their government does and killing them is just plain murder.
You won't find a lot of sympathy or understanding for THAT kind of "freedom fighter".

Also, as your handle is "Devout Muslim", I ask how your religion sees the killing of innocents.

[PatrickHenry]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121004H.shtml

When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke out, the American authorities defended themselves by arguing that it was a matter of isolated cases. In that case, it could not be a question of acts of torture, since the latter must be intentionally committed by an agent of a public force, in the name of a state. Today, if the ICRC is talking explicitly about techniques comparable to torture, it's to emphasize that it's not a matter of isolated practices, of "slip-ups", but of a totally illegal system of detention and interrogation. the simple act of refusing a combatant prisoner-of-war status is in itself a war crime...

[Rainbow]

Quote by: PeterWolf In case you haven't read anything about it, here's some articles: Does anyone find this such an ironic situation, in Saddam's prison, the US trops acted, well, like those of the Saddam regime. One important question is how widespread but so far from reading the articles and the level of officers in trouble, it's widespread enough to be a serious problem. Personally, It wouldn't surprise me if Iraq has just been lost.

#1
There is not much of reading, since we all should know what goes on in prisons around the world.
#2
We can compare other nations statistical data for prisoners abuse - if available. It looks the same, similar or worse.
#3
U.S. can not afford it.

[PatrickHenry]

My quote above is attributable to Françoise Bouchet-Saulnier. Here is her background: http://www.charitywire.com/charity55/print_03113.html

Françoise Bouchet-Saulnier, an expert in the field of humanitarian law, has been legal director of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in Paris since 1991 and research director of the MSF Foundation since 1995. Bouchet-Saulnier has been pivotal in shaping MSF responses to conflict situations such as Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo and in educating MSF aid workers on humanitarian law issues. She frequently travels to MSF field locations to support negotiations and international advocacy campaigns. In addition to her work with MSF, Bouchet-Saulnier has been teaching law at the University of Paris since 1992 and is engaged in research on international justice. She is the coauthor of a book about the Rwandan genocide and has written numerous articles on humanitarian law. Before joining MSF, Bouchet-Saulnier acted as a consultant for several organizations including the United Nations Disaster Relief Office and Amnesty International. She holds a doctorate in international law from the University of Nice.

[Osborn F Enready]

BSD said: What would you call a muslin invader? Maybe the muslims you are calling freedom fighters are doing exactly that, fighting freedom.

I say: Well BSD, what would you call Chinese troops if they invaded our country since we no longer observed our constitution (according to the record set by the several years of our last presidents and their administrations actions) and they felt our government was a threat to our liberty? What if they took every single incident of our governments actions that violate the Constitution, and held it up as a reason for attacking us, since we are obviously hypocrites, and the masses must be in a state of propagandized stupor, or being coerced into letting them ACT in OUR NAME for these crimes against the people?

Would you welcome them? Would you call them Freedom Fighters, or Invaders?

What soil you are standing on, and what ideals you hold, qualify the individuals idea of freedom.
Obviously people in our own nation can't agree on what freedom is, just look at you and I.

The point I am making is that if your homeland was being attacked for whatever reason, if you disagreed, you would definitely reverse the label. It is only that, A LABEL. One nations freedom is another nations prison, as much as one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

If freedom has to be forced on a people, is it really freedom?

[rmnunez]

Regardless of what animates their action, a foreign military force uninvited is an invader, unwelcomed and opposed. Its the level of opposition that makes the difference.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I can see where some would side with you regarding iraqi insurgents as they are fighting the invading military, but are you lumping in the people who blow up buses, trains and buildings? A "freedom fighter" can be called that only if there is something to be gained from the people they are actually fighting, such as making an army withdraw. Civilian targets have NOTHING to give the terrorists! They have no power to influence what their government does and killing them is just plain murder. You won't find a lot of sympathy or understanding for THAT kind of "freedom fighter". Also, as your handle is "Devout Muslim", I ask how your religion sees the killing of innocents.

So you see a big difference between bombing a factory full of civilian workers, and bombing a bus carrying those workers to that factory? Both can be effective in shutting down a factory essential to a war effort, and both come with collateral damage. And to say that "They have no power to influence what their government does" is simply untrue. Civilians clamoring for more "security" from WTC type events have caused changes in our Constitutional rights, and we haven't even suffered that much. And we love to be the ones that make all the definitions. A terrorist now seems to be anyone that doesn't fight the way we want them to fight. Even the attack on the USS Cole, clearly a military target, was carried out by "terrorists". Why? Because we say so.