Prisoners abuse

[joyfulgirl]

I know many of you think the Guardian is biased
...

Astonishingly, the secret inquiry launched by the US military in January, headed by Major General Antonio Taguba, has confirmed that the letter smuggled out of Abu Ghraib by a woman known only as "Noor" was entirely and devastatingly accurate.
...

Doesn't sound like a bias to me--sounds like a fact. Thank you for sharing this. It's all so hard to take in.

 

[oktobergirl]

OMG this is sooo depressing.

 

[Rono]

What do you expect out of the CIA? Should they mail nice questionnaires and build terrorist reports based on the responses?

There is a dark underside to the intelligence community - one that has existed for decades, if not centuries. One that makes us sick to acknowledge, but we are DAMN happy when they produce the results we want.

So, I guess I'd like to know exactly how you would like the CIA to work.

Go on, promote torture, it goes very well with a christian superiour culture,...

 

[Rono]

A nice party is going on,...dragg the prisoner seems very popular,...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/nation/052104-1vv.htm

 

[Dreadsox]

As a soldier who was trained to NOT TREAT prisoners this way I am speechless at what I am reading and seeing on a daily basis.

I took my training and the Geneva Convention seriously when I was taught to process POW's.

Is it possible this administration is so desparate to find WMD that this has been allowed? I do not know. I do not understand how we have come to this place as a soldier and as a human being.

 

[Wild Angel]

I have a theory here. I suspect this time of stuff has gone on in every war, at all times, by all countries, even after the Geneva convention. But only now, when a country as high profile as the US in involved, with pictures and videos taken and with the advent of the world wide web they get spread around a lot more, so we know about it and see it whereas those in the past did not.


Not that it is okay by anyone of course.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

it goes very well with a christian superiour culture,...

I don't know why Christianity has to be brought into this-no Christian I know would EVER engage in or condone this sort of abhorrent behavior. I don't see what that has to do w/ this topic at all

I understand that everyone here is free to express his/her opinion, but it gets tiring seeing Christianity constantly being brought up in a negative manner (and in what I feel are sometimes irrelevant instances, and I won't say anymore about that).

generalizations like that are unfair

 

[Dreadsox]

I don't know why Christianity has to be brought into this-no Christian I know would EVER engage in or condone this sort of abhorrent behavior. I don't see what that has to do w/ this topic at all

I understand that everyone here is free to express his/her opinion, but it gets tiring seeing Christianity constantly being brought up in a negative manner (and in what I feel are sometimes irrelevant instances, and I won't say anymore about that).

generalizations like that are unfair

You are RIGHT on TARTGET

 

[iacrobat]

I think Rono is misguided to generalise about Christian culture. It would be just as misguided to generalise about Muslim culture in the same way. As if all Muslims supported the beheading of Nicholas Berg.

On the other hand, I think it is fair to ask NB to elaborate on his post. Is the torture justified to "produce the results we want?"

I don't think he believes that.

I thought we were working towards something better.

 

[Dreadsox]

See, now this would make a great debate. In this case, from the readings I have done, the people in this prison had not ever even attacked US soldiers. Now if that is true, I would say NO torture is not justified.

If it were a known member of Al-Qaeda I may have a different reaction.

 

[Rono]

I don't know why Christianity has to be brought into this-no Christian I know would EVER engage in or condone this sort of abhorrent behavior. I don't see what that has to do w/ this topic at all

I understand that everyone here is free to express his/her opinion, but it gets tiring seeing Christianity constantly being brought up in a negative manner (and in what I feel are sometimes irrelevant instances, and I won't say anymore about that).

generalizations like that are unfair

Hmmm, i mean western culture,....what happend to be formed by christian religion.

 

[joyfulgirl]

In defense of Rono's comment...while it's true that we should all be careful to not make generalizations, I think his point is that (and correct me if I'm wrong, Rono) Bush has consistently used language with regard to this war that leads many people, myself included, to believe that for him this is a religious crusade. The US military is there to 'rid the world of evil' while itself practicing evil.

 

[joyfulgirl]

oops, we posted about the same time

and I see my interpretation of Rono's comments were basically a projection of my own beliefs

 

[iacrobat]

Hmmm, i mean western culture,....what happend to be formed by christian religion.

...the Christian religion which happens to be based on the teachings of Jesus. Darn that Jesus, always going after those Muslims, feeling superior and all.

 

[Scarletwine]

See, now this would make a great debate. In this case, from the readings I have done, the people in this prison had not ever even attacked US soldiers. Now if that is true, I would say NO torture is not justified.

If it were a known member of Al-Qaeda I may have a different reaction.

Why?

Is Al-Qaeda worse than the Nazi's? Except of course they didn't really attack American civilians only Jews so it is different?

This is where I depart from all the flag waving Americans. My God as I see him, loves every human being on earth and no one's life is worth more than others, including US citizens. So we used the rule of law to prosecute the Nazi's and in my mind Al-Qaeda deserves the same. And to my mind the Taliban are POW's as they were the ruling military unit in Afghanistan.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am really puzzled by your response so I will not assume anything by it. I just do not understand your points.

If you are saying I value someone elses life over another, I am not sure it is a fair characterization. Or maybe it is not a fair characterization the way you would make my position seem.

I am stating it is my contention that in the world today when dealing with terrorists it is acceptable to use torture to gain information that may save lives.

If Moussaui had been pressed, I wonder if we would have known more about 9/11 and saved lives. So in this light, yes, I do accept it as valid.

 

[Scarletwine]

I'm not accusing you of any position.
I was just stating that in light of terrorism nothing has changed. There has always been terrorist act , though not on the scale we have seen or the amount of news carried out.

My main point was that I don't believe in torture for any purpose.
Honestly I'm so saddened by the news out of Iraq that I hardly want to participate in the discussions.

Now I've read several reports by forensic scientists that Bergs beheading was staged after his real death.

IMO - I'm truly just sickened by human evil

 

[Scarletwine]

http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/26105.php

A new side of testimony

call to conscience
by Roger Morris ? Friday May 21, 2004 at 10:38 AM


The diplomat who quit over Nixon's invasion of Cambodia asks Americans on the front lines of foreign service to resign from the "worst regime by far in the history of the republic."

May 20, 2004 | Dear Trustees:

I am respectfully addressing you by your proper if little-used title. The women and men of our diplomatic corps and intelligence community are genuine trustees. With intellect and sensibility, character and courage, you represent America to the world. Equally important, you show the world to America. You hold in trust our role and reputation among nations, and ultimately our fate. Yours is the gravest, noblest responsibility. Never has the conscience you personify been more important.


A friend asked Secretary of State Dean Acheson how he felt when as a young official in the Treasury Department in the 1930s, he resigned rather than continue to work for a controversial fiscal policy he thought disastrous -- an act that seemed at the time to end the public service he cherished. "Oh, I had no choice," he answered. "It was a matter of national interest as well as personal honor. I might have gotten away with shirking one, but never both." As the tragedy of American foreign policy unfolded so graphically over the past months, I thought often of Acheson's words and of your challenge as public servants. No generation of foreign affairs professionals, including my own in the torment of the Vietnam War, has faced such anguishing realities or such a momentous choice.

I need not dwell on the obvious about foreign policy under President Bush -- and on what you on the inside, whatever your politics, know to be even worse than imagined by outsiders. The senior among you have seen the disgrace firsthand. In the corridor murmur by which a bureaucracy tells its secrets to itself, all of you have heard the stories.

You know how recklessly a cabal of political appointees and ideological zealots, led by the exceptionally powerful and furtively doctrinaire Vice President Cheney, corrupted intelligence and usurped policy on Iraq and other issues. You know the bitter departmental disputes in which a deeply politicized, parochial Pentagon overpowered or simply ignored any opposition in the State Department or the CIA, rushing us to unilateral aggressive war in Iraq and chaotic, fateful occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

You know well what a willfully uninformed and heedless president you serve in Bush, how chilling are the tales of his ignorance and sectarian fervor, lethal opposites of the erudition and open-mindedness you embody in the arts of diplomacy and intelligence. Some of you know how woefully his national security advisor fails her vital duty to manage some order among Washington's thrashing interests, and so to protect her president, and the country, from calamity. You know specifics. Many of you are aware, for instance, that the torture at Abu Ghraib was an issue up and down not only the Pentagon but also State, the CIA and the National Security Council staff for nearly a year before the scandalous photos finally leaked.
...

 

[anitram]

I'm more and more appalled each day. From the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON - Some prisoners at Iraq (news - web sites)'s Abu Ghraib prison were ridden like animals, fondled by female soldiers, forced to curse their religion and required to retrieve their food from toilets, according to a published report Friday.

....

The Post also said detainees told investigators they were forced to denounce Islam or force-fed pork or liquor, required to masturbate in front of female soldiers, threatened with rape, and made to walk on all their hands and knees and bark like dogs.

Is there any excuse for this?

Would it be alright to make devout Christians denounce Jesus or devout Jews denounce Yahweh? It's truly appalling.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Of course there's no excuse for that, and it is appalling beyond what words can say..

As for Bush using the "Christian good vs evil angle" - in no way does he represent the views of all Christians. He can use that angle from now until doomsday and it just won't wash. I give the majority of Christians enough credit to reject this on an intellectual and religious level.

On the other hand..as self-righteous as he is, I just can't believe Bush would ever stretch the Christian angle so far as to in any way rationalize this torture. He can't be that misguided.

 

[Dreadsox]

Does this meat the definition of SYSTEMIC?

[Q]Lawyer says he was told top U.S. general in Iraq knew of prison abuse

WASHINGTON(AP) ? The commander of the military police company assigned to the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad has said he will testify that the top U.S. general in Iraq was present during some interrogations at the prison and witnessed some of the abuse, according to a published report. [/Q]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-22-prison-abuse_x.htm

 

[Rono]

Coalition forces 'seek immunity'

The coalition in Iraq wants its troops to remain immune from prosecution by Iraqis after the handover of power, it is reported.
Creating a sovereign Iraq should mean forces become subject to Iraqi laws.

But BBC Correspondent Jonathan Beale says UK and US forces want to remain under their own jurisdictions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3739561.stm



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






How to protect the coalition war criminals after june 30,...

 

[Dreadsox]

Not only subject to Iraqi Laws, but under Military Law, being tried in the Military Court and again in a Civilian Court, does not violate the double jeopardy law. You can be tried and sentenced twice.

 

[Klaus]

I don't think torture is acceptable, no matter how noble your ideas are that lead you to torture.
Why?

We should be careful not to give up our constitutional state, our human values and rights in the war against terrorism.
If we do that we've lost the war because we lost everything which was worth fighting for.

From my point of view it's the biggest success from Ossama Bin Laden that the world starts to evaluate his actions on the same scale as the actions of the US government.

We should look back in history to see what's hapening when we categorize people in some who "deserve" a bad treatment and some who deserve human rights.
On a long-term view the only chance for more peace is to live up on our ideals and not on revenge and violence.

 

[verte76]

I agree with you Klaus. Torture isn't acceptable, and I feel like those jerks who did that stuff in that prison betrayed me and my country. Conceptually, putting the responsibility for it on a designated person could cut out the shenanigans currently going on the U.S. government over the scandal in Iraq. It's only right to address the question of responsibility in view of these shenanigans. There wouldn't be all of these question marks over who did what, and who knew what. This is damaging to the government and to the country and the whole world. But the ideal is not to have it in the first place.

 

[Klaus]

Abuse of Captives More Widespread, Says Army Survey
By DOUGLAS JEHL, STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: May 26, 2004 NYTimes / Washington
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/26ABUS.html?th

WASHINGTON, May 25 ? An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known.

The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia."

 

[Scarletwine]

I find this a further proof of the highest people in the Admin. approving or at least giving the nod to the types of abuses we have seen in the photos.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=15429

Demand that Bush Drop Judicial Nomination of Lawyer Who Contributed to Abu Ghraib Policies

Given President Bush?s criticism of the torture of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison and his declared intention that the prison be razed, it is impossible for him to credibly continue to back his nominee for a seat on the powerful 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ? William Haynes.

As General Counsel to the Department of Defense, Haynes:


Was responsible for ensuring U.S. military compliance with the laws of war, the Geneva Convention, and federal law.

Dismissed and scolded human rights groups raising allegations of prisoner abuse in February 2003.

Helped make it harder for the officers with the military?s own Judge Advocate General Corps to observe interrogations. Haynes? actions were so alarming that some JAG officers warned of ?a disaster waiting to happen? and sought outside intervention.

Misled a U.S. Senator who had specifically asked about policies for detention and treatment of prisoners. (William J. Haynes, General Counsel, Department of Defense, Letter to U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, June 25, 2003.)

Signed off on the legality of withholding Geneva Conventions protections from hundreds of persons detained at Guantanamo, defined as prisoners of war.

Helped develop the Defense Department's military tribunal plan, which has been condemned by human rights organizations and our nation's closest allies.

Supports the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the Executive Branch without legal counsel or meaningful judicial review.

Has been nominated to one of the most influential appellate courts in the country, but he has almost no in-court trial experience, and no direct appellate experience at all.

 

[verte76]

Damn, this guy looks like bad news.

 

[Popmartijn]

And apparently, even after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners. From the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/155/nation/Two_Marine_privates_plead_guil:.shtml

Two Marine privates plead guilty to shocking Iraqi detainee at second prison

By Martha Raffaele, Associated Press, 6/3/2004 13:10

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) Two 19-year-old Marines pleaded guilty to giving electric shocks to an Iraqi prisoner they were guarding in early April, months after the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, military officials said.

...

According to the military statement, the pair and two other Marines wanted to discipline the detainee for throwing trash outside his cell and speaking loudly at the Al Mahmudiya prison, a temporary holding facility south of Baghdad.

The Marines attached wires to a power convertor, which delivered 110 volts of electricity to the detainee as he returned from the bathroom, the statement said.

 

[Klaus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08ABUS.html?th

Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush
By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: June 8, 2004

WASHINGTON, June 7 ? A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.

The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

So the President is bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had to protect the nation's security?

This sounds like China, Iran or North Korea but not like a statement from a free country.
What hapens to America if torture becomes legal to protect national security?