this is appalling, abuse of Iraqi prisoners - Page 4

You know how they lie: Say several individual things that are true and leave out the reality.

Torture is not one of the methods that we're allowed to use. (True)
Torture not permitted by international law. (True)
We don't use torture. (True)

Unsaid: The local thugs we hire do the torture that we are not allowed to do.

Depends on the meaning of "we", and "do" and "use", right? Everyone is coy these days. (Rumsfeld is the king of coy).

I hope this is a Catholic Church sexual abuse type of scandal if it rips open the system (including U.S. domestic prison systems) and causes reform.

Looks like the soldiers have merely recieved a reprimand.

I don't know how serious a punishment this is so anyone who does might weigh-in with some analysis but it seems to me that this statement:


is far from what is necessary and possibly a mistake in terms of perceptions in the region of the military's attitude to this sort of thing.

This just in.....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...tos/index.html

There are growing doubts about the authenticity of the abuse photos. The vehicles and guns are not the kind currently used/issued by the Brits in the Iraqi campaign. The flag seen on an Iraqi's shirt is an "old flag" which hasn't been used for awhile, yet the prisoner's shirt is clean.

The Mirror is admitting that some of the discrepancies are strange but are currently sticking by their story. Regardless of the authenticity of the photos, the damage that they've done in the Arabic world are long-lasting. YOU try telling an incensed Arab that the photos were faked; once you believe in something it's hard to stop believing it.

In demonstration of that fact, I submit to you the rest of this thread>>>

What is quite interesting is the sexual undercurrent and the efford to humiliate in a lot of the tortures reported. This is no honest-to-god rough 'em up torture to get people to talk, but here is a deep ingrained hatred showing. Those torture techniques serve no direct purpose (like sleep deprivation) but reinforce a position of dominance. There are a lot of incidents related to castration (threatening to machine-gun genitals, wiring a penis) and sexual humiliation by "reducing" a hetero to a gay (staged fellatio).

Anyone claiming this is merely a bunch of soldiers losing touch with reality is only fooling himself. To stage such elaborate forms of sexual torture shows a very sadist streak. Things like this have always happened in war, but mostly when one party was fighting because of racial prejudices (Yugoslavia, NS Germany) or to exterminate the other side.

To me, this is even more shocking than seing the Geneve convention trampled on. This has turned into a crusade all right where the winners have long stopped to see themselves as liberators (you don't do such things if you have positive feelings).

There is a connection to the concentration camp of Guantano bay. When the miliary leader goes on record denying captured enemys basic rights, the lower ranks will likely see this as a ticket to do the same.

Don't get too excited just yet: the photos that were alleged to be fakes are ones involving British forces and not the 'famous' US ones that kicked the scandal off and (rightly) caused outrage around the world.

As to the British photos, it seems that there is an attempt underway to discredit the photos (which may or may not be fake) but the fact remains that British soldiers are claiming that abuse did take place on a widespread scale, photos notwithstanding.

Johnq: I think you are incorrect on this point, and/or your source was incorrect. After further reading... I found this in the NYT today:



I hardly think she would deny knowing about it if her picture was among those seen all last week. Maybe it's a female soldier (not a kid), but it isn't who you thought it was... just figured I'd bring in more clarification.

And there's the rub. Broadly tolerated by whom?

"The War on Terror", a phrase coined by Bush in order to be able to cover a multitude of sins.

BTW I am just wondering what Bush's chances are of getting re-elected, and if there should be a presence of neutral observers from say the United Nations?

- T. I.

Apparently this is a picture of Karpinski and it is clearly a different person than 'the kid'.



It's from the notorious al basrah site though so who knows ?

Once again, I was previously corrected: "the kid" woman is not Karpinski. I mistook a juxtapositioning for a caption, which was wrong.

"The Kid" is Private Lyndie England (google)

And yes, (shudder) it has already begun: The Jessica Lynchization of Private Lynndie England. I've already heard complete strangers defending her and calling her Lynndie. (First name basis is the first sign of The Hero Worship Process).

Karpinski is right outta Doonesbury.

Sorry. My timing just sucks in this thread. I try to scan through as I go but sometimes I miss stuff.



Disgusting.

They didn't kill anyone. ....he tripped.

Photos are fake, no-one is being mistreated, Karpinski didn't know, anything, and these soldiers' careers MAY be in serious jeopardy... move on, nothing happened.

Bad soldiers, bad...


i wonder what would happen if Hamil would say that he was forced to endure such a things. US would probably just nuked these damn barbaric, dirty terrorists.

That is hilarious!

You are 100% right. This is not torture for any purpose but rather the sadistic humiliation that someone like Sadam would perform. We have come full circle.

Glad it's taken in the spirit that I intended.

johnq:

I admire your optimism, but I don't share it on this issue. Perhaps I have been surrounded by Texans too long
\


I do not think that 2000 election trends mean much today. The US has changed a lot since 9/11/2001. I really doubt hat the average American is too concerned about these prisoners. How concerned does main stream America get when an African American or a hispanic is abused by the Police in one of our own cities?

So, what now?
The lady was running Abu-Ghureib like some demented SS bitch from a 70s Ilsa exploitation flick, her underlings free to act out racial hatred to a random mix of thugs and civilians picked from the street and detained without fair trial. Prisoners are tortured and then kept as long as it takes for the bruises to go away so they have no proof, at least two guys killed by special forces at an interrogation (plus nearly twenty who died of natural or unknown courses). Even a military investigation admitting it is a systematic problem and now the first accounts from Afghanistan.

Where is the outcry, where is the reaction? The Iraqi minister for human rights steps back, because he had given Bremer a warning about torture under US hand back in Dec and nothing resulted. And that's about it - oh yes, six GIs are reprimanded and another series of investigations launched while the chimp tries to sweet-talk arabian TV stations. And the leader of the Guantanamo camp is transferred to Iraq - great move, he knows how to silence people.

Hello? Court martial? International trial for jackbooting the Geneva convention? Rummie whipped out of office for disorderly conduct?
Is there still anything amounting to a critical voice in todays US media, or isn't it rather that most americans are quietly grinning because they are supportive of giving the sand niggers a good going over?

I sincerely hope this is coming around and biting the US in their collective asses big, big time.

There cannot be any. If there could be there would have been no torture.

It is all connected:

Westerners are repeatedly exposed to desensitizing materials > people sink to the level where they are 'desensitized' > therefore they don't see the Neocon/Bush/whoever agenda for what it is > they vote in Bush > Bush starts invading other people's countries > undesensitized people in those countries resist > some of those people get tortured > Westerners continue to be repeatedly exposed to desensitizing materials.....

Would that I could be desensitized to your cynicism, anti-West bias, generalizations and dimestore mass-psychology analysis.

Hehe, maybe you need to play some more Britney or watch that show about with the two slappers on the farm or something. Could work...

There is an outcry over here at least. Norwegian papers are running these stories oon the front page almost every other day now. Today one of the biggest papers had the photos of an apache helicopter executing an iraqi on the front page.

The US has never had lower respect here. not even during Vietnam.

So we're back to Smircle's question - why no outrage in the US ?

How do people reach the state where they can perpetrate these things ?

Is the difference between Saddam's Iraq and Bush's US merely one of ideology ? It's ok if we do it because we're not them and they are evil whereas we are not ?

There's all kinds of outcry and controversy over here about it. It's all over the news.

Come on...

If I can't comment on Damascus because I've never been there, maybe you shouldn't comment on the U.S. while perched in the E.U.

Seriously, where are you getting your news? Rhetorical question. Any news source that doesn't fit your preconceived notions is merely "in bed with Blair|Bush|Cheney". Fuhgetaboutit.

No, no one here cares enough to, say, immolate themselves over it in protest (would Iraqis do so for any American issues they hear about? Nah, didn't think so). But there surely is a lot of earnest, outraged chatter about it. Lots of demands for investigations, reform, punishment and apologies.

hehe johnq - I get my news from AI

Seriously, we're all a global village with this net thing aren't we ? You can easily enough find out how thing's are being perceived in different places in the world. And that's the point (imo) perception - it's not to about the news, it's about reactions to the news.

By the same token, this is not about the Iraqis - this torture scandal is nothing compared to the 10,000 or so civilians who have dies in horrible ways for no reason. That's far worse than the torture imo and there is no outrage about that so really, why should there be outrage - I certainly don't expect any.

The debate is about why there is none. Imagine if this had been leaked photos of US prisoners being tortured by Iraqis - we would have had every wannabee statesman from here to Timbuctoo weighing in with a sanctimonius soundbite about 'civilization' and 'western moral values' and 'evil'.

But they would have actually done nothing. Sweet FA. Just like they will do nothing now. You may think me cynical or anti-western but that's only to the extent that we seem incapable of generating a sincere, honest and moral leader. Why the hell, can't we just have someone who takes control and actually makes things better, even (God help us) actually back up all the bs they keep spouting with some action.

The only difference between the west and the east in this regard is that everyone in the east knows their leaders are corrupt lying bastards - that's why they have dictatorships. No-one would vote for them.

Here they screw you over just as much (in different ways) but they lie about it and cover it over so you vote for them again. Then they call it 'Democracy'. I call it 'Turkeys voting for Xmas'.

Ok, so why doesn't Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero take a more aggressive leadership role and go to the UN and E.U. and NATO and demand this and that solution for Iraq? Why can't he proactively try to fix the mess? Because he only cares enough to be able to pull out, to cement support for himself in his country by following through with his election promises and taking a back seat driver, I-told-you-so approach to world affairs.

He was the brightest hope, everyone's darling little anti-Bush. Let's see what he contributes to counter Bush's preemptive wars. Yes, Zapatero is critical, but it takes more than easy criticism to fix things.

Well, we'll see how Zapatero gets on. I hear he is proposing to pass a law which forbids certain types of preaching in religious establishments. He has got the Madrid Imam onside to do this and they are proactively seeking to cut off extremists from mosques. A simple yet brilliant way of first alienating the extremists and getting ordinary muslims onside. We'll see how it pans out.

Re Bush: it is not just Bush, in fact it is not Bush at all. Bush is just a disposable fall guy for an ideology that uses people. Like it uses him - actually, I believe he is sincere, just not too intelligent. He was the perfect frontman for the Neocon agenda and they will abandon him soon as they need a different skill-set for the 'challenges' they have created for themselves (or maybe just because he is a liability). In any event think Kerry.

But I digress, fixing things is all very well (and I wish we had leaders who could do this) but how about not actually breaking them ?

(Typed this while you typed the above re: it's not about Bush)

Most Americans did not vote for Bush.
I did not vote for Bush.
I will not vote for Bush.
Most people most likely will not vote for Bush again. Unless we are attacked, ironically. Al Qaeda loves Bush, so it's eerily likely to happen.

Not sure what else we can do to satisfy you (not that that is what we are put on Earth to do). Any decent impeachment process would take until at least November anyway.

Kick back and wait it out. He'll get voted out and will be a passé joke, barely remembered.

Actually johnq I don't hate Bush or really care that much about him. I think he's sincere enough (though I disagree with him on probably everything) - but as I said elsewhere, I forced to vote in the US, I'd vote for him over Kerry.

Only really talk about him because he is 'dish of the day'. Everyday. I'd much rather bash Blair or discuss the relative theological merits of various mullahs. Still, when in Rome.Anyway, I gree he will get kicked out though and imo we will look back wishing he was back - in a Reaganesque sort of way.

I think I'm not getting my point across though - the world is going to hell in a handbasket and it is no one individual or county's fault. We're all to blame and we should stfu and do something about it if we don't want to be hypocrites (myself included) - there are people out there trying to make a difference and they aren't arguing on the internet about Bush or whatever else.

As I was on the way to work today I listened to the radio (Radio 4 BBC) and read a newspaper.

On the radio I listened to reports of abuse to prisoners in Iraq. I'd seen the pictures British and American before, but the reporter stated that at least two murders of prisoners had been committed, had been investigated and the people responsible had been dismissed from the military as punishment.

I read my paper as I listened and saw a report of video tapes 'smuggled' out of Iraq originating in the cockpit (?) of a helicopter. The report alleged that the tapes (audio & video) showed the crew of the helicopter executing injured, unarmed Iraqi troops. Apparantly the helicopter attacked, a truck was damaged and the Iraqis in it either injured or killed. Someone saw one injured soldier discard his rifle and then was instructed to shoot him.

The tapes were allegedly shown on US TV. Was there any reaction?

Has there been any reaction to the letting off with being fired of people who have murdered prisoners?

Just had a chance to read today's Independent:


But at least its being addressed...


and...


Or not...


_


_

You know, there's this web thing, that came out of nowhere barely 10 years ago.

I doubt you speak one word Syrian (or whatever they speak in Damascus), but I know enough English to read US news outlets and even compare what they write with the information presented on german news sites. There are some obvious differences and this is what I was referring to.

Speaking about "a couple of rotten apples", finger-pointing to private military contractors who overstepped their limits, reprimanding and relocating those bastards to the homeland (quite a punishment, indeed) instead of court-marshalling them on the place - this reeks of cover-up.

What has become of the idea that ministers have to take political responsibility if their underlings misbehave?

However, blaming Zapatero is really, really low. YOUR country has produced the torturers, NOT his. He merely knew what kind of hopeless quagmire this has become.
However, I guess you firmly believe in sticking with the team no matter what happens and always finding some other culprit... Maybe it's all a fabrication of the liberal press? Maybe they were the one who made up the WoMD myth too?

You are under a misapprehension.

My "Damascus" comment was alluding to another thread, wherein it was suggested that since I hadn't been to (any particular Arab city/country) that I wasn't fit to have the opinions I have. I then outlined how that would doom that vast majority of humans from ever being allowed to have opinions about myriad other countries, since they've never been to them. (Can't find the thread)

I concluded with precisely your point, that one can glean facts and formulate realistic opinions of places they've never been to or people they've never met.

So you needn't tell me that.

I did however, see fit to apply the same knowingly flawed logic to segovius - for effect. (Since I seem to think it was segovius I had talked with previously)

As good as the internet is, it can't prevent human's from doing what they do best - finding what they want to find. We simply gravitate to sources that validate our preconceived notions. Then the rest of the time is spent going to other places and touting the found "facts". I do it, you do it. It's human. All we can do is try to be fairer and avoid doing it.


I didn't blame him. I did accuse him of only doing precisely enough to satisfy his constituency. But he is not the statesman people pretend he is. I'm saying is there not another leader that can rally credible opposition to the US's current foreign policy? Our only choices are gung-ho Blairs, meek tag-alongs like the rest of the nameless, unremarkable leaders of the other countries of the <cough> "Coalition of the <hack> Willing" and people who talk a good talk (Spain/Germany/France) as far as opposing the war but never seem to really do anything about it.

Ok, Bush sucks, we get it, we get it. Now what? I'd love the U.S. to fix things but at some point when do the rest of the countries take initiative?

Why is leaving when it is a quagmire a good thing? I Would think Spain could buddy up with Iraqi leadership and have the Spanish troops repositioned and reassigned to humanitarian efforts, rebuilding etc. (and if they were already doing that, kudos, but why stop? Just to spite Bush?)



hehe....team....Buddy, I'm more anti Bush than you are probably. Let's not get silly and slander me by pigeonholing me into what you think my political affiliations are. I have no such foolish theories.

...other foolish theories maybe. But not those.

Kevin Drum dug up an old story from CNN in january about the prisoner abuses:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/20/spr...use/index.html

He points out that it took release of the pictures for the facts to really hit home and wake everyone up to what was going on.

Naïve johnq (with respect).

The Iraqi "leadership" is the American army and John Bremer right now. Especially wrt anything military.

"Hi General Abizaid, there's going to be some Spaniards around Baghdad rebuilding things. We've checked with the Interim thingy you set up and they're cool with it. Don't shoot them please! Your chum, Zap."

Spain should stop so that MAYBE Arbusto could see that either you do it with the support of the international community -- yep, the UN -- or you don't do it all. The Pentagon has made a royal fuck-up of Iraq and anyone who refuses to take military commands from the US is being emminently sensible.

Don't forget that the US could have a bunch more soldiers, money and support if it went the UN route ... but it would no longer be in a position to ensure that US companies profit almost exclusively in the rebuild, and that there was a nice fat US army base next to Iran and Syria over the next few years.

New pics...100's maybe 1000's more apparently...



New torture outrage

Can we please hang/shoot this traitor, Lynndie England? She's going to contribute to more U.S. troop deaths than Bush or insurgents did. Trial and execution please.

We are going to need to start a versioning system for these abuse allegations...

I essence, keeping out of it and letting the US burn their fingers is the current opposition. There is no chance in hell Germany or France will openly confront the US in Iraq - in all likelyhood this would make things even worse.

This is a very quiet and unremarkable way to do it (too quiet for my taste), but it has succeeded in Spain and - to a lesser degree - Poland reconsidering their choices. Italy as the last mainland power supporting the US is currenty in deep political crisis - I would not be surprised if they leave the coalition within a month.


As the US is the dominant superpower there is not a terrible lot, the rest of the world can do if the US does not let them. Furthermore, according to the Hague war treaty and the Geneva convetion, the US are the legit rulers of Iraq - the must approve any action taken.

I think the blind believe the US (or any other country) can "fix" up things anywhere is part and parcel of the current desaster. Different countries, different rules and people will react differenty even to the same proposal dependent on who issues it. I secretly fear that the war has destabilized Iraq to the point where no one can do a terrible lot to prevent it from sliding into anarchy, civil war or dictatorship. If there is anything that can be done, it needs to be done multilaterally - to which the US has to issue a "go".




It is a good thing, because the population of Spain was against invading Iraq right from the beginning. Aznar disregarded the voice of his people - correcting this is good democratic practice.
And, don't forget: at one point, no one is going to believe you any longer. You associate with torturers, your image is dragged into the mud too. Furthermore, I never had the impression that Spain had real influence. They provide 3% of the number of troops the US does, so all they are allowed to do is nod their heads.

According to the UK Independent, one of the soldiers who supervised and conducted the abuses, Specialist Charles Graner, an army reservist from Pennsylvania (who Lynndie England is pregnant by according to this article) has a track record of abusive behaviour.

The Independent claims to be in possession of documents proving that Graner's ex-wife obtained three separate "temporary protection of abuse" orders from a judge in Pennsylvania.

It's crystal clear at this point that it was a systematic problem and that they were told to do this. This was not something they independently thought up and decided to do for shits and giggles.

And to add a picture:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blo..._Picture_2.jpg

Holding the individuals in the pictures accountable for their own actions is not some tactic to avoid blaming people higher up, as people seem to suggest it is. "Following orders" is no excuse. No one ordered them to visibly enjoy the torture and laugh and have a great time. They were told to do it and they enjoyed doing it for whatever sick power-trip reasons they have.

People seem to be ready to shrug off the perpetrators in the pictures as being mere pawns, just because it is sooo much more juicy to be able to instead put the heat on people higher up the chain.

But I don't want to let anyone off the hook. If it is systemic, heads roll all over. "Systemic" doesn't mean just Rumsfeld and Bush but not Lynndie England and her ilk.