Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[Gulio, Strength of Many]

My math teacher is a legal immigrant from Russia who is currently waiting for his green card (or whatever you call it). He would have a really hard time finding work, can't vote, and can't apply for citizenship. He's been waiting for years, and it doesn't look like he's going to get it any time soon.

The funny thing is, people who sneak over the border (ILLEGAL immigrants) from Mexico have a better chance of getting a green card than he does.

Is it just me, or is something wrong here?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
I have a question. What do all of you suggest to be merciful forms of interrogation?

Sounds like we should just put prisoners in a big overstuffed comfy chair and feed them tea and crumpets until they puke, then they'll tell us what we want to know, won't they?

Not when most of 'em are innocent they won't. But they might tell you a load of made-up bollocks.

No need to ask this question; that's why we have the Geneva Convention.

Again, it comes back to this question of policy and strategy being explicitly designed to circumvent these minimum standards of behaviour. These acts of a few individuals (I have no doubt that the majority of GIs are decent people) are just a manifestion of the higher plan.

However, every cloud has a silver lining: we won't have to look at Piers Moron's sanctimonious, hypocritical coupon for a while.

[Hemel]

Most of the stuff that occurred was NOT torture.

Also - sleep deprivation and hot and cold and loud music is not torture or abuse.

You don't think so? So presumably you wouldn't mind at all if I were to do those things to you?

Seriously - I'm sorry, JD, but I don't agree with your statements there. It is clear that what went on, if we are to believe the photographs, was torture - and at the very least, the most serious of abuses. This is especially a problem when you consider that ONE of the tenets the US used to go into Iraq was to free them from a tyrannous regime ... so that they could be safe, not fear abuses, so they could have democracy ... You can say what you like, but I don't think that those photos portray that, very well, do you? And of course we don't know what else happened ... I keep hearing there is worse to come, and that those who have viewed other images have been shocked in the extreme. But exactly what they've seen we don't know yet.

And you may consider that even things like sleep deprivation etc aren't torture or abuse. But why not? Because you think they don't do physical damage? I think that in civilian life, if you did something like that - at least over here - you'd pretty soon end up in court on one of a number of charges. But maybe the US is different? But if this sort of is used to break down people, then quite clearly these are techniques designed to cause discomfort and stress, and deliberately employed as such. I happen to think that that constitutes abuse, and if it were to continue to any great extent then it would constitute torture.

And quite apart from that, I believe that Tuor of Gondolin's points are valid. I also don't think that what's been going on has necessarily been helpful, certainly not to the soldiers on the ground nor for the image of the US.

[QueenAnnesLace]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well if it's far right stuff - then it must be wrong right? I don't actually see much of a problem with it. Why should we allow ILLEGAL immigrants in here? Why do people feel there is a RIGHT to come into this country. The only people who have a right in this country ARE Americans. I'm not against immigration - but America comes first. Just like in every other country they look after their own first.

I totally agree .


But I also get pretty tired of women coming here from Mexico and having thier babies and being able to collect government benefits just because they were born here.They need to change the laws that apply to that.They don't pay our taxes but they can get the benefits of them.And considering how down so many people are on the way that we do things,if funny that they want to live here .It's almost like saying I want my paycheck but I don't want to have to work for it.And then being against your boss because you think he is unreasonable just because he actually expects you to work.You just can't have it boths ways.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by JerseyDevil
"Also - sleep deprivation and hot and cold and loud music is not torture or abuse."
____________________________
(From Geneva Convention)
============
CAPTIVITY

SECTION I

BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY

Article 17
.....
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
================
Sure sounds like, at a minimum, mental torture under the Geneva Convention. Of course, that's not "Rummy's" favorite reading.

More on Rummy's views of prisoner treatment:
"THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror."
Full article:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

____________________________________

[Sister Golden Hair]

Hmmm, you think they'll break if we kill them with kindness?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I do not think one should descend to their level. The Geneva Convention was adopted by the U.S. as much to try to protect its captured people as of a general principle. And how much more in danger might American prisoners of war now be because of the abuses of Iraqi prisoners, of whom, incidentally, 70 to 90 % were picked up and jailed mistakenly.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Ruinel
My apology was not empty. The one's who did it, AND the ones who condoned it, should be punished as well.

Why do you feel that these acts need to be compared? What is important is if you feel these acts are humane, justified, or ethical. Personally, I feel they are NOT! I want to be able to hold my head up, as an American, and be able to say that we do not conduct ourselves in such a barbaric manner.

It doesn't matter what others do... what matters to me is what WE do, and how if we conduct ourselves in a civilized manner.

this is the most important point... unconditional acceptance of responsibility for the actions of our troops, irregardless of how many were involved or how common such things are during wartime... all countries commit atrocities, the US included, but only a few are willing to own up to them

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
I think there's a bit of over-reaction. The soldiers must be punished - the hardest way possible, if you want. Even the ones who knew and didn't tell.
But how many did the tortuer? I don't think that they were more than 20. How come that 20 soldiers reflects all of the American nation, suddenly? I don't get it... you make such a big deal of it. Judge the ones who are responsible for it, send them for all life to jail or kill thme - and that's it. Not that many soldiers tortured Iraqis, right?
I don't see any reason to be ashamed of the acts of such a minority.

their actions do not reflect the majority, but our reaction does... that's why we make such a big deal out of it... because it matters to most americans that we constantly strive to live up to our ideals

[Spock]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
I do not think one should descend to their level. The Geneva Convention was adopted by the U.S. as much to try to protect its captured people as of a general principle.

The Convention was for a time when civilized nations made war with each other. It had to be amended after the torture and murder that happened in WWII and Vietnam and still the countries that fought against us did not abide by it. To give aid and comfort to the enemy by letting them know we'll only serve them warm tea and soggy biscuits as a means of extracting information, only contributes to their fighting spirit. There is a need to give back,in measure , what they do to our people so that they pause or stop in their practices.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way - it's not an "oh well attitude" it's just a matter of the damn "blame america - ignore everything else in the world that is going on". You guys go on a feeding frenzy every time their is a negative thing about the US. It's like sharks circling and the threads go up immediatedly. YOU don't start threads about the under handed deals between the UN and Iraq, there is no thread about Berg, there is no thread about the Jewish woman and 4 children who were gunned down. But oh - if the US does anything - here comes the threads.

This fact shows many people's opinions toward America far more than any words. Many people can say "oh we aren't anti-american" but the only thing they ever want to bring up is stuff america does wrong - nothing in the rest of the world.

it's an issue when america does something wrong because, unlike many countries out there, we know (and many people around the world know) that the US can be better than this kind of atrocity... we discuss it and suggest changes that may bring about improvements... try doing that in some other countries

[Fenir_LacDanan]

I wonder to myself that if, say, twenty or so American soldiers, Iowa farm boys among them, were captured on the battlefield and dragged back off to prison. Then I wonder if these same soldiers, young and true blue Americans, were subjected to degrating and humiliating treatment such as, ohh..., sleep deprivation and dis-orientation, would Americans then say, "Oh, no fair?"

SGH - If any US soldiers are treated with less than kindness, what is your (America) reaction then?

Everything is OK until its one of yours, eh America?

Tuor - Bang on target with the Geneva Convention. Bang on.
I mean, it would be just silly to assume that the US would adhere to the Convention, given they, well, agreed to adhere to it....

Touche that time for damn sure!

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Here is an excerpt from an interview with Colin Powell on NBC's Meet the Press.

This is what I have been trying to say.

it's a fair statement, but completely irrelavent to the iraqi prisoner situation... the implication, if discussed in relation to the prisoner abuses, whether one admits it or not, is "sure we do nasty stuff, but it isn't anywhere near as nasty as what they do"

i do not accept that attitude at all... evil acts are evil acts, no matter how infrequently they are performed... that is not the america i stand for

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Who would that be? They aren't necessarily there to keep watch all the time. The only way they should be reprimanded is if they knew about it or if it was derilition (sp) of duty.

superiors are responsible for their subordinates whether they knew about an atrocity or not... that's the heart of what being a officer is

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Spock
The Convention was for a time when civilized nations made war with each other. It had to be amended after the torture and murder that happened in WWII and Vietnam and still the countries that fought against us did not abide by it. To give aid and comfort to the enemy by letting them know we'll only serve them warm tea and soggy biscuits as a means of extracting information, only contributes to their fighting spirit. There is a need to give back,in measure , what they do to our people so that they pause or stop in their practices.

None of that matters, dear spock, because AMERICA IS A SIGNATORY OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION. That means they subject themselves to its rules and stipulations of the Convention. The US agrees to abide by it. So they cant break it.
I say again, one would assume that America would keep its word... especially if they actually sign the damn treaty!!

[brownjenkins]

the bottom line is that war brings out the evil in all people, even americans... which is why it should be avoided at all costs... and if it can't, when the inevitable atrocity happens you call it for what it is, with no qualifications... and go overboard in terms of punishing those responsible or in authority over the event in question

other countries may say many things in public, but deep down they will know us for what we are, and if they see us truely practicing what we preach, attitudes will change in time

if, however, they see a vietnam-type US that is more concerned with spin then truth... they will see that too

we control our image in the world

[Spock]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
None of that matters, dear spock, because AMERICA IS A SIGNATORY OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION. That means they subject themselves to its rules and stipulations of the Convention. The US agrees to abide by it. So they cant break it.
I say again, one would assume that America would keep its word... especially if they actually sign the damn treaty!!

WHAT WAS EXPRESSED SHOULD MATTER......WE CAN'T "ALL GET ALONG" AND IGNORE TREATMENT OF OUR SOLDIERS.....THEY WERE KILLING, DRAGGING BODIES, BURNING BODIES, ETC. LONG BEFORE A FEW SOLDIERS TOOK PICTURES...and that's supposed to be horrific? Get a clue or a dictionary.
The G.C. is "out the window" when dealing with terrorists...and if you don't think so, that's your right, but I have rights to opinion too and that's more than some can say.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
None of that matters, dear spock, because AMERICA IS A SIGNATORY OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION. That means they subject themselves to its rules and stipulations of the Convention. The US agrees to abide by it. So they cant break it.
I say again, one would assume that America would keep its word... especially if they actually sign the damn treaty!!

Gee, does that only apply to America?

[QueenAnnesLace]

You can't play by the rules when your opposition has thier own set.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Spock
WHAT WAS EXPRESSED SHOULD MATTER......WE CAN'T "ALL GET ALONG" AND IGNORE TREATMENT OF OUR SOLDIERS.....THEY WERE KILLING, DRAGGING BODIES, BURNING BODIES, ETC. LONG BEFORE A FEW SOLDIERS TOOK PICTURES...and that's supposed to be horrific? Get a clue or a dictionary.
The G.C. is "out the window" when dealing with terrorists...and if you don't think so, that's your right, but I have rights to opinion too and that's more than some can say.

Well, has that not been my point through this entire thread? What happened to the Iraqis was wrong, But why is it so horrific, and sawing off the head of an American, slowly, using a damned butter knife practically, is okay.