Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[Ultimatejoe]

Originally posted by Spock
WHERE DO GET THE STUFF YOUR SMOKIN? You've no basis for that statement and blanket caveats like that are just what the media and enemies of the coalition constantly spout.


...remember the ducks..... ]

Man, for someone who proclaims his own intelligence the way you do, I would expect a more articulate response than a simple sentence-fragment referring to an extremely weak simile.

Oh, and where do I get my "blanket statements"? Howbabout the articles (which have been previously posted here) where the government admitted that between 70-90% of the inmates were arrested by mistake or innocent. For someone who feels fit to lecture people on reading comprehension, I am once again disappointed.

[Spock]

I.R. IMO your question deserves it's own thread and perhaps you'd like to start it. Leaving it here only muddies the waters even more.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
To the Republican/Bush supporters out there I have a genuinly serious question. How has the past month or so (the prison scandle and the reaction of the pres and Rummsfield and company, the Berg killing, the various other things that have been going on in Iraq) effected your concern over how the current administration is handling affairs:

I'd say I'm closest to a 4...

4. Ive had some serious second thoughts on things recently. But Im not quite sure if its gone so far as to change my point of view fundamentaly.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Spock
I.R. IMO your question deserves it's own thread and perhaps you'd like to start it. Leaving it here only muddies the waters even more.

Well if thats ok with SGH. Just figured everyone was here right now so it was a good place to post it so people would notice. SGH let me know.

[Spock]

Originally posted by Ultimatejoe
Man, for someone who proclaims his own intelligence the way you do, I would expect a more articulate response than a simple sentence-fragment referring to an extremely weak simile.

GEE, I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD MADE THAT PROCLAMATION

Oh, and where do I get my "blanket statements"? Howbabout the articles (which have been previously posted here) where the government admitted that between 70-90% of the inmates were arrested by mistake or innocent. For someone who feels fit to lecture people on reading comprehension, I am once again disappointed. [/B]

I TRIED TO USE A SIMPLE SIMILE (ACTUALLY A METAPHOR) TO MAKE IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND
I'm sorry to have disappointed you. Guess asking for a loan is now out of the question.

[Valandil]

Spock and UJ... I like you both, but please stop fighting in open forum. Take it to PM's or emails if you must, but I'd prefer that you both take the chips off your respective shoulders, apologize for past indiscretions on your own part, agree to let bygones BE bygones... and just be more civil to one another henceforth. That's to BOTH of you, because I think you've both gone over the line.

Spock - I have read that there were some Red Cross reports on our prisoners there to the effect of how many were innocent (and I read the 70/80/90 % numbers on that). I don't know how reliable that information was - or even how accurate it would possibly be. However, I don't know that the Red Cross is a partisan body (though it's leadership is likely as human as the rest of it - and they may have their biases) - but it should at least give us pause.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Well if thats ok with SGH. Just figured everyone was here right now so it was a good place to post it so people would notice. SGH let me know.

Yeah, go ahead IR.

[Spock]

Gee Val and you used to be such a mild mannered, reasonable person.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but the "a" word is much to much overused in todays politicaly correct society.
..I will rest for the day now, if that is any solace. Not to worry my friend.

[Ultimatejoe]

edited to be nice

Anyways, back to the subject at hand... I notice you evaded the actual point I was making about innocents, so I'll repost my earlier citation which PROVES that I am right.

I said that most (if not almost all) of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib prison were innocent or jailed by mistake. Your response?

You've no basis for that statement and blanket caveats like that are just what the media and enemies of the coalition constantly spout.

Now, if you had simply asked for my supporting statements or reason for making that statement, I would understand. Instead, you accused me of having none. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect here and owe me an apology. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, like SGH, Ruinel, or even JD, but I don't like it when people make false accusations, which you have done.

The Red Cross report also says that coalition intelligence officials said to International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) that nearly 70-90 percent of the captives are caught by mistake. The ICRC also registers that the coalition forces failed to set up a system for the families of captives and that it caused 'missing in custody'. It is stated that reluctant manners of the occupying forces and difficulties for reaching out correct information have caused increasing rage among the Iraqi against coalition forces.

Mods, I'll be nice now. (This stuff is on topic...)

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Spock
Gee Val and you used to be such a mild mannered, reasonable person.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but the "a" word is much to much overused in todays politicaly correct society.
..I will rest for the day now, if that is any solace. Not to worry my friend.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. What goes for 'PC' today, is to apologize for that which one has not done... what is still lacking is taking personal responsibility for what one HAS done.

Nonetheless, I think both of your infractions were of the 'minor' variety, so if you just both move on and behave yourselves better from now on, it won't go on your permanent records.

(UJ, please give Spock a break. He's normally quite logical. In fact, he hasn't been this irritable for what... the past seven years or so. Seven years... SEVEN YEARS!???!!! Spock... are you due for a 'Pon Far'?? )

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
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

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
What do you mean? That you have such a reaction because it would reflect the majority better? (I don't believe you do. I just want an explanation)

that was a tad awkward... what i mean:

atrocities are a natural result of any extended conflict... you can look at any war in history and even the most democratic governments have their questionable moments

US soldiers killed women and children in vietnam, sometimes with full knowledge of what they were doing... does it compare to the quantities of russian civilians killed during the german invasion of russia in ww2? no, but it demonstrates that even the best-trained soldiers from a highly democratic and free society can lose all morality when faced with the realities of war

nobody likes to see their friends killed or live in fear of one's own life... it's a natural reaction

the difference is the ability to react to and condemn such evils without qualifications, something i know US citizens are capable of

the tendency among many governments (even democratic ones) is to brush them under the rug, or if not possible, to justify or excuse them... not only does this inspire our soldiers to commit more atrocities, but it gives ammo to those who say, 'the US is just as bad as everyone else'

during vietnam the masses reacted to this by demanding the truth from our government officials... i would hope that the majority in the US is still able to look past the moment and realize that to achieve our goals we must practice as we preach... even if it costs us from time to time

there will never be a 'clean war', where no innocents are killed... the sooner we accept this fact, this responsibility, when we decide to enter a war, the more we will regain the respect of the world once again

one can make mistakes and still be respected... but step one is owning up to those mistakes

[QueenAnnesLace]

Q.:Why are so many people focused on what the U.S. has done regarding interogation tactics,but I don't see mention of what the rest of the world has done.I don't condone,or condemn torture etc. but at the same time I'm not in a situation that I personally can say that it's wrong.The people that are conducting the interogations have a lot at stake personally,and at a much greater level,so who's to judge?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
The thing that I have been saying FROM THE BEGINING (thats for spock ) is that the Iraqi army is not a terrorist group. Its an Army, just like yours and mine. Soldiers ARE protected by the Geneva Convention, thats the whole point of the damn thing. This is about the treatment of SOLDIERS in captivity.

Let me explain something - we are NOT dealing with any army right now. This is not the iraqi army that is doing this stuff - these are terrorist groups. Do you think the Sadr's militia is a army? Give me a break - we dealt with Saddam's army. So no - the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to them. However, we, as the US, have been adhering to the convention. A few soldiers does not constitute a military wide abuse like everyone wants to make this out to be.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by QueenAnnesLace
Q.:Why are so many people focused on what the U.S. has done regarding interogation tactics,but I don't see mention of what the rest of the world has done.I don't condone,or condemn torture etc. but at the same time I'm not in a situation that I personally can say that it's wrong.The people that are conducting the interogations have a lot at stake personally,and at a much greater level,so who's to judge?

Answer: (I think) It's our turn in the spotlight.

[QueenAnnesLace]

Originally posted by Valandil
Answer: (I think) It's our turn in the spotlight.

But aren't we always?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
1. I think what our soldiers have done in the prison is reprehensible. With this type of mission we have undertaken, I believe it is absolutely essential that we work very hard to maintain the moral high ground. We have not lost that yet, but we have put it to great risk - both with prisoner abuse and with shutting down the newspaper of al Sadr - which shut-down triggered these recent uprisings. These kinds of things (prisoner abuse) can happen all too easily, but we need to make a clear, unambiguous statement that it will not be tolerated. That message must be read loud and clear by the Iraqi's, the rest of the Arab world, our soldiers, all Americans, and the rest of the international community. There should be firm punishment to offenders - and there should be restitution to the aggrieved. I think that we DO need to treat all prisoners humanely and according to the Geneva Convention: for they may be soldiers, they may be terrorists and they may be innocent civilians - mistakenly caught up in a sweep. If we want to export democracy, we need to also export the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' (ED - oops - typed backwards at first - not a 'Freudian slip' I hope! ) (ED - as well as 'freedom of the press') to those in our keeping. It will be a hard thing to do - harder than not doing it, but I believe the end result will then be better.

I agree. Except that the newspaper was inciting violence. it wasn't just a news paper issuing news - it was calling on people to take up arms and to attack American soldiers. There is a difference between news and calling on killing.

2. It appears that President Bush will neither himself offer an apology, nor shed himself of Secretary Rumsfeld. I am starting to think he should do both. At least, he should if Rumsfeld was as aware of things as he appears to have been - and if his policies brought on the abuse we now know of. Rumsfeld may also be 'dangerously optimistic' for a man in his position. He's the one who has engineered the downsizing of military units... who tries to do more with less. I think he HAS underestimated the force required to do this job... and that's dangerous. The result has caused great difficulties to reservists... who have been called up to active duty at great levels - and for long durations. I don't think that's the right concept for reservists (and we may soon find a lot of people 'bailing out' of our reserve units - if they can continually expect that much interruption of their lives). If we cannot do the job we want to do without dipping into our reserves, it may be time to take stock in whether to do the job. Too late for that last now - but something good to bear in mind.

Bush apologized several times. He said it while the King of Jordan was here. it seems as if the media mostly just whitewashed it.

3. I think we DO need to stay and finish this job. Leaving now could bring on some very bad results. First - we could actually leave the country in WORSE straits than when we got there... which would NOT be a good thing. Second - we send anew the message to terrorists that we will 'cut and run' when things get difficult. That's the message Usama bin Laden read so well in President Clinton's withdrawal of troops from Somalia. Third - it may actually be advantageous to have our troops in a combat zone which draws would-be terrorists to them... if we were not in Iraq, all the extremists would be scattered all over the world, making much havoc - instead, they're all contained in one area - and we have a large force of well-trained, well-equipped troops on hand to do battle with them (the very best in fact!). Better that than have these guys free to take on civilians world-wide... or to all try to slip into the US.

I agree.

4. I know it's easy to react emotionally to something like what happened to Nicholas Berg. However, we can't get too 'riled up' over it and take out our wrath on all the innocents who ARE there in Iraq. We have psychos here in the US too - but don't wipe out whole populations in our revulsion to them, do we? For instance, we would not have considered nuking Milwaukee when Jeffrey Dahmer's acts came to light, would we have? A bit unreasonable? It's the same thing there, I think. It's just that the idiots can get an international stage and use such acts as a 'statement' for their 'cause'. We should neither punish innocent, reasonable Iraqis because of their crimes, nor leave those innocent Iraquis at their mercy (as they seem to have none).

The nuking of the Middle Earts is out of pure frustration - evben fenir must see that. So much of the Middle East is just filled with hatred and racism - they have been fighting and killing each other for thousands of years. Maybe it is time to just wipe the slate clean and start over there.

5. It may be good to at least CONSIDER dividing up the country, rather than remaining commited to a single, unified Iraq. These people-groups do not naturally go together anyway. Let's consider a separate Kurdish land in the north, a Sunni land in the middle and a Shiite land in the south... and try to give them some reasons to get along and work together... shared benefits of natural resources (oil) or something. If that would be possible.

I personally don't think that would be a good idea.

This is not a game, and we must recall our resolve from 2 1/2 years ago. We entered this for the long haul and for such hard times as this - and for the betterment of the entire world. As for Iraq, I think Saddam Hussein had to go - and because of the sweetheart deals too many of the UN nations had with him in the 'Oil for Food' program (too little has been written on that - but in reality, the people of Iraq were being robbed to enrich French, German and Russian interests, among others), the UN would NEVER have worked to remove him.

They wouldn't have and that is why the french, Germans and Russians were against the war - they were getting kickbacks and money from Hussein being in Iraq. Once we went in there - France and the rest lost lucrative deals.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
A soldier is still a soldier, even if, after his capture, his army is destroyed. He still has the same rights. Are you really telling me that because you think the prisoners were not soldiers, its OK to beat and sexually abuse them??? Surely not!!!

This is AFTER we overcame the iraqi army - after there was NO iraqi army - but suicide bombings and so forth. These people were NOT picked up during the war - but afterward.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by QueenAnnesLace
Q.:Why are so many people focused on what the U.S. has done regarding interogation tactics,but I don't see mention of what the rest of the world has done.I don't condone,or condemn torture etc. but at the same time I'm not in a situation that I personally can say that it's wrong.The people that are conducting the interogations have a lot at stake personally,and at a much greater level,so who's to judge?

i've watched/read/listened to the news for a good twenty years... they cover everything... concentrating on the most popular topic of the moment... a few years ago it was all about saddam and his use of chemical weapons on the kurds... next week, unfortunately, it might be a terrorist attack in some western country

on the rest... the question is, do you draw a line on what is and isn't acceptable treatment of another human being no matter who they are or what they represent, or do you not?

i draw a line... i also know that those put under torture will often say whatever an interogator wants to hear just to get them to stop... so we may be failing in more ways than one

[Ultimatejoe]

This is AFTER we overcame the iraqi army - after there was NO iraqi army - but suicide bombings and so forth. These people were NOT picked up during the war - but afterward.

So they've been picking up Suicide Bombers? That'd be a tough interrogation. As I've said repeatedly, most of the people being held in Abu Ghraib are BY ADMISSION innocent, so please stop equating prisoners with insurgents. There is no direct relationship. Some of them probably are, but the bulk are not.

They wouldn't have and that is why the french, Germans and Russians were against the war - they were getting kickbacks and money from Hussein being in Iraq. Once we went in there - France and the rest lost lucrative deals.

The kickbacks you are referring to went to companies, not governments. This really irks me. If you have any documents that links the scandal-plagued Oil-For-Aid program to the actual governments go ahead and post them; so far none has come to light... and somehow I can't see an American honestly suggesting that a government is responsible for the actions that private companies in that country engage in.

The people that are conducting the interogations have a lot at stake personally,and at a much greater level,so who's to judge?

It's simple. The U.S. agreed to follow certain codes of conduct, and now they no longer do. If the U.S. hadn't signed the Geneva Convention (the ratification of which IS binding under the U.S. Constitution) then there would probably be no such scandal. It's not the behaviour that's at issue, it's the context. America is supposed to be the good-guy in this situation. THAT is why the spotlight is on the U.S. and British soldiers.

What's interesting to note is that the U.S. is free to opt out of the Conventions at any time:

Art. 158. Each of the High Contracting Parties shall be at liberty to denounce the present Convention.

The denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Swiss Federal Council, which shall transmit it to the Governments of all the High Contracting Parties.

The denunciation shall take effect one year after the notification thereof has been made to the Swiss Federal Council. However, a denunciation of which notification has been made at a time when the denouncing Power is involved in a conflict shall not take effect until peace has been concluded, and until after operations connected with release, repatriation and re-establishment of the persons protected by the present Convention have been terminated.

The denunciation shall have effect only in respect of the denouncing Power. It shall in no way impair the obligations which the Parties to the conflict shall remain bound to fulfil by virtue of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience.

Instead the U.S. chose to continue playing by a certain set of rules, rules which they are no longer following. Iraq is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, which means that it applies to all Iraqi Nationals held by the occupying force. There is no abbrogation of these conventions because they might be insurgents. You say the Geneva Conventions do not apply... Here's a link to the Geneva Conventions; find me the article which excludes the current situation from their protections:

Geneva Conventions

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ultimatejoe
Can someone explain to me the connection between torturing innocent civilians and all this talk about insurgents? Almost all of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib prison were completely innocent. Of the small portion that wasn't, we have no idea how many were there for civil charges, let alone posessed any intelligence worth taking illegally. There are over 30 million peope in Iraq, and probably no more than 10,000 insurgents (if that.) That's a whopping 0.03% of the population. Are you suggesting that just rounding people up and torturing them is A) effective and B) fair? Tell you what, if you can prove to me that the U.S. forces had cause to suspect the people tortured of having information worth violating the Geneva Conventions, I'll drop the whole thing.

Where the hell does it say "almost all the prisoners were innocent"? The section of the prison that is in question is actually where most of the people were KNOWN to be guilty. There were several levels to the prison. This was the high security section. One "innocent" iraqi even admitted that much of the abuse was a result of them beating up a fellow inmate for telling our soldiers about what they knew and who they were. They were not ALL innocent.

Oh, and by the way, you people seriously need to brush up on your OWN Constitution:

Article 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Oh - I know our Constitution VERY well. Our Constitution also stops at our border. It does not cover England, does not cover France, not Australia and not the Middle East. It is the United STATES Constitution. The problem with you quoting the Constitution is you are assuming the the UNITED STATES violated the a treaty - which has not been shown to be the case. It does show that a FEW soldiers may have - that is why we have a court system though. That is also why they are currently in jail. It's not like we are not doing anything about the situation.