Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lizra
I still can't believe all the picture taking though. This puzzles me. Were the pix done secretly to be used as criticism of the abuse at a later date (as some have suggested) or (sometimes) as part of the humiliation?

I think the original reasoning behind taking pictures was the humiliation factor and the black mail factor. Many of the acts depicted in those pictures are considered completely taboo in muslim society (nakedness, associating with dogs, sexual practices between men, being in the presence of females while unclothed, etc) so much so that even though they would be victims they would still bring great shame to themselves and to their families. I think the thinking was to take the pictures and then show them to the prisoners and say hey if you dont tell us what we want to hear then we will take these pictures to your village and show them to your family members and your neighbors. Now this kind of threat seems empty to me. were they really that stupid that they would actually let these pictures get in the hands of the public like that? I dont understand that. And whats the good of hooding them then? But as it stands the pictures leaked out anyway even through the military alone. So they certainly would have gotten out to the press if passed out to the public. I can only assume they were just calling their bluff.

But then, if you truely believe "they" would do the same to you, in a heartbeat....well who would be the fool then? I ask....Is it REAL, or is it "wanna be"? (the expecting sides to play by "rules" of good conduct in a war situation part)

But keep in mind that its not about them its about us. It doesn’t matter how despicable “they” are (and there is a continued confusion between what foreign terrorists are willing to do and what the common Iraqi or common muslim considers ok). What matters is we are the flag bearers of Democracy and Freedom and Civilization (so we like to brag) so we need to act in a manner that does not make us look like massive hypocrites and does not undermine the very thing we are attempting to do there. If we were a visigothic like society in which cruelty was common place then no one would be surprised. And we would invade countries for other reasons (at least I hope so). But when we champion ourselves loudly as the worlds white knights in shining armor and the most civilized and free place on earth we better be willing (and able) to walk a tight rope of moral rightiousness or else watch out for a long fall.

Its true that the atrocities we committed in this war dont even compare in number or gruesomeness to those committed in past wars. This is largely due to the fact that we live in an instant information world now with digital cameras and sattelite phones and the internet that wasn’t true during Vietnam or World War II. So every little thing we do is going to be under scrutiny. And rightly so

[Lizra]

Hmmm..I wonder how wars of the future will be "won" then! I hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure good guys finish last! So maybe "war" is not the answer ....if you have to play by *rules*.

[Beor]

(after some editing)...So maybe "war" is not the answer ....if you have to play by *rules*.

War is never the answer, unless someone really ****ed up, man

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I think the original reasoning behind taking pictures was the humiliation factor and the black mail factor. Many of the acts depicted in those pictures are considered completely taboo in muslim society (nakedness, associating with dogs, sexual practices between men, being in the presence of females while unclothed, etc) so much so that even though they would be victims they would still bring great shame to themselves and to their families. I think the thinking was to take the pictures and then show them to the prisoners and say hey if you dont tell us what we want to hear then we will take these pictures to your village and show them to your family members and your neighbors. Now this kind of threat seems empty to me. were they really that stupid that they would actually let these pictures get in the hands of the public like that? I dont understand that. And whats the good of hooding them then? But as it stands the pictures leaked out anyway even through the military alone. So they certainly would have gotten out to the press if passed out to the public. I can only assume they were just calling their bluff.

(Frowns)

I thought that they were using the pictures as blackmail. In terms of, the soldiers do these things to a few people and then show them to other prisoners, threatening that they'll do the same to them if they don't cooperate.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
hmm...I find that inulting-as if you want things to go wrong in iraq so that Bush loses his presidency.
I know, I know, all these anti-bushies, all they want is to be right-it seems that thats the only thing they actually care about; and not about wether bush actually does what they want or not-or about if iraq actually gets better and all settled, and that this whole things gets sorted out properly.
Thats the image they convey...

No, I think that what the anti-Bushies are saying is that, since Bush and Co. have proven to be at the least extremely incompetent and blinded by ideology in both pre- and post-war planning, ( give them their due, the actual war was done well) and since they are apparently incapable of
learning from their mistakes, it is of utmost importance that they be turfed out of office if the situation is ever to 'get sorted out properly'

From that raving radical George F. Will:

The first axiom is: When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate. Leave aside the question of who or what failed before Sept. 11, 2001. But who lost his or her job because the president's 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud -- the story of Iraq's attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war -- weapons of mass destruction -- was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004May10.htm

or how about these guys:

General Joseph Hoar, 1991-1994: "Paul Wolfowitz is a very bright guy, but he doesn't know anything about war-fighting, and I suspect he knows less about counterinsurgency operations....I think that the neo-conservatives had their day, by selling to the President the need for invasion of Iraq. I think it's now time for a clean sweep—and it has been for some time, in my judgment—to get rid of these people."


General Anthony Zinni, 1997-2000: He believes the neocons, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy: "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."


General Tommy Franks, 2000-2003: Doug Feith is "the [expletive deleted] stupidest guy on the face of the earth."


General Binford Peay III, CENTCOM commander from 1994-1997, seems to have maintained a studious silence about the conduct of the war, perhaps understandable since he's now the chairman of the board of a defense contractor that, among other things, provides ammunition for the Army's Stryker brigades.

Still, that's a pretty remarkable record, isn't it? Three of the past four CENTCOM commanders, the guys who probably understand the military requirements of a war in the Middle East better than any other humans on the planet, think the people who planned this war are completely incompetent. Quite an accomplishment

And the latest news from the Republic of FUBAR?

Ahmed Chalabi,
-whose INC was the main source of both the WMD and Saddam/al Qaeda connections, (both to US and foreign intelligence organisations, so the whole thing was a vast echo chamber)

-who assured the US that they would be pelted with flowers,

-whose useless militia the Pentagon had flown into Iraq to take control of the government,

-whose assurances that the future Iraqi (i.e. Chalabi's) government would recognise Israel was a major reason for the neo-cons drive to war.

-who, in spite of being rejected by the CIA and State Department as a crook and a betrayer was anointed by the PNAC and consequently was the recipient of tens of millions of dollars

was, not only a conman and embezzler, but also an AGENT FOR THE IRANIAN AYOTOLLAHS!!

WASHINGTON -- The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has been used for years by Iranian intelligence to pass disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to intelligence sources.

"Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam Hussein," said an intelligence source Friday who was briefed on the Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusions, which were based on a review of thousands of internal documents.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

[hectorberlioz]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
No, I think that what the anti-Bushies are saying is that, since Bush and Co. have proven to be at the least extremely incompetent and blinded by ideology in both pre- and post-war planning, ( give them their due, the actual war was done well) and since they are apparently incapable of
learning from their mistakes, it is of utmost importance that they be turfed out of office if the situation is ever to 'get sorted out properly'.

Incompetent? how can you possibly tell? the freaking war isnt over yet, and for all you know, it could all be going very forward and progressive in iraq. But you wont hear that, because all the anti-Bushites filter it all out, and keep the bad stuff!
And kicking the Prez out of office is most certainly not going to solve the world's problems...
The world is going nuts, and do we need a President who is going to let sit, and wait till the shark comes into our water? Well, thats exactly what you're going to get if Kerry takes the throne.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Incompetent? how can you possibly tell? the freaking war isnt over yet, and for all you know, it could all be going very forward and progressive in iraq. But you wont hear that, because all the anti-Bushites filter it all out, and keep the bad stuff!
And kicking the Prez out of office is most certainly not going to solve the world's problems...
The world is going nuts, and do we need a President who is going to let sit, and wait till the shark comes into our water? Well, thats exactly what you're going to get if Kerry takes the throne.

So... just to get this straight: on the one hand you want us to keep giving Bush a chance, and on the other, you don't want to give Kerry a chance at all? Just wanting to make sure I read this right...

[BeardofPants]

Afghan Deaths Linked to Unit at Iraq Prison
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID ROHDE

Published: May 24, 2004



WASHINGTON, May 23 — A military intelligence unit that oversaw interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was also in charge of questioning at a detention center in Afghanistan where two prisoners died in December 2002 in incidents that are being investigated as homicides.

For both of the Afghan prisoners, who died in a center known as the Bagram Collection Point, the cause of death listed on certificates signed by American pathologists included blunt force injuries to their legs. Interrogations at the center were supervised by Company A, 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, which moved on early in 2003 to Iraq, where some of its members were assigned to the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib. Its service in Afghanistan was known, but its work at Bagram at the time of the deaths has now emerged in interviews with former prisoners, military officials and from documents.

Two men arrested with one of the prisoners who died in the Bagram Detention Center that month said in southeastern Afghanistan on Sunday that they were tortured and sexually humiliated by their American jailers; they said they were held in isolation cells, black hoods were placed over their heads, and their hands at times were chained to the ceiling. "The 10 days that we had was a very bad time," said Zakim Shah, a 20-year-old farmer and a father of two who said he felt he would not survive at times. "We are very lucky."

The account provided by the two men was consistent with those of other former Afghan prisoners, including those interviewed by The New York Times and cited in reports by human rights officials.

In interviews, the two men and other former prisoners who were held at the center in Afghanistan at that time have described an environment similar in some ways to that of Abu Ghraib, whose outlines have been depicted in photographs and testimony. At both places, prisoners were hooded, stripped naked and mocked sexually by female captors, according to a variety of accounts.

In Iraq, at least three members of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion who had been assigned to the joint interrogation center at Abu Ghraib have been quietly disciplined for conduct involving the abuse of a female Iraqi prisoner there, an Army spokesman said.

At least one officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, served in supervisory positions at the interrogation units both at the Bagram Collection Point from July 2002 to December 2003 and then again at the joint center at Abu Ghraib, according to Army officials. That center was established in the fall of 2003. In Congressional testimony last week, a senior Army lawyer, Col. Marc Warren, praised Captain Wood as an officer who took initiative in Iraq at a time when American commanders had yet to spell out rules for interrogation. But he also singled out Captain Wood and her unit as having brought to Iraq interrogation procedures developed during their service in Afghanistan. No one is known to have accused Captain Wood of any wrongdoing in connection with the abuses at Abu Ghraib or the deaths of prisoners there or in Afghanistan.

A spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, in Fort Bragg, N.C., identified Captain Wood as having been sent to Afghanistan in July 2002 as Company A's interrogation platoon leader, and having later assumed the duties of "operations officer in charge of the Bagram Collection Point." In a written statement sent Friday, that spokesman, Lt. Col. Billy Buckner, said Captain Wood had been assigned to the 519th Battalion at Abu Ghraib. But other Army officers have described her as having served as the officer in charge of the interrogation center there, under Lt. Col. Steve Jordan, a reservist who served as its director.

In an interview on Sunday, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who oversaw Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq but has since been admonished and suspended from command, described Captain Wood as an impressive and well-spoken expert on interrogations who oversaw the center. Colonel Buckner said that Captain Wood's commanding officer in Iraq, Lt. Col. Robert Whalen, was not available for comment. To date, seven enlisted personnel from a military police unit have been the only soldiers charged with crimes in connection with the abuses at Abu Ghraib. But an Army report completed in March identified Colonel Jordan as among four people who may have been among those "directly or indirectly" responsible for the misconduct.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Incompetent? how can you possibly tell? the freaking war isnt over yet, and for all you know, it could all be going very forward and progressive in iraq. But you wont hear that, because all the anti-Bushites filter it all out, and keep the bad stuff!
And kicking the Prez out of office is most certainly not going to solve the world's problems...
The world is going nuts, and do we need a President who is going to let sit, and wait till the shark comes into our water? Well, thats exactly what you're going to get if Kerry takes the throne.

Well, Bush stood on the deck of that aircraft carrier a year ago and paraded up and down in a costume under a banner saying "Mission Accomplished". They obviously had made no plans for a post-war settlement, and the whole premise for going to war was at best flawed intelligence and at worst a doctrinal foreign policy experiment designed to line the pockets of Bush's backers along the way.

I resent your suggestion that I welcome the butchering of Americans in Iraq. The fact that what has happened has been almost exactly what I predicted before the war started is no comfort at all.

If you are going to post in this thread, please do us the courtesy of putting forward some coherent arguments rather than just slinging insults and questioning people's motives.

[Janny]

Originally posted by Beor
War is never the answer, unless someone really ****ed up, man

While I understand the answer may or may not be legal for you to type at the moment... who do you think starred it up over Iraq? I mean was it the US administration or Hussein's government?

[Buster]

Originally posted by Beor
War is never the answer, unless someone really ****ed up, man

I'm just reading the rules... is this allowed? Isn't this considered trying to hide a censored word?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Buster
I'm just reading the rules... is this allowed? Isn't this considered trying to hide a censored word?

Hi Buster... don't know if Beor was trying to hide the words, or if the 'filter' blocked what he typed and replaced it with * marks.

In a way you're right though... it's best to not even hint so strongly at useage of such words on the board. However, we happily give Beor a little leeway, as he's under a lot of pressure these days. He's a US soldier stationed in Iraq.

Now for you... head on up to 'The Official Welcome Thread' and introduce yourself. Welcome to Entmoot!

[Buster]

I was reading the posts by BeardofPants. Very insightful, thank you very much for posting it.

I had suspected that the abuses did not stop at the level of the soldiers involved, but that these abuses were fully supported and/or ordered (in some way) by higher ups.

I am anxious to see if those involve survive to the trial.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Buster
I'm just reading the rules... is this allowed? Isn't this considered trying to hide a censored word?

Ruinel, or I should say Ruinel's dog, ask your mommy about the rules. She knows them, or I thought she did.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Ruinel, or I should say Ruinel's dog, ask your mommy about the rules. She knows them, or I thought she did.

*wondering how many times he has been "suckered" by some current member registering with a new name*

[QueenAnnesLace]

Originally posted by Valandil
*wondering how many times he has been "suckered" by some current member registering with a new name*

I'm pretty new myself and I saw that one coming.No worries.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by QueenAnnesLace
I'm pretty new myself and I saw that one coming.No worries.

Somehow not too reassuring... *newbie figures it out while I don't!*

*sigh*... well, I guess I haven't been keeping up on the ugly stuff going on around here lately - trying to avoid it, in fact. Didn't even know until I saw SGH's response that some bans were in effect.

Nobody 'band4life' though?

Saw that one coming, eh? Say... you wouldn't be an alter-ego of SGH, now wouldja?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Valandil
Somehow not too reassuring... *newbie figures it out while I don't!*

*sigh*... well, I guess I haven't been keeping up on the ugly stuff going on around here lately - trying to avoid it, in fact. Didn't even know until I saw SGH's response that some bans were in effect.

Nobody 'band4life' though?

Saw that one coming, eh? Say... you wouldn't be an alter-ego of SGH, now wouldja?

No, she is not an alter ego of me. And no, no one has been banned for life YET!

[Lalaith_Elf]

Originally posted by Valandil
*wondering how many times he has been "suckered" by some current member registering with a new name*

Oh at least twice now.... or is it three times?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Lalaith_Elf
Oh at least twice now.... or is it three times?

Who knows... I just try to be welcoming and friendly... and give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they're being honest and forthright.