Innocent US Army? - Military knew of jail abuse [Archive]

View Full Version : Innocent US Army? - Military knew of jail abuse

weedman

05-04-2004, 01:50 AM

Bremer 'knew of jail abuse'

BAGHDAD:

Former Iraqi human rights minister Abdel Basset Turki said yesterday US overseer Paul Bremer knew in November that Iraqi prisoners were being abused in US detention centres.

"In November I talked to Mr Bremer about human rights violations in general and in jails in particular. He listened but there was no answer. At the first meeting, I asked to be allowed to visit the security prisoners, but I failed," he said.

"I told him the news. He didn't take care about the information I gave him."

Coalition spokesman Gareth Bayley defended Bremer's commitment to human rights in Iraq.

Turki, whose resignation was formally accepted by the coalition on Sunday, said he told Bremer about his meetings with former detainees and the harsh treatment they had described.

"The prisoners I spoke to, they told me about how Iraqi prisoners were left in the sun on US bases for hours, prevented to pray and wash and left for two days on a chair and kicked at Abu Gharib," he said.

Abu Gharib is the largest prison in the country, located outside Baghdad, where a US Army enquiry has found that guards humiliated detainees, forced them to strip naked and perform mock *** acts.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Articles.asp?Article=80744&Sn=WORL

I know you don't regard this source as being reliable, but I'll put in a better one as soon as I find.

WanderingNomad

05-04-2004, 03:14 AM

http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=1182

Traditional western media will cover this too soon.

But is anyone really surprised about this? I guess if Bremer wouldn't have known, he'd be even more out-of-control than he already is.

Argyll

05-04-2004, 03:38 AM

Off course he knew ,there were allegations involving Female MP's last year,so he would have been aware of these allegations when they 1st surfaced,I honestlty do not know why you Germans in particular are making this out to be something more sinister?
Do Turkish immigrants not suffer abuse in your jails?.....oh and I'd think very very very carefully before you answer that question,as I happen to have been in the company of a German Policeman,who got the worse for wear with drink,and told a few stories,whether true or not is irrelevant!

vikingblade

05-04-2004, 04:03 AM

fdt

05-04-2004, 04:12 AM

I am not the fan of military bureaucracy... but this particular case is an example of fast response for the "problem".

The abusers were reservists with absoulutely no training for the duties they were given. Some of them didn't even know of the Geneva conventions existence... :cantbeli:

The abuses were happening only in one part of the jail (only this one).

The part of the jail was commanded by intelligence (CIA?) not by military.

The scandal has been uncovered on the first day when a POW custody trained soldier of different unit has been transferred to this jail as a guard. He has reported abuse to his superiors and next day the abusers were kicked out (together with a general responsible for the jail command).

Whole scandal took part few months ago... and all abusers plus Mrs general are now in US crying over their careers that are history now.

Typical here is the story was not published when dealt with (military business) ... but seeing the current media coverage of the scandal I am not surprised why some tried to cover this...

afrographX

05-04-2004, 04:17 AM

ya know what... no abuse is really acceptable in any prison. but, lets check our big boy reality meters ok... the arab world is horrified about the treatment......hhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...that has got to be the funniest damn thing i have ever heard. we are talking about countries with the worst treatment to be a pow or prisoner. the arab world is known as a place where torture is still acceptable. they still cut off your head in saudi arabia. so, PLEASE save the bloody boo hooing.

they made me get naked, i couldnt pray, they urinated on me. well, thats too bad. you found yourself on the wrong end of right and might. this is war. they are not being tortured, they are not being killed. believe me, if these guys had american soldiers in a prison, itd be alot more than naked pictures. ask daniel pearl if hed rather be peed on than have his head hacked off.

go about your lives, dont shoot at us, dont blow up any car bombs, let us clean out the dictator and his REAL TORTURING LACKEYS and get rid of the violence loving scumbag terrorists causing trouble in your country.

IF you dont assault coalition forces or support those who do, you wont go to prison, you wont be peed on. very bad things happen in our prison system every day that i would never want done to me. guess what, i dont break the law, so i dont go to prison.

I am not saying the abuse is right, it is not. I am not even saying the people involved in doing it, shouldnt be punished, they should. BUT, lets not get carried away. we still gotta live in reality.

if the coaltion would allow the iraqui people to govern themself, to determine theri own estiny ther would be no problem at all.

And you can't play this incident down by describing how brutal other arabic states treat their prisoners. Of course this is not ok as well but those states(USA has a hegenomy in this region) who would be able to influence them aren't interested in doing so.

The USA as THE most powerfull and most representitive country of the western world should get aware of their responsibility and act always according to western ethic and moral values. Anti-american arabians can eassily put this incident forward as an example of US hypocrisy, which supports anti-american attitudes in this region and makes the situation in iraq worse.

fdt

05-04-2004, 04:23 AM

if the coaltion would allow the iraqui people to govern themself, to determine theri own estiny ther would be no problem at all.

Agreed. Simply media wouldn't give a sh.t if the "savages" would really torture other "savages"... For Arab media there would be no story at all...

vikingblade

05-04-2004, 04:31 AM

fdt

05-04-2004, 04:39 AM

Will anyone investigate the MI role in this?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/

TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?
Issue of 2004-05-10
Posted 2004-04-30
In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, twenty miles west of Baghdad, was one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and vile living conditions. As many as fifty thousand men and women—no accurate count is possible—were jammed into Abu Ghraib at one time, in twelve-by-twelve-foot cells that were little more than human holding pits.

In the looting that followed the regime’s collapse, last April, the huge prison complex, by then deserted, was stripped of everything that could be removed, including doors, windows, and bricks. The coalition authorities had the floors tiled, cells cleaned and repaired, and toilets, showers, and a new medical center added. Abu Ghraib was now a U.S. military prison. Most of the prisoners, however—by the fall there were several thousand, including women and teen-agers—were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpoints. They fell into three loosely defined categories: common criminals; security detainees suspected of “crimes against the coalition”; and a small number of suspected “high-value” leaders of the insurgency against the coalition forces.

Last June, Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. General Karpinski, the only female commander in the war zone, was an experienced operations and intelligence officer who had served with the Special Forces and in the 1991 Gulf War, but she had never run a prison system. Now she was in charge of three large jails, eight battalions, and thirty-four hundred Army reservists, most of whom, like her, had no training in handling prisoners.

General Karpinski, who had wanted to be a soldier since she was five, is a business consultant in civilian life, and was enthusiastic about her new job. In an interview last December with the St. Petersburg Times, she said that, for many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, “living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to leave.”

A month later, General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system, authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under way. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added—“detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.”

The photographs—several of which were broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes 2” last week—show leering G.I.s taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses. Six suspects—Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, known as Chip, who was the senior enlisted man; Specialist Charles A. Graner; Sergeant Javal Davis; Specialist Megan Ambuhl; Specialist Sabrina Harman; and Private Jeremy Sivits—are now facing prosecution in Iraq, on charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts. A seventh suspect, Private Lynndie England, was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, after becoming pregnant.

The photographs tell it all. In one, Private England, a cigarette dangling from her mouth, is giving a jaunty thumbs-up sign and pointing at the genitals of a young Iraqi, who is naked except for a sandbag over his head, as he masturbates. Three other hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners are shown, hands reflexively crossed over their genitals. A fifth prisoner has his hands at his sides. In another, England stands arm in arm with Specialist Graner; both are grinning and giving the thumbs-up behind a cluster of perhaps seven naked Iraqis, knees bent, piled clumsily on top of each other in a pyramid. There is another photograph of a cluster of naked prisoners, again piled in a pyramid. Near them stands Graner, smiling, his arms crossed; a woman soldier stands in front of him, bending over, and she, too, is smiling. Then, there is another cluster of hooded bodies, with a female soldier standing in front, taking photographs. Yet another photograph shows a kneeling, naked, unhooded male prisoner, head momentarily turned away from the camera, posed to make it appear that he is performing oral *** on another male prisoner, who is naked and hooded.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homo****** acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.

Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood.

The 372nd’s abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine—a fact of Army life that the soldiers felt no need to hide. On April 9th, at an Article 32 hearing (the military equivalent of a grand jury) in the case against Sergeant Frederick, at Camp Victory, near Baghdad, one of the witnesses, Specialist Matthew Wisdom, an M.P., told the courtroom what happened when he and other soldiers delivered seven prisoners, hooded and bound, to the so-called “hard site” at Abu Ghraib—seven tiers of cells where the inmates who were considered the most dangerous were housed. The men had been accused of starting a riot in another section of the prison. Wisdom said:

SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that.

When he returned later, Wisdom testified:

I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open. I thought I should just get out of there. I didn’t think it was right . . . I saw SSG Frederick walking towards me, and he said, “Look what these animals do when you leave them alone for two seconds.” I heard PFC England shout out, “He’s getting hard.”

Wisdom testified that he told his superiors what had happened, and assumed that “the issue was taken care of.” He said, “I just didn’t want to be part of anything that looked criminal.”

The abuses became public because of the outrage of Specialist Joseph M. Darby, an M.P. whose role emerged during the Article 32 hearing against Chip Frederick. A government witness, Special Agent Scott Bobeck, who is a member of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, or C.I.D., told the court, according to an abridged transcript made available to me, “The investigation started after SPC Darby . . . got a CD from CPL Graner. . . . He came across pictures of naked detainees.” Bobeck said that Darby had “initially put an anonymous letter under our door, then he later came forward and gave a sworn statement. He felt very bad about it and thought it was very wrong.”
Questioned further, the Army investigator said that Frederick and his colleagues had not been given any “training guidelines” that he was aware of. The M.P.s in the 372nd had been assigned to routine traffic and police duties upon their arrival in Iraq, in the spring of 2003. In October of 2003, the 372nd was ordered to prison-guard duty at Abu Ghraib. Frederick, at thirty-seven, was far older than his colleagues, and was a natural leader; he had also worked for six years as a guard for the Virginia Department of Corrections. Bobeck explained:

What I got is that SSG Frederick and CPL Graner were road M.P.s and were put in charge because they were civilian prison guards and had knowledge of how things were supposed to be run.

Bobeck also testified that witnesses had said that Frederick, on one occasion, “had punched a detainee in the chest so hard that the detainee almost went into cardiac arrest.”

At the Article 32 hearing, the Army informed Frederick and his attorneys, Captain Robert Shuck, an Army lawyer, and Gary Myers, a civilian, that two dozen witnesses they had sought, including General Karpinski and all of Frederick’s co-defendants, would not appear. Some had been excused after exercising their Fifth Amendment right; others were deemed to be too far away from the courtroom. “The purpose of an Article 32 hearing is for us to engage witnesses and discover facts,” Gary Myers told me. “We ended up with a c.i.d. agent and no alleged victims to examine.” After the hearing, the presiding investigative officer ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convene a court-martial against Frederick.

Myers, who was one of the military defense attorneys in the My Lai prosecutions of the nineteen-seventies, told me that his client’s defense will be that he was carrying out the orders of his superiors and, in particular, the directions of military intelligence. He said, “Do you really think a group of kids from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own? Decided that the best way to embarrass Arabs and make them talk was to have them walk around ****?”

In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

The military-intelligence officers have “encouraged and told us, ‘Great job,’ they were now getting positive results and information,” Frederick wrote. “CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI’s request.” At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. “His reply was ‘Don’t worry about it.’”

In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called “O.G.A.,” or other government agencies—that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees—was brought to his unit for questioning. “They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away.” The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison’s inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, “and therefore never had a number.”

Frederick’s defense is, of course, highly self-serving. But the complaints in his letters and e-mails home were reinforced by two internal Army reports—Taguba’s and one by the Army’s chief law-enforcement officer, Provost Marshal Donald Ryder, a major general.

Last fall, General Sanchez ordered Ryder to review the prison system in Iraq and recommend ways to improve it. Ryder’s report, filed on November 5th, concluded that there were potential human-rights, training, and manpower issues, system-wide, that needed immediate attention. It also discussed serious concerns about the tension between the missions of the military police assigned to guard the prisoners and the intelligence teams who wanted to interrogate them. Army regulations limit intelligence activity by the M.P.s to passive collection. But something had gone wrong at Abu Ghraib.

There was evidence dating back to the Afghanistan war, the Ryder report said, that M.P.s had worked with intelligence operatives to “set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews”—a euphemism for breaking the will of prisoners. “Such actions generally run counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility, attempting to maintain its population in a compliant and docile state.” General Karpinski’s brigade, Ryder reported, “has not been directed to change its facility procedures to set the conditions for MI interrogations, nor participate in those interrogations.” Ryder called for the establishment of procedures to “define the role of military police soldiers . . .clearly separating the actions of the guards from those of the military intelligence personnel.” The officers running the war in Iraq were put on notice.

Ryder undercut his warning, however, by concluding that the situation had not yet reached a crisis point. Though some procedures were flawed, he said, he found “no military police units purposely applying inappropriate confinement practices.” His investigation was at best a failure and at worst a coverup.

Taguba, in his report, was polite but direct in refuting his fellow-general. “Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that surfaced during [Ryder’s] assessment are the very same issues that are the subject of this investigation,” he wrote. “In fact, many of the abuses suffered by detainees occurred during, or near to, the time of that assessment.” The report continued, “Contrary to the findings of MG Ryder’s report, I find that personnel assigned to the 372nd MP Company, 800th MP Brigade were directed to change facility procedures to ‘set the conditions’ for MI interrogations.” Army intelligence officers, C.I.A. agents, and private contractors “actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses.”

Taguba backed up his assertion by citing evidence from sworn statements to Army C.I.D. investigators. Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the accused M.P.s, testified that it was her job to keep detainees awake, including one hooded prisoner who was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and *****. She stated, “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Graner and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told C.I.D. investigators, “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told that they had different rules.” Taguba wrote, “Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: ‘Loosen this guy up for us.’‘Make sure he has a bad night.’‘Make sure he gets the treatment.’” Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. “The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, ‘Good job, they’re breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good information.’”

When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about the abuse, Sergeant Davis answered, “Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing”—where the abuse took place—“belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse.”

Another witness, Specialist Jason Kennel, who was not accused of wrongdoing, said, “I saw them ****, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes.” (It was his view, he added, that if M.I. wanted him to do this “they needed to give me paperwork.”) Taguba also cited an interview with Adel L. Nakhla, a translator who was an employee of Titan, a civilian contractor. He told of one night when a “bunch of people from MI” watched as a group of handcuffed and shackled inmates were subjected to abuse by Graner and Frederick.

General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen “who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ which were neither authorized” nor in accordance with Army regulations. “He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse,” Taguba wrote. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had “received no formal communication” from the Army about the matter.)

“I suspect,” Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel “were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib,” and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.

The problems inside the Army prison system in Iraq were not hidden from senior commanders. During Karpinski’s seven-month tour of duty, Taguba noted, there were at least a dozen officially reported incidents involving escapes, attempted escapes, and other serious security issues that were investigated by officers of the 800th M.P. Brigade. Some of the incidents had led to the killing or wounding of inmates and M.P.s, and resulted in a series of “lessons learned” inquiries within the brigade. Karpinski invariably approved the reports and signed orders calling for changes in day-to-day procedures. But Taguba found that she did not follow up, doing nothing to insure that the orders were carried out. Had she done so, he added, “cases of abuse may have been prevented.”

General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of resources. “This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and accountability lapses,” he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained—indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers “routinely” rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners.

Karpinski was rarely seen at the prisons she was supposed to be running, Taguba wrote. He also found a wide range of administrative problems, including some that he considered “without precedent in my military career.” The soldiers, he added, were “poorly prepared and untrained . . . prior to deployment, at the mobilization site, upon arrival in theater, and throughout the mission.”

General Taguba spent more than four hours interviewing Karpinski, whom he described as extremely emotional: “What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers.”

Taguba recommended that Karpinski and seven brigade military-police officers and enlisted men be relieved of command and formally reprimanded. No criminal proceedings were suggested for Karpinski; apparently, the loss of promotion and the indignity of a public rebuke were seen as enough punishment.

After the story broke on CBS last week, the Pentagon announced that Major General Geoffrey Miller, the new head of the Iraqi prison system, had arrived in Baghdad and was on the job. He had been the commander of the Guantánamo Bay detention center. General Sanchez also authorized an investigation into possible wrongdoing by military and civilian interrogators.

As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.

The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib may have done little to further American intelligence, however. Willie J. Rowell, who served for thirty-six years as a C.I.D. agent, told me that the use of force or humiliation with prisoners is invariably counterproductive. “They’ll tell you what you want to hear, truth or no truth,” Rowell said. “‘You can flog me until I tell you what I know you want me to say.’ You don’t get righteous information.”

Under the fourth Geneva convention, an occupying power can jail civilians who pose an “imperative” security threat, but it must establish a regular procedure for insuring that only civilians who remain a genuine security threat be kept imprisoned. Prisoners have the right to appeal any internment decision and have their cases reviewed. Human Rights Watch complained to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that civilians in Iraq remained in custody month after month with no charges brought against them. Abu Ghraib had become, in effect, another Guantánamo.

As the photographs from Abu Ghraib make clear, these detentions have had enormous consequences: for the imprisoned civilian Iraqis, many of whom had nothing to do with the growing insurgency; for the integrity of the Army; and for the United States’ reputation in the world.

Captain Robert Shuck, Frederick’s military attorney, closed his defense at the Article 32 hearing last month by saying that the Army was “attempting to have these six soldiers atone for its sins.” Similarly, Gary Myers, Frederick’s civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. “I’m going to drag every involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court,” he said. “Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of six soldiers? Not a chance.”

afrographX

05-04-2004, 04:41 AM

govern themself.....hhhaaaaaaaaa. thats a good one.

if we pulled right now, the place would be in a brutal religious cival war in a month. it took a brutal dictator with his hand around everone's throats to govern iraq.

personally, i dont think it can be done. not as a democracy. maybe as a religious state like iran. which is the last thing we need. but, what can ya do... religion and government do not mix. until the middle east gives up the religious state ideal, they are doomed.

so you think the coaltion should occupy iraq until the iraqi people have overcome their religious convition. rofl

I didn't say that the US should pull out immediately, this would definitely end in anarchy. But they should support those powers who are really able to govern iraq to consolidate their postions and to prepare for government. Then the usa should support the iraqui in working out a constition which satisfy most of the political groups in iraq. which could mean that the kurds get a very independent federal state in the north, while the schiits in the south get a federal state with a religious foundation.

Argyll

05-04-2004, 04:45 AM

Iraq as it stands right now is is no position to be able to govern itself,they still have to sort out so many Industrial problems and Infrastructure problems,even handing over authority in June ,in my optionion seems too soon.
The re development of Iraq will take a few years for them to viably stand on their own,things are progressing slowly but surely.

For those who stating things like the US should leave etc,who do you think should take over?

Do you honestly think the Sunni's will treat a UN Force any differently?

Do you think the Foreign Arab insurgents will treat these Forces any differently?........remember the UN has been bombed twice with a great loss of lives,after they refused protection on both accounts.

To those Nations that doubt the Coalitions ability to see this through.........pray tell me what your Nations are doing then to help the people of Iraq to rebuild their lives and country?

Argyll

05-04-2004, 04:47 AM

vikingblade

05-04-2004, 04:56 AM

exactly... too bad we are catching **** from every angle and getting very little support. all we can do is try to make the plan work. stay the course.

WanderingNomad

05-04-2004, 05:13 AM

vikingblade: we all know that the conditions in arab prisons are probably like in hell and everything should be done to address that, but the problem is the US wants to be the shining example of democracy and human rights. And therefore they CANNOT afford such bad publicity! And such wrong and dispicable (sp?) behavior in the first place. Not to mention that those pictures confirm the worst rumors going round in the arab world about the US and their 'real' intentions.

if the US sets sooo high standards on itself and if it's soooo convinced that everything's american is fine and rosy, they have to do better than that.

Argyll

05-04-2004, 06:19 AM

Will anyone investigate the MI role in this?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/

[quote]Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homo****** acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.

Try telling that to the POW's from GW 1........

Trident-za

05-04-2004, 06:56 AM

Royal

05-04-2004, 08:05 AM

If MI were involved I'll eat my words, but as any (western) trained MI operator will testify, physical violence is invariably counter-productive to the interrogation process.

Yes the initial handlers often go over the top 'maintaining the shock of capture', but once it gets to the trained interrogator's level, it's a very different kettle of fish...

Tane Angle

05-04-2004, 08:10 AM

Excerpt of mine from earlier today on the PMC/Prison thread. Just to back up Royal. Nice to hear from you Royal, how's it going?

Just a side note, there is a difference between coercion and torture. Torture is never acceptable, and doesn't actually work. That's the whole falacy about it; people think it gets good intelligence; it only gets invalid babble that only further confuses a situation. What's more, it actually usually strengthen's the person's resistance and resolve-if they survive one abusement, they begin to believe they can survive the next one, they get hope, they get confidence-all negative things for anyone looking for real intelligence.

Coercion-which does not cause lasting damage and is mainly about psycology-is sometimes necessary. I don't like it, but it is legal and necessary sometimes. Coercion is practiced every day in hundreds of thousands, in million of police stations every day in jails throughout the Western world.

Familiar example-good cop/bad cop. That's coercion.

Questioning lasting more than half an hour could easily be classified as coercion. I know law enforcement personnel who have, though only legal, sanctioned methods of talking (or not talking) to the person in the seat, secured valid, confirmed confessions and infortmation in a very short amount of time. I would put good money that up against those personnel, nearly anyone in the world would talk, and talk in truth.

Personally, I think US laws allow for question many hours too long, if we are trying to prevent any coercion from taking place. Of course, without any, detectives won't get anywhere.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Trident-za

05-04-2004, 08:17 AM

Good points, Royal and Tane.....

I have no experience in such matters, but I hope like hell that MI were not involved and thats its just down to a few thugs.....

Argyll

05-04-2004, 09:03 AM

Argyll, what was done to the POWs in GW1 doesn't make any of this right. You of all people should know that this is a serious breach of the "roe"... and cannot be talked away by pointing fingers at what the enemy does. Did the IRA behave according to UK ROE? Nope, but those ROE were still pretty damn important (as you yourself have pointed out on several occassions).

If this stuff about the MI being actively involved, the consequences (in terms of hearts and minds etc.) are not going to be pretty :(

P.S. my post is in no way anti-US. I don't think the US should pull out, I do think they are doing a pretty damn good job of rebuilding Iraq, and should continue to do so.

You missed the point Trident,it had nothing to do with 2 wrongs do not make a right,what went on was despicapble at best and has seriously cast doubts over the handling of Institutions such as the Al Garbh prison.

ROE has nothing to do with SOP's within a Prison.
ROE's are the authority whether to engage the enemy using whatever force whether it be deadly or not,so ROE's within this case is way off track mate. ;)

The point I was getting at is the that according to Islamice beliefs such acts are not tolerated........such as the nakedness and ****** contacts with other males.........which is complete and utter ****e,and that Iraqi's as well as other Arab Nations sodomised Prisoners throughout history,not just GW1,it is as much in their culture to do this as any others.

Turkish Soldiers(Muslims and following Islam) captured British servicemen and sodomised them,during WW1 and even during present days I recall something like this happening in the 80's in Cyprus.

That is the point I was making mate...............it is not as definative about their beliefs as it makes out to be.

2Sheds_Jackson

05-04-2004, 09:44 AM

Talk about a tempest in a teacup. Enough of this boo hoo-ing already. It's a frickin' war. If humiliating these a-holes saved even one life, I can live with it. If it was done purely as entertainment, that's a different story.

But for the "Arab world" to erupt over this is the height of hypocrisy. These people's prisons are a horror story - why don't they demonstrate in the streets over their own government's treatment of prisoners? Because they're racist xenophobes, that's why. It's only "bad" because it's Infidels doing it this time.

And don’t hand me this hogwash about how its particularly humiliating to Muslims - forbidden to be naked in front of other men blah blah. Do you think anybody likes to get stripped down, formed into a human pyramid, pissed on, slapped around a bit etc? Nobody wants that. I had no idea these Muslims were so sensitive!

Sh*t we're barking up the wrong tree here! We don't need to use violence against them....just parade around naked in front of them, eat pork, wear white shoes before Easter, & they'd run to the hills! They just can't take that kind of humiliation!

NcDeuce

05-04-2004, 10:00 AM

Tane Angle

05-04-2004, 10:11 AM

If humiliating these a-holes saved even one life,

The problem is, it won't save lives. Sodomizing is beyond humilitation, it's torture. It won't save lives. It will only give the anti-west speakers something to talk about, to rally people behind.

Just as people here rally around an outrage committed against the West, so will they rally around outrages committed against their own. It's pouring oil on what was a fire that had just started to smolder.

So it doesn't save lives, it costs them. That's why this is so bad for everyone over here. Now how does one tell a mother or a wife that their loved was was killed not because he was trying to liberate anyone or defend anyone, but because some guy back at the prison messed up? How pissed will I be if one of my friends dies because of this? What if some of the younger guys I work with, the ones with newborns and toddlers at home, get killed because somebody screwed up?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Trident-za

05-04-2004, 10:35 AM

Argyll:

ROE has nothing to do with SOP's within a Prison.

Yes, thats why I used inverted commas, wasn't too sure what the proper terminology was.

And yes, I did miss your point, but your explanation cleared things up. My apologies....

Tane Angle:
The problem is, it won't save lives. Sodomizing is beyond humilitation, it's torture. It won't save lives. It will only give the anti-west speakers something to talk about, to rally people behind.

Just as people here rally around an outrage committed against the West, so will they rally around outrages committed against their own. It's pouring oil on what was a fire that had just started to smolder.

So it doesn't save lives, it costs them.

Excellent points, this is the heart of the matter in my opinion. Anything else is missing the point too.....

Trident-za

05-04-2004, 03:44 PM

This is what is worrying me....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3683067.stm

On the Arabic satellite channels, it's "all torture, all the time" - wall-to-wall coverage of the photographs, the graphic images flooding into homes across the region.

The US has repeatedly criticised al-Jazeera's coverage in Iraq
"The situation has not changed in Iraq; only the prison warder is different," said one report on al-Arabiya.

The news bulletin was playing loudly on a TV in the corner of a café in Cairo's old town. Men looked up from their chess boards and water pipes.

"This is shameful, shameful, shameful," said one, getting nods of agreement. "A soldier urinating on a prisoner, ****** abuse and humiliation, is this human?"

Pictures flashed by of naked bodies piled up on one another and the taunting grin of an American woman soldier. All this is especially upsetting in a culture which prizes dignity, modesty and respect.

The man added: "The United States used to stand for liberty, now it stands for imperialism." One of the waiters said he was ready to go to Iraq to become a martyr, fighting the Americans.

No matter how much we rationalize this, or condemn it, or ignore it... the damage is done... and only time will tell what the consequences will be. Damn, if I was a serving coalition soldier I'd be wanting to have a few "words" with the thugs who did this...

Note: for those who, on principle, won't read this article... there are some other points you probably will enjoy :)

Nearby, at Cairo University, a furious row was going on with the photographs being brandished in the face of a visiting academic who was brave enough to defend the Americans.

The Kuwaiti political scientist, Dr Shamlan al-Eesa, was pointing out an uncomfortable truth. In many parts of the Middle East, this is how the police are expected to behave.

"These things happen every day in the Arab world, but no one reports it," he says. "That is the difference between the Arab world and the West - the West admits these things and tries to do something about it."

This is, in my opinion, VERY true... but also, sadly, irrelevent in terms of the consequences.

Argyll

05-04-2004, 03:53 PM

The molk has been spilt over this one,it's the repercussions within the Arab menatlity that could be worrying......tho I do feel that it will not suddenly give the insurgents more recruits in vast numbers,it will however make the ordinary Iraq more suspicious and sceptical of the US and the Coalition,but they will not rush out to the nearest insurgent recruiting office to get some payback.

The ordinary Iraqi wants to put food on the table and shoes on their feet,and if they can do this without risk to their lives then they will,you've got to remember that some of the acts carried out by Saddam were much worse,whole families dissapeared,so they may just mutter their disapproval and get on with their lives,but some will want to get some payback,but the fear of ending up in Al Garbh might just put him off from bearing arms...........then again......we just do not know what will happen at present.

Trident-za

05-04-2004, 03:57 PM

Good points Argyll... maybe I'm being overly pessimistic? Damn, I hope so! Still, it worries me....

J-10

05-05-2004, 03:44 AM

It is said that CIA instigated MP's to illtreat Iraqi prisoners.

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=297193

Monday, May 3, 2004 at 03:00 JST
WASHINGTON — A U.S. military report shows the torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers was systematic and often carried out at the request of intelligence groups including the Central Intelligence Agency, the New Yorker magazine reported on its web site Sunday.

WolverineBlue

05-05-2004, 03:54 AM

And as I have said before, any inhumane treatment of prisoners should be punished with the full effect of military law.