This story contains purports that up to 10,000 prisoners worldwide are being held by the US government. Held in the limbo-land legal manner of the Guantanamo Bay inmates.
This arcticle also outlines that abuse of prisoners is occuring in Guantanamo Bay.
Together, the articles hedge at the idea that the abuse of prisoners in US care is an systematic affair, organised at high levels of the US military.
I also find it ironic that the very jails that Saddam used to commit his atrocities are being used in a similar manner by the very forces supposedly used to end those abuses.
(although, before I get jumped all over, I do realise the scale and degree of abuse is wildly different).
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends I know lots of stuff that happened at the Brigade cage and when we held people. I know nothing like what happened at our brigade cage happened at our company though. Heck I know people who guarded them. The main thing is that they are allowed to do a lot of borderline torture things in an attempt to get intelligence. That and yes a lot of people that get arrested are most likely innocent to a certain degree.
A lot of it really is MI trying to get intel, I know only two real incidents where I was with someone just doing to do, both of those were harshly punished and stopped long before they developed a long way. Though I'll be honest I wouldn't want to be captured by me, prisoners aren't allowed to talk etc. So what happens when they start talking? Well you can't just say please Aqbar I would like you to stop talking. You have the interpretor tell him once and after that well yeah. You get him to stop talking.
Third am I the only person who ever watches cops? Do you see the way that they treat the people they catch? No one has problems with that, heck its nationally televised. We aren't talking about that show every day now are we. Also its kind of standard policy to get prisoners to get naked, during EPW searches you are supposed to have the guy get naked or at least down to his undershorts before you even start to search him, as long as he is alive or physically capable of doing so.
That and I will tell you this. You be in a nine-twenty man element and have 100-1000 people start trying to swarm you. Do you think that a good news article would be "101st soldiers kill 80 in riot". Or how does the no article in the paper because we just man handled the first few who started problems and then everyone else calms down for the most part. Its not an easy job to keep a bunch of people who don't speak English calmed down when they think you owe them the world. Believe me its a big issue, a big American "belief" and one in the military is that if you work you are rewarded. To a lot of soldiers a lot of Iraqis are just bumming off the USA. Its a hard thing to eliminate from the average soldiers mind. Especially when they try to steal just about everything extra you have, beg you for your extra food etc. I personally just gave it up, but the thing is we always gave it up to them at the end of dinner. But then they would start to form crowds and start asking and being angry if they didn't get what they wanted.
That and when you're shot at all the time by people who wear regular every day arabic clothes it puts you into that whole mindset that "civilian is enemy." I'm not saying that its right, I'm just saying its something that will rear its head. Also though I know a lot of you aren't big bean counters or know much of army unit structure. But my division the 101st has around 18,000 soldiers, of those 18,000 soldiers we have maybe 4000 actual ground combat infantry men. The rest of those 18,000 are all support etc. So basically Mosul a city of around a million was held down by around 2000 infantrymen, all of northern Iraq by a grand total of 4K. Seem low to you. It should.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Fox, I want to say that although I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be in Iraq, I've always taken the stance of "Oppose the war, support the troops." I respect and applaud your decision to be in uniform and the bravery it must take to be in your position.
I also realise that the majority of soldiers aren't out there abusing prisoners, and that sometimes a bit of force is going to be the only way to stop a worse situation. It's understandable that you're in a position whereby you have to process many prisoners and require instant co-operation.
However the stuff that went on in that prison goes beyond the idea of necessary force, and if it's going on in more than just one location, we're all in for a lot of well-justified criticism.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is during intelligence gathering things of that nature aren't 100% out of play. Some of it I think was just stupid, not so much amazinlgy harmful. I know a lot of games like, you'll die if you don't do this goes on. The whole make them strip down naked at night and wear a bunch of warm clothes during the day goes on. They'll spray guys down with hoses, just yell in their ears with bull horns until they cry. I don't think its what I would call nice, its basically somewhat tolerable torture, as far as a lot of people in the army are concerned. I don't think its great, I wouldn't want to participate in it, but then I didn't sign up to be a prison guard and I won't be one.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Third am I the only person who ever watches cops? Do you see the way that they treat the people they catch? No one has problems with that, heck its nationally televised. We aren't talking about that show every day now are we. Also its kind of standard policy to get prisoners to get naked, during EPW searches you are supposed to have the guy get naked or at least down to his undershorts before you even start to search him, as long as he is alive or physically capable of doing so.
Blackfox, I think this is an excellent observation and comparison. "Shocking" really isn't the question at the center of this hoo-ha, though.
posted
I think I've tried to make the point that nothing "justifies' it - that's what I mean by it's not an excuse, but it's a reason. Just like 9/11 - there's no excuse for what happened, but there were reasons. In all of these cases, the reasons aren't good ones, but I'm not judging that.
Scale only matters.... to a degree.
The point is that whichever of the 27 different reasons the US administration has used to justify the war in Iraq you choose, we're supposed to be there to be the knight in white armour - But instead of being a pargon of virtue, we're starting to look like just more of the same. Scale doesn't really matter - the fact that we're doing fewer evil things than Saddam doesn't really discount the fact that evil things are occuring on our watch.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the "Cops" thing - if we caught cops doing dragging prisoners around on a leash you'd see just as big an outcry.
Again, I'm not trying to compare the relative merits of different grades of evil. Wrong stuff is happening there, and it's happened while it's our responsiblity.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but I've seen police do a lot worse and on far more occasions. Plus in my mind the whole thing over those few pictures is just a tad overblown to be honest. Though I'm more than embarassed that a bunch of MPs are making the army look like dirt.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm prepared to believe that this *is* an isolated incident, or at least not representative of the army's behaviour in general. I certainly am not "outraged" per se, but the first thing to go through my mind when I saw that was to think:
"What on earth could make anyone think that THAT is appropriate behaviour."
It's more my concern for the deteriorating world-image we're all getting from this continuing conflict, and the wince-worthy crap that just keeps on coming.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
It extends all the way into US prisons, Troubador. If you are interested, look into AmnestyInternational's reports
And as BlackFox points out, many American's amuse themselves watching COPS: televised videotapes about police using dubious excuses to conduct searches, and excessive force as standard arrest procedure.
I don't watch Cops - I don't find it entertaining.
As for stripping prisoners - let's make an important distinction. Prisoners disrobe and are searched before going into custody. They are clothed immediately afterward.
How do you see this working out? You are undermanned, doing what is probably necessarily harsh control on mostly innocent people - how is this supposed to end with them being our allies?
How much awareness is there by troops in Iraq that the severe troop shortage is due to the ideology of the administration? They forced a general who spoke out publicly on the need for more troops into retirement.
Some of the other stuff you've shared is disturbing. Is it wrong for Iraqis to feel they're owed something by people who bombed them, destroyed a lot of their infrastructure and are in fact an occupying force?
How many of the Iraqis are actually being offered jobs in the reconstruction efforts?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to shock you, but things like this go on in our local prisons everyday. The events like in Irac happen durring every war on both sides, and and always has. I am astounded that people are surprised by what happend. Its sad but true. I dont have any awnsers as to how to limit the great occurances of actions like that. It would have to be something system wide, and frankly I dont see that happening. One main reason behind all this is the psycological transformation people, both gards and prisoners, go through when put in a prison situatioin. One of the most famos exparements of all time, called the Stanford Prison Experiment, illistrates my point perfically. I sugest the web site: Stanford Prison Experiment 1971 for a fuller explaniation of the psycology behind prisons.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As mentioned already Kyrie, I'm not shocked or even particularly suprised.
Does that mean it's also not wrong? That we should just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, it goes on in our prisons, whoop-de-f***in-do, it must be ok?"
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, one of the things that really give me the s***s about all this is that you suddenly have the Kyries of the world wondering what you're all worked up about.
When in point of fact, I've never been worked up about the actual issue itself. As you say, Mack, it's just wrong. Plain and simple. I find myself mildly aggravated over the attitude of some people who like to belittle your stance as if it's an emotional over-reaction by that type of questioning. As if having enough sense to think that other cultures deserve the respect that we demand with so much force is some radical lefty proposition.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both the Stanford experiment and Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience came up in one of the other threads. Some of us were already familiar with them (frankly, I wish more people in the mental retardation field knew about them as well). Several newspapers have done stories on both experiments.
Milgram's is relevant if the claims of directions from military superiors are supported. The news tonight highlighted one picture that features more personnel than have been charged - England and some of the others are claiming they are military intelligence officers.
Edit to add - I am willing to acknowledge that anger over this and the expectations you talk about are not limited to a lefty radical perspective. But, FWIW, I am in most ways a lefty radical and it's my perspective.
posted
I believe that it can very much be a matter of perception.
**** Disclaimer Disclaimer**** I believe that these soldiers and those commanding them were in the wrong with the prisoner abuse *** disclaimer disclaimer****
What we have been shown is terrible, from the aspect of First World nations. We (the US including places such as Europe, Australia, Canada, etc.) look at this and know that it is wrong, that we shouldn't do this and don't have to do this.
But for some of the countries and organizations to decry the actions is a case of a very dark pot calling a tarnished aluminum kettle black.
The Iraqi opposition did worse to people for traffic offenses. China sends a bill for one bullet to the parents when they execute someone (remember Tianamen Square and the executions afterwards). Russia and the former Soviet Union were truly horrific.
And what did we do? We used humiliation, sexual intimidation (not actual rape), moderate sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation to break down prisoners for interrogation. Yes, that is wrong, especially in the hearts of people who have lived in the security of not having to endure the tortures that can be inflicted on people in the world for even the smallest of reasons.
I believe we should and have to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and those responsible for this have to be brought forward and served with justice.
But we must, and will, clean up our act. But remember, that we still have much less to clean up than most governments in this world.
These prisoners had their machismo assaulted. That is something they can recover from. What about the prisoners that Saddam's men regularly forced to jump off of rooftops?
What about the torture that goes on in Mexican prisons daily? There's a litany of much stronger abuses, real attrocities, out there that gets only the slightest lip service.
But America takes the shot for what they did. And why does it matter to us? Because, I feel, we as a nation, want to be better than this.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what did we do? We used humiliation, sexual intimidation (not actual rape), moderate sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation to break down prisoners for interrogation. Yes, that is wrong, especially in the hearts of people who have lived in the security of not having to endure the tortures that can be inflicted on people in the world for even the smallest of reasons.
Sopwith, I agree with most of what you said, with a couple of caveats. First, the jury is out on how bad the abuse got - there are deaths being investigated. There were also reports of actual rapes and at least one man being forced to sodomize himself with some object.
Aside from the standard we set for ourselves as a country and a culture, there's another important consideration. We keep calling ourselves "liberators" of Iraq. Yet, as "liberators," we allowed widespread looting to occur (not enough troops), have let our own troops take booty home, and now we have the prison situation.
It's one thing to have a higher standard for ourselves as an "occupying force." The behavior standard to gain credibility as "liberators" would be even higher, I think.
For the record, I opposed this invasion. But once it was in motion, I sincerely hoped that the administration would have the wisdom to carry this through in a way that minimized harm to the Iraqi people and to our relations with the rest of the world. I really did hope for that, since nihilism isn't my strong suit.
It hasn't worked out that way.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find most disturbing about this whole problem is not what Black Fox brings up. Yet what Black Fox mentions is more important.
We need to let our troops in the field know that our disgust with what happened is not disaproval of SOP. We don't want to handicap our troops with the fear that neccesary, but sometimes painful and injurious precautions need to be implemented for the safet of our troops and of civilians.
If they need to slap down an Iraqi who is leading a riot, then they should slap, hit, or kick him down. If we need to throw a child down to get them out of the way of a fire fight, then the soldiers don't need to be crippled with fears that it will be seen as evil or torturous. If we need to use a rifle butt to keep a prisoner from breaking free, or from causing trouble, then it should be used. That is war. That is the nature fo the situation they are in.
What we find offensive and wrong was doing those same things for fun and kicks. What we find evil is out of boredom, raping a little boy or humiliating ten men for laughs.
Where is the line when it comes to information gathering? That is a difficult one. The question must be answered at the highest levels, will the information we recieve allow us to stop more bad guys than the methods will drive into their ranks.
What I find most upsetting is personal.
This government has presumed the right to "detain" American citizens whom they consider "Enemy Combatants".
We have been told this is not a big thing. It is just a way of removing terrorists. Yet there is no trial, no proof needed, no oversight on whom they drag off.
And where are they sent? To camps under the same lack of supervision and oversight as the ones in Iraq.
With a simple confusion in names, bearucratic oversight, mistake in information, or simply somebody who doesn't like you in the right place at the wrong time, and YOU could be on the wrong end of that leash, facing those dogs, crouching naked in front of some other guard.
But this time there won't be any photos to prove your treatment.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I supported the invasion of Iraq. To claim otherwise would be lying. I believed our President when he said there were WMD programs active in Iraq. Past history there didn't make this seem unreasonable and Saddam's "mebbe I do, mebbe I don't" act baited the bear, so to say. Time has shown that the WMDs may have been a sham... on the part of both our administration and Saddam's.
I also believed that Iraq was a supporter of terrorism, and would jump at the chance to use international terror groups to strike at America. This I still believe to be true.
How the war has been handled, however, is something I have not been pleased with. The low troop levels could never meet the demands that would be placed on them, no matter how heroic, committed and well equipped they were.
Our government wanted to run the military operation like a major corporation runs when it is responding to stock holders -- cut staff to reduce expenses and sexy up the bottom line. They also have done something else that corporations do -- outsource difficult tasks, or the messy tasks.
I've said it before, and here I go again. In the reports are words that the orders for the "softening up" of prisoners came down not just from military leaders but from "civilian contractors."
If this gets investigated fully, we'll see who these folks were and how much influence they had. And maybe we'll see why mercenaries were put in a position of power. Halliburton only scratches the surface, there's darker dirtier stuff buried in there somewhere.
And remember, as well, that the four Americans that were dragged from their cars, killed, burned, dismembered and hung from the bridge were some of these "civilian contractors." Very well armed contractors, operating in an area not covered by the Coalition military and they were up to something. Something...
It's not a whacked out conspiracy theory, it's all there in black and white. We've found folks that can do the dirty work and they aren't responsible to public opinion, the polls or even the rule of law that we place on our own military.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to hear from a soldiers point of view who was there, what is the situation with these contractors.
Sure, its nice to have someone doing the cooking and the cleaning. But what about the security? Do we really need to be driving them around? Most are ex-military. Are they seen by the average grunt to have rank?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wrote a huge long post and the computer ate it.
Suffice to say.. Troubs, I love you. In a platonic aussie to aussie way of course.
But... I do think the US should be held to a higher moral standard than Iraqi rebel groups are BECAUSE the moral imperative is the justification for the war. The WMD are now pretty much ruled out, but the "Saddam was a tyrant" argument (which I don't disagree with) applies, and is relied on.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My main problem is the air of avoiding responsiblity that seems to be surrounding the Iraq war (and many other things that have gone wrong). People, especially the Bush administration) seem to be confusing blame with responsibility, and this, to me, defeats the entire purpose of having an executive branch.
It should be somebody's job to make sure that things like the abuse of prisioners or any of the various other foreseeable things that have gone wrong in the Iraq war don't happen. For me that responsiblity falls in large part on the shoulders of the President. That's what the office is for, not as a king-like position of intrinsic power, but as a place where the use of power is justified by the stringent responsibility that is taken for what is done and what is not done.
In the case of the prisoner abuse, while the often referred to Stanford Prison Experiment has some egregious problems, there are more than enough experiments and research to show that there was a very high possibility that this sort of thing would happen.
It seems like people are trying to excuse the Bush Administration because they were not directly to blame for this sort of thing happening. For me, that's not good enough. It has to be somebody's job to plan for dealing with the potential bad things that could come up. Otherwise, it's nobody's job and these things are going to keep happening.
The prisoner abuse was very likely to occur. Either the Bush Administration knew that it was likely to occur and didn't plan well enough to stop it or they didn't know enough to realize that it was a likely problem. Either way, this is a grave lack of responsibility.
When they say that it's not their fault that this happened, I think what they are trying to say is that they are not directly to blame. I'm willing to accept that. However, the bigger issue is that they are also implying that it is not their job to prevent things like this from happenning. That I'm not willing to accept. It is their responsibility. They did a bad job. We should have the integrity to demand that they own up to it. Since they have constantly shown that they are unwilling to assume responsibility, it becomes our job to force it on them, in the hopes that we can make them do a better job in the future.
However, many people's respect for the ideals of responsibility apparently aren't as strong as their need to excuse someone on their political side. I am amazed at the lack of shame of people who are all for "personal responsibility" when it comes to blaming other people for whatever problems they are having, but are unwilling to link the position of the most powerful person on the planet with the responsbility for what that power is used or not used for.
When it comes to war, amateurs discuss strategy. Professionals plan logistics.
What we have going on now is a pacification process where amateurs in the administration are touting strategy and philosophy, and screwing up the logistics.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
What you'll find is testimony on what happened at the massacre, the blistering findings of an investigative panel, and sworn testimony.
But still, when it was all over, only one person actually convicted of anything, and he served only a small time in the stockade.
The My Lai massacre is nothing our country should be proud of. Not only the fact that it happened, but in the shameful way we dealt with responsibility, guilt, consequences and - yes - punishment.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it bothers me that we treat people who aren't American citizens with lower standards of legal protection than our citizens.
War is different than policing. There's no question about that. Yet if America stands for freedom and democracy and the rule of law... if those are actual principles we hold, as opposed to ideas to which we are forced to comply, then why would we not feel the same way about those things when applied to any human beings anywhere? The right to representation, the right not to be detained without being charged, to due process, habeus corpus, and so on. Why would any American feel that these rights are anything but universal human rights?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my perspective it seems that the current administration is attempting to chip away at those rights for Americans too.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Oh I'm well aware!
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
