BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 11:49 AM

Britain was indicted twice by the European Court for their treatment of civilians in N Ireland, occuping armies are by nature arrogant, and tend to treat the occupied with contemt.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 11:57 AM

Those photographs shown during the program are a pretty damning indictment of our troops' behavior in Iraq.


Is it typical of your thought processes to proceed from the specific to the generalized in the most condemnatory possible way? Because it is not persuasive. One lousy little stinkbug can spread a bad smell over quite an area, but that doesn't make him any bigger or more powerful -- he's still one lousy little stinkbug.

A

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 12:10 PM

The photos do remind me of the photos from that Canadian military unit's initiation rite scandal a few years ago. No doubt frightening to the participants but a bit short of the Bataan Death March and what happened to the survivers in their prisoner of war camps.

The military is treating this as serious criminal act. What else would you like, decimating the troops Roman-style to teach them a lesson?

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 12:57 PM

I think there is a problem with the culture of at least some branches of the US military. I think something is going on that makes for very unhealthy mental states in our servicepeople. I really started thinking about that after there was a rash wife killings and spousal abuse at Fort Bragg by men who had recently returned from serving in Afghanistan:

Soldiers kill wives after serving in Afghanistan

I think it would be much more constructive to talk about correcting the problems within the system than to spend a lot of time and energy condemning the people who seem to be the symptom of the institutionalized problems.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 01:08 PM

Trouble with that approach though CarolC, is that doesn't help the Iraqis who are being tortured and mistreated today.

The US won't recognize the international courts who could actually bring war crimes charges against us, and certainly no one in the US government or military is up to the task. So I hear a lot of people here saying, essentially, so what if we are torturing Iraqis? There is nothing that can be done to stop our troops from doing it, so c'est la vie.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 01:12 PM

It's true enough that in any organisation there are liable to be some people who as individuals use whatever power they have to abuse other people in some way. When this kind of thing is turned up it doesn't mean that the organisation is guilty.

But when a bunch of people collectively get into that kind of thing, it does indicate that something is wrong. At the very least the indication that they feel safe says that they believe that what they are doing is acceptable behaviour, and that says a lot about the culture of the organisation.

The litmus paper on this is how the guy who blew the whistle will be regarded by other soldiers and by peopole at home. A hero or a pariah? If it's the latter, it means that the people who see it that way are condoning, and colluding in, the kind of abuses reported.

The fact that the Pentagon tried to hush it up is not surprising, but very depressing. It's worth remembering that serious efforts were made to cover-up My Lai - and that one ambitious young officer called Colin Powell was involved in those efforts.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 01:15 PM

This happened in Vietnam, too. Oddly enough, I don't remember such atrocities coming out of WWII on the US side, maybe as a result of better spin control. Or maybe the probability for human savagery goes up in direct proportion to the hollowness of the casus belli, eh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 01:26 PM

Now that I think about it, I'd say this statement from the Fort Bragg article pretty much sums up what has become the basis of US foreign policy today:

Mrs Floyd's mother, Penny Flitcraft, said that there had been rising tension in the marriage since Sgt Floyd's return from Afghanistan in January, and that jealousy had turned him into a "control freak". "I truly in my heart believe that his training was such that [he believed] if you can't control it, kill it," she said.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 01:53 PM

It was there in WW2, Amos. The media coverage just wasn't as good. It was also there in Korea.

I recently saw a History Channel program on what happened to a German POW who finked for the US. He was transfered to a prison in Arizona, where there were some of the people who had been in his old prison and who remember him as a find. Less than 24 hours after he arrived he was dead, hanged in a shower house.

To get to the bottom of it, suspects were taken to a prison building in California where they were tortured until they talked. The suspects were arrested, tried and convicted. Ultimately they were hung, AFTER the war was over.

But let's remember that it wasn't only the Allies who did these things. What the Japanese did, what the Germans did, to POWs doesn't make for pleasant discussion either.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Metchosin
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 01:59 PM

stigweard, I have my doubts that any armed service involved in the basic training of combatants, not just the US, would encourage their soldiers to view the "enemy" as human. To do so could result in hesitation and increase the likelihood of being killed, which from a military standpoint, would be highly counterproductive.

IMO, we do attempt to train our combatants to be psychopaths; that we are not always entirely successful is a testament to the underlying good of humanity, despite military training to the contrary. Aside from weapons, we ask them to carry some pretty heavy mental baggage.

That some military personnel have a difficult time, when at war, turning "off" their training, to view their "enemy" as human, is not surprising. Even when we "bring them home", there are those that never manage to unload their baggage entirely and for a lot of the reintegrated, there are scars.

It is not just our "enemies" and soldiers who are damaged by war, it is ourselves. We send our "trained killers" to do our bidding and consequently the ultimate responsibility for their actions rests with us.

As Peter T said, War ".......... degrades people and countries.......... that is why they should be taken more seriously by people who propose to get into them."

off soapbox now.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:06 PM

I am drawn to the conclusion that the bestiality of the species is so close to the surface that any association with violence poses the risk of inducing psychosis as a survival mechanism. Maybe the only answer is absolute pacifism? Since any war seems to bring out this lizard-faced sadism? I would like to think I would be proof against it if I were immersed in the actualities of gut-wrenching, brain-slamming violence and destruction of my own species but I think in truth I would go as mad as any of them. What amazes me is that I know men who have survived the moist brutal treatment in war, whose lives have been spent getting their jaws rebuilt and so on, who think the engagement in Iraq is necessary and anyone wioth any brains could see that plainly. I tell ya, my mind boggles...


A

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:24 PM

I believe there were many atrocities on the Allied side in WWII.

Unless of course one considers Dresden to have been a picnic.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

Right you are.

Atrocious is the nature of the bloody beast,
Which makes of men the reddest-fanged
And reduces fine conscience to claw and to terror.
Welcome to Western civilization --
Last one out, please turn out the lights and arm the alarm.


A

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:32 PM

"The US won't recognize the international courts who could actually bring war crimes charges against us, and certainly no one in the US government or military is up to the task. So I hear a lot of people here saying, essentially, so what if we are torturing Iraqis?"

War crimes? This might be a war crime if the military glossed over it or it was systematic. The whole concept of war crimes recognizes that individual troops may commit crimes and must be held accountable without rising to the level of war crimes. What happened here was against the Uniform Code of Military Conduct and the military is acting accordingly. When Japanese commanders in WWII not only condoned rapes but systematically encouraged them, that was a war crime. If they had discovered a rape and treated it according to military justice, it wouldn't have been.

It's the assertion that things like this could become "war crimes" that weaken the courts. No nation wants to participate if there's not a reasonable standard separating normal crimes from war crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:32 PM

"...any armed service involved in the basic training of combatants, not just the US, would encourage their soldiers to view the "enemy" as human. To do so could result in hesitation and increase the likelihood of being killed, which from a military standpoint, would be highly counterproductive.

I think it's very likely that's the way they think and what happens. However I doubt it it's necessarily true. There are plenty of cases where regarding the enemy as fully human, or even admiting them, has done nothing at all to inhibit people involved in combat from killing them.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:43 PM

What happened is against the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush White House, and the Clinton White House before them, have refused to recognize as being applicable to US troops.

And we wonder why the world hates us? Our government leaders keep insisting we above and beyond international law, because we say we are, and no one can defeat us militarily.

How much mercy will be shown to Americans travelling in the Middle East now, much less to US soldiers and civilians and mercenaries in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 03:58 PM

I think Rapaire is right that ANON.GUEST is an agent provacateur for Ashcroft, or else he/she/it is just up to his/her/its old troll tricks. As far as I can tell, and I've seen several news articles, nobody claims that anyone was tortured, except old buddy ANON.GUEST. I also can't find anyone here or anywhere else who is condoning this kind of behavior. Let us also remember that "60 Minutes" is a TV program, whose basic intent is to sell cars and toothpaste, not a court of law and these people are still entitled to be legally charged and tried before they are determined to be guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 05:02 PM

dianavan:

We can't disband the army. We need armies for the same reason we need lawyers: because other people have them.

And we can't expect people to behave decently when they're in a war. Military training deliberately dehumanizes the enemy so the young soldiers will be ready to kill and you can't switch that on & off.

What we can do is limit the use of armies to self-defense. A pre-emptive attack is essentially lynch law in action, not self defense. And the buck stops at the president in this case - though he'll try to lay it on God.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 05:13 PM

Too many "coincidences" for me to swallow, Art. GUEST does the dirty work of John Aschcroft -- a true Johnny Mop.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 05:37 PM

I am far from complacent, what worries me is the naivete about war, which has been exhibited throughout the last few years.

On a personal note, my father was a judge on the first War Crimes tribunal -- which was not Nuremberg. It was held by the Canadians who indicted German officers for their crimes against the Geneva Convention (specifically for maltreatment of Canadian soldiers). The trial set a variety of precedents, and was used as a template for the more famous Nuremberg trials later (my father was a Canadian advisor to that trial as well). He has now passed away, but I am sure he would have many bitter, salient things to say about the descent into depraved behaviour.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:02 PM

"and these people are still entitled to be legally charged and tried before they are determined to be guilty."

Nice one, artbrooks.

You would, by definition then, extend this 'innocent til proven guilty' system of yours, to include the people the soldiers were photographed 'helping'?

Definition of war crime: crime during a war: a crime committed during wartime that is in violation of international agreements concerning the conventions of war, for example, the mistreatment of prisoners or genocide (often used in the plural)
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:15 PM

I would further venture to suggest that a certain surface has been scratched here, with these revelations.

War is ugly, and ugly things happen.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:19 PM

Guest Jim McCallan - So no trial, if a TV program says they are guilty then they must be so ?

I do not defend torture - at it's "best" it is an incompetant method of interogation, at it's worst it turns otherwise decent people into sadistic phycopaths (SP).

Mind you at the risk of upsetting the predetermind mind sets of some 'Catters there is a difference ( as there should be ) between a society which attempts to strike out such behaviour, and punish those guilty after conviction ! And those societies where it is acepted behaviour.

But then perhaps you can not see the difference !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:25 PM

Guest Jim McCallan: the question of guilt or innocence of the POWs is a foolish one. A POW is not a criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:41 PM

Actually this does seem a violation of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention.

ARTICLE 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.


Of course under this article -

ARTICLE 129

The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed. or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts.

- it says the people who perpetrated the war crimes should be brought to trail by the US. Which in this case is a court marshal.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:42 PM

"A POW is not a criminal."
I haven't seen the term POW used with relation to these non criminals, artbrooks.

"So no trial, if a TV program says they are guilty then they must be so"
During the same TV programme Gareth, Brig-Gen Mark Kimmitt said that charges were being brought against some people.
That normally means (to me, anyway) that a trial would be in the offing at some stage.

Unless the charges are dropped, of course...

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Cruiser
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:43 PM

I often remember one of my childhood heroes, Audie Murphy, when I think of how war can affect ones mind and bring out the best (and sometimes the worse) in a person. Audie was:

{Quote}
"the most decorated U.S. combat soldier of World War II. Among his 33 awards and decorations was the Medal of Honor, the highest military award for bravery that can be given to any individual in the United States of America, for "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty." He also received every decoration for valor that his country had to offer, some of them more than once, including 5 decorations by France and Belgium. Credited with either killing over 240 of the enemy while wounding and capturing many others…"
{End Quote}

Murphy suffered "Battle Fatigue" (now called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression for most of his post-war life. War affects even the finest, bravest, men.

Audie penned one of my favorite songs: 'Shutters and Boards'

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:57 PM

PeterT, thank you for the clarification. My apologies for misinterpreting your statements. How interesting that your father worked on the tribunals. That gives me a whole new take on your remarks.

Regarding these charges, no one has to take my word for anything, or the word of CBS. The photos, as I said, are damning enough on their own. The soldiers themselves are seen in the photographs participating in the humiliation of the POWs, torturing the POWs, threatening the POWs, setting dogs on the POWs, and there is also some question whether some of the photographs were of POWs who had been beaten to death. According to 60 Minutes, the photographic evidence alone includes approximately 350 photographs, of which 60 Minutes only showed a dozen or so on the air.

Anyone who doesn't think those photographs are very serious crimes obviously isn't at all familiar with the Geneva Conventions. I've provided some excerpts of that treaty, from the UN's High Commissioner of Human Rights website:

--------------------------------------
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Article 15

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Article 16

Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

...No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Article 18

All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 08:02 PM

Guest Jim McCallan: that was the headline on the article I linked to above. Nobody has ever said that the captured Iraqi soldiers are anything but POWs. This is US policy on prisoners, as discussed a year ago.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 08:17 PM

"there is a difference ( as there should be ) between a society which attempts to strike out such behaviour, and punish those guilty after conviction ! And those societies where it is acepted behaviour.

Gareth is quite right here - the question is, which category does this society fall into? The fact that charges have been brought, as a result of a whistleblower's actions, doesn't settle that question.

What I strongly suspect will happen is that the soldiers involved will be offered a deal to plead guilty to reduced charges and be given token penalties, which will mean that there will be no proper trial, which might reveal embarrassing information about the context in which all this happened, and open the question whether what happened was seen as "accepted behaviour" by those higher up, rather than merely being an aberration at relatively junior level.

As someone said up the thread, it seems certain that one thing to come out of this will be that there will be stringent efforts to ensure that there won't be cameras in situations like this. And definitely not in Guanatanamo Bay, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 08:20 PM

"Let us also remember that "60 Minutes" is a TV program, whose basic intent is to sell cars and toothpaste"

POW is not mentioned in the body of the report, Art, and if they have been given POW status, these alleged abuses could gain extra implications for the Bush Administration.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 11:37 PM

The DOD article linked to by artbrooks above clearly indicates that these guys are POWs. Both the US and Iraq are signatories of the convention and there's no way to write them off as illegal combatants as was done in Afghanistan. That's been clear from the beginning since the US expected the Iraqis to comply with the Convention in treating US POWs in both wars.

GUEST, as I pointed out, the remedy for violations of the Geneva Convention are spelled out pretty clearly in Article 129. It appears we're following that article. But I guess you can't see my posts anymore, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 12:11 AM

Lots of things may indicate that these guys are Prisoners of War, Strick, and the definition of 'illegal combatant' is entirely open to discussion.
I take it, then that Iraq is just packed full with 'legal combatants', if that is what the definition of 'Prisoner of War', now is?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 01:06 AM

At least as far as the Geneva Convention, that's how I understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 01:24 AM

Well, what I'm trying to ascertain, Strick, is how the Bush Administration understands it.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: jacqui.c
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 04:24 AM

...Americans travelling in the middle east will be at risk...
Does anyone think that a president who brags that he has never had a passport really cares?

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Stu
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 06:13 AM

"...is how the Bush Administration understands it"

The Bush aministration understands the Geneva Convention perfectly, but has choosen to ignore it. All these phrases used buy the likes of Bush and Blair are pretty insulting to the intelligence of most individuals:

Illegal combatant - someone we can detain with out basic human rights, legal representation, access to the Red Cross. We can subject them toture, hold for as long as we like, where we like. The term 'POW' implies there is a human being holding the gun, rather than some brainwashed fanatic who no longer can reason or emote.

Terroists/insugents: A current favourite of mine used by governments and the media, to dehumanise the enemy to the general populations of the occupying countries. I'm sure there are now pleanty of genuine terrorists in Iraq (thanks George!), there are also a lot of Iraqis who are taking up arms because Cobra Gunships and A10's keep pumping rockets into built up (and invariably poor) areas of Iraqi cities, killing the locals.

Did the Nazi's call the French, Dutch and Polish Resistance 'illegal combatants' or 'terrorists'?

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 06:17 AM

Well what do you expect from the USA the most crime ridden country on earth, and porn is top of the list in money earning.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 08:33 AM

My earlier post was in error. The Coalition apparently does not officially regard the prisoners as POWs, but does state that they are covered by the Geeneva Convention. This from a March 20, 2004 press release:

"The coalition takes all reports of detainee abuse seriously and all allegations of mistreatment are investigated, Kimmitt said. "We are committed to treating all persons under coalition control with dignity respect and humanity. Coalition personnel are expected to act appropriately, humanely and in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions."

The International Committee of the Red Cross examines the prison and the procedures used there. While the detainees are not prisoners of war, they are treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, Kimmitt said.

I apologize for any unnecessary digressions from the point that my post may have caused.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 09:09 AM

If I'm out there as one of a bunch of soldiers and you and others are shooting at me, I consider you a POW if I capture you or, should you capture me, I would consider myself a POW.

In either case, the Geneva protocols should apply.

Note, though, that not every country has signed them. And what about, say, Iraq, where the government which signed the Accords may no longer exist?

Still, I hold that there is a thing called "human dignity" and another called "decency." They proscribe torture of POWs and the helpless, they set minimum standards for food, housing, treatment, sanitation.

OVERALL, I think that the US has a pretty good record in this area -- far better than that of, say, Saddam Hussein's administration or the Japanese in WW2. But even in those there were decent folks, just as there can be bad ones in the US military. This is not an excuse, but a statement of human fact.

I'll be more interested in seeing how this plays out than in endlessly discussing it without all the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 09:58 AM

I've taken a deep breath while reading through these posts. I won't flame anyone although it seems to me that a few here deserve it.

This is why I was worried many months ago that we (military personnel) would be tagged as the "enemy" by our own people. What has happened in Iraq is a tragedy of the first order. The soldiers involved need to be held to the highest standard and I think if you spend a few minutes perusing the Uniform Code of Military Conduct (to which we in the military are subject) and the Manual for Courts Martial (both of which are available on the web) you will see that both are rather draconic when compared to what passes for civil law in the US. These are war crimes and should be dealt with but it IS NOT U.S. MILITARY POLICY to behave in this manner.

This is another sympton of the failed policy of this administration. This follows the extremely high rate of suicides and desertion as indicators that something is severely wrong.

The reason that the US did not sign on to the international court was because their are so many members of the UN that could use it to tie up our military forces, resources, and $$$ for the sheer joy of just doing so.

We do not "dehumanize" the enemy anymore. Although it would make it easier to pull the trigger, it leads our personnel to believe they are somehow superior and that the enemy is just a foolish animal that is predictable in his behavior. Troops are taught to believe that the enemy is just as smart as they are so that they are less likely to be caught by surprise when the enemy does something unexpected. We are taught to shoot center mass (more likely to kill).
Shooting to wound or maim is against Geneva convention as well.

How will the whistle-blower be treated? Hopefully his identity will be protected by those in power so that he can get back to his/her job without exposure. It is part of the military culture to rely on your fellow soldiers to have your back. It would be a very poor military tha taught each soldier you're on your own, look out for number 1. Unfortunately this may lead some to believe that the whistle blower is a rat. These types are the types that can't look at the situation and see that it was just, necessary and required for the individual to come forth. They are not the majority.

The military is made up of the greatest cross section of the U.S. possible. The military is your friends, neighbors, or their children. Unfortunately it also has a few "jail or the military" types that we do our best to weed out. It has the same problems that any large community will have including rape, murder, drug abuse, etc.

I will pray for our troops, for the innocent and for a few souls here that seem to need some psychiatric intervention as well.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,snoopy
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 10:18 AM

Death to America!

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 11:07 AM

Iam a 17 year old European Citizen and this morning in Scotland i saw these terrible images! These images of these poor Iraqi criminals being subjected in a peverse way was crude. why are they posed naked in sexual positions? The female soldier pictured with them is very disturbed. I do agree however that these images have to be shown to show the corruptin and depravity of some people. The war in Iraq is now a disaster and is Bushs' vietnam...i think it is time to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Kim C
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 11:17 AM

I saw this on Drudge this morning and was appalled. It is absolutely not right and the people responsible need to be held accountable and court-martialed to the ends of the earth.

Unfortunately, military and law enforcement occupations sometimes attract people who are prone to tyrannical behavior, because they can use their positions as an excuse for such. I do not believe this type of behavior is representative of the military as a whole, anymore than I believe all lawyers are scalawags, or all doctors are only in it for the money. It's always the few bad apples that make the whole barrel seem rotten.

I've also been told that the stress of wartime can lead people to do things they would find unthinkable during peacetime. That certainly doesn't excuse such ghoulish behavior; however, I wonder if there are any steps that could be taken to prevent it. Maybe someone who's actually been in a war could comment on that.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Stu
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 11:35 AM

Chief Chaos,

As you quoted me, I will assume you think I both deserve flaming and need psychaitric intervention - thanks for your erudite judgement on my character and your proposed course of action - spoken like a true military man.

" I was worried many months ago that we (military personnel) would be tagged as the "enemy" by our own people"

You may have misunderstood the main thrust of my criticism. The military are there because they were sent there by politicians, and it is them and the media I was directly criticising for dehumanising the other protagonists. If you say the US military no longer dehumanise the enemy, then I defer to you - you're obviously in a position to know and I'm not. What do your 'grunts' call Iraqis

"We do not "dehumanize" the enemy anymore" was followed by "We are taught to shoot center mass" - er, is this irony? Can I assume "centre mass" = torso of a human being?

But, look at it another way Chaos - there are alternatives to shooting people. I've never been in a war (and consider myself to be fortunate in that respect) but it seems the people who benefit from wars do not do the fighting or are on the receiving end of it, but politicians and businessmen.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 12:01 PM

Considering that it was Iraqi policy in treating their own people to truly torture them

Considering that it was Iraqi policy for summary execution at the whim and hand of Saddam Hussein and anyone he favored

Considering that it was Iraqi policy that led to the brutal rape of American soldier severely wounded prisoners.

Under the Americans we have been shown abuse at the level of severe college hazing. It is certainly wrong, and it looks like the U.S. Military has acknowledged the events, is aware of the perpetrators, and is on the way to courtmartialing them. No one has been physically harmed (that we know about).

On the other hand, some of the prisoners have been humiliated, which in their culture might be a FWTD.

It is wrong, it is unfortunate, it is going to be bad for U.S. involvement in the entire region as it gets played up as big in the press as it is in this forum.

My sympathies go out to the vast majority of Americans at arms who are just as disgusted as I am, and put at risk due to the bad image this has given us.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: DonMeixner
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 01:14 PM

Torture is torture, evile and vile, not matter who does it and for what reasons. There can be no justification in my mind for such an act.

But do all of my friends in the Mudcat who have so visciously attacked the United States Volunteer soldier feel that it is better to shoot the enemy while hiding behind civilian clothes, burn alive the wounded, drag the bodies through the streets and hang the remains from a bridge.

I agree that it is reprehesible what these soldiers have done and they will be punished for this crime. My sons have friends in the National Guard and they were shocked to hear this and stated to me the puishment after conviction for this kind of crime is years of stockade time at hard labor.

The Iraqis who shot, tortured, and burned the bodies of American Civilian workers are viewed as heroes of Islam and blessed of God.

Truly a puzzle.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 01:19 PM

Do not click under penalty of laughter

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/ovalawful.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 01:42 PM

Actually I wasn't quoting you only put quotes around dehumanizing. I appreciate your point of view that we're there because of politicians. I didn't realize you were speaking of them and the media about dehumanizing - my apologies...(You weren't one of the few I was talking about - 'nuff said.).

As far as I know the troops call them Iraqis.
There were a few nicknames that have lasted the test of time such as "camel jockeys", "rag heads" etc. But I know of none as bad as those from Vietnam or Korea and I've seen none that come close to the propaganda and derogatory depictions of the Japanese in WWII.

The best that was said in the previous Gulf War was about the ladies in full burkhas. They were known as BMO's (Black moving objects) or Ninja Bunnies (self explanatory). I don't find either to be objectionable or insulting, merely descriptive and slightly funny.

Center mass does not necessarily mean torso. What it means is when shooting at a stationary target (human, tank, etc.) shooting for the center of the mass gives you the best opportunity for a hit. You have to lead moving targets but still shooting forward of the targets presumed course with an imaginary outline of the object, aiming in the center of its mass gives you a better chance of getting a hit.

Unfortunately for me, I am not a "Stereotypical Military Man". My career might have gone better if I were. I'd prefer exploring all other options before resorting to force. Sometimes it's not possible. I'm afraid Viet Nam forever altered how some will forever view any armed conflict.

It might surprise you but I agree about the richest and the politically connected not serving in the armies they mvoe around like pawns on a chess board. I think perhaps if we did make it a requirement for a presidential candidate to have served at least four years (enlisted - sorry for any officers who might read this, but the man in the field knows more about the military than anyone in the pentagon) in the military. Or at least that when the person takes office their children, if of age, must join a military service. Something like the UK royals. That way at least they'd think a little longer about starting a war their children might be involved in.

Subject: RE: BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis
From: Grab
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 02:05 PM

I was particularly taken by the much-quoted soldier whining "But no-one ever showed me a copy of the Geneva Convention." As if having read some pamphlet would stop them hooking up electrodes to prisoners' genitals...

Robomatic, this guy is currently being court-martialled for assault, for beating up prisoners himself and for forcing prisoners to beat up their fellow prisoners. No harm done eh?

If American college hazing involves someone being told they'll be electrocuted if they fall off a precarious position (this report), or putting a bag on their head, leaving them in the sun for hours and telling them they'll be shot in the head if they move (an earlier BBC news story), I'm damn glad I never went to an American college.

I have a lot of sympathy for the American soldiers over there who may truly not know why the Iraqi people hate them, in spite of witnessing or participating in the shooting of unarmed Iraqi civilians. If they don't know by now why the Iraqis hate them, there's something wrong with them and I have sympathy for them. Personally, I think the American soldiers who don't know why they're hated are in the minority - it really doesn't take much to work it out, does it? If one Bloody Sunday was enough to destabilise Northern Ireland, how would literally thousands of Bloody Sundays play out, guys (and girls)?

Graham.