Iraqi Prisoners tortured and humiliated- NOT GOOD

[Gideongamer]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.photos/
http://www.itv.com/news/1236623.html

CBS says it has "dozens" of pictures showing a wide range of abuse.


"They show the troops smiling, posing, laughing or giving the thumbs-up sign as naked, male Iraqi prisoners were stacked in a pyramid or positioned to simulate sex acts with one another.

One Iraqi man was told to stand on a box with his head covered, and wires attached to his hands, and was informed that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted."

Some of the photos:
http://snipurl.com/628c

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224523783.html

"The program's producers said the army also had photographs showing a detainee with wires attached to his genitals and another that showed a dog attacking a prisoner."

DAMN. This isn't going to go over well in the Muslim world, especially with all those photos of that women pointing at naked Iraqi prisoners forced to simulate sex acts. wtf?!

[JeffL]

If this is true, these soldiers AND their commanding officers need to be publically court martialled. And severely punished.

[antlers]

If this is true, these soldiers AND their commanding officers need to be publically court martialled. And severely punished.

The soldiers are going to be court-martialed, the officers are just facing administrative proceedings: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-30-pow-scandal_x.htm

[John Reynolds]

The kicker IMO is that the enlisted guards are saying they were told to abuse the prisoners to 'soften' them up for interrogations by CIA agents and contractors. Most of the guards were also reservists with no training on handling prisoners. I'm not making excuses for what they've done--it doesn't require specialized training to understand degrading other human beings is wrong--but it doesn't sit too well with me that the enlisted grunts, and perhaps an officer or two, will bear the brunt of this while the intelligence community skips away free.

[JessicaM]

There hasn't been a war we've been involved with that abuse of prisoners hasn't happened. We're just able to get pictures of it more readily these days.

Assuming the stories and pictures are true, both the enlisted and officers, plus the intelligence operatives, need to be publicly court-martialed in Iraq, visible to all the world. If we don't, we might as well announce we're no better than Saddam and his sons.

[Woolen Horde]

And what about that poor GI who's being held POW. Jeezus, the reason you do not do this shit is because you treat enemy POW's the way you want your POW's to be treated in enemy hands. If the Iraqi's retaliate against that kid, it's kind of hollow for us to bitch about it.

[Jobe]

Balance this with all the talk of "heroism". Both belong only to a small group on the fringe.

[John Reynolds]

Balance this with all the talk of "heroism". Both belong only to a small group on the fringe.

The problem is that this small fringe is going to hit the Islamic media outlets and within a day we'll be no better than Saddam's penchant for torturing Iraqis. I expect this to have a direct affect on the next poll taken with Iraqis on whether or not they want the US in their country.

[VegasRobb]

And what about that poor GI who's being held POW. Jeezus, the reason you do not do this shit is because you treat enemy POW's the way you want your POW's to be treated in enemy hands. If the Iraqi's retaliate against that kid, it's kind of hollow for us to bitch about it.

:(

Talk about a sinking feeling.

[Anders Hallin]

And what about that poor GI who's being held POW. Jeezus, the reason you do not do this shit is because you treat enemy POW's the way you want your POW's to be treated in enemy hands. If the Iraqi's retaliate against that kid, it's kind of hollow for us to bitch about it.
Oh, how I wish for that not to be the reason.

[Woolen Horde]

And what about that poor GI who's being held POW. Jeezus, the reason you do not do this shit is because you treat enemy POW's the way you want your POW's to be treated in enemy hands. If the Iraqi's retaliate against that kid, it's kind of hollow for us to bitch about it.
Oh, how I wish for that not to be the reason.

For Pete's sakes Anders. Read up on the Geneva Convetions. They're European in origin. The rules are war are there to try and contain the nastiness of war to the battlefield. Prisoners are protected because they are no longer part of the battlefield. And you treat prisoners well because, in the end, that's how you want your prisoners to be treated.

[Jobe]

Balance this with all the talk of "heroism". Both belong only to a small group on the fringe.

The problem is that this small fringe is going to hit the Islamic media outlets and within a day we'll be no better than Saddam's penchant for torturing Iraqis. I expect this to have a direct affect on the next poll taken with Iraqis on whether or not they want the US in their country.

Yeah, that's a good and unfortunately accurate point.

[Case]

The kicker IMO is that the enlisted guards are saying they were told to abuse the prisoners to 'soften' them up for interrogations by CIA agents and contractors. Most of the guards were also reservists with no training on handling prisoners. I'm not making excuses for what they've done--it doesn't require specialized training to understand degrading other human beings is wrong--but it doesn't sit too well with me that the enlisted grunts, and perhaps an officer or two, will bear the brunt of this while the intelligence community skips away free.

It's apparently even worse than that. Some of the orders were given to the soldiers by private contractors. One contractor has even been accused of raping a male prisoner, but can't be tried under military law because private contractors are not under military jurisdiction. So the soldiers are left holding the bag while the mercs walk.

[Oppressor]

I've never seen a better opportunity to apply Sharia to some Americans. I say hand them over to the Iraqis to do as they see fit.

[Dirt]

So the torture and rape houses are back in business in Iraq.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Dirt]

This will help Kerry. Proof positive that atrocities do occur.

Must be a vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

Damn Liberals.

[Major Malphunktion]

Dirt- did you know that was GWB's theme song during the last election?

[Midnight Son]

Ok ok, but we're still the righteous forces of good holding the line against end time evil?

[playingwithknives]

Ok ok, but we're still the righteous forces of good holding the line against end time evil?

My thoughts exactly, i was under the impression that you americans were the good guys, and being on your side was the right thing to do.

Im glad most on this thread are as outraged as naturally we all should be. Ive heard alot of the US media are attempting to bury this... is it getting much airtime ?

[Dirt]

We need full disclosure for Guantanamo.

[John Reynolds]

According to military regulations I thought contractors were not supposed to be armed or in combat or mission vital areas? So, if that contractor was not armed how did he rape a prisoner?

[Squirrel Killer]

So, if that contractor was not armed how did he rape a prisoner?

Um....WITH HIS COCK! No need for a glock.

[Chris Nahr]

Because the armed guards protected him?

Sounds like a great way to get around military regulations. Not just the CIA anymore, now we'll just send in the mercs to do the dirty work!

Also a logical response to enemy combatants who don't bother to form a regular military anymore, if you think about it.

[Dirt]

According to military regulations I thought contractors were not supposed to be armed or in combat or mission vital areas? So, if that contractor was not armed how did he rape a prisoner?

The prisoner was probably shackled.

Kinda dangerous for these contractors, they probably aren't protected under the Geneva Conventions. Not that that matters anymore.

[Moore]

WHAT? the contractors ARE armed. Why would you hire unarmed mercs? There was an article a few weeks ago with one bragging about the cool ammmo he could use. A butt cheek hit is fatal with it, because it spreads like a hollow point only worse and shreds internal organs. US troops cannot use it, under penalty of court marshall.

It's like guantanamo not being US soil, or senidng pepole to egypt for interrogation (torture). 'Legal' but skirting the law completely.

[extarbags]

The woman has been identified in a post (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=518039&mesg_id=521139&page=) on the forum with the pictures.


At most, the 372nd's alleged abuses of prisoners were "stupid, kid things - pranks," Terrie England said, her voice growing bitter. "And what the do to our men and women are just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, does that apply to everybody or just us?"

[Dirt]

Oh, that's funny. She's invoking a rule that the USA has been trying to skirt for the past 2 and a half years.

[JeffL]

This is really simple. Treating prisoners in that fashion is wrong. Period. We should hold ourselves as a nation to higher standards than that, and accept no excuses for those who act in our name in that fashion.

[Moore]

The woman has been identified in a post (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=518039&mesg_id=521139&page=) on the forum with the pictures.


At most, the 372nd's alleged abuses of prisoners were "stupid, kid things - pranks," Terrie England said, her voice growing bitter. "And what the do to our men and women are just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, does that apply to everybody or just us?"


It's everybody BUT us. Like every other rule of international law.

[Donald L.]

Related article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

[Major Malphunktion]

Geneva convention Article 3:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

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.
Just in case no one has read it.

[novacane]

One of the tabloids here is a running a front page on a similar case involving British soldiers.

[Major Malphunktion]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=13&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_prisoner_abuse_3

[Sharpe]

One of the worst aspects of this incident is that from a strategic perspective, this could not have come from at a worst time, not just for the situation in Iraq but for the entire war vs Islamo-fascist terrorists.

There are three related issues which make this a very serious problem:

First off I agree with Tom Friedman that one of the most significant driving forces behind Islamic terrorism is not conventional poverty but the "poverty of dignity" that many people (especially young men) feel in that part of the world due to limited economic opportunity, decades of dictatorship and political oppression, and so on. So the Islamic world in general and the Arab world in particular is very very sensitive to insults on their dignity. One of the core reasons that drives Arab hate of America is the perceived insult to their dignity evinced by our "smug superiority". Unfortunately, smug superiority is what jumps out at me when I look at those photos. From a dignity standpoint, those photos are bad news.

Second, I agree with Robert Wright that the war on terror is a war of ideas. That's one of the reasons I was skeptical of invading Iraq in the first place. At the present time we are really in a war of propaganda, perception and image more than a military confrontation. We can win the battles but we are at severe risk of losing the hearts and minds in Iraq. And these photos strike a blow against us in that arena.

Third, there is a cultural sensitivity in Arab culture both to nudity and to exposure to dirt, and also to sexually explicit material in general. There are a number of clothing taboos, and being naked in public is a very deep embarrassment. Also, being forced, naked, onto the dirty ground would be one of the most humiliating experiences an Arab man could be forced to do. I'm no expert but based on my reading I would liken it to the revulsion an average American would feel in having feces smeared on them. About the only thing worse than being naked and dirty, in Arab culture is the idea of being sexually exploited. And I've heard there are a series of more disturbing photos, not in wide release, showing that as well.

In other words, these photos are the propaganda H-Bomb. Its bad. And the timing is very very poor, because, as shown by the recent polls in Iraq, we were already slipping in the propaganda war, with a majority of Iraquis wanting the US out ASAP.

We may have just lost the war of ideas, at least in regard to Iraq. I just hope it doesn't cost us the entire war on terror.

You can shrug and blame this on a few bad apples in the military, or you can look hard at the overall set of policies that got us into this place.

Where does the buck stop, anyway?

Dan

[Peter Frazier]

What sort of category do the insurgents fit into in regards to the convention? They wear no uniform and are part of no recognised force.
I agree that actions of the soldiers are incredibly wrong (imagine the reaction if they were allied POWs in the photos) but I thought that the various conventions covered only legitimate combatants and civilians.

[Jason McCullough]

You're right, they're not covered. Doesn't mean we should be torturing them.

[Woolen Horde]

You can shrug and blame this on a few bad apples in the military, or you can look hard at the overall set of policies that got us into this place.

Where does the buck stop, anyway?

Dan

Exactly. The administration did not listen to the military experts warning that this shit can happen if we do this totally half-ass, like we're doing. And it continues to pretend otherwise. Did you hear Rummy the other day? Paraphrase: "We did not anticipate these problems in Iraq beause the pre-war intelligence was all over the map." Which is complete and total BULLSHIT. US Army Chief of Staff Shinseki testified to Congress about the problems we'd face in post-war Iraq, and that we'll need several hundred thousand troops, and a few days later Wolfowitz, Rummy's deputy, testisifed, to the effect, that Shinseki is full of shit. Nevermind the fact that Shinseki had experience in post-war Yugoslavia and knew what the problems are when you're trying to rebuild a country that's been fracturerd into warring religious and ethnic factions. But, in the Republican administration's eyes, Shinseki was unreliable because he was a "Clinton general." Nevermind the fact that the splendid US military that crushed the Taliban and the Republican Guard was essentially Clinton's military.

We don't have enough MP units to guard the prisoners in Iraq, so we end up using reservists and rear-echelon soldiers with no training or prepration for the job. This is the kind of shit that can happen as a result.

Plus, there's the problem of all the damn contractors running around Iraq doing jobs the military should be doing (if we had bothered doing the job properly). When they fuck up, who are they accountable to? And who gets caught holding the bag and the blame? The US military.

[Peter Frazier]

You're right, they're not covered. Doesn't mean we should be torturing them.
I realize that. My ask was more about the status of partisan forces under the various conventions. In WW2, they would have been shot. In Vietnam, I'm not sure how they were dealt with.

[Jason McCullough]

They're completely unmentioned, I think.

[antlers]

There's some mention in the conventions of irregular forces that are resisting an occupation. If they obey certain rules (attempting to identify themselves as combatants is the big one) they have to be treated in accordance with the convention. I'm not sure if the Iraqi insurgents would qualify--most I suspect would not, but some (the Mahdi army with its quasi-uniforms and identifiable command structure) probably would be covered.

Changing the subject, could there be a more tone-deaf reaction to the international outrage than to send the commandant of the Guantanomo camp to clean up the mess?

[Peter Frazier]

A little research shows that the insurgents are covered by IHL (International Human Law) and nothing else. Basically, they can't be shot out of hand, only after a proper trial. I found an interesting read about applying these laws to groups which don't reciprocate and how the change in the nature of war has also changed the status of combatants.
Anyway, we're meant to be the good guys. We don't torture people.

[Brian Rucker]

It's just amazing to me how any of this comes as a surprise to us. Ya'll didn't think this would happen either as a result of overzealous and overpoliticised intelligence services or inexperienced and underdiciplined reservists stuck in a hostile environment? This is how it works. We already know that terrorist suspects, suspects mind you, have been shipped to regimes that allow torture in order to get the answers they might, might mind you, have. There's little dispute of this. There's a history of either undiciplined troops or seasoned intelligence operators either resporting to torture and extremely degrading treatment, or encouraging it on the part of others, from WWII, through Vietnam, and into the small wars of Central America. And we get shocked every time it comes out. Then we forget. I'm not saying we're worse than anyone else but I do share the sentiment that if we're going to claim to be better we're obligated to live up to that.

In this particular Iraqi case we seem to have a combination of intelligence oversight with inexperienced troops if Seymore Hersh's article in the New Yorker is accurate. It is also likely not an isolated incident based on several concurrent investigations that have been launched.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040510fa_fact

[quatoria]

The part that I find most disturbing, and have been finding disturbing all throughout the war, is the reliance upon mercenaries. It's disturbing enough when we're using them to guard places and transports, but using civilian "contractors" to oversee interrogations and act for intelligence agents? Particularly when the military apparently has absolutely NO jurisdiction over these contractors, so they're free to do things like, say, rape 16 year old boys without penalty? That's fucking terrifying.

[TimElhajj]

But at least the evil dictator Saddam is out of office and can no longer torture the good people of Iraq.

[Rich]

Torture at Abu Ghraib
by Seymour M. Hersch
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
"American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?"

(The New Yorker)

Seymour M. Hersh
http://www.twbookmark.com/authors/83/677/

"Seymour M. Hersh is one of America's premier investigative reporters. In 1969, as a freelance journalist, he wrote the first account of the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he worked at the New York Times in Washington and New York; he has rejoined the paper twice on special assignment. He has won more than a dozen major journalism prizes, including the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting and four George Polk Awards.

"He is also the author of six books, including The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award and the Los Angeles Times BookAward, The Target Is Destroyed: What Really Happened to Flight 007 and What America Knew About It, and The Samson Option: Israels NuclearArsenal and Americas Foreign Policy."

[TimElhajj]

It's just so incredibly ironic because immediately after the war and we found there were no WMD, the fall back position was that at least we had done Iraq a favor and knocked Saddam out of power. Talk about meet the new boss.

[Jason McCullough]

http://billmon.org/archives/001443.html

Hersh says they killed a prisoner and tried to hide it by packing him in ice and dumping the body.

[Moore]

We should just all be forcibly moved to canada, hang a closed sign at the US border in shame, and forget the whole tainted fucking country.

[Dirt]

Torture at Abu Ghraib
by Seymour M. Hersch
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
"American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?"

(The New Yorker)

Seymour M. Hersh
http://www.twbookmark.com/authors/83/677/

"Seymour M. Hersh is one of America's premier investigative reporters. In 1969, as a freelance journalist, he wrote the first account of the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he worked at the New York Times in Washington and New York; he has rejoined the paper twice on special assignment. He has won more than a dozen major journalism prizes, including the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting and four George Polk Awards.

"He is also the author of six books, including The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award and the Los Angeles Times BookAward, The Target Is Destroyed: What Really Happened to Flight 007 and What America Knew About It, and The Samson Option: Israels NuclearArsenal and Americas Foreign Policy."

One thing is for sure, the buck won't stop at Bush's desk.

[Brian Rucker]

I don't know how they can nip this thing in the bud. It sounds systematic and deliberate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61560-2004May2.html


The photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib -- images that reached Iraqi newspapers on Sunday, following a three-day holiday -- have reinforced the long-held view here that the U.S. occupation is intent on humiliating the Iraqi people. The system has been rife with complaints for months, but now the testimony of former Iraqi prisoners claiming abuse at the hands of U.S. jailers has gained new credibility while further damaging the reputation of the U.S. occupation authority.

Interviews with former Iraqi prisoners and human-rights advocates present a picture of the U.S. prison system here as a vast wartime effort to extract information from the enemy rather than to punish criminals. Former prisoners say lengthy interrogation sessions, employing sleep depravation, severe isolation, fear, humiliation and physical duress, were regular features of their daily regimen and remain so for the estimated 2,500 to 7,000 people inside the jails.

The system comprises 16 prisons, four of which hold prisoners accused of being part of the anti-occupation insurgency. But there are countless other holding cells on U.S. bases, many once used by former president Saddam Hussein's government, where young Iraqis spend their first fearful hours in captivity.

"We have to get to the bottom of it," coalition spokesman Daniel Senor said on CNN's "Late Edition." "We have to engage in a robust investigation, which we are doing. . . . But let's not express frustration with the entire military in the process."

And from the Live transcript of the reporter covering the story today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62259-2004May3.html


Pownal, Maine: Reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners have been characterized as isolated incidents by top military brass, but that ceratinly isn't the impression one gets from reading The Post and other news outlets. The abuse seems systemic and widespread. What is your perception at this point?

Sewell Chan: Wow. Everyone in the press -- and for that matter, the Pentagon -- is trying to answer that question. We'll have some more news on this in tomorrow's paper, but to offer a partial preview I learned today that two military intelligence officers are among those who have been relieved of their command and given the military's highest form of administrative penalty -- a memorandum of reprimand that can effectively end an officer's career.

We plan to closely watch the third investigation that has arisen in this controversy, that of Major General George R. Fay. He's looking at the interrogation practices used at Abu Ghraib, and his findings could shed light on how widespread the abuses were. Within the military, I'm hearing skepticism that the abuses were limited to a small squad of low-ranking military police officers. We're still trying to learn more.

And from either side of the great political divide:

Leftwards


Anonymous: Good morning. I am an American outraged and disgusted at the abuses reported toward Iraqi prisoners. If Amnesty International's and Seymour Hersh's reports are true, it seems probable that the problem is even more widespread than originally reported.

But what surprises me is a lack of outrage among Americans. Janet Jackson's breast caused more outrage. Do you have any theories about what is going on here? Have Americans finally degraded to an apathetic, uncaring society? I pray not but I don't have any other explanations and it makes me ashamed to be an American.

Thank you.

Sewell Chan: Since I'm living and working in Iraq, I'm not in a great position to analyze American response. But I think you raise troubling and important questions.

Rightwards


Wheaton, Md.: I find it hard to believe that the Arab world is "shocked" over the photos of the abuses by Americans. These photos seem to pale in comparison to the many home videos in Saddam's collection where Iraqis were being thrown off buildings and eaten by dogs.

Sewell Chan: You make an interesting point, but I think the shock partly comes from the gap between the ugly realities depicted in the photos and the rhetoric of the US-led occupation, which has vowed to bring peace and democracy to Iraq. Saddam took credit for many things, but to my knowledge he never passed himself off as a great defender of human rights.

[Dirt]

I'll bet the GOP will stop criticizing Kerry's comments on war atrocities.

[Kalle]

So the officers involved get adminstrative penalties!

WTF. I know that the organisations aren't really keen on punishing their own, doesn't matter if it's the military or if it's any other organisation, but here is clearly a case where harsher punishment is called for. First, because these lowlifes who watched over de facto torture sessions deserve far more than just losing their job. They hurt and humiliated people in violation of every ethic and legal rule in the books. I'm not quite sure what punishment is fitting under civil law, but I'd venture something in the range of 3-10 years, in addition to hefty damage fees owed to the people hurt.

Secondly, letting these people go with what is, compared to their crimes, a slap on the wrist is bad for the military, and for the US. An example needs to be made that US rule is different from Saddam's rule, anything else will just result in more aggression against US forces. A public trial where these people are cracked down on hard will do wonders for reparing the US goodwill lost over this incident.

[Angie Gallant]

Here come more pictures. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-photos-america-doesnt-want-seen/2006/02/14/1139890737099.html)

[victoryfour]

Here come more pictures. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-photos-america-doesnt-want-seen/2006/02/14/1139890737099.html)

Was gonna post this myself...That one with the blood splatter...Christ.