TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- American interrogators torture Iraqi prisoners
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
American interrogators torture Iraqi prisoners
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004...3224523783.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/p...;partner=GOOGLE
I honestly don't know what to say with regards to this one. What the hell were the interrogators and soldiers involved thinking? Surely they knew that most people aren't going to appreciate this kind of thing - how stupid can you get?
Condemnations of their actions aside - this is potentially a PR disaster for the US around the world. I think that the army has done the right thing so far, and in general have managed to minimize the damage - but it isn't exactly going to help the US' cause PR wise.
"A photo from TV shows naked prisoners positioned in a human pyramid. Photo: Sky News"
Somebody just airbused out the twister board. They've just had a few too many drinks and it's gone too far. 
Well, it's a good thing the US is taking pro-active approaches towards eliminating this type of behaviour.
a female brigadier general? wow...i never would've though she would be the one overseeing this debacle
I have many friends in the military, both active and reserve. I know from what they've told me that actions like this are the fastest way to get your ass sent to prison. You're taught to follow the rules, and in the US military, torture is not the rule. Those who do stuff like this likely had discipline problems to being with, had their own personal moral failings, or had a shitty commanding officer who didn't properly follow his own superior orders to instruct his men on law in combat.
I can't see this being a widespread problem, but unfortunately it reflects poorly on everyone.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TuanAnh213 a female brigadier general? wow...i never would've though she would be the one overseeing this debacle |
Gah - stupid database crash. 
Some English soldiers have been caught doing exactly the same thing: http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/...3224646923.html
Again - what the hell were they thinking?
I have to say though, I find it pretty amusing that Arabs are outraged over this... Considering they've had no problem with other Arabs and Muslims videotaping the beheading of Daniel Pearl, shooting Fabrizio Quattrocchi, cutting the throats of russian soldiers, etc etc etc it's rather strange for them to suddenly acquire a sense of modesty...
Dead babies in Fallujah, mildly upsetting... photos of a white woman pointing at an arab's penis and fake blows jobs, OUTRAGEOUS...
humans never cease to amaze me...
Well, at least it's no longer Saddam's troops who are torturing people.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mps242 I have to say though, I find it pretty amusing that Arabs are outraged over this... Considering they've had no problem with other Arabs and Muslims videotaping the beheading of Daniel Pearl, shooting Fabrizio Quattrocchi, cutting the throats of russian soldiers, etc etc etc it's rather strange for them to suddenly acquire a sense of modesty... Dead babies in Fallujah, mildly upsetting... photos of a white woman pointing at an arab's penis and fake blows jobs, OUTRAGEOUS... humans never cease to amaze me... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew meh, this are the liberators who are torturing... the ones who state they took away someone from power, partly because he did things like this... |
I'm getting to the point where I'm not sure what to make of this. I smell shinanigans. Either way, somebody has some explaining to do.
Latest from the BBC
| quote: |
| Doubt cast on Iraq torture photos Sources close to the army have questioned the authenticity of photographs appearing to show British soldiers torturing an Iraqi prisoner. An investigation has begun into claims British troops assaulted the prisoner before throwing him from a lorry. The claims were made in the Daily Mirror which carried photos allegedly taken during the man's ordeal. Tony Blair says that if the photos are authentic this is "completely and totally unacceptable". The pictures show a hooded man being urinated on, a boot placed on his head, and a rifle butt in his groin. However the BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams says sources close to The Queen's Lancashire Regiment believe many aspects of the photographs are suspicious. He says they believe the pictures may not have even been taken in Iraq. They believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq. They say soldiers in Iraq wore berets or hard hats - and not floppy hats as in the photos. They also believe the wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq. Colonel Bob Stewart, who commanded British forces in the Balkans, told BBC News Online he could not be sure whether the photos were genuine or not. There is no place in our regiment for individuals capable of such appalling and sickening behaviour The Queen's Lancashire Regiment As well as questions over the rifle, vehicle and hat, he also pointed out that there were discrepancies over clothing and the condition of the captive. "The shirt looks like a football shirt. Is that the sort of shirt that a captive might be wearing, slightly silky with an Iraqi flag? "Why is it not dirty and dishevelled, why is the man not showing some signs of damage after eight hours of beatings? "Why would the soldiers be wearing webbing that is undone? Normally soldiers are very particular about that." But Colonel Stewart said whether the photos were proven to be real or fake the damage done to Iraqi and Arab opinion was "like a cork out of a bottle", acting as a recruiting sergeant for the insurgents. "What happens to the next British soldier who is taken hostage?" 'Terrible' allegations He said if it was real, those behind the captive's ordeal, or fake, those responsible for mocking it up, were responsible for extra casualties and deaths. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost programme: "There is a very high-level investigation taking place. The allegations are terrible." But he refused to be drawn on what compensation any victims of maltreatment would be offered, or on the outcome of the inquiry. "Of course it follows we will accept whatever obligations there are upon us." Tony Blair has said if there had been any abuse it was "exceptional", and should not detract from the good work being done by UK armed forces in Iraq. However he stressed if the photos were genuine it was totally unacceptable. "We went to Iraq to get rid of that sort of thing, not to do it," he added. The Mirror says the pictures were handed over by British soldiers from The Queen's Lancashire Regiment who claimed a rogue element in the army was responsible for abusing prisoners and civilians. The soldiers allege the unnamed captive was threatened with execution and had his jaw broken during his eight-hour ordeal. The reason for making the photos public was, the soldiers said, to show why the US-UK coalition was encountering such resistance in Iraq. Army spokesman Roger Goodwin, on behalf of The Queen's Lancashire Regiment, said there was "clearly some form of link to the regiment". "But the precise form of that link, including whether the soldiers involved in the alleged atrocities were members of the QLR, needs to be established. He added: "There is no place in our regiment for individuals capable of such appalling and sickening behaviour." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by arctic There is a difference though, the coalition leaders have universally condemned this behaviour, and is taking action to punish those involved. Saddam did the exact opposite. Don't get me wrong, I did not support the invasion of Iraq, but drawing parallels between the two is fraught with danger. I agree that there is a certain sense of irony about the entire thing - but irrespective of that, it's still not a good idea to compare this to the stuff that happened under Saddam. |
I suppose the only positive thing about these revelations is that it exposes these terrorist bastards for what they are, and not the saints people in the upper echelons of the US and Brit administrations would have us believe (and I wouldn't think these incidents are the only ones of this nature). But we can't really expect justice of any sort to be meted out to those who were responsible for these specific acts. British soldiers in the past, responsible for murder (and convicted for murder) of innocent civilians in Ireland, have been let back into the British Army. Those who have mistreated these prisoners will get a slap on the wrists at the most. Investigations and repercussions will be mere circus shows for the media (so these so-called respectable administrations will be seen to be doing something about what happened).
Fucking disgraceful overall, but not in the slightest bit surprising.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
"The 372nd�s abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine�a fact of Army life that the soldiers felt no need to hide."
Dang, enough's enough. It's not like we're shoving 220 volt wires up their ass or something. We got a few terrorists posing naked for the camera. There's quite a large difference between humility and tortue. In Saddam's day, they used to interrogate with power tools--normally only once since they couldn't survive round one. C'mon now, lighten up on the US and allies...
[[[smoke]]]
I agree.. I'd be cautious about using the word "torture" in this regard. Cruel and Unusual? Absolutely! Humiliating? No doubt! A violation of Geneva? Without a flinch. Torture? I'd pause.
Torture is used to describe physical pain. And being naked, although embarassing, isn't that painful.
Oh well really doesn't matter. Just a minor mute point. Everyone will think what they will about this.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus I agree.. I'd be cautious about using the word "torture" in this regard. Cruel and Unusual? Absolutely! Humiliating? No doubt! A violation of Geneva? Without a flinch. Torture? I'd pause. Torture is used to describe physical pain. And being naked, although embarassing, isn't that painful. Oh well really doesn't matter. Just a minor mute point. Everyone will think what they will about this. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Torture is used to describe physical pain. |
Atleast these prisoners dont have automatic weapons pointed at their heads with demands such as "if all militants dont surrender we will kill these prisoners"
and they also dont get their heads cut off when the americans are getting what they want
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sand Leaper So the term "psychic/mental torture" is just a misnomer then? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by smokeape We got a few terrorists posing naked for the camera. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Though, I am curious what are exampels of mental torture in your opinion? |
Punching a guy's teeth out, breaking his jaw, beating him to near death and dumping him out of a moving truck after beeing urinated on is torture.
As disgusting as those pictures were, they were not quite as surprising. After all, a good number of these soldiers are redneck dropouts from the back-asses of nowhewere in the midwestern U.S. and the U.K. They have probably even served some time themselves.
Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
1 a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.
anyway, don't forget that it is a big shame for muslims to be shown naked for another man, and even more to do sexual activities.
I think the larger picture here is being missed when we are trying to define "torture" here (and yes, I do believe this is torture).
The larger picture is that not only is this likely a widespread issue, but it was being encouraged by military intelligence and the C.I.A. That in itself is a bombshell to our gov't., and we simply cannot try to hide and cover this up. The chain must be followed no matter how high it goes:
| quote: |
| May 2, 2004 Officer Suggests Iraq Jail Abuse Was Encouraged By PHILIP SHENON ASHINGTON, May 1 � An Army Reserve general whose soldiers were photographed as they abused Iraqi prisoners said Saturday that she knew nothing about the abuse until weeks after it occurred and that she was "sickened" by the pictures. She said the prison cellblock where the abuse occurred was under the tight control of Army military intelligence officers who may have encouraged the abuse. The suggestion by Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski that the reservists acted at the behest of military intelligence officers appears largely supported in a still-classified Army report on prison conditions in Iraq that documented many of the worst abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, including the sexual humiliation of prisoners. The New Yorker magazine said in its new edition that the report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and C.I.A. agents to "set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses." According to the New Yorker article, the Army report offered accounts of rampant and gruesome abuse from October to December of 2003 that included the sexual assault of an Iraqi detainee with a chemical light stick or broomstick. While reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American and British soldiers have come to light in the last several days, the report cited by The New Yorker indicates a far more wide-ranging and systematic pattern of cruelties than previously reported. General Karpinski was formally admonished in January and "quietly suspended" from commanding the 800th Military Police Brigade, the New Yorker article reports. In a phone interview from her home in South Carolina in which she offered her first public comments about the growing international furor over the abuse of the Iraq detainees, General Karpinski said the special high-security cellblock at Abu Ghraib had been under the direct control of Army intelligence officers, not the reservists under her command. She said that while the reservists involved in the abuses were "bad people" who deserved punishment, she suspected that they were acting with the encouragement, if not at the direction, of military intelligence units that ran the special cellblock used for interrogation. She said that C.I.A. employees often joined in the interrogations at the prison, although she said she did not know if they had unrestricted access to the cellblock. According to the New Yorker article, by the investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh, one of the soldiers under investigation, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II, an Army reservist who is a prison guard in civilian life, may have reinforced General Karpinski's contention in e-mails to family and friends while serving at the prison. In a letter earlier this year, Sergeant Frederick wrote, "I questioned some of the things that I saw." He described "such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell." He added, "The answer I got was, `This is how military intelligence wants it done.' " Prisoners were beaten and threatened with rape, electrocution and dog attacks, witnesses told Army investigators, according to the report obtained by The New Yorker. Much of the abuse was sexual, with prisoners often kept naked and forced to perform simulated and real sex acts, witnesses testified. Mr. Hersh notes that such degradations, while deeply offensive in any culture, are particularly humiliating to Arabs because Islamic law and culture so strongly condemn nudity and homosexuality. General Karpinski said she was speaking out because she believed that military commanders were trying to shift the blame exclusively to her and other reservists and away from intelligence officers still at work in Iraq. "We're disposable," she said of the military's attitude toward reservists. "Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame? They want to put this on the M.P.'s and hope that this thing goes away. Well, it's not going to go away." The Army's public affairs office at the Pentagon referred calls about her comments to military commanders in Iraq. General Karpinski said in the interview that the special cellblock, known as 1A, was one of about two dozen cellblocks in the large prison complex and was essentially off limits to soldiers who were not part of the interrogations, including virtually all of the military police under her command at Abu Ghraib. She said repeatedly in the interview that she was not defending the actions of the reservists who took part in the brutality, who were part of her command. She said that when she was first presented with the photographs of the abuse in January, they "sickened me." "I put my head down because I really thought I was going to throw up," she said. "It was awful. My immediate reaction was: these are bad people, because their faces revealed how much pleasure they felt at this." But she said the context of the brutality had been lost, noting that the six Army reservists charged in the case represented were only a tiny fraction of the nearly 3,400 reservists under her command in Iraq, and that Abu Ghraib was one of 16 prisons and other incarceration centers around Iraq that she oversaw. "The suggestion that this was done with my knowledge and continued with my knowledge is so far from the truth," she said of the abuse." I wasn't aware of any of this. I'm horrified by this." She said she was also alarmed that little attention has been paid to the Army military intelligence unit that controlled Cellblock 1A, where her soldiers guarded the Iraqi detainees between interrogations. She estimated that the floor space of the two-story cellblock was only about 60 feet by 20 feet, and that military intelligence officers were in and out of the cellblock "24 hours a day," often to escort prisoners to and from an interrogation center away from the prison cells. "They were in there at 2 in the morning, they were there at 4 in the afternoon," said General Karpinski, who arrived in Iraq last June and was the only woman to hold a command in the war zone. "This was no 9-to-5 job." She said that C.I.A. employees often participated in the interrogations at Abu Ghraib, one of Iraq's most notorious prisons during the rule of Saddam Hussein. General Karpinski noted that one of the photographs of abused prisoners also showed the legs of 16 American soldiers � the photograph was cropped so that their upper bodies could not be seen � "and that tells you that clearly other people were participating, because I didn't have 16 people assigned to that cellblock." The photographs of American soldiers smiling, laughing and signaling "thumbs up" as Iraqi detainees were forced into sexually humiliating positions provoked outrage just as the American military was trying to pacify a rising insurgency and gain the trust of more Iraqis before turning over sovereignty to a new government on June 30. General Karpinski, who has returned home to South Carolina and her civilian life as a business consultant, said she visited Abu Ghraib as often as twice a week last fall and had repeatedly instructed military police officers under her command to treat prisoners humanely and in accord with international human rights agreements. "I can speak some Arabic," said General Karpinski, a New Jersey native who spent almost a decade as an active duty soldier before joining the Army Reserve in 1987. "I'm not fluent, but when I went to any of my prison facilities, I would make it a point to try to talk to the detainees." But she said she did not visit Cellblock 1A, in keeping with the wishes of military intelligence officers who, she said, worried that unnecessary visits might interfere with their interrogations of Iraqis. She acknowledged that she "probably should have been more aggressive" about visiting the interrogation cellblock, especially after military intelligence officers at the prison went "to great lengths to try to exclude the I.C.R.C. from access to that interrogation wing." She was referring to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has been given access over time to Iraqi detainees at the prison. General Karpinski's lawyer, Neal A. Puckett, a former military trial judge, said he believed that she was being made a scapegoat for others in the military, especially for military intelligence officers who knew what was going on in Cellblock 1A. He said General Karpinski had repeatedly insisted that troops under her command in Iraq receive instruction in proper treatment of detainees, but that despite her best efforts, some reservists joined in the abuse at Abu Ghraib. "All you can do is give training, give guidance and assume that your soldiers are going to follow orders and are not going to become sick bastards," he said. After the first allegations of abuse circulated earlier this year, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior American commander in Iraq, ordered sweeping inquiries into whether any commanders � including General Karpinski � should be held responsible. He also ordered a review of policies and procedures at all of the prisons controlled by occupation forces in Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/i...ast/02ABUS.html |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.