US military in prisoner torture Photographs

I have to agree with Mr44 on the matter of Karpenski, the bottom line is that this happened on her watch. If she didn't know what was happening then she damn well should have. Either way she has got a lot to answer for.

 

Mr44, I think you're being partisan on this issue, and needlessly so.

Partisan?

Partisan in what sense?

Wait a minute. Why can I not use your same standard of judgement over this issue?

Because let's look at the photographs.

At no time could anyone displayed in the pictures even be connected to the US.

The only reason why these allegations were supported was because the US policed itself, months ago, when a US soldier came forward

This wasn't a cover up, the US was already taking action months ago.

I suppose a US commander could have just said "Nope, that is not the type of shoes we issue to prison guards, those pictures are faked." Using your standard, that would have ended it.

However, you yourself easily accept that the British allegations must be staged, because some in the military there claim they are.

Even though the BBC is standing behind the pictures.

So who is lying now, the BBC, the stalwart of journalistic integrity, or the British officers whose jobs are on the line?

I'll make you a deal.

You tell me that you were even aware what rifle the UK soldiers were using in Iraq, and I'll accept that you are at least serious in accepting that as evidence.

But that is not even the point. I'm ceratainly not saying that the UK troops are guilty either.

The UK Ministry of Denfence has not even completed their own investigation. How do we know for certain what the British soldiers did or did not do?

This same standard should apply to the US.

When someone like Hersh shows a picture of a dead Iraqi, I'm not claiming that the picture is faked, but without context, it is not a basis for a conclusion.

HE says, "oh it has to be the result of US abuse....Look what they already did.."

Except that he doesn't know for sure either.

It is not being partisan for me to say let's wait and see what the facts bring, instead of relying on the individual accounts that support a specific point of view.

OWM, you can't really be serious..

 

No, I am serious. As an someone who was against the War in Iraq, I put the responsibility and blame for the mistreatment of soldiers, the mistreatment of indian civilians, and the THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi deaths squarley on Dubya's shoulders.

And why not? He decided to invade another country. If he gets everything up and running, then we should decide whether it was all worth it.

But I do think it's ridiculous that people on the right want to give Bush praise for taking out Saddam and everything yet feel like he is totally not responsible for what's going on their.

Like Powell said, Bush broke it, he owns it. He is responsible for everything going on over there, and he took that responsibility when he took over the country.

Is it directly Bush's fault? No. Did he want this to happen? I'm positive he DIDN'T want this to happen.

But these are the consequences of HIS actions. He failed to put adequately trained people in charge of certain posts. That may not be directly his fault, but he's the man on top, he answers to ME and YOU and everyone else. At best he's incompetent.

If Bush gets credit for the war and the toppling of Saddam, and if he wants to falsely claim it had something to do with Terror, then fine, but then ALL the blame for everything that goes wrong is also his, and rightly so.

This isn't a Bush standard, this is a standard I would apply to ANY President.

 

No that's not what I mean OWM..

Look, we all know you are an intelligent guy.

Can you not see the obvious political fallout and opportunity that arises from a situation like this?

A civilian employee on a military base, who happens to be Indian national, suddenly makes a claim that he too, is being abused..

And that is all the evidence you need? Come on OWM, you are made of sterner stuff.

Just because there is a current controversy, doesn't mean the standard of proof need be eliminated.

Because really, all you <ARGGH> <GASP>.........





OMG, US SOLDIERS JUST BROKE INTO MY HOUSE AND STARTED BEATING ME>>>> HELP<CHOKE>.....



See what I mean? How about we simply stay focused on the actual issue, instead of trying to turn everything into poltics..

 

It does make you wonder what happens in Guantanemo Bay, though.

 

I suppose it would, if the camp wasn't visited frequently by the Red Cross.

 

And they weren't allowed into Iraq?

EDIT: And they /haven't/ continually objected to the treatment of prisoners?

Just because they're there, it's no guarantee of what happens behind closed doors.

 

And they /haven't/ continually objected to the treatment of prisoners?

You mean the Red Cross?

No. The IRC would never pubically object to anything.

According to their charter, any abuses would be documented and turned over to a specific UN committe, not made public.

 

Darn Mr. 44, don't make me call you SCULLY!

Kidding aside, before you go further, I concede the point you made in your response.

However, I'm not on a political talk show, nor am I speaking to anyone outside this little bubble. I am saying catagorically that Bush is responsible for everything that goes on, and everything like this should be remembered in the 'negative consequence' column.

Furthermore, the Drudge is no reporting more POW deaths occurring. Originally, I didn' think this was a big deal, seriously I didn't, but then I realized "wait, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg." Then I realize THAT coudln't be true, but at the very least, some sick and immoral stuff is going down and it's being done in OUR name.

Bush has to be downright furious, these photos are going to make it even harder to succeed in Iraq, but he has no one to blame but himself. He can correct this mistake by being more publicly outraged and citing his opposition on the campaign trail.

Anyway, regardless, Bush needs to start implementing policies that prevent this kind of disaster. The fact that he didnt prevent it in the first place is a testement to his incompetance.

 

these photos are going to make it even harder to succeed in Iraq, but he has no one to blame but himself.

This much I agree with.

He can correct this mistake by being more publicly outraged and citing his opposition on the campaign trail.

I'm not so sure about this though.

Commander in Chief Bush has a different responsibility than candidate Bush.

I think for their own sake, both candidates should lay off this issue for the campaign. As a political issue, it only leads nowhere.

 

Partisan?

Partisan in what sense?

Well you're essentially attacking Mr. Hersh for making 'wild allegations' when his allegations came from a report he had seen, a report that is now reported on by CNN, proving a lot of his allegations to be true. You're also saying its premature to make allegations against military intelligence and people working outside the prison, when this is in fact part of the focus of the third investigation and Kimmit says himself that they're looking into it.


Wait a minute. Why can I not use your same standard of judgement over this issue?

Because let's look at the photographs.

At no time could anyone displayed in the pictures even be connected to the US.

What about the soldier clearly seen with her thumbs up there? You could, with the resources at your disposal, look into the people at the prison and find the woman matching that description.


The only reason why these allegations were supported was because the US policed itself, months ago, when a US soldier came forward

This wasn't a cover up, the US was already taking action months ago.

Cover up? What --?

????

Never mind, I'm not even going to touch that one.


I suppose a US commander could have just said "Nope, that is not the type of shoes we issue to prison guards, those pictures are faked." Using your standard, that would have ended it.

What standard? I'm only saying what's being reported on both sides of the atlantic. I haven't even given thought to the British pictures -- I haven't even SEEN them. At least, I don't think I have. I personally didn't pay too much attention to that individal case, I haven't said if I believe the photos are fakes or not. I could conceivably believe either way at this point on that issue. I said the photos 'seem to have been faked'.

Do I know if they actually have been? No. Does it seem likely they have? Yes. Does it seem likely they have not? Yes.

But the British case doesn't have as much material evidence as the American one does. I havent read the report myself, but there's been a number of people who have, and if you work for the New Yorker, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you're not a Jason Blair.



I'll make you a deal.

You tell me that you were even aware what rifle the UK soldiers were using in Iraq, and I'll accept that you are at least serious in accepting that as evidence.

I'll make you another. I'll tell you right away I don't and you can tell me why I have to know this before giving news services the benefit of the doubt when there's more corroborative evidence than just the photographs of an incident themselves.



The UK Ministry of Denfence has not even completed their own investigation. How do we know for certain what the British soldiers did or did not do?

This same standard should apply to the US.

It doesn't because the case is supplanted by a completed report, mr44. Maybe its premature to say I want specific names fired, but not to start throwing around military intelligence as having something to do with what was going on there.


When someone like Hersh shows a picture of a dead Iraqi, I'm not claiming that the picture is faked, but without context, it is not a basis for a conclusion.

It's the picture AND the report. Both of which he said existed and that he'd been looking into the matter extensively for a little while. Nobody's really looked into the British incident that carefully yet.

 

Again Gonk, I think you are missing the point.

You seem to be missing the obvious contradiction here.

It is noble that you are withholding judgement about the British situation, until the proper investigation is completed.

That should be the proper thing to do.

However, in the very same breath you claim that the US allegations are different...

Why should this be, except in the context that you objected to the initial action, and this is simply ammo for your belief?

You admitted that you haven't seen the British photos, so you can't comment.

Yet, you take the statement that the "guns don't match up," as evidence, without even knowing what rifles the British troops use..

Well again, I'd bet you haven't seen the actual US report either, and are simply accepting Hersh's interpretation, if he has even seen the report.

Because I too, have seen the picture he talks about, but I have yet to ever see any supporting documentation.

All we have so far, is Hersh's claim. And you have said that an unsupported photograph does not prove a claim.

So on one hand, you don't trust the Daily Mirror and the BBC, because their photos may be faked, but on the other hand, you completely take Hersh at his word.

I'm asking how can this be?

The only thing that has been supported so far, is the original action of the MP group, which operated under Gen. Karpinsky's command.

Just because now, if she of all people, says it wasn't her fault, but it was a wide conspiracy by the CIA, doesn't make it so.

After all, it's not like she has anything to loose...

How about we wait and see what the actual conclusions are?

I'm just asking that you apply that same standard of honesty and accountability that you use with the BBC and direct it equally.

 

So on one hand, you don't trust the Daily Mirror and the BBC, because their photos may be faked, but on the other hand, you completely take Hersh at his word.

The BBC are neither claiming that these photos are genuine or that they are fakes. It is only The Daily Mirror (a militantly anti-war publication) that is insisting that the photos are genuine. It must be added that they seemingly have little to say about the vast number of questions that have been raised.

 

Woah...these new confirmed abuses - including 2 murders, has just taken this to a whole new level.

 

Mr44: This wasn't a cover up, the US was already taking action months ago.

That's right! Why just as late as the day before the story broke, the Pentagon contacted CNN to try and delay the release of the pictures and report for "2 weeks" (according to All Things Considered, today). Oh....wait. If that ain't "covering up" then it is right on the border with inexcusable damage control.



By the way, Mr44...I'm hurt! I came out from a long silence 'round here just to respond to you. Oh well. The lonely tormented life of a PNWhippy I lead ...

Seriously...all "facts" aside, it is common sense that if the press comes out with a scandal before the government admits to it, you have got yourself, at the very least, an omission of the truth, if not an out/out coverup.

Even as late as last week, Rummy had an opportunity to inform a closed door session of the Armed Svcs Committee. He did not. He had the chance. He knew that the abuse had occurred. He had even seen the pictures, though he claims to not have "had copies of them".

In any case, this situation, in its entirety (security, democratization and investigation & prosecution of war crimes perpetrated by all parties INCLUDING the US military and its privately contracted thugs) should be taken over by international authority, and US should cede ALL interest in the outcome, because it has been irrevocably proven that WE, the US, cannot handle the resposibility anymore, if indeed we ever could.

 

All I can say about the whole thing is it's no wonder the USA refused to be a signatory to the International Court.

Just imagine for a minute, what this will do the will of the average Iraqi. What if your country was invaded (rightly or wrongly) and the invading force treated your people the way the Iraqi's are being treated. I'd be pretty pissed off. I'd be very supportive of those that took up arms.

 

Oh, I noticed Garth...

Honestly though, I only have room for one conspriacy theorist in my life, and OWM had me with hello.

But chin up, buckaroo, at least we'll always have Pacifism....

 

Oh, well I guess you don't have a response. Thanks!

 

You admitted that you haven't seen the British photos, so you can't comment.

Yet, you take the statement that the "guns don't match up," as evidence, without even knowing what rifles the British troops use..

The day after the Daily Mirror published the photos a few papers and news programs published the inconsistencies that they felt showed the photographs were fake. They were simple things, like no shoulder straps on the rifles and the boots being laced incorrectly, but they also looked completely staged. I saw the published inconsistencies in the Daily Mail, but they were on Sky News as well and probably a lot of other papers.

It's been all over the news, really. The Daily Mirror is standing firm saying they "told the truth" which isn't quite the same as "the photos are real" and, being cynics, a lot of Britons don't believe it. But, as one of the army chiefs said - the damage has been done and they are looking into it.

 

I've looked at the pics and the claims of falsification, and I must say, I agree they look like they're done using Photoshop.

Silly Daily Mirror types.

E_S

 

The day after the Daily Mirror published the photos a few papers and news programs published the inconsistencies that they felt showed the photographs were fake.

Except that there is more than just the Daily Mirror photographs that comprise this story..

How about these 2 articles from BBC?

BBC 1

BBC 2

Are the alleged abuses in the Daily Mirror photos the only claims about the behaviour of UK troops being investigated?

A: No, they're not.

The armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, confirmed on Tuesday that 33 cases of civilian deaths, injuries or mistreatment at the hands of British soldiers have or are being investigated by the Royal Military Police (RMP).

Now, DarthKarde pointed out correctly that the BBC hasn't commented either way about the Mirror pictures, but it sure seems they are taking the overall allegations seriously.

But what British troops did or didn't do, isn't even the point, except to explore the overall concept of war-time stress and its effect on soldiers.

It is the attitude that surprises me.

On this board, when articles were linked to that described alleged abuses from Aussie troops, the answer was "those charges are obviously false.."

When allegations of abuse by British soldiers surface, the attitude is "Oh, the pictures are obviously faked."

Really? Of course they are, because only the untrained and barbaric US troops would be the only ones capable of such actions, and naturally, the problem has to reach all the way to the highest levels.

They were simple things, like no shoulder straps on the rifles and the boots being laced incorrectly, but they also looked completely staged.

Exactly my point.. Like a British Royal Marine who would abuse a prisoner is going to be worried that his "laces aren't correct" for the photo..

I'd still wager that a majority of the people here don't even know what an SA80 rifle is, but completely accept that as an excuse.

Which is my point.

I'm not claiming that one group is morally superior, or one should be excused, while the other scrutized.

I'm simply saying, how about we bottle some of that European cynism and apply it equally?

That way, the proper scope of the situation can be examined as it applies.

 

However, in the very same breath you claim that the US allegations are different...

Why should this be, except in the context that you objected to the initial action, and this is simply ammo for your belief?

Because, as stated, there was a documented report seen by the person making the accusations. And the person making the accusations is not known to me to be of any political stripe. His word of course deserves scrutiny as everyone's does. But if he's got this much backing him up, I fail to see why his accusations should be labeled as 'wild' when there's no indication he's predisposed to the material that he would go on national tv and say things that are wrong or even misleading. He's from the New Yorker, and his name is the New Yorker's name, which I take more seriously than the Daily Mirror, and I certainly take more seriously if he says he has documentation to back things up.


Well again, I'd bet you haven't seen the actual US report either, and are simply accepting Hersh's interpretation, if he has even seen the report.

There's interpretation and then there's interpretation. Hersh is NOT Michael Moore -- I mean, I dunno, he COULD be Michael Moore or like him, but if you believe that then you've got a perception problem of th eleft in general. That said, just because he may or may not believe the war in Iraq was a bad idea does not mean he's going to distort the facts. And if he's got documentation, and he's not going to distort the facts, I think it's wrong to characterize his opinions, once again, as 'wild' and accept they might recieve the benefit of the doubt.


Because I too, have seen the picture he talks about, but I have yet to ever see any supporting documentation.

Yes, but CNN has seen it.

All we have so far, is Hersh's claim. And you have said that an unsupported photograph does not prove a claim.

Actually besides the photographs and the documentation, we now have Kimmit's own remarks the corroborate Hersh's side of the story.

So on one hand, you don't trust the Daily Mirror and the BBC, because their photos may be faked, but on the other hand, you completely take Hersh at his word.

I'm asking how can this be?

The Daily Mirror is not the New Yorker, and they do not have the documentation. This goes around in circles. Again, in order to not believe Hersh, you would have to believe he read the articles backwards or inobjectively. And you know, I for one am starting to believe that out of Clarke, Wilson (on the new comeback trail), O'Niel and Woodward and this guy, there's got to be at least ONE of them who's able to be objective about the material they're given. They can't ALL be blinded by politics this year. That would be a low level of confidence in people's professionalism.


The only thing that has been supported so far, is the original action of the MP group, which operated under Gen. Karpinsky's command.

No, Kimmit has said that they were looking at Military intelligence in the third investigation. CNN quoted him, as I said before.

Just because now, if she of all people, says it wasn't her fault, but it was a wide conspiracy by the CIA, doesn't make it so.

No, Kimmit's remarks make them circumspect.

 

No, Kimmit has said that they were looking at Military intelligence in the third investigation. CNN quoted him, as I said before.

Gonk, this statement, perhaps your entire post, just mirrored what I have been saying.

The fact that they are looking into the intelligence role, does not mean that the role has been discovered.

Why not just wait and see what they find?

Just like the British photos may be staged, they may not be.

I'm not saying Hersh is incorrect, I'm saying he is drawing his own conclusions at this time.

Have you actually read the New Yorker article?

A large portion of Hersh's claims come from SSG Frederick.

For those who don't know, Frederick is one of the 6 being court martialed for being a participant in the abuse. In fact, he is going to be punished the most severely, because he was the immediate supervisor at the time.

Of course, Frederick is going to tell Hersh that it wasn't him, that it was the CIA, or that he wasn't trained, etc..

Don't you think he has a lot to loose at this point?

Hersh, in turn simply reports what is told to him.

However, neither Frederick's defense, nor Hersh's allegations have been verified, so they shouldn't be taken as truth at this time.

That's my point.

 

On this board, when articles were linked to that described alleged abuses from Aussie troops, the answer was "those charges are obviously false.."

That's a total misrepresentation of what I said.

I said from memory, the charges that you linked to were found to be false. If you dispute that, go find evidence that the allegations were proven, the onus of responsibility there is yours. I also went through reasons why the alleged Australian and American abuses were totally different and totally incomparable and I reject any comparisons. That's not due to the Australian nature of the story, I'd reject comparisons to the US coast guard who turn illegal immigrants away in Florida too.

As for the British photo's - I don't know enough about it to know if they are fake or not. The American photo's are different in the fact the US has admitted they aren't fakes.

 

But I think some looks like, that is was not only a single accident. How many cases of torture exists, that is sure unclear in the moment. But I don't believe, the one case with the fotos was the only one. There are - so far as I know from german media - between 15 and 35 cases of prisoners how died perhaps because of torture or abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq. Until now it is not clear, how much of them are really the result of torture, but if I can say what I mean - I believe much more then one.

Also Bush's statement in the media will perhaps not change so much - the voices of iraqis in the interview were more or less sceptic. I don't know, if this is so everywhere, but I think in many cases also his words changed no minds.

A man, who was 13 years in prison under Saddam said, today the people in Iraq laugh only bitter, if they hear about democracy and freedom - and remember on the old AND the new Abu Graibh. I think, this is not only a single position.

This will help Sadr and other resistance forces, I think. But we will see.