US military in prisoner torture Photographs

Bush didn't even apologize. He's playing into Bin Laden's hand at every opportunity.Even going into Iraq and staying there is one of the things Bin Laden had said we were planning on doing...we're making him look almost justified in his actions. I'm sure after seeing these photo's, many in the Middle East will hate us even more.

Bin Laden will have more new recruits by the end of this week than we had sign up for the service after 9/11. This is a direct result of having our men spread too thin between Iraq and Afghanistan, that we had to resort to sending stupid punks like this over there. That is Bush's fault. We could have committed more men initially to Afghanistan, and maybe even found Bin Laden. During that time, we could have waited for UN approval to go in and get Saddam with international help-meaning less of our forces, and no need to send over jerks like the ones who tortured/killed prisoners.

 

This morning in the Washington Post there are more photos released and names of some of the soldies pictured. I wonder why so few are being charged when it seems to be a lot of soldiers are around. The Post is also reporting that the soldiers were under orders to take the pictures.

 

The most shocking photo from the Arabian POV has to be that one with the female soldier treating a prisoner like a dog. Getting humiliated by females - well, that hurts.
How will Iraqi ever trust US soldiers? The surest way would be to sacrifice the responsable soldiers and hand them over to an Iraqi court and Iraqi would get their bloody revenge (how long would they survive in an Iraqi prison?) - but that's an option no US president can and will choose.

 

Ironically, all Americans who have been or will be charged with a crime connected with Abu Ghraib abuses will have full due process, with lawyers representing them, a fair and speedy public trial, and the ability to communicate with family members, etc., whereas many of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib have never been charged with any crime, have been held without the ability to communicate with the outside world or seek legal representation, under an infrastructure for arrest, interrogationa and incarceration that is inherently and systemically corrupt and under which the abuses that are coming to light were more or less inevitable.

 

Let's see Donald Rumsfeld resign, please...

Or at the very least, an apology. Finally, the case for war dies.

If the President can't even say sorry given a chance, what the hell hope is there now?

And what the **** does 'anyone who has seen those photopgraphs has in fact apologised' mean? Jesus Christ!

 

And finally, Mr. Bush decides to apologise...

*slow handclap*

 

The Dictator, Bush should have apologies on behalf of the American people as this is his responsability even if it didn't make a slight difference in the Arab world.

What am I saying, silly me he wouldn't, he's a dictator.

 

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?

I do not believe that Hersh ever said not to wait for the investigation to carry through and let the military do its job. He HAS made allegations against MI, and what I'm disputing is not that Hersh's accusations were premature, but that they were 'wild'. Which gives them the characterization that they're not researched and have little to no foundation. But the case is that despite the military invstigation not yet being complete and the accusations being premature, they are not wild accusations. They are 100% within the realm of possibility given the evidence.

I never said Hersh's allegations were not technically premature, but that the grounds were there to safely indicate that MI may be largely to blame and that that's where he suspects the buck stops.


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

As I read it you were saying more than that. You said he might be correct, but you also said his accusations were wild. In my definition, wild accusations means accusations which are unfounded and LIKELY wrong, and not thought through.


Have you actually read the New Yorker article?

No, I saw his CNN interview. And recently, I just read a little through this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/

I quote from the document linked:

I find that contrary to the provision of AR 190-8, and the findings found in MG Ryder?s Report, Military Intelligence (MI) interrogators and Other US Government Agency?s (OGA) interrogators actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses. Contrary to the findings of MG Ryder?s Report, I find that personnel assigned to the 372ndMP Company, 800th MP Brigade were directed to change facility procedures to ?set the conditions? for MI interrogations. I find no direct evidence that MP personnel actually participated in those MI interrogations.

These were words Hersh was reading. For them to go on CNN thereafter and implicate MI in what happened was premature, but it was not a 'wild accusation'.



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?

Ayup. But Hersh had the above report to go on as well. The report quotes 13 Iraqi witnesses to what was going on besides the soldiers came forward (I think it makes mention of two of them).

As another note, while again the photographs may be faked, the latest ones show prisoner abuse taking place in the open at the prison and a number of guards being present, more than whose names have been released. There's been six, I think: the report mentions 4 direct military suspects, and mentions another female guard who had a prisoner degraded by having him strip and returned naked to his cell. That's five there, and the report indicates there are names deleted from the list of suspects. The name you gave was not one of the names listed. Just how many people are being investigated? It seems it might be well more than six.

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

See, I don't know where you got that I was taking them as truth or absolute truth or anything like that. However, unlike the British photos after seeing Hersh and how far he was prepared to go and how confident he wa sin the evidence, I did feel it was LIKELY to be the truth and the opposite, that these acts were faked, was UNLIKELY. The British case could have gon

 

"He's a dictator".


Yes, yes, Bush is a regular Hitler, so is Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Powell. The only guy who isn't Hitler is the guy who used to control Iraq, with the mustache who throws people into incinerators alive....

But it's amazing that if Bush is such a dictator that you or others who claim that are allowed to sit there and say such things without being hauled off to a seceret prison. So either Bush is just a regular President or he's the lousiest dictator the world has ever seen.....


Anway, back on topic.

 

Bush is absolute dictator of Iraq. The only limits to American power there are what the media blows the whistle on (prison abuse) and what the Iraqi people themselves can prevent from happening (U.S. control of Fallujah).

 

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.

With respect Mr44 this is an unfair comment. There is considerable evidence that the photographs published by The Daily Mirror are fakes. There does not seem to be any evidence that the pictures involving US troops have been faked.

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.

Well I happen to know what an SA80 rifle looks like but even if I didn't it wouldn't matter. When multiple people who obviously know about such things make a simple statement that the gun is wrong and no one is able to refute that claim it is reasonable to accept the claim.

There are also several inconsistancies with the pictures that do need expert knowledge to pick up on. Incidently if the pictures are proved to be fakes Piers Morgan (editor of the Daily Mirror) is finished.

 

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.

When Geoff Hoon is found to have concealed information he knew about British soldiers tortuing Iraqis, sure, I'll believe it.

 

DK,

But that was not the point of my observation.

The fact is that any one of us can act improperly given the right circumstances.

I would hope not to the extent displayed here, but let's keep things in persepctive.

We don't need to:

sacrafice the soldiers,

or round them up and execute them,

or completely abandon all concept of trust in the region,

or use this as a sign of the downfall of Western Civilization.

The investigation will continue with the standards of the framework it exists in.

After all, is that not the standard that exists in the UK as well?

Just because some specific photos may be faked, doesn't mean that it is inconciveable that all other allegations are false.

In other words, those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones, and we are all living in a pretty drafty house.

Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to go watch my copy of In the Name of the Father...

 

When Geoff Hoon is found to have concealed information he knew about British soldiers tortuing Iraqis, sure, I'll believe it.

How about an independent witness then?

BBC HERE

Piers Morgan says a soldier from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment has a dossier including claims of "appalling beatings" by a small "rogue element".

It includes claims of "appalling beatings" and names soldiers', including some in the senior ranks whom "he says were culpable in allowing this to happen".

Now that another witness has come forward, should the original allegations be treated more seriously, or is he to be discredited as well?

Even if this is true, does this make the actions of the US soldiers more or less important in their own context?

 

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that British troops have done some terrible things - I'm just pointing out that it's /only/ from the US troops have we heard about the Pentagon having investigated these claims since January and a Defence Secretary who doesn't even have the balls to apologise for keeping this disgrace from the public and his President.

 

I don't want to make a new thread for this, and since it is kind of related to this issue, lets have a sub discussion of the most recent news: Sec Rumsfeld and resigniation.

Two questions: Do you think he should be forced to resign and do you think he will be forced to resign?

I am wavering on both questions. I think he has done alot of things to improve the military by trimming some of the fat, but it is also his fault that we went into Iraq with so few troops and this prisoner scandal can also be traced back to him. Now, I as I am never one to underestimate a politician's resilience, I will put his chances at 60/40 of staying.

Anybody else have an opinion on this?

 

I think he should resign through his own volition. The man needs a pair of cojones, and needs to actually accept responsibility for the incredibly important job he does. Not even telling your President about what's going on? What impossible arrogance! Then again, Geoff Hoon got away with it over here...

I do recognise that the US has a very different system to the British Government, and as I understand it it's rare for a politician in office to resign over particular issues (correct me if I'm wrong, please).

 

If he does, it will certainly set a dangerous precedent, and heaven help future administrations.

 

The fact is that any one of us can act improperly given the right circumstances.

I would hope not to the extent displayed here, but let's keep things in persepctive.

We don't need to:

sacrafice the soldiers,

or round them up and execute them,

or completely abandon all concept of trust in the region,

or use this as a sign of the downfall of Western Civilization.

The investigation will continue with the standards of the framework it exists in.

After all, is that not the standard that exists in the UK as well?

Just because some specific photos may be faked, doesn't mean that it is inconciveable that all other allegations are false.

In other words, those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones, and we are all living in a pretty drafty house.

I certainly don't dispute any of that. My point was that the different reactions to the US and UK incidents were a result of different circumstances.

Two questions: Do you think he should be forced to resign and do you think he will be forced to resign?

There are some reasons why I think that Rumsfeld should resign but the torture issue is not one of them. As I see it he is not responsible for the individual actions of the soldiers involved or of the failings of the Commanders to prevent such incidents. As for informing Bush, while it may have been a smart move I hardly see it as a necesary one. His survival however depends on how well the democrats get after him, how much support he retains from republicans in congress and how much it seems to be hurting Bush.

 

This is precisely what I meant by my comment as well.

Because lately, there seems to have developed this mentality of "ultimate responsibility."

It exists in all sections of the political spectrum, so I may have difficulty explaining it..

But, let me ask, what do people think the reason for a MoD, or SecDef is?

Such a position represents the highest civilain component for the armed services. As such, its very position represents the President, or PM in military affairs.

Now, if we take this prisoner scandal.

The original abuse happened back in Nov/Dec of last year.

The US Army started an immediate investigation, resulting in the initial court-martial and/or reasignment of personnel.

Now, the major concern that bothers me is that justice shouldn't be dependent on public perception.

Which means, that the same standard of law should be applied in this case, even if these actual pictures were never released.

How is the executive branch even responsible for this behavior, and exactly when should established procedure have been deviated from?

 

How is the executive branch even responsible for this behavior, and exactly when should established procedure have been deviated from?


Let's ask Bush why he didn't take this so seriously in the beginning.

Besides, Bush is all up in arms about this as he rightfully should be, but it is his administration that is sending terrorists off to foreign nations to be "interrogated"

*Note* That is not meant to be directed at anyone in particular. That quote from Mr44 just brought on that thought.

 

He still had a duty to tell his President. It seems to be implied to me that Rumsfeld hadn't even read the dossier on the issue, and the lack of appearance as soon as they released just highlights to me personally someone who simply should not be in the position he is in.

Let me put this way: It seems to be the case that the Mirror photos are going to be proven fake - however, as soon as they were published, /immediately/ an official apology was issued.

The way he's isolated himself and kept away from the public eye is totally unbecoming of a man of his power. he should be doing more than /anyone/ else in the entire Western world to try and salvage whatever credibility he can for /his/ troops rather than simply vanishing.

 

Because lately, there seems to have developed this mentality of "ultimate responsibility."

It's a tough area but the way see it is that "ultimate resposibility" relates to the big picture. As I have said before I hold George Bush and Tony Blair responsible for every death that has resulted from their unjustified war of aggression. Those who start a war do indeed have ultimate responsibilty for the consequences of that action. However I don't think that either of them, or Rusfeld in this case, are responsible for individual cases.

He still had a duty to tell his President.

How so?

Every single member of Bush's cabinet are aware of things that they don't tell him. The matter was being dealt with according to US Army procedures. There was no reason why Bush had to know and any interference on his part would have been completely unacceptable. I actually think that Rumsfeld should have told Bush but he certainly had no obligation to do so.

 

I think Rumsfeld is accountable for this. It's his department, and so must have known about it. If he did know, why didn't he say something then, and why won't he now? If he didn't, why not?

Either way it smacks of gross incompetancy and a breach of the trust placed in him by the American people.

 

Let me put this way: It seems to be the case that the Mirror photos are going to be proven fake - however, as soon as they were published, /immediately/ an official apology was issued.

Ok, but to some degree, that is a matter of perception.

Which would you rather have, an administration that simply throws out an apology, or one that actually takes action toward the incident?

Because to me, it seems rather shallow to throw an apology out there, if you don't even believe the evidence.

If the photos are completely false, what in hades is MoD apologizing for?

If they are true, is an investigation even going to be undertaken?

Why don't they simply throw out a general "I apologize for whatever any British citizen may ever do.."

See my point?

The standard in the US is that one is innocent until proven guilty. This standard should apply equally, from the richest Michael Jackson, to the lowiest mass murderer.

The fact is, that the military is right in the middle of its investigation, and politics shouldn't taint this fact.