Abu Ghraib. Lesson not learnt?

Remove all ads!

The press are battling for the attention of the public, the underlings are being tried and sentenced, the middlemen get away with just a reprimand and the guys up there "take the responsibility" which is, miraculously, totally eradicated following the moment of taking.

Court Martial has sentenced Jeremy Sivits to a year in prison, degradation to private (from corporal) and discharge from the Army.

His Captain has been reprimanded.

The military intelligence officers everyone speaks about? No one knows.

Generals take a walk to the Senate.

Rummy says he takes the responsibility, but he apparently thinks the responsibility gets nulified when he takes it.

Scrub plays idiot. He isn't satisfied with the way he learnt about things. Wonder if he isn't satisfied with the Red Cross *****ing since autumn too.

The everyday will soon commence again and the US with the US Army will still be the best. To quote gen. Ricardo Sanchez:

Yes, "the best in the world". "We are the best in the world" starts to be the most normal thing to say in the US.

The value system is really solid if such things as Abu Ghraib happen

The problem is, world supremacy may be as strong as the value system is.

Gen. Sanchez further says:

I guess Abu Ghraib is not a catastrophic failure and it doesn't compromise anyone's honour. Well, maybe except a bunch of people at the receiving end of the chain of command.

The government denies access to witnesses (detainees) and the trials go on. Officials say it will go up the chain of command, but I won't believe until I've seen.

Not like I defend those down there in the chain. Stripping and hooding people, beating them and forcing to masturbate is apparently just fun. And a way of releasing the tention. Well, it's surely less funny when you have to face court martial than when you take photos of yourself pointing at someone's naked genitals and laughing.

( http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.abuse/index.html )

Some. What about the rest?

What about disrobing? What about forcing people to take a "stressful position" for just a single moment? What about taking photos?

Of course there's no paper for that. If there had been any paper, the press would have known much earlier. And we don't need the press *****ing, right?

Army inspectors say there's no pattern of abuse. However, at the same time they are investigating deaths caused by CIA interrogations:

Wonder if we are ever going to hear what interrogation methods CIA used that caused death of interrogated people?

We could learn something from the detainees, obviously, but they're getting released en masse now. Yeah, they'll run away from the CIA & Military Police and as far away as possible. They won't come and testify.

Obviously.

Let's make it even more clear I'm not at all trying to defend the little guys:

People up there defend themselves and blame people down there. The press blames the up and sort of defends the down. Wrong! Both up and down are guilty. Laughing and showing thumbs up over a dead body of a detainee once and for all destroys the myth of poor people down there just doing things the nasty intelligence officers told them to do: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/20/iraq.abuse/index.html

Rummie isn't the only one Secretary that talks:

It was last autumn. Over half a year ago. And it ended in meetings and discussion.

The Congress speaks too:

Well, this says something. So, according to congressional critics, it's all right to use the same methods on Guantanamo? On detainees of whom none has been presented with any charges? It's not on American soil, so everything's all right, apparently. Even if some of those people are quite random.

The great discussion revolves around Geneva conventions: if they apply to al Quaeda detainees (of whom only some are definitely al Quaeda, and some are probably random people) or not, depending on their status.

What about human rights? In my judgement, every human entity has a right not to be beaten or sexually abused.

As I stated in the topic, this makes me worry that the only concern is to have the press shut up and have the international community focus on something else and move on. A couple of soldiers will be prosecuted, several officers will be reprimanded and that will be the end of it. CIA will make their interrogations a little bit secret. Guantamo will welcome another day and so will prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The US Army is moving much more swiftly, seriously, and decisively than that other world institution that claims to be "the best in the world" - the Catholic Church. Recall the nightmare of the sexual abuse scandal. How long did it take for the cases to trickle out, for the accusations to be counted, and for the compensation monies to be paid? It was only last February that the National Review Board finished its report, and not until next month that the bishops actually decide what to do with the report. Rumor has it that at the bishops' meeting, the report will be discreetly applauded and politely shelved - interesting, given that one of the report's major complaints is that the hierarchy of responsibility between bishop and priest (in America) has completely broken down.

My point is not to bash the Catholic Church - far from it. But the American sexual abuse scandal - despite media perceptions of widespread abuse - was largely caused by only 149 priests over a period of five years (1975-1980) [representing 25% of the total accusations]. No serious observer doubts the strength of Catholicism's underlying value system, or the commitment and integrity of the vast majority of its priests. But neither do serious observers expect that every single Catholic, priest or laity, will faultlessly observe the church's laws. All we can expect is that violations will be met with apologies and accountability.

That's precisely what's happening with the US Army and Abu Grahib. I'd say that the lesson has indeed been learned.

 

This is a good point, and it seems that this is what the Bushies are hoping for. But the American people have sent Shrub a strong rebuke - a 42% approval rating, which is one of the lowest for a modern President at this point in his term. The rebuke has been harsh in the media as well. Most Americans are in agreement with the points you raise. The apologists seem fairly small in number, but they are very vocal and trying to muster as much damage control as can be had given the magnitude of this scandal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5016950/

Congressmen and senators who have seen the other unreleased photos, which are being kept from the public, are asking: "How the hell can this happen?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5022416/

[ May 21, 2004, 19:28: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Don't get me wrong, the US is the house of a great nation, with a sense of justice as well. I strongly believe that they don't like what they see and I understand how they feel when they hear in the media that it's their democratically chosen administration which is ultimately responsible for the atrocities. To say that they feel cheated would probably be a strong understatement.

However, few people up there share these feelings. Dropping as it is, they still have support of a significant part of the voters.

Not like CIA hadn't been doing the same for decades already. Or like no one up there would know about that. I just guess this one accident will be the one that opens people's eyes, and mouth, for good.

The current administration, however, seems to go on, genuinely regret the accident... ...seeing daylight.

I understand that sometimes it may be better to keep such things in secret while setting them straight, in order not to scandalise the public. However, pretending that nothing happens and telling everyone involved to keep his mouth shut is not the good way. Keeping things in secret is good if you act swiftly and make sure they won't happen again. And that the people responsible don't get any opportunity to repeat their mistakes.

It's quite analagous to the way the Catholic Church in America dealt with child abuse cases. At some point reputation became more important than finding a permanent way to solve the problem - and see the consequences. Yes, having state investigators arrest your priests and interrogate them isn't perhaps the best idea, but cooperation between state and church investigators is nothing unachievable. Now, as a result, I doubt any parent feels comfortable entrusting his or her child to a Catholic priest. Every single one of them is regarded with suspicion and a great number is facing accusations from people who think up stories out of greed or lust for sensation.

In the same way as proven culprits were delegated to another parish, and still to work with children!, and spared any punishment apart from losing all hopes for significant career advance, some bishops now act on accusations from dubious people. Priests have been punished without proper Canon ordeal, or without any proof other than testimony of a psychically ill supposed victim and so on. Proving yourself innocent or managing to have them admit you haven't been proven guilty, won't really restore your good name or repair the damage to your hopes for career advance. Sometimes even the supposed victim and only witness (basically, the only evidence) retracting testimony didn't result in punishment acts being annulled retroactively or declared void as justice dictates they should be. What reason? Yeah, the reputation of the Church. Some people, even up there, seem not to get the idea.

Hope this doesn't happen to the US Army.

While I don't doubt the principles and goodwill of American people, the problem I have with Sanchez' quote is a big one:

It clearly says that makes the US armed forces the best in the world is their value system and honour.

The best means that everyone else is worse. If moral values and honour are the criteria, it suggests that all other armed forces in the world have less honour and poorer moral values than the US armed forces.

An indirect implication is that "you're all lacking compared to us anyway, no matter Abu Ghraib or anything". Perhaps he didn't mean it, but it sounds like he did.

He has the right to such an opinion, but only as a private citizen. It is a completely different thing if he speaks like that in his official capacity. Especially in the given situation.

Here, I don't fully know what he meant by America's armed forces. I only know that the soldiers who abused detainees have compromised their honour, that officers who looked the other way have compromised their honour, that CIA investigators have compromised their honour and that everyone up the chain of command who was involved, even by non-action, has compromised his honour. Including the people who ignored Red Cross complaints. While they don't stand for the whole of the US armed forces, they are a part of them. The whole of the US armed forces haven't compromised their honour, but a part of them has. This is not the first group in the US armed forces to have compromised their honour and there is no rational reason to assume it's the last one. For this reason, I believe it was not proper for the general to say what he said in the given situation.

It may sound harsh, especially for the people who actually do a great job in the US army, but some people up there, especially those in the highest command, need to realise that the US army isn't the best of the world just because it's the US army.

A stance of superiority is dangerous. Even in real heroes. Especially if you have no proof and are isolated in your opinion. Especially with such criteria as moral backbone being the case. I can recall many armies who have long traditions of strong moral standing and great military valour as well as field value. Having the biggest collection of nukes around doesn't make an army better than all other armies in the field of valour, or training, or anything.

"One of the best" would just be an understandable expression of national pride. And actually something I could agree with, as the US armed forces actually are one of the best in the world, anyway.

 

Er, no it hasn't. It would be incredibly naive to assume that this is the first time this sort of thing has happened with the US military, in particular with MI. It would be more accurate to say this is the first time the military got caught with its pants down (no pun intended). You can bet your bottom dollar, however, that the US Miltary has learned to confiscate those cameras.

 

Well, not the first time, sure. There was Ollie North, there was helping Saddam's revolution, there was helping the Mullahs get rid of the Shah. Heck, even Osama himself was trained and subsidised by the CIA. The most abuse-heavy one was the United Fruit Company case, though.

My point, however, is not to enumerate those cases, but to stress that making claims to be the best one army in the light of moral criteria is not the most fortunate thing to say. In fact, it's an example of exceptionalism being impervious to reality.

 

I defy anyone here to name one - just ONE - army in the history of the world which can match the US military's combination of honor and power. The Greeks were hardly saints; crusaders slaughtered innocents in Jerusalem; jihadic armies were less than polite; even the ancient Israelite holy army was rebuked for inappropriate looting, treatymaking, and targeting innocent neighbors (Judges 18).

Compare that to an all-volunteer US force which combines the power to destroy the world a dozen times over with hugely expensive precision weaponry specifically designed to minimize death and destruction. The US ain't perfect, not by a long shot. But "less than perfect" is still compatible wtih "the best".

A recognition of the US military's historic power and honor is not chauvinism. It's simple reality. So, too, is a recognition of the US military's grevious failing in this instance. But acknowledging the blight on the one hand does not require a slight on the other.

 

I agree with The Magistrate. I support eveything he has said...and that comes after having applied a critical assessment to the contrast he painted between the US Military and "my" own Catholic Church.

There have been errors in policy, and violations of poorly defined policy by "individuals" in a position to do so, but if any of you truly believe that those violations were endorsed by persons at high levels...damn, let me have some of what your on, cuz I've just had a HELL of a week.

Big Picture, people.

 

Also there is Vietnam. How many villages did the US army destroy? How many innocents did they murder? That was a really "honourable" war.

 

I will just add some more incidents to Beren's list.

1. No Gun Ri Massacre, Korea 1950: At least 300 civilians were executed by american soldiers.

2. My Lai Massacre, Vietnam 1968: 500 civilians were murdered by american soldiers.

3. Confederate POW camp in Andersonville, Georgia American Civil War: 13000 POWs died from summer heat, disease, and inadequate food and medical supplies.

4.Dachau Massacre, 1945: 520 German POWs were executed by the Americans who liberated the death camp. They were members of the Waffen SS "Wiking" Division and of varius Gebrigs Divisions, they arrived in the camp few days earlier, so don't tell me that they were derseving it. The regular garrison of the Dachau, almost 1500 men of the Allgemeine and Totenkopf SS, has left the camp few days earlier.

 

Comparing atrocities is a moot point. Soldiers commit atrocities, always, in every conflict, in every army. If you are willing to release the dogs of war you must be willing to see your young soldiers commit the most vile of acts. As I see it everyone who supported the Iraq war supports the acts commited in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. It is outright stupidity to think that just this American army wouldnt follow in the footsteps of every other army in the history of the world. Support for war means to me supporting the transformation of decent young kids into horrible monsters and the sanction of the atrocities those once hopeful, proud and naive youngsters.

There are times when that is a price that might have to be paid, I cannot see that Saddam Hussein's reign of terror or the lies of George II's regime is worth transformning good wholesome young American kids into torturing, raping, murdering monsters. Not to mention their victims.

 

Here is a question.

Would you rather be humiliated or have your head cut off?

It amazes me that this is still an issue. At least the Iraqi POWs are still alive and now that order has been restored the prison is being conducted in a proper way.

As to the topic as posted. Has the lesson been learned? Judging by the fact that court martial proceedings have started and we have one conviction already I would say the lesson has been learned. Is their any doubt that reforms have been made and the torture/humiliations have stopped? I don't think so.

Out of curiosity is the rest of the world (especially our friends in the Arab media) as outraged about Mr. Berg's beheading as they appear to be about prisoner abuse?

Things that make you go hmm?

 

Punishing perpetrators after their crimes doesnt make the crime go away. What it does is just to further wreck the poor idiots who couldnt handle a situation one wouldnt wish upon anyone. Not to say that they shouldnt be punished but that their crimes would happen was inevitable as soon as the war started and as I see it it is the persons putting young men and woman in situations where things like this was bound to happen who is ultimately to blame. Not some moron blinded by propaganda and a sense of moral superiority.

The situation is the same with the people beheading Nick Berg. Things like that are common in a war. It is what war does to people. Atrocious? Yes. Horrible? Yes. Surprising? No.

And Snook, if anything the arabs is a bit more "honest" in their reactions to vile deeds commmitted by "their" side. You can not tell me that the Bush regime and the people pushing for the war really cares about the prisoners or the kids no painted up as monsters. They tried to hide it and ignore it for as long as possible and now it is all about damage control. Heck, many many just think it was a little bit of hazing, pranks if you like. Not to mention the very large number of people who just plainly thinks the iraqi bastards deserved it and much more and the ones who leaked to the press are bloody traitors.

This is not a few rotten eggs. This is how it is in a war. The court martials are just a show for the gallery, sacrifical lambs. If you were going to court martial every soldier who commits a vile deed in a war you would have to end up court martialing a sizable percentage of your troops. Much easier to keep your soldiers out of wars unless absolutely nescessary and then accept that vile deeds will be committed by your children, siblings, friends and parents.

 

I'm well aware that all countries' armies have atrocities to their name at some point. I just get annoyed when people claim their army is pure and virtuous, when it clearly isn't.

 

Well, you really believe that the worst punishments they should be able to recieve is one short, frigging year in prison for humiliating many, many, Iraqian POWs? And even if they get the full punishment, a year, then they will be well treated in prison for being "patriots" and will probably not have a single problem afterwards searching for a job ethier. Bullsh*t I tell ya, bullsh*t.

I doubt it have stopped, they are just not taking pictures anymore and are now covering it up much better.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me please to introduce...

United Fruits Company, aka Chiquita:

Note that it's not detailed information from some Latin-American source devoted to spotting and bringing to daylight the US armed forces or MI abuse against their people. It's just a piece of historical background for a company listing entry and an American one.

Another site says:

Now a brief summary of how a democratically chosen government was overthrown by an adventurous group of CIA agents, United Fruit underlings and US military:

More on CIA in Guatemala: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/guatemala.html

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/guatrvw.html

National Security Archive (George Washington University) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/guatemala.html

http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/102196/cia102196.html says:

There's also a summary of General Colin Powell's career (Chief of Staff 1989-1993, ie the head of the army): http://www.worldworks.org/politics/cpowell.htm

Extensive quote below, from the international investigation of Panama invasion as well as independent investigations held by such people as Ramsey Clark (former Attorney General):

So, what do we have? Unlawful aggression (right, Noriega was a drug dealer but the replacement people were drug dealers too, only more America-friendly ones). Starting a whole war to keep war expenses in the budget intact. Forging reports. False information on civilian victims (ie 10 times less than in reality). Burning corpses of civilian victims to destroy proof. Removing hospital and morgue records and locking them in US military bases. Burrying victims in mass graves quickly so they couldn't be identified. Testing "toys" of military technology on civilians.

Here goes Gulf War I:

Bombing enemy in retreat, dropping uranium all over the desert, burning oil refineries etc etc. As always, strict censorship.

More on the Highway of Death:

Source: http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm WARNING: it might not something you want to read or look at on a beatiful Saturday afternoon.

Here's what Ramsey Clark (former US Attorney General, now international law specialist and human rights lawyer) said about Gulf War I:

And here's the 19 point indictment he made:

Link: http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm#1 , there's a section devoted to each of the points there.

Gulf War II:

But those could have been construed as isolate cases that "are regrettable but happen in all wars". Well, what about Fallujah?

What do we see now, appart from indiscriminate mass killing in which mostly civilians fall? Right, shooting down ambulances.

No military activity. Just some pilot felt like dropping a bomb or five because, after all, this was a war.

There's also an account of US soldiers expelling Iraqi children from hospitals to make room for wounded soldiers. Kicking them out and leaving to die. Who cares? They're Iraqis...:

Nasiriyah:

Robert Higgs, who collected the above examples from Gulf War II, concludes:

You can check out American Free Press for more information on Fallujah:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__war_crimes.html

Not only indiscriminate extermination of all potential opposition, but look what an honourable deed we have here: preventing injured people from being treated.

As for very precise weapons designed to target and hurt soldiers only and not civilians:

Hear Arabs say:

Of 508 Iraqis, 298 women and children. Of those, 58 younger than five year old. Non-combatants would be an especially accurate expression here.

Sometimes, war goes beyond death, though:

Media Monitors have something to say about destroying drinking water supplies and sanitation facilities: http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html :

Amnesty International demands war crimes investigation and trials if necessary: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1104163.htm

Leaving Gulf Wars for a moment, let's consider other recent conflicts:

Kosovo: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/index.html , straight from Amnesty International, more: http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=17808 , http://www.counterpunch.org/dead.html

Afghanistan:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/pows-d13.shtml

Now I'm going to point out an example of US administration's double standards. One of the official reasons for the invasion of Iraq (Gulf War II) was Saddam not allowing international inspectors entry. However, US army denies International Red Cross entry and what? Nothing happens.

Suffocating prisoners in metal containers in summer heat:

We're America. We don't need to negotiate. Kill them or have them at our feet. Geneva 3 doesn't matter.

Here's an interesting part about "illegal combatants":

Another excuse is private contractors. Yes, taking private contractors on war together with the army to do the wet job and relieve the military and the administration of the problem. After all, they can always be disowned and who will believe them if they call upon the orders they were given? It's the word of a mercenary against the word of a state's top ranking officials. Quite an easy, convenient solution.

 

Just something to think about.

The vast majority of the Arabic gulags all work the same way. They tie people up and beat them on the soles of their feet. They'll electrocute them. Pull out fingernails. Make them swallow lye or acid. Club and beat them. Chop off hands and fingers. Women are raped.

People are killed.

That's been going on for centuries. Business as usual. Nothing's changed in that regard since the time of The Prophet. It's brutal by American and European standards (I'm not going to talk about Russia). We can't even sic the dogs on our prisoners. If they don't have TV and 3 square meals a day and a weight pile to excercise on, the treehuggers are talking about "inhumane" conditions. In fact, the Indian prisons (on American Indian Reservations) are a brand new focus of outrage in America.

But by Arabic standards, that's fair game. It's just a natural part of life. It's been a part of life for so long, people just accept it and try to focus

Now, amazingly enough, what the Amerikaners were doing in Abu Ghairb was NOT fair game.

You can kill and torture. But you cannot sexually humiliate. You cannot place a woman in a position of power over a man. Women to NOT snicker and give a thumbs up to a boy's dink. Not even Saddam did that. Iran doesn't do that. Saudi Arabia doesn't do that in their gulags. The Taliban didn't do that. Syria doesn't do that.

The Amerikans could have been just performing summary executions, and that would serve as absolutely no deterrance. That would have been an acceptable part of Jihad. That is an acceptable part of Jihad. But it is the stuff that the Amerikans were doing that makes them think twice. This kind of stuff really does get down to them on a cultural level.

Kudos to the PsyOps team. They definately earned their pay on this run. I used to think of PsyOps as just a support function; never as an actual solution in itself.

 

The catalog of US Army atrocities against American Indians, Confederate rebels, and German Nazis is indeed a bloody blot on US honor. I suppose if we were so inclined, we could tally Poland's ducal abuses, classical Athens' murderous extortion of its neighbors, and Sweden's imperial exploitation.

That the US military is something short of perfection, in service of imperfect political policies designed by imperfect politicians, is old news. The US military, like the rest of the world, is staffed by fallen human beings, and the age-old question remains: Who will guard the guardians? The stronger the guardian, the greater the temptation for murderous mischief.

But I repeat my original challenge:

To which I will boldly add one more proviso. Identify one army in the history of the world which can match the US military's combination of honor, power, and accountability.

 

So much as I respect your patriotic zeal and rising to defend your country's army, I am not going to go there and play the game.

That is because I am not going to make a competition, a beauty contest, out of an important subject.

Suffice to say, examples have been provided to rebuke the claim of the US army's officials to be "the best" one around.

It is very easy to find armies with less war crimes under their belt. It's also easy to find better trained armies. In fact, recent conflicts have shown that the US army is very poorly trained and technical toys don't compensate. Incidents such as Abu Ghraib and flat out war crimes since after WWII show what kind of man is accepted for service in the US army. Apart from honourable and brave people who go there to defend their homeland, there are also adventurers who are in for the thrill, there are bullies who desire power and control, there are sexual perverts with sadomasochist inclinations, there are morally invertebrate men who will follow any order or will come up with a plethora of ideas how to kill boredom by having some quality time with the prisoners. Also, there are people who are either constipated or not willing to use their brains when dealing with a targetting device. They will shoot first and ask questions later. That is neither professional nor honourable.

The US army is the one with the most nukes and other toys around, but it doesn't make it the best army.

It is highly improper in my eyes to boast an army's moral backbone with so many so atrocious war crimes having been committed so recently.

Open the archives, make them public. Judge the criminals, have them pay. Update your procedures for candidate selection. Add some sensitivity training and ethical education in your military training curriculum. Then you can boast your army's moral strength. Hiding and destroying evidence and then saying "we're still the best no matter what" is not really what I would call proper here in this case.