1
   

They Wanted Us to Feel as Though We Were Women

 
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:05 am
There is no doubt in my mind that the rogue soldiers who subjected the Iraqi prisoners to humiliation deserved to be court-martialed, and possibly imprisioned, if found guilty of the charges.

Getting beyond that, what I found fascinating, yet horrifying, were remarks made by one of the prisoners in an interview:


Quote:
"They made us stand in a way that I am ashamed to describe. They came to look at us as we stood there. They knew this would humiliate us," he said, adding that he was not sodomized.

"They were trying to humiliate us, break our pride. We are men. It's OK if they beat me. Beatings don't hurt us, it's just a blow. But no one would want their manhood to be shattered," he said.

"They wanted us to feel as though we were women, the way women feel and this is the worst insult, to feel like a woman," al-Shweiri said.


This man had been in that particular prison before, under Saddam, and had been tortured. He remarked:


Quote:
Al-Shweiri said that while jailed by Saddam's regime, he was electrocuted, beaten and hung from the ceiling with his hands tied behind his back.

"But that's better than the humiliation of being stripped naked," he said. "Shoot me here," he added, pointing between his eyes, "but don't do this to us"


What kind of a society is there where a man would prefer being shot, beaten or electrocuted rather than made "to feel like a woman"? What is that saying about the Iraqi's attitude towards 1/2 of their population? Whether you are a man or a woman, what reaction did you have towards that remark?


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040503/D82APR0G1.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,628 • Replies: 89
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:20 am
That was a surprise to you, Phoenix?

I am very sure such feelings are not confined to Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:26 am
Phoenix,

The US soldiers forced some Iraqis to kneel with their mouths open and forced other Iraqis to masturbate in their faces.

The US soldiers sodomized an Iraqi.

See: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

I think this type of thing is what the prisoner is trying to express displeasure with. He's expresing it in a weird way, and the translation is odd but IMO when he is saying he was made to feel like a woman he is referencing the forced homosexual acts. I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with the way women are viewed.

It's about being forced to open your mouth and have another man forced to masturbate in your face and other sexual degradation.

There's no culture in which this type of thing is acceptable.

I too, would rather be beaten than to be forced into such degradation.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:30 am
dlowan- Actually, it was NOT a surprise. I think that the point was brought home to me that Iraq is very different from western societies. Also, Iraq has been a secular society since Saddam, so one might anticipate that some of the more primitive cultural mores had been somewhat softened. Apparently, they had not.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:31 am
I suppose I'm primitive too. I'd not like to be forced to open my mouth to have another man masturbate in my face.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:34 am
Craven- There was no mention of the forced masturbation in the article that I had read, and I had not yet seen your link. All it said was that the prisoners had been made to stand naked, and spread eagled.

If the prisoner was forced to commit homosexual acts, I certainly can understand his humiliation.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:38 am
Another thing he could have been referencing is being forced to use female underwear.

That's another thing the US soldiers were doing. There was a systemic effort to use sexual degradation on them because of the religious oriented homophobia in Arab countries.

Frankly, I can't imagine anyone having to be Arab or even heterosexual to prefer straightforward pain and beatings to a concerted assault on dignity using forced homosexual acts.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:39 am
Well, it looks like there was a lot more to this than I had read.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:46 am
Here are some examples of the type of thing he's probably talking about.

Two hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners made to simulate oral sex.

Two American soldiers pose (smiling) behind a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners.

A pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners.

Hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners forced to sit on each other's heads.

A female American soldier points at a hooded and naked Iraqi prisoner (being forced to masturbate).

Two American soldiers pose behind a pyramid of hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners.

A pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:50 am
Well, certainly these sorts of acts are entirely out of line. The people involved could most probably be charged with war crimes.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:53 am
IMO, they are just the scapegoats and this is neither isolated nor was it unsanctioned.

The US administration is currently expressing outrage and all, but this is old news that was supressed at the Pentagon's request.

CBS was asked not to publish it and complied until it became clear that other outlets would break the story.

IMO, the ones punished will most likely only be those who had the misfortune of being caught on film.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 05:55 am
Quote:
IMO, they are just the scapegoats and this is neither isolated nor was it unsanctioned.


Is there any credible proof that the behavior of these troops towards prisoners WAS sanctioned?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 06:26 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:

Is there any credible proof that the behavior of these troops towards prisoners WAS sanctioned?


Nope, that's why it's still just my opinion. There are things that make me think so, and that are pretty damning, but no proof.

I think the general idea of using sexual humiliation was sanctioned if not the very specific acts themselves.

There was more than just soldiers having fun going on. The hoods and nudity were all part of what the soldiers were told to do, to "fear up" the Iraqis.

Almost everything they did seems to me to be methods to that end.

The hoods are a classic element in such interogations.

Using dogs to attack and threaten them seems to be a way to make them fearfull.

Keeping them naked for days and making them defacate on themselves (they were placed in cells with no toilets) is a way to make them uncomfortable.

Attaching wires to their genitals and threatening electrocution is a common, if crude, interrogation technique.

The prisoners were being prepared and held for interrogations. This much is already known. So the question is how much of this was sactioned by the interrogators as preparations for the interrogations.

Quote:
One of the men being court-marshaled for this is Chip Frederick and he wrote of the CIA operatives and civilian contractors condoning the acts:

In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

    I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell?-and the answer I got was, [b]"This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done."[/b] . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.


The military-intelligence officers have "encouraged and told us, ?'Great job,' they were now getting positive results and information," Frederick wrote. "CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI's request." At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. "His reply was ?'Don't worry about it.'"

In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called "O.G.A.," or other government agencies?-that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees?-was brought to his unit for questioning. "They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away." The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison's inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, "and therefore never had a number."


The killed prisoner who was dumped is photographed, so I can provide that evidence if necessary.

The coverup of this murder is something I think indicated more than just isolated involvement.

The Army's chief law-enforcement officer, Provost Marshal Donald Ryder said in a report way back on November 5th that these issues existed.

I'll again quote this article.

Quote:
Last fall, General Sanchez ordered Ryder to review the prison system in Iraq and recommend ways to improve it. Ryder's report, filed on November 5th, concluded that there were potential human-rights, training, and manpower issues, system-wide, that needed immediate attention.

There was evidence dating back to the Afghanistan war, the Ryder report said, that M.P.s had worked with intelligence operatives to "set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews"?-a euphemism for breaking the will of prisoners. "Such actions generally run counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility, attempting to maintain its population in a compliant and docile state."


That is from a man's report that some have considered more of a cover up than an exposé.

There are sworn statements from involved soldiers saying that some of these acts were part of their tasked duties that are in a internal report made by Major General Antonio M. Taguba.

Quote:
Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told C.I.D. investigators, "I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told that they had different rules." Taguba wrote, "Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: ?'Loosen this guy up for us.'?'Make sure he has a bad night.'?'Make sure he gets the treatment.'" Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. "The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, ?'Good job, they're breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They're giving out good information.'"

When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about the abuse, Sergeant Davis answered, "Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing"?-where the abuse took place?-"belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse."

Another witness, Specialist Jason Kennel, who was not accused of wrongdoing, said, "I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes." (It was his view, he added, that if M.I. wanted him to do this "they needed to give me paperwork.") Taguba also cited an interview with Adel L. Nakhla, a translator who was an employee of Titan, a civilian contractor. He told of one night when a "bunch of people from MI" watched as a group of handcuffed and shackled inmates were subjected to abuse by Graner and Frederick.

General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen "who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by ?'setting conditions' which were neither authorized" nor in accordance with Army regulations. "He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse," Taguba wrote. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had "received no formal communication" from the Army about the matter.)

"I suspect," Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib," and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.


Thing is, the recommended punishments I've seen so far do not involve a day of jail time. Just losing their jobs and such.

The saddest thing is that most of these prisoners were picked up in checkpoints and searches and even by the military's own report (Taguba's) 60% of the prisoners at this prison "have nothing to do with anything."

In other words, most of the prisoners processed in this prison were not threats to the coalition at all, they were not even just criminals caught in crimes and were innocent altogether.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 06:29 am
I am with Craven on this one - I am sure this was part of systematic "breaking" of these prisoners.

Even the military authorities have admitted that lesser forms of this sort of treatment is routine for breaking the will of captives - they were expressing shock that it went to "torture".

There has been comment that the guards in proximity were working under orders from higher up in their treatment.

I wonder where they decide the torture began?

Reports of similar behaviour by British guards (not yet confirmed by the British authorities) support the notion that such treatment may be pretty routine.

I disagree with Craven re the being made to feel like a woman. I think this is an aspect of humiliation for many men - especially when sexually abused - it will be interesting to see what other men here might say. I am certainly aware of many male rape and sexual abuse victims I have worked with (men and boys) saying exactly that - that part of the horror was feeling that their manhood was gone because this was not something they, as men, had ever expected to happen - I by no means feel this was the only aspect, but I believe it is likely to have been AN aspect.

I am unable to comment on whether this feeling might be more likely to happen in strongly Islamic countries.

Iraq is not, to my knowledge, especially misogynistic.

The translation aspect is interesting - since what the Iraqi man is recorded as having said is a little different to what I am used to hearing from men in similar (but less extreme circumstances)

It is going to be interesting to see what the prisoners in Guantanamo say - when and if they can say anything, since the "trials" appear to be planned to occur with major secrecy on what may be reported about treatment there.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 06:30 am
Ah - it was CIA I heard of as the "higher-ups."
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 06:41 am
dlowan wrote:
I disagree with Craven re the being made to feel like a woman.


I'm not sure what you disagree with, what you are saying is in line with what I think.

My position is that the assault on their dignity that came in the form of attacking their maculinity is being expressed in the most simple terms and an attack on their manhood is being expressed by that man as forcing them into the opposite of manhood (being made to feel like a woman).

I think they don't actually mean that being the opposite of a man is so degrading but that the specific indignities they suffered were an assault on their manhood and the man's word choice is a reflection of the binary linguistic nature of man/woman.

For example, I think any of them would prefer to actually be a woman for a day than to have those sexual acts forced on them, which to me would indicate that their qualm is with the sexual acts and not neccessarily with women.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 07:16 am
Ah - ok.......
0 Replies
 
MCNE
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 10:56 am
Now you know how your own right wing feels about you.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 11:00 am
As a founding member of said right wing may I take the strongest possible exception to the later addition to this sequence of non-posts, which Phoenix - if older than age of consent - should regret, as should other contributors except Craven.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 11:03 am
Phoenix - men are getting raped in our own federal prisons ever as you and I have the liberty of typing on to our computers.

Unless you're truly extremely young I find your original political correctness attitude too apalling for words - and on the off chance you're too dense to realize that I'm a woman, I am one.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » They Wanted Us to Feel as Though We Were Women
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2026 at 08:33:15