Stop publishing torture photos; we get the picture

C.I., I'll accept your estimate that 99% of young men will "follow orders" without question... Whether they approve or not. However, that doesn't mean 99% will follow the rules in absence of specific "orders". Over 5% of soldiers returning from Vietnam tested positive for heroin. Your logic would imply that this too had to be the result of superior's decisions. The fact is; soldiers are human beings, some good, and some bad. Everything they do cannot necessarily be attributed to their leaders.

Yes, dyslexia but I don't think our country had this "us" and "them" mentality so much then.

I don't think the photos are going to change any minds. But they do serve to illustrate just how far this administration is willing to go. It is sort of weird, when you see them on TV they are bad, but not half as bad as seeing them on the internet.

You all may not believe this, but if those kinds of photos were taken kosovo I would have turned on Clinton so fast my head would spin. There is no excuse good enough to justify torturing someone; even if that might save lives.

I find it very interesting that those who have the biggest problem with the tortures at Abu Ghraib jail, are pretty much the same people that thought we should have left Saddam in charge of it.

Bill, could you name one person who thought Saddam should still be in power? thats really a pretty silly statement.

Tarantuals, perhaps you should start reading somthing other than NEWSMAX.
Red Cross Faced Dilemma in Iraq, Prisons Worldwide
The abuse should come as no surprise

The use of drug during the Vietnam war is a whole different issue, and you should know that! FYI, over 5% of Vietnam vets upon their return to the states became unproductive citizens of our country. We must share some blame for this debacle; they were fighting a war that the American People did not support.

tarantulas : i still see a problem in the leadership, and i'm not just looking at the problems in iraq. a good leader will know the people he/she is working with. he/she will know their strengths and weaknesses, and give the proper support and education where and when required. a good leader will lead by example and will follow through to ensure that his /her orders will be carried out properly. looking at some of the pictures, it seems to me, that more than "just a few" of the guards were involved in the atrocities. surely, the pictures suggest that there were as many as a dozen guards involved, and in addition there were several bystanders. to make it worse, this wasn't just a matter of a prisoner being kicked or punched, these looked to me more like (sadistic) production numbers designed to inflict the maximum amount of humiliation on these human beings. .. where were the leaders ? were the like the proverbial three monkeys : see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil ? ... i also find it interesting that rather quickly about one-half of the prisoners have now suddenly been released. i have to wonder why they were imprisoned in the first place and why it took up to a year to determine that they could be released after all. ... just as an aside: "60 minutes" showed the story of the american helicopter-pilot who intervened in the my lai/vietnam massacre of innocent civilians. it took years before he was finally accepted back as an "honourable" member of the u.s. air force. for years he was considered a traitor. as he stated, when he appeared before a secret hearing in 1970, he was given to understand that, if anyone would go to jail, it would be him. here also, the command structure failed. the leaders knew what was going on, but were not willing to do anything about it. hbg. ... i just want to add that i feel, that the leader of the guards let her/his staff down badly. the leader is responsible for the welfare of the people under her/his leadership; they were not given guidance and not shown leadership, IMO.

Occum Bill

There are a lot of places in the world where there are leaders who are in a position to abuse their citizens and get away with it in the world.

Had Bush said at the beginning that we are going to go to Iraq because Saddam Hussien is still abusing his own people and keeping them under suppression and if we were not in the middle of another war already and if I trusted Bush in the first place, I would have supported the war for humanitarian reasons. Instead they went on and on about what a threat Saddam Hussien was to us and tried to connect it to 9/11 by mentioning the two together so much in their speeches and on talk shows and then when that didn't have quite as much support as they thought it would, they added on the part about the inhumanity of Saddam Hussien. Which is bizarre because not long ago those very same people were involved with saddam hussien. Was he not "evil" when rummie was shaking his hand?

Lastly and more importantly, we are supposed to be the good guys.

revel : "Was he not "evil" when rummie was shaking his hand?" . rumsfeld was interviewed about this sometime on TV (i saw the interview). he mumbled something about those being different times etc. etc. ... in other words it was convenient to be allied with saddam at that time. hbg

BBB
I guess its necessary to remind everyone that I was not excusing the Bush administration, the soldiers (and contractors) who committed the torture, nor anyone else. I was only asking the question is it necessary to keep showing new pictures to achieve justice for the abused, or have we and the world seen enough already to know what has to be done?

I was not trying to create a simplistic forum for debating who is bad and who is good among A2Kers. We are not each other's enemies.

If continuing to show new pictures is pursued just to get the Bush administration I think it would endanger the lives of our troops and other non-Moslems around the world. If continuing to show new pictures is necessary because the Bush administration and the Military are not taking appropriate action to stop the abuse and to bring to justice all those guilty all the way to the top of the chain of command, then I would favor continuing to publish new pictures. I would advocate this despite my concern that those in the anti-American movements would use them to further inflame their populations and place our troops in more danger.

Perhaps my question is idealistic and naive. But I think we need to be cautious in these perilous times and not make bad decisions in the heat of outrage passion.

BBB

Have you read the Thomas Burke quote in my signature line?

I'm not suggesting anyone here endorsed Saddam's rule. I'm suggesting if the anti-war crowd had had their way the conditions at Abu Ghraib would be worse, not better.

C.I.: I was demonstrating that soldiers are perfectly capable of breaking the law without being ordered to do so. I've known few war veterans that didn't have at least one example that would turn your stomach. These orders may have come from above… but then again, they may not have. Those who are already convinced that they did clearly have a predisposition for feeling that way. The parallel proves it.

Revel: Strangely, I feel like I adequately responded to this post with my opening post on this thread. If you are suggesting we should remove all "Saddams", I would agree, but I don't believe that's your point.

BBB: I thought you were quite clear, as well as right.

BBB
Oh dear, knowing that Occum Bill agrees with me makes me tremble in fear that I've lost my marbles and gone over to the enemy.

Shuddering BBB :wink:

This new may make BBB change her mind
This news may make me change my mind about not continuing to show additional photos of prisoner abuse. Is the fox going to guard the henhouse? ---BBB

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-miller9may09,1,7392146.story?coll=la-home-headlines

New Chief of Prisons Defends His Role in Iraq
Maj. Gen. Miller headed a team that suggested last summer that U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib take a more active role in interrogations.
By Patrick J. McDonnell
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 9, 2004

BAGHDAD ?- Even as he touted a host of reforms to help shield Iraqi prisoners from further cases of abuse, the Army's new detention chief in Iraq found himself on the defensive Saturday over his role in a proposal last year that guards take a more active role in the interrogation process at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who headed an expert team that visited the U.S.-run prison west of Baghdad last summer, vehemently denied that his team's suggestions might have contributed to mistreatment by overzealous military police officers there. An internal Army investigation of the abuse has challenged Miller's approach.

"I stand by those recommendations," Miller told journalists here. "Those recommendations were based on a system that provided humane detention, excellent interrogation, all within the bounds of the … Geneva Convention."

Miller, a two-star general who headed the U.S. lockup at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for 18 months before arriving in Iraq, has been lauded by Army brass as the man who can clean up Abu Ghraib, the site of the abuse documented in photographs seen across the globe.

The native Texan and former paratrooper arrived last month and is in charge of detention and interrogation policies throughout Iraq ?- one of the most sensitive military posts here, given the scandal that has shaken the Bush administration and damaged U.S. prestige.

U.S. officials say the entire detention process in Iraq is being revamped, with an emphasis on a quick release for prisoners not deemed threats or of intelligence value. The detention of tens of thousands of suspects in the last year has been a major irritant for Iraqis.

Abu Ghraib's overcrowding problem is also being eased, commanders said. Once home to about 8,000 prisoners, the population is now down to 3,800 ?- thanks in large part to an accelerated review process that has sprung thousands of prisoners not deemed dangerous.

U.S. authorities have also moved to improve training of detention officers, many of whom have no previous experience working in a jailhouse. A team of 31 military police officers who specialize in detention procedures are in the region and have begun to implement some basic training, Miller said. By June 30, when the U.S. is scheduled to hand over sovereignty to Iraqis, every detention officer should have received training certification, Miller said.

"We'll strive to make every trooper, soldier, leader who is involved in this as qualified as we possibly can," he said.

In another move, Miller has modified interrogation techniques, banning controversial practices such as placing hoods on prisoners and subjecting them to sleep deprivation and painful "stress positions." Visiting rights are being expanded and detainees are now getting two hot meals a day, instead of packaged meals ready to eat.

But Miller's role in last year's proposals continue to draw scrutiny. A scathing internal Army investigation of the abuse took issue with his philosophy of encouraging guards to assist in the interrogation process ?- a system that Miller had put in place at Guantanamo, where he says he oversaw 22,000 interrogations. The success of his specially trained "Tiger Teams" in grilling terrorist suspects won Miller praise from his superiors.

Consequently, Miller was dispatched to Iraq last August as the head of a 30-member team of experts to review detention and interrogation procedures at a time when U.S. commanders were eager to garner intelligence on an unexpectedly stubborn insurgency.

Miller promptly proposed a Guantanamo-style interrogation regimen for Iraq. He urged better use of the military police officers who, he noted Saturday, "observe detainees on almost a 24-hour-a-day basis" as part of their job.

"It is essential that the guard force be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees," Miller's team wrote in its assessment after visiting Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities in Iraq during a 10-day trip. It is unclear how many of the recommendations were implemented.

But on Nov. 19, the U.S. command in Iraq issued an order placing Abu Ghraib under the authority of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. The order was signed by Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top field commander in Iraq. It gave the Army intelligence wing, which controls interrogations, control over the military police, who oversee detention policy. The Army inquiry into Abu Ghraib found this change in command to be a mistake.

"This is not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agendas assigned to each of these respective specialties," concluded Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who wrote the internal Army investigation that painted a picture of Abu Ghraib as a facility virtually out of control.

The Taguba report found evidence that MPs were aggressively encouraged to set the stage for questioning of prisoners ?- a fact, Taguba wrote, that contributed to the abuse. At Abu Ghraib, "interrogators actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses," Taguba wrote.

Several military police officers assigned to the facility told investigators they were given orders such as: "Get these people to talk," "Loosen this guy up for us" and "Make sure he gets the treatment," according to Taguba's inquiry.

These directives, the Taguba report found, were emblematic of a system in which the tasks of MPs and interrogators became too closely entwined ?- even though no evidence was found that guards actually participated in the questioning.

"Military police should not be involved with setting 'favorable conditions' for subsequent interviews," Taguba wrote. "These actions … clearly run counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility."

Miller said Saturday that his team had recommended that guards become involved in "passive intelligence" collection. This means gathering potentially useful information about prisoners' everyday lives and passing it on to interrogators for use in questioning, Miller said.

The Taguba investigation, Miller said, "was done very well." But he said a "clarifying point" was called for.

The guards "understand what the detainees' life is," Miller said. "[Whom] they spoke with…. What their mental attitude [is]. That information should be collected and provided to the interrogation teams to better prepare … to understand the human dynamic, about what kind of mood, or what information they could bring to assist the interrogation of each detainee."

Despite the call of some in Congress and elsewhere for the razing of Abu Ghraib ?- a site of torture and abuse during the rule of Saddam Hussein ?- Miller said Saturday that there were no plans to abandon the compound.

"The Abu Ghraib facility is currently a very effective facility for us," Miller said. "Everything that goes on in Abu Ghraib today is in accordance with our procedures and policies."

The biggest change may in fact be the banning of cameras from detention centers.

Re: BBB

Don't fret; it's a non-partisan agreement. Heck, I've even been known to agree with the Hobit on occasion.

"I'm suggesting if the anti-war crowd had had their way the conditions at Abu Ghraib would be worse, not better." OCCOM BILL

By all accounts, the conditions at Abu Ghraib in post-Saddam Iraq at the hands of the US military is every bit as bad as during Saddam's rule.

Apparently, the right thinks when torture is carried out by the USA, it' acceptable. It's only when someone else does it that it's wrong.

Incorrect on all counts Infowarrior.
1. I'm not the right.
2. Torture is never acceptable.
3. Even torture comes in degrees, and I've heard of no post-Saddam era abuses that don't pale in comparison to pre-war Abu Ghraib.

Get a grip.

Dead is dead, no matter how you cut it. It seems some people have a one way mirror when they look at atrocities committed by the US.

Isn't that the truth c.i., it seems to be a case of do as we say not as we do type of deal for the US.

Re: Stop publishing torture photos; we get the picture

I don't think so, given the American government's stubborn habit never to admit more than is patently obvious from press coverage. Notice how the official reaction changed from "who knows if these pictures are for real" to "this stuff happens, but only in isolated cases" to "Oops! Humilating prisoners has been a deliberate strategy, and American forces in Iraq learned it from American forces on Guantanamo Bay." This is reason for me to believe that the U.S., and especially its government, doesn't get the picture until lots of photographs prove it.


On the other hand, US hatred might just be the appropriate reaction, given what your troops are doing in Iraq. And if escalating outrage forces your troops to withdraw from Iraq, maybe that would count as a "corrective measure" for me -- whether or not such a move is desirable.