1
   

Why now? It's a campaign year.

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:08 am
That's where I am too Jim. It is difficult not to be outraged at the photos being circulated, but the media feeding frenzy is amazing. Every newscast, every panel, every talking head has talked of almost nothing else now for days. Those murdered contractors made the news for a day or two. A busload of school children blown up gets a mention on the nightly news. The 300,000 people Saddam murdered, usually in horrible ways, seems to be forgotten. The anger isn't even aimed at the soldiers who did the deeds at Abu Ghraib.

The anger seems so very disproportionately misdirected.
0 Replies
 
infowarrior
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:25 am
On Sunday, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a TV interview on the CBS network, ''It's still in question whether ... Rumsfeld and, quite frankly, General Myers can command the respect and the trust and the confidence of the military,'' given their handling of the prison abuse scandal.

He was followed on the television programme by another more conservative Republican senator who also served in the military, Lindsey Graham. He echoed Democratic arguments, saying he believed the scandal indicated a ''systemic failure'' and that ''we just don't want a bunch of privates and sergeants to be the scapegoats here.''
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:30 am
Washington Post article - Page one thereof:

You need to register, for free, for the rest of the article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15981-2004May10.html?referrer=email


Secret World of U.S. Interrogation
Long History of Tactics in Overseas Prisons Is Coming to Light
By Dana Priest and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 11, 2004; Page A01


Last of three articles

In Afghanistan, the CIA's secret U.S. interrogation center in Kabul is known as "The Pit," named for its despairing conditions. In Iraq, the most important prisoners are kept in a huge hangar near the runway at Baghdad International Airport, say U.S. government officials, counterterrorism experts and others. In Qatar, U.S. forces have been ferrying some Iraqi prisoners to a remote jail on the gigantic U.S. air base in the desert.



The Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where a unit of U.S. soldiers abused prisoners, is just the largest and suddenly most notorious in a worldwide constellation of detention centers -- many of them secret and all off-limits to public scrutiny -- that the U.S. military and CIA have operated in the name of counterterrorism or counterinsurgency operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

These prisons and jails are sometimes as small as shipping containers and as large as the sprawling Guantanamo Bay complex in Cuba. They are part of an elaborate CIA and military infrastructure whose purpose is to hold suspected terrorists or insurgents for interrogation and safekeeping while avoiding U.S. or international court systems, where proceedings and evidence against the accused would be aired in public. Some are even held by foreign governments at the informal request of the United States.

"The number of people who have been detained in the Arab world for the sake of America is much more than in Guantanamo Bay. Really, thousands," said Najeeb Nuaimi, a former justice minister of Qatar who is representing the families of dozens of prisoners.

The largely hidden array includes three systems that only rarely overlap: the Pentagon-run network of prisons, jails and holding facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and elsewhere; small and secret CIA-run facilities where top al Qaeda and other figures are kept; and interrogation rooms of foreign intelligence services -- some with documented records of torture -- to which the U.S. government delivers or "renders" mid- or low-level terrorism suspects for questioning.

All told, more than 9,000 people are held by U.S. authorities overseas, according to Pentagon figures and estimates by intelligence experts, the vast majority under military control. The detainees have no conventional legal rights: no access to a lawyer; no chance for an impartial hearing; and, at least in the case of prisoners held in cellblock 1A at Abu Ghraib, no apparent guarantee of humane treatment accorded prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions or civilians in U.S. jails.

Although some of those held by the military in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo have had visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross, some of the CIA's detainees have, in effect, disappeared, according to interviews with former and current national security officials and to the Army's report of abuses at Abu Ghraib.

The CIA's "ghost detainees," as they were called by members of the 800th MP Brigade, were routinely held by the soldier-guards at Abu Ghraib "without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention," the report says. These phantom captives were "moved around within the facility to hide them" from Red Cross teams, a tactic that was "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law."

CIA employees are under investigation by the Justice Department and the CIA inspector general's office in connection with the death of three captives in the past six months, two who died while under interrogation in Iraq, and a third who was being questioned by a CIA contract interrogator in Afghanistan. A CIA spokesman said the hiding of detainees was inappropriate. He declined to comment further.

None of the arrangements that permit U.S. personnel to kidnap, transport, interrogate and hold foreigners are ad hoc or unauthorized, including the so-called renditions. "People tend to regard it as an extra-judicial kidnapping; it's not," former CIA officer Peter Probst said. "There is a long history of this. It has been done for decades. It's absolutely legal."

In fact, every aspect of this new universe -- including maintenance of covert airlines to fly prisoners from place to place, interrogation rules and the legal justification for holding foreigners without due process afforded most U.S. citizens -- has been developed by military or CIA lawyers, vetted by Justice Department's office of legal counsel and, depending on the particular issue, approved by White House general counsel's office or the president himself.

In some cases, such as determining whether a U.S. citizen should be designated an enemy combatant who can be held without charges, the president makes the final decision, said Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to the president, in a Feb. 24 speech to the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security.

Critics of this kind of detention and treatment, Gonzales said, "assumed that there was little or no analysis -- legal or otherwise -- behind the decision to detain a particular person as enemy combatant."
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:30 am
Jim wrote:
I'd feel better about this discussion if there was 10% of the concern for the rights of the five murdered Americans who were dragged through the streets of Fallujah and Yanbu as there has been for the humiliation of the Iraqi prisoners.

Aw Hell, I'll even go as low as 1%.


I've been pondering this question since the atrocities were made public. It did get me thinking that what the Iraqis (or insert name of enemy soldiers here) do to their prisoners is no less brutal. However, American soldiers are supposedly held to a higher standard of behaviour. I think that is a pile of crap in the reality of war. Should the transgressors be punished? Sure. Should American soldiers be expected to behave like anything but brainwashed soldiers? No, I don't think so. Every army has it's renegades. It really doesn't matter what side you are on.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:36 am
The one good thing that may come from all this is a review of the system to be sure that prisoners are treated humanely. I am in favor of that, but I personally don't care if those who target innocents and are committed to kill anybody and everybody who doesn't conform to their beliefs are comfortable or not.

But okay, for sake of argument, you're in charge of some of Saddam's toughest soldiers who have information you need to bring the war to a speedy end and restore peace and progress toward a free and democratic Iraq? These men refuse to cooperate in any way and are prepared to undergo extreme pain and death as necessary to earn their virgins in heaven.

The one thing that most terrifies them most if to be is being humiliated before other Iraqis.

How would you interrogate them?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:37 am
More Washington Post: Page one of article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15492-2004May10.html?referrer=email

Mistreatment Of Detainees Went Beyond Guards' Abuse
Ex-Prisoners, Red Cross Cite Flawed Arrests, Denial of Rights
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 11, 2004; Page A01


BAGHDAD, May 10 -- Problems in the U.S.-run detention system in Iraq extended beyond physical mistreatment in prison cellblocks, involving thousands of arrests without evidence of wrongdoing and abuse of suspects starting from the moment of detention, according to former prisoners, Iraqi lawyers, human rights advocates and the International Committee for the Red Cross.



U.S.-led forces routinely rounded up Iraqis and then denied or restricted their rights under the Geneva Conventions during months of confinement, including rights to legal representation and family visits, the sources said.

In a report in February, the Red Cross stated that some military intelligence officers estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of "the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake." Of the 43,000 Iraqis who have been imprisoned at some point during the occupation, only about 600 have been referred to Iraqi authorities for prosecution, according to U.S. officials.

The Red Cross study, posted Monday on the Wall Street Journal's Web site, concludes that the arrest and detention practices employed by U.S.-led forces in Iraq "are prohibited under International Humanitarian Law."

Now, facing international outcry over photographs of prisoner abuse less than two months before the planned handover of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government on June 30, U.S. officials plan to dramatically reduce the number of Iraqis in military custody, from more than 8,000 to fewer than 2,000, according to people with knowledge of the issue. The release will send legions of prisoners, many of them angry and hardened by their incarceration, home to Sunni Muslim-dominated parts of north-central Iraq where resistance to the U.S. occupation has been fiercest.

American detention tactics have turned Iraqis such as Satae Qusay, a kebab chef, against an occupation they once supported. Qusay said he was arrested in June while visiting the house of his brother, a former low-ranking Baath Party official, and did not see an attorney during his subsequent three-month detention in a fog-bound prison camp in the southern city of Umm Qasr. There, he said, he was forced to endure a shower of soldiers' tobacco juice, eat food off a dirty floor and urinate on himself when he was prohibited from using bathrooms.

"They freed us from an oppressor," said Qusay, 40. "But now I think they came to laugh at us."

Prisoners and relatives of detainees interviewed for this article produced prison release papers, Red Cross visitation documents or identification bracelets as evidence of incarceration over the past year. The descriptions of abuse during arrest or imprisonment could not be independently verified.

The focus on abuse inside the Abu Ghraib prison and other U.S.-run detention facilities has obscured broader problems that began well before Iraqis arrived at the facilities, according to lawyers and rights advocates.

Excessive Force

The 24-page Red Cross report describes a pattern of excessive force used by U.S. soldiers during raids at homes or businesses, frequently occurring after midnight. The Red Cross wrote that "ill-treatment during capture was frequent" and that it often included "pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles."

Such tactics, which "seemed to reflect a usual modus operandi," the Red Cross report says, "appeared to go beyond the reasonable, legitimate and proportional use of force required to apprehend suspects or restrain persons resisting arrest or capture."

Most of the time, according to an assertion contained in the report and corroborated by former prisoners, U.S. soldiers arrested all the men found in a suspect's house. Most of those detained, judging by a sample of prisoners and their descriptions of fellow inmates, have been young to middle-aged men from Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle, the area north and west of the capital that is the heart of the anti-occupation resistance.

Ahmed Moeff Khatab, a 32-year-old plumber, said he was getting a shave in his local barbershop in Baghdad's Adhamiya neighborhood on Nov. 11 when a group of soldiers in U.S. military uniforms entered carrying AK-47s. Red-and-white scarves covered their faces, he said.

"They pulled me from the shop and put me in a Nissan pickup," said Khatab, who said the men spoke English and accused him of being a member of former president Saddam Hussein's paramilitary forces. "They threw me face down, then blindfolded me and handcuffed me."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:41 am
Here, i'll make this prominent so the conservatives among us can understand it, and in the hope that it will finally sink in:


WE WENT INTO IRAQ ON AT LEAST A PRETEXT OF BRINGING THE BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY TO THEM. THAT MEANS WE CANNOT STOOP TO THE SAME LEVEL AS HUSSEIN'S BULLIES. THAT MEANS THEY ARE TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. THAT MEANS THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHT OF HABEUS CORPUS AS DO AMERICANS IN THE UNITED STATES. THAT MEANS THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL. THAT MEANS THAT THEY SHOULD BE AS PROTECTED FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AS ARE WE UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION.

Anything less makes a mockery of what we claim we esteem in the political arena. Anything less gives the lie to the current favorite conservative excuse for this nasty little war.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:41 am
Refer to my previous post. How would you interrogate them?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:42 am
Foxfyre wrote:
The one good thing that may come from all this is a review of the system to be sure that prisoners are treated humanely. I am in favor of that, but I personally don't care if those who target innocents and are committed to kill anybody and everybody who doesn't conform to their beliefs are comfortable or not.

But okay, for sake of argument, you're in charge of some of Saddam's toughest soldiers who have information you need to bring the war to a speedy end and restore peace and progress toward a free and democratic Iraq? These men refuse to cooperate in any way and are prepared to undergo extreme pain and death as necessary to earn their virgins in heaven.

The one thing that most terrifies them most if to be is being humiliated before other Iraqis.

How would you interrogate them?


To be honest, IF I were an American soldier under specific orders, I would probably do whatever is necessary to get the information. That is why I am no soldier.
0 Replies
 
infowarrior
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:44 am
Instead of useless speculation about dances with virgins, how about begin with jailing the correct people?

According to the Red Cross, 70% to 90% of the men being held at Abu Ghraib were wrongly arrested and aren't soldiers, Saddam loyalists, Baath party members, or any threat at all to the US troops whatsoever.

One man was a fare-paying passenger in a stolen taxi -- he was arrested, jailed and subsequently tortured.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:44 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Refer to my previous post. How would you interrogate them?


With legal methods.

You remember perhaps your time in the forces: one of the first things we little consripts learnt, not to say more than our name, unit and ID-number (actually, literate people could guess this from the ID-plate as well).
And after that, we were taught about the other basics of the Geneva Conventions.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:46 am
Thank you Cav. At last, a reasoned answer. But I doubt you would do ANYTHING. I would hope very few of our soldiers would do ANYTHING.

But if humiliation is the only way to interrogate, it may be that those guards are less 'guilty of war crimes' than all the sound and fury may suggest.

I still say back off now and let the system work. If the administration does not see to it that questions are answered to the satisfaction of at least the reasonable segment of American society, then I'll join the chorus to figuratively behead them all.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:50 am
And Infowarrior, in all due respect, the Red Cross does not do the investigations and does not conduct the trials. The Red Cross reports what the prisoners tell them.

Do you realize how few 'guilty' people there are in prison anywhere if the prisoners themselves are allowed to pass sentence?

While I have no doubt some 'innocents' have been rounded up along with the guilty, this is war time and we can't always operate with the same care that can be done in peace time.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:51 am
there seems to be an outcry of
'let the system work" as well as "it's too early to think about Rumsfeld's responsibility until we have all the facts" and yet we are rapidly pursuing Courts Martial for the grunts at the lowest level. Trials to start next week. I see a paradox.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:53 am
Hmmm - interesting tidbit from the "Secret World" article:

"Last year U.S. immigration authorities, with the approval of then-acting Attorney General Larry Thompson, authorized the expedited removal of Maher Arar to Syria, a country the U.S. government has long condemned as a chronic human rights abuser. Maher, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, was detained at JFK International Airport in New York as he was transferring to the final leg of his flight home to Canada.



U.S. authorities say Arar has links to al Qaeda. Not wanting to return him to Canada for fear he would not be adequately followed, immigration officials took him, in chains and shackles, to a New Jersey airfield, where he was "placed on a small private jet, and flown to Washington D.C.," according to a lawsuit filed recently against the U.S. government. He was flown to Jordan, interrogated and beaten by Jordanian authorities who then turned him over to Syria, according to the lawsuit.

Arar said that for the 10 months he was in prison, he was beaten, tortured and kept in a shallow grave. After much pressure from the Canadian government and human rights activists, he was freed and has returned to Canada. "
0 Replies
 
infowarrior
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:54 am
"Trials to start next week. I see a paradox." dyslexia

Agreed. I see a frantic propaganda effort by some on the far right to minimize and negate the actions of Bush's Secretary of State, as Bush's approval ratings continue to tumble.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:57 am
We're going to be hearing lots and lots of stories now about torture and beatings committed by U.S. soldiers. Do you think the terrorists don't know how effective this is in getting the American people to turn against their government?

The trials are going to be public. There will be opportunity to decide if they are conducted fairly and appropriately. How about letting the legal system work and not conduct the trial via media and partisanship?

Again I ask. You're in charge of interrogating prisoners who have information that will help prevent deaths of more U.S. and coalition soldiers, contractors, and Iraqi civilians. Fear of pain or death is useless but humiliation is effective. How do you do it?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 07:04 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Thank you Cav. At last, a reasoned answer. But I doubt you would do ANYTHING. I would hope very few of our soldiers would do ANYTHING.

But if humiliation is the only way to interrogate, it may be that those guards are less 'guilty of war crimes' than all the sound and fury may suggest.

I still say back off now and let the system work. If the administration does not see to it that questions are answered to the satisfaction of at least the reasonable segment of American society, then I'll join the chorus to figuratively behead them all.


Thanks for the kudos, but I don't entirely agree with your position here. My post was basically an attempt to put my mind into the mind of a soldier. That is simply not the career for me, but I understand their thinking. I have a respect for them, doing a tough job, taking more flak than say, the average armchair political analyst. There are atrocities on both sides here. Nobody is free of guilt. Whether or not the system will work in the long run is still questionable, IMO.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 07:20 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Refer to my previous post. How would you interrogate them?


Geeze, why don't you read and comprehend my post? They should be interrogated in exactly the same manner as would an American arrested in this country. They have the right to remain silent, they have the right to legal counsel while being questioned. Your boy the Shrub told us a year ago that the war is over--so where do you come up with this self-serving crap about holy warriors looking for a reward in heaven, and therefore justifying outrageous acts in order to " . . . bring the war to a speedy end and restore peace and progress toward a free and democratic Iraq?" The Shrub claims the war is over. So your thesis is not coherent according to the Neocon party line. Furthermore, you continue to ignore the principle of innocence being assumed until guilt is proven. Finally, how are such acts to be considered conducive to creating a "free and democratic Iraq?" Great legacy for the new Iraqi democrats.

This is my last response to this conservative hysteria. You people will say anything to defend the idiot on Pennsylvania Avenue. I am filled with a disgust that verges on physical illness. Don't call me, i definitely won't call you.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 07:27 am
Why we are there, whether we should be there, etc. etc. etc. has been and will continue to be discussed on other threads. I would like this to be a discussion of the mess at Abu Ghraib and U.S. detention of miliatry prisoners in general.

Okay Setanta puts the rights of the prisoners ahead of the need to know to protect U.S. forces, contractors, and Iraqi civilians.

But if anyone thinks the information would be useful and worth it to get it from people who have it, how would you interrogate them?

Here's something to think about from the Israeili perspective.

http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v4i3/israel43.htm

And from the U.S. military briefing on 5/4/04

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040504-1424.html

And other U.S. military assessment:

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=May&x=20040504182655FRllehctiM0.8567011&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 08:37:36