Reply
Fri 4 Jun, 2004 11:33 pm
MPs -- SCAPEGOATS -- incident -- POLICY -- S2s
recently; the american army and the american media have decided to revise the words (and thereby the definitions) used in regard to news about the military policy for prisoners of war in iraq. the idea is to revise our understanding of the use of sexual abuse in POW camps. the pentagon and the press want us to understand that this situation of sexual abuse began at the bottom of the command chain, not at the top. it is impossible to be intelligent and also believe that this situation began as one incident at the bottom.
?? what is the difference between an incident and a policy ?? we all know. we should know. an incident is only once, a few incidents is not very different, even a great number of incidents is not a policy. in fact, any number of incidents is not a policy which was planned by those in charge. YES; a policy is planned from the top of a military command chain. whereas, any number of incidents is only incidental. incidents are only what has, somehow, happened at the bottom of a military command chain. !!!! this was not just incidents !!!!
the fact that the sexual abuse of iraqi prisoners was a policy of the american military (originating at the top of the command chain) instead of only incidents (happening at the bottom of the command chain) may be proven by the following SEVEN points :::::::
-1- ?? how may anyone ever believe that all the sexual abuse to the POWs in iraq was only incidents ?? it was not possible for the lower ranking MPs to sexually abuse the iraqi prisoners for over a year; without ever being discovered by their superior officers. we may all clearly understand; IF a great number of incidents occur consistently and constantly for over a year, in the same place, with mostly the same personnel, at all levels of rank, THEN that is not only incidents, that is a policy. because all those incidents became policy by being accepted. YES; we should see this, the very fact that the sexual abuse continued for over a year, makes it a policy not only a few incidents. IF, it had been only a few incidents less than a year ago,and it had been noticed and stopped; THEN, it would not have become policy. BUT; this was a policy because it was approved at the top of the command chain. it was approved by acceptance. ?why was senator dick rumsdale playing with all those photographs at the senate hearings? because he had been collecting those photographs for over a year. it could be seen that he enjoyed them.
-2- ?? why ?? was there no alternative policy ?? why was sexual abuse the only policy ?? IF, the top of the command chain had had an alternative policy; THEN, the lower ranks would have been trained in that alternative policy. BUT, no training had ever been given to the scape goats at the bottom; the PFCs, SP4s, CPLs, SP5s, and SGTs. all the lower ranks were instructed by S2 officers and civilian contractors (those are covert CIA personnel). the S2s and CIAs either instructed the lower ranks to conduct sexual abuse, or found lower ranks who were perverts and then encouraged them and let them continue with their perversions. and now this fact is being covered-up by the pentagon and the major media.
-3- there are 3 forms of training which were possible alternative policies; but they were ignored by the incompetent pentagon command.
-3a- FIRST, the pentagon ignored training in the rules of the geneva convention. before this second iraqi war, the geneva convention was a part of the american military tradition.
-3b- SECOND, the pentagon, and the white house, ignored the fact that the mission of the american army in iraq was to establish a democracy. this had been the same mission in japan at the end of world war two, and this had been the mission in vietnam. in both cases, the american army taught american democracy to the defeated or captured military. for many years, teaching POWs about american democracy has been a part of the american military tradition; long before this second iraqi war.
-3c- THIRD, the pentagon did not train the lower ranks in any form of investigation and questioning support. that is the military term for the sexual abuse which they were doing. BUT, that is not the only way to do it. there is another way to conduct investigation and questioning support. this other way may seem to be against the geneva convention, but it is not sexual abuse. this other way consists of denial of basic needs; rest, sleep, food, water, cleanliness, company, communication, and quietness. this other way does not include any form of physical contact, beatings, electric shock, assistance of animals, or sexual abuse. BUT, even this other way was ignored by the incompetent pentagon.
-4- from the preceding facts, we may see very clearly that it was the very top, the pentagon chief, the secretary of defense, and the commander in chief, who established the policy of sexual abuse by actions of ignorance. and as our last point we may see that ignorance is no excuse; but it was ignorance which established the policy of sexual abuse.
we may conclude that it is the pentagon, the secretary of defense, and the commander in chief who should be investigated and brought to trial for ignoring american military traditions.
??? impossible to replace the top of the military chain of command ??? then the american military must be with drawn from iraq ASAP. as soon as possible.
vlad
!
Beating Specialist Baker
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 5, 2004
Prisons and Prisoners
Quote:
The prison abuse scandal refuses to die because soothing White House explanations keep colliding with revelations about dead prisoners and further connivance by senior military officers ?- and newly discovered victims, like Sean Baker.
If Sean Baker doesn't sound like an Iraqi name, it isn't. Specialist Baker, 37, is an American, and he was a proud U.S. soldier. An Air Force veteran and member of the Kentucky National Guard, he served in the first gulf war and more recently was a military policeman in Guantánamo Bay.
Then in January 2003, an officer in Guantánamo asked him to pretend to be a prisoner in a training drill. As instructed, Mr. Baker put on an orange prison jumpsuit over his uniform, and then crawled under a bunk in a cell so an "internal reaction force" could practice extracting an uncooperative inmate. The five U.S. soldiers in the reaction force were told that he was a genuine detainee who had already assaulted a sergeant.
Despite more than a week of coaxing, I haven't been able to get Mr. Baker to give an interview. But he earlier told a Kentucky television station what happened next:
"They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and unfortunately one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he ?- the same individual ?- reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe. When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was `red.' . . . That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: `I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier.' "
Then the soldiers noticed that he was wearing a U.S. battle dress uniform under the jumpsuit. Mr. Baker was taken to a military hospital for treatment of his head injuries, then flown to a Navy hospital in Portsmouth, Va. After a six-day hospitalization there, he was given a two-week discharge to rest.
But Mr. Baker began suffering seizures, so the military sent him to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center for treatment of a traumatic brain injury. He stayed at the hospital for 48 days, was transferred to light duty in an honor burial detail at Fort Dix, N.J., and was finally given a medical discharge two months ago.
Meanwhile, a military investigation concluded that there had been no misconduct involved in Mr. Baker's injury. Hmm. The military also says it can't find a videotape that is believed to have been made of the incident.
Most appalling, when Mr. Baker told his story to a Kentucky reporter, the military lied in a disgraceful effort to undermine his credibility. Maj. Laurie Arellano, a spokeswoman for the Southern Command, questioned the extent of Mr. Baker's injuries and told reporters that his medical discharge was unrelated to the injuries he had suffered in the training drill.
In fact, however, the Physical Evaluation Board of the Army stated in a document dated Sept. 29, 2003: "The TBI [traumatic brain injury] was due to soldier playing role of detainee who was non-cooperative and was being extracted from detention cell in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during a training exercise."
Major Arellano acknowledges that she misstated the facts and says she had been misinformed herself by medical personnel. She now says the medical discharge was related in part ?- but only in part, she says ?- to the "accident."
Mr. Baker, who is married and has a 14-year-old son, is now unemployed, taking nine prescription medications and still suffering frequent seizures. His lawyer, Bruce Simpson, has been told that Mr. Baker may not begin to get disability payments for up to 18 months. If he is judged 100 percent disabled, he will then get a maximum of $2,100 a month.
If the U.S. military treats one of its own soldiers this way ?- allowing him to be battered, and lying to cover it up ?- then imagine what happens to Afghans and Iraqis.
President Bush attributed the problems uncovered at Abu Ghraib to "a few American troops who dishonored our country." Mr. Bush, the problems go deeper than a few bad apples.
Quote:
Military Probes Detainee Deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq
from Morning Edition, Thursday , May 27, 2004
Human rights groups warn that the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody may extend far beyond the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Since 2002, more than 30 prisoners have been killed while in detention in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. military is investigating at least nine deaths in which rough treatment was involved.
*Type "Detainee deaths in Iraq Afghanistan" into a search engine. Most Americans still beleive it was "a few bad apples" abusing, humiliating detainees. This is a Bush Govt cover Up. You will find that there was system wide killing and torture commited by US forces. War Crimes!
help baker
to radikal :::::::::::::::::::::
it is clear to me that baker was abused as a policy of the military, not as an incident; but a POLICY.
i believe that citizens should form an action to help baker and thereby learn more about this problem which has caused america to loose respect.
vlad
!
Army reports 16 new criminal investigations
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -
Quote:The Army reported on Friday 16 more criminal investigations into possible misconduct by U.S. soldiers against detainees and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The revised figures brought to 85 the number of inquiries by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division into detainee deaths and alleged assaults and thefts by U.S. soldiers in the region in the past 1 1/2 years. Counting 22 other investigative actions by commanders in the field, the cases now total 107 and have involved at least 111 Iraqis and Afghanis, Army officials said.
. . .
Whether most of the accusations involve recent incidents or ones that occurred some time ago could not be determined from the list of statistics provided by the Army. But at least one of the new death investigations was triggered by the killing of an Iraqi last week after a high-speed car chase near Kufa.
A brief statement issued Friday by the U.S. military command in Baghdad said the killing, which occurred on the afternoon of May 21, may have violated the rules of engagement that govern when U.S. soldiers can use deadly force.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/06/05/a2.int.warabusemore.0605....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace