In case anyone does not want to subscribe to nytimes: (printer friendly format)
January 20, 2005
MISTREATMENT
3 British Soldiers Court-Martialed on Charges of Iraq Prisoner Abuse Similar to U.S. Cases
By ALAN COWELL
ONDON, Jan. 19 - Since their forces joined the American-led invasion of Iraq almost two years ago, British commanders and politicians have liked to depict their troops as less combative, less abrasive and less trigger-happy in dealing with local populations than their American counterparts.
But that image dissolved Wednesday as lurid photographs and accusations of abuse strikingly similar to those that emerged last April in the United States filled the front pages of newspapers here, showing British soldiers apparently mistreating Iraqi prisoners in 2003. The photographs are part of the evidence against three soldiers facing a court-martial at a British base in Germany.
"These pictures will inevitably open old wounds and be part of drawing parallels with Abu Ghraib," said Menzies Campbell, the deputy leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats, who oppose the Iraq war.
The parallels are hard to avoid, from the sexualized nature of some of the alleged abuse, to the photographs, to the responses from political leaders.
Faced by widespread outrage at the images, whose authenticity has not been challenged, Prime Minister Tony Blair sought Wednesday to contain the potential political damage only months before a national election widely forecast for May.
In Parliament, he described the photographs showing Iraqis apparently forced to simulate homosexual acts as "shocking and appalling - there are simply no other words to describe them."
But he cited two factors, the court-martial itself and the relative rarity of reported abuse, to defend Britain's reputation. "The vast majority of those 65,000 British soldiers who have served in Iraq have done so with distinction, with courage and with great honor to this country," Mr. Blair said.
"I think and hope that people in Iraq do understand that the very fact that we are taking this action and prosecuting people who we believe may have been guilty of offenses indicates that we do not tolerate this type of activity in any shape or form at all," he said.
Similarly, after photographs of abuse by American soldiers were made public, President Bush expressed his disgust, arguing that the actions of a handful of soldiers should not taint the tens of thousands who serve honorably.
Last week, Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his part in the Abu Ghraib abuse.
In Britain on Wednesday, both government and opposition closed ranks in insisting that, as the Conservative leader, Michael Howard, put it, the photographs "in no way reflect the true character of Britain's armed forces."
Publication of the photographs inspired concern that the 9,000 British troops, the biggest contingent among America's allies, could become targets of attack by Iraqis just days before the Jan. 30 election there.
"Over all, the British image is still better than the Americans," said Ahmed Versi, editor of the London-based Muslim News. "I think the British troops in the south have an advantage because the southern areas suffered a lot under Saddam Hussein, so the people there will take this in their stride. They are looking forward to a time when there will be no occupation."
Most of the British troops are in southern Iraq, and since the occupation started, the south has generally been far less violent than the so-called Sunni Triangle around Baghdad. For all that, though, Mr. Versi and others said, the publication of the photographs will give "a very bad image." Indeed, said Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based newspaper Al Quds al Arabi, "it will be an uphill struggle to repair the damage."
According to testimony at the court-martial in Osnabrück, Germany, the abuse took place in May 2003. At the time, British troops, who had occupied Basra several weeks earlier, reported extensive looting of a depot containing relief supplies like food and powdered milk.
A lawyer defending one of three accused soldiers said Wednesday in Osnabrück that an officer, Maj. Dan Taylor, had given an order for looters to be rounded up and "worked hard" to punish them for stealing.
The three soldiers on trial in Germany are Lance Cpl. Mark Cooley, 25; Cpl. Daniel Kenyon, 33; and Lance Cpl. Darren Larkin, 30. Only Corporal Larkin has admitted one charge of assault. Other charges against the three men - which they have denied - include forcing two men to strip naked and simulate sexual acts and using a fork-lift truck to hoist a prisoner aloft.
The photographs show the men seeming to prepare to punch and kick bound prisoners. The abuse became known when a soldier handed in film from his camera for processing on his return to Britain and was reported to the civilian police.
The worst abuse in the Abu Ghraib case took place in late 2003, and also involved detainees being placed in sexually humiliating positions, some of which were photographed.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:What the revelation of the British incidents of abuse tells us is that such incidents are almost predictable within the context of a war, and, contrary to the wishful thinking of anti-Americans, not peculiar to US troops.
Actually, abuse of power over prisoners is a well-known phenomenon.
My complaint with the US military is that they should have had adequate oversite to prevent the abuses from happening.
I guess that makes me anti-American?
Magus wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
In any case, while I have always been a declared anglophile, I do find it ironically amusing that the Brit military elite who were, heretofore, so pompously condescending in the their comparisons between the actions and capabilities of US and UK forces in Iraq are now found with their pants down.
"Anglophile"?
Gee, Finn, I dunno 'bout Tejas, but here in New England we use a different terminology with which to describe men who enjoy seeing other men butt-nekkid.
"Gee" Magus and what would that be? "Queer?" "Fag?" "Homo?" (Insert any common slur for homosexual if the site editing program engages)
It is even more amusing when
enightened progressives resort to homophobic insults.
DrewDad wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:What the revelation of the British incidents of abuse tells us is that such incidents are almost predictable within the context of a war, and, contrary to the wishful thinking of anti-Americans, not peculiar to US troops.
Actually, abuse of power over prisoners is a well-known phenomenon.
My complaint with the US military is that they should have had adequate oversite to prevent the abuses from happening.
I guess that makes me anti-American?
Not at all DrewDad, although I'm sure you don't really believe that to be the case, but instead believe the line to be something of a clever retort.
I agree with you though that the US military should have done more to prevent the abuse, or at least put a stop to it much more quickly.
However if you (or anyone else for that matter) are disappointed that British soldiers engaged in similar abuse because it eliminates any contention that only the US military is capable of such reprehensible conduct...
then you would be anti-American.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote: DrewDad wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:What the revelation of the British incidents of abuse tells us is that such incidents are almost predictable within the context of a war, and, contrary to the wishful thinking of anti-Americans, not peculiar to US troops.
Actually, abuse of power over prisoners is a well-known phenomenon.
My complaint with the US military is that they should have had adequate oversite to prevent the abuses from happening.
I guess that makes me anti-American?
Not at all DrewDad, although I'm sure you don't really believe that to be the case, but instead believe the line to be something of a clever retort.
More something of a jab at people who paint with too wide a brush.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:I agree with you though that the US military should have done more to prevent the abuse, or at least put a stop to it much more quickly.
However if you (or anyone else for that matter) are disappointed that British soldiers engaged in similar abuse because it eliminates any contention that only the US military is capable of such reprehensible conduct...then you would be anti-American.
I must have missed the posts by the folks who feel that way. Was this attitude something that Rush suggested?
Quote:Anyone who prefers to believe that only American troops would engage in abuse is, almost by definition, anti-American. Notwithstanding how this term doesn't sit well in your shorts, you'll note that I didn't direct it to anyone in particular, let alone anyone on this thread.
What we are talking about is not 'abuse', but systematic torture, justified and oked by the President on down. Pulling out fingernails or drilling into a tooth, for example, falls short of "organ failure". Which tells you where your nation has just arrived.
That the Brits would engage in the sorts of sexual degradation acts (when there's no such acts in the record when Brit forces were active in Ireland) just as we saw in Abu Ghraib, and as the Israelis have used on Muslims in Palestine, we can make the reasonable assumption that these 'techniques' were shared by the military administrators of all three countries.
Mark Danner from
The New York Review of Books
Finn:
As blatham pointed out, in this case, it would seem that torture is now sanctioned by the U.S. and British government, regardless of whether you believe that it is right or wrong, or whether it is mearly within the nature of a foreign occupation to do so.
So, if you agree with Bush, Gonzales, Condi Rice, and the rest, that allowing certain types of torture is o.k., then how dare we complain when anybody from our side is captured and abused at the hands of Islamic militants.
Especially when they are innocent of any wrong doing.
How dare they...
JustWonders:
And the impact of Americans doing this to innocent Iraqis on an evergrowing Islamic fundamentalism is...?
Funny how the neocons try to justify this from a purely western perspective. They were too stupid to forget the impact of such terms as "crusade" and/or "dead or alive" would have on an Islamic fundamentalist society.
Unfortunately, they are now just as stupid in their attempts to justify and revise the issue of torture and what it means and how it is applied.
Meanwhile, the actual policy makers of these heinous acts are running free and getting cush cabinet positions.
Hopeful souls? Oh my...
Blatham, you explained the position exactly. Thank you.
Well, it seems that those documents have been the attempt to justify why they were held.
But obviously there wasn't enough evidence to back up these claims - at least not in the eyes of the British police and juridical system.
Also probably has nothing to do with the Australian government issuing a travel advisory for its citizens traveling to Great Britain recently.
Are you referring to the Australian republishing of "the political leaders and police authorities of the United Kingdom have warned of the high probability of some kind of attempted terrorist action"?
Do you think, this is worse than the alerts in the USA?
