IRAQ: US Soldiers Abuse Iraqi Prisoners. Photographic Evidence. Pentagon Held Back Publication FOR 2 WEEKS! The World Condems.

Anyone seen Platoon? I imagine it would be a lot like that scene where Charlie Sheen and Matt Dillon's brother starts capping mofo's at the village because in reality they all are the enemy only because they couldnt tell the difference. The guerilla style nonconventional warfare has to be the most stressful shit in the world.

Lets not forget these are the same people that strap bombs to their childrens' clothes, slap them on their asses, then tell them to make their family proud!

But surely human decency should tell him how not to act.

And im not saying that they deserve it...dont label me that radical. I am just saying that i understand how it could come to that. And I dont believe that it makes them evil people, just humans pushed to a breaking point.

He stressed the abuse by a few soldiers at the Abu Ghraib jail was not representative of coalition troops.

But Labour MP John McDonnell instead argued the coalition's occupation of Iraq was being discredited.

A US military investigation has recommended disciplinary action against several of its officers for the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

Brigadier General Janice Karpinski is among seven officers being investigated following claims that soldiers under their command mistreated detainees.

This is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are in Iraq

Tony Blair's spokesman

The officers have already been suspended from duty.

Photographs of naked, hooded men being subjected to mock torture have been broadcast on American television channel CBS TV.

The US military says it is appalled by the behaviour of its soldiers, but insists this is an isolated case.

Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "The US army spokesman has said this morning that he is appalled, that those responsible have let their fellow soldiers down, and those are views that we would associate the UK Government with."

He added: "This is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are in Iraq, and they should not judge the actions of the coalition as a whole on the actions of a few.

"But it is regrettable, to say the least."

Jail worries

Ann Clwyd, Mr Blair's special envoy in Iraq and a supporter of the military action, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "These [pictures] are absolutely terrible."

The Labour MP said she had visited Abu Ghraib prison and raised concerns with the general in charge - although this was not the officer now being investigated.

You cannot compare that with the tens of thousands of people that Saddam Hussein was responsible for executing and torturing

Ann Clwyd
Special envoy to Iraq

"I was particularly concerned that so many prisoners are being held there over a long period of time, that their families quite often don't know they are even there," she said.

Families often queued outside the jail as they tried to discover whether their relatives were being detained there.

Ms Clwyd said she had raised worries about Abu Ghraib on her recent visit to the White House.

A "very senior" White House official had told her US troops did not abuse Iraqi prisoners.

She continued: "The people in charge did not know this was going on."

Occupation 'discredited'

The MP also denied the pictures could cause a perception that the coalition was adopting tactics similar to those used by the former Iraqi regime.

"On a small number of cases, horrible that they are, you cannot compare that with the tens of thousands of people that Saddam Hussein was responsible for executing and torturing," she added.

Such behaviour is unacceptable and very damaging to building confidence in Iraq

Michael Ancram
Shadow foreign secretary

Mr McDonnell, from the anti-war Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs, said the pictures underlined the need for a United Nations peacekeeping force to take over from the US-led coalition.

"They are very, very shocking. I think this is further evidence which builds up on top of the attack on Falluja which is discrediting the American occupation of Iraq," he said.

Conservative shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram welcomed the "swift and firm" moves to tackle those allegedly behind the abuse.

"Such behaviour is unacceptable and very damaging to building confidence in Iraq," he said.

The Ministry of Defence said the abuse allegations were a "purely American matter".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3672599.stm

If I was American I would be very proud of my nation's military.

Nah, they can do what they want. They'll get some trash talk, but then again, thats what we do. Nothing really came of that other than the renaming of certain fried potatoes.

English Muffins ==> Freedom Muffins

Even if you can see 'how people would snap' surely it's in the interests of the US government to get soldiers the hell out of there before they do?

Watch it again. Charlie Sheen's character registers disgust throughout the whole scene. And Wilem Dafoe's character tries to stop it. Simplistic readings don't support your flimsy argument, either. You think Vietnam vets who committed atrocities are actually proud of what they did? "Capping mofo's?" You're a fucking moron.

With condom, of course!

The UN is the result of a long history of efforts to promote international cooperation. In the late 18th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed a federation or “league” of the world’s nations. Kant believed that such a federation would allow countries to unite and punish any nation that committed an act of aggression. This type of union by nations to protect each other against an aggressor is sometimes referred to as collective security. Kant also felt that the federation would protect the rights of small nations that often become pawns in power struggles between larger countries.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying this behavior--it's disgusting and wrong and needs punishment stat. But given the context, it's not surprising. It is interesting and heartening that we haven't heard about this sort of thing from other troops, and the U.S. needs to take a freaking lesson from the world about that, oh, and about a whole bunch of other stuff too (cf. entire Bush foreign policy).

(x-post)

"The 'American' invasion is an act of agression"

But I think this more properly identifies the Hussein/Iraq agression towards Kuwait, the 'smaller nation that was to become a pawn in a power struggle'. Everything that ensued following the Gulf War were acts of aggression upon their own people.

Im not condoning it, just not surprised by it. Nor would you find me appaulled.

..And good luck to us now, getting any country's support in Iraq.

xxxxxxxxpost. (by now, probably irrelevant.)

As is http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00008PROB.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

This makes it look even worse than the CBS report

(xxpost)

Oh please, of course i'm not that stupid, I am just intrigued by someone's pov who think that this was inevitable.

(I am sort of wondering why this is happening on this thread rather than the one yesterday.)

xpost to pink: naive != stupid.

You ever just get so frustrated with someone that you want to lay one across their face? Well, these guys[soldiers] do that on a daily basis and have trained for it. So yes, it was inevitable (methinks). Violence begats violence, or whatever.

What J tried doesn't always work, so just to be safe: it was a link to his Abner post, not to the entire thread.

But why? Is that just what American troops do? (i realise that was a flippant statement, but my point stands.)

(Michael xpost) Also, no one has said they aren't disappointed and sick or that it's justified and shouldn't be punished!

FFS READ WHAT IS WRITTEN

Donald Rumsfeld was asked about it last night on "Hardball" but couldn't comment since he's in the chain of command.

x-post

I'm appalled by this (and I haven't even watched the footage), I'm disappointed, but I'm not remotely surprised. But most of all I'm angry, I'm angry that the US troops could be SO FUCKING STUPID as to let this happen in the first place, knowing full well it would inflame anti-American and anti-Western feeling both in and out of Iraq times 1000.

You know they'll do something about it. Politically it would irrisponsible if they didnt. But regardless of whether its made public, i assure you that something will be done.

Being in the military(yes, i am), i know how punishment is handed down. The thumbs up/down comes from above and is passed down discretely to the lowest level possible, then the punishment is carried out. This is probably not going to happen due to the fact that im sure they will want to make public their stance on the treatment of the Iraqis...and for all conduct regarding war for that matter.

People, most importantly the media, are quick to point out flaws in a system but occasionally short on constructive input. 10 decent(or maybe even good) things are negated by 1 immoral thing, which everyone should notice. Just because one(or 17? in this case) person fucks up, now the entire nation is considered a spawning pool of hatred and aggression.

- People are capable of great good and great evil.
- People in stressful situations often do things that they wouldn't otherwise do.
- Revenge (regardless of whether the impulse is justified) can motivate someone into out-of-character behavior.

I believe these three statements to be true. When I apply this belief to this report, I feel disappointed in the offending soldiers and I feel disgusted with the offending soldiers but I am not appalled or surprised because I expected something like this to happen (and the resulting PR nightmare is one reason why I was against the war in the first place).

If you can point out a war/conflict where someone involved didn't have any soldiers who mistreated captives, I will be shocked (but obv not appalled).

WWII, maybe? I dunno.

Nope: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/st/~ehimchak/death_march.html

On a side note, Escape from Athena is the worst WWII POW film EVER.

http://perc.ca/PEN/1993-11/review3.html

(obv. x-post, but I thought it was interesting. dunno how accurate it is)

(oh no "unit" double-entendre OH NO!!!)

I certainly dont do that during my days work. I stick to killing babies and opressing local minorities. /sarcasm

So basically what we have here in Iraq is part of a systematic failure of the American military over the decades to observe Geneva conventions. All of a sudden it's not so shocking.

x-post yeah Geneva pre-dates WWII, was not because of it, although some modifications may have been made as a result (I'm not as up on them as I should be).

Yes, it predates WWII. I was referencing the actions committed during that period as an example of why they were put in place, not the time period itself.

(major xpost & OT)

We were very nice to German POWs here in the states during WWII.

The responsibility for these actions are initially within the bounds of those who commit them (and well done to the Oliver Stone in this case who did not have to bottle it up and tell it twenty years later in a film, could film it there and then). But responsibility must also be passed up the chain of command to those who are responsible for the well being of these men, and even as far as their leaders who tell them this battle can be won, and is being won despite the evidence of the soldiers own eyes. That is where disillusionment kicks in, and quite possibly depravity.

Outrage at US abuse of Iraqi prisoners

Friday 30 April 2004, 18:55 Makka Time, 15:55 GMT

The disturbing pictures were aired on the CBS network



Related:
Iraq: US general faces cruelty charges
US officers in Iraq charged with abuse
Iraqis in exile and fear

Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback

Pictures showing abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers have sparked shock among officials and triggered condemnation of US foreign policy.

The office of Prime Minister Tony Blair, the US strongest ally in its war in Iraq, condemned the abuses.

His comments on Friday came after an American television network broadcast images of Iraqis stripped naked, hooded and being tormented by their captors.

One photograph showed Iraqi prisoners naked except for hoods covering their heads and stacked in a human pyramid.

The CBS network, which broadcast the pictures in the US on Wednesday, said they were taken at Abu Ghuraib prison near Baghdad late last year.

"The US army spokesman has said this morning that he is appalled, that those responsible have let their fellow soldiers down, and those are views that we would associate the UK government with," Blair's official spokesman said.

"This is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are in Iraq," the spokesman said, adding that the occupation should not be judged on the alleged actions of a few.

British military authorities are themselves investigating eight separate "allegations of maltreatment" by their troops in southern Iraq.

'Absolutely terrible'

Blair's human rights envoy to Iraq, Ann Clwyd, also condemned the alleged abuse.

"I think they are absolutely terrible," she told BBC radio, referring to the photographs. "I am shocked."

"I think they are absolutely terrible. Im shocked"

Ann Clwyd,
UK human rights envoy to Iraq

Clwyd said she had previously discussed the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghuraib with officials in President George Bush's administration, but said they had denied there was a problem.

"I was told by a very senior person there 'We don't do this kind of thing,"' said Clwyd, a lawmaker in Blair's ruling Labour party and supporter of the US-led war in Iraq. "Clearly the people in charge did not know this was going on."

'Culture of hate'

The editor in chief of the London-based Arabic daily al-Quds al-Arabi denied statements that this incident was the work of rogue soldiers.

"This is the outcome of the culture of hate that the US administration adopts against the Arabs and Muslims," Abd al-Bari Atwan told Aljazeera.net.
A prisoner is hooded and wired up
for a mock electrocution

"They (the Americans) removed Saddam Hussein for acts of abuse, but who will remove Bush and Rumsfeld for inciting these acts?"

Atwan added that the pictures were proof that the US administration had lost "the battle of winning the hearts and minds not only in Iraq but in the whole Muslim world."

Human rights watchdog, Amnesty International also said the incident was not an isolated case. "Our extensive research in Iraq suggests that this is not an isolated incident. It is not enough for the USA to react only once images have hit the television screens".

White House response

The White House on Friday denounced the alleged abuse, saying the United States "will not tolerate" such behavior and vowing that those responsible will be punished.

US authorities have promised to
punish those responsible

"We cannot tolerate it," spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "The military is taking strong action against the individuals responsible for these despicable acts."

US President George Bush has known about the allegations of misconduct "for a while" and expects "appropriate action to be taken against these individuals," he said. "We will not tolerate it."

Private contractors

The abuses have thrown the spotlight on the shadowy world of private contractors.

A military report into the Abu Ghuraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian newspaper showed that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison.

One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young, male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him.

The military investigation names two US contractors, CACI International and the Titan Corporation, for their involvement in Abu Ghuraib.

Quite. And think on those things that HAVEN'T been filmed...

But I see the stories published in Al Jazeera to be as wholely truthful as I do The Onion. The difference is that the Onion doesnt breed hatred.

(x-post on Abd al-Bari Atwan's ass)

The Onion's story on Weird Al's parents made me hate it.

It might be compared to the catholic priests and their molestation of children; once one person comes forward, there cant just be one incident...a flood ensued. Some will be found to be true, others will be 'crying wolf' and not helping the situation at all.

Just look at the the picture of the woman pretending to shoot the prisoner, how stressed out is she? She's loving it.

xpost with Colin

"President George W Bush has said he shares the widespread disgust over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US troops.
A day after CBS television broadcast the pictures, Mr Bush said those responsible would be "taken care of", but this was not "how we do things".

obv. x-post

J., OTM.

It seems ridiculous to me (I heard it from a left leaning person) is it true?

But 18-24 year olds, some in their first time away from home for an extended period, in a stressful situation, many of them possibly not all that bright to begin with, together with other people of the same age/mindset - decide to do something stupid, which escalates into something even stupider, and they don't know where to draw the line.. or forget to draw the line..

I could be talking about this situation .. or I could be talking about spring break .. or I could be talking about setting cars on fire after a football game ...

.. Just trying to understand their thinking here. Not in the least bit defending them. ( as if I need to clarify that...)

1. Have placed "contractors" for whom there is no US jurisdiction in positions of authority. This is at least my understanding Milo. Of course Bush could put em in the Gitmo at his discretion, right?

2. Decided to use Abu Ghraib as a facility given its history and more importantly, its reputation and association with Saddam.

These two actions don't require the malice of a bunch of two bit sadists in order to prove disastrous. More shitty decision making.

The mistreatment is disturbing for any coalition soldier in the theater, since as one military official noted, this is the type of shit that gets "paid back," (as if people at war need another excuse to be barbaric). Given the privations and suffering Iraqi's have faced I'll bet they're better at it than we are.

Don't know about the international law immunity.

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein.

One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young, male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him.

Headlines from the Daily Probe.

Ceasefire in Fallujah Enters Third Day of Intense Bombing

Condi, Coulter Top List of Conservatives I'd Set My Principles Aside to Fuck

Ashcroft Blames Jesus for Failing to Warn Him About 9/11

Mel Gibson's Father Celebrates Easter with Jew Hunt

How is the whole thing being reported on US TV ?

I consider ourselves lucky enough that they showed even one of them. Im curious to see what FOX says about it. but im probably too scared.

But this is what should be happening. I'm sure there are a thousand heart warming stories of co-operation between the US ground troops and Iraqi civillians.

BUT

Everyone should notice the one immoral thing. If no one was prepared to whistle blow then this kind of thing would continue to happen with no come back at all for those involved or their higher ups. Your soldiers should be behaving in a manner that befits their supposed role as liberators (that is, not going about torturing in the same way as the last bunch). Soldiers doing what they are supposed to be doing is sadly not news. In a democracy the media has a duty to report wrong doing to the electorate. Democracy needs whistle blowers.

xpost

even if his face is bagged?

umm I'm not sure how the Geneva conventions relate to non-government media.

if only milosevic had known civilians can't be convicted of war crimes!

But jesus that picture of Jackson on the cnn.com front page is creepy.

Here's the full text of the Third Convention, btw -- it's full of terms of art ("Powers" presumably means "Nation-States," but I gotta think that there's some wiggle room there) that are probably only intelligble to folx who practice in the area.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

NEW YORK — Arab television stations led their newscasts Friday with photographs of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated by U.S. military police, with one main channel saying the pictures were evidence of the "immoral practices" of American forces.

The images, which document alleged abuses that have led to charges against six American soldiers, were first broadcast Wednesday night in the United States on CBS' "60 Minutes II."

The images shown on Dubai-based Al-Arabiya (search) and the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera (search) channels blurred the nudity of the prisoners.

The images were potentially inflammatory in an Arab world already angry at the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Arabs consider public nudity as dishonorable.

Al-Jazeera introduced the pictures by saying they showed the "immoral practices" of Iraq's occupation forces. The anchor reported that some of those responsible would face trial and could be discharged from the Army.

Among the images shown by the news channels were a hooded prisoner standing on a box with wires attached to his hands. CBS reported that the prisoner was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted, although in reality the wires were not connected to a power supply.

Both stations also showed a photograph of a female U.S. soldier standing by a hooded naked prisoner. The soldier is pointing at his genitals, which are blurred out, and grinning at the camera.

The stations also broadcast a picture of several naked men intertwined as if they were engaging in a sex act.

CBS said the images were taken late last year at Abu Ghraib prison (search) near Baghdad, where American soldiers were holding hundreds of prisoners captured during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In March, the Army announced that six members of the 800th Military Police Brigade (search) faced court-martial for allegedly abusing about 20 prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The charges included dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault and indecent acts with another person.

In addition to those criminal charges, the military has recommended disciplinary action against seven U.S. officers who helped run the prison, including Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski, the commander of the 800th Brigade.

Also

Stations Boycott 'Nightline' Broadcast
Group of affiliates says reading of names of Iraq dead is anti-war

ONLY ON FOX:
Al Hurrah TV, meant to counteract Al Jazeera, gets promising ratings

I doubt Clear Channel would give them two years to find an audience. Couldn't they just do Muqtada al Sadr during drive time and get crazy ratings right away?

By the day, the appalling folly of the occupation becomes clearer to more and more people. Through Iraq's turbulent history, the west has *never learned a damn thing*; read up on it. Look at the bundled British formation of the country, and look at the US, setting Saddam up in power. It has always been shot-termism.

And the Americans here upthread trying to justify torture; nice to see you have, erm, faith in international law... as ever, eh? I'd love to see how outraged you are at the next attack upon Americans... don't you see precisely what *message* an act such as this by US soldiers is going to send out to not just the arab world and Iraqis, but to the world?

This is in all ways an appalling reflection on the US army that these soldiers could have been allowed to do what they did. [and the British are complicit in this too... why on earth they ever agreed to partner the US is beyond me, considering the British seems to have no say in strategic approach...]

Secondly, equating humiliating POWs in stupid and disgusting trophy pictures with shooting an Italian in the neck on camera, or burning and hanging bodies and body parts from bridges, is a strange moral standard.

Finally, what do you mean "allowed to do what they did"? They're being court martialed.

Oh, and I hear a Brigadier-General is up for charges r.e. this incident; I think this fact alone rather eloquently states that there must be deep structural problems in the US army. As said above, these soldiers were *not* working under as great pressure as others may have been right in the thick of things...

One expects an occupying force WHOSE LEADERS HAVE BEEN MAKING SANCTIMONIOUS MORAL PLATITUDES ABOUT THIS ESCAPADE as JUSTIFICATION would take *deadly seriously* the obligation to avoid *any* acts which would bring their whole argument into complete disrepute.

xpost

i mean, its not ANYWHERE as egregious as saddam, but to say that they no longer exist isnt 100% true.

plus, we look like assholes.

Ned, what is your problem? You want to know if I'd believe the story if there were no photos? I don't know, that would depend on the story, who's telling it and what evidence there is to support it, I guess. I would certainly hope it wasn't true, and condemn it if it was.

See the Daily Mirror cover there.

I agree, and from a purely physical standpoint I'm embarrassed to admit I've been hazed worse than that--but I wasn't in fear of my life. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING. We don't just "look" like assholes.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.photos/story.hood.cbs.jpg

The photographs, obtained by the Daily Mirror newspaper, show a suspected thief being beaten and urinated on.

The Ministry of Defence has launched an investigation into allegations that British soldiers have been pictured torturing an Iraqi prisoner.
The photographs, obtained by the Daily Mirror newspaper, show a suspected thief being beaten and urinated on.

The UK's most senior soldier, General Sir Mike Jackson, said if guilty, the men were not fit to wear the uniform.

Earlier, the UK Government said it was "appalled" by pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused by US troops.

Tony Blair's official spokesman said the way naked prisoners were tormented by troops directly contravened all the US-led coalition's policy.

He stressed the abuse by a few soldiers at the Abu Ghraib jail was not representative of coalition troops.

But Labour MP John McDonnell instead argued the coalition's occupation of Iraq was being discredited.

If proven, not only is such appalling conduct clearly unlawful but also contravenes the British Army's high standards of conduct

Sir Michael Jackson
The latest pictures were handed over by British soldiers who claimed a rogue element in the British army was responsible for abusing prisoners and civilians.

It is alleged during his 8-hour ordeal he was threatened with execution, his jaw broken and his teeth smashed.

Sir Michael Jackson, chief of the general staff, said: "If proven, not only is such appalling conduct clearly unlawful but also contravenes the British Army's high standards of conduct.

"The allegations are already under investigation.

"Again, if proven, the perpetrators are not fit to wear the Queen's uniform and they have besmirched the Army's good name and conduct."

And people going on saying, 'don't be naive, this is what you must expect!' Well, then why have Bush and Blair been making saintly, moralistic-toned speeches all the damn way, eh?

'Moral' military solutions, eh, Mr Blair...?

But... it must be also remembered, these documented crimes were not in a 'combat situation'. They were in a prison.

thank god someone said it, stuart's idiotic comment was just sitting there like a pile of vomit waiting to be mopped up

i suppose the whole "haha just kidding we werent gonna electrocute you!!!" thing was all in good fun eh?

There will clearly be no illusions left that there is any moral grounding to the Iraq invasion... excepting perhaps viewers of Fox and other self-interested organs which are trying to shield people's eyes from the reality.

And yep, Meeder and Amateurist; psychological torture can almost be worse than actual torture... it is certainly every bit an equivalent of bodily torture. The scars stick.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN ALL BULLIES ARE GUILTY OF TORTURE

BUT IF YOU HAVE THE REASONABLE BELIEF THAT SOMEONE IS GENUINELY THREATENING YOUR LIFE AND IS DEMANDING THAT YOU TELL THEM CERTAIN INFORMATION, THEN PERHAPS YOU COULD SEE HOW THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS TORTURE....

SORRY THIS IS LOOKS CRAZY BUT THE CAPS LOCK IS STUCK

so much better now that caps lock is back in place

i think the best thing to hope for now is that the court-martial will not be a coverup and that we will find out the full extent of the complicity or complacency of these soldier's higher ups

it may be that this is an abberation which says little about the nature of the occupation, but it may be that it says a lot

i think people are jumping to conclusions here

i don't think this will change much at all, honestly.

I think there should also be higher responsibility; Bush took us in, and Blair brought Britain tagging along... it is surely the priority preserve of military and political command to make sure that conduct on the ground of this bunch of 'liberators' as Blair and Bush called them, was faultless. If one claims the moral higround so persistently as our leaders have, it simply *has* to be borne out in their troops' actions. The leaders decided to go in; it's their ultimate responsibility... on a legal basis, the war was untenable, so they finally went to make it a moral case; not the wisest political move of all time.

I selectively utilized the caps lock just to add high emphasis to the words I was using; the message I feel needs to get through. There should be no apologism for these acts... such like is going to look increasingly misguided as more and more of these stories come out. :(

xpost

The man was never charged with anything.
The pictures looked pretty damning. It didn't say how many were involved or when it happened. I guess we will have to wait to read the paper.

It is a workable conclusion to come to, Amateurist, to at least say that these stories are undermining the whole revised moral case - when the legal case failed - that was made for the 'mission' in Iraq.

The specific UK reaction; probably far more outrage than in the States - as far more here have been alive to how misguided this operation was from the first; i.e. 1.5 million on the streets of London, 15.2.03 - this is going to be appalling for Blair; the increasingly embattled PM forced even more on the defensive as to the 'special relationship' and what we are doing in Iraq. This crucially comes on the heels of a letter from 50 ex-senior diplomats - experts on the middle-east - who sent the PM a letter calling on him to give up on the US approach, which they said was 'doomed'.
The terms of the mainstream debate have been shifting ever since Bush declared 'MISSION OVER!' and people have actually seen the discrepancy between such a statement and what has actually happened in the year or so since then.

The carrier he was on declared its mission accomplished, which it was.

Get new rhetoric.

Mm.

Get new rhetoric.

That part of the mission being over is fine but not sufficient. Celebrating half-assedness not good enough. They have not planned this well as evidenced by the results on the ground. Their worst blunder was not selling it to us well to begin with when their was no objective hurry to taking out Sadaam. You can spin it as you like but they're failing. I'm not just saying this out of anti-Bush sentiment.

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Apr/20044305702436319522845.jpg

And I have problems with people who obviously identify themselves so strongly with their own nationality that they are blind to criticism of, and fuck-ups by their own national leaders. People like that are as dumb as sheep, with no mind of their own whatsoever.

I'm appalled by this as well. Interesting to see the pictures seem to involve a lot of male nudity too (I always figured the army had this blokish/ homoerotic element to it).

The people responsible should be forced into non paid labour in the new Iraq and issue sooo many apologies that they become hoarse. On the plus side, will this now - more than ever - stop Bush from being re-elected?

What is your reaction to the images? Are you a serviceman who has witnessed abuse to prisoners in Iraq? Send us your views.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments reflect the balance of the opinion we have received:

I feel sick and very, very angry. I also realize that abuse is a worldwide phenomenon. There is no culture, country or race that does not experience it. I only hope the military sends a strong message to the rest of the troops that no abuses will be tolerated.
Eileen T Kusler, Chicago, IL

Our military is known for its professionalism and actions such as these cast a pall over our reputation as a whole

Robert, Silver Spring

I have supported getting rid of Saddam but these incidents bring shame to our country. Our military is known for its professionalism and actions such as these cast a pall over our reputation as a whole. Once a combatant is disarmed and taken into custody he should be treated fairly as long as he complies with basic instructions. There is no honour in humiliating captives. I hope we set an example with the perpetrators. Shame on us all today!
Robert, Silver Spring, USA

Complete indifference.
Nigel MacDonald, Camborne, UK

Yes - these images should be shown but with some privacy for the victims involved. Any decent human being would not treat a prisoner in this manner. Those involved with the humiliation and degradation of these prisoners need to do prison time.
Karen, Colorado, USA

"That's not the way we do things in America" was George Bush's response to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. It may not be how they do it in America but that's how they treat the rest of the world. After every war fought by Americans they have come out as villains, and this is no exception.
Babar, Canada

Thank God the pictures are out there.... Rhetoric about liberation of Iraq is no longer believable (if it ever was). That is exactly why you need UN presence, I just hope the UK joins France, Germany and Spain in the pursuit of complete handover of the conflict to the United Nations, they have to distance themselves from the US military since they aren't driven by racism and ignorance as most of American GIs are...
Carlos, Mexico city

Yes, unequivocally yes. Covering up incidents such as these only allows the abuse and torture to continue. Haven't these people suffered enough?
C McCormick, Calgary, Canada

This should not be a surprise. Every time a nation is occupied, humiliation is soon to follow; history shows us that in South Asia and elsewhere.
Bilal, Chicago, USA/Karachi, Pakistan

I want to congratulate the person who had the courage to take the pictures and give them to the TV so the world could at last see how the 'liberators' and the ambassadors of the 'free world' behave, given the opportunity. It only makes me wonder what happens elsewhere and we never find out.
Manos, Ipswich

So much for the coalition forces being harbingers of peace. These pictures show them for what they truly are.
Amin Akhund, Amman, Jordan

The images should have been released immediately without entertaining the give us a chance to compose a response from Bush

Johann, Pretoria

I think the Iraqis knew about this before the media released it. I also think it reflects the boldness and ignorance of the US administration. It was the Cold war that kept the Americans in check. Since the fall of the Berlin wall the Americans has become the hi tech bully of the world knowing full well that nobody can knuckle wrap them giving them a sense of invincibility, like their total contempt for the UN. They should never have been in Iraq and a number of other places as well. How can it be that in today's world two of the most developed counties (and others) did not have proper intelligence with WMD? The images should have been released immediately without entertaining the give us a chance to compose a response from Bush. Thanks to the media for exposing this.
Johann, Pretoria, South Africa

The pictures should be shown. They are only a tip of the iceberg - one out of many many episodes, but perhaps the only one that happened to be caught on camera.
Andrew, Delft, Holland

This is why it is so necessary to have news media on both sides. If it were up to the Americans this news would never had gotten out and it almost never did. The so called preachers of free speech hate it when the speech comes from anyone but them.
Hamza Ramadi, Doha, Qatar

There are no words to express the rage. This is the clearest proof to show that Americans perceive their mission in Iraq as invaders. Justice can not change these perceptions. That's why; BBC reports fairly that "The pictures did not initially cause much of a stir in America". It's about racism, it's about superiority.
Shkelqim Tarelli, Tirana, Albania

The blame falls directly on the leaders of the coalitions. Anytime an army invades a foreign people, this type of thing will happen.
Hena Mughal, Karachi, Pakistan

The Iraq people are suffering violence and torture under a brutal regime - so no change there then!
Helen, Hong Kong

I think the world should know the reality. I do not see any advantage in not publishing the pictures. At least the pictures would serve as a wake up call to those in high-up command to take a tighter rein over discipline of the coalition forces in Iraq. Even the prisoners are human beings and feel the same pain and fear like the rest of us!
Star, USA

Yes, they should be shown; only this way those who believe that this occupation was necessary can see what else 'some' soldiers can do in their leisure time.
Aynur Bonomo, Rome, Italy

While Blair's spokesman may declare this a contravention of policy, I'm sure that the maiming of young children and pensioners was similarly unintended. But this is war. This is what happens when a country is overrun and occupied by an invading force. Are we to assume that during the invasion, no Iraqi boys were beaten up and no Iraqi girls were raped by wayward members of the coalition forces?
Alan, London, UK

Makes you wonder what is happening to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
Garry, Lancashire, UK

Severe actions will be taken against these soldiers

Severe actions will be taken against these soldiers
I would like to apologize to the Iraqi people for the actions of a few of our military. Please do not judge the whole US military. Our troops are honourable and humane. Severe actions will be taken against these soldiers.
Barbara, USA

The harm that could come from suppressing the photos and being accused of a cover-up far outweighs any harm that comes from making them public and correcting the situation. It's a shameful situation, and sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Byron, Washington DC, US

These pictures should come earlier. Covering up such truths is not fair to the Iraqis.
Khairul Khalid, Gopeng, Malaysia

Absolutely! And as for the 'don't judge our army by the actions of a few' - nonsense. I think they highlight a serious lack of social responsibility and ethics that has typified American action, and Americans support of such action. Ignorance is not bliss - in fact its proven to be very dangerous and costly.
Matt, UK

I am ashamed to be part of the "occupying" nations

Jade, Oxford, UK
I felt sick when I saw them but, yes, they should be shown. I thought we invaded to end torture and oppression for the Iraqi's when all we appear to have done is bring inhumanity. I am ashamed to be part of the "occupying" nations.
Jade, Oxford, UK

It indeed is shocking. This is indeed a heinous crime, committed by those soldiers who were supposed to be helping in the establishing of democratic norms in Iraq. The ever vigilant media are our guardians who are thankfully there to ensure proper flow of information concerning matters of public interest. Whatever our political beliefs I think it was important that these pictures were released as it would ensure that these acts are not committed by others in the future.
Arif Sayed, Dubai, UAE

Absolutely these pictures should be shown to indicate that mis-treatment of POWs is a war crime and the one who was involved should be brought to justice. In addition, these pictures should also be shown as soon as they were available without interference from the Pentagon. Pentagon's delaying action interfered with freedom of the press and totally unacceptable in a democratic state.
Tony, Edmonton, Canada

Surely occupation forces should be leading by example

Niall , London, England
As a supposedly civilising and democratising force, it is disgraceful that these acts have taken place. Either the leaders are incompetent or complicit, neither of which bodes well for the re-construction of Iraq. As for the not being trained excuse, I've never been trained to be a prison guard but I am aware that torture is wrong. Surely occupation forces should be leading by example.
Niall , London, England

Yes, absolutely. They have to be shown, and mainly to the US and British public. That's the only way to bring most of them closer to reality.
Alex, Calgary, Canada

The pictures should absolutely have been shown, although their faces should be blurred and names kept secret. This was an outrageous and barbaric act sanctioned by intelligence officers. All is not fair in war and these soldiers violated the Geneva Convention and the lowest standards of human decency. By keeping the pictures secret, we will fail to really understand the magnitude of the inhumanity in these acts and the soldiers, officers, intelligence agents and everyone else who was involved, encouraged and sanctioned these acts. The more people who see these pictures, the more who will cry out in rage and demand that all involved be brought to justice under the fullest extent of the law.
Avril, New York, USA

the Americans don't understand the difference between liberation and humiliation

Chris Stanton, Yorkshire, UK

The separate case involving the eight soldiers came to light a year ago, when The Sun newspaper reported that a soldier had a roll of film showing an Iraqi detainee bundled up in netting and suspended from a fork-lift truck. The Sun claimed the film also showed troops performing sex acts near captured Iraqis.

The ministry said the Royal Military Police's Special Investigations Branch has completed its investigation, and the army's prosecuting authority was deliberating whether to press charges.

None of the soldiers has been publicly identified.

"Where allegations are made, they will be investigated by the SIB and that's what every soldier who wears the British uniform knows," Blair's official spokesman said.

The British case was mentioned by Blair's spokesman at a morning press briefing, as journalists sought the government's reaction to alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war by U.S. soldiers.

Full Transcript here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118721,00.html

"Mr Ingram said there was no "culture of abuse" in the British Army despite the fact that five separate inquiries into maltreatment are under way. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3528839.stm

You'd think that tis a common sense idea, but apparently few governments see that as cost-effective (ie. will take cash away from the ever-necessary stealth bombers, or whatever the newest war toy is).

First heard about this on BBC World Service, and couldn't believe that one pic of a female (US?) soldier actually laughing while a naked Iraqi soldier is forced to stand hooded on a high bucket (or something). Insane as these aren't sheep, but actual flesh and blood with inherent POW rights.

Sources close to the regiment said to be involved have told the BBC they are not convinced the pictures are genuine.

Tony Blair says that if they are authentic it is "completely and totally unacceptable".

However the BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams says sources close to The Queen's Lancashire Regiment believe many aspects of the photographs are extremely suspicious.

He says they believe the pictures may not have been taken in Iraq.

They believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq.

They say soldiers in Iraq wore berets or hard hats - and not floppy hats as in the photos.

They also believe the wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq.
Mr Blair said if there had been any abuse it was "exceptional", and should not detract from the good work being done by UK armed forces in Iraq.

However he stressed if the photos were genuine it was totally unacceptable.

"We went to Iraq to get rid of that sort of thing, not to do it," he added.

Investigation

Earlier Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram agreed the pictures were "appalling" if they were genuine.

They "besmirch the good name of the armed forces," he said.

Military police are conducting an investigation into the photos which appear to show a soldier using violence and urinating on a captive.

Mr Ingram said this investigation had to be given time.

Pictures showing American troops humiliating Iraqi prisoners, with a hooded and naked prisoner standing on a box with wires attached to his genitals, also generated outrage earlier this week.

US President George W Bush vowed that those responsible would be "taken care of".

There is no place in our regiment for individuals capable of such appalling and sickening behaviour

The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

Military shaken by torture probe
Arab media fury
Mr Ingram said there was no "culture of abuse" in the British Army despite the fact that five separate inquiries into maltreatment are under way.

He admitted: "If these allegations are true, they are appalling, they are despicable and there can be no justification for them at all."

And he said the inquiry by the Royal Military Police's Special Investigations Branch would "not leave any stone unturned".

Those who are opposed to the coalition's occupation of Iraq would employ "full exploitation of these incidents", Mr Ingram said.

Unnamed captive

The Mirror says the pictures were handed over by British soldiers from The Queen's Lancashire Regiment who claimed a rogue element in the British Army was responsible for abusing prisoners and civilians.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the soldiers told the paper no charges were brought against the unnamed captive.

They allege that during his eight-hour ordeal he was threatened with execution, his jaw broken and his teeth smashed.

The images have already been seen in the Middle East
After being beaten and urinated on, he was driven away and dumped from the back of a moving vehicle, the soldiers claimed, unaware if he was dead.

The reason for making the photos public was, they said, to show why the US-UK coalition was encountering such fierce resistance in Iraq.

Army spokesman Roger Goodwin, on behalf of The Queen's Lancashire Regiment, said there was "clearly some form of link to the regiment".

"But the precise form of that link, including whether the soldiers involved in the alleged atrocities were members of the QLR, needs to be established.

He added: "There is no place in our regiment for individuals capable of such appalling and sickening behaviour.

"The sooner they are exposed and ejected from the regiment, the better."

The regimental secretary, retired Lt Col John Downham, said: "We are furious that these people, whoever they turn out to be, have already besmirched our hard-earned good name and let down the many hundreds of QLR soldiers whose outstandingly successful tour in Basra was recognised by no fewer than 21 honours and awards."

The British have previously enjoyed a relatively positive image
In a press conference, Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of General Staff, said: "If proven, the perpetrators are not fit to wear the Queen's uniform and they have besmirched the Army's good name and conduct."

Ahmed al-Sheik, editor-in-chief of Arab TV news channel, said the photographs would outrage Arabs around the world.

"These scenes are humiliating not only to the Iraqis, but to every Arab citizen around the world."

I'd just like to say a little about the iconography of the photos, this one in particular. It's very powerful, because it refers to both the KKK and Christ. This is an image of a Christian culture humiliating a Muslim culture. It connects directly to Mel Gibson's Passion film. So far we in the anti-war camp had disgust, protest, arguments, statistics, but no single image which could sum up the wrongheadedness of the war. Now we have it. I really believe this one image has changed everything.

1. Arabs are the new 'Jews'.
2. The US is the new Rome.
3. The United States is 'the Confederate States'.

Point 3 comes, obviously, from the KKK imagery. One of the BBC comments above stated After every war fought by Americans they have come out as villains, and this is no exception. To which one might ask 'But what about the Civil War, which ended slavery?' And the answer to that might be: That was the Americans fighting themselves. The Yankee liberals fighting the Confederate conservatives. But just because the Yankees won, it doesn't mean that the US is not deeply divided to this day. The Confederates didn't disappear. The current US administration is a Confederate administration. The US is divided in a way it hasn't been since the Civil War. There are really two different nations there. The Confederate tendency is basically fascist, imperialist, racist, dangerous and evil. Its toxicity comes from the fact that it lost the Civil War (just as Hitler's power base was in German humiliation after World War 1) and sees itself, even when in power, as a victimised outsider.

The upcoming election is notable as the first in which the reality of a divided America is faced squarely: the Democrats usually have to run with a Southern candidate to offset the impression that they're liberal Yankees. This time they're running with a senator from Massachusetts. It's not even worth pretending any more that it's not Confederates against Yankees. The question is whether the Yankees can win. Because it sometimes seems that the US is actually in love with the idea of itself as a victim and an outsider in the world. And people who think like that are the really dangerous and vicious people.

I'd add that the Michael Jackson story is not at all at odds with the torture story: there are sexual elements both stories have in common which play into the Arab perception that the west is sexually decadent. Michael Jackson has been massively visible in developing countries. He arrives just in advance of western cigarette brands, fast food concessions, and so on. He will now be seen as just another symbol of the toxicity of western exports, another sign that our 'civilisation' is in fact a kind of 'syphillisation'.

A US army reserve general whose subordinates were photographed abusing Iraqi inmates at a Baghdad prison has said she was "sickened" by the images.
Brigadier General Janis Karpinski has been suspended with several other officers while an investigation is carried out.

She told the New York Times the high security cells where the photographs were taken were under the control of military intelligence officers.

They were in and out of the cells "24 hours a day," she was quoted as saying.

'Disposable'

A number of soldiers now face court martial and a possible prison term over the POW pictures taken at the notorious Abu Ghraib detention facility in Baghdad and broadcast by CBS television on Thursday.

Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame?

Gen Karpinski

Doubt over UK abuse photos
Arab press fury
Gen Karpinski, who was in charge of the prison, was suspended in January, while under investigation.

In an interview with the US newspaper, Gen Karpinski was quoted as saying she believed military commanders were trying to shift the blame onto her and other reservists - and away from intelligence officers still at work

"We're disposable," she is quoted as saying. "Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame?"

She did not defend the actions of the reservists who are alleged to have taken part in the abuses, she said.

But she added that CIA employees often took part in the interrogations at the prison complex, the newspaper reported.

Her comments follow a report in The New Yorker magazine, based on an internal US military report into abuses at the prison.

The army report listed abuses such as sodomy and beatings, according to the article posted on the magazine website.

Outrage

The graphic images published around the globe have sparked outrage in the US, Britain and the Middle East.

US President George W Bush said on Friday he was deeply disgusted by the alleged abuses, but only a "few people" were to blame.

THIRTY cases of torture and murder by British and American troops against Iraqi POWs are being investigated by defence chiefs.

The probe will examine photos of members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, who appear to be urinating on a terrified Iraq captive.

The dossier of terror includes :

Claims that POWs were thrown to their deaths from a bridge. A videotape of the killings is said to have been destroyed.

The drowning of 16-year-old Ahmad Jabbar Kareem, who was allegedly forced into a canal by British soldiers near Basra.

The deaths of two men detained by the Black Watch near Basra a year ago. Abd al-Jabbar Mossa, 53, and Rathy Namma are both said to have suffered heart failure. Mossa's family claim he was hit on the head.

Weeks after the torture photographs were taken, a prisoner was allegedly beaten to death by members of the same Queen's Lancashire Regiment.

An MOD spokeswoman said yesterday's bombshell allegations which followed pictures of US troops abusing inmates in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison are being investigated by the Royal Military Police.

She said: 'They are trying to speak to as many people as possible and build up as big a picture as possible.

'If there is found to be evidence of criminal behaviour it will be passed to the prosecution authority.'

She said a court martial or prison sentence were options if any soldier was found guilty of abuse.

The spokeswoman added: 'This alleged behaviour is appalling and contravenes the British Army's high standards of conduct and besmirches its good name.'

Human rights group Amnesty International lodged complaints with the MoD and Pentagon before last week's shocking pictures were printed.

Neil Durkin, of Amnesty, said: 'We have 20 to 30 cases, some relating to the same incident.

'The allegations are against a mix of both British and American forces. In most the prisoners were hooded and on numerous occasions kicked and beaten and hit with hard objects, probably rifles.

'They were made to stand in painful positions, deprived of sleep and subjected to loud noises and bright lights and threatened that they would be executed. A number of people have died in custody.'

Armed Forces minister Adam Ingram described the pictures of torture as 'despicable', adding: 'If the allegations are true, they are appalling and there is no justification for them at all.

'We have to establish the facts as quickly as we can and establish them accurately and precisely and then take appropriate action as quickly as we can.'

The minister did not rule out sending extra troops to Iraq to deal with the growing unrest.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/50.beyond/political.overview/link.1989.tiananmen.jpg

Something about grainy video stills whispers "real" to me.

Of course what the Americans did to their Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib was not as bad as that. But the photographs of the Americans taunting and insulting their Iraqi prisoners, stripping them naked and forcing them to undergo mock-executions and to simulate sex with each other, will have convinced thousands of Iraqis that the Americans are just as bad as Saddam's torturers. If there were any Iraqis who believed the coalition's claim that they were benign liberators, there won't be many now.

The soldiers responsible for the abuse have guaranteed thousands of new recruits to the organisations such as al-Qaeda which want to kill as many coalition troops in Iraq as possible. The images of torture they have created will have stiffened the resolve of the Iraqi militants and encouraged those Iraqis who were wavering to join the resistance against the coalition. So more young American soldiers will be blown apart by booby-trapped cars and shot by snipers. Their unnecessary deaths will have been caused by the stupidity of their own comrades.

There have been claims that the US interrogations resulted in valuable information. I doubt this. Whatever was going on when those pictures were taken, it was not the interrogation of prisoners by the US Army. It was some stupid kids bullying their captives for the sheer hell of it. You can tell that by the smiles on the faces of US soldiers - and indeed by the fact that there are any pictures at all of what happened. Those soldiers are anyway too young to be trained interrogators. Moreover, the woman wears a watch, which no serious interrogator ever does, because denying your victim any sense of time is an essential part of any properly-conducted interrogation.

No, this was just a group of fools determined to have fun by humiliating their prisoners. That they were allowed to do it is an indictment of the discipline and leadership in their unit. I hope someone sorts the mess out soon - otherwise something similarly horrible will happen again. And the Americans will lose Iraq permanently, with dreadful consequences for the rest of us.

1. Arabs are the new 'Jews'.

Be sure to pass that along to Daniel Pearl's wife and kid.

After every war fought by Americans they have come out as villains, and this is no exception.

Find me a country involved in a war that doesn't come out looking like villains to someone, somewhere.

Which is probably why the U.S. military skimped on educating the troops about the local customs, attitudes, etc. Awfully inconvenient for the U.S. commanders if the rank and file start thinking of the Iraqis as human beings.

However, 1. Arabs are the new 'Jews' is among the most crassest, tritest statements ever trotted out on ILE, even in conjunction with point no. 2.

Um Momus you do know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican?

True, but the statement I was objecting to was "After every war fought by Americans they have come out as villains, and this is no exception." My point was who the "villain" is in a war is (here comes the increidbly obvious part...) a matter of perspective. To believe America is always the villain (and here comes the part where I say the same thing I say on every political thread) is simply Bush black/white stupidity in reverse.

And h is totally correct, in that for such an intelligent guy, it's kind of baffling how Momus can cling to these cartoonish notions of what America is.

Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who headed the 800th Military Police Brigade, is reportedly among the six.

Another six soldiers at the jail are already under criminal investigation.

The six officers have received a General Office Memorandum Reprimand, which prohibits any further promotion and paves the way for dismissal from the army.

A seventh person has been given a "letter of admonishment", a lesser form of reprimand.

All seven are now appealing against the rulings, which were issued last month, but only made public on Monday.

Why are they not facing a jail term?

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Former Iraqi human rights minister Abdel Basset Turki said US overseer Paul Bremer knew in November that Iraqi prisoners were being abused in US detention centres.

"In November I talked to Mr Bremer about human rights violations in general and in jails in particular. He listened but there was no answer. At the first meeting, I asked to be allowed to visit the security prisoners, but I failed," Turki told AFP on Monday.

"I told him the news. He didn't take care about the information I gave him." The coalition had no immediate comment about Turki's meeting with Bremer.

The minister, whose resignation was formally accepted by the coalition on Sunday, said he told Bremer about his meetings with former detainees.

"The prisoners I spoke to, they told me about how Iraqi prisoners were left in the sun on US bases for hours, prevented to pray and wash and left for two days on a chair and kicked at Abu Gharib," he said.

That was a reference to the largest prison in the country, located outside Baghdad, where a US Army enquiry found guards humiliated detainees, forced them to strip naked and perform mock fellatio and other sexual activities.

Since January, 17 people have been implicated in the scandal, including the general who ran the prison system in Iraq. Pictures of the abuse obtained by media outlets last week have caused outrage around the world.

But Turki said he had not been aware of the activities uncovered in the US Army probe when he met Bremer.

That enquiry was initiated after a US soldier in the prison stepped forward and informed the army's Criminal Investigation Division some time after November 1.

The top US commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, then ordered a full criminal and administrative investigation that led to the suspension of 17 soldiers and officers.

A third investigation is now examining whether intelligence officers or civilian contractors encouraged the abuse to weaken prisoners ahead of interrorgations.

Turki said he had also raised concerns about prisoner abuse to the International Committee of the Red Cross, but they refused to share information with him.

Turki resigned from his post on April 8 in anger over the US military offensives on Najaf and Fallujah and it was officially accepted Sunday by the coalition, the human rights ministry said Monday.

The US-dominated CPA has cited human rights as a motivating factor in the invasion last spring to oust the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussein.

The coalition demanded human rights protections be inserted into the transitional law that is expected to govern Iraq until a permanent constitution is drafted by the end of 2005.

But the scenes of intense street fighting when US forces assaulted Fallujah on April 5, in a hunt for insurgents who brutally murdered four US contractors, triggered revulsion among pro-coalition Iraqis.

That was a reference to the largest prison in the country, located outside Baghdad, where a US Army enquiry found guards humiliated detainees, forced them to strip naked and perform mock fellatio and other sexual activities.

That's quite a large difference in terms of the degree of prisoner abuse from what Bremer was told to what was recently uncovered.

(Has the "Taking Sides" construct become arcane and unknowable behind my back?)

if Bremer had looked into abuses back in November, maybe the current brouhaha wouldn't be happening.

stop obfuscating for him, the guy's an asshole.

Aw. *stops blotting out the sun*

Odd what diff a year makes, as it seems that "human rights" was only a concern for those Iraqis not locked behind walls. All the buck-passing going on now is typical, but who would detonate their career by admitting they saw those prisoners as less than human? I'd be interested watching the effect of the aftershocks on war policy over the next 5-10 years.

A MASS grave containing the remains of 200 children has been discovered outside the northern Texas city of Amarillo, the Texas newspaper Amarillo Globe-News reported today.

"Citizens discovered on April 30 a communal grave close to Washburn, in Potter County. But this is different from other mass graves discovered since the fall of George Bush's terrorist regime because it contains the remains of 200 child victims of the repression of the popular uprising" in 2006, the paper said.
"Even dolls were buried with the children," it said.

Dozens of mass graves have been uncovered all over the United States since W's ouster by invading UN-led forces on April 9.

Good thing we left Saddam to crush the Kurd uprising that we encouraged, huh? Maybe he even used some of those chemical weapons he bought from the GOP.

Saddam's actions were grievous crimes against humanity - but hey, you can't blame the people who assisted him, right? How were they supposed to know what a psychopath was going to do with chemical weapons and intelligence? How was Bush supposed to know what Saddam would do to the people who rebelled against him?

like i said before, it remains to be seen how much these incidents say about the american presence in general. if they turn out to be anomalies, you and other posters have made good arguments against the occupation and other actions of the bush administration anyhow--that won't be undermined.

obviously as far as relations between the americans and those iraqis not already part of the various uprisings go, this could be disastrous whatever the contingencies and realities.

Particularly when the person you are accusing of defending the asshole is actually not talking about that person or his actions at all.

I would also like to apologize for calling you a jackass.

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

that New Yorker article is fascinating.

Yeah, I'm really fucking glad that Saddam is going to have to pay for his crimes.

Too bad the guy who 'took him out' is a cokehead cowboy with zero respect for human rights, dignity, civilian casualties, American casualties, international law, due process or any of that other good stuff.

Too bad it took fourteen years and half a million dead children to fix the fuckups of said cowboy's father.

Too bad I have to hear how wonderful and valiant this war is from chickenshit motherfuckers like you, too scared to put their money where there mouth is.

I really look forward to all of the soldiers associated with the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners being stuck all up under the jail.

Just remember, we're doing all that to fight against the terrorists and mullahs. Oh yes.

The failures of the US to do anything in 1991 were due in large part to a lack of international support. The same international support you wish we had now, Dan, is what kept us from going after Saddam then, which milo EQAUTES with mass-murdering innocent civilians. If we always rely on having "international support," nothing would have changed in 1991 and Hussein would still be killing people today.

Hussein is locked away somewhere now. The power in the land now is what deserves the cold analytical eye.

Personally, I am disturbed that we are mired in this Iraq situation, yet al Queda is still healthy enough to plan gigantic terrorist attacks against various nations. I don't know exactly what I would have done differently and I don't have all of the information that The White House has at its disposal, but I still can't see how Saddam Hussein was a legitimate threat to the United States. To his own people? Sure. To us? I don't buy it.

"And still some have been claiming the moral highground overall for the occupying 'coalition' forces... it is fucking unbelievable."

"Odd what diff a year makes, as it seems that "human rights" was only a concern for those Iraqis not locked behind walls."

"Too bad the guy who 'took him out' is a cokehead cowboy with zero respect for human rights, dignity, civilian casualties, American casualties, international law, due process or any of that other good stuff."

What portion of "the ends does not justify the means" is unclear to you?

And the intelligence officers? The private security folks? Those who gave them orders, maybe? Alternate those who knew and did nothing?

Line o' the day.

What part of that equates to "no better than Hussein," smart guy?

Wouldn't that be easier than bullshitting around?

>>The report said the war in Iraq has turned that country into "a central battleground in the global war on terrorism."

It said former regime elements conducting attacks against coalition forces have "increasingly allied themselves tactically and operationally with foreign fighters and Islamic extremists, including some linked to Ansar al-Islam, al Qaeda and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.<<

but to say that Iraqi militia were not so much a threat to American lives as they are now seems pretty true.

Charles Heyman, senior defence analyst for Jane's Consultancy Group, wrote in the London Times on Monday:

"It begins to look as though there is going to be a rather messy political solution to the whole affair, possibly brokered by the United Nations.

"Expect to see an agreement where both sides can claim some sort of a victory, followed by a rather hasty withdrawal of coalition troops at some stage in the next six months."

If even that long, I suspect. So much for the long term commitment to 'ideals' if that comes about, but we shall see.

Looking at Middle East questions from a different angle, Stratfor has a story up right now with this summary:

The latest U.S. announcements about threats in the Middle East likely are based on increasingly reliable local intelligence, making the warnings that much more serious. The same sources of local intelligence are also increasingly at risk.

As I can't access the article, no way to tell if this argument speaks of gains in Iraq or not helping on this front, though I suspect it's more of a larger picture.

The thing that really gets my goat and molests my moose about this argument is that it can only exist in an environment in which the prevailing dichotomy is still Bush's "With us or against us" split, that you somehow have to choose between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein (or Osama bin Laden, or whoever the designated Evil One of the Week is), and therefore if you find fault with Bush you're somehow "siding" with the other guys, because those are the only sides there are.

Which is obviously complete and utter bullshit. But the problem is that, in the United States at least and even to some degree in the world at large, there has yet to be a well articulated and firm representation for the many millions of us here and abroad who find Bushism a much lesser horror than bin Ladenism but a horror nonetheless. There are plenty of people -- probably a majority of the "Western" world -- who think it's necessary to oppose both Islamic fundamentalism and Bush-style Christian nationalism. And yet they have almost no representative voice (Zapatero? Maybe. But nobody really listen to Spain anyway).

If I'm right that this is a majority position of the population of Western democracies -- and I think I am -- then its lack of sufficient international representation is a failure of Western democracy, and nothing's going to get better until we get our own houses in order. We have to be able to stand up both to the suicide-cultist Islamists and the corporate Christian aristocracy, or we're not really much use to anyone at all.

There's a difference between constructive and nonconstructive criticism. You can support a cause but criticize it in ways that harm it.

Even if you are against both Islamic fundamentalism and Bush-style Christian nationalism, and you believe both are enemies of the United States or the Liberal Democracy or Freedom or whatever, you have to acknowledge that - especially due to the effects of searching under the streetlamp - there are ways of criticizing Bush that hurt your cause. It is necessary, no matter what your position is, to take the potential for blowback into account.

No criticism is off-limits to analysis. The right to your own opinion does not include the right to enjoy it without dispute. Freaking out every time someone criticizes your criticism, and automatically blaming it on some "Us vs Them" witchhunt, is a straw man of the flimsiest order. Hiding from criticism behind the "right to your own opinion" or the "need for open debate" is intellectual cowardice.

Are you talking to yourself?

Why don't we get back to why you felt the need to bring out the "oooh, you criticized Bush/Bushwar obviously you've equated Bush/the US with Saddam!" argument? Have you found an instance where anyone equated Bush or the US with Saddam?

Why can't you just admit that no one did, Stu?

The problem is the absence of international liberal leadership. Where that's supposed to come from, I have no idea. But in its absence, we're stuck with a bunch of bozos fighting about who's god is the right one, and a lot of carpetbaggers ka-chinging away in the background.

You seem to think I'm making up the "we're no better than Saddam" position, but the "we've brought inhumanity to Iraq" and "this proves we never should have gone - we should rethink our war policy" bullshit boils down to "what we're doing in Iraq is no better than what Saddam was doing." This argument exists. It's referenced in this thread, both in what people in the thread have said - which I quoted earlier, and things people around the world have said in response to news of these abuses. You can see it in the reactions Newshound posted upthread ("The Iraq people are suffering violence and torture under a brutal regime - so no change there then!" Helen, Hong Kong). How can someone argue that these pictures show we shouldn't have taken over Iraq without arguing that we're as bad or worse than Saddam? Are you denying that people believe such things?

You've yet to explain how calling someone a cokehead cowboy with zero respect for human rights or civilian casualties ISN'T putting them on the same level as Saddam. If Bush has zero respect for these things, what did Saddam have?

I personally wouldn't deny that "people" believe anything. I wouldn't deny that some people believe the earth is made of compressed fig newtons, or that, say, dinosaurs lived 5,000 years ago and the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood. People believe all kinds of things.

What I personally would deny is that most American critics of the Bush administration think that Bush is "as bad as" Saddam. I mean, c'mon. That's like saying Joe McCarthy was "as bad as" Joe Stalin. You don't have to believe in equivalency to think they're both sons-of-bitches. And unless you live in some horrorworld where those are your only two options (the world the Bush administration would like us all to believe we do live in), then you are free to wholeheartedly reject both of them, even while ranking the crimes of Saddam Hussein as worse than the crimes of George W. Bush.

And anyway, if you flip your argument around, it ain't much of a case. OK, so Bush isn't as bad as Saddam. Stipulated. Happy now? Can we please throw the fucker out of office now?

Case in point:

You seem to think I'm making up the "we're no better than Saddam" position, but the "we've brought inhumanity to Iraq" and "this proves we never should have gone - we should rethink our war policy" bullshit boils down to "what we're doing in Iraq is no better than what Saddam was doing."
See, that's just making shit up. "I don't like your position, so I'm going to claim it 'boils down' to this other thing that I tried arguing before and failed miserably."

How does criticizing human rights abuses or the conduct of the war in Iraq "boil down" to anything but criticizing human rights abuses and the conduct of the war?

It doesn't. But you can't just admit that and deal with it.

This argument exists. It's referenced in this thread, both in what people in the thread have said - which I quoted earlier, and things people around the world have said in response to news of these abuses.
Yes, "this argument exists." As Spittle said, lots of "arguments exist."

But you're changing your argument - before it was that we - as in people posting to this thread, specifically me - were claiming that Bush/the US were equal to Saddam. Not "some people out in the world with no relation to anyone posting to this thread."

Nor have you located a statement in which anyone placed Saddam and Bush on equal footing.

Why'd you change your argument, Stu? Can't just admit that you were wrong? That you tried to make a ridiculous claim and got called on it?

How can someone argue that these pictures show we shouldn't have taken over Iraq without arguing that we're as bad or worse than Saddam? Are you denying that people believe such things?
I forget the name of the logical error in your first sentence. Something about assumptions without evidence - you're phrasing the question as if the conclusion is foregone. My response - "they're not, it doesn't."

See how that works? You make a vague statement, I make an equally vague one in reply.

Now, why don't you put on your thinking cap, and actually find where anyone here has equated Bush and Saddam. Not this mumbling, bumbling bullshit. Either find where someone did, or apologize.

You've yet to explain how calling someone a cokehead cowboy with zero respect for human rights or civilian casualties ISN'T putting them on the same level as Saddam. If Bush has zero respect for these things, what did Saddam have?
You've yet to explain how calling someone a cokehead cowboy with zero respect for human rights or civilian casualties IS putting them on the same level as Saddam.

Christ.

hopefully the bush admin will prove me wrong and lots of people will lose their jobs and worse.

The Kuwaiti political scientist, Dr Shamlan al-Eesa, was pointing out an uncomfortable truth. In many parts of the Middle East, this is how the police are expected to behave.

"These things happen every day in the Arab world, but no one reports it," he says. "That is the difference between the Arab world and the West - the West admits these things and tries to do something about it."

....

however, a lot of the heinous behavior that happens in those arab (and other) companies is with the tacit (or explicit) consent of the united states.

more from the bbc article:

A male student added: "I was shocked. Why were these photographs taken at all? This implies the soldiers were enjoying themselves. This is what gives us most pain and sorrow."

otm

My problem with this type of statement is that there's a certain "damned if you do, damned if you don't" element to it. The UN for instance, seems more then happy to point out human rights abuses across the globe (especially in a certain tiny strip of land in the mideast) but much, much less eager to intervene.

Oh, it's depressing...

(Fox found some former Army dude to come on Hannity & Colmes and say that what happened is not much more than "frat hazing.")

"Abu Ghraib Prison Population to Be Cut in Half"

(Ouch!)

Anyway more serious matters..
The US military says there have been investigations into 25 deaths in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An Army official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said a soldier had been convicted of killing one of the prisoners by hitting him with a rock.

He was thrown out of the army but did not go to jail.

The other murder was committed by a private contractor who worked for the CIA, the official said.

I kind of expected this whole thing to disappear more quickly than it looks like it's going to. This is probably going to blow up and make shit really ugly.

Published on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 by the Telegraph (Calcutta, India)
Dream Dies in US Army Kitchen
Four Indians Return Home After Nine-Month Ordeal in Iraq

by John Mary

Thiruvananthapuram, May 3: Tricked into working as kitchen assistants at a US army camp in Iraq, four natives of Kerala have returned home to recount their nine-month ordeal in the erstwhile Saddam country.

Faisal, who paid Rs 70,000 to a recruiting agent in Kollam in the hope of working in Kuwait as a butcher, said he was grateful to Allah for giving him another lease of life. “I never thought I would see my wife and three children,” he told The Telegraph.

The other three — Hameed, Shajahan and Mansoor, all from Kollam — had paid similar amounts hoping they would be able to land lucrative jobs in Kuwait and wipe off their debts.

Several others from different parts of Kerala, who were recruited for jobs in Kuwait but ended up in Iraq, have also returned. But so far the government has not been able to arrest any of their local contacts.

Faisal, Hameed, Shajahan and Mansoor were among 30 people who left their homes last year with dreams of making enough money for a decent living. Their ordeal started with a sham of a medical check-up at Kochi for which each of them paid Rs 1,500. They then left for Mumbai from where they were put on a flight to Kuwait.

All 30 landed in Kuwait City and were received by representatives of the Gulf Catering Company. They know nothing more about the company or its managers. They were then hustled into a bus. After a long ride, they reached Iraq.

When they realised they were being taken to Iraq, they protested, but their handler said he had paid Rs 45,000 for each to the main agent in Mumbai. “After all, you will be paid decent salaries and looked after well,” the company representative told them, Faisal said.

Faisal and the three others were taken to the Q West camp, some 5 km from Tikrit — the deposed Saddam Hussein’s hometown — for what would be the beginning of a thankless toil. Their day used to begin at 4 in the morning and end at 1 at night. In return for their work, the catering company used to send drafts of Rs 9,000 to their families back home, but that, too, was hardly regular.

As kitchen assistants, they had to serve food to the Americans. While they laid out sumptuous meals for the soldiers, they had to be content with leftovers. When a few of the assistants resorted to a feeble non-cooperation, one of the sentries shot a dog, in a crude warning of the fate awaiting the strikers. Once, the soldiers let them ring up their relatives, but they had to break off as a bomb went off nearby.

The four were allowed to leave the camp after much pleading. They reached Amman but had to return to Iraq because of discrepancies in travel documents. While returning, they were stopped and assaulted by Iraqi soldiers at Falluja. But realising their captives were Indians, the Iraqis let them go. Faisal and the others then reached the Indian embassy in Baghdad, from where they were flown out to Mumbai.

Asked if they had complained against the local agent, Thangal Kunju, and the sub-agent in Kochi, Faisal said: “What I want to do now is to get hold of the agent and deal with him physically. The rest can follow.”

Copyright © 2002 The Telegraph.

###

This explains so much about George Bush, doesn't it?

I'd probably be an embittered cokehead sociopath if my frat brothers forced me to perform 'mock fellatio' and shocked deez nuts.