6 US Troops charged for maltreating Iraqi jail inmates

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I didn't attribute bull**** comments to you in anticipation of some knee-jerk assumption of what you'd say.

I let your comments speak for themselves.

At least both of us clearly stated, what we think of each other. It certainly doesn't make my day worse. I'm sure neither makes it yours worse.

My above post wasn't exactly a prediction of your response in this particular case, but more an allusion to your usual posting style. Sometimes you remind me of those adolescents, who think, the more swearwords they use in their conversation, the more adult it sounds and therefor, the more weight their opinion has. You have a considerable knowledge in many things and don't need that cheap dodge. A friendly advice, from ******* to ******* : Don't. It doesn't make you sound more important. It actually does the opposite.

[MrFun]

I feel the love emanating between MTG and Ralph.

[MOBIUS]

It's worse than that Jim...

US general suspended over abuse

A US general has been suspended in Iraq over the alleged abuse of prisoners by US troops in jails she ran.
Brigadier General Janis Karpinski is among seven officers being investigated following claims that soldiers under their command mistreated detainees.

The army confirmed the suspension after US television broadcast images of US soldiers allegedly abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

CBS TV says it has "dozens" of pictures showing a wide range of maltreatment.

Taken by US troops, many of the pictures show American troops watching in apparent approval.

The army announced last month that 17 soldiers had been suspended over the allegations of abuse of prisoners.

Six of them - military police - are facing court martial.

CBS said an army investigation had concluded that Gen Karpinski's "lack of leadership and clear standards" led to problems in Abu Ghraib and three other prisons for which she was responsible.

The army has made no formal charges against her. She is the subject of an investigation that could result in a written reprimand, AFP news agency reported.


'Appalled'

Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt told CBS the army was "appalled" by the behaviour of its soldiers.

Gen Kimmitt, the deputy head of coalition forces in Iraq, said the suspected abusers "let their fellow soldiers down".

But, he said, the few suspects were "not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are over here... Don't judge your army based on the actions of a few," he urged Americans.

CBS says the pictures it obtained show a wide range of abuses, including:


Prisoners with wires attached to their genitals

A dog attacking a prisoner

Prisoners being forced to simulate having sex with each other

A detainee with an abusive word written on his body.
The prison where the abuses are alleged to have taken place was a notorious torture centre during the Saddam Hussein era.

Bob Baer, a former CIA operative with extensive Iraq experience, told CBS: "If there [was] ever a reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it's Abu Ghraib [prison]."

No guidance

The station spoke to one of the six soldiers charged, Sergeant Chip Frederick - a reservist whose full-time job is as a prison officer in the US state of Virginia.

Sgt Frederick said he and his fellow reservists had never been told how to deal with prisoners, or what lines should not be crossed.

"We had no training whatsoever," he said.

"I kept asking my chain of command for certain things... like rules and regulations. And it just wasn't happening," he said.

He said he never saw a copy of the Geneva Conventions - which govern the treatment of prisoners - until after he was charged.

The Army investigation confirmed that reservists at Abu Ghraib had not been trained in Geneva Convention rules.

The military police officers have been charged by the US Army with crimes ranging from assault and maltreatment to indecent acts against prisoners.

The soldiers in question reportedly were assisting interrogators from US intelligence agencies.

Last month, when the six military police officers were charged, an Army spokesman said the alleged crimes involved fewer than 20 prisoners and happened around November and December.

The charges include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty, maltreatment, assault and indecent acts with another.

Not being trained in the Geneva Convention!!?

As I have said earlier, the US is in grave danger of taking on the mantle left by Saddam first in their heavy handed and excessive use of force and now in the way that a significant number of their soldiers are treating enemy forces...

Obviously not everyone there is torturing people as appallingly as this, but very tellingly is the fact that this isn't about the odd isolated incident as shown by the number of people involved - it is about the fact that some of these soldiers appear incapable of realising that they have done anything wrong...

Pure f*cking animals!

Apparently they weren't told what to do, so they made it up themselves - guess they must've taken a leaf out of Gitmo or something...

And as for, as MtG so eloquently puts it, *******s getting exactly what they deserve - who decides what they 'deserve' as punishment, and isn't whosoever metes out that punishment just as bad as the *******s in the first place.

Although you seem to think it is OK to torture a fellow human being (albeit a *******), personally I don't think it is OK to do things like having prisoners with wires attached to their genitals, setting dogs on prisoners or forcing prisoners to simulate having sex with each other...

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MrFun
I feel the love emanating between MTG and Ralph.

Ummm... don't draw wrong conclusions. I'm straight.

[MrFun]

Rumor has it that MTG is straight too.

[Arrian]

Nice try at twisting what he said, MOBIUS. Quite consisent with your style. Only 4 emoticons, though. Whattup with that?

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


At least both of us clearly stated, what we think of each other. It certainly doesn't make my day worse. I'm sure neither makes it yours worse.

Not in the least, I got a good laugh out of it.

My above post wasn't exactly a prediction of your response in this particular case, but more an allusion to your usual posting style. Sometimes you remind me of those adolescents, who think, the more swearwords they use in their conversation, the more adult it sounds and therefor, the more weight their opinion has. You have a considerable knowledge in many things and don't need that cheap dodge. A friendly advice, from ******* to ******* : Don't. It doesn't make you sound more important. It actually does the opposite.

It depends on the situation. When talking about *******s who are actively trying to kill our forces, I don't have a lot of kind terms for them. Try being in a situation where there's a nebulous group of people who are systematically trying to kill you in some nasty manner or another, and see how complementary you feel about them. I'm actually being rather mild. Now when the war is over and done, and you're at peace, the former ******* is just a regular guy. Or if he's a prisoner of war, yadda yadda. But when he's out there popping out at random moments trying to shoot you, or planting explosives in a road to try to blow you through the roof of a humvee, well, then he's an *******.

[East Street Trader]

Well, in fact the Geneva Convention contains this provision

"In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations;"

It goes on to provide that various articles governing the proper behaviour of the occupying forces will continue to apply while they continue to exercise the functions of government.

The effect is that quite shortly the proper course for the US and UK will be to release any Iraqi PoWs that there may be. If that has not already been done.

The position of people making attacks upon the occupying forces or commiting sabotage since hostilities ceased, and Iraq became an occupied country, is that the occupying power is fully entitled to try them and to impose whatever punishment the law they create for the purpose prescribes, not excluding execution.

But Mr Bush has problems about such matters.

Because of the political capital he has invested in his "war" on terrorism. He needs visible opponents upon whom, to the great satisfaction of MtG and others, he can demonstrate the military might of the USA.

Treating the insurgents in the ordinary way just does not feed this political need.

So he has pretty much been making it up as he goes along.

Somehow I don't see any trials taking place. He has not bothered with such things up to now.

Whether those with the ability to persuade him that such things matter will rediscover some sensible priorities I don't know.

From the general thrust of what is said here on Apolyton I suspect they will not. Yet.

It is not only him, as far as I can see, that has some need to see the insurgents as a collection of terrorists, fanatics and foreignors.

So at a level a bit above these six guys the treatment of Iraqi insurgents is going to be an arbitrary sort of thing. Happily it seems clear that at the sharp end - in Iraq anyway - some semblance of the rule of law is to hold sway.

No doubt Che will tell me that one law for the rich and another for the poor is nothing very new.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
Nice try at twisting what he said, MOBIUS. Quite consisent with your style. Only 4 emoticons, though. Whattup with that?

-Arrian

I'd be careful with these little posts of yours, as it wasn't long since I exposed your little line in double standards...

MtG plainly states that if these are 'unlawful combatants', whatever those are, that they deserve what they get - assuming those prisoners in Abu Ghraib fit that bit, it is logical to assume that he thinks they deserve what they get...

If you're complaining that my 'style' is getting to the point, then guilty as charged!

And for your information, when I first started on these forums I didn't use smileys, but then it became rapidly apparent that many people on these boards suffer from serious reading comprehension problems and seeing as I don't like repeating myself to a bunch of morons, I use a liberal sprinkling of smileys instead...

Is that all you're reduced to, whining about my using smileys!?

So, in the words of Ming who uses far more smileys than me:-

[Arrian]

I'd be careful with these little posts of yours, as it wasn't long since I exposed your little line in double standards...

Excuse me? Where and when, pray tell? Something tells me you've imagined something, MOBIUS.

This is what MtG said, IN FULL:

Enemy combatants who are actively resisting us are *******s, and get exactly what they deserve, but lawful combatant prisoners in our custody deserve treatment in strict compliace with the Geneva Convention and other applicable treaties and standards of treatment. Unlawful combatant prisoners deserve the minimum standard of treatment required under applicable law until their cases are disposed of according to the UCMJ.

Those guards, if proven guilty, should receive the maximum sentences for each offence convicted, and any senior NCO's and officers above them responsible for conditions at that facility should also be severely punished.

Which is to say that once they are prisoners, they have rights, and the people who have violated those rights should be severely punished.

So you attempted to twist what he said.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: It's worse than that Jim...

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Not being trained in the Geneva Convention!!?

Which is bull****, or else he wasn't paying attention in basic training.

As I have said earlier, the US is in grave danger of taking on the mantle left by Saddam first in their heavy handed and excessive use of force and now in the way that a significant number of their soldiers are treating enemy forces...

There were some problems in the first gulf war too, but then you had tens of thousands of people dealing with tens of thousands of people, so there are bound to be problems. Same thing in this war - over 100,000 US troops, a huge number of Iraqi short term and long term detentions, and yes, you're bound to have some problem, due to the general viciousness of human nature. Despite your desire and rhetoric, it doesn't even come close to the quantity or level of brutality just in Saddam's 1996 purge of IRG elements, let alone the rest of Saddam's regime.

Obviously not everyone there is torturing people as appallingly as this, but very tellingly is the fact that this isn't about the odd isolated incident as shown by the number of people involved - it is about the fact that some of these soldiers appear incapable of realising that they have done anything wrong...

Apparently, there are some serious problems at least in that prison. It's still pretty "odd and isolated" when you consider the sheer number of prisoners and allied soldiers involved. Besides, didn't your kinder and gentler soldiers have a few problems in their much friendlier and safer area down south, where everyone loves the Brits due to their great skills in peacekeeping?

Pure f*cking animals!

Don't insult animals.

Apparently they weren't told what to do, so they made it up themselves - guess they must've taken a leaf out of Gitmo or something...

Apparently, that's their current whining in anticipation of court martials. Have you got any evidence of similar conduct at Gitmo, or are you just making it up yourself.

And as for, as MtG so eloquently puts it, *******s getting exactly what they deserve - who decides what they 'deserve' as punishment, and isn't whosoever metes out that punishment just as bad as the *******s in the first place.

Apparently, you are literacy challenged, or you just like to grossly misquote other posts to set up your pet strawmen. Where did I say that these prisoners (a) deserved it, or (b) that what the guards did was acceptable, or that (c) these prisoners should be maltreated?

I have no sympathy for armed enemies in the field. They can disarm and surrender, or they can die. Once they're prisoners, there are appropriate standards of treatment, which these disgraces to the uniform clearly violated.

Although you seem to think it is OK to torture a fellow human being (albeit a *******), personally I don't think it is OK to do things like having prisoners with wires attached to their genitals, setting dogs on prisoners or forcing prisoners to simulate having sex with each other...

Now why would you assume I think that? I think you need to get glasses, or maybe wipe off whatever it is on your monitor that's preventing you from reading, or whatever other problem you're having with reading and interpreting what people say.

[Kontiki]

I personally like the "we were given no guidance" angle. I suppose in absence of reading the Geneva Conventions, one naturally gravitates towards treating prisoners like sub-human pieces of crap. But once you read that Convention, lo and behold, it instantly becomes clear that they are human beings.

If I don't get a copy of all of our laws soon, I'm likely to go outside and start beating people to death at random. Lack of guidance and all that.

[Arrian]

I personally like the "we were given no guidance" angle. I suppose in absence of reading the Geneva Conventions, one naturally gravitates towards treating prisoners like sub-human pieces of crap. But once you read that Convention, lo and behold, it instantly becomes clear that they are human beings.

If I don't get a copy of all of our laws soon, I'm likely to go outside and start beating people to death at random. Lack of guidance and all that.

It's a weak-ass defense, that's for sure. But they will try anything to get off, no doubt. If you're the type of person who does that to prisoners, it's not likely you will be scrupulous about your defense.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Because of the political capital he has invested in his "war" on terrorism. He needs visible opponents upon whom, to the great satisfaction of MtG and others, he can demonstrate the military might of the USA.

My, such a spate of misquotes and mischaracterization. I must have hit a few nerves with some people. I was opposed to getting into this whole mess in the first place, and I really haven't seen a really good demonstration of military might. I never buy into this "shock and awe" nonsense, and much prefer disarmament and establishment of control by using adequate numbers and types of forces to this hit and run idiocy that Bush et al have gotten us into.

Sorry if I'm not touchy-feely about the specific people who are shooting at us.

No doubt Che will tell me that one law for the rich and another for the poor is nothing very new.

It's not really a different law, so much as the broad discretion that the law affords in how it is to applied and interpreted.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian




It's a weak-ass defense, that's for sure. But they will try anything to get off, no doubt. If you're the type of person who does that to prisoners, it's not likely you will be scrupulous about your defense.

-Arrian

That defence will fly like a brick in a military court. The only issue with this case(s) is whether they need to cut deals with these lower level vermin, in case this was really directed from the top (within the prison). I think any military prosecutor or judge would get a real sour taste in their mouths if they had to plea bargain with these six, and hopefully they won't have to do so. It's more important to get the whole story and court-martial everyone responsible than it is to just stick it to this group.