6 US Troops charged for maltreating Iraqi jail inmates

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Those who resisted German occupation in WWII have been afforded universal respect.

Godwins law invoked.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Those who resisted German occupation in WWII have been afforded universal respect.

And that has what do to with what?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Leavenworth isn't exactly fun.

Do you know that by experience?

(I guess Leavenworth is a prison in US?)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Do you know that by experience?

Luckily, no, but my brother spent a little time there while the Army figured out what to do with him. (guardhouse, not prison, since he was never charged)

(I guess Leavenworth is a prison in US?)

Yep. Maximum security military prison.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Hm. It appears his complaint was a bit more than not having been given the Geneva convention rules:

HAGERSTOWN, Md. - A soldier facing a court-martial for his role in the alleged abuse of Iraqi war prisoners says commanders ignored his requests to set out rules for treating POWs and scolded him for questioning the inmates’ harsh treatment.

Army Reserves Staff Sgt. Ivan “Chip” Frederick wrote that Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad lacked the humane standards of the Virginia state prison where he worked in civilian life, according to a journal he started after military investigators first questioned him in January.

The Iraqi prisoners were sometimes confined naked for three consecutive days without toilets in damp, unventilated cells with floors 3 feet by 3 feet, Frederick wrote in materials obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

“When I brought this up with the acting BN (battalion) commander, he stated, ’I don’t care if he has to sleep standing up.’ That’s when he told my company commander that he was the BN commander and for me to do as he says,” Frederick wrote.

The writings were supplied by Frederick’s uncle, William Lawson, who said Frederick wanted to document what was happening to him. Lawson and Martha Frederick, the sergeant’s wife, said Frederick was being made a scapegoat for commanders who gave him no guidance on managing hundreds of POWs with just a handful of ill-trained, poorly equipped troops.

Lt. Cmdr. Nicholas Balice, spokesman for the Central Command, which is in charge of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, said he couldn’t comment on Frederick’s writings, but that the allegations against him were appropriately investigated.

6 facing charges
Frederick is one of six members of the 800th Military Police Brigade facing courts-martial for allegedly humiliating prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Charges include dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault and indecent acts with another person.

CBS’s “60 Minutes II” broadcast pictures of the alleged abuse and an interview with Frederick on Wednesday. Some of the soldiers were smiling in the photographs obtained by CBS, which showed naked prisoners stacked in a human pyramid and being forced to simulate sex acts.

Lawson, of Newburg, W.Va., said his nephew was being portrayed “as a monster.”

“He’s just the guy they put in charge of the prison,” he said.

Martha Frederick, of Buckingham, Va., said her husband, in Iraq since April 2003, told her his unit wasn’t given proper training and equipment.

“I feel like things are being covered up. What has come to light has fallen on the burden of my husband,” she said.

Seventeen members of the 372nd Military Police Company were temporarily suspended from their posts after the investigation at the prison, Col. Jill Morgenthaler, a military spokesman in Baghdad, told The (Baltimore) Sun.

Military officials said Frederick, 37, is among the 14 of 17 people under investigation from the unit of the 800th based in Cresaptown, in western Maryland.

The Sun’s Friday editions identified two other soldiers facing court-martial. The newspaper cited unidentified Army officials in naming Sgt. Javal S. Davis, 26. His wife, who also spoke to the newspaper, defended her husband.

“We really don’t know how those prisoners are behaving,” said Zeenithia Davis, who is in the Navy in Mississippi. “There’s a line between heinous war crimes and maintaining discipline.”

Mother recognizes daughter
A Sun reporter on Thursday showed a photo of one of the nude prisoner scenes to Terrie England, who recognized her daughter, reservist Lynndie R. England, 21, standing in the foreground with her boyfriend.

“Oh, my God,” she told the newspaper from the stoop in front of her Fort Ashby, W.Va., trailer home. “I can’t get over this.”

The alleged abuses of prisoners were “stupid, kid things — pranks,” Terrie England said. “And what the (Iraqis) do to our men and women are just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, does that apply to everybody or just us?”

Her family said Lynndie England is detained on a U.S. base, but declined to say where.

Army officials said the investigation began in January when an American soldier reported the abuse and turned over evidence that included photographs. In addition to the criminal charges, the military has recommended disciplinary action against seven U.S. officers who helped run the prison, including Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, commander of the 800th Brigade.

Frederick’s civilian lawyer, Washington-based Gary Myers, said he has urged the commanding general in Iraq to treat the case as an administrative matter, like those of the seven officers.

“I can assure you Chip Frederick had no idea how to humiliate an Arab until he met up” with higher-ranking people who told him how, Myers said.

Myers said Frederick has had his Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding. Myers said he will next request a change of venue because “you can’t try a case of this magnitude in a hostile war zone environment.”

In civilian life, Frederick has been a correctional officer for six years at the Buckingham Correctional Center in Dillwyn, Va., his wife and a state agency spokesman said.

He wrote that he questioned the inmates’ treatment and asked for standard operating procedures when his unit relieved the 72nd Military Police Company at the prison last fall. His requests were ignored until Jan. 19, five days after his first visit from investigators, when he found the Geneva Convention rules for handling prisoners of war on the Internet, Frederick wrote.

[Arrian]

Mother recognizes daughter
A Sun reporter on Thursday showed a photo of one of the nude prisoner scenes to Terrie England, who recognized her daughter, reservist Lynndie R. England, 21, standing in the foreground with her boyfriend.

“Oh, my God,” she told the newspaper from the stoop in front of her Fort Ashby, W.Va., trailer home. “I can’t get over this.”

The alleged abuses of prisoners were “stupid, kid things — pranks,” Terrie England said. “And what the (Iraqis) do to our men and women are just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, does that apply to everybody or just us?”

Her family said Lynndie England is detained on a U.S. base, but declined to say where.

/me sincerely hopes these people are not distant relations

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Godwins law invoked.

MtG should close the thread.

[MOBIUS]

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

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
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?

True and not everyone should be tarred with the same brush, but when the Brig-Gen is facing censure and you have at least 17 people involved it is hardly isolated.

Yes, there was one problem with the UK forces but it was nothing compared to this - and the Colonel that got falsely accused by the cry-baby US Major was totally exonerated.

Don't insult animals.

Sorry. My bad.

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.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of more extreme conduct, and there is plenty of actual filmed proof of what could be determined as human rights abuses. I guess it rather depends on your opinions...

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?

You said "Enemy combatants who are actively resisting us are *******s, and get exactly what they deserve"

You drew the distinction between 'lawful' and 'unlawful' combatants. IIRC your stance over terrorist types is that they are unlawful, which is a similar stance to the US govt - which is why they treat the inmates at Gitmo the way they do.

It is therefore reasonable to suppose that these non regular detainees in Abu Ghraib are 'unlawful' in your eyes and so "get exactly what they deserve..."

What does that mean in your eyes...?

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.

Well, clearly given that the soldiers complained of not getting guidance from their superiors they, er, treated them as they deemed appropriate...

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.

So if you captured an Iraqi that abused and burned those four contractors and one of those happened to be your friend, you wouldn't lay a finger on them if you thought you could get away with it?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by dv8ed
Hm. It appears his complaint was a bit more than not having been given the Geneva convention rules:

Good. Hopefully there will be enough evidence to try and convict all officers and senior NCO's up the chain of command who were directly responsible for this, or who knew about violations and did nothing. The guards and their commanders are disgraces to the uniform.

[MOBIUS]

The alleged abuses of prisoners were “stupid, kid things — pranks,” Terrie England said. “And what the (Iraqis) do to our men and women are just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, does that apply to everybody or just us?”

One of the relatives justifying their actions already...

[Ramo]

Mercs partially responsible:

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.

[...]

"It's insanity," said Robert Baer, a former CIA agent, who has examined the case, and is concerned about the private contractors' free-ranging role. "These are rank amateurs and there is no legally binding law on these guys as far as I could tell. Why did they let them in the prison?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

Don'cha love privatized justice?

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

Originally posted by MOBIUS


True and not everyone should be tarred with the same brush, but when the Brig-Gen is facing censure and you have at least 17 people involved it is hardly isolated.

17 out of over 100,000 in country, and probably around 200,000 who have been in country at one time or another in this war? My, we have an epidemic on our hands. Yes, it is quite isolated.

and there is plenty of actual filmed proof of what could be determined as human rights abuses. I guess it rather depends on your opinions...

What I've seen suggests extremely strict control over prisoners considered extremely dangerous. Harsh and unpleasant in some instances, but not to the level of human rights abuses. Although I think we should have real tribunals under the UCMJ to sort out exactly who we have down there and what we should do with them.

You said "Enemy combatants who are actively resisting us are *******s, and get exactly what they deserve"

That's right - they surrender, agree to cease hostilities and disarm, or they die fighting or running. Once they've surrendered, etc., they are no longer actively resisting us.

You drew the distinction between 'lawful' and 'unlawful' combatants. IIRC your stance over terrorist types is that they are unlawful, which is a similar stance to the US govt - which is why they treat the inmates at Gitmo the way they do.

The Hague and Geneva conventions make that distinction too. Lawful combatants are entitled to much more significant protections than are unlawful combatants.

It is therefore reasonable to suppose that these non regular detainees in Abu Ghraib are 'unlawful' in your eyes and so "get exactly what they deserve..."

If they're unlawful combatants, as opposed to arrestees or lawful combatants, then they don't get the little care packages and such that regular prisoners get. They don't get tortured and systematically abused for entertainment, either. That doesn't mean they're coddled, but they're handled as necessary for security purposes and the safety of all persons, prisoners and guards.

What does that mean in your eyes...?

There's nothing about it. Some of those people may be subject to eventual execution, or very long prison terms, or whatever judicial punishment is determined for them, but there are still correct procedures for handling them, and those procedures do not involve gratuitous abuse.

So if you captured an Iraqi that abused and burned those four contractors and one of those happened to be your friend, you wouldn't lay a finger on them if you thought you could get away with it?

First, there's a lot of discretion in capturing someone. Alexander's Horse can tell you a bit about Aussie (and everyone else's) view about infantry assaults. If the guy resists, or if I would have to fight my way into wherever he's holed up, the odds of a successful surrender are not good.

If he is taken prisoner, then he is handled according to the proper rules and regulations for handling prisoners.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Mercs partially responsible:

Originally posted by Ramo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

Don'cha love privatized justice?

Federal law still applies to overseas activity, but the military has no authority under the UCMJ to try any non-combatant, non-enemy civilian.

[lightblue]

Seems like the Brits are at it as well. No link yet, but is in the Latest News ticker on http://news.bbc.co.uk amd was the elading story on the 10 o'Clock news.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Luckily, no, but my brother spent a little time there while the Army figured out what to do with him. (guardhouse, not prison, since he was never charged)

The brother who died in 'Nam? I guess it was before they sent him there. What was he suspected for? (Really none of my business, I'm just curious. If you don't want to share it, don't)