6 US Troops charged for maltreating Iraqi jail inmates

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
I was thinking about this. My grandfather spent 5 years in a German POW camp and he never saw any beatings or anything like this.

I guess the Germans saved that for their other camps.

The trick is in the process of getting from the field to a POW camp. Airmen were generally treated better than ground troops, for a number of reasons, but troops on either side who were captured in ground combat (as opposed to mass surrender of whole units or commands) had a pretty risky time of things. If they got captured in the first place - if the ground troops were was heavily engaged, the opportunity to surrender just might not be there, or the ability or desire to deal with prisoners might not be there due to the tactical situation - for an example from the allied side, you could take the allied airborne landings during the night before the Normandy invasion - there was no way most of those units could process prisoners even if they wanted to.

[Fake Boris]

At the risk of confronting your legendary historical knowledge, I doubt that many soldiers except the most demoralized ones would surrender to a bunch of paratroopers.

[Agathon]

All true, but there must be some weird stuff going on in Iraq.

I always remember how the Brits acted at the Battle of the Falklands in 1914. As soon as a German ship sank or flew a white flag, they bolted to save as many as they could. It's what I'd do, it's only common decency.

You have to be a pretty sick SOB to do that sex stuff to prisoners.

[Agathon]

BTW - My grandfather (RAF Wireless operator) was captured during the run to Dunkirk. He didn't even have a gun and was hiding from Stukas in a hole.

When he was in camp one of the German girls from a local village took a shine to him. I've seen her picture, she was red hot.

My grandmother didn't think this was funny at all (he virtuously resisted her approaches and married my GM once he returned to England).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
At the risk of confronting your legendary historical knowledge, I doubt that many soldiers except the most demoralized ones would surrender to a bunch of paratroopers.

They generally weren't asked if they wanted to.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
All true, but there must be some weird stuff going on in Iraq.

Seems like there is a huge breakdown of leadership and discipline at least within those units.

You have to be a pretty sick SOB to do that sex stuff to prisoners.

It's about humiliation and control, but I agree definitely sick and sadistic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Airmen were generally treated better than ground troops,

My great-uncle was shot on the ground and the rest of his crew nearly beaten to death by a German mob. The soldiers had to rescue them. This isn't to contradict you.

[East Street Trader]

There were stories of incidents like that current with British aircrew, Che - my dad says. So I imagine your great-uncle's experience was not unique.

Bombing raids were much resented, I think, for one thing. And maybe there were civilians who just felt savage towards the enemy for any number of reasons and who would ordinarily have no chance to express their rage.

In England people spent quite a while in daily expectation of an invasion. So I seem to recall hearing a couple of incidents of German airmen who had to bail out being attacked when they landed in the belief that they were paratroopers taking part in such an invasion.

There are lots of stories of surrenders not being accepted or of men who had already surrendered just being shot out of hand because those accepting the surrender or asked to do so just couldn't spare the time and effort and manpower required. To the extent that this has become a matter of urban legend. Whether it is really prevalent it is pretty well impossible to know. Such things would hardly be made a matter of record or openly talked about. But I did once hear, on television, an eye witness account given by someone who had been told to take a group of German prisoners behind a wall and shoot them. He and his comrades did so but he had been very shocked by the order and was clearly happy, all those years later, partly to relieve his conscience by giving an account of it.

I suspect many others would feel the same so the paucity of hard evidence of this kind makes me think that it is not really a common experience.

I leave aside the eastern front in the second world war. It is said that battles there were substantially fought on a no quarter asked or given basis.

What is certainly true is that it has got harder and harder to surrender as the range of infantry weapons has extended. This was said to be the case for the Argentinian conscripts who fought in the Falkland trenches. The weapons used by the British regulars were killing well ahead of the advance - at least two trenches ahead. So the troops were either too far away to know that the Argentinian kids were trying to surrender or else the pace of the advance afforded no practical way to switch off the rain of death being laid down ahead of the advance.

And, of course, surrendering to missiles is a bit of a non starter.

[lightblue]

Supposedly a large part of the "preparing for interrogation" and the actual "interrogation" has been farmed out to the ubiquitious "external contractors". I think the soldiers captured on the pictures were ordered to make the prisoners do what you can see on the pictures by people from companies or institutions who won't be caught on camera.

The whole using private companies to perform security sensitive tasks worries me, but seems to be a sign of the way Rumsfeld wants to run the DoD.

[Kropotkin]

the ubiquitious "external contractors".

Made me think of something, this is a question of sorts mainly aimed at MtG I suppose. Anyhow, those 'civilan contractors' seems to be doing quite a few of the shady jobs in Iraq, some have called some of them for modern mercenaries. Would that made them 'Illegal combatans'?

[lightblue]

I think it probably does, especially if they are carrying weapons.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Rummy is safe and sound. Sacking Rummy would be akin to Bush apologizing. It's just not done.

I stand corrected Bush apologized. Rummy is still safe tho'.

[Alexander's Horse]

Rummy isn't safe.

Let's stop pretending this is an isolated incident. Apparently there are over 1000 photos and there have been 25 deaths in custody of which 2 are being treated as homicide. I think that figure is Afghanistan and Iraq.

But maybe this publicity will stop something worse like Operation Phoenix. At least 20,000 people in Indochina were assasinated at CIA direction under that program during the Vietnam War. The murders were carried out by local friendly forces, CIA operatives (now rather quaintly called "contractors" in Iraq) and by US Special forces including Navy Seals and green berets.

Here's a few sources:

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/operation_phoenix.htm

And before anyone says it's bull, this was all admitted to in congressional testimony by it's architect, the CIA's then South Vietnam Station chief and later Director William Colby.

Colby never served a day in jail as far as I know.

Here is his bio.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/wcolby.htm

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

Made me think of something, this is a question of sorts mainly aimed at MtG I suppose. Anyhow, those 'civilan contractors' seems to be doing quite a few of the shady jobs in Iraq, some have called some of them for modern mercenaries. Would that made them 'Illegal combatans'?

Private contractors with weapons may not be combatants at all - i.e. bodyguards, building and diplomatic security. Private contractors who engage in combat operations and/or direct combat support operations may be unlawful combatants depending somewhat on their nationality (South Africans have a bit more problem, as IIRC, they're not a party to the conflict) and depending primarily on their conduct. The same standards apply to them, i.e. wearing identifying markings, openly bearing arms, part of an organization with a chain of command, and general adherence to the laws and customs of war.

The first and last of those four requirements are most likely where the issue of lawful vs. unlawful combatant status is determined. Whether they're lawful or unlawful combatants is an entirely different issue from any specific criminal acts which they may commit.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


My great-uncle was shot on the ground and the rest of his crew nearly beaten to death by a German mob. The soldiers had to rescue them. This isn't to contradict you.

Yeah - I meant by enemy military forces. Civilians on any side didn't take too well to aircrews.