Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Iraq Prison Torture
Topic Started: Apr 30 2004, 10:02 AM (1,641 Views)
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I think condemnation of this has been pretty global but I will also add mine. What an outrage. Frankly this is not going to make our job in Iraq any easier. We want to Iraqis to trust the coalition, we want to be seen as liberators, but instead time and again actions are taken which make us look like an rather brutal occupying army.

We want stability in Iraq. Plan one was support the oppression of the Iraq people by supporting Saddam. Plan two was to condemn Saddam but allow the oppression to continue. Whats plan three? Cut out the middle man and do the torture ourselves?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Oops
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Ditto .

And I wonder the family of that female soldier think of her ? Definitely beyond reasonable behaviour and did nothing that would help win the hearts of the Iraqis.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
US Military in Torture Scandal


Hired contractors? This ruins the fine reputation of our soldiers in Iraq and puts an awful face on war. I'm glad General Mark Kimmitt said what he said. He is right on the money.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
I'm sure these idiots aren't representative of the majority of the soldiers, but unfortunately the whole thing is quite embarrassing for the U.S. and especially the military. It's definitely not what anyone needed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
Graphic photographs showing the torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners in a US-run prison outside Baghdad emerged yesterday from a military inquiry which has left six soldiers facing a possible court martial and a general under investigation.


The scandal has also brought to light the growing and largely unregulated role of private contractors in the interrogation of detainees.


How can there be military inquiries and investigations if at the same time you are leaving them largely unregulated? Sounds contradictory to me does it not? I am not saying this is not a bad thing, but just like every where else in the world there are bad and stupid people, war also brings the stress level up leading these people to act on their ill behavior. So as long as there are military inquiry, investigation, and punishments we need not worry.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Thanks to Intrepid for providing the link.

As to accountability, I seriously doubt that the company cannot be held accountable, at the minimum, for the tort involved. (In other words, they should be sued for all that they are worth by the victims and would probably win even in a US court.)

As for Chip whatever his name is - "Someone has to tell you NOT to do those things?!?!?!?!?"

End of Rant
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
I saw a bit of this on 60 Minutes II the other night and a follow-up interview with one of the guards who served there last night on CBS' Evening News with Dan Rather. Unfortunately, the text of the interview is not available (or I'm just not searching right :shrug: ). In essence, the interviewee claimed that this happened because they were not instructed in the terms of the Geneva Convention(s).

Rhetorical Question
Now, I don't know the Conventions inside out, but given the images I saw does it really require detailed information on the Conventions to know you just don't treat anyone the way these dip$h!ts did?
End Rhetorical Question
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Well the question in my mind is this. The individuals involved may have personal liability, but does the US have liability for the actions of its troops - even if those actions are unrepresentative. Is the US in breach of the Geneva Conventions?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Swidden
Apr 30 2004, 01:53 PM
I saw a bit of this on 60 Minutes II the other night and a follow-up interview with one of the guards who served there last night on CBS' Evening News with Dan Rather. Unfortunately, the text of the interview is not available (or I'm just not searching right :shrug: ). In essence, the interviewee claimed that this happened because they were not instructed in the terms of the Geneva Convention(s).

Rhetorical Question
Now, I don't know the Conventions inside out, but given the images I saw does it really require detailed information on the Conventions to know you just don't treat anyone the way these dip$h!ts did?
End Rhetorical Question

Is this what you are looking for Swidden?

Abuse Of Iraqi POWs By GIs Probed

You can get a bit more info/feedback on the story by clicking on this link:

60 Minutes II Main Page


I didn't have time to find the follow up interview, but here is the link if anyone wants to browse around:

CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
:meditate: I just got back from the left side and it scares me to read that these private contractors are talked about like they're hired mercenaries. Our military is there, following orders, fighting a great war on a slim salary and these private contractors are getting paid well AND screwing things up?

I'll have to go back to the left and do some more reading.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Apr 30 2004, 01:59 PM
Well the question in my mind is this. The individuals involved may have personal liability, but does the US have liability for the actions of its troops - even if those actions are unrepresentative. Is the US in breach of the Geneva Conventions?

Good question, but I doubt it, since it was not an order given or common practice I don’t think you can make that claim. They are untimely responsible, but just not in breach of the convention.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...69&section=news

Whose "brilliant" idea was this? You know there may be no problem at all doing this, but when there is already one controversy it doesn't seem very smart to mix it with another...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
Controversy has also surrounded the Guantanamo camp because terror suspects have been held there with no charges or legal representation. Photos of detainees shackled and being forced to kneel in chain link cages sparked international outrage.


I really hate this part of the story. They are not suspects, thay are prisoners of war. You don't charge prisoners of war.

Now every S.O.B. involved in the Iraqi should be detained on site. Tried in front of Iraqi TV and punished in the most severe fashion. I would even go as far as to suggest that the term "war crimes" be used to describe their actions. Be used when refering to the idiots who perpatrated these acts. They have given aid and comfort to the enemy. These pictures will be on every terrorist website (whose numbers are growing) as a recruiting tool.

A bunch of yayhoos are going to use ingnorance of the law as an excuse to mistreat enemy prisoners. During a time of war?

Look to further uprisings and acts of violence. Hope those contractors enjoyed themselves. I'm sure our fighting men will pay for thier entertainment.


ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Vger_art
Member Avatar
To baldly go
ANOVA
Apr 30 2004, 07:30 PM
Quote:
 
Controversy has also surrounded the Guantanamo camp because terror suspects have been held there with no charges or legal representation. Photos of detainees shackled and being forced to kneel in chain link cages sparked international outrage.

I really hate this part of the story. They are not suspects, thay are prisoners of war. You don't charge prisoners of war.

They are called suspects because they have never been brought to trial, logical. It shouldn't matter if you call them POW's or suspects, surely in neither case is it ok to violate their rights.

ANOVA
Apr 30 2004, 07:30 PM
Now every S.O.B. involved in the Iraqi should be detained on site. Tried in front of Iraqi TV and punished in the most severe fashion. I would even go as far as to suggest that the term "war crimes" be used to describe their actions. Be used when refering to the idiots who perpatrated these acts. They have given aid and comfort to the enemy.

Agreed but it's not going to happen. I wonder what Bush had in mind when he negotiated immunity from International Criminal Court prosecution for American war criminals.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus