| 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: |
| Iraq Prison Torture | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2004, 10:02 AM (1,641 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Apr 30 2004, 10:02 AM Post #1 |
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 10:17 AM Post #2 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Oops |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Apr 30 2004, 10:18 AM Post #3 |
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 10:33 AM Post #4 |
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 10:43 AM Post #5 |
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 11:34 AM Post #6 |
|
Time to put something here
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 11:51 AM Post #7 |
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 12:53 PM Post #8 |
|
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 ). 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 | Apr 30 2004, 12:59 PM Post #9 |
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 01:13 PM Post #10 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 01:32 PM Post #11 |
|
UNGH!
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 01:37 PM Post #12 |
|
Time to put something here
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 02:45 PM Post #13 |
|
Admiral
|
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...69§ion=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 | Apr 30 2004, 07:30 PM Post #14 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
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 | Apr 30 2004, 08:43 PM Post #15 |
![]()
To baldly go
|
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.
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 | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


). In essence, the interviewee claimed that this happened because they were not instructed in the terms of the Geneva Convention(s).
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?


9:10 AM Jul 11