[karajorma]

Originally posted by Liberator
You've mischaracterized the whole thing, aldo...

Her direct superior plead took the rap and said that he ordered everything.

The case was dismissed because the Government(who was prosecuting the case) didn't have enough evidence to prove she knew the order was illegal.

The "leash" was a harness that they used to remove uncooperative prisoners without putting themselves into unnecessary danger.  Corrections is a dangerous business.  Would you rather they used a water hose or electrified prod?

And the pointing at prisoners genitals was what? A visual record of a herpes check for his medical file?


Quite frankly if this woman didn't know what she was doing was illegal she has no business being in the army. Most people with even a small amount of intelligence know that you aren't allowed to play jenga using naked prisoners as blocks.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Liberator
Would you rather they used a water hose or electrified prod?

Who says they haven't?
And I find the whole thing rather amusing. They had someone (low-ranking) to take the blame for the whole thing willingly, yet they didn't do a damn thing.

[Annorax]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Are you being sarcastic?

Nope. Military judges aren't bound by any sentencing guidelines, so if the judge decides that a death sentence is warranted, she'll be shipped straight to Leavenworth and strapped to the gurney, probably less than an hour after she gets there.

Public executions are so much more fun.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
You've mischaracterized the whole thing, aldo...

Her direct superior plead took the rap and said that he ordered everything.

The case was dismissed because the Government(who was prosecuting the case) didn't have enough evidence to prove she knew the order was illegal.

The "leash" was a harness that they used to remove uncooperative prisoners without putting themselves into unnecessary danger.  Corrections is a dangerous business.  Would you rather they used a water hose or electrified prod?

I presume smearing them with human excrement was also part of removing uncooperative prisoners?  Or building a human pyramid of bodies?  Or placing them on a box, hooded, attaching electrodes to their genitals and threatening them with electrocution?

This, is an apparent list of abuses recorded in a leaked internal army report; (EDIT; at least some of these are seen in the infamous photos)
[q]. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. [/q]

Reportedly, Rumsfeld (in congress testimony) has seen videotapes of these abuses; including the rape of a male prisoner.

Seriously, you can try and justify it happening if you want, but actually claiming humiliation and torture never even happened is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

[redmenace]

and if a death sentance was issued, is that necessarily wrong?

[Liberator]

I didn't say I agreed with it, just that not all of it rises to the level of unnecessary humiliation.

Some of you turkey's are acting like someone got killed...oh, wait, someone did, they were decapitated by these guys compatriots.

That's something that's been lost in this discussion.  You can say that it's wrong to treat them this way, and it is.  But make no mistake, if the situation were reversed there would be no prisoners, just a lot of corpses.  These bastards are killing people in an attempt to return the world to societal model circa 1025 ad.  And those that we captured have had nothing worse done to them than a little humiliation.  Keep that in mind.

*edit*
redmenace, am I correct in assuming that you advocate killing this soldier for what she did?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
I didn't say I agreed with it, just that not all of it rises to the level of unnecessary humiliation.

Some of you turkey's are acting like someone got killed...oh, wait, someone did, they were decapitated by these guys compatriots.

That's something that's been lost in this discussion.  You can say that it's wrong to treat them this way, and it is.  But make no mistake, if the situation were reversed there would be no prisoners, just a lot of corpses.  These bastards are killing people in an attempt to return the world to societal model circa 1025 ad.  And those that we captured have had nothing worse done to them than a little humiliation.  Keep that in mind.
 

You're completely wrong on both a factual and moral standpoint.

Firstly, there are allegations of murder of prisoners/detainees under torture anyways, including documentary evidence of badly beaten bodies (usually with the COD signed off by illegible handwriting by an american army doctor, listing something like 'heart defect' as the cause).

Secondly, many of the detainees were not convicted of any crimes, but civillians picked up at random roadblocks; surely you'd expect the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' to extend to the nations you 'liberate from tyranny'?  Especially if you consider torture a valid form of interrogation. There have also been instances of civillians being arrested after failing to pay kidnappers/blackmailers (upon which a fake report is written alleging they are insurgents), and of the relatives of these people being similarly detained and tortured for having the audacity to complain to US officials.

These detainees include juveniles as young as 11.  Additionally, there were specific reports of a 14-year old girl being abused.  Something like 2,400 Iraqis are detained by the US without charge or criminal process.

Thirdly, being sexually and physically abused - brutally - is not 'a little humiliation'.

Fourthly, and finally, there is no way in hell you can even pretend what other people have done is a justification; even if all the people detained & subsequently tortured were convicted and guilty.  America purports to be a paragon of virtue, shining freedom and democracy across the world; how in the name of hell can that coexist with an accepted policy of torture?

How can you justify this with what someone else from the same country - "these guys compatriots" - did?  By that token, I can sodomise, electrocute, beat, starve and detain you in a 2-metre square cell*, along with your family, because some of your compatriots are convicted rapists or murders.

*All of those things have been recorded in the Abu Ghraib scandal

[Bobboau]

[q].h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
simulate?

i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
if this allegation is true, then the one who did the forceing should get 20-30 years imprisonment

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
30 years

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
not sure how nasty that is, assumeing worst case, maybe 10 years

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
why is this on the list, that getting a wound stiched? if it was, not allowing it, then I could understand

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
20 years
[/q]

the rest of them are in the  "meh.." catagory. the comander responsable should get a dishonorable discharge, and maybe a short imprisonment for them (ie not includeing the above).

[aldo_14]

RE;
.h; Simulation is an important form of psychological torture.  There have also been reported instances of actual electro-shock torture IIRC

EDIt; he was told if he fell off the box he'd be electrocuted; that is a form of endurance torture.

.i; note the 'alleged' part.

.a;   Said detainee was also sodomized with a night-stick afterwards.  Apparently the phosphorous stuff was frequently used... I think the chemicals may be acidic in nature, not sure.

.f; I think there's 2 things here.  One was being slammed against the wall, the second was probably that having an MP stitch the wound is considered to be denying proper medical treatment.

g. incidentally, there was multiple co-oberating witnesses.

The commander of the prison itself was publicly admonished and quitely suspended and then reassigned.

Um... as an aside, the cold water stuff is an obvious form of torture (i.e. soak them continuously and let them freeze), and the dog/nudity/female underwear/masturbation stuff is not only degrading and humiliating but also particularly bad under Islam (implying it was chosen for that purpose).

There's also other stuff I've read as being reported (by eyewitnesses), including further sodomisation of inmates using nightsticks and broomsticks, a guy left to hang by his pinkies, a (17 yo) son of an Iraqi general stripped naked, smeared in mud and left to stand outside in the freezing night (to help interrogate his father) and the rape of a 12-year old boy.

[Liberator]

Do I have to go find video of those bugger's friends, or at least people they support, decapitating someone for no other reason than they happened to be in country, working on the infrastructure that keeps getting blown up.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
Do I have to go find video of those bugger's friends, or at least people they support, decapitating someone for no other reason than they happened to be in country, working on the infrastructure that keeps getting blown up.

No, you have to prove they are guilty before you can even pretend to justify torture of them.  You can't just justify that sort of abuse by assuming they might know someone who is an insurgent - it's no better than what Saddam or any dictator would and does do.

EDIt; and you realise the insurgents can justify torture and decapitating an American by that same logic - what their compatriots did ?

[Liberator]

Originally posted by aldo_14
and you realise the insurgents can justify torture and decapitating an American by that same logic - what their compatriots did ?

That's just it, neither of it is really justifed.

But, by the same token, you can't lump all interogation in together and call it "torture".

Torture involves a act directly intended to cause pain or disfigurment.

Interrogation involves weakening the will of the interogatee so that they don't lie when questioned.

To the uninitiated both appear to be the same thing.  It's like comparing sex and a proctology exam, they appear similar, but are quite different.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Liberator
Torture involves a act directly intended to cause pain or disfigurment.

That's it Lib. Keep up the rewriting of the english language to make terms say what is politically expedient. You'll have the Orwellian society you're after very quickly.

tor·ture  
Excruciating physical or mental pain

Lets forget that and use the goodspeak term shall we?

[Bobboau]

ok, let me try, I have no problem with torture so long as it causes no long term damage, and more importantly gets the results in a more effective (quantity*quality) manner than any other alternative available.
and it's not simply being used as entertainment for some bored gaurds.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


That's just it, neither of it is really justifed.

But, by the same token, you can't lump all interogation in together and call it "torture".

Torture involves a act directly intended to cause pain or disfigurment.

Interrogation involves weakening the will of the interogatee so that they don't lie when questioned.

To the uninitiated both appear to be the same thing.  It's like comparing sex and a proctology exam, they appear similar, but are quite different.

Aah, following the Rumsfeld doctrine, are we?  Presumably you're well initiated in torture.... despite talking complete and utter rubbish in your definition.

Sodomy isn't interrogation.  Beatings aren't interrogation.   Sleep deprivation, ritual humiliation, being held in tiny cells, denial of food are not interrogation.  I suggect you shove a nightstick up your backside, before you claim to comment on what does and does not cause pain.

If you want a definition of torture, I suggest you consult a more reputable and unbiased source than the seedy 'legal' guidelines issued by the US government to excuse themselves from the consequences of human rights abuses (under the geneva convention).

Perhaps the UN Convention againt Torture, which defines it as;

Article 1

   1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
   2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

   1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
   2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
   3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.


..


Article 16

   1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
   2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.


Detainees are subject to both the protection of the Geneva Convention (including illegal combatants; if the insurgency is defined as such), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7; No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.)

Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, let me try, I have no problem with torture so long as it causes no long term damage, and more importantly gets the results in a more effective (quantity*quality) manner than any other alternative available.

Problem is that it doesn't; people being tortured are far, far more likely to say what the torturer wants rather than the truth.  It's an inherently unreliable method of getting information - how many people burned in the Dark Ages do you think were actually witches?

[Flipside]

Meh, nevermind. Not getting involved.

All I'll say is that it is a sad sad day when I hear members of a so called civilised culture condoning torture and pain-induced obedience or confession in any way shape or form. I am truly dissapointed.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Aah, following the Rumsfeld doctrine, are we?  Presumably you're well initiated in torture.... despite talking complete and utter rubbish in your definition.

Sodomy isn't interrogation.  Beatings aren't interrogation.agreed   Sleep deprivation, ritual humiliation, being held in tiny cells, denial of food are not interrogation.except for the denial of food I disagree.  Food is a basic right, but the rest of it is meant to weaken the will of the person being questioned.  I assume you wouldn't support chemical inducment?  I suggect you shove a nightstick up your backside, before you claim to comment on what does and does not cause pain.I never claimed to know what causes pain, and I never said sodomy was a good interogation technique

If you want a definition of torture, I suggest you consult a more reputable and unbiased source than the seedy 'legal' guidelines issued by the US government to excuse themselves from the consequences of human rights abuses (under the geneva convention).

Perhaps the UN Convention againt Torture, which defines it as;

Article 1

   1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
   2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

   1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
   2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
   3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.


..


Article 16

   1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
   2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.


Detainees are subject to both the protection of the Geneva Convention (including illegal combatants; if the insurgency is defined as such), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7; No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.)



Problem is that it doesn't; people being tortured are far, far more likely to say what the torturer wants rather than the truth.  It's an inherently unreliable method of getting information - how many people burned in the Dark Ages do you think were actually witches?

You refuse to admit that there is a difference between Interogation and Torture.  Also, those bloody "regulations" basically say that you can ask questions but it's the choice of the prisoner to answer or not.  That's a waste of time.  Sure it's not okay to intentially injure a prision in the course of questioning, but denying them sleep or peace in order to weaken their will doesn't injure them.  It only makes them uncomfortable for a short period of time.

[WMCoolmon]

If interrogation involves torture, that doesn't mean it isn't torture...it just means that it's torture with a purpose other than sadistic pleasure. Do the ends justify the means?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Liberator
Also, those bloody "regulations" basically say that you can ask questions but it's the choice of the prisoner to answer or not.  That's a waste of time.

I bet you'd be the first to complain if you were arrested and weren't mirandised so I really don't know what you're on about here Lib.

You have the right to remain silent in the USA why shouldn't an Iraqi have that right too?

[Liberator]

Okay, since were on the "UN is God and Knows All" bent:

So you guys would be okay with chemical inducment(sodium pentethol and the like) then?

How exactly are interorgators supposed to extract information from uncooperative prisoners?