60 Minutes II - Abused Iraqi Prisoners

[BC0311]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

[ QUOTE ]
I'd also like to remind everybody that they have not been convicted yet, they haven't even started the courts martial (this is a military trial, nothing more). What happened to that "innocent until proven guilty thing?" Or does that not apply to the military whenever Dan Blather has a few pics and some dumb... to interview?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well....point taken, but those Gomers in the photos look pretty darned guilty to me.

But, you're right. Someone might have photoshopped them. Maybe that woman soldier is really pointing at a chart showing her unit's United Way contributions. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crackup.gif

Where it's most important that the defendants are considered "innocent until proven guilty" is in the courts-martial.

I make judgements all the time. Have to. Can't wait for all the facts to come in...if they ever do.

I figure Michael Jackson is a guilty dog. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Britt

 

[raggie33]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

id just like to say dont .judge the entire service on the acts of a few knuckle heads.im very prould of are men and women over there.

 

[fivebyfive]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

In response to Unicorn.

1) I don't know if this kind of abuse is wide spread or is just an isolated incident. That's why I said, "I hope what I saw was the minority of prisons in Iraq." I thought I had made that pretty clear. Especially, since this incident has been kept from the American public. As American citizens we have the right to know what our government and its armed forces are doing. Our government is accountable to us.

2) For Unicorn's second statement,
"If you or anyone else wants to help hold us to these high standards here is a simple suggestion: Join the military, earn some rank, and keep the soldiers under your command from doing anything stupid. Put your money where your mouth is."

My exact quote was "We need to hold ourselves to standards above everyone else if we are going to invade a nation and make an attempt to show its people a better life." When you take into account of Iraqi standards for prisoners of war or detainees, I don't think we (America) have to raise the bar or standards very high to surpass them. What I'm expecting out of our government and our troops isn't unreasonable. I expect at the very least humane treatment of other people by U.S. forces, especially if they're there to rid the country of such treatment to begin with along with other goals. I posted this because if we (America) are going to invade other countries, try to make them democratic, and show them the "American way" than we need to be the role model country, not the country treating people like sex objects like in those photos. Unicorn, what do you think the Iraqi people think of Americans now? I have and always will be proud of our armed forces, but an incident like this tarnishes we the American people and what we stand for. We stand for everything that is right in the world.

 

[flashfan]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

Anybody read about the Stanford Prison Experiment? Don't know if it's appropos here, but from what I remember (vaguely since it was such a looong time ago), it was an interesting study in human behavior in a prison environment.

For whatever its worth, I think fivebyfive is right on the mark. "We" really do need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and "lead by example..."

Lots of other fragmented thoughts and opinions, but no time to expound further.

 

[Greymage]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

[ QUOTE ]
The liberal types are always looking for something to criticize about the military and especially our President.

[/ QUOTE ] Do you think you could generalize a little more please? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Liberals like criticizing things, they think that's part of the improvement process. Conservatives... don't think /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif As far as criticizing GW... funny to see you lump him in with the military, considering how he was one of those rich kids that avoided Vietnam by going into the reserves.

[ QUOTE ]

Anybody here who does not like our military and wants to make sure the combatants or other citizens of Iraq are properly cared for, then go there and see to it.

[/ QUOTE ] Ah, there's a linkage? Our military, right or wrong? Only people who dislike the military care about human rights, and people who care about human rights dislike the military?

[ QUOTE ]
Our military leaders are high quality people, and take their jobs seriously. If fact they are far more intelligent, conscientious, and honorable than the general populace.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, I'd agree with that. We should let them run the country instead of letting people vote, that's worked so well in so many countries.

 

[Jack_Crow]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

Hi guys,
For what it's worth.

We don't have prisoners here execpt when some local national or TCN (Third Country Nationals)who get caught doing something dumb.

Like counting the paces between buildings, taking pictures, or trying to find out how many and what type of people are based here.

I got to watch just such an interview recently.

The MP's here were real careful. The subject was handcuffed and blind folded. He was not treated roughly or abused in any way. Like most people I have witnessed state side when arrested, this one had a reluctance to shut up, and the troopers eventually walked him away so he woulden't interupt a discussion between officers.

Anyhow, when they (the MP's) noticed I was watching, that made the MP's stiffen up some. At that point I mentioned to some troopers that this guy was being well treated and I saw no problems, then got the heck away. I don't want to be a distraction at an arrest. The MP's need to focus on their duties, and not how it looks to a 'fac' (Fat Assed Civilian).

What ever happened to the dude in the cuffs? Not a clue.

Ignorance on the part of the local nationals is common. Their world view is vastly different than ours is.

One standard here is "Inshalla" or Gods Will. They feel that God has a hand in everything that happens here. Inshalla is why they succeed or don't succeed in life. So here we come and make things happen. Confusion and resentment follows. The better educated Iraqis are more tollerent to our views.

I ask one of our translators to get me electronic parts from time to time on the local ecnomey. Blowing up power supply's here is a standard problem. Mostly it's fuses and caps. Ask him and you will get answers. Parts of our culture he likes, and parts he hates. I loaned him my Jean Shephard book "In God We Trust, all others pay cash", to give him some insight into US culture. Time will tell if it was a good idea or not. Before we arrived this guy was a doctor here. His medical training is about what a top line para medic receives back home, and no where near what an MD has had.

The Iraq's know their faith and simple things. So far I have met very few Iraqi's who 'have a clue'.

Hope this helps, if not at least I haven't latched into anybody's politics. Yet.

Be well
Jack Crow in Iraq

 

[14C]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

I think (I hope) that anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that that was an isolated incident and while regrettable does not represent the actions of the military as a whole or the attitudes of the American public as a whole.

Stuff happens.

1. Our press is willing to crucify US quicker than anyone else.

2. No one is going to discipline thousands of others who treated US and Iraqi prisoners in the same or a worse manner.

3. Number 1 and number 2 do not excuse the behavior of a few.


Most people are human. Some make mistakes. Allowing some mistakes makes all people less than human in a small way.

We try do deal with that in THIS country.

With mixed results.

BUT we DO try to deal with it rather than ignore it.

 

[Unicorn]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

I didn't mean to sound as if I were defending their actions. If they are guilty (and they sure as heck look guilty) they should be punished fully under the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice).
This wasn't being hidden exactly. The military takes care of it's own, in everything usually. Just because it's not put on CNN it doesn't mean the the Army isn't taking care of it's problems. This was being investigated for a while before it ever became public knowledge. Getting stuff like this in the press during the investigation makes it more likely that it will become a political witch hunt to show that we won't tolerate any type of misbehavior.
There may have been incidents like that that were stopped before it got bad, or that were handled with non-judicial punishment. Reduction in pay grade (rank), extra duties, restriction (both up to 45 days depending on who gave it), forfieture of pay. This isn't used for something like this, but for more minor offenses. If a soldier were to hit a prisoner it might be an appropriate punishment. It also can be a career ender, or at least make it harder to advance.
These soldiers will go to trial (Court Marshal), and they will found guilty or innocent. If guilty, they will be punished and the sentences might seem shorter or laxer than civillian (mostly shorter), but remember that there is no parole or probation in military prisons, and the punishment of "hard labor" means exactly that. It doesn't need to be national news before the trial even starts. At this point, even if one of them were to be found to have nothing to do with this, he would be screwed for life probably. Just because his name is known. Just like any sensational crime, anybody who is connected seems to be thought of as guilty by people.
The excuses that the one SSG gave were nothing but BS and a lie. Everyone receives training on the Geneva Conventions, the Law of Land Warefare, in Basic. We also got more training at our mobilization station before we left the states, then more in Kuwait. Also the Rules of Engagement are very clear about when force can and can't be used, and who it can be used upon. This is all basic, skill level 1 stuff, like knowing how to clean your M16 or use a compass.

To add to Jack Crowe's post, Inshalla is also the polite way of saying "not a chance." In the Middle East they won't straight up tell you no, first they will put it off with excuses, then tell you, "I'll see what I can do," or finally Inshallah. If God makes it happen it will, but I won't. They tend to have a very fatalistic attitude about life. Whatever happens, good or bad is not up to them, it's all the will of Allah. Sort of like some of the older Christians in the 1700's. We are all going to hell, unless some will or whim of God sends a few of us to heaven.

 

[ikendu]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

When my son was about 10 or 12, he asked me about atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam. He wanted to know if it was true...and if it was, how could it be that Americans would do such a thing? After all, weren't our soldiers pretty much just like us...and we wouldn't do any such thing...would we?

I really had to think about this before I could give him what I thought was a meaningful answer. It also forced me to think alot about "ourselves".

If you are in the camp of "The U.S. is always right" or "Our military shouldn't ever be criticized"...you might as well skip the rest of my post.

Here is what I concluded, and explained to my son:

1. In war, regular, normal people like your neighbors, your friends or your family are under a lot of stress. Someone is actively trying to kill them and they are being asked to kill other human beings with inevitable mistakes causing very un-intended consequences. If you put ANYONE under sufficient stress, they will exhibit behaviors that would never be believed otherwise...and I mean ANYONE.

2. Not all people are the same. In a sufficiently sized population, there will be a few people "on the edge". This is true in general society...and true of any organization made up of human beings. Given a big enough situation, there will be a few people all too ready to hate, be cruel, and act in ways of which we are not proud.

3. Life is never perfect and war is especially never perfect. No matter how carefully you plan or anticipate or think ahead... there are far too many opportunities for things to go very wrong. After all, in war, you have a whole group of people VERY actively doing their upmost to screw up whatever plans you may have made...we usually refer to that group as ..."the enemy".

4. Put these three factors together, and you will have incidents in a war that you wished didn't happen.

So...in Vietnam, did soldiers from America, people from America, do things that are pretty awful? I'm afraid that the answer is... it is all too likely that some events like that did happen. And...that only some ever get noticed or reported (tip of the ice berg sort of thing).

Does it mean that the American soldier is evil? NO. It just means what it means. When you have war...things happen. Things that you don't want to happen.

Here, though, is a key point.

When we think ahead about the cost of a war...we should not forget the 3 factors I've mentioned. When you go to war there are obvious things that happen...and other things that WILL happen but are not so obvious. We should only fight wars when the stakes are SO HIGH that it is worth the cost. War, should not be entered into lightly. We have to hope that our leaders understand these costs and look for every opportunity to solve our problems in every other way BEFORE we consider going off to war.

We should choose leaders that have direct experience with war...or at least are smart enough to read, think and listen to others with war experience so that the important aspects of this are not lost when decisions are being considered. You probably saw cases where Colin Powell was reluctant to go to war. Do we think he was afraid or lacked courage? I don't. I think it is more likely that he knows the full cost of war...and was reluctant to pull that switch unless we had tried all other means.

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell" - William Tecumseh Sherman

 

[Aten_Imago]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

Jack Crow
RE " One standard here is "Inshalla" or Gods Will. They feel that God has a hand in everything that happens here. Inshalla is why they succeed or don't succeed in life."
That's a weird coincidence. I'm Catholic (specifically a Roman Catholic) and we believe the same thing!( exact translation of "Inshalla" is actually " In God We Trust" ...from my $20 Bill) LOL ! Not to offend any of our Arabic speaking CPF'rs or anything but you may also have heard of the IMB doctrine? An Egyptian friend defined it for me. I=Insha Allah, M = Malesh and B= Bokra. Since you're learning about one Middle Eastern culture, I'll let you translate for the other's here /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif

 

[JerryM]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

Graymage,
I can't help but wonder how old you are. No requirement for you to tell me, I just wonder.

Jerry

 

[BB]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

It looks like 2003 had the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks [outside of US boarders?] since 1969 [appears to be including non-military related terrorist attacks in Iraq for 2003]. From the US State Department 04/29/2004:

The Year in Review: Patterns of Global Terrorism

[ QUOTE ]
There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.

There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately per the charts in the articles, the terrorists still seem to be attacking largely with bombs against non-government/military/diplomatic targets and civilians are the vast majority of the casualties (1,815 out of 1,900).

-Bill

 

[dark star]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

[ QUOTE ]
Graymage,
I can't help but wonder how old you are. No requirement for you to tell me, I just wonder.


[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently old enough to know right from wrong.

 

[Alan_L]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

[ QUOTE ]
14C said:
I think (I hope) that anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that that was an isolated incident and while regrettable does not represent the actions of the military as a whole or the attitudes of the American public as a whole.


[/ QUOTE ]

How many terrorists were involved with the events of 9/11 and yet how come anyone of Middle Eastern descent is now suspected of having terrorist connections? If I remember correctly, an East Indian Sikh was killed in Arizona shortly after 9/11 because he was wearing a turban. How many Americans get nervous whenever a male with dark skin and a beard gets on a plane? It's human nature to be suspicious about what you don't know.

Like it or not, the actions of a few soldiers spoiled the reputations of all Americans over there and made their job a lot harder. If you look at it from the perspective of the Iraqi citizen, people from a different country have come into your cities saying they want to help, and now they see this. Is the next American soldier you see one of the good guys, or someone who wants to humilate you? Politics aside, I think this just goes to show the saying, "One bad apple spoils the whole tree."

 

[fivebyfive]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

Point well made Alan L. Those few soldiers really did screw it up for the rest of the soldiers there. It's hard enough over there, I imagine.

 

[JerryM]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

dark star,
Thanks. Since you are his mouthpiece, would you define right and wrong in an absolute sense for me?
Jerry

 

[keithhr]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

Greymage, nice points and rather appropriate I might say.

Silviron said he over heard this from two women:

"One was telling the other that Rather said that ALL of the soldiers over there were murdering, raping and torturing anyone that they want; That Rather had pictures of it and everything."

"I was absolutely agog. Shades of 1971 and kerry." Isn't that a bit far reaching, taking something overheard in a conversation and immediately accepting it as truth and laying blame. Isn't this exactly what GWB did when he personally decided that we needed to go to war by jumping to conclusions and giving his version of what he perceived as the truth?

 

[Silviron]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

[ QUOTE ]
Keithhr said:...... Isn't that a bit far reaching, taking something overheard in a conversation and immediately accepting it as truth and laying blame.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not jump to conclusions nor assign blame; My first thought was incredulity. Then I hurried home to try to find out find out the truth from a variety of sources.

My point was, that Kerry in 1971 told a Congressional Committee that torture, rape and murder of Vietnamese civilians by US troops was universal and encouraged by the entire command.

And about 1/3 of the nation believed him.

That is when people started spiting on soldiers and caling them baby killers.

And I could see the weak minded starting to believe it again.

My big mistake was assuming that ALL CPFers (at least the American citizens) were familiar enough with history, especially that of the current leading Democrat Candidate for President, and that they were intellectually capable of reading and comprehending my post in total and understanding my allusion to Kerry/1971.

 

[DieselDave]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

[ QUOTE ]
ikendu said:
We should choose leaders that have direct experience with war...or at least are smart enough to read, think and listen to others with war experience so that the important aspects of this are not lost when decisions are being considered. You probably saw cases where Colin Powell was reluctant to go to war. Do we think he was afraid or lacked courage? I don't. I think it is more likely that he knows the full cost of war...and was reluctant to pull that switch unless we had tried all other means.

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell" - William Tecumseh Sherman

[/ QUOTE ]

PLEASE stick with your assessment and spread the word when Hillary runs for office. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

As far as the topic of the thread
I would be for a public trial and max punishment for the members involved. They did more harm than the acts themselves. They damaged the reputation of the U.S. and the military, which probably inflamed more people to take up arms against us in Iraq. I think Dan Rather threw gas on the fire with sensationalized comments but I'm not surprised at him. They did just what I get so angry with the left for doing, saying or doing things that embolden the enemy. If guilty, hammer 'em, their actions have or will cost American lives.

 

[BlindedByTheLite]

Re: 60 Minutes II - abused prisoners

http://home.wi.rr.com/davef/iraq.htm