News US military confirms more horrific pics & vids

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

The Bush administration was bracing itself last night for the release of new pictures and video footage from Abu Ghraib which show US soldiers having sex with an Iraqi woman prisoner, troops almost beating a prisoner to death, and the rape of young boys by Iraqi guards at the jail.
Senior officials have warned that the new images and details of the abuse and torture at the prison west of Baghdad will be even more shocking than those already released. They will undoubtedly place even more pressure on President George Bush and his beleaguered Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, as they desperately try to limit the political damage from the growing scandal.
NBC News has quoted military officials as saying that the new photographsalso show US soldiers "acting inappropriately with a dead body". This may refer to a picture, which The Washington Post described but did not publish, of Sabrina Harman, one of seven reservists charged with abuses, posing with thumbs up next to a decaying corpse.
NBC also reported that the rape of young boys by Iraqi guards, apparently in a special section of the prison, had been filmed by US soldiers.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=519448

You can deny and apologize and fence-sit all you want. It really doesn't matter what you think anymore.

 

[member 5645]

You can deny and apologize and fence-sit all you want. It really doesn't matter what you think anymore.

Who are you talking to? That is a great way to begin a debate in a forum made for such.

 

[motai]

These events are tragic, but Chemicalsuperfreak may have a point. What can the everyday person do about such things? My opinion can't stop these events from occurring as most of this stuff lies half a world away from where I am at. Powerless to protect, powerless to defend.

Lets just hope that the people with power know what they're doing.

 

[Shadow]

Horrifying and sickening to say the least. Then again, that is what war is isn't it? Each side seems to attempt to do the worst things possible to the other...usually civilians come out as being the group that is harmed.
For example, where the Iraqi's practically roasted the bodies of american engineers, four of which were from South Carolina (i believe...it could have been north) and hung their dead bodies on a bridge.

What the hell is wrong with our world?

 

[hughes johnson]

It really doesn't matter what you think anymore.

Thank you, I will do my best to see that you are afforded this same courtesy.

 

[Adam]

Lets just hope that the people with power know what they're doing.

Of course they do. They know that they can send other people to war in far away lands, where people will be abused and killed and such, and they will make a profit. They know exactly what they're doing.

 

[Polly]

The Chinese was downtrodden by the Japanese in WWII in the most unfathomably horrific way. There were incidents of civilian pregnant women whose babies were ripped out from the uteruses by the Japanese soldiers with bayonets on the street, just for fun, amongst all the incidents of rape, mutilation, experiments of deadly virus on the civilians and forced prostitution (organised whore houses) for the sexual gratification of the solders in Burma, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and different parts of China. It is very natural to hate the Japanese, until one starts to think what had change them from normal people (farmers, students) to sick distorted monsters. I always think unless a country is defending itself from aggressive offensive, wars should be avoided at all costs.

 

[member 5645]

I always think unless a country is defending itself from aggressive offensive, wars should be avoided at all costs.

But what if there is a threat to an ally?

 

[Shadow]

Then do not go back on your promise to defend an ally. While your country may be dragged into war, you shouldn't pledge an alliance if you are going to go back on it. Untrustworthy, lying countries are not good ones.

 

[Nereid]

Among the many disturbing things is the report - by one of the armed forces' own internal investigations? - that what was going on was institutional and systematic, *not* the behaviour of a few 'rotten apples' ... and this report was available to senior commanders when? Yet Myers and Rummy professed ignorance?? I mean, a credible report, by a general (?), containing damning conclusions takes *months* to crawl up the chain of command?

No senior official has lost his (or her) job over the 9/11 intelligence failures; now no senior official will lose his job over the Iraq torture scandal?

 

[Polly]

But what if there is a threat to an ally?

Not being a native speaker I have demonstrated on a few occassions that I can easily got hold of the wrong end of a stick altogether. So I need to ask you for clarification, are you referring to the WWII or the Iraqi War? Which ally? Are you saying that pre-emptive strikes are justifiable? Not to me.

 

[member 5645]

Not being a native speaker I have demonstrated on a few occassions that I can easily got hold of the wrong end of a stick altogether. So I need to ask you for clarification, are you referring to the WWII or the Iraqi War? Which ally? Are you saying that pre-emptive strikes are justifiable? Not to me.

You made the statement that there should only be war if there is a direct aggressive offensive made to your country.


My response is that I also see a validation for war if an ally is attacked or if a countries livliehood is attacked (blockades don't have to be done in a defensve manner, but could cripple a country). I also believe that an implementation of international law as a last resort is a validation for war.

Right now, in Sudan, there is genocide going on. This doesn't affect me directly, it doesn't threaten an ally country, but it DOES require a response from the UN (if anyone will have the balls to use the word GENOCIDE) by the UN's own laws. That response, in my opinion, would be fully justified in being a militartistic one.

 

[Adam]

My response is that I also see a validation for war if an ally is attacked or if a countries livliehood is attacked (blockades don't have to be done in a defensve manner, but could cripple a country).

So Iraq had the right to make a "pre-emptive strike" against the USA? And all Saddam's allies, states or otherwise, have a right to do so as well?

I also believe that an implementation of international law as a last resort is a validation for war.

Well, that was ignored.

 

[Polly]

My response is that I also see a validation for war if an ally is attacked or if a countries livliehood is attacked (blockades don't have to be done in a defensve manner, but could cripple a country). I also believe that an implementation of international law as a last resort is a validation for war.

Right now, in Sudan, there is genocide going on. This doesn't affect me directly, it doesn't threaten an ally country, but it DOES require a response from the UN (if anyone will have the balls to use the word GENOCIDE) by the UN's own laws. That response, in my opinion, would be fully justified in being a militartistic one.

CAVEAT:NOTHING PERSONAL

Validation for war on the basis of:
1. alliance
Depends on the terms of the alliance, whether your ally is at fault in bring about the attack etc. Alliance is not an automatic ticket for violence for me.
2. blockade
Definitely not good enough to wage war for me. What is more important, human lives or economic growth?
3. international law
Yes, that would be validating.

You are in a rash to punish all the warlords/corrupted administration in Africa again. But let me ask you, if you have plentiful supply of food and materials in Sudan, ample investment and education and employment opportunity, why would anybody want to plunder and rob and kill off everyone else? Has the US done everything to help Sudan economically? The US produces more than enough food to feed the whole world, and much of it is locked up in warehouses waiting to rot. My apologies for the sacarcism but I honestly wonder why the US is so indifferent with the pol/eco/soc status of Sudan and yet so pro-active about Iraq.

 

[member 5645]

So Iraq had the right to make a "pre-emptive strike" against the USA? And all Saddam's allies, states or otherwise, have a right to do so as well?

Absolutely.

 

[member 5645]

I honestly wonder why the US is so indifferent with the pol/eco/soc status of Sudan and yet so pro-active about Iraq.

I'll reply to the rest of your statement tomorrow, when I have more time.
For now, I'll remind you that we are the ONLY nation on the security coucil that has called for a condemning of the acts happening in Sudan, and ALL other countries have blocked, or abstained, on such a move - we are the MOST pro active about Sudan, al beit less pro active than we were about Iraq. Either way, it's hardly indifference.

 

[Adam]

Funny, the USA is the state which has blocked all the resolutions against Israel, for their ethnic cleansing activities.

 

[hughes johnson]

Funny, the USA is the state which has blocked all the resolutions against Israel, for their ethnic cleansing activities.

What ethnic cleansing? This is the first I have heard of this.

 

[Adam]

What ethnic cleansing? This is the first I have heard of this.

ethnic cleansing
n.

The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethnic cleansing

http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=1&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=1904&docdb=pr2000&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=2&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=1524&docdb=pr1996&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=4&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=1736&docdb=pr2000&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=7&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=804&docdb=pr1996&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,137218-1-9,00.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990902/1999090222.html
http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896f15dbc852567ae00530132/7738125ef7c2ca9bc1256c4b00470a79?OpenDocument
http://abc.net.au/news/2002/11/item20021127185951_1.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast/
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/4227466.htm
http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/palestine/index14.htm
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/breaking_news/4227466.htm
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/04/News/News.44530.html
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/148/05_3.html
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020926/afp/020926130246top.html

Naturally I have dozens more links to news articles about Israel's ethnic cleansing activities. You can see a collection of news articles at http://scaramouche.blogeasy.com

 

[member 5645]

Funny, the USA is the state which has blocked all the resolutions against Israel, for their ethnic cleansing activities.

Always looking for a way to demonize us, eh Adam?
All the UN has to do is use the 'G' word and they are all required to help (Rwanda was called "ACTS of Genocide" in order to stop from being required to help)

P.S. Not one of your links mentions the G word or ethnic cleansing.

 

[adrenaline]

Back to the subject... my main concern is for those Americans still in Iraq. These atrocities will fuel the already burning hatred for Americans and I foresee many more attacks against our troops and possible torture and humiliation for those that will be captured. It makes me wonder if the films and pictures should be revealed only to those resposible for bringing the transgressors for trial and punishment, but then, the public also needs to know as well... I guess. Don't know what the right answer is.

 

[Adam]

P.S. Not one of your links mentions the G word or ethnic cleansing.

Read them again. And please think before you type.

 

[Nereid]

Back to the subject... my main concern is for those Americans still in Iraq. These atrocities will fuel the already burning hatred for Americans and I foresee many more attacks against our troops and possible torture and humiliation for those that will be captured. It makes me wonder if the films and pictures should be revealed only to those resposible for bringing the transgressors for trial and punishment, but then, the public also needs to know as well... I guess. Don't know what the right answer is.

Isn't it true that (at least some of) the photos etc were taken deliberately, as part of the torture? The intention being that unless the suspect 'talked', the humiliating photos would be copied and posted publicly in the neighbourhood where the suspect lived. In other words, there was a 'book of best (interrogation) practice' used by the interrogators, drawn up and endorsed by someone (senior?) in Rummy's department (or Myers' chain of command). Or maybe it was the ex-CIA 'independent contractors', brought in by Wolfie to improve 'efficiency'?

 

[Adam]

Ours news reported that at least 25 POWs have been killed in USA custody in these camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. One had his head bashed in with a rock.

 

[member 5645]

Read them again. And please think before you type.

Still doesn't.

 

[Adam]

Ugh. Amazing.

The dictionary tells you what "ethnic cleansing" is. It tells you which activities are considered "ethnic cleansing". Got it so far?

Now, the articles describe those activities, in great detail and quantity.

 

[russ_watters]

Ugh. Amazing.

The dictionary tells you what "ethnic cleansing" is. It tells you which activities are considered "ethnic cleansing". Got it so far?

Now, the articles describe those activities, in great detail and quantity.

Sorry, Adam, you have to be specific. We won't connect the dots for you. If they can be connected, connect them yourself.

This is your usual tactic and it is quite transparent.

 

[Nereid]

Can we please get back on topic?

It's becoming increasingly clear that a) outside bodies (Red Cross, AI) had known about the abuses for months and had notified the appropriate US officials, b) within at least some parts of the US military/intelligence services/government agencies there was disquiet, investigations, and hundreds of pages (?) of corroborated details, and c) claims by Rummy and Myers that they didn't know anything about it until very recently.

At the very least, the apparent inability to process clear information, from multiple internal and external sources, about such abuses is shocking. After all, these kinds of things are precisely what the State Department writes up in its strongest language when castigating other countries for human rights abuses.

But it also seems that the inability to pass such information on wasn't an accident; the techniques were 'approved' and (maybe) a very cynical policy carefully instigated - 'we need the intel, here's how to increase the effectiveness of getting it, don't tell me how you got the intel, just get it' sort of thing. Bush's decision to keep Rummy on may well be consistent - GW gave Rummy the OK (in some vague, general way), with the clear understanding between them that if things backfired, DR wouldn't have to accept responsibility and resign (or be fired).

As Russ said (in another thread), officers knew about the abuses and clearly knew they were unacceptable; that they continued to allow them (and even dish some out?) looks very much like they had been given some kind of tacit green light. That the reports - by the military's own people - were circulated without a senior officer putting a stop to things also suggests a much higher 'OK' from up the chain of command.

 

[Andre]

I have not seen those pics and vids but one thing.

The most powerful force is public opinion. If I can convince it about what apparently is right and wrong, it's worth far more than a thousand tanks and attack aircraft. A president who faces defeat at the next election is likely to do as the public dictates so.

So how difficult is it to fake some scenes with horrifying pictures. All you need it some actors and the proper material.

Don't let them fool you.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Not even the soldiers who are blamed for the torture are claiming the pictures are faked! Get real!

 

[russ_watters]

As Russ said (in another thread), officers knew about the abuses and clearly knew they were unacceptable; that they continued to allow them (and even dish some out?) looks very much like they had been given some kind of tacit green light. That the reports - by the military's own people - were circulated without a senior officer putting a stop to things also suggests a much higher 'OK' from up the chain of command.

I think it will take quite a while to get to the bottom of this. These scandals have a natural progression they always follow. First, the story breaks, then a single scapegoat is brought out (that one sgt), then comes the outcry as the scope starts to come out (thats where we are now), then the real investigation begins and the who-knew-what-and-when is worked out.

This has months to go before we know what really went on and who was responsible.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In past scandals there was a phase change from the scandal itself to the cover up. Note that it was the Watergate cover up that drove Nixon from office, and it was his disingenuous testimony (or lies if you prefer) about Monicagate that demeaned Clinton in the public's eye and lost him his law license (nobody really cared if he banged her, what else is new?)

 

[Adam]

This has months to go before we know what really went on and who was responsible.

No. The US government is responsible. However, it may take months before we know who will be sacrificed for the good of the administration.

 

[amp]

The one person with the most responsibility/liability is the President. At the 9/11 hearings Condi said we didn't know nor could we have guessed and the information we needed wasn't passed on to us, disingenuous as that is didn't Bush and his cohorts learn from it, it appears the same thing happed again and Rumsfeld is much closer to the Presidents ear. IMO, they are trying and failing to maintain 'plausible deniability'.

 

[BobG]

I think the whole thing is just incredibly depressing. It's like the "Lord of the Flies". We sent them over there and they turned into animals.

Unfortunately, I think Polly's wrong about this saying something about war. I think it says something about humans, in general. They've done experiments where it shows how quickly one group can dehumanize another just by being asked to play a role (one group of students had to be the guards, the other the prisoners; elementary school kids told kids with blue eyes were less smart one day, told kids with brown eyes were less smart the next; etc). After that, it's not a very big step to all sorts of 'inhuman' acts, as we've constantly seen throughout the world.

Without a lot of the controls of civilization, you'd see this group (or other groups like them) doing the same thing here in the US (or any other country for that matter).

 

[Njorl]

What I find interesting is that Rumsfeld has "taken responsibility". This seems to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever anymore. If Rumsfeld is responsible, then he is headed for prison. That is the result of being responsible for crimes. For some reason, this never seems to come up. Am I missing something? Donald Rumsfeld has admitted under oath that he is responsible for the commission of many crimes.

In Washington, the sure-fire way to avoid accountability is to take responsibility.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

No. The US government is responsible.

We'll be looking for something a lot more specific than that.

What I find interesting is that Rumsfeld has "taken responsibility". This seems to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever anymore. If Rumsfeld is responsible, then he is headed for prison. That is the result of being responsible for crimes. For some reason, this never seems to come up. Am I missing something?

Nope, you have it nailed exactly:

In Washington, the sure-fire way to avoid accountability is to take responsibility.

 

[Njorl]

At first I thought they were being decent about it. Takuba's report (what I've seen of it) is frank and open. But I saw an unconfirmed mention that this was the third attempt at an investigation. That the first two investigations found nothing wrong. That they only launched this third report after seeing undeniable photographic evidence. We'll see. I want to stress that I have no evidence that Takuba's report was the third investigation, just hearsay.

Njorl

 

[Nereid]

What I find interesting is that Rumsfeld has "taken responsibility". This seems to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever anymore. If Rumsfeld is responsible, then he is headed for prison. That is the result of being responsible for crimes. For some reason, this never seems to come up. Am I missing something? Donald Rumsfeld has admitted under oath that he is responsible for the commission of many crimes.

In Washington, the sure-fire way to avoid accountability is to take responsibility.

There's much in the modern world that makes direct responsibility difficult to define and hard to pin on anyone person - the recent mid-air collision over Swizerland/Germany is a good example (yes, the air-traffic controller had a great deal of responsibility for what happened; no, he was required to work under conditions that he had clearly stated were inadequate for the job he was asked to do).

However, I naively thought there was much less room for fudge and grey areas in the military; the fact that Rummy hasn't gone (and hasn't been charged with anything at all yet) clearly shows that the codes have their limits.

But, given what we now know about how government is actually executed by US administrations - from the White House - we can hope that the web of nods and winks, plausible deniabilities, euphemisms and double-speak, etc will be penetrated and the deep cynicism and ugly realities brought to light.

 

[Polly]

Unfortunately, I think Polly's wrong about this saying something about war. I think it says something about humans, in general. They've done experiments where it shows how quickly one group can dehumanize another just by being asked to play a role (one group of students had to be the guards, the other the prisoners; elementary school kids told kids with blue eyes were less smart one day, told kids with brown eyes were less smart the next; etc). After that, it's not a very big step to all sorts of 'inhuman' acts, as we've constantly seen throughout the world.

hmmm, I think you have a point there. As I recall, the Japanese military schools had rigorous and systematic brainwashing sessions that glorified the Japanese history and the status of their Emporer and Chinese were perceived to be less than humans. I wonder what the US army does in terms of hardening the soldiers up psycologically.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There was a famous series of experiments in the 1950s where subjects were invited to "punish" an individual that they could see through a window by giving her electric shocks. They were to do this by pushing a button. Actually the button wasn't hooked up to anything, and the "victim" was an actress who was cued when to simulate pain and shock.

It was ridiculously easy to get the subjects to use heavier and heavier "shocks" with just a little motivation. For a while this study got a lot of ink - a story appeared in the Scientific American - but then it disagreed too strongly with American self image. Cognitive dissonance, to use another psychological term from that era. So it was repressed.

 

[Adam]

We'll be looking for something a lot more specific than that.

Why? The US government held the Iraqi state responsible for atrocities committed by individuals under that state's rule. Why not hold the USA to the same standard?

 

[member 5645]

Why? The US government held the Iraqi state responsible for atrocities committed by individuals under that state's rule. Why not hold the USA to the same standard?

Different forms of government mean accountability goes only so high.
Again, this great apples and oranges argument. Go search for the thread about the 12 years olds paper.

 

[Adam]

In other words, the form of government nullifies the hypocrisy, eh?

 

[member 5645]

In other words, the form of government nullifies the hypocrisy, eh?

If you are just going to start that garbage again, I'll remind you how lonely it is to debate yourself.

Not at all.
But to say that someone that the top of a body that runs in autonomous sections is just as responsible as a dictator, who has ALL directions fed through him, is garbage.

Do you put a police chief in jail when an officer acts out against command?? No, not at all! You start with the officer who broke the law and work your way up the chain until you stop.

With Saddam you started at the top just about. And it was the UN, not the USA.

What I find really ironic is this double speak about how we held a nation accountable and that was wrong. Then we go in just after the man in charge so we aren't punishing everyone, and that is wrong.
You cannot be made happy, face it.

 

[Adam]

Do you really think every action in Saddam's Iraq was approved or disapproved by Saddam Hussein?

Do you really think Bush won the last election fairly?

 

[Ebolamonk3y]

Gov. lies. the end. :O

 

[member 5645]

Do you really think Bush won the last election fairly?

THis questions seems more interesting than the round and round we go that has been occurring.

Yes. Gore would have won had he simply spent his last SIX MILLION. We can ***** and moan about the votes of Florida, but there were plenty of other swing states and Gore could have won in a myriad of ways.

 

[Adam]

Please read: http://www.lumpen.com/coup2k/

 

[member 5645]

Please read: http://www.lumpen.com/coup2k/

I honestly will. But tomorrow - sleep is upon me. g'nite!