News US military confirms more horrific pics & vids

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chemicalsuperfreak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Military
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the impending release of shocking images and videos from Abu Ghraib prison, depicting severe abuses by US soldiers and Iraqi guards, including sexual assault and torture. Senior officials express concern that these new revelations will exacerbate the political fallout for President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Participants debate the implications of war, the morality of military intervention, and the responsibilities of powerful nations in addressing global atrocities. The conversation touches on the perceived hypocrisy of US foreign policy, particularly regarding its actions in Iraq compared to its response to crises like the genocide in Sudan. The overall sentiment reflects a deep concern for the consequences of these events on international relations and the safety of American troops abroad.
  • #31
Nereid said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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?)
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #34
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'.
 
  • #35
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).
 
  • #36
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
 
  • #37
Adam said:
No. The US government is responsible.
We'll be looking for something a lot more specific than that.
Njorl said:
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.
 
  • #38
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
 
  • #39
Njorl said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
BobG said:
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.
 
  • #41
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.
 
  • #42
russ_watters said:
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?
 
  • #43
Adam said:
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.
 
  • #44
In other words, the form of government nullifies the hypocrisy, eh?
 
  • #45
Adam said:
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.
 
  • #46
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?
 
  • #47
Gov. lies. the end. :O
 
  • #48
Adam said:
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.
 
  • #51
I think you need to separate irresponsible policy and criminal behavior.

The criminal behavior was commited by the ones who took bad policy as an excuse for amateur torture hour and seemed to enjoy it, as well.

The irresponsible policy was thinking a reserve unit with a few members who were prison guards in their civilian job were up to the task of creating an environment conducive to interrogation without some pretty close supervision.

In most times, I'd probably consider Rumsfield a pretty good Secretary of Defense. But, with such a weak president, I think he's a little dangerous. With Cheney and Rumsfield having so much control, there's no balance in this administration.
 
  • #52
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/abuse13_20040513.htm


Any comments?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
hughes johnson said:
What ethnic cleansing? This is the first I have heard of this.
You don't seriously think tens of thousands of people are refugees for nothing? If Serbia does something like that, they get cluster bombed by the US, if Israel does it, they get bombed with loads of dollars. There was very much an ethnic cleansing, you've never heard of this because US media rather keep quiet, the people do not want to read anything bad about Israel you know. :rolleyes:

History [/size]

Most of the refugees had already fled by the time the neighboring Arab states intervened on the side of Palestinians and continued after the armistice that ended the war. These refugees, the great majority of whom had lived there for generations. were not able to return home. During the period mid-1948-53 between 30,000 and 90,000 refugees made their way illegally from their countries of exile to resettle in their former villages or in other Israeli Arab villages. Others emigrated to other countries, such as the US and Canada; most, however, remain in refugee camps in neighboring countries. Furthermore, in 1948 and 1949, 46,000-48,000 Palestinians were internally displaced within Israel[2]; including descendants, they number 150,000-200,000 today, and for the most part have yet to recover their confiscated land.

The Israeli government passed the Absentee Property law, which cleared the way for the confiscation of the property of refugees. The government also demolished many of the refugees' villages, and resettled many Arab homes in urban communities with Jewish refugees and immigrants.

Palestinian exodus[/size]

The most important means to achieve that change was through aliya, Jewish immigration to the land of Israel. But the Palestinian Arab population had a much higher birth rate than the Jewish counterpart. Even with Jewish immigration, the Arab population growth firmly outpaced the Jewish one and no part of Palestine, with the exception of Tel Aviv and its surroundings, would be able to produce a Jewish majority. To make matters worse, immigration was restricted by both the Ottoman Turks and the British and relatively few diaspora Jews actually wished to immigrate to Palestine, most preferring to move to North America. An apartheid state, akin to the one in South Africa, was out of the question for most Zionists as they wanted an egalitarian state.

The only viable solution seemed to be a partition of Palestine. But however the land was partitioned, the part belonging to Jews would contain an Arab majority or atleast a very large Arab minorty. For the Zionist leadership transfer of a large Arab population was the only solution. The idea of transfer was not, in 1947-1949, when it actually happened, a new one. In June 12, 1895 Theodore Herzl wrote in his diary:

We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country ... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.


To Zionists it was of uttermost importance that the transfer plans would not become known to the world as that would lower international support for Zionists.

When I heard these things ... I had to ponder the matter long and hard ... [but] I reached the conclusion that this matter [had best] remain [in the Labor Party Program] ... Were I asked what should be our program, it would not occur to me to tell them transfer ... because speaking about the matter might harm [us] ... in world opinion, because it might give the impression that there is no room in the Land of Israel without ousting the Arabs [and] ... it would alert and antagonize the Arabs ..." (Ben-Gurion 1944)


Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, declared:

Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance. ... What will happen once the Jewish state is established - it is very possible that the result will be the transfer of Arabs." (Sharett, 1944)


In 1937 the Peel Commission gave extra fuel to the transfer thinking. It recommended that Britain should withdraw from Palestine and that the land should be partitioned between Jews and Arabs. It also recommended that 225,000 Arabs should be transferred out of the proposed Jewish state. This was a huge step forward for the Zionists. Until then, transfer hadn't been discussed as an option with outsiders but now "the Royal Commission" came to the same solution to the problem as the Zionists had. David Ben-Gurion didn't spare the superlatives when he wrote in his diary:

... and [nothing] greater than this has been done for our case in our time [than Peel proposing transfer]. ... And we did not propose this - the Royal Commission ... did ... and we must grab hold of this conclusion [i.e, recommendation] as we grabbed hold of the Balfour Declaration, even more than that - as we grabbed hold of Zionism itself we must cleave to this conclusion, with all our strength and will and faith


Despite the fact that the notion of transfer had been proposed by a royal commission and that David Ben-Gurion had seen fit to speak of it in the plenum of the Zionist Congress, the subject was still very sensitive.

First stage of the flight, December 1947 - March 1948

During these months the climate in Palestine began to get hot. Hostilities between Jews and Arabs increased and general lawlessness spread as the British declared to end their mandate in May 1948. War was seemingly inevitable. Middle and upper-class families from urban areas withdrew to settle in neighbouring countries such as Transjordan and Egypt. Perhaps as many as 75,000 left in those months. There was also cases of outright explusions such as in Qisarya where roughly 1000 Palestinian Arabs were evicted in February. Irgun and Lehi played an important role in terrorizing the Palestinian population. Most of the refugees from this period probably thought that they soon would return, just as they had done after the Great Arab Uprising 1936-1939. This first flight contributed to demoralize the Palestinians and left them virtually without any leadership.

Second stage of the flight, April 1948 - June 1948

The fighting in these months was concentrated to the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv area. It is logical that it was therefore also in this area that most depopulations took place. The notorious Deir Yassin massacre in early April, and the exaggerated rumours that followed it, helped spread fear and panic among the Palestinians. On May 14, 1948, when Israel's independence was declared, there were already 250,000 refugees on the road.

Third stage of the flight, July 1948

The largest single expulsion of the war began in Lydda and Ramla July 14, in which 60,000 inhabitants were forcibly expelled on the orders of Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin wrote in his memoirs:

What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. ... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! ... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)


Additionally, widespread looting and several cases of rape (12 total per Benny Morris[1]) took place during the evacuation. In total, 300,000 Palestinians became refugees in this stage.

Fourth stage of the flight, October 1948 - November 1948

This period of the exodus was characterized by Israeli military accomplishments which was met with resistance from the Palestinians to be made refugees. The Israeli military activities limited itself to the Galilee and the sparseley populated Negev desert. It was clear to the villages in the Galilee, that if they left, return was far from imminent. Therefore far fewer villages was spontaneously depopulated than previously. Most of it was due to clear, direct cause, including brutal expulsion and deliberate harassment. About half a dozen massacres was committed in the Galilee by the IDF during this stage of the war.

Operation Hiram, which was the Israeli military operation that conquered the upper Galilee, is one of the examples in which a direct expulsion order was given to the commanders:

Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered. (October 31, 1948, Moshe Carmel)


Between 1-200,000 Palestinians left in this stage most going to Lebanon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 159 ·
6
Replies
159
Views
21K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
21K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 208 ·
7
Replies
208
Views
18K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K