Close Topic Options

Iraqi Prisoner Abuse? - Page 10

In my opinion, the most important aspect of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is the impact it has on international terrorism and the efforts to stabilize and pacify Iraq.

Much of the debate focuses on moral issues and whether condemnation of the United States represents an unfair double standard -- within the context of atrocities committed by other regimes or terrorists. These are valid arguments, but I think they miss the larger picture.

The torture and humiliation inflicted inflicted upon Iraqi prisoners by U.S. personnel is indeed deplorable, but to put things in perspective it is a tiny fraction of the human toll of this war. More than 800 Americans and uncounted thousands of Iraqis are dead, with many times those numbers grievously wounded. We have become somewhat inured to these routine horrors, while the sensational scandal makes headlines across the world.

Unfortunately, this scandal may have a real-world impact as large as the headlines. Photographs of naked Iraqi men being abused by grinning American servicemen and women will likely be a more effective tool for recruiting terrorists than any audio tape issued by Osama bin Laden. Islamic society is deeply conservative in sexual matters, and those photographs will convince many that Americans are enemies who must be fought on every front.

Whatever you may think about the U.S. mission in Iraq, the significance of Abu Ghraib is that it has made our mission there more difficult, and it is a major defeat in the war against terror. In the battle for hearts and minds, Abu Ghraib was an utter rout.

This is not some abstract concept. People will die as a result. The recent beheadings of hostages by terrorists has been held as an example of what we're fighting against, and as a justification for our actions. However, one must consider that some of these people might be alive if not for our actions at Abu Ghraib. Even worse, the sacrifices made by our troops may have been rendered in vain. We have poured precious blood and treasure into the mission in Iraq, the long-term outcome of which remains uncertain.

Someone is responsible for this debacle. It is not the media, and it is not the few low-ranking GIs who have been charged. Even if the reported 1500 or so photographs captured every incident of abuse (which is doubtful) it is apparent this abuse was systematic. The officers immediately in charge must have know what was going on, and it is the duty their superiors to be in control of their command. This chain of leadership goes up through the Pentagon and eventually to the Oval Office, where the buck stops.

The legal memos released so far clearly indicate conscious decisions to implement a policy of coercive interrogations which violate the Geneva Conventions. The White House was very careful to protect themselves with legalities, but they were careless in the implementation of their policy. Coercive interrogation or torture -- whatever you want to call it -- must be strictly supervised and tightly controlled. This may have been the case at Guantanamo Bay, but very few if any safeguards were put in place when the Guantanamo methods were exported to Iraq. The ensuing damage to our mission was the result of a colossal failure in leadership and command, or of the arrogance of an administration that feels the only rules which apply are the ones they make themselves. Either way, the buck stops with George W. Bush.

This administration doesn't hesitate to say they are responsible, but they have been consistently unaccountable. In the wake of Abu Ghraib, rather than demand the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld for the damage his command has done to our national efforts, Bush praised him for doing a "superb" job.

Ultimately, the American people are accountable for the actions of their government and military. If we fail to hold the Bush administration accountable for Abu Ghraib and for their overall egregious mismanagement of post war Iraq, we will not only be failing in our duty as citizens, we will be sending a message to the world that the American people approve of what has been done in our names at Abu Ghraib.

Like it or not, we need friends to combat terrorist organizations with cells throughout the world. In the last two years, George W. Bush has done much to alienate our friends and increase distrust and animosity towards the United States. What might he accomplish in another four years?

Abuse Prisoner Iraqi

Martin, excelent post. I agree with most of your thoughts, specially when you said that it is not the Media's fault and I gave you a charisma point for that .
I don't live in the United States and I'm not a US citizen (I'm Argentinian and living in the Caribbean) but I'm afraid to know that Bush could be re-elected. It is not like I'm scared of the guy, I'm scared of what he could do in another 4 years.
I cannot understand how some people can justify or rationalize the Iraqi prisoner abuse just as I cannot understand how somebody could justify the beheading of a US citizen or any other citizen. It is crazy!.

Iraqi Prisoner Abuse? History & Civil Business Politics

I disagree almost completely.

1. With whom, in the world, has the US image gotten worse? France? They already hate all US actions, since we don't bow down to them. Germany? They are focused (with France) on reestablishing the Holy Roman Empire (the EU). Saudi Arabia? Except for a very few Saudis, we represent all that they hate (liberty, religious tolerance, etc). Iran? South Africa? Australia?

The fact is, this is only a justification for those who hate the US already, to point fingers at us. ALL of the Iraqi reactions that I have read have been strongly supportive of the US actions. They see this as a very minor thing that has been blown out of proportion by a media totally sympathetic to the Islamofascist forces.

2. I don't know of anyone who has justified or rationalized the Iraqi prisoner abuse. We just say that it was a relatively minor thing, that the perpetrators are already under investigation, and that the guilty will be convicted and punished. But that isn't good enough. You folks want to use this as a justification for us to pull completely out of Iraq right now, and leave them to much more death and destruction, since they are not ready yet to be left on their own.

3. What has made the mission more difficult is the fact that people like to be "armchair quarterbacks" and tell the military how to do their mission. Traitors within the US keep saying that they support the troops, but not the "war" while they attempt to justify all sorts of restraints and roadblocks to keep the troops from completing their mission in the most effective manner possible.

4. The Geneva Conventions? Our soldiers show incredible restraint, more than shown by ANY force EVER in history. Those who have gone against the Geneva Conventions will be punished.

Politically, I don't think that Abu Ghraib will hurt GWB at all. Those who hate him because Al Gore attempted to steal the election, will hate him no matter what. Those who are against the war on terror, will still hate him. Those who feel that terrorists are the single greatest danger towards the US will still vote for him. Those who think that he is doing a good job domestically will still vote for him.

Abu Ghraib was an aberration. It was not normal for the US (although it WAS normal for most of the rest of the world). If people higher in the command structure were responsible for it, they will be identified and punished.

I believe (but could easily be wrong) that the US will overwhelmingly vote for GWB this November. But that is a discussion for another place.

Page 10 Abuse Prisoner Iraqi

I'm sorry but the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the fight against the terrorists organizations responsible for 9/11. As a matter of fact, the problem with the war in Iraq (besides getting one of many tyrants in this world) has no reason. Why is the US in Iraq and under which authority. even a majority of Americans are starting to ask the question.

As for the Geneva convention and international law the US as Israel, use it when it is convenient. Both countries solve their problems with military might rather than with what is right.

This is bull. US troops tortured people in Iraq and no way were they isolated cases, it was the name of game. The US committed war crime period.

If you want to read about restraint, being compassionate, working with the people on the ground ie the real people not a bunch of US made Iraqis, totally controled by the US , read up what the canadian soldiers are doing in Afghanistan. Our nack for diplomacy and low key manners have made a big difference with the people of Afghanistan. We are really winning the confidence of the people.

Sorry for the flag waving, but I really get upset when I read something like the quote above

Offtopic but, I edited this message to put the closing at the end of each quote. Please use edit feature to see how it was done if you need help figuring it out.

Edited: MrB on 6th Jul, 2004 - 8:30pm

Abuse Prisoner Iraqi

This is bull. US troops tortured people in Iraq and no way were they isolated cases, it was the name of game. The US committed war crime period.

As far as I am concerned, your statement is totally wrong. Yes, the Canadian soldiers are doing a good job. But they are following the exact same rules as the vast majority of the US soldiers.

Both the Afghan and Iraqi people are far, FAR better off now than they were. It isn't only a "bunch of US made Iraqis, totally controled by the US" who are grateful for the US soldiers in Iraq, it is the vast majority of Iraqi people. Read some of what the ordinary Iraqis are saying, not just what the CBC and CNN is reporting to you.

I will hold at all times that the US military is showing the greatest restraint in all of history during wartime. The Canadians, Australians, Poles, and all the rest of those involved in this action (wait, wasn't this a unilateral attack? who are all these others involved?) have shown the same restraint.

This is true of ALL COUNTRIES. There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties between countries. There are agreements such as the Geneva Conventions. These are attempts by countries to deal with each other civilly. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't. What we see now is that the ONLY countries criticized for not strictly adhering to these standards are the US and Israel.

I will address your section about the US in Iraq in the appropriate topic.

Edited: Nighthawk on 6th Jul, 2004 - 8:55pm

Iraqi Prisoner Abuse?

Minor thing huh? For who? I bet you if it was the other way around, American soldiers being treated in the same way, you would not be saying the same thing. The rules must be apply for everybody. Just as I think it is terrible and awful how some crazy Iraqis are killing people in Iraq right now, it doesn't mean that I think that what the American soldiers did was a 'relatively minor thing'. That's the kind of 'rationalization' I'm talking about.

You're generalizing too much. I am one that thinks the US should not pulled their troops from Iraq as yet, since it is a very conflict area still and they need to correct what they messed up in the first place. So, you're wrong in assuming we all think that we want the US out of Iraq, I do want them out but not right now, I think it was a rush decision.

Is it possible that some of the US soldiers don't even know what the Geneva Convention is all about?, the soldiers who were accused said they never read the Geneva Convention, they have no clue what it is about.

Iraqi Prisoner Abuse - Page 10

Nighthawk, it seems we have quite a disagreement here. I will try to adress some of your statements as best I can.

Immediately after 9/11, France and Germany were most decidedly on our side. They fully supported our mission in Afghanistan to go after the terrorist organization responsible for attacking us. Our allies in NATO offered to invoke the charter, whereby an attack against one is an attack against all. Our NATO allies still have troops on the ground in Afghanistan. If they hate all U.S. actions, why did they support us in Afghanistan? I can't speak for France or Germany, so I'll speak for myself: I supported the invasion of Afghanistan but was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq, for a variety of very good reasons which belong in another topic.

Your reading must be very selective, since it seems to have bypassed the uprisings of April. Some Iraqis are very supportive of U.S. actions, especially those we appointed to the Iraqi government. Most Iraqis are probably like everyone else, wanting to work and raise a family in peace. But a significant number see the invasion and occupation as an attempt by the U.S. to exert control over the country and its resources. Furthermore, we have inflicted considerable death, injury, and humiliation on the civilian population. We have made many people in Iraq our enemies.

Tell me something: If you saw photographs of American troops being stripped naked, beaten, sexually abused, and learned that some of this torture resulted in death, what would you think of the organization that perpetrated it? I find it very difficult to believe that these images have had no impact in the battle for hearts and minds, whether in Iraq or in any Muslim country that has the potential for breeding terrorists.

I'm not sure who "You folks" are. People on the far left and far right are advocating everything from immediate withdrawal to carpet bombing Iraq into submission. Nowhere in my previous post did I advocate an immediate withdrawal. I stated that Abu Ghraib will make our mission more difficult. It can only serve to deepen the hatred and distrust of our troops by Iraqis and the Muslim world in general.

I'm an armchair quarterback to the extent that I insist we shouldn't photograph the torture of naked prisoners. I believe it is counterproductive to our mission. I'm pretty sure the Bush administration has decided to end this practice (without my input). I'm unsure what restraints and roadblocks you're referring to that have been put in place as result of pressure from traitors in the U.S.

I think the word "traitor" has been applied too liberally by the right wing. A great Republican president had this to say:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him in so far as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth - whether about the President or about any one else - save in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him."

-- Theodore Roosevelt

George W. Bush did not tell the truth. His lies have resulted in the deaths of more than 800 brave American troops. The suggestion that Americans should withhold criticism of such betrayal because of the war it produced is the antithesis of the rights and duties of American citizenship.

I sincerely hope so, but I doubt very much that Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush will be formally charged.

Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Politics Business Civil & History - Page 10

AWOL? U.S. EMBASSY SAYS MISSING MARINE MAY BE IN LEBANON

The U.S. Embassy said Thursday it has "credible information" that a missing U.S. Marine is in his native Lebanon, and the military said it was investigating the possibility his disappearance was a hoax.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...75844%2C00.html