"The Stool Pigeon" by Peter Howson, 1989, Michael Preston Collection
SCROLL DOWN FOR IX UPDATES
It didn't seem to be an accident, after all, that Carroll, looking hale and well, was turned over to the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni political group, whose secretary general, Tariq al-Hashimi, greeted the freelance journalist for the Christian Science Monitor with gifts, including a plaque with the party's logo on it, and a boxed copy of the Koran. "What you have received today from the Iraqi Islamic Party is exactly the teachings of the Koran," said Hashimi.
In the past, al-Hashimi's group has claimed to speak for the Sunni insurgency and it still has ties to myriad groups, so his photo op with Carroll, 28, was somewhat predictable. Sunni groups are in a political knife-fight with the dominant Shi'ite groups, who have claimed that only they can provide security and, as a result, must retain control of the ministries of Interior and Defense. Al-Hashimi's public presentation of Carroll, who was kidnapped Jan. 7 in western Baghdad, seemed to be his way of saying that while Sunnis may have taken her, they were also the ones who got her freed.[...]"I was treated very well," Carroll said in an immediate interview for the party's Baghdad television station. "They never hit me; they never even threatened to hit me. I'm just happy to be free, and I want to be with my family." Carroll's interpreter, Allan Enwiyah, was killed during her kidnapping.
Whilst watching this interview via CNN, the US hostage Jill Carroll's words seemed meaningless, as she would have been careful not to say anything that may aggravate her still precarious situation. After all she was still in Iraq, talking to a Sunni group TV station, with ties to the insurgency. She no doubt would have still been confused and extremely scared, despite her calm demeanor. Will her statement change? Let's see what happens once she feels more comfortable on her home ground, although one has to remember that like any of us, she may be got to at any time, therefore her stance may remain the same even when her protective guard goes down.
What has become somewhat of a controversy since last night, is the video I have provided for you below (courtesy of Bareknucklepolitics, via LGF), and filmed by her Mujahideen captors shortly prior to her release, which shows her obviously keen to praise her captors, hail the terrorists and their victory, and trash the President and his war policies. My initial reaction was of course that given the circumstances she would have said anything to stay alive. But then.....
Debbie Schlussel disagrees, giving evidence of Caroll's anti-American and pro-Islamic extremist views, which she feels show that the chances are her interview was not coerced.
Unfortunately, when you listen to the video, you know that parts of what she is saying, she actually believes, either that or she deserves an honorary Oscar for her convincing performance.
Here is the transcript of the video, courtesy of ABC News:
CLICK ON CONTINUE FOR THE IX UPDATES
Voice in tape: How did the Mujahedeen treat you?
Jill Carroll: They treated me very well. They treated me very well, like a guest. I was given very good food, kept very safe, treated very, very well.
Voice in tape: Did you think the American Army or the CIA would save you in any time?
Carroll: I thought maybe they might. Sometimes I thought that they might come, that they might find me. They might (sic) a way to know where I am and come get me. I did think maybe they might.
Voice: Why didn’t they save you?
Carroll: Well, I think the Mujahedeen are very smart and even with all the technology and all the people the American Army has here, they still are better at knowing how to live and work here and more clever, despite all the technology of the American Army, still more clever and better at being here than the American Army, still better at what they do.
Voice: Does this mean anything?
Carroll: I think it makes it very clear, it makes very clear that the Mujahedeen are the ones who will win in the end in this war, I think it makes very clear that even with thousands of troops and airplanes and tanks and guns that that doesn’t mean anything here on the ground in Iraq as it shows over time, maybe how many months over time or however (sic) months are left in the occupation that it’s pretty clear that the Mujahedeen are the ones that will have the victory left at the end of the day. It shows that no matter no matter what Americans try to say is happening here or try to do with all their weapons, they aren’t going to be able to stay here, they’re not going to be able to stop the Mujahedeen and that’s for sure.
Voice: What will you tell the American people?
Carroll: Well, first of all I want them to be able to understand, I want them to understand the Mujahedeen, truly. There are a lot of lies to come out of the American government, calling the Mujahedeen terrorists and other things and I think it’s important that American people hear from me the Mujahedeen are only trying to defend their country. This is only a jihad to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation so I think it’s important that people see the Mujahedeen are people that we’ve seen in our entire history resisting an occupation trying to fight a foreign force in their land, it’s their country and they have a right to fight for their own freedom so I want people to understand that it’s not people that like to kill, not people that like violence but people who love their country, people who want to see their country free from an occupation and also I want them to understand that the situation in Iraq in general, how difficult it is here, people don’t have electricity, people don’t have water, children don’t have safe streets to walk in, women and children are always in danger&People are killed left and right on the streets without any reason. People die everyday from the bombings and shootings of the army and all these things. So I think people need to understand in America how difficult life is here for the normal, average Iraqis. That everyday is a matter of survival, life and death for most Iraqis and thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives here because of the occupation. I think Americans need to think about that and day to day how difficult life is here, how terrifying it is for most people to live here everyday because of the occupation.
Voice: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush?
Carroll: (Laughs)Yeah, he needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong. He knows that it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it was built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home and he doesn’t care about his own people.He doesn't care about the people here in Iraq, he needs to wake up and the people of America need to wake up and tell that what he's done here is wrong and so hopefully this time he can get the message that this war was wrong and the continuing occupation is wrong adn he could change his policies. He's dangerous for Iraq. He's dangerous for America. He needs to accept that and admit that to people.
Voice: Do you think the Mujahedeen will win against the American Army?
Carroll: Oh definitely. Things are very clear to see even now they're already winning. Everyday there are soldiers killed. Everyday humvees are blown up. Helicopters are shot down from the skies. Everyday, it's very clear that the Mujahedeen have the skills and the ability and the desire and the good reasons to fight that'll make them ensure that they will win.
Voice: What do you feel now that the Mujahedeen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad (unclear)?
Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I've been here, treated very well, like a guest. I've been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don't want, I can't even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the Mujahedeen and Americans, the Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that's why I'm free and alive. The American army they aren't […not clear…] I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that Mujahedeen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can't be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.
Wretchard has an excellent not to be missed post, diagramming the situation in Iraq according to Jill Carroll.
UPDATE I: 'Hold off judgment for a few weeks until the dust settles and Carroll has had a chance to make fresh statements' opinions are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here: "If she goes on tour with OCindy Bin Sheehan, then I will be down on her, but right now she gets a pass."
'Leave her alone, she is entitled to a dissenting opinion' here here (more links), and here.
'Willing participant' here, here, and Stockholm Syndrome here.
'Suspicious' here, here, here (with some informative links), and here: "But let's not encourage a lot of warm feelings toward the murderous thugs who kidnapped Carroll, shot her translator, and may well have received a ransom to let her go."
'Embittered', the ever hateful and bitter Mahablog, who cannot string two words together without spitting out venom, who calls me "ever-brainless" and a "dimwitt" @ All Things Hateful, accusing me of not apologizing for saying that "Carroll was a coward" (EH???), calls Debbie Schlussel amongst other things a "rightie hate hag". Barbara dear, didn't anyone ever tell you, spewing vitriolic bile is seriously bad for your complexion?
UPDATE II: It seems that Jill Carroll was threatened prior to being released, according to a Monitor who quoted her family.
UPDATE III: Howard Kurtz @ The Washington Post:
I spoke to David Bloom days before he died and then covered his memorial service. I wrote about the death of Michael Kelly. I said goodbye to Bob Woodruff before he went to Iraq and got badly injured by a roadside bomb.[...]
I must say, though, that I found her first interview yesterday rather odd [...]
Why make a terrorist group who put her family and friends through a terrible three-month ordeal sound like they were running a low-budget motel chain?
UPDATE IV: Ann Althouse quite rightly points out that bravery is in the eye of the beholder:
"You'll pretty much say anything to stay alive because you expect people will understand these aren't your words."
The hostage point of view. We can't ask for more. We can imagine a bolder hero who would do more. But we should speak no ill of the person who does less.
The same CSM article goes on to say: "Words that are coerced are not worth dying over", and "The job of a civilian hostage is to stay alive".
It is easy to criticize the level of bravery in others, whilst sitting in our cosy homes, I agree. However the problem everyone is having is that the views Carroll expressed on the video, very closely resemble her own, with a few propaganda rich slogans thrown in to please her captors, and give maximum value in the U.S. Whilst she may retract those, her overall view is pretty much reflected in her words. She does indeed disagree with the President and is against our presence / interference in Iraq. This is why perhaps the public may be harsher on her than they would normally be.
It is important to remember that whenever hostages have been released by their captors and not freed by the authorities, it has been exclusively to send back a message. Whether Carroll has to live and breathe that message, remains to be seen, and I sincerely hope she does not.
My personal view is that it was a condition of her release to spread the word of the Mujahideen's fight for freedom, and whilst everyone is breathless to hear what she has to say once on American soil, it may still not be the whole truth. As I have said before, she can be got to at any time, and still may carry on having to fight for her life, whether that threat is purely a part of her own psyche or an actual threat, is not for us to judge, but respect the gravity of her experience.
Who the hell are we to judge her? Her job was to stay alive, and that's exactly what she did.
Setting that aside, and one must do that in order to be objective, her personal views are known to be similar to the ones she expressed, especially about the President and our presence in Iraq, and that will always be a stumbling block for me, no matter what her circumstances are.
UPDATE V: Debbie Schlussel has a copy of the thank you letter written by Carroll to al-Hashimi, after her release.
UPDATE VI: Jim Geraghty @ NRO has a well deserved rip at the Blogosphere, who has been ready to fry Carroll.
UPDATE VII: Just posted at CSM (via Allah @ Michelle Malkin) is a statement by Jill Carroll in which she avers that she was coerced by her captors:
Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not. The people who kidnapped me and murdered Alan Enwiya are criminals, at best.[...]
Out of fear I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times.[...]
APRIL 1ST & 2ND UPDATE VII: Reax across the Blogosphere, including some reactions to Debbie Sclussel: Ed Morrissey, Rick Moran,
Rick Moran (2) Jonah Goldberg (1) Jonah Golberg (2) , Power Line, AP (1), AP (2), Big Lizards, PoliPundit, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, A Blog For All, In the Bullpen, Macsmind, Florida Cracker, Solomonia, Outside The Beltway, Pundit Guy, Poli Blog, bRight & Early, Gina Cobb,
The Corner On National, Rantings of a Sandmonkey, Decision '08, Sister Toldjah, Brothers Judd Blog, Wizbang, The American Street,
Yourish, Moderate Voice, Think Progress,
Stop The ACLU,
Argghhh!,
The Huffington Post, Blogs for Bush, AIR (2), Decision 08 (2), Riehl World View, Wizbang (2), Sister Toldjah (2) Yourish,
UPDATE VIII: Debbie Schlussel's answer to the various accusations raging in the Blogosphere, that have ranged from accusing her of hate mongering to stating that Carroll was a terrorist collaborator. Here is an excerpt, where she quotes Carroll's past employer, The Jordan Times:
"The kidnappers who abducted her could not have chosen a more wrong target. True, Jill is a US citizen. But she is also more critical of US policies towards the Middle East than many Arabs. . . . Jill has been from day one opposed to the war, to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.[...]
More than just being sympathetic with average Iraqis under war and occupation, Jill is a true believer in Arab causes." [...]
1) Jill Carroll worked, by her choice, for an Islamist newspaper that said she shares its anti-American, anti-Israel views (no reason to doubt that, she worked for them by her choice);
2) Jill Carroll was close friends with an American who worked for Code Pink (funding and helping terrorists);
3) Jill Carroll was unique among ALL American hostages in Iraq in getting the mammoth effort by U.S. Islamist groups (all of whom support terrorists and oppose the war in Iraq) to secure her release. They know what she stands for.
And it should be obvious to you, too.
As for any calls for an apology, the apology is owed to ME by all the premature articulators out there who didn't read closely and falsely claimed I cited the video. I did not.
Jill Carroll's views and Islamist, terror-supporting friends in the U.S. remain the same. Time for all of you to get LASIK so you finally see it.
UPDATE IX: The London Telegraph attacks the right wing Blogosphere in a major way, and Jack Lewis puts up a good defense, quoting the big conservative bloggs who clearly have not accused Carrol of being a traitor, as claimed. Read it, it's good. I sympathize of course, as I have been wrongly accused by the ever gracious Mahablog of saying that Carroll was a coward. (See my UPDATE I above)
David,
It boggles the mind that my comments lead directly to state sanctioned torture.
I am not grandstanding and that is not what I said. I said they would face a Military Tribunal, which is not court per se. This was upheld by the US Supreme Court that said even if they were US citizens taking part in this; they would face the Military Tribunals and not the civilian court system. So, did my US Supreme Court quote disprove that "Bush's Lawyers made it up" you insist upon?
------------
The conventions don't even have a category of "illegal combatant". Bush's lawyers made up that term to justify the use of torture.
------------
Enough of this, I could go back through all of your posts and show where you ignore my points and shift positions just as you continue to accuse me of doing. Ad hominem attacks continue...
For those of you interested, please see a few different pieces on the Combat Status Review Tribunals. These are not for the final Military Tribunal to determine "punishment", but to determine status.
There is a very slanted wiki that David would love on it and then there are several links at the defenselink.mile site: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Combatant_Tribunals.html
I will attach the initial notification itself for those who don't follow links...
No. 651-04 IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 7, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combatant Status Review Tribunal Order Issued
The Department of Defense announced today the formation of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This tribunal will serve as a forum for detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants.
Detainees held at Guantanamo Bay will be notified within 10 days of their opportunity to contest their enemy combatant status under this process. The tribunal process will start as soon as possible. Detainees will also be notified of their right to seek a writ of habeas corpus in the courts of the United States. Habeas corpus is a writ ordering a person in custody to be brought before a court.
An individual tribunal will be comprised of three neutral officers, none of whom were involved with the detainee. One of the tribunal members will be a judge advocate and the senior ranking officer will serve as the president of the tribunal.
Each detainee will be assigned a military officer as a personal representative. That officer will assist the detainee in preparing for a tribunal hearing. Detainees will have the right to testify before the tribunal, call witnesses and introduce any other evidence. Following the hearing of testimony and other evidence, the tribunal will determine in a closed-door session whether the detainee is properly held as an enemy combatant. Any detainee who is determined not to be an enemy combatant will be transferred to their country of citizenship or other disposition consistent with domestic and international obligations and U.S. foreign policy.
This tribunal does not replace the administrative review procedure announced earlier this year.
--------------------
Yes, there are yearly reviews of this status.
As I have mentioned before, I am not a lawyer. I do not have the education in this area that Michael does. If I represent something incorrectly, that is entirely my fault. It does not make the state's case less cogent, just me. However, I am sure those certified professionals will continue their legal dance for a bit longer.
By the way, David. I do have to disagree with you as to my intelligence. In some areas I am quite uninformed or "stupid" if you will. Like when we sign any treaty, it becomes the supreme law of the land. Although, what happens when that treaty violates Constitutionally derived powers? I guess that is why we have a US Supreme Court and thousands upon thousands of lawyers in the good ole USA. By the way, did I mention I am not a legal scholar. I will leave that to those aforementioned professionals.
From my point of view, I do not know how legal processes work where you are, but if you look at the history of this whole series of events at GITMO, there have been starts, court ordered stops, appeals, restarts, stops, etc. Yes. Very few have been charged for crimes that they WILL BE PROSECUTED for (seeking a set term of incarceration or even the death penalty). I trust the rest of the detainees will be released when they stop saying they will kill us as soon as they are released...I believe there might be another provision-cessation of hostilities. (BTW, we have already picked up a few we released who were back to their old tricks again-you know, murdering innocents, etc.). It certainly appears to be unfair having our cake and eating it to. To be honest on the GITMO piece, I have heard of the numbers, the tribunals, starts and restarts of proceedings, and never really drilled that deeply. I thank you for forcing me to drill this deep. I had not realized how few charges had been approved for prosecution. I have always heard about the number that referred to charges that were pending which was considerably more. We definately need more lawyers in the military. Michael, care to sign up? The US repays student loans...
It does appear that my government has found an exploitable loophole, where we can keep hundreds of people who seek to kill innocents from achieving their goal. (I do believe the goal of a government is to protect its citizens). As long as these individuals are not tortured, and they continue to refuse "to fight no more against the evil Satan," I want that loophole exploited, and them kept from killing anymore non-combatants. I acknowledge in my PERSONAL view that all of 'em in GITMO (who have not refused to return to their country of origin) should have been charged already. If we have no intention of charging them (I predict that number be around the 100-200 mark), they should be held according to POW protocols. BTW, that means they will be incarcerated until formal cessation of hostilities. I think with Al Qaeda's leadership and their ideology, that would be when Hell freezes over. Same situation as now, but they could write letters to Mom more often. On another point, what type of cards would they get? Enlisted and officer prisoners are treated differently. But then again that is part of the whole name rank and service number that is part of the POW experience. No rank, then they are to be treated as privates and can be given hard labor for disciplinary infractions. They could even be treated worse if we called them POWs? Wait, they didn't sign that treaty, nor do they use a rank structure. I am so confused.
I will just leave it at that.
Posted by: Patrick | Tuesday, April 04, 2006 at 01:52 AM
We could of course also claim that the foundation of your country is about things like a right of a fair trial, but opponents would say; true but that is only applicable on Americans, not on people in the Middle East in wartime conditions
Patrick himself just quoted from a US Supreme Court decision that specifies that it doesn't matter if the accused is American or not and it doesn't matter if it's war time --- they still get a day in court. Just exactly what the Geneva Conventions say (which in any case is US law itself).
Of course Bush doesn't even bother to make accusations let alone bring those accusations to trial. There's not even a pretence of legality. Indefinate extrajudicial detention. Plain and simple: state sanctioned kidnapping and torture.
Patrick is giving you the run around.
Legally he doesn't have any case whatsoever under any legal system. He's certainly smart enough to know all that. He's just grandstanding.
Posted by: DavidByron | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 04:19 PM
So what I'm trying to say is that it's a difference in the foundation of personal opinions ánd judiciary opinions.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 02:44 PM
Kenny, I see that, and that is exactly why I said I think that the major difference between your and mine position, Patrick, is that I concentrate on international law and treaties you on what probably should be regarded domestic teachings. That is, quite frankly, where the discussion ends; both concentrate on different things.
We could of course also claim that the foundation of your country is about things like a right of a fair trial, but opponents would say; true but that is only applicable on Americans, not on people in the Middle East in wartime conditions.
Then I would say; true, but I am trying to point towards the values behind those ideas.
Then the argument would almost repeat itself (wartime situation / the enemy doesn't live by those moral values, why should we / etcetera).
So, that is why I actually do not discuss topics like this a lot anymore: I did that a lot in the past, but after discussing one topic for 6 months... It's more useful to talk about other topics, because in the end it's the difference between acting according to what one conciders international law or acting according to what one conciders national law and about a difference in what one allows 'morally' in certain situations.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 02:41 PM
Michael,
For what it's worth, I think a lot of Americans join me in believing that the fundamental premises of international law are so deeply amoral that one must choose between the principles in which Americans believe and the principles in which international lawyers agree -- and for us, that's an easy choice. Hmm, the people who brought you the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, or the people who brought you the United Nations...which one should we bet on?
Not a hard choice, I'm afraid.
I realize you believe that international law has some sort of claim to moral deference, and I'm not intending to open a debate on it -- I'm just saying that appeals to international law have little cachet with many Americans. So you would have to look for some other line of criticism if you were going to persuade conservative Americans.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 02:25 PM
Uhm I posted that without thinking, for those who do not know any Latin, it means: the newer law overthrows the older law
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 01:50 PM
Haha, lets take a break with regard to this discussion ;)
I think that the major difference between your and mine position, Patrick, is that I concentrate on international law and treaties you on what probably should be regarded domestic teachings. That is, quite frankly, where the discussion ends; both concentrate on different things.
We should remember, however, that the human right treaty came to existence after this: Here is the site for officially describing them as "unlawful combatants"
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html
It is the actual Supreme Court write up (1942)
Lex posterior derogat lex priori
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 01:46 PM
Just not true Patrick. The people held there haven't even been accused of a crime for the most part. You want to pretend they are sitting in a five year waiting list for a court to see them? Almost none of them have ever seen a tribunal which according to law all should see. Many have been released after years with no accusation against them. All are subject to torture and other abuses that are against how POWs should be treated.
You are smart enough to know your government violates the law and tortures people. You claim to be against these practises but in reality you continually endorse and defend them. When I and others here point out this dichotomy you refuse to provide any rationale for it. You tell me: what I am supposed to conclude?
Posted by: DavidByron | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 01:41 PM
Alright David...I give.
Since you have never heard of the military tribunals working their way through the cases at Guantanamo or elsewhere, I guess they just do not exist.
You are right...pointless. Michael, to you now. If I am no longer trying to describe my position to David, let me know what you would like to continue with.
Posted by: Patrick | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 01:11 PM
This is useless. The violation of law that two people now have described to you in detail is simply invisible to you. You are talking about something else again (civil vs military courts) but we are telling you that Bush says they get no court at all. You just seem incapable of seeing the violation of the law or the act of torture.
Alexandra it seems has posted a diary about me. I hadn't noticed until just now because she usually just posts one a day.
Her chief complain is that I don't post links. But I explained why I don't --- it would be pointless to argue over disputed facts when we can't even communicate on a far more basic level. We can't even agree on sentences, language or common ground facts. I might as well be speaking Latin.
You have got no idea what on earth I am even refering to, do you? And even Michael seems to find the torture issue invisible, but at least he understands the other part.
As for me I have no idea what possible basis in principle could conceivably lead you to the statements you are making -- which completely contradict your stated principles.
I suggest you re-read what has already been said because I can't be more plain about it. I'd just be copy and pasting what I already said. Maybe Michael can explain it if he has the patience. As for me it's not a matter of patience here. The more I try the more I'm going to be seen as a problem for the board as a whole so beyond a certain point, which I've certainly passed, as recognized above, this just becomes counterproductive.
I'll sit this one out for now. Possibly you can get Michael to continue with it.
Posted by: DavidByron | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Sorry for the rushed post, I am off to class and will have a busy week. I promise to respond "thoughtfully" later. The above post has many errors and rambles quite a bit. Definately not up to the standard our Hostess deserves. Mea culpa...
Posted by: Patrick | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 11:09 AM
David,
I always accept apologies and offer mine in return. Let us try to keep this thread civil.
You misrepresent the Supreme Court case I cited. It was not for the civil courts to determine their fate because they were unlawful combatants. The military tribunals had jurisdiction. They were combatants who violated the laws of warfare and were not civilians who could expect civil law. This applies to your point Michael, that it should be a civil criminal case. I still disagree.
In military law, refusing a direct order in times of war can lead to execution. As a civilian, you can tell your boss no all you want, and never even face jail. In the military system, if you kill your enemy you are doing your job. If you are a civilian and you shoot someone you are a murderer. There are many distinctions between military and civil law. Do not forget that Martial Law implies different protections.
Let me explain something about myself that I think is true of most people. I have a very firm conviction of what is right and wrong and the boundaries that I will not cross. Stripped down to my truest self, I hold the physical inflicting of any pain on another individual morally reprehensible. This of course seems to be in conflict with my career. It is not. I will not bore you with my beliefs on warfare. Not only do I feel that inflicting physical and mental anguish is wrong, I also personally think it never gives reliable information.
Should we be able to use more than polite language to question someone who just butchered dozens of innocent women and children? Yes. It is a morally reprehensibile act and unfortunately, many people cannot empathize with such a crazed individual who delights in the "purity" of his acts. Even though I can empathize with the soldier who just captured this monster and his less than gentle subduing, I also will not tolerate us becoming the monsters they are. They must still have their legal protections. We cannot torture those in our charge.
So as a human being, I will not mistreat physically or mentally anyone in my care. Period. I also understand that I live in a world with a multitude of different people and the collective agreed upon morality is codified into law. I make a distiction between what is right and morally just, and what is legal. I will always do the right thing. To thine own self be true.
Now it is best if the law supports what is right. Unfortunately, in an Islamic country, all manner of things that I find wrong are not only legal, but considered morally right. From your previous posts, you divorce morality from religion. So if the will of the people find something morally right and make it legal through the passing of laws, Is it right? Is it legal?
What interrogation techniques are illegal? That is what I have tried to get this debate to focus on. Please do not say that once again I am waffling on legality and I am condoning torture. I am also not even trying to go down a two wrongs make a right road. I am trying to demonstrate different interpretations of right within the context of laws. As you mentioned with Afghanistan...did Al Qaeda sign the treaty. If they did not, are they protected by it? We have no contract with them. Because we signed a treaty, we abide by it.
What I have tried to reference and show is what we as a country have used to try to define torture, which let me emphasis once again, we say is illegal and wrong. I say the debate still revolves around international treaties not adequately defining acts deemed as torture. I would personally prefer it if it were precisely spelled out in the conventions or another UN document. The devil is in the details.
Posted by: Patrick | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Listen you little pip-squeak, you insult Patrick, you insult me. Who do you think you are insulting Patrick's integrity? Show some respect.
I accept this criticism. I apologise to Patrick for pushing at him that way, although I dare say I don't deserve him to accept such an apology. I am also apologising to Alexandra.
In fact Patrick seemed to have a lot going for him as a commentator - I agree with Alexandra's assessment of him. Ironically that's exactly why I was so pushy with him. I really would like to figure out what people are thinking on these issues and how they come to such bizarre views about torture and so on. Patrick seemed to have the most going for him and I thought to myself, "This guy might actually tell me, but I don't think I'm going to get anywhere with the others". So I pushed him. Not at first but when he seemed to start to put up roadblocks.
Whatever it is Patrick cannot explain it to me.
I doubt Michael can get to it either. Surely patrickl can see that it isn't any different in American or European law. The law says you have to give people a trial if you are rellying on calling them criminals. Bush locks people away indefinately without even an accusation much less a court decision.
It's against US law and against International law and while Patrick may feel the term "unlawful combatant" has meaning in US law (nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions) the meaning it has is NOT the meaning that Bush uses.
US supreme court: "unlawful" combatant = a combatant accused of a breach of the law
Bush: "unlawful combatant" = anyone, combatant or no, criminal or no, accused nor not, that I say will be held, is disappeared into a concentration cammp, tortured and never released regardless of the time for release that any POW or criminal would have.
Patrick says he cannot see the difference between these two although both I and Michael (who was more polite about it) said the same thing.
I suppose that if Michael cannot get to the truth of why Patrick supports these violations of law then my own rather rude and frankly desparate methods will be seen in that context.
What does it take to get through to the truth? It's beyond me.
Posted by: DavidByron | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 09:58 AM
Patrick,
Good points and I understand your point of view. However, I am more focusing on international law as you might understand.
"You say consider him a criminal, that would mean he is innocent until proven guilty and now afford him writ of habeus corpus? Every incident he took part in would require extereme forensic investigation, and at most treat this as racketeering"
Exactly. That is what international law requires.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 09:47 AM
Thank you Alexandra and Michael...
The will be the last that I will post on this. Below is a direct quote from the link David supposedly read, but insists "...did't check out"
-------
"Specification 1 of the First charge is sufficient to charge all the petitioners with the offense of unlawful belligerency, trial of which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the admitted facts affirmatively show that the charge is not merely colorable or without foundation.
Specification 1 states that petitioners 'being enemies of the United States and acting for ... the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United States ... and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress ... for the purpose of committing ... hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States'.
This specification so plainly alleges violation of the law of war as to require but brief discussion of petitioners' contentions. As we have seen, entry upon our territory in time of war by enemy belligerents, including those acting under the direction of the armed forces of the enemy, for the purpose of destroying property used or useful in prosecuting the war, is a hostile and war-like act. It subjects those who participate in it without uniform to the punishment prescribed by the law of war for unlawful belligerents. It is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons or that their proposed hostile acts did not necessarily contemplate collision with the Armed Forces of the United States.... The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agent similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces. By passing our boundaries for such purposes without uniform or other emblem signifying their belligerent status, or by discarding that means of identification after entry, such enemies become unlawful belligerents subject to trial and punishment."
-------
Michael, Europe may not accept this distinction, but it has a long precedent within the US. I am from the US and I accept that distinction. If you have a definition of a "lawful" combatant which I have cited numerous times, what happens when all of the conditions are not met? What do you call him?
You say consider him a criminal, that would mean he is innocent until proven guilty and now afford him writ of habeus corpus? Every incident he took part in would require extereme forensic investigation, and at most treat this as racketeering. If he is a POW, he is held until one side surrenders and the POWs are repatriated. Who do we repatriate them to? There are a few anomolies in Guantanomo, where we have tried to release those who are not threats and they refuse to accept return to their country as that will lead to their swift execution. Therefore we have not sent them back.
Many who have been released have rejoined the fight. If they do not recognize a cessation of hostilities, should we release them? In their mind the war continues. These are different questions I have on the whole Guantanomo Bay thing. Not to mention, Justice moves very slowly here. I know it seems that I am throwing lots of different things here, but I am not a lawyer. I do not hold myself to be capable to debate the intricacies of law and precedent with lawyers. That is not where my experience lies. I leave it up to our Supreme Court for those definitions and finer legal points.
Posted by: Patrick | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 09:33 AM
Patrick
I think that one thing the miscommunication is based on, is that you accept the term "unlawful combatant", as do quite some Americans nowadays.
The problem is that according to international law there is no such thing as 'unlawful' or illegal combatants. Legal scholars, at least in Europe, maybe I should say not-US, agree on this. To be honest: I am a law student and one of the first things my professors talked about during my classes international law is exactly this: the term unlawful combatant does not exist in international law.
When Americans dó accept the term, but the rest of the world doesn't, it simply means the term is not accepted generally, thus it is not international law.
In situations like Afghanistan every country must, of course, obey international law. By naming the prisoners 'unlawful combatants' and not giving them a trial (within a normal time period after arrest), one is acting in breach with international law. Either they are POW's or they are criminals. Both groups have international rights.
That is the difficulty here. The choice is, quite frankly, between adhering to international law, or not. One could argue about different things, but not that the international community did not make very clear already that the treatment of those prisoners is unaccaptable: the UN and european countries said that on different / numerous occasions.
The choice is yours. But I believe in those international laws.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 04:41 AM
Byron,
Listen you little pip-squeak, you insult Patrick, you insult me. Who tf do you think you are insulting Patrick's integrity? Show some respect.
Patrick has been, and still is in the armed forces for 20 years of his life fighting for this country. Wtf have you done other than got banned from every single decent site on the internet, on both sides may I add.
You have not provided a shred of evidence for your numerous scurrilous accusations, despite being repeatedly called upon to do so by several commenters on several threads. Every time someone is polite to you, as Patrick has been despite your constant insults, you simply step up a gear and become more belligerent.
As for the "If any integrity remains it has to be hidden and protected with a bodyguard of slime", the only slime here is you.
Patrick is polite and apologizes to you, credit to him and his upright upbringing. What do you do? You take his apology and you crap all over it, you gutless coward.
You have misunderstood the hospitality you have been shown here as a weakness, and have simply got more rude as a result, seeing just how far you can go.
You either show some respect or you can ship out.
Posted by: Alexandra | Monday, April 03, 2006 at 03:39 AM
Once again, you gave no evidence, no argument, no hint, no reason to believe that you actually sincerely hold the view you endorse. A sincere man would want to get to the heart of things not endlessly obfuscate as you do.
Since you absolute refuse to read a documented, legal investigation...I guess you are correct in your twisted little world. As long as you keep your eyes closed and say I don't see anything, you are correct. I cannot provide you with evidence if you refuse to look.
You have time to write all that crap but you don't have time to make any sort of attempt to actually answer my question. Conclusion: it's just a game to you.
I'm just not interesting in your game playing. I believe you already know what I will say to refute your most recent dishonest selective references to the Geneva Convention so why don't you just go ahead and type in my side of the conversation and then you can type your next line which will be to move onto some new bullshit excuse for Bush... some new nuanced quibble and time waster. I wonder if I could guess what that would be... or would you just go to the "Geneva Conventions are quaint" line next? Yeah I think that one's most likely. Making all the preceeding conversation null of course. This conversation's so fake and rote we could probably swap roles.
I am so sorry that you do not recognize the US terms for interpretation of an International Document.
Yeah. That story didn't check out. Bush is saying nobody gets a trial for anything remember? that's against the Geneva Conventions and against this court's rulling.
Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals
Bush's unlawful combatants, most of which are not actually combatants, let alone unlawful, get held for years after the "war" ends without charge, without trial and are tortured while being held.
So what's your next bullshit response?
"Quaint"?
I'll be impressed if you can push the "we obey the Geneva Conventions" lie any further.
Posted by: DavidByron | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 10:59 PM
Patrick,
You have done a fine job of attempting to cite and document the reasons behind your position. Byron is a bore. He has not responded to anyone’s requests for citations, transcripts, or even major newspaper reports to “show his work”, so to speak. You have kept on the high road and should feel vindicated in the fact that you have tried to take his positions seriously and respond accordingly but there is nothing you can do if it is not reciprocated
Posted by: Stefan | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 10:37 PM
David, David, David...
As you are obviously too lazy to actually go to the UNCHCHR site, here is what was covered more eloquently in my citiation.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
I am so sorry that you do not recognize the US terms for interpretation of an International Document. Tough!
"Asked to come up with even one solitary piece of evidence to indicate that you beleived your statement about Abu Ghraib being an isolated incident was true, you couldn't do it. Not one. Not even a hint. Not a smell of an excuse." Since you absolute refuse to read a documented, legal investigation...I guess you are correct in your twisted little world. As long as you keep your eyes closed and say I don't see anything, you are correct. I cannot provide you with evidence if you refuse to look.
I always speak honestly. This does not mean that I am not wrong, because I have been and I will be. That is part of the human condition. I do not lie, and I do not try to obfuscate. I try to explain my point of view from as many directions as it takes to get the person I am conversing with to understand.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.’
— Albert Einstein"
If you seek certainty, we need to divorce ourselves of reality and move to the plane of theory. Which is it you seek to live in?
I have shown you where the water is. It is up to you to drink. I have tried to present arguments instead of simply responding to your vitupertive invectives. Obviously there is no discourse possible. I will respond to others if they would like to further explore this issue.
I have obviously failed one of my old NCOs who told me to live by his maxim: "Sir, Never start something that you can't finish." Sorry MSG Weddington...
Posted by: Patrick | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 09:34 PM
I agree. You're so unconvincing I don't even believe that you beleive what you're saying. Asked to come up with even one solitary piece of evidence to indicate that you beleived your statement about Abu Ghraib being an isolated incident was true, you couldn't do it. Not one. Not even a hint. Not a smell of an excuse.
Thanks for admiting there is no category of "unlawful troops" in the Geneva Conventions and therefore that Bush is in violation of the treaties wilfully and as US policy. You could have saved some time if you'd been honest about that from the get go. You pretend Bush is refering to the rules for handling suspected spies. He isn't of course and we both know he isn't and we both know why not so let's save all that discussion shall we? Save that little see-saw back and forth where you make a statement we both know is false and I call you on it and then you backup and try to re-frame it and then I call you on THAT deceit and so on and so on.
What I'd like to know, but I suppose I never will know, is why you brought this whole thing up if you knew all along that what Bush was saying was a lie.
Why couldn't you just have been honest? Said what you meant and mean what you say? Are your own views so disagreeable to yourself even on a Republican board? Why not just say that you agree with breaking the Geneva Conventions because they are "quaint" -- or whatever Bush's man called them. Why are Republicans always so ashamed of their views? Why do you pretend to be respecting the Geneva Conventions? Why pretend to hold a position you reject? How can we communicate if you can't be truthful?
Or is it possible you really are too stupid to know that the Geneva Convention contradicts your stance? No, I don't beleive it. You obviously know them just fine. You're answer was detailed (although of course some of those earlier treaties were not signed by Afghanistan!) and gave just enough information to play the next round of the little game. You're hoping I don't know the conventions like you do so I accept this BS. Maybe not even that. Maybe it's all about playing for time. Once again though the Republican prefers to be seen as stupid than wrong. We have to play the see saw game to get anywhere.
What happened to integrity with you guys?
I notice that you couldn't respond to any of the remarks I made about how someone who really held your stated position would act. Basically is this all an act with you? Or is some of it an act and some you actually beleive? I wish there was a way to cut through the crap but there isn't. Deceit seems to be the sina qua non of the Republican position these days. If any integrity remains it has to be hidden and protected with a bodyguard of slime. It's as if I am trying to see beneath the mask but in the end the mask is the face.
The CACI contractors from the Abu Ghraib incident, unfortunately worked within a legally ambiguous position that allowed them to escape serious repercussions.
And might I add that you sound horrified at this result. Simply horrified. LOL. Just as angry as you are over Bush's statement that he has the right to torture people.
Posted by: DavidByron | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 08:30 PM
Sorry,
I was sloppy again. Here is the site for officially describing them as "unlawful combatants"
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html
It is the actual Supreme Court write up (1942). It also gives precedent since one of the unlawful combatants still had US citizenship.
I also neglected the quotes around the beginning of that paragraph. They are not my words, but from: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_55/ai_n8585592/pg_3 (Air Force Law Review).
Mea Culpa...not trying to take credit for other's words.
Posted by: Patrick | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 07:57 PM
David,
Let us get back to POWs. Who are POWs?
According to a military law review article, you are quite correct in that unlawful belligerents is not a term explicitly within the Treaties. "The term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in international treaties that regulate armed conflict, but it is implicit within them. The Brussels Declaration of 1874, art. IX; the 1899 Convention with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Annex art. 1 ; the Hague Convention of 1907, No. IV, Annex art. 1; and the Geneva Convention III of 1949, art. 4A, all list the four fundamental conditions of lawful belligerency. The immutability and stalwart enforcement of these four categorical pillars of lawful belligerency are indispensable to the prevention of war crimes and to the safety of protected civilians and other noncombatants in international armed conflict. To an armed force in armed conflict, the four requirements of lawful belligerency are not discretionary." As a mathemetician, you would refer to the existence of an unlawful belligerent as the complement of the lawful belligerent which IS explicitly defined within these treaties. Or do I have that whole mathy thing wrong? A and A complement. Ring a bell?
During WW II, for example, in ex parte Quirin, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the unlawful belligerency military commission convictions of eight German saboteurs, who disembarked German U-boats off the U.S. East coast, came ashore and discarded their military uniforms, and were later captured in civilian clothes in U.S. territory. Six of the unlawful combatants were then executed and the two remaining saboteurs were sentenced to and served lengthy terms of confinement. So, since WWII the US has been using this term which if my math is correct, is slightly before Bush took office. Well, maybe you are correct. Those lawyers do live for a long time, so maybe a few who "created" this terminology way back when are still alive and worked for Bush.
Lets face it, saboteurs, spies, guerillas, and other typical unlawful combatants who mask themselves perfidiously as protected civilians are not accorded the rights of POWs as they never made it through the gate of lawful belligerency.
The Four Criteria of Lawful Belligerency: Being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; Having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; Carrying arms openly; and Conducting military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Please explain how these conditions are met.
Please also reference the transcripts where the POTUS said we will use torture.
I assume you references were to the intial 2002 Justice Department memo written for the CIA(since recanted).
Let me quote from a Washington Post article in June of 2004, "In the Justice Department's view -- contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post -- inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
By contrast, the Army's Field Manual 34-52, titled "Intelligence Interrogations," sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis." I think I might have referenced this, but you probably haven't read that manual or the page I emphasized.
Immediately after the initial Justice Department memo came out, the request for clarification got a "even acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain might be torture." response. If you recall, the 2004 memo clearly states that the "consideration of the bounds of any such authority would be inconsistent with the president's unequivocal directive that United States personnel not engage in torture." That sure sounds like a reference to a Presidential Policy...
Regardless, the memos from the Justice Department are attempts to define torture. US Military policy is still within the FMs. Until an Executive Order or something from the SECDEF comes out saying you can do all of these things, you cannot move away from policy codified in our doctrine.
Interrogators were charged. The most famous was the Warrant Officer who was tried for the death of an Iraqi General (Definately a POW) while he interrogated him. The CACI contractors from the Abu Ghraib incident, unfortunately worked within a legally ambiguous position that allowed them to escape serious repercussions. That is the danger of using contractors since you have cut the military to the bone and we no longer have all the forces we need. We contract out which has caused many problems. Once again, the interrogators who asked buddy to buddy, soften up these prisoners DID NOT outrank these MPs.
I go back to the question of what exactly is inhumane treatement in your book. There were investigations into all of the prisoner detainment facilities within Theater - BTW that does include Afghanistan (if you would have read the 50+ page document I cited, you would know this). Implementation of the policies was not the same across the board (read the report)...
Oh, never mind. I will never agree that the criminal behavior at Abu Ghraib is US policy and endemic to the vast majority of our armed forces. You will never believe it is anything but that. You will also never read the items I have referenced... Ach Wie, Schade!!
Posted by: Patrick | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 07:12 PM
Patrick: Like all other debates here, we all agree on principles, but disagree on interpretation.
I generally get the impression that most if not all of the people on this board do not share my values. There are a very limited number of exceptions on limited issues. I would like to find out what principles conservatives have but in discussion so far my conclusion has teneded towards the answer being "none".
Let me compare and contrast my view on torture with yours Patrick. And before we start you at least seem to be close to saying torture is wrong. Closer than anyone else here. But a miss is as good as a mile they say.
My position is simple: torture is wrong and America ought to obey all relevent laws including international laws in the handling of prisoners. To my mind this doesn't appear to be a radical or "communist" / far lefty position but it turns out that it is, compared to attitudes among Republicans and for the most part Democrats too.
We keep talking past each other. TORTURE IS WRONG. PERIOD.
Period? You are describing my position. Yours is a lot more complex to say the least. Firstly how do you feel about the fact that your president and your Justice department favour torture? My position is simple. I'm against torture and in favour of law. Since Bush refuses to obey the law he should be impeached. Do you agree? of course you don't. So your view on torture is complex. You suggest you oppose it but you support a president who has a policy of torture. Specifically a president who demands he has the right to use torture -- I hope you won't play games and pretend Bush didn't say that? I'm refering to this recent law passed by Congress to say they really meant it when they said Bush should obey all the other laws banning torture. Bush simply refused to obey this law. What's your reaction to this?
have never said that any one was following orders to "soften up" prisoners. I said they were asked to do favors for people outside their chain of command which contravened standing orders.
But Bush himself said the Geneva Conventions didn't apply. Bush himself said he had the right to use torture. His justice department said it wasn't torture if body parts are not removed. Rumsfeld stated that dogs could be used to terrify prisoners. And how can you say that the guards were not given orders? Weren't the inquisitors a higher rank? What "standing orders" do you suggest were given? You refuse to define torture in the sense of this understanding that US forces have -- or that you claim they have. Torture by what definition? The justice department's? Rumsfeld's? The officers at Abu Ghraib were aware of the situation and did nothing. How can you say the guards were not following orders? Are you saying they were ordered to ignore superior officers in interrogations? If you are a soldier and someone tells you to do something then that is obeying orders if you obey those orders. But in your view it isn't. Do you claim the interrogators who ordered the torture did NOT break the law? Why were none of them put on trial?
I see why you hate that mirror you have to look in every morning.
Speak for yourself. I haven't tortured anyone. I oppose torture without reservation. You cannot say the same. I have principles. You have a political party.
Any form of physical torture is plainly illegal.
Really? Not according to the US justice department. How do you react to their ridiculously self-serving definition of torture?
Their are certain additional protections that are provided to lawful combatants. They are not available to unlawful combatants. The Geneva convents clearly spells out the difference between the two of them.
The conventions don't even have a category of "illegal combatant". Bush's lawyers made up that term to justify the use of torture. Seems like it worked on some people. People who were already pretty happy about torture that is. And of course Bush originally said that all prisoners would be treated as if they were covered by the conventions. A lie of course as he contradicted himself later on. So there's no excuse for your support of the torture at Gunatanamo -- which you've already mentioned while pretending Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident.
Prove that Abu Ghraib was an anomoly? What is your burden of proof?
Well so far you've not offered anything at all so let's start with you trying to think of even one fact in support of your theory shall we? Don't aim for persuading me. All I'm looking for at this stage is enough to persuade me that you have ANY principled basis for your opinion whatsoever because currently my conclusion is that you simply lied knowing that you lied and knowing I knew. To put it mildly this sort of game playing doesn't help for a constructive conversation. Please try and think of any sort of reason you can that someone of principle would hold the views you do.
Let me make sure you are hearing me loud and clear. Torture happened at Abu Ghraib. There can be no excuse for it.
But in other writing you've denied torture took place at Abu Ghraib by saying it was just the work of "a few bad apples" operating on their own initiative and therefore it was "abuse" (to use the official state euphemism). You've made many excuses for these events and denied similar occurances elsewhere.
You've also mentioned torture at Guantanamo now, while simultaneously claiming it wasn't torture despite it fitting the description you gave under the treaty (ie. used for interrogation) and despite it obviously being a violation of the Geneva Conventions - "inhumane treatment" or however you want to describe such a violation.
let me describe how you'd be feeling if you were on the level here. (1) You'd be calling for Bush's resignation over this stuff, and Rumsfeld too. (2) You'd be calling the so-called investigations into Abu Ghraib a white wash and demanding that the real culprits, the officers, be tried not a half dozen of the lowest level grunts as scaepgoats. (3) You'd be demanding an investigation of the reports from all the other concentration camps, including those in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere. (4) You'd demand an unambiguous condemnation of torture from your party and your government.
You are pretty much doing the exact opposite of all these things. I look at what people do not what the claim Patrick. I can see you claim to be against torture but if everything you do says the opposite then which am I to beleive?
Michael,
Besides that, didn't I make it extremely clear that I would never allow torture? Didn't I make clear that I also agree that inhumane treatment is illegal (obviously...)?
No. That was not the impression I got at all.
The only thing I was pointing out with the stuff you quoted is that not every 'harsh' interrogation is illegal.
Yes it is. The Geneva Conventions criminalise ill treatment of POWs.
Posted by: DavidByron | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 04:32 PM
Byron, Byron, Byron, my socialist friend...
Patrick answers you terrific:
"Pejorative terms like concentration camp and torture require one response. They are wrong. Like all other debates here, we all agree on principles, but disagree on interpretation. I have never said that any one was following orders to "soften up" prisoners. I said they were asked to do favors for people outside their chain of command which contravened standing orders. Some refused, some played along. Those that agreed have no leg to stand on."
It is about interpretation. What do you read into those words of the Geneva Convention?
Besides that, didn't I make it extremely clear that I would never allow torture? Didn't I make clear that I also agree that inhumane treatment is illegal (obviously...)?
The only thing I was pointing out with the stuff you quoted is that not every 'harsh' interrogation is illegal.
Clearly you never read any of my opinions about Abu Graib or Guantanamo Bay. Clearly you do not know where I stand about the treatment of those prisoners. Clearly you do not know where I stand about the term 'enemy combatants'.
Because if you did, you would take your words right back.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 02:13 PM
David,
We keep talking past each other. TORTURE IS WRONG. PERIOD. I am not playing games but trying to come to an agreement on the terms we use. I believe that is part of negotiations?
Pejorative terms like concentration camp and torture require one response. They are wrong. Like all other debates here, we all agree on principles, but disagree on interpretation. I have never said that any one was following orders to "soften up" prisoners. I said they were asked to do favors for people outside their chain of command which contravened standing orders. Some refused, some played along. Those that agreed have no leg to stand on.
You will only see what you want to see. Like they say, We don't see the world the way it is, but the way we are. I see why you hate that mirror you have to look in every morning. Enough of the ad hominem attacks David.
Any form of physical torture is plainly illegal. Their are certain additional protections that are provided to lawful combatants. They are not available to unlawful combatants. The Geneva convents clearly spells out the difference between the two of them. If you recall, the US Special Forces got into all kinds of trouble when they stopped shaving and started wearing piecemeal uniforms. This is because they had lost the protections under the Geneva Conventions. Please read them David.
Prove that Abu Ghraib was an anomoly? What is your burden of proof? To an atheist, there will never be proof in God, so I will not prove the innocence, but request you prove the guilt.
Let me make sure you are hearing me loud and clear. Torture happened at Abu Ghraib. There can be no excuse for it. It is not the policy within the US Military and we do not take part in it. Do I think the Warrant Officer who was convicted, but only recieved a slap on the wrist (Iraqi General's Death) should have been in jail for life along with REDLEG? You bet. I was not part of his trial.
I have been trying to draw you and others into the realization that we can agree on certain words, but we will never agree on final interpretation. Especially when you will not enter the debate.
If you will not read the Geneva Conventions, please quit referring to them. I can take all kinds of things out of context, just like you.
Posted by: Patrick | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 01:56 PM
Michael you are the only one here in any danger of thinking you are a liberal, American or European.
On the other hand; do not confuse me with so-called American liberals. I am not a softy. There is nothing wrong with fierce interrogations - we got to draw the line somewhere though
A liberal would draw the line at breaking the law.
Posted by: DavidByron | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 01:01 PM
Ok Patrick you seemed to have quit taking this seriously. At first based on what you were saying I thought you were a very rare thing: a Republican who actually thinks torture is wrong. But it looks like I was wrong. Now you're just playing games.
You play games when you pretend the only "torture" at Abu Ghraib was lying to the prisoners:
What is the enumeration of things that one can do to extract information from someone other than pretty please. Can you lie to them? Police can. According to this, we cannot even do that.
You pretend the torture at Abu Ghraib consisted of not having the AC turned up:
Can you take their mattress away? Can you turn down the A/C? Is this torture?
In short you've morphed into a typical Republican torture apologist. I was happy to discuss this with you seriously while you admited that the crimes were extreme and real but I'm not going to bother responding to this crap. As for me I think torture is wrong. Republicans on the whole disagree and say, following Bush's example, that America can and should torture people. I think that's disgusting.
You better figure out what side you're on.
Did Bush say we will not abide by the Geneva Conventions, or did he correctly say they did not apply.
He said both that they wouldn't be abided by and he falsely suggested they didn't apply. He then claimed everyone would be treated as if they were under the protection of the conventions whether they were or not, and finally said America needs to torture people. So as usual Bush was simply lying left, right and center, but his actions are unambiguously pro-torture and his official pronouncements unambiguously anti-Geneva Conventions.
How can you say Abu Ghraib was not an anomoly?
Because there are reports of torture from many other American concentration camps both in and outside Iraq. The US military report you refer to also notes that the problems were widespread within Iraq and not limited to Abu Ghraib. Now can you please answer the question that I asked: what basis do you have for claiming Abu Ghraib was an isolated event? it's "none" isn't it?
Are you telling me that because Abu Ghraib happened, it must have happened everywhere and is therefore the "Policy" of the United States.
You are presumably aware of the definition of torture presented by the US Injustice department -- that anything short of physical amputation of limbs or body parts was not torture? No amount of mental violence counted? Naturally this violates all civilized definitions of torture and clearly is not the standard of the Geneva Convention which I have already mentioned and you appeared to ignore -- that POWs should enjoy broadly the same conditions as the soldiers guarding them (and civilians shouldn't be held at all). No wonder you pretended not to read that bit. Your apology for torture can't withstand the scrutiny of a the Geneva Conventions standard can it? or is being force to wear women's clothes a standard part of life as a US soldier?
You have previously accepted that US soldiers were following orders when they "softend up" prisoners. This contradicts your claim that a few bad apples acted alone.
==============================================
Unless you quit trying to minimise and dismiss torture by claiming that cutting off AC or lying to prisoners is torture then this conversation is over.
Your initial statements suggested you might have some honour or even think the US armed forces had some. Your later statements indicate neither is true. There's no need for us to discuss this any further if you continue to defend torture as moral, and to defend the mistreatment of prisoners as moral. That stance already speaks volumes and makes my point (that the US armed forces are more barbaric than the Iraqi resistance) for me just as well or better than our discussion of the torture at Abu Ghraib could do..
Posted by: DavidByron | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Patrick,
Good point and indeed, interpretation is always key. Therefore we should probably focus on the 'normal' or 'traditional' interpretation.
This means interrogators can go quite far, but certain things, are indeed, 'inhumane'. What is inhumane to one, is not inhumane to another. For instance: for muslims certain things may be extremely humiliating, although for an atheist they are far less humiliating. I believe, being a law student, that the government should, indeed, use different interrogation techniques. One thing that is really important to remember is that there are different interrogation techniques. What I read about it seems to imply that, actually, interrogators mostly agree that the less humiliating techniques are even more useful than the one who focus more on humiliating and 'breaking one' mentally.
On the other hand; do not confuse me with so-called American liberals. I am not a softy. There is nothing wrong with fierce interrogations - we got to draw the line somewhere though. The line is quite far away. For instance, the 'not sleeping' technique is a quite useful technique and it is very heavy for any prisoner, but I do not concider it torture.
A lot of things are possible, but I think we all agree, or most of us, that those pictures from Abu Graib were unacceptable. That was not torture in my opinion as in the traditional meaning of the word, but it wás inhumane treatment.
Posted by: Michael (van der) Galien | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 08:37 AM
Michael,
What is inhumane treatment? It is a wonderful phrase, but it doesn't mean anything. Humans are capable of truly repulsive things to each other and what we accept, others will not. If you tear up a Bible in front of me, you have not tortured me. If a woman touches me during her time of the month, you have not tortured me. If I were a true follower of Islam and you sent in a female to question me and she touched me, or handled the Koran inappropriately, she has now commited torture. Right? The UN Charter states:"..the term "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...or intimidating or coercing him ... person acting in an official capacity."
You are right, we should only serve tea and biscuits to them at precisely the correct temperature...and no harsh language either. They will gratefully tell us everything. No wait, their friends will simply put the captive's family in a car and race it at an American check point that will of course fire upon it in self defense.
Now the dripping of Chem-Lite juice on prisoners was definately not nice. Yes, they did lie to them about what is was. Was that torture? I would say no, but the the MPs who are supposed to be guards should have had absolutely nothing to do with that.
This all goes back to what is inhumane treatment is. I personally draw the line at all forms of physical abuse. The mental games are more gray to me. Have I tortured them by putting them in women's underwear? In the US, a Sheriff Arpaio moved his prisoners to a new facility by chains and pink underwear. None tried to escape because they did not want any further attention. Twisted, yes. Humiliation, yes. Torture, no. According to strict interpretation of UN, you betcha.
Posted by: Patrick | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 12:21 AM
Yeah, but ... but ... Oh! I know! Like how do we know that statement Jill released from Germany wasn't the one that was like, coerced or something? Once those evil storm troopers had her in their clutches they must've shot her full on Untruth Serum and told her what to say, right? I mean like, man, surely there's some explanation. Whose side are you on, anyway? (Sorry, just channeling DB for a second.)
Alexandra, Dafydd at Big Lizards figured out a code change for his site so that the name of each commenter appears both before and after their comment. It saves the rest his readers a lot of time some days. Maybe if you asked him nice he'll tell you how to do it.
Posted by: Bill Faith | Saturday, April 01, 2006 at 11:16 PM
I have a friend and next door neighbor who spent a year at Gitmo and to quote him "We do everything but kiss their ass,they get proper food, clean clothes, prayer rugs and when the press does come around they don't want to hear any of that, all they is the bad stuff, its enough to make you puke."In WW2 anyone caught fighting in civis was shot on the spot..Tourture,definition of, Removing Nails (finger or toe) with pliers removal of fingers,toes, ears or tounge with sharp or dull knife, the burning of bamboo under finger or toe nails etc. etc. Some time not to far from now this country is going to be hit again and this time it won't be just 3000+ and you can leave Iraq and it won't make a tinkers dam it will still happen...ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGON OF PEACE AND LOVE IT'S A CULT OF EVIL AND HATE...My answer to them!!! 18 Empty Tubes a Mushroom Cloud, its Miller Time.
Posted by: tincan sailor | Saturday, April 01, 2006 at 04:00 PM
Patrick,
Something that is important to remember is that it is not just about torture, but that inhumane treatment is dispicable as well.
Posted by: Michael (van der) Galien | Saturday, April 01, 2006 at 12:34 PM
David,
You are right. This is pointless.
When I ask you to define tourture, I want YOUR definition. I know my definition and I have asked repeatedly for yours so we can come to a consensus upon what we discuss. Quit trying to play games here. You as a mathematician know quite well how import clear definitions are any type of theory or proof. I can say this is the US policy and it is not torture. You can simply say, "AHA! You just confessed to the US has a policy of torture."
How can you say Abu Ghraib was not an anomoly? Are you telling me that because Abu Ghraib happened, it must have happened everywhere and is therefore the "Policy" of the United States.
The 15-6 is the Ryder and Taguba report. Here it is: http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf
Now you are returning to the point you said was a red-herring. Did Bush say we will not abide by the Geneva Conventions, or did he correctly say they did not apply. I would think you would be precise. Please go read the actual Geneva Conventions instead of using "common knowledge".
As to the UN Torture piece, "For the purposes of this Convention, the term "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...or intimidating or coercing him ... other person acting in an official capacity. " The US bill that was passed was to "clarify" what can legally be done and then referred to this UN piece from 1984. What is the enumeration of things that one can do to extract information from someone other than pretty please. Can you lie to them? Police can. According to this, we cannot even do that. As outlined in the manual below, these are the things that you cannot do to lawful combatants. FM 34-52,please read page 142. This does not cover what can be done to unlawful combatants.
In questioning, there should never be physical trauma. Can you take their mattress away? Can you turn down the A/C? Is this torture? The wording of this and the bill passed by congress allows for different judgements after the fact.
Your examples continues to cite Abu Ghraib...The LTC was relieved and had a GOMOR.
As to willful incompetence, they knew they did not have the expertise and came up with "field solutions". That is a great short term solution, but never trying to find out what the right answer is when you have the time is willful incompetence.
I will continue this later...I must take my kids to an Archery event.
Posted by: Patrick | Saturday, April 01, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Sorry about the italics tag being left open.
Posted by: DavidByron | Saturday, April 01, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Ghost:
What do you mean by mot anybody? Does that refer to leftists or people who read Time and atch CNN and assume they are informed? Or does it refere to politicians? Pray tell us what "most anybody" means.
Posted by: Washington | Saturday, April 01, 2006 at 07:07 AM
One doesn't have to stretch one's mind very far to see the inadequacies of this Republican administration.
Heck, Condi just said, to her credit: "I know we've made tactical errors (with Iraq), thousands of them, I'm sure... I am quite certain there are going to be dissertations written about the mistakes of the Bush administration."
That's like the understatement of the decade. Iraq is a strategic error as well.
The Republicans orchestrated a war with Iraq that destroyed national consensus in the war on terror, and they have politicized the individual soldier by repeatedly sending the message that to criticize policy equates attacking the soldier -- an allegation that is simply not true.
Condi and Dubya are "waiting for history..." to determine whether or not their errors were strategic. Most anybody that knows anything about it already knows the answer to that...and it doesn't take a brainwashed hostage to point it out.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Saturday, April 01, 2006 at 06:33 AM
I found it interesting that FOX NEWS was immediately trying to debunk her as being somehow brainwashed or something, because she had said something negative about Dubya's policy in Iraq...as if there is nothing to criticize about the failures and incompetence of this Republican administration...unless one is brainwashed.
Oh, and terrorist threats and coercion have nothing to do with it?
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Patrick you claimed that you and other soldiers had training to prevent torture. Then you claimed that you had no idea what torture was. Those two statements contradict each other. Pick one.
Let's stick with just Abu Grhaib which was an anomoly.
Why do you think it was an anomaly? It was no different from anywhere else. The only difference was a few scapegoats had to be hung out.
I would recommend you download and read the 15-6 investigation
Well where is that? Presumably the usual ass-covering "We investigated ourselves and proclaimed ourselves innocent". Is that your concept of accountability?
I believe the biggest disconnect you and I have is who sets policy for the Department of Defense. I do not think it is the enlisted men. I do not think it is Company or Field Grade officers.
How does that help you? Bush himself is on record saying the US won't abide by the Geneva Conventions. He recently threatened to use his veto for the first time ever to prevent a bill making torture illegal. When the law was passed anyway he said he'd ignore it. Can you please tell me why the US president is demanding the right to torture if his policy is not to use torturee -- which is what you are claiming.
We look at it with our eyes wide open an disbelief. I have never met the likes of these incompetent criminals within my Army
I too don't beleive it.
Willful incompetence on the part of the leadership and a few bad apples
What does "willful" incompetence mean? How is it incompetence if it was deliberate? And if they were deliberately trying to avoid "knowing" about the torture doesn't that imply an official policy?
Also what do you mean by "bad apples"? Your story makes no sense. This was not a random act of abuse. The was a systematic sexual humiliation and torture including the depraved acts against children that I've already noted. Your "explanation" makes no sense. You seem to be suggesting thast the soldiers did all this for a giggle. So you're not saying they are "bad apples" you are saying they are psycopaths with extreme sexual fetishes. This is very rare but you demand that multiple offenders like this were all by sheer coincidence assigned to the same watch together. This is not some little prank Patrick.
There are two explanations here. (1) these people were told to commit these acts, (2) they commited the acts for personal reasons despite knowing they would get in trouble.
You're going for (2). As a hypothesis it makes no sense. Why did they take photos of their crimes and spread them around if they thought they were commiting a huige crime that would get them in a lot of trouble if anyone ever found out? Why would the whistle blower get ignored by the officers if the actions were criminal and secret? How do you explain that half a dozen ordinary people would ALL end up by chance being extremely violent sexual predators?
How do you explain that some of the prisoners were kept in stress positions for days and yet nobody saw anything but this one small group of night-shift "bad apples"? How do you explain their access to dogs with their trainers? How do you explain the deaths that had to be checked out by a doctor?
New Yorker article
The 372nd’s abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine—a fact of Army life that the soldiers felt no need to hide. On April 9th, at an Article 32 hearing ...one of the witnesses, Specialist Matthew Wisdom, an M.P., told the courtroom what happened when he and other soldiers delivered seven prisoners, hooded and bound, to the so-called “hard site” at Abu Ghraib.
... Wisdom testified that he told his superiors what had happened, and assumed that “the issue was taken care of.”
Apparently it just wasn't a big secret.
At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. “His reply was ‘Don’t worry about it.’ ”
To the very limited extent there was any investigation the problems admited to were not limited to Abu Ghraib but were pervasive:
General Sanchez ordered Ryder to review the prison system in Iraq and recommend ways to improve it. Ryder’s report, filed on November 5th, concluded that there were potential human-rights, training, and manpower issues, system-wide
And not just Iraq but Afghanistan too.
In reference to the report you are talking about (I think) hersh says,
As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.
This is pointless. You want more of this Google "Abu Ghraib". 5 billion hits all NOT saying that a few bad apples caused all the problems.
Posted by: DavidByron | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 09:49 PM
What fun you all are having here today!!
DB and others who have drunk the Kool-Aid never have any actual evidence. Conspiracy lovers never provide evidence because it is always, conveniently, covered-up. Most of the things that are alleged in popular conspiracies would take a staggering amount of orders and direction in order for the evil plans to be carried out. Orders on that level would generate a rainforest worth of documents in order to pass all of the detailed instructions on from the top to the bottom. Doesn’t it boggle the mind that not even one single memo ever surfaces? Amazing isn’t it? Conspiracy theorists sound like someone proving the existence of an invisible cat:
“There is an invisible cat sitting in that chair. If there was an invisible cat in the chair you wouldn’t be able to see it because it is invisible. Since, when you look in the chair, you see nothing that clearly proves that there is an invisible cat sitting there.”
Silly ain’t it?
Posted by: Stefan | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 09:03 PM
But at least the discourse continues. All is not lost. I do appreciate the questions. I always come to a fuller appreciation of my beliefs when they are challenged or asked to be explained.
Posted by: Patrick | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 08:56 PM
Patrick:
he will never answer you with you facts, He has an aversion to responsible statements.
Posted by: Washington | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 07:24 PM
David,
First off, What is the number of the number of torture events you are discussing? How many, by whom, verified by...
I can say I was tortured because the McDonald's line was too long. What is a verified act of torture and where did it happen?
Let's stick with just Abu Grhaib which was an anomoly. Please let me know what else you are talking about so we can discuss the same incident.
I would recommend you download and read the 15-6 investigation which can be found online with its SECRET-NOFORN marking but has since been declassified.
I reference the Ryder report within this investigation and this report itself in that the Chain of Command never requested the MPs to "set conditions" for interrogation. As I mentioned earlier, that did happen at a low level where interrogators asked the MPs (who did not work for them) to do them a favor and "set conditions" in violation of standing orders.
I believe the biggest disconnect you and I have is who sets policy for the Department of Defense. I do not think it is the enlisted men. I do not think it is Company or Field Grade officers. At what echelon do you want to discuss this. It is a very damning document which shows how disfunctional this unit was.
You will see in the interviews that many questioned the minor infractions they saw and refused to even deny prisoners beds, while others took part. If you have questions of any of the terms feel free to ask. It is 53 pages. We look at it with our eyes wide open an disbelief. I have never met the likes of these incompetent criminals within my Army, but they were obviously here. I can try to say they were just reservist, but they had been in country long enough to become competent professionals (which they did not and is why I claim the entire CoC failed). You can tell from the tone of the report that the investigating officer felt the same. Willful incompetence on the part of the leadership and a few bad apples. Always a recipe for disaster.
Where has it happened since? Who did the torture? As you can see from the report, even in this command, soldiers were punished for pushing prisoners out of trucks. That is the Army I belong to and all of us strive to maintain.
After you read the 15-6, please define your version of torture. I know most of what is allowed. I know what is illegal. Some of what you would term torture may fall into the realm of distateful, but quite legal (sleep deprivation).
Read and we will talk
Posted by: Patrick | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 06:54 PM
I found it interesting that FOX NEWS was immediately trying to debunk her as being somehow brainwashed or something, because she had said something negative about Dubya's policy in Iraq...as if there is nothing to criticize about the failures and incompetence of this Republican administration...unless one is brainwashed.
Those aware of the inadequacies of this Republican administation and voicing it, in any venue, are not the ones deluded.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 06:39 PM
Patrick your hypothesis just doesn't add up, and you contradict yourself in a few places. You want to say that the torture was very contained and that it was secretive -- that nobody knew it was going on. But that's just not true. We know it isn't true. We know the soldiers were openly swapping photos and videos. We know that the officers were informed by the whistle blower and he was ignored which is why he had to go over the heads to the US senate. We know the pictures were being put up on the internet by many soldiers in exchange for acess to adult web sites. Your image of a small number of people carrying this out just isn't true.
The higher leadership stayed in their offices, worked the numerous admisitrivia problems and went into ostrich mode.
That just isn't true. The whistle blower made a complaint. It was ignored. The officers all knew and approved. In any case it's ridiculous to suggest the officers didn't have a clue what was going on in their own command on such a large scale, or that if they were so incompetent that they'd keep their jobs.
The Military Intelligence guys and the Military Police guys did not work out who was in charge so there were many contravening policies that allowed some fuzziness as to what was acceptable
That makes no sense unless you are conceeding at least one of the policies was to torture people. If both policies said torture was wrong where's the "fuziness" in that?
This is a problem with giving ad hoc organizations difficult mission for which they are not trained for.
Again you appear to be saying that without training you can expect the average American soldier to torture prisoners. This statement by you simply makes no sense within the hypothesis you are advancing.
They were asked to soften them up by contractors
So you admit that torture is US policy after all?
no one who outranked these soldiers gave them a direct order to go in and torture or humiliate them
If the majority of soldiers were against torture then how could mere random chance locate all the perverts in the US army inside one group. What are the odds of that happening? The only reasonable explanation is that most US soldiers would be happy to torture and sexually attack defenceless prisoners. if this all happened without orders then you'd have to conclude that the US army is full of the most extremely violent depraved sexual predators. Even I think that's unlikely. These men and women operated on orders. They didn't think up these forms of torture. They were instructed. They were trained what to do. They were told that sexual humiliation was a good way to "soften up" muslim men.
Leadership 101, you always verify that your orders have been implemented.
So your hypothesis must claim that all the leaders and officers at every level were utterly incompetent?
Is sleep deprivation torture? Are mind games torture?
Why are you asking me? I thought you said that US forces didn't torture but you don't know what constitutes torture? If you can't say what torture is how can you claim you are told not to do it? What about all that training you said you'd had? What do the Geneva Conventions say? They say the prisoners get the same conditions as regular soldiers don't they?
The soldiers that did this were only supposed to keep the prisoners safe, and transport them from cell to cell. If a soldier is present when physical trama is happening, he is supposed to stop it. If he knows it happens, he must report it to his superiors and prevent it from happening again. Period. Why they didn't falls in line with all the psychological studies. What happens when you split groups into guards and prisoners, etc. That is why those soldiers should have nothing to do with interrogation at all. Special training is required to prevent the slide into this inability to see the prisoners as your fellow humans.
Are you telling me there was no problem beyond a few bad apples or are you trying to excuse the generally bad behaviour here? Are you saying nobody else knew about the torture or are you saying everybody knew but did nothing? What's your story here? Are you going to pretend that prisoners were being tortured at night but then in the day nobody noticed and nobody listened to what the prisoners were saying, and no officers ever checked up on anybody and all those processes are still at work? And where did these bad apples get the hoods, the ropes the dogs and the dog handlers to carry out all this stuff supposedly in secret? When people died are you still saying nobody noticed? And why did the whistle blower get ignored?
What orders? Our military runs on paperwork and the command had posted orders in writing that, if followed would have prevented this.
What orders are YOU talking about? You just admited they were being ordered to beat up ("soften up") the prisoners for interogation. We have papers saying they can use this and that form of torture -- dogs for example. There were no orders banning torture. None.
This unit was a reserve unit that trains once a month and two weeks during the year. Barely enough time to just do paperwork.
So are alot of the troops in Iraq. Do you say that all those troops are likely to be torturing people then?
Just because they were poor leaders, does not mean they did anything illegal. Everytime you make a mistake in mathematics, they don't strip you of your tenure do they? There have been many changes.
People don't die when I make a "mistake". But we know the officers knew about the torture and you say the soldiers were being ordered to "soften up" prisoners.
At least one did. How do you think the investigation was started?
Yeah one guy eventually did something but how long did it take? A year? You said that every US soldier would be so disgusted they'd act immidiately. Not a single soldier acting after a year.
I have to stand by my position. The unit was overextended, had inadequate command presence, and pi**ed off soldiers ran amok.
Is your position that the whole of Abiu Ghraib awas running amok? overextended? Well they seemed to have a lot of time for taking phoytos and having fun didn't they? Unless that was just part of the job of course. Which is it? Was it all of Abu Ghraib or just some bad apples?
No one can order me to kill or torture an unarmed individual. That is part of the Law of Land Warfare that every soldier gets in basic training
But you couldn't say what constituted torture a moment ago.
I would have to say a couple of hundred confirmed instances over this period of years would prove that there is a systemic problem, and not just a few bad apples. 3 or 4 psychopaths can do a lot of damage if they have an opportunity and the motive.
Well since there have been a couple of dozen deaths so far I assume there have already been over 200 torture cases. Also how do 3-4 psycopaths at Abu Ghraib account for the torture at other prisons?
Posted by: DavidByron | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 05:48 PM
Sorry I rambled on that abit, please ask for clarification if you want.
I am trying to get a report out this afternoon, so all of my ramblings are stream of consciousness-no polish whatsoever. I do humbly apologize for the RD=FC (rough draft=final copy) response. The amount of thought most of you put into you positions warrants more than I can deliver right now, but would like to help the stream continue.
Posted by: Patrick | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 04:40 PM
David,
Richard Belzer is an actor that claims soldiers are too stupid to know what goes on around them. They are all uneducated and easily corrupted. He portrays an intellectual that many cannot separate the actor from the role. Anyway...
"This statement contradicts the idea that US soldiers are disgusted by torture." I do not see how. The shadow leader of this group was a prison guard in his civilian job. The higher leadership stayed in their offices, worked the numerous admisitrivia problems and went into ostrich mode. Most of the violations went on during this evening shift, where this reserve MP was the senior NCO present. A commander checks what is important to him. He should have been doing spot checks of ever shift, at every location in a random manner. His MP unit was not a prison unit. They also had contractors who came in a exceeded questioning protocols and acted as if they were CIA agents who had full authority. Add to this there was not unity of command. The Military Intelligence guys and the Military Police guys did not work out who was in charge so there were many contravening policies that allowed some fuzziness as to what was acceptable. This is a problem with giving ad hoc organizations difficult mission for which they are not trained for. Guards are not supposed to take part in any part of the interrogation process. They were asked to soften them up by contractors-should not have been part of this. This camp covered many areas and many of the soldiers did not mix. When you have barely enough soldiers to man all the points and they are working 12-18 hour shifts everyday. There is very little interaction between them. Do your work, eat, sleep, go back to work. There was not alot of mixing outside your squad-shift (leads to group-think). So I listed lots of contributing factors, but no one who outranked these soldiers gave them a direct order to go in and torture or humiliate them. Where is the torture policy?
The reserve General in charge, never checked anything, just issued directives when initial reports surfaced (from within the unit-so obviously all weren't for this). Leadership 101, you always verify that your orders have been implemented.
"Are you suggesting the average US soldier is so depraved that in the absence of special training they will tolerate torture?" Of course not. Is sleep deprivation torture? Are mind games torture? What is acceptable to one society, is anathema to another. I am not in that specialty, nor would I want to be. The soldiers that did this were only supposed to keep the prisoners safe, and transport them from cell to cell. If a soldier is present when physical trama is happening, he is supposed to stop it. If he knows it happens, he must report it to his superiors and prevent it from happening again. Period. Why they didn't falls in line with all the psychological studies. What happens when you split groups into guards and prisoners, etc. That is why those soldiers should have nothing to do with interrogation at all. Special training is required to prevent the slide into this inability to see the prisoners as your fellow humans.
"There were some low level scapegoats who unambiguously claimed to be acting on orders from officers -- a defence they were not allowed to pursue." What orders? Our military runs on paperwork and the command had posted orders in writing that, if followed would have prevented this.
"How is that possible given your view of the quality of the US forces?" This unit was a reserve unit that trains once a month and two weeks during the year. Barely enough time to just do paperwork. The active army does nothing but train and execute missions. By this time, reserve units have increased their standards, but unless you were an ERSB (Enhanced Readiness Separate Brigade), you had state level oversight. ERSBs had a full complement of active trainers and advisors to ensure compliance with all army regulations. Reserve Units were only at a level of training on par with most militaries in the world. This is where situations like this would first exist. Even those units are now quite capable and we truly are One Army.
"They don't appear ashamed to me. They have changed no policies. they blamed it all on scapegoats and dismissed it. They said there is no general problem such as the "complete failure of leadership" you mentioned. No officers were charged." Just because they were poor leaders, does not mean they did anything illegal. Everytime you make a mistake in mathematics, they don't strip you of your tenure do they? There have been many changes.
"How many (what proportion) of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib reacted correctly to the events? By your standards the answer is "none". Isn't that correct? If even a single soldier was up to your standard the events couldn't have gone unreported so long." At least one did. How do you think the investigation was started? How do you think the initial investigation was complete before the pictures hit the internet? How did several officers get relieved of command?
"Which didn't happen at Abu Ghraib or any of the other places. So we cocnlude your position is incorrect." I have to stand by my position. The unit was overextended, had inadequate command presence, and pi**ed off soldiers ran amok. Military Courtmartials happened. Soldiers are in Prison. I guess, the ones you want in prison are not there so it was a failure. Who did the act? Were they punished? No one can order me to kill or torture an unarmed individual. That is part of the Law of Land Warfare that every soldier gets in basic training and is trained on at least once a year. It is also covered in any deployment briefings. Voices told me to do it is not a valid defense.
"I thought you were making a two wrongs make a right argument so ignored that change of the topic. Ok?" Not the point I was making at all. We can drop that since I believe we covered it a few months ago.
"How much torture would have to happen before you would admit there was something more than a few bad apples responsible btw?" Depends on the prisoner population. 1 is always too many, but I would have to say a couple of hundred confirmed instances over this period of years would prove that there is a systemic problem, and not just a few bad apples. 3 or 4 psychopaths can do a lot of damage if they have an opportunity and the motive. Although I wish every member of the US military lived the chivalric ideal, it is not so. We are a cross section of society and have all the troubles that go with that. Every community the military lives in has its share of military that break the law. When we find them, we punish them, and kick them out.
Internal-External Attribution: Did I not make to class on time because I had a flat tire, or did I not make it to class because I failed to give myself enough time to handle all forseeable possibilities. It is what it is. We see it as we are.
Posted by: Patrick | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 04:29 PM
This statement contradicts the idea that US soldiers are disgusted by torture.
Meanwhile, yours seems to contradict logic. US soldiers ARE, by and large, disgusted by torture. Despite your formulation of it, the Abu Ghraib incident does NOT give the lie to this statement. The few soldiers who enjoy torture are aberrations, abnormal people who violate the US's strictures on torture.
The Armed Forces are not a monolithic, one-opinion-allowed single entity. They are organizations composed of individuals, some of whom may have less of a moral compass. You cannot condemn the entire U.S. Army for the actions of a few irresponsible assholes who earned themselves a court-martial.
Posted by: Michael Andreyakovich | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 03:54 PM
Hi Alexandra!
Just trolling on bye and thought I would catch a few Friday afternoon chuckles. Mr. Byron never lets one down.
Ms. Carroll’s “coming out- pre release tape” sounded more than a wee bit scripted to me. I’m inclined to give her some time to re-orient herself to freedom (?), and then listen to what she has to say in a few weeks. Let the MSM and talking heads do their “insightful” analysis in the meantime.
Regards, JCC
Posted by: RunningRoach | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 03:49 PM
By the way patrick I have to give you kudos here, because after talking to hundreds of people, Republicans and Democrats, civilians and active or ex-military, about this sort of thing you are the first to say this:
Every soldier knows there is no such thing as a "I was just following orders" justification for their actions.
I am usualy the one to say this after I am told I cannot expect US soldiers to disobey criminal or immoral commands from their superiors.
Posted by: DavidByron | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 03:24 PM