Once you hit submit, just take it for granted that the post DID go through, even if the screen froze or you hit stop. I’ll agree it’s frustrating, but that’s just the way the board works.
Would it surprise you if they turned out to be genuine?
Well, it wouldn’t surprise me - I’ve known too many squaddies to think they’re all little angels.
And I guess you need no reminding of “unfortunate” incidents in the past in NI (though the British army did seem to have learned from past mistakes in Northern Ireland, judging by the big difference in approach between US and UK troops in Iraq - I had assumed this would had extended to saying “I say chaps, would you mind awfully not torturing the prisoners” - but as is frequently pointed out, “military ‘intelligence’” is an oxymoron)
The fact remains there is a dispute about these pix (and something of a back-story, I’m sensing) the fact they were printed in the Mirror (the only left-wing tabloid - and given to printing as much complete bollocks as the right-wing ones) is reason enough to ask questions.
Other doubts are slightly less convincing “There’s no sand in the pictures” - hilariously reminiscent of the snow on the boots of the Russians at Waterloo Station
On the contrary - the pics in my paper (the UK Observer) this morning feature a US woman soldier apparently named Lyndie England. She is shown gleefully pointing at the genitals of a row of naked prisoners, and in another shot, laughing and jeering behind a sort of pile of naked prisoners on the floor.
The most striking thing about all the photos is the relaxed, uninhibited manner of the soldiers, as if this behaviour was completely normal - which suggests that a generally abusive culture was well established when these incidents occurred.
No, it is not a ‘testosterone-related phenomenon’, nor, in my view, is it simply about military culture. It is about power. Women are just as capable of abusing people in their power as men.
I just can’t believe that the lessons of the 20th century have been learnt so badly. Here it is again:
1.Conscience and compassion are very nice, but don’t rely on them.
2.There are no limits to what human beings have done and will do to others in their power.
3.Military action provides endless opportunity for abuse of power and of POWs. That was the point of the Geneva Convention.
4.The mask of civilisation slips very fast given the right circumstances and culture. If you’re tired of hearing Nazi Germany cited, try Googling the Milgram Experiment.
Woman have testosterone also, just less than men. Just look at pictures of woman in the muscle building magazines (or online)! They don’t get muscles that big through just diet and exercise. 
Or remember the female communist athletes in the Olympics who were caught using/being given steroids? Adding T can have the same effects on woman as it has on men, making them more agressive, among other things.
Some links found with an easy Google search:
Link1
Some of us older folk rememer the day when cops were allowed and encouraged to get physical with suspects. Intimidation was the order of the day. In my part of the world, back in those days, plenty of cops were bullies and thugs. It was the idea of having power over weaker people that led many people to pursue a career as a cop. I suggest that there is a certain mind set that is still common today, just maybe not as openly in the past—check out some of the younger “rent-a-cops” and you’ll get an idea of what I mean. I have heard some tales of military brigs and those who guard the prisoners—many of them, from what I’ve heard, would have made good cops back when it was legal to beat a confession out of someone. I doubt that the attitude I’m talking about has been sensitivity trained out of anyone. I think that the typical guard in these situations is at least a latent bully, especially if they have volunteered for the duty. I don’t think these people allowed themselves to be photographed out of stupidity. I think they saw it as proof positive that they had absolute power over others and could do as they pleased with immunity. I think that if a person WANTS to be a guard, probably they shouldn’t be allowed to become one.
I think this is an issue of perception. Americans are used to feeling that their Troops are of the highest “honor” and “morality”. Whatever that means for troops. The truth it seems isn’t exactly that it seems. The often repeated stories about honorable military is a bit on the propaganada side…
Like others have said… youth, notion of superiority, sheer stupidity and mainly I feel lack of supervision caused this incidents.
I don’t doubt that those factors would lead to similar atrocities in any nation’s military. What I don’t get is why they weren’t properly supervised. Surely, somewhere in the command chain there must be responsible, mature officers who know that they need to keep an eye on the people under their command to keep abuses to a minimum, and that abuses need to be promptly investigated and punished to keep them from spreading. And somewhere in the civilian power structure there must be people who know that it’s neccessary to guard the guardians. According to the news reports, this stuff happened between October and December last year. How could it go on so long without any responsible people discovering it, and reporting to proper authorities? Why weren’t the perpetrators in jail in November, in front of a military tribunal in December, and sentenced to the strongest punishment legally available in January?
It’s painfully obvious that independent observers, like Red Cross and Amnesty International, should immediately be given access to all prisons and detention camps run by the coaliton, both in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and that they should be allowed to publish any findings of human rights violations. And, of course, all prisoners detained by the coalition should be given immediate access to lawyers and to visits from their families.
What I expect will happen, is that those who were stupid enough to document their abuses will be punished, while business continues as usual everywhere else, including serious human rights abuses in at least some of the prisons which are closed to observers.
According to Amnesty International:
As long as you don’t investigate all allegations of torture and other kinds of abuse properly and promptly, you’re not telling your military not to torture. You’re telling them not to get caught.
I might have to revise my estimate of our high commanders’ desire to keep firm control on such matters. In a segment on TV, Symour Hersch of the New Yorker stated that a couple of internal reports of investigations on prisoner abuse were extant but when Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Meyers was asked about the latest reports of abuse he stated he hadn’t read the investigators’ reports. Apparently such investigations weren’t that high on his priority list. Maybe internal service discipline isn’t part of the Chairman’s position description, but it does seem strange in view of the fact that one of our main objectives in Iraq is to make them love us and thus understand, love and adopt democracy.
Yep, it’s human.
Come to think of it, however, it wouldn’t surprise me in this case if having women be in a position to humiliate Arab men, did not “kick up another notch” the power-rush. Some women in the pics have that “So, who’s the ‘bitch’ now, Abdul?” look in their faces.
Many signs are pointing to a mass failure of command and training – allegedly these reserve units were placed in charge of that prison with minimal if any additional training or orientation about the rules that apply. (allegedly, THAT unit was originally intended to control traffic; but they’re supposed to be trained for any duty they may be assigned) Then you begin getting that effect in their mindset from running a prison, as opposed to a proper POW camp, that reinforces the view that they’re dealing with scum who have got it coming, as opposed to otherwise honorable adversaries. (I’m unfamiliar with the current MP doctrine but wouldn’t be surprised me if they get separate, distinct non-overlapping training on how you handle “common” criminals in the military justice and stockade system, vs. handling POWs).
Further up in command, there seems to have been a problem with an attitude of “don’t bother me now, we’ve a war to fight” – we even have general officers issuing mutually contradicting reports as to the situation months ago – which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Field units need to feel free from second-guessing if they’re doing their job right, which means Command should care to prevent these situations (that make everyone’s conduct come under extra scrutiny) from arising. Otherwise it reveals either careless leadership or, even, that we’re stretched to the point we can’t afford to care.
BTW, needless to say, if Intelligence was applying pressure to “soften up” the prisoners, that excuses nobody, but creates a higher responsibility for those in command.
Here’s a possibility: because this was what the interogators wanted, and its what they were encouraging all over the place. They were the proper authorities. They demanded results, and apparently, they got them.
Consider what Kevin Drum points out:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003826.php
This Steve Stefanowicz guy was called out with a recommendation that he be fired, reprimanded, and stripped of his security clearances because, according to the army’s investigator, he "clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse.” Yet, as of a few days ago, he was apparently still on the job, then kicking back for a nice round of hitting golf balls onto highways with his buddies.
It’s OK, Asshat General Kimmitt is on the case!
Turns out Myers, who was the spokesman who said it was just some bad eggs: hadn’t even read the investigation report on the abuses at the prison!
Great, so in other words, our big official statement about the allegations turns out to be someone who was totally uninformed. Well, and the President as well, but that goes without saying.
The Post talks to some detainees here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61560-2004May2?language=printer
Some of the ex-prisoners describe experiences outside of the one prison currently in the new.
I can just see it now: “tell us where the WMD are, unemployed teenager! ZAAAAAP. The big man Bush needs his WMD now or the democrats will eat him alive! ZAAAAAP”
Sound like policy, not individual lunacy, to me.
Ah, so medical doctors with a duty to report abuse treated him: and nobody got in trouble.
So, threats of and staging of the murder of family members, and the old classic western trick of burying somebody up to their necks (do they have fire ants in Iraq?) Sounds like normal interrogation techniques to me!
"…letters of reprimand…could certainly be seen by any future boards for promotion, boards for selection.’’
It just keeps getting better and better.
To be fair, the ICRC knew about this kind of stuff for a long time, but they don’t publicize their findings, they just pressure the governments involved to do something about it. If they published their findings, no one would let them into the prisons in the first place O_o
It also happens that AI, HRW, and other human rights NGOs have been saying the same thing, but you know, who listens to whiney liberals.
Incidents like these are hardly surprising to me, I always think of the Princess Bride scene:
"You mean, you put down your rock and I put down my sword and we try to kill each other like civilized people? "
Dignity, rules, and humanity do not exist in warfare, and never have. Nor should we expect them to exist, in my opinion. One needs to focus attention on the horrors and injustices that made the war necessary in the first place, and not the isolated events within the war.
Are you high? Dignity, rules, and humanity have always played a part in warfare. Not all the time, but there are points in history where warfare is DOMINATED by rules. In modern warfare, humanity CERTAINLY exists.
Right, the ends justify the means, so we should overlook atrocities committed in the name of stopping atrocities. :rolleyes:
Great. Boss. Coo. Except: this wasn’t during a battle. This involves conduct by the U.S. to helpless people in jail, some of them not even clearly having anything to do with “warfare?”
Well, since you’re just repeating the dismissive way to frame the story that right-wing pundits have come up with to avoid confronting the problems involved, I’ll forgive you.
Um…well, it’s *wrong * and illegal to abuse POWs. But who were these people? Were they common criminals or were they actually POWs? If they were POWs, did they possess potentially time-sensitive information? Or were they being abused for fun?
I don’t think there was a break down in discipline or command that allowed these things to happen. To excell you have to set an impossibly high standard and continue to try for it–understanding that at times you will fall on your face.
It feels funny to say it, but I’d say that certain ends would justify these means of interrogation, especially if further injuries, guerilla attacks, etc. can be avoided.
What really bothers me is not the “abuse” of power exhibited by the soldiers, but the lack of discipline & security that allowed a camera to enter and exit these facilities in the first place. That’s what distresses me. The Rest of the World wouldn’t give a rat’s ass *how *the fighting got stopped in that region if these means were employed and remained secret. No one would question how we knew the addresses of insurgents and when their next mission was to go off when the only reasonable answer would be that the information was extracted against resistance from captured combatants.