A couple of points to ponder;

[Slim]

A couple of points to ponder;
*Maybe a little clarification......
Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, Iraqi detainees are not
entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4,
detainees would have to have satisfy four conditions:
1) They would have to be part of a military hierarchy (lawyers could
argue this point for years)
2) They would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs
visible at a distance (They fail this condition)
3) They would have to have carried arms openly (they fail this
condition) disguised as civilians and using the civilian populace as
cover is not carrying arms openly
4) They would have to have conducted their military operations in
accordance with the laws and customs of war. (Again they fail
miserably, blowing up their own people, raping prisoners, mutilating
and killing prisoners, killing and mutilating non-combatants is not
in accordance with the laws and customs of war)

 

[wongskc]

Yet the Geneva convention also stipulates that those without PW status must still be treated humanely.

 

[Slim]

Keep your perspective and bear in mind what conditions were like when they were in Saddam‘s jail.

Also (in my opinion) when you pop out of the woodwork with a military rifle, dressed in civvies and shooting the place up, killing civilians and anyone else you can get your hands on, or blowing up markets full of civilians, I‘d say that your civil rights are going to be the last thing on my mind.

Regarding the prisoners treatment;
They may be running around with dog leashes on and made to kneel to women and all, but it beats what they themselves were doing to others doesn‘t it!?

By the way, mental humiliation is, has been and forever will be an intelligence tactic used to break down the subject‘s will to resist questions-Unlike the "interrogation tactics" of the Saddam government the process is not a lethal one.

Don‘t let your university proffs and the western media do your thinking for you, this is a war on their (muslim hardliners) part whether we like it or not.

 

[wongskc]

True, I would agree that jail conditions under the coalition would be better than under Saddam, and those that act like cowards and kill civilians and use them as shields should have no respect afforded to them. But still, the coalition nations are all signitories of the Geneva Conventions. They have bound themselves to a certain level of conduct.

I guess what I‘m trying to say is that they (the prisoners) should be subject to a level of treatment that meets our standards instead of simply saying "well, they have it better than the poor SOBs that were in Saddams jails."

 

[Slim]

Well thats true enough.

I guess the other side of that is... I suppose there are several factors that add to the mix
1. The lack of training on the part of U.S. servicemen and women with respect to the P.W. issue. All too often you get bullies(just like any place of power) who are really getting off on the whole thing and acting inapropriately toward the detainees.

2. The desperation of the coalition intelligence services to get hard information from the detainees. Once a subject has been caught by the opposing side a time value is assigned to any information that he may have. And if the subject‘s last through to the end of that time value without saying anything then their knowledge of current operational intelligence goes way down.

3. How much of the situation is being sensationalized by the media.

There is always more to the story then what we are hearing from the media ( theirs or ours) and my feelings are that it is only too easy to be led down the garden path by believing what we wish instead of what is actually happening.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers

Slim

 

[GrahamD]

By the way, mental humiliation is, has been and forever will be an intelligence tactic used to break down the subject‘s will to resist questions-Unlike the "interrogation tactics" of the Saddam government the process is not a lethal one.

Exactly.

Humiliation is an effective tool if you want to break down someones will to fight you. It‘s extremely basic psychology.

The only real problem that I see with the whole prisoner abuse scandal, is the fact that they were taking pictures and posing with big smiles on their faces.
What they were taking pictures of, is something that I would generally expect in a "POW" prison.

The fact that they took the kinds of pictures that seem to be the type that they would take home to show their friends is what begins to bring their level of proffesionalism into question.

Had they not looked so proud of themselves, or better yet not even have been in the pictures of the humiliation tactics, then the White House could have blown it off as standard operation procedure in regard to the interrogation of prisoners.

I think a lot of people would accept that. Most people know that in POW prison, the style of interrogation is going to be much more harsh than in a police station here in North America. Peoples lives can be saved (for the captors side) by aquiring good information. Conversely, the lives of the captives friends, family, and countrymen could be lost by giving up that information.
That‘s where the need for intensified interrogation tactics stems from, the prisoners aren‘t going to talk just because you yell at them.

 

[Bert]

Good post Slim.

All intelligence gathering centres in any
country use harsh methods of extracting information. The tactics the Americans
used are also used elsewhere in the
world. No government or military can take
the moral high ground.

To add to Slims post, there was a chain of command tolerant or supportive of the methods
at least at the local level.

Another point is why use a reserve MP unit or members of it for these purposes? Were they
just playing "intelligence gathering thug"?

The process in which the pictures of intelligence gathering methods were filtered to the media
suggests a dysfunction of the prison‘s
security and its procedures.

Heads will roll on this one.

 

[wongskc]

I guess, all things considered, I have to concede the necessity of interrogation, and even its methods given Slim‘s explanation of time value.

Yet I have to question the desirability of having soldiers that take such photographs for personal use. What would friends and family think of Cpl. Bloggins‘ sanity if he came home from overseas with a bunch of photos and telling everyone "Oh yeah, in this one, we took Amhed and strapped his nuts to a car battery. We had so much fun!"

 

[Slim]

wongskc

Do me a favour and turn on your PM function. I would like to ask you something.

 

[wongskc]

okay. PM‘s on, but I won‘t be online for much longer. Got to head out soon.

 

[childs56]

your points about the Geneva convention are good. the only problem is that although a waring country may not be part of or follow the conventions we are still bound to follow those rules. If we want to talk about the morale issues of them taking pictures well their is none, some of those pics were taking for reasons we do not know and may never know(the Intelligence community may) as for the other ones taken, well why do soldiers take pics of dead enemy‘s or blown up tanks and stuff, at that point in time it is right, most of those people would have hidden or destryoed those pics once they got home . i really do feel for those troops. maybe they were only doing their job, then again maybe they got carried away. one thing we have the luxury to do is sit here and ridicule them for their actions, even though we may not know the whole truth, as said above the media only says what they want to say.
"we need not judge the people for a job we have yet to do"

 

[Franko]

Hate to get off on a rant here.....but I just got off a course where the Geneva Convertion was extensivly covered, ad nauseum.  :boring:

If you go according to the convention the US forces are in clear violation of a numerous articles and subsections, no matter what the intent was. Therefore, are subject to tribuneral at the Hague or a courts martial, depending on how sever the infractions were.

The entire purpose of the conventions being in place is to ensure a fair treatment of PWs, mariners, and civilian PWs by the holding country, and that's pretty much it. If the US and their allies in theater right now are in violation...who's to say what the enemy will do to allied PWs in the future?

I sure wouldn't want to be in their shoes right now.

Regards

BTW....the Geneva Convention does not cover the usage of weapon engagement. I don't know how many times I've heard the saying "You can't engage someone with .50 cal.....it's against the GC!"

So what's the difference of a .50cal and a 2000lb bomb? Both achieve the same result.

 

[Infanteer]

From the 10 Commandments of the Fallschirmjager

9. Against an open foe fight with chivalry, but to a partisan extend no quarter.

 

[jrhume]

Even back in my day (1965-68), we received training concerning the treatment of prisoners in Basic.  The Geneva Convention and the US Military's own rules were covered, at least in general.  I can't recall any recurrent training, even before going to Viet Nam.

However, one would suppose that troops whose purpose was to guard prisoners would have been given additional training prior to deployment, even if that training was nothing but a refresher. 

As an American, I'm appalled and embarrassed by the pictures of the prisoner abuse.  The troops involved look foolish and their commanders appear ignorant, stupid or both.  These things should not have happened. 

Mention has been made of interrogation techniques and the fact that they can be rough.  I think that's true, but I also don't believe the activities shown in the Abu Ghraib images had anything to do with interrogation.  This was a small group of people gone out of control.

Still, the incident is not particularly important in the overall scheme of things.  It will be no more than a footnote in historical accounts.  The Army had discovered the situation, investigated it and completed a comprehensive report before the press even got wind of it.  If not for the pictures, it would be a dead issue by now.  There is no valid reason for the media to keep harping on the subject, except that so much of the media is intent on enlarging every possible incident that makes America look bad and because of their general antipathy toward Dubya.

Partisans, insurgents, terrorists -- the definitions are hard to determine.  But all prisoners should be treated with humanity.  Our enemies will never oblige themselves to follow humane standards in the treatment of prisoners.  That, however, is no excuse for wrongdoing on our part.

That must be about fifteen cents worth (US funds). 

 

[Infanteer]

Since most of our angst is directed towards the fact that the soldiers were photographing their moronic acts, does anyone forsee a clamp down on personal camera's in military institutions, especially in more secure facilities like prisons?

 

[Marauder]

Damn straight I do. There's always that one dickhead, no matter where you go. Lyndie and her pals are perfect examples of a basic failure of common friggin sense.

Remember kids, if you're gonna do stupid shite, DON'T PHOTGRAPGH/VIDEOTAPE YOUR OWN ASSHATTEDNESS!!!

 

[muskrat89]

Not sure if you meant in general (us) or specifically (the US). Since the prison BS, didgital cams, digital phone cams, etc., have been banned, in the US Forces

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1140801/posts

 

[Infanteer]

Well, that answers the question then.

Cheers

 

[RCA]

as opposed to not having cameras, Remember kids, DON'T DO STUPID SHITE.

much simpler and hadling it from the right end

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is going to suck, as a lot of good pictures come out, showing the soldiers at work, fighting, equipment and helping people. Hopefully they will back off after a short while. Also private battlefield photo's have often been a big plus for historians and such.