The 5th estate: Abu Ghraib and Torture in Iraq
- Thread starter GO!!!
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Ahhhh ; The pre$$Blue Max said:
Doesn't that say it all
face it.... are we talking about impartial reporting or partisan reporting?
There was a time that everyone swore by the impartiality of CNN. Everyone, including Sadam would have a set tuned in to them.... that was then & this is now... most Int guys would die before they would admit to using information coming from CNN... and we can say the same thinqg about Al Jazeera (zp?)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I understand your point, writing a quick post never works.
What I meant was that, if you are the ones in charge you may the rules. So anything goes as the Germans did in WW2.
Also as in France during WW2 some French did not mind the Germans and were very reluctant to have the an invasion. And resented the Allies for destroying there homes and families. Such is happing now in Iraq. This was what I mean by, what my father had told me, not all wanted to be re invaded.
Thus on the others side, the resistance fighters, were as the Iraq's are today. Were they terrorists? Were they just a group of people (civvies) that disliked the Germans and fight the only way they could. They blow up cars, sniped, IEDs, etc.
This is where we have to decide, who is the enemy, who is just some poor bastard, or just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What I meant was that, if you are the ones in charge you may the rules. So anything goes as the Germans did in WW2.
Also as in France during WW2 some French did not mind the Germans and were very reluctant to have the an invasion. And resented the Allies for destroying there homes and families. Such is happing now in Iraq. This was what I mean by, what my father had told me, not all wanted to be re invaded.
Thus on the others side, the resistance fighters, were as the Iraq's are today. Were they terrorists? Were they just a group of people (civvies) that disliked the Germans and fight the only way they could. They blow up cars, sniped, IEDs, etc.
This is where we have to decide, who is the enemy, who is just some poor bastard, or just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Resistance fighters in France didn't target the general civilian population when the Germans weren't available or too hard to get at. No huge bombs taking out 100's of civilians and zero occupation troops in front of places of worship for example. The Americans don't round up and execute 100 civilians when one of their troops is killed. It seems common these days to draw useless parallels mentioning things common to just about every instance of whats being discused while not even mentioning a single difference. When you compare two things you mention similarities and differences. To accept a comparison that doesn't is to be pretty naive. You have a $100 bill and I have a $10 bill. Both have a 1 in the denomination and both have a 0 in the denomination. Both are Canadian legal tender and have various other similar features. Want to swap em since they are so similar?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I find it comforting that so many people with no legal training have a better understanding of the Law Of Armed Conflict, and International Law in general, than the JAGs of Canada, the UK, the US, and Australia. It boggles my mind that people like this, who so clearly understand legal ramifications better than the Armies of lawyers employed by the most powerful nations on Earth, are wasting their time in the CF.
Perhaps those who consider the SOPs these nations follow to be torture, should run for political leadership.
Or perhaps they should enter some sort of religious organizations, since they understand the moral implications so much better than the Padres of these nations and the ICRC, both of whom have full access to the various internment centers of these nations.
The one thing I fervently hope is that they do not serve anywhere near me in any sort of Theatre.
Perhaps those who consider the SOPs these nations follow to be torture, should run for political leadership.
Or perhaps they should enter some sort of religious organizations, since they understand the moral implications so much better than the Padres of these nations and the ICRC, both of whom have full access to the various internment centers of these nations.
The one thing I fervently hope is that they do not serve anywhere near me in any sort of Theatre.
Paracowboy,
Find it comforting in years to come that when your rifle company is enroute in the JSS to a foreign theatre of operations and I am the crew commander on the CP-140, that I will have no hesitation in completing my mission of protecting you and your brethren from enemy attack. Should you be threatened and my ROE allow, I shall quickly and effectively conduct the commensurate attack on the threat. :skull:
Do not mistake my concern for fellow man as a weakness. POWs and detainees must be afforded safe keeping as required by law. All the countries you mention have made mistakes with detainees. Lawyers be damned. Purposeful abuse of POWs is immoral and illegal.
Find it comforting in years to come that when your rifle company is enroute in the JSS to a foreign theatre of operations and I am the crew commander on the CP-140, that I will have no hesitation in completing my mission of protecting you and your brethren from enemy attack. Should you be threatened and my ROE allow, I shall quickly and effectively conduct the commensurate attack on the threat. :skull:
Do not mistake my concern for fellow man as a weakness. POWs and detainees must be afforded safe keeping as required by law. All the countries you mention have made mistakes with detainees. Lawyers be damned. Purposeful abuse of POWs is immoral and illegal.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
These individuals were not PoWs. The Geneva convention also states that to be a PoW, they must have "carried arms openly, worn recognisable uniforms and insignia and report to a chain of command etc." I noticed that you conveniently left that little nugget of information out.
I resent the implication that I/we are ignorant because we do not agree with you. In case you have'nt noticed, the western world is under attack from an culture of extremist islam, which constitutes a tiny minority of muslims worldwide. Seeing as the the combatants in this fight would most accurately be described as fifth columnists here at home, and insurgents abroad, and the Geneva convention was written as rules of war between nation states as they were defined at the peace of Westphalia in 1648, the US was absolutely right to suspend the Geneva convention for this conflict.
The Geneva Convention was written to provide protection for officers, men and civilians in WWI and WWII. Those wars are over now, so the rules have to be revised.
As for how our society can be consumed with hatred - I doubt that it has, but I would consider the Madrid bombings, the London Bombings, 9/11, the Khadr family and Canadian troops killed by suicide bombers in Afghanistan to be a pretty good start for fomenting the seeds of unhappiness.
I would hazard that you don't understand a great number of significant events in history, if your posts are any indication. The abovementioned ethnic groups were detained during the WWs because we were at war with their home countries, and in many cases, they had emigrated to Canada after the doctrines (fascim, the Nazi party, the fall of the Tokugawa party and the rise of the militarists in Japan and Communism in the Ukraine) had already become dominant in their home countries. So their relatives at in their respective home countries could have been used as leverage by the regimes there to coerce them to work against us here.
It was not racism, simply a prudent wartime organisational to move a population of possible enemy operatives away from coastal areas and strategic bases and resources.
How this is relevant to the Abu Ghraib discussion is beyond me though, all of these groups have recieved apologies, compensation or both for these wartime activities.
I suppose that you would prefer to coddle the killers of coalition soldiers in Canadian style "club fed" prisons, and allow them to retain information which could save the lives of our fighting men and women. You are saying that we are better off with more of our soldiers dead, than some of the enemy being uncomfortable.
When it comes right down to it, none of the prisoners in Abu Grhaib prison died. None of them have any permanent injury. There are 2,281 coalition deaths, 2,083 Americans, one Australian, 97 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of November 18, 2005
But I suppose these men deserve to rot forgotten in holes in the ground so your sense of moral outrage can be massaged by not extracting vital intelligence from our sworn enemies, that would save future lives.
Please God let me never work for you.
Go!!!, You would never work for me? Think of all the fun we would have. :
As a Canadian serviceman, you cannot abuse your detainees. It is your original quote that bothered me as you seem to think it's OK. You asked for thoughts. You got 'em.
Cheers
As a Canadian serviceman, you cannot abuse your detainees. It is your original quote that bothered me as you seem to think it's OK. You asked for thoughts. You got 'em.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
GO!!! said:
Couldn't have said it better GO! The naivety of some posters on this forum is truly amazing. We are fighting an enemy who has absolutely no qualms about lopping off the heads of their detainees (innocent civilians for the most part) and videotaping it for all the world to see; yet I don't recall reading any posts expressing moral outrage over these barbaric acts. This is an enemy which has successfully used our misguided sense of moral superiority as a weapon against us.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Go, Jumper well said...Paracowboy I hate to agree with ya but you are also right.
I am torn on this issue being a warrior I would never harm a captive (POW) but the mercenaries taking up arms and killing civilians thats another story. Obviously no good soldier would harm a captive but maybe for the bleeding hearts among us we should apply the full weight of the conventions of war to solve this problem. If the US executed the mercenaries in the field as would be allowed under the rules of war we would not be having this discussion. Yes thats right I said execute...spy's saboteurs who murder civilians is that not what they are under the law?
I am torn on this issue being a warrior I would never harm a captive (POW) but the mercenaries taking up arms and killing civilians thats another story. Obviously no good soldier would harm a captive but maybe for the bleeding hearts among us we should apply the full weight of the conventions of war to solve this problem. If the US executed the mercenaries in the field as would be allowed under the rules of war we would not be having this discussion. Yes thats right I said execute...spy's saboteurs who murder civilians is that not what they are under the law?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
and then see to it that we are charged with mistreating the illegal combatants we have killed/arrested, or ensuring they are released back onto the streets to kill more of us? Because that is the impression I'm getting.SHF said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The bottom line up front is that it is illegal to abuse/torture prisoners, regardless of their legal status. That obligation begins the moment they come under your control. You do not need to be a Harvard lawyer to understand this.
I am shocked at some of the flawed logic being applied here. We, as Canadians, have our own examples of prisoner abuse, Somalia '93 at the hands of some poorly disciplined soldiers of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.
My belief is that there was a failing both in the most recent events in the US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Somalia, starting with NCOs failing to do what was right. The NCOs need to show moral courage and stop the acts of abuse. Everyone involved knew it was wrong, no one took corrective action to stop it.
I am shocked at some of the flawed logic being applied here. We, as Canadians, have our own examples of prisoner abuse, Somalia '93 at the hands of some poorly disciplined soldiers of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.
My belief is that there was a failing both in the most recent events in the US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Somalia, starting with NCOs failing to do what was right. The NCOs need to show moral courage and stop the acts of abuse. Everyone involved knew it was wrong, no one took corrective action to stop it.
- Reaction score
- 5,684
- Points
- 1,360
Quote from Chimo,
The bottom line up front is that it is illegal to abuse/torture prisoners, regardless of their legal status. That obligation begins the moment they come under your control. You do not need to be a Harvard lawyer to understand this.
Quote from 3rd Horseman,
Yes thats right I said execute...spy's saboteurs who murder civilians is that not what they are under the law?
Quote from GO!!!!,
These individuals were not PoWs. The Geneva convention also states that to be a PoW, they must have "carried arms openly, worn recognisable uniforms and insignia and report to a chain of command etc."
Hey Chimo,
One doesn't need to be a Harvard lawyer to see what the coalition should legally be doing with them,...would this make you sleep better? :
The bottom line up front is that it is illegal to abuse/torture prisoners, regardless of their legal status. That obligation begins the moment they come under your control. You do not need to be a Harvard lawyer to understand this.
Quote from 3rd Horseman,
Yes thats right I said execute...spy's saboteurs who murder civilians is that not what they are under the law?
Quote from GO!!!!,
These individuals were not PoWs. The Geneva convention also states that to be a PoW, they must have "carried arms openly, worn recognisable uniforms and insignia and report to a chain of command etc."
Hey Chimo,
One doesn't need to be a Harvard lawyer to see what the coalition should legally be doing with them,...would this make you sleep better? :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Bruce is absolutely right, as was 3rd Horseman,
If we were REALLY following the Geneva Convention, we would be "executing without trial, representation or delay" as is the punishment for sabotage, spying, and fifth columnist activities.
So, is it preferable to shoot them, (as the GC dictates) or let them be uncomfortable in a modern prison?
If we were REALLY following the Geneva Convention, we would be "executing without trial, representation or delay" as is the punishment for sabotage, spying, and fifth columnist activities.
So, is it preferable to shoot them, (as the GC dictates) or let them be uncomfortable in a modern prison?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
From a purely philosophical point of view, what is the The Geneva Convention? It is merely a veneer of civility, a set of rules that western society has tried to impose on the worst of human behavior: War. Instead of arguing about legal points and morality (war is inherently immoral) we would do well to heed the words of William Tecumseh Sherman
"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 530
What's going to sell more, a headline "Prisoners placed in a stress position!" or "Prisoners Tortured!"? Terms like Stress position, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation etc make the average media consumer sit there and go, "Say what?! What's this here sensory position all about? Martha, we got something new to try tonight!" They don't sell papers or have people glued to their TV, but torture does because we humans, have this overwhelming compulsion to revel in others pain. Editors know this and they know that to sell their goods they have an extremely brief period of time where they can grab a consumer's attention. Just look at the number of one-word headlines on the tabloids.
In a similar vein, there seems to be a concerted effort to informally expand the traditional definitions of certain words. While it's true that any living language will see the traditional definitions of some words change over time, it seems to me that certain interest groups misuse words in a very calculated manner over the long term which enables them to manipulate the perceived meaning to suit their goals. Yesterdays perfectly acceptable interrogation tactic is now defined as being torture because it causes someone a modicum of mental or physical stress. Then again, maybe it's just because I'm now paying attention to the phenomenon...
I think much of the confusion in the mind of Joe Canada, and why the issue is remaining topical, is the ambiguous status of the detainees. On the one hand it is being said that they are not prisoners of war and as such, they are not entitled to the protections afforded by the Conventions. In light of that, Joe Canada falls back on his understanding of how things work here at home and makes the decision that since he is not a combatant, he is obviously a criminal, particularly since Canada considers terrorism to be a criminal offence. If someone tries to kill someone in Canada and is subsequently arrested by the police there are Constitutional and court mandated limits on what the police can do while interrogating him. These, as we all know, are extremely restrictive and becoming more so with each court ruling. These standards are all Joe Canada knows: a person has the right to consult legal counsel without delay; a person accused of a crime cannot be deprived of sleep, food or water to elicit a confession; he cannot be questioned for an indeterminate amount of time without breaks; he can have a Kleenex to wipe the tears from his eyes when the mean policeman says unkind things etc etc. When the media spins the Abu Ghraib story to Joe Public, it is very easy for Joe Canada to nod his head in agreement and say, "Yes, in Canada we don't do that to our criminals so it is obviously wrong".
Not being overly pedantic but as for deaths at Abu Ghraib related to interrogations, there was at least one. Manadel al-Jamadi died after being interrogated by the CIA immediately upon arrival at the prison after capture by a SEAL team.
Chimo, you can't compare what happened in Somalia with what is currently being discussed. What happened in Somalia was individuals at various ranks exercising or promoting vigilante justice with the tacit (and sometimes not so tacit) support from the local chain of command to deter intrusion into and theft from the camp, it was hardly national policy. What is being discussed is a nationally directed and mandated intelligence gathering process which is not conducted by, or even at, the capturing unit. While I am not personally convinced that the methods being applied to the later are necessarily valid, but note I am not saying illegal, given my scepticism of the value of information obtained by some of the methods being applied, the two issues are apples and oranges.
In a similar vein, there seems to be a concerted effort to informally expand the traditional definitions of certain words. While it's true that any living language will see the traditional definitions of some words change over time, it seems to me that certain interest groups misuse words in a very calculated manner over the long term which enables them to manipulate the perceived meaning to suit their goals. Yesterdays perfectly acceptable interrogation tactic is now defined as being torture because it causes someone a modicum of mental or physical stress. Then again, maybe it's just because I'm now paying attention to the phenomenon...
I think much of the confusion in the mind of Joe Canada, and why the issue is remaining topical, is the ambiguous status of the detainees. On the one hand it is being said that they are not prisoners of war and as such, they are not entitled to the protections afforded by the Conventions. In light of that, Joe Canada falls back on his understanding of how things work here at home and makes the decision that since he is not a combatant, he is obviously a criminal, particularly since Canada considers terrorism to be a criminal offence. If someone tries to kill someone in Canada and is subsequently arrested by the police there are Constitutional and court mandated limits on what the police can do while interrogating him. These, as we all know, are extremely restrictive and becoming more so with each court ruling. These standards are all Joe Canada knows: a person has the right to consult legal counsel without delay; a person accused of a crime cannot be deprived of sleep, food or water to elicit a confession; he cannot be questioned for an indeterminate amount of time without breaks; he can have a Kleenex to wipe the tears from his eyes when the mean policeman says unkind things etc etc. When the media spins the Abu Ghraib story to Joe Public, it is very easy for Joe Canada to nod his head in agreement and say, "Yes, in Canada we don't do that to our criminals so it is obviously wrong".
Not being overly pedantic but as for deaths at Abu Ghraib related to interrogations, there was at least one. Manadel al-Jamadi died after being interrogated by the CIA immediately upon arrival at the prison after capture by a SEAL team.
Chimo, you can't compare what happened in Somalia with what is currently being discussed. What happened in Somalia was individuals at various ranks exercising or promoting vigilante justice with the tacit (and sometimes not so tacit) support from the local chain of command to deter intrusion into and theft from the camp, it was hardly national policy. What is being discussed is a nationally directed and mandated intelligence gathering process which is not conducted by, or even at, the capturing unit. While I am not personally convinced that the methods being applied to the later are necessarily valid, but note I am not saying illegal, given my scepticism of the value of information obtained by some of the methods being applied, the two issues are apples and oranges.
Similar threads
