www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Where does responsibility lie?

This in about one of the US soldiers who was involved with those photos of Iraqi prisoners in weird sexual positions ...

=======

Frederick told us he will plead not guilty, claiming the way the Army was running the prison led to the abuse of prisoners.

�We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations,� says Frederick. �And it just wasn't happening."

...

Frederick says he didn't see a copy of the Geneva Convention rules for handling prisoners of war until after he was charged.

The Army investigation confirms that soldiers at Abu Ghraib were not trained at all in Geneva Convention rules. And most were reservists, part-time soldiers who didn't get the kind of specialized prisoner of war training given to regular Army members.

Frederick also says there were far too few soldiers there for the number of prisoners ...

=======

Question: Who was primarily responsible for this immoral act?

Where does responsibility lie? single choice
	President Bush
	Donald Rumsfeld
	CIA and other interrogators for lack of training
	the Iraqi prisoners
	the US soldiers involved in the pictures
	Other people
Votes accepted starting: 01/01/70 12:00 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

(Hope its okay to reply to one of these?)

My psych-major friend gave me some studies to read, one about how strong an influence authority (and presumably the lack thereof) is, and another about how ordinary people asked to act as guards for a week ended up treating the prisoners. Not easy stuff. /

Because without a copy of the Geneva Convention how were they supposed to know it was wrong or unlawful to abuse, humilate, and degrade fellow human beings. :rolleyes:

Some months ago, when it first became apparent that there were no appreciable stocks of active WMDs in Iraq, I enjoyed a thoughtful and stimulating exchange with Administrator about the worthiness of our excursions in that country. Admin took the pro side; I took the con. Admin argued that even if the immediate military threat did not turn out to be what was forecast, then at least we had the triumph of ousting Hussein and of bringing better gov't, etc. to the Iraqis. I bring this up not as an "I told you so". On the contrary, Admin's defense at that time helped me temper my feelings and my disappointment with the situation, even as I defended my critical assertions. In fact, Admin and people like minded can rest assured that they have remained faithful, dutiful citizens working honorably with their leaders.
All that being said, and acknowledging that the individual soldiers must bear responsibility, I would add to this conversation that what has happened and is happening in Iraq re: US abuses of Iraqis is not particularly surprising. I think we need to come to terms with the fact that the Iraqis are not buying what we're selling and that no predominately white Western power is going to rule that country in anything like stability. Let us remind ourselves that our British allies were occupiers of Iraq between the wars and during WWII and that the Iraqis rose against them. The Iraqis see the current US/UK occupation as potentially the return of that former colonization. There is a significant number of them willing for various reasons to work with us; there is a dangerous number (maybe or not a minority), willing to use violent resistance; there is a critical middle section that is both very suspicious, wary of getting stuck out, and wary of becoming western pawns. It was our goal to show a critical mass of Iraqis that that was not going to happen. Recent events caused by ignorant, stressed, overworked and underqualified US personnel have set that back, perhaps fatally. And that blame must rise up all the way to the planners for having concocted a low-odds, high risk scenario for what to do with a post-Saddam Iraq.
The bottom line is this: given that we were never intent on a war of anhiliation against the Iraqis, we were therefore setting a very high and very complicated political goal for achieving victory, a victory not reliant on force of arms alone, but on a cultural/political success. We now see clearly just how fragile such a goal is, just how easily it is upset, and just how little chance we have of pacifying that country given the political realities of the situation. Fault? We should never have used direct armed intervention to confront the Hussein threat. Prediction: we will leave Iraq without a permanent stable settlement and we will see either a return of Hussein-esque military rule or a Shi'ite Republic. Our national interest has not been advanced.

Funny thing, many posters on this forum stated a year or so ago that this war was necessary because of the abuse and torture Saddam inflicted on the Iraqi people...now we have Americans doing the same kind of torture and abuse. Maybe this will justify the UN to invade the USA and overthrow our goverment and install one where people can be free of this sort of behavior? After all, the current regime in the USA are religious fundamentalists who try to make everyone live by their rules.

I blame the Bush administration for starting an illegal war, thus requiring untrained personel being put in such situations. I also blame the individuals themselves, anyone knows (no matter if you've read the Geneva convention rules or not) you don't treat anyone in this manner, even if they are prisoners of war.

Moe

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../withoutapologybushleavesregretstoothers

Deacon Lance,

An answer only too logical for some. And certainly, nobody would expect them to use 'common sense' or the 'Golden Rule.' But many DO forget such things. Certainly, I wouldn't want several folks to serve on ANY jury to judge their fellow man/woman. One may be found guilty simply because of other factors not related to the crime charged.

Once upon a time, a man named Joshuah stole a pencil from the government office's storage room. He was caught, but he blamed it on his wife for putting him in a bad mood. (She was mad about something that morning). The authorities went to his wife and charged her for her husband's theft. She blamed it on her rotten neighbors who mowed too far onto their property the other day. The neigbors were charged for the theft of the wife's husband. The neighbors blamed it on poorly written laws in their town. Then the authorities went to the town hall to accuse the mayor and council members. They blamed it on the Governor. So, the Governor of their state was handcuffed and led away to jail for the crime of the town's neigbor's wife's husband. Eventually, the President was accused and impeached for allowing pencil-stealing in a certain government office. He blamed it on a man named Joshuah, who stole the last pencil the other day from the government storage room.

Adam and Eve and all that blame game once again ...

Has anyone considered the crime to be one committed by the lawless troops, including men and women? :rolleyes:

Already last year, the US Military in Iraq was tacitly admitting that they were committing acts which violated the Geneva Convention i,e, the detention of family members of suspected resistance fighters, the destruction of homes of suspected resistance fighters, and the indefinite detention of suspects without sufficient evidence. So, no, the abuse scandal does not surprise me, and while I don't believe it's a very large number of American troops who are involved, I also suspect that it's more than just a few bad apples.

An interesting article on this subject.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100015/

"Before Bush went on the air, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, profusely apologized on Arabic television, as did Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander in charge of detainee operations.

But one of several things that Bush did not do, when his turn came, was to apologize. He used the words "abhorrent," "appalled," "horrible," and said, "What took place does not represent the America that I know"�all good words, as far as they go. But he did not say, "I'm sorry."

It seems the president is allergic not just to the words but to the concept of responsibility that underlies them. To apologize would be to admit he'd made a mistake. And mistakes are forbidden in the Bush White House.

His resistance is particularly unfortunate here. An Iraqi who watched the two American generals apologize, and then watched the American president fail to, would certainly notice the difference�and might, understandably, wonder about the officers' significance and sincerity."

There is a very interesting German movie about this experiement called "The Experiment" . It has English sub-titles and can be found at Blockbuster. While being quite graphic, it details exactly what happens when a select group is given authority and some are given prisoner status for 7-10 days. It quickly spiralled out of control.

Justin

I had a difficult time responding, simply because I think a lot of the blame (though not to absolve the individual soldiers) falls on the Intelligence agents giving them the orders, but I don't think that a lack of training was the reason. The reports I've seen indicate that CIA/DIA agents were telling them to do specifically those things--sounds like direct orders.

From my short time in the USMC, I can tell you that for all the Nuremburg defence is disfavored, you are still told that in the theater of war, you do what you are told no matter what, period. They get around it by saying you are to obey "lawful orders" but then tell you that you are not to question the legality of every order. It puts the individual military personnel into a Catch-22 with the emphasis on the obedience. Just talk to any Vietnam vetran.

I have a hard time putting full blame on the individual soldiers for doing it. Blame at least equally goes to the intelligence officers and their superiors. However, for the mocking, taking pictures, and enjoying it, full blame goes to the soldiers.

Justin

Last night I was listening to an Iraqi citizen being interviewed about this subject. He said that, despite the tremendous anti-American coverage in the Arabic media, the average Iraqi understands that, while this mistreatment of prisoners-of-war is wrong, it is nothing when compared to what happened under Hussein.

He said that under Hussein people simply disappeared. Their families knew they were being tortured, not just humiliated. Executions were commonplace. Media coverage was non-existent and if you spoke openly about it you would be next.

He went on to say that now, when the Americans do something wrong, they show pictures of it on Iraqi television and everyone talks about it. That, plus the willingness to correct mistakes, speaks volumes.

I think KH's post is very insightful.

Of course these tortures are nothing compared to what happened under Saddam. However, I think the talk-show hosts and other neo-cons who keep saying "America's OK because Saddam was worse" are missing the lesson that this story should be teaching. The lesson is not that Saddam had worse tortures, on a greater scale, and as a matter of official policy.

The lesson is that any misstep on the part of America, no matter how few soldiers are involved, can be a nail in our coffin over there, because our goals are so ambiguous and difficult. I agree that the war, as promoted by Bush, was not justified. If he had billed it as an humanitarian war to overthrow Saddam, that would be one thing. But he justified this war by saying that Saddam threatened America with weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam had played a direct role in 9/11. Both of these charges are false.

I believe that America will have hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Middle East for the forseeable future--possibly for the next decade.

I intend to vote for a small-government third party conservative candidate in the upcoming election. Anybody with me?

Administrator,

You got it! I don't see too many pics of Iraqi citizens being abused and/or tortured. Our media even quickly stopped showing the burning towers in New York. The beating of Rodney King got more time coverage. I think it all depends on who or what the media wants to rattle longer. How interesting that the first part of the Rodney King video was eventually cut off the air, the part dealing with a drugged and violent man who was attempting to get hold of a police officer's gun. Should we thank the media for its judgment on what to show and what not to show?

What many forget is that these prisoners were involved in killing US soldiers and possible torturing their own kind. This doesn't in itself justify what the soldiers (not others) did, but it does give some perspective. We still don't know the rest of the story.

Joe

One lesson that needs to be learned is that wars are messy and things do not go perfectly. There is a whole bunch of people in America who seem to have reduced this action to something that should occur in the time frame of a half hour sitcom. President Bush made clear at the start that this was a multi-year event.

LatinTrad stated that Bush stated that Saddam threatened America with weapons of mass destruction. This is a false statement. Bush made clear that Hussein needed to be removed before he was in a position to threaten us or our allies. People seem to be forgetting the lengthy discussions on preemptive war. It is also false to imply that Bush did not bill it as a humanitarian war. He clearly and repeatedly did. Unfortunately, he put the potential threat against America before the liberation of the Iraqi people.

The action was justifiable and is still very justifiable. I supported it and continue to do so. The fact that WMDs have not yet been found have nothing to do with it. Every major intelligence agency � including the French � provided data indicating that Hussein was amassing WMDs. President Bush did the right thing. The Iraqis have a chance at freedom. Hussein is no longer funding terrorists. Libya has capitulated. Things will be messy for several more years (at least) but we are headed in the right direction.

Dear Administrator,

I also remind every one that President Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton were very vocal about the fact that they too knew that Saddam was a very real threat and that the threat of WMD and the intelligence pointing to them were very real for them during their Administration as well.

They stood behind this war 100%, and very publicly as well. (I remember a particularly convincing interview between former President Clinton and Larry King on Larry King Live).

Doesn't that speak volumes for all those Democrats on this board that condemn President Bush's actions?

Just some personal thoughts.
Alice

Moe,

Allergic? Hmmmmm. How can one man (or woman) be solely responsible for the actions of a few loose cannons? I believe that President Bush never promoted such behavior. If he did, I am unaware of it. Maybe you are aware of a speech that he gave on abusing prisoners?

When female military officers were being sexually harassed by male officers during the Clinton era, nobody begged President Clinton to apologize. In fact, it was very strange how many of the feminists were dead silent when Clinton was enjoying his female WH aides in unbecoming ways. They are still silent regarding how FEMALE soldiers can be just as cruel as males. Will such attention blow the cover off the 'sugar and spice' myth?

Joe

Every opinion poll I've recently seen, indicates that a majority of Iraqis want the troops out of their country, yet the Bush administation still insists that we'll be their for awhile yet. In addition, the recent admission that the new Iraqi government will be virtually powerless, does not speak well for America's commitment to democracy in Iraq.

Whether one considers the troops an army of occupation, or peacekeepers, history clearly shows that the longer soldiers remain in a foreign country the more unpopular they become. Already some polls are indicating that more than a third of Iraqis think life was better under Saddam Hussein. Beating out one of the world's worst mass murderers of recent times by less than a two thirds majority does not sound very promising for the future. However, I think the troops will only be withdrawn when a sizeable majority of the American public becomes sick of the war.

As for the horrific actions of the military men and women towards the Iraqi prisoners, I wonder, doesn't anyone adhere to the 'you are the only one responsible for your own actions' school anymore? ...That was the school of thought that existed before the 'me' (my) generation onward conveniently decided that every thing in the world, including the decision to smoke, could be blamed on someone else?

If I have no conscience about harming or grossly humiliating another person, whether I have decided to go along with a crowd, or decided to perpetrate that harm and humiliation myself, can I blame it on the President?

As Christians, I rebuke all into remembering that the conscience, and the ethical and moral integrity of knowing what is right and wrong that lies as the foundation of the conscience, is of supreme, supreme importance. Without it, we are not only uncivilized human beings, but we are sinners of the worst kind...the kind that has no remorse.

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Joe,

Without being partisan, I commend you on the point which I have also made on occasion about President Clinton abusing women's rights IN THE WORKPLACE by having illicit sexual activity in his office with an employee. Where were the women's rights activists? I didn't hear so much as a whisper from those otherwise very outspoken ladies!!!

All,

I try not to be partisan until voting time. We should support and pray for our leaders, as the litany in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom says...and let's look for good in our leader's difficult decisions, not evil and misguided intentions, simply because they do not espouse the political idealogies we do. I just don't think that the kind of negativity I am hearing on this forum about this President, who at the very least, takes his personal Christianity and family life seriously,( and for that we should rejoice) is very Christian. Sorry!

Disappointed,
but not judging ANYONE,whether President or Poster-- according to our Lord's tenets,
Alice

Joe, they weren't my words, but I do agree with them. Wasn't it Harry Truman who had a sign on his desk that said "the buck stops here"? As commander in chief he is ultimately responsible. Also, the soldiers might think they could get by with anything, following the President's example by declaring an illegal and unethical war on a country that was doing neither us nor our allies any harm. Monkey see, monkey do. Moe

That is because you want him to be ultimately responsible. But why does the military issue court martials to INDIVIDUAL troops for their attrocities and not always the President? This would all be a different story if Clinton was still in office, no? You still didn't answer my questions regarding how Clinton treated/abused women while in the oral office. Wasn't he slick in not being able to define sex? Must not have been in the Geneva Conventions or some other rule book. And no response about the feminists who pick and choose who they will be outspoken against. Its all politics and you really don't have any concern about the victims.

At least they all agreed with Congress, including Kerry et al, to go in that direction. Did you know that John Kerry wrote an article a few years back on how HE would handle Iraq? What our current President did was identical to what he (Kerry) said he would do. Would your opinion be different if Kerry followed through in the same direction of the war effort as did Bush?

Its all about politics with you guys. You really don't care about the victims and their abusers. Its plain and simple: you hate Bush and that is that. ANYTHING that goes wrong will be blamed on him. Obviously, individual and moral culpability doesn't make sense to you nor codes of honor. Its always blame someone else but one's self. Morality only exists when one is angry with another. Otherwise, it is free game.

Joe

All of the photos that I have seen, so far, depict the Iraqi prisoners NOT being tortured but being humiliated. This in the Muslim world may be worse than torture. I think humiliation carries more weight. Either method however, is contrary to American soldier's Code of Conduct.

JoeS

All, and I mean all those who enter the armed services of the United States are indoctrinated in the Code of Conduct. And I place attention on the very last paragraph of the Code below. There is NO excuse for those who perpetrate this sort of punishment on Iraqi prisoners.

The Code of Conduct

I am an American fighting in the forces that guard my country and our way of life, I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies.

I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

JoeS

The International Red Cross seems think there is more to it than just politics:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...nm/20040507/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_redcross_dc

"Our findings do not allow us to conclude that what we were dealing with at Abu Ghraib were isolated acts of individual members of coalition forces. What we have described is a pattern and a broad system," said Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of ICRC operations

Christ is Risen!

First off this is a political nightmare for our country. Let us beseech Almighty God that He will protect us from the wrath of radical Islam.
Those photos are *now* propaganda material for youth in Islamic countries et al. This is the beginning of a war that will never end. Muslims, like other oriental and eastern people, do not forget easily; I mean we are still talking about the sack of Constantinople. May God have mercy on us and protect us! We have become so ungodly that our words fall to the ground. The images were categorically oriented to make Muslims perform haram acts, acts forbidden by the Qu'ran and the Sunnah of Muhammad. Images of homosexuality, sodomy, nakedness, abuse...will incure the wrath of the Muslim world. I do not know how anything can be done to check this except to get a new administration; Bush's Administration is the only scapegoat that will have some atoning virtue in this regard. Kyrie Eleison!

In Saint Michael the Archangel,

Robert

Personally, I disagree with the IRC that this treatment is widespread among our military detention centers in Iraq. I think we will find that most of what was going on was isolated in this one of the three prison areas. Not to lessen what went on these past few weeks but does anyone know if the IRC was this concerned about the prisons and prisoners under the Saddam regime? And if so did they try to investigate some of what was going on there?

JoeS :rolleyes:

Many people would say (and rightly so) that these abuses happen everywhere and that we should not make a big scandal of this given the state of our prissons and the police conduct in other countries which is much worse than what the pictures displayed.

However, one thing that I find very shocking about the abuses told by ex-prisoners and the graphical evidences, is the explicit way to attack and target the cultural values and traditions of the Iraqi men, in which they were formed to make them feel humillated and moraly destroyed.

Something which caught my atention is the deliberate presence and sometimes active participation of women in acts of humilliation against Iraqi detainees, the degradation and mockery of the manhood of the detainees by making them perform homosexual and female acts, which is the worst way of destroying the dignity of a man who comes from a Muslim background.

I do not doubt the professional and clean concience of Colin Powell and those who have stated that only a handful of soldiers commited these abuses and that most US soldiers have a high preparation, discipline and patriotic feelings. But in the case of Britain for example, serious studies show that most of its effectives are former street bullies or men with a very violent background. Something similar can be said about the smaller countries participation in the coalition.

Unlike Cuba or Iran or Syria, who are always under international scrutiny and sanction by the international organizations, no one has the power to reprimand or punish Israel or the Iraq Occupation Army for any of this things.

I just saw these pictures today for the first time. I think that the horrible acts perpetrated at the hands of guards is the result of the brutality of war in general, and the experience of combat in particular. War is violent and everyone is effected by this violence. I don't think this excuses anyone's behavior - from the soldier on up. In fact, everyone on up is responsible because they were responsible for the next group on down in the chain of command. I am responsible if my youngest child is hurt while left in the care of her older brother.
Also, Mexican has a great point about the humiliation at the hands of women - I think that people outside of the US will feel like they are justified in thinking that American women lack morals.

Dear LaFamiliaFelix,

I agree with you on how this will reinforce the already tainted view of the West, especially America, having loose morals, and wanting to export them (through popular culture) to the rest of the world.

The interesting thing is that for a brief period of time after 9/11, Hollywood briefly woke up from its self love and immoral fascination, and was contemplating not producing any more movies that impose our sinful cultural norms on society. Ho hum....in the bat of an eyelid, that was forgotten... :rolleyes:

We may be one of the most God believing societies on earth, but one would never know it from our culture...infact, one would presume the exact opposite.

In Christ,
Alice

Perhaps a pilgrimage should be organized to the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility, Lake Woebegone, Minnesota.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Try telling that to burka-wearing Muslim women who are whipped by the religion police!

These aren't innocent Muslim men who got their morals from watching re-runs of Sesame Street. Their dignity went down the drain when they enlisted to kill for a tyrant. What happens to the dignity of Iraqi citizens and their culture when 'foreigners' intrude into their state to fight? You are worried about these thugs losing their manhood. I believe they left that behind long ago.

Joe

"Try telling that to burka-wearing Muslim women who are whipped by the religion police!"

Wrong country Joe, that's not Iraq, at least not yet. However, if we continue to screw things up there it might end up that way. All we are doing is giving the radical fundamentalists grist for their mill.

Moe

I agree, they lost their dignity, but they remain human beings, created in the image and likeness of God.

And the American and British soldiers who participated in torturing and humiliating the Iraqi POWs have also lost their dignity by violating the values they claimed to defend...

Christian

It seems there continue to be even more coming out to show it was policy and not just some untrained staff.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...mp;u=/nm/20040510/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_dc_37

I'm from the school of, Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."

Who took these photos? I don't see why the perpetrators of the alleged severe abuses would photograph their disgusting actions then release the pics to the public.

Were there informants who secretly took the pictures to tell the world of Iraqi prisoner abuse?

Where the photos fabricated/doctored?
I don't know who or what to believe.
Many questions, too few answers.

Paul

Moe,

You mentioned Muslim men. Did you mean only those Muslim men in Iraq or was humiliation not a factor elsewhere. Radical fundamentalists always have a mill to grind. Why is this so new to you?

Joe

Well, your President and Secretary of Defence don't think they were fabricated, so...

Christian

Christian,

Good point.

If we are past the authenticity of the photos, then were the dispicable acts done to the Iraqi prisoners done to tear down the Bush administration close to the presidential election?

Lord have mercy!

Paul

So the Democrats were behind it??! Those godless Liberals!

Christian

Don't believe the torture and abuse in Iraq was solely the work of a few sadistic hillbillies and miscreants, as the Pentagon is claiming.

The process of inflicting pain, humiliation, and degradation on captives - dehumanizing them - was officially sanctioned by the Bush Administration. The White House's rejection of the Geneva Conventions protecting captives, its creation of legal black holes in Guantanamo and other foreign bases where captives could be deprived of the rule of law, and its claim that anyone branded a `terrorist' or `illegal combatant' could be dealt with my courts martial or presidential fiat opened the gates of Abu Ghraib.

President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld as much as told US soldiers and agents to ignore the laws of war. They are ultimately responsible for the disgraceful acts now being revealed in Iraq. When I served in the US Army, I was taught that the president was the ultimate military commander. It is time the commander-in-chief take responsibility for these crimes that have so befouled America's once good name.

The tortures and abuse being used were perfected by CIA psychologists and psychiatrists. These tortures, based on Israeli techniques to crush the Palestinians, and taught by Israeli advisors, were designed more to break Iraqi's will than to elicit information. The carefully thought out sexual humiliations were designed to inflict maximum mental punishment on Muslims.

For US occupiers of Iraq, dreaded Abu Ghraib plays the same role it did under Saddam Hussein: terrifying the population into docility. The US now may hold more Iraqi prisoners � 15,000-20,000 � than did Saddam's prisons.

After last week's revelations from Abu Ghraib, the only people likely to still believe President Bush's claims to be fighting in Iraq for `freedom and democracy,' will be brain-numbed American TV viewers.

- from Eric Margolis\' latest article [bigeye.com] . Margolis was honoured at a banquet in Toronto for his truthful reporting a few months ago by the Ukrainian community.

P.S. the presence of Israeli torturers/advisors in the prison was hinted at by The New Yorker's Seymour Hersch last week on the Charlie Rose show (I remember something to the effect of "intelligence officers from one of our Middle East allies").

Paul,

Unfortunately for the added dimension of horror that it brings to the victims - but fortunately, because it so often provides the nexus to bring the perpetrators to justice - people who engage in and enjoy this type of behavior not infrequently enjoy documenting it. It's part of the power trip, enough so that it blinds perpetrators to the risk that it may be their undoing. As to allowing the film to get into the hands of the public, it's another aspect of the psychological makeup of these same kind of folks. They perceive a socio-cultural/political connection between themselves and a public that they believe will appreciate what they've done, because of its hatred/fear of Saddam, of Arabs, of terrorists, etc. Don't discount this as stupidity; there are certainly those whose reaction is everything for which a perpetrator could have hoped.

Did some of these come from "informants"? Assuredly, there were witnesses who couldn't stomach what they were seeing and felt it had to be reported - and documented, so that it would believed. That's not an easy role to undertake. WO Hugh Thompson had the advantage at My Lai of having superior weaponry to those he observed committing obscenities under color of authority; an observer armed with a camera didn't have that advantage and took a potentially real personal risk in what he or she did.

Justin's point is absolutely correct. It isn't even necessary that all of those involved would have ordinarily participated - the circumstances of power can easily sway those with no predeliction toward the behavior.

Back in 1970, an Iowa teacher named Jane Elliott conducted an experiment within her classroom. As she explained it to the children, they would consider blue-eyed children superior and give them some minor privileges over those of other eye colors. It didn't take long before the blue-eyes were asserting added privileges and exerting significant authority (not always in the nicest of ways) over their "inferior" classmates, many of whom were their best friends just days beforehand. To this day, "Eye of the Storm", the documentary of the experiment is considered a classic record of how quickly and easily power or its perception can and will be abused - even in settings where there is no prior history of antimosity between the parties -imagine a hate-charged war setting.

Joe,

Perspective has nothing to do with it. As a Viet Nam veteran, I can tell you that war is not ever a pretty thing - it wasn't even in the centuries when it was conducted under "civilized rules". What the hell do you think the "rest of the story" is - that the prisoners "asked for it" - said, "hey, I got a fantasy, I bet you folks can help me fulfill it"? The behavior portrayed in the videos and photos cannot be justified or mitigated under any circumstances.

Yes they did, but they weren't allowed access. And, even if they hadn't, it would make no difference. No one ever suggested that Saddam's regime was one of benevolence. We - Americans - put ourselves forth as being of a higher moral calibre than the dictators, terrorists, etc. against whom we wage war; it's sad that examples such as this make clear that we aren't always.

Paul,

Don't believe that for a moment. Neither Bush nor any administration spokesperson has even suggested it. This is not something from a "dirty tricks" bag. This is something gone seriously wrong with folks who were in a position of trust and abused it, acting "under color of authority" as the UCMJ puts it. That such is not a new phenomenon is why that term of legal art exists in civil and common law, as well as the military code.

Roman,

While I am no fan of Bush, I think it is too much to say that it was officially sanctioned. I agree with you, however, that the administration's prior handling of Afghani prisoners clearly contributed to a mindset that would make it easier for people to believe that they were doing something that would be acceptable in the minds of authority and/or the public.

I also think that the role of CIA, DIA, NSA, and MI in this activity will eventually be shown to have been contributory - although I suspect that at least some of what occurred resulted from copycat activity and other was independent felonious activity.

Unfortunately, for all the thousands of dedicated and wonderful men and women who serve in the uniformed services and in agencies such as the CIA, there is and likely always will be a core of people who are psychologically unfit to exercise the kind of authority that goes with wearing a uniform, carrying a weapon, or having power over others.

That some of those will come to be working under the command of officers who either share their psychological unfitness or lack the command presence or moral fiber to assure that it isn't put to practice is an unfortunate fact of life. Until we become so skilled at profiling as to be able to assure that persons are only placed in roles that they are psychologically and morally fit to exercise, there will continue to be Abu Ghraibs.

Many years,

Neil

IM,

Nobody is justifying it. The "rest of the story" is what we will discover as the story behind the pictures unfold. Just heard how over a dozen congress persons were notified about this before the pics were revealed and failed to respond to it. Now, they are claiming they were kept in the dark.

Do you really think that I believe these prisoners had such fantasies? Now THAT is a different perspective I didn't consider.

BTW, what are your thoughts about our government going after porn sites that show even more graphic pictures? Yet, our First Amendment protects them - even when they are photographing and/or video taping children who haven't even reached puberty. Do you think the Pro-Life movement should depict the aftermath of abortion in the public?

I like to look at the whole picture, not just a few chosen ones. The media is interesting in what it decides to be important to show the public. Abuse isn't justified. Don't get me wrong. But do you think the media is just as interested in depicting the good that our troops ARE doing in Iraq? Of course not. It is an election year. Go figure.

Joe

Joe,

My apologies for misinterpreting your reference to "the rest of the story". A review of my posts from the other morning will suggest that I was a tad cranky that day (I'm usually such fun :rolleyes: ).

I agree that photographs and video to the media are sales tools more often than they are intended to educate. It is a sad but true commentary though that the world needs to be shown these types of pictures - which so much serve to inflame - to get folks to believe that this kind of horror is perpetrated by Americans in uniform, albeit the few, not the many.

General Taguba is to be commended for what appears to have been a very forthright and honest overall effort to report on the situation. His assessment appears to me to be a more realistic portrayal in many instances than that of John Warner, a lawmaker for whom I ordinarily have considerable respect, but who is suddenly appearing to be trying to put "a best face" on things by some of his reported comments

Joe,

I presume you are referring to BDSM sites. Frankly, provided that measures are put in place that restrict access to such sites to those who choose to view them, I can live with the First Amendment protection granted to them.

There is no First Amendment protection granted to kiddie porn sites and my observation has been that there are active and ongoing measures taken in pursuit of shutting down those and prosecuting those who operate and/or contribute to them, as well there should be.

The Pro-Life movement frequently does depict the effects of partial-birth abortion, an effective tool in educating the public to the arguments in favor of banning it. I'm not sure what your question is of me in this regard? Do I suggest they not be permitted to do so? No, I don't think I ever argued that photography and videos should only be displayed when they depict happy moments - at least not until those are the only types of moments available to be shown - we should be so lucky.

Many years,

Neil

The US has rejected the Kyoto environmental protocols and it has rejected a Permanent International Criminal Court while adhering to some sort of legalistic argument that permits mistreatment of captives at Guantanamo and elsewhere. The US seeks UN approval for its military escapades yet goes forward with them even when the approval is not forthcoming. The most famous professor at its most prestigious law school advcocates for the use of torture in some cases yet retains his "human rights advocate" title. The government subcontracts out torture (for legalistic reasons, according to some commentators). Soliers assigned guard duty at prisons, for all their training, are ignorant of the Geneva Accords.

The US government rejects the moral counsel of most long-established European based religious leaders, including the Pope, apparently preferring that of some home-grown Protestants.

The rejection of any international legal or moral authority could hardly be clearer. Footsoldiers would have to be pretty dim to not have noticed.

****************************************

Pope to Ask Bush for Radical Shift in Policy, Says Cardinal Laghi
Changes Sought in Approach to Iraq and Holy Land

VATICAN CITY, MAY 13, 2004 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II will ask U.S. President George Bush to stop basing his policies in Iraq and the Holy Land on recourse to force, when they meet June 4, a cardinal says.

"We are at the edge of a precipice and we must stop," said Cardinal Pio Laghi, a one-time papal nuncio in the United States, in statements to the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera.

"We are told this by the horror unleashed by the tortures of Iraqi prisoners, the beheading of the American hostage, and the scoffing at the bodies of American soldiers," he said.

Cardinal Laghi, who was nuncio in the United States from 1980 to 1990 and who helped establish diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Washington, visited Bush in March 2003 on behalf of the Pope to ask the president not to engage in a "preventive war."

"'Stop' is the cry expressed by the Church in the name of abused humanity," the 81-year-old cardinal told the newspaper, which published his comments today.

"The United States must also stop and I think it has the strength to do so. It must re-establish respect for human beings and return to the family of nations, overcoming the temptation to act on its own," he said.

"If it does not stop, the whirlwind of horror will involve other peoples and will lead us ever more to the abyss," said the cardinal.

Cardinal Laghi said he is certain that the Holy Father will repeat to Bush "the advice I gave him, which he decided not to heed. Now we see how wise it was."

The Pope "will again express the more ample appeal he made in the message for the 2004 World Day of Peace," the Italian cardinal continued. "In it, he called for a higher level of international order and warned that the struggle against terrorism cannot only be 'repressive,' but must start with the 'elimination of the causes' of the injustice."

In that message, "it is stated that respect for life must always be honored and that the struggle against terrorism does not justify giving up the principles of the state of law, as the end never justifies the means," Cardinal Laghi said.

He added that he had not expected the news on the tortures in Iraq.

"I was afraid that the war would make the plague of terrorism more violent, as the Pope said, and that there would be cruel massacres," the cardinal said. "But I did not expect the torture of prisoners."

"I love the United States and I did not imagine this madness was possible. I am dismayed. I have American friends who are holding their heads in their hands and I with them," he added.

Cardinal Laghi, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Catholic Education, said that Bush's visit to the Pope at so critical a time is a good sign.

"I don't think it is orchestrated, that is, in view of the presidential elections," the cardinal said. "If there was a time when it was difficult for him to ask for a meeting with the Pope, it is precisely now. And yet, he has asked for it. I think he has requested it twice and that he has changed his agenda to make it possible."

"We must see in Bush's meeting with the Pope, that of the successor of the president of the United States who in 1944 ordered the liberation of Rome. That event re-established in Rome the law of nations. The Successor of the Pope of that time will express his gratitude to the successor of the then president," Cardinal Laghi explained.

"At the same time, he will be able to tell him that the United States' options at present are not re-establishing the law of nations in the Middle East," the cardinal said. To re-establish law in the Mideast, and in particular in Iraq, requires "a cultural understanding of that world that is difficult for us and that I think our American friends have not achieved."

"To bomb a mosque, to enter holy cities, to put women soldiers in contact with naked men, shows a lack of understanding of the Muslim world that I would label astonishing," Cardinal Laghi said.

"Bridges must be built with Islam, not pits dug," he suggested. "And priority should be given to the Israeli-Palestinian question, which is the first source of terror."

He added that "the forces present in Iraq not only must not be in fact under the command of the United States, but they must not even give the impression that they are."

The cardinal concluded: "There should be a multilateral presence, which is not under those who organized and wanted the war."

Congress Members Told of Abuse Months Ago

By DAVID DISHNEAU, Associated Press Writer

HAGERSTOWN, Md. - Two months before pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse became public, the family of one accused soldier wrote to 14 members of Congress that "something went wrong" involving "mistreatment of POWs" at Abu Ghraib prison.

...

The rest of the story can be found at:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../prisoner_abuse&cid=512&ncid=716

Interesting thing about this is that 13 of those 14 Congressmen were Democrats, including Kennedy, Lieberman, Clinton, etc. Now that pics of the abuses were made public they are now all in shock and awe. Go figure.

The article points out:

"In late February, his family sent letters or e-mails to 11 Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee, plus three of their local congressional members and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, seeking information on Frederick's status, said Frederick's uncle, William W. Lawson, of Newburg, W.Va."

Joe

From Yahoo!:

California Teachers Suspended Over Execution Images

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Three high school teachers in California have been placed on leave while school officials investigate complaints that images from the beheading of an American captive in Iraq were shown in their classes, according to weekend media reports.

In all three cases -- two involving San Diego-area teachers and a third in the Orange County town of Santa Ana -- education officials questioned the judgment of teachers who displayed, or allowed students in their class to display, video footage or sound from the execution of Nick Berg by Islamic militants.

Grossmont Union High School District Superintendent Terry Ryan told the San Diego Union-Tribune he was looking into whether the two teachers in his district violated policies barring the display of unsuitable material in the classroom.

"You don't have academic freedom to show unfettered violence (or) cause unfettered emotional and psychological damage to children," Ryan said in the Union-Tribune's Saturday edition.

The Web site for the NBC-owned TV station KNBC quoted him as saying, "We absolutely think that this is inappropriate, out of line and unacceptable."

...

-------

Golly gee. Do you all think it would be more appropriate if the news channels keep showing Iraqi porno pics from prison? I guess we'll just ignore the daily crap we see on primetime too, including gays and lesbians kissing at same-sex marriages.

But nothing is too inappropriate or unsuitable if it means insulting orthodox Christianity, eh?

Bringing this thread back up as we are approaching the anniversary of the late Pope's admonishing Bush re: Iraq.

Also came upon the following here [counterpunch.org] :

The Bush administration hasn't tried very hard to keep its torture-by-proxy program a secret. That's because the administration's torture lawyers, such as John Yoo, former deputy to Alberto Gonzales and now a law professor at Berkeley, argue that the administration is free to breach international and domestic laws in its pursuit of suspected terrorists. While working for the Bush administration, Yoo drafted a legal memo, which set the framework for the rendition program. He argued that the US was not bound by the Geneva Accords (or US prohibitions on torture) in its pursuit of al-Qaeda members or Taliban soldiers because Afghanistan was "a failed state" and therefore not subject to the protections of the anti-torture laws. The detainees were slotted into a newly created category called "illegal enemy combatants," a legal rubric which treated them as subhumans lacking all basic human rights.

"Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is a category of behavior not covered by the legal system?" Yoo proclaimed. "Historically, there were people so bad that they were not given protection of the laws. There were no specific provisions for their trial, or imprisonment. If you were an illegal combatant, you didn't deserve the protection of the laws of war."

Of course, in the absence of a trial, who is to determine if the people detained as "illegal combatants" are either "illegal" or even "combatants"?

Even more brazenly, Yoo contends that the Bush administration is free to ignore US laws against torture.

"Congress doesn't have the power to tie the hands of the President in regard to torture as an interrogation technique," said Yoo. "It's the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. Congress can't prevent the president from ordering torture."

Yoo claims that if Congress has a problem with Bush flouting its laws, the solution is simple: impeachment. He also argued that the US public had its shot at repudiating Bush's detention and torture program and instead endorsed it. "The issue is dying out," Yoo told the New Yorker magazine. It "has had its referendum."

As in so many cases with the Bush administration, it appears that Dick Cheney himself gave the greenlight for the kidnapping and torture scenario. Cheney even dropped a public hint that the Bush administration was going deal savagely with suspected terrorists. During an interview on Meet the Press, a week after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Cheney said that the administration wasn't going to shackle itself to conventional methods in tracking down suspected terrorists. "A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful", Cheney said. "That's the world these folks operate in. And so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective. We may have to work through, sort of, the dark side."

Welcome to the dark ages.

Let's face it - there are some situations in which certain phenomena are inherent. The outrageous misconduct of Americans in Iraqi prisons is unpleasant to see, but must have been even more unpleasant to experience, so being reminded of what happened is probably a valuable, if distasteful, thing for Americans. If one attends a clearly labelled "nudist beauty contest", one is scarcely entitled to complain at finding the contestants in an unclothed condition. If one chooses to observe a same-sex marriage, there is little cause to be surprised that the couple will kiss each other.
Do you find such things unpleasant? Then avoid them (I've managed to live quite a few decades without ever being a prison guard, attending any sort of beauty contest, or attending a same-sex marriage - in fact I've never even received an invitation to such an event).

Incognitus

Incognitus,

It's the paper bag; it's off-putting. As soon as you doff it, the invites will pour in

Many years,

Neil

Robert,

That "war that will never end" began with Adam and Eve. However, the endless war with Islam began when Islam decided that the world is divided between dar al harb and dar al Islam. Either one is Muslim or one is an enemy of Islam. Tbere is no peaceful coexistence. Islam can change. Many within Islam are trying to do just that. But the "endless" war did not begin in 2003.

Dan L