questionmark Posted October 3, 2007 #1 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Published on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 by Agence France Presse Abu Ghraib Prisoners Accuse US Companies of Torture WASHINGTON - Two US Army subcontractors accused of torturing prisoners at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib jail go to court Wednesday in a case that highlights the murky legal status of private US companies in Iraq. Titan and CACI International were hired by the Army to provide interrogators and interpreters at the notorious prison, the scene of well-documented abuses of detainees following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. One former Iraqi prisoner now living in Sweden says that under the companies’ watch, he was sodomized, nearly strangled with a belt, tied by his genitals to other detainees, and given repeated electric shocks. “This is probably the most important case still standing against Abu Ghraib because the cases against the government have essentially failed so far,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “This case represents our last hope for getting some accountability for the torture in Iraq and getting any compensation for the victims,” said Ratner, whose group has fielded lawyers to assist in the lawsuit. The case was filed in 2004 by a dozen former prisoners and the family of a man who died in detention, accusing Titan and CACI of conspiring with US officials “to humiliate, torture and abuse persons” at Abu Ghraib. But US security companies in Iraq occupy a legal gray area, as highlighted by the case of Blackwater USA, which according to a new Congress report has been involved in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq since 2005. The report was issued by a House of Representatives committee as congressmen convened hearings following a September 16 shooting in a crowded Baghdad square involving Blackwater guards that killed at least 10 Iraqis. Under an order passed by the US occupation authority in 2004, security contractors hired by the Pentagon and State Department enjoy immunity from arrest under Iraqi law for acts related to their contracts. After the Baghdad shootings, the Iraqi government said it was preparing a new law to control the operations of the private companies, but has backed off initial demands for Blackwater to be thrown out of Iraq. At Wednesday’s hearing, Titan and CACI were to ask Washington federal judge James Robertson to dismiss the case. The companies argue that they cannot be tried as they were under the control of the Army, which in turn says it can only prosecute its own personnel, not civilians. Other US judges have refused to hear cases brought by former Iraqi prisoners, arguing that they have no jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed against foreigners in a third country. But in one case brought by a federal prosecutor in North Carolina, former CIA agent David Passaro was jailed for more than eight years in February for beating an Afghan prisoner who died of his injuries in 2003. Detroit-based lawyer Shereef Akeel, who is representing some of the Abu Ghraib plaintiffs, is confident that the case will proceed. “This is for the sake of who we are (as Americans). And if we don’t understand the principals at stake here — if we let them lay low — we have done a disservice to our founding fathers,” he said. “I have this vision of the Iraqis coming here… of putting them in a hotel in Washington, DC right across the street from the people who make the decisions… so they can have their day in court,” Akeel added. The sole US officer charged over the Abu Ghraib abuses, Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, escaped with just a reprimand at his court martial in late August. Eleven junior soldiers are serving varying sentences but no senior Pentagon official was ever charged in the scandal, which President George W. Bush has described as the “biggest mistake” made by the United States in Iraq. Source: Common Dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hill Posted October 4, 2007 #2 Share Posted October 4, 2007 So, he's got no motivation to lie then....where's he living? Sweden? Oh...How did he get there, I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar Posted October 4, 2007 #3 Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) A Guantanamo detainee was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music in an apparent attempt to soften his resistance to interrogation. Wow thats much better then the basic training at Parris Island Edited October 4, 2007 by Caesar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer Posted October 4, 2007 #4 Share Posted October 4, 2007 So, he's got no motivation to lie then....where's he living? Sweden? Oh...How did he get there, I wonder. Considering the evidence that's already come out of Abu Ghraib, the balance of probability doesn't favour any inference that he or the other prisoners are lying. A Guantanamo detainee was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music in an apparent attempt to soften his resistance to interrogation. Wow thats much better then the basic training at Parris Island Not if you take the choice factor or the lack of it into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duality Posted October 4, 2007 #5 Share Posted October 4, 2007 So Plausable Deniability has reached a new height:- It wasn't us Mr Senate Oversight Committee member, it was the Private Contract Company we hired out to. Sounds like Bush can do as he damn well pleases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar Posted October 5, 2007 #6 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Not if you take the choice factor or the lack of it into account. What are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer Posted October 8, 2007 #7 Share Posted October 8, 2007 What are you talking about? What am I talking about? The last I heard, prisoners at Abu Ghraib didn't enlist to be prisoners of the occupying forces, whereas people do enlist for basic training at Parris Island. Hence, the matter of choosing is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libertyworld Posted October 8, 2007 #8 Share Posted October 8, 2007 It's common knowledge that these types are instructed to lie about being tortured so the cry-baby liberals will more supinely turn enemy sympathyzers, and it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hill Posted October 8, 2007 #9 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Considering the evidence that's already come out of Abu Ghraib, the balance of probability doesn't favour any inference that he or the other prisoners are lying. Still doesn't take away his motivation for lying or exaggerating- sweden's benefit system- "I'm in the money, I'm in the cash" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el midgetron Posted October 8, 2007 #10 Share Posted October 8, 2007 It's common knowledge that these types are instructed to lie about being tortured so the cry-baby liberals will more supinely turn enemy sympathyzers, and it works. lol, "common knowledge" to the deaf, dumb and willingly blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syd Boggle Posted October 8, 2007 #11 Share Posted October 8, 2007 lol, "common knowledge" to the deaf, dumb and willingly blind. Come on. dont be so naieve, Sounds like this ex prisoner has caught the whiff of cash, "Ill make up some c*** & bull story" and with a bit of luck get a nice pay off! "how i love the west, and their infadel human right laws" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el midgetron Posted October 8, 2007 #12 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Come on. dont be so naieve, Sounds like this ex prisoner has caught the whiff of cash, "Ill make up some c*** & bull story" and with a bit of luck get a nice pay off! enjoy your bliss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 8, 2007 Author #13 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Come on. dont be so naieve, Sounds like this ex prisoner has caught the whiff of cash, "Ill make up some c*** & bull story" and with a bit of luck get a nice pay off! "how i love the west, and their infadel human right laws" Hope you never have to go through the rigmarole of being recognized as political refugee anywhere... it ain't easy and in most countries. If it is discovered that the refugee lied just a little bit they are on the next plane home, like happened to a guy from Ghana who lived 25 years in Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer Posted October 8, 2007 #14 Share Posted October 8, 2007 It's common knowledge that these types are instructed to lie about being tortured so the cry-baby liberals will more supinely turn enemy sympathyzers, and it works. It's common knowledge...amongst the 'commonstabulary'? Obviously these photos from Abu Ghraib show the inmates are lying. Some are lying in a prostrate position, whereas others are forced to 'lie' whilst hooded and standing upright. Others are lying whilst being taunted by attack dogs, or are they privately contracted, lawfully immunised interrogators? Is that blood on the floor or is it information about Saddam's WMD with a chemically reddish hue? Yes, yes, obviously proof of the dastardly chemical constituents. Is that a stress position or a novel way of saying 'Thank you Coalition of the Willing, now we really know liberation. All we needed was to be savagely groped by it whilst being photographed for the House of Rumsfeld.' Photo link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer Posted October 8, 2007 #15 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Still doesn't take away his motivation for lying or exaggerating- sweden's benefit system- "I'm in the money, I'm in the cash" Nowhere near as much as your motivation for tedious bullsh*t. Prejudicial resentment or factually based doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hill Posted October 8, 2007 #16 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Could've been worse- like under Saddam Hussein.. No? sign...... The Abu Ghraib prison (Arabic: سجن أبو غريب; also Abu Ghurayb) is in Abu Ghraib, an Iraqi city 32 km (20 mi) west of Baghdad. It became internationally known as a place where Saddam Hussein's government tortured and executed dissidents, wiki. “This is probably the most important case still standing against Abu Ghraib because the cases against the government have essentially failed so far,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “This case represents our last hope for getting some accountability for the torture in Iraq and getting any compensation for the victims,” said Ratner, whose group has fielded lawyers to assist in the lawsuit. Our last hope, help me Obe1. This is weak stuff is this is their best case. Like, who cares anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhyknow Posted October 8, 2007 #17 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Like, who cares anyway? Many people care, because they don't like the idea of their companies torturing people. I mean torture is a classic sign of barbarism no matter who does it. It's using intimidation and physical harm to gain a result sympathetic to the person exercing the torture on the victim. You would hope that civilization would have evolved out of the 'Hulk smash' way of thinking by now, and try diplomacy to gain results instead of killing or maiming anyone who gets in their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer Posted October 8, 2007 #18 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Could've been worse- like under Saddam Hussein.. No? sign...... The Abu Ghraib prison (Arabic: سجن أبو غريب; also Abu Ghurayb) is in Abu Ghraib, an Iraqi city 32 km (20 mi) west of Baghdad. It became internationally known as a place where Saddam Hussein's government tortured and executed dissidents, wiki. Our last hope, help me Obe1. This is weak stuff is this is their best case. Like, who cares anyway? Well we know you don't care. You're a keyboard Ghraib aren't you? Abu Ghraib has become as known as much as a place for the torture and execution of US detainees as it ever was for Iraqi dissidents. Maybe we can thank/spank the Western media for that. Oh, and the (seemingly, ironically) deranged US personnel who brazenly snapped the pics. Maybe it's something about the place itself that says, Torture! only the front end loaders will ever be prosecuted. While you carefreely preen your feathers on the Hill of Bill Swill, the rest of us aren't waiting for justice in America, just as they didn't wait for it in Iraq. Funny how there's such an accurate count of Saddam's victims but quite a dispute on the victims of the smartly bombed. Maybe 20 years from now, long after the wash up, the world might wonder at how cheap Iraqi oil could have been, if the hydrogen fuel tanks hadn't taken over. Oh well, morality is so short term in the energy flux, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hill Posted October 8, 2007 #19 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Maybe torture them but not kill em opposed to torture and kill em probably passes as the difference between civilized and uncivilized in that part of the world. The lesser of two evils. imo The rest- is a 'higher idealised western perspective'-enjoyed by those not directly involved (miles away) and which. to the enemy, is just another weapon to be exploited. The London Bombers- 911 highjackers.. all enjoyed the freedom to travel and the freedoms a western society can offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 8, 2007 Author #20 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Could've been worse- like under Saddam Hussein.. No? sign...... The Abu Ghraib prison (Arabic: سجن أبو غريب; also Abu Ghurayb) is in Abu Ghraib, an Iraqi city 32 km (20 mi) west of Baghdad. It became internationally known as a place where Saddam Hussein's government tortured and executed dissidents, Ok, let me ask you this in a direct way: If they give you two pails of the same sh** (excrements) to eat from would you say that one of them tasted good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhyknow Posted October 8, 2007 #21 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Maybe torture them but not kill em opposed to torture and kill em probably passes as the difference between civilized and uncivilized in that part of the world. The lesser of two evils. imo The rest- is a 'higher idealised western perspective'-enjoyed by those not directly involved (miles away) and which. to the enemy, is just another weapon to be exploited. The London Bombers- 911 highjackers.. all enjoyed the freedom to travel and the freedoms a western society can offer. Yes, but to be fair, I don't think anyone expected them to fly a plane into a building or blow up a bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hill Posted October 8, 2007 #22 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Well we know you don't care. You're a keyboard Ghraib aren't you? Abu Ghraib has become as known as much as a place for the torture and execution of US detainees as it ever was for Iraqi dissidents. Maybe we can thank/spank the Western media for that. Oh, and the (seemingly, ironically) deranged US personnel who brazenly snapped the pics. Maybe it's something about the place itself that says, Torture! only the front end loaders will ever be prosecuted. While you carefreely preen your feathers on the Hill of Bill Swill, the rest of us aren't waiting for justice in America, just as they didn't wait for it in Iraq. Funny how there's such an accurate count of Saddam's victims but quite a dispute on the victims of the smartly bombed. Maybe 20 years from now, long after the wash up, the world might wonder at how cheap Iraqi oil could have been, if the hydrogen fuel tanks hadn't taken over. Oh well, morality is so short term in the energy flux, isn't it? Yes explorer, we know you don't care about the Iraq people either and we all know you'd prefer it if Saddam Hussein was still in power. Or how do you propose we got rid of him.. Leaflet campaign? send in the human rights lawyers? UN inspectors.. It is apparent that you only have your 'idealised unrealistic liberal' viewpoint so you can sit back and 'feel good' about yourself ie 'look at me everyone, aren't I such a caring person" You do nothing except complain as well- so don't try and take the moral high-ground. sniff...just makes you look hypocritical imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hill Posted October 8, 2007 #23 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Ok, let me ask you this in a direct way: If they give you two pails of the same sh** (excrements) to eat from would you say that one of them tasted good? If I was in their shoes, what would I be thinking? mmmh I'd be thinking- "In the name of Allah! this bucket is **** Death to the west..I must not betray my brothers... **** how did I end up in this mess.. it must be Allah testing me faith..B*stard.. Ok, think sweden and benefit system!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhyknow Posted October 8, 2007 #24 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Yes explorer, we know you don't care about the Iraq people either and we all know you'd prefer it if Saddam Hussein was still in power. Or how do you propose we got rid of him.. Leaflet campaign? send in the human rights lawyers? UN inspectors.. It is apparent that you only have your 'idealised unrealistic liberal' viewpoint so you can sit back and 'feel good' about yourself ie 'look at me everyone, aren't I such a caring person" You do nothing except complain as well- so don't try and take the moral high-ground. sniff...just makes you look hypocritical imo. But we did send in UN inspectors, and they found no evidence that Hussein had WMDs of any kind. Saddam Hussein was no rose-petal, in fact he was a horrible, nasty man. But it doesn't half look hypocritical for the US and the UK to say "oh, well he's a danger to foreign interests, he's an international menace..." etc etc, when our business transactions with Iraq are half the reason he's so dangerous. Noone can take the moral highground in a situation like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hill Posted October 8, 2007 #25 Share Posted October 8, 2007 But we did send in UN inspectors, and they found no evidence that Hussein had WMDs of any kind. It's complicated - Iraq and weapons of mass destruction Noone can take the moral highground in a situation like this. I agree... or the lesser of two evils- as I think WAR generally is- maybe it's about profit.. maybe it's about oil, maybe it's a war-that was always going to happen- one way or another- but maybe some good can come out of it as a by product. Seems that's the way History works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now