Iraqi prisoner "abuse"

[Stellar]

Crystal, he's right. They massacred the people, but not the country. It doesnt really matter at this point, he knows what you meant.

[KindredSpirt4125]

Ok, first of all, when I said "they destroyed our way of life" I was refering to the Taliban still. And yes, THEY did. We have harsh, strict laws in place now that violate our constitutional rights, because of THEM. Not the prisoners. And another thing, I never said that those people had a right to do what they did, it WAS wrong, and they should pay. My point is, you can't blame our whole entire country for it. You just can't. That's like saying, "The U.S. needs an apology from Yemen, because that's where Osama is from and he helped terrorize our country, so..you guys need to apologize so we can feel better." Now did Yemen have anything to do with 9-11? no. Osama did, BUT we don't blame them, just because that's where he was born. The people might be American's, but they do not reflect all of America. It is THEIR mistakes and they should be strung up by their toes and punished for what they did. I don't deny that, but what is President Bush supposed to do, hold a teleconference and say, "Dear Iraq, I am sorry some of our troops took embarrassing photos of some of your people. We are sorry they are Americans."??? And what would that do? All is forgiven? Doubt it.

[KindredSpirt4125]

Crystal, he's right. They massacred the people, but not the country. It doesnt really matter at this point, he knows what you meant.

Ok...ok, I should have chosen a different word. Yes they massacured some, not all of our country. But I was thinking more like the hearts of America. Sorry for the confusion.

[riotkittie]

Ok, first of all, when I said "they destroyed our way of life" I was refering to the Taliban still. And yes, THEY did. We have harsh, strict laws in place now that violate our constitutional rights, because of THEM. Not the prisoners. And another thing, I never said that those people had a right to do what they did, it WAS wrong, and they should pay. My point is, you can't blame our whole entire country for it. You just can't. That's like saying, "The U.S. needs an apology from Yemen, because that's where Osama is from and he helped terrorize our country, so..you guys need to apologize so we can feel better." Now did Yemen have anything to do with 9-11? no. Osama did, BUT we don't blame them, just because that's where he was born. The people might be American's, but they do not reflect all of America. It is THEIR mistakes and they should be strung up by their toes and punished for what they did. I don't deny that, but what is President Bush supposed to do, hold a teleconference and say, "Dear Iraq, I am sorry some of our troops took embarrassing photos of some of your people. We are sorry they are Americans."??? And what would that do? All is forgiven? Doubt it.

Ok, you were still referring to the Taliban at that point. But you stated "These are pictures, ok, they destroyed our way of life as we know it." ... which gives the appearance that you're attempting to justify or lessen the acts committed against the detainees because of what an unrelated group of people did... or lumping the detainees into that unrelated group. Not saying that you were, just saying that's the impression I got when I read it.

And yes, THEY did.  We have harsh, strict laws in place now that violate our constitutional rights, because of THEM.

While I don't like the Patriot Act and other such laws, I can't say I've ever personally felt restricted because they exist. Doesn't mean I'm not eager to see them go, but still. As for the laws existing because of THEM... to some degree that's true, but they alone aren't responsible. Who else shares the blame? Our fellow citizens -- you know: the people who don't read, don't vote, don't speak up, don't stay informed. To sum it up, the people who don't care.

I'm not asking the whole country to pay for it. I'm asking those in a position of leadership to pay for it because, to some extent, they allowed it to occur. If they aren't held accountable, what's to stop this from happening again? There's a huge difference in asking Yemen for an apology for the actions of Usama and asking the US to apologize for the actions of these trooops. You can't blame a country or it's leaders for what a resident of that country does as a free agent. You can however blame a country's government for the acts of the people on it's payroll -- people it's responsible for/people who have a responsibility to it. You can blame a country's government for failing to enact checks and balances to prevent this kind of thing.

Bush acknowledging the abuse, stating that it was wrong, stating that it should not have occured, stating that steps are in place to insure it doesn't reoccur, and apologizing for what these people went through may very well do nothing. On the other hand, not apologizing is bound to do something, and that something... isn't good.

[KindredSpirt4125]

Sorry for the confusion above (with the Taliban thing). Talking about the Patriot Act, I was refering how the government pretty much has the right to spy on us, tap our phone lines, and now use that evidence in court, where as before it was inadmissable. I just meant we lost a lot of freedoms with the Patriot Act. The reason I have a problem with the government having to apologize is because, President Bush, and Congress, and such, had absolutley no knowledge of this prior to it's happening. I do believe that measures were not taken by the army higher ups to prevent this from happening though. So maybe the army generals should apologize for not doing their jobs and allowing this to take place. Honestly, I just think they should be responsible for their own actions. I mean, these aren't children we're talking about here. They are grown, concenting adults, and if they choose to act like children, then they will suffer the consequences. The government shouldn't have to take the blame for them, just because they are on the payroll. The government can't be responsible for other peoples actions, just because they happen to work in the White House, or are in the army, or in the Senate, etc.. If they do apologize, fine, great...I just don't think they should be obligated to do so, that's all. I think it's a double standard. They aren't apologizing for our beheadings, so why should we apologize for these pictures? This is just my opinion though.

Edited July 30, 2004 by crystal3rose

[CatAstrofix]

The government shouldn't have to take the blame for them, just because they are on the payroll. The government can't be responsible for other peoples actions, just because they happen to work in the White House, or are in the army, or in the Senate, etc.. If they do apologize, fine, great...I just don't think they should be obligated to do so, that's all. I think it's a double standard. They aren't apologizing for our beheadings, so why should we apologize for these pictures? This is just my opinion though.

But still, as an employer of the soldiers, the government IS resposible. Yes, these ppl should take resposibility their own, but a country can't just send out it's army, let them take care of things with what ever means possible, and then just wash their hands of it. And no, not anyone who just happens to work in the white house or in the army should be obliged to appologize, but the ones who had some influence on the matter.

What kind of an army is it if no one is resposible of the soldiers actions? That's how terrorists and guerillas work, and we all probably agree that in US things are bit more organized than that.

[wunarmdscissor]

But still, as an employer of the soldiers, the government IS resposible. Yes, these ppl should take resposibility their own, but a country can't just send out it's army, let them take care of things with what ever means possible, and then just wash their hands of it. And no, not anyone who just happens to work in the white house or in the army should be obliged to appologize, but the ones who had some influence on the matter.

What kind of an army is it if no one is resposible of the soldiers actions? That's how terrorists and guerillas work, and we all probably agree that in US things are bit more organized than that.

Fact is from top to bottom the abuse was endorsed an i mean TOP,

The very second Donald Rumsfeld uttered the foolish and idiotic words "im not overly bothered about the geneva convention" then every maniac in the army had a free hand....or so they thought.

He is every bit as accountable as the soldiers.

Therefore the GOVT should issue apologies.

History will judge the government that americans have put into place and i dont think theyll be shed in a good light.

[riotkittie]

The reason I have a problem with the government having to apologize is because, President Bush, and Congress, and such, had absolutley no knowledge of this prior to it's happening.  I do believe that measures were not taken by the army higher ups to prevent this from happening though.  So maybe the army generals should apologize for not doing their jobs and allowing this to take place. 

Alright, let me get this straight >> Bush and Congress shouldn't apologize because they had no knowledge to this happening, yet the Army higher ups *should* maybe apologize, even though, like Bush and Congress, many of them had no knowledge this was happening. Why is ignorance excusable at the top of the chain but perhaps not quite as excusable below?

I like the follow part of your post so much that I'm quoting it again

I do believe that measures were not taken by the army higher ups to prevent this from happening though.  So maybe the army generals should apologize for not doing their jobs and allowing this to take place.

Ok, so we agree measures weren't taken to prevent this, and to some extent, we're in agreement that the generals weren't doing their jobs by keeping tabs on their subordinates and insuring they were doing their jobs + doing them properly, annnd they (the generals) should be held accountable for this.

If the army generals should maybe apologize and maybe be held accountable, then why shouldn't the generals' superiors be held to the same standard and maybe be held accountable for not doing _their_ jobs by insuring the generals were properly doing theirs? And who outranks the generals?

The Commander In Chief.

And who's the CinC? None other than... our President. And who's our President? None other than... the man who helped insure measures were not taken to prevent such abuse by insisting our Prisoners of War -aren't- Prisoners of War, but Enemy Combatants who have nothing in the way of rights and limited/non-existant access to the Human Rights Groups, heh! A Commander in Chief who isn't made to answer for his mistakes is a Commander in Chief I can't support, a man I fear to trust.

Honestly, I just think they should be responsible for their own actions.  I mean, these aren't children we're talking about here.  They are grown, concenting adults, and if they choose to act like children, then they will suffer the consequences.  The government shouldn't have to take the blame for them, just because they are on the payroll.

I'm not asking the government to take the blame for them. I'm asking the government to apologize for (and take responsibility for) _its_ irresponsibility >> in this case, failing to make sure people were doing their jobs.

The government can't be responsible for other peoples actions, just because they happen to work in the White House, or are in the army, or in the Senate, etc..

I'm not asking the gvmt to be responsible for other peoples' actions, I'm asking it to be responsible for _its_ action and _its_ inaction, which begin/end with other peoples' actions. If we cease to hold government accountable, the government ceases to be accountable, and the day the government ceases to be accountable is the day you cease to be free.

If they do apologize, fine, great...I just don't think they should be obligated to do so, that's all.  I think it's a double standard.  They aren't apologizing for our beheadings, so why should we apologize for these pictures?  This is just my opinion though.

Who is this they you speak of? FWIW, the pictures and the beheadings are two completely different issues, and IMO, should be kept as such. The prisoners who were abused were average people, picked up for minor infractions and released as they had no ties to terroristic/militant activity. Plenty of Iraqi/Arab/Muslim people have expressed their outrage and their sorrow their gratitude at/for at the loss of life (not just the beheadings, but the soldiers and civilians who've died elsewhere and by other means so that these people could be free). Who's going to apologize and take responsibility for the militants -- No one. Why? Because unlike our troops, these people are accountable to no one other than themselves.

As for why we should apologize when the terrorists/militants will not? It's simple -- we should do it because we are not them. We're supposed to be the good guy here, we're supposed to have a sense of deceny, a sense of right and wrong >> and if you can't 'fess up to your actions, admit you were wrong and apologize for your mistakes, you _have_ no deceny, you have no sense of right, you're lowering yourself to the level of the people you're standing up against and you're standing up in vain.

[KindredSpirt4125]

Ok, the reason I think the army higher up's should apologize and not the government, is because the generals were at the bases where these things took place, and maybe had they been paying attention, could have stopped it. President Bush was no where near any of those places. President Bush can't be responsible for every single person in the army....That's why we have the army generals in the first place, to look after and over the soldiers. I just don't think an apology would do anything anyway. Would it make you guys feel better? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[reese2]

Crystal-

I get what you are saying.. I agree.

President Bush should maybe make a statement about the abuse, but that IN NO WAY implies wrong doing on his part. He should say something because it was disgusting acts of humiliation done to a people that didn't deserve it. He does need to ameliorate this situation so that everyone can see that he in no way supports this treatment of any person.

Asking President Bush to apologize is like asking him to apologize for ALL the acts of humiliation done to innocent people every day, by any military personel, and it simply is not his fault. Crystal was right by saying that the enitre reason there are RANKS, is that there is a steady chain of command. From that chain of command, responsiblity filters down and up appropriately.

Reese

[Stellar]

Ok, the reason I think the army higher up's should apologize and not the government, is because the generals were at the bases where these things took place, and maybe had they been paying attention, could have stopped it.  President Bush was no where near any of those places.  President Bush can't be responsible for every single person in the army....That's why we have the army generals in the first place, to look after and over the soldiers.  I just don't think an apology would do anything anyway.  Would it make you guys feel better?  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'd actually like to see Rumsfeld appologise, not for causing it, but for it happening. A kind of "I am sorry that it happened" thing. seeing as how he took responsability for it. Actually, some want him fired cuz of it.

Edited August 2, 2004 by Stellar

[KindredSpirt4125]

Crystal-

I get what you are saying.. I agree.

President Bush should maybe make a statement about the abuse, but that IN NO WAY implies wrong doing on his part. He should say something because it was disgusting acts of humiliation done to a people that didn't deserve it. He does need to ameliorate this situation so that everyone can see that he in no way supports this treatment of any person.

Asking President Bush to apologize is like asking him to apologize for ALL the acts of humiliation done to innocent people every day, by any military personel, and it simply is not his fault. Crystal was right by saying that the enitre reason there are RANKS, is that there is a steady chain of command. From that chain of command, responsiblity filters down and up appropriately.

Reese

Reese...that was beautiful !

[wunarmdscissor]

Like i said earlier though, President BUsh may not be PERSONALLY responsible for the individual acts of the soldiers however the buck stops with him reese.

Leaders live and die by their decisions and it was HIM who sent America into Iraq on flimsy evidence and thats being generous.

HOWEVer like i said above Donald Rumsfeld is a disgrace and SHOULD nresign or be kicked out, someone who is in charge of your armed forces should never make a commment like "i am not overly concerned about the Geneva Convention".

Millions of people died to fight for the basic values of human rights that are in the genevea convention MILLIONS.

Then when this idiot makes a statement like that it gives every nutjob in the army free-raneg to do whatever the hell they want.

[reese2]

Like i said earlier though, President BUsh may not be PERSONALLY responsible for the individual acts of the soldiers however the buck stops with him reese.

These are two different matters, entirely. You and others not agreeing with this war, is completely seperate from him being the ultimate one responsible for what happened to those prisoners.

Although I would like to blame someone other than myself for my misfortunes, is it not my fault, or responsibility that any decision I have made through the course of my life, turned out badly? How can I blame anyone other than myself, for something that I chose to do, if it in fact comes out with a bad ending? Could a student blame the Principal of a school, if they fail?

Leaders live and die by their decisions and it was HIM who sent America into Iraq on flimsy evidence and thats being generous.

It is not being generous Wun, it is keeping it real. You are not inflating the situation by adding things that are not correct, and you are keeping it real.. If anything, he did send troops in and invade Iraq on 'flimsy' evidence. Evidence which he was given, but 'flimsy' nonetheless.

HOWEVer like i said above Donald Rumsfeld is a disgrace and SHOULD nresign or be kicked out, someone who is in charge of your armed forces should never make a commment like "i am not overly concerned about the Geneva Convention".

Since you are seemingly quoting Rumsfeld, do you mind sharing where you heard him say this? I really am in the dark here on this one, as I am sure I have never heard him say this.. (I could be wrong, though) Although rare, It happens..

Reese

[wunarmdscissor]

It is a fact an i got it from "newsnight " on the BBC ill get a quote for you.

[reese2]

It is a fact an i got it from "newsnight " on the BBC ill get a quote for you.

Yes, Wun... Whenever you find the link to him saying that, please do post it... I am very intrigued....

Reese

[+joc]

"i am not overly concerned about the Geneva Convention".

What he was talking about was in regard to the terrorists. They are not a 'government' and dealing with terrorists is not something that is covered by the GC.

Leaders live and die by their decisions and it was HIM who sent America into Iraq on flimsy evidence and thats being generous.

The CIA didn't think it was flimsy. The FBI didn't think so either. Nor did the intel agencies of the UK. Nor did the UN for that matter. Even the French new the intel was legit....they were dealing under the table in the food for oil program and didn't want to get caught.

Wun,

I like you...I really do...and that is why I encourage you to look at all of this in light of what happened on 9/11. It is all real. Bush is not a tryrant. The Left Media coverage is designed to make him look bad. Don't fall into their trap. Early on in these discussions you were unclear as to what you thought about the war. Now you seem to have made up your mind...but you seem to be biasing on the side of the Left....who definitely have an agenda. Bush has an agenda too...kill the terrorists and find Osama and do everything possible to keep another 9/11 from happening again. Regards,

joc

Edited August 4, 2004 by joc

[DC09]

The CIA didn't think it was flimsy. The FBI didn't think so either. Nor did the intel agencies of the UK. Nor did the UN for that matter. Even the French new the intel was legit....they were dealing under the table in the food for oil program and didn't want to get caught.

Exactly! Everyone thought he had WMDs.

[Dowdy]

like you...I really do...and that is why I encourage you to look at all of this in light of what happened on 9/11. It is all real. Bush is not a tryrant.

than why did he attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs?

[hunterkiller2001]

What he was talking about was in regard to the terrorists. They are not a 'government' and dealing with terrorists is not something that is covered by the GC.

the GC covers "prisoners of war" so yes, terrorists are included.

kill the terrorists and find Osama and do everything possible to keep another 9/11 from happening again

You honestly believe he's still alive? Unless he's already in custody, odds are good he's dead, considering his medical condition. I'd honestly love to see them drop Bin Laden on the white house lawn the day before the election. It'd be priceless to see old georgy boy run out and tackle him.

Good tactic too.. most people who'd vote for kerry would miss the polls because they were laughing so hard..

[+joc]

the GC covers "prisoners of war" so yes, terrorists are included.

The terrorists are not 'prisoners of war'. They are 'military combatants'.

[wunarmdscissor]

The terrorists are not 'prisoners of war'. They are 'military combatants'.

LOL yeah right ok joc, one thing how do you define a terrorist?

With regards to this then that rumsfeld was only talkin about terrorists then...

Do you consider Soldiers who were in Iraq's old army Terrorists?

WHat if they supported saddam husseigns govt and dont accept american rule?

WHy should they be labelled terrorists , then didnt take a fihgt to you, they didnt attack you so why should they be stripped of their Human rights?

Think of it this way.

WHat if a foreign power invaded america , yet your soldier decided after the country as a whole had been defeated they would fight on, would they be terrorists??

DOnt get into the whole "would you rather saddam was still there argument" because that aint what this is about.

This is about defining who deserves basic human rights anb who doesnt, and your govt isnt very clear on that issue.

Edited August 4, 2004 by wunarmdscissor

[hunterkiller2001]

Your speaking from the opinion of the bush administration.

Rumsfeld has said on many occasions that terrorists are not protected by the GC, while a vast majority of the world disagrees.

Durbin noted that one American GI was missing in Iraq, his whereabouts unknown. Given the circumstances, he asked Rumsfeld, "wouldn't it help if there was clarity from you and from this administration that we would abide by the Geneva Convention when it comes to civilian and military detainees unequivocally?"

Expanding his question to include detainees in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, he asked whether such a declaration would "also serve to help American prisoners" held captive.

Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Convention applies to all prisoners held in Iraq, but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the global war on terror are held.

Any al-Qaeda or Taliban personnel taken prisoner are to be treated consistent with the Geneva Convention, under a decision made by Bush, Rumsfeld added.

source

That article goes on to speculate that Nick Berg was beheaded in retaliation to the prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay.

The GC states

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

While al-Qaeda is not considered a "High contracting party", the nations we invaded were. The people we detained are citizens of these nations, and should be protected under the GC.

We went into Afghanistan, detaining people, shipping them to Guantanamo, and saying "thier terrorists, they're not protected" While they were obtained in a war on another country who has signed the GC. They're citizens of those countries, and should be protected.

[Fluffybunny]

the GC covers "prisoners of war" so yes, terrorists are included.

The terrorists are not 'prisoners of war'. They are 'military combatants'.

Once "Military Combatants" are captured, they become "Prisoners of War".

[doink]

I'm an American, and I believe in what this country was meant to stand for. Yeah this country has had it's moral conflicts from it's adoption of the name, and this is definitely one of them.

What has been released to the public has been the least damaging, believe it or not. It is also just a very minute sample of what occurred in those prisons. You have only seen a couple of pictures out of hundreds and hours of video. You don't think America should apologize? You don't think there was any abuse? Why then did America's own leaders initial response upon viewing those tapes was "It was like one of the rings of Hell". Our own leaders admitted to seeing the abuse, sodomy, rape, all of that. This isn't a hoax, this isn't propaganda. Don't insult the vicims this happened to.

A poster here linked an article on women in Iraq who were raped. That was the soft core version. There are photos available on the net of womn being raped by gun point, one being the same woman described in the article. Beaten and gang raped. The rapists are American CIA agents who have adopted an interrogation method from Israeli intelligence, torture the female vicitm, in these cases somehow associated with a known terrorist, maybe by relation, marriage, friend, then rape them until they tell you all they know. Video tape it and blackmail them that you'll release the footage or stills to the victim's families. Once the prisoner gets out, if they ever do, they have the legitimate fear of being ostracised or killed by their own people. You don't believe me, do a search for "Women in Iraq raped". American soldiers have said that the photos shown are just a couple of hundreds passed around the military.

Some of the soldiers at the prison have said that these actions were from orders form higher up in the chain of command, and indeed at least one of the women raped in the photos was a prisoner there. They have at least 60 women who have been raped.

Regardless of how it happened, this kind of thing going on for the amount of time it did, something was going on more than a few soldiers getting their jollies. The military, and their government who employs them, is responsible. Rounding people by guilty only by association or not even any guilt, holding them without charge (coincidentally a major sticking point in the Bush administration's security act before all this came to light), torture on a grand scale, rape, these are the very things America claimed to be fighting. Heck, even doing these things to people known to be guilty is inexcusable. Yes, the other side beheaded some of our own, but what our people did is at their level, even more evil.

It's replacing one form of oppression with another. You're damn right America should apologize.