Geneva Conventions just do not apply to the US.. right? More abuse of Iraqi prisoners.. YIPPEE

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
[commentary] Bring It On.. let them torture our soldiers -- we better just STFU if ANY enemy decides to TORTURE American Soldiers.. [/commentary]


CHRIS HONDROS / GETTYA Marine stands watch during midnight patrol near Camp Mercury
Web Exclusive | Nation
Pattern of Abuse
A decorated Army officer reveals new allegations of detainee mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did the military ignore his charges?
By ADAM ZAGORIN
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Friday, Sep. 23, 2005
The U.S. Army has launched a criminal investigation into new allegations of serious prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan made by a decorated former Captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, an Army spokesman has confirmed to TIME. The claims of the Captain, who has not been named, are in part corroborated by statements of two sergeants who served with him in the 82nd Airborne; the allegations form the basis of a report from Human Rights Watch obtained by TIME and due to be released in the next few days (Since this story first went online, the organization has decided to put out its report; it can be found here). Senate sources tell TIME that the Captain has also reported his charges to three senior Republican senators: Majority Leader Bill Frist, Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner and John McCain, a former torture victim in Vietnam. A Senate Republican staffer familiar with both the Captain and his allegations told TIME he appeared "extremely credible."

The new allegations center around systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees by men of the 82nd Airborne at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base located near Fallujah, the scene of a major uprising against the U.S. occupation in April 2004, according to sources familiar with the report and accounts given by the Captain, who is in his mid-20s, to Senate staff. Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public. Other alleged abuses described in the Human Rights report occurred at Camp Tiger, near Iraq's border with Syria, and previously in Afghanistan. In addition, the report details what the Captain says was his unsuccessful effort over 17 months to get the attention of military superiors. Ultimately he approached the Republican senators.

The Human Rights Watch report?as well as accounts given to Senate staff?describe officers as aware of the abuse but routinely ignoring or covering it up, amid chronic confusion over U.S. military detention policies and whether or not the Geneva Convention applied. The Captain is quoted in the report describing how military intelligence personnel at Camp Mercury directed enlisted men to conduct daily beatings of prisoners prior to questioning; to subject detainees to strenuous forced exercises to the point of unconsciousness; and to expose them to extremes of heat and cold?all methods designed to produce greater cooperation with interrogators. Non-uniformed personnel?apparently working for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to the soldiers?also interrogated prisoners. The interrogators were out of view but not out of earshot of the soldiers, who overheard what they came to believe was abuse.

Specific instances of abuse described in the Human Rights Watch report include severe beatings, including one incident when a soldier allegedly broke a detainee's leg with a metal bat. Others include prisoners being stacked in human pyramids (unlike the human pyramids at Abu Ghraib, the prisoners at Camp Mercury were clothed); soldiers administering blows to the face, chest and extremities of prisoners; and detainees having their faces and eyes exposed to burning chemicals, being forced into stress positions for long periods leading to unconsciousness and having their water and food withheld.

Prisoners were designated as PUCs (pronounced "pucks")?or "persons under control." A regular pastime at Camp Mercury, the report says, involved off-duty soldiers gathering at PUC tents, where prisoners were held, and working off their frustrations in activities known as "F____a PUC" (beating the prisoner) and "Smoke a PUC" (forced physical exertion, sometimes to the point of collapse). Broken limbs and similar painful injuries would be treated with analgesics, the soldiers claim, as medical staff would fill out paperwork stating the injuries occurred during capture. Support for some of the allegations of abuse come from a sergeant of the 82nd Airborne who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch quotes him as saying that, "To 'F____ a PUC' means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs, and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day. To 'smoke' someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day. Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement.

"On their day off people would show up all the time," the sergeant continues in the HRW report. "Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport. The cooks were all U.S. soldiers. One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal bat. He was the cook."

The sergeant says that military intelligence officers would tell soldiers that the detainees "were bad" and had been involved in killing or trying to kill Americans, implying that they deserved whatever punishment they got. "I would be told, 'These guys were IED [improvised explosive device] trigger men last week.' So we would f___ them up. F___ them up bad ... At the same time we should be held to a higher standard. I know that now. It was wrong. There are a set of standards. But you gotta understand, this was the norm. Everyone would just sweep it under the rug ... We should never have been allowed to watch guys we had fought."

The Captain making the allegations, say those who have been in contact with him, gave lengthy statements to Human Rights Watch only after his attempts to report what he had seen and heard to his own chain of command, were met, he claims, with repeated brush-offs. He is currently in special forces training at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The two non-commissioned officers served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and likewise approached the watchdog group, but have not conferred with Senate staff. "The captain is a very sincere officer, and troubled by what he says he has seen," says another senior aide to a Republican senator. "Only an investigation can determine how accurate his account will prove to be."

The Human Rights Watch report describes the Captain, in particular, as deeply frustrated by his attempts to report the abuse to his own superiors, who repeatedly instructed him to keep quiet, to ignore what he'd seen and to consider the implications for his career. The Captain told Human Rights Watch and Senate staff that he had contacted legislators reluctantly, believing it was the only way he could get the army to take him seriously. He also said that "I knew something was wrong" as he watched Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on television in 2004 testifying before a Congressional committee that the U.S. was following the Geneva Convention to the letter in Iraq. The Monday morning after Rumsfeld's testimony, he told Human Rights Watch, "I approached my chain of command." Eventually, the captain says, he approached his company commander, battalion commander and representatives of the Judge Advocate Corps (the military justice system), trying in vain to get clarification of rules on prisoner treatment and the application of the Geneva Convention. At one point, the Captain asserts, his Company commander told him, in effect, "Remember the honor of the unit is at stake," and, "Don't expect me to go to bat for you on this issue ..."

The Captain also says he was told there were pictures of abuse that occurred at Camp Mercury similar to photos taken by Military Police at Abu Ghraib prison. It is not clear whether the Captain saw the pictures, but he has said, sources tell TIME, that the photos were so similar to what was depicted at Abu Ghraib that, when the scandal erupted, soldiers burned them out of fear that they too could be punished. The Captain has also told Senate staff that many of the actions he witnessed did not, at the time, violate his personal code of conduct. He was also under the impression that the conduct was in line with military policy. It was only later, Congressional sources tell TIME, that he became aware of what he regarded as a blatant contradiction in official U.S. policy. As the captain puts it, according to the report: "I witnessed violations of the Geneva Conventions that I knew were violations of the Geneva Conventions when they happened but I was under the impression that that was U.S. policy at the time. And as soon as Abu Ghraib broke and they had hearings in front of Congress, the Secretary of Defense testified that we followed the spirit of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan, and the letter of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq, and as soon as he said that I knew something was wrong. So I called some of my classmates [from West Point], confirmed what I was concerned about and then on that Monday morning I approached my chain of command ..."

An Army spokesman confirmed to TIME that a criminal investigation has begun into the allegations, and that the Captain has been given permission to speak to members of Congress about his concerns. Since the Abu Ghraib scandal became public, hundreds of cases of alleged abuse have emerged based on reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, U.S. government documents, prisoner legal filings and other sources. The Army alone says it has conducted investigations into more than 400 allegations of detainee mistreatment. To date, more than 230 Army personnel have been dealt with in courts martial, non-judicial punishments and other administrative actions.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972-2,00.html
 

NoSmirk

Member
Aug 2, 2005
73
0
0
I wonder how many of these same abuses happen daily in our own prisons yet nobody seems to care.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: NoSmirk
I wonder how many of these same abuses happen daily in our own prisons yet nobody seems to care.


I have always wondered why people felt the Republicans werre the best at diverting attention and are considered Weapons of Mass Distraction
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What exactly is the problem if a criminal investigation is undertaken due to these allegations?



When will it be undertaken and why didn't anyone do anything sooner?

Do you think their punishments will fit the crime?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What exactly is the problem if a criminal investigation is undertaken due to these allegations?



When will it be undertaken and why didn't anyone do anything sooner?

Do you think their punishments will fit the crime?

I'm not sure as I don't exactly know the details, but I suspect that it will be similar to what other countries typically seem to do.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What exactly is the problem if a criminal investigation is undertaken due to these allegations?

The problem is it's happening.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: NoSmirk
I wonder how many of these same abuses happen daily in our own prisons yet nobody seems to care.

Of course, that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (unless you literally think two wrongs make a right), and, even if true, will not have the collateral effect of endangering American GIs, unlike the prisoner abuse that's the subject of this article.

So remind us again, who were you before you were banned?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
the problem is that this is being dealt with as isolated incidents, not as a policy

if you want to see what the policy is doing then please take a look at the 4 torture episodes I posted about in the main torture thread, in one of the episodes the do a 48 hour gitmo experiment, real protocols used, real people used, real interrigators, its torture allright and its all sanctioned by the us gov and military.. that is the problem.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
It is outrageous, and it is NOT policy, and I hope the soldiers burn for it.

Repeat after me....

It's not policy, and there is an investigation. The system is working for now.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: maluckey
It is outrageous, and it is NOT policy, and I hope the soldiers burn for it.

Repeat after me....

It's not policy, and there is an investigation. The system is working for now.

I agree, but given the number of incidents, I wonder if the military might want to take some extra steps to make the ACTUAL policy crystal clear to the troops.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: maluckey
It is outrageous, and it is NOT policy, and I hope the soldiers burn for it.

Repeat after me....

It's not policy, and there is an investigation. The system is working for now.

take a look at the video, they use only methoods officialy approved by the US gov and military, it is policy

the system is trying to whitewash this
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What exactly is the problem if a criminal investigation is undertaken due to these allegations?

The problem RM, is that the best these "investigation" have offered up is low-level perps. Doesn't military doctrine base itself on chain of command? Why have no ranking officers, besides poor General Janet Karpinski been charged in any way? Grunts don't carry black hoods around in their kits, which means that the abuse was systemic and approved of up the chain. Why is the abuse continuing, even with ongoing investigations? Also, you might want to try a bit of compassion. If you, or someone you care about had been sodomized with a chemical light I dare say you wouldn't be NEARLY as cavalier about the proceedings.

Next time we get hit, "Why do they hate us so???" is going to sound even stupider than it did after 9/11.

 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
It would be nice if we actually did go after the people ordering the abuses. Finding soldiers will is easy, it's getting the people to stop ordering that is the problem.

We set a standard in WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamas hita (Remove the space for it to work, the stupid filter won't let me post the name combined.)
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
The problem RM, is that the best these "investigation" have offered up is low-level perps. Doesn't military doctrine base itself on chain of command? Why have no ranking officers, besides poor General Janet Karpinski been charged in any way?

I have no clue, but I'm sure that people can come up with some theories. But I'm not even sure if this is true.

Grunts don't carry black hoods around in their kits, which means that the abuse was systemic and approved of up the chain. Why is the abuse continuing, even with ongoing investigations?

Because some grunts are stupid grunts.

Also, you might want to try a bit of compassion. If you, or someone you care about had been sodomized with a chemical light I dare say you wouldn't be NEARLY as cavalier about the proceedings.

I don't see how that is relevant to the Geneva Convention and the ongoing investigations. We should be outraged that this has happened, but if the system is trying to work it out, then that is fine.

Next time we get hit, "Why do they hate us so???" is going to sound even stupider than it did after 9/11.

Well the people on this forum sound 'stupider' every following day.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
1) The convention applies to enemy combatents. Not terrorists.
2) The treatment of civilians and hostages has shown that these opponents do not respect basic human rights (on which the convention was based on)

3) Abuses that are described may be wrong - however, that is completely different that what the convetions guidelines are built around. One should not use the Geneva convention to present the other cheek.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I have no clue, but I'm sure that people can come up with some theories. But I'm not even sure if this is true.

Which aspect are you unsure of?

Because some grunts are stupid grunts.

Same balance as in the general population probably. My point was that some stiff from Idaho wouldn't come up with some of the stuff I've read they were doing on his own.

I don't see how that is relevant to the Geneva Convention and the ongoing investigations. We should be outraged that this has happened, but if the system is trying to work it out, then that is fine.

Of course it's relevant. The Geneva conventions were designed with the idea that even war has rules of conduct. What is that but an extension of morality to cover even the most savage of puruits, war. RM, every indication is that the system ISN'T working. Please don't take this as an insult, but you need to look at at least SOME of the vast amounts of info available on this subject. Things are a LOT worse than you seem to think they are. This isn't a bunch of well-meaning guys "trying" to get at the truth. Every indication points to another massive cover-up and the the behavior that caused that uproar is STILL taking place.

Well the people on this forum sound 'stupider' every following day.

Come on dude, you know exactly what I meant!

 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
1) The convention applies to enemy combatents. Not terrorists.
2) The treatment of civilians and hostages has shown that these opponents do not respect basic human rights (on which the convention was based on)

3) Abuses that are described may be wrong - however, that is completely different that what the convetions guidelines are built around. One should not use the Geneva convention to present the other cheek.

Actually, it says you will be protected until we can figure out what to do with you.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
1) The convention applies to enemy combatents. Not terrorists.
2) The treatment of civilians and hostages has shown that these opponents do not respect basic human rights (on which the convention was based on)

3) Abuses that are described may be wrong - however, that is completely different that what the convetions guidelines are built around. One should not use the Geneva convention to present the other cheek.

1. That's an arbitrary label which really means nothing. We may not like the way they fight (I'm SURE they don't like our approach either), but they're soldiers and should be treated with the same respect we want OUR soldiers treated with.
2. Neither did the Germans or the Japanese. Yet we treated prisons from both countries with a great deal of respect, mostly, and this was without Geneva. Also, there isn't one set equation that the Iraqi rebels have used. They're barbarians in their treatment of prisoners sometimes and civilized other times, just like us.
3. How is not abusing prisoners turning the other cheek?

I'm really starting to wonder whether you really believe half of the stuff you type.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
1) The convention applies to enemy combatents. Not terrorists.
2) The treatment of civilians and hostages has shown that these opponents do not respect basic human rights (on which the convention was based on)

3) Abuses that are described may be wrong - however, that is completely different that what the convetions guidelines are built around. One should not use the Geneva convention to present the other cheek.

1. That's an arbitrary label which really means nothing. We may not like the way they fight (I'm SURE they don't like our approach either), but they're soldiers and should be treated with the same respect we want OUR soldiers treated with.
2. Neither did the Germans or the Japanese. Yet we treated prisons from both countries with a great deal of respect, mostly, and this was without Geneva. Also, there isn't one set equation that the Iraqi rebels have used. They're barbarians in their treatment of prisoners sometimes and civilized other times, just like us.
3. How is not abusing prisoners turning the other cheek?

I'm really starting to wonder whether you really believe half of the stuff you type.
1) The definition is layed out in the documents. What and how these opponents act does not come under those classifications.

2) In WW2, we were fighting an organized opponent that met the guidelines layed out in the convention. Whether or not, those countries chose to follow the convention was up to their political system. We chose to follow those guidelines as well as we could; part of it was based on or own moral creed and part may have been based on the definition of the opponent.

3) When the opponent is not meeting the rules/guidelines of the convention in terms of the definition of combatents that should be applied to; then we are not obligated to follow the convention when it comes to defending outselves. It would be nice to; but to cripple our functionality and place our troops in harms way just to play with one hand tied behind our back does not seem logical if you are to win.

Combat is not always nice; the more advantage you provide the enemy, the more casualities you may occur.

I would rather get the information needed to protect our troops; especially when the opponent s now are no longer freedom fighters but non-Iraqi people that are being used for political/religious cannon fodder

 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: NoSmirk
I wonder how many of these same abuses happen daily in our own prisons yet nobody seems to care.

WAY too many.

Human Right Watch


The situation in prisons, jails and other penitentiary facilities is probably the most unbeliavable internal disfunction in the USA... 70% of the inmates facing rape, and huge figures for suicides, murders, HIV/AIDS...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Gonzalez (now our Attorney General) and Chertoff (now the Sec'y of Homeland Security) were instrumental in making torture "legal". This administration rewards failure and punishes honesty.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
1) The definition is layed out in the documents. What and how these opponents act does not come under those classifications.

2) In WW2, we were fighting an organized opponent that met the guidelines layed out in the convention. Whether or not, those countries chose to follow the convention was up to their political system. We chose to follow those guidelines as well as we could; part of it was based on or own moral creed and part may have been based on the definition of the opponent.

3) When the opponent is not meeting the rules/guidelines of the convention in terms of the definition of combatents that should be applied to; then we are not obligated to follow the convention when it comes to defending outselves. It would be nice to; but to cripple our functionality and place our troops in harms way just to play with one hand tied behind our back does not seem logical if you are to win.

Combat is not always nice; the more advantage you provide the enemy, the more casualities you may occur.

I would rather get the information needed to protect our troops; especially when the opponent s now are no longer freedom fighters but non-Iraqi people that are being used for political/religious cannon fodder

Except it does leave grounds for them in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. (I posted it earlier)

You also need to remember, just because they were arrested, that does not mean they were actually doing anything wrong. A lot of the people being arrested are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they are absolutely covered.

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |