The 5th estate: Abu Ghraib and Torture in Iraq

[Infanteer]

Checkmate.

 

[Jarnhamar]

My opinion on this is changing.
For me it's a matter of proof and evidence against these guys.

On one hand you have people just grabbed off the street or someone dropping their name out of spite.
I'm not really cool with the idea of interrogating these guys in a hardcore way because to me they were in the wron place at the wrong time. Turns joe blow into a hateful dude. (id be hateful too)

One the other hamd, when you actually have considerable proof or evidence that one of these guys is connected to suicide attacks and you might be able to get more information out of them - I picture a 10 year old girl who has to spend the rest of her life with no arms legs or a face and think to myself, hey 'Fuck ya'.

If hurting a murder and taking away his freedom (which he's taken away from others) means your going to save soldiers lives and the lives of innocent civilians who just want to do their thing, well you can call it whatever you want. I'll call it saving someones life.

 

[SHF]

Paracowboy,

Well written, well thought out.

Cheers

 

[Nemo888]

The Americans had very little credibility as "liberators" to begin with. The War of Hearts and Minds will end the insurgency. Whichever sides wins that battle wins the war. Do not underestimate the power of propaganda. The good guys, Heroes, liberators, soldiers of freedom protecting democracy.Rebels have started killing themselves rather than surrender to American forces. I'm paid to be an honourable soldier, that why I joined up. Why do you fight?

  Anyone who says torture doesn't work has a very limited imagination. Problem is what if the guy doesn't know anything?

I'll end with a quote from a POW talking to an MP in Afghanistan. After being kept awake and questioned for 24hrs straight.
  "After I realized that this was the worst you were going to do to me I realized I was fighting for the wrong side."

 

[George Wallace]

  Anyone who says torture doesn't work has a very limited imagination. Problem is what if the guy doesn't know anything?

I won't bother with the rest of your post, but will comment on this.   Torture does get results, but not necessarily truthful results.   A person being tortured will say anything to save himself, even if he doesn't know anything.   A tortured person is likely to give up more fiction than fact.  

Other means of interrogation may be likely to draw out more facts.   Torture is not required, but sleep deprivation or other forms of 'stress' may be more likely to get results.   'Stressing out' a Detainee does not necessarily mean torture.   Our Liberal Press doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference.

 

[TAS278]

Jumper: Couldn't have said it better GO! The naivety of some posters on this forum is truly amazing. We are fighting an enemy who has absolutely no qualms about lopping off the heads of their detainees (innocent civilians for the most part) and videotaping it for all the world to see; yet I don't recall reading any posts expressing moral outrage over these barbaric acts. This is an enemy which has successfully used our misguided sense of moral superiority as a weapon against us.

Do you not remember the lessons your parents taught you. You think because you express an opinion and someone disagrees with it, that they are stupid or naive. BTW his opinion is that of fact and law. So if you disagree with the laws of this country and of others I really don't know what to tell you. (Maybe move somewhere else.) I would like to reiterate the Moral High Ground point. As a country do you think we should treat people inhumanely and do whatever we want to do in order to complete the task at hand or use the system that we have now that was written by our own blood. Do you think our enemies would respect us more and not torture us if we tortured our prisoners? You ever wonder why they call them extremists?

I think you get what I am saying. Your anger with "the other side" has caused your educated opinion to become wrongly motivated.
If you look as this problem objectively you will see why the "torture should be accepted" attitude is wrong.

Cheers

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good point George.

What happens when the information we're getting from these guys is just bullshit they come up with to save themselves.

There's an important line between interrogating someone and tourture.  Bad information is worse than no information.

I don't agree with the whole 'They cut someones head off so we can do what we want' attitude but for guys guilty of those kinda crimes I don't have any problems with them being man handeled.

Tourture to me is when no good information is forthcomming and the guards (or whoever) are hurting the prisoner to be spiteful.

 

[S McKee]

Do you not remember the lessons your parents taught you. You think because you express an opinion and someone disagrees with it, that they are stupid or naive. BTW his opinion is that of fact and law. So if you disagree with the laws of this country and of others I really don't know what to tell you. (Maybe move somewhere else.) I would like to reiterate the Moral High Ground point. As a country do you think we should treat people inhumanely and do whatever we want to do in order to complete the task at hand or use the system that we have now that was written by our own blood. Do you think our enemies would respect us more and not torture us if we tortured our prisoners? You ever wonder why they call them extremists?

I think you get what I am saying. Your anger with "the other side" has caused your educated opinion to become wrongly motivated.
If you look as this problem objectively you will see why the "torture should be accepted" attitude is wrong.

Cheers

I'm not entirely sure what your getting at or what my parents have to do with the alledged torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib. Howeve,r if your suggesting that I think people who disagree with my opinion are in any way "stupid" nothing could be further from the truth. If you check in your dictionary "naivety" is not the same as "stupidity".

I have never advocated the use of torture in any of my posts.  It was Napoleon Bonaparte who said
"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile." I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

I do disagree with those who state that the "stress postions" and the interrogation techniques used on the detainees in Abu Ghraib were a form of "torture".  MP 00161's post on the subject is with a doubt, the best yet, on this topic and I concur with his opinion.

I also have a problem with those who "naively" claim the US is some sort of despotic regime, and who compare them to Nazi Germany. It seems to me that when the US does something that doesn't quite sit well with the moral sensibilities of the left, the extremists tend to drag Nazi Germany into the argument.

Finally, it's all well and good for us here in the relative comfort and safety of Canada to express our moral outrage and pass judgement on the US. We are not in Iraq, we do not have to deal with the grim reality of daily casualties and deaths of our combat troops. God forbid if anything like this happens in Afghanistan and we start seeing Canadian soldiers in body bags on the nightly news. I wonder if the critics would be so quick to judge then?

 

[TAS278]

I'm not entirely sure what your getting at or what my parents have to do with the alledged torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib. Howeve,r if your suggesting that I think people who disagree with my opinion are in any way "stupid" nothing could be further from the truth. If you check in your dictionary "naivety" is not the same as "stupidity".

I have never advocated the use of torture in any of my posts.  It was Napoleon Bonaparte who said
"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile." I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

I do disagree with those who state that the "stress postions" and the interrogation techniques used on the detainees in Abu Ghraib were a form of "torture".  MP 00161's post on the subject is with a doubt, the best yet, on this topic and I concur with his opinion.

I also have a problem with those who "naively" claim the US is some sort of despotic regime, and who compare them to Nazi Germany. It seems to me that when the US does something that doesn't quite sit well with the moral sensibilities of the left, the extremists tend to drag Nazi Germany into the argument.

Finally, it's all well and good for us here in the relative comfort and safety of Canada to express our moral outrage and pass judgement on the US. We are not in Iraq, we do not have to deal with the grim reality of daily casualties and deaths of our combat troops. God forbid if anything like this happens in Afghanistan and we start seeing Canadian soldiers in body bags on the nightly news. I wonder if the critics would be so quick to judge then?

Here ya have it. When you were a kid you were probably taught that two wrongs don't make a right. With that I said stupid or naive.

You seemed to agree with GO!! and that was my premise to disagree with you.

It is all fine for use to sit in and Canada and pass judgement. We, as the rest of the world all have that right. Are you in beleif we should accompany our neighbors in this fight for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis that really in Canada's interest?

How long ago now did  MR. G.W. Bush state "The War is coming to an end". I don't think it would have been wise for Canada to commit to a long drawn out war when we can barely even trust our own government. 

We all know that torture is torture and there are laws that have been written in blood to keep these atrocities reoccuring. Laws don't care that you are angry or that someone "chopped off a guys head". They are there and we follow them. For us to bend our own rules to suit our emotion would leave us to behave exactly like these extremists.

We fight to protect the innocent. To insure that the future is secure for our children.
Extremists fight because they are angry, they fight for no cause but their own personal vendetta.

I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally. Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda.
I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone who didn't follow them economically.

With that little /rant said I believe the Americans involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of torture and should be punished to full extent of the law.

 

[KevinB]

I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally.

Ok one of those  :

Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda.
I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone who didn't follow them economically.

How is pointing out that your a loon doing for your arguement?

With that little /rant said I believe the Americans involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of torture and should be punished to full extent of the law.

Which American's ?

I really curious on your background to arrive at all these sweeping, and in my experience RTFO conclusions.

 

[Infanteer]

I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally.

I'm still looking for that instruction manual to international relations.... :

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally. Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda.
I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone ...

I regard the war in Iraq as ill conceived but since I regard war in that region as preferable to peace in that region I don't quibble.

I believe we have an identifiable enemy: several movements, most of   which share four basic characteristics.   They are, by and large:

"¢ Arabic nationalist - except for the Iranians, of course;

"¢ Extremist - in their views on Arabism and religion;

"¢ Fundamentalist - in their religious and nationalistic views; and

"¢ Islamic.

There seems to be a steady supply of these movements and of recruits for them.

I doubt the supply of recruits or movements will dry up until there are some quite radical changes in societies in that region.   I believe they need something akin to both a reformation and an enlightenment.   By 'they' I mean most of the people in most of the Arab, Middle Eastern, North African and South-West Asian nations.   (I do not believe, in contrast, that Islam, per se needs either of those.   I believe that Islam can adapt, I think we can see successful adaptations of enlightened Islam in East Asia.)

I do not believe that enlightenments come without reformations and I don't believe that either come from books and debates.   I think the Arabs/Middle East (and neighbours) need a couple of generations of bloody internecine wars and revolutions.   I need to emphasize that the enemy is neither Islam nor the Arabs, it is the movements, described above, but these, as Chairman Mao might have said, swim in the sea of their host societies and that is what needs to be reformed and enlightened.

I rather wish President Bush had attacked elsewhere - other than Iraq - but it is a good enough place to stick in the first pick - there will have to be many more before the bull collapses in the dust.

International law can be stretched around almost anything - saying that the America led war in Iraq is illegal is fair enough, unsupported and unsupportable but fair enough.   I'll wait, patiently, for Mme Arbour to haul George W Bush up on charges.   ;D

Edit: grammar

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

"Started illegally".......looks to me like they said and did the same things we did in 39.
If memory serves me right they gave warning and then a declaration of war.......sounds kosher to me.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

"Started illegally".......looks to me like they said and did the same things we did in 39.
If memory serves me right they gave warning and then a declaration of war.......sounds kosher to me.

Not quite.   In 1939 we were responding to an invasion of a sovereign state.   Britain gave Germany an ultimatum beyond which they stated that a state of war would exist between France and the UK, and Germany.   That ultimatum was not met, and consequently Chamberlain had no choice but to declare that a state of war existed.   Canada declared was on the 10th, a week later - but had actually mobilized its military for self defence of vital installations on August 25th.

For his part, Hitler invaded the sovereign state of Poland after a trumped up border incident, and a questionable claim on the free city of Danzig.

The United States acted rather like all the above nations; like Britain in that it announced certain conditions and presented an ultimatum which was not met, but rather like Germany in that it unilaterally (with the help of several allied nations, Canada not among them) invaded a sovereign nation - Iraq - with the announced purpose of deposing the leadership.   Unlike Germany, however, a soveriegn government was eventually installed.   The Germans set up the Government General in Poland and for all intents and purposes treated Poland as another state of the German union.

So you are only partially correct in that they did the same thing 'we' did. 

The ultimate authority and power of the United Nations seems to be the point of contention in whether or not the invasion was "legal" or not.  In the view of the UN, invasion was not yet sanctioned, and the US claimed to have proof that Iraq was violating previous agreements.  In fact, Iraq had indeed violated some earlier agreements, such as the no-fly zones, but what critics tend to focus on are a lack of evidence pointing to possession of weapons of mass destruction.  For their part, the US tells us that WMD were not the reason to go to war.

It's really not anything like 1939 in that sense.

 

[S McKee]

[author=TAS278 link=topic=36533/post-299035#msg299035 date=1132685374]
Here ya have it. When you were a kid you were probably taught that two wrongs don't make a right. With that I said stupid or naive.

Actually my parents abandoned me in the woods when I was an infant, and I was raised by a pack of wolves. So my parents didn't teach me anything. Having said, that I still don't know WTF your talking about.

You seemed to agree with GO!! and that was my premise to disagree with you.

GO stated he doesn't believe in torture either, so what is your "premise" for disagreeing with me.

It is all fine for use to sit in and Canada and pass judgement. We, as the rest of the world all have that right. Are you in beleif we should accompany our neighbors in this fight for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis that really in Canada's interest?

Canada's involvement/non-involvement in the War was not the issue here. The issue was whether or not we believed what happened to the detainees at Abu Ghraib was torture. I believe they were not tortured.

How long ago now did  MR. G.W. Bush state "The War is coming to an end". I don't think it would have been wise for Canada to commit to a long drawn out war when we can barely even trust our own government. 

Your entitled to your opinion. Hey I didn't call you stupid!

We all know that torture is torture and there are laws that have been written in blood to keep these atrocities reoccuring.

What is your definition of "torture" and what are these laws "written in blood"?

Laws don't care that you are angry or that someone "chopped off a guys head". They are there and we follow them. For us to bend our own rules to suit our emotion would leave us to behave exactly like these extremists.

You obviously do not understand the concept of punishment as it relates to the law. If someone has been found guilty of a heinous crime, when he/she is sentenced there is an element of retribution built into the sentence. This is to placate public outrage and instill a sense of justice. The law is not emotionless, we do not live on the planet Vulcan. 

We fight to protect the innocent. To insure that the future is secure for our children.
Extremists fight because they are angry, they fight for no cause but their own personal vendetta.

Again your opinion. See I still haven't called you stupid!

I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally. Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda.
I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone who didn't follow them economically.

Who is being punished?

With that little /rant said I believe the Americans involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of torture and should be punished to full extent of the law.

Wow what a well thought out, logical and well presented argument. You've won me over.  F***king Americans! 

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think he was trying to make the case that the US is punishing Canada "economically" (his words) by a hard stance on Canadian beef and softwood lumber exports into the US, for just two examples.   I think one would be hard pressed to find "evidence" one way or another.   On its own, hard stances on these products are not indicative of vindictiveness.

See the debate here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36564.15/topicseen.html

I'm not attempting to connect any dots here, just clarifying what the orignal poster's claim may have been.  He is free to correct me if necessary.

 

[GO!!!]

Here ya have it. When you were a kid you were probably taught that two wrongs don't make a right. With that I said stupid or naive.

I would substitute and as opposed to or.

You seemed to agree with GO!! and that was my premise to disagree with you.

That's because I'm right. 

It is all fine for use to sit in and Canada and pass judgement. We, as the rest of the world all have that right. Are you in beleif we should accompany our neighbors in this fight for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis that really in Canada's interest?

Well, considering that ours is a petroleum and fossil fuels dependent economy, and it would collapse if the Middle East began diverting oil supplies to China and India, driving up prices here, I would say yes, it is in Canada's interest, whether we are prepared to admit it or not. But that is not the topic of this thread. Left wing ranting belongs here: www.rabble.com

How long ago now did   MR. G.W. Bush state "The War is coming to an end". I don't think it would have been wise for Canada to commit to a long drawn out war when we can barely even trust our own government.  

Once again, not the topic of this thread.

We all know that torture is torture and there are laws that have been written in blood to keep these atrocities reoccuring. Laws don't care that you are angry or that someone "chopped off a guys head". They are there and we follow them. For us to bend our own rules to suit our emotion would leave us to behave exactly like these extremists.

I've never seen anything written in blood. We are not breaking any laws, written in ink, blood, stone or otherwise. We are trying to define torture. Obviously, what "we all know" has some variance.

We fight to protect the innocent. To insure that the future is secure for our children.
Extremists fight because they are angry, they fight for no cause but their own personal vendetta.

You fight when you are told to, because that is what professional soldiers do. No one cares about your children. All of our activities in the military sphere in the last 55 years have been to further Canada's "presitge, power and influence" (see Louis St. Laurent's Grey Hall Lecture). To delude yourself that you are protecting someone or something specific is a fallacy, and smacks of idealism, which has no place in the mind of a professional.

I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally. Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda.
I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone who didn't follow them economically.

With that little /rant said I believe the Americans involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of torture and should be punished to full extent of the law.

Since the Westphalian system of the supremacy of states, and the lack of any universally recognised and enforceable international laws governing warfare, there is, by definition, no "illegal" war. Only what the UN says is illegal (and they never make mistakes  :)

I'm glad you knew, can you shake your crystal ball and tell us where we're going next, and for how long?

How are we being punished?

The American troops involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of mistreatment of prisoners, and even that is iffy, given the standards of PoW treatment that existed when the Geneva Conventions were written. It would take a very "creative" application of the rules to charge them with anything but a 129. (or the US equivalent)

 

[SHF]

You fight when you are told to, because that is what professional soldiers do. No one cares about your children. All of our activities in the military sphere in the last 55 years have been to further Canada's "presitge, power and influence" (see Louis St. Laurent's Grey Hall Lecture). To delude yourself that you are protecting someone or something specific is a fallacy, and smacks of idealism, which has no place in the mind of a professional.

You fight because you're told to and that's what professional soldiers do?   Come on Go, even you know better than that.   Without even going into dozens of anectdotes, historical excerpts, and personal biographies, even I know that we fight for the soldier on our right and left, we fight for our regiments and squadrons.   We don't always fight because we are told to.   At times idealism is all that brings you through the s**tstorm you're in.   Not all serviceman are professionals and if if you look up the word professional, you'll find the soldier does not fit the definiton.  

This is your post.   You originally stated that you saw nothing wrong with roughing up detainees and further provided that the guilty parties were under orders so it was OK.   I grant you that you have since provided some historical facts and current references to law, which by the way, I have benefited as I have learned from all posters who have added facts of military and societal history.   You hide behind sarcasm and you attack those who disagree with you.   Some members join in the sarcasm and seem to relish in other posters' emotional responses.  

You stated (or was it prayer) that you never want to work with me.   My only conclusion can be that you cannot work with anyone who's opinion is different.   Must be a lonely life you lead.   My unsolicited advice is maybe you should lighten up on the attacks and offer the positive as you have displayed occasionally throughout the site.    

Bill

 

[GO!!!]

You fight because you're told to and that's what professional soldiers do?  Come on Go, even you know better than that.  Without even going into dozens of anectdotes, historical excerpts, and personal biographies, even I know that we fight for the soldier on our right and left, we fight for our regiments and squadrons.  We don't always fight because we are told to.  At times idealism is all that brings you through the s**tstorm you're in.  Not all serviceman are professionals and if if you look up the word professional, you'll find the soldier does not fit the definiton. 

I was referring to the reasons militaries are deployed and given missions and tasks. But it applies to individual motivations as well. We are a professional army. We do not perform our tasks in a blind rage or because our friends are with us. We do it with a cool detachment, with the knowledge that the mission can change or be cancelled at the whim of our political masters. Not all servicemen are professionals? Where do you work? What are they then; some sort of disorganised horde, maurauding in a politically convenient manner?

This is your post.  You originally stated that you saw nothing wrong with roughing up detainees and further provided that the guilty parties were under orders so it was OK.  I grant you that you have since provided some historical facts and current references to law, which by the way, I have benefited as I have learned from all posters who have added facts of military and societal history.  You hide behind sarcasm and you attack those who disagree with you.  Some members join in the sarcasm and seem to relish in other posters' emotional responses. 

Sarcasm is a method of amplification of a point, and often also serves to demonstrate the fallacy of the inappropriate concept that it is targeting.

You stated (or was it prayer) that you never want to work with me.  My only conclusion can be that you cannot work with anyone who's opinion is different.  Must be a lonely life you lead.  My unsolicited advice is maybe you should lighten up on the attacks and offer the positive as you have displayed occasionally throughout the site.   

I work quite successfully with many professionals whose opinions diverge significantly from my own, but they all agree on a few critical points, one of which is that we are always "right" if we all come home alive. Your post on page 2 implies that "treating our fellow human beings properly" should take precedence over this.

You are wrong. We can never allow the idea to even be entertained that the citizens of any other nation are worth saving more than our own soldiers. To do this is to cheapen our lives, which we all put on the line in pursuit of our duties. That the ego and pride of a few young terrorists can be bruised to save the lives of coalition troops is a non issue for me.

That you imply that our counterparts in Iraq should risk more casualties by NOT interrogating these men is a serious crisis of leadership.

 

[FastEddy]

I work quite successfully with many professionals whose opinions diverge significantly from my own, but they all agree on a few critical points, one of which is that we are always "right" if we all come home alive. Your post on page 2 implies that "treating our fellow human beings properly" should take precedence over this.

You are wrong. We can never allow the idea to even be entertained that the citizens of any other nation are worth saving more than our own soldiers. To do this is to cheapen our lives, which we all put on the line in pursuit of our duties. That the ego and pride of a few young terrorists can be bruised to save the lives of coalition troops is a non issue for me.

That you imply that our counterparts in Iraq should risk more casualties by NOT interrogating these men is a serious crisis of leadership.

SHF old Chap ! with regard to the above two statements, any body who does not share those sentiments, I would  also have seriously  doubts about working with or fighting along side.

The reasons you give for why Soldiers fight seems a bit assbackwards, The Regiment, etc. etc., can only be accredited to the degree and efficiency of their actions and efforts. Not the reasons they are ordered into combat. The last time I checked, they were ordered to do so. The thought of imminent death or mutilation is not a contributing inducement to do so, a Soldiers immediate response to orders is acquired through Training, Conditioning and DISCIPLINE, therefore "GO" would be quite correct in his presumptions of why they fight.