few bad apples unlikely; entire bunch rots

[poopyhead]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/

Originally Posted by MSNC

By Campbell Brown
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:06 p.m.*ET May*20, 2004

BAGHDAD - With attention focused on the seven soldiers charged with abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. military and intelligence officials familiar with the situation tell NBC News the Army’s elite Delta Force is now the subject of a Pentagon inspector general investigation into abuse against detainees.

The target is a top-secret site near Baghdad’s airport. The battlefield interrogation facility known as the “BIF” is pictured in satellite photos.

According to two top U.S. government sources, it is the scene of the most egregious violations of the Geneva Conventions in all of Iraq’s prisons. A place where the normal rules of interrogation don’t apply, Delta Force’s BIF only holds Iraqi insurgents and suspected terrorists — but not the most wanted among Saddam’s lieutenants pictured on the deck of cards.

These sources say the prisoners there are hooded from the moment they are captured. They are kept in tiny dark cells. And in the BIF’s six interrogation rooms, Delta Force soldiers routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he’s drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation

[Neserk]

violence begets violence... it is not surprising when those who have been abused and have had that abuse justified and even praised are going to turn around and pass it along.

[Frohickey]

Originally Posted by Neserk

violence begets violence... it is not surprising when those who have been abused and have had that abuse justified and even praised are going to turn around and pass it along.

Huh? What does that have to do with the pMSNBC article?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

Huh? What does that have to do with the pMSNBC article?

I think the point is that if you train soldiers with brutality, after a while that's all they know. The level of inhumanity which is seen to be acceptable in these places surely tells you SOMETHING?

[Neserk]

Originally Posted by skunk

I think the point is that if you train soldiers with brutality, after a while that's all they know.

Exactly.

[zimv20]

and the torture bus rolls on...

[Frohickey]

Originally Posted by skunk

I think the point is that if you train soldiers with brutality, after a while that's all they know. The level of inhumanity which is seen to be acceptable in these places surely tells you SOMETHING?

History is replete with long lost and dead civilizations that were not brutal when it came to war and protecting its own interests.

You do not win wars and survive by hoping that your enemy would *NOT* be brutal. Therein lies the problem with Neserk's analysis of the situation.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

History is replete with long lost and dead civilizations that were not brutal when it came to war and protecting its own interests.

You do not win wars and survive by hoping that your enemy would *NOT* be brutal. Therein lies the problem with Neserk's analysis of the situation.

OK, then how about not letting average soldiers, with little to no training in the handling of prisoners and interrogation, handle detainees and other POWs? How about training the people who do handle the prisoners in the Geneva convention, proper interrogation techniques and allow the process to be overseen to prevent human right's abuses?

If we are prosecuting a war, I have no problem with brutality on the battlefield. But brutality should not extend into the prisons we are using to hold POWs. The average soldier, who is trained only in combat and army procedure, should not have access to the prisoners.

Any disagreements with that statement?

Taft

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

History is replete with long lost and dead civilizations that were not brutal when it came to war and protecting its own interests.

You do not win wars and survive by hoping that your enemy would *NOT* be brutal. Therein lies the problem with Neserk's analysis of the situation.

This is where we differ. Well, one place among many, probably. You seem to have a "Thousand Year Reich" delusion (I'm not imputing any Nazi thinking here). Empires come and go. More brutality is not the answer. Your way is not necessarily the best. Be gracious in decline, not vicious.

[takao]

Originally Posted by Taft

OK, then how about not letting average soldiers, with little to no training in the handling of prisoners and interrogation, handle detainees and other POWs? How about training the people who do handle the prisoners in the Geneva convention, proper interrogation techniques and allow the process to be overseen to prevent human right's abuses?

i have to agree with your comments but the quite more disturbing thing is that 2 of the soldiers which now face punishment for prisoner abuse _had_ already been working as prison guards in america before they joined the army.....

[Taft]

Originally Posted by takao

i have to agree with your comments but the quite more disturbing thing is that 2 of the soldiers which now face punishment for prisoner abuse _had_ already been working as prison guards in america before they joined the army.....

I hadn't heard that. Well, I guess that just adds to the case for greater oversight of military prisons.

Taft

[Frohickey]

If I remember correctly, Military Police units and Infantry units are among the first to be activated during a conflict. This is what happened during the 1st Gulf War. I remembered coworkers being activated, before I had to finally go to active duty.

Infantry units to do the fighting, and MP units to do the prisoner handling. Of course, there are other support units to go along, such as Water Purification units, Maintenance units, etc.

Most of the cops that I knew were also doing MP or Infantry duties in the National Guard or Reserve. Not saying that all MPs are civilian cops. But civilian cops usually know how to deal with prisoners/suspects since that is what they do in their regular jobs.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

If I remember correctly, Military Police units and Infantry units are among the first to be activated during a conflict. This is what happened during the 1st Gulf War. I remembered coworkers being activated, before I had to finally go to active duty.

Infantry units to do the fighting, and MP units to do the prisoner handling. Of course, there are other support units to go along, such as Water Purification units, Maintenance units, etc.

Most of the cops that I knew were also doing MP or Infantry duties in the National Guard or Reserve. Not saying that all MPs are civilian cops. But civilian cops usually know how to deal with prisoners/suspects since that is what they do in their regular jobs.

That does make sense. Nonetheless, the "assignment of military duty by civilian job held" is not exactly an assurance of proper training and behavior, is it? Also, if I'm not mistaken, many (all?) of the soldiers implicated in the abuse scandle are NOT MPs. So obviously the MPs are not the only ones handling the POWs in Iraq.

I think the armed forces could stand a review of how assignments to military prisons are made, how those soldiers assigned to the prisons are trained, and what procedures are in place to prevent human rights abuses.

Taft

[Frohickey]

Originally Posted by Taft

That does make sense. Nonetheless, the "assignment of military duty by civilian job held" is not exactly an assurance of proper training and behavior, is it? Also, if I'm not mistaken, many (all?) of the soldiers implicated in the abuse scandle are NOT MPs. So obviously the MPs are not the only ones handling the POWs in Iraq.

I think the armed forces could stand a review of how assignments to military prisons are made, how those soldiers assigned to the prisons are trained, and what procedures are in place to prevent human rights abuses.

Taft

Never said it was. And being a civilian cop does not mean you are a paragon of law and order either. Its just a data point that I would like to present here. That the predisposition makes it 'less likely'.

One thing that I did notice was that not many of the police supervisory positions were held by drilling reservists or National Guardsman. These would be the watch commanders, police lieutenants and police captains. These would be the people responsible for the proper functioning of the police station and the precinct.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

One thing that I did notice was that not many of the police supervisory positions were held by drilling reservists or National Guardsman. These would be the watch commanders, police lieutenants and police captains. These would be the people responsible for the proper functioning of the police station and the precinct.

In essence, then, you are saying that the lack of preparedness was both systemic and avoidable. This is exactly why it was ESSENTIAL to enlist the UN to help out. But your control-freak of a Defence Secretary thought he could wing it. Like on the peace-keeping front. Co-operation is everything. Remember Sesame Street?

[numediaman]

U.S. admits to secret interrogation site in Baghdad

Friday, May 21, 2004 Posted: 6:37 PM EDT (2237 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- As hundreds of detainees were released from Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, a senior U.S. official Friday confirmed that a previously undisclosed U.S. military interrogation facility at or near Baghdad International Airport does indeed exist.

The official said the site was run in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and all detainees were afforded their rights under that international document.

"That's not to say somebody didn't get their head dunked in the water," he said . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

"head dunked in the water" -- ha, ha, ha. Boy, those guys really crack me up.

In other news:

Soldier Who Failed to Return to Iraq Is Convicted of Desertion
By MARIA NEWMAN

Published: May 21, 2004

Florida National Guard sergeant who failed to return to his unit in Iraq after a leave home, saying he no longer believed in the war, was found guilty today of desertion by a military jury in Fort Stewart, Ga., a military official said.

Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia was found guilty of one charge of desertion by a jury of four officers and four enlisted soldiers today, said Dina McKain, a public affairs officer at Fort Stewart.

He faces up to a year in prison, and Ms. McKain said he will be sentenced later today after a hearing in which character witnesses are testifying on his behalf.

Sergeant Mejia, 28, served six months in Iraq, went home to Miami on a two-week furlough in October, and failed to return to his unit when it ended.

In March, he turned himself in to military authorities in Boston, where he had been in hiding, and said he wanted to be considered a conscientious objector. Peace activists have taken up his cause.

I feel sorry for the kid. But, of course, you can't desert and not expect the military to come after you. Afterall, that's why there is Canada.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by numediaman

a senior U.S. official Friday confirmed that a previously undisclosed U.S. military interrogation facility at or near Baghdad International Airport does indeed exist.

The official said the site was run in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and all detainees were afforded their rights under that international document.

I'll bet the ICRC is having a good laugh at that one. How could it be secret and also within the GC? Impossible. This bunch are taking the piss.

[Frohickey]

Originally Posted by skunk

In essence, then, you are saying that the lack of preparedness was both systemic and avoidable. This is exactly why it was ESSENTIAL to enlist the UN to help out. But your control-freak of a Defence Secretary thought he could wing it. Like on the peace-keeping front. Co-operation is everything. Remember Sesame Street?

What makes you think asking for the help of the UN would have changed anything? We already have the help of the British, Japanese, and others that were already willing to help out.

The UN gets its resources from member nations. If the member nations do not want to help, they will not send their help. So, what is gained?

[Frohickey]

Originally Posted by numediaman

I feel sorry for the kid. But, of course, you can't desert and not expect the military to come after you. Afterall, that's why there is Canada.

Used to be that desertion in time of war is grounds for immediate firing squad.

Execution by firing squad

The method is also the supreme punishment employed by courts martial for crimes such as desertion such as in the execution of Private Eddie Slovik by the U.S. Army in 1945 (Slovik was the first US soldier executed for desertion since the Civil War).

Hmm... desertion is not at all uncommon, even WW2!

21049 soldiers were sentenced for desertion during WWII, 49 to death, but only Slovik's death sentence was carried out.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

Used to be that desertion in time of war is grounds for immediate firing squad.

Yes, but is this a time of war?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

What makes you think asking for the help of the UN would have changed anything? We already have the help of the British, Japanese, and others that were already willing to help out.

The UN gets its resources from member nations. If the member nations do not want to help, they will not send their help. So, what is gained?

Moral cover.

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

What makes you think asking for the help of the UN would have changed anything? [...] So, what is gained?

how about accountability?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

So, what is gained?

Legitimacy.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

So, what is gained?

Troops.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Frohickey

So, what is gained?

Friends.