GOI: I've copied and pasted the most important parts of this article but it's still long but I know you'll want to read the whole thing. Just a warning though: You'll be pissed as hell at the end.
WASHINGTON - As a military jury in Texas considers the fate of Lynndie England, the low-ranking reservist pictured in the notorious photos of the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in late 2003, two sergeants and a captain in one of the U.S. Army's most decorated combat units have come forward with accounts of routine, systematic and often severe beatings committed against detainees at a base near Fallujah from 2003 through 2004.
According to their testimony, featured in a new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), beatings and other forms of torture were often either ordered or approved by superior officers and took place on virtually a daily basis. The soldiers, all of whom had also been deployed to Afghanistan before coming to Iraq, testified that the same techniques were used in both countries.
The beatings were so severe that they resulted in broken bones "every other week" at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Mercury, where detainees would ordinarily be held for three or four days before being transferred to Abu Ghraib. In one case, an Army cook broke the leg of a detainee with a metal baseball bat, according to one of the sergeants quoted in the report, entitled "Leadership Failure".
The three -- all active-duty members of the 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the Army 82nd Airborne Division -- said that they had repeatedly sought guidance up the chain of command on the applicability of the Geneva Conventions or other rules to regarding the appropriate treatment of detainees in Iraq, but to no avail.
The captain, referred to as "Officer C" in the report, said he had made persistent efforts over 17 months to raise concerns about the abuses and obtain clearer rules about the treatment of detainees but was consistently told by higher-ups to ignore abuses and to "consider your career".
Their effort has so far been frustrated by opposition from the George W. Bush administration, notably Vice President Dick Cheney, who has personally lobbied against the provision, and the Republican leadership in Congress.
Suspected insurgents, according to the testimonies, were called PUCs, for "Persons Under Control," to distinguish them from prisoners of war, or POWs, a practice that first began in Afghanistan after the Pentagon announced that it did not consider detainees captured there subject to the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions for POWs.
PUCs were held in tents at FOB Mercury that were surrounded by concertina wire and were routinely subjected to abusive techniques that included "smoking", which was normally ordered by Military Intelligence before interrogations and involved 12 to 24 hours of stress positions, sleep or liquid deprivation, and physical exercises sometimes to the point of unconsciousness, and "f**king", which referred to beating or torturing detainees severely.
Front-line and other soldiers were invited to take part in both practices, according to the report, while, if the detainees were injured as a result of the abuse, a physicians' assistant would administer an analgesic and sign off on a report stating that the injury took place during capture.
The beatings and other abuses served mainly to relieve stress, according to the three soldiers. "On their day off people would show up all the time," said one sergeant. "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."
"Leadership failed to provide clear guidance so we just developed it," said one of the sergeants. "They wanted intel (intelligence). As long as no PUCs came up dead it happened. We heard rumours of PUCs dying so we were careful. We kept it to broken arms and legs and shit (like that)."
The administration has strongly resisted calls by HRW and other rights groups, as well as Democrats and some Republicans, for the appointment of independent bipartisan commission to carry out a comprehensive investigation of detainee abuses, including the responsibility, if any, of senior military officers and government officials.
Civilians believed to have been Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers had their own interrogation facilities at the base and at another known as FOB Tiger close to the Syrian border. They sometimes removed prisoners -- and all their records -- from the bases, apparently to eliminate evidence of their having been held there.
GOI: Makes you sick, huh?
---End of Transmission---
13 comments:
GOI:
Hey, instead of being a masochist, try finding a more credible source than "Human Rights Watch." I know liberals are happy when they're pissed off at America generally and G. Bush particularly. The Islamic Jihadists will take note of your appeasement of Allah's anger. Makes their job so much easier.
Underground Logician:
First of all, thank-you for reading my blog.
However, I must dispute what you say.
It's strange that you don't believe "Human Rights Watch." There job is to find human right's abuses and when they find them they report on them. It just so happens that in this case it is Americans who are to blame and you want to stick your head in the sand?? Besides HRW there are several individual, soldier witnesses.
I am upset with America when I see America going on the wrong track. I dislike Bush so much because he IS the worst President EVER. That is hard to dispute.
"The Islamnic Jihadists will take note of your appeasement of Allah's anger. Makes their job so much easier."
So now you're accusing me of supporting terrorism?? That is such the lowest denominator for conservatives.
Besides, Bush's War in Iraq has created MORE terrorists then had we not invaded Iraq. Iraq is now a training ground for terrorists.
I'm going to stop now because (let's face it) you are within that blind, 30% who still support this President. No matter what happens you loyalists will seem to always support Bush.
I loved Clinton (and still do) but I did not support him when I found out he lied about Monica but still, "No one died when Clinton lied." And I'd much rather have a President who lies about a blowjob then a President who lies about WMD's and gets us into a terrible war.
Obviously, you haven't read much of my blog because if you had you would know that I am FOR sticking it out in Iraq because "we broke it and now we have to fix it."
James, James, James,
You need at least a few more ridiculous strawmen in your argument. It's far too coherent. You should say something about how you understand that it's easier to bury your head in the sand, and how Republicans don't care about "a bunch of towel-heads anyway". This rational discourse causes nothing but trouble!
Just kidding. Great reply. Excuse me, I have to get back to hating Baseball, Freedom, and Apple Pie. It's a full-time job, you know.
Crimnos:
Yeah, I know. Defending victims of human right's abuses is such a terrible activity to be engaged in.
How dare I hate the country that I love so much that I want it to be free from the abuse and terror that the very terrorists we are fighting are engaged in.
How dare I believe that THIS behavior would be the thing that fueled the terrorists and not my wanting to stop such behavior.
Well I think it's obvious, if people didn't know about the torture, then it would be A-okay! It's only knowledge that makes "those people" hate us.
Appeasing envy is supporting terrorism? That's a new definition. No, what I'm saying is that cowardice serves the terrorists, even though those that appease hate what terrorists do. For example, when I hear those that call the terrorist networks in Iraq freedom fighters, this appeasment lingo really emboldens the terrorists and whittles away at the morale of our military. This kind of B.S. would not have been tolerated back in WWII, though I wouldn't be surprised if it did occur back then. Culturally, we would have found it reprehensible. Now, it is very trendy to slam America or the military.
So, in essence, your response argues besides the point. You have made a stupid strawman from my argument and have quite successfully defeated it. But, James, I'm still here.
UL:
I'm glad you're still here. I was debating you not trying to destroy you.
"Appeasing envy is supporting terrorism?" Please explain. I unfortunately have not had the finanicial means to pursue a Phd therefore I do not undertand "big words."
So now it's cowardice to defend victims of human right's abuses??
Also, I do not call Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters."
As for the morale of the military, maybe their Commander-in-Chief should not have started a war on false pretenses. Maybe then our military would not feel that they do not know why they are fighting in Iraq anymore.
Besides, I do not paint the military with a broad brush and accuse them all of "human rights abuses." Only those that are found guilty in this investigation. I fully support the military (my brother-in-law served in Iraq and I am proud of his service to this country. For what it's worth, he is now a "Green.")
I do not and can not, however, support an administration that sends OUR (yes, mine too) into based on false pretenses.
By the way (it probably doesn't mean anything to you and your arguement in calling me a terrorist and a coward) but I support out efforts in Afghanistan.
Have you heard how things are going over there?? If not, scan down a bit on my blog and read how the elections went.
UNDERGROUND LOGICIAN:
You told GOI, that he should "try finding a more credible source than Human Rights Watch."
Although I (and most people working in human rights and government) find HRW to be a highly credible source, you for some reason don't.
So, let me direct you to one that you might find credible: The US government, the Pentagon, the US Army. Do any of these sound credible to you? Yes, well good. Then we can agree: The accounts of abuse as 'routine' and 'severe' are entirely credible.
First of all, Captain Ian Fishback has made the same accusations about the unit that HRW is talking about to McCain and others.
Second, last March the Pentagon released a report on detainee abuse that confirms such abuse was systematic. It, much to many soldiers' skepticism, blames that abuse on lower-level leaders rather than higher-ups. But it nevertheless asserts the same conclusion that prisoners have been systematically abused and sometimes tortured in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
So, I don't get it. If you support our military, then why don't you support what they claim to be the truth as well?
-Blake
Touche, Blake!
I'll look into into it, my friend. I'm not afraid of the truth...it's rhetoric that lacks substance that I fear. Also, HRW does have an extreme left agenda. This does not lend credance to an inductive reasoning approach. I'm willing to look at it from several angles. If the military confirms what HRW states, and they have the most to lose by confirming it, then it's probably legitimate. So be it.
With all the anti-Bush rhetoric, I'm a bit media weary, if you know what I mean. The conclusions often drawn are a direct attack at the president. Case in point is the Katrina issue. Bush was too slow, he was playing his guitar like Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned. Then, when he goes down to Texas in anticipation of hurricane Rita, smart-ass David Gregory continually asks "stuck on stupid" questions like if he thinks he'll be in the way of Rita preparations. In a hate Bush milieu, the president is damned either way, which is precisely the liberal left's game plan.
Hi UL,
It's me, Isabella.
No. It is not a "hate Bush milieu. We just recognize cynicism when we see it. Bush was disengaged during the Katrina disaster. How many days did it take him to pay attention to the destruction of an American city and the deaths of its poor and helpless citizens? How many? It was too little and too late.
"You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie." Says Bush while thousands of poor and helpless people are dying???? Too little and too late.
Face it. Katrina showed the utter lack of engagement of this rich American obsessed administration. Bush's constituency: "The Haves and the Have Mores."
I don't understand how you, as someone who studies the gospels of Jesus Christ, can make excuses for this heartless person who pretends to care for those who are the most helpless. "The Haves and the Have Mores?" Can you imagine Jesus Christ saying something as stupid as that?
You have to come to terms with the fact that George Bush is an incompetent, over-privileged, pampered, rich boy who never had to earn anything in his life, or who has ever accomplished anything of value in his life.
It's really tiresome to hear the Right continue to make excuses for this failure and embarrassement to America.
In a hate Bush milieu, the president is damned either way, which is precisely the liberal left's game plan.
Isabella, dear!
How are ya? Hope you're well.
*LOL* Well, you sure know how to mix it up!
Listen, you have made many unsupported assertions about Bush. I hope you don't expect me to keep sitting on my assertion and let you get away with it, do you?
As someone who studies the gospels of Jesus Christ, and is a Catholic like you (sorry, sweetie, once you're baptised, you can never get away. Moooohoooohahhahaha) I recognize when someone is a disciple of Jesus or not. You think I consider Bush a saint? Come on! I don't know the man personally. I see his politics, I can see he is a politician, I see him having a political party to maintain. My eyes are wide open. I also see politicking on the other side as well. I see this Katrina stuff stinking to high heaven with political opportunism. I hate it. I don't watch the news anymore, I'm compassion weary; if I see another clip of Danny Glover or Calypso-Harry, I will scream.
Yes, it is a hate Bush milieu. It is a hate Bush media. It's a hate Bush socialist left. These people are "stuck on stupid" and it's painful to watch.
Apart from this, how's life?
These are the enemy. They have information, we need the information. We do what we need to do to get the information. This is nothing new. Are you upset that we mistreated the poor poor nazi prisoners during WWII. This is war. Whats the big deal.
Comrade:
The big deal is that we need boundaries to abide by for getting that information and "some" in the miliarty have gone over those boundaries. They need to be punished.
That being said, the biggest reason that we do not torture is because we are to be the example in the world as the only Superpower left. We are to act like the "shining beacon on the hill" as Ronald Reagan said.
Also, in torturing these Iraqi's we give ammo to the other insurgents to recruit other terrorists. As well as put our own troops in danger of being treated in a similar way or worse.
If we tortured Nazi's during WWII then that too was wrong. It is never o.k. to torture.
Yes, this is war but even in war you need to have rules and regulations that govern the behavior of our military.
Post a Comment