Speaking of Geneva Conventions <sigh>

on CBS 60 Minutes II, and tonight on most evening news shows. So while the story may be old, Del, it now has new (and more compelling) "legs." I frankly hadn't heard of it before.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

The thing that amazes me is how few of them there were and still had time for such shenanigans. The trick with the guy on the box was a bit humorous though.

James, I disagree, it didn't find it neither shenanigans nor humorous. I'd say "burn" the soldiers who did it.
Don't "lick your chops", Dave K., trying to put it onto Bush as a political ploy in a "trash the Republicans" plan of attack is bull stuff.

He wasn't going to be electrocuted if he got off the box, he just thought he would be. I wasn't there, so don't know what those particular soldiers were facing in trying to control a prison that was obviously understaffed. I don't agree with their tactics, especially the degrading methods. It's hard however seeing or knowing your fellow soldiers were killed and their bodies drug through the streets by some of the very same people, and not feel an urge to make someone pay for it. No, what they did was wrong, but the least harmful thing was the guy on the box.

Let's see...

Humiliated, blinded by a hood, threatened with electrocution by armed foreign soldiers who hold the power of life and death in their hands as they laugh at you and mock you, standing on a box in the same prison that had been used for decades for exactly this same purpose by a brutally cruel and sadistic dictator.

Didn't that happen to us all as teens?

Let's not pass this off too lightly, James. Those responsible should be severely punished. Years in prison would be a good start.

Dan

Back in 60's when FFA is all boys, told to strip down, shown the log you must walk blindfolded to the end, a clip placed on the nose so nothing will taste correctly, at the end of the log given olives to eat, told they are "hog nuts", given unsweetened lemonaide to drink being told it is "hog piss", then the finale is a diluted spray of Heet on the privates, whereupon the initiate jerks off the blindfold and runs to the nearest water tap, which happens to be outside, where waiting are the local girls tipped off to the upcoming initiation. Every year, for years, since everyone keeps the secret. I hear they don't do that one anymore.

Those kids showed up voluntarily. They could leave any time they wanted to. They knew their tormentors were just having sick fun. They knew their lives were not in danger.

How is that like what we did to the Iraqis?

Dan

Hi, James.

They discussed it in detail on the Today Show this morning. There were apparently "civilian contractors" acting as interrogators, and they were largely responsible for the mistreatment. I find it appalling, reservists or not, that the guards had never been trained on the Geneva conventions. You KNOW the outrage that would have occurred in this country had these been pictures of American soldiers captured by partisans and humiliated in this fashion: "Barbarians!" "Savages!" Al Jazeera is showing these pictures -- imagine how they're playing in the Muslim world.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

.

They need training to know that you shouldn't attach wires to a man's genitals?

They need training to know that you don't make prisoners simulate sex acts with each other?

They need training to know that you don't' make prisoners hit each other?

Not good enough, James. Not even close.

Dan

but did they suffer any real physical abuse? What do you think it means to get prisoners to "cooperate" with you, the enenmy? What do you think a POW camp is, a good excuse to surrender and get out of a war for a while?

It's not torture if our forces only humiliate the helpless prisoners and not kill them?

It's not inhuman if our forces only make the helpless prisoners 'think' they'll be electrocuted?

It's kinda sick that you see no wrong in what they've done.

Dan

because the 6 under investigation are reserve Military Police personnel, NOT "civilian contractors".

You do seem to be enjoying this rather than recognizing that is is actually simply an example of a small number of soldiers who in no way are representative of the rest of the forces.

The point, Ed, is wondering why the contractors (or perhaps CIA -- it's confused) aren't under investigation! My guess is they somehow precipitated the guards' behavior -- and that's what at least one guard claims (though obviously they have an ulterior motive to say that).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

as the investigation must start somewhere and if it points to interrogator culpability it will go that way.

There are MANY elements of EVERY investigation that, of necessity to the completeness of the investigation, are NOT and MUST NOT BE made public knowledge.

Have you ever been involved in any investigations? Don't say no too quickly because, as an educator/academic working in a public institution you most likely have been but are simply unaware of it as there was no "need to know". Had something negative/derogatory turned up you can "bet your booties" that elements of the investigation would have become more public.

The POINT however is that those under investigation are NOT "civilian contractors" as you indicated the "Today Show" mentioned, they are all either members of the reserves, CIA, NSA, or MPI/CID--nary a "civilian contractor" in the bunch.

for showing some flag-draped coffins and we don't hear anything about these contractors.

Whether the reservists knew about Geneva rules or not, the contractors that were in charge of interrogation should have.

What those soldiers were doing was wrong. Period.

You don't need an advanced degree in international military law to know that you should hook wires to a man's genitals.

Wrong.

Dan

.

NT

Dave, I saw it. Want to know my thoughts when I saw it? Brace yourself, it may not be what you would predict, having classified me as a Conservative "baddie", a veteran no less.
I say court-martial them, and if found guilty, throw the book at them HARD. Note: I think that it's probably "open and shut", but not grinding a specially honed political ax, I had to say "if found guilty", proper proceedure, and all that.
I can't help but mention that this is shockingly bad, but before you proceed, consider that it happened in the U.S. and unlike the Hanoi Hilton or other shocking prisoner treatment after that, When the U.S. identified and started to deal with it, they did it so the whole world could see.
Yeah, I know the line of a now defunct political movement from the 1970's, the "other country" hid the torture. Even after ther fact got out, they denied it. Here, it was revealed, it was acted upon on and the trial will be on the stage of the world, presented, and not covered up. See the difference?

Hi J,

I haven't seen any of this that has been on TV, and I
don't recall exactly when I first became aware of this
situation, but it was around Nov '03 I think.

This is nothing less than criminal. Particularly since
these military personnel were/are military police. I think
it safe to assume the follow-up investigation has been
thorough.

From my 'roving around' I have found no one in the military,
particularly those in the law enforcement field, the least
sympathetic for their fellow soldiers, quite the opposite.

Hi, Del.

I also think this shows the ultimate effects of thinking of the enemy as "subhumans" -- when given the opportunity, you tend to treat them that way. This is the reason that the "r-word" is no longer allowed here -- the mindset is dangerous.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

IMO sends out two messages - being 1, how horrendous this is to the right-minded, and 2, the rogue-element will say "if you do it, don't get caught on film". As of the latter, earlier reports were not seemingly able to be substantiated having no photos in support. Not so good, either way.

Regards
Mo

And the General was not "relieved" she was rotated on schedule but is involved in an article 32 to determine whether she should be held responsible. This is NORMAL.

The 6 were reservists who should indeed be held liable for their actions because for once, whoever told you that the treatment was against the Conventions, they were actually correct.

The recent release of the pictures was what apparently suddenly made this "newsworthy" although the investigation was mentioned in several papers around the March 20 timeframe.

if I were allowed to set her punishment she would be demoted one rank and booted with less than honorable discharge

what she allowed in her command will cost us many more lives in a war many of us believe we should not be in

didn't bother reading because nothing was said about a reprimand.

If you do not understand how the Military Justice System works I can point you to the UCMJ.

Assuming you have EVER been in ANY type of indirect supervisory position can you HONESTLY say that you were fully aware of every action of those subordinate to you? I doubt it greatly--even parents cannot make that claim.

fortunate for whom? the derelict general or the dead soldiers who are sure to come due to her incompetence which has inflamed their world even more than they already were?

you said is involved in an article 32 to determine whether she should be held responsible and i figured under the UCMJ it would be a letter of reprimand

if you know more than this tell us

O.K., Darrin. An Article 32 is not a letter of reprimand. If an officer gets an Article 32, it's almost always the end of their career. This is why an officer is faced by the poissibility of an Article 32, they have the right to demand a full court-martial. Demand, not request.