Re: MERGED - Prisoner Abuse
 

As these soldiers are in a position of authority in this case, I don't think booting them out of the Army is sufficient punishment.

Re: Prisoner Abuse
 

Not at all....I have made the clear differentiation between inteligence and brutality. Today's report seems to have little to do with the former. Which is why I was saying that in some instances this kind of behaviour may have a place. Do we really know this wasn't the case? It doesn't look like the work of intel officers, but then now the footage has been released the Coalition are hardly likely to admit it was are they?

Re: Prisoner Abuse
 

Read my post again - you are preaching to the converted, as it were. Apart from the electrocution picture, they are all pictures which are about humiliation as opposed to getting information out of someone. Humiliation can be used to interrogate someone, but extremely rarely. It is very much a long term process (and the coalition need information about insurgents now, not in a few weeks). Humiliation tends to be used to condition prisoners, rather than extracting information.

I mean. If I was captured, and you wrote a rude word on me. I would not care. Ask me to feign/even have sex with someone/anyone/everyone, it's not the end of the world. I would be humiliated, but it wouldn't make me reveal information. However tie me to a chair hold a knife 2 inches from my eye and say I have 5 seconds to start talking, or else..., and i'll pretty much start talking. Successfully interrogating a suspect means threatening them with some measure of physical pain, not just some painless humiliating/degrading act.

These Iraqis probably did undergo some real interrogation at some point, but I believe the pictures were just for 'fun'.

Re: Prisoner Abuse
 

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked: I sincerely hope they never let you into any army. Have you never heard of the Geneva Convention or do you just don't care?

Re: Prisoner Abuse
 

As I've asked before, describe a situation in which this behaviour would have a legitimate purpose? Even if they were intelligence officers (and that's an extremely big if), what would be the point in taking the photographs of the soldiers having a laugh about it? Again, even if they were intelligence officers who had been "forced" to take morally ambiguous action, the fact that they were taking the photographs should see them facing a court martial.

Even with my legendary liberal attitudes I would concede that there could be a situation in which torture could be justified, for instance if the torture of one person would prevent the detonation of a terrorist nuclear device. Howver, I think in this instance the photographs demonstrably prove that this is not the case, and even if it were, the taking of the photographs in that manner is entirely indefensible.

Re: Prisoner Abuse
 

Not to mention extremely stupid, as it (hopefully) will get them kicked out of the army...

Re: MERGED - Prisoner Abuse
 

There are times in my opinion during war when it becomes necessary to extract information and i would doubt very much that any goverment stricktly abides by the geneva convention in these situations.

However, what we have here is not one of these situations, it is, to put it simply, a bunch of stupid soldiers taking a few snap shots for their mates and having a big laugh at the expense of the enemy's dignity.

I sincerely hope this sort of behaviour is not common practice.

Its utterley disgusting and there is no excuse for it. The people involved should be court marshalled and thrown out of the Army without question.

Bravo America - what a great example for us all. :(

Re: Prisoner Abuse
 

check out listing from amnesty international's reports on britain check out britians convictions in international courts for tourtue prisioner, belive m8 we are far from inoccent i spent 26 years watching things like this going on and many thing much worse

Re: Prisoner Abuse
 

Well I think I have already answered you there. But in case my views are not crystal clear, I'll spell them out again:

I don't neccesarily agree with it. I wouldn't want it to happen to me. I wouldn't want to do it to someone else. I'm not saying it's right.

I am saying that it happens. I am saying that it can produce results (whether you like it or not), and turning the question around one should ask what other methods of interrogation should be used when your detainee refuses to give you what could be life-saving information?

Well I guess in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, we have to accept that what we're told is correct, and if so, then I think everyone is in agreement here, that it is wholly wrong, illegal and immoral.

However, I fel sure that if someone had discovered military iteligence interrogating Iraqis in this way, would the coalition not play down the discovery by telling us that they were just a bunch of stupid soldiers?

You're right....we have committed some heinous crimes as a country over the years, and it's only now that we've got better at making sure the world outside doesn't find out, everyone thinks we're cleaner than clean.

If you ever found yourself being interrogated (without your arrest being public knowledge) by some of the more secret ends of our secret services, you may well find yourself with an electrode somewhere you didn't want it.

And let's not forget, Amercia still has the death penalty in many states - isn't that the ultimate abuse?

Re: Prisoner Abuse
 

Mate, there are 2 sides to it. There is the facade that the Army has to put up, that they obey the Geneva Convention guidelines (which it does as much as it can do), and there is the hidden side in which they do what they have to do to get the job done. If the US army capture an insurgent, who knows where there is a planned attack on marines, or civillians, lives depend on the interrogrators getting that information out of him. Waiting it out is not an option, nor is asking them nicely. Add to that the emotion an interrogator might feel, if say, one of his comrades was killed by an insurgent, or might be if the insurgency continues. Thankfully i'm not part of an army, so I never have to be in that kind of position, but it leads us back to the moral argument we we're having a little while ago. How far can/should someone go to save a life. I do care actually, because this kind of thing is why the US aren't winning hearts and minds like the British would. All responses to a threat should be measured.

It is not very nice, but it's the way the world goes round.

Of course this is different anyway (as I believe), because I don't think it is interrogation, but just needless 'humour' at the Iraqi's expense, and I hope the US soldiers get what's coming to them.

Re: Prisoner Abuse
 

Yeah, I suppose you're right. It just looked at little harsh when I first read it. One of the reasons why I wouldn't want to serve in the army I suppose...

Hearts and minds
 

As a side discussion what do you think the British are doing different (maybe more successfully) to win the hearts and minds.

Or did US just get the troublemaking areas?

Re: MERGED - Prisoner Abuse
 

These soldiers as you call them should not have been in charge of running that prison. It should have been MP's. Not that this is an escuse but other's should be under arrest for this

Re: MERGED - Prisoner Abuse
 

On another note I would like to say someting the british army and others have known for a long time. The US army is w#nk. They have all there toys but there training is pants

Re: MERGED - Prisoner Abuse
 

The US definitely got the troublemaking areas -
predominantly Sunni (upset at losing their dominant position due to democracy as well as being more likely to be sympathetic to al-Qaeda),
the capital, where any action designed for maximum effect would be bound to happen,
Saddam's heartland where the alleged 'old regime elements' still exist (presumably if there are that many of them even after arresting most of the 52 they can issue another pack of cards in time for the Christmas market).

The Brits got Shia areas who were more likely than most to raise three cheers at the exit of the Ba'athists, nowhere particularly sensitive like the religious sites. On the other hand, Iraqis with long memories remember the British turning up and being soundly thrashed 90 or so years ago, plus the British/US air raids of the last ten years. So the Brits evidently had an easier job, but appear to have gone about making the job easier and safer by, perversely, putting themselves more at risk. There have evidently been mass shootings by British troops though, that don't often get reported, and as I'm certain by now that the majority of resistance in Iraq is fuelled by heavy handed coalition action rather than al-Qaeda or Saddam's mates, I'd rather they didn't.

Methods of interrogation - I've said it before, if you don't interrogate people properly you run the danger of getting worthless results. The Birmingham Six were interrogated in a completely improper way, the results were worthless and the real bombers got away with multiple murder. Information obtained under duress is bad not because of some wishy washy liberal concern for the prisoner's welfare, but because it is inherently unreliable evidence.