MERGED - Prisoner Abuse

[punky]

I think regardless it would seriously affect the credibility of the Mirror, which means Piers would be 'asked' to leave. I.E. He can resign with a golden handshake, or refuse and get sacked).

I think if they are fakes it would centre around how Piers got the pics and how he checked them out. If it was proven he got them in good faith (lets say, from 2 genuine soldiers), then it would go do to how he checked them out. If he didn't bother, then that would crucify him. If he got some kind of independent testimony, giving the pictures credibility, then it would help with damage limitation, but Piers would still go.

It is unlikely, but possible that the Mirror knew they were fake and printed them anyway. If that happened, I should imagine the Mirror could get a substanial fine from the Press Complaints Comission, for deliberately trying to decieve the public. I don't think they can do anything else. The paper has no license which can be revoked, so there is no way or suspending the paper, or halting it for circulation. I doubt you could press criminal charges on Piers either.

Thats how I see it going anyway.

[Xaccers]

That's what I was thinking.
I can't see him getting another paper to run, but you never know.
I can imagine the other tabloids like the Sun seriously attacking him.
Actually I can see that happening even if the images are shown to be genuine, simply for not doing the decent thing and having them investigated by the authorities rather than publishing them and putting our troops at greater risk.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Robin Cook resigned from his position in protest over going to war to oust Saddam.
Galloway didn't feel strongly enough to make similar moves,

George Galloway could *NOT* make a similar move because he was *NOT* in the cabinet!! Robin Cook did *NOT* leave the Labour Party!!!

instead he was booted out for inciting arab forces to fight ours and calling for our forces to disobey their orders.

Already addressed...

Added to that his praise and support for saddam, makes in my opinion, and many others (don't know about yours, perhaps you think he's a lovely person who is talking sense and who you'd defend to the hilt, perhaps you think he's a **** bag) him a rather unsavoury charactor.

Perhaps I think he's got a right to freedom of expression...!!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If these photos are proven to be fakes, what punishment (if any) will Piers Morgan and the Mirror face?

Regrettably, damn all.

The PCC is a completely toothless watchdog, half its membership is made up of other newspapers editors and you'd better believe they're happy to scratch each other's backs (and I'm stating that as a *fact* not an opinion because I can back it up with examples of what they've done in the past).

Morgan will argue that they believed the photos to be genuine, that they queried those who gave them the pictures and they seemed honest and that they considered it "in the public interest" to publish. The PCC will then say "ok, you did your best, even though it was a bit naughty" and then roll over to get its tummy tickled.

Morgan will probably have to quit his job, but he'll probably get a nice golden parachute and the Mirror will carry on its merry way.

[Xaccers]

Hmm, had a thought.
Remember the halabalu about showing prisoners being captured during the conflict, and the possible breach of article 13 of the geneva convention because of it (protecting prisoners from public curiosity), isn't allowing these pictures to be published also a possible breach?

Nope the americans said the geneva convention doent apply to the war on terror.

also there faces where not shown and there release was not to parade the prisoners but to highlight abuse

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

Nope the americans said the geneva convention doent apply to the war on terror.

also there faces where not shown and there release was not to parade the prisoners but to highlight abuse

These aren't terrorists, these are members of the Iraqi army.

yeah. but it was billed under 'war on terror' and that applies to all of them. Bush basically gave a license for this to happen

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

yeah. but it was billed under 'war on terror' and that applies to all of them. Bush basically gave a license for this to happen

Interesting, so why did they give the afghans in cuba a different title to get around the geniva convention?
What is it, non-combatant fighters or something like that.

basically in the Afghanistan war the geneva convention did apply which is why they gave a different title to them. and maybe thats why they made sure it didnt apply to iraq?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Interesting, so why did they give the afghans in cuba a different title to get around the geniva convention?
What is it, non-combatant fighters or something like that.

The Bush Administration came up with the ficticious & legally meaningless term "illegal combatants" to describe alleged Taliban & Al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan & elsewhere.

It's how they get around the Geneva Conventions in Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay, Baghram Airbase in Afghanistan, etc. Classing them as "illegal combatants" let them do things they could not do if they were classed as POWs or charged with terrorism offences.

...The US also currently holds two US Citizens as "illegal combatants" in a base in Florida (US soil - unlike Camp Delta) - one captured in Afganistan, & one captured in the US itself.

Originally Posted by Damien

basically in the Afghanistan war the geneva convention did apply which is why they gave a different title to them. and maybe thats why they made sure it didnt apply to iraq?

The Geneva Conventions *do* apply to the war in Iraq, & the subsequent occupation. It is not for the US (or anyone else) to decide if they apply or not.

Although once the upcoming "handover" (of limited "sovereignty", *not* power) takes place & the occupation officially ends (despite actually still continuing), the Geneva Conventions will apparently no longer apply to the Occupying Powers (the Coalition).

[punky]

You can be a terrorist and still part of a legitimate army. The Taliban became terrorists when they gave Old Bin Liner sanctuary in their country.

With the Gulf War II, all three Husseins were terrorists because of the way they run their country (part of the Axis Of Evil), but the army was implicated because they did what they asked them to do. I know if they refused they would of gone into the plastic shredder feet first (Galloway ought to rememeber that), but as soon as they engaged the coalition, they became instruments of the terrorist regime, like the Taliban did.

But I don't think the Geneva Convention would apply here, because like Damien said, they are always hooded, they aren't being paraded to be humiliated, etc. Even if they did, I don't suppose anything would happen. I mean they did it multiple times back in March-April 2003, even after being warned. But you can't expect anything to be done about it, it is enforced by the UN. Annan has never done anything to earn his $290,000 a year salary.

On the upside though bin Laden has threatened to kill Annan, and some (what looks like) 17 year old work experience boy gave a press interview saying: "We are taking the threat very seriously (once authenticated)", so, Annan might get replaced soon, maybe with someone who'd take his job seriously.

Oh and Tez: Good point about the "illegal combatants" phrase.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by punky

You can be a terrorist and still part of a legitimate army. The Taliban became terrorists when they gave Old Bin Liner sanctuary in their country.

Then they should charge them & put them on trial. Not just keep them locked up indefinitely, without ever being charged with a crime, let alone convicted & sentenced.

And who is to say all the people there do actually deserve to be there? I'm sure that plenty of them probably are Taliban & terrorists, but there have been plenty of reports to suggest that some are there simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

With the Gulf War II, all three Husseins were terrorists because of the way they run their country (part of the Axis Of Evil), but the army was implicated because they did what they asked them to do. I know if they refused they would of gone into the plastic shredder feet first (Galloway ought to rememeber that), but as soon as they engaged the coalition, they became instruments of the terrorist regime, like the Taliban did.

True. I guess that they can be describe as "terrorists", in a way.

However, not all the prisoners at Abu Gharib prison are or were members of the Iraqi Army, or members of the current insurgency/resistance/terrorists (name depending on viewpoint).

Again, as with Guantanamo, some are simply people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were just rounded up "willy nilly" during US raids (e.g. random raid finds someone owns a rifle, & they get put in jail - even though in some areas it is pretty damn necessary to own a gun).

But I don't think the Geneva Convention would apply here, because like Damien said, they are always hooded, they aren't being paraded to be humiliated, etc. Even if they did, I don't suppose anything would happen. I mean they did it multiple times back in March-April 2003, even after being warned. But you can't expect anything to be done about it, it is enforced by the UN. Annan has never done anything to earn his $290,000 a year salary.

On the upside though bin Laden has threatened to kill Annan, and some (what looks like) 17 year old work experience boy gave a press interview saying: "We are taking the threat very seriously (once authenticated)", so, Annan might get replaced soon, maybe with someone who'd take his job seriously.

Oh and Tez: Good point about the "illegal combatants" phrase.

I see what you mean about the application of the Conventions. Although the photos seem to be meant to humiliate, the Conventions may not apply to their publication, due to the prisoners faces not being visible (so they are not fully subject to "public curiosity").

Although, of course, the Conventions still apply to the illegal abuse itself (I'm not saying you said they didn't - just pointing out that there are different ways in which they apply).

Annan & the UN...It is hard to enforce things if some countries just go around & do whatever they want to anyway, or have the power to veto anything they don't like.

I do believe that the UN needs reforming though.

Originally Posted by Tezcatlipoca

The Geneva Conventions *do* apply to the war in Iraq, & the subsequent occupation. It is not for the US (or anyone else) to decide if they apply or not.

Although once the upcoming "handover" (of limited "sovereignty", *not* power) takes place & the occupation officially ends (despite actually still continuing), the Geneva Conventions will apparently no longer apply to the Occupying Powers (the Coalition).

Newsnight last night said that by making the convention void in the war on terror that bush may have given a strong message for this to happen

[Tezcatlipoca]

Some stories from today's Guardian...

"Rumsfeld: I won't quit"

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Julian Borger in Washington and Luke Harding in Baghdad, Saturday May 8, 2004

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, yesterday struggled to contain America's prisoner abuse crisis as he faced allegations that the maltreatment of Iraqi detainees was widespread and systematic.
Amid allegations that he and other top officials in the Bush administration knew about the brutality of treatment meted out in military jails in Iraq since the occupation began, Mr Rumsfeld faced fierce questioning at a congressional hearing and was accused of "disregard" of the Geneva Conventions.

Though he issued an uncharacteristic and comprehensive apology for the "brutal, cruel and inhumane treatment" the prisoners had endured, Mr Rumsfeld seemed to hesitate when senators grilled him about who was in overall charge of the regime.

His appearance came hours after a leaked report from the International Red Cross detailed that the "degrading" treatment of Iraqi prisoners was not isolated to Baghdad, and that the organisation had uncovered incidents in detention centres across Iraq.

The ICRC also expressed concern about British-run centres. The report was presented to the administration in February yet the extent of the abuses have just come to light.

During his evidence yesterday, Mr Rumsfeld warned that further damaging evidence would come to light, in the form of more photographs and a video of prisoner abuse. ........

(snip)

"UK Forces taught torture methods"

Originally Posted by The Guardian

David Leigh, Saturday May 8, 2004

The sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not an invention of maverick guards, but part of a system of ill-treatment and degradation used by special forces soldiers that is now being disseminated among ordinary troops and contractors who do not know what they are doing, according to British military sources.
The techniques devised in the system, called R2I - resistance to interrogation - match the crude exploitation and abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.

One former British special forces officer who returned last week from Iraq, said: "It was clear from discussions with US private contractors in Iraq that the prison guards were using R2I techniques, but they didn't know what they were doing."

He said British and US military intelligence soldiers were trained in these techniques, which were taught at the joint services interrogation centre in Ashford, Kent, now transferred to the former US base at Chicksands.

"There is a reservoir of knowledge about these interrogation techniques which is retained by former special forces soldiers who are being rehired as private contractors in Iraq. Contractors are bringing in their old friends".

Using sexual jibes and degradation, along with stripping naked, is one of the methods taught on both sides of the Atlantic under the slogan "prolong the shock of capture", he said.

Female guards were used to taunt male prisoners sexually and at British training sessions when female candidates were undergoing resistance training they would be subject to lesbian jibes. .......

(snip)

"Violations 'tantamount to torture' "

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Saturday May 8, 2004

Edited extracts of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) report into the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by coalition [US, British and other countries'] forces
The ICRC draws the attention of the Coalition Forces (hereafter called "the CF") to a number of serious violations of International Humanitarian Law. These violations have been documented and sometimes observed while visiting prisoners of war, civilian internees and other persons protected by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq between March and November 2003.

The main violations

The main violations, which are described in the ICRC report and presented confidentially to the CF, include:

· Brutality against protected persons upon capture and initial custody, sometimes causing death or serious injury;

· Absence of notification of arrest of persons to their families;

· Physical or psychological coercion during interrogation to secure information;

· Prolonged solitary confinement in cells devoid of daylight;

· Excessive and disproportionate use of force, resulting in death or injury.

(snip)

And the New York Times says.....

"Rumsfeld must go"

Originally Posted by NY Times Editorial

New York Times, Editorial, May 7

There was a moment about a year ago, in the days of Mission Accomplished, when Donald Rumsfeld looked like a brilliant tactician. American troops - the lean, mean fighting machine Mr Rumsfeld assembled - swept into Baghdad with a speed that surprised even the most optimistic hawks. It was crystal clear that the defence department, not state and certainly not the United Nations, would control the start of nation-building. Mr Rumsfeld, with his steely grin and tell-it-like-it-is press conferences, was the closest thing to a rock star the Bush cabinet would ever see.

That was then.

It is time now for Mr Rumsfeld to go, and not only because he bears personal responsibility for the scandal of Abu Ghraib. That would certainly have been enough. The United States has been humiliated to a point where government officials could not release this year's international human rights report this week for fear of being scoffed at by the rest of the world. The reputation of its brave soldiers has been tarred, and the job of its diplomats made immeasurably harder because members of the American military tortured and humiliated Arab prisoners in ways guaranteed to inflame Muslim hearts everywhere. And this abuse was not an isolated event, as we know now and as Mr Rumsfeld should have known, given the flood of complaints and reports directed to his office over the last year.

The world is waiting now for a sign that President Bush understands the seriousness of what has happened...

(snip)