MERGED - Prisoner Abuse

Originally Posted by theblueraja

True - but at least im trying to do something.

Im more interested to see if i get a reply.

Instead how about re-wording it as a non-direct letter and sending it to the other papers for their letter section? Especially the sun, times, independent, mail, and telegraph

Change it depending on the papers, e.g use 'our boys' for the sun while the British army for the rest

[punky]

theblueraja: It is good you are actually doing something about it.

I've just read the Sun today, it is quite interesting. Floppy hats, badges, guns and vans aside, 2 of the photos the soldiers have no watches on. Now empty supply belts, etc, I can understand, but no watch? A soldier would remove his watch to beat up someone, then put it back on? There is no way an active soldier could be out there without a watch (and they have standard issue ones don't they?)

Also, I thought it was a bit weird the pictures aren't in colour, but put it down to the Mirror's choice of ink because of economy, etc. But apparently the source pictures were in Black & White too. Now if the pictures were taken by digital camera (which they were supposed to have been, as that is what soldiers have out there), surely they would of been taken in colour. An expert has said the absense of colour in his mind, tries to mask the discrepancies in the gun picture. In the urination picture, the hess bag is weaved to allow light through (and the prisoner to see out, which defeats the object of putting a hood on in the first place), and he said the urine was absorbed too quickly into the bag (not totally conclusive IMO, there could of been 2 people urinating), and the shadows are all wrong.

In the last few days, the list of discrepancies seems to be growing quite big, with not a lot being properly debunked.

The BBC has done this to make it clear, I have taken it out of quote marks so :

1. Claim: Sources close to Queen's Lancashire regiment believe the rifle is a SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq. The rifle would have had a carrying sling attached. Some experts have said they believe it's a replica.

Rebuttal: Soldier A told the Mirror: "I was carrying an SA80-A2. I think the one in the picture is that model as well. I can't explain why it may not be. Some soldiers wore rifle slings, many others didn't."

2. Claim: The condition of the weapon is "pristine", whereas it would be scuffed and dirty if it had seen action. It also has no cover over the barrel and no identification number on the butt.

Rebuttal: Soldier A said: "We cleaned our rifles all the time. It could have been cleaned that afternoon."

3. Claim: The army doesn't use potato sacks as hoods, but dark room curtains. The hood was too clean and "ironed" for something that would have been crumpled up in someone's pockets.

Rebuttal: Soldier A told Monday's Mirror: "I can't answer that. That was the hood the man had on." The paper claims to have seen another picture of a different arrested Iraqi, in which the 'sandbag' hood appears to be identical.

4. Claim: "Why would the soldier be wearing webbing that is undone? Normally soldiers are very particular about that," said former commander Colonel Bob Stewart. Experts have also said it is unusual for the pouches not to be full.

Rebuttal: "On raids, kit wasn't the issue. We had also returned to our compound, the soldier might have removed stuff," soldier A told the Mirror.

5. Claim: The stream of urine does not look authentic. Among the claims are that shadows have been added to the drops of urine, that the wet patch on the hood is fake, and that the droplets are coming from a bottle of water.

Rebuttal: None provided.

6. Claim: The wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq. Some have also said it is too clean.

Rebuttal: Soldier A told the Mirror: "It was a four ton truck, I'm not sure what make. We always used that sort of truck when we were on raids as did other units."

On the cleanliness claim he said: "That's the way it was."

7. Claim: Col Stewart questioned threw doubt on the captive's "slightly silky" football shirt, bearing an Iraqi flag. "Is that the sort of shirt that a captive might be wearing?" he said. Other analysts have said the shirt would be out of place in the Shia area of Basra.


Rebuttal: "We saw dozens of Iraqis wearing exactly those t-shirts," soldier B told the Mirror.

8. Claim: Soldiers tie laces in a parallel, rather than criss-cross, fashion.

Rebuttal: The Mirror pictures soldier with boots laced criss-cross. Soldier A said: "I think people lace the boots the way they are most comfortable with."

9. Claim: Soldiers operating in this area wouldn't tuck their trousers into their boots, but would leave them outside with an elasticated bottom to stop sand getting in.


Rebuttal: None provided.

10. Claim: The shirt would be sweaty, dirty and dishevelled after alleged beatings. There are no bruises or marks on the captured man.

Rebuttal: Soldier A told the Mirror: "The man was wearing some sort of Arab dress over his t-shirt and it was ripped off during his arrest."

11. Claim: Regiment sources say soldiers wear berets or hard hats, not floppy hats.

Rebuttal: Soldier B said: "We wore floppy hats all the time. A beret was too hot, helmets cumbersome."

12. Claim: Experts have questioned the sharp quality of the photos - former Guardian picture editor Eamonn McCabe compares them with the fuzzy, badly composed pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, published last week. The Mirror's pictures are "all too clinical" to be trusted, he said.

Rebuttal: None provided

13. Claim: The captive's posture does not suggest he is being tortured. The body would be curled up, legs pulled into the foetal position. "It is not the posture of someone who has suffered pain," said Col Stewart.

Rebuttal: Soldier A said: "That's how he was. His arms were tied behind him."

14. Claim: Divisional markings should have been visible under the flag on the soldier's left sleeve.

Rebuttal: The Mirror pictures two other soldiers serving in Iraq, also with no divisional markings on their sleeves. Soldier A told the paper: "We weren't going around sewing badges on."

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Xaccers, do *YOU* have any *PROOF* of these accusations?

So what? That doesn't answer my question.

These are all things that *I* have also said, but that *STILL* doesn't mean that I wanted to keep Saddam in Power etc etc, only that I agree with him that what we did was *wrong* and should not have been done in that way!!

All of these are points I have made time and again in threads in these forums.

And do you honestly believe that when they were given these images, the damage publishing them would do never crossed their minds? They could have reported that they had been passed images but had done the sensible thing in giving them to the army to investigate.

But, again, that's not what I asked. You stated that it was done "deliberately to damage the work we are doing to rebuild Iraq and relations in the middle east", which is another matter entirely.

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by Graham

But, again, that's not what I asked. You stated that it was done "deliberately to damage the work we are doing to rebuild Iraq and relations in the middle east", which is another matter entirely.

You really think it wasn't. Doesn't look to me that they have checked this out much !

Originally Posted by punky

There is no way an active soldier could be out there without a watch (and they have standard issue ones don't they?)

And if he'd spent any time in Iraq with a watch on, there would be a noticable "tan mark" where the watch should have been...

Also, I thought it was a bit weird the pictures aren't in colour, but put it down to the Mirror's choice of ink because of economy, etc. But apparently the source pictures were in Black & White too. Now if the pictures were taken by digital camera (which they were supposed to have been, as that is what soldiers have out there), surely they would of been taken in colour.

I don't know of any digtal camera that takes B&W pictures by default. There are some that can be deliberately set to do so, but there is no legitimate reason that I can think of why anyone would do so with pictures like these.

It is, of course, possible that the pictures have been grey-scaled after the event, but again, I can see no reason why someone would do so.

Speaking as a photographer, the pictures immediately struck me as almost definitely having been staged. If you look at a posed photo and a candid pic even if you don't know what is wrong, you get a feel for whether someone is standing in a certain way because that's the way they happen to be standing and someone who has been told "stand like this".

Unless they're an experienced model who has practiced how to pose, the image will look artificial, and these pics certainly looked like that.

Originally Posted by Defiant

You really think it wasn't. Doesn't look to me that they have checked this out much !

I think what they did was stupid, I think they should have checked out their sources more carefully, I think they've been conned like this before (ISTR it being the Mirror who was conned by a fake "home video" of Diana and James Hewitt), I also think they couldn't resist "getting the scoop".

However I don't think it was "done deliberately to damage the work we are doing to rebuild Iraq and relations in the middle east" as a sort of childish "sour grapes" attack of "we couldn't stop them doing this, so we're going to get our own back now!"

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by Graham

However I don't think it was "done deliberately to damage the work we are doing to rebuild Iraq and relations in the middle east" as a sort of childish "sour grapes" attack of "we couldn't stop them doing this, so we're going to get our own back now!"

I'm no news paper journalist but check my first post on this here. I spotted it straight away

[Stuart]

Still,when has it ever been possible to put the words "Mirror","Good" and Journalism" in the same sentence without using the word not?

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Graham

I think what they did was stupid, I think they should have checked out their sources more carefully, I think they've been conned like this before (ISTR it being the Mirror who was conned by a fake "home video" of Diana and James Hewitt), I also think they couldn't resist "getting the scoop".

However I don't think it was "done deliberately to damage the work we are doing to rebuild Iraq and relations in the middle east" as a sort of childish "sour grapes" attack of "we couldn't stop them doing this, so we're going to get our own back now!"

Eh, never thought id say this to you graham, we seem to have wildly different views on things, but - good post.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

And if he'd spent any time in Iraq with a watch on, there would be a noticable "tan mark" where the watch should have been...

Good point. Yet another discrepancy...

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

However I don't think it was "done deliberately to damage the work we are doing to rebuild Iraq and relations in the middle east" as a sort of childish "sour grapes" attack of "we couldn't stop them doing this, so we're going to get our own back now!"

You reckon it is the Mirror's doing? That they created the pictures?

I don't think they did. I mean that is a really drastic measure to manufacture a story like that. There would have to be quite a few people in the loop, and it is inevitable someone would talk, and that would seriously damage any credibility the paper ever had for years.

My feelings about political/foreign issues aside, I still think it was some anti-war group, who wanted to ruin any good news to come out of the war. If anyone think it is far fetched, speak to Mr. Galloway. They certainly have motive, and as a tight-knit (extremist?) group, they probably have the means to do it, whilst maintaining secracy.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by punky

You reckon it is the Mirror's doing? That they created the pictures?

I don't think they did. I mean that is a really drastic measure to manufacture a story like that. There would have to be quite a few people in the loop, and it is inevitable someone would talk, and that would seriously damage any credibility the paper ever had for years.

My feelings about political/foreign issues aside, I still think it was some anti-war group, who wanted to ruin any good news to come out of the war. If anyone think it is far fetched, speak to Mr. Galloway. They certainly have motive, and as a tight-knit (extremist?) group, they probably have the means to do it, whilst maintaining secracy.

Assuming the photos are fake, then the Mirror is to blame whether they created them or not. If it did not create the photos itself, it should have checked the validity of them (which appears not to have been done).

[TheBlueRaja]

And were back where we started...

Shall we go round again?

[Defiant]

They wonted to sell some papers with fake pictures. Some people there must have wondered themselve's about it. Not all the Mirror staff can be thick after all (although I wonder now)