The Iraqi Torture Cases...
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">... And their implications...</div> The <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=69882&st=0' target='_blank'>last thread</a> on the subject centered around the medias reception of the whole situation, so I guess it's time to open one tackling the political implications of these horrible occurances.
I doubt that anyone with any kind of access to the net won't by now have seen a lot too much of the pictures, but to bring us all up to speed, here're some articles describing the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by the Military Police and other Coalition agents:<ul><li>Summary of a leaked Red Cross report on the issue <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/10/red.cross.report/index.html' target='_blank'>(CNN).</a></li><li>A view from the British side, and some allegations of Coalition Forces purposely trying to decieve the Red Cross <a href='http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1212769,00.html' target='_blank'>(Observer)</a></li><li>A report by Amnesty International claims that UK troops needlessly shot civilians, military specialists doubt the genuinity of some of the torture pictures (<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3701351.stm' target='_blank'>BBC)</a></li></ul>
I'm going to present my notions later, but what kind of results, both regarding the Iraq and Coalition countries, most notably Great Britain and the States, do you expect to come out of this affair?
I doubt that anyone with any kind of access to the net won't by now have seen a lot too much of the pictures, but to bring us all up to speed, here're some articles describing the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by the Military Police and other Coalition agents:<ul><li>Summary of a leaked Red Cross report on the issue <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/10/red.cross.report/index.html' target='_blank'>(CNN).</a></li><li>A view from the British side, and some allegations of Coalition Forces purposely trying to decieve the Red Cross <a href='http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1212769,00.html' target='_blank'>(Observer)</a></li><li>A report by Amnesty International claims that UK troops needlessly shot civilians, military specialists doubt the genuinity of some of the torture pictures (<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3701351.stm' target='_blank'>BBC)</a></li></ul>
I'm going to present my notions later, but what kind of results, both regarding the Iraq and Coalition countries, most notably Great Britain and the States, do you expect to come out of this affair?
Comments
Naturally, all the allegations made of abuse in iraqi penitentiaries by coalition forces or mercenaries (usually referred to as 'contractors') on their payroll should be investigated to their full extent. After a thorough investigation I predict that one of the following scenarios will become true:
<b>1)</b> The top officers and politicians of the coalition forces were not informed of the abusive behaviour of their subordinates, or the information that would have revealed the abuse was deliberately withheld from them.
---Analysis:
This scenario is unlikely. In fact, it is at the moment only supported by the comments from various leaders that they were not aware of what was going on under their noses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was last week's Newsweek magazine that stated that various individuals directly involved in the scandal have said they had orders to degrade and humiliate the prisoners, instead of just doing that for their own amusement.
The outcome of this scenario is the most convenient one for the Bush administration and its allies abroad, for the chain of responsibility ends somewhere in the military, but does not reach the commanding generals or the secretary of defense. Naturally, the political backwash will still linger for some time, and even this light-on-consequences outcome will most likely make Mr. Blair's position even more awkward, since the brits seem to be more than 50% in favour of pulling the troops from Iraq. Apart from a few prison sentences for the guards, nothing much is likely to occur. Scratch one for "harmless and forgetable scandals".
<b>2)</b> The top officers and politicians right up to the secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld knew, but did nothing.
---Analysis:
In this case, the allegations of torture orders coming from various intelligence gathering organizations will most likely prove true. However, the origin of the orders might be difficult to locate, since people giving orders that go directly against the Geneve Convention and, in fact, against everything that the military is <u>supposed</u> to be doing in Iraq, are not very likely to leave an incriminating paper trail. What makes this scenario politically volatile is that both some generals and the secretary of defense have stated that they knew nothing of what was going on, and also that they have not read the army's own report on the events, which was compiled before the first media airings of the torture pictures.
Even though it would come to light that the secretary of defense did know what was going on, I wouldn't place bets on him being fired or forced to resign. It looks as if the Bush administration takes allegations of its misdeeds very lightly. In this scenario I would assume that the Democrats would be screaming for Rumsfeld to resign, but I highly doubt that the Republicans would join in on undermining their own power. Abroad, Mr. Blair would have very difficult time. His people are already against the whole war and incidents like this make them question his leadership even more. Still, I think that only a worst-case scenario would result in him being sacked. Otherwise, teflon-Tony will be PM atleast until the next elections. In the end, the results will be quite the same as in scenario 1, with the possible exception of resignations or firings on the top level of the military. The politicians involved will be slightly stained, but most likely the american public will forget this whole mess by the fall.
<b>3)</b> The top officers and the administration knew, did nothing and tried to cover up the mess.
---Analysis:
Heads will roll. Should a cover-up attempt come to light, nothing should protect anyone involved in it. In this case, I feel that even Rumsfeld's position is unstable, for the president can not hold stubbornly on to a man who seems more and more like a war criminal (not that he doesn't seem like that already). Depending on where the orders came and whether they can be trailed, the trail of firings and forced resignations will probably lead into the top floors of the Pentagon and the CIA (+ any other agency proven to be involved). If Mr. Blair will not be forced to resign, this will most likely be his last time in a public office. In this case it is also a possibility that the british military will withdraw from Iraq.
Despite which, if any, of the scenarios depicted above becomes true, I believe that the following will occur:
No evidence will be found to link the president of the United States to the scandal. Even though it would be highly amusing to see him take the rap, I believe that even though some members of his administration would have known about the situation, the president would have been kept uninformed, so that there would be plausible denial.
Americans withdrawing from Iraq? No chance. Even though there will probably not be many iraqis willing to say anything good about the US, the army is unlikely to just pack up and leave. Unfortunately, from a strictly 'war on terror' point of view (which had very little to do with Iraq, actually) things just went from bad to worse. Iraq will most likely be a good breeding ground for future muslim extremists willing to blow themselves up in or near american targets.
In the end, the failure in Iraq seems total: The weapons of mass destruction bluff was called, the iraqis are not an inch better off now, and the Bush administration will have hard time convincingly stating that the regime they set up in Iraq is kinder than the one they deposed.
Just one question remains: What the hell is actually going on in Guantanamo?
[edit] Oh, yeah. <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040509/pl_afp/us_iraq_prisoners&cid=1521&ncid=1478' target='_blank'>This.</a>[/edit]
those involved will be dishonorably discharged and forced to wander the world in shame
in the real word:
those involved will be quietly let go and some racist **** will offer them well paying jobs
i think that the government will try to keep it quiet so that people don't notice that they let the guys off easy
2 is also possible, however, I do not believe that the administration (or whoever) was involved in this would not try anything to conceal this and prevent it from going public. Resistance against the war in Iraq is great everywhere already, and it is growing even more since the torture cases have gone public. The last thing the current administration would need is something like this in the election years.
What I heard is that Rumsfeld knew about this for about a month and tried to cover it up so noone would hear about it. Sounds reasonable to me, for the reasons stated above. I think this will be the possible results, based on my opinion that Rumsfeld knew about it and did not do anything/Rumsfeld authorized it:
As everyone knows the middle east has a rather bad relationship to the United States today, and this will not make it better. First, the military moves in without a reason (except for the 'weapons of mass destruction', which they have not found until today). The entire military operation is named 'Operation: Iraqi Freedom', in order to bring freedom to Iraq, and then prisoners are tortured by the people that claim that something like that would not be done under their power. Then, Bush goes public, apologizes to the Arabic world, but does <i>not</i> eject the person responsible from his administration. This will look like an open lie to the Arabic world, on the one hand Bush states that he is so sorry about what happened, on the other hand he does not even fire the person responsible.
Of course, the middle eastern people will be angered by these actions. And somehow, I can understand why. This might lead to further terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yeah. The reputation of US can probably go no worse than it currently is in the arab states. Of course, there are two sides to everything and one cannot dismiss the repeated attempts of the US goverment to end the palestinean/israeli conflict. Forgetting the current administration's "let's do nothing" policy for a moment, the past US presidents and their aides have spent considerable time and resources in trying to resolve the conflict or prevent it from escalating into yet another war between Israel and its neighbour states. To be honest, it seems that the only thing that keeps these attempts going is pressure from the american jewish population. It's hard to believe that so many peace plans would have been drafted to end a conflict between two arab nations. On a side note, the fate of the former prime minister of Israel Jitzhak Rabin clearly shows what you get for wanting to end the conflict at all costs: a bullet in the head from some brainless moron.
On the other hand, what the arabs probably see is the other side of the US Middle East policy - the opportunism. It seems that the support that the US government and the CIA have given to different organizations and nations is purely whimsical. They give and withdraw their support without thinking about the long-term effects. I mean, seriously, what kind of fruitcakes would support extreme islamist guerilla fighters just to annoy and humiliate the Soviet military? And if the alleged connections between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood are true, no wonder that even the moderate arab nations view America with distrust. The whole thing in their eyes just stinks to high heavens.
Completely unrelated: I just placed an order on Staalplaat for the reissue of the Muslimgauze album 'Return of Black September'. This is good stuff.
<a href='http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/20802.htm' target='_blank'>Heads.</a> <a href='http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/12/1084289748000.html?from=top5' target='_blank'>Must.</a> <a href='http://wire.jacksonville.com/pstories/20040512/2151517.shtml' target='_blank'>Roll.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she was most appalled by a video of a handcuffed prisoner beating his head against a wall in an apparent bid to knock himself unconscious to escape abuse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that kind of stuff can go on in a correctional facility under the noses of officers, no amount of denial should take away the fact that they are responsible for not training and restraining their subordinates. I find it unacceptable that only those directly involved in the scandal (i.e. the wardens) should be the only ones discharged. If they have not been properly supervised, their superiors should also go. And if the superiors have failed to curb this kind of behaviour when they first noticed it, the responsibility carries even furher in the chain of command, especially since it seems that the Pentagon has been aware of this for far longer than the public has.
I do not know what the US military intends to do but no amount of spin doctoring will take this dirt away. I foresee even greater difficulties in holding Iraq under control, and if stuff like this keeps coming up, also that GWB will remain a one-term president like his father before him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The shocking photos and videos, provided on computer disks by Pentagon officials, showed forced sodomy, oral sex, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts and naked prisoners tied together on the floor.
Senator Ron Wyden said: "It was significantly worse than I had anticipated. "Take the worst case and multiply it over several times." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst a definite blow to Lynndie England's plea that she was "only following orders" (though if she was ordered to undertake such sexual acts it makes one wonder about the integrity of the military), these latest reports serve to illustrate just how bad this whole mess is.
I believe what we should be asking though is: "Does this really surprise anyone?". For decades the Arabic world, and even Muslims in general, have coped a lot of flak and bad press: every year they're branded by certain groups as sexist, barbaric, backwards fanatics who hate everything Western. These kind of beliefs are not uncommon; I'm certain that everyone in western countries have come into contact with this form of discrimination. Knowing this then, is it any wonder that US soldiers who have grown up with this kind of rhetoric would abuse the very people they've been told are the enemy? The US has told it's citizens for years that Iran is evil, that Iraq is evil, that the Palestinians are terrorists who only want war, not peace. Vocal religious and political groups have sprouted endless racist rhetoric about Arabic people. You can't undo all that by calling your invasion of Iraq "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
These soldiers who committed these vile acts against Iraqis did not just suddenly decide to be abusive one day; they grew up being told these people were the enemy. Blaming these events on just the people involved doesn't begin to touch the underlieing reasons why a soldier would commit these deeds.
EDIT: I read an article a few days back that had interviews from England's home town. A google search found parts of it:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Her father Kenneth said that other soldiers asked her to pose for pictures. "That's how it happened," he said.
Colleen Kesner, a local in her home town, said: "To the country boys here, if you're a different nationality, a different race, you're sub-human. That's the way that girls like Lynndie are raised.
"Tormenting Iraqis, to their mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14217556&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=pvt-lynndie-england--the-trailer-park-girl-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-name_page.html' target='_blank'>Link here</a>
I have a link or two of Berg's executiong if anyone is interested....(not to be all morbid, but I think we should all be able to see what kind of animals these people really are.)
I have a link or two of Berg's executiong if anyone is interested....(not to be all morbid, but I think we should all be able to see what kind of animals these people really are.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, most of those who were tortured were probably innocent! Just because a few guys decided to behead an American doesnt mean were allowed to torture people because they are from the same country. On the flip side, its important to remember that we do have dedicated and honorable soldiers over there, not everyone was part of this.
btw, systematically torturing people is a "big freaking deal", especially when its done by the supposite "good guys".
<i>Probably</i>.....<i>probably</i>....hmmm. And I'm <i>probably</i> the worlds strongest man. Sure they could have been innocent, but what if they werent. What if all those men were the men who killed our soldiers....what then. But then again, they are <i>probably</i> innocent. I can tell already your <i>probably</i> one of those ANTI-Bush kind of people.
An easy counter to your statement: How do we know you didnt kill any of our soldiers? What if you and everyone you know were the people attacking the US Army? Maybe we should torture your first <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
gg with the Bush-related accusations in a thread which is unrelated to Bush.
<i>Probably</i>.....<i>probably</i>....hmmm. And I'm <i>probably</i> the worlds strongest man. Sure they could have been innocent, but what if they werent. What if all those men were the men who killed our soldiers....what then. But then again, they are <i>probably</i> innocent. I can tell already your <i>probably</i> one of those ANTI-Bush kind of people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you're doing more than a decent job of demonstrating yourself to be a knee-jerk Bush administration apologist, struggling desperately to dismiss valid criticism as simple, pointless Bush-hating. Sure, the media is as responsible as the people who actually, ya know, did this. In the future, feel free to just post a link to your RNC sponsored talking points, rather than waste your fingers' precious energy transcribing them.
Here's the wonderful thing-- I've heard a lot of people complaining about this in relation to the Berg beheading, as if outrage at one is mututally exclusive of outrage at the other. Huh? Most people I know are schooled enough in nuance that they deplore both.
I can't remember where I heard it, but one bloggist said, 'Well, YES, I hate Al-Qaeda because (among other things) of what they did to Nick Berg, but what am I going to do, write them a nasty letter?'
On that note, shall we even get into the difference between Al-Qaeda and Iraq?
Lindsey Graham put it best:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When you are the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've noticed people saying that the tortures are nothing compared to the Bergman murder. "All he did was try to help people and he was killed in the most brutal way". As of right now, this arguement does seem to work. However, it is jumping the gun as there have been more photos existing, which the senators are trying to block. Having heard that numerous prisoners were in fact, innocent, and a report that at least one person may have died there, I don't see how one is worse than the other.
What I do believe though is that those **** were going to kill Bergman regardless of the prison abuse photos. They killed in Fallujah without the photos. They killed Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl without the photos.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with that, but all I'm saying is that probably is not the appropriate word to use when talking about this subject. It's like saying what if with any of our historical events....Just pointless. Ah yes, they are innocent until proven guilty, but in my mind they are all guilty. if they are affiliated with al-qaeda or ANY group with terrorism, they should all be tortured. (IMO...thats right, an opinion)
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>The video is not for the weak heart...View at your own risk.</span></span>
And after actually seeing the <a href='http://www.consumptionjunction.com//downloads/cj_34947.wmv' target='_blank'>video</a> of him being murdered, I don't see how ANYONE could have ANY sympathy towards those animals.
Fortunatly you are neither judge nor jury of that, so your opinion is irrelevant.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are they guilty? Because they live in Iraq? Because you think that the american troops have somehow magically managed to gather over 5000 real al-Quaeda operatives into one prison compound? Because they are muslims and that's already bad enough? It isn't even remotely plausible, in fact it's an absolutely ridiculous notion, that the coalition forces would have captured 5000 confirmed al-Quaeda operatives in Iraq. Have you even been reading what those released from the Abu Ghraib prison have told about their arrests and imprisonment, or do you condemn them as <i>probable</i> liars too?
NOBODY should be tortured, ever. Do you realize that by advocating methods that degrade humans and treating them worse than animals lowers you to the level of the said terrorists? Why then should anyone be any friendlier towards you than we are to Osama and his pals? They don't care about human lives, as long as they can strike a blow to the enemy. By sharing that philosophy the americans have become something that has no right to tout about bringing freedom and democracy across the globe.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mullet+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mullet)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And after actually seeing the video of him being murdered, I don't see how ANYONE could have ANY sympathy towards those animals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After reading the reports on My Lai I don't see how ANYONE could have ANY sympathy towards those animals. After reading the reports on Abu Ghraib I don't see how ANYONE could have ANY sympathy towards those animals. After reading the reports on Contra actions in Nicaragua I don't see how ANYONE could have ANY sympathy towards those animals. After reading the reports on the Jenin massacre I don't see how ANYONE could have ANY sympathy towards those animals...
The world is an atrocity, my friend, and the americans and the allies they support are as knee-deep in despicable acts as anyone else. The only place free of moral hangover is the Antarctic.
And oopsie, sorry for the rather inflamed content. Advocating torture just makes my jocks itch.
<i>Probably</i>.....<i>probably</i>....hmmm. And I'm <i>probably</i> the worlds strongest man. Sure they could have been innocent, but what if they werent. What if all those men were the men who killed our soldiers....what then. But then again, they are <i>probably</i> innocent. I can tell already your <i>probably</i> one of those ANTI-Bush kind of people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the 'innocent until proven guilty' argument aside..
I hope you are aware that many of the prisoners were picked up at random, for absolutly no reason.
<a href='http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=506202§ion=news' target='_blank'>Link</a>
you cant assume they are guilty simply because they were picked up, especially when anyone and everyone was liable to be captured.
And im sure I dont need to tell you that torturing random civilians is not somthing an occupying army should engage in, and surely you can see how this torture is unacceptable when the objective of the occupying force is to
<a href='http://middleeastinfo.org/article4502.html' target='_blank'>win hearts and minds</a> ?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry for the topic derailment, but that tidbit hit a nerve for me...
What the hell exactly happened there? I've been hearing a lot about a documentary broadcasted recently, <a href='http://www.staging.canada.com/shopping/specials.html' target='_blank'>Jenin: Massacring Truth</a>. I haven't watched it yet, but my friend has told me a lot about it, and after hearing the details of the documentary, I just thought it was simply incredible.
Likewise, I have also seen the rotten.com pictures of the people that died and still can't comprehend why the IDF stopped a lot of journalists from heading into the area, forcing the media to obtain their news from Palestine. In all though, the documentary says the investigations prove that (excluding terrorists) 26 Palestinian civilians were killed, along with 23 Israeli soldiers. That's in contrasts to the hundreds of dead that everyone was claiming before. Eventually the charges against Israel was disproved by the UN andmajor human rights organizations.
Scinet, I've been trying to find some reliable information on this case, and frankly, I have no idea what the hell to believe. Could you pass me the links/sources of those reports that you read on?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry for the topic derailment, but that tidbit hit a nerve for me...
What the hell exactly happened there? I've been hearing a lot about a documentary broadcasted recently, <a href='http://www.staging.canada.com/shopping/specials.html' target='_blank'>Jenin: Massacring Truth</a>. I haven't watched it yet, but my friend has told me a lot about it, and after hearing the details of the documentary, I just thought it was simply incredible.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reliable infromation on the Jenin case is very hard to come by, mainly because the staunchest proponents of the 'massive casualties' argument are extremely anti-Israel, and the proponents of the 'nothing happened' argument are very pro-Israel. This coupled with the fact that most of the journalists had to gather information from the Palestinean Authority, whom, despite my sympathy for the plight of the palestines, I view as a rather corrupt organization no less adverse to turning half-truths into propaganda than their opponents.
Most of the publicly available information is eyewitness accounts, of which the ones from outsiders (ie. non-israeli and non-palestinean witnesses) looks like this:
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937048.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937048.stm</a>
<a href='http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/s639418.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/s639418.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/rabbani_jenin-massacre.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/rabban...in-massacre.cfm</a>
Oh, and check the reviews for this book to better understand why factual information is hard to come by on both sides, and why even images are questionable:
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885942346/qid=1084539651/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-6296527-6853413?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846</a>
If you read the above articles, you can clearly see that the death toll varies considerably depending on who you ask. Also, there is an inherent difficulty in differentiating palestinean civilians from combatants, since post-mortem the Israel military can claim any person (except for the children and the elderly) to have been a part of the fighting. This is true of any israeli military raids on the palestinean territories: in a nutshell at any given time the PM of Israel Ariel Sharon may state that x terrotists were killed, to which the leader of the Palestinean Authority Yasser Arafat will answer by stating that x number of civilians were killed.
All in all, what happened in Jenin is mainly questionable because of how it was done. The armed forces of Israel was hell-bent on capturing or killing militants who were preparing new attacks in Israel, and while doing so, they methodically combed the refugee camp, using tanks and bulldozers to level houses. One of the pictures in a 2002 issue of Time magazine dealing with the Jenin events showed a street that a tank had driven down. Because the street was too narrow for the tank, the first level facades of the buildings on the street were crushed by the tank's tracks, causing quite a lot of property damage and most likely collapsing some bulidings as well. (Remember, buildings in palestinean refugee camps are not exactly made of reinforced concrete. This is why the armed forces favour bulldozers as assault weapons; a tactic that would not work against sturdier apartment buildings.)
What makes Jenin a bigger stain in the also otherwise questionable reputation of the PM of Israel is that strongarm tactics were employed against possible terrorists in an environment where approximately 13,000 people live cropped closely together. One rather partisan account states that about 5000 people were rendered homeless by the raid. That number may be exaggerated, but based on the destruction seen in the Time photographical report, I wouldn't say it's that far from the truth. So, even though it appears that about 100 people (incl. casualties from both sides) died as a direct result of the fighting, I am rather convinced that there were more than just a few indirect casualties. However, no-one seems to be able to keep track of them in any reliable form.
Whatever one thinks is the truth about Jenin, it seems that the measures taken by the armed forces were beyond excessive. Even though the casualties (by official accounts) are not shockingly high, the use of air-to-ground missiles and home bulldozing by the military in a crowded refugee village is unforgivable.
Oh, and to clarify: Despite my somewhat anti-Israel sentiments I do not condone the use of suicide bombers or attacks on soft targets by the palestinean militant groups. This kind of behaviour from both sides is what keeps the conflict from ever being resolved. In my little litanny above about atrocities connected in some way to the US government I placed Jenin there simply because it was the first israeli attack that sprung to mind, not the worst.
And, IMO, a third and fourth party should look after the P.O.Ws while the primary (the US) and possibly even secondary (other forces in Iraq whom are allied to the US) forces should be REMOVED semi-completly from the picture. For every US guard there should be Two Canadian gaurds and for each Canadian there should be... (You get the picture)
Their lives simply can't be trusted in their captor's hands.
<a href='http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact' target='_blank'>Read This</a>
seems this goes a little deeper then some thought.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with that, but all I'm saying is that probably is not the appropriate word to use when talking about this subject. It's like saying what if with any of our historical events....Just pointless. Ah yes, they are innocent until proven guilty, but in my mind they are all guilty. if they are affiliated with al-qaeda or ANY group with terrorism, they should all be tortured. (IMO...thats right, an opinion)
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>The video is not for the weak heart...View at your own risk.</span></span>
And after actually seeing the <a href='http://www.consumptionjunction.com//downloads/cj_34947.wmv' target='_blank'>video</a> of him being murdered, I don't see how ANYONE could have ANY sympathy towards those animals. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to appear on the urge of insulting, but you dont hold much compassion for people when you are willing to torture (or be letted tortured) them. I dont have much more to say, I find your words as appaling as the video you linked to.
And friggin yes, head must roll, long enough have I continously seen politicians do their own bidding instead of doing it for a cause. And these acts shows that some people either politician or officer doesnt respect people's opinion and authority.
I mean, were the good guys, so everyone in there <i> must </i> be guilty right?
torture is never acceptable, no matter what a person may or <i> may not </i> have done.
Is it so difficult to understand? Even though I firmly believe that no-one, under any circumstances should ever be subjected to torture, the real problem here is that some, or perhaps most of the detainees in Abu Ghraib <u>are <b>not</b> terrorists</u>.
<a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/15/wirq15.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/15/ixnewstop.html' target='_blank'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-quoting the above article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (quoting the above article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Most of the men had been held without charge, some for more than six months, and had no access to a lawyer. The number of detainees will be reduced from 4,000 to 1,500.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shouldn't they be charged with terrorism or whatnot if there was any evidence substantiating the claim? Even if you advocate torture as means of extracting information from terrorists, surely you can't think that torturing people randomly picked from the streets is okay?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, what a typically dense racist individual you are. The beheaders of Nick Berg had nothing to do with the prisoners of war at Abu Ghraib, how is that so friggin' hard to understand? If we went by your logic we should torture every caucasian male. Why? Well, most serial killers happen to be caucasian white men, there obviously must be a link here! Torture and death to the savages! I'm not even going to go into the controversy surrounding Berg's death.
Another "argument" you used was that the prisoners were animals guilty of killing American soldiers. Well, in case you never heard, THAT'S WHAT SOLDIERS ARE ORDERED TO DO WHEN THEY'RE AT WAR. It's not like they have a choice. Sure, they could surrender and let the "liberators" march in! Only risk getting shot in the backs by their comrades and probably get tortured and demeaned anyway.
now, the nick berg case i don't see how it has any relevance as to whether or not the torture performed at Abu Ghraib was right or wrong, it was revenge for the torture, not what started the torture. the authorization for such severe interrogations was given in 2002, which suggests to me that torture has been going on since that point, maybe even in guantanamo bay. i find it actually surprising the extremests took this long to say anything public about such treatment.
i don't see how you can throw around accusations of the iraqi and muslim extremists being animals without admitting that we are at least on the same level. admittedly, they have commited attrocities in the past, but are we not equally guilty of such atrocities as is revealed by these torture cases? hell i could even go so far as to say that if what they're doing now is atrocious, were we(as americans) any less atrocious in the revolutionary war? in essence all they're doing is fighting against a foriegn invader who is obsessed with pushing their own type of government on the unwilling people of iraq. is this not what Britain did to the colonies, hell it's less! they were colonies established with british people who decided they were too far away! how are they any less atrocious than we?
...or is that going a little far?