Investigations of abuse: porn-site and ACLU
The US military has reportedly closed the disciplinary/criminal investigation that it claimed it had launched into the involvement of US military personnel with the the body-part porn website, NTFU.
Incredibly fast work, huh, given that this time nine days ago the army still claimed it had not even heard of the abusive activities at the NTFU site?
By the way, both of those links above link to JWN. The first of them is to the Al-Jazeera web-site's story of today. It also quotes me as saying various wise things. (Check 'em out.)
Well, the Army might have hurriedly closed down that "investigation". But now, another detainee-abuse issue seems about to explode in its face. That is the story of the more than 70 photographs and three videos depicting abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq-- images that most members of the US Congress have had a chance to see but that the US public, which pays the salaries of both the members of Congress and the officers and soldiers responsible for detainee affairs, has thus far not been able to see.
Today, a federal court in New York agreed with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) that these images should indeed be made available to the public.
Significantly, the judge in this case, Alvin K. Hellerstein, ruled that publication of the images will help answer to questions both about the behavior of the soldiers depicted therein-- and also about,
- the command structure that failed to exercise discipline over the troops, and the persons in that command structure whose failures in exercising supervision may make them culpable along with the soldiers who were court-martialed for perpetrating the wrongs...
... Is there a disconnect in what I am arguing here? Namely, that the publication of some images of the desecrated bodies and body parts of some Iraqis and Afghanis (by NTFU) is something to be decried, while the publication of other images-- that may well show scenes that are very similar, from inside Abu Ghraib-- is something that is to be applauded?
No, I don't think there is a disconnect. The context and intention of the act of making these images public is extremely important; and they are very different in each of these cases.
As a member of the US citizenry, I certainly want to be informed, in a responsible way, of the end-product of what it is that my taxes have been "buying", in terms of the behavior of US soldiers during the war in Iraq. What I don't want is that my taxes should support the ability of individual soldiers or groups of soldiers to engage in the "trophy-displaying" publication of images of the desecrated remains of Iraqis or Afghanis on commercial websites. (And especially, I would say, on commercial porn websites.)
In addition, the most important thing right now is to push all these investigations of abuse and malfeasance as far up the chain of command as they need to go. As I have noted all along with regard to the use of abuse and torture by US forces, the only way to stop it is through the clear and unequivocal exercise of leadership at the very top of the chain of command.
Since President Bush has thus far chosen not to adopt such a clear leadership role, then the best way we have left to change his behavior is through the relentless pursuit of investigations that come up the chain of his administration from the bottom up. Kudos to the ACLU-- and to Human Rights Watch-- for their dogged persistence in this regard.
The pentagon says that there's no abuse?
And what about the Geneva convention?
What about the respect due to the dead ones on either side? I remember that when 4 U.S. soldiers where killed in Iraq and their body exposed, everyone was commenting about how inhumane was this behaviour.
And what about the break to the rules of discipline?
Is normal for U.S. soldiers to make nude pics with their equipment?
Well... It's a shame.
If you don't understand why what you are doing is wrong, you won't understand why U.S. is so hated all over the world.
And sadly, Ninja, a lot of Americans do not understand. I call them the "I-insist-on-remaining-stupid" crowd.
And believe me, they are insistent.
But we are not all that way.
Information about real abuse in US prisons in Iraq always makes its way to the Iraqi society as a whole. Information tralvels mouth to mouth if it is censored by the authorities. This kind of information is different from rumors. Rumors travels through the general population which are unrelated to the issue. Torture information travels through those who have experienced it, especially those which are highly reagrded by their respective communites. Thus Iraqis know what kind of treatement they were subjected to. Thus releasing these photos will only make US citizens aware fo the problem and is not addressed to the Iraqis.
The collection of images the Iraqi public has accumulated of the US tactics and behavior makes any US move very suspicious. Actually anyone who associates with the occupation becomes suspicious from a nationalist Iraqi point of view. The vote on the constitution will show the strenght of nationalism in Iraq, especially that Sistani has not directly endorsed the constitution. I do not think he wants to be responsible for such a historical phenomena as the division of Iraq.
Thus continued US intervention even after withdrawal will be cause for division within Iraq.
The reason is that Iraqis are convinced that the US is not capable of being benovelant as a goverment. All its actions are based on its own interests.
We could further state with confidence that if the US public was to vote on a proposition that would make all US intervention in Iraq solely to help rebuild Iraq even at the cost of military sacrifices and billions of dollars such a vote will fail.
Only when Iraqis are dealt with as equals, and Iraqis believe that they are equals, and capable of enforcing that elusive sovereignty, only then will US intervention have a positive influence and be accepted.
We are not the only ones being hated, now the Spaniards are being hated after convicting 17 Al Qaeda members, from a Syrian nationalized Spanish to the Al Jazeera correspondent. The perps accused the Spanish justice just like they accuse the US with the Salah style fantastic realism. Their lawyers said that the Spanish suffered from cuuuultural misundeeeerstandings towards moslems.
Being hated by Islam is a badge of honor. I wear mine pinned on my chest.
David
United States of shame
Let’s take a look to the Geneva Convention that both Iraq and US signed
The Geneva Convention
Article 13
The convention section that directly deals with the treatment of prisoners is Article 13 and reads as follows:
"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoners concerned and carried out in his interest.
"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
"Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
Article 17
of the same treaty, which was drafted in 1949 and of which the United States and Iraq are parties, states: "Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number."
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever," Article 17 states.
A spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed that
Article 14 states: "Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.
"Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men."
Nada Doumani , a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that the organization was told in April by American authorities that there were about 7,000 detainees in Abu Ghraib. She said she could not account for how many had been released and how many might have been transferred.
"Between 70 and 90 percent of the people detained did not have specific charges against them," she said.
When Iraqi Captured two US military personal and Showing POWs on TV all US media US president Red Cross and UK PM Blaire speaks loud, lets see what they said at that time, see their words by their tongues…
Iraq Shows Dead and Captured US Soldiers
Arab TV Shows Dead, Captured U.S. Troops
One captured American, speaking in a shaky voice, said he had nothing against Iraqis. "They don't bother me, I don't bother them," he said.
President Bush, returning to the White House from Camp David, demanded that the POWs be treated well.
"We expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals," he said.
Bush speaks after Abu Grab Abuses break out, he make U-turn, where is the war crimes, where is The Geneva Convention
President Bush condemned any abuse as "abhorrent", but insisted that it did
not represent "the America that I know" during interviews on two Arabic television stations.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that parading prisoners of war before television cameras is a violation of the Geneva Convention, a set of rules that supposedly govern nations' conduct in the event of war.
Tony Blair joined US and his solders mistreated Iraqi POW badly in Basra, his defence minister side the pictures its fake and the vehicle shows was not real, later UK courts sentenced few Britt’s solders for miss treated POW badly so if the images fake why they charged? Can tell us UK Defence Minster!!
Tony Blair joined America yesterday in condemning Iraq's parading of US prisoners of war as a "flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention".
Display of PoWs flouts rules of war, says Blair
"Parading people in that way is contrary to the Geneva Convention, contrary to all the proper rules of conflict," Blair told British Forces radio.
By Ben Rooney, Defence Staff (Filed: 24/03/2003)
U.K. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said today that the treatment of U.S. POWs was "legally as well as morally quite different" from pictures of surrendering Iraqi soldiers shown in Western media.
Red Cross Protests Iraq's Abuse of American POWs
International Committee of the Red Cross spokeswoman Nada Doumani said the showing of the prisoners on TV violates Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions, which says prisoners should be protected from public curiosity. But she stressed that the priority at the moment is to get access to them.
World public opinion has condemned the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers as a war crime and a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions. Washington has attributed the events to “bad apples” and failed to accept responsibility or to hold seriously accountable mid- and high-level military officers and civilian officials, even though these people had established policies and issued orders that led directly to the abuses. Military courts have only tried and charged low-ranking individuals.
David,
What else do you wear as a badge of honor? Do you wear a photo of U.S soldiers raping Iraqi prisoners pinned to your chest?
Maybe you could create your own special photo album, to share with your kids, either present of future.
Maybe you could settle down with a few loved ones and enjoy the videos of U.S soldiers raping children...
What a badge of honor.
About 1,000 U.S. service members launched an offensive in western Iraq near the Syrian border on Saturday aimed at insurgents from Al-Qaida in Iraq, this country's most feared militant group, the military said.
You know whey US cleans towns and cities in the west of Iraq?
There is a very important reason behind that, cleaning cites started by Falujah, towns Al-Baghdadi, then Heet, then Hadethah, then Rwah, Ana, this to clean the land for the
A NEW OIL LINE TO ISRAEL FROM IRAQ TO HAYFA………
Any doubt American’s that you fight on behalf of Israel?
Helena:
Your comment that leadership is required from the top is quite correct. Apparently, somebody has been exercising leadership and has shut down the process of showing body-part photos.
Similar photos come out of every war, and are usually suppressed very quickly.
Your attempt to make the display of these photos stand in for the war itself is falling flat. Any side of any war could take and display pictures like this. Civilians could too. They shock, but fail to make any point, other than that war is terrible.
The insurgents in Iraq that you love so much distribute videos of beheadings. And they istribute them from the top of their administration. Clearly these videos do represent the moral character of the insurgents and their purposes. The comparison does not favor your side.
WarrenW,
US with its military forces came to Iraq who are civilized men with civilized minds, distributing democracy and holding all the respect to all Human Rights comparing them with The Insurgents in Iraq?
So why then US send their troops and Think-Tank to Iraq if both behave in same way, Hah!!!!