View Full Version : Former interogator at Guantanamo denounces practices used there
Hurin_Rules
05-10-2005, 05:48
Soldier lifts lid on Guantanamo 'abuse'
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington
A former US soldier who worked on interrogations at Guantanamo Bay has written a damning expose of the brutal, degrading treatment he says was meted out to prisoners there.
Sgt Erik Saar's book, Inside the Wire, comes with the US military's treatment of prisoners in the spotlight due to court hearings over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
In an interview with the BBC, Sgt Saar says that bizarre, sexual abuses at the prison camp set dangerous precedents that paved the way for mistreatment of US detainees in Iraq.
And the former translator argues that despite attempts to right wrongs at Guantanamo, the camp still defiles the values the US is fighting for in the war on terror.
'Does that please Allah?'
One of the most disturbing interrogations Sgt Saar says he saw in his six months at the prison concerned a female interrogator trying to break a Saudi detainee, captured after enrolling in a US flight school.
He tells how she began peeling off her clothes, taunting the man sexually in an attempt to shame him and stop him relying on his faith for support.
She left the interrogation room, Sgt Saar says, and found a red marker pen.
"'Brooke' came back round his [the prisoner's] other side, and he could see that she was beginning to withdraw her hand from her pants," said Sgt Saar.
"As it became visible, the Saudi saw what looked like red blood on her hand."
When the interrogator wiped what he thought was menstrual blood on his face, the prisoner raged, almost breaking free from his handcuffs.
But "Brooke" taunted him further, said Erik Saar, asking whether Allah would be pleased with him and telling him to have fun trying to pray.
Finally the detainee was returned to his cell without water, leaving him unable to cleanse himself.
'Start of a mistake'
Sgt Saar volunteered for Guantanamo in 2002. He was a US Army linguist, an expert in Arabic and had high security clearance.
But he says what he saw completely changed his attitude towards the camp, and his country.
There were many more suicide attempts in the camp than the US government has ever admitted, Sgt Saar says.
He claims storm trooper-like IRF (initial reaction force) teams were involved in numerous beatings of captives.
And of the 600 or so prisoners there, no more than a few dozen were "hardcore terrorists", says Erik Saar.
"The US Government portrays Guantanamo as a place where we are sending the worst of the worst, but this is not true.
"Guantanamo was the beginning of a mistake. It set a precedent in labelling people as enemy combatants, blurring the line between right and wrong.
"You can see it as the seed that may well have led to the naked human pyramids in Abu Ghraib."
FBI memos
In December 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union released a slew of material relating to prisoner abuse, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.
This included an FBI email - from December 2003, six months after Sgt Saar left - that said Defense Department interrogators at Guantanamo had impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" on a detainee.
US Southern Command told the BBC it was investigating alleged detainee abuse following the publication of the FBI memos.
But USSC says it will not comment on any abuse allegations until the inquiry report is published.
Officials also deny allegations in Erik Saar's book that interrogations at Guantanamo were "staged" for visiting inspectors.
A spokesman told the BBC that Mr Saar was a merely a junior linguist, "not in a position to understand the decisions behind interrogation planning".
'Whitewash'
The US Army is addressing the issue of how to treat a prisoner humanely, while still applying the pressure needed to get them to reveal critical information.
It is poised to issue a new field interrogation manual, which will expressly forbid certain harsh techniques and include detailed examples with references to the Geneva Conventions.
Throwing a chair against a wall in a fit of mock anger may be permissible, for instance, but using the chair to hit the detainee would not.
In March, a Pentagon investigation into the interrogation of prisoners detained in the war on terror found its policy did not lead to abuse.
The review - launched last year - examined 187 Pentagon investigations of alleged abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
Human rights groups criticised the review as a whitewash.
Sgt Saar believes improvements have been made at the camp, but says more radical change is needed, to bring prisoners within the US judicial system.
"People say if what I have written is the worst that went on, it is not too bad," he says.
"But Guantanamo has become a symbol of everything wrong with America's image. If we are trying to build a bridge to the Muslim world, what sort of face are we portraying?
Inside the Wire by Erik Saar and Viveca Novak is published in the United States by The Penguin Press.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4523825.stm
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 06:01
Hehe, i saw this guy on the news, he was obviously trying his hardest to sell his book.
I would never take the words of someone who will profit off of those words as an unbiased account.
In any event, i found this bit entertaining:
He tells how she began peeling off her clothes, taunting the man sexually in an attempt to shame him and stop him relying on his faith for support.
LoL Such horrible treatment! So horrible people pay millions every year in strip clubs for the same torture. Is that it?
This was a little more promising:
He claims storm trooper-like IRF (initial reaction force) teams were involved in numerous beatings of captives.
At least our forces havent completely pussy-ed out. Those dirtbags deserve a lot more than that.
In any event, the anti-war types will buy and believe this book despite the fact it is written by a low level linguist who stands to profit from its distribution. Good luck to him, he's truly a representation of capitalism at its best/worst. ~;)
He claims storm trooper-like IRF (initial reaction force) teams were involved in numerous beatings of captives.
At least our forces havent completely pussy-ed out. Those dirtbags deserve a lot more than that.
This assumes that all the prisoners are guilty, which is challenged by each bit of info that comes out. It appears that many were arrested and placed in Gitmo as the result of bounties being offered - people turned in innocent people in order to reap financial rewards, something you claim not to trust.
This also mistakenly asserts that it is justified to beat captives, even those who deserve it. While I hate to rely on theological appeals, WWJD? Would he beat a captive because he was a dirtbag.
It ignores the fact that with each mistake, error, or whatever you wish to call it, justifiable act if you will, that we bolster the root causes of hate and feed the fires that threaten us.
But it seems too late already. Once rational people on both sides begin to buy into the hate that was once owned only by a few extremists, then war is inevitable. And every day I see more and more the normal, regular, decent people who have accepted that violence and hatred are OK, because the other side did something violent and 'they all hate us.
We have been set onto a spiral, downward toward conflict.
ichi :bow:
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 06:36
This assumes that all the prisoners are guilty, which is challenged by each bit of info that comes out.
And you are assuming that all those sent to Guantanamo are given the same treatment. I dont buy that. I believe that the military would issue the proper amount of beatings to the proper people.
Dont you think if the media was able to find out some of the prisoners were sent to them via bounty, the military already knew. Its cold but responsible to keep them in for a while to make sure they arent who their accusers say they are, but I doubt they were the ones on the receiving end of those alleged beatings.
While I hate to rely on theological appeals, WWJD?
A rather cheap shot i must say, especially from someone living in the proverbial glass house.
Jesus would most likely not own a computer, house, or car.
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 07:01
WWJD... What Would Judas Do?
Own shares in Halliburton, get someone to beat the crap out of anyone who got in his way (at a profit) and make sure he was the treasurer of a leading humanitarian organisation like Oil for Food...
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 07:02
I saw and have heard this guy a few times. He changes his tune when the questioning gets tuough. When asked if he saw anything illegal or any atrocities he admits he hasnt. In reality his argument is that what he saw was un American.
Frankly - one can safely assume if he was what he claims he was - he would already been arrested and quietly held for breaking an oath and a contract which is signed when one holds high level security classification.
Did he see some questionable stuff - sure the reports from other sources tell of treatment that would be classified as illegal if done by the civilian police forces here in the United States - and in that there is a very valid point.
bmolsson
05-10-2005, 07:58
Jesus would most likely not own a computer, house, or car.
He does actually. But he prefer Japanese quality. ~;)
Franconicus
05-10-2005, 08:40
True or not true. American goverment may not complain about these stories. Why did they send the prisoners to Guantanamo? Why didn't they give them a fair trial?
One of the most disturbing interrogations Sgt Saar says he saw in his six months at the prison concerned a female interrogator trying to break a Saudi detainee, captured after enrolling in a US flight school.
He tells how she began peeling off her clothes, taunting the man sexually in an attempt to shame him and stop him relying on his faith for support.
She left the interrogation room, Sgt Saar says, and found a red marker pen.
"'Brooke' came back round his [the prisoner's] other side, and he could see that she was beginning to withdraw her hand from her pants," said Sgt Saar.
"As it became visible, the Saudi saw what looked like red blood on her hand."
When the interrogator wiped what he thought was menstrual blood on his face, the prisoner raged, almost breaking free from his handcuffs.
But "Brooke" taunted him further, said Erik Saar, asking whether Allah would be pleased with him and telling him to have fun trying to pray.
Finally the detainee was returned to his cell without water, leaving him unable to cleanse himself.
OMG OMG OMG!!!
HE SAW A NAKED WOMAN AND GOT MARKED BY A RED PEN!!!!
If thats torture then sign me up!!
Ja'chyra
05-10-2005, 09:44
Sounds like someone trying to sell his book to me.
He claims storm trooper-like IRF (initial reaction force) teams were involved in numerous beatings of captives.
At least our forces havent completely pussy-ed out. Those dirtbags deserve a lot more than that.
Glad you like it, you do realise that you've just lost the right to complain when American troops are found tortured though, don't you? If you believe in the might is right approach I hope you have the decency not to whinge when someone stronger comes along, I suppose time will tell.
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 10:13
Glad you like it, you do realise that you've just lost the right to complain when American troops are found tortured though, don't you? If you believe in the might is right approach I hope you have the decency not to whinge when someone stronger comes along, I suppose time will tell.
I dont complain because what will that get me? Will it make him any less tortured?
War is hell - i say give back 100 times what they give us. ~:cheers:
Productivity
05-10-2005, 13:58
OMG OMG OMG!!!
HE SAW A NAKED WOMAN AND GOT MARKED BY A RED PEN!!!!
If thats torture then sign me up!!
In doing that they forced him to think he had broken the rules of his religion, somethign which he was powerless to stop. It is emotional/mental torture. The fact that it is not so for you does not change that fact.
Ja'chyra
05-10-2005, 14:13
I dont complain because what will that get me? Will it make him any less tortured?
War is hell - i say give back 100 times what they give us.
You're missing the point, purposely? Probably.
Not only are you opening up your own troops to similar treatment without recourse to complaint through the Geneva convention, but who is going to surrender to someone who is going to torture them? Don't get me wrong the only reason I would have campaigned for the return of the British prisoners from GB would have been to try them as traitors, but they still have rights as citizens until that trial.
As for giving back 100 times, the days of the Great Khan burning cities and slaughtering all the inhabitants as an abject lesson to future combatants are long gone.
You're missing the point, purposely? Probably.
Not only are you opening up your own troops to similar treatment without recourse to complaint through the Geneva convention, but who is going to surrender to someone who is going to torture them?
Terrorists don't submit to the Geneva Convention - nor do they honor it. Lets not quibble over this - to say the United States is violating the Geneva Conventions and the anti-torture treaties is one thing - but lets not for a second believe that the enemy that the United States is facing right now honors any aspect of the Geneva Conventions.
For a United States seviceman or woman to surrender to the enemy we are facing right now - is to be killed with either a bullet in the back of the head or a sword stroke to remove the head. And its been that way from the very beginning even before the Abu Graib scandel or Gitmo allegations coming to light.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 15:40
What peopel dont seem to understand is countries dont sign the Geneva Conventions out of any humanitarian concerns other than the good of their own troops. If one side doesnt sign it or obey it theres little reason for the otherside to. In other words they only sign it so their own troops will be treated humanly if captured. Its like two sides signing a peace treaty and then one breaks it and attacks the other . Now if the otherside strikes back some of you will accuse it of breaking the treaty.
Ironside
05-10-2005, 15:48
As for giving back 100 times, the days of the Great Khan burning cities and slaughtering all the inhabitants as an abject lesson to future combatants are long gone.
That lesson was learned in another place too. The American public won't approve it. ~;)
BTW have you killed more than 430k people yet? :bow:
And Panzer I assume that you're aware that this kind of treatment is not uncommon in the nicer dictorships (not Uzbekistan for example).
Ja'chyra
05-10-2005, 15:59
Terrorists don't submit to the Geneva Convention - nor do they honor it. Lets not quibble over this - to say the United States is violating the Geneva Conventions and the anti-torture treaties is one thing - but lets not for a second believe that the enemy that the United States is facing right now honors any aspect of the Geneva Conventions.
I would say it is obvious most countries would sign that type of agreement to protect their own troops, I haven't said any different. But I am sure you will agree that this is not the only conflict you will be involved in, so, will your next enemy trust you to hold to the convention? I wouldn't, it's a dangerous precedent to set.
In other words they only sign it so their own troops will be treated humanly if captured. Its like two sides signing a peace treaty and then one breaks it and attacks the other . Now if the otherside strikes back some of you will accuse it of breaking the treaty.
As a country Iraq should be held to the convention and I didn't hear much of Iraqi army units executing their prisoners, there must have been a few prisoners.
As for terrorist units, can they be held to the same standards as a country that thinks it is the leading light in the fight for freedom, I would think that by the very definition of terrorists that they cant. So, should the US or the UK or whoever then fall to their level, I would say if they do then they are the same as the terrorists themselves. You either claim the moral high ground or you don't you can't have it both ways.
Now I've not even said that what has happened in GB is wrong, if it was my choice I would do what was needed to save my countrymen, all I'm saying is that you have made the choice and now you have to live with the consequences.
I
As a country Iraq should be held to the convention and I didn't hear much of Iraqi army units executing their prisoners, there must have been a few prisoners.
1991 - Iraq captured a few Soldiers and at least one Marine - they abused and beat up the prisoners - a few pictures are available if one really wants to go find them. There is also the allegation that they raped one of the female soldiers that they captured. Then there is about 1000 or more missing Kuwaiti citizens that were last seen being loaded into Iraqi vehicles and sent into Iraq.
Then there is the convoy that was abushed by Iraqi units - you know the story Private Lynch was in this one. There were bodies found in postures and with wounds that would indicate that they were shot after they surrendered
- So no Iraq does not follow the Geneva Convention when it was under Saddam's Regime.
As for terrorist units, can they be held to the same standards as a country that thinks it is the leading light in the fight for freedom, I would think that by the very definition of terrorists that they cant. So, should the US or the UK or whoever then fall to their level, I would say if they do then they are the same as the terrorists themselves. You either claim the moral high ground or you don't you can't have it both ways.
Never said otherwise now did I - I said don't quibble about the Geneva Convention and how it applies. The Geneva Convention does not apply to individuals that commit terrorist activities in a war zone. Something I have said from the very beginning in previous threads where this issue is brought up
Now I've not even said that what has happened in GB is wrong, if it was my choice I would do what was needed to save my countrymen, all I'm saying is that you have made the choice and now you have to live with the consequences.
Yep - and I agree. The Geneva Convention does not apply in the instance of Terrorists.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 16:26
But I am sure you will agree that this is not the only conflict you will be involved in, so, will your next enemy trust you to hold to the convention? I wouldn't, it's a dangerous precedent to set.
I would think so. The US has always followed these conventions. We havent renaged on them even in this case. Once more they dont apply to these people.I doubt anyone thinks the US will torture their prisoners if the enemy doesnt do the same. Hell we dont do it even when the do.
As for terrorist units, can they be held to the same standards as a country that thinks it is the leading light in the fight for freedom, I would think that by the very definition of terrorists that they cant. So, should the US or the UK or whoever then fall to their level
Is t your contention they have? Dont be ridiculous.
Hurin_Rules
05-10-2005, 17:22
I would think so. The US has always followed these conventions. We havent renaged on them even in this case.
Sorry, but this is inaccurate. The Geneva Conventions state that if there is any doubt as to whether prisoners are legitimate prisoners of war, a fair and competent tribunal must be convened to assess their status. Many of the inmates in Guantanamo have not been given anything remotely like a fair and competent tribunal. This is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 18:27
Sorry, but this is inaccurate. The Geneva Conventions state that if there is any doubt as to whether prisoners are legitimate prisoners of war, a fair and competent tribunal must be convened to assess their status. Many of the inmates in Guantanamo have not been given anything remotely like a fair and competent tribunal.
As far as I know everyone of them was vetted by a military tribunal and thats how they were picked to go there. Their names werent picked out of a hat.
Hurin_Rules
05-10-2005, 18:50
As far as I know everyone of them was vetted by a military tribunal and thats how they were picked to go there. Their names werent picked out of a hat.
There are currently several court cases challenging the validity of these 'tribunals'. The Red Cross, international legal scholars and even the American Bar Association have rejected these tribunals as unfair. The detainees do not have access to lawyers, are defended by American soldiers with little or no legal training, do not have access to the secret evidence against them, and have no right of appeal.
Sources:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iUpQxhEcLjwJ:www.legalday.co.uk/current/practice/lawsociety/lawsoc090804.htm+guantanamo+american+bar+association&hl=en
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:EOwNxaNNxRUJ:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3238624.stm+guantanamo+american+bar+association&hl=en
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aba/abarpt80802cmbtnts.pdf
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 18:57
There are currently several court cases challenging the validity of these 'tribunals'.
The fact that some challenge them doesnt make them invalid. You can expect some lawyer to challenge anything.
The Red Cross, international legal scholars
They have an agenda an its an incorrect one.
even the American Bar Association have rejected these tribunals as unfair.
As a body or certain members? Lets have some truth in posting here. Again you will find lawyers on both sides of just about anylegal argument. I guess since 4 judges voted no to Rowe vs Wade it makes it invalid.
Besides that your now changing your tune. You first maintained that they were denied a tribunal. Now your claim is it wasnt good enough.
Hurin_Rules
05-10-2005, 19:14
They have an agenda an its an incorrect one.
Ah yes, the Red Cross-- that bunch of partisan hacks. As opposed to the purely neutral Bush administration.
Besides that your now changing your tune. You first maintained that they were denied a tribunal. Now your claim is it wasnt good enough.
Again, you are wrong. I said they were denied a fair and competent tribunal. My tune is the same as it has always been.
Again, you are wrong. I said they were denied a fair and competent tribunal. My tune is the same as it has always been.
It might not be a fair tibunal - but most military lawyers I have been around were at least very competent in their representing any soldier that they had to represent.
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 19:38
Ja'chyra,
So, should the US or the UK or whoever then fall to their level, I would say if they do then they are the same as the terrorists themselves.
I dont understand this position at all. This is not a game. Peoples lives are at stake.
This war is not about maintaining an image, or being able to fight with more honor than the terrorists - its about preventing another 9/11. I cant understand why people would set such arbitrary rules about whats "American" and whats "UnAmerican.
People act as though if we rough some AQ guy up for critical information we have lost the American Spirit or something. Thats ridiculous.
What exactly is the spirit of the Western Alliances? In WW2 they bombed innocent civilians incessantly. They executed thousands of prisoners they felt were political threats to a new Germany. They shot wounded Japanese for fear of being blown up by hidden grenades. So where is this western ethic?
The truth is America and Britain have never restricted themselves with arbitrary rules when they were really threatened.
If AQ showed any kind of decency toward American prisoners i would feel differently. However - from the very beginning they simply killed them, most of the time with torture first. Forgive me if I dont shed a tear when some radical gets a free strip show.
LittleGrizzly
05-10-2005, 19:46
This war is not about maintaining an image, or being able to fight with more honor than the terrorists - its about preventing another 9/11.
but thats exactly what mantaining an image can help you do, positive PR with the general population with lessen the chance but causing negative PR like this will only give the terrorists more support...imo
Hurin_Rules
05-10-2005, 19:55
It might not be a fair tibunal - but most military lawyers I have been around were at least very competent in their representing any soldier that they had to represent.
No argument there Redleg, but the crucial point is that most of the detainees at Guantanamo are not given military lawyers-- their 'defenders' have not gone to law school or passed the bar.
The initial team of lawyers the Pentagon appointed rejected the rules as inherently unfair, and were then fired:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:weRrBRL8wm0J:www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098618,00.html+guantanamo+lawyers&hl=en
Then, the DoD allowed lawyers for a couple of the detainees (mostly from allied nations like Australia) and 'defense counsel' to the rest; these 'defenders' are not lawyers, which means that most of the detainees in Guantanamo have never had access to any lawyer, military or not. Even the German 'unlawful combatants' of WWII were given lawyers.
In addition, several of the 'judges' revealed that they too had no legal training when they struggled to grasp elementary legal concepts. Several of them were replaced as well:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:znuSxGqYBJIJ:web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511552004%3Fopen%26of%3DENG-2M4+guantanamo+defense+counsel&hl=en
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:4h-mAsuDLugJ:hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/05/usdom9615.htm+guantanamo+%22no+legal+training%22&hl=en
I do not in any way question the integrity of American military lawyers. In fact, many of them have spoken out AGAINST what is happening in Guantanamo, and were fired for it. But the people both defending and judging the detainees at Guantanamo are not lawyers. That is why the kangaroo courts there cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered 'fair and competent' tribunals.
Goofball
05-10-2005, 20:03
This assumes that all the prisoners are guilty, which is challenged by each bit of info that comes out.
And you are assuming that all those sent to Guantanamo are given the same treatment. I dont buy that. I believe that the military would issue the proper amount of beatings to the proper people.
If it wasn't so scary, that would be the funniest thing I have ever heard you say, Panzer.
So, by your logic, simply being a member of the U.S. military qualifies somebody to be the first, middle, and last decision maker in the arbitration of "justice." Never mind the more or less fair and proven legal system that the U.S. has done a mostly admirable job of using and honoring for the last couple of hundred years. Judges, juries, and lawyers are all just unnecessary fluff when it comes to deciding who is guilty and who needs punishment. All that is needed is a guy with a high school education (well, in most cases, anyway) and a billy club. Yes friends and neighbors, I submit to you that if somebody can meet the excruciatingly high and demanding standards for entrance in the U.S. military, then they quite clearly are capable of replacing the entire criminal justice system.
~;)
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 20:14
You ought to read up on some of the things the US military has done during times of war, Goofball.
You should particularly look at how some of the SS were treated (executed) on the spot. This was not during a battle, but after they had surrendered. They were considered radicals, much like AQ today eh?
Japanese troops often suffered the same fate. There was nothing wrong with this - it was war.
You are creating precedents that dont exist Goofball. I submit to you that the US military only tries people during a wartime situation when it is convenient to do so AND has become much more conscious of the rights of detainees.
Ironside
05-10-2005, 20:37
Applying wartime principles on a low-intense war (as I assume you point at the war on terror) were the enemy likes to hide, is problematic to say the least. I think I missed the introducing of the terrorist uniform.
Besides I'm not sure how many people that would agree on your view about this being a full-scale war (still low-intence though).
Hurin_Rules
05-10-2005, 20:56
I think I missed the introducing of the terrorist uniform.
You may have a point about members of Al Qaeda at Guantanamo, but what about the Taleban? They do not have to wear a uniform to qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions, because they are not a militia operating independently of the governement; they were actually the soldiers of a legitimate government. The issue is clarified here:
http://hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm#taliban_pow
The Taleban at Guanatanamo are most certainly protected by the Geneva Conventions, and just as certainly the US government is ignoring these.
Hurin_Rules
05-10-2005, 21:12
Anyone care to respond to the information I posted about the lack of lawyers or judges in Guantanamo? Even the Nazi partisans the allies captured after WWII were given lawyers and a day in court before judges.
Anyone care to respond to the information I posted about the lack of lawyers or judges in Guantanamo? Even the Nazi partisans the allies captured after WWII were given lawyers and a day in court before judges.
I can only comment from what I know Hurin - and that is that the Military Justice system does allow for non-lawyers to represent both sides and for a military officer to sit as the judge in the proceedings. However if the allegations that you stated are true Hurin government first gave them trained military lawyers and military judges and then fired them when these same appointed military lawyers and judges pointed out the errors in the system that was being developed - then a miscarriage of justice has been done in providing a fair hearing. THe compentent I won't say - because of my own personal experiences in dealing in the Courts Martial process - ie I got to sit as a judge on two Courts Martials - and I never went to law school. So the compentent part still seems fair to me because of my own experience. But to fire trained lawyers and judges does smack of unfair.
Since I am at work - with limited ability to go back and research - I can not comment futher until much latter.
However I will say Panzer is wrong about WW2. The documented cases of Nazi's that were shot after they surrendered was done as an act of relation because Nazi shootings of GI's.
And in the Japanese campaign - the Japanese rarely surrendered - most often because they refused to - but sometimes because they were never given the chance to. That is a far cry from what Panzer is stating.
You may have a point about members of Al Qaeda at Guantanamo, but what about the Taleban? They do not have to wear a uniform to qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions, because they are not a militia operating independently of the governement; they were actually the soldiers of a legitimate government. The issue is clarified here:
http://hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm#taliban_pow
The Taleban at Guanatanamo are most certainly protected by the Geneva Conventions, and just as certainly the US government is ignoring these.
Good you see the point - one that I have stated over and over again. And yes the Taliban Militiamen should be treated under the conditions of the Geneva Convention because they are indeed a recongized and organized military force for their nation.
Goofball
05-10-2005, 22:32
You ought to read up on some of the things the US military has done during times of war, Goofball.
You should particularly look at how some of the SS were treated (executed) on the spot. This was not during a battle, but after they had surrendered. They were considered radicals, much like AQ today eh?
Japanese troops often suffered the same fate. There was nothing wrong with this - it was war.
You are creating precedents that dont exist Goofball. I submit to you that the US military only tries people during a wartime situation when it is convenient to do so AND has become much more conscious of the rights of detainees.
Sorry, but "Well, we have done much worse before" is simply not a valid defence.
Just because U.S. troops acted in a criminal manner before does not excuse them doing so again.
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 23:49
However I will say Panzer is wrong about WW2. The documented cases of Nazi's that were shot after they surrendered was done as an act of relation because Nazi shootings of GI's.
Wrong.. those are not the killings I am talking about. Much has come to light about exactly how Germans were treated by the allies, including starvation, executions and such.
Ike hated Germans, as evidenced by this order:
“…Under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to prisoners of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot…”(
Also see this:
"Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated one million [German] men, most of them in American camps . . . Eisenhower's hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequalled by anything in American history . . . an enormous war crime."
-- Col. Ernest F. Fisher, PhD Lt.
101 st Airborne Division, Senior Historian, United States Army
As for the Japanese - many wounded were shot for fear of having hidden grenades or because the US soldiers wanted their fillings. This is well documented Redleg.
Let me stress there was nothing wrong with any of that... Thats the price of war.
Sorry, but "Well, we have done much worse before" is simply not a valid defence.
A valid defence for whom? The United States does not need its actions approved by you or any of your comrades.
You may have a point about members of Al Qaeda at Guantanamo, but what about the Taleban? They do not have to wear a uniform to qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions, because they are not a militia operating independently of the governement; they were actually the soldiers of a legitimate government. The issue is clarified here:
http://hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm#taliban_pow
The Taleban at Guanatanamo are most certainly protected by the Geneva Conventions, and just as certainly the US government is ignoring these.
Legitimate government or not- they still have no protections under the Geneva conventions. The Taliban was not a signatory to it and a government must be such to be entitled to protection under it. Really, why are we hashing this out again? The Conventions have been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.
Those guys you link certainly do have an interesting take on the Conventions though. That Taliban soldiers didn't need to wear uniforms under Geneva? That's a new one. They take so many quotes out of context and fill in the blanks on their own... it's impossible to tell anything from their Q&A.
However I will say Panzer is wrong about WW2. The documented cases of Nazi's that were shot after they surrendered was done as an act of relation because Nazi shootings of GI's.
Wrong.. those are not the killings I am talking about. Much has come to light about exactly how Germans were treated by the allies, including starvation, executions and such.
Try again Panzer - those are all undocumented - which means individual soldiers acted out of their own anger - not an official order. There is a big difference.
Ike hated Germans, as evidenced by this order:
“…Under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to prisoners of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot…”(
Also see this:
"Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated one million [German] men, most of them in American camps . . . Eisenhower's hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequalled by anything in American history . . . an enormous war crime."
-- Col. Ernest F. Fisher, PhD Lt.
101 st Airborne Division, Senior Historian, United States Army
Once again a casual annihilation of German men of over 1 million would of been plastered all over the media by now - show evidence other then one historian before I believe that there was a systemic crime committed by the United States Army.
As for the Japanese - many wounded were shot for fear of having hidden grenades or because the US soldiers wanted their fillings. This is well documented Redleg.
Again individual soldiers committing criminal acts - not official Military policy.
Japanese soldiers were know to fake death to kill Americans - once again similiar to the marine that just recently made the news. Killing the enemy on the battlefield because you are not sure if he intends to continue fighting is not a war crime and is an act of war. Perfectly acceptable - killing the enemy to get his gold filings is looting and is a criminal act punishable by death in a summary courts martial.
If you can not tell the difference - then its a good thing you can not serve in the Military.
Let me stress there was nothing wrong with any of that... Thats the price of war.
Criminal acts during war - are still criminal acts. Killing one's enemy on the battlefield in a brutal fashion during the fighting is acceptable because that is the nature of war. Shooting a prisoner that has already surrendered is a war crime if it was done delibrate. Such as the two documented cases of American GI's shooting Nazi's that surrendered.
Sorry, but "Well, we have done much worse before" is simply not a valid defence.
A valid defence for whom? The United States does not need its actions approved by you or any of your comrades.
However the United States Government needs its actions approved by the citizens of our country. I for one am against all criminal behavior in war - hiding it behind that war is a dirty and rough business does not mean it should not be punished when discovered. The military code of conduct that I served under - does not promote the ideological views that you are presenting here.
Hurin_Rules
05-11-2005, 00:20
PJ:
I just don't get the argument here. You cite horrific practices that your own author describes as an 'enormous war crime' to say that these are not war crimes. The fact that some people got away with them doesn't mean they weren't crimes. No one in the US military today would accept such measures as standard practice.
Xiahou:
If you're going to say that quotes were taken out of context and also that the Taleban needed uniforms, then please cite what specific sections of the Geneva Conventions you feel are relevant. Because as it stands, there is no basis for denying the Taliban the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Those guys you link certainly do have an interesting take on the Conventions though. That Taliban soldiers didn't need to wear uniforms under Geneva? That's a new one. They take so many quotes out of context and fill in the blanks on their own... it's impossible to tell anything from their Q&A.
The rules of war - which govern what consitutes a legal combatant - see the Hague Treaty - states that an organized militia with a recongized chain of command, fighting as an organized body will be recongized as combatants wether they are in uniform or not. Futhermore it clearly states that citizens of a nation in spontaous uprising to an armed invasion will also be accorded the status of combatants.
IE the Taliban Militia are indeed entitled to some protections of the Geneva Convention because the United States is a signatory agency in both the Hague and the 2nd Protocals of the Geneva Convention - which cover this particular area.
However terrorists and criminals are a different matter enterily. The rules clearly state that summary judgements could have been executed on these individuals when they are captured on the battlefield committing illegal acts.
I got absolutely no remorse concerning any of the alleged terrorists - but the Taliban Militia should have been accorded fair hearings to determine their status.
If you go back and review the available threads you will see that I am a big supporter of the Invasion of Iraq and the Removal of the Taliban from Afganstan to capture the Terrorist elements that were headquartered and given sanctury in that nation.
I will argue that the justification for going into Afganstan was valid - I will even argue that keeping the Terrorists and unkowns captured in Afganstan and Iraq in GITMO is justified - because of the terms used in the Geneva and Hague Treaty allows some individuals to be outside of the rules of war - and fall into extra-legal catergories (not sure of the word use here) however Hurin has presented legimate points concerning the treatment of Taliban Militia soldiers and individuals sent by other nations to GITMO via the United States Government. These concerns presented by him and backed up with legimate articles from multiple sources - should be considered and not ignored in the fashion that some would like to do.
The nature of a democracy and the concept of free speech is to admit and acknowledge when the other side has a legimate and very valid point. Hurin and others have done this. To defend our actions by pointing out bad behavior from the past that was forgiven or ignored - does not make the point Hurin has made invalid - nor does it grant creditablity to my nations actions.
Will I advocate the dismantling of GITMO and the fair hearings of everyone in the faciality - No. However I will state that certain actions of the current adminstration are questionable in the execution of policy in that regard. I will advocate that any Taliban Militiaman that was captured in Afganstan and sent to GITMO should have been initially treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention and given the military tribunal that is required before sending a legimate combatant into such a faciality as GITMO. That any citizen sent to GITMO by any nation without a fair hearing has had their rights violated.
I have absolutely no problem with dangerous criminals caught in the act (ie on the battlefield doing criminal acts. ie Terrorists from other nations caught in these circumstances) because under the Hague Treaty all that is required for individuals caught in such a manner is a summary trail and execution on the spot.
However I also realize that by doing so - I am tolerating a miscarriage of the rights that criminals should have.
PanzerJaeger
05-11-2005, 02:44
Try again Panzer - those are all undocumented - which means individual soldiers acted out of their own anger - not an official order. There is a big difference.
The executions were ordered by officers, the starvation came straight from the top.
Once again a casual annihilation of German men of over 1 million would of been plastered all over the media by now - show evidence other then one historian before I believe that there was a systemic crime committed by the United States Army.
If you choose not to believe it, then thats your choice. There have been grumblings about this for years and recently a lot more has come out about it including a book.
Again individual soldiers committing criminal acts - not official Military policy.
It was ignored by the US military. Is that not a passive form of acceptance?
If you can not tell the difference - then its a good thing you can not serve in the Military.
Cheap shot - nice. ~:cheers:
However the United States Government needs its actions approved by the citizens of our country. I for one am against all criminal behavior in war - hiding it behind that war is a dirty and rough business does not mean it should not be punished when discovered. The military code of conduct that I served under - does not promote the ideological views that you are presenting here.
Of course the US military doesnt promote such things. We rely on the CIA and other covert agencies to do our dirty work. I as a citizen fully support doing whatever is neccesary, dirty or clean, to protect America.
I just don't get the argument here. You cite horrific practices that your own author describes as an 'enormous war crime' to say that these are not war crimes. The fact that some people got away with them doesn't mean they weren't crimes. No one in the US military today would accept such measures as standard practice.
You made the argument yourself...
No one in the US military today would accept such measures as standard practice.
Many on the left are alleging that America would be betraying its values by beating some AQ guy, but in reality America has never been more sensitive to the rights and lives of its enemies.
I really shouldnt have brought up the US starvation camps as its obviously a touchy subject. I do believe that it happened however, but in my defense of America i seem to have brought, what i thought were already known, facts into the discussion that dont reflect well on the US. Call me dense.. :dizzy2:
Try again Panzer - those are all undocumented - which means individual soldiers acted out of their own anger - not an official order. There is a big difference.
The executions were ordered by officers, the starvation came straight from the top.
Your going to have to provide evidence that such orders were given. While I have studied most aspects of World War 2 from the American viewpoint - I have never even stumbled upon a hint of the allegation you are making here.
Once again a casual annihilation of German men of over 1 million would of been plastered all over the media by now - show evidence other then one historian before I believe that there was a systemic crime committed by the United States Army.
If you choose not to believe it, then thats your choice. There have been grumblings about this for years and recently a lot more has come out about it including a book.
Once again its an allegation you have made - where the evidence I have seen from past studies have never indicated any such act. Saying it is one thing - provide the documents or links - ie the name of the book.
Again individual soldiers committing criminal acts - not official Military policy.
It was ignored by the US military. Is that not a passive form of acceptance?
Actually it was not as ignored as you might think - several soldiers were arrested and convicted during the war for such activities.
If you can not tell the difference - then its a good thing you can not serve in the Military.
Cheap shot - nice. ~:cheers:
Yes it was - and you deserved it for making allegations without supporting evidence.
However the United States Government needs its actions approved by the citizens of our country. I for one am against all criminal behavior in war - hiding it behind that war is a dirty and rough business does not mean it should not be punished when discovered. The military code of conduct that I served under - does not promote the ideological views that you are presenting here.
Of course the US military doesnt promote such things. We rely on the CIA and other covert agencies to do our dirty work. I as a citizen fully support doing whatever is neccesary, dirty or clean, to protect America.
Once again we have tried that policy in several locations in the world - it failed. Why should we repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Its always better to be above board - even if you are playing rough - no need to have quasi-outfits doing illegal things in our name.
I just don't get the argument here. You cite horrific practices that your own author describes as an 'enormous war crime' to say that these are not war crimes. The fact that some people got away with them doesn't mean they weren't crimes. No one in the US military today would accept such measures as standard practice.
You made the argument yourself...
Different individual - not my point.
No one in the US military today would accept such measures as standard practice.
Many on the left are alleging that America would be betraying its values by beating some AQ guy, but in reality America has never been more sensitive to the rights and lives of its enemies.
And when they get carried away with their allegations without evidence as you have done here - I also counter their arguement.
I really shouldnt have brought up the US starvation camps as its obviously a touchy subject. I do believe that it happened however, but in my defense of America i seem to have brought, what i thought were already known, facts into the discussion that dont reflect well on the US. Call me dense.. :dizzy2:
Bring it up by all means - but provide supporting documentation and links from eyewitness to back up the allegation. A quote from a military historian is good - but its questionable as factual when there is no other supporting evidence. Considering the amount of reading I have done on American Warfare - if this was anything less then an allegation I would of seen at least a hint of such an activity - and frankly its either not completely true or was buried deep into the military records. But I would not buy such a story from the far left without futher evidence - nor will I buy into such a story off of one quote - from a military historian I have never read of before.
PanzerJaeger
05-11-2005, 04:38
Ok i feel like a jackass bringing something up like that about America in defense of America. :wall:
I do not want to argue with you over this because frankly it doesnt feel right being on this side of the argument. I will not continue to disparage the US.
But so you dont think im just bullshitting for some reason, the name of the book is Other Losses by James Bacque.
Hurin_Rules
05-11-2005, 05:34
Check this out-- I thought it was ironic given our discussion of uniforms:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. troops battling insurgents near Iraq's border with Syria have encountered uniformed fighters whose gear may indicate a better-trained opposition than that found in other areas, a U.S. general said Tuesday.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said some of the fighters were said to be wearing protective vests.
The American offensive began over the weekend against insurgents thought to be taking refuge and planning attacks in towns along the porous border region.
By Monday, the push had left at least 100 insurgents and three Marines dead, the U.S. military said.
On Tuesday, Raja Nawaf Farhan al-Mahalawi, the governor of Anbar province, was kidnapped by people demanding U.S. forces cease operations in the area, Anbar tribal sources said.
"There are reports that these people are in uniforms, in some cases are wearing protective vests, and there's some suspicion that their training exceeds that of what we have seen with other engagements further east," Conway said.
When asked further about the significance of the uniforms, Conway downplayed it, telling reporters at a Pentagon briefing that it was not the first time U.S. troops have seen uniformed insurgents.
"We have seen it in some instances," Conway said. "It's spotty."
"Let me make sure it's understood that this is not a single entity that is all in the same uniform," he said. "We're seeing some uniforms on some of the fighters."
When pressed, the general said the insurgents would not have additional legal rights under the Geneva Conventions if captured.
"It is not an organized army per se," Conway said.
"What I expressed to you was one line out of one report that talked about some insurgents wearing uniforms," he said.
Last month, insurgents dressed in Iraqi military uniforms killed an Iraqi general, Lt. Gen. Adnan Qaragholi, and his son at the general's home in southern Baghdad. (Full story)
More here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/10/iraq.main/index.html
Ok i feel like a jackass bringing something up like that about America in defense of America. :wall:
I do not want to argue with you over this because frankly it doesnt feel right being on this side of the argument. I will not continue to disparage the US.
But so you dont think im just bullshitting for some reason, the name of the book is Other Losses by James Bacque.
That is usually the case when attempting to justify bad behavior by using other bad behavior. It always comes out wrong in the end.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-11-2005, 06:02
U.S. troops battling insurgents near Iraq's border with Syria have encountered uniformed fighters whose gear may indicate a better-trained opposition than that found in other areas, a U.S. general said Tuesday.
This isnt what the genva convention refers to when they say uniforms. These people would be treated the same as fighters with no uniforms. It has to be a recognised uniform of a legitimate organization. These guys are foriegn fighters equipped by Iran or Syria most likely.
If he had no control then he cannot possable have broken the rules of his religion.
He is probably just some sick twisted f*ck that beleives all women should be covered from head to toe.
Fundamentalism shoudl be challenged on all levels.
Goofball
05-11-2005, 16:58
Fundamentalism shoudl be challenged on all levels.
Oh, I don't know about that. I find that the best thing for me to do when my golf handicap starts to creep up is to get back to basics and focus on the fundamentals.
~D
Gawain of Orkeny
05-11-2005, 17:02
Oh, I don't know about that. I find that the best thing for me to do when my golf handicap starts to creep up is to get back to basics and focus on the fundamentals.
In other words your fundamentaly challegened ~;)
Goofball
05-11-2005, 17:09
In other words your fundamentaly challegened ~;)
Unfortunately, you don't know how right you are, based on the abysmal results of my most recent round...
:embarassed:
Hurin_Rules
05-11-2005, 17:49
Here we see that people are literally dying now over this scandal-- and America is suffering because of it:
Afghans killed in anti-U.S. riots
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Posted: 1551 GMT (2351 HKT)
KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- At least four people have been killed and 70 injured in violent protests in Jalalabad over reports U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base desecrated copies of the Quran during questioning of prisoners held there.
The trouble started as thousands of demonstrators marched Wednesday through the streets of Jalalabad, in the eastern part of the country, officials and eyewitnesses said.
Afghan's interior ministry reported police fired at the crowds when they began to attack government buildings.
A witness told CNN that police as well as U.S. troops fired into the air to keep the crowds under control.
Thirteen people were arrested, the interior ministry said.
A group of protesters attacked the governor's house and the Pakistani consulate in Jalalabad, according to a Pakistani foreign ministry official, but no one was injured.
An Afghan official in Jalalabad said the crowd also attacked U.S. Army vehicles, and U.S. soldiers fired into the air before leaving the area.
Rallies were also held in several cities in neighboring Pakistan, where the religious party alliance MMA announced plans to mount a countrywide protest against the United States Friday.
The country's national assembly passed a resolution demanding the U.S. government investigate the incident and punish anyone found to be responsible.
The U.S. State Department announced Tuesday the Pentagon would investigate the allegations, which were first reported in Newsweek magazine.
The magazine quoted sources as saying investigators looking into abuses at the military prison in Cuba found interrogators "had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet."
The State Department said Pakistan, a key Muslim ally in the war against terrorism, "expressed its serious concern to senior officials" at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.
"The alleged desecration, if it occurred, would be deplorable and completely out of keeping with our deeply held values of religious freedom and tolerance," the State Department said in a written answer to a question posed at Tuesday's press briefing.
"Desecration of the Holy Quran is a reprehensible act that would not be sanctioned by the United States for any purpose."
A statement issued by the Pakistani foreign ministry Tuesday said: "U.S. officials have stated that the alleged perpetrators of the reported desecration would be held accountable after the matter had been appropriately investigated and responsibility is established."
CNN State Department Producer Elise Labott contributed to this report.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/11/afghan.protest/index.html
Gawain of Orkeny
05-11-2005, 18:00
Wow I was just looking at the same article and was going to post it. Did you notice it was started by an ubsubstaniated report in Newsweek. Its just those who oppose democracy trying to make a stink.
Hurin_Rules
05-11-2005, 18:12
Wow I was just looking at the same article and was going to post it. Did you notice it was started by an ubsubstaniated report in Newsweek. Its just those who oppose democracy trying to make a stink.
Actually, Gawain, if you note, it was the same article that started this thread: the 'unsubstantiated report' was the book by the former interogator who worked at Guantanamo. I would hesitate to dismiss a former US soldier as a man who 'opposes democracy' and was just 'trying to make a stink'.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-11-2005, 18:13
. I would hesitate to dismiss a former US soldier as a man who 'opposes democracy' and was just 'trying to make a stink'.
Im not reffering to him but the hoodlums who rioted.
bmolsson
05-12-2005, 06:04
Well, it seems like everyone is out of the closet by now. The "war on terror" is out in the open. There are no rules, plain and simple. If this is good or bad is another story.
I for one feel that the west is losing to the terrorist the moment we have to abuse any agreed laws and rules, regardless if they are international or national. We are just better than that in my opinion.....
If we truly start doing to right thing and realise that they will follow no rules and then untie our soldiers hands so to speak. Then this thing would be over in no time.
Papewaio
05-12-2005, 06:10
If we truly start doing to right thing and realise that they will follow no rules and then untie our soldiers hands so to speak. Then this thing would be over in no time.
Then AQ wins by taking down Western Civilisation.
bmolsson
05-12-2005, 06:42
Then AQ wins by taking down Western Civilisation.
They seems to do a pretty good job with US. It's really sad to see the increased fundamentalism among the US public. Really sad.....
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 06:59
It's really sad to see the increased fundamentalism among the US public. Really sad..
'Look around'. Hmmm I dont see it. ~:confused:
PanzerJaeger
05-12-2005, 07:00
Untrue.. If you were to look at a graph of fundementalism vs time progression you would clearly see a downward slope.
bmolsson
05-12-2005, 07:13
Untrue.. If you were to look at a graph of fundementalism vs time progression you would clearly see a downward slope.
Links ?
bmolsson
05-12-2005, 07:15
'Look around'. Hmmm I dont see it. ~:confused:
This one really made me laugh....... ~:grouphug:
I think he meant a hypthetical graph. But hes right, people have become less fundamentalist as time goes by.
Ironside
05-12-2005, 14:45
Untrue.. If you were to look at a graph of fundementalism vs time progression you would clearly see a downward slope.
Considering that what is mentioned fundamentalism today is less than 100 years old, I don't you can do such mentioning without evidence.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.