hate anger rage

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

Red Cross Blew Whistle on Abuses

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

Perhaps it wasn't just a few random incidents, after all......

No way this administration is trying to spin its way out of their now routine ends justify the means mentailty......
Inspectors interviewed Iraqi prisoners and told U.S. of mistreatment 'throughout 2003.'
By Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writer

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... ines-world

WASHINGTON — The international Red Cross documented cases of severe mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners far more numerous and far earlier than previously was known, U.S. and Red Cross officials said Friday.

The Red Cross repeatedly warned the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department in confidential reports and closed-door meetings since last spring that U.S. troops were abusing inmates at various military-run prisons in Iraq.

The now-infamous photos of U.S. military police abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib were taken in November, and a classified report of the Pentagon investigation largely focused on incidents at Abu Ghraib beginning in October.

"The elements we found were tantamount to torture," Pierre Kraehenbuehl, operations director for the Swiss-based International Committee of the Red Cross, told reporters in Geneva. "They were clearly incidents of degrading and inhuman treatment."

He said the ICRC investigations showed "a pattern, a broad system" rather than "isolated acts of individual members of the coalition forces."

Kraehenbuehl said the "concerns … were regularly brought to the attention" of the U.S.-led coalition "throughout 2003."

He said the ICRC communicated "orally and in writing" with U.S. officials. The ICRC also had expressed concern to British authorities about inmates in British detention camps in Iraq, Kraehenbuehl said.

U.S. officials said the ICRC reports said that Iraqi prisoners in some cases were severely beaten by guards, some inmates were kept naked in dark concrete cells for days, and coalition forces had shot and killed at least seven inmates during prison disturbances.

Red Cross teams inspected 16 coalition-run prisons and interviewed tens of thousands of inmates between March and November last year, including a surprise inspection of Abu Ghraib in October. After the U.S. military replied Dec. 24 to its report, the ICRC returned to Abu Ghraib for four days in early January and again in March.

After each visit, the teams filed confidential reports of their observations and recommendations to prison commanders in Iraq, as well as to Bush administration officials in Washington. ICRC officials held separate meetings in February with L. Paul Bremer III, head of the occupation, and Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

"We had regular meetings with the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House to discuss these prison conditions as well as other issues," said Christophe Girod, the chief ICRC delegate in Washington. "It was part of our dialogue."

Under the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC monitors treatment of prisoners and detainees in war zones. The organization delivers its confidential reports directly to governments that run the prisons, however, and they rarely reach the public. ICRC officials said they were unhappy that details of their reports had leaked to the press.

Girod confirmed details cited in a Wall Street Journal report Friday that described a confidential 24-page summary of last year's prison visits.

The summary report, which was written in January and submitted to U.S. authorities in February, concluded that abuse of prisoners was widespread in Iraq.

During the unannounced October visit to Abu Ghraib, for example, the ICRC monitors witnessed "the practice of keeping persons completely naked in totally empty concrete cells in total darkness for several consecutive days," the report said.

The teams also witnessed guards forcing male prisoners to parade around in women's underwear, according to the summary report. When an ICRC official complained to the military officer in charge, the report says, the American explained that the practice was "part of the process."

The report also describes an incident last September in which coalition forces arrested nine men in the southern city of Basra. It wasn't clear if the troops involved were from the U.S. or another coalition member such as Britain, which has had responsibility for military operations in the Basra area.

The ICRC report said the suspects were "beaten severely by [coalition forces] personnel" and one man, identified as 28-year-old Baha Daoud Salim, died. "His co-arrestees heard him screaming and asking for assistance," the report says.

The report also describes eight separate incidents in which military guards fired weapons, sometimes from guard towers, on unarmed inmates engaged in disturbances. The shootings killed seven people and wounded up to 20. The report noted that coalition forces investigated each incident and determined "a legitimate use of firearms had been made" in each case.

The ICRC investigators, however, wrote that "less extreme measures could have been used to quell the demonstrations." The report cites one case in which a guard in a watchtower shot a prisoner in the chest who had been throwing stones.

The military said the shooting was justified. But the ICRC said the shooting "showed a clear disregard for human life and security" of prisoners.

The summary also says the ICRC filed a report to U.S. authorities last July detailing 50 allegations of serious prisoner abuse at the military intelligence section of Camp Cropper at the Baghdad International Airport.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

I don't think the administration is trying to spin anything, Akil.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned members of Congress that the Iraq prison abuse scandal could worsen with the release of videos and more photographs depicting brutality.

With his future in the Cabinet in jeopardy, Rumsfeld apologized and told House and Senate committees Friday that he took full responsibility for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.
- Bill
User avatar
CANDANeh
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Jeddore
Contact:

Ok I`m stumped

Post by CANDANeh »

No country (including my beloved Canada) has maintained prisioner of war camps without serious violations. War is brutal and war camps also, it is the nature of unleashing the beast I suppose. Punish the offenders (the guards) and resume buisness as usual. Why drag an entire administration into it ???
Léo
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Why drag an entire administration into it ???
It does seem a bit odd for folks who don't live here.

A few pictures should tell the story...


Image Image


The rhetoric will die down in November.

- Bill
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

The Nice Way of Q&A Paid Off in World War II

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

I found an interesting rebuttal to your assertion just this morning.....Have a nice read.........
No country (including my beloved Canada) has maintained prisioner of war camps without serious violations. War is brutal and war camps also, it is the nature of unleashing the beast I suppose. Punish the offenders (the guards) and resume buisness as usual. Why drag an entire administration into it ???
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions

By Frank Gibney, Frank Gibney, president of the Pacific Basin Institute, is professor of politics at Pomona College and the author of "The Pacific Century" and other books on Asia and foreign policy.

SANTA BARBARA — I spent most of World War II as an intelligence officer interrogating Japanese prisoners at a secluded Pearl Harbor camp and at other sites in the Pacific. Our work was not publicized. Like most world powers, the United States officially subscribed to the rules of the Geneva Convention for POW treatment, according to which prisoners were not required to divulge any information other than the bare facts of their military identity — name, rank and serial number.

Even so, the convention's rules were consistently violated throughout World War II — appallingly so in the case of the Japanese, Soviets and Nazis. But in the U.S. military, interrogations were subject to rules and review. Despite the vicious handling of American POWs by the Japanese, we tried to avoid the use of force.

That sharply contrasts with news that U.S. military police and interrogators used intimidation, beatings, sleep deprivation, "stress positions," stun guns and other nasty methods to "soften up" Iraqi prisoners for intelligence purposes.

Our reluctance to use force didn't mean that interrogation wasn't serious business. The camp, in the then-barren acres of Iroquois Point across from Pearl Harbor, was run for intelligence purposes. We handled all prisoners in the Pacific Theater thought to possess useful information. Equipped with a fairly detailed knowledge of Japanese army and navy units — and a shopping list of strategic questions — we asked POWs about war industries, regime personalities, home-front morale and future military strategies, as well as details about local units and their order of battle. Interrogators and prisoners spent time talking about personal histories and attitudes toward the war. We often ended up explaining a lot of recent history that had been withheld from them by their heavily censored press.

Most captured Japanese soldiers talked freely. Thanks in good part to military regulations threatening disgrace for anyone taken prisoner, many did not want their names sent back home for fear of retaliation against their families. There were always a few die-hards trying to foment trouble, but we were generally able to isolate them. Most POWs were well behaved and surprised by the good treatment they received. In two years of interrogation, I can recall only one instance of an officer in charge ordering a Marine sergeant to rough up an aggressively close-mouthed prisoner. Hearing about this, the camp's executive officer went to the prisoner's cell, apologized on behalf of America and pressed magazines and a carton of cigarettes into the man's hands. Impressed by this involuntary good-cop, bad-cop routine, he began to talk. No more rough stuff after that.

Some prisoners circulated freely within the heavily guarded camp perimeter. The interrogators — all young, idealistic and fairly good Japanese speakers — spent quite a bit of time with the prisoners, played Go and volleyball with them, and in the course of time learned a great deal about the once-mysterious enemy we were dealing with. After the Marianas fell in 1944, almost all prisoners knew that Japan's defeat was certain. Long before Gen. Douglas MacArthur brought "demokurashee," some thoughtful POWs in the camp were talking about the kind of democratic Japan they wanted to build after the war. A few helped craft leaflets for U.S. Army psych-warfare people to drop on their homeland.

Adm. Chester William Nimitz's intelligence staff people, although they appreciated the military information we were producing, were more than a little nervous about our close contact with the prisoners. At one point, CINCPAC's chief intelligence officer, eager to elicit some "human-int" assistance, telephoned the Iroquois Point camp to ask for the officer in charge. Told that he had the day off, that the executive officer was in Honolulu checking Japanese books out of the library for prisoners and that the duty officer was playing volleyball in Pen Eight, he demanded to know to whom he was speaking. "This is Maj. Yoshida," came the heavily accented answer. Thereafter, regulations on POWs' movements were tightened a bit.

After the war, some of us who went to Japan kept up our acquaintanceships with our former prisoners; for several years running, we had a camp reunion at a sushi restaurant owned by one of them. I have always cherished those two years at the camp — a learning experience for prisoners and interrogators that benefited both sides. For all our naive fraternizing, we managed to turn out a heavy tonnage of valuable information — military and political — that was of good service to the war effort. "We got the dope," as we used to say, without the use of torture or beatings. Our group of young lieutenants (junior grade) were proudest, as Americans, of the fact that most of our prisoners left the camp feeling that Americans were different, that this United States, for all of the bombing and hardships we visited on Japan, still stood for something independent and "free," a demokurashee worthy of emulation.

Admittedly, there are considerable differences between Japanese army conscripts of 1944 and Iraq's angry Islamists of 2004. And perhaps our little group of FDR-vintage liberal reservists merely lacked the imagination to devise "tiger team" interrogation rooms with mirror walls. Or we may have been too strait-laced to enjoy watching MPs of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Army stomping on a pile of denuded, hooded prisoners. If so, I thank God for the time and generational difference. Yet, at a bad moment in the history of our free democracy, I join millions of my fellow countrymen in shame for the prison atrocities sanctioned in democracy's name.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

A Climate That Nurtures Torture

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

Another highly relevant article..........Gotta love this administration.....Down with the constitution, up with King George.....
By Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks, Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks is an associate professor of law at the University of Virginia and a former senior advisor at the State Department's Human Rights Bureau.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Donald H. Rumsfeld announced Friday the appointment of a special commission to investigate the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel. But if the Defense secretary is casting about for someone to blame, he needn't look far. What happened was the predictable result of the Bush administration's "anything goes" approach to national security.

Since Sept. 11, high-level administration spokespeople — including the president — have repeatedly asserted that the executive branch of the U.S. government is free to ignore both the laws of war and the U.S. Constitution, and that executive branch actions are essentially unreviewable by the courts.

It began shortly after Sept. 11, with President Bush's breezy announcement that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive — either way. It doesn't matter to me." The administration also offered a multimillion-dollar reward for Bin Laden, although such statements and bounties have traditionally been viewed as contrary to the laws of war and U.S. military regulations. Soon after, Bush signed a secret intelligence order permitting the CIA to expand covert actions, which, as one senior U.S. intelligence official put it, gave the agency "the green light to do whatever is necessary. Lethal operations that were unthinkable pre-Sept. 11 are now underway."

In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush continued to imply that legal niceties were of little importance in the war on terror, commenting that while some Al Qaeda members had been arrested, others had "met a different fate." What kind of fate? "Let's put it this way," he said: "They are no longer a problem to the United States."

Vice President Dick Cheney, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and Rumsfeld wasted no time establishing their own tough-guy credentials after 9/11. Rumsfeld insisted that military detainees in Afghanistan "do not have any rights" under the Geneva Convention. At home, Ashcroft asserted that foreign terrorist suspects "do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution." Cheney stuck to the same script, insisting that terrorism suspects "don't deserve" judicial "guarantees and safeguards." Never mind the fact that due-process protections are designed not to give the guilty what they "deserve" but to ensure that the innocent, who may be wrongly accused, get the rights that they deserve.

The Bush administration has been similarly cavalier about the use of torture-like practices against detainees. In 2002, a series of media stories reported that U.S. detainees in Afghanistan were hooded, deprived of food, water, sleep and pain medications, forced to remain in agonizing positions for hours, kept naked, and beaten. The truth of these allegations was tacitly acknowledged by numerous senior national security officials (none willing to be named). As one official said, "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job. I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this."

No high-level administration official either denied the reports or publicly promised to investigate. Indeed, their response consisted of little more than winks and nods: As J. Cofer Black, then head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, told the House and Senate intelligence committees, "all you need to know [is this]: There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11. After 9/11, the gloves come off."

Over the last year, prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have alleged they too were subjected to brutal and humiliating detention conditions and interrogations. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former Guantanamo commander recently sent to oversee Iraqi detention facilities, wrote in a report last fall (based apparently on his Guantanamo experiences) that military guards in Iraq should be "enablers for interrogations," actively "engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees." When pressed on how conditions at Abu Ghraib prison would be reformed to prevent further abuses, Miller told reporters, "Trust us. We are doing this right."

"Trust us" has been the sole assurance the Bush administration has offered in the face of concerns about possible abuses.

In its response to court cases brought on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo, the administration has insisted that executive branch actions at Guantanamo cannot be reviewed by any U.S. court. When judges on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked Justice Department lawyers whether the administration position would be the same "even if the claims were that it was engaging in acts of torture or that it was summarily executing the [Guantanamo] detainees," the administration's lawyers said yes.

Similarly, in recent U.S. Supreme Court arguments involving two U.S. citizens being held by the U.S. military as alleged "enemy combatants," the administration insisted that it had the right to designate any citizen an enemy combatant on the basis of secret and unchallengeable evidence and to hold such a person as long as it wanted, without charge or any right to counsel, and with no mechanism for the detainee to challenge detention conditions. (The administration claimed that allowing access to counsel would undermine the "trust and dependency that is essential to effective interrogation.") When asked directly by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg whether the administration would acknowledge any judicial check to prevent the use of torture against detainees, Deputy Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement ducked the question. He disparaged "judicial micromanagement" and informed the court that "you have to trust the executive."

But as the recent revelations made clear, "trust" in executive benevolence and good judgment is no safeguard against abuses.

Only when graphic photos of prisoner abuse sparked a worldwide scandal did the Bush administration explicitly condemn brutality and humiliation as tactics to be used against prisoners. Now, as the public outcry against the Abu Ghraib abuses mounts, the administration is trying to spread the blame around. The low-level enlisted soldiers directly involved seem destined to face criminal charges. The administration has also been quick to point fingers at the more senior military personnel supervising Abu Ghraib and to designate civilian contractors and the CIA as potential villains as well.

But high-level administration officials — Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft and the president — need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. The president should accept direct responsibility for having created a climate of impunity in which the Abu Ghraib abuses were likely to occur, if not inevitable. Bush needs to acknowledge that even in time of war, human rights and the rule of law must be respected.

This means respecting both the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution and allowing the courts to play their proper constitutional role in reviewing executive actions.

If we fail to hold our leaders accountable for what happened — if we sacrifice our most cherished American values in the name of national security and simply replace Saddam Hussein's Iraqi torture chambers with our own — we will find one day that the statement best characterizing our current situation comes not from Bush but from Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
CANDANeh
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Jeddore
Contact:

However ...reality from those I trust

Post by CANDANeh »

I found an interesting rebuttal to your assertion just this morning.....Have a nice read.........
I have a close friend who was a prisoner of war at age 15 in an American camp, sorry sir but he tells much different story of treatment than the article you found. Actually it makes the Irag allegations trivial. He holds no grudges as it was War. My father was a gaurd in Canadian military during WW2 (not a war hero just a 19 -21 year old soldier), again he stated it was war and war does much to a young man. War is war so don`t fall victim to propoganda from any side, any group or anyone attempting to cover thier behind. Some simply did not have, do not have and will not have pleasant treatment.
Léo
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

Official U.S. Reaction Compounds the Rage

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

Yet another article, last for the day, in support of my argument that we have not handled the situation in Iraq nearly as well as folks seem to think we have........Thgings could have been differently, and contrary to the fringe militarists, there are viable alternatives that do not involve lying down and taking it in the rear............

My posted articles wouldn't sit well with some unless they contained a little disclaimer. Understanding sources of anger or hatred are not an excuse for acting out on rage, but rather an attempt to prevent these illogical and despicable acts........
By Abbas Kadhim, Abbas Kadhim is a PhD candidate in Near Eastern studies at UC Berkeley and an Iraqi American.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions

BERKELEY — From the first moment of the Iraq war, President Bush and his advisors have failed to recognize that there are two Iraqs — one imagined in his postwar plan, the other real. The former was shaped by flawed intelligence, hollow Orientalists, cunning Iraqi exiles and wishful thinking. The latter remains a mystery to the U.S. occupiers.

After every dreadful event in Iraq, the administration's reaction reveals its dangerous attitude: It's all about the United States. Already, we have a pile of news articles and commentary on the effects the prisoner abuse scandal will have on the future of the occupation, U.S. credibility, Bush's chances for reelection and the reputation of the Army. What's missing is anything about the scandal's effect on the hearts and souls of the Iraqis. They are the ones who will carry the scars of this sad episode for generations to come.

The U.S.' self-absorbed angst plays well at home. But where it matters, in Iraq and in the Middle East, it only adds fuel to the raging fire. Arabs have a favorite expression for such behavior: "He slapped me and cried." The U.S. reaction to the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib has reinforced the prevailing view among Arabs that the life and dignity of an Iraqi — or any Arab, for that matter — is beside the point.

Equally damaging to the U.S.' standing was the spiritless language initially used by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld in trying to dilute the seriousness of the misconduct. "My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe, technically, is different from torture," he told reporters after news of the scandal broke, as if this distinction would make all the difference in Arab minds. Such a technicality might impress an Army judge. But for a proud nation shocked by photos depicting the sexual abuse of its men, it represents callousness and insensitive rationalization in the face of a moral quagmire.

Most Iraqis feel their country has been raped twice, once by the U.S. military guards at Abu Ghraib and once by the indifference of their bosses. The recently resigned, handpicked Iraqi human rights minister was quoted as saying that he notified L. Paul Bremer III, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, in November about possible prisoner abuse, "but there was no answer." The minister was not even allowed to visit the prisons.

The apparent incuriosity of the top military officer in the U.S., Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, equally stands out. During his damage-control appearances on Sunday news shows last weekend, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted that he hadn't read the Army's latest internal report on the abuses, claiming that it was working its way up to him. At the time, Rumsfeld said he'd read only a summary of the report. Yet both seemed at ease in theorizing about its contents.

U.S. officials' pretentious displays of disgust over the abuse photos have frustrated and angered Iraqis. They know that steps taken in early days of the U.S.-led occupation made it inevitable that such atrocities would occur. Most notorious was Bremer's Order No. 17, which immunized all foreign soldiers in Iraq against any local Iraqi scrutiny; practically speaking, coalition authorities recognized a complaint against a soldier only if it was filed by a fellow soldier.

On those rare occasions when an Iraqi's complaint is addressed, insult is often added to injury. According to the New York Times, one Iraqi man was given $5,000 in compensation for the accidental killing of his wife and three children by a U.S. missile. Iraqis say that a gallon of gas is more precious than a gallon of blood these days. Yes, Iraqis have not tasted freedom and have not practiced true democracy. But they are masters at detecting oppression and contempt.

Bush often patronizes Iraqis by calling them "a proud people." Yet he fails to recognize that the photos of U.S. soldiers abusing and humiliating naked Iraqis are a direct blow to the essence of their pride. There is no room for rape counseling in Iraqi culture. Cruel as it is, this is the reality of their culture, and it cannot be ignored. It is also a cruel reality that all the approximately 10,000 Iraqi detainees have been stigmatized by the shame at Abu Ghraib, no matter what these detainees claim. This helps explain why many released prisoners don't return to their neighborhoods and why many of them may join the resistance against the occupation as a means to reclaim their pride and dignity.

This cultural divide is the main contributor to the crisis in Iraq. Iraqis expect Americans to do no less than translate their democratic rhetoric into reality, to respect local culture and adhere to the rule of law. The Americans, in turn, expect Iraqis to show gratefulness for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the opportunity to build a democratic society.

But Americans and their allies must understand that Iraq is not a pragmatic society when it comes to religion, culture and sexual mores. It is never acceptable to touch a woman and then come back later to express regret or, worse, offer money. In their culture, Iraqis would accept money and a public apology for the killing of a family member. But in matters of honor — sexual assault, for example — an apology is accepted only when it comes with the head of the perpetrator. Those who are unable to pay such a price had better not commit the offense in the first place. This is why Bush's appearance on Arab TV last week was insulting and meaningless. He can never have enough money to cleanse the shame that his soldiers inflicted upon the Iraqi prisoners, and no words can do this either.

The magnitude of this scandal is increasing so rapidly because there are no statesmen in charge of the situation. Bush had a golden opportunity to come clean and apologize to the Iraqis, but he didn't. When he did offer an apology, he seemed to direct it to Jordan's King Abdullah II, not the Iraqi people.

Talking points, creative definitions and legal jargon will not heal the wounded pride of the Iraqis. The prisoner abuse crisis is too overwhelming to simply go away. Therefore, prudence cries out for doing the right thing: The administration should stop treating the scandal as a political crisis or a public relations setback.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

Candaneh,

You seem to indicate that there is no way that a prisoner of war camp can be run without despicable acts being committed........That is your opinon and feel free to support it with evidence.........

I provided some evidence that seems to contradict your point of view. It does not indicate that ALL American prisoner of war camps are like a summer vacation, but merely that that one camp was run well..........

My article acts as evidence that even during a time when things were thought to be quite dire (Pacific theater in WWII), that prison guards in time of war do not have to lose their humanity.........

Nice Spin........Doesn't wash.......

Akil
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
Posts: 6073
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Contact:

Interesting Thread..

Post by gmattson »

I try to stay out of political discussions, since each side views what they see with different lenses in their glasses.

However, AKI's last post talked about prison camps and expected treatment.

In today's Globe there was an editorial written by a professor who did a fairly well constructed test to determine how normal people might react if placed in either a prisoner role or a guard role, in a well controlled prison-like environment, over a suitable period of time.

If interested, I can probably pull the paper out of the trash and get more accurate description, but the bottom line is:

a. The well adjusted kids who played the role of guards, began to abuse the make-believe prisoners after a few days.

b. The prisoners began to act like real prisoners after a short period of time as well.

c. The play-guards began to get fairly serious about the abuse and did many of the things that our troops are being charged with now in Iraq, including lots of sexual abusive behavior.

The professor had to stop the experiment after 2 weeks for fear of continued esculation and other obvious dangers.

This experiement occured a few years ago, before all of this bad publicity.

What can we learn from the experiment that our experts in Washington should have know?

Perhaps prison duty requires special training, using people who have special skills and abilities. Certainly not a job for weekend soldiers who suddenly find themselves in a real war.
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

A few comments.

First... As a political independent, and as a former faculty member of the University of Virginia, I feel I have the perspective (and lack of awe concerning the Ivory Tower) to call Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks, an associate professor of law at the University of Virginia, for what she is - an Ivory Tower liberal with a political agenda. Read the language of her editorial. Enough said.

Politics, politics, politics... It keeps both sides from an objective observation of the truth, and a straight path to dealing with an obvious problem. Republicans don't want to hear anything but "good news." This idea was presented today by none other than political conservative commentator George Will. History repeats itself; this is similar to the information campaign in WWI by Woodrow Wilson. Democrats (and others...) would rather use the information to soil Bush's reputation in an election period than deal with the problem and protect the rights of POWs. Their self-righteous indignation is nauseating. It reminds me of the misery Democrats show whenever there is good economic news. Excuse me???

Somehow the system manages to deal with the problems in spite of itself. Meanwhile only those who have no political allegiances or vested interests see the divine comedy in it all.

George

A very profound understanding of and valid conclusion from the research of Zimbardo and Milgram. I believe a good process - and strict adherence to it - protects people from their natural, base nature.

Remember Ben's original post? He's one of the few who understood the pure emotional side of all this. We may have disagreed with his thinking (bring on the thought police!!!), but at least he was being sincere.

The emotional side of all this, and an understanding of it, is the key to effective behavior in dealing with man's inhumanity to man in wartime.

- Bill
User avatar
CANDANeh
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Jeddore
Contact:

Post by CANDANeh »

Thank you George for the post, it supports what my Father told me before his leaving us.

Akil

You seem to imply that I do not know of what I speak. True, I haven`t experienced being prisoner or gaurd. However, I spent many hours listening to two men in those shoes, both men (my father now departed) have more humanity than most I ever had the pleasure to know. My information is not internet searches for articles to support my argument, I see no need as the real deal stood side by side with me. The articles you provided do not wash with me either, what "lens were they looking through."

No where in my post did I say it was my opinion, it is simply fact that not all prisoner of war camps are well run and incidents occur. Canadian , American, Nazi and etc... had soldiers in control of the captured forces. Men were and still are placed in control of the enemy, talk to ones that have been there as the content can not be put in written word. Normally I stay out of such politics as this thread addresses and for good reason, I made an exception and again I am reminded why I should should be more careful of those exceptions. Continue with flogging your fellow Americans for doing what is another unfortunate effect of war, minor in my opinion considering the undertaking the military takes on in Iraq. You have articles to keep you feeling warm and smug.
Léo
User avatar
CANDANeh
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Jeddore
Contact:

Post by CANDANeh »

I quess I just cashed in my one warning card? "Clean" postings except for the one Enginner joke that Bill seemed to enjoy anyway a couple years ago.
Léo
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Akil


I know your feel it beneath you to respond to any critisim of your ideas.

I know that doing so would get in the way of your makeing inflamatory statements then "playing the victum" when you get called on it.

But you again miss the point--so I'll say it again.

Your "finger pointing" is clearly one sided, bigoted, and lacks any comparitive methodolgy.

See if your all enraged about poor treatment of prisoners--then you need to be enraged when ANYONE is mistreated.

Yet you seem to only care about WESTERN actions.

Crimes, abuse, mistreatment,rape, torture, etc WHEN COMMITED BY NON-WESTERN nation is simply a NON-PROBLEM for you.

See, that's a short and accurate example of a bigot--ignoring the crimes of the "favored group" in order to carp and "finger point" about THE SAME CRIMES of the "non-favored" group.

In this case failing to recognize that almost every middle-easten nation is on the Amnesty International "watch list" of serious human rights abuse--while continuing to "drum-beat" about the US actions.

Which altough absolutly deplorable still fall far short of the systematic, long term and far more horrific crimes commited by others.

Two wrongs don't make a right (although 3 lefts will) but its a bit hypocitical to act as though we were the only ones that have made mistakes.

Also when you start lining up acts side by side--naked pictures with murdering women for the mere accusation of adultary--the stripping of bodies, hanging them up and burning them compared to the pointing at the size of a prisioners gentials.

Well I guess you can see the difference in acts--or can you??

As I have mentioned before--nobodies hands are clean enough on this issue to go around pointing fingers at us.

Does not make it right, but you really need to get more perspective.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

In the interest of focusing on issues vs. personalities, I'd like to make a request. When posting, try to avoid using "you" as much as possible. I don't want to get overly obsessed with this and make a rule that's impossible to work with. We do, after all, have unique opinions and one needs to address individuals at time when discussing an issue or behavior.

Otherwise, "moderate contact" allowed. :)

- Bill
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”