heretic888
Senior Master
*applauds Tulisan*
Nicely said. :asian:
Nicely said. :asian:
Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.
- Thread starter hardheadjarhead
- Start date
Quite honestly, I don't think I am stupid. And also, as far as the "stop this, stop that..." directive: No. My opinion is suppose to be welcome on this 'friendly forum' and I will continue to do so - within the forum rules. Disagree all day long, but don't try and direct. could that be a quarentine of my dissent (since it doesn't fit with your opinion)?Tulisan said:The stupidity of people will never cease to amaze me. Here are a couple of things.
#2. On to the torture...for those of you who argue that "they," meaning the thousands of prisoners, needed to be tortured by us because "they" had valuable information to prevent terrorism, stop it. Out of all the prisoners, there may have been only a handful of them who knew anything. That doesn't excuse the now 1800 photo's detailing prison abuse that have been confiscated to date. Most of the people tortured in our prisons were not "terrorists", or anyone with military intelligence, but were just regular ol' Iraqi soldiers. So when you argue this way, you look retarded.
#4 Stop saying that the torture wasn't a top down order when we have endless proof that M.I. told the guards to break these men down. This arguement is about as logical as trying to argue that the world is flat.
O.K.....now that that's settled....proceed....
#2. "Torture" for the purpose of information extraction is common practice in the military. The extent that we go to is what people are up in arms about. How far is too far? I think that leaving some people alone and uncomfortable in stress positions and using positive reinforcement techniques of rewarding cooperation is fine. I don't think that physical abuse is acceptabe nor do I think that inflicting any form of abuse or discomfort for personal pleasure is acceptable. As far as 'regular old...' we don't really know now do we - doesn't make it right but that could be an assumption.
Besides one thing that we learned about OPSEC in the service was that if yo can compile enough Unclassified, 'unimportant' intelligence you can make some 'classified' conclusions/interpretations based on the patterns.
#4. I am one saying that it wasn't a top down order. No one from the pentagon/white house wrote a step by step directive to stand people on boxes in execution positions and no one wrote detailed orders on how to threaten electracution. Some one from the top down did tell them to get the information, that it was urgent and speed was very important and encouraged them to 'keep it up' as intell was sent up the chain of command.
That will be the loop hole crap that is played out as they climb up the food chain. There will be many higher level leaders saying things like "I never told them to do THAT", "I only emphasized the urgency"....
The biggest problem I see in this whole war in Iraq, post 9/11 reaction is that there are lots of good ideas and intentions happening too quickly to be managed effectively. That is the bottom line problem I am picking up on. Things are happening so quickly that nothing is clarified by the time it gets to the level of execution. Supervision can't effectively keep track of what is suppose to be happening, and the feedback/adjustments that require the initiative of lower level decision makers will end up being wrong because they don't have clear understanding of the 'commander's intent' in a lot of these cases.
There is enough blame to go all around now because of sloppiness at every level. I just hope that it is distributed equitably and fairly. Too often the lowly private types are sacrificed to save the cause. It doesn't seem to be the case so far, but I don't think it is outside reality.
So, is it 'stupidity' because you don't agree with it, or is it 'stupidity' because the logic isn't sound, or is it people's stupidity because it isn't supported to your satisfaction....? This whole thing is outside of our control for the most part. I don't think telling people to stop this or stop that is going to foster any real communcation - if that is your goal.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Just a point of clarification. The people in the prisons in Iraq (Abu Ghraid and others) are not 'regular ol' Iraqi soldiers'. They were 'citizens' of Iraq.Tulisan said:
In a move of unprecidented stupidity, L. Paul Bremer dismissed the entire Iraqi military organization. The 'regular ol' Iraqi soldiers' were sent packing about a year ago - with no pay, no pension - oh, yeah, but he let them keep their weapons.
Now, you might make the argument that many of those in prison used to be Iraqi soldiers. I would ask you to justify that statement. The reports I have seen is that those detained consist of suspected insurgents, and anyone in the general vacinity. Most detained are waiting for a case review and release.
Mike
People standing around pointing fingers at each other, deflecting blame, using careful wording is illogical? You may know people in the military but I was in the military and I can tell you this prisoner stuff is just symptomatic of the CYA factor and the ambiguity of higher level "conceptual planning" orders as they trickle down to the troopies.Tulisan said:
Is it illogical to say that the lack of man hours of professional training, leadership training and strong NCO's/Officers at lower levels to nip this in the bud and not get their people involved are contributing factors to this whole mess?
If you are using 'either' about fostering communication, are you saying that your directive language is also wrong? Aren't you of the 'two wrongs don't make a right' mentallity?
I would prefer to just continue with this discussion without the 'stupidity' judgements of members. I can understand disagreeing with points and conduct, but if you are frustrated with it, taking it out on me or others that you disagree with isn't productive.
"Car!"
"Game ON"
loki09789 said:
HMMMM, not enough training. The use of reserve officers and men and women soldiers to guard the prisoners.
Yes, I can see, where there could be plausible deniablilty, by everyone from the top soldier to the bottom soldier.
I realize that it is "War" time, and that you need to take orders. And as nto being a member of the Military, I ask this. Is it not a possibility to ask for the orders to be written down? I agree that this might end your carear, yet, if it is against something you do not wish to do then, would you not want to get proof, and or make a note that you are executing the orders under protest?
It is war. People get killed. I realize that. Yet, I would have hoped that it might not have been in this type of situation.
My Personal Opinion
:asian:
michaeledward
Grandmaster
It sure would be nice if they were soldiers. Then we could call them Prisoners of War, and move on. Then there would be no doubt about the protections of International Law.Tulisan said:
Of course, the fact that we have stated publicly that our Mission is Accomplished, we would be required to 'Repatriate the POW's, (article 118 of the Geneva Conventions) rather than adding emprisoning more people.
Mike
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Did you see Col. David Hackworths' article in the paper this week? He clearly labels the actions at Abu Ghraid as 'war crimes'. He also relays some interesting personal anectdotes concerning prisoner abuse.Rich Parsons said:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=65&rnd=604.0894857871507
Mike
Cruentus
Grandmaster
loki09789 said:
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
No, that could be a contributing factor. Yet, there have been countless reports stating that M.I. ambigiously ordered for these prisoners to be "broken down," that M.I. knew of the treatment of these prisoners, and that the "troopies" were told "good work" after horendous acts were commited. That is the next thing to actually telling the "troopies" to ram things up these prisoners butts.
The blame here doesn't rest on a few privates, this is a top down order from somewhere...the question is, how high up does it go?
Dude, your reading a little too much into what I wrote. All I said was if you were using any one of those illogical arguements, then your being stupid, and you need to change tactics.
I hope no one is taken that too offensively here, as I am free to admit that we are all "stupid" at one time or another.
michaeledward said:
Mike,
No I have not read it. I will later tonight. Thank You for the link.
loki09789 said:
So then I really do not like to ask the following question(s).
Why did so many people feel comfortable with this type of behavior?
Mob Mentality?
Implicit orders? And willingness to please or revenge for 9/11?
Or is it more of an issue that those involved were not trained enough to know they had another course of action?
Either way, I still do not like it
Tgace
Grandmaster
-Pressure to obtain results fed by reinforcement. ("good job, keep it up")
-Lack of training that made soldiers think that "this is the way this stuff is done".
-Lack of leadership, lack of military inspection procedure.
-"mob mentality"/peer pressure.
-Yes..probably some "payback" mentality.
-Lack of training that made soldiers think that "this is the way this stuff is done".
-Lack of leadership, lack of military inspection procedure.
-"mob mentality"/peer pressure.
-Yes..probably some "payback" mentality.
Tgace
Grandmaster
Personally, I think that the current backlash to; no feed time manipulation, no sleep deprivation, no uncomfortable positionong etc. is extreme in the other direction. They are good tools for obtaining vital intel. What needs to be done is an approval process, where specific techniques need to be approved for specific prisoners.
Tgace
Grandmaster
We have to decide how we deem a wartime prisoner's intell as vital enough to warrant specific techniques to get it. I think there needs to be a process. At Gitmo the Sec. Def. had to say "we need this guys info. you can use X to get it". Why the same process wasnt used I dont know.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
重心 Zhòngxīn center of gravity
- Latest: isshinryuronin
-
-
-
-
