Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.

[Matt Stone]

I am a military paralegal NCO working in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the US Army. The collective take here on what constitutes a trial by court-martial (which just means "military court") is entirely incorrect.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) provides the accused with all the same rights that civilian law does, and is more efficient in that we don't wait years to go to trial. We don't stand around wasting valuable docket time with endless delays by both Government and Defense. Certainly, delays are allowed for good cause, but continual delays that do nothing more than delay (they serve no actual purpose other than keep the accused from trial) are absent.

The UCMJ's punitive articles (section IV of the Code) outline offenses under the code that are unique to military service - absence without leave, failure to repair (meaning, essentially, failing to go to work on time and showing up late), going from your appointed place of duty (leaving work early), insubordination, striking a superior, et cetera. If these were civilian offenses, how many of you would be guilty? Probably more than the civilian sector has time to prosecute. But these offenses have specific military bearing - not being where you are needed, when you are needed there; running from conflict; disrupting the good order and discipline of the unit, etc.

A court-martial works just like a civilian trial. First there may be an Article 32 hearing (a grand jury hearing) to determine the facts of the case and to determine, if it needs to be tried, what level of court it needs to be tried at (different courts-martial have different limitations on sentencing). Then there is voir dire and challenge for cause, then providence on the pleas, then the Government presents their case, then Defense, etc. again.

After trial, appellate matters are submitted to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and the record is reviewed at that level. Depending on the caseload and the nature of the record being reviewed, within a few months or even up to a year or more later, the appellate findings will be announced. Then the trial is complete.

Sentences can be very minor (even at high level courts-martial), or very severe. As punishment runs consecutively, not concurrently, multiple offenses net you more time in prison. Confinement automatically gets you the maximum reduction (demotion), and your pay and allowances may be forfeited in their entirety.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask away...

And JAG, though it does depict some aspects of courts-martial properly, is a crap show. Its hard enough to get attorneys to make their own photocopies, so I really doubt they fly F-15s and fight hand to hand to apprehend suspects... :shrug:

 

[Cobra]

Cobra, you are correct in that civilians are killed in combat. It's called collateral damage. It's also one of the reasons that smart munitions have been created and improved upon. Torturing prisoners is NOT collateral damage. What these reservist did is inexcusable for a member of the U.S. military. If a police officer in this country were to toruture someone who had been arrested in this country for a violent crime it would (and has) cause such an outrage that the entire country would be up in arms. This situation is not much different. We are not in this fight to "teach someone a lesson" and military police are not there to punish anyone. The mission of the military policeman is much the same as the civilian policeman. They are there to guard prisoners from escape and from harm while in custody. By not only failing in their duty to protect the prisoners but harming them they have pushed the level of animosity against the coalition forces in the region beyond the breaking point. Any humanitrian services that the islamic people have seen from us will now be replaced or at least tempered with the visions of tortured prisoners.

It is not a case of punishing or the torture. It happens, it is war. Emotions are flying everywhere. It is understandable for the officers to that. We can't imagine what he is going through. But to bring it up as a crime against the United States and saying that the US is a bad country like those like the French is not good. It happens, it is war. And to feel bad for those tortured prisoners is bad itself, it is like being sorry for Joseph Stalin, despite the millions he has killed. Huesain and his men are no different than Stalin. If Iraq had the amount of people Russia did, there would be similar numbers of death.

 

[Makalakumu]

I was trained to take those orders and never really hated the individual I might have to shoot, in conventional warfare the pace is too hectic for hatred or emotions to be registered in general.

I can justify such actions as swearing to an oath, to living by a code that doesn't make me the center of the universe and being willing to be part of something larger than myself, based on ideals that I agree with and am willing to stand up for.

This is not an indicator of universal US military hatred for another as much as it is misdirected power usage/abuse, the surfacing of personal issues that these individuals brought with them to their training and service from their DNA/Nurture pre-military, and possibly a lack of adequate supervision to monitor troop morale, welfare and mission readiness.

As a teacher, you should know that trainees are not empty vessels that we or in this case the military machine fills with stuff. They bring personality, experience and character (for good or bad) with them. Contrary to the popular belief that you loose your 'self' through the service and have no sense of free will left, you are REQUIRED to adhere to the basic Corps/Army values even to the point of disobeying orders if they are in violation of those values, the Geneva convention and the laws of land warfare.

Your sense of self is subverted by your Oath. You said it yourself in your statements above. Ask any good soldier over their what he/she is doing and why they are doing it and they will phrase an answer that looks something like..."Saddam Hussain's regime was an "evil" regime that raped and tortured and terrorized the people of Iraq. We are giving our lives to help free this people from this horror."

This statement isn't "wrong" in a historical sense. In fact, from a moral point of view, the statement provides a moral justification for the brutality of war...It is a blanket statement that they hold in their minds everytime they pull the trigger. The stereotype justifies the violence. This is the same type of mentality that hate groups use to justify violence. And I'm not saying that the US military is a hate group. I am saying that hate (moral justification) makes brutality easier.

We sure do hate those things that Saddam Huissain and his followers did. Yet we cannot forget that these people are also human. They have families and lives just as the German, Japanese, and American people who committed war atrocities also did. War, is by its very nature brutal. Hatred makes brutality possible.

Paul, as a teacher, you have to have seen how the effects of a "culture" have over ridden good sense and morality...

upnorthkyosa

 

[rmcrobertson]

I honestly don't know which repells me more: these loonbox statements that, "they deserve it," or these, "hey, I'M not in the slightest way responsible for what my government/my society does, because even if I profit by the exploitation of others I don't pay any attention to that, I just assume a position of moral superiority," viewpoints.

 

[loki09789]

Paul, as a teacher, you have to have seen how the effects of a "culture" have over ridden good sense and morality...

upnorthkyosa

And as a teacher, the fact that Nazi Germany was based on a regime of racial purity to justify itself and sanctioned atrocities is clear to me. The fact that Imperial Japan followed a dogmatic idea that the Emperor was akin to a god and they were also a superior race is clear to me as justification for treating their enemies as vermin. SHussein was a criminal who found his way to power and used wmd on his own people based on a mentallity of tribal/racial superiority.

I think the race issue is hard to apply here when the servicemen and women fighting because they swore the oath, in a mission to establish stability and the opportunity for democratic representation of all Iraqis (we will see if this really comes to fruition, but that is the goal) come from a variety of 'races' and backgrounds.

Again, I come back to the point that the societal reaction to these atrocities is the indicator to the difference. Ours: horrified (except in the case of Cobra - who I don't agree with at all on this one).

Thiers: applause.

The common soldier doesn't quote political rhetoric like a mantra with each round, like I said there is no real time for such thought.

I find this whole idea that there is a possibility of no cultural influence, that there is no moral justification for violence/war except hatred and that such things are inherently 'wrong' regardless of the charter or base values that we use to govern our choices.... from the practitioner and teacher of a militaristic martial art with 'cultural' overtones all over it.....

Upnorth, the concept of good sense and morallity is a product of culture -as a teacher/scientist are you claiming that there is an inherently natural 'good' and 'moral' quality of man that has been over ruled by cultural indoctrinization?

These acts of torture and abuse are immoral, war is brutal but in any natural process something has to die in order for something else to live. Humans are the only ones who really spend so much time debating the reality of that as we devour dead plants, animals and natural resources to keep ourselves alive.

Do we sit back and ooze so much empathetic grooviness that we don't stand for anything? I doubt that you would be empathizing with someone attacking your wife or children or yourself in the process of a third party involvement. You didn't speak too empathetically when you were peeling that guy off your wife and child during the aforementioned tour. You actually were insulted that he didn't seem to empathize with you and your family.

Do we sit back and let the humanity of the wife/child abuser next door keep us from intervening when he is choking them in front of us? No. We live in a real world where philosophical realizations do not exist in a vacuum and they clash and we have to decide how we are going to balance them in the reality of the time.

I think that those men and women squeezing the trigger for real, dealing with the aftermath of watching friends and enemies die have a better sense of the humanity of all people. Otherwise, why would some who have been activated to go back be refusing?

 

[MisterMike]

Link to details on the Humiliation:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

 

[michaeledward]

Link to details on the Humiliation:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

Several of the images are available on this site by following the links on the right side of the page.

 

[Makalakumu]

And as a teacher, the fact that Nazi Germany was based on a regime of racial purity to justify itself and sanctioned atrocities is clear to me. The fact that Imperial Japan followed a dogmatic idea that the Emperor was akin to a god and they were also a superior race is clear to me as justification for treating their enemies as vermin. SHussein was a criminal who found his way to power and used wmd on his own people based on a mentallity of tribal/racial superiority.

Please note the boldfaced statement.

I think the race issue is hard to apply here when the servicemen and women fighting because they swore the oath, in a mission to establish stability and the opportunity for democratic representation of all Iraqis (we will see if this really comes to fruition, but that is the goal) come from a variety of 'races' and backgrounds.

Hate has many flavors. It doesn't always have to do with race. Or even religion. "SHussein was a criminal who found his way to power and used wmd on his own people based on a mentallity of tribal/racial superiority" (I will extend this by inserting "and all who followed him") Now you have a moral justification to kill massive amounts of people.

Again, I come back to the point that the societal reaction to these atrocities is the indicator to the difference. Ours: horrified (except in the case of Cobra - who I don't agree with at all on this one).

Thiers: applause..

Acts like the ones in the photos are atypical of what is going on in Iraq (as far as we know). As far as brutality is concerned, it is just a brick in the pyramid of war. People will take the stereotype too far. They will say, "SHussein was a criminal who found his way to power and used wmd on his own people based on a mentallity of tribal/racial superiority" (I will extend this by inserting "and all who followed him") and then do something like what we have seen because "they deserved it". This is the essence of the hatred I'm talking about boiling to the surface.

Now comes the dangerous part. If you agree that they didn't deserve it, then you agree that their is a limit to the amount of brutality you would accept. My question is this, why would you accept any?

The common soldier doesn't quote political rhetoric like a mantra with each round, like I said there is no real time for such thought...

Not with every round. That is instinct. You train your instincts with your mantra though.

I find this whole idea that there is a possibility of no cultural influence, that there is no moral justification for violence/war except hatred and that such things are inherently 'wrong' regardless of the charter or base values that we use to govern our choices.... from the practitioner and teacher of a militaristic martial art with 'cultural' overtones all over it.

There are three types of violence, each with different motivations. Violence in war is one type of violence and it is motivated by hate. Hate is an evolutionary tool that allows one to commit brutal acts. It is, in its essence, a throwback to xenophobia and tribalism. I believe that their is a genetic prediliction among humans to hate each other - especially when resources are scarce. Scarce times create war as groups of people compete and all sorts of insane justifications of war are rammed down the tribes throats. The easier it is for a tribe to accept those justifications, the more successful that tribe will be at war.

Upnorth, the concept of good sense and morallity is a product of culture -as a teacher/scientist are you claiming that there is an inherently natural 'good' and 'moral' quality of man that has been over ruled by cultural indoctrinization?

I am very wary of absolutes. I don't know if I could make such a claim. As far as indoctrination is concerned. We are the products of our environment. From a very young age we are taught the basics of fighting and dying.

These acts of torture and abuse are immoral, war is brutal but in any natural process something has to die in order for something else to live. Humans are the only ones who really spend so much time debating the reality of that as we devour dead plants, animals and natural resources to keep ourselves alive.

True.

Do we sit back and ooze so much empathetic grooviness that we don't stand for anything? I doubt that you would be empathizing with someone attacking your wife or children or yourself in the process of a third party involvement. You didn't speak too empathetically when you were peeling that guy off your wife and child during the aforementioned tour. You actually were insulted that he didn't seem to empathize with you and your family.

Do we sit back and let the humanity of the wife/child abuser next door keep us from intervening when he is choking them in front of us? No. We live in a real world where philosophical realizations do not exist in a vacuum and they clash and we have to decide how we are going to balance them in the reality of the time.

When someone attacks me or my family, I need no one to tell me who the enemy is. And they might not even be the "enemy" you think they are. Don't confuse the issue. Self defense is not about hatred. Self defense is about a natural need to protect oneself and ones family from direct danger.

This can transform into something else entirely when the danger becomes "percieved", though. Now it is fear and fear leads to hate and hate leads to suffering (war)...didn't someone famous say something like this.

I think that those men and women squeezing the trigger for real, dealing with the aftermath of watching friends and enemies die have a better sense of the humanity of all people. Otherwise, why would some who have been activated to go back be refusing?

As long as one can convince enough to people to accept at least a modicum of brutality, then the killing goes on. I think that some people learned that their tolerance levels were a lot lower then they though. They were naturally selected out of the population (their own brains and perhaps their genes being the tool for this).

In closing, my personal philosophy concerning war is as follows "The moment you abrogate your right to decide who the enemy is, you turn yourself into an instrument of hate. I will never do this. I will always be responsible for my ability to do violence to another human being."

 

[loki09789]

As long as one can convince enough to people to accept at least a modicum of brutality, then the killing goes on. I think that some people learned that their tolerance levels were a lot lower then they though. They were naturally selected out of the population (their own brains and perhaps their genes being the tool for this).

In closing, my personal philosophy concerning war is as follows "The moment you abrogate your right to decide who the enemy is, you turn yourself into an instrument of hate. I will never do this. I will always be responsible for my ability to do violence to another human being."

Aren't you, by virtue of your role as teacher of martial arts, convincing people to accept a modicum of brutality? Aren't you indoctrinating others into what ever cultural values/criteria for what is morally acceptable levels of violence?

We have differed on these issues before. Your view from the outside is loaded with assumptions: some of which are that soldiers 'subvert' themselves and any morallity, that soldiers are motivated by hate, that they don't continue to think for themselves.... not true on any of them.

When I get the chance I have to paste in a sample of the laws of land warfare and elements of leadership training that is practiced in the services. If anything the military, at least here in the USA, promotes a certain amount of individualism to foster innovation. During WWII the hedge trimmer that was mounted on the front of tanks was the idea of a lower enlisted man who had the opportunity to contribute his idea. German soldiers of the day, because they were really the model of compartmentalized extreme discipline wouldn't even dream of fixing their own vehicles if they broke down - that was someone elses job. How many military coups have we had in our own country in modern history? None. One of the contributing factors is the morallity and encouragement to evaluate the lawfulness and morallity of orders.

I do concede that there are militaries and nations that have motivated troops with open hatred and have given examples of them. I do not think, based on my personal experience, that the US military values/doctrine is to encourage hatred first, that is the point of the professionalism and discipline in military training. Professionals act like professionals, according to the modern military image of soldier/sailor/Marine/airman/coast guard that means that you are motivated by loyalty to your fellows, your country and the values that they present.

We will go round and round about this Upnorth, I am done.

 

[Tgace]

Sound like a good rationalization for never standing up for anything...or a rationalization for never having to serve (i.e. put your life on the line) your country. I happen to like the nation I live in and (by and large) the people I call "countrymen". And I was proud to serve for them.

IMHO...I believe that the people who yell the loudest about the military being nothing but hatemongering bloodthirsty killers are sublimating some sort of inadequacy issues.

Im with you too bud...unsubscribed.

 

[Gentle Fist]

AOL had a link on the welcome page that advertised these photos as a hoax...or did I imagine this???

 

[arnisador]

Well, its documented.

American soldiers have abused Iraqi POW's with electric shock and other horrific methods...and they were idiotic enough to pose for pictures and video while doing it.

Its been on the evening news. Even the conservative "Drudge Report" is playing it up. The Arab stations, of course, have jumped on it.

This is going to:

Hurt the war effort.

Ruin troop morale.

Ruin the morale on the home front.

Get American hostages/prisoners killed at worst, abused at best.

Be one of the greatest recruiting incentives for future anti-American terrorists.

Do irreparable damage to Arab/US relations...which are rotten to begin with.

Make us look terrible in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world.

Give our critics abroad and at home justification for saying "I told you so," in their efforts at demonizing us as a nation.

I hate to quote a whole post, but this bears repeating.

I am embarrassed.

Blame will be defused--"The interrogators asked us to keep them edgy, etc."--but I hope people are severely punished for it.

When I taught at West Point, the My Lai documentary ran on every TV in a classroom all the time, it seemed. I assume enlisted personnel also are taught about this? How is the message not sinking in?

I'm disgusted. I'm not surprised, as things like this always happen in war--but I'm sickened and sad nonetheless.

 

[michaeledward]

AOL had a link on the welcome page that advertised these photos as a hoax...or did I imagine this???

There are two issues in the news right now. The photos that have been called a hoax concern an image of British Soldiers and were published in a British newspaper. The photos in question also have soldiers treating prisoners in an inhumane manner. The photos have been reported as a hoax based on the style of uniform and weapon the soldiers had in the photos; currently, they are not standard issue for soldiers serving in Iraq.

The issue concerning Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad is not a hoax. At minimum 6 soldiers in Iraq are being disciplined. One additional soldier was transferred between the time of the photos and the news story breaking. (She is the brunette woman with a cigarette, pointing at a hooded prisoner's genitals - apparently, she got pregnant and was transferred back to Fort Bragg).

 

[Makalakumu]

Aren't you, by virtue of your role as teacher of martial arts, convincing people to accept a modicum of brutality? Aren't you indoctrinating others into what ever cultural values/criteria for what is morally acceptable levels of violence?

I think that my view of violence is a paradox. It is something I keep in mind...this idea that "peace is the only perfect self defense" and when I break that peace it is truly a dark day. Part of this philosophy means being reflective about your actions. When the peace is broken, you know you have failed somehow. Examine how this happened and try not to let it happen again. This constant struggle is what I teach my martial arts students. A struggle for peace and a fall into brutality as an absolute last resort and that resort is only to deal with the brutality that others thrust upon you. This is my definition of violence self defense.

It differs when it comes to war. War is about groups of people acting in brutal ways toward one another. This violence is motivated by an emotion that I cannot find any other word but "hate" to describe. I think that you are seeing hatred only through the eyes of race/religion. Hate can encompass ideas. We do not like the way that SHussien and his people treated the majority of citizens in Iraq. So we use those feelings to justify our actions. Is there a better word to describe this? Perhaps I have mislabled this emotional justification? Perhaps hate is too stong of a word for someone who has served and has had to justify their actions in a similar manner? What would you call this process?

TGace

My insistance on peace does not mean that I can't serve my country. I serve my country better then a cruise missile. Every year, hundreds of students come through my classes prepared with the scientific knowledge to help them become successful citizens. A cruise missile, on the other hand, can kill hundreds with a single use. Those people are gone forever. Did you know that a cruise missile makes 10 times as much as I do? What would happen if we reversed this priority? If we valued life over death at a rate of 10 to 1? Is my insistance for this somehow inadequate? I think not.

 

[MisterMike]

I'm just amazed at the level of disgust over pictures, while there wasn't a sliver of concern (relatively) over the burnt bodies hanging from a bridge.

Good to see which side people are on.

Like that cafe over in Seattle...

 

[someguy]

There dead jim
so there is less reason to be concerned about helping them right now. Also the people who did it aren't our people. We can't control them well sort of but I don't feel like going to indepth into anything right now.

 

[loki09789]

I think that my view of violence is a paradox. It is something I keep in mind...this idea that "peace is the only perfect self defense" and when I break that peace it is truly a dark day. Part of this philosophy means being reflective about your actions. When the peace is broken, you know you have failed somehow. Examine how this happened and try not to let it happen again. This constant struggle is what I teach my martial arts students. A struggle for peace and a fall into brutality as an absolute last resort and that resort is only to deal with the brutality that others thrust upon you. This is my definition of violence self defense.

It differs when it comes to war. War is about groups of people acting in brutal ways toward one another. This violence is motivated by an emotion that I cannot find any other word but "hate" to describe. I think that you are seeing hatred only through the eyes of race/religion. Hate can encompass ideas. We do not like the way that SHussien and his people treated the majority of citizens in Iraq. So we use those feelings to justify our actions. Is there a better word to describe this? Perhaps I have mislabled this emotional justification? Perhaps hate is too stong of a word for someone who has served and has had to justify their actions in a similar manner? What would you call this process?
.

No justification for my action needed, at least not to anyone but myself.

But it is interesting that on one level (the level of violence that you are training in) you can justify it's practice with philosophy. At a level that you can't control you focus on the act as inherently brutal with an assumed 'emotion' that you term hatred. Violence, at any level and at any scale is a choice that you have to justify as morally sound.

At a personal level, that is the state penal laws that cover force and deadly force, personal ethos and social morals.

At a national level, it is based on the values and morals that the charter for said country and the current policies that are in place have identified.

On a personal level, you might say that we 'hate' the idea of losing your life and that of your loved ones so much that you would pre-meditate and rehearse violent behavior to be prepared for just such an occasion.

Or, the way I see it, you could say that at every level there is a moral responsibility to be versed in the necessary skills of interaction with the other entities you will be dealing with (whether a person or a nation) from humanitarian behaviors (personal level: charity work, volunteerism, education... National level: relief support, education, social services) at one end of the spectrum all the way to violent behaviors (personal level: self defense, third party involvement, stopping a drunken friend from driving, corporal punishment... National level: military defensive/offensive military forces in a state of readiness). The choice to engage any or all of the possible responses within the range is always 'justification' whether it is humanitarian or violent. It is no more 'justifiable' to fail to act if the situation warrants than it is 'justifiable' to act when the situation doesn't warrant it.

The adeptness to do any/all of these things well so that you either maximize the results of humanitarian acts or minimize the damage of violent acts is responsibility. Why else is martial arts philosophy loaded with moral quandries that usually boil down to responsibility and commitment to training your mind as well as your body?

These individuals acted unprofessionally, outside of their sworn oaths and accepted duties. They will be held accountable.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm just amazed at the level of disgust over pictures, while there wasn't a sliver of concern (relatively) over the burnt bodies hanging from a bridge.

Good to see which side people are on.

Like that cafe over in Seattle...

Imagine a world where people are outraged and disgusted by both...

 

[Makalakumu]

No justification for my action needed, at least not to anyone but myself.

But it is interesting that on one level (the level of violence that you are training in) you can justify it's practice with philosophy. At a level that you can't control you focus on the act as inherently brutal with an assumed 'emotion' that you term hatred. Violence, at any level and at any scale is a choice that you have to justify as morally sound.

At a personal level, that is the state penal laws that cover force and deadly force, personal ethos and social morals.

At a national level, it is based on the values and morals that the charter for said country and the current policies that are in place have identified.

On a personal level, you might say that we 'hate' the idea of losing your life and that of your loved ones so much that you would pre-meditate and rehearse violent behavior to be prepared for just such an occasion.

Or, the way I see it, you could say that at every level there is a moral responsibility to be versed in the necessary skills of interaction with the other entities you will be dealing with (whether a person or a nation) from humanitarian behaviors (personal level: charity work, volunteerism, education... National level: relief support, education, social services) at one end of the spectrum all the way to violent behaviors (personal level: self defense, third party involvement, stopping a drunken friend from driving, corporal punishment... National level: military defensive/offensive military forces in a state of readiness). The choice to engage any or all of the possible responses within the range is always 'justification' whether it is humanitarian or violent. It is no more 'justifiable' to fail to act if the situation warrants than it is 'justifiable' to act when the situation doesn't warrant it.

The adeptness to do any/all of these things well so that you either maximize the results of humanitarian acts or minimize the damage of violent acts is responsibility. Why else is martial arts philosophy loaded with moral quandries that usually boil down to responsibility and commitment to training your mind as well as your body?

These individuals acted unprofessionally, outside of their sworn oaths and accepted duties. They will be held accountable.

I am glad that they will be held accountable. Those deeds were henious indeed. Where do we draw the line though? What is too brutal in war? Its kind of a dangerous question.

Also, one of the best things we can do as martial artists is think about the violence that we train for. We need to come to understand the concept just as much as the act. I believe that its misuse/overuse comes from the lack of understanding in both areas.

 

[loki09789]

I am glad that they will be held accountable. Those deeds were henious indeed. Where do we draw the line though? What is too brutal in war? Its kind of a dangerous question.

Also, one of the best things we can do as martial artists is think about the violence that we train for. We need to come to understand the concept just as much as the act. I believe that its misuse/overuse comes from the lack of understanding in both areas.

Agreed, that is my point about philosophy applied leads to personal choices and clashes between what 'is' because of the circumstance and what we would like things to be like. The cyclical struggle to try and exemplify the training (mind/body) in reality is a challenge whether you apply it to actual physical skills or more symbollic stuff like relationships and communication.