Abu Ghraib Officer to Face Charges

[danarhea]

The Army now plans to court martial the head of the interrogation center there for the following crimes:

1) Dereliction of duty

2) Lying to investigators

3) Conduct becoming an officer


If he is convicted, then he is a disgrace to the uniform, and needs to be drummed out.

If convicted, this makes the second officer, as well as 10 soldiers, who have been court martialed and removed from the service for the disgrace that was Abu Ghraib. And yet, there are some here who will still claim that nobody did anything wrong. Well, the proof is in the courts martial and in the convictions. If they were all innocent, then why were they drummed out?

I predict many more military trials, and to the Army: Kudos for doing what is right.

Article is here.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

IMO, the commander in chief and his hawks are the focal point of this disgrace.
What did anyone expect? Coercive interrogation? Just a fancy word for torture. And when soldiers are told to torture, the line between crime becomes very very blurry.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

He's actually one of many that have payed the price for their unproffessionalism at Abu-Ghraib (There have been more than "ten"). It's just not all made public. Those that did not receive a Court Martial got NJPs, which are still career enders. Even if Lt.Col Jordan does not get the Court Martial, he is finished. When a commander is shown a "lack of confidence" at a command post, he might as well pack his bags (or have a Private do it for him).

But, keep in mind that Abu-Ghraib was an AO for the U.S. Army National Guard Reserve. These were not trained soldiers and they were certainly not qualified to do the job in the first place. There are smaller prisons and detainment camps in other places. We don't hear of abuse from these locations where U.S. Army and U.S. Marines are the keepers.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

IMO, the commander in chief and his hawks are the focal point of this disgrace.
What did anyone expect? Coercive interrogation? Just a fancy word for torture. And when soldiers are told to torture, the line between crime becomes very very blurry.

It wasn't "interrogation" that was the problem. It was the straight abuse and "torture" that largely occurred outside of the interrogation rooms when Reservists were bored.

 

[Deegan]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

It wasn't "interrogation" that was the problem. It was the straight abuse and "torture" that largely occurred outside of the interrogation rooms when Reservists were bored.

That's the the straight truth, weekend warriors f**ked up our reputation, and that is why I still call for Rummy's head!

 

[jfuh]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

It wasn't "interrogation" that was the problem. It was the straight abuse and "torture" that largely occurred outside of the interrogation rooms when Reservists were bored.

Thus as I said, when those in command blur the line between such actions you really can't blame those that are carrying out the orders to go so far.

 

[Deegan]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

Thus as I said, when those in command blur the line between such actions you really can't blame those that are carrying out the orders to go so far.

There were no orders for that grabassery, only weekend warriors trying to collect a check!

 

[jfuh]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

But, keep in mind that Abu-Ghraib was an AO for the U.S. Army National Guard Reserve. These were not trained soldiers and they were certainly not qualified to do the job in the first place. There are smaller prisons and detainment camps in other places. We don't hear of abuse from these locations where U.S. Army and U.S. Marines are the keepers.

Though that is so, however, that is not an excuse by any means for what was "allowed" to go on. All of which was from the endorsement of utilizing "coercive" techniques when this administration decided to interpret law in thier own way and toss out laws that went against thier view points. Bush inc should've respected and abided by the Geneva convention.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

Though that is so, however, that is not an excuse by any means for what was "allowed" to go on. All of which was from the endorsement of utilizing "coercive" techniques when this administration decided to interpret law in thier own way and toss out laws that went against thier view points. Bush inc should've respected and abided by the Geneva convention.

Bush has nothing to do with it. What was under attack was our interrogation methods, which have been used since before Geneva. These would be the methods that are more humane than any of our allies, hence our occassional handing over of prisoners to allied forces for interrogation. Bush merely protected what we have done under scores of administrations and Presidents. The whole "torture" thing was merely a political tactic used by partisans as they frequently declared that they "support the troop."

The rules created by the Geneva Convention were in light of the Nazi scourge. These rules were not meant to strengthen the hand of our future enemies who instead of the Swastika, carry a Qu'ran. The are inadequate for today's threat, as is our laws.

 

[danarhea]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

That's the the straight truth, weekend warriors f**ked up our reputation, and that is why I still call for Rummy's head!

For the most part, you are right (concerning the enlisted men who were busted), but I believe the Lt. Col. and Captain were both regulars. If I am wrong on this, then let me know.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

Bush has nothing to do with it. What was under attack was our interrogation methods, which have been used since before Geneva. These would be the methods that are more humane than any of our allies, hence our occassional handing over of prisoners to allied forces for interrogation. Bush merely protected what we have done under scores of administrations and Presidents. The whole "torture" thing was merely a political tactic used by partisans as they frequently declared that they "support the troop."

The rules created by the Geneva Convention were in light of the Nazi scourge. These rules were not meant to strengthen the hand of our future enemies who instead of the Swastika, carry a Qu'ran. The are inadequate for today's threat, as is our laws.

So you support torture? You coulda just said that...

Yeah, we were doing it before Geneva, thats when it was supposed to STOP. And so I'm clear, did you just call torture a political tactic?

 

[KCConservative]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

Glad to hear that the one's involved and responsible are going to pay. For all those that want to blame the entire line of command all the way to Washington are just haters and want to see their partisan jealousy amount to something.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

So you support torture? You coulda just said that...

Yeah, we were doing it before Geneva, thats when it was supposed to STOP. And so I'm clear, did you just call torture a political tactic?

How very simplistic of you. Take a deep breath and dry your tears. Gather yourself. Such obtuse black and white sentiments do not work on me. You might as well learn this now. Prepare for an adult reply...

Interrogation and torture are two different things. This is where you seem confused. Some believe that some interrogation techniques are torture and some believe those techniques are not torture. For example:

1) It is common practice to place a freshly grabbed prisoner in the hot desert sand under the sun with a sand bag over his head. This makes him delirious and it encourages him to speak for water.

*Some might call this torture, but most of them probably know nothing about war and interrogation tactics or what it takes to protect their fellow Marine or soldier in the quickest amount of time.

2) It is common practice to deprive a prisoner of sleep for days and his reward for information is a mattress.

*Some might call this torture, but most of them probably know nothing about war and interrogation tactics or what it takes to protect their fellow Marine or soldier in the quickest amount of time.

3) It is common practice to place a prisoner with suspected witheld information in front of a barking dog. This is very pshycological. However, the dog is not permitted to bite the prisoner (even though the prisoner doesn't know this).

*Some might call this torture, but most of them probably know nothing about war and interrogation tactics or what it takes to protect their fellow Marine or soldier in the quickest amount of time.

It is common practice to ease up on interrogation tactics once we know the individual knows nothing or is just giving false information. What occurred at Abu-Ghraib and what this article is about was "abuse" and had nothing to do with "interrogation." Prisoners are not beaten during "interrogation" nor are they stripped naked for the entertainment of the female guards.

Have you ever seen an interrogation? I have. Have you ever seen a prisoner handed over to an "allied" military so they could interrogate them in their fashion, because our values and Laws of War do not permit us to cross a line? I have. Why don't you tell us all here what you know about "torture" and "interrogation," besides what you heard from the rants and raves of self-serving politicians and self serving nations who also did not agree with the Iraq war. When pondering your opinions, which are largely based on nothing, take the time and study the techniques used by our enemies and many of our "allies." Maybe you'll get a perspective on what "torture" is.

"Torture" was a tactic for the Democratic Party. It was a simple word meant to incite the masses who were against the war. All these people who exxagerated and lied in Congress to the tune of cheers heard from the ignorant masses, only managed to spot light us as they gave out a "Oh yeah...support the troop" on the side. Our interrogation tactics still go on, and yet the Democratic Party is silent of them (The fad must have worn off). These would be the same tactics used after WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all those smaller conflicts in between. The events at Abu-Ghraib gave rival politicians exactly what they wanted - a tactic. Before we were discovered as a useful tool, we were all bullies or baby killers from an Oliver Stone fantasy to them. And they loved it because it absolved them of all responsibility to serve their country. Now they portray us as helpless victims of American imperialism (although they showed their true colors during this Abu Ghraib affair, when they were delighted to claim that the actions of a handful of renegades exemplified the behavior of our entire military). It appears that some people are still doing this. And it comes down to not having a bit of understanding about what it takes to conduct warfare and the differences between "interrogation" and "torture."

The military has and will always be a tool for the public and their politicians. As well as words like "torture," "support the troop," "no war for oil," "murderer," "baby killer," "warmonger," and other such anti-war slogans.

Such is the business.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

Bush has nothing to do with it.

Nothing? He endorses the use of "coercive interrogation" - aka torture.

What was under attack was our interrogation methods, which have been used since before Geneva. These would be the methods that are more humane than any of our allies, hence our occassional handing over of prisoners to allied forces for interrogation.

What does it matter? More humane? I don't care if it's more-humane then someone else because it is still inhumane to begin with. Our image and credability are at stake. Our accountability and honesty who we are, not who they are. You stoop to that level there's no going back. Such techniques bring out the worst in all of us, hatred, rage, is it any wonder of what happened at abu garab? It only reflected of the larger picture.

Bush merely protected what we have done under scores of administrations and Presidents.

No, compeltely untrue, Bush was only protecting Bush.

The whole "torture" thing was merely a political tactic used by partisans as they frequently declared that they "support the troop."

You lost me here, how does the whole "torture" thing back up partisan bickering to support troops?

The rules created by the Geneva Convention were in light of the Nazi scourge. These rules were not meant to strengthen the hand of our future enemies who instead of the Swastika, carry a Qu'ran. The are inadequate for today's threat, as is our laws.

Geneva was created against racists, bigots, those that could not be reasoned with over thier self principled concept of superiority. There's no difference between swastik and the Qu'ran. Why? Because in the end it's all about dealing with ppl.
When we use thier techniques when we imprison fendless prisoners with "the gloves come off" rhetoric, the real victim here is not the religious wacko, it's us. We have become the very ppl we are fighting.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

It is common practice to ease up on interrogation tactics once we know the individual knows nothing or is just giving false information.

WTF? So it's ok that a completely innocent individually was physically and mentally abused. If someone else said this it's alright. Not you gunny.
The ends do not justify the means.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

Nothing? He endorses the use of "coercive interrogation" - aka torture.

This is an individual's opinion. It is not the official or professional title. "Torture" has it's own definition.

What does it matter? More humane? I don't care if it's more-humane then someone else because it is still inhumane to begin with. Our image and credability are at stake. Our accountability and honesty who we are, not who they are. You stoop to that level there's no going back. Such techniques bring out the worst in all of us, hatred, rage, is it any wonder of what happened at abu garab? It only reflected of the larger picture.

Again...it's the difference it what people perceive. Some people think yelling at the prisoners is "torture."

You lost me here, how does the whole "torture" thing back up partisan bickering to support troops?

I was referring to the contradiction. I explained in a later post.

Geneva was created against racists, bigots, those that could not be reasoned with over thier self principled concept of superiority. There's no difference between swastik and the Qu'ran. Why? Because in the end it's all about dealing with ppl.
When we use thier techniques when we imprison fendless prisoners with "the gloves come off" rhetoric, the real victim here is not the religious wacko, it's us. We have become the very ppl we are fighting.

Well, that's just it. We do not use their techniques. There has been a whole lot of exxagerations and plain lying about our interrogation techniques. The question to ask is, "why has the democratic party moved on from this subject?" The truth is, they used the issue as a political tool and when it was worn out, they moved on. However, it did wonders for our image on the world stage.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

WTF? So it's ok that a completely innocent individually was physically and mentally abused. If someone else said this it's alright. Not you gunny.
The ends do not justify the means.

We aren't talking about completely innocent individuals. Are their innocent people inside Gitmo and other places in Iraq and Europe that were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Sure. You will find this in any prison in the world. The majority are guilty and only the hard core terrorists or suspected terrorists are interrogated to higher levels. However, no level involves electricity, bludgeoning, or knives. This would be torture.

Abu-Ghraib houses the local Sunni (mostly)/Shi'ite fighters and caught insurgents. Once the captured are elevated to terrorists level (which a vast majority are from the insurgency) they are sent to Gitmo and Europe. Also, Radical Islamists that graduate from extemist camps in Bosnia and Pakistan are followed to their destinations where they and their comrades are picked up and sent to Gitmo and Europe. These individuals are "interrogated."

 

[Captain America]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

I think I really need to do some deep soul-searching. I have pondered this issue to great lengths. I rarely post anything on this subject.

When I think about it, I know it's wrong, but I personally cannot muster the proper outrage and disdain for the torture of these human beings.

Is it wrong? I am sure, in my heart of hearts, it is.

But I always arrive at the realization that I don't really care if they shove bamboo chutes up their nostrils. *%#@# on them.

Perhaps I should see a priest? Yeah, right.....:rofl

But some professional counciling might be in order. Until then, I will keep my feelings about this topic to myself to save embarassment and promote harmony.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

We aren't talking about completely innocent individuals. Are their innocent people inside Gitmo and other places in Iraq and Europe that were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Sure. You will find this in any prison in the world. The majority are guilty and only the hard core terrorists or suspected terrorists are interrogated to higher levels. However, no level involves electricity, bludgeoning, or knives. This would be torture.

It really doesn't matter of what technique is used. IT's the same as contrasting between the difference between a shot gun peppering on a guys face vs a rifle's single bullet wound. Irrelevant. As I've said, the ultimate loosers are us. The person carrying out the measures can tell h/erself that this is not torture, however the trigger that starts the process is the same as torturing. I would hate to be the poor bastard that goes then and apologizes to these ppl.
Now, as for AG, non-torture methods, then why are there so many reports of ppl dieing from these "techniques". Psychological trauma can be just as sever if not more so in many ways as physical trauma. The Vietcong did just that when the threw American POW's into tire cages and so on. It's torture, just ask McCain.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

It really doesn't matter of what technique is used. IT's the same as contrasting between the difference between a shot gun peppering on a guys face vs a rifle's single bullet wound. Irrelevant. As I've said, the ultimate loosers are us. The person carrying out the measures can tell h/erself that this is not torture, however the trigger that starts the process is the same as torturing. I would hate to be the poor bastard that goes then and apologizes to these ppl.
Now, as for AG, non-torture methods, then why are there so many reports of ppl dieing from these "techniques". Psychological trauma can be just as sever if not more so in many ways as physical trauma. The Vietcong did just that when the threw American POW's into tire cages and so on. It's torture, just ask McCain.

One, there aren't "so many" and two, our police and detective force here in America frequently uses phsycological trauma on suspects during interrogations. They also use sleep deprivation. They use the lighting and the room temperature.

The Vietcong tortured to punish and to entertain themselves. The same with the Japanese and so many other nations around the globe. Enemy prisoners of war during our times of conflict (which they are not) are not tortured. They are interogated and stressed beyond their means for information only.

The "few" deaths that have occurred have been the result of overzealous interrogators or from individuals who lack the interrogation training. There is a point where interrogation becomes abuse (torture.) This is not accepted as normal military interrogation.

People (Our own) and politicians (our own) have taken these "few" incidents and the straight abuse of the few rogues at Abu-Ghraib and have paraded exxageration afeter exxageration. Supporting all of this are the world's nations that didn't agree with Iraq in the first place.

What drives me crazy is the fact that if this was a "popular" war - say to save some white Europeans from something - then all of this exxageration would not exist. It is human nature. When people are strongly opposed to something, they will look for any and all negatives and embellish and parade them for all their worth.

This is war, not law enforcement. I've said it before, this world does not function according to what is "right and wrong." "Necessity" will always trump such sentiments. America is not the perfect society. As long as we live in a world where guns have to be picked up to face other guns, there will never be such a thing.

 

[Captain America]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

I agree Gunny. But I would like to raise one point. When you write:

This is war, not law enforcement.

That may be correct but did you know, that RIGHT NOW, my brother, a law enforcement officer, is sitting in Iraq interrogating detainees? He is using law enforcement tactics and strategies as we speak.

Not to mention, making boo-coo bucks. I think the reason the military hires him is two-fold.
1. Because law enforcement officers are better trained at this than the military.
2. It puts a degree of seperation, a buffer if you will, between the interrogator and the government's military. In case of an alleged abuse, they will have a liable scapegoat. Similar to the buffer created by sending detainees to other foreign countries for interrogation.

I just thought this was kinda interesting.

Carry on.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

I agree Gunny. But I would like to raise one point. When you write:


That may be correct but did you know, that RIGHT NOW, my brother, a law enforcement officer, is sitting in Iraq interrogating detainees? He is using law enforcement tactics and strategies as we speak.

Not to mention, making boo-coo bucks. I think the reason the military hires him is two-fold.
1. Because law enforcement officers are better trained at this than the military.
2. It puts a degree of seperation, a buffer if you will, between the interrogator and the government's military. In case of an alleged abuse, they will have a liable scapegoat. Similar to the buffer created by sending detainees to other foreign countries for interrogation.

I just thought this was kinda interesting.

Carry on.

I'm aware of the "Law Enforcement Program." It is needed, because we are dealing with individuals who are working outside the conventions of traditional warfare and our enemies don't exactly fit into the "prisoner of war" definition. We've got MPs also, but that still raises this conflict above a "law enforcement" status.

"This is war, not law enforement" meant that we aren't serving warrants and collecting up the bad guys so we can hand them over to lawyers to appear in front of a judge. They are the enemy, not local criminals BUT, at the same time, they are not exactly a conventional militant enemy and are criminals. This is also why I have said in the past that our laws are not adequate for todays international threats. We are in a grey area, where stong actions must be taken, but we must be careful not to go to far. This is where everyone's "opinions" are trying to determine what "too far" is.

 

[Captain America]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

Right on Gunny.

I have made my position clear in post #18, on this thread, regarding what I consider going "too far" with these people is.

But that's just me.

That being said, I will now take my leave.:3oops:

 

[jfuh]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

One, there aren't "so many" and two, our police and detective force here in America frequently uses phsycological trauma on suspects during interrogations. They also use sleep deprivation. They use the lighting and the room temperature.

The difference being is that the detectives and police are still in reality. They are still overseen by the courts and mistreatment is strongly punishable by law. Over there, the superiors just have to look the other way. The interrogators are ouf of touch with reality. And when only a few days ago these guys were shooting at each other, emotions boil. When superiors do not give strict guidelines of what can not be done lines are crossed.

The Vietcong tortured to punish and to entertain themselves. The same with the Japanese and so many other nations around the globe. Enemy prisoners of war during our times of conflict (which they are not) are not tortured. They are interogated and stressed beyond their means for information only.

As did the soldiers at AG also Gunatanamo bay.

The "few" deaths that have occurred have been the result of overzealous interrogators or from individuals who lack the interrogation training. There is a point where interrogation becomes abuse (torture.) This is not accepted as normal military interrogation.

So what are we arguing about? This is all the result when the administration decided unilaterally without concent to congress to toss out the Geneva convention "the gloves come off". Leading to confusion and muddying lines which were not to be crossed.

People (Our own) and politicians (our own) have taken these "few" incidents and the straight abuse of the few rogues at Abu-Ghraib and have paraded exxageration afeter exxageration. Supporting all of this are the world's nations that didn't agree with Iraq in the first place.

Nothing like this happened during the first gulf war, in fact nothing like this has ever happened in US facilities because we always adhered strongly to the principles outlined by Geneva. When this administration decided unilaterally to go gun ho to war then to piss on the Geneva convention subhuman attrocities are committed. Should such news be buried? never reported? Yes full cover needs to be blown on this issue. Because it was blown over did we have McCain's anti-torture legislation, but then what did Bush do? He edited it before he signed it.

What drives me crazy is the fact that if this was a "popular" war - say to save some white Europeans from something - then all of this exxageration would not exist.

If the administration had been honest and transparent about it's intentions, had they focused on Afganistan until OBL and the real Al Qaeda had been all apprehended and Afganistan was peaceful no one would've objected. Bush and his hawks decided early on to head into Iraq regardless of.
Let's lay it all out. Should Saddam really had WMD's, should he really have had ties to Al Qaeda so on and so forth, Saddam could've waited. WE could attack the guy any other time. Why not finish with the first war that you started, waited till the dust settled before starting a new confrontation. Another year or two was not going to be enough to get A-bombs from yellow cake anyway. But oh wait, there was a re-election coming up hmmm. Makes you think.

It is human nature. When people are strongly opposed to something, they will look for any and all negatives and embellish and parade them for all their worth.

What positives have come out of IRaq or Afganistan? Have oil prices gone down? ARe we safer today then we were yesterday? Has Al Qaeda been eliminated? Where's OBL?

This is war, not law enforcement. I've said it before, this world does not function according to what is "right and wrong." "Necessity" will always trump such sentiments. America is not the perfect society. As long as we live in a world where guns have to be picked up to face other guns, there will never be such a thing.

Funny you should say this because the US is the #1 proliferator of weaponry, as are all the other permanent members on the UN security council.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Interrogation Chief at Abu Ghraib to Be Court Martialed

Nothing like this happened during the first gulf war, in fact nothing like this has ever happened in US facilities because we always adhered strongly to the principles outlined by Geneva.

You sure about this? Perhaps you should look into it after removing the "I hate Bush" sentiment.

Funny you should say this because the US is the #1 proliferator of weaponry, as are all the other permanent members on the UN security council.

Guess who number 3 is.