The War's Lost Weekend

That's funny, since DOD released news of the relief of command and that
investigations were ongoing back in January.

Note that most or all of the information in the media came not for
from their investigative reporting, but from the Pentagon
investigation. That is, it was the DOD that broke the news. See the
Wall Street Journal on "Abuse and the Army"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005044


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

gezz emma .... bush jnr wont like your thoughts at brekkie
tomorrow...they are so simple and clear he wouldnt know what your on
about...

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Emmanuel, what would *you* have done more rapidly or differently from the
above?

Well, for a start, there are persistent reports that the Pentagon
allows "special techniques" to be used on prisoners as "enablers
for interrogation".

If true, that is a war crime. Not, of course, at the same level as
actual mass murder or genocide; as OJ would say, there is still
a difference between beating a wife and murdering her.
Nevertheless a crime which, brought to court, would merit at
least a few years imprisonment.

But also stupid. The psychology of camp and prison guards has
been studied extensively. Give people a position of power and
the feeling that some rough behaviour to prisoners is not just
tolerated, but expected, and you will see no end to what they
will fall to, especially under stress. For *most* people that is a
very steep slippery slope. It doesn't take a particularly bad
character. (The guards who committed the crimes cannot be
absolved of guilt, but is also unfair to demonize them.) Allow
the line to be crossed, and you are certain to have a disaster.

If it is not true, it is still unforgivable that the US government
allows its credibility to drop so low that such rumours are
widely believed and printed. It is the duty of government
officials to make it 100% clear and obvious that such behaviour
will not be tolerated, BEFORE it happens. Afterwards is always
too late. To blindly trust that it will not happen, in a war situation,
is plainly stupid. (Vietnam should at least have served as a warning.)

The US government does allow Red Cross inspections of the
detention facilities in Iraq. At the very least it has neglected to
give the unsatisfactory reports that it has been receiving for
over a year, the attention they deserved. And to neglect an issue
like this, in a situation where a hollow pumpkin could grasp
the importance of showing scrupulous respect to the Iraqi people,
is beyond words.

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Let's see, according to the AP's timeline for this incident:

"Jan. 13, 2004: Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby, an MP with the 800th at Abu
Ghraib, first reports cases of abuse at the prison.

The problem with this AP "timeline" is what it leaves out. The first
report of the ICRC notifying the US government about abuse of
prisoners by US soldiers was delivered a long time before the US Army
finally took this action. The director of operations of the Red Cross,
Mr. Kraehenbuehl, is quoted as saying "Our findings were discussed at
different moments between March and November 2003, either in direct
face-to-face conversations or in written interventions."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3694521.stm)

March 2003 to January 2004 is very a long time to do nothing. Red
Cross reports are confidential -- the burden of taking action rests on
the government.

LOL! March 2003 was when we were moving into Iraq--pretty quick reaction
time for the ICRC, eh? And the thought of securing a bad guy in an unlit
cell...jeepers (at a time when most civilian Iraqis were also without
power...that's rich!)! The claims of murder and shootings seem a bit
far-fetched--I guess you think we covered those up, but for some odd reason
when the first reputable claim of mistreatment at Abu Ghraib was presented
to the military chain, they immediately initiated (multiple) investigations
and announced that to the press, eh? Now how do you explain that?

Again, you are letting your prejudices cloud your better judgement. I
thought you were a bit more sensible than what you have been exhibiting of
late, Emmanuel. We have already begun criminal proceedings against soldiers
involved in this terrible affair. I will bet you that our accused personnel
face a bit tougher future than some other nation's troops that were
photographed doing some rather disgusting things (to children, no less--ring
any bells for you?)...maybe you ought to instead look a bit closer to home,
if you feel such outrageous indignation at the idea of such treatement of
prisoners? "First published in the United States on the cover of the June
24th issue of the left-wing weekly Village Voice, the photograph depicts two
Belgian paladins of the new world order giddily holding a Somali child over
an open flame...One Belgian UN soldier testified that it was a regular
practice to use metal boxes as prison cells, and that other Somalis probably
died similarly gruesome deaths...Belgian military authorities launched an
investigation into the atrocities following publication of a front-page
story by Belgium's Het Laatste Nieuws. In early July, Privates Claude Baert
and Kurt Coelus, the two paratroopers photographed dangling the Somali child
over a flame, were acquitted by a military court, which ruled that the
incident - described by Baert and Coelus as a punishment for stealing - was
"a form of playing without violence," according to prosecutor Luc
Walleyn...In September, another military tribunal will be held to
investigate the actions of Sergeant Dirk Nassel, the soldier photographed
forcing a Somali boy to ingest worms and vomit. However, the Belgian
military system - which is deeply entwined with the UN "peacekeeping"
apparatus - has yet to inflict substantive penalties for abuses committed in
the service of the UN. Several years ago, according to Gould, "Belgian
soldiers were also accused of holding mock executions for Somali children
and forcing them to dig their own graves; though their officer was given a
suspended sentence, the soldiers were acquitted."
(www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/ POLITICS/UN/peace.html ) [I was not sure
about the veracity of this article, given the somewhat whack-o bent of the
website, but it appears from scanning AP reports from the period it was
accurate] Or: "A fourth member of the 3rd battalion of the Parachute
Regiment, based at Tielen in Flanders, is also due to go on trial in
September. Sergeant Major Rudy Derkinderen is suspected of having murdered a
Somali whom he was photographed urinating on. The circumstances surrounding
the death of another child at the paratroopers' base near Kismayo in
southern Somalia are also under investigation. According to the testimony of
two former paratroopers, the boy, who had been caught trying to steal food,
died after being locked in a container for 48 hours."
(www.public.iastate.edu/~vwindsor/WTH.html )

Sounds like you have to do a bit of house-cleaning of your own (I notice
that your military courts proved either unwilling or unable to do it for
you) before you start worrying too much about whether or not the Iraqi PW's
had electric lighting in-place IAW with your own expectations--and I guess
in Belgian circles "firelight" is acceptable (even if it is used to "heat
up" some Somali child?).

Brooks


Emmanuel Gustin

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Emmanuel, what would *you* have done more rapidly or differently from
the
above?

Well, for a start, there are persistent reports that the Pentagon
allows "special techniques" to be used on prisoners as "enablers
for interrogation".

If true, that is a war crime.

No, that depends upon what you are specifically referring to. The actions of
the guards at Abu Ghraib do appear to be clear-cut criminal acts--which is
why prosecutions are underway. More subtle forms of softening up individuals
for interrogation are not necessarily criminal acts, though (i.e., sleep
deprivation, within reasonable limits; isolation, again within reasonable
limits, etc.).

Not, of course, at the same level as
actual mass murder or genocide; as OJ would say, there is still
a difference between beating a wife and murdering her.
Nevertheless a crime which, brought to court, would merit at
least a few years imprisonment.

How much time did the prosecution ask for in the case of those two Belgian
paras holding the kid over the fire? One *month*? (They of course did not
even get *that*). How much time did SGT Nassel end up receiving--one single
year, IIRC (and only then after his original lesser sentence was appealed?)?


But also stupid. The psychology of camp and prison guards has
been studied extensively. Give people a position of power and
the feeling that some rough behaviour to prisoners is not just
tolerated, but expected, and you will see no end to what they
will fall to, especially under stress. For *most* people that is a
very steep slippery slope. It doesn't take a particularly bad
character. (The guards who committed the crimes cannot be
absolved of guilt, but is also unfair to demonize them.) Allow
the line to be crossed, and you are certain to have a disaster.

If it is not true, it is still unforgivable that the US government
allows its credibility to drop so low that such rumours are
widely believed and printed. It is the duty of government
officials to make it 100% clear and obvious that such behaviour
will not be tolerated, BEFORE it happens. Afterwards is always
too late. To blindly trust that it will not happen, in a war situation,
is plainly stupid. (Vietnam should at least have served as a warning.)

Belgium...Somalia. Look closer to home before you start ranting about a
process that is still ongoing regarding our own criminal prosecutions.

Brooks


The US government does allow Red Cross inspections of the
detention facilities in Iraq. At the very least it has neglected to
give the unsatisfactory reports that it has been receiving for
over a year, the attention they deserved. And to neglect an issue
like this, in a situation where a hollow pumpkin could grasp
the importance of showing scrupulous respect to the Iraqi people,
is beyond words.

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

I guess you think we covered those up, but for some odd reason
when the first reputable claim of mistreatment at Abu Ghraib was
presented
to the military chain, they immediately initiated (multiple)
investigations
and announced that to the press, eh? Now how do you explain that?

I think that are still many decent people in the US Army,
untolerant of such barbaric actions, and willing to take
action against it even when their superiors are clearly
negligent. That is a good thing.

In September, another military tribunal will be held to
investigate the actions of Sergeant Dirk Nassel, the soldier
photographed
forcing a Somali boy to ingest worms and vomit.

I have found the actual judgments in only this case, because the
defendants were also accused of racism and an anti-racist
organisation put the full judgment on a site. Basically, the courts
ruled that the more lurid claims of forcing the child to eat vomit
etc. were a fantasy, not supported by any witness. Dirk N. was
convicted of forcing a muslim child to eat a tin of pork out of a
C-ration. The court judged that there was insufficient evidence
to convict the defendant of causing bodily harm of making criminal
threats; he was found guily of a racist act committed as a government
official. He was given a sentence of six months, of which three
effective immediately, fined, and his civil rights (voting etc.)
were taken away for five years.

On the whole, considering the facts that were proven, this
seems a reasonable enough judgment to me.

In the case of Coelus and Baert, the court judged that there
was no evidence that the child was harmed, nor evidence
that the intent was to harm. It accepted the statement of the
defendants that it had started as a 'rough game,' and although
it reprimanded them, it saw no reason to convict.

Odd, in that the mention of "murder" was included in the case of one of the
four defendants (a Sergeant Major, IIRC), and in view of the photo of the
kid being suspended over the flames, we see only one rather minor
conviction--can't even find reference what happened to the SGM, who's trial,
if it ever occured, was scheduled after Nassel's (and IIRC Nassel was (also)
actually convicted of forcing a young Somali girl to perform a strip-tease
for his soldiers...). Seems to me if you *are* so interested in ridding the
world of military criminals, you still have your work cut out for you back
home before you embark on any crusade against a US military justice system
that is just now beginning proceedings against the MP's. A US military
justice system that has, unlike the Belgian version, demonstrated that it
will indeed really punish those who violate the law (witness the case of the
US Army SSG who was convicted of the rape and murder of a little girl in the
Bosnia/Kosovo region, and IIRC was sentenced to death).

Brooks


Sounds like you have to do a bit of house-cleaning of your own

Measures recommended (by the general appointed to investigate)
to prevent a repeat included faster disclipinary measures and
court procedures, banning the possession and consumption of
alcoholic beverages during operations, and improving training
with more attention for humanitary law and the laws of warfare.

(I notice that your military courts proved either unwilling or
unable to do it for you)

Belgium meanwhile abolished military courts in peacetime. Not
cost-efficient for a small army, and to have a parallel system of
justice for and by soldiers seemed a bad idea, creating at least
an impression of unequal treatment. Cases against soldiers will
now be heard in the normal civilian criminal courts. (That this
will result in faster court procedures for suspect soldiers is
doubtful indeed.)

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

No, that depends upon what you are specifically referring to. The
actions
of
the guards at Abu Ghraib do appear to be clear-cut criminal acts--which
is
why prosecutions are underway. More subtle forms of softening up
individuals
for interrogation are not necessarily criminal acts, though (i.e., sleep
deprivation, within reasonable limits; isolation, again within
reasonable
limits, etc.).

You missed some stuff--must have accidently snipped it, eh?

To wit:

How much time did the prosecution ask for in the case of those two Belgian
paras holding the kid over the fire? One *month*? (They of course did not
even get *that*). How much time did SGT Nassel end up receiving--one single
year, IIRC (and only then after his original lesser sentence was appealed?)?


Torture is a criminal act prohibited under the Geneva conventions;
and intentionally inflicting physical or mental suffering to make
people more "cooperative" is torture.

Depends upon the definition of "suffering". You could argue that solitary
confinement is "torture" under your wideranging definition--but that is not
necessarily the case, is it? How about waking someone in the middle of the
night to undergo an interview--is that "torture"?

Whether there are limits
of 'subtelity' put on the practice is irrelevant.

Those limits are what indeed separates the legal from the illegal.

One cannot be a little
bit a torturer, any more than one can be a little bit pregnant.

So by your definition, those Belgian troops were all guilty of "torture", a
single crime of all-encompassing limits. What kind of sentences did those
four receive, again? Oh, that's right--holding a kid over an open fire for
an extended period of time is not "torture", according to your courts, is
it?

When
a government permits 'moderate' abuse of prisoners for some
purpose, it has to accept the responsibility when things run out
of hand --- because that is to be expected.

So Belgium should be sigularly censured for failing to do anything to the
culprits involved in the Somali incidents (plural). OK. After we have
finished the courts martial proceedings against our own miscreants, you can
weigh in as to which of our respective nations took a more hardline approach
to controlling aberrant behavior. 'Till then, keep up that hosecleaning in
your own military justice system...

Brooks


--
Emmanuel Gustin

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Odd, in that the mention of "murder" was included in the case of one of
the
four defendants (a Sergeant Major, IIRC),

There was a conviction for murder of a Belgian peacekeeper;
AFAIK the murder was related to an arms smuggling ring set
up by UN peacekeepers (there were big scandals in Canada
and Italy after the Somalia mission as well). Nobody claims
that the UN mission in Somalia covered itself in glory; it was
an all-round disaster.

But you seem very willing to believe the most outrageous
accusations you can find. Courts, it may surprise you, have
to proceed by evidence. If a crime cannot be proven, they
have to acquit.

Odd, given that you have already made pronouncement of the US in a case
where the trials are just starting, then. And unlike the case of Belgium,
the US Army began investigating and pursuing criminal cases *before* the
press published photos (indeed, also unlike the belgian case, the Army was
the party that announced the problem in the first place).


home before you embark on any crusade against a US military
justice system that is just now beginning proceedings against
the MP's.

My objection is not against the US military justice system.
(That AFAIK has a fairly good reputation internationally.)
My objection is against an US government that has been
negligent in establishing the line between right and wrong,
and perhaps has even intentionally blurred it, but nevertheless
eagerly throws the first stone when its servants transgress,
without accepting its own responsibility.

I don't think you are right in this case.


Belgian ministers of defence tend to strictly belong to either
of two categories of politicians: Those who still have to
prove their ability, and those who have already proven that
they haven't any. (The current incumbent firmly belongs to
the latter category.) But even they take their responsibility
more seriously than Donald Rumsfeld.

That appears to be an unfounded accusation, IMO.

Brooks


--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

You missed some stuff--must have accidently snipped it, eh?

My habit is to snip thoroughly, leaving only in small bits as
anchors to allow readers to roughly establish track what parts
of a post a reply corresponds. I hate posts of 7,753 quoted lines
with "me too!" added to it. If you can't live with that, bad luck.

That was not a "me, too!" item you snipped. It goes directly to the question
of how the US military handles such cases, a process that you seem upset
with (that whole three day lag in kicking off the CID investigation, etc.),
versus how your own nation handles it. The US announced the investigation
was underway immediately after it began; Belgium, IIRC, only investigated
after the press raised the issue. The US immediately relieved officers in
the chain of command; I have yet to see where the Belgians did that. But you
feel quite comfortable in critiquing our process, while it is still
ongoing...?


How much time did the prosecution ask for in the case of
those two Belgian paras holding the kid over the fire? One
*month*? (They of course did not even get *that*).

I don't know how much the prosecutor asked.

One month.

The defence told
the court that the soldiers swung the boy above the fire as a
kind of rough game to frighten him a bit. Apparently there was
no evidence to prove the contrary, and in the end the court
accepted that story. With a case like that, no wise prosecutor is
going to demand a heavy sentence --- because no judge is
going to award it.

But according to you, "Whether there are limits of 'subtelity' put on the
practice is irrelevant." H'mmm...it seems you find limits unacceptable for
the US, but just fine for your folks when it comes to threatening to roast a
kid alive?!


How much time did SGT Nassel end up receiving--one single
year, IIRC (and only then after his original lesser sentence
was appealed?)?

Actually, he was acquitted in his first trial. Yes, his total
sentence was one year; I have found no record of his conviction
in the second case. The charges varied from physical violence
to organising prostitution, so it is hard to tell what he was found
guilty of without the actual record. Too lenient? Perhaps.
The court had to judge the cases on basis of the available
evidence, not on newspaper reports in the sensationalist press;
I am not willing to second-guess it on basis of the latter.

But you are quite willing to condemn our entire chain of command, up through
the SecDef at least, on the basis of similar "sensationalist press"
accounts? Are you beginning to see what i said before, about you letting
your prejudices taint your analysis of the current situation?


Oh, that's right--holding a kid over an open fire for
an extended period of time is not "torture", according
to your courts, is it?

If you have any evidence that they did so for a "prolonged period
of time" and caused actual harm to the boy, please send it to the
Belgian judiciary.

Your words: "Whether there are limits of 'subtelity' put on the practice is
irrelevant." Don't be two-faced about this.


So Belgium should be sigularly censured for failing to do anything
to the culprits involved in the Somali incidents (plural). OK. After
we have finished the courts martial proceedings against our own
miscreants, you can weigh in as to which of our respective nations
took a more hardline approach to controlling aberrant behavior.

You keep missing the point, do you -- must be accidental, eh?
The point is NOT whether the actual "miscreants" are punished
harshly. Personally, I won't object at all if US military courts
give lenient sentences to the "miscreants" of Abu Ghraib. IMHO
the major portion of the guilt rests with the people who allowed
an environment in which such abuse of prisoners became widely
tolerated and ("if done with subtlety") may even have been part
of official policy.


Nope. And don't twist my words--I have said nothing to support the acts that
our own miscreants carried out at Abu Ghraib. I hope they all get severe
sentences. I also hope that the battalion and brigade level key personnel
who either knew of the acts, or should have known of them, deserve to be
punished, be it by Article 15 or by courts martial for dereliction of duty.
But trying to link this to the SecDef is a bit ridiculous. Until you can
present convincing evidence that he was directly, or even indirectly,
*responsible*, then your accusations are groundless and just symptomatic of
your anti-Bush/Rumsfeld hysteria (exacerbated by that "sensationailst press,
no doubt--or is that a factor only when Belgians are the accused party?).

The people who transgressed into brutal abuse
of prisoners committed a crime -- but so would, in similar
circumstances, a majority of any group of people. That is the sad
reality of human nature. The Pentagon has to accept that soldiers
are only human, and design its policies and regulations accordingly.

The policies and regulations promulgated by the Pentagon are not really
subject to attack, AFAIK. Remember, it was also one of those regulations
that led a concerned soldier to report the abuse to CENTCOM in the first
place.

Brooks


--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

gezz emma .... bush jnr wont like your thoughts at brekkie
tomorrow...they are so simple and clear he wouldnt know what your on
about...


On Friday last, it was leaked that Bush had "admonished" Rumsfled for not
keeping him apprised of these horrendous photographs; yesterday, Bush said
Rumsfeld had done a "superb" job.

Bush is nothing but a puppet for Cheney and the other neo-cons. And he is a
miserable failure.

The effect on the Muslim world that Bush's calling Rumsfeld's performance
"superb" can be predicted with some certainty. They will hate America more and
more American servicemen/women will die because of it.

Walt

t is in the most important respect. The most determined fighters are on the
other side.

The most important difference between Vietnam and Iraq is Oil.
The former had no oil whereas the latter has worlds second largest oil
reserves.

That's a good point. So it's a war for oil after all.

Walt