The War's Lost Weekend

On Mon, 10 May 2004 22:04:10 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

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

If we follow this definition, Emmanuel, then the word "torture" is
meaningless. You would call any sort of discipline torture.

I understand torture to mean physical violence that leaves you
screaming and probably damaged for life. John McCain understands
torture.

Wearing a hood is not torture. Standing for 12 hours is not torture.
Sleep deprivation is not torture (my daughter is a blue-water sailor;
she trains herself to do without sleep, as a career necessity).

Humiliation is not torture, either, though I certainly think that PFC
Englewood (whatever her name) would be found guilty of some lesser
included offense under the UCMJ for her party trick with the leash. If
she were an officer, then it would be "conduct unbecoming." I don't
remember from my days covering courts martial, but I'm sure there's an
equivalent catch-all for enlisted troops.

We've pretty much destroyed any meaning the word "genocide" or "rape"
once had. Let's not toss "torture" into the PC dustbin also.

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

The troll WalterM140 wrote:

Bush is nothing but a puppet for Cheney and the other neo-cons.

I was wondering how long it would take for you to break out your "neo-con"
remark.

Beat it troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Bush had "admonished" Rumsfled for not
keeping him apprised of these horrendous photographs; yesterday, Bush said
Rumsfeld had done a "superb" jo

Rumsfeld is only cabinet member who understands the nature of current conflict.

If he had chosen to send "overwhelming" force to Iraq,Iraq war would be lost
even before first shot were fired.

If your opponent is Global Financial Power you must run Pentagon like a
Pharmacy company .
In order to win a war with Global Financial Power you must prove that financial
returns from the military invasion are better than invading this country with
Hondas,Toyatas,BMWs, Microsofts etc.

So,"overwhelming force" has no chance aganist such an opponent,but a lean and
very capable force might have a slight chance.

But unfortunately Rumsfeld is the Defense Secretary of United States not a
Confederate Defense Secretary.
He seems to forget that frequently.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:59:19 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

Apparently, the report also contains claims of excessive violence
used in arrests; of the beating of prisoners, in one case resulting in
death; of soldiers firing on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers;
etc. Whether the ICRC was reporting the abuse that is now subject
of criminal investigation? Well, if not, then the problem is even
bigger than we know now. Reports are dripping in suggesting that
the problem was not limited to Abu Ghraib; it remains to be seen
how widespread it really was. Time will tell -- I hope.

Time will tell how many commentators actually read the ICRC report and
take on board the other sections of it (e.g. Section 38) which
acknowledge things like the generally correct treatment detainees
received, the improvement in non-lethal restraint of serious
distrubances and escape attempts and so forth. People who want to
make justifiable mileage out of the allegations of systematic abuse of
military intelligence detainees must also address the whole picture of
systematic coalition behaviour revealed in the less sensational
sections of the report. This will not happen, of course, as the
report - like everything else - will be used to selectively further
arguments based on pre-existing prejudices which are all but
impervious to evidence which contradicts the axiomatic understandings
involved. People will simply use the report selectively to confirm
their prejudices, not to objectively inform their understanding.

Crucially, the ICRC report is said to point out that although the
abuse was widespread, it was limited to those prisoners regarded
as "of intelligence value" and held for interrogation. That supports
the view that the abuse was not the result of random acts of
depravity by bad individuals, but the fairly direct consequence
of a policy designed to soften up prisoners before interrogation.

It also comments on the limitation of that policy to a selected group;
what about that group? Or do they simply get air-brushed out of the
equation when it comes time to deliver verdicts on US policy towards
detainees as a whole?

So says you. I don't expect the SecDef to read every report that is
generated at each and every echelon below his own--

This was not "each and every report." This was a report on
a developing crisis that was about to deal a fatal blow the
USA's Iraq policy and indelibly tarnish the reputation of the
US military.

I see, so now ittle evidence of "wait and see" is now required, you
can - where it suits you - jump to conclusive characterisations of how
the ICRC report is about to deal a "fatal blow" to US Iraq policy.
Like most other commentators on this issue - on both sides - your
analysis is being driven by your preconceptions.

(preferably more than what your own nation has handed out to your soldiers
who committed equally, or even moreso, barbaric acts)--

Sentences can only be given to soldiers after their guilt has
been proven to the satisfaction of a court of law. Really,
what is so hard to understand about that that it refuses to
enter your brain? BTW, from what I have read, the maximum
penalty defined by US law for such acts as committed in
Abu Ghraib is one year.

Again, I do not believe that turning the small fry into human
sacrifices on the altar of political credibility serves a purpose
or is fair.

Really? I suggest holding individual soldiers - Belgian or American -
responsible for any immoral or illegal acts they commit, through the
normal process of military and civilian justice, is an essential
prerequisite for maintaining the rule of law and military discipline.
I do note with interest how flexible your dismissal of holding
perpetrators responsible for their actions is, and how contingent it
is upon your preconceptions and their status and rank.

Don't start lecturing us until you have your own house in
order, Mr. Gustin.

As I have pointed out, changes in policy have been made in
the Belgian army to prevent a recurrence of such events.

Oh, so that's OK then. Would you tolerate such a response - an
internal inquiry followed by internal procedural change and then an
assertion that "everything is OK now" - from the US army? Somehow I
doubt it. As Kevin Brooks suggests, I think you should seriously
consider the issue of your objectivity over this matter.

This
seems to be more than the US Army is about to do,

Actually, given the apparent delay (or even lack) of any substantial
legal due process and imminent punishment, the US forces, incredibly
enough, are actually doing better than the Belgian.

[snip your characterisation of Bush policy]

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the nationality of the
perpetrators, no matter how much you choose to harp on that.

I'm afraid it looks like it to me; and I'm somebody who does accept
that the Rumsfeld DoD has undermined US standards in terms of the
handling of dentainees, and seriously underestimated the commitment
required to stabilise and rebuild post-war Iraq. You should take a
close look at where your assertions in this thread materially move
beyond those points, and where you apparently adhere to a double
standards in regard to the nationality of soldiers alledged to have
commited human rights abuses on active service.

That concludes this debate for me: I don't believe anything substantially
new has been said in this latest exchange. I wonder whether anyone
else has bothered to read it, but it hope it is a change from the more
content-free rants that pollute this newsgroup.

I have indeed read it, and while I disagree with some of what Kevin
Brooks has written, I find the discussion typical of the kind of
polarised and sterile debate which characterises discussion of
American policy in Iraq - principally because of the level of
disproportionate, self-righteous hypocrisy ridden with axiomatic
assumptions and prejudice which tends to inform anti-US opinion even
more than it does pro-US opinion. And that's saying something.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

On 13 May 2004 10:49:43 -0700, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

It also comments on the limitation of that policy to a selected group;
what about that group? Or do they simply get air-brushed out of the
equation when it comes time to deliver verdicts on US policy towards
detainees as a whole?

You mean, is it relevant who the abused detainees are?

No. I mean acknowledging the extent of the abuse amongst all
detainees, without fear or favour: where it exists, and, just as
importantly if you have any pretence to objectivity, where it doesn't
exist or has been dealt with.

I don't think it is.

Good for you. Nice straw man, by the way.

Most courts take a dim view of attempts to excuse
a crime by throwing mud on the victims.

Good for them. This has nothing to do with my question on the
representative nature of the recorded US abuse. If you want to spend
time answering my posts, either ask for clarification of my point or
answer it rather than introduce your own straw men.

You are, as I understand it, critiquing US policy towards Iraqi
detainees. A commonly-acceptable starting point for that would be to
acknowledge what US policy was and what the involved in the treatment
of *all* detainees, and not just selected groups of them actually was.
For example, your approach is as meaningful in terms of characterising
the approach of US forces to all detainees as Rumsfeld parading a
group that the US forces had treated with kid gloves and then claiming
this was characteristic of the experience of detainees as a whole.
What is missing is any sense of proportion and any pretence to
objectivity.

I see, so now ittle evidence of "wait and see" is now required, you
can - where it suits you - jump to conclusive characterisations of how
the ICRC report is about to deal a "fatal blow" to US Iraq policy.

You are right, I do not think we need to wait much longer to
judge this.

Clearly, you don't.

How is any future Iraqi government going to be able
to work with the USA, with this millstone around their necks?

Pretty much how the German government works with the USA despite the
millstone of American force's war crimes and occupation crimes against
the local population. With any luck any future Iraqi government will
restrain their desire to announce how the latest case of American
crime or misdemeanour is characteristic of flaws in the American
government or character, and instead demand and receive due process of
legal justice on the suspects as individuals. You know, pretty much
like any other country might, without indulging the more hysterical
elements of anti-American hysteria. You can leave the conspiracy
theories and the generalised axiomatic assumptions until they are
demonstrably provable.

Really? I suggest holding individual soldiers - Belgian or American -
responsible for any immoral or illegal acts they commit, through the
normal process of military and civilian justice, is an essential
prerequisite for maintaining the rule of law and military discipline.

I fully agree with that, as long as this involves fair and
measured sentences based on sound evidence and a correct
assesment of the environment these people had to live and
work in.

Good. Now start applying this to every case involving US soldiers in
Iraq using physical or lethal force in the course of their duties,
rather than jumping to assumptive judgements apparently based on their
nationality alone.

And as long as sentences and procedures are not
influenced by any considerations of political convenience.

I'm quite happy for larger issues or political "convenience" in the
case of maintaining public order in Iraq to informn legal proceedings,
at least to some extent, e.g. delaying al-Sadr's trial for murder, or
accelerating courts-martial for the soldiers involved in the abuse at
Abu Ghraib.

how contingent it is upon your preconceptions and their status
and rank.

You are right that I believe that politicians who make their
decisions from a comfortable chair thousands of miles away,
should be judged more rigourously than footsoldiers who break
the law in a highly stressful situation.

Good, now demonstrate the Rumsfeld was a party to the breaking of the
law by soldiers in Abu Ghraib. You seem to know this for a fact
already, so you should have no problem sharing the evidence that
convinced you of this.

Oh, so that's OK then. Would you tolerate such a response - an
internal inquiry followed by internal procedural change and then an
assertion that "everything is OK now" - from the US army?

Actually, yes, on condition that the new policy is indeed an
effective and rigorous approach to banning and preventing
abuse of prisoners.

The problem is proving that. Public judicial proceedings are an
essential element towards that end. An internal and invisible army
process is unacceptable.

You should take a
close look at where your assertions in this thread materially move
beyond those points, and where you apparently adhere to a double
standards in regard to the nationality of soldiers alledged to have
commited human rights abuses on active service.

No double standard is involved.

I beg to differ. You've convicted Rumsfeld already, and indicted US
policy by selective example alone.

If the US military court of
justice judges in fairness that some of the charges against
the guards of Abu Ghraib are unproven, and that lenient
punishment for the other charges is appropriate considering
the circumstances, I see no fundamental reason to object.

Given that the soldiers are being arrested, charged and are apparently
set for trial, I question your understanding of their conduct of DoD
"policy".

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

I fully agree with that, as long as this involves fair and
measured sentences based on sound evidence and a correct
assesment of the environment these people had to live and
work in. And as long as sentences and procedures are not
influenced by any considerations

Interesting point,I could only add that the personal backgrounds of those foot
soldiers must also be assessed.
I guess at least some of them could easily be qualified as Jerry Springer
guests.

The problem is proving that. Public judicial proceedings are an
essential element towards that end. An internal and invisible army
process is unacceptable.

If the civil war between various US agencies continues like that you probably
wont see any invisible military process but any invisible intel agency process
either.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
om...
Presidente Alcazar wrote in
message . ..


snip

I was going to ignore your continued partisan ranting about this subject,
but some of the ideas you have posited are so ridiculous that commentary is
necessary.

Good, now demonstrate the Rumsfeld was a party to the breaking of the
law by soldiers in Abu Ghraib.

Now you ARE behaving as the stereotypical American --
attempting to narrow down the issue to the breaking
or not of the letter of the law.

The biggest question hanging over Rumsfeld's head is his
political responsibility, not his legal responsibility.
The two are substantially different. There is not direct
link between guilt of a crime and the political and moral
responsibility for the fact that it occurred.

Great. So now you agree he is not guilty. As to political responsibility, we
have a way of handling that over here--it is called an *election*. If the
majority of the US people, through the electoral college process, agree with
you, then Rumsfeld and Bush will be removed this fall; if not, then we'll
pronounce him politically "innocent" as well. If the politics of the
situation are all that concern you, just hold tight and wait till this
November, OK?

snip more sniping at political issues


The problem is proving that. Public judicial proceedings are an
essential element towards that end. An internal and invisible army
process is unacceptable.

I agreed to an internal investigation -- not an invisible
one. Nor do I agree that an internal investigation would
be a block towards legal proceedings. What is needed is
*more* than legal proceedings. There must be a serious
policy review -- and that is a service that courts don't
provide, and is not easily done in the full glare of
publicity and political controversy.

Then you should be quite happy that the 15-6 investigation executive summary
has been produced. Though I must have missed your laudatory comments
regarding those soldiers and that one sailor who were singled out in it for
having taken actions to prevent/stop abuse (why, one would almost suspect
you are only interested in the negative aspects of the situation--but that
could not be the case, now could it? LOL!).


The outcome of Belgian investigations in the events in
Somalia was made publicly available. The outcome of US
CID investigations into cases of possible abuse in Iraq
and elsewhere (Afghanistan, Guantanamo) should be made
publicly available as well -- AFAIK it would be illegal
to classify it.

Bullpoopie. The 15-6 report summary has been made public. But you think we
routinely release the results of CID investigations? Not quite--just as
civilian police departments do not routinely release the results of criminal
investigations in their entirety, especially while legal action related to
them are ongoing (maybe this is why your Belgian atrocities went largely
unpunished--your weasely politicians released the criminal investigation
results prior to the trials because you insisted upon it?). You are already
getting your CID investigation results, though--in the form of the courts
martial proceedings against those found to be criminally liable. And no, the
maximum term that can be given out is not one year for all of those accused,
as you posted earlier--that was the case for the charges made against one
individual, and there are a number of others, some with more severe charges
pending. As to your Belgian investigation results...like I said before, you
need to start looking to your own house. Investigations and court cases
against individuals who hold a child over an open fire in an effort to scare
him and result in no penalties being levied (and one of them remaining in
your armed forces) seem to be a bit lacking--not to mention the fact that
unlike the US in this case, your own investigations did not even begin until
forced upon you by the international media--are you real proud of that?

Brooks


Emmanuel

On 14 May 2004 10:25:07 -0700, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

That not all prisoners were treated in this way does not make
it less bad that some of them were.

That's not my point, either. I am not seeking to excuse the undoubted
abuses and crimes that have been committed. What I do doubt is the
accuracy of your characterisations of US policy: you cannot make
accurate or proportionate judgements about US policy as a whole by
ignoring the evidence of the majority of cases of the implementation
of that policy. Can you understand that point?

A policy that singles out
some individuals for bad treatment is still a bad policy.

Yes. I have never disputed this. A policy of assumptive judgement
which ignores the treatment of the entireity of the detainee
population is still a flawed judgement, however. Otherwise the mere
fact that any law-enforcement agency or armed force experiences cases
of physical abuse would render every armed force and every police
force in the entire world guilty of *bad policy*. What matters are
what steps are taken to avoid such things in the first place, then
deal with them afterwards, and a proportionate and objective judgement
based on a realistic assessment of the circumstances at the time. In
most cases in Iraq, the latter factor is entirely absent.

A policy that carries with it a very high risk that soldiers
will stoop to unacceptable treatment of prisoners is still
a bad policy, even if not all of them do.

Again, I would like to ask you to address the points I have actually
made in this thread, rather than introducing straw men of your own.

Good, now demonstrate the Rumsfeld was a party to the breaking of the
law by soldiers in Abu Ghraib.

Now you ARE behaving as the stereotypical American --

Frankly, I'm unsuprised by your assumptive judgements of American
stereotypical behaviour. It seems to inform the understanding of many
who share your position, and demonstrates my point about how debate
over Iraq has become entirely subservient to the servicing of
prejudical assumptions and axiomatic totems. For your information, I
am neither American, nor a gung-ho supporter of the Bush
administration.

attempting to narrow down the issue to the breaking
or not of the letter of the law.

No, that's what you're doing. Meanwhile, my actual views - should you
accept the challenge of addressing *them*, rather than your
assumptions about the stereotypical pro-American views I must *surely*
hold if I disagree with you, are that the letter and spirit of the law
has been clearly violated at Abu Ghraib, and the soldiers involved and
their immediate superiors have a clear legal case to answer.

The biggest question hanging over Rumsfeld's head is his
political responsibility, not his legal responsibility.
The two are substantially different. There is not direct
link between guilt of a crime and the political and moral
responsibility for the fact that it occurred.

The problem with that is the flexibility of judgement when it comes to
extending the one responsibility into the other. That derives from
your subjective personal political opinion. This is also true for me,
but at least I'm prepared to admit that upfront. Meanwhile, I do
actually think Rumsfeld does have some level of responsibility for the
systematic disregarding of the Geneva convention at the insitutional
level. However, what Rumsfeld has not done is specify or instruct the
suspect guards at Abu Ghraib in their crimes, and if you want to make
an argument about his institutional leadership and responsibility for
US behaviour towards detainees in military operations, that argument
must encompass the totality of the evidence for that, and no just
selective examples where individuals have manifestly exceeded DoD
policy.

As for legal responsibility, that is another matter,
depending on exactly what Rumsfeld approved of as "special
interrogation techniques", what legal standards are
applicable, and how much he knew or decided he did not
want to know. It is for the courts to decide after an
investigation into this... I can only hope there will be
one, but it isn't likely at all.

I'm entirely convinced that, as the pendulum of US public opinion
swings back against the legal excesses and violations of due process
that we have seen in the "War Against Terror" in the long-term,
evidence will accumulate against Rumsfeld. Particularly in the case
of unarmed, non-combatant suspects held by the CIA and exported to
compliant foreign regimes for torture far above what even the most
excessive Military Intelligence grouping have managed in Iraq.

The problem is proving that. Public judicial proceedings are an
essential element towards that end. An internal and invisible army
process is unacceptable.

I agreed to an internal investigation -- not an invisible
one.

That's exactly what produced the Abu Ghraib pictures, and the known
evidence of abuse. Frankly, that remains a powerful argument that the
US forces are, at least to some extent, capable of keeping their house
in order. That itself discounts a lot of the "insitutional" and
"policy" dynamics to such behaviour.

The outcome of Belgian investigations in the events in
Somalia was made publicly available. The outcome of US
CID investigations into cases of possible abuse in Iraq
and elsewhere (Afghanistan, Guantanamo) should be made
publicly available as well -- AFAIK it would be illegal
to classify it.

I don't disagree with that. I think there should be extensive
investigations into lethal incidents involving Coalition forces. What
I would also like to see is the some account taken of the
circumstances, as well as the same level of *public notoriety* being
generated in the media where the assumptions of the anti-war
consitutuency are questioned. Today has seen the second example of
fake photographs of prisoner abuse being acknowledged. I'll be
waiting a long time for the headlines associated with that to equal
the coverage they got when they were first published.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

(1) In democracies, ministers who make major blunders,
are responsible for catastrophes (or, in Britain, go to
bed with their secretary) are expected to resign or to
be fired by parliament.

(2) The situation in Iraq is in deep crisis. The USA (and
the world) need a competent and untarnished secretary
of defense to be in place ASAP if anything is to be
salvaged.

(3) I did not "agree that it is not guilty" except in the sense
of "not guilty until convicted." I hope that the question
of his guilt will be subject of due investigation and, if
justified, trial.

All of that is exactly right.

As you might have noticed if you had actually bothered to try to
understand any of my earlier posts, I am neither claiming that all
US soldiers behaved badly, not am I out to harshly condemn those
who did, considering the circumstances. My concern is that the
US DoD has some policies in place that stimulate bad behaviour,
and that these need to be changed, and that those who put these
policies in place have to be identified and held responsible for
them. Today's decision to ban the use of "special interrogation
techniques" in Iraq illustrates, IMHO, that the US army shares
this concern; although this decision does not yet go far enough.


I think the US Army officers are very upset over what happened. The Army has
been working on its reputation for a long time, now it is all besmirched again.

You are already
getting your CID investigation results, though--in the form of the courts
martial proceedings against those found to be criminally liable.

Your talent for missing the point is truly formidable. To investigate
only the criminal liability would be a dereliction of duty.

The steely determination of American conservatives to focus
exclusively on the criminal liability is highly significant in itself.
It reveals that they understand only too well that the Bush
administration is morally and politically responsible.


Also a good point.

To make the point, Belgian had *besides* the criminal investigations,
a commission of inquiry, a study of problems in the army that might
have contributed to the events in Somalia, and (following on the
conclusions of that review) an investigation in the occurrence of
racism in the army.


Brooks said:

your armed forces) seem to be a bit lacking--not to mention the fact that
unlike the US in this case, your own investigations did not even begin
until
forced upon you by the international media--are you real proud of that?


We have enough problems of our own; Brooks is just trying to deflect blame and
shame Emmanuel into silence.



Walt