| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Al-Jizz on the Prison Photos: White House Response |
| 2004-05-01 |
| Here it comes. This is the English edition, I doubt the arabic version is as tame The editor in chief of the London-based Arabic daily al-Quds al-Arabi denied statements that this incident was the work of rogue soldiers. "This is the outcome of the culture of hate that the US administration adopts against the Arabs and Muslims," Abd al-Bari Atwan told Aljazeera.net. "They (the Americans) removed Saddam Hussein for acts of abuse, but who will remove Bush and Rumsfeld for inciting these acts?" Atwan added that the pictures were proof that the US administration had lost "the battle of winning the hearts and minds not only in Iraq but in the whole Muslim world." Human rights watchdog, Amnesty International also said the incident was not an isolated case. "Our extensive research in Iraq suggests that this is not an isolated incident. It is not enough for the USA to react only once images have hit the television screens". The White House on Friday denounced the alleged abuse, saying the United States "will not tolerate" such behavior and vowing that those responsible will be punished. "We cannot tolerate it," spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "The military is taking strong action against the individuals responsible for these despicable acts." US President George Bush has known about the allegations of misconduct "for a while" and expects "appropriate action to be taken against these individuals," he said. "We will not tolerate it." |
| Posted by:sludj |
| #7 "This is the outcome of the culture of hate that the US administration adopts against the Arabs and Muslims," "But burning and mutilating corpses, then hanging them from bridges is quite acceptable" |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-01 6:33:40 PM |
| #6 The purpose of the law is to protect and defend our lives. If it fails or prevents that from happening ... all you are doing is helping the enemy. You've formulated a false "either-or" dilemma, Ben. If a law fails, then perhaps the content or implementation might be improved. It's not true that either 1) our guards had to stack naked prisoners up into pyramids or else 2)those guys would kill each and every one of us? . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-01 8:41:51 AM |
| #5 A big problem I have with quoted law concerning deception to obtain information, is that, its stupid. Look, these guys want to kill us. Kill each and every one of us. The only way to stop it is to know their plans in advance, whose working for them, whose paying them etc. As long as the intel is accurate, I don't care how it was gathered or what the law says about it. The purpose of the law is to protect and defend our lives. If it fails or prevents that from happening, or god forbid, makes it harder, all you are doing is helping the enemy. The enemy that wants to kill you. |
| Posted by: Ben 2004-05-01 4:24:54 AM |
| #4 MBD- My understanding of the rules on that is that an interrogator - someone atached to an intel unit or CIA/DIA - could legitimately use deception on a prisoner without any problems at all whether or not there was a life/death situation. The trouble is, these guys were - as I understand it - guards. They had NO business trying to get people to talk for whatever reason. If they had heard or seen something that led them to believe the prisoners needed to be brought to higher authority, then their DUTY was to notify higher authority at once and keep an eye on them until they got an answer. Now, as far as field combatants go, the case of LTC West a few months ago was an excellent example. What he did was wrong, and he admitted it, and he turned himself in after he'd gotten the information he needed to prevent an imminent ambush on his troops. Myself, if I'd have had to sat on his CM, I'd have voted guilty, but with extenuating circumstances - but guilty nevertheless. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-05-01 3:17:33 AM |
| #3 As I gather the story, some American soldiers used deception - false threat of death - to extract information from terrorists. American case law has been progressively permitting greater degrees of deception. In that context, I wouldn't prosecute American soldiers who took license, in order to seek information that would preserve American life. If the law is unambiguous, it is unenforceable. Field combatants can invoke the protective framework of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, can't they? |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog 2004-05-01 2:29:49 AM |
| #2 We should do all we can to prevent this from happening again. Maybe we could start by taking no prisoners, thus removing them from possible peril. Permanently. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-05-01 1:38:19 AM |
| #1 1. Abd al-Bari Atwan - you wanna see hate, bub? Meet the B-52 Stratofortress, capable of crisping a couple million people at a shot, and we've got about 75 of 'em. That's hate, and if you and the rest of your coreligionists don't get their burnooses out of their butts right quick, you will see just how much hate we can deliver. 2. Amnesty International - bite me. Excuse me, that was wrong of me. First, show me the massive protests you've staged against Iran, the DPRK, old Iraq, and Cuba. Then bite me. 3. Scott McClellan - the next time some asshat brings this up, show them a 10'x10' pic of a mass grave, or that video of Saddam's troops torturing people, then remind them that what our guys did - wrong though it was - was about as rough as a fraternity rush. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-05-01 12:42:08 AM |