Three soldiers – a captain and two sergeants – from the 82nd Airborne Division stationed at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Mercury near Fallujah in Iraq have told Human Rights Watch how prisoners were tortured both as a form of stress relief and as a way of breaking them for interrogation sessions.
...
The soldiers referred to their Iraqi captives as PUCs – persons under control – and used the expressions “fu[b][/b]cking a PUC†and “smoking a PUC†to refer respectively to torture and forced physical exertion.
One sergeant provided graphic descriptions to Human Rights Watch investigators about acts of abuse carried out both by himself and others. He now says he regrets his actions. His regiment arrived at FOB Mercury in August 2003. He said: “ The first interrogation that I observed was the first time I saw a PUC pushed to the brink of a stroke or a heart attack. At first I was surprised, like, ‘This is what we are allowed to do?’â€
The troops would put sand-bags on prisoners’ heads and cuff them with plastic zip-ties. The sergeant, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said if he was told that prisoners had been found with homemade bombs, “we would f*** them up, put them in stress positions and put them in a tent and withhold water … It was like a game. You know, how far could you make this guy go before he passes out or just collapses on you?â€
.....
However, Fishback told his company commander about the abuse and was told “remember the honour of the unit is at stake†and “don’t expect me to go to bat for you on this issue if you take this upâ€. Fishback then told his battalion commander who advised him to speak to the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) office, which deals with issues of military law.
The JAG told Fishback that the Geneva Conventions “are a grey areaâ€. When Fishback described some of the abuses he had witnessed the JAG said it was “within†Geneva Conventions.
Fishback added: “ If I go to JAG and JAG cannot give me clear guidance about what I should stop and what I should allow to happen, how is an NCO or a private expected to act appropriately?â€
Fishback, a West Point graduate who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, spent 17 months trying to raise the matter with his superiors.
...
Fishback says that army investigators were currently more interested in finding out the identity of the other soldiers who spoke to Human Rights Watch than dealing with the systemic abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
http://www.sundayherald.com/52035
I'm sure the moral majority is to blame somehow or that if you asked gbaji it never really happened and that everything was perfectly legal.
Still was kind of interesting to read.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- An interesting article on POW abuse in Iraq
An interesting article on POW abuse in IraqFollow
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#2REDACTED,
Posted: Oct 04 2005 at 7:39 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nothing is illegal in war
C'mon guys its a grey area!!!
Kinda like filesharing. Are there any real victims?
Kinda like filesharing. Are there any real victims?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Nothing is illegal in war
------------------------------
the geneva convention was established to set ground rules for war. a set of standards most countries agreed to abide by especially concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.
the rules are designed to make some attempt to protect non-combatants, and prisoners from some of the atrocities of war.
we agreed to this, we made it our law.
weather other countries abide by it or not is irrevelant to weather we do or not. our integrity as a country, and thus or ability to lead on a global scale is more important, much more important than any information we can get through the use of torture.
as outlandish as it may sound to some of you, our integrity as a country is more important than even preventing another 9-11. we can deal with disasters. but the distruction of our integrity on a global scale severly dimminishes our ability to protect ourselves and our allies from larger issues, like an all out war, or even a nuclear war.
this addministraition as severly trashed our integrity as a country. we openly violated the geneva convention, we walked away from a nucler tretie with russia, one many people spent many years trying to get. we even walked away from the kayoto tretie for no better reason than profit for private industry.
why would anyone sign a tretie with us? why would anyone not torture american prisoners? why would anyone listen to any concern we might have about nuclear weapons anywhere in the world? what weight would anything we have to say have on anything concerning our country outside of our country?
why would anyone abide by any standard put forth by a country that selectively abides by its own rules depending on how convientent it is at the time?
expanding human rights? who would listen to anything we have to say anymore? nuclear proliferation? only the countries with a nuclear weapon are safe from us. you think the rest of the world missed that little fact concerning iraq vs iran and n.korea?
destroying our integrity is a worse crime against our country than 9-11 was.
but good luck getting a bunch of ignorant sheep to look at the big picture. toss in a cowboy spitting out "our way or the highway" and its off to war for god and country.
we are getting exactly what we deserve. mabe someday, we will pay attention. mabe someday we will wake up.
but not for the next 3 years.
------------------------------
the geneva convention was established to set ground rules for war. a set of standards most countries agreed to abide by especially concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.
the rules are designed to make some attempt to protect non-combatants, and prisoners from some of the atrocities of war.
we agreed to this, we made it our law.
weather other countries abide by it or not is irrevelant to weather we do or not. our integrity as a country, and thus or ability to lead on a global scale is more important, much more important than any information we can get through the use of torture.
as outlandish as it may sound to some of you, our integrity as a country is more important than even preventing another 9-11. we can deal with disasters. but the distruction of our integrity on a global scale severly dimminishes our ability to protect ourselves and our allies from larger issues, like an all out war, or even a nuclear war.
this addministraition as severly trashed our integrity as a country. we openly violated the geneva convention, we walked away from a nucler tretie with russia, one many people spent many years trying to get. we even walked away from the kayoto tretie for no better reason than profit for private industry.
why would anyone sign a tretie with us? why would anyone not torture american prisoners? why would anyone listen to any concern we might have about nuclear weapons anywhere in the world? what weight would anything we have to say have on anything concerning our country outside of our country?
why would anyone abide by any standard put forth by a country that selectively abides by its own rules depending on how convientent it is at the time?
expanding human rights? who would listen to anything we have to say anymore? nuclear proliferation? only the countries with a nuclear weapon are safe from us. you think the rest of the world missed that little fact concerning iraq vs iran and n.korea?
destroying our integrity is a worse crime against our country than 9-11 was.
but good luck getting a bunch of ignorant sheep to look at the big picture. toss in a cowboy spitting out "our way or the highway" and its off to war for god and country.
we are getting exactly what we deserve. mabe someday, we will pay attention. mabe someday we will wake up.
but not for the next 3 years.
That is actually pretty funny. Iraq has been pulling off sh[/b]it like that for years to innocent civilains, POWs, etc. Seeing as (USA) being The "Bigger Man" in this war went out the door when it started. Fu[b]ck em, let the beatings and what not continue. Bob knows they would show no mercy to our POWs.
shadowrelm wrote:
Nothing is illegal in war
------------------------------
the geneva convention was established to set ground rules for war. a set of standards most countries agreed to abide by especially concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.
the rules are designed to make some attempt to protect non-combatants, and prisoners from some of the atrocities of war.
we agreed to this, we made it our law.
weather other countries abide by it or not is irrevelant to weather we do or not. our integrity as a country, and thus or ability to lead on a global scale is more important, much more important than any information we can get through the use of torture.
as outlandish as it may sound to some of you, our integrity as a country is more important than even preventing another 9-11. we can deal with disasters. but the distruction of our integrity on a global scale severly dimminishes our ability to protect ourselves and our allies from larger issues, like an all out war, or even a nuclear war.
this addministraition as severly trashed our integrity as a country. we openly violated the geneva convention, we walked away from a nucler tretie with russia, one many people spent many years trying to get. we even walked away from the kayoto tretie for no better reason than profit for private industry.
why would anyone sign a tretie with us? why would anyone not torture american prisoners? why would anyone listen to any concern we might have about nuclear weapons anywhere in the world? what weight would anything we have to say have on anything concerning our country outside of our country?
why would anyone abide by any standard put forth by a country that selectively abides by its own rules depending on how convientent it is at the time?
expanding human rights? who would listen to anything we have to say anymore? nuclear proliferation? only the countries with a nuclear weapon are safe from us. you think the rest of the world missed that little fact concerning iraq vs iran and n.korea?
destroying our integrity is a worse crime against our country than 9-11 was.
but good luck getting a bunch of ignorant sheep to look at the big picture. toss in a cowboy spitting out "our way or the highway" and its off to war for god and country.
we are getting exactly what we deserve. mabe someday, we will pay attention. mabe someday we will wake up.
but not for the next 3 years.
------------------------------
the geneva convention was established to set ground rules for war. a set of standards most countries agreed to abide by especially concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.
the rules are designed to make some attempt to protect non-combatants, and prisoners from some of the atrocities of war.
we agreed to this, we made it our law.
weather other countries abide by it or not is irrevelant to weather we do or not. our integrity as a country, and thus or ability to lead on a global scale is more important, much more important than any information we can get through the use of torture.
as outlandish as it may sound to some of you, our integrity as a country is more important than even preventing another 9-11. we can deal with disasters. but the distruction of our integrity on a global scale severly dimminishes our ability to protect ourselves and our allies from larger issues, like an all out war, or even a nuclear war.
this addministraition as severly trashed our integrity as a country. we openly violated the geneva convention, we walked away from a nucler tretie with russia, one many people spent many years trying to get. we even walked away from the kayoto tretie for no better reason than profit for private industry.
why would anyone sign a tretie with us? why would anyone not torture american prisoners? why would anyone listen to any concern we might have about nuclear weapons anywhere in the world? what weight would anything we have to say have on anything concerning our country outside of our country?
why would anyone abide by any standard put forth by a country that selectively abides by its own rules depending on how convientent it is at the time?
expanding human rights? who would listen to anything we have to say anymore? nuclear proliferation? only the countries with a nuclear weapon are safe from us. you think the rest of the world missed that little fact concerning iraq vs iran and n.korea?
destroying our integrity is a worse crime against our country than 9-11 was.
but good luck getting a bunch of ignorant sheep to look at the big picture. toss in a cowboy spitting out "our way or the highway" and its off to war for god and country.
we are getting exactly what we deserve. mabe someday, we will pay attention. mabe someday we will wake up.
but not for the next 3 years.
When cities are getting bombed human rights do not exisst
Trying people for war crimes is like being mad at a korean for not grooming a dog properly before they cook it
Edited, Tue Oct 4 09:44:38 2005 by ProofsockXXII
Soracloud Quick Hands wrote:
That is actually pretty funny. Iraq has been pulling off sh[/b]it like that for years to innocent civilains, POWs, etc. Seeing as (USA) being The "Bigger Man" in this war went out the door when it started. Fu[b]ck em, let the beatings and what not continue. Bob knows they would show no mercy to our POWs.
This is the kind of mind set that bothers me. "They would do it to us so why shouldn't we do it to them". It's infantile and self defeating. If one of your arguments against Saddams regime was his brutal treatment of prisoners and then you turn around after you oust him and do the same thing then how are you any better and how are you to convince an already wary and untrusting population that you are the good guy?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
Soracloud Quick Hands wrote:
That is actually pretty funny. Iraq has been pulling off sh[/b]it like that for years to innocent civilains, POWs, etc. Seeing as (USA) being The "Bigger Man" in this war went out the door when it started. Fu[b]ck em, let the beatings and what not continue. Bob knows they would show no mercy to our POWs.
This is the kind of mind set that bothers me. "They would do it to us so why shouldn't we do it to them". It's infantile and self defeating. If one of your arguments against Saddams regime was his brutal treatment of prisoners and then you turn around after you oust him and do the same thing then how are you any better and how are you to convince an already wary and untrusting population that you are the good guy?
That would matter if we went there oust his regime
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
Soracloud Quick Hands wrote:
That is actually pretty funny. Iraq has been pulling off sh[/b]it like that for years to innocent civilains, POWs, etc. Seeing as (USA) being The "Bigger Man" in this war went out the door when it started. Fu[b]ck em, let the beatings and what not continue. Bob knows they would show no mercy to our POWs.
This is the kind of mind set that bothers me. "They would do it to us so why shouldn't we do it to them". It's infantile and self defeating. If one of your arguments against Saddams regime was his brutal treatment of prisoners and then you turn around after you oust him and do the same thing then how are you any better and how are you to convince an already wary and untrusting population that you are the good guy?
You are 100% correct. That is what makes this such an awkward situation. You will get responses like mine and responses like yours. It is easy for me to say fu[b][/b]ck it, this war is no longer about being the "good guys." It is also just as easy to say we still need to be the "good guy."
The elimination of a rogue state that was a potential threat through means of "regime change" was the goal all along. That and to have a substantial US presence in the Gulf Region in a country that couldn't kick them out.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The elimination of a rogue state that was a potential threat through means of "regime change" was the goal all along. That and to have a substantial US presence in the Gulf Region in a country that couldn't kick them out.
Did the Government really think the war would have taken this long and cost as much?
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The elimination of a rogue state that was a potential threat through means of "regime change" was the goal all along. That and to have a substantial US presence in the Gulf Region in a country that couldn't kick them out.
Was that supposed to be sarcasm?
Edited, Tue Oct 4 09:42:01 2005 by ProofsockXXII
I think its a case of "you can't have your cake and eat it too". All along the Bush administration has tried to paint the picture of the war in Iraq in a humanitarian light.
Crowds of Iraqis cheering US troops
Liberating an oppressed population from a tyrant
bringing democracy, freedom, human rights
All these ideas or ideas like them have been expounded by the Bush administration. Apologists for the War in Iraq have continually tried to shift the emphasis away from the "WMD that weren't there" that got the United States into it and more into "We did it to save the people cause we are the good guys" way of justifying the War in Iraq.
However if you are playing the role of the humanitarian/goodguy it makes it ever so hypocritical when its shown that you are abusing and torturing detainees in violation of international law.
Edited, Tue Oct 4 09:53:52 2005 by bodhisattva
Crowds of Iraqis cheering US troops
Liberating an oppressed population from a tyrant
bringing democracy, freedom, human rights
All these ideas or ideas like them have been expounded by the Bush administration. Apologists for the War in Iraq have continually tried to shift the emphasis away from the "WMD that weren't there" that got the United States into it and more into "We did it to save the people cause we are the good guys" way of justifying the War in Iraq.
However if you are playing the role of the humanitarian/goodguy it makes it ever so hypocritical when its shown that you are abusing and torturing detainees in violation of international law.
Edited, Tue Oct 4 09:53:52 2005 by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Soracloud Quick Hands wrote:
You are 100% correct. That is what makes this such an awkward situation. You will get responses like mine and responses like yours. It is easy for me to say fu[b][/b]ck it, this war is no longer about being the "good guys." It is also just as easy to say we still need to be the "good guy."
***** 'good guy'. The point is that you can't make a logical argument to support your position without trying to compare it to something just as bad if not, in your mind, worse. If I'm a killer and you're a rapist, does the fact that I kill my victims and you don't mean that you're not a sick fu[i][/i]ck? Nope. One doesn't make the other okay. They're both wrong.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Soracloud Quick Hands wrote:
You are 100% correct. That is what makes this such an awkward situation. You will get responses like mine and responses like yours. It is easy for me to say fu[b][/b]ck it, this war is no longer about being the "good guys." It is also just as easy to say we still need to be the "good guy."
***** 'good guy'. The point is that you can't make a logical argument to support your position without trying to compare it to something just as bad if not, in your mind, worse. If I'm a killer and you're a rapist, does the fact that I kill my victims and you don't mean that you're not a sick fu[i][/i]ck? Nope. One doesn't make the other okay. They're both wrong.
Well my position is one of angst. I made the original statement just because I am so sick of this war. Basically I am thinking with clouded judgement. I hate getting into Iraq debates for that reason.
I think that in a cycle of violence, the person with the biggest stick wins. Seeing as how America has the biggest stick, we will eventually win.
I'm starting to care less and less about being someones Great Satan. Seriously, this country has no ideology, quit pretending it does. Britney Spears' underwear is way more fascinating to people than philisophical debate. Do I like it? No.. But I'm tired of America having to be everyones knight in shining armor. Those days were over when everyones idealism got shattered by the civil rights movement and free love.
I'm starting to care less and less about being someones Great Satan. Seriously, this country has no ideology, quit pretending it does. Britney Spears' underwear is way more fascinating to people than philisophical debate. Do I like it? No.. But I'm tired of America having to be everyones knight in shining armor. Those days were over when everyones idealism got shattered by the civil rights movement and free love.
I think that most abuse is isolated. My husband's unit spent a fair amount a time at a certain prison that has gotten a fair amount of press. All of the people he saw and had access to were treated fairly.
However, I know that if I had no ties to the military I would be more angry than I am at what was going on over there. I guess I am admitting that my opinion is somewhat biased because of my ties; I don't want to believe that my husband, or anyone that I worked with, would do such horrid things.
I am not sure who to blame. During basic training, you get briefed on the Geneva Convention. Before you deploy, you hear it again and again. These soldiers -know- it is wrong. So do you blame them? According to this article, this soldier tried to report it, and was turned away again and again. Who is to blame for that? I would say his superiors. Maybe they are both to blame, which makes you wonder why Lyndee England is in such trouble and in the media but her superiors aren't really mentioned.
Bah, this issue is a hard one for me. I do not know what to believe, or think. Abuse is very very wrong, I just do not know whose fault it is. Quick answer? The superiors...but the soldiers still know better.
Quote:
I think that in a cycle of violence, the person with the biggest stick wins. Seeing as how America has the biggest stick, we will eventually win.
Did Vietnam have a bigger stick? Or was it just that ours broke so we called a time-out?
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
Lefein wrote:
Those days were over when everyones idealism got shattered by the civil rights movement and free love.
Wha?
Quote:
I think that in a cycle of violence, the person with the biggest stick wins. Seeing as how America has the biggest stick, we will eventually win.
Not necessarily. Throughout history, there were many many powers with the biggest stick who stretched themselves to thin, made a mistake, and fell.
Katarine wrote:
Quote:
I think that in a cycle of violence, the person with the biggest stick wins. Seeing as how America has the biggest stick, we will eventually win.
Not necessarily. Throughout history, there were many many powers with the biggest stick who stretched themselves to thin, made a mistake, and fell.
I am sure Rome is on the top of that list.
Who feels that we may meet the same fate down the line? I do not forsee a complete collapse just a lose of "uber 1337 influence" that we still claim to have.
I'll echo the previous three posts by saying
"Mwah"?
Where did you manage to come up with that completely illogical statement? Did you copy+paste it off the FFXI main boards?
"Mwah"?
Where did you manage to come up with that completely illogical statement? Did you copy+paste it off the FFXI main boards?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Soracloud Quick Hands wrote:
Katarine wrote:
Quote:
I think that in a cycle of violence, the person with the biggest stick wins. Seeing as how America has the biggest stick, we will eventually win.
Not necessarily. Throughout history, there were many many powers with the biggest stick who stretched themselves to thin, made a mistake, and fell.
I am sure Rome is on the top of that list.
Who feels that we may meet the same fate down the line? I do not forsee a complete collapse just a lose of "uber 1337 influence" that we still claim to have.
Perhaps if you are lucky you will end up like the United Kingdom/British Empire.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
Who feels that we may meet the same fate down the line? I do not forsee a complete collapse just a lose of "uber 1337 influence" that we still claim to have.
Eh, I don't forsee a massive downfall of the US or anything, but I don't think we should be so certain that we have this "big stick" and will continue to win no matter what we do with our military.
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
Soracloud Quick Hands wrote:
Katarine wrote:
Quote:
I think that in a cycle of violence, the person with the biggest stick wins. Seeing as how America has the biggest stick, we will eventually win.
Not necessarily. Throughout history, there were many many powers with the biggest stick who stretched themselves to thin, made a mistake, and fell.
I am sure Rome is on the top of that list.
Who feels that we may meet the same fate down the line? I do not forsee a complete collapse just a lose of "uber 1337 influence" that we still claim to have.
Perhaps if you are lucky you will end up like the United Kingdom/British Empire.
I doubt we would ever admit that we have dropped in global rank.
Katarine wrote:
I think that most abuse is isolated. My husband's unit spent a fair amount a time at a certain prison that has gotten a fair amount of press. All of the people he saw and had access to were treated fairly.
However, I know that if I had no ties to the military I would be more angry than I am at what was going on over there. I guess I am admitting that my opinion is somewhat biased because of my ties; I don't want to believe that my husband, or anyone that I worked with, would do such horrid things.
I am not sure who to blame. During basic training, you get briefed on the Geneva Convention. Before you deploy, you hear it again and again. These soldiers -know- it is wrong. So do you blame them? According to this article, this soldier tried to report it, and was turned away again and again. Who is to blame for that? I would say his superiors. Maybe they are both to blame, which makes you wonder why Lyndee England is in such trouble and in the media but her superiors aren't really mentioned.
Bah, this issue is a hard one for me. I do not know what to believe, or think. Abuse is very very wrong, I just do not know whose fault it is. Quick answer? The superiors...but the soldiers still know better.
However, I know that if I had no ties to the military I would be more angry than I am at what was going on over there. I guess I am admitting that my opinion is somewhat biased because of my ties; I don't want to believe that my husband, or anyone that I worked with, would do such horrid things.
I am not sure who to blame. During basic training, you get briefed on the Geneva Convention. Before you deploy, you hear it again and again. These soldiers -know- it is wrong. So do you blame them? According to this article, this soldier tried to report it, and was turned away again and again. Who is to blame for that? I would say his superiors. Maybe they are both to blame, which makes you wonder why Lyndee England is in such trouble and in the media but her superiors aren't really mentioned.
Bah, this issue is a hard one for me. I do not know what to believe, or think. Abuse is very very wrong, I just do not know whose fault it is. Quick answer? The superiors...but the soldiers still know better.
There is no easy answer to such a complicated question. For this kind of abuse to occur, be 'outed' so publicly, censored, have repercussions and then keep ocurring, a series of people, attitudes and events all have to conspire.
Recent Visitors: 204
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (204)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- An interesting article on POW abuse in Iraq
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC