The US & Interrogation (catch all)

**Uboat509** · 11-20-2007

I am so sick of Abu Ghraib being dredged up every time the subject of torture comes up. What happened at Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with intelligence gathering. It was a group of jackasses tormented prisoners because they thought it was funny and because they knew that they could get away with it because they were working in a closed area where no one could show up to check on them unanounced. Holding POTUS accountable for this is a bit like holding Mike Eisner accountable because the guy in the Goofy costume at Disneyland got grabby with somebody's mom.

SFC W

**Sarajevo071** · 11-22-2007

Originally Posted by Uboat509

I am so sick of Abu Ghraib being dredged up every time the subject of torture comes up. What happened at Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with intelligence gathering. It was a group of jackasses tormented prisoners because they thought it was funny and because they knew that they could get away with it because they were working in a closed area where no one could show up to check on them unanounced. Holding POTUS accountable for this is a bit like holding Mike Eisner accountable because the guy in the Goofy costume at Disneyland got grabby with somebody's mom.

SFC W

I knew you wish to justify all this somehow and all of you wish to forget and pretend that this never happened, and more seriously that didn't have major influence on many other things that are here or they still coming, but my point (again) was this:

It may also be impossible to grasp fully how destructive their actions were — to the reputation of the intelligence corps, to our country, and to a world hoping for better from those who wear the army’s uniform.

The more a prisoner hates America, the harder he will be to break. The more a population hates America, the less likely its citizens will be to lead us to a suspect.

Wasn't relative autonomy trying to make that same point!?

**Sarajevo071** · 11-23-2007

Guantanamo military lawyer breaks ranks to condemn 'unconscionable' detention

An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".

The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as " unconscionable ".

His critique will be the centrepiece of a hearing on 5 December before the US Supreme Court when another attempt is made to shut the prison down. So nervous is the Bush administration of the latest attack – and another Supreme Court ruling against it – that it is preparing a whole new system of military courts to deal with those still imprisoned.

The whistleblower's testimony is the most serious attack to date on the military panels, which were meant to give a fig- leaf of legitimacy to the interrogation and detention policies at Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The major has taken part in 49 status review panels.

"It's a kangaroo court system and completely corrupt," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which is co-ordinating investigations and appeals lawsuits against the government by some 1,000 lawyers. "Stalin had show trials, but at Guantanamo they are not even show trials because it all takes place in secret."
...

more here:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...?service=print

**Uboat509** · 11-26-2007

Originally Posted by Sarajevo071

I knew you wish to justify all this somehow and all of you wish to forget and pretend that this never happened, and more seriously that didn't have major influence on many other things that are here or they still coming,

At what point did I try to justify what happened at Abu Ghraib, pretend it didn't happen or pretend that it had no effect? My point was that what happened at Abu Ghraib was a criminal act not a matter of policy, certainly not national policy.

SFC W

**tequila** · 11-26-2007

Uboat - So you do not believe what GEN Taguba found regarding GEN Miller bringing in Gitmo tactics, where MPs were asked to essentially soften up detainees for interrogators as having anything to do with the resulting abuses?

**Uboat509** · 11-26-2007

Tequila, I do not have time to read that entire report but I did skim through it and I did not see any thing that said that what actually occured at Abu G was authorized or condoned by the command. Yes, they were supposed to "soften up" the detainees but even before this whole thing blew up there were guidlines as to what was and was not authorized. I am going to go out on a limb and say that bringing your girlfriend (who is not a guard and has been specifically directed to stay out of the cell block) and acting like a bunch of drunken frat boys on pledge week was not written in those guidelines.

SFC W

**Ken White** · 11-29-2007

Originally Posted by tequila

Uboat - So you do not believe what GEN Taguba found regarding GEN Miller bringing in Gitmo tactics, where MPs were asked to essentially soften up detainees for interrogators as having anything to do with the resulting abuses?

decision to go into Iraq in the first place. As did the decision to ram airplanes into buildings. The failure to correctly react to the Embassy siezure in Tehran in 1979 had an effect also. So too did Sanchez well meant but stupid directive to the Intel fokks to "Get more intel!!!"

None of which has anything to do with the fact that a bunch of poorly trained Reserve MPs who almost certainly should not have had the job they had were assigned that job (whose fault was that?) went overboard and got stupid -- and all acknowledged at their trials that they essentially knew what they were doing was wrong (does that make it their fault?). You forgot to mention the senior NCOs and the Officers of that Battalion and Company who did NOT check on their people and allowed that to happen (Surely you don't want to let them slide?). Or former BG, now Colonel Karpinski who got dropped a grade for failure to supervise (ala Martha Stewart, this is a good thing...).

There's plenty of blame for many -- but the bottom line is those kids screwed up, got caught and most got punished. The system worked.

The good news is that both Sanchez and Miller were quietly retired. The Armed forces of the US, all of them, rarely punish active component Flag Officers for errors. I don't agree with that either but neither you nor I will get that changed -- thus I'd ask, what's your point?

Serious question.

**Sarajevo071** · 11-29-2007

Originally Posted by Uboat509

At what point did I try to justify what happened at Abu Ghraib, pretend it didn't happen or pretend that it had no effect? My point was that what happened at Abu Ghraib was a criminal act not a matter of policy, certainly not national policy.

SFC W

My apologies for making this sound like I was talking just to you... I was not.

But, talking about "matter of policy" I will not agree with you (big surprise, right!?). See, for me it's simple. If it was NOT approved policy why then no one was really punished or put it jail!? Simple because they couldn't punish anyone that way since all of them defended they actions saying or they was ordered to do that or command was not clear or upper military echelon know what's going on and they let them do it... It was organized, controlled and un-punished torture and killings. Echo of those actions by U.S. military and political leaders will sound for long time.

**Uboat509** · 11-29-2007

Originally Posted by Sarajevo071

My apologies for making this sound like I was talking just to you... I was not.

But, talking about "matter of policy" I will not agree with you (big surprise, right!?). See, for me it's simple. If it was NOT approved policy why then no one was really punished or put it jail!? Simple because they couldn't punish anyone that way since all of them defended they actions saying or they was ordered to do that or command was not clear or upper military echelon know what's going on and they let them do it... It was organized, controlled and un-punished torture and killings. Echo of those actions by U.S. military and political leaders will sound for long time.

Umm...All seven of them went to jail.

SFC W

**RTK** · 11-29-2007

Originally Posted by Uboat509

Umm...All seven of them went to jail.

SFC W

And not only were they sent to jail, they were discharged with Bad Conduct Discharges. That means the only job they can get is performing sexual favors under overpasses for beer money. That's pretty powerful.

**tequila** · 11-29-2007

Tequila, I do not have time to read that entire report but I did skim through it and I did not see any thing that said that what actually occured at Abu G was authorized or condoned by the command. Yes, they were supposed to "soften up" the detainees but even before this whole thing blew up there were guidlines as to what was and was not authorized.

As soon as you ask untrained MPs to "set the conditions" for interrogation, you are essentially asking for them to do a job beyond their training and expertise in an environment begging for abuse. The MPs testified that the detainees in the AG incident were specifically those for whom MI personnel asked for special treatment, and for whom special rules had been prescribed by MI personnel.

Too many of these incidents where MI personnel essentially ask unqualified junior soldiers to set the table for interrogations have occurred for this to be solely a "Bad Apple" phenomenon - this bright idea came from on high, specifically those who asked for looser rules at Gitmo which migrated to Bagram and around the world.

And not only were they sent to jail, they were discharged with Bad Conduct Discharges. That means the only job they can get is performing sexual favors under overpasses for beer money. That's pretty powerful.

I'm pretty sure they got dishonorable discharges - Big Chicken Dinners are handed out for things like assault and so on.

There's plenty of blame for many -- but the bottom line is those kids screwed up, got caught and most got punished. The system worked.

Disagree.

The good news is that both Sanchez and Miller were quietly retired. The Armed forces of the US, all of them, rarely punish active component Flag Officers for errors. I don't agree with that either but neither you nor I will get that changed -- thus I'd ask, what's your point?

That's the point. The system did not work when command responsibility no longer functioned. SECDEF Rumsfeld approved and pushed for more bareknuckle interrogation tactics. GEN Miller worked to loosen the rules at Gitmo then set them loose in Iraq - GEN Sanchez pushed this along. These men were entrusted by the U.S. with its honor and they chose the path of Hollywood tough-guy behavior. In doing so, they set the conditions for the abuse and unnecessary deaths to follow, not to mention handing the enemy an enormous IO victory. Yes, blame Karpinski and the various SNCOs who should have been doing their jobs, but bad SNCOs exist in all armies - that's why universal high standards for things like prisoner treatment should exist and be enforced, not kicked to the curb in the name of "taking the gloves off."

**Ken White** · 11-30-2007

Originally Posted by Sarajevo071

How long? Did those punishments fit the crime? Abuse, torture and deaths!?

No. They did not.

Here (in U.S.) you can get more time if you steal pack of razor blades in 7-11 but what do they get for murder? Or rape? Or torture? Same!?

the Abu Gharaib idiots all got jail time -- the Iraqis they maltreated -- not tortured -- were probably all out of jail before any of the abusers were and most of them will be in jail for some time. Every one caught torturing has been tried, those convicted got lengthy sentences and the murder convictions have ranged from 20 years to life -- about the European norm.

...Ah, yes... I forget. Victims are only Arab Muslims.

What difference does that make? Other than in the minds of those Muslims (and others, a lot of others) determined to make an issue of it...

. . .

And some people are surprised with all this around us asking, "why they hate us"!?

Some may be asking that. I'm not. I've been aware of everything from contempt to dislike to pure hatred directed at the US for over 50 years. Mostly centered in Europe. Nothing new in that.

The last time you started this stuff on this board when I was around, we got to the point where you acknowledged, late or not, the US did more for Bosnia than anyone else did...

What's your point?

**Jedburgh** · 11-30-2007

Here (in U.S.) you can get more time if you steal pack of razor blades in 7-11 but what do they get for murder? Or rape? Or torture? Same!?

Sarajevo, in your frequent emotional outbursts on this board you have always failed to acknowledge that the United States is really relatively in unique in that it does try and convict its soldiers who are charged with these crimes. They are sentenced within the limits of the law, although that may not be severe enough for your tastes. But I ask you to look at and compare the conduct of nations around the world engaged in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations and observe how they treat their military members who are accused of similar - or worse - crimes.

Really?! They can't go to the "private sector", torture and kill there, and make more money with even less supervision and responsibility?

You do not understand the severity of the impact of a bad conduct discharge on a former soldier's future life. More and more private sector companies are conducting background investigations on their employees. Hell, even Wal-Mart conducts background checks and drug tests prior to hiring an hourly employee at a Supercenter. An individual with a Bad Conduct discharge may not be reduced to crack whore status for life, as RTK implied - but they are unlikely to advance far beyond mopping floors, picking up garbage, flipping burgers or cutting other people's grass.

To repeat myself from above... Did those punishments fit the crime? Abuse, torture and deaths!? No. They did not.

To repeat myself - you are being emotional and subjective. Try to address the subject in a substantive manner. Do you know what the exact sentences were for each of the individuals? Do you know what maximum sentences were possible for each crime? What sentence do you feel should have been imposed? If you are simply venting without being in possession of complete information, then you should probably not be doing it in public on this board.

And some people are surprised with all this around us asking, "why they hate us!?

Again, try to avoid emotional rants and contribute substantively to existing threads in The Information War section of the OIF forum or the Media and Information Warriors forum.

Future posts consisting solely of emotional rants of this nature will be deleted.

**Uboat509** · 11-30-2007

Anybody know what deaths he is talking about? To my knowledge the Abu G seven were not accused in any deaths. Other personnel elsewhere have been convicted of the deaths of detainees and they got even more severe sentences then these assclowns.

SFC W