U.S. soldiers abused Iraqis 'for fun'

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

FORT BRAGG, North Carolina (Reuters) - U.S. soldiers who abused Iraqi prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison did it for fun, a military investigator has testified at the start of a hearing in the case of a female soldier.

A military court at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, convened on Tuesday to decide whether Private Lynndie England, photographed holding a naked Iraqi on a leash, will be tried for the prisoner abuse that outraged the Arab world and embarrassed the Bush administration as it sought to stabilise Iraq.

U.S. media reports have said Graner, who has also been charged, is the father of England’s child.

“(She said) Graner suggested she pose in a photograph with him (the prisoner). And pose for the picture as if she was dragging him,” Arthur said, repeating several times that England and other soldiers said they were just joking around.

Asked if he had determined why the U.S. soldiers had abused the prisoners, Arthur said: "Basically it was just for fun … and to vent their frustration."

England, 21, was charged along with six other U.S. military police reservists in a scandal that prompted an apology from U.S. President George W. Bush, who placed the blame on a small group of soldiers.

England has said she was following orders when she appeared in the pictures, which also included one in which she pointed at a prisoner’s genitals, a cigarette dangling from her lips.

She is charged with conspiracy to mistreat Iraqi prisoners, assaulting prisoners, committing acts prejudicial to good order, committing indecent acts, disobeying an order and creating and possessing sexually explicit photographs. Some of the charges were not related to prisoner abuse.

Maximum penalties include a dishonourable discharge and up to 38 years in prison if convicted.

England’s lawyers, who have called their client a “poster child” for flawed U.S. war policies, will be allowed to call witnesses at the hearing. But their request to call U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the witness stand was denied, the lawyers said.
(http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=558688&section=news)

"Basically it was just for fun

and Maximum penalties include a dishonourable discharge and up to 38 years ** but as per usual the US justice system will give her and her collegues a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again**

Amerikkan foriegn policy in action allow these brutes into your country expect nothing but humiliation and thug behaviour!

As for dick cheney and that other crook Donald lets go to war Rumsfield not beign called to court shows you no accountability in this flawed system in the US.

2

which is worse, humiliating suspected terrorists for fun, or beheading innocent civilians to please Allah?

3

Amerikkans are sick abusing iraqis then beheading people they need get lost back to the US where they can practice there sickness on there own civillians.

4

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
which is worse, humiliating suspected terrorists for fun, or beheading innocent civilians to please Allah?
[/QUOTE]

which of these is an admirable act? some thign is not right if we can compare our military to a bunch of thugs and feel good about sick actions committed by the military.

5

Mr. Fraudia wrote: "which of these is an admirable act? some thign is not right if we can compare our military to a bunch of thugs and feel good about sick actions committed by the military"

Fraudia, I agree. I also think that the public outcry against this in the US helped keep it out in the open so the Bush administration could not explain it away easily (though they tried a few times).

If anything, these examples prove that there are sick, twisted individuals everywhere. Some in government, some in the military, and some in terrorists groups hiding under the banner of religion. It is our duty as decent human beings to speak out against injustice in any form.

If we give excuses for bad behaviour to anyone, the bad behaviour continues without end. Also inhuman behaviour is not an excuse to retaliate in kind or on a new level, this again, leads to no end.

I overheard a comment on an awful TV show my nephew was watching that is surprisingly appropriate. An eye for an eye leads to a world of blindness. We all need to come together in condemnation of inhumanity, not alienate each other.

With this in mind -- this woman, England, doesn't seem to have a conscience and lies very convincingly (giving her numerous tearful interviews). Life in prison is exactly what she needs, killing her won't allow her to suffer enough.

As for her recieving a light sentence, that is doubtful, the Bush administration is looking for someone/anyone to take the blame for these actions rather than having attention focused on the memos floating around from the various legal counsel they did have on this issue (tiptoeing around the Geneva Convention). I believe an example will be made of her and the other six. But I also believe that the charges should also follow right on up the line of command but, unfortunately, they won't.

6

[QUOTE]
Life in prison is exactly what she needs, killing her won't allow her to suffer enough.
[/QUOTE]

I think you need to get your head screwed on straight. Acting like an immoral a-hole and lying are hardly worthy of life in prison much less consideration for the DEATH PENALTY. You're whacked.

[QUOTE]
some thign is not right if we can compare our military to a bunch of thugs and feel good about sick actions committed by the military.
[/QUOTE]

I never felt good about these actions, they are sick and disturbed, and I don't appreciate your insinuation either. So you don't feel that beheading an innocent civilan is a worse crime than humiliating a suspected terrorist?

7

Stu:

Tsk, tsk... I love a good discussion where no one gets called names, but points of views are exchanged and understood. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say, that would be futile. Name calling is childish and serves no point, don't you agree?

She is deserving of life in jail because of the things she (and others, she wasn't the only one) did, never said I approved of the death penalty (personally, no one has the right to take a life for any reason, my believe, yours may be different). There are a few things that will come out that will back that up. Do some research, my friend, it is much more than being an a-hole and lying.

No one said that the terrorists were right. They aren't, but both acts are equally disturbing and dispicable. Both the terrorists and England (and others with her) are people with their own agenda using an umbrella (one the military, the other religion) to do things to others without regard for a man's dignity and life. Both have killed (yes, men were killed at Abu Ghraib and other detention camps, she was even pictured posing smiling over the beaten corpse of one, remember??), both have gloated, both have taken pictures and flaunted them in the face of the world.

What difference is there??

8

[QUOTE]
both have gloated, both have taken pictures and flaunted them in the face of the world. What difference is there?
[/QUOTE]

the end result of one group's actions left several unfortunate people (who were suspected criminals themselves) incredibly humiliated, the end results of the other group's actions left several unfortunate people (who were innocent civilians) without heads. If you don't see the difference you are whacked, and I don't give a hoot if you think that's childish.

9

Stu wrote: "the end result of one group's actions left several unfortunate people (who were suspected criminals themselves) incredibly humiliated, the end results of the other group's actions left several unfortunate people (who were innocent civilians) without heads. If you don't see the difference you are whacked, and I don't give a hoot if you think that's childish."

How nicely you edited. You skipped the part about deaths on both sides.

Key words here are "suspected criminals" who have rights like everyone else. They were also innocent civilians, at least until there is a trial, a charge, or a hearing saying they are anything else. Do you remember a basic right that we have here - innocent until proven guilty? Ms. England walked around free giving hypocritical interviews while awaiting trial, even though she was charged, unlike her victims. If we are there fighting for freedom, democracy, and human rights (as this pathetic administration keeps insisting we are and expecting us to believe) then we are the standard bearers. Basically, by doing these kind of actions, we just exchanged one tyrant for another - us. Again, let me stress, some "unfortunate people" (innocent civilians, according to the laws we have) were killed, not just humiliated. Some were scarred, some were mutilated, and the 'fortunate' few were just humilated. Again as I stated, do the research.

Now, both showed the same disregard of the basic respect we should give each other and of the value of life. One under the banner of the United States, this should make you angry, my friend, not defensive.

As someone with family in the military in Iraq, that woman's actions and deportment (along with the others involved in this) did absolutely nothing to help and jepardized everyone over there. She is a disgrace (and the others along with her). Seriously, can you really point the finger elsewhere when there is an image of a smiling woman in uniform posing with a beaten dead body in your own yard? How can we say we are better when our proof is on film also (thanks to this person and her like)?

10

Yes, she is a disgrace but to put her individual dumbass, redneck, immature actions on par with an Islamic militant beheading an innocent civilian is utterly ridiculous. Philisophically comparing actions of the two "sides" from a macro level maybe, but individually no way. That dog don't hunt. Comments like "the death penalty is too easy, she deserves life in prison" are laughable.

11

As far as Abu Ghraib, get to the bottom of it, treat the soldiers who did this like the criminals they probably are. Find out about any and all deaths, criminal acts, and don't just stop with a few scape goats. If any officer was involved or negligent, bring them up on charges too. Let the chips fall where they may, and let justice prevail.

With that said, I agree with Stus' point that Abu Ghraib was bad, but not nearly as bad as anything that went on in Iraq under Saddam, or everyday in Pakistan's jails for that matter. People need to learn to distinguish in their minds a scandal in an open society, as opposed to abuses in the dark corners of the world. The dark corners are far more horrible, but they do not have digital cameras and CNN.

12

And the Whitewashing continues! :-|

13

Ohioguy wrote: "With that said, I agree with Stus' point that Abu Ghraib was bad, but not nearly as bad as anything that went on in Iraq under Saddam, or everyday in Pakistan's jails for that matter. "

Er... I don't believe he said anything about Saddam or Pakistan jails, he went right to terrorists in order to minimize a crime. Killing is killing whether I kill quietly or with fanfare, they have the same impact---someone dies.

Ohioguy wrote: "People need to learn to distinguish in their minds a scandal in an open society, as opposed to abuses in the dark corners of the world."

If someone had not started talking, this would have been one of the abuses in the dark corners of the world. This happened in Iraq, not here. It was not in open society, it was brought to light because of decent people. Just the comment about doing it for fun says a lot.

Ohioguy wrote: "The dark corners are far more horrible, but they do not have digital cameras and CNN."

Since this thread is about Abu Ghraib and Ms. England, I am going to try to keep it there.

Having family living Pakistan and a brother-in-law living and working in Iraq (for 14yrs now), I know this to be true about life there. However, I do not recall any invitation by either of those two governments or people for the United States to become involved. We have to expect hatred and resentment because it is impossible to tell a people they are free at the end of a gun. It is impossible to show democracy at work with photos of people being devalued. And now to add to all of it, an incredibly insensitive remark by a sociopath we put there.

Without all the other stuff (terrorists, Saddam, jails, etc.) thrown in to justify anything, in this case we were wrong and our policies condoned and encouraged it.