Abu Ghraib: Apples and Apple trees

**Garbarsardar** · April 29, 2006, 12:36 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4956946.stm

It seems that the original argument of the administration about "a few bad apples" was somewhat optimistic. They should be looking after the whole tree probably...

The US military has charged the former head of the interrogation centre at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison over the abuse of Iraqi detainees. Lt-Col Steven Jordan has been charged with seven offences including maltreatment of prisoners. He is the highest ranking officer to face criminal charges over events at the prison.

Ten lower-ranking soldiers have already been convicted for abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib from 2003 to 2004. Two officers more senior than Lt-Col Jordan have been disciplined by the army over the scandal, but neither faced criminal charges. The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the new development could throw some light on how the situation actually arose.

**Rhah** · May 03, 2006, 12:04 PM

Well, by the lack of replies to this thread, it seems most people automatically switch off at the mention of "Abu Graib", which is a shame. The usual justification for the lack of interest seems to be that, because it was just a few "bad apples", then it is not relevant.
Well, that argument is increasingly becoming irrelevant, as the above story, and the one i'm about to post, prove.

Lt.Gen Ricardo Sanchez's involvement in the Abu Graib abuses (Raw Story)

New Army documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union today reveal that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez ordered interrogators to “go to the outer limits” to get information from detainees. The documents also show that senior government officials were aware of abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

The ACLU also released an Information Paper entitled “Allegations of Detainee Abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan” dated April 2, 2004, two weeks before the world saw the pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The paper outlined the status of 62 investigations of detainee abuse and detainee deaths. Cases include assaults, punching, kicking and beatings, mock executions, sexual assault of a female detainee, threatening to kill an Iraqi child to “send a message to other Iraqis,” stripping detainees, beating them and shocking them with a blasting device, throwing rocks at handcuffed Iraqi children, choking detainees with knots of their scarves and interrogations at gunpoint.

sickening.

Not that it matters, because no matter what evidence is turned up proving (at the very least) that some of the brass in the US Army were complicit, people will still turn a blind eye.
Its amazing how much tolerance a human being can have for injustice when it suits them.

**Sidmen** · May 03, 2006, 12:32 PM

My arguement isn't that its just a few bad apples, its that these things are in and of themselves irrelevent. Prisoners are animals and should be treated no better, thier only right is the right to have some food once and a while before thier execution.

**The White Knight** · May 03, 2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Rhah

...

sickening.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Sidmen

My arguement isn't that its just a few bad apples, its that these things are in and of themselves irrelevent. Prisoners are animals and should be treated no better,

Why exactly? It's hard to comment on this one.

**Rhah** · May 03, 2006, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Sidmen

My arguement isn't that its just a few bad apples, its that these things are in and of themselves irrelevent. Prisoners are animals and should be treated no better, thier only right is the right to have some food once and a while before thier execution.

and this is the exact attitude i'm referring too. Either that is a blatant attempt at trolling, or you have been quite seriously brainwashed and desensitised.
Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?? its one of the founding stones of our (IE: western) justice system. what proof do you have that these people actually did anything wrong? In fact, from what i've read (link needed), the majority of people in Abu Graib commited no serious crime, but you want to starve them and execute them?

that is quite obviously insane, and seriously worrying. Im not just talking about you personally, because i dont know you (you might even have been joking for all i know). But this attitude of "see no evil, hear no evil" or even "just dont care about evil" seems to be quite prevelant among our peoples.
and "we" call Muslims bloodthirsty!

*edit* slight corrections, thanks trackjacket

**RZZZA** · May 03, 2006, 01:57 PM

The American people are no longer capable of holding their officials responsible for mistakes or oversights. Thats what I think. Are people outraged? Sure, but it means nothing.

**trackjacket** · May 03, 2006, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Rhah

and this is the exact attitude i'm referring too. Either that is a blatant attempt at trolling, or you have been quite seriously brainwashed and desensitised.
Ever heard of "guilty until proven innocent"?? its one of the founding stones of our (IE: western) justice system. what proof do you have that these people actually did anything wrong? In fact, from what i've read, the majority of people in Abu Graib commited no serious crime, but you want to starve them and execute them?

that is quite obviously insane, and seriously worrying. Im not just talking about you personally, because i dont know you (you might even have been joking for all i know). But this attitude of "see no evil, hear no evil" or even "just dont care about evil" seems to be quite prevelant among our peoples.
and "we" call Muslims bloodthirsty!

You sure it's not innocent until proven guilty? I'll just count that as a typo. From what I've read, the majority of people in Abu Ghraib committed serious crimes! Hah, beat that.

**hsimoorb** · May 03, 2006, 06:35 PM

You sure it's not innocent until proven guilty? I'll just count that as a typo. From what I've read, the majority of people in Abu Ghraib committed serious crimes! Hah, beat that.

Well, I'm not so sure you're speaking the truth there. But that's besides the point. You say "the majority of people", which means that there is a minority there that haven't commited serious crimes. Hah, Beat that!

The truth is that not a large amount of prisoners in Abu Ghraib have been convicted, some of them were just people captured by the government(the U.S. one) and were taken there just because the U.S. dosen't want to give them up.

**trackjacket** · May 03, 2006, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by hsimoorb

Well, I'm not so sure you're speaking the truth there. But that's besides the point. You say "the majority of people", which means that there is a minority there that haven't commited serious crimes. Hah, Beat that!

The truth is that not a large amount of prisoners in Abu Ghraib have been convicted, some of them were just people captured by the government(the U.S. one) and were taken there just because the U.S. dosen't want to give them up.

I think you missed my point....

**Sidmen** · May 03, 2006, 02:10 PM

Realy now, they wern't convicted? Then thats pretty stupid. Where I come from we put our suspects awaiting trial in local jails and after they are tried and found guilty they are put in prison.

The name of the facility threw me off, if the people havin't been tried it is (supposed) to be called a jail.

@ RZZZA
Exactly, that disheartens me.

**RZZZA** · May 03, 2006, 02:15 PM

The U.S. is making a habit of detaining prisoners with little or no public info, no disclosure about why the prisoners are being held, or for how long. Yes, its scary, and the administration claims they arent engaging in any inhumane activities, but I along with many other Americans arent so sure.

I think its bcome a habit now for Americans to want to close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and scream "la la la la la" until 2008.

**Red Harvest** · May 03, 2006, 04:00 PM

What will be interesting is to see if we get real investigations after 2006/2008 elections into the many scandals that Dubya has presided over. Right now is about as "good as it is going to get" for him, since he still has the reins of power, and the GOP is still able to shield him from any truly probing investigations. So what you see now is a result of being able to put the best spin on things...and his hope that people forget by the time he is out of office.

**Rhah** · May 04, 2006, 05:57 AM

Here's a link backing up my claim that the majority of prisoners held were innocent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/

make of it what you will.

**bababooey** · May 04, 2006, 06:14 AM

Try dragging an "enemy combatant" onto a helo. Sweaty, sticky, tired, dehydrated, and scared. Then watch over him and provide for him. Think you could do it? Let alone keep the rest of the guys from ripping him apart. There is a lot more self control going on in these wars then you could imagine. Whether its was forced onto us or not.

Its not glamorous and its certainly not they way we should be fighting wars. The way the “western societies” are forced to fight these days we will never prevail again.

Imagine what Alexander, Hannibal, and Caesar would say or do in the same situations. Forget about it.

**Rhah** · May 04, 2006, 06:28 AM

Self control is one thing, but we arent talking about things occuring in the heat of battle. We're talking about basically non-combatant Army personnel committing abuse on people that (according to the link provided above) are most likely innocent.

Sure, Hannibal would probably have laughed at all this silly concept of "decency" or "humanity", but Hannibal died over 2000 years ago. This is the 21st century, and there is no excuse for it.

Its almost possibly to accept the fact that poorly educated grunts suffering from low morale could do this sort of thing, but then we find out its actually encouraged by their commanders?! I thought the US Armed forces were meant to be honourable organisations?? At least, thats what they like to say they are anyway.

**Red Harvest** · May 04, 2006, 09:40 AM

Look we all know the problem here (even those denying it...) The Administration gave the greenlight to doing "whatever" to people in our custody overseas. It was a stupid blanket policy. They came up with a legal brief to say they could torture. This came from the top and was backed by giving certain intelligent forces far too much autonomy. Attempts at blaming this on a few know-nothing sadistic private soldiers are disingenuous at best. This is an example of an Administration providing little guidance and dismantling existing protections without even clearly communicating any new ones.

Most importantly, this was *predictable.* You could see this sort of thing coming. Here you have some sadistic types torturing at best common criminals, and at worst innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is what you get when you don't have a clear plan, clear accountability, or a clear message. Worse than that, from the beginning it does appear that this was not the result of a few bad apples, but instead the result of some free lancing based on newly condoned practices of the military intelligence structure.