Forums

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Your effort to dismiss this evidence as "speculation and conjecture," without any response to any specific point, is amusing at best.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The torture took place (primarily, as far as we know) in the one wing of the one prison where high-intelligence value prisoners were concentrated.

Intelligence officers and torture-mercs were present, as photographed.

True but so what?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The soldiers currently known to have tortured prisoners gladly let themselves be photographed. At least some of these individuals are prison guards in their civilian lives, who certainly know (as the non-prison guards would virtually certainly know) that you generally do not want to be photographed torturing prisoners, unless of course you have reason to believe that your superior officers will approve that conduct.

Your conclusion is speculation and conjecture. You are just assuming that since they took the pictures it must have been because their superior officers would approve. This is just speculation. Another more plausible reason is because they are dumbasses.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When the Red Cross first reported this to the US military, the official response was not "thanks for finding those bad apples!", but rather an effort to prevent further Red Cross surprise inspections. Eventually, the Red Cross became so frustrated with US non-response to their findings that the Red Cross almost broke its long-standing policy against going public with findings. Why would the US have behaved this way if this was really just a few bad apples?

I inferred from your question (in bold) that you think that efforts to prevent RC surprise inspections is evidence that higher ups knew about the abuse. Assuming for the sake of argument that surprise inspections were actually discouraged, you are speculating as to the reason why surprise inspections were discouraged.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The US response to individual Iraqis who complained of their treatment was similar to the response to the Red Cross. Former prisoners' complaints were ignored or disregarded. Individuals were told that complaints would not be accepted unless they could identify the soldier responsible -- difficult to do when the complaint is that you were hooded and beaten.

I don't know if what you are saying here is accurate or not, but how does that support that higher ups knew of the abuses? It sounds like run-of-the-mill beaurocratic indifference, which is a far cry from a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The sheer number of abuses, photos, videos, statements, and murders seems contrary to the "bad apple" theory. Why would there be so many "bad apples" in Iraq in 2003, when there was nothing like this in Iraq in 1991 (despite many more soldiers and many more prisoners)?

Perhaps digital cameras weren't as widely available in 1991. The lack of pictures of abuses in 1991 doesn't mean that abuses didn't occur.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The use of forms of torture that are specifically known as interrogation techniques, such as wiring an individual and telling him that if he moves from a "stress" (i.e., pain-inducing) position he will be electrocuted, that a bunch of civilian hillbillies are unlikely to have thought of on their own.

Why not? From what I have read, some of these techniques were taught to the US soldiers as training on what they could expect if taken as a POW. Just like the women troops were taught about the likelihood of rape if they were taken as POWs. It wouldn't take much of an imagination to then think to use those techniques that you were told may be used on you.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This Administration has not exactly shown high regard for international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, and the guards received no education and training on the Geneva Conventions.

I don't agree that the guards received no education and training on the GC. I also don't agree that the admin hasn't shown high regard for the GC. They made a ruling that the GC doesn't apply to the Taliban. Well if you read the GC, then you know it doesn't. That doesn't mean you don't have high regard for the GC in those situations in which it applies. For you to leap from the ruling that the GC doesn't apply to the Taliban to the conclusion that higher ups approved of the abuses at Abu Ghariab, where the admin has clearly stated the GC does apply, is pure speculation.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Individuals who were involved in interrogating prisoners in Afghanistan -- where US policy was that the Geneva Conventions do not apply -- were present in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.

So what?