PDA

View Full Version : More widespread than Abu Ghraib



crawdaddio
09-22-2004, 10:05 AM
How far is our military allowed to go in its hunt for terrorists?

http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/afghan/news-tortureafghan.html

[ QUOTE ]
On March 1, 2003, U.S. Special Forces arrested eight Afghan soldiers at a checkpoint on a remote mountain pass in South-Eastern Afghanistan. The men were members of the Afghan army, supposedly allies of the United States in the fight against al-Qaeda and the remnants of the Taliban forces. Nevertheless they were taken for interrogation at a U.S. firebase near the town of Gardez. Seventeen days later, seven of the men were transferred to custody of the local Afghan police. Many were suffering from serious injuries - the result of what they later described as torture at the hands of American interrogators. The other detainee was dead. An unreleased report based on an investigation by Afghan military investigators concluded that he had most likely died as a result of his treatment by U.S. forces, and that there was a "strong probability" that his death qualified as murder. <hr /></blockquote>

There is documentation that supports these claims at the above link.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/afghan/notabovethelaw.html

[ QUOTE ]
The killing and torture of detainees by U.S. forces in Gardez that has been uncovered by the Crimes of War Project's investigation is the latest in a chain of incidents that make up one of the darkest chapters of the American war on terrorism. Already, charges have been announced in the cases of three other Afghans who were killed by U.S. forces: two who died after interrogation at Bagram air base in December 2002, and one who was allegedly beaten to death by a C.I.A. contractor in June 2003. Two further suspected killings by American troops in Afghanistan have also been reported.

Many people believe that the roots of these deaths - and the torture and abuse of dozens of other prisoners - can be traced back to decisions made in Washington DC in the months immediately following September 11, 2001. A group of administration officials argued that the fight against al-Qaeda could not be pursued using conventional military means, and abiding by the conventional laws of war. On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote in a memo to the President that the need "to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists...renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." Not long afterward, the White House issued a statement saying that the Geneva Conventions were not applicable to the U.S. war against al-Qaeda. <hr /></blockquote>


I am starting to think that this incidences of torture are not isolated occurences carried out by a few "rogue soldiers". So does the geneva convention apply, or not? It seems that the current admin. and possbly high ranking military is doing everything they can to tell us that we can circumvent U.S. and U.N. law if and when we want to. A slippery, dangerous slope.

Peace
~DC

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2004, 10:10 AM
When the Breen Berets start beheading innocent Afghan truck drivers on the Internet then I will begin to worry.

eg8r
09-22-2004, 10:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Seventeen days later, seven of the men were transferred to custody of the local Afghan police. Many were suffering from serious injuries - the result of what they later described as torture at the hands of American interrogators. <hr /></blockquote> Hmmm, I cannot remember the last time a prisoner said, "it was my fault". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

crawdaddio
09-22-2004, 11:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> When the Breen Berets start beheading innocent Afghan truck drivers on the Internet then I will begin to worry. <hr /></blockquote>

So your logic is that it's ok for our soldiers to torture and kill anyone they "suspect" of aiding terrorist groups (a means to locate such groups&lt;our goal&gt;), but it's wrong for our opposition to carry out executions as a means to their end? You could say that these truck drivers are innocent, and they are, however, prisoners of war are "supposed" to be protected under the geneva convention. Not to mention the fact that the afghan soldiers in this case were allied to us. Please explain the difference.

crawdaddio
09-22-2004, 11:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Seventeen days later, seven of the men were transferred to custody of the local Afghan police. Many were suffering from serious injuries - the result of what they later described as torture at the hands of American interrogators. <hr /></blockquote> Hmmm, I cannot remember the last time a prisoner said, "it was my fault". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

That's all you've got? Accusing them of bringing it upon themselves. How compassionate.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2004, 12:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> So your logic is that it's ok for our soldiers to torture and kill anyone they "suspect" of aiding terrorist groups (a means to locate such groups&lt;our goal&gt;), but it's wrong for our opposition to carry out executions as a means to their end? You could say that these truck drivers are innocent, and they are, however, prisoners of war are "supposed" to be protected under the geneva convention. Not to mention the fact that the afghan soldiers in this case were allied to us. Please explain the difference.
<hr /></blockquote>

To do that I would have to assume your source is credible. If this story were true the major media would have been on it like flies on a cow pattie, just they were on Abu-Graib.

We will see how this plays out in the next week or so.

PS: No, I don't think it's right to torture or kill anybody.

crawdaddio
09-22-2004, 12:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> If this story were true the major media would have been on it like flies on a cow pattie, just they were on Abu-Graib.
<font color="blue">I completely disagree. </font color>
We will see how this plays out in the next week or so.

PS: No, I don't think it's right to torture or kill anybody.<font color="blue">Good, you ARE human! </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2004, 12:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> Good, you ARE human! <hr /></blockquote>

I'm a compasionate conservative. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

highsea
09-22-2004, 12:48 PM
The US Army CID has opened an investigation into this incident. I think we should wait to see what comes of it before passing judgement.

The information that crimesofwar.org based this story on was the Afghani prosecutor's investigation of the incident. My own experience with prosecutors leads me to wonder if there may not be more to the story than what has been reported so far, since most prosecutors are only interested in showing their version of events.

In March of 2003, there was no operational "Afghan Army" per se. Training was taking place, but the ANA's first deployment wasn't until December 2003.

But these 8 were new recruits, that much is known. The arrest was carried out due to a request from the Provincial Governor. Apparently these recruits were manning a checkpoint on a mountain pass at the time. The location, the Paktia Province was under control of a local warlord, and Kabul was trying to bring it under the control of the National Government.

There were many reports of the fledgling Afghan Army selling their weapons to anti-government forces in the area. For the Provincial Governor to identify these 8 new recruits for arrest makes you wonder if they were involved in that activity, especially considering that the area was not under the control of the Central Government.

While the prosecutor's report made no accusations that the 8 were former members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, the selection process for new recruits is pretty loose. They have to be between 18 and 26 and they have to be physically fit. That's it. No questions asked. There is no doubt that there are many former Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in the new ANA, and this region, the Paktia province in Southeast Afghanistan, was a stronghold of the Taliban.

The Pentagon could find no report of the death in custody, which suggests either that it did not happen while the prisoner was in US custody, or that local commanders at the Gardez Firebase decided to cover up the incident. I will try to follow the story as it develops.

-CM

eg8r
09-22-2004, 01:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That's all you've got? Accusing them of bringing it upon themselves. How compassionate. <hr /></blockquote> Will more compassion from me change the fact that 9 times out of 10 the prisoner is probably lying or not telling the whole truth?

My original post was in general, not specifically this exact instance.

eg8r

crawdaddio
09-22-2004, 02:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
That's all you've got? Accusing them of bringing it upon themselves. How compassionate. <hr /></blockquote> Will more compassion from me change the fact that 9 times out of 10 the prisoner is probably lying or not telling the whole truth?

My original post was in general, not specifically this exact instance.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Would you like this kind of logic if you were arrested by the homeland security dept. and charged with aiding a terrorist org. and it were applied to your case? Guilty until proven innocent?

DC

eg8r
09-22-2004, 02:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Would you like this kind of logic if you were arrested by the homeland security dept. and charged with aiding a terrorist org. and it were applied to your case? Guilty until proven innocent? <hr /></blockquote> I think your problem with my post is that you are just jumping the gun. This is not about compassion or whatever your heart desires, it is about a prisoner and what they said. 9 times out of 10 they are lying or not telling the whole truth when it comes to how they were punished while they were in custody/jail.

You are confusing guilt of a crime with this instance (the prisoner would be considered innocent until proven guilty for only the reasons as to why they are in prison) and the two are apples and oranges. However, you seem to be quick to be casting blame on our soldiers before they are given the chance to be proven innocent. However should this arise and they were proven innocent (the soldiers) I would bet you would be posting about some cover-up.

eg8r

eg8r
09-22-2004, 02:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You could say that these truck drivers are innocent, and they are, however, prisoners of war are "supposed" to be protected under the geneva convention. <hr /></blockquote> You are twisting everything up. The terrorists who are beheading the truckers do not care about the Geneva Convention. They are terrorists.

LOL, reading this is like reading Q's posts when he is defending the homicide bombers in Israel.

eg8r

eg8r
09-22-2004, 02:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wally:</font><hr> If this story were true the major media would have been on it like flies on a cow pattie, just they were on Abu-Graib.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> I completely disagree. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Any reason why you disagree?

eg8r

crawdaddio
09-22-2004, 02:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are twisting everything up. The terrorists who are beheading the truckers do not care about the Geneva Convention. They are terrorists.
<font color="blue">Agreed. However, that doesn't make it ok for americans to disregard it. </font color>
LOL, reading this is like reading Q's posts when he is defending the homicide bombers in Israel.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">Now you've gone too far, LOL. Don't compare me to him! </font color>

crawdaddio
09-22-2004, 03:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wally:</font><hr> If this story were true the major media would have been on it like flies on a cow pattie, just they were on Abu-Graib.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> I completely disagree. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Any reason why you disagree?


eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

There are many, many newsworthy stories on both sides of the political spectrum that corporate media chooses not to cover. They, individually, have their reasons. I am SURE you are aware of this.

DC

eg8r
09-22-2004, 08:33 PM
You are right, that was going too far. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
09-22-2004, 08:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There are many, many newsworthy stories on both sides of the political spectrum that corporate media chooses not to cover. They, individually, have their reasons. I am SURE you are aware of this. <hr /></blockquote> You are correct, there are many stories that are not covered. A lot of them happened while the media plastered the world with reports on Abu Grahib.

My question however was very specific, I am not worried about all the other newsworthy stories that never make it. I would like to know why you disagree that the media would not jump all over this story if it were true? Given the recent past, the media seems to jump all over any shortcomings of the military.

eg8r

Fair_Play
09-22-2004, 09:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Pentagon could find no report of the death in custody <hr /></blockquote> Heck, that is simple to explain, the Snake Eaters skinned, cooked, and ate the evidence. Now if only the funding would come through to pay for a local contractor (deniable plausability) for beheading a few unfriendly Mullas... (less media attention than Bunker Busters and Napalm!) On the other hand? Lets declare genocide, have the U.N. pass 37 resolutions over the next six years, by which time Idaho will be the last remaining bastion of democracy... this plan has the French and German Seal of Approval, and is friendly to the environment too. Now where did I put my Koran?

Fair Play

<font color="blue"> I am NOT a cynic! </font color>