Printable View
http://www.prisonexp.org/Quote:
Originally posted by Xcoder
I do remember a link about a REAL experiment that lasted only a couple of days because the guards started to violently act against the prisoners, I will look for that link and post it here..
I think it's a normal human tendency to get involved in such acts. Generals in Vietnam would cut off ears of the captured prisoners and wear them stringed up as a necklace.
A group of people in power will always want to assert this fact to the powerless. So, I feel that it's basically a psychological issue, not a national one.
I once posted a link to the Stanford Prison Experiment. That should give a good insight into this aspect of power. (www.prisonexp.org)
Ah, well, I was writing while you posted that. :pQuote:
Ah yeah. I forgot about that experiment.
I also read some of the guards are private contractors (often with little experience of the task at hand).
How does this work ? Like any other govt contractor agreement ? Is it only a "guard until further notice" job or were they hired to "extract information" as well ?
This shows exactly how stupid human beings are. "OOOOOoHHHHH your going to loose the peoples confidence in Iraq" because 6 soldiers humiliated (not tourtured) a few Iraqi prisoners. HOLY SHEIT PEOPLE we just dropped 80 billion dollars worth of bombs on them. Like they have any confidence in us to begin with. More goddam political BS served up right before election time by a liberal TV show 60 min.
unfookingingbelievable.
Well, let me state up front that I am American, and am disgusted by this regime. I don't think that anybody who has read my posts would expect me to feel otherwise. If this brings down Bush, that's better for my fish.
However, having said that, consider torture. There was an earlier thread about an officer who used force to coerce somebody into giving information that may have saved his troops from a suicide bomb. Is this torture? Technically, yes. Is it illegal? I don't know, but it certainly is disturbing. Is it wrong? Now, that gets difficult. Should he be allowed to denigrate one person to save several others? People in this forum held both views. I was unhappy with his conduct, but I could certainly understand it.
So, in some circumstances, torture seems like an acceptable excess to most everybody. For some, the circumstances are much lower than for others, but there are circumstances where it would be acceptable to anybody.
Is there a way that we can determine whether or not torture is acceptable? Yes, there is. The penalty for using torture should be clever, but not unbearable. It should be unavoidable. If you use torture, this will happen to you, no trial, no appeals, no recourse, however, the cost is not ruinous, nor financial. This turns torture into a one-use card. If the situation is sufficiently grave that the consequences are worth removing the humanity of the target, then the person who determines it to be so, should forfeit as much. They can make the decision up front.
That concept is incomplete, but I haven't had time to flesh it out. Take the humanity from another person if you have to, but accept a high cost as a consequence.
I see Rumsfeld 'taking full responsibility'. But nothing has happened to him, and nothing will happen to him. Those are pretty words, but there is no action. Now that the heirarchy sees that an axe will fall, they are scrambling to ensure that the axe only falls as far down the chain as possible. Where's the responsibility? Solemn words, but no change. If he's not going to be held responsible, why is he saying that he is responsible?
Oh yeah, there is also this little bit about the conservatives trying to make it out to be a very isolated incident. Some only talk about alleged abuse (with pictures, a pretty compelling allegation), some talk about just a few low-level soldiers, one Georgian senator actually went on to say "Look what happened to us on 9/11, so we suffered more than them!" That's a particularly vile statement, since Iraq had no connection to 9/11, so what he is saying is that we can abuse Iraquis because somebody in that half of the world hurt us.
Unfortunately, the reports (by that general, whoes name I couldn't even begin to spell) show widespread abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. This problem is bigger than a few bad apples.
because its politically correct. its more politics BS.
He is the defense secretary, need I say more? A proper defense secretary wouldn't have allowed this to grow as large as it has. When he first got news of it, he should have instantly took action.Quote:
Originally posted by Something Else
Do you have anything specific, something that he did, in mind?
I Keep hearing it reported that people are saying this, but I have yet to hear what they think he did wrong in relation to this Prisoner abuse situation.
:wave:
-Lou
Well yes and no. I can understand this sort of thing happening in wars like WW2 and have a higher tolerence level for it. So many of your friends died in that war, that you hated the ememy in a whole new way. You will see this happening in that kind of war (Bad ones). It's still wrong, but like I say I have a higher tolerence level for it during bad wars.Quote:
Originally posted by Cander
Was waiting to hear someone blame it on Bush and for honeybee tell us about arrogant Americans again.
This is nothing new. Every war and every army in the world has had the problems with out of control soldiers breaking international laws and conventions.
For example, I can't remember the dates of this, but if you surrendered to Russians, you were paraded down the street like a hero. Then executed. :o
Truth be known, there is no rules in war. Rules of war are always mentioned by the winner of the war even though they probably broken many themselves.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Its all Bulls*** anyway. How can laws be involved in war? The two dont go together, you can bomb a building and kill civilians but you cant torture people.
Perhaps we should have a big dueling ring with one on one battles between IRAQ and American soldiers.
At this point the image of what we are doing there is completely destroyed.Quote:
Originally posted by Pino
Amen, people who goa round trying to put down bush really need to get a life, no matter if it was right or wrong to go into iraq its done!!
and as for this comment posted earlyer on,
thats the most stupid thing anyone could say because what would happen when the allies leave..... yep another regime would step in blow up london and we will be abck to square one!
BAH!
Much as I think Bush is a numpty for going into this mess, I don't think he can be held accountable for the actions of his individual troops. I think that you will find that most real soldiers find these sort of actions dispicable and wouldn't put up with them, unfortunately if you throw 250,000 people into a country, some of them are going to turn out to be undisciplined thugs/bullies. I suspect these are what we are seeing.
It might be Rumsfelds fault for not doing anything about it (I don't know), but I don't think that Bush can be held accountable for this. I say: Send the guilty soldiers to prison, replace the US soldier guards with hired Iraqi guards at the prisons, stop the torturing and try to find some way out of this mess.
As for Lou's question about interrgoation. It is difficult to know where to draw the line and to argue that the ends justify the means, however if we put ourselves up on a pedestal and proclaim that we are fair countries (which we do), we cannot afford to be doing this sort of stuff. Sure, it may be that one torture garners us information about a suicide bombing that saves 10 lives, but on the flip-side, how many people will die now because of the upsurge in resistance recruiting in Iraq and terrorist recruiting for Al-Quieda? If you were one of those people who were tortured/humiliated and you finally get released. What are you going to do? Sit back and take it? Despite the fact that I know it is wrong, I'd probably find myself a gun and go kill one or more of the *****ers who did this to me..... Simply put, it was not a worthwhile exercise.
Of course, the problem is that if any of the accused soldiers are innocent, then letting them go free will be instantly be seen by the Muslim world as the US not persuing justice. Yet, someone must be seen to be punished..... I suspect only a few individuals who's guilt is assured will actually be tried, and in fairness, that's possibly the only smart way out...
True. Look at Nuremburg(sp?) trials. Im sure there were plenty of war crimes committed by Allied troops as well.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Truth be known, there is no rules in war. Rules of war are always mentioned by the winner of the war even though they probably broken many themselves.
just to assure this isnt a rare behavior of the troops....check this info on the UN/NATO troops in kosovo....Im guessing mostly british, american and european troops are involved here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3686173.stm
Why, the point I was trying to make was that war is a crime anyway so cannot have laws attached to it. Why is it OK to shoot an IRAQ dude in a gun battle but not after he has been captured?Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
If you are serious then I pity you.
There is no honour in war whatsoever.
Not in modern warfare anyway. Way back in the day, when you and your enemy had to be within feet of each to do battle, then there was hono(u)r. When it was truely a case of "may the best man win."Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
There is no honour in war whatsoever.
There is no honor in sitting miles away and hitting a button, or unleashing nerve agents, or anything with the way today's wars are fought. But I guess that's what they call progress.
I do, though, see a huge difference between shooting someone out in open battle, where your life is possibly in immediate danger (maybe not, but possibly), and shooting someone that is shackled to a chair in a holding cell.
Would you be proud to sit around trading war stories, and say that you killed an unarmed man, that was chained up like a dog? It's murder either way you look at it, don't get me wrong...
OMG Dave we actually agree on something . . .Quote:
There is no honour in war whatsoever
No i wouldnt, then again i wouldnt be proud to say that i had killed a man on an open battlefield.Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
Would you be proud to sit around trading war stories, and say that you killed an unarmed man, that was chained up like a dog? It's murder either way you look at it, don't get me wrong...
Dead is dead, once your dead it dont matter if your a prisoner or killed in a shoot out.
The honourable thing to do would be al troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, an apology and reperations given to all victims and for all weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed by all owning countries.
I would paint an even worse picture:
(i) We went into Iraq on the premise of WMD (there wasn't any)
(ii) We went into Iraq to safeguard oil (or whatever)
(iii) We went into Iraq because of UN resolutions non-compliance
Which one of these is worth killing a human being for? Which one of these is worth collateral damage (aka as innocent casualties) of multiple amounts of the people who died in 911?
Barbaric.
My view... Bush is an idiot, I didn't vote for him.
However, I wonder what these 'prisoners' did to get themselves landed in these detention centers. Did they blow up Iraqi's buildings? Attack Iraqi Police? Attack American convoys? Did they carbomb and kill 15 Iraqi civilians in the process of trying to disable a humvee? Does anyone care what happened to the 15 Iraqi civilians?
Personally, those soldiers could have released movies of the prisoners taking it from the behind by a horse, and I would not have felt any remorse for them whatsoever.
There are two distinct types of people in the world, those who look for war/conflict and those whose don't. To anyone who looks for war, you expose yourself to these possibilities.
I'd say those prisoners got off really easy, if the worst they had to face was being dressed up and posed in sexual positions.
http://collegehumour.com/ = they have a nice little vantage point on the whole affair.
"But as time goes on Shaming became regular, routine, almost… boring. We’ve seen the antiqueing, the marker faces and the saran wrap. When we young Americans need advances in technology and sociology we have two places to look, the Japanese and The Military. That is why we have a new hero. And here’s the real Shocker (the shocker is a registered trademark of CollegeHumor Globo-Corp Inc.) Gents- you’ve been bested by a lady! Meet Pfc. Lynndie England, and don’t let the last name fool you, she’s 100% American. She has taken shaming to a whole new level. Humiliating not only a person, but two, count em two whole Nations! She could’ve drawn a pair of tits on some Iraqi prisoner, but why would you stop there?
Oh no, she put a leash around them and made them pull the pud onto one anothers faces, and in true Shaming style, she and her buddies were smart enough to not only take photos of it, but to get in the photos so they could get the credit. Kudos to Lynndie, and the rest of your troupe! The only thing is, don’t ever let the NewYorker (whoever they are) get the Shaming scoop on CollegeHumor.com again."
Let's think of the likely conclusions of the situation in Iraq:
How many of you think pulling out of Iraq at this moment or the 30 June handover will solve this problem?
How many of you think there is simply no way out of this mess? Personally I feel if the US pulls out now, Iraq will never be back even to the state it was in during Saddam's era, which is a huge crime by the US. And if they don't pull out, the conflict will never end, which is too bad for the US.
I think I read on the BBC about one Mr. Black, who's part of the Bush administration working on Iraq that "there was a pre 9/11, and there is a post 9/11, and in the post 9/11 the gloves are off" Does anyone else remember reading that?
.
Those prisoners were in the high end cell blocks. They weren't innocent civilians rounded up for questioning. The probability is high that they killed Americans, Iraqi's, or a combination of the two.
Not that procedures weren't broken, or laws broken, they obviously were, and those responsible are already being punished, and were before the pictures came out and turned everybody into a humanitarian. And that treatment is characterized as brutality? Take a look at the video of the 26 year old Americans head being cut off by the same savages whose human rights we should respect. I'd post a link that's currently working with a quick download, but frankly, it's sickening and for once I don't feel like showing something off.
Those are the people we're dealing with. Not the shop owner who's crying about his bombed out building. He'll get repaid, **** happens. The terrorists are the ones that are getting the "harsh treatment". But I guess those that beheaded the American aren't terrorists because they're in Iraq and Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11, right? At least that's what I hear from this bunch over and over. Best reconsider that notion.
That said, unfortunately I think this will lead to a lot more viscious acts - and yes, from both sides.
Wish I had seen that quote, I'd photocopy it and frame it.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
"there was a pre 9/11, and there is a post 9/11, and in the post 9/11 the gloves are off" Does anyone else remember reading that?
.
Exactly. And it surprises me to see how far soldiers in the field are pretending to be upset about the 'prisoners' treatment in the prisoner camps, because you know damn well, once the camera's off, they are laughing to high hell about that whole situation.Quote:
Originally posted by demotivater
Those prisoners were in the high end cell blocks. They weren't innocent civilians rounded up for questioning. The probability is high that they killed Americans, Iraqi's, or a combination of the two.
I know I would.
I guess even soldiers have to be 'politically correct' on camera though, else face harsh words from superiors if they told the truth.
Here's a fun video for ya though:
http://czabe.com/audioclips/dontloot.wmv
And one ugly Iraqi spider lol
http://czabe.com/images/snicky/snicky82-3.jpg
:eek:Quote:
Originally posted by nemaroller
Here's a fun video for ya though:
http://czabe.com/audioclips/dontloot.wmv
Guess that's one way to handle it?
And if I was your commander I would either kick the **** right out of you or you would have a horrible accident that I couldn't prevent(wink). The whole purpose of this war has been ****ed up bad and is going to put american lives in danger.Quote:
Originally posted by nemaroller
Exactly. And it surprises me to see how far soldiers in the field are pretending to be upset about the 'prisoners' treatment in the prisoner camps, because you know damn well, once the camera's off, they are laughing to high hell about that whole situation.
I know I would.
I guess even soldiers have to be 'politically correct' on camera though, else face harsh words from superiors if they told the truth.
Here's a fun video for ya though:
http://czabe.com/audioclips/dontloot.wmv
And one ugly Iraqi spider lol
http://czabe.com/images/snicky/snicky82-3.jpg
demotivater, nemaroller
An American officier in Iraq told either ICRC or Amnesty International that 70-90% of the prisoners in Bagdad prison should not be there! They had not attacked soldiers they had not commited any crimes. They had been picked up in sweeps that collected anyone male of fighting age.
I would have to of course, as your underling, allow you to kick my ass, but I'd display one of those flash cards stating 'I feel threatened', and then have you court martialed after the fact.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
And if I was your commander I would either kick the **** right out of you or you would have a horrible accident that I couldn't prevent(wink). The whole purpose of this war has been ****ed up bad and is going to put american lives in danger.
I agree with you about the war, I didn't vote for Bush, and I never understood what the urgency was to invade Iraq, and yes, it will cost many American lives for the next 10 years. Where you protesting the war before it began? Do you think Bush would have listened? That ******* committed us to that big mess, even though the whole 'war on terror' was supposed to be aimed at terrorist organizations.
Now they're all moving to Iraq, to attack our soldiers...
DeadEyes: I imagine some of those prisoners may truly be innocent, but I would guess the majority are insurgents. I don't care what Amnesty International thinks, they arrived after the fact. And again, some countries would promptly kill those people, but god forbid, some bored soldier guard took a few pics that got leaked.... oh the autrocity of war!! How would that be for a war story...
"Back when i was 30, the Americans imprisoned me. "
"Did they beat you grandpa?"
"No... they uh... nevermind"
The fact is everyone is guilty or accusing groups instead of individuals. To say the AMERICANS are guilty of torture is wrong. And to say the IRAQI's are barbarians is the same.
These are individuals and not the mood of the countries. The troops who tortured the prisons are guilty of murder when retaliations start. Lets make them pay by locking them up like the criminals they are.
As for all Iraq's not wanting allies in there its bullsh** portrayed by news reporters who only want 'Juicy stories'. People dont want to hear people being happy they want to know about cruelty.
Just as almost all of the allies will find that video sick so will most Iraqi's because irrelevent to what people say (on BOTH sides) we are all human :) :) :)
And that's an excuse then ?
I guess after the insurgents released the beheading of an American on tape... there will be less free roaming of international organizations through the prison camps.
And Bush didn't have a lot of burdens from the Clinton Adminstration? Might want to get your facts straight on that one...Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
On another note:
I think Kerry will do fine as President. I do feel sorry for whoever takes office after bush though, they will have a lot of burdens to carry. The main one I'm wanting to see took care of is outsourcing.
And yea..we embarrassed the soldiers, it was hardly torture, but atleast they are still alive.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...g_x.htm?csp=24
Well the war itself was going to take place at some point in time no matter what. However how we have handled this situation shows extremely poor leadership.Quote:
Originally posted by nemaroller
I would have to of course, as your underling, allow you to kick my ass, but I'd display one of those flash cards stating 'I feel threatened', and then have you court martialed after the fact.
I agree with you about the war, I didn't vote for Bush, and I never understood what the urgency was to invade Iraq, and yes, it will cost many American lives for the next 10 years. Where you protesting the war before it began? Do you think Bush would have listened? That ******* committed us to that big mess, even though the whole 'war on terror' was supposed to be aimed at terrorist organizations.
Now they're all moving to Iraq, to attack our soldiers...
DeadEyes: I imagine some of those prisoners may truly be innocent, but I would guess the majority are insurgents. I don't care what Amnesty International thinks, they arrived after the fact. And again, some countries would promptly kill those people, but god forbid, some bored soldier guard took a few pics that got leaked.... oh the autrocity of war!! How would that be for a war story...
"Back when i was 30, the Americans imprisoned me. "
"Did they beat you grandpa?"
"No... they uh... nevermind"
They didnt seem prepared for terrorist style resistance. I could be wrong but that seems to have been the problem.
It was inevitable that war would break out in Iraq :( :(
Sorry... Getting a blow job in the white house may prove to have been a burdon for bush....Quote:
Originally posted by rdove
And Bush didn't have a lot of burdens from the Clinton Adminstration? Might want to get your facts straight on that one...
And yea..we embarrassed the soldiers, it was hardly torture, but atleast they are still alive.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...g_x.htm?csp=24
How would you "Prepare"?Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
They didnt seem prepared for terrorist style resistance. I could be wrong but that seems to have been the problem.
It was inevitable that war would break out in Iraq :( :(
However, whether prepared or not, it was certainly expected, at least by everybody here {At VBForums} , everybody I talk to, and I would expect the majority of Conservatives, Older Generations, Active Military "Lifers" and rational Intelligent People. Of course, the Media is portraying like its a total surprise, and it seems that only the BHL's talk like this was truly unexpected.
:wave:
Fair enough.
i dont tend to read newspaper because they are jazzed up.
Tend to watch the news with a little sceptisism too :lol:
If that is the kind of officer that you would be, then you would have become a rotting corpse long before Saddam was captured.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
And if I was your commander I would either kick the **** right out of you or you would have a horrible accident that I couldn't prevent(wink).
War is Ugly, and to paraphrase the Great Man himself, "Civilians can't handle the truth!"
Pencil Pushers and Beurocratic Officers Make the Military look great on paper, but if they don't have the guts to get the job done whatever means necessarry, they become expendable real fast. And if you are in an MI assignment, but you get weak kneed at relativily benign methods of interigation, then you're the wrong man for the job.
The Soldiers that should be punished are those that put their prisoners in life threatoning situations, those that allowed or actually killed prisoners who presented no actual threat, and those that truly tortured their charges.
Hoewever, These soldiers, The Soldiers that did the "Abuses" sounds like they were told to soften them up, but were given only general guidelines in terms of how to do it. These soldiers should not be convicted.
:wave:
-Lou