markfromireland

الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية: جنودٌ يتحدثون عن الإساءة إلى محتجزين في العراق
السلطات تسمح باستخدام الوسائل المسيئة وتتجاهل شكاوى الجنود

هذه الروايات تدحض ادعاءات الحكومة الأمريكية بأن التعذيب والإساءات في العراق لم
تكن بإيعازٍ من السلطات بل هي حالاتٌ استثنائية. فعلى العكس من ذلك، كانت تلك
الممارسات موضع تغاضٍ، وتستخدم على نطاق واسع.

جون سيفتون، الباحثٌ الرئيسي لقسم الإرهاب ومكافحة الإرهاب

نسخة للطباعة

“He wouldn’t say anything, and they kept screaming at him and screaming at him. And they picked him up and threw him against the wall—and it’s a concrete wall. They threw him up against the wall, they punched him in the neck, punched him in the stomach—you know, gut shot—they threw him down. [At one point,] they actually threw him outside—they had two guys [other detainees] outside watching—threw him outside the building, just threw him outside like that. And then they picked him up, dragged him back, pulling him by the hair and stuff. . . . They hold his arms like this [out behind his back] and then beat him down—enough so they could break it, to give you a little bit of the pain. Same with the kneecaps: kicked him in the kneecaps, you know, really hard, with those boots—combat boots.

They were [usually] very conscious of trying not to leave marks [on the body] most of the time, but with that guy—they really didn’t [i.e., they made no effort to avoid leaving bruises and cuts]. . . . [Later,] they took some of the sani-wipes from the MRE pack [Meals Ready to Eat], you know, clean his face off and stuff like that, but the next day, he was pretty bruised. “

[snip]

The detainee was beaten and interrogated for about two hours, Nick said. “He was there for a long time, a long time.” Later on, Nick said, the interrogators told guards and other soldiers that the detainee had inflicted the damage on himself: “They blamed it on him—a ‘falling-down-the-stairs’ deal or whatever.”

As it turned out, the detainee who was beaten was Iranian: Nick said he was a middle aged man, probably in his late 40s, and said he was probably a small-time businessman or smuggler who brought electronics to and from Syria and through Kurdish areas in Iran and Iraq. The fact that the man didn’t speak Arabic apparently made the interrogators beat him more severely

The guy didn’t speak Arabic at all; he spoke Farsi. And there was nobody who spoke Farsi on the post and he just kept getting the crap beat out of him because they thought that he was being silent when he only spoke Farsi.

Nick said that one of the Special Forces soldiers on the base—who was not trained as an interrogator or part of a military intelligence unit—was responsible:

The guy who was doing most of the roughing up in that case, I’m pretty sure that he was one of the SF [Special Forces] guys that just rotated through, and was just helping out in the interrogation. But they really thought this guy had a bunch of information, and he never opened his mouth except to scream incoherently, when he was getting hit.

As described earlier, Nick and MPs he worked with were under orders to keep newly arrived detainees awake and standing in the metal container. But Nick ordered the enlisted soldiers working under him not to hit detainees:

[I told them:] this is what I expect, this is how I do things. I don’t care what the other guys do, the rules are “don’t bring a camera,” so don’t bring a camera, you don’t hit the guys. I try to tell them to treat them the way you wanna be treated and stuff like that. . . Geneva Conventions, that’s what I do—I remind them of Geneva Conventions—this is what we do, this is what we don’t do to prisoners.

Nick said that neither he nor any of his troops had training in detention operations, or Geneva Conventions standards on treatment of detainees:

Geneva Conventions—I mean, a lot of people’s knowledge—99 percent of people’s knowledge extends to “hey, there’s a Geneva Conventions Category one in the back of my ID card,” [referring to the classification written on soldiers identification cards]. Or: “Geneva’s a town in Switzerland.” For a lot of people, you know, that’s what it extends to. I knew a little bit more, you know, as far as that goes: Those are rules governing warfare and stuff like that. But I didn’t know a lot of specific information or anything like that. I looked up specific information based on the treatment of POWs, detainees, etc. etc. That’s what I was looking for. And right now, I couldn’t quote you much. . . .

That’s pretty much how it went. That’s the prevailing thought [process] and it was mentioned that, “Oh, that’s an antiquated set of rules.”

“You can’t get information out of people these days without breaking them”—that kind of thing. That was the prevalent attitude. That was voiced by the E6. That was the quote: “You cannot get information out of them without breaking that stuff.”

From Nick’s perspective, the interrogators did not appear professional. He believed that much of the abuse stemmed from racist attitudes toward detainees. Many of the guards and interrogators called Iraqi’s “Hajis,” and would often mock or taunt them. Nick also said he didn’t believe that abusive interrogation tactics worked:

“No Blood, No Foul” Soldiers’ Accounts of Detainee Abuse in Iraq - Human Rights Watch [WEB]

“No Blood, No Foul” Soldiers’ Accounts of Detainee Abuse in Iraq - Human Rights Watch [PDF]

The assault on Lebanon continues. It’s been in the works for quite a few years now. For situational updates here’s a few resources you mightn’t be aware of. All of these links will open in a window or tab depending on which browser you use:

• Naharnet - local news site posts regular updates. Highly recommended.
• The Beiruter - Naharnet’s blog aggregator.
• Lebanese Bloggers Forum - Just what it says, check the side bar for links.
• Lebanese Political Journal - Worth a read.
• Daily Star (Beirut) - Voice of the Lebanese establishment.

I don’t have time to comment on Gaza so I just suggest you read this remarkable woman’s writings:

• “From Gaza with love”

Not counting the various Iraqi resistance groups. There are five major political groups in the Middle East:

1. Hamas,
2. Hizbollah,
3. Syria,
4. Iran,
5. The Muslim Brotherhood.

With whom the western governments in particular the U.S. government won’t talk. The Israelis won’t talk to any of them either and are currently trying to militarily overthrow the elected Hamas administration. There isn’t a hope in hell of ending any of the current conflicts when the only party the west will talk to is Israel and when western governments, in particular the U.S. government, gives them money and weaponry like they were sweets. Mealy mouthed platitudes about “restraint” are recognised in Tel Aviv as what they are - mealy mouthed platitudes.

Here’s a quick take on Lebanon. Six years ago Hizbollah successfully threw the Israelis out of South Lebanon. They did it by killing the invaders and by being prepared to be killed. That’s how you get rid of invaders you accept that you yourself are going to take unbearable pain and you make it too unbearably painful for the invaders to continue to occupy your country by killing a lot of them. The Israeli retreat destroyed the myth of Israeli military invincibility but did not however end the war. The Israelis have been looking to recreate the myth ever since. The excuse used by the Israelis for what they’re currently doing is manifestly a ridiculous lie. The storyline goes something like this:

“Terrorists crossed into Israel from Lebanon and kidnapped two of our soldiers. They did this in coordination with and at the behest of either the Syrians or the Iranians or both. We are going to punish Lebanon for not controlling the Hizb.”

The facts are very different. Hizbollah arose from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Lebanese civil war. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was characterised by savage brutality and caused a civil war in which everyone slaughtered everyone else and brought Hizbollah to prominence in the South. Hizbollah defeated three Israeli armies in a row Lebanon was effectively crippled and divided and that suited the Israelis, the Syrians, the French, the Saudis, and everyone else.

The idea that the Lebanese army could take over from Hizbollah even if Hizbollah were willing is ridiculous, the Lebanese army is good at looking pretty in a snappy uniform. That’s all they’re good at. The Hariri assassination discussed in the comments to a posting on this blog here created a situation in which for the first time all of the Lebanese parties got serious, well as serious as they get, about actually strengthening Lebanon. I did a short posting on this giving a quick summary back in March. What hasn’t changed is that Israel and Hizbollah are at war. Hizbollah arose in reaction to the brutality of the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon. To dismiss them as just a terrorist organisation is very foolish. Like Hamas and the Ikhwanis they’re a social and religious movement incorporating well organised and functional:

• Nationalist.
• Religious,
• Political,
• Social,
• Economic and,
• Military departments.

Granted their military wing often uses terrorist tactics but the fact that they have integrated all of the aspects of their struggle makes them far more formidable than any mere “terrorist group” such as ETA, the UVF, the IRA, or the various groups collectively referred to as “al-Qaeda.” In social terms they’re what has kept Southern Lebanon together, in military terms they’re what defeated three Israeli armies in a row, and every Lebanese knows it. They may have been becoming somewhat less politically popular as they moved toward “using the ballot box more than the AK47″ but that hasn’t stopped them from being a formidable military force. They and they Israelis have been watching and attacking each other on the border ever since Hizbollah was formed neither side has ever stopped.

So what happened and why? The immediate cause was that a bad decision by a junior Israeli officer meant that an Israeli unit was left vulnerable to attack and capture. A panicked attempt to get them back using a tank crossing the border and being destroyed. Or to put it another way - a local Hizbollah commander saw an opportunity that was too good to pass up. An Israeli commander faced with an equivalent opportunity would have done the same thing.

Israel wants to defeat Hizbollah and doesn’t care what it does to achieve this goal. I doubt that that their often stated goal of destroying it is achievable my guess is that for the moment all they want Hizbollah visibly defeated and forced to withdraw a long way from the border. I don’t believe that’s achievable either. Israel’s massive attack against all of Lebanon especially infrastructure and civilians has over the last 48 hours rallied the Lebanese against Israel. Even if this Israeli operation were to succeed and even if their wildest dream was to come true and Hizbollah’s defeat was such that it was effectively destroyed the impact on Israel’s own security is likely to be disastrous. The 1982 invasion produced Hizbollah; this latest aggression against all of Lebanon will either strengthen their support which was beginning to weaken or produce another adversary, more tightly organised, more radical, more militant, more ruthless, and determined to revenge themselves both on those who attacked Lebanon and upon those who facilitated and justified the attack.

markfromireland

• Saudi Arabia pledges 50 million dollars in immediate aid to Lebanon
• Israel faces “unimaginable losses” if it attacks Syria, the Iranian foreign ministry said Sunday
• Israeli PM Ehud Olmert warns of ‘long-term consequences’ after Hizbullah attack on Haifa
• Hizbullah launches a new salvo of Raad 2 and Raad 3 rockets at Haifa, killing 9 and injuring 20
• Al-Manar TV building has been completely destroyed by an Israeli strike
• Israeli special forces are operating on the ground in Lebanon, in conjunction with air and sea forces, General Gadi Eisenkraut, operations chief at central command, confirmed Sunday
• Chirac says that forces “who jeopardize the security, stability and sovereignty of Lebanon must be stopped,” ahead of talks with Bush
• Bush says that Israel had ‘every right to defend itself’ but should be ‘mindful of the consequences’
• Hizbullah denied an Israeli television report that its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, had been injured in an Israeli raid
• Israeli aircraft presses on early Sunday with intensive bombing raids on Beirut’s southern suburbs
• Hizbullah claims Sunday to have repelled the first attempted Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon since hostilities began
• Saniora calls for an immediate ceasefire to end Israel’s “collective punishment” of the Lebanese people
• Morning Roundup: Israel Steps Up Assault on Beirut’s Southern Suburbs
  
  Waves of warplanes thundering through the darkness bombed Beirut’s southern suburbs for hours early Sunday, a day after Israel stepped up its air strikes and tightened a noose around this reeling nation…
• Source: Naharnet.com

I suggest you either bookmark them or use their feed.

markfromireland

According to the Financial Times [this and all subsequent links will open in a new window] Gordon England, the Deputy Secretary of Defense has issued a memo [PDF] requiring that “detainees” be treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions.

The Supreme Court has determined that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda. The Court found that the military commissions as constituted by the Department of Defense are not consistent with Common Article 3.

“It is my understanding that, aside from the military commission procedures, existing DoD orders, policies, directives, execute orders, and doctrine comply with the standards of Common Article 3 and, therefore, actions by DoD personnel that comply with such issuances would comply with the standards of Common Article 3. … In addition, you will recall the President’s prior directive that “the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely,” humane treatment being the overarching requirement of Common Article 3.

You will ensure that all DoD personnel adhere to these standards. In this regard, I request that you promptly review all relevant directives, regulations, policies, practices, and procedures under your purview to ensure that they comply with the standards of Common Article 3.”

This is an apparent reversal of the American refusal to abide by the conventions in particular Article 3. Article 3 is common to all of the conventions it’s main provisions outlaw:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

England’s memo is a response to the US Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which struck down the “military commissions.” The court held that the commissions were repugnant to the convention, and American law including the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice.]

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Court further rejected the Cheney Bush administration’s argument that Hamdan, a Guantanamo Bay detainee, was not entitled to Geneva Convention protections because he was not part of a regularly constituted uniformed enemy force. The court held that the Geneva Conventions apply to the war on terror.

However it is important to note that this policy only applies to detainees held in military custody. It does not apply to persons held prisoner outside of the military detention system, such as those held in CIA run prisons.

Resources for those interested in learning further:

American Bar Association Report [PDF]

United States Military Commissions: A Quick Guide to Available Resources [ Stephen Young (Catholic University) on LLRX.com]

Council on Foreign Relations “High Court Reins in Administration” [included with some reluctance for the sake of completeness - mfi]

Council on Foreign Relations “A U.S. Shift on Detainees” [included with some reluctance for the sake of completeness - mfi]

US Congress Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress - “Terrorism and the Law of War: Trying Terrorists as War Criminals before Military Commissions” [PDF]

Military Commissions - US Department of Defense

Military Commission Orders US Department of Defense

NYU Journal of Law and Liberty Symposium on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [Good overview from a historical perspective and several points of view]

Wikipedia Military Commisions Page

From: Truth About Iraqis

Thursday, May 25, 2006
صبراً صبراً يا بغداد سحقاً سحقاً للغزاة

Iraq, where now, how did we get here, and hypocrisy.
This post is inspired by an email I got. Snarly best describes it. I posted this response at 24 Steps to Liberty.

I think it explains how I feel about the situation in Iraq.

There is no sovereignty in Iraq. It was revealed two days ago that Iraqi courts operate based on CPA laws, not Iraqi laws.

Several “insurgents” were given jail time because they broke Order 3. Go look it up.

Freedom is not worth 200,000 lives, am sorry.

Freedom is not worth having your brothers and sisters tortured and mutilated.

Freedom is not about having tens of thousands of armed units - gangs - kidnapping and murdering people and working under government supervision. A government you brought to power.

Freedom is not about having 60% unemployment and child nutrition far worse than pre-war levels.

Freedom is not about a debilitated power grid or failing phone system.

Freedom is not about Halliburton coming in and robbing both the Iraqi people and American taxpayers blind.

Freedom is not about raising the flag of reconstruction and then stealing monies from Iraq’s oil money.

Freedom is not about standing idly by while the government is looted. Most of Iraq’s advanced machinery is now in … Iran.

Freedom is not about detention without charge. 35,000 Iraqis are in detention. Their families dont know where they are.

No charge. No court.

Freedom is not about the massacres in Haditha.

Freedom is not about the US humiliation of Abu Ghraib.

There were no elections in Iraq. So dont ask me. Bark all you want about it.

People in Wichita, Kansas have signed on to illegally invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with you. Oppress and debilitate a people that can no longer even see their kids go to school.

They died? Sorry, but not for Iraqis, they died for a US foreign policy run amuck and criticized openly by former administrations on a daily basis.

Iraqis leave the house in the morning not knowing if they will ever see their loved ones again.

This is not the price to be paid for anything. But it is what the people in Wichita died for they died so Iraq can be a failed state.

Thank you.

Bottom line. Iraq is not an extension of Wichita. People of Wichita are welcome in Iraq if they come in good faith and as guests. We will welcome them with open arms, we will throw them grand feasts and we will talk about each others’ lives.

But if they walk in carrying guns, they will be fought with guns.

If they walk in to oppress, they will be suppressed.

Yes, I blame the US policies for what has happened in Iraq.

Almost every Iraqi I know blames the US for what has happened in Iraq.

You only think of Saddam. You only talk of Saddam. You only bring up Saddam when it is convenient. That is all you can do. That is your only government.

“Heck boy, Saddam killed ya off, sees, so we git to do the same. Semper fi and land of the brave and you have democracy now!”

But who do you think favored Saddam when he fought Iran for you?

Who do you think favored Saddam when he hunted down, murdered and hung communists from the lampposts in Iraqi cities?

Who gave Saddam loan guarantees in the 1980s and trade incentives?

Live in your own hole filled with lies. At the end, Iraqi is for Iraqis. And like the body fights a virus to dispel it, the foreign occupier will be ejected.

Or both body and virus will die together.

And don’t send me rosy emails as if you are genuinely interested in debate and discussion.

You have no inkling of how to debate.

US foreign policy is not built around debate and discussion.

Iran has repeatedly called on one-to-one talks with the US only to be rebuffed. Watch the US administration rebuff Ahmadinejad.

The US media has labelled him a devil and so now the premise is “How can America deal with the devil?”.

In the 1990s, Iraqi officials called on the US repeatedly for one-on-one talks to be rebuffed every single time.

And then US leaders stand up and say they gave diplomacy every change they did. Lies.

North Korea has asked for one-on-one talks with the US but the US has refused.

Why? Ask yourself why. Go back and study the past 50 years of US foreign policy.

Sorry, but Iraqis are being raped and murdered far, far more than before.

And now foreign intelligence units are involved. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel. The list is endless.

But then again, I don’t expect more from you.

This is how it works. An invading army destroys a house and then asks the occupants to rebuild it. But it shoots and kills the workers.

It also allows people from a neighboring house to steal your materiel.

You have no home, you are exposed to thugs and gangs.

But still the invader blames you for letting your house “fall”. Blames you for not protecting your materiel. Blames you for not standing up to the thugs.

So you pick up a gun to fight the thugs, but the thugs have convinced the invader you are a terrorist and bang, you’re taken out like in a video game.

The thugs also convinced the invader that your children are terrorists, so, bang, bang, bang the invader takes out your kids as well.

I think it is the epitome of arrogance to ask me and other Iraqis what we will do.

The onus is on you, not us. You want us to build a just society? Get out then. And stop supporting dictatorships.

If you are so high and mighty about Liberty, I would like to call on the US military to invade the following countries:

Saudi Arabia which tortures maims and beheads its citizens on a nearly daily basis. The most basic of freedoms are denied its citizens. Women in Saudi Arabia are tossed about as political fodder and must be clad in Darth Vader outfits to hide their faces and skin. They cannot even drive.

No, instead you invaded Iraq where Iraqi women were the most liberated in the entire Arab World.

Invade Bahrain where a Sunni minority kingship has ravaged the Shia majority for 32 years.

32 years! You are so big on protecting the Shia, right? So go ahead. Send the boys and girls of Wichita to protect the Shia who have endured horrific human rights abuses.

Yallah 3ad! Do it! Protect liberty wherever it is stifled.

I call also on the invasion of Tunisia for similar reasons. And an invasion of Jordan, because the secret police there is one of the most merciless in the world.

What of Egypt? Egypt just gave you the finger, why not invade it? It has rolled back 20 years of democratic development (lack thereof) and practically made Gamal Mubarak the Son-God or Sun-God.

No, no my fellow Arabs. I do not rightly call on the invasion of any countries because I am tired of seeing mothers weep. But I am trying to show the hypocrisy of those who come to the Iraqi blogs pretending they understand the Middle East, Islam, rah, rah, rah.

Their veil of fighting in foreign lands for liberty is an illusion.

Why no invasion of Saudi Arabia? The house of Saud il mal3oun have been the US strategic allies for 70 years and the oil just keeps flowing.

Bahrain has opened its arms as base of the US navy. If true democracy were applied in Bahrain, the Shia would come to power and ask you to leave.

So, nope, no liberty for Bahrain, status quo fits us fine.

Egypt and Jordan? Why heck, dontcha know they have ties with Israel? If true democracy developed in both nations, the people would vote to cut of relations with Israel until at the very least the Occupation of Palestinian land is resolved.

So, why was Iraq the only country to be invaded? Is it the only country with a dictator? Is it the only country lacking democracy in the Middle East?

Why is it when Iraqi officials in the current government recently rebuffed Israel, the US government cried foul?

Ah ….

We did not invade and litter your home or destroy your heritage (see damage in Babylon and elswhere).

You invaded ours. You want an answer to your questions, get out and let us rebuild.

As my brother Baghdad Treasure said. Get out. Go home.

The virus will be ejected.

Reproduced here in it’s entirety by gracious permission of “Truth About Iraqis”

markfromireland