We just lost the war in Iraq w/ a picture

May 2, 2004
General Suggests Abuses at Iraq Jail Were Encouraged
By PHILIP SHENON

ASHINGTON, May 1 — An Army Reserve general whose soldiers were photographed as they abused Iraqi prisoners said Saturday that she knew nothing about the abuse until weeks after it occurred and that she was "sickened" by the pictures. She said the prison cellblock where the abuse occurred was under the tight control of Army military intelligence officers who may have encouraged the abuse.

The suggestion by Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski that the reservists acted at the behest of military intelligence officers could be supported in a still-classified Army report on prison conditions in Iraq that documented many of the worst abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, including the sexual humiliation of prisoners.

New Yorker Magazine said in its new edition that the report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and C.I.A. agents to "set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses."

According to the magazine, the Army report offered accounts of gruesome abuse that included the sexual assault of an Iraqi detainee with a chemical light stick or broomstick.

In a phone interview from her home in South Carolina in which she offered her first public comments about the growing international furor over the abuse of the Iraq detainees, General Karpinski, who is still the commanding officer of the 800th Military Police Brigade, said the special high-security cellblock at Abu Ghraib had been under the direct control of Army intelligence officers, not the reservists under her command.

She said that while the reservists involved in the abuses were "bad people" who deserved punishment, she suspected that they were acting with the encouragement, if not at the direction, of military intelligence units that ran the special cellblock used for interrogation. She said that C.I.A. employees often joined in the interrogations at the prison, although she said she did not know if they had unrestricted access to the cellblock.

She said she was speaking out because she believed that military commanders were trying to shift the blame exclusively to her and other reservists and away from intelligence officers still at work in Iraq.

"We're disposable," she said of the military's attitude toward reservists. "Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame? They want to put this on the M.P.'s and hope that this thing goes away. Well, it's not going to go away."

The Army's public affairs office at the Pentagon referred calls about her comments to military commanders in Iraq.

General Karpinski said in the interview that the special cellblock, known as 1A, was one of about two dozen cellblocks in the large prison complex and was essentially off limits to soldiers who were not part of the interrogations, including virtually all of the military police under her command at Abu Ghraib.

She said repeatedly in the interview that she was not defending the actions of the reservists who took part in the brutality, who were part of her command. She said that when she was first presented with the photographs of the abuse in January, they "sickened me."

"I put my head down because I really thought I was going to throw up," she said. "It was awful. My immediate reaction was: these are bad people, because their faces revealed how much pleasure they felt at this."

But she said the context of the brutality had been lost, noting that the six Army reservists charged in the case represented were only a tiny fraction of the nearly 3,400 reservists under her command in Iraq, and that Abu Ghraib was one of 16 prisons and other incarceration centers around Iraq that she oversaw.

"The suggestion that this was done with my knowledge and continued with my knowledge is so far from the truth," she said of the abuse." I wasn't aware of any of this. I'm horrified by this."

She said she was also alarmed that little attention has been paid to the Army military intelligence unit that controlled Cellblock 1A, where her soldiers guarded the Iraqi detainees between interrogations.

She estimated that the floor space of the two-story cellblock was only about 60 feet by 20 feet, and that military intelligence officers were in and out of the cellblock "24 hours a day," often to escort prisoners to and from an interrogation center away from the prison cells.

"They were in there at 2 in the morning, they were there at 4 in the afternoon," said General Karpinski, who arrived in Iraq last June and was the only woman to hold a command in the war zone. "This was no 9-to-5 job."

She said that C.I.A. employees often participated in the interrogations at Abu Ghraib, one of Iraq's most notorious prisons during the rule of Saddam Hussein.

General Karpinski noted that one of the photographs of abused prisoners also showed the legs of 16 American soldiers — the photograph was cropped so that their upper bodies could not be seen — "and that tells you that clearly other people were participating, because I didn't have 16 people assigned to that cellblock."

The photographs of American soldiers smiling, laughing and signaling "thumbs up" as Iraqi detainees were forced into sexually humiliating positions provoked outrage just as the American military was trying to pacify a rising insurgency and gain the trust of more Iraqis before turning over sovereignty to a new government on June 30.

General Karpinski, who has returned home to South Carolina and her civilian life as a business consultant, said she visited Abu Ghraib as often as twice a week last fall and had repeatedly instructed military police officers under her command to treat prisoners humanely and in accord with international human rights agreements.

"I can speak some Arabic," said General Karpinski, a New Jersey native who spent almost a decade as an active duty soldier before joining the Army Reserve in 1987. "I'm not fluent, but when I went to any of my prison facilities, I would make it a point to try to talk to the detainees."

But she said she did not visit Cellblock 1A, in keeping with the wishes of military intelligence officers who, she said, worried that unnecessary visits might interfere with their interrogations of Iraqis.

She acknowledged that she "probably should have been more aggressive" about visiting the interrogation cellblock, especially after military intelligence officers at the prison went "to great lengths to try to exclude the I.C.R.C. from access to that interrogation wing."

She was referring to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has been given access over time to Iraqi detainees at the prison.

General Karpinski's lawyer, Neal A. Puckett, a former military trial judge, said he believed that she was being made a scapegoat for others in the military, especially for military intelligence officers who knew what was going on in Cellblock 1A.

He said General Karpinski had repeatedly insisted that troops under her command in Iraq receive instruction in proper treatment of detainees, but that despite her best efforts, some reservists joined in the abuse at Abu Ghraib. "All you can do is give training, give guidance and assume that your soliders are going to follow orders and are not going to become sick bastards," he said.

After the first allegations of abuse circulated earlier this year, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior American commander in Iraq, ordered sweeping inquiries into whether any commanders — including General Karpinski — should be held responsible. He also ordered a review of policies and procedures at all of the prisons controlled by occupation forces in Iraq.

The New York Times Company

 

For those wondering what's wrong with using mercenaries - we can't punish the mercenaries who actually told the soldiers to d some of the stuff that is getting the soldiers in trouble. There in a legal limbo since there is no government in Iraq and there is no law to charge them. Guess we could send them go Guantamano...

http://www.sundayherald.com/41693
.
.
.
But these soldiers aren’t simply mavericks. Some accused claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the control of mercenaries hired by the US to conduct interrogations. Two “civilian contract” organisations taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the Bush administration.



California-based Titan Corporation says it is “a leading provider of solutions and services for national security”. Between 2003-04, it gave nearly $40,000 to George W Bush’s Republican Party. Titan supplied translators to the military.

CACI International Inc. describes its aim as helping “America’s intelligence community in the war on terrorism”. Richard Armitage, the current deputy US secretary of state, sat on CACI’s board.
.
.
.

 

I think it matters. You all act as if this is the first indiscetion of this sort in the history of mankind.

Currently, these guys are killing US soldiers and real Iraqis alike and they are doing it with full intent. Oh, and don't forget the Spaniards who died as well.

What kind of protest did you offer when the charred bodies of the Americans were hung and desecrated from the bridge a few weeks ago? Actually those four dead got almost no sympathy from many of you here; they were called out as mercenaries instead.

I'm no saying it's okay to treat anybody like that, I'm just surprised (or should I say not surprised?) at the quick condemnation while the other side gets a pass.

... or was their a thread started by the name of "They just lost the war in Iraq w/ a picture" on the tail of the brutality upon the four contractors?

 

Well after thinking about this for a day or two, Giddyup ,rather than be further disturbed by this has decided it is no big deal.

He is using every psychologoical trick in the book to try to decrease his dissonance, so he doesn't thave to really accept that this happened, it was done by Amerian troops and it was a big deal that should be condemened.

Well you have to take into account who did it. They are killing our soldiers in a war. Some other Iraqis mutilated some corpses.

It isn't the first time in history.

The other side does evil things, too.

Those who condemn it do so without mentioning at the very same time that the other side did bad things.

There was no thread saying the other side "lost the war".

For the record he followed up with an empty I'm not saying it's okay to treat. anybody like that

Would someone explain to Giddyup, that President Bush condemned this, so he can still be a loyal Republican, not a hater of America while also condemening this?

Or perhaps he's heard Bush's statement and just takes Bush's statement as being not much more than his own pro forma "I'm not saying it is ok, but it isn't that bad".

 

i made ^ ^ here http://www.ryano.net/iraq/

I have seen a couple of this pics going around the net. Proof that some pics are fake.

 

I'm no saying it's okay to treat anybody like that, I'm just surprised (or should I say not surprised?) at the quick condemnation while the other side gets a pass.


That's because we already know the other side does immoral things - that's why we call them "evil-doers". The problem is when we start doing the same things as the people we (rightfully) condemn...

 

intermill, I was trying to do that exact thing the other day but it wouldn't save to the ryano database. Did you look at ryano.net's favorites?

 

While I am revolted and ashamed by these actions, I don't understand this aspect of world reaction. Everyone seems to assume this is worse because it happened to Arabs. Why? Wouldn't this be just as humiliating to a non-Arab? Don't Arab cultures have some homosexuality just like other cultures? Does this reflect some unconscious bias on the part of the media?

 

Damn liberal Arab media!

 

You're more upset with the reaction than with these abuses. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

These American soldiers did not live up to the very high standard that we expect (and usually get) from our military. They committed disgusting acts and sullied our national reputation with their childishness and hatred. But instead of blasting these scumbags, you blast those who criticize them. Whose ideals are you protecting here?

 

Originally posted by glynch

Well after thinking about this for a day or two, Giddyup ,rather than be further disturbed by this has decided it is no big deal.

<b>Why be "further" disturbed by it? Did I say it was no big deal? I said it has been done time and time again in wars around the world and across the centuries. My objection is to the politically motivated "horror" of this and the indication that this will cost us the war. The irony is that the other side had perpetrated some horrors just a couple of weeks ago and that didn't elicit the same kind of disgust that this did. Why is that?</b>

He is using every psychologoical trick in the book to try to decrease his dissonance, so he doesn't thave to really accept that this happened, it was done by Amerian troops and it was a big deal that should be condemened.

<b>Did I say it should not be condemned? My indication was that a parallel act by the insurgents was not condemned by those condemning this.

Every trick in the book... really? Do you think I haven't accepted that it happened? It is shameful but understandable. It has happened before and it will happen again. Are you all naive or is this just politically motivated horror?</b>

Well you have to take into account who did it. They are killing our soldiers in a war. Some other Iraqis mutilated some corpses.

<b>... they mutilated the corpses after they killed them-- get all the facts out there on the table. You conveniently skipped over a very essential fact there bud.</b>

It isn't the first time in history.

<b>True.</b>

The other side does evil things, too.

<b>They do even more.</b>

Those who condemn it do so without mentioning at the very same time that the other side did bad things.

<b>No. The companion criticisms are not what I'm concerned about. I don't think the same level of criticism was aimed at our enemies who did this to our citizens just a few weeks ago, yet you can't wait to get out the venom towards our troops now. Isn't that kind of odd?</b>

There was no thread saying the other side "lost the war".

<b>There wasn't or did I miss it? Why did this event deserve such a dramataic thread title and why are all the critics jumping in here without jumping on the other side for events of weeks and years ago?</b>

For the record he followed up with an empty I'm not saying it's okay to treat. anybody like that

<b>Empty? It was just a reminder. It's not my main point and I didn't want you to think that I approved of what was done.... hell, that's exactly what you did anyway!</b>

Would someone explain to Giddyup, that President Bush condemned this, so he can still be a loyal Republican, not a hater of America while also condemening this?

<b>Sarcasm rejected!</b>

Or perhaps he's heard Bush's statement and just takes Bush's statement as being not much more than his own pro forma "I'm not saying it is ok, but it isn't that bad".

<b>I'm glad you are not my spokesman....</b>

 

While US media leads with Bush disgusted by photos, the audience that matters for our troops chimes in:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/8567071.htm
Posted on Sat, May. 01, 2004





Photos of U.S. military abuse of prisoners enrage Iraqis

By Mohamad Bazzi

Newsday


BAGHDAD, Iraq - When he heard about the photos showing U.S. troops abusing Iraqi prisoners, Ghaleb Ribahi fumed. After he saw them with his own eyes, he understood why some Iraqis are fighting the U.S.-led occupation.
"These are the things that make Iraqis pick up a weapon and want to kill American soldiers," said Ribahi, 32, as he sipped sweet tea at a Baghdad coffeehouse Friday evening. "When I saw those pictures, I wanted to pick up a weapon, too."


.
.
.
"That picture showed exactly the type of torture that Saddam's thugs used," said Hassan Saeed, 27, who sat with five friends in a fish restaurant overlooking the Tigris River. "The Americans promised us that things would be different than they were under Saddam. They lied."
.
.
.
Despite the military's efforts to punish the soldiers involved, analysts say the pictures will be etched into Iraqis' memories for a long time.

"Those pictures reminded people of Saddam's abuses," said Ali Abdel-Ameer, editor of Baghdad, a daily newspaper published by a pro-U.S. Iraqi political party. "This is not something that Iraqis will be able to forget easily."

 

Now that I have viewed most of the photos, and now that I've read various accounts of reactions, domestically and abroad, I would have to say my earliest assessment was an understatement of the severity and impact of this situation.

Everyone involved in these abuses should be punished to the limit of the law.

 

Agreed. This is devastating to our Middle East policy (I'm assuming we have one) and makes our occupation and attempt to install a new government in Iraq much, much more difficult. It's a disaster there and in the rest of the world. If an enemy had planned a heavy propaganda blow against our interests, they couldn't have done a better job than this small group of soldiers, contractors and military intelligence people accomplished.

("intelligence" is a misnomer... what arrogance to allow this to occur. What were they thinking??)

 

Not that it excuses it... but <b>aren't</b> these Saddam's thugs not just average everyday Iraqi citizens?

Is the colloqualism "payback is hell" not prevalent in Iraq?

 

1) No. Read the report. Over 60% of the tortured victims were picked up at random from roadblocks or on the street, and are not suspected of 'terrorism'.

2) So I take it we're exporting democracy and freedom except for all the legal mumbo jumbo about presumtpion of innocence, habeas corpus, no torture, etc.

3) In any case, if you're not trying to excuse it, what point are you making, exactly? That it's partially excusable?

 

Krosfyah--

You should write headlines for Scotland's Sunday Herald...

http://www.sundayherald.com/print41693

 

1. If that's true, that is inexcusable. Is it true?

2. A different kind of legal system works within the parameters of war.

3. These kinds of things have happened across wars, across cultures, and across centuries. Yeah, I wish we could be better but maybe we can't be. At least Bush isn't doing it to NY and LA the way Saddam did it to the Kurds....