[article]Iraq: More Torture Alledged...

mike65

This time British troops unidentified who were apparently "shopped" by other troops...interesting how the two stories have arrived within 24 hours of each other. I wonder did the US story prompt the UK one...or would it have been revealed anyway in due course?

From The Scotsman -

Pics Of 'Appalling' UK Soldiers Torturing Iraqi Detainees Surface
May 01, 2004
Source: The Scotsman

Shocking photographs apparently showing British troops torturing an Iraqi detainee were published tonight.

The Ministry of Defence launched an immediate investigation into the alleged incident which was condemned as “shameful” by the Army’s most senior officer and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

The pictures, printed in the Daily Mirror, show soldiers apparently beating the man – a suspected thief – with rifle butts and urinating on him.

He was allegedly threatened with execution during an eight-hour ordeal, which left him bleeding and vomiting, with a broken jaw and smashed teeth.

Tonight’s revelation comes hot on the heels of the publication of photos of hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners being taunted and abused by US troops.

Those photographs led to a wave of revulsion across the world and were strongly condemned by President George Bush and Mr Blair.

Tonight, Chief of General Staff General Sir Michael Jackson said: “I am aware of the allegations which have been made today of the abuse of prisoners by British soldiers in Iraq.

“If proven, not only is such appalling conduct clearly unlawful, but it also contravenes the British Army’s high standards.

“All allegations are already under investigation. If proven, the perpetrators are not fit to wear the Queen’s uniform. They have besmirched the good name of the Army and its honour.

“Most emphatically, the British Army should not be judged by the reprehensible ill-discipline of a few soldiers who, by their shameful behaviour, have let down those tens of thousands of British soldiers who have worked, and still do, in difficult and dangerous conditions in the most commendable way, in particular in Iraq, where their sole purpose is to help the Iraqis to a new and better future.”

The Mirror said it was given the pictures by serving soldiers from the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, who were horrified at the act depicted and concerned that “rogue elements” in the Army were undermining attempts to win the hearts and minds of local people in British-administered southern Iraq.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the soldiers told the paper that the unnamed captive, against whom no charges were brought, was driven away and dumped from the back of a moving vehicle following his ordeal. It was not known whether he survived.

The soldiers said they were making the photos public to show why the US-UK coalition was encountering such fierce resistance in Iraq.

One told the paper: “We are not helping ourselves out there. We are never going to get them on our side. We are fighting a losing war.”

Tonight’s revelations are certain to cause uproar in Iraq, amid growing anger of the behaviour of some members of the occupying US/UK coalition forces.

In a hastily arranged press conference, Gen Jackson tonight insisted that the vast majority of British troops in Iraq had behaved impeccably.

He left no doubt that any servicemen shown to have abused prisoners would face the most severe discipline.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “The Prime Minister fully endorses both the statement by General Sir Michael Jackson and the action he is taking, as well as the speed with which the Army is acting.

“The Prime Minister agreed that allegations of this nature are treated most seriously, but they should not be taken as a reflection of the general behaviour of coalition forces and the work they are doing with the Iraqi people.

“As the Chief of General Staff underlined, we expect the highest standards of conduct from our forces in Iraq despite the difficulties they face.”

Michael Ancram, shadow foreign secretary, said: “These allegations are most serious.

“If the alleged conduct is true, it is wholly unacceptable and damaging. Government must conduct a swift, full and in depth inquiry into the truth and take appropriate action.”

Mike.

Memnoch

no this is an isolated incident... this kind of thing never happens...

International criminal court, there should be a full UN investigation independent of all this to see who is responsible and how far up the chain of command this goes.

halkar

I see that there will be many more holiday photos of US and British soldiers be coming out on the media until media decides that it is old story or Beckham have an afair.

Originally posted by Memnoch
no this is an isolated incident... this kind of thing never happens...

International criminal court, there should be a full UN investigation independent of all this to see who is responsible and how far up the chain of command this goes.

Two points here:
Does the coalition condone and encourage this kind of behaviour?
And what action do they take when this behaviour comes to light?
The answer to the first one is an emphatic NO.
And to the second is an investigation, probable courtmartial for those involved who are caught and the prison concerned comes under a strong spotlight.
Now compare and contrast that with Saddams era.

Did he condone and encourage this type of thing? and did he do anything about it?
The answer to the first is yes and to the second is a most emphatic no.
Thats the difference between a democracy and a ruthless dictatorship.

You would really want a rigourous psychological test done on all those that join an army and even that wouldn't rule out certain scum getting through.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
Does the coalition condone and encourage this kind of behaviour?

yes i believe they do. According to the statements of the soldier who is being charged he was never briefed and when he asked his superioirs he was again not told to stop his actions. It is the coalition's responsibility to make sure that every single soldier employed knows about the basic human treatment of POWs. Which this soldier clearly wasn't told anything about. The fact that so many of the guards at the prison were committing these atrocities goes a long way towards showing the indifference of their superiors with regards the Geneva Convention. Hell this isn't the first time this has happened... or MAYBE

you have CONVIENIENTLY forgotten ALL ABOUT the invident with regards General Tommy Franks? Where they tried to bring a war crimes case against him in belgium but this was stopped by strong arm tactics by the US ? No this is not an isolated incident, take the blanket of your head.

And what action do they take when this behaviour comes to light?

you mean what action did they take when this behaviour has become widely reported in the international community?

And to the second is an investigation, probable courtmartial for those involved who are caught and the prison concerned comes under a strong spotlight.

Including a letter of "reprimand" for the commander responsible? again I've yet to hear a GOOD reason why these war crimes shouldn't be tried in the International Crimina Court ? Stop making baseless arguements. What the hell did you expect them to do AFTER this has been reported throughout the international media? THey had to be SEEN to be taking "some" action in order to preserve their "good guy" image... and they did just that. You're naievete is astounding here.

Now compare and contrast that with Saddams era.

why? what has saddam got to do with this? If you have to stoop so low that you start comparing their actions with Saddam's to try and justify or defend them, it shows you how weak your arguements are.

Did he condone and encourage this type of thing? and did he do anything about it?

the only difference between the Saddam and the coalition, was that he was honest about what he did, and didn't hide it. The coalition only pretend to not do it and not condone it, whereas the obvious reality is that they DO condone AND encourage it.

Thats the difference between a democracy and a ruthless dictatorship.

last I checked Dubya didn't win an election. And you're trying to tell me that Iraq is being run democratically right now? Last I checked the US was occupying the country by use of force in contravention of international and humanitarian law and against the wishes of the local populace.

You would really want a rigourous psychological test done on all those that join an army and even that wouldn't rule out certain scum getting through.

you're attempts to pass this off as "isolated" scum is laughable. This type of incident has been WIDELY reported in iraq many times for some time now. But the US army is only acting now that the western media has undoubtable proof.

If you honestly for a single second believe, that they didn't know this kind of thing was going on, then you need to REALLY take the blanket off your head and come out of the cave you've been living in.

vorbis

again I've yet to hear a GOOD reason why these war crimes shouldn't be tried in the International Crimina Court ?

I'd imagine they'd only end up there if the Americans chose not to deal with it. I've certainly never heard of cases where individual soldiers after receivng proper punishment from their army are then sent on to the ICC.

why? what has saddam got to do with this? If you have to stoop so low that you start comparing their actions with Saddam's to try and justify or defend them, it shows you how weak your arguements are.

People were comparing this to the atrocities under Sadamm. Its perfectly relevant to point out the flaws in that argument. As for this type of incident being widespread, reputable links please.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
I'd imagine they'd only end up there if the Americans chose not to deal with it. I've certainly never heard of cases where individual soldiers after receivng proper punishment from their army are then sent on to the ICC.

which is why Generl Tommy franks has been punished by the Americans? The american's are the ones committing war crimes, so they can't "deal with it". Their idea of proper punishment is "a letter of reprimand" for the commander in charge.

People were comparing this to the atrocities under Sadamm. Its perfectly relevant to point out the flaws in that argument. As for this type of incident being widespread, reputable links please.

and i pointed out that there is no difference. Saddam was open about it, the coalition aren't

define reputable?

is testimony from Iraqi's who are enduring this reputable enough?

i've read several reports in newspapers eg the independant about testimony from iraqi's about how they have been mistreated since the war began, now you want me to go back and sift through a years worth of articles to educate you?

mike65

Originally posted by Memnoch
yes i believe they do. According to the statements of the soldier who is being charged he was never briefed and when he asked his superioirs he was again not told to stop his actions. It is the coalition's responsibility to make sure that every single soldier employed knows about the basic human treatment of POWs.

*cough* :ninja: Like you or I or anyone would need briefing about common decency....

Mike.

Memnoch

Originally posted by mike65
*cough* :ninja: Like you or I or anyone would need briefing about common decency....

Mike.

it would seem that the coalition's troops do from these incidents wouldn't it?

Memnoch

Vorbis ... this post is for you.. but I can only educate you so much...

Torture not isolated -- independent investigations vital , Amnesty International, 30 April 2004
Amnesty International has received frequent reports of torture or other ill-treatment by Coalition Forces during the past year. Detainees have reported being routinely subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during arrest and detention. Many have told Amnesty International that they were tortured and ill-treated by US and UK troops during interrogation. Methods often reported include prolonged sleep deprivation; beatings; prolonged restraint in painful positions, sometimes combined with exposure to loud music; prolonged hooding; and exposure to bright lights. Virtually none of the allegations of torture or ill-treatment has been adequately investigated by the authorities.

Amnesty International is calling for investigations into alleged abuses by Coalition Forces to be conducted by a body that is competent, impartial and independent, and seen to be so, and that any findings of such investigations be made public. In addition reparation, including compensation, must be paid to the victims or to their families.

so is Amnesty International a reliable source?

A lawyer in Belgium is this week filing a war crimes lawsuit against General Tommy Franks, the commander of U.S.-led forces in Iraq. He's acting on behalf of 19 mainly Iraqi civilians who say coalition forces are responsible for a string of incidents that injured them -- or maimed or killed their loved ones. The lawyer says he wants to shed light on some of the murkier events of the Iraq war. But critics say the lawsuit is politically motivated.

Prague, 12 May 2003 (RFE/RL) -- A war crimes suit is being filed in Brussels on behalf of a group of civilians harmed during the Iraq war.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/05/iraq-030512-rfel-152234.htm

what happened? The US brought political might to bear and prevented the trial from happening, typical strong arm US tactics to evade teh law.

On September 18, U.S. army troops opened fire on an Associated Press (AP) reporter and photographer in the town of Khaldiya, 50 miles west of Baghdad. No one was injured, but the photographer's car was badly damaged.
On August 17, U.S. forces shot and killed a Reuters television cameraman, Mazen Dana, outside the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. According to the military, they mistook his camera for a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). U.S. military authorities told Human Rights Watch on September 23 that they investigated that incident and concluded that the soldiers had acted within the rules of engagement.

forget about normal iraqi's, the US army is happy to target arab journalists as well.

Please tell me how many FOX or CNN correspondents have been accidentally killed by the US forces?

The British army has issued a public apology for brutally beating Iraqi civilians in the town of Majar al Kabir, 120 miles north of Basra.

According to the Daily Mirror newspaper, on August 23 soldiers from the 22nd Special Air Service (SAS) clubbed and kicked 11 Iraqis they falsely believed to have been involved in the killing of six British military police officers in the town on June 25.

Basim Hasan, also a butcher, received a black eye and cuts to his face. He told the Mirror’s reporter Tom Newton Dunn: “When I was lying down one of the soldiers stamped on my head. My face hit the ground so hard I lost consciousness.”

By ROBERT FISK
The Independent

I wouldn't worry about this nonsense so much if it wasn't mirrored on the ground in Iraq. Take the US claim--now regarded as an absurdity--that they killed "54 insurgents" in Samara a month ago. The truth is that they killed at least eight civilians and there's not a smidgen of evidence that they killed anyone else. But still they insist on sticking to the story of their great victory.

Last week, they pushed out a similar version of the same story. This time there were 11 dead "insurgents" in Samara. But when The Independent investigated, it could only find records of four dead civilians and a lot of wounded. None of the wounded--presumably "insurgents" if the Americans believe their own story--had been visited in hospital by US forces who might, if they didn't question them, at least have apologised.

So let's get this right. Insurgents are civilians. Truck bombs and tanks that crush civilians are traffic accidents. And the "liberated" civilians who live in villages surrounded by razor wire should endure "a heavy dose of fear and violence" to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Memnoch

from Amnesty International...

reports of illegal arrests and killings

On 12 December, 65-year-old Amal Salim Madi, whose three sons were arrested in October, joined a demonstration in Baghdad demanding rights for prisoners. She said, "The Americans said they were taking [my sons] off for an hour of questioning. We have not seen them since."

The massive Abu Ghraib prison on the southwest edge of Baghdad was the most feared detention centre under the former Iraqi government. Today the building officially goes by the name of Baghdad Correctional Facility, but little else has changed. Relatives of those held inside still wait outside for news of their loved ones, and lawyers are still turned away. One father was told to come back in four months when he tried to visit his son in November. "My son has already been in there for four months and he has been charged with nothing", he told a member of International Occupation Watch Center.

and this is why comparisons with Saddam's rule are made.

Qays Mohammad Abd al-Karim al-Salman, a businessman with Danish citizenship, returned to Iraq 10 days before his arrest by the US army on 6 May. He alleged he was forced to lie down on the road, then taken to the Holding Centre at Baghdad Airport where he was held for 33 days on suspicion of murder before being released without charge. He was denied contact with the outside world and ill-treated.

Zakariya Zakher Sa'ad, aged 55, an Egyptian nightwatchman for the Russian Consul in Baghdad, was arrested by US soldiers investigating an attempted theft at the Consulate. Neighbours tried to tell the soldiers that he was the guard, not the thief, but the soldiers would not listen. The soldiers threw Zakariya Zakher Sa'ad to the ground, tied him and took him away. Until July 2003 he had been held at Camp Cropper, although his family had not been able to see him to confirm his whereabouts. Amnesty International does not have any information as to whether he is still detained or not.

Humam 'Abd al-Khaleq 'Abd al-Ghaffur, a nuclear physicist, was arrested in his home in Baghdad on 20 April 2003. His whereabouts remain unknown.

Sa'doun Hamadi, the former parliament speaker, was arrested on 29 May 2003 and detained without charge or trial for nearly nine months before his release on 14 February. He was held in three different places, Camp Cropper at Baghdad International Airport, Um Qasr and then Abu Ghraib Prison. On his release US authorities stated that there was no security justification for his detention.

AI has written to the CPA asking for clarification on the reasons for the continued detention and legal status of a number of people, including scientists, former diplomats and civil servants. It has yet to receive a response.

so no response over why the coalition forces are holding innocent people captive for so long..... are these people all "terrorists" like in guantanemo bay?

Memnoch

Reports of Torture.

Abdallah Khudhran al-Shamran, a Saudi Arabian national, was arrested in al-Rutba in early April 2003 by US and allied Iraqi forces while travelling from Syria to Baghdad. On reaching an unknown site, he said he was beaten, given electric shocks, suspended by his legs, had his penis tied and was subjected to sleep deprivation. He was held there for four days before being transferred to a camp hospital in Um Qasr. He was then interrogated and released without money or passport. He approached a British soldier, whereupon he was taken to another place of detention, then transferred to a military field hospital and again interrogated and tortured. This time torture methods reportedly included prolonged exposure in the sun, being locked in a container, and being threatened with execution.

Former detainees have said they were forced to lie face down on the ground, were held handcuffed, hooded or blindfolded, and were not given water or food or allowed to go to the toilet.

In Basra, at least four people have died in British custody. In one case, the cause of death was torture. Several people interviewed by AI described being tortured by British soldiers during interrogation.

Eight Iraqis arrested on 14 September by British soldiers from the British military base Camp Steven in Basra were reportedly tortured. The men all worked for a hotel in Basra where weapons were reported to have been found. Baha' al-Maliki, the hotel's receptionist, died in custody three days later; his body was reportedly severely bruised and covered in blood. Kefah Taha was admitted to hospital in critical condition, suffering renal failure and severe bruising

In February 2004, during a hearing into the death in June 2003 of Najem Sa'doun Hattab at Camp Whitehorse detention centre near Nassiriya, a former US marine testified that it was common practice to kick and punch prisoners who did not cooperate - and even some who did. The marine had been granted immunity from prosecution for his testimony. Najem Sa'doun Hattab, a former Ba'ath Party official, died after he was beaten and choked by a US marine reservist.(10)

COMMENT practise? can you read that VORBIS ??? no its not, these are all just "isolated incidents" right?


Destroying civilian homes as retribution....

On 10 November 2003, US soldiers arrived at the farmhouse of the Najim family near the town of al-Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad. They ordered everyone who lived there to leave within 30 minutes. Soon afterwards, two F-16 warplanes bombed and destroyed the farmhouse.

The demolition was apparently in retaliation for an attack on a US convoy a few days earlier. Soon after the attack, US soldiers had arrested six men outside the Najim house reportedly after weapons were found there. The destruction of the Najim home was just one of several similar retaliatory house demolitions that have been reported. Such acts - reprisals against people or their property, and collective punishments -- are clearly prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

vorbis

you'll notice Memnoch that Amnesty has called for an investigation into ALLEGED instances. Some of those instances are probably true but a lot could just as easily be made up. What has that trial in Belgium got to do with widespread torture. Some of those incidences have to do with targetting mistakes. i.e. the market in Baghad. Most people would agree that such incidences are not torture.

On September 18, U.S. army troops opened fire on an Associated Press (AP) reporter and photographer in the town of Khaldiya, 50 miles west of Baghdad. No one was injured, but the photographer's car was badly damaged.

I'd imagine that since no one was injured, it meant that the troops stopped shooting when they realised what they were shooting at. I find it highly unlikely that no one was injured if the soldiers were intent on taking out the car.

On August 17, U.S. forces shot and killed a Reuters television cameraman, Mazen Dana, outside the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. According to the military, they mistook his camera for a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). U.S. military authorities told Human Rights Watch on September 23 that they investigated that incident and concluded that the soldiers had acted within the rules of engagement.

wrong place, wrong time?
If the Americans on duty did not know he was there, then what would a guy appearing out of nowhere with a large object on his shoulder look like?

Eight Iraqis arrested on 14 September by British soldiers from the British military base Camp Steven in Basra were reportedly tortured. The men all worked for a hotel in Basra where weapons were reported to have been found. Baha' al-Maliki, the hotel's receptionist, died in custody three days later; his body was reportedly severely bruised and covered in blood. Kefah Taha was admitted to hospital in critical condition, suffering renal failure and severe bruising

If its accurate, then thats would be an incidence of torture.

Qays Mohammad Abd al-Karim al-Salman, a businessman with Danish citizenship, returned to Iraq 10 days before his arrest by the US army on 6 May. He alleged he was forced to lie down on the road, then taken to the Holding Centre at Baghdad Airport where he was held for 33 days on suspicion of murder before being released without charge. He was denied contact with the outside world and ill-treated.

Incidences like the above are wrong but are a long way from torture imo. I don't know if you hadn't noticed but Iraq's justice systems are hardly working at full speed atm.

I think though Memnoch that actual cases of torture are few as every second link in those two post have little to do with torture.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
you'll notice Memnoch that Amnesty has called for an investigation into ALLEGED instances. Some of those instances are probably true but a lot could just as easily be made up. What has that trial in Belgium got to do with widespread torture. Some of those incidences have to do with targetting mistakes. i.e. the market in Baghad. Most people would agree that such incidences are not torture.

its convenient that you ignore the fact that Amnesty has clearly stated that the authorities have FAILED to investigate these instances. When you don't investigate something it remains "alleged" doesn't it.

I'd imagine that since no one was injured, it meant that the troops stopped shooting when they realised what they were shooting at. I find it highly unlikely that no one was injured if the soldiers were intent on taking out the car.

please stop imagining... they fired at the car, it was LUCKY that they didn't hit him... again answer my question, HOW MANY FOX or CNN journalists have been accidentally attacked?

wrong place, wrong time?
If the Americans on duty did not know he was there, then what would a guy appearing out of nowhere with a large object on his shoulder look like?

are you SERIOUSLY telling me that they can't distinguish between a camera and a RPG? Have you SEEN what an RPG looks like? Again how come this only happens to arabs? why have no American journalists been shot because their cameras looked lik RPGs?

If its accurate, then thats would be an incidence of torture.

it is accurate as are all these other reports.... what else can the people who were abused do accept report it? Only until someone somehow manages to take pictures and provide them to the western media does the coalition admit whats happened, otherwise it won't even bother investigating these incidents.

You want to know what is isolated?

The only thing ISOLATED about the current incident is that somehow proof has managed to make its way to western media sources...

what about the US soldier that testified how it was commen practise to beat up prisoners who didn't cooperate and sometimes even beat up those who did...

I've educated you a lot today, you should try and educate yourself a bit more...

Memnoch

I think though Memnoch that actual cases of torture are few as every second link in those two post have little to do with torture.

but they have everything to do with the ILLEGAL abuse of power by US forces. which shows that these incidents are indeed a lot more widespread than you claim...

how many people who have dissapeared and never been heard from again? how will we know? what happened to them?

how many people still held illegally in prison by coalition forces, without being charged? how many of these people are being tortured? How can we know when they are denied access to lawyers?

Can you justify these people being denied access to lawyers?

Memnoch

lastly vorbis those incidents i have shown you are specific examples.. do you honestly want amnesty to list every single incident reported to them as part of a single article?

no they simply picked out incidents that highlighted certain points and i've picked out those incidents to you....

"Our extensive research in Iraq suggests that this is not an isolated incident. It is not enough for the USA to react only once images have hit the television screens".

so EITHER Amensty International are LYING, or this is NOT an isolated incident.

Amnesty International has received frequent reports of torture or other ill-treatment by Coalition Forces during the past year.

note the words FREQUENT REPORTS

detainees have reported being routinely subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during arrest and the first 24 hours of detention.

note the word ROUTINELY

Many detainees have alleged they were tortured and ill-treated by US and UK troops during interrogation. Methods often reported include prolonged sleep deprivation; beatings; prolonged restraint in painful positions, sometimes combined with exposure to loud music; prolonged hooding; and exposure to bright lights. Virtually none of the allegations of torture or ill-treatment has been adequately investigated.

so they complain that they have been ill-treated or tortured, and the coalition refuses to investigate...

In February 2004, during a hearing into the death in June 2003 of Najem Sa'doun Hattab at Camp Whitehorse detention centre near Nassiriya, a former US marine testified that it was common practice to kick and punch prisoners who did not cooperate - and even some who did. The marine had been granted immunity from prosecution for his testimony.

Such reports of torture or other ill-treatment by Coalition Forces have been frequent in the past year.

so which is it then Vorbis? Are amnesty International now lying? Or has this been a Frequent occurance in the last year?

mike65

Latest wrinkle in the story -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3677311.stm

An investigation is under way into claims that British troops humiliated and assaulted an Iraqi prisoner before throwing him from a moving lorry.

The claims were made in the Daily Mirror which carried photos allegedly taken during the man's ordeal.

Sources close to the regiment said to be involved have told the BBC they are not convinced the pictures are genuine.

Tony Blair says that if they are authentic it is "completely and totally unacceptable".

However the BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams says sources close to The Queen's Lancashire Regiment believe many aspects of the photographs are extremely suspicious.

He says they believe the pictures may not have been taken in Iraq.

They believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq.

They say soldiers in Iraq wore berets or hard hats - and not floppy hats as in the photos.

They also believe the wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq.

Mr Blair said if there had been any abuse it was "exceptional", and should not detract from the good work being done by UK armed forces in Iraq.

However he stressed if the photos were genuine it was totally unacceptable.

"We went to Iraq to get rid of that sort of thing, not to do it," he added.

Mike.

Nick_oliveri

An Iraqi climbs up a flagpole, rips down an american flag and deficates on it
(i'll allow it!) and eventually gets caught. They take him to a shack with his arms
tied and a hood over his head.

Question- If you were that Iraqi, would you expect something wierd like someone pissing on you or you being made sodomise other captives for the entertainment of
"coalition forces" while you are in that said shack. Well i would. No one governs the gardai or any other force while they are questioning a suspect. They way these sick individuals see it is that they can get away with it, and it amuses, then why not do it? Its been going on a while indeed. Sick, sick bastards.

Originally posted by mike65
Latest wrinkle in the story -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3677311.stm

Mike.

Actually the plot thickens...

Sources close to the army have questioned the authenticity of photographs appearing to show British soldiers torturing an Iraqi prisoner...
The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams says sources close to The Queen's Lancashire Regiment believe many aspects of the photographs are suspicious.
He says they believe the pictures may not have even been taken in Iraq.
They believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq.
They say soldiers in Iraq wore berets or hard hats - and not floppy hats as in the photos.
Colonel Bob Stewart, who commanded British forces in the Balkans, told BBC News Online he could not be sure whether the photos were genuine or not.
As well as questions over the rifle, vehicle and hat, he also pointed out that there were discrepancies over clothing and the condition of the captive.
"The shirt looks like a football shirt. Is that the sort of shirt that a captive might be wearing, slightly silky with an Iraqi flag?
"Why is it not dirty and dishevelled, why is the man not showing some signs of damage after eight hours of beatings?

.

Colonel Stewart was on BBC news 24 this morning being interviewd going through these questions with the pictures on view.
The shirt from what I could see looked just pressed to be honest and sparkling.

mike65

Originally posted by Earthman
Actually the plot thickens...

Colonel Stewart was on BBC news 24 this morning being interviewd going through these questions with the pictures on view.
The shirt from what I could see looked just pressed to be honest and sparkling.

So no wrinkle in the shirt then

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by Memnoch
According to the statements of the soldier who is being charged he was never briefed and when he asked his superioirs he was again not told to stop his actions.

You may have heard a different interview to the one I did (or even an interview with a different chap). What I heard was the guy charged saying that he repeatedly asked for a rule book or code of conduct and wasn't given one. Hardly justification for these actions, if true. Certainly not the same thing as phoning superiors and saying "I'm just going to piss in this geezer's mouth, say 'yes' if you want me to stop". Any idiot should be able to tell that urinating in someone's mouth doesn't fall under permissable behaviour under any convention. No get out of jail free card for him.

Memnoch

i'm not defending this guy, obviously he is scum...
but if he did ask his superiors, then obviously they were made aware of the issue why didn't they stop it?

more importantly why wasn't he told about the geneva convention which its the military's duty to train all their troops in?

Some people might say that its not "practical" to train every soldier in that.. which is bull****..

do they train every soldier in taking orders , chain of commands etc?

do they train every soldier in how to use a gun and other weapons?

so if they can train in all these different fields, whats so hard about telling them about basic human right laws?

sceptre

Originally posted by Memnoch
i'm not defending this guy, obviously he is scum...
but if he did ask his superiors, then obviously they were made aware of the issue why didn't they stop it?

Depends what he asked for. If all he asked for is what I heard him say he asked for then he told his superiors nothing.

GeorgeBush

Those photos depicting British allied soldiers urinating on Iraqi insurgents were fabricated by forces hostile to democracy in Iraq. It has already been shown that there are in accuracies with the weapons and unifrom worn.

Victor

And Iraqis would get SA80 rifles where?

Originally posted by Memnoch
Some people might say that its not "practical" to train every soldier in that.. which is bull****..

Actually, every American (and no doubt British) soldier *is* given a course on the GC.

Part of hte problem with the Americans at the moment is they are taking large numbers of soldiers form cavalry and artillery formations and remoulding them as infantry and military police units.

BarryFry

Unmodified MkI SA80 rifles (the ones that jam in combat) are available, as the MOD have been trying to fob them off on impoverished African states.

These photos are obviously fakes, for one simple reason - the "soldiers" who are "urinating" on the "Iraqi prisoner" are too scared to show their dicks. If you are sufficiently crude and brutal to allow yourself to be photographed p*ssing on someone, you are not going to get all shy about the tool you are using to inflict the humiliation are you? Go to a p*ssing porn site - they don't hide the c*cks there.

But if the dick was on display, the photo would be that little bit less publishable wouldn't it? Making it that little bit less lucrative.

And of course, the Daily Mirror are refusing to say how much they paid for these little gems.......

shotamoose

Originally posted by BarryFry
These photos are obviously fakes, for one simple reason - the "soldiers" who are "urinating" on the "Iraqi prisoner" are too scared to show their dicks.

I think there's better reasons they might be fakes. Personally I think the photos just look too clear and well-shot, and the 'prisoners' look too clean, like it's all being staged. Can't say for sure though.