Civillian Contractors - The other side of the story

Memnoch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

apparently the Pentagon is hiring these mercenaries to conduct the "interrogation" so that they can deny that the "US army" is committing the human rights abuses on iraqi prisoners.. the soliders who are being prosecuted in the current scandal claim they were under orders from mercs hired by the pentagon.

The most revolting part in this story is the fact that, one of the guys is going to get away with his crimes because he is a "civillian" and the military has no "jurisdiction" on him...

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison.......

One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him.

Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, speaking for central command, told the Guardian: "One contractor was originally included with six soldiers, accused for his treatment of the prisoners, but we had no jurisdiction over him. It was left up to the contractor on how to deal with him."

She did not specify the accusation facing the contractor, but according to several sources with detailed knowledge of the case, he raped an Iraqi inmate in his mid-teens.

so this pedophile rapist is going to get away scot free as he is not a "part" of the military...

if ever there was a case for someone to be tried by the ICC i would say this is it?

and we wonder why the people of Fallujah attacked those 4 "civillian contracters" the way they did?

vorbis

have you heard of proving guilt?:rolleyes:
It weakens your arguments a bit that you instantly jump to such conclusions. The actual issue which is valid is that these contractors are not being held accountable to anything.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
have you heard of proving guilt?:rolleyes:
It weakens your arguments a bit that you instantly jump to such conclusions. The actual issue which is valid is that these contractors are not being held accountable to anything.

"but according to several sources with detailed knowledge of the case, he raped an Iraqi inmate in his mid-teens. "

I don't think we need to wait for a court case to conclude that this really happened any more DO WE?
Its one thing "proving guilt" its another thing when the obvious is there before your eyes to see, but then you've made a point of ignoring the obvious...
like how I noticed you failed to reply to my post when I pointed out Amnesty international's report, because the only way you could maintain your stance would be to call them liars... all your claims of "isolated incident" dissapeared fast and furiosly.....

On your second point for once I actually agree with you...

the mercenaries can do whatever they want, and their punishment is.... to be handed back to the company that pays them to torture people in Iraq....

what jursidiction do these companies have to try people as criminals... will anything even happen?

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by Memnoch
I don't think we need to wait for a court case to conclude that this really happened any more DO WE?

So now the word of an American who experienced something first had in Iraq is acceptable as a witness?

Memnoch

in this case the story is corroborated by more than just "an american".

but way to take things out of context....

if this guy were to be tried in a court it would seem that they would call soldiers who witnessed his acts as well as the victim (if they were still alive) as evidence.

the guardian notes "several sources"

therecklessone

Originally posted by Memnoch
"but according to several sources with detailed knowledge of the case, he raped an Iraqi inmate in his mid-teens. "

I don't think we need to wait for a court case to conclude that this really happened any more DO WE?

If that's your stance, then you are no better than the soldiers who are accused of this behaviour.

Repeat after me...innocent until proven guilty...

And if the US military claims it has no jurisdiction in this, surely the incoming Iraqi administration will be able to investigate it and try the man/woman if necessary...;)

Like that would be allowed to happen...

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
"but according to several sources with detailed knowledge of the case, he raped an Iraqi inmate in his mid-teens. "

I don't think we need to wait for a court case to conclude that this really happened any more DO WE?

I don't know......

Several sources with detailed knowledge of a different case stated that they believed that Saddam had WMDs. I don't recall seeing you queueing up to argue that this meant it was ok to invade without waiting for something as proof or an appropriate court reaching a legally binding conclusion.

Its one thing "proving guilt" its another thing when the obvious is there before your eyes to see,

And what is obvious which is before your eyes? Photographs, which may or may not be genuine???Testimony which may or may not be truthful???

in this case the story is corroborated by more than just "an american".

Yes, and the case to invade Iraq was based on the belief that Saddam had WMDs, which was a belief "corroborated" by more than just Americans as well. Many foreign nations also believed - both from their own sources, as well as from the US case - that Saddam did indeed have WMDs.

all your claims of "isolated incident" dissapeared fast and furiosly.....

So that makes this claim true?

Just as the fact that Saddam was unquestionable a tyrant and a brutal oppressor of his people meant that the allegations about WMDs also had to be true?????

Come on man....you're using the exact same logic that you would shred (and have shredded?) the US Administration for using...and yet we should accept it as reasonable???

the mercenaries can do whatever they want, and their punishment is.... to be handed back to the company that pays them to torture people in Iraq....

Well, see, thats the first thing about all of this that makes me highly suspicious of this particular piece of reporting.

I cannot see how it could be true for the US army to have no jurisdiction over these "civilian employees".

If that were true, the US would have no jurisdiction over any non-Iraqi, non-US-military personnel in Iraq. That would include all the international organisations, as well as the foreign incumbents fighting alongside the insurgents. It would include any non-US-miltary, non-Iraqi involved in criminal activity.

It would also mean that every single inmate of Guantanamo is classifiable - by the United States Army's own definition - as someone the United States Army does not even have jurisdiction over. So its not even that the US is holding them unjustly by international law....it is holding them in violation of its own law as well!!!!!


The army does have jurisdiction over these mercenaries....especially while Iraq remains in a state of war, which it does from the US perspective until the US declare an end to the war, which they have not done.

jc

vorbis

Memnoch, the Amnesty allegations are just that allegations. When Iraq eveuntually settles down, there'll probably be something approaching an investigation. Then we might see some verifiable proof. Atm as they say themselves, all they have are accounts from some people.

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
I don't know......

Several sources with detailed knowledge of a different case stated that they believed that Saddam had WMDs. I don't recall seeing you queueing up to argue that this meant it was ok to invade without waiting for something as proof or an appropriate court reaching a legally binding conclusion.

again as i pointed out before we need to take things in context... firstly.. these incidents at the Abu Garib have definately happened, no one is contesting what went on at these prisons least of all those who committed the crimes. We've seen interviews with one of them who pretty much admitted that the "us photo's" were authentic, that they did commit these crimes, but they did it under "orders" etc etc. The "trials" in the US military don't seem to be to decide weather or not this particular set of incidents happened or didn't happened but more to the extent of who was to blame. Which is why I say it is obvious. I mean you hear ppl Bush etc saying "if this happened" etc etc etc, but even the people accused don't seem to contesting that this happened. Their only arguement is that they were following "orders". Now with regards to the British side of thing there has been some conterversy raised over the photographs, and I personally would not put it past the daily mirror to have fabricated these. in fact the timing of these photographs being released so soon after the US one's is a bit suspecious. But maybe they had this info for a while and were waiting for the right moment? Because certainly such photos would cause conterversy.

And what is obvious which is before your eyes? Photographs, which may or may not be genuine???Testimony which may or may not be truthful???

again, no one seems to be contesting the authenticity of the American photos, unless you've read some article I haven't. And no one is contesting the fact that these "6 soldiers " atleast committed these crimes.

Yes, and the case to invade Iraq was based on the belief that Saddam had WMDs, which was a belief "corroborated" by more than just Americans as well. Many foreign nations also believed - both from their own sources, as well as from the US case - that Saddam did indeed have WMDs.

again I would say the idea of context is important isn't it? My statements about the obviousness of the situation are being taken out of context here. While your analogy is interesting it doesn't really apply to this case. Off course I think it is my fault for not pointing out why it was so "obvious" in this case. But i really wasn't in the mood of going into details of educating vorbis on such basic facts when they have already been established....

So that makes this claim true?

Just as the fact that Saddam was unquestionable a tyrant and a brutal oppressor of his people meant that the allegations about WMDs also had to be true?????

Come on man....you're using the exact same logic that you would shred (and have shredded?) the US Administration for using...and yet we should accept it as reasonable???

nope my logic in this case is that these people have pretty much owned up to their crimes already. The only grey area we have is the US contractor and from the Guardian's report it looks like we will never know what happens to him????

Well, see, thats the first thing about all of this that makes me highly suspicious of this particular piece of reporting.

why does it make you suspecious of the reporting? It makes me more suspecious of the US army's motives tbh.

I cannot see how it could be true for the US army to have no jurisdiction over these "civilian employees".

I agree, it doesn't make sense.... but lets think about it for a second. According to reports, these "civillian contracters" were hired by the US forces (who else would have hired them, certainly not the iraqi's). Now the US soldiers in the dock claim they were following orders from the civillian contracters.

So they try the civillian contracters and he contends that he had orders from the pentagon (which as been alleged). What if he has some proof that he indeed was under orders from higher up in the US to "soften" up people about to be interrogated, using whatever methods he chose. This would certainly be very embarring for the coalition since it would dismiss their claims of this being an "isolated incident" or of it being a "few bad eggs" as opposed to a systematic cold blooded exercise. So they claim they have "no jursidiction" and let him dissapear....

again i agree this doesn't make sense... but the fact of the matter is that the current administration has frequently used such double standerds and hypocrisy to do whatever it wants, this would seem another example of the same.

The army does have jurisdiction over these mercenaries....especially while Iraq remains in a state of war, which it does from the US perspective until the US declare an end to the war, which they have not done.

sure, then why aren't they trying this guy? or are you contending this guy doesn't exist at all? In which case your implying that the guardian made up this report...
but thats exactly what the coalition want isn't it? For this guy to just dissapear...

edit - corrected typo

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
Memnoch, the Amnesty allegations are just that allegations. When Iraq eveuntually settles down, there'll probably be something approaching an investigation. Then we might see some verifiable proof. Atm as they say themselves, all they have are accounts from some people.

wow, really? i thought what amnesty international ACTUALLY said was....

Choueiry said the authenticity of images published by the Daily Mirror on Saturday was largely irrelevant. "These pictures are certainly not the only evidence of abuse. They are just the tip of the iceberg."

not these are not the only "evidence" of abuse.

"We have said there are patterns of torture by coalition forces," Choueiry told CNN on Sunday.

note patterns of torture.

I like you're arguement though.... its so typical...

"when iraq settles down", how long will that be? Will people remember what happened then? Everyone knows how short a memory the public has, yes lets leave it till everyone's forgotten about it then...

"something approaching an investigation" ....then we will conduct some half assed investigation, which will off course find exactly what we want it to find, and since most people won't really care by that stage, we can do it low key and quitely shove it under the carpet.

as Amnesty said, the coalition can't investigate the coalition's crimes, thats just ridiculous. By these standards, people loyal to saddam should be made responsible for investigating his crimes when he was incharge??

its easy for you to say these are just "reports" but what the hell else is their going to be? I doubt the people who were tortured were allowed to have camera's to take their own photo's. It was just lucky that some US troops who were torturing people were stupid enough to photograph their actions in this incident which has brought it to light. But how many such incidents have gone on where the people involved weren't so obviously stupid?

Victimes of crimes rarely have more than their own testimony.

One thign though, the SIMPLE fact, that the Coalition has DENIED these people access to lawyers, their families or the press during imprisonment, proves in my book that they are ill treating these prisoners.

Memnoch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3680025.stm

'Blame-shifting'

The abuse at Abu Ghraib came to light on Thursday, when CBS TV showed photos of Iraqi prisoners being subjected to humiliation and abuse.

In one picture, two Iraqis were forced to simulate oral sex, while observed by laughing guards, while another inmate was connected to wires and told he would be electrocuted if he fell off a box.

In an interview on Sunday, Gen Karpinski - a reserve officer - said she was "sickened" by the images from the Baghdad jail.

She told the New York Times that military intelligence officers had been in and out of the high-security cells "24 hours a day".

She said she believed military commanders were trying to shift the blame onto her and other reservists - and away from the intelligence officers still at work in the prison.

"We're disposable," she said. "Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame?"

obviously this woman is trying to defend herself, but how much authenticity is in her claims one has to wonder?

I have always contented that this kind of stuff was intentional from the US forces. This would seem to back that up. They pick a few scapegoats, pile the blame on them, give them reprimands etc etc, call it an isolated incident and "move on".

mean while the abuse goes on unchecked inside the prisons, there is still no independent authority allowed to make sure the prisoners aren't being illtreated.

off course this time they will make sure no one takes any pictures...

rde

To anyone wondering about US' jurisdiction over contractors: I offer this as an explanation; it's in their contract.

There are over 15,000 contractors/mercs in the country (more mercs than Brits, fact fans), and they're in the pay of six or seven security companies. The don't just work as mercenaries; they also do logistical work, and various other stuff that the American troops don't want to do themselves. When the war started companies like Blackwater (for whom the four dead mercs worked) lobbied hard for immunity for shit that happened in the line of duty; they didn't want to be sued by relatives of anyone they'd killed. I never heard whether they got that immunity, but it seems likely they did.

firstly.. these incidents at the Abu Garib have definately happened, no one is contesting what went on at these prisons least of all those who committed the crimes.

Let me be the first, then. When in England the Guardian is my paper of choice, but that doesn't mean I believe every article that claims to have 'several sources'. I agree that the claims need investigation, but at the moment, that's all they are; claims.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
again as i pointed out before we need to take things in context... firstly.. these incidents at the Abu Garib have definately happened, no one is contesting what went on at these prisons least of all those who committed the crimes.

All correct, but I would point out that three of the four British inmates released recently from Gitmo signed confessions early in their incarceration. Neither they, nor their guards, nor anyone else involved in the proceedings contested that these men were guilty within the same type of timeframe that we are looking at since Abu Garib was "outed". They were as clearly guilty as the 6 soldiers from the current issue - at least according to all involved, all familiar with the case details, and all the evidence available, including the confessions.

So are you telling me that these British men released without charge were unquestionably guilty because of the lack of dissent a year ago?

If so, then why were they released?

If not, then how can you possibly say that a lack of dissent on what happened in recent events is undisputable and that we don't need to go wait on a court of law's findings because its all so clear.

Also, you've been backing all of this up with references to Amnesty International reports of other incidents that - at this stage - are simply allegations (which have not been proven in a court of law or anywhere else), but which you are holding up to all and sundry as proof unquestionable that the Abu Garib incidents were not isolated, that its all deliberate, and so on and so forth.

You know...the same stuff that you turned around and once-again presented as fait accompli in terms of being evidence when responding to Vorbis in the post immediately following the response to me.

Now explain to me why this stuff also doesn't need a court of law? Hell, it doesn't even seem to need a formal investigation. Nope - there's a report which says that there are strong indications that something has happened, and you present that as fact.

Just like Dubya and his WMD proof, as I've already pointed out.

So explain to me why I should believe you and not him?

Both of you are taking reports that say something you broadly expect - something that fills your expectations. Both of you are taking these reports and presenting them as fact.

I'm pretty sure you insist that Dubya was wrong in even making this case. So why aren't you?

The "trials" in the US military don't seem to be to decide weather or not this particular set of incidents happened or didn't happened but more to the extent of who was to blame.

Yes indeed. They want to find out whether this was an isolated incident or an indication of systematic abuse. They want to find out if it was caused by a failure of the overall system, or a more localised SNAFU.

They want to determine so many of the things which you are presenting your decision on as some sort of unarguable fact.

Maybe its because they don't want to take reports making allegations and simply accept them as unquestionably true regardless of who agrees/disagrees because they remember what happened with the WMDs where they had eyewitness accounts in the form of sworn testimony that turned out to be false.

again, no one seems to be contesting the authenticity of the American photos, unless you've read some article I haven't.

And no one is contesting the fact that these "6 soldiers " atleast committed these crimes.

again I would say the idea of context is important isn't it? My statements about the obviousness of the situation are being taken out of context here.

Allow me to present one of your more recent statements about the obviousness of the situation :

obviously this woman is trying to defend herself, but how much authenticity is in her claims one has to wonder?

So, when someone admits to what you believe is true, its unquestiable fact which doesn't need a court of law, and which I am wrong to take in comparison to the WMD situation because the context is different - there is no dissent in your case.

Then, when a testimony is either expanded or altered to include other information, all of a sudden we have to question the veracity of the statements!

So, in other words, when the statement no longer fits your argument, it is questionable....but when it does fit, there is no need to prove it because hey - there's no dissension.

Thats convenient, isn't it. Anything which supports your argument should be taken as fact, anything which doesn't should be taken as questioable.

Its sounding more and more like Dubya's WMD case all the time.....

nope my logic in this case is that these people have pretty much owned up to their crimes already.

Just like those Brits released without charge from Gitmo had owned up to their crimes.

why does it make you suspecious of the reporting? It makes me more suspecious of the US army's motives tbh.

It makes me suspicious of the source used. It makes me suspicious of the level of background study done by the reporter. I would have expected a good reporter to explain why a contractor would be above the law, not simply put it out there that the contractor is above the law and leave it at that.

I would also be suspicious of the US Army in all of this, just like you.

However, unlike you, I am advocating that all we have are suspicions, and that we should wait and see what comes out of this, how much faith we can put in the process which was followed, and that we simply do not have enough firm evidence one way or the other to make anything even coming close to the proclamations and condemnations that you are issuing.

but the fact of the matter is that the current administration has frequently used such double standerds and hypocrisy to do whatever it wants, this would seem another example of the same.

Yup, and not jus tthe current administration.

But this is all still just speculation, and thats my underlying point.

sure, then why aren't they trying this guy?

Who said they aren't, or that they don't have him already? Oh - thats right - they did themselves. Now you're trusting the military????? Amazing how you can trust the stuff they say that suits your case and distrust the rest.

or are you contending this guy doesn't exist at all?

I doubt very much that anyone would be stupid enough to make up a major story about a controversy that doesn't exist.

In which case your implying that the guardian made up this report...

Your logic escapes me. The sources feeding the Guardian would be the far more likely culprit in such a situation.

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
All correct, but I would point out that three of the four British inmates released recently from Gitmo signed confessions early in their incarceration. ........

okay, once again you take things out of context entirely...
lets see is there any difference between the prisoners from gitmo and these american soldiers?

hmm.... other than the fact that the prisoners in gitmo were denied access to lawyers or the media or their families, I can't think or a single thing.... which kind of casts doubt on any "signed" confessions doesn't it?

Whereas in the case of the US soldiers, these guys have actually given interviews on television saying they did it, but they did it because they were under orders. So now unless we go to court and there is a dramatic change about and they start claiming that they never meant what they said in those television interviews, I don't think the basic facts are going to change. Also in case you're wondering, 6 soldiers have already recieved "punishment" in the form of possibly "career ending" reprimands etc. Again, I would guess that the US military wouldn't be able to punish their own unless trials had taken place (which they have, behind closed doors). Again we have had statements made by the LAWYERs of these soldiers admitting to their part in the matter. But you insist on taking all this out of context and comparing it to the detainees at gitmo who had no access to lawyers, media or family, and drawing some kind of conclusion to the effect that this incident didn't happen? when its commen established knowledge that it did.

Also, you've been backing all of this up with references to Amnesty International reports of other incidents that - at this stage - are simply allegations (which have not been proven in a court of law or anywhere else), but which you are holding up to all and sundry as proof unquestionable that the Abu Garib incidents were not isolated, that its all deliberate, and so on and so forth.

I trust amnesty international over the US military any day. Amnesty have nothing to gain by vilifing the US military, in fact it could in the long term harm their goals as the US military won't be very friendly to them. If amnesty say they have evidence I am inclined to believe them. The fact is that they have brought these matters up before the US authorities and the US authorities have refused to act on them or comment...

unless you have all of a sudden decided to contest the following facts..
1) several prisoners in Iraq have been held without charge, without access to lawyers, media or the press. -- Why would this happen unless a) the US knew it had no real grounds to keep these people in custory and b) they wanted to "extract" information from these people and not be held accountable.
2) We know that the US exports prisoners for torture to other countries where there are no laws against it - this establishes a precedent, that the US when it suits it, has no qualms about having people tortured to get information or whatever purpose it has in mind
3) A US marine has admitted during a trial (i've quoted this before already) that it was commen practise to kick and punch prisoners who were being interrogated if they didn't cooperate and sometimes even if they did cooperate.

Now explain to me why this stuff also doesn't need a court of law? Hell, it doesn't even seem to need a formal investigation. Nope - there's a report which says that there are strong indications that something has happened, and you present that as fact.

oh I agree it needs an independent investigation... however the very facts that...
1) the coalition has thus far refused to allow an independent investigation
2) the coalition has refused to answer questions regarding people illegally detained in Iraq.
3) The coalition has been known to provide us with false information already many many times in the past
4) Amnesty international have yet to be shown to have misled anyone, and as far as I can tell they don't make such claims lightly.

all these point to the coalition's guilt and true motives in the matter. Again tell me, would you honestly rather believe the coalition or Amnesty? who do you think is more likely to be telling the truth in this case? I personally am looking forward to the publication by Amnesty international of their Dossier on torture and abuse of power in iraq on the 11th of May. Hopefully they will outline some of their evidence in greater detail then.

So explain to me why I should believe you and not him?

because Dubya has lied to us already, and contradicted himself and his administration on several occasions. Or as some claim in semantics, dubya has a strong tendency to "forget" the facts. And because you have yet to give me a reason why we should not believe Amnesty? They are an internationally recognised humanitarian organisation, that do their best to help people worldwide...

I don't know about YOU, but I personally would take the word of such a humanitarian organisation over the administration of a Rogue state ANY day of the week.

I'm pretty sure you insist that Dubya was wrong in even making this case. So why aren't you?

because of the reasons I've already pointed out above... Dubya's credability is a whole lot different from the credibility of Amnesty international I would say.

Yes indeed. They want to find out whether this was an isolated incident or an indication of systematic abuse. They want to find out if it was caused by a failure of the overall system, or a more localised SNAFU.

They want to determine so many of the things which you are presenting your decision on as some sort of unarguable fact.

Maybe its because they don't want to take reports making allegations and simply accept them as unquestionably true regardless of who agrees/disagrees because they remember what happened with the WMDs where they had eyewitness accounts in the form of sworn testimony that turned out to be false.

I'm presenting it more as a reasonable logical conclusion than unargueable fact. Again why isn't there an independent investigation being conducted into all this? I'm sure if it IS an isolated incident an independent investigation would exonerate them of the blame.
As for the WMD, my belief is that they lied, deliberately, made up these reports, and this has been my contention from day 1. Off course the fact that they did turn out to be "wrong." that all their evidence was "flawed" from the start, the fact that they have constantly and repeatedly contradicted themselves, and said they did not make statements that they were recorded to have made goes a long way towards supporting my conclusions. Not to mention their credibility.





And no one is contesting the fact that these "6 soldiers " atleast committed these crimes.

obviously this woman is trying to defend herself, but how much authenticity is in her claims one has to wonder?

So, when someone admits to what you believe is true, its unquestiable fact which doesn't need a court of law, and which I am wrong to take in comparison to the WMD situation because the context is different - there is no dissent in your case.

Then, when a testimony is either expanded or altered to include other information, all of a sudden we have to question the veracity of the statements! ....

ah the out of context demon is working over time...
let me point out to you some minor differences that will hopefully put this to rest...

with regards to the Soldiers admitting what they did... I would say that this is pretty much uncontested, however they say they did this under orders, but this is somethign that is yet to be established. So really if I wanted to simply accept a "statement" that proves my case. I would be saying, hey those 6 soldiers said they were ordered to do it, so it proves beyond doubt that this is whats going on.

But I haven't said that. The question of who ordered them, weather they were ordered or not, or who was really responsible is still being debated, though I contend that this is part of a wider systematic abuse by US forces. I still don't take that part of their statements as defiante as it IS being contested. So here we have an example of a statement that DOES fit my arguements, but I'm still claiming its questionable and i'm not saying there is no need to prove it etc etc etc.

The same goes with the regards of the testimony of the Res major that you have quoted me on above. Again, she says that she was ordered to do it, and thats the part of the equation thats still to be determined...

its pretty much established WHAT happened, the current process is now to decide WHO is to blame? But somehow by selectively choosing your scrutiny your able to twist that into what you just did...

so to clarify.... I'm not taking the soldiers entire statements at face value..
however the fact that THIS happened and that They DID it is something that there seems to be a general consensus on.

They soldiers have access to lawyers and their lawyers have made statements to this effect.
the photos show this
soldiers have been reprimanded (following a military case I presume)
etc etc etc... so yes we can take this part to be pretty much ESTABLISHED..

however with regards to weather or not they were ordered to do it, that is somethign THEY claim, and while it would suit my arguement I still do not claim that it is an established fact, though I contend that its likely that there was some kind of condoning of their actions if not a direct "order".

Thats convenient, isn't it. Anything which supports your argument should be taken as fact, anything which doesn't should be taken as questioable.

again I've shown you how this isn't actually the case.....

Memnoch

However, unlike you, I am advocating that all we have are suspicions, and that we should wait and see what comes out of this, how much faith we can put in the process which was followed, and that we simply do not have enough firm evidence one way or the other to make anything even coming close to the proclamations and condemnations that you are issuing.

I would say there is enough evidence to conclude that these soldiers DID do this. I'm pretty sure I'll be proven right in time, when they are convicted of their crimes.

We also have a fair amount of evidence that points to this NOT being an isolated incident, this evidence includes
1) the claims by Amnesty international that their "extensive research" points to this incident just being the "tip of the iceberg"
2) the refulsal by the coalition to conduct an independent investigation into the matter
3) the claims by these soldiers that they were "under" orders (though this is still under debate)
4) the "civillian contracter" implicated, what is happening to him? will he be tried or not? looks like he is going to just dissapear, and i have a strong feeling we will NEVER find out what really happened to him
5) the admission by a US marine during a case that it was commen practise to kick and punch people being interrogated, this is somethign that hasn't been disputed.

so if we take all this evidence together, I think we can reasonably conclude that this probably is not an isolated incident.. off course to PROVE it we need an independent investigation, which conveniently for the coalition ISN'T happening or being allowed thus far.

But this is all still just speculation, and thats my underlying point.

yes it is, but the MORE important question is, based on the evidence presented and availible to us, in light of the US's motives in NOT allowing an independent investigation, would this be a reasonable conclusion? I would say so.

Just like those Brits released without charge from Gitmo had owned up to their crimes.

without access to lawyers, the media or their families, in sharp contrast to the american soldiers. But who cares about the context.

It makes me suspicious of the source used. It makes me suspicious of the level of background study done by the reporter. I would have expected a good reporter to explain why a contractor would be above the law, not simply put it out there that the contractor is above the law and leave it at that.

he didn't say that the contractor IS above the law. He said that is what the US military are CLAIMING, the implication from his statement is obvious. We aren't 2nd grade kids that he needs to spell out to us, that this seems to not make any sense.

Who said they aren't, or that they don't have him already? Oh - thats right - they did themselves. Now you're trusting the military????? Amazing how you can trust the stuff they say that suits your case and distrust the rest.

they may/may not have him, they may/may not be trying him... this still DOES not change the fact that as far as WE KNOW, he is being allowed to go scott free. For whatever reason if HE IS being tried, this information is being kept from us. I'm not "trusting" the US military as you put it. I want to know what if anything is happening to this guy, and the US military is preventing that aren't they?

I doubt very much that anyone would be stupid enough to make up a major story about a controversy that doesn't exist.

exactly, so this guy exists, where is he, what is being done to him, why isn't he being charged? why do the US military say they have no jurisdiction when its clear that they do.....

Your logic escapes me. The sources feeding the Guardian would be the far more likely culprit in such a situation.

which is still the same as saying that its the US military that is the culprit (as you pointed out above), which is what i've been contending ALL ALONG that their motives are suspect ALL along.

bertiebowl

I cannot see how it could be true for the US army to have no jurisdiction over these "civilian employees".

When the "Civilian employees" are ex special forces and/or CIA with 10 years + experience fighting, do you think some 20 year old trailor trash private is going to be able to stop them abusing a "prisoner"?

What's the difference between legal jurisdiction and effective jurisdiction Bonkey?

Victor

Originally posted by Memnoch
Whereas in the case of the US soldiers, these guys have actually given interviews on television saying they did it

Maybe they were coerced into these interviews?

Memnoch

Originally posted by bertiebowl
When the "Civilian employees" are ex special forces and/or CIA with 10 years + experience fighting, do you think some 20 year old trailor trash private is going to be able to stop them abusing a "prisoner"?

What's the difference between legal jurisdiction and effective jurisdiction Bonkey?

i believe in this case bonkey was referring to overall jursidiction after these guys have returned from iraq...

not saying that a 20 year old private has authority, but certainly someone in the military must?

or are these guys just being "let loose" to do as they please in iraq? which is even worse really.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
We also have a fair amount of evidence that points to this NOT being an isolated incident,

Not quite.

We have an amount of evidence suggesting that torture has been systematically carried out by the interrogation teams - made up of US military, CIA and civilian contractors.

We do not have any significant amount of evidence suggesting that "ad-hoc" torture has been ongoing, and - to date - any evidence suggesting that the news-breaking case is tied to the larger allegations is (by your own admission) still uncertain.

5) the admission by a US marine during a case that it was commen practise to kick and punch people being interrogated, this is somethign that hasn't been disputed.

As far I was aware, the Pentagon and US Administration have categorically denied all claims that there is any systematic mistreatment of prisoners during interrogation, and have done so subsequent to these latest revelations, as well as prior to them.

Are you saying that their denial doesn't count as a dispute, or that the Pentagon and US Administration are openly admitting to these allegations?

off course to PROVE it we need an independent investigation, which conveniently for the coalition ISN'T happening or being allowed thus far.

Yup...which is something I'd be concetrating on far more than arguments (as you've made earlier) that we don't need a conviction because we've enough proof already.

yes it is, but the MORE important question is, based on the evidence presented and availible to us, in light of the US's motives in NOT allowing an independent investigation, would this be a reasonable conclusion? I would say so.

And you're entitled to say so. Just as anyone who feels it isn't a reasonable conclusion is equally entitled to say so.

But again...you're back to defending something as "a reasonable conclusion". The existence of WMD - and the ensuing war - was based on "a reasonable conclusion". Thats what I'm trying to point out.....reasonable conclusions are simply not sure enough.

he didn't say that the contractor IS above the law. He said that is what the US military are CLAIMING, the implication from his statement is obvious. We aren't 2nd grade kids that he needs to spell out to us, that this seems to not make any sense.

And if we're not second grade kids, then we have to assume that the US military knows this. Which then re-raises the question as to why they would report something like that to the media in the knowledge that it wasn't true.

The problem is we don't know where the problem lies. It could be the media made up the source, or the origin of hte source. It could be the source was a blithering idiot. It could be deliberate misinformation. It could be something the military put in these people's contracts, knowing it may be illegal, but willing to cross that bridge when they came to it.....

We just don't know....and I am not willing to sift through the evidence to form two piles - the data we trust, and the data we don't - and then ignore the second pile in order to come to a conclusion. I'd like to see that data examined more closely first....as well as the data I trust (cause I don't trust me), and so on before coming to any sort of firm conclusion.

they may/may not have him, they may/may not be trying him... this still DOES not change the fact that as far as WE KNOW, he is being allowed to go scott free.

Again see what I said about reasonable conclusions above....and this is even far less of a reasonable conclusion than the others you've offered. I might as well say that AS FAR AS WE KNOW they've shot him, incinerated his body, and made sure that he will never, ever be able to say anything about any of this to anyone ever again. It is a theory fully supported by his disappearance, the military's silence, and all the other facts that you're using to base your "scott free" conclusion on.

For whatever reason if HE IS being tried, this information is being kept from us.

Well, there's a third possibility that would immediately seem to put a dent in your "reasonable conclusion" arugment. How many more reasonable conclusions do we need to come up with before you're willing to concede that presenting a "reasonable conclusion" as anything more than a personal opinion / best guess is simply presenting something uncertain as fact.

which is still the same as saying that its the US military that is the culprit (as you pointed out above), which is what i've been contending ALL ALONG that their motives are suspect ALL along.

No. As pointed out above, there are other options. The source may be a blithering idiot. The source may be (unwittingly) misinformed. The source may be issuing misinformation for a specific reason other than to try and hide guilt.

I just don't think anything near enough information is out there to be as sure as you are. I'm not saying your conclusions are wrong...I'm saying that at this point in time I do not believe they are as solid as you say they are.

If time proves you right, I would still maintain you drew premature conclusions at this point...just as I will insist that Bush's case against WMD was clearly incorrect even if genuine Iraqi WMDs were found in the morning.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Memnoch
Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, speaking for central command, told the Guardian: "One contractor was originally included with six soldiers, accused for his treatment of the prisoners, but we had no jurisdiction over him. It was left up to the contractor on how to deal with him."

Doesn't Iraq have a functioning judicial system? Why couldn't this alleged rapist be tried in Iraq's courts? Or do they have not jurisdiction over American civilians?

Memnoch

Originally posted by shotamoose
Doesn't Iraq have a functioning judicial system? Why couldn't this alleged rapist be tried in Iraq's courts? Or do they have not jurisdiction over American civilians?

good point... if the american's don't have jursidiction then the iraqi "provisonal" govt. should ?

still no word on these mercenaries (i've decided to stop using the pc "civilian contractor" term) and whats happenning to them...

if anyone finds some info i'd be greatly intersted in hearing it...

but so far it would seem that the guardian's report is accurate in that these guys are gonna get away scot free.

I'm surprised that more of the media isn't picking up on whats going on with regards to the Mercs. Especially now that the US have admitted that one of them murdered an iraqi?

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
still no word on these mercenaries (i've decided to stop using the pc "civilian contractor" term) and whats happenning to them...

if anyone finds some info i'd be greatly intersted in hearing it...

I read an article on my current customer's AP news feed today that he is facing criminal charges....but I didn't think of copying the article (I assumed it would become common knowledge fairly soon), nor do I have a link.

Next time I see something, I'll remember to copy it.

jc