Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
Cite for this [indicia that US torture of prisoners is pursuant to policies and orders]:
|
The torture took place (primarily, as far as we know) in the one wing of the one prison where high-intelligence value prisoners were concentrated.
Intelligence officers and torture-mercs were present, as photographed.
The soldiers currently known to have tortured prisoners gladly let themselves be photographed. At least some of these individuals are prison guards in their civilian lives, who certainly know (as the non-prison guards would virtually certainly know) that you generally do not want to be photographed torturing prisoners, unless of course you have reason to believe that your superior officers will approve that conduct.
When the Red Cross first reported this to the US military, the official response was not "thanks for finding those bad apples!", but rather an effort to prevent further Red Cross surprise inspections. Eventually, the Red Cross became so frustrated with US non-response to their findings that the Red Cross almost broke its long-standing policy against going public with findings. Why would the US have behaved this way if this was really just a few bad apples?
The US response to individual Iraqis who complained of their treatment was similar to the response to the Red Cross. Former prisoners' complaints were ignored or disregarded. Individuals were told that complaints would not be accepted unless they could identify the soldier responsible -- difficult to do when the complaint is that you were hooded and beaten.
The sheer number of abuses, photos, videos, statements, and murders seems contrary to the "bad apple" theory. Why would there be so many "bad apples" in Iraq in 2003, when there was nothing like this in Iraq in 1991 (despite many more soldiers and many more prisoners)?
The use of forms of torture that are specifically known as interrogation techniques, such as wiring an individual and telling him that if he moves from a "stress" (i.e., pain-inducing) position he will be electrocuted, that a bunch of civilian hillbillies are unlikely to have thought of on their own.
This Administration has not exactly shown high regard for international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, and the guards received no education and training on the Geneva Conventions.
Individuals who were involved in interrogating prisoners in Afghanistan -- where US policy was that the Geneva Conventions do not apply -- were present in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.
Are these things conclusive proof that the torture was directed by the command structure? No. They are indicia of such, as I said. It is these indicia that, in part, make the story so enormously important and "interesting" from a news perspective. If the story were, in effect, "One US Soldier Beats Up an Iraqi" -- something that has surely happened in Iraq -- we would probably never hear it, and it would certainly not get this kind of attention.
