NationStates Jolt Archive


More prisoner abuse stories from Iraq.

The Nazz
25-09-2005, 05:10
And this time, the charges are coming from a decorated former Army Captain in the 82nd Airborne, among others. The story is from Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html), and the report it cites is from Human Rights Watch. The Army has opened yet another investigation into this sort of prisoner treatment.
The new allegations center around systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees by men of the 82nd Airborne at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base located near Fallujah, the scene of a major uprising against the U.S. occupation in April 2004, according to sources familiar with the report and accounts given by the Captain, who is in his mid-20s, to Senate staff. Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public. Other alleged abuses described in the Human Rights report occurred at Camp Tiger, near Iraq's border with Syria, and previously in Afghanistan. In addition, the report details what the Captain says was his unsuccessful effort over 17 months to get the attention of military superiors. Ultimately he approached the Republican senators....

Prisoners were designated as PUCs (pronounced "pucks")—or "persons under control." A regular pastime at Camp Mercury, the report says, involved off-duty soldiers gathering at PUC tents, where prisoners were held, and working off their frustrations in activities known as "F____a PUC" (beating the prisoner) and "Smoke a PUC" (forced physical exertion, sometimes to the point of collapse). Broken limbs and similar painful injuries would be treated with analgesics, the soldiers claim, as medical staff would fill out paperwork stating the injuries occurred during capture. Support for some of the allegations of abuse come from a sergeant of the 82nd Airborne who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch quotes him as saying that, "To 'F____ a PUC' means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs, and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day. To 'smoke' someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day. Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement.

"On their day off people would show up all the time," the sergeant continues in the HRW report. "Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport. The cooks were all U.S. soldiers. One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal bat. He was the cook."

The sergeant says that military intelligence officers would tell soldiers that the detainees "were bad" and had been involved in killing or trying to kill Americans, implying that they deserved whatever punishment they got. "I would be told, 'These guys were IED [improvised explosive device] trigger men last week.' So we would f___ them up. F___ them up bad ... At the same time we should be held to a higher standard. I know that now. It was wrong. There are a set of standards. But you gotta understand, this was the norm. Everyone would just sweep it under the rug ... We should never have been allowed to watch guys we had fought."

The Captain making the allegations, say those who have been in contact with him, gave lengthy statements to Human Rights Watch only after his attempts to report what he had seen and heard to his own chain of command, were met, he claims, with repeated brush-offs. He is currently in special forces training at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The two non-commissioned officers served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and likewise approached the watchdog group, but have not conferred with Senate staff. "The captain is a very sincere officer, and troubled by what he says he has seen," says another senior aide to a Republican senator. "Only an investigation can determine how accurate his account will prove to be."
The Senators he approached were Bill Frist, John Warner and John McCain.

This is the reason why I don't believe that the US can take part in any legitimate democracy building in Iraq, no matter how long we stay or how many troops we send in there. As Americans, we have to come to grips with the fact that our troops have committed atrocities in our name--there's no other way to describe it--and as a result, we have to realize that there is no way that the Iraqi populace at large will ever trust us.

I was watching a documentary earlier tonight--Hearts and Minds--which is about Vietnam. The Vietnamese footage was shot during the war, as were the interviews. The similarities between this documentary and the situation in Iraq today are eerie.
Antikythera
25-09-2005, 05:16
interesting story but i starting to question the media...i mean when have prisoners ever been treated well? look at ww1 and ww2 and vietnam teh civel war,ect
The Nazz
25-09-2005, 05:23
interesting story but i starting to question the media...i mean when have prisoners ever been treated well? look at ww1 and ww2 and vietnam teh civel war,ect
Well, the idea of rules governing the treatment of prisoners didn't really get much steam as far as I know until after WWI, and during WWII, the story was that German soldiers were told by their superiors to surrender to US forces, but to die fighting the Soviets, because the treatment by the Soviets was so brutal.

But even if that's not the case, the simple fact of the matter is that the US now has laws that deal with the treatment of prisoners, and if these soldiers are telling the truth, then our country is in violation of those laws, especially if the charges about the chain of command are correct.
Disraeliland
25-09-2005, 05:31
"then our country is in violation of those laws"

All that's apparant here is individuals breaking the law. Typically, soldiers charged with this sort of behavoir say "just following orders", and not one could produce the smallest scrap of evidence that any order existed, nor could they explain why they didn't carry out their obligation to disobey illegal orders.

"As Americans, we have to come to grips with the fact that our troops have committed atrocities in our name--there's no other way to describe it"

Rubbish. Individuals have committed crimes. That's all we know from this story, until proven otherwise.

Has it not occurred to you that the Army is investigating these people as criminals. Usually, when someone does something in an organisation's name, that individual doesn't get treated like a criminal by that organisation.
The Nazz
25-09-2005, 05:36
"then our country is in violation of those laws"

All that's apparant here is individuals breaking the law. Typically, soldiers charged with this sort of behavoir say "just following orders", and not one could produce the smallest scrap of evidence that any order existed, nor could they explain why they didn't carry out their obligation to disobey illegal orders.

"As Americans, we have to come to grips with the fact that our troops have committed atrocities in our name--there's no other way to describe it"

Rubbish. Individuals have committed crimes. That's all we know from this story, until proven otherwise.

Has it not occurred to you that the Army is investigating these people as criminals. Usually, when someone does something in an organisation's name, that individual doesn't get treated like a criminal by that organisation.US soldiers in action in a foreign country represent the country--period, end stop. When they violate international standards and their superiors try to keep it quiet "for the honor of the unit" as one soldier quotes his commander as saying, then the stain on US society as a whole is even more indelible. Do you think that the brother of a person who has been abused is going to give the slightest fuck that a US soldier walking down the street in Baghdad probably had nothing to do with his brother's abuse? Would you care if it were your brother? They'd all be the same to me, if I were in his shoes.

Now extend the example--you're an American in Baghdad right now, but not a soldier. Do you think the fact that you're not a soldier is going to save your ass from a person pissed off about what happened to his brother?
The Raven Guild
25-09-2005, 05:49
i think what Disraeliland said is totally cogent. a few bad people don't make an entire nation bad. let me say that WE ARE doing good in iraq, it just doesn't make the headlines. how would i know? i send CARE PACKAGES to the Iraqi CIVILIANS.
Utter Noobs
25-09-2005, 05:57
See this is most of the point imo.


My side does bad.. "they're individuals who will be investigated and treated accordingly under due process of law." Their side does bad.. "Lets bomb them to kingdom fking come before anymore of those fking ahole moslem ingrates get funny ideas"
Gymoor II The Return
25-09-2005, 06:31
"then our country is in violation of those laws"

All that's apparant here is individuals breaking the law. Typically, soldiers charged with this sort of behavoir say "just following orders", and not one could produce the smallest scrap of evidence that any order existed, nor could they explain why they didn't carry out their obligation to disobey illegal orders.

"As Americans, we have to come to grips with the fact that our troops have committed atrocities in our name--there's no other way to describe it"

Rubbish. Individuals have committed crimes. That's all we know from this story, until proven otherwise.

Has it not occurred to you that the Army is investigating these people as criminals. Usually, when someone does something in an organisation's name, that individual doesn't get treated like a criminal by that organisation.

Aren't we at war because individuals have committed attrocities?
Agnostor
25-09-2005, 06:51
The atrocities commited were on completely differnet levels.As for comparing Iraq and Vietnam: very little in common. America has complete and total military superioirity, we lose troops of course but that happens in every war. The population as a whole is unified and is in want of deomcracy. Now to "This is the reason why I don't believe that the US can take part in any legitimate democracy building in Iraq, no matter how long we stay or how many troops we send in there. As Americans, we have to come to grips with the fact that our troops have committed atrocities in our name--there's no other way to describe it--and as a result, we have to realize that there is no way that the Iraqi populace at large will ever trust us." Now there are few facts we should look at. First BAD THINGS HAPPEN IN WAR. PEOPLE ARE NOT PERFECT. I think we should punish them for it but I don't see it completely illegitimizing our involvement in Iraq. I am against Iraq but this argument is stupid. Second we do do bad things, but not nearly as bad or as much. And one MAJOR thing always overlooked is: we regret the bad things we do, especially on a moral level at the time it happens by ourselves without it being told to us. This is in contrast with almost every country in history.