NationStates Jolt Archive

FORT HOOD, Texas - Army Pfc. Lynndie England, whose smiling poses in photos of detainee abuse at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison made her the face of the scandal, was convicted Monday by a military jury on six of seven counts.

England, 22, was found guilty of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count.

The jury of five male Army officers took about two hours to reach its verdict. Her case now moves to the sentencing phase, which will heard by the same jury beginning Tuesday.

England faces a maximum of nine years in prison.

England, wearing her dark green dress uniform, stood at attention as the verdict was read by the jury foreman. She showed no obvious emotion afterward.

Asked for comment after the verdict, defense lawyer Capt. Jonathan Crisp said, “The only reaction I can say is, ‘I understand.”’

England’s trial is the last for a group of nine Army reservists charged with mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, a scandal that badly damaged the United States’ image in the Muslim world despite quick condemnation of the abuse by President Bush. Two other troops were convicted in trials and the remaining six made plea deals. Several of those soldiers testified at England’s trial.

Prosecutors used graphic photos of England to support their contention that she was a key figure in the abuse conspiracy. One photo shows England holding a naked detainee on a leash. In others, she smiles and points to prisoners in humiliating poses.

The conspiracy acquittal came on a count pertaining to the leash incident; she was found guilty of a maltreatment count stemming from the same incident.

Beyond the sordid photos, prosecutors pointed to England’s statement to Army investigators in January 2004 that the mistreatment was done to amuse the U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib.

Abuse ‘for her own sick humor’
“The accused knew what she was doing,” said Capt. Chris Graveline, the lead prosecutor. “She was laughing and joking. ... She is enjoying, she is participating, all for her own sick humor.”

Crisp countered that England was only trying to please her soldier boyfriend, then-Cpl. Charles Graner Jr., labeled the abuse ringleader by prosecutors.

“She was a follower, she was an individual who was smitten with Graner,” Crisp said. “She just did whatever he wanted her to do.”

England, from Fort Ashby, W.Va., has said that Graner, now serving a 10-year sentence, fathered her young son.

The defense argued that England suffered from depression and that she has an overly compliant personality, making her a heedless participant in the abuse.

England’s earlier attempt to plead guilty under a deal with prosecutors was rejected by Col. James Pohl, the presiding judge. Pohl declared a mistrial during the sentencing phase when testimony by Graner contradicted England’s guilty plea.

Graner, a defense witness at the sentencing, said pictures he took of England holding a prisoner on a leash were meant to be used as a training aid. In her guilty plea, England had said the pictures were being taken purely for the amusement of Abu Ghraib guards.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9492624/

Serves her right! I hope she gets a max sentence, because its scum like her that are making our men and women in uniform look bad. Now I'll just sit and wait for looneys to come blame it on Bush.
~EDIT~ I would like to amend the statment. Please substitute "Her superiors" for "Bush"

OMG! do you mean not all the U.S. military personnel are angels and worthy of God-like worship!?

*waits for Eutrusca to come in and start flaming*

why!!!! i ask england first....why did you do it!!!!!?????? and are you sooo stupid that you had to fucking take photos of it!?!?!?!?!?!? :rolleyes:


Serves her right! I hope she gets a max sentence, because its scum like her that are making our men and women in uniform look bad. Now I'll just sit and wait for looneys to come blame it on Bush


completely agree

OMG! do you mean not all the U.S. military personnel are angels and worthy of God-like worship!?

*waits for Eutrusca to come in and start flaming*

Most of them are good people. But those who break the law deserve punishment.

The enlisted who carried out the actual acts will be court-martialled and fried. But the brass and intelligence officials who laid out the blueprints? They'll be given medals.

I'll just sit and wait for looneys to come blame it on Bush
The enlisted who carried out the actual acts will be court-martialled and fried. But the brass and intelligence officials who laid out the blueprints? They'll be given medals.
Told ya. :D

Told ya. :D
too bad Bush wasn't mentioned or even implied.

too bad Bush wasn't mentioned or even implied.
Was it mentioned? No. Was it implied? Of course it was. Don't be so naive.
Either that, or the poster thinks that its military brass and intelligence that shapes policy.

Told ya. :D
I like the way HE NEVER MENTIONED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

I like the way HE NEVER MENTIONED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
It's called deductive reasoning. Do I need to explain?

Was it mentioned? No. Was it implied? Of course it was. Don't be so naive.
Wow. How does "brass" or "intelligence officials" imply Bush? It doesn't. It seems like it's implied if you're actively looking for a target to hit, but in all reality, it doesn't.

Wow. How does "brass" or "intelligence officials" imply Bush? It doesn't. It seems like it's implied if you're actively looking for a target to hit, but in all reality, it doesn't.
Brass and intelligence officials IMPLIES that the poster means whoever is in charge. If the poster had been more accurate, I wouldn't have deduced what I did. Namely, the fact that I'm not aware that intelligence officials shape military policy.
~EDIT~ For the sake of the thread, and me not wanting to hijack it, lets just say I was 110% wrong and move on.

I agree that something like this deserves a strict punishment, but you must admit that since it was not any of us in those pictures, it was extremely hilarious.

I agree that something like this deserves a strict punishment, but you must admit that since it was not any of us in those pictures, it was extremely hilarious.

The pictures weren't. The public disgracing and shaming of the US was, since it was what we all knew already.

Brass and intelligence officials IMPLIES that the poster means whoever is in charge. If the poster had been more accurate, I wouldn't have deduced what I did. Namely, the fact that I'm not aware that intelligence officials shape military policy.
~EDIT~ For the sake of the thread, and me not wanting to hijack it, lets just say I was 110% wrong and move on.
Fine with me. But at the risk of being an arse, I'll explain WHY you're wrong. Because to imply "brass" and "intelligence officials" means bush is the same as implying "clergy" or "preist" means God.

The pictures weren't. The public disgracing and shaming of the US was, since it was what we all knew already.
Would you like to elaborate on that? what is this "it" that "we" already knew?

OMG! do you mean not all the U.S. military personnel are angels and worthy of God-like worship!?

*waits for Eutrusca to come in and start flaming*
I don't flame unless the poster deserves it. :D

Despite you and others trying to stand this on its head and make snide comments about the US military, this trial, and the others for misbehavior while in uniform, serves to illustrate that the US strives to maintain the highest standards of behavior for its soldiers. Those who violate those standards are tried, and if convicted, sent to prison.

Can as much be said for the terrorists? Of course not. Yet many of you would have us believe that there is no difference between the teorrists and the US soldiers. Indeed, you would have us believe that the US is the source of all evil in the world. Take your propagandistic diatribes, roll them all up into a big ball, and .... !

NOTE: that is not a flame! :D

Would you like to elaborate on that? what is this "it" that "we" already knew?

The hilariousness of "omg, this is tarnishing the US's image," when that image was long since non-existent. We all knew that this is what US forces did and do - Amnesty, for instance, was reporting on it for months before the images were leaked, and we all remember the Vietnam atrocities - but it took the images to show the US itself what everyone else already knew; that the US is hardly the "good guys." The US has not been that for a very long time, indeed, but does like to live on the stale air of it. This travashamockery* in letting those higher up get away unscathed out of all this fits nicely with expectations, and it is amusing to see Americans coping with it and sweaping it under the rug and rummaging for hollow justification, so that this image they are the only ones left to see can be sustained. Sort of like the emperor's new clothes.

* Travesty + sham + mockery = travashamockery.

Was it mentioned? No. Was it implied? Of course it was. Don't be so naive.
Either that, or the poster thinks that its military brass and intelligence that shapes policy.
What the hell are you saying? Are you saying that the only parties capable of being responsible are the top and bottom of the chain of command? What nonsense!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sick Nightmares
Was it mentioned? No. Was it implied? Of course it was. Don't be so naive.
Either that, or the poster thinks that its military brass and intelligence that shapes policy.




kind of......the prez ditermins the stratagy used (fight terrorism) the brass figure out how to do it.

Despite you and others trying to stand this on its head and make snide comments about the US military, this trial, and the others for misbehavior while in uniform, serves to illustrate that the US strives to maintain the highest standards of behavior for its soldiers. Those who violate those standards are tried, and if convicted, sent to prison.

Oh really? I certainly don't think this sort of thing (maintaining high standards), has been a constant. Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

We didn't really see much of the ones actually responsible being punished did we? More like strived to cover up things and forget it happened.

It's called deductive reasoning. Do I need to explain?


Actually, it's called assuming what you want so you can pretend you've won a point.

I don't flame unless the poster deserves it. :D

Despite you and others trying to stand this on its head and make snide comments about the US military, this trial, and the others for misbehavior while in uniform, serves to illustrate that the US strives to maintain the highest standards of behavior for its soldiers. Those who violate those standards are tried, and if convicted, sent to prison.

If you weren't so old I'd instruct you to grow the hell up. Is this really what you believe? The whole point of the pictures was to scare other detainees. To think a young PFC like England came up with this shit on her own is ridiculous. Did she pack dog collars, hoods, and electrodes when she was being deployed? I served in the Army, in MI. I was not humint, but I knew guys who were. The prevailing attitude with them was that "we do what we can get away with." I didn't have much problem with this at the time. And I still probably wouldn't if I didn't know that most of those detainees never did anything wrong.

Now, if what you say is true, how is it that we have officials in the executive branch that have written papers explaining why international rules for the treatment of POW's does not apply to prisoners detained in Iraq and Afghanistan? And why is it that US planes ship prisoners to foreign countries where they are tortured? And just what is Captain Fishback (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-abuse24sep24,0,4119894.story?coll=la-home-headlines) talking about? What about all those pictures we haven't seen yet? There's a butt-load of pictures that are reportedly much worse that what we've already seen still being withheld from the press, but I've not heard of anyone from those shots being prosecuted.

Can as much be said for the terrorists?
...

Non-sequitor.

The hilariousness of "omg, this is tarnishing the US's image," when that image was long since non-existent. We all knew that this is what US forces did and do - Amnesty, for instance, was reporting on it for months before the images were leaked, and we all remember the Vietnam atrocities - but it took the images to show the US itself what everyone else already knew; that the US is hardly the "good guys." The US has not been that for a very long time, indeed, but does like to live on the stale air of it. This travashamockery* in letting those higher up get away unscathed out of all this fits nicely with expectations, and it is amusing to see Americans coping with it and sweaping it under the rug and rummaging for hollow justification, so that this image they are the only ones left to see can be sustained. Sort of like the emperor's new clothes.

* Travesty + sham + mockery = travashamockery.
I won't sit here and lie, saying America is high and mighty, above reproach, or wholly innocent. I won't say I'm a saint myself. But I will say this. When I hear people like you say that what some American soldiers do is what should be used to judge them all, I wonder if that means that you believe that since some blacks commit crimes, that we should be racist? And do you believe its funny? Or how about the fact that alot of women are physically weak compared to men. No female cops, because if some are weak, they all must be?
If I were you, I wouldn't judge people by the acts of a few. Most black people are inherently good. Most women are inherently hard workers. And most Americans are just and fair.

I also wonder if you hate all Germans because of the nazis? Do you laugh at them too Fass?

Okay, here's what I think. (like anyone cares... ;) )

Being in the army is like being a kid. You're supposed to do what your parents tell you.
If you don't and, say, burn down your neighbour's house, your parents get in trouble. Because they are responsible for you.
Then, after your parents get yelled at by the neighbour, they go to you and yell at you.

So regardless whether or not England and her (much more perverse, and much more guilty - England is mentally slightly disabled) friends got orders to do this, the military is responsible for what's happening. Specifically those directly above.

It's good that those soldiers serve as an example for others not to get caught doing such things. I seriously don't assume that in all the other prisons, camps etc where unqualified American guardsmen have to watch people they don't understand, that for some reason stuff like Abu Ghraib wouldn't happen - even if there aren't any photos.
This "Bad Apple" excuse is a joke, and from what I've learned in my studies of organisational behaviour and organisational culture, this fulfills all the criteria for military culture being seriously wrong for allowing this.

But he military has not at all reviewed its policies in any meaningful way. It's culture has not been reviewed, nor have a number of offensive behaviours been cut from their "allowed" list, nor have they even hinted at looking at the Geneva convention.
Officers (and their officers, and their generals, and their minister for defence) are responsible for what the people below them do. The buck doesn't stop anywhere.

I won't sit here and lie, saying America is high and mighty, above reproach, or wholly innocent. I won't say I'm a saint myself. But I will say this. When I hear people like you say that what some American soldiers do is what should be used to judge them all, I wonder if that means that you believe that since some blacks commit crimes, that we should be racist?

I mean that we should judge them for what they do, like for instance these things. (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-soldiers-allegedly-trading-pictures.html) This keeps happening over and over and over again, and yet we see people like you, trying to excuse it with "but these are just a few bad seeds" - seems to me you have quite a lot of those for these sorts of disgraceful things to keep happening at the rate that they are.

But, as I said, rummaging for justification.

And do you believe its funny? Or how about the fact that alot of women are physically weak compared to men. No female cops, because if some are weak, they all must be?
If I were you, I wouldn't judge people by the acts of a few. Most black people are inherently good. Most women are inherently hard workers. And most Americans are just and fair.

I also wonder if you hate all Germans because of the nazis? Do you laugh at them too Fass?

Was that an attempt at an ad hominem through a straw man? Because it was quite feeble, especially as it is the US forces that seem to be the ones laughing - laughing at the deaths of Iraqis, and taking pictures at the same time.

So sexually abusing people in Iraq is wrong, but torturing them in Guantanamo is fine? Of course, the media have photographs of the former but only conclusive proof from human rights organisations of the other.

One thing that allows this sort of thing to happen is the fact Americans are indoctrinated at an early age to see themselves as superiour somehow to other nationalities and their lives worth more - most especially those of arabs. After all, to be able to treat human beings like this you have to be able to regard them as sub human and not really on the same level as you and your race. It is this attitude that allowed the Nazis to treat the Jewish and Slavs like they did, but treat the British, French and American POWs not as badly - they saw the latter as humans like themselves, and couldn't bring themselves to perform atrocities on them.

The massive nationalist element in the US military coupled with seeing arabs as merely 'Towel heads' and 'Sand niggers' and not real human beings is bound to lead to these sorts of cases, just like the way Vietnamese were labelled 'Gooks' to make them seem less human allowed things like Mai Lai.

Obviously not every soilder is like this, but if more and more people start thinking the enemy aren't human and treating them as such, the beliefs spread until eventually, if left unchecked, they will infect the whole military.

You can't just get rid of this overnight - what needs to happen is more discipline. There should be zero tolerance on racism so it is isolated to individuals. Whether or not the US military is doing this or not cannot be said - it could be the case that Iraqi abuse is very very rare, or it might be rampant like Vietnam. I have no doubt more abuse is going on than reported in the media, just covered up - not everyone is stupid enough to take pictures of them doing this stuff. However, the question is how much.

One thing that allows this sort of thing to happen is the fact Americans are indoctrinated at an early age to see themselves as superiour somehow to other nationalities and their lives worth more - most especially those of arabs. After all, to be able to treat human beings like this you have to be able to regard them as sub human and not really on the same level as you and your race. It is this attitude that allowed the Nazis to treat the Jewish and Slavs like they did, but treat the British, French and American POWs not as badly - they saw the latter as humans like themselves, and couldn't bring themselves to perform atrocities on them.

The massive nationalist element in the US military coupled with seeing arabs as merely 'Towel heads' and 'Sand niggers' and not real human beings is bound to lead to these sorts of cases, just like the way Vietnamese were labelled 'Gooks' to make them seem less human allowed things like Mai Lai.

Obviously not every soilder is like this, but if more and more people start thinking the enemy aren't human and treating them as such, the beliefs spread until eventually, if left unchecked, they will infect the whole military.

You can't just get rid of this overnight - what needs to happen is more discipline. There should be zero tolerance on racism so it is isolated to individuals. Whether or not the US military is doing this or not cannot be said - it could be the case that Iraqi abuse is very very rare, or it might be rampant like Vietnam. I have no doubt more abuse is going on than reported in the media, just covered up - not everyone is stupid enough to take pictures of them doing this stuff. However, the question is how much.

Psychological studies of this behavior across wars since WW I indicate that the abuse of prisoners has little to do with racism, intolerance, or personal beliefs.

It has everything to do with the relative powerlessness of a prisoner in relation to his guard. It has everything to do with small group dynamics within the guard unit. And making regulations and educating the guard population has NEVER stopped it - not in the US Army - not in the British Army - not in ANY army.

Your politicization of what is common human behavior under these circumstances belies your complete and utter ignorance of why one person abuses another. You would like to demonize abusers because you think that you would never, ever do anything of the sort.

There are significant studies that show that if you put a group of people in absolute control of another group of people, abuse happens. Even in conditions where there is NO difference between the two populations.

Also, the next time you intend on defaming a group of people with the assertion that they are racists who think of Arabs as "sand niggers", you had better have solid statistical evidence that proves your point - not your own personal hatred of US soldiers.

Psychological studies of this behavior across wars since WW I indicate that the abuse of prisoners has little to do with racism, intolerance, or personal beliefs.

It has everything to do with the relative powerlessness of a prisoner in relation to his guard. It has everything to do with small group dynamics within the guard unit. And making regulations and educating the guard population has NEVER stopped it - not in the US Army - not in the British Army - not in ANY army.

Your politicization of what is common human behavior under these circumstances belies your complete and utter ignorance of why one person abuses another. You would like to demonize abusers because you think that you would never, ever do anything of the sort.

There are significant studies that show that if you put a group of people in absolute control of another group of people, abuse happens. Even in conditions where there is NO difference between the two populations.

Also, the next time you intend on defaming a group of people with the assertion that they are racists who think of Arabs as "sand niggers", you had better have solid statistical evidence that proves your point - not your own personal hatred of US soldiers.

My "Politicization"? Where did I do that? From what I can see, all I did was argue that a reasonably sane abuser needs to be able to see the abused as sub human on some level to be able to do what they do. If you are told from an early age that you are of a superiour race and, more recently, that arab people are ALL dirty, irrational muslim extremist terroists it makes it easier to see people like this.

Of course it can happen without this, but it is far more likely to happen with this indoctrined belief that you are inherantly better than the person you are abusing. For example, there was an experiment where a teacher one day told her class that blue eyed people were better than other eye colours and proceeded to give far more attention to the blue eyed pupils than their class mates. At recess, the non blue eyed pupils were bullied a lot when previously there had being no case of this. I never said that I would not behave in the same way, I just said that this is a reason abuse happens.

Like I said - I don't know how much racism there is in the US military in this point of time - but it is most certainly the case that it was rife in Vietnam and led to countless atrocities. Hopefully they have learnt from this any are not standing for any amount of racism whatsoever, punishing even the use of offensive terms like 'sand niggers'.

My "Politicization"? Where did I do that? From what I can see, all I did was argue that a reasonably sane abuser needs to be able to see the abused as sub human on some level to be able to do what they do. If you are told from an early age that you are of a superiour race and, more recently, that arab people are ALL dirty, irrational muslim extremist terroists it makes it easier to see people like this.

Of course it can happen without this, but it is far more likely to happen with this indoctrined belief that you are inherantly better than the person you are abusing. For example, there was an experiment where a teacher one day told her class that blue eyed people were better than other eye colours and proceeded to give far more attention to the blue eyed pupils than their class mates. At recess, the non blue eyed pupils were bullied a lot when previously there had being no case of this. I never said that I would not behave in the same way, I just said that this is a reason abuse happens.

Like I said - I don't know how much racism there is in the US military in this point of time - but it is most certainly the case that it was rife in Vietnam and led to countless atrocities. Hopefully they have learnt from this any are not standing for any amount of racism whatsoever, punishing even the use of offensive terms like 'sand niggers'.

I guess you're not familiar with the level of "sensitivity" training and cultural familiarzation that they give to US troops. Nor are you familiar with the punishments for doing something like wearing a T-shirt with an inappropriate slogan. Nor are you familiar with the psychological studies that prove that this is NOT any more likely to happen if people are indoctrinated.

You'll also note that you are full of indignation over someone who was caught and duly punished. I don't see a similar level of outrage over men who slit the throat of a woman on television and were NEVER punished and NEVER criticized by any Arab news commentator or terrorist leader.

I guess you're not familiar with the level of "sensitivity" training and cultural familiarzation that they give to US troops. Nor are you familiar with the punishments for doing something like wearing a T-shirt with an inappropriate slogan. Nor are you familiar with the psychological studies that prove that this is NOT any more likely to happen if people are indoctrinated.

You'll also note that you are full of indignation over someone who was caught and duly punished. I don't see a similar level of outrage over men who slit the throat of a woman on television and were NEVER punished and NEVER criticized by any Arab news commentator or terrorist leader.

Uhm, why are you getting so worked up about this? All I did was give my reasons for believing that one of the contributing factors towards abuse by any military is linked to a feeling that the enemy is sub human and you are above them, so are morally justified in treating them you do.

Where was my "indignation" over this? I think you will find I was being extremely understanding by not labelling the people who commit abuse as somehow 'evil', but simply misguided. I don't believe anyone with reasonable sanity is naturally a bad person.

As for your claims that it has being 'proved' that indoctrination is not a contributary cause of abuse, then i'd dispute that evidence. Sure, it might not be the only factor, but it is at least A factor - i've seen enough studies that show that those who are labelled as 'lesser' in some way are treated worse by others, especially those who are labelled as 'better'.

Like I say - IF the Iraqi abuse is rare, then good. If it's not, then the US military needs to adopt a zero tolerance policy.

Anyway, i'm late for my lecture. I'm off.

Uhm, why are you getting so worked up about this? All I did was give my reasons for believing that one of the contributing factors towards abuse by any military is linked to a feeling that the enemy is sub human and you are above them, so are morally justified in treating them you do.

Where was my "indignation" over this? I think you will find I was being extremely understanding by not labelling the people who commit abuse as somehow 'evil', but simply misguided. I don't believe anyone with reasonable sanity is naturally a bad person.

As for your claims that it has being 'proved' that indoctrination is not a contributary cause of abuse, then i'd dispute that evidence. Sure, it might not be the only factor, but it is at least A factor - i've seen enough studies that show that those who are labelled as 'lesser' in some way are treated worse by others, especially those who are labelled as 'better'.

Like I say - IF the Iraqi abuse is rare, then good. If it's not, then the US military needs to adopt a zero tolerance policy.

Anyway, i'm late for my lecture. I'm off.

The British Army has a zero tolerance policy for shooting prisoners during WW II. But it happened with surprising regularity after D-Day, and no one was prosecuted for it. This prompted studies, because men were found with photographs of them abusing prisoners before killing them - in some cases forcing the German prisoners to strip and touch one another before killing them. That's why they studied it (read John Keegan's The Face Of War - he talks about this in detail).

In order to stop this, you have to constantly observe your own guards with outside personnel who are changed in and out. You have to videotape EVERYTHING inside the prison at ALL times. And even then, some is STILL going to happen.

It is a natural consequence of taking prisoners. It is not the result of official policy, nor is it the result of racist indoctrination.

The British Army has a zero tolerance policy for shooting prisoners during WW II. But it happened with surprising regularity after D-Day, and no one was prosecuted for it. This prompted studies, because men were found with photographs of them abusing prisoners before killing them - in some cases forcing the German prisoners to strip and touch one another before killing them. That's why they studied it (read John Keegan's The Face Of War - he talks about this in detail).

In order to stop this, you have to constantly observe your own guards with outside personnel who are changed in and out. You have to videotape EVERYTHING inside the prison at ALL times. And even then, some is STILL going to happen.

It is a natural consequence of taking prisoners. It is not the result of official policy, nor is it the result of racist indoctrination.

The fact it doesn't completely stop it doesn't mean we should just sit back and let it happen.

I still stand by the theory that it is much harder to abuse prisoners who you don't regard as sub human, unless you are mentally unstable. I personally could not ever conceive abusing another human, even if I wanted to - however if I had being brainwashed into believing that a prisoner I was guarding was more like an animal than a human, it would be easier for me to do so if I was so inclined. Hence why terms like 'gook' and 'sand ******' are dangerous - if your troops start talking about the enemy as if they weren't really people, they can feel far less guilty about torturing said enemy.

The fact it doesn't completely stop it doesn't mean we should just sit back and let it happen.

I still stand by the theory that it is much harder to abuse prisoners who you don't regard as sub human, unless you are mentally unstable. I personally could not ever conceive abusing another human, even if I wanted to - however if I had being brainwashed into believing that a prisoner I was guarding was more like an animal than a human, it would be easier for me to do so if I was so inclined. Hence why terms like 'gook' and 'sand ******' are dangerous - if your troops start talking about the enemy as if they weren't really people, they can feel far less guilty about torturing said enemy.

Ordinary college students abused each other in experiments where one group was arbitrarily the jailers and one the prisoners.

No one was mentally unstable. You would like to believe that, wouldn't you?

That you are somehow above this, incapable of doing wrong?

I suggest you read The Face of War, by John Keegan. It is extremely enlightening on this subject.

Ordinary college students abused each other in experiments where one group was arbitrarily the jailers and one the prisoners.

No one was mentally unstable. You would like to believe that, wouldn't you?

That you are somehow above this, incapable of doing wrong?

I suggest you read The Face of War, by John Keegan. It is extremely enlightening on this subject.

Oh for christs sake...

Did I EVER say I was incapable of doing wrong? READ my post for once - I said "I can't imagine doing it, but IF I was indoctrinated it would be far easier for me, assuming I wanted to do it if I was in their position". If you can't argue against my position fairly don't try to twist my words into an argument you can argue against. It just makes you look like an idiot.

You keep saying that people abuse prisoners even when they are not racist - I never disputed that. What I am saying is that if you are indoctrinated into thinking your prisoner isn't really human IT'S FAR EASIER TO DO IT. Assuming you are a moral being and would feel guilty about torturing things - who would you rather torture if you had no choice? A human who you believe to have feelings and emotions, or a particuarly stupid animal such as a fish? Of course it is easier to torture the fish because you wouldn't feel as guilty about doing something to a non human lacking in emotions, feelings, and moral capability. This is the exact way it works with torturing prisoners - it is far eaiser to torture someone you don't regard as human than a person you do.

Now, do I have to repeat my argument again or are you going to actually address it without a pathetic attempt to twist my words and insult me?

No one is indoctrinated in the Army to think of people as "sand niggers".

That might be part of popular culture in some parts of the US, but it is not part of the US Army.

There are many official policy letters and orders that read quite the opposite.

As you can see, those policies and orders have not quite eliminated the abuse.

They never do.

If you want to stop the abuse of prisoners, you really have to stop taking prisoners.

Most of them are good people. But those who break the law deserve punishment.

Certainly the ones that get caught anyway huh.

I would think that Hollywood can give a good indication on how these soldiers may have thought...

Anyone seen "Rules of Engagement"? How they start twisting a massacre into self-defence?

Or, maybe more realistic is "Three Kings" - probably the best American War Movie around.

England just got 3 years behind bars.