Worried that she is being scapegoated for the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Brig Gen Janis Karpinski is speaking out:
Gen Karpinski said military intelligence took over part of the Abu Ghraib jail to “Gitmoize” their interrogations – make them more like what was happening in the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is nicknamed “Gitmo”.
She said current Iraqi prisons chief Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller – who was in charge at Guantanamo Bay – visited her in Baghdad and said: “At Guantanamo Bay we learned that the prisoners have to earn every single thing that they have.”
“He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you’ve lost control of them.”
If this is true, Miller has clearly forgotten the most basic reason the US signed treaties on torture. Joe Biden put it (to John Ashcroft) in terms even Miller should be able to understand:
“I’ll conclude by saying there’s a reason why we sign these treaties: To protect my son in the military. That’s why we have these treaties, so when Americans are captured, they are not tortured. That’s the reason, in case anybody forgets it. That’s the reason.”
If there’s any truth to Karpinski’s charges, Maj General Miller needs to be fired now and very, very publically. American soldiers in hot spots around the world, should they be captured, deserve to be treated a bit more humanely than their captors treat their dogs.
As others have noted, there’s another reason why torturing enemy soldiers puts our soldiers’ lives at greater risk: it makes enemy soldiers less likely to surrender, and more likely to fight to the death.
In a war like this one–I think it also make Iraqis who do not support the resistance MUCH less likely to cooperate with U.S. intelligence efforts. Would you turn in your neighbor if you thought he would be tortured as a result? Especially if you’re not certain of his guilt?
The same applies to Muslim communities in the West.
American soldiers in hot spots around the world, should they be captured, deserve to be treated a bit more humanely than their captors treat their dogs.
Unfortunately, the treatment of American soldiers held prisoner over the last 60 years has been sufficiently poor, even when those holding them have been Geneva Convention signatories, as to render this point moot. When the Bush Administration official characterized the Convention as “quaint” a while ago, it was a poor choice of words but it did highlight something that should be considered: if the Conventions apply only to the U. S. perhaps our participation should be re-considered.
Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. How were our prisoners treated by the Iraqis? How many of the casualties we have taken during the war with Iraq have been while the Iraqis were under a flag of truce? Or been due to firing from protected structures such as hospitals or mosques? How often are these structures being used for other illegitimate purposes?
Dave, I think you’re confusing Iraqi soldiers with un-uniformed Iraqi/foreign insurgents, no?
I’m talking about during “major combat operations”. Most of the accounts by our soldiers taken captive—apparently by Iraqi regulars—appear to reflect violations of the Conventions. There were multiple reports of Iraqi regulars firing while under a flag of truce. Use of non-uniformed irregulars is itself a violation. And the reports of mosques, hospitals, and schools being used for the storage of weapons apparently by the regular military are so numerous as to suggest that it was policy.
This is completely consistent with the reports from Gulf War I.
It is quite silly to think that any country that the U.S. is likely to fight would abide by the Geneva Convention or general conventions against torture.
It is quite silly to think that any country that the U.S. is likely to fight would abide by the Geneva Convention or general conventions against torture.
That strikes me as betraying a dangerous level of arrogance/naivety, Nathan.
It implies that the Geneva Convention is obsolete/irrelevant. Much the same way many were saying the UN was irrelevant until we found that winning the peace in Iraq was much harder than we had expected and that the UN was the only body with the credibility to help us get the whole mess back on track.
Naivete or arrogance?
Which do you think is more naive, Edward? The idea that the militaries of cruel dictatorships, used to subjugating their own people, will treat American prisoners according to international conventions? Or, the opposite?
I think that we should act morally because we live in, generally, moral nations. I think that continued moral action helps to preserve one’s morality.
Now, I have no doubt that Western Nation 1 would abide by these conventions in a war against Western Nation 2, and vice-versa. I also think that some nations, say India or Russia, would probably abide by these rules if their soldiers were treated fairly in return.
To say, however, that soldiers of North Korea (for example) or a stateless organization would do the same is a statement completely devoid of rationality.
The idea that the militaries of cruel dictatorships, used to subjugating their own people, will treat American prisoners according to international conventions? Or, the opposite?
Actually I think it’s naive to think “cruel dictators,” per se, are the only enemies we’ll be fighting…war between “moral nations” seemed impossible one century ago and, well, look how naive that looks from this vantage point. You and I actually agree on the other point with regards to nonstate enemies, but I don’t imagine the Geneva Convention becomes null and void just because one side disregards it…isn’t that saved for the war crimes trials later?
I also disagree with the Biden hypothesis. I wouldn’t completely discount it. . I think even North Korea wouldn’t torture American prisoners at the drop of a hat unless the US was doing the same.
The main reason you don’t torture prisoners is because it is evil.
The main reason you don’t torture prisoners is because it is evil.
Yes, but that’s not the same as the main reason you sign treaties.
Edward,
Well, I assume that the U.S. will not be fighting anyone like France or Chile anytime soon. I cannot think of any halfways liberal democracy that you guys might drop the gloves with. If you have any arguments to the contrary, please provide them.
I just take exception to the apparent implication that almost any country out there will respect our prisoners if we respect their’s. Seems dangerously naive to me.
sidereal,
The North Koreans would torture prisoners to get intelligence, which is why almost anyone does it. Also, do not discount the fact that the NK people have been indoctrinated to believe that US citizens are pretty much evil incarnate.
I just take exception to the apparent implication that almost any country out there will respect our prisoners if we respect their’s.
Good clarification. Actually I think they’re more likely to respect ours out of our example somewhat, but more out of the idea that we’re likely to win the conflict and then try them for their participation in it and how well they played by the rules. Having the GC simply makes it clear for everyone what the rules are. When we break the rules, however, I think it definitely reverts back to our example leading the way.
I don’t think we should torture people. But the idea that our decision will likely effect other people’s decision when they already ignore nearly every particular of the Geneva Conventions is about as close to the definition of naive as you can get without quoting Webster’s.
The single most important thing in the Conventions is the idea of a uniformed soldier so you can tell than difference between soldiers and civilians. Why? Because the writers of the conventions knew that if you ignored this, the war would continue anyway, but with a lot more shooting at civilians. Those fighting in Iraq have ignored this since day one. They have also been torturing and murdering those they capture since day one.
We shouldn’t torture because it isn’t the type of thing we ought to do.
But thinking that will protect our soldiers–especially when you aren’t willing to treat torturing and non-torturing enemies differently, is just silly.
“But thinking that will protect our soldiers–especially when you aren’t willing to treat torturing and non-torturing enemies differently, is just silly.”
I don’t think it’s that silly. Of course you need a well-earned Karnak award or a close relationship with a dictator to know exactly what someone would do. But it seems to me that worse things can happen to you than a military defeat. For example, an 80-year old man is being deported to the Ukraine from the US because he served in a concentration camp 60 years ago. And we can make it clear that worse things than defeat will be visited upon you if you engage in torture.
Of course the rule of law has certain abstractions and formalities that may not be compelling to brutal people who are convinced they’re going to be eaten if they lose, so I wouldn’t make a huge deal out of the possibility, but I don’t think it’s right to entirely discount it.
“How were our prisoners treated by the Iraqis?”
I don’t have anything resembling exhaustive knowledge, but the most famous US prisoner of war was, it turned out, treated quite well, yes?
“Most of the accounts by our soldiers taken captive—apparently by Iraqi regulars—appear to reflect violations of the Conventions.”
Cite, please?
sidereal,
It has been a rather popular notion in the last decade or so that a bunch of elderly Ukrainian men need to be deported because it is possible that they helped the Germans commit atrocities. Bully for us.
The man was forced to served in an SS camp. There is no proof that he engaged in atrocities.
He lied when entering the country, you say? Fancy that. A man forced to work for the SS lies about it when entering the country.
Oh, and it is Ukraine, not the Ukraine. It is a country, not a region.
Nathan, I missed the part where I advocated either for or against his deportation.
“Oh, and it is Ukraine, not the Ukraine. It is a country, not a region.”
Noted. Not sure why it came out that way. I get equally irritated at the supercilious old brits who say ‘the Argentine’.
“It has been a rather popular notion in the last decade or so that a bunch of elderly Ukrainian men need to be deported because it is possible that they helped the Germans commit atrocities.”
It’s been a popular notion, though only occasionally carried out, that those who are proven to have entered this country illegally be deported to countries that seek to try them for war crimes if there is sufficient evidence. Does this bother you?
“The man was forced to served in an SS camp.”
Can you cite a case of someone refusing such service and being punished? Can you cite a case of a Pole being so punished?
From the story: “Jakiw Palij has denied taking part in atrocities, but told federal investigators he was recruited from his Polish village and worked for the SS at the Trawniki forced-labor camp for two months in 1943.”
What proof of force do you offer? Where do you get the notion he was “forced”? What source are you citing for even suggesting that?
“He lied when entering the country, you say? Fancy that. A man forced to work for the SS lies about it when entering the country.”
Having been in the SS isn’t illegal. Lying on entrance to the country is. Fancy that.
But, always nice to see apologists for the SS. Would you say they were “victims,” then?
I find it interesting when a fellow who apparently, from his weblog, condones illegal immigration says that lying about a particularly difficult time in one’s life, when legally immigrating, should be subject to deportation.
The facts are (as far as I can tell) that he served (likely involuntarily) for two months in 1943, some time before a massacre that happened there. Note that the state seems to have no evidence beyond him serving for those two months.
So, what this boils down to is a man who lied on his immigration application (one assumes). Better deport him so that he can die with distant relatives who know him not.
As an aside, Farber, I demand an apology for the SS remark. If not, then go piss up a rope.
sidereal,
Sorry for my tone, but I often get excited when people talk about Ukrainians (or, Eastern Europeans generally) and Nazism. We have had quite an affair here in Canada regarding this very subject.
Dave Schuler: How often are these structures being used for other illegitimate purposes?
When civilian are killed because US soldiers attacked a mosque or a hospital, it is invariably discovered that the “structure” was or could have been or the commander had reasonable reason to believe was being used for “other illegitimate purposes”. Just as when Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian civilians, it’s always because the civilians were “caught in the crossfire”.
Well Jesurgislac, insinuate as much as you want, but if our enemies didn’t actually make a habit of using mosques, hospitals and ambulances in such ways, we wouldn’t have to guess and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.