UK Lawmakers Accuse U.S. of Grave Rights Violations

[SunDevil]

UK Lawmakers Accuse U.S. of Grave Rights Violations

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States has committed "grave violations of human rights" against prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Foreign Affairs Committee of Britain's parliament said in a report on Friday.

The report also called on the British government to make clear whether it uses intelligence passed on by other countries that may have been gathered by torturing suspects.

"We conclude that United States personnel appear to have committed grave violations of human rights of persons held in detention in various facilities in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan," the committee wrote in its influential annual report on human rights.

"We recommend that the government make it clear to the United States administration, both in public and private, that such treatment of detainees is unacceptable."

The committee said it was "surprising and unsettling" that the government had twice failed to answer whether London receives information extracted under torture by a third country.

"The arguments for evaluating information which purports to give details of, for example, an impending terrorist attack, whatever its provenance, are compelling," the committee said.

"We further conclude, however, that to operate a general policy of use of information extracted under torture would be to condone and even to encourage torture by repressive states."

The treatment of prisoners at the U.S. military camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the rising threat from terrorism has sparked a heated debate in Britain about torture.

Human rights groups have criticized conditions at the camp and interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation or subjecting detainees to extreme temperatures, some of which they say are akin to torture.

The committee also called for better training of British troops on the treatment of prisoners to prevent further abuses of inmates like those seen in Iraq since the conflict.

Four British soldiers were convicted of abuse last month and other cases are ongoing, although there has been no suggestion that Britain authorized the sort of aggressive interrogations used by the Americans.

Lawmakers also waded into the row over China's arms embargo, opposing the lifting of the European Union's ban on arms sales.

"The raising of the EU arms embargo on China would send the wrong signal at this time, in the absence of strong undertakings from the Chinese government to address human rights issues," the report said.

The EU, keen to boost trade and diplomatic ties with China, agreed last year to aim to lift the ban by the end of June. It was imposed after the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protests.

But China's passing of a law last week granting itself the right to use force to curtail independence moves by Taiwan has made countries including Britain more wary of the move, which Washington fears would give China access to advanced weaponry.

[Calis]

Must be getting late, I read the title and wondered what exactly the U.S. has been doing to graves that's so horrible.

I'm going to bed now.

[Eaglesfan27]

Must be getting late, I read the title and wondered what exactly the U.S. has been doing to graves that's so horrible.

I'm going to bed now.
I did the same thing. I think I better get some sleep as well.

[DaddyTorgo]

it's this kinda stuff that makes me ashamed to be an American (the torture i mean). The ICC ought to do something about this, not that we'd accept their jurisdiction of it or anything, but wouldn't it be nice to see Rummy indicted for war crimes?

[BishopMVP]

wouldn't it be nice to see Rummy indicted for war crimes?Uh, no. If he did something wrong, I'd like to see him tried under some system where he'd actually be punished. If he didn't, I don't want to see other governments getting pissed off because the USA didn't comply with a kangaroo court's ruling.

[Desnudo]

it's this kinda stuff that makes me ashamed to be an American (the torture i mean). The ICC ought to do something about this, not that we'd accept their jurisdiction of it or anything, but wouldn't it be nice to see Rummy indicted for war crimes?

How, precisely, do you think we get information on terrorism? By asking pretty please?

[jamesUMD]

But beheading people that have come to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, and have no strategic information of use is not a grave violation?????

The US military has been known to play by the rules for so long, that it has made it a detriment to our capabilities. We should have taken the kid gloves off a long time ago. The information they glean from those prisoners is used to keep our soldiers abroad, and our citizens at home out of harm's way and while it might not be under the best of conditions, this is not a flag football tournament.

[ISiddiqui]

But beheading people that have come to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, and have no strategic information of use is not a grave violation?????
What kind of argument is that?! Have the British exonerated those groups? What a cop out!

The US military has been known to play by the rules for so long, that it has made it a detriment to our capabilities. We should have taken the kid gloves off a long time ago. The information they glean from those prisoners is used to keep our soldiers abroad, and our citizens at home out of harm's way and while it might not be under the best of conditions, this is not a flag football tournament.
So since it is 'hard', we should stop being the good guys? Naw, doesn't work that way. I don't want to see us 'turn to the dark side', so to speak. The abyss is a long way down and I don't want to take the first step.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Must be getting late, I read the title and wondered what exactly the U.S. has been doing to graves that's so horrible.

I'm going to bed now.

Ditto.

[jamesUMD]

Our enemies pray upon the fact that they know that the United States uses a different playbook than they do. I spent my time in Bosnia, Korea, and many other spots and have seen the problems with being reactive rather than proactive.

My wife's cousin is on his 2nd tour in Iraq and I told him to do what he needed to to stay alive. Period.

I love the "Good Guys" comment. That's amusing. Where can I get a pair of those Rose colored glasses you have? The only people that see the United States as the "Good Guys" live in Texas, Washington, California, Virginia, etc., etc. That's the sort of self delusion that we all need to get past. Americans see ourselves as the Shining White Knight, even though, outside of the country, we are more often seen as marauding invaders.

I understand your comment about turning to the Dark Side, and agree that I don't want to see the United States start carpet bombing villages indiscriminately. What I am talking about it more efficient use of aggresion. Innocent Iraqi's get killed because the troops over there have to have their head's on a constant swivel because there is no way of telling who's on our side and who's on their side. If we are extracting information that can lead us to more clearly separate those that bear ill-will to us from those that are innocent bystanders, then I am all for it.

[ISiddiqui]

That 'different playbook' makes us the good guys. And don't forget, that's one of the main reasons given now for why we fought this war against Iraq. We wanted to bring democracy and freedom to the country. That presupposes a good guy exterior. If we stoop to torture, any moral high ground we may have had is gone, and what example will the Iraqis to whom we are trying to promote human rights among take away?

Torture is torture is torture... and the US should not be one of the few countries that engages in it to get information. We ARE supposed to be the good guys out there and not just internally to the US either.

[jamesUMD]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this

[Runtheball]

I thought Saddam's treatment of dissidents within his "regime" and use of torture were among the reasons that the US decided the world would be a better place without him? Remember how we blasted Uday and Kusay for the tortures they committed on enemies of their government? What evil men they were for having tortured so many people! I don't remember anyone here justifying their use of torture to accomplish their goals.

Welcome to the Bush regime! Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

[CamEdwards]

wouldn't it be nice to see Rummy indicted for war crimes?

I really probably should just let this go, but after asking this I have to ask... who's fucking side are you on here?

[Blackadar]

I really probably should just let this go, but after asking this I have to ask... who's fucking side are you on here?

The side of good.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If we want to continue to tout our country as the paragon of good and virtue - which we have and continue to do so - then we better damn well act like it.

[Crapshoot]

I really probably should just let this go, but after asking this I have to ask... who's fucking side are you on here?

jeez Cam, torturing when you (the US, not you personally :D) do it is "extracting information", but when they do it human rights abuses - who's wearing the rose-tinted glasses now ?

[Anthony]

Our enemies pray upon the fact that they know that the United States uses a different playbook than they do. I spent my time in Bosnia, Korea, and many other spots and have seen the problems with being reactive rather than proactive.

My wife's cousin is on his 2nd tour in Iraq and I told him to do what he needed to to stay alive. Period.

I love the "Good Guys" comment. That's amusing. Where can I get a pair of those Rose colored glasses you have? The only people that see the United States as the "Good Guys" live in Texas, Washington, California, Virginia, etc., etc. That's the sort of self delusion that we all need to get past. Americans see ourselves as the Shining White Knight, even though, outside of the country, we are more often seen as marauding invaders.

I understand your comment about turning to the Dark Side, and agree that I don't want to see the United States start carpet bombing villages indiscriminately. What I am talking about it more efficient use of aggresion. Innocent Iraqi's get killed because the troops over there have to have their head's on a constant swivel because there is no way of telling who's on our side and who's on their side. If we are extracting information that can lead us to more clearly separate those that bear ill-will to us from those that are innocent bystanders, then I am all for it.

me and you are friends. :cool:

[DaddyTorgo]

I really probably should just let this go, but after asking this I have to ask... who's fucking side are you on here?
I'm on the side of right. Of course I want to see us win, but let's face it...if we can't beat a bunch of towelheads without resorting to torture and beating of prisoners then I think we ought to admit defeat. Better to die on our feet than live on our knees. Keep in mind that the only reason that they are pissed off at us to the extent that they are (at least in the case of Al Queda) is because we have troops in Saudi Arabia. And why do we have troops in Saudi Arabia?? Oh that's right, there's no good reason. If we got the FUCK out of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East and let them resolve their own problems however they see fit (something which we have been real big on in the Western Hemisphere in the past...Monroe Doctrine and all) then Bin Ladin and the other towelheads wouldn't be trying to blow us up. Sure you can argue that they wouldn't like us because Islam is inherently a violent religion with bloody borders (see Huntington, Samuel "The Clash of Civilizations" among others) but it would be a whole lot harder for them to win converts willing to devote their lives to causing us harm if we'd stay the hell out of their backyard where we have ZERO business being. So basically I see the whole conflict as a demonstraition of the results of decades of misguided foreign policy in the Middle East. Ever since the end of WW II we have been mucking about there with no understanding of the long-term effects of our actions. If we just got the HELL out of there and stopped giving preferential treatment to Israel then in a couple generations there wouldn't be Arab terrorists going on anti-American jihads.

But we can't...cuz the oil is there. And our economy is so wrapped up in oil and the big oil companies have us by the balls so much that we're unwilling even to seriously research alternative energy sources.

So basically, the problem is ours. We created it. But that doesn't mean that we have the moral right to throw the playbook out the window and use an "the ends justify the means" argument. Because they don't. They NEVER do. That's an argument used by people of dubious moral character to justify something that they know is wrong. I have a cousin at West Point and the idea that he might be overseas somewhere in a couple years fighting the fights that big business has pushed the government to fight scares the crap out of me. It scares me even more to think that he could be captured by some legitimate government that is a reasonably law-abiding member of the international community and then tortured because the US has decided to throw the Geneva Convention out the window. Because make no mistake about it, that is what this is. Sure terrorists aren't recognized as soldiers of a foreign power, but when you have the Attorney General of the US coming out in support of torture of prisoners do you really expect that if say...we went to war with China over say Taiwan (hypothetically) the Chinese wouldn't torture our prisoners knowing that we believed, and had stated, that torture was an acceptable means of gaining information from prisoners in certain situations. Cuz if so then you are delusional.

[Anthony]

has it ever been confirmed that those are indeed towels on their heads. couldn't they be like t-shirts or some other type of material?

[Dutch]

I'm on the side of right. Of course I want to see us win, but let's face it...if we can't beat a bunch of towelheads without resorting to torture and beating of prisoners then I think we ought to admit defeat.

You know, in the 1770's the British used to say....

In any event, everybody is against torture. The big problem with the US Soldier (and why discipline is so very important) is that when one guy or a gang of soldiers do something horrific, it's not their "bad", it's the USA's "bad". I have been in the military for 14 years and have been around a lot of security and intel forces in all branches and have never been subjected to any sanctioning of torture. But people are still bad people, units still do bad things, others feel pressure to do bad things that their commanders tell them to do. It does exist and when you are in a situation away from home, when the good guys do bad things, it gets confusing on what the individual should do. And most of the time, it's keep quiet. But I can guarantee that the other 99% of the people in the field that are worried about survival are pissed that some idiot in a prison in torturing somebody and pissing off the locals. Because in the end, it's the guys on the checkpoints that will be bombed and the civilians kids on their school buses that will be bombed, not the dumb prison guard in some far away prison. Get 150,000 people together anywhere and crime happens. There is a concerted effort to reduce it as much as possible and our army is setting the standard for armies of the future. We only hear about the bad news in the media and if it's only one thing it will get replayed over and over again until we think it's an epidemic.

Better to die on our feet than live on our knees.

Recruitment is down, those with opinion on the war are up. Join today and help get this thing over with.

Keep in mind that the only reason that they are pissed off at us to the extent that they are (at least in the case of Al Queda) is because we have troops in Saudi Arabia. And why do we have troops in Saudi Arabia?? Oh that's right, there's no good reason. If we got the FUCK out of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East and let them resolve their own problems however they see fit...

We did get out of Saudi Arabia and moved to Qatar and Kuwait. The perception of US forces "occupying" the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina ended up being a propaganda battle won by Al Qaeda. We were basically forced to leave in an attempt to reduce the hatred that had brewed against our presense there.

(something which we have been real big on in the Western Hemisphere in the past...Monroe Doctrine and all) then Bin Ladin and the other towelheads wouldn't be trying to blow us up. Sure you can argue that they wouldn't like us because Islam is inherently a violent religion with bloody borders (see Huntington, Samuel "The Clash of Civilizations" among others) but it would be a whole lot harder for them to win converts willing to devote their lives to causing us harm if we'd stay the hell out of their backyard where we have ZERO business being.

We were in Saudi Arabia before to keep watch on Saddam Hussein, the primary reason we had to get rid of Saddam Hussein was so that we could leave Saudi Arabia. This is all big picture stuff.

So basically I see the whole conflict as a demonstraition of the results of decades of misguided foreign policy in the Middle East. Ever since the end of WW II we have been mucking about there with no understanding of the long-term effects of our actions. If we just got the HELL out of there and stopped giving preferential treatment to Israel then in a couple generations there wouldn't be Arab terrorists going on anti-American jihads.

You do realize that they hate our "preferential" treatment of our friends in Israel because with our support Israel kicks the living crap out of them when they invade. What do you think they will do with the Jewish population in Israel once "WE LEAVE" and they move in? I think Genocide is a fair thought process in this instance.

But we can't...cuz the oil is there. And our economy is so wrapped up in oil and the big oil companies have us by the balls so much that we're unwilling even to seriously research alternative energy sources.

You are right. We need to protect that oil, we are the only nation on Earth that pays fair market price for the substance. Europe is getting raped by their gas prices. We are all freaking out that the price of gas is now above $2 a gallon. If we don't protect our national interests that gets a whole lot worse, fast.

Also, we don't need to research alternative energy sources, the world will use up the OIL on this Earth in 50 years time, then we can research new stuff. If you think that by us (and the rest of the world I gather) not buying Middle Eastern oil will make Arabs happy, you are reading the wrong blogs.

So basically, the problem is ours. We created it. But that doesn't mean that we have the moral right to throw the playbook out the window and use an "the ends justify the means" argument. Because they don't. They NEVER do. That's an argument used by people of dubious moral character to justify something that they know is wrong. I have a cousin at West Point and the idea that he might be overseas somewhere in a couple years fighting the fights that big business has pushed the government to fight scares the crap out of me. It scares me even more to think that he could be captured by some legitimate government that is a reasonably law-abiding member of the international community and then tortured because the US has decided to throw the Geneva Convention out the window. Because make no mistake about it, that is what this is. Sure terrorists aren't recognized as soldiers of a foreign power, but when you have the Attorney General of the US coming out in support of torture of prisoners do you really expect that if say...we went to war with China over say Taiwan (hypothetically) the Chinese wouldn't torture our prisoners knowing that we believed, and had stated, that torture was an acceptable means of gaining information from prisoners in certain situations. Cuz if so then you are delusional.

You have successfully scared yourself into a corner with your logic. The USA has not thrown the Geneva Convention out the window. While you are curled up in the fetal position somewhere, have your brother stop by and explain to you what's really going on in a couple of years.

Good luck.

[Dutch]

dola,

Again, I'm not in favor of going to war and sticking guys checkpoints to be blown up by terrorists.

But I refuse to lose focus on the true bad guys. Guys who blow up bus loads of kids, restaraunts full of people, try to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons to kill Jews. These things are all massively terrible ventures that have been active ongoing missions of people in the Middle East.

Going to war was not an option in 2003. It was a requirement. Every other option was used, it was the only choice left before things spiralled out of control. We had to prove to the terrorists that we meant business and would go after them and those who harbored them.

[NoMyths]

In any event, everybody is against torture.Once again, Dutch, you're being dishonest, either intentionally with the forum or unintentionally with yourself. Plenty of people are for torture. Just read this thread. If "everybody" was against torture, there wouldn't be any. Abu Ghraib wouldn't have happened. It's the same argument that people used in 2003, that 'nobody wants war.' Which was dishonest as well--plenty of people want war, like war, and want to see 'the enemy'--whoever that might be at the time--killed, in as large of numbers as possible. Plenty of people enjoy using violence to gain some measure of what they feel is either revenge or superiority. People like power.

And to say: Going to war was not an option in 2003. It was a requirement. Every other option was used, it was the only choice left before things spiralled out of control. We had to prove to the terrorists that we meant business and would go after them and those who harbored them.is also inaccurate. It was an option. Every other option was not exhausted. If we wanted to prove to the terrorists that we meant business we would have captured Bin Laden at Tora Bora instead of committing the bulk of our resources and manpower to creating an enormous terrorist insurgency in a country that's currently costing us almost a hundred billion dollars a year to rebuild and police.

[gstelmack]

Keep in mind that the only reason that they are pissed off at us to the extent that they are (at least in the case of Al Queda) is because we have troops in Saudi Arabia. And why do we have troops in Saudi Arabia?? Oh that's right, there's no good reason.
Well, let me see, there was the Saudis INVITING us to keep Saddam from overrunning them like he overran Kuwait.

And the Arab terrorist groups have been mad at us for a lot longer than any intervention in Saudi Arabia. Or am I the only one who remembers the '70s? You're completely ignoring the Iranian Embassy situation, the bombing of the barracks in Beirut, and a laundry list of Middle East situations. This is just their latest excuse. Back in the '80s when they were focused on Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, they referred to the Soviets as the "Lesser Satan". Guess who the "Great Satan" was? This at a time when we were supplying their efforts to oust the Soviets.

This goes a lot deeper than the simplistic reasons given over the last couple of years.

[Bubba Wheels]

To be very simplistic about it: As long as certain 'globalist' politicians deem it important to send Americans around the world as their 'policemen' while our 'allies' just sit on their thumbs and criticize us for doing it we are almost (I say almost) getting what is inevitable. Somewhere we need a discusssion or debate to redefine what our interests as a country are...both sides of the political spectrum need re-evaluate what they see our global interests as being and then clearly define those positions for us the voter.

[Dutch]

Once again, Dutch, you're being dishonest, either intentionally with the forum or unintentionally with yourself. Plenty of people are for torture. Just read this thread. If "everybody" was against torture, there wouldn't be any. Abu Ghraib wouldn't have happened. It's the same argument that people used in 2003, that 'nobody wants war.' Which was dishonest as well--plenty of people want war, like war, and want to see 'the enemy'--whoever that might be at the time--killed, in as large of numbers as possible. Plenty of people enjoy using violence to gain some measure of what they feel is either revenge or superiority. People like power.

You have a lot of passion NoMyths, I wish you had this sort of passion towards people who blow up school buses. I do not want this war, but I don't want people blowing up school buses or ramming planes into buildings even more.

It's been said a million times, the Baath Party, the Taliban, the Al Qaeda, they simply don't have the standards of the US and UK. They choose to do those things and I believe they should be stopped. If they have to die, I'm not opposed to that.

And to say: is also inaccurate. It was an option. Every other option was not exhausted. If we wanted to prove to the terrorists that we meant business we would have captured Bin Laden at Tora Bora instead of committing the bulk of our resources and manpower to creating an enormous terrorist insurgency in a country that's currently costing us almost a hundred billion dollars a year to rebuild and police.

I believe even John Kerry said it was neccessary but that we did it all wrong and that his web-site would "explain" the details of how it would be done differently.

[NoMyths]

You have a lot of passion NoMyths, I wish you had this sort of passion towards people who blow up school buses. I do not want this war, but I don't want people blowing up school buses or ramming planes into buildings even more.I do have this sort of passion against those people. It's just that I realize if we continue to enact the same cycles of violence and retribution--especially in acting as they do in terms of torture--then we will never succeed. Maybe in the short term, but it will eventually lead to further--and worse--death and destruction.
It always has.

[Greyroofoo]

I just think its funny that it was the Reagan administration that gave a known sociopath like Saddam biological weapons in the first place. Have we ever done anything right in the region?

So what's happening in the Terry Schiavo case?

[gstelmack]

I do have this sort of passion against those people. It's just that I realize if we continue to enact the same cycles of violence and retribution--especially in acting as they do in terms of torture--then we will never succeed. Maybe in the short term, but it will eventually lead to further--and worse--death and destruction.
It always has.
That's why we are also in the process of reconstructing Iraq. We have to get rid of the combatants, and win over the hearts of the civilians. Have to do both, and we're trying to do both.

[NoMyths]

That's why we are also in the process of reconstructing Iraq. We have to get rid of the combatants, and win over the hearts of the civilians. Have to do both, and we're trying to do both.I agree on both counts. I'm just more insistent than some that we take as much care as we're able in doing so. We have to insure that our methods in resolving the first of those concerns do not make the second impossible.

[Dutch]

I agree on both counts. I'm just more insistent than some that we take as much care as we're able in doing so. We have to insure that our methods in resolving the first of those concerns do not make the second impossible.

Those soldiers are trying a lot harder than you give them credit for. And they are more professional than you give them credit for. And the last time I checked, they are the ones paying the price for Abu Ghraib and the insurgency, not you.

[NoMyths]

Those soldiers are trying a lot harder than you give them credit for. And they are more professional than you give them credit for. And the last time I checked, they are the ones paying the price for Abu Ghraib and the insurgency, not you.I give them much more credit than you seem to think. I have been nothing but impressed with the care the majority of our soldiers have taken in a very difficult situation, despite the bloodthirstiness of the hawks in our country arguing a much more violent approach. Nothing in my comments has indicated the contrary. Perhaps if you'd read what I say more carefully you'd note that.

But I disagree that they are the only ones paying for Abu Ghraib. Our entire country, and not merely our armed forces, is paying. I'm arguing that we need to do all we can to keep those costs down. For the most part I am encouraged by the efforts of the men and women on the ground to do so.

[randal7]

Sleep deprivation, climate control extremes, and nekkid hairy men in a pyramid are not, my friends, torture. Abusive, maybe. Immoral, I don't know enough about the circumstances to say. (Well, except for the nekkid hairy men thing. That's just wrong and those people need psychological treatment.)

Feeding people to your pet lions, cutting off heads on video, making someone watch you rape and kill their family members, pulling random women off the street and gang-raping them, and cutting out tongues or cutting off various limbs - these are torture.

You are welcome to your opinion about whether various US actions were right or wrong. But to equate paragraph 1 with paragraph 2 sort of damages your credibility. I imagine the people who were subjected to paragraph 2 by our enemies would gladly have taken paragraph 1 as an alternative. The new boss is not perfect, he may be way out in left field on this, but he is definitely not the old boss.

This is directed at no particular person, I just get tired of the same term being used for two extremely different types of actions.

[Greyroofoo]

torture is still torture no matter how bad it is

not to mention some old ways die hard....
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/26/iraq10053.htm

[Dutch]

A lie told often enough becomes truth

I love that quote, btw. Much along the lines of "perception becomes reality".

[Greyroofoo]

Its pretty much the motto of the GOP

[NoMyths]

Randal7: You wouldn't consider treatment that ends with the deaths of prisoners to be torture?

Article Quotes:
"A senior Army legal official acknowledged that the Iraqi colonel had at one point been lifted to his feet by a baton held to his throat, and that that action had caused a throat injury that contributed to his death."

"Some of the deaths described in the Army accounting have already been widely reported, including two deaths at Bagram in Afghanistan in December 2002; the death at Abu Ghraib in November 2003 of an Iraqi who was being questioned by a Central Intelligence Agency officer; and the death the same month of an Iraqi major general who had been stuffed head-first into a sleeping bag."


Link: NYT: Pentagon Will Not Try 17 G.I.'s Implicated in Prisoners' Deaths (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/politics/26abuse.html?hp&ex=1111813200&en=8313799397cbbde3&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

Full Text:
Pentagon Will Not Try 17 G.I.'s Implicated in Prisoners' Deaths
by Douglas Jehl

WASHINGTON, March 25 - Despite recommendations by Army investigators, commanders have decided not to prosecute 17 American soldiers implicated in the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004, according to a new accounting released Friday by the Army.

Investigators had recommended that all 17 soldiers be charged in the cases, according to the accounting by the Army Criminal Investigation Command. The charges included murder, conspiracy and negligent homicide. While none of the 17 will face any prosecution, one received a letter of reprimand and another was discharged after the investigations.

To date, the military has taken steps toward prosecuting some three dozen soldiers in connection with a total of 28 confirmed or suspected homicides of detainees. The total number of such deaths is believed to be between 28 and 31.

In one of the three cases in which no charges are to be filed, the commanders determined the death to be "a result of a series of lawful applications of force." In the second, the commanders decided not to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. In the third, they determined the soldier involved had not been well informed of the rules of engagement.

A spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command, Chris Grey, said in a statement: "We take each and every death very seriously and are committed and sworn to investigating each case with the utmost professionalism and thoroughness. We are equally determined to get to the truth wherever the evidence may lead us and regardless of how long it takes."

Human rights groups and others have criticized the military for not pursuing prosecution more aggressively.

The accounting was the most detailed the military has yet made public of the deaths of prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of the 28 deaths investigated, 13 occurred in American detention centers in those countries and 15 occurred at the point where prisoners were captured. Only one occurred in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which has been known until now as the site of the most extensive abuses by American military personnel.

The 28 deaths include two cases involving members of the Navy Seals, which are still being investigated by the Navy, according to military officials. They also include a prisoner in Marine Corps custody whose death resulted in the conviction of two marines on charges including assault and dereliction of duty, according to a Marine spokesman.

Not included in the 28 are three other deaths of prisoners involving marines but under investigation by the Navy.

With the disposition of the three cases involving the 17 soldiers not prosecuted, the Army now has 21 soldiers listed as subjects for prosecution on criminal charges including, among others, murder, negligent homicide and assault.

Of those 21 soldiers, at least 3 have been convicted in general courts-martial, and at least 3 others are awaiting trial, the Army accounting showed.

The Army said one of the three deaths for which soldiers would not be prosecuted was that of a former Iraqi lieutenant colonel determined by investigators to have died of "blunt force injuries and asphyxia" at an American Forward Operating Base in Al Asad, Iraq, in January 2004.

In that case, Army investigators had recommended that 11 soldiers from the Fifth Special Forces Group and the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment face charges. The decision not to prosecute in that case, as well as one other, was made by the Army Special Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., the Army said.

A senior Army legal official acknowledged that the Iraqi colonel had at one point been lifted to his feet by a baton held to his throat, and that that action had caused a throat injury that contributed to his death.

The Army accounting said the Special Forces Command had determined that the use of force had been lawful "in response to repeated aggression and misconduct by the detainee."

The former Iraqi colonel was not identified but has been named in other reports as Jameel.

The senior Army legal official said the prisoner's resistance to his captors' instructions had caused them to gag him and to lift him to his feet with the baton, actions that contributed to the death.

The Army Special Forces case that commanders decided to drop for lack of evidence involved the shooting death of a prisoner in Afghanistan in August 2002, the Army said.

The case not prosecuted because the soldier involved was not well informed of the rules of engagement, involved the Fourth Infantry Division. The detainee, who died in September 2003, was an Iraqi prisoner at an American detention center.

The Army said it has now closed its investigations into 16 of the deaths, and referred five of them to the Navy, the Justice Department or foreign governments for possible prosecution.

Some of the deaths described in the Army accounting have already been widely reported, including two deaths at Bagram in Afghanistan in December 2002; the death at Abu Ghraib in November 2003 of an Iraqi who was being questioned by a Central Intelligence Agency officer; and the death the same month of an Iraqi major general who had been stuffed head-first into a sleeping bag.

An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Jeremy Martin, said the prisoners who died represented a tiny fraction of what he said had been some 70,000 detainees held by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Altogether, more than a million American soldiers have taken part in those operations, Colonel Martin said.

A spokesman for the Army Special Operations Forces Command, Maj. Robert E. Gowan, said a "careful review of the facts" surrounding each of the two incidents involving that command indicated that "no U.S. Army Special Forces Command soldiers were found to have participated in any misconduct or detainee abuse."

"U.S. Army Special Forces Command takes all allegations of detainee abuse and homicide very seriously," Major Gowan said in an e-mail statement in response to an inquiry. "As with any case, U.S. Army Special Forces Command will consider all relevant evidence and facts. This command will make appropriate disposition of such cases as warranted by the facts and evidence derived from the investigations."

[NoMyths]

Dola: The "Despite recommendations by Army investigators" part in particular gets my goat.

[Dutch]

Its pretty much the motto of the GOP

So what lie have they told enough times that you believe?

[Greyroofoo]

Well most recently the whole Bush will come riding down on a white horse to save Social Security

[Dutch]

Well most recently the whole Bush will come riding down on a white horse to save Social Security

Doesn't sound like you believe it. Has the "lie" not been repeated enough for you? Was it a "lie" when Clinton wanted to save it?

[Airhog]

Sleep deprivation, climate control extremes, and nekkid hairy men in a pyramid

This is torture. Webster defines torture as such

1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

All three of those fall under number 1. Just because its not physical abuse doesnt mean that it isnt torture.

[NoMyths]

Not to mention that anyone who doesn't consider sleep deprivation to be torture has never experienced it in a serious way.

[GMO]

What is torture?
Is sleep deprivation torture?
Is holding someone in a dark,dingy prison cell with bars torture?
Is incessantly questionning someone torture?

Your wife and kids are kidnapped and about to be killed, and someone is in your custody who knows where they are being held. You ask that person where your wife and kids are. He refuses to answer. What do you do? What is the right thing to do?

Should there be one set of rules that cover all situations? Should there be rules about torture that cover relatively minor incidents and other rules that cover major situations?
Should there be one set of rules for situations in democratic countries and other rules for other countries?

There are laws/rules against killing/murder but then it doesn't apply absolutely in all situations. If you have to murder someone to save your life then that's acceptable. It's also ok to kill someone in a war.

So laws or rules change depending upon the situation.

Should there be an absolute law against all types of torture in all situations, or should the law against torture be situational?

Who decides this?

[clintl]

Thomas Friedman's latest column (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman) might be enlightening for some people here.

Of all the stories about the abuse of prisoners of war by American soldiers and C.I.A. agents, surely none was more troubling and important than the March 16 report by my Times colleagues Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt that at least 26 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 - in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide.

You have to stop and think about this: We killed 26 of our prisoners of war. In 18 cases, people have been recommended for prosecution or action by their supervising agencies, and eight other cases are still under investigation. That is simply appalling. Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, reported Jehl and Schmitt - "showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison's night shift."

Yes, I know war is hell and ugliness abounds in every corner. I also understand that in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we are up against a vicious enemy, which, if it had the power, would do great harm to our country. You do not deal with such people with kid gloves. But killing prisoners of war, presumably in the act of torture, is an inexcusable outrage. The fact that Congress has just shrugged this off, and no senior official or officer has been fired, is a travesty. This administration is for "ownership" of everything except responsibility.

President Bush just appointed Karen Hughes, his former media adviser, to head up yet another U.S. campaign to improve America's image in the Arab world. I have a suggestion: Just find out who were the cabinet, C.I.A. and military officers on whose watch these 26 homicides occurred and fire them. That will do more to improve America's image in the Arab-Muslim world than any ad campaign, which will be useless if this sort of prisoner abuse is shrugged off. Republicans in Congress went into overdrive to protect the sanctity of Terri Schiavo's life. But they were mute when it came to the sanctity of life for prisoners in our custody. Such hypocrisy is not going to win any P.R. battles.

By coincidence, while following this prisoner abuse story, I've been reading "Washington's Crossing," the outstanding book by the Brandeis historian David Hackett Fischer about how George Washington and his troops rescued the American Revolution after British forces and German Hessian mercenaries had routed them in the early battles around New Jersey.

What is particularly moving is one of Mr. Fischer's concluding sections, "An American Way of War," in which he contrasts how Washington dealt with prisoners of war with how the British and Hessian forces did: "According to the 'the laws' of European war, quarter was the privilege of being allowed to surrender and to become a prisoner. By custom and tradition, soldiers in Europe believed that they had a right to extend quarter or deny it. ... In these 'laws of war,' no captive had an inalienable right to be taken prisoner, or even to life itself."

American attitudes were very different. "With some exceptions, American leaders believed that quarter should be extended to all combatants as a matter of right. ... Americans were outraged when quarter was denied to their soldiers." In one egregious incident, at the battle at Drake's Farm, British troops murdered all seven of Washington's soldiers who had surrendered, crushing their brains with muskets.

"The Americans recovered the mutilated corpses and were shocked," wrote Mr. Fischer. The British commander simply denied responsibility. "The words of the British commander, as much as the acts of his men," wrote Mr. Fischer, "reinforced the American resolve to run their own war in a different spirit. ... Washington ordered that Hessian captives would be treated as human beings with the same rights of humanity for which Americans were striving. The Hessians ... were amazed to be treated with decency and even kindness. At first they could not understand it." The same policy was extended to British prisoners.

In concluding his book, Mr. Fischer wrote lines that President Bush would do well to ponder: George Washington and the American soldiers and civilians fighting alongside him in the New Jersey campaign not only reversed the momentum of a bitter war, but they did so by choosing "a policy of humanity that aligned the conduct of the war with the values of the Revolution. They set a high example, and we have much to learn from them."

[Dutch]

Would you expect anything else from the New York Times?

[Chubby]

Would you expect anything else from the New York Times?
Yes, it surely must be fabricated. I should go call up Rush to get the real info :rolleyes:

[Greyroofoo]

Make sure you drop a line to Bill O'Reilly when you hear back from Rush

[Dutch]

Whatever, the NYT doesn't print anything that isn't anti-Bush. They have a rep to uphold.

[Chubby]

Whatever, the NYT doesn't print anything that isn't anti-Bush. They have a rep to uphold.
Uhhh a triple negative? It's going to take me a while to figure out what you really meant :p

the fact that a source is or is percieved to be biased doesn't change the facts of the case. When Lewinski-gate was going on, just because Rush or whoever was talking about it didn't make it not true (that BC got a BJ).

[NoMyths]

Whatever, the NYT doesn't print anything that isn't anti-Bush. They have a rep to uphold.What are you talking about? Safire's op-ed column promoted a conservative viewpoint for 32 years. Again, maybe you should actually read closely instead of just taking the word of people who espouse your viewpoint.

[Dutch]

Uhhh a triple negative? It's going to take me a while to figure out what you really meant :p

:cool:

the fact that a source is or is percieved to be biased doesn't change the facts of the case. When Lewinski-gate was going on, just because Rush or whoever was talking about it didn't make it not true (that BC got a BJ).

Facts are thrown out all the time because they are presented with a conservative viewpoint. Fair play.

[Raiders Army]

Chubby obviously believes it's okay to break the rules. The U.S. can break their contract with the U.N. and other nations by torturing prisoners because:

The whole "contract" argument is a load of crap. Tons of people in various professions (which is what I think our armed forces are, a noble one at that) break/get out of/change contracts that were signed every day.

Your words not mine.

[clintl]

Would you expect anything else from the New York Times?

I find Thomas Friedman to be one of the more interesting sydicated columnists because he doesn't adhere to the cliches of either the right or the left. He has written some pretty sensible stuff over the last few years.

[Dutch]

I find Thomas Friedman to be one of the more interesting sydicated columnists because he doesn't adhere to the cliches of either the right or the left. He has written some pretty sensible stuff over the last few years.

The NY Times is notorious for printing "trustworthy material" that is anti-Bush while it seems to fall short in providing any "trustworthy material" that is pro-Bush. I just don't trust the Times, not Friedman. Much like I would imagine the left doesn't trust the editorialized AM radio channels. I guess it's guilt by association.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Wow, Thomas Friedman a liberal hack. Now I have truly heard it all...

[Crapshoot]

Wow, Thomas Friedman a liberal hack. Now I have truly heard it all...

I was amused at that as well- I'm wondering how much Friedman that parties have read. Anyone read the The Lexus and The Olive Tree ?

[Dutch]

I just don't trust the Times, not Friedman

I guess my recant/backtrack was meaningless because of the source... ;)

[NoMyths]

I guess my recant/backtrack was meaningless because of the source... ;)Well, at least we got a recant. ;)

[Dutch]

Well, at least we got a recant. ;)

See, I do listen. :)