Something bad is happening to us
Haaretz
"Three years ago, the CBS television network broadcast photos of American soldiers abusing prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The horrifying pictures led to the trials of eight soldiers, dismissals and a storm of outrage in America. At the trial of one prison guard, who was sentenced to eight years in jail, a psychologist gave his evaluation: that the man was an entirely ordinary person, without any particular violent tendencies, who served as a guard for many years in civilian life but never behaved sadistically toward American prisoners. The situation of occupier and occupied, as opposed to that of citizen versus citizen, causes ordinary people to become violent and lose restraint. At Abu Ghraib, the trial found, there was institutionalized contempt at every level. The prison guards understood that "this is the way to behave here."
<span> The commander of the brigade, Colonel Itai Virov, said "we failed on several parameters." His words reflect a denial of the depth of the failure. This continuing routine, far from the eyes of the commanders, must lead to a series of investigations, and perhaps to dismissals as well.</span>
ReplyDeletePerhaps to dismissals? The commander of the brigade should be OUT. It was his responsibility to make sure thngs like that did not happen. .
It was his responsibility to make sure thngs like that did not happen. .
ReplyDeleteWrong again. It was his responsibility to break the spirit of Palestinians in his prison. From the Israeli perspective, the way he failed to live up to his responsibility to make sure none of this ever came out.
This type of brutality is not the fault of a few derilict commanders, Being "tough" with Arabs is one of the cornerstones of Zionist ideology. This incident is part of the whole thing-the assault on Gaza, the checkpoints, the curfews, etc.
It is interesting thta you mention "choking." Actually for many years the application of the choke hold or "sleeper" techniques have been used, but primarily on people of color in the United States. A large amount of deaths, the follwoing quote could be applied to almost all of the states (and it is used in prisons) -
ReplyDelete"Judicially-created obstacles, based on a variety of legal doctrines, also prevent challenges to racially-tinged police tactics. For example, in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, the Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction preventing the Los Angeles Police Department from using chokeholds during routine traffic stops. Lyons had been pulled over by the police because his car had a burned-out taillight. After the police officers ordered Lyons out of the car, spread his legs, subjected him to a patdown search, they applied a chokehold on him that permanently damaged his larynx and caused him to lose consciousness.
The Supreme Court held that Lyons lacked standing to obtain an injunction against the police procedure because he could not demonstrate that he would ever again be subjected to a chokehold by the LAPD under these circumstances. In so ruling, the court overlooked evidence that the LAPD had applied the chokehold on 975 occasions over 5 years, and that application of the chokehold had resulted in 16 deaths, 12 of which were of blacks. The Court also overlooked Lyons’ claim that, as a black man, he faced a heightened risk of being subjected to the practice in the future – a claim that, given the prevalence of both racial profiling and police brutality against minorities, was hardly unreasonable. The Court set a standard that would make it nearly impossible for any black victim of police misconduct to prevail in seeking that such conduct be enjoined:
Lyons would have had not only to allege that he would have another encounter with the police but also to make the incredible assertion either (1) that all police officers in Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation or for questioning, or (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such a manner."
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/judicial.html
<div id="ftn32">
ReplyDelete<p><span><span><span style="font-family: default; ">"[32]</span></span><span style="font-family: default; "><span style="color: black;"> Gates and Shah, Chief, p. 246. In the other type of restraint, the “bar-arm” control hold, “[a]n officer places his forearm across the trachea, cutting off the supply of oxygen to the lungs. The problem with this hold is that a person instinctively fights harder when deprived of air. The police officer uses more pressure and, if not careful, can break the hyoid bone, causing death.” Ibid. See also “Man Dies After Police Use Carotid Chokehold,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, May 1, 1983, Sunday a.m. cycle, San Diego (hereafter cited as AP, “Man Dies”). Police officers from the San Diego Police Department arrested a 23-year-old African American man, Barry Andrew Preston Jr. He was then restrained with handcuffs and leg restraints. When Mr. Preston allegedly became violent, the police restrained him further by applying a carotid chokehold. Although he initially regained consciousness, he was later found unconscious and died soon after.
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div id="ftn33">
<p><span><span><span style="font-family: default; ">[33]</span></span><span style="font-family: default; "><span style="color: black;"> Gates and Shah, Chief, p. 246.
</span></span></span>
</div>
<span><span><span style="font-family: default; ">[34]</span></span><span style="font-family: default; "><span style="color: black;"> Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991, p. 195 (hereafter cited as Christopher Commission Report); AP, “Man Dies”; see generally City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 114–15 (1982) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (recounting use of chokehold by LAPD officers on Adolph Lyons, a 24-year-old black man); Cf. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination, Volume V: The Los Angeles Report, 1999, pp. 49–52 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Los Angeles Report) (recounts how law enforcement authorities view the use of pepper spray as a safer means to subdue suspects, although critics maintain it can cause death)."
</span></span></span>
Didn't a certain Milgram demonstrate decades ago that most people are capable of such behaviour as long as the person giving the order absolves them of responsibility for their actions?
ReplyDelete"I was just obeying orders2 may not cut it post-Nuremburg but it works for most people. I'd never heard of the Nuremburg ruling when I went into the army in the 1950s. One of the first things we were taught was, if someone of superior rank gives you an order obey immediately without questioning, no matter what it is, even if it means harming yourself. You have the right to complain afterwards but not to refuse the order. So much for Nuremburg.
Someone else once said that our society produces people who are "irresponsible obedients", and nothing will change until we learn to be "responsible disobedients".
American troops treated prisoners in Iraq far better than inmates are treated in American prisons. This is the dirty little secret. In my view, America has to do a lot better job respecting American prisoners. Prisons should be reformation institutions, not revenge institutions. Like Huckabee, I believe in personal redemption.
ReplyDeleteOne of the big successes in Iraq by MNF-I was the treatment of Iraqi detainees. They were treated respectfully. Many Imams and others were hired to demonstrate respect to them. Many detainees were educated. All of this was very expensive.
ReplyDeleteAs a result, many Al Qaeda and Baathists became allies of the GoI and MNF-I in prison. This was an important contributor to the victory of the GoI and ISF.
Unfortunately, the IP and GoI treated prisoners far worse. The threat of transfering prisoners to the GoI worked wonders on the MNF-I detainees.
For better or for worse, MNF-I can no longer arrest Iraqi detainees. The Iraqis strongly believe that MNF-I was too lenient with prisoners, and take a tougher line.
There have been a lot of articles on Afghan detainee treatment recently. As informed readers here might know, the GIRoA does not allow ISAF (international forces) or ANA (Afghan National Army) to detain Afghans. Only the ANP (Afghan National Police) can. The ANP treat their prisoners far more harshly than the ISAF likes. How will this be resolved?
Those captured in Afgahnistan are often kidnapped at random by warlords and sold to the US as supposed Taliban fighters.
ReplyDeleteJust like Israel's review of the 2006 war on Lebanon wasn't about how they violated numerous international laws and caused so much death and suffering on the civilian population. The review was about how they lost the battle, as well as the propaganda war. Who cares about human rights when it comes to Arabs and Muslims, what is important is how could the Israeli leaders who chose to fight this battle have lost it?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't expect any different explanantion from the U.S. /Iraq war and occupation spokespeson and cheerleader anand....
ReplyDeleteAnd Bagram prison, outside Kabul, a destination for victims of rendition - illegal kidnapping and torture organised by the CIA, is worse than the infamous Guantanamo Bay according to the former prisoners that were held at both prisons.
ReplyDeleter.s. the fact remains that ISAF and the ANA are not allowed to detain prisoners. There were some people detained back in 2001 who are in Bagram.
ReplyDeleteCan you prove the torture allegations? There are allegations of torture against the ANP.
What do you disagree with? the IA and MNF-I are not allowed to detain Iraqis. Only the INP can.
ReplyDeleteAcronyms S.U.C.K.
ReplyDelete