http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/05/interrogation-techniques-iraq-inmates
Pretty disturbing video on the Guardian showing part of an interrogation that flouts the Geneva convention.
Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceedings
- Thread starter edgray
- Start date
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/05/interrogation-techniques-iraq-inmates
Pretty disturbing video on the Guardian showing part of an interrogation that flouts the Geneva convention.
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
This is the reason the CIA burned all of their interrogation tapes (even when they were ordered not to) It's much easier to take the heat for burning the tapes then to have them released to the public.
This is the reason the CIA burned all of their interrogation tapes (even when they were ordered not to) It's much easier to take the heat for burning the tapes then to have them released to the public.
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
so on this i saw alot of shouting and a few hooded prisoners,wheres the evidence of torture and brutality?
so on this i saw alot of shouting and a few hooded prisoners,wheres the evidence of torture and brutality?
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
very much so, as the UK armed forces are finding out right now.
very much so, as the UK armed forces are finding out right now.
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
a prisoner died after one of the interrogation sessions on the video.
a prisoner died after one of the interrogation sessions on the video.
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
allegedly died
allegedly died
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
you either die or do not die
the cause may be alleged but the death should be self evident
how can you allegedly die
you either die or do not die
the cause may be alleged but the death should be self evident
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
the problem i have with this are the unasked questions,its a high court hearing meaning that its in london,have these 'prisoners' been brought over from iraq to give evidence or do they now live here?....if they've been granted asylum and now live here i think they're biting the hand that feeds them because they'll be living off the state and being housed by the state
and who's paying for them to fight this case?.....the taxpayer?
the problem i have with this are the unasked questions,its a high court hearing meaning that its in london,have these 'prisoners' been brought over from iraq to give evidence or do they now live here?....if they've been granted asylum and now live here i think they're biting the hand that feeds them because they'll be living off the state and being housed by the state
and who's paying for them to fight this case?.....the taxpayer?
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
by alleged i saw no-one die on that video
by alleged i saw no-one die on that video
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
Looks like there's going to be some serious repercussions for the chaps involved in this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/09/british-military-iraq-war-crimes
Looks like there's going to be some serious repercussions for the chaps involved in this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/09/british-military-iraq-war-crimes
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
All news from the war front is 'classified'. this is why most of the citi\ens in the US and the West are not fully aware of the happenings except surmising on half-cooked news from media and the internet.
Suppressed images don't show rape, official says
The Pentagon says no sexual abuse, no Abu Ghraib photos among those held back in ACLU suit.
By Mark Benjamin
Salon
June 2, 2009 | Last Thursday, the Obama administration asked a federal court to block the release of images that depict detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The court had sided with the American Civil Liberties Union in its request that the administration release the photos. The administration's move seemed to lend credence to swirling rumors on the Internet that the administration was suppressing a cache of images showing sexual abuse of detainees. The day of the administration's request to the court, Britain's Daily Telegraph published a story claiming that the images included rape and sexual abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Friday, the Daily Beast reported that many of the photographs were "sexually explicit" and included images of "a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner" and "penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms."
What do these unreleased images actually depict? A Defense Department official who has seen the unreleased images consented to give Salon some details. Salon agreed to keep the identity of the defense official private in exchange for the opportunity to interview a person with firsthand knowledge of the images.
Specifically, the official said there are about 2,000 images related to detainee abuse, none of which are from Abu Ghraib, and the images do not include depictions of sexual abuse. The official said the government does not have secret images of rape buried in its files.
The official told Salon that the Pentagon has compiled around 2,000 images of possible detainee abuse in response to the ACLU's suit. Salon then asked, via e-mail, whether any of the 2,000 images "[show] a possible rape or sexual abuse" of the sort described in the media recently. The Daily Telegraph had reported that there were images of a male soldier forcing oral sex on a female detainee and a male translator anally raping a male detainee. "We don't have anything that would comport to what they are reporting," the official answered. (The official did not address whether any such images had ever existed.) Retired Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, whom the Telegraph had quoted as confirming that there were rape images among the unreleased material, told Salon on Friday that the Telegraph's report was inaccurate because he was quoted in a way that suggested he had seen the unreleased material. He has not. (The Daily Beast has since corrected its Friday story to say that none of the 44 photos "subject to the ACLU lawsuit and reviewed by President Obama" are sexually explicit.)The official further clarified that the Defense Department is not withholding any additional images or video of apparent detainee abuse from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Salon published all of that material back in 2006, which included images of prisoners being forced to masturbate and to simulate oral sex. The Pentagon is not aware of any other images of abuse from the prison. "You have the whole set of Abu Ghraib," the official said. "There are no 'X Files' of images sitting somewhere else of Abu Ghraib."
Salon contacted the White House to ask why, if there is no videotape or photos showing sexual abuse, the administration continues to fight the release of further images. An official referred Salon to President Obama's own explanation that the pictures add little to the torture debate. "I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib," Obama said on May 13 when he announced that he would reverse course and fight the release of the images.
"This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action," Obama added. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."
In addition to describing what the images do not show, the official provided some limited information about what they do show. In response to the ACLU suit, the Defense Department culled the 2,000 images from the files of military investigations into cases of alleged detainee abuse. The pictures include shots of possible abuse taken by soldiers that were later obtained by military investigators. According to the official, the investigators themselves created some of the rest of the 2,000 images during their investigations. They took pictures -- like a photo of a bruised and banged-up detainee -- while gathering evidence.
Some of those 2,000 images, including those generated by investigators, come from cases in which the military determined that abuse had not, in fact, occurred. "You could have an image where you could have a bruised detainee, but upon investigation was not found to be abuse," the official explained.The official added that the Defense Department has already sent the ACLU redacted copies of the investigations behind the 2,000 still-unreleased photos. Those documents describe the alleged abuse behind the photos. "They have the actual investigations, redacted," the official said about the ACLU. "They want the photographs also. It is not like they don't know what was investigated."
"You have to ask what is their purpose for being so adamant about the photos, since we have already provided the information to them -- minus the photographs."
The ACLU's Amrit Singh confirmed that her organization had received written material on military investigations into detainee abuse allegations. Singh said, however, that while sometimes there is a reference to a specific photo inside those investigative documents, the Pentagon did not hand over an itemized list of 2,000 images. She also pointed out that the ACLU could not confirm that they have all the investigations connected to the unreleased photos, since they have not seen the photos.
In fact, said Singh, until she was called by Salon, she did not even know how many photos the military had compiled. She did not know there were 2,000. "We have no way of knowing anything," she said.
On Monday the Supreme Court gave the Obama administration 30 additional days to make its case for why the photos should not be released.
All news from the war front is 'classified'. this is why most of the citi\ens in the US and the West are not fully aware of the happenings except surmising on half-cooked news from media and the internet.
Suppressed images don't show rape, official says
The Pentagon says no sexual abuse, no Abu Ghraib photos among those held back in ACLU suit.
By Mark Benjamin
June 2, 2009 | Last Thursday, the Obama administration asked a federal court to block the release of images that depict detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The court had sided with the American Civil Liberties Union in its request that the administration release the photos. The administration's move seemed to lend credence to swirling rumors on the Internet that the administration was suppressing a cache of images showing sexual abuse of detainees. The day of the administration's request to the court, Britain's Daily Telegraph published a story claiming that the images included rape and sexual abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Friday, the Daily Beast reported that many of the photographs were "sexually explicit" and included images of "a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner" and "penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms."
What do these unreleased images actually depict? A Defense Department official who has seen the unreleased images consented to give Salon some details. Salon agreed to keep the identity of the defense official private in exchange for the opportunity to interview a person with firsthand knowledge of the images.
Specifically, the official said there are about 2,000 images related to detainee abuse, none of which are from Abu Ghraib, and the images do not include depictions of sexual abuse. The official said the government does not have secret images of rape buried in its files.
The official told Salon that the Pentagon has compiled around 2,000 images of possible detainee abuse in response to the ACLU's suit. Salon then asked, via e-mail, whether any of the 2,000 images "[show] a possible rape or sexual abuse" of the sort described in the media recently. The Daily Telegraph had reported that there were images of a male soldier forcing oral sex on a female detainee and a male translator anally raping a male detainee. "We don't have anything that would comport to what they are reporting," the official answered. (The official did not address whether any such images had ever existed.) Retired Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, whom the Telegraph had quoted as confirming that there were rape images among the unreleased material, told Salon on Friday that the Telegraph's report was inaccurate because he was quoted in a way that suggested he had seen the unreleased material. He has not. (The Daily Beast has since corrected its Friday story to say that none of the 44 photos "subject to the ACLU lawsuit and reviewed by President Obama" are sexually explicit.)The official further clarified that the Defense Department is not withholding any additional images or video of apparent detainee abuse from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Salon published all of that material back in 2006, which included images of prisoners being forced to masturbate and to simulate oral sex. The Pentagon is not aware of any other images of abuse from the prison. "You have the whole set of Abu Ghraib," the official said. "There are no 'X Files' of images sitting somewhere else of Abu Ghraib."
Salon contacted the White House to ask why, if there is no videotape or photos showing sexual abuse, the administration continues to fight the release of further images. An official referred Salon to President Obama's own explanation that the pictures add little to the torture debate. "I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib," Obama said on May 13 when he announced that he would reverse course and fight the release of the images.
"This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action," Obama added. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."
In addition to describing what the images do not show, the official provided some limited information about what they do show. In response to the ACLU suit, the Defense Department culled the 2,000 images from the files of military investigations into cases of alleged detainee abuse. The pictures include shots of possible abuse taken by soldiers that were later obtained by military investigators. According to the official, the investigators themselves created some of the rest of the 2,000 images during their investigations. They took pictures -- like a photo of a bruised and banged-up detainee -- while gathering evidence.
Some of those 2,000 images, including those generated by investigators, come from cases in which the military determined that abuse had not, in fact, occurred. "You could have an image where you could have a bruised detainee, but upon investigation was not found to be abuse," the official explained.The official added that the Defense Department has already sent the ACLU redacted copies of the investigations behind the 2,000 still-unreleased photos. Those documents describe the alleged abuse behind the photos. "They have the actual investigations, redacted," the official said about the ACLU. "They want the photographs also. It is not like they don't know what was investigated."
"You have to ask what is their purpose for being so adamant about the photos, since we have already provided the information to them -- minus the photographs."
The ACLU's Amrit Singh confirmed that her organization had received written material on military investigations into detainee abuse allegations. Singh said, however, that while sometimes there is a reference to a specific photo inside those investigative documents, the Pentagon did not hand over an itemized list of 2,000 images. She also pointed out that the ACLU could not confirm that they have all the investigations connected to the unreleased photos, since they have not seen the photos.
In fact, said Singh, until she was called by Salon, she did not even know how many photos the military had compiled. She did not know there were 2,000. "We have no way of knowing anything," she said.
On Monday the Supreme Court gave the Obama administration 30 additional days to make its case for why the photos should not be released.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
"At the heart of the US and UK project," says Shiner, "is a desire to avoid accountability for what they want to do. Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary renditions are part of the same struggle to avoid accountability through jurisdiction." British soldiers, he says, use the same torture techniques as the Americans and deny that the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on Torture apply to them. And British torture is "commonplace": so much so, that "the routine nature of this ill-treatment helps to explain why, despite the abuse of the soldiers and cries of the detainees being clearly audible, nobody, particularly in authority, took any notice".
www.johnpilger.com
"At the heart of the US and UK project," says Shiner, "is a desire to avoid accountability for what they want to do. Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary renditions are part of the same struggle to avoid accountability through jurisdiction." British soldiers, he says, use the same torture techniques as the Americans and deny that the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on Torture apply to them. And British torture is "commonplace": so much so, that "the routine nature of this ill-treatment helps to explain why, despite the abuse of the soldiers and cries of the detainees being clearly audible, nobody, particularly in authority, took any notice".
www.johnpilger.com
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif][FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif] America's trinity of terrorism
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The network of U.S.-sponsored terrorism now on global display relies on death squads, disappearances and torture. [/FONT] [/FONT]By Greg Grandin
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]
''Yet, as Abu Ghraib demonstrated so clearly and the destroyed CIA interrogation videos would undoubtedly have made no less clear, maintaining a distinction between psychological and physical torture is not always possible. As one manual conceded, if a suspect does not respond, then the threat of direct pain "must be carried out." One of Caballero's victims, Inés Murillo, testified that her captors, including at least one CIA agent -- his involvement was confirmed in Senate testimony by the CIA's deputy director -- hung her from the ceiling naked, forced her to eat dead birds and rats raw, made her stand for hours without sleep and without being allowed to urinate, poured freezing water over her at regular intervals for extended periods, beat her bloody, and applied electric shocks to her body, including her genitals.''
TomDispatch.com.
[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif][FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif] America's trinity of terrorism
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The network of U.S.-sponsored terrorism now on global display relies on death squads, disappearances and torture. [/FONT] [/FONT]By Greg Grandin
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]
''Yet, as Abu Ghraib demonstrated so clearly and the destroyed CIA interrogation videos would undoubtedly have made no less clear, maintaining a distinction between psychological and physical torture is not always possible. As one manual conceded, if a suspect does not respond, then the threat of direct pain "must be carried out." One of Caballero's victims, Inés Murillo, testified that her captors, including at least one CIA agent -- his involvement was confirmed in Senate testimony by the CIA's deputy director -- hung her from the ceiling naked, forced her to eat dead birds and rats raw, made her stand for hours without sleep and without being allowed to urinate, poured freezing water over her at regular intervals for extended periods, beat her bloody, and applied electric shocks to her body, including her genitals.''
TomDispatch.com.
[/FONT]
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
I don't think there's really any "alleged" about any of this, does it really surprise you that this stuff goes on Sky? It's not in America and there's no real "proof" of what they're doing so the Soldiers can really treat their prisoners however they want, this shouldn't shock anybody :shrug:
I don't think there's really any "alleged" about any of this, does it really surprise you that this stuff goes on Sky? It's not in America and there's no real "proof" of what they're doing so the Soldiers can really treat their prisoners however they want, this shouldn't shock anybody :shrug:
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
What is Geneva convention for??
Soldiers are bound by rules .....if they cross their limits then
why shout when their enemies
also do the same....both would be acting inhumanly as prisoners of war have to dealt with
decency....
What is Geneva convention for??
Soldiers are bound by rules .....if they cross their limits then
why shout when their enemies
also do the same....both would be acting inhumanly as prisoners of war have to dealt with
decency....
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
I'm not saying it's a good thing that it's happening, I'm just saying that there is no question in my mind that it is happening, war makes animals of all of us.
I'm not saying it's a good thing that it's happening, I'm just saying that there is no question in my mind that it is happening, war makes animals of all of us.
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
The marines are there to catch and kill the terrorist (though innocents get killed too!)
and terrorists are bent on killing soldiers. Both claim to be fighting for a good cause..as they say,
Soldiers for their country or interest, the extremists for their land and occupiers....as they say!
Is there no one to resolve their differences without warring??? Why are many countries not involved
in war on terrorism?? What is the role of UNO???
The marines are there to catch and kill the terrorist (though innocents get killed too!)
and terrorists are bent on killing soldiers. Both claim to be fighting for a good cause..as they say,
Soldiers for their country or interest, the extremists for their land and occupiers....as they say!
Is there no one to resolve their differences without warring??? Why are many countries not involved
in war on terrorism?? What is the role of UNO???
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
Humans are by nature assholes, hence why there is unnecessary war :dunno
Humans are by nature assholes, hence why there is unnecessary war :dunno
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
no,its doesn't surprise me.....but can you imagine it if they weren't being so forceful?.....many more innocent lives would be lost,do you really think that this sort of thing hasn't prevented atrocities?
the geneva convention is there for a very good reason,but in the present climate in the middle east it'll never be adhered to 100%...a few examples are the young woman american soldier that was captured,the one who had 2 broken legs...she was gang raped by her captors....or the civilian contractors who are mercilessly beheaded for the heinous crime of trying to rebuild the country of their captors.
the problem here is that the coalition is trying to be whiter than white,while the enemy does as it pleases...if these soldiers are tried for war crimes the coalition may as well throw away the guns and come home,they'll be in an impossible position
no,its doesn't surprise me.....but can you imagine it if they weren't being so forceful?.....many more innocent lives would be lost,do you really think that this sort of thing hasn't prevented atrocities?
the geneva convention is there for a very good reason,but in the present climate in the middle east it'll never be adhered to 100%...a few examples are the young woman american soldier that was captured,the one who had 2 broken legs...she was gang raped by her captors....or the civilian contractors who are mercilessly beheaded for the heinous crime of trying to rebuild the country of their captors.
the problem here is that the coalition is trying to be whiter than white,while the enemy does as it pleases...if these soldiers are tried for war crimes the coalition may as well throw away the guns and come home,they'll be in an impossible position
Re: Interrogation techniques at 'Britain's Abu Ghraib' revealed in high court proceed
No man I agree with you, this is war, you have to be just as ruthless as your enemy, THEY'RE not adhering to any rules of warfare, and neither should we, this is WAR and anything goes.
No man I agree with you, this is war, you have to be just as ruthless as your enemy, THEY'RE not adhering to any rules of warfare, and neither should we, this is WAR and anything goes.