On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:59:19 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

Apparently, the report also contains claims of excessive violence
used in arrests; of the beating of prisoners, in one case resulting in
death; of soldiers firing on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers;
etc. Whether the ICRC was reporting the abuse that is now subject
of criminal investigation? Well, if not, then the problem is even
bigger than we know now. Reports are dripping in suggesting that
the problem was not limited to Abu Ghraib; it remains to be seen
how widespread it really was. Time will tell -- I hope.

Time will tell how many commentators actually read the ICRC report and
take on board the other sections of it (e.g. Section 38) which
acknowledge things like the generally correct treatment detainees
received, the improvement in non-lethal restraint of serious
distrubances and escape attempts and so forth. People who want to
make justifiable mileage out of the allegations of systematic abuse of
military intelligence detainees must also address the whole picture of
systematic coalition behaviour revealed in the less sensational
sections of the report. This will not happen, of course, as the
report - like everything else - will be used to selectively further
arguments based on pre-existing prejudices which are all but
impervious to evidence which contradicts the axiomatic understandings
involved. People will simply use the report selectively to confirm
their prejudices, not to objectively inform their understanding.

Crucially, the ICRC report is said to point out that although the
abuse was widespread, it was limited to those prisoners regarded
as "of intelligence value" and held for interrogation. That supports
the view that the abuse was not the result of random acts of
depravity by bad individuals, but the fairly direct consequence
of a policy designed to soften up prisoners before interrogation.

It also comments on the limitation of that policy to a selected group;
what about that group? Or do they simply get air-brushed out of the
equation when it comes time to deliver verdicts on US policy towards
detainees as a whole?

So says you. I don't expect the SecDef to read every report that is
generated at each and every echelon below his own--

This was not "each and every report." This was a report on
a developing crisis that was about to deal a fatal blow the
USA's Iraq policy and indelibly tarnish the reputation of the
US military.

I see, so now ittle evidence of "wait and see" is now required, you
can - where it suits you - jump to conclusive characterisations of how
the ICRC report is about to deal a "fatal blow" to US Iraq policy.
Like most other commentators on this issue - on both sides - your
analysis is being driven by your preconceptions.

(preferably more than what your own nation has handed out to your soldiers
who committed equally, or even moreso, barbaric acts)--

Sentences can only be given to soldiers after their guilt has
been proven to the satisfaction of a court of law. Really,
what is so hard to understand about that that it refuses to
enter your brain? BTW, from what I have read, the maximum
penalty defined by US law for such acts as committed in
Abu Ghraib is one year.

Again, I do not believe that turning the small fry into human
sacrifices on the altar of political credibility serves a purpose
or is fair.

Really? I suggest holding individual soldiers - Belgian or American -
responsible for any immoral or illegal acts they commit, through the
normal process of military and civilian justice, is an essential
prerequisite for maintaining the rule of law and military discipline.
I do note with interest how flexible your dismissal of holding
perpetrators responsible for their actions is, and how contingent it
is upon your preconceptions and their status and rank.

Don't start lecturing us until you have your own house in
order, Mr. Gustin.

As I have pointed out, changes in policy have been made in
the Belgian army to prevent a recurrence of such events.

Oh, so that's OK then. Would you tolerate such a response - an
internal inquiry followed by internal procedural change and then an
assertion that "everything is OK now" - from the US army? Somehow I
doubt it. As Kevin Brooks suggests, I think you should seriously
consider the issue of your objectivity over this matter.

This
seems to be more than the US Army is about to do,

Actually, given the apparent delay (or even lack) of any substantial
legal due process and imminent punishment, the US forces, incredibly
enough, are actually doing better than the Belgian.

[snip your characterisation of Bush policy]

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the nationality of the
perpetrators, no matter how much you choose to harp on that.

I'm afraid it looks like it to me; and I'm somebody who does accept
that the Rumsfeld DoD has undermined US standards in terms of the
handling of dentainees, and seriously underestimated the commitment
required to stabilise and rebuild post-war Iraq. You should take a
close look at where your assertions in this thread materially move
beyond those points, and where you apparently adhere to a double
standards in regard to the nationality of soldiers alledged to have
commited human rights abuses on active service.

That concludes this debate for me: I don't believe anything substantially
new has been said in this latest exchange. I wonder whether anyone
else has bothered to read it, but it hope it is a change from the more
content-free rants that pollute this newsgroup.

I have indeed read it, and while I disagree with some of what Kevin
Brooks has written, I find the discussion typical of the kind of
polarised and sterile debate which characterises discussion of
American policy in Iraq - principally because of the level of
disproportionate, self-righteous hypocrisy ridden with axiomatic
assumptions and prejudice which tends to inform anti-US opinion even
more than it does pro-US opinion. And that's saying something.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En