Obama and Brown complicit in Abu Ghraib abuse
Danny | 18.05.2009 11:08 | Anti-militarism | Iraq | Terror War
The Daily Telegraph today links both Barak Obama and Gordon Brown to the torture, abuse, rapes and murders at Abu Ghraib and other US black prisons [1]. The supposedly liberal, anti-war, anti-torture President has just appointed General Stanley MacChrystal as his new army chief in Afghanistan. It links him to the Human Rights Watch report into that abuse 'No Blood, No Foul' [2].
The Telegraph doesn't mention this, but this report is one of several to contain testimony from US soldiers linking British SAS and Military Intelligence officers to the abuse.
-
At another time, Jeff saw a British SAS officer beat a detainee:
[It] was a beating in a kind of a bunker behind the main facility. . . . this British guy actually who wasn’t supposed to be interrogating anybody - a British soldier. SAS. That’s all I know about him. I don’t know his name or anything. But we went back there and he gave the guy a pretty good pounding. Nothing really in the face. A lot of stomach shots, and I would say two or three groin shots, very harsh. A knee to the abdomen. Thrown against the wall and so forth. He was very frustrated with this person, who supposedly had information about the whereabouts of Zarqawi. And he did. But we didn’t know exactly that. He was blatantly stalling us and lying to us. It was frustrating, but he [the British soldier] decided to go that route and get physical with him. . . . [W]e ended up cutting in. “This is not working, we need to stop this.”. . . I took the prisoner back and my partner took the other guy. It was reported. They weren’t upset about any type of abuse or anything. They were just upset that he [the British soldier] was interrogating anybody at all, because it was not in adherence with the rules. Because he wasn’t American or he wasn’t, you know, signed on to do that type of job. He was allowed to stick around, but he wasn’t allowed to talk to any more detainees.
-
[1]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5335846/Gen-Stanley-MacChrystal-Americas-new-army-chief-in-Afghanistan-under-fire-over-rough-tactics-and-prisoner-abuse.html
[2] www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/07/22/no-blood-no-foul -
-
At another time, Jeff saw a British SAS officer beat a detainee:
[It] was a beating in a kind of a bunker behind the main facility. . . . this British guy actually who wasn’t supposed to be interrogating anybody - a British soldier. SAS. That’s all I know about him. I don’t know his name or anything. But we went back there and he gave the guy a pretty good pounding. Nothing really in the face. A lot of stomach shots, and I would say two or three groin shots, very harsh. A knee to the abdomen. Thrown against the wall and so forth. He was very frustrated with this person, who supposedly had information about the whereabouts of Zarqawi. And he did. But we didn’t know exactly that. He was blatantly stalling us and lying to us. It was frustrating, but he [the British soldier] decided to go that route and get physical with him. . . . [W]e ended up cutting in. “This is not working, we need to stop this.”. . . I took the prisoner back and my partner took the other guy. It was reported. They weren’t upset about any type of abuse or anything. They were just upset that he [the British soldier] was interrogating anybody at all, because it was not in adherence with the rules. Because he wasn’t American or he wasn’t, you know, signed on to do that type of job. He was allowed to stick around, but he wasn’t allowed to talk to any more detainees.
-
[1]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5335846/Gen-Stanley-MacChrystal-Americas-new-army-chief-in-Afghanistan-under-fire-over-rough-tactics-and-prisoner-abuse.html [2] www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/07/22/no-blood-no-foul -
Danny
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
All those who opposed the Iraq war complicit in torture and mass murder
18.05.2009 14:49
An inconvenient truth
You are lying asshole just above
18.05.2009 17:30
Justice will be made
Abu Ghraib = Business as usual
18.05.2009 19:58
That is true.
"All those who opposed his removal are complicit in this."
That is false. We opposed Saddam and his torture while the British and US governments subsidised him. For you to claim we can be complicit 'after the fact' is a logical fallacy designed to distract from our governments complicity in that torture.
Plus, you haven't addressed the point that "tens of thousands of Iraqi prisoners were brutally tortured and murdered/"executed" in Abu Graibh AFTER Saddam's reign of terror by US and British forces.
Liberating Iraqis from Saddams brutality was never a motivation in the invasion, although after the WMD claim and every other claim it became commonplace PRopaganda. And if it was true then it would be a good, at least arguable motive. Unfortunately for it to be a successful argument then it would have to have been followed by a period of US and UK rule where no such torture and murder occurred. Instead, what we see from the history of Abu Ghraib is 'business as usual'. It exposes a few myths that are still common currency in the UK.
The heroic SAS are as murderous, tortuous as any of Saddams henchmen.
The wily and sophisticated MI6 are as tortuous as you can find anywhere.
The applepie GIs motivated only by 911 are sexually warped sadists.
Danny
If Saddam had been one tenth of the demon they say
19.05.2009 01:45
Bear with me that not a single mass grave from the Saddam era has ever been found, nothing zilch, nada, just like for the WMDs.
All the mass graves that are found in iraq are all dated from after the invasion.
If they had anything real against Saddam they would have sent him to the Hague.
Instead they had him convicted and executed by a bunch of traitors to their nation in a kangaroo court while the "evil Saddam" propaganda continues unabated.
I am sorry Danny but that's how things actually are.
The Truth
Saddam deserved to die
19.05.2009 09:42
Danny
You are an establishment scum Danny
19.05.2009 14:16
Fuck you
An scum?
19.05.2009 16:46
Danny
You are nothing but a relay of propaganda Danny
20.05.2009 16:27
Why if I may ask ?
Because Tony Blair and the propaganda apparatus told you repeatedly he was such an evil man ?
Is there any other reason that is not a baseless propaganda story demonizing a target ?
Go to hell
"Saddam deserved to die ? Why if I may ask ?"
20.05.2009 20:18
Saddam deserved to die for being a war-mongering tyrant, someone who lied to his own people in return for personal gain, someone who started unnecessary wars and tortured his own citizens. Killing tyrants discourages tyranny. Anarchists used to have a proud tradition of assassinating tyrants that should be revived.
"Because Tony Blair and the propaganda apparatus told you repeatedly he was such an evil man ? Is there any other reason that is not a baseless propaganda story demonizing a target ? "
Since I've just said Tony Blair should die for the same reasons, it is hardly credible that I am acting on Tonys PRopaganda. I am quite happy to argue in a court of law that Tony Blair should die, for the same reasons Saddam deserved to die. If the courts won't kill Tony then we should, in fact since the Nuremberg principles were laid then we have a legal duty to attack Blair/BrownBush. The wannabe assasins of Hitler were rightly applauded after his corrupt courts fell. Saddam did deserve to die, even at the risk of a few innocent Iraqis. What is not justifiable in my opinion is that millions of innocent Iraqis had to die just to kill Saddam.
Danny