The press are battling for the attention of the public, the underlings are being tried and sentenced, the middlemen get away with just a reprimand and the guys up there "take the responsibility" which is, miraculously, totally eradicated following the moment of taking.

Court Martial has sentenced Jeremy Sivits to a year in prison, degradation to private (from corporal) and discharge from the Army.

His Captain has been reprimanded.

The military intelligence officers everyone speaks about? No one knows.

Generals take a walk to the Senate.

Rummy says he takes the responsibility, but he apparently thinks the responsibility gets nulified when he takes it.

Scrub plays idiot. He isn't satisfied with the way he learnt about things. Wonder if he isn't satisfied with the Red Cross *****ing since autumn too.

The everyday will soon commence again and the US with the US Army will still be the best. To quote gen. Ricardo Sanchez:

The honor and value systems of our armed forces are solid and the bedrock of what makes us the best in the world,Yes, "the best in the world". "We are the best in the world" starts to be the most normal thing to say in the US.

The value system is really solid if such things as Abu Ghraib happen :rolleyes:

The problem is, world supremacy may be as strong as the value system is.

Gen. Sanchez further says:

There has been no catastrophic failure, and America's armed forces will never compromise their honor.I guess Abu Ghraib is not a catastrophic failure and it doesn't compromise anyone's honour. Well, maybe except a bunch of people at the receiving end of the chain of command.

The government denies access to witnesses (detainees) and the trials go on. Officials say it will go up the chain of command, but I won't believe until I've seen.

Not like I defend those down there in the chain. Stripping and hooding people, beating them and forcing to masturbate is apparently just fun. And a way of releasing the tention. Well, it's surely less funny when you have to face court martial than when you take photos of yourself pointing at someone's naked genitals and laughing.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military will not use certain prisoner interrogation techniques in Iraq following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, Pentagon officials said Friday.( http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.abuse/index.html )

Some. What about the rest?

Among the tactics barred are sleep and sensory deprivation and keeping prisoners in stressful positions for periods of time.What about disrobing? What about forcing people to take a "stressful position" for just a single moment? What about taking photos?

According to the military, none of the tactics -- which required the approval of the commanding general before use -- had been requested in Iraq.Of course there's no paper for that. If there had been any paper, the press would have known much earlier. And we don't need the press *****ing, right?

Army inspectors say there's no pattern of abuse. However, at the same time they are investigating deaths caused by CIA interrogations:

The agency's inspector general also is investigating two other cases of prisoner deaths during CIA-related interrogations. One case involves an independent contractor for the CIA who was interrogating a prisoner in Afghanistan when the man died, knowledgeable sources have said.Wonder if we are ever going to hear what interrogation methods CIA used that caused death of interrogated people?

We could learn something from the detainees, obviously, but they're getting released en masse now. Yeah, they'll run away from the CIA & Military Police and as far away as possible. They won't come and testify.

The other involves an Iraqi major general arrested in western Iraq who died several days after being interrogated by CIA personnel. Sources have said they do not expect any agency involvement in the death to be found.Obviously.

Let's make it even more clear I'm not at all trying to defend the little guys:

The new photographs appear to show U.S. soldiers gloating over a corpse. In one, Spc. Charles Graner of the 372nd Military Police is seen smiling, giving the thumbs up. In the other, Spc. Sabrina Harmon, a member of the same unit, is in a similar pose.People up there defend themselves and blame people down there. The press blames the up and sort of defends the down. Wrong! Both up and down are guilty. Laughing and showing thumbs up over a dead body of a detainee once and for all destroys the myth of poor people down there just doing things the nasty intelligence officers told them to do: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/20/iraq.abuse/index.html

Rummie isn't the only one Secretary that talks:

Powell added, "All of the reports we received from ICRC having to do with the situation in Guantanamo, the situation in Afghanistan or the situation in Iraq was the subject of discussion within the administration, at our principals' committee meetings" and at National Security Council meetings.It was last autumn. Over half a year ago. And it ended in meetings and discussion.

The Congress speaks too:

Congressional critics suggested the administration may have unwisely imported to Iraq techniques for prisoner interrogation used in the war on al Qaeda.Well, this says something. So, according to congressional critics, it's all right to use the same methods on Guantanamo? On detainees of whom none has been presented with any charges? It's not on American soil, so everything's all right, apparently. Even if some of those people are quite random.

The great discussion revolves around Geneva conventions: if they apply to al Quaeda detainees (of whom only some are definitely al Quaeda, and some are probably random people) or not, depending on their status.

What about human rights? In my judgement, every human entity has a right not to be beaten or sexually abused.

As I stated in the topic, this makes me worry that the only concern is to have the press shut up and have the international community focus on something else and move on. A couple of soldiers will be prosecuted, several officers will be reprimanded and that will be the end of it. CIA will make their interrogations a little bit secret. Guantamo will welcome another day and so will prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, "the best in the world". "We are the best in the world" starts to be the most normal thing to say in the US.

The value system is really solid if such things as Abu Ghraib happen.The US Army is moving much more swiftly, seriously, and decisively than that other world institution that claims to be "the best in the world" - the Catholic Church. Recall the nightmare of the sexual abuse scandal. How long did it take for the cases to trickle out, for the accusations to be counted, and for the compensation monies to be paid? It was only last February that the National Review Board finished its report, and not until next month that the bishops actually decide what to do with the report. Rumor has it that at the bishops' meeting, the report will be discreetly applauded and politely shelved - interesting, given that one of the report's major complaints is that the hierarchy of responsibility between bishop and priest (in America) has completely broken down.

My point is not to bash the Catholic Church - far from it. But the American sexual abuse scandal - despite media perceptions of widespread abuse - was largely caused by only 149 priests over a period of five years (1975-1980) [representing 25% of the total accusations]. No serious observer doubts the strength of Catholicism's underlying value system, or the commitment and integrity of the vast majority of its priests. But neither do serious observers expect that every single Catholic, priest or laity, will faultlessly observe the church's laws. All we can expect is that violations will be met with apologies and accountability.

That's precisely what's happening with the US Army and Abu Grahib. I'd say that the lesson has indeed been learned.

A couple of soldiers will be prosecuted, several officers will be reprimanded and that will be the end of it. This is a good point, and it seems that this is what the Bushies are hoping for. But the American people have sent Shrub a strong rebuke - a 42% approval rating, which is one of the lowest for a modern President at this point in his term. The rebuke has been harsh in the media as well. Most Americans are in agreement with the points you raise. The apologists seem fairly small in number, but they are very vocal and trying to muster as much damage control as can be had given the magnitude of this scandal.

Military intelligence officers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq directed military police to take clothes from prisoners, leave detainees naked in their cells and make them wear women's underwear, part of a series of alleged abuses that were openly discussed at the facility, according to a military intelligence soldier who worked at the prison last fall.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5016950/

Congressmen and senators who have seen the other unreleased photos, which are being kept from the public, are asking: "How the hell can this happen?"

The detainee, whose badly bruised corpse was in a body bag packed with ice, died in the prison’s showers while being interrogated by the CIA or other civilian agents, ABC reported Wednesday. At least three such CIA cases have been referred by the agency to the Justice Department for prosecution, the official said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5022416/

[ May 21, 2004, 19:28: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Don't get me wrong, the US is the house of a great nation, with a sense of justice as well. I strongly believe that they don't like what they see and I understand how they feel when they hear in the media that it's their democratically chosen administration which is ultimately responsible for the atrocities. To say that they feel cheated would probably be a strong understatement.

However, few people up there share these feelings. Dropping as it is, they still have support of a significant part of the voters.

Not like CIA hadn't been doing the same for decades already. Or like no one up there would know about that. I just guess this one accident will be the one that opens people's eyes, and mouth, for good.

The current administration, however, seems to go on, genuinely regret the accident... ...seeing daylight.

I understand that sometimes it may be better to keep such things in secret while setting them straight, in order not to scandalise the public. However, pretending that nothing happens and telling everyone involved to keep his mouth shut is not the good way. Keeping things in secret is good if you act swiftly and make sure they won't happen again. And that the people responsible don't get any opportunity to repeat their mistakes.

It's quite analagous to the way the Catholic Church in America dealt with child abuse cases. At some point reputation became more important than finding a permanent way to solve the problem - and see the consequences. Yes, having state investigators arrest your priests and interrogate them isn't perhaps the best idea, but cooperation between state and church investigators is nothing unachievable. Now, as a result, I doubt any parent feels comfortable entrusting his or her child to a Catholic priest. Every single one of them is regarded with suspicion and a great number is facing accusations from people who think up stories out of greed or lust for sensation.

In the same way as proven culprits were delegated to another parish, and still to work with children!, and spared any punishment apart from losing all hopes for significant career advance, some bishops now act on accusations from dubious people. Priests have been punished without proper Canon ordeal, or without any proof other than testimony of a psychically ill supposed victim and so on. Proving yourself innocent or managing to have them admit you haven't been proven guilty, won't really restore your good name or repair the damage to your hopes for career advance. Sometimes even the supposed victim and only witness (basically, the only evidence) retracting testimony didn't result in punishment acts being annulled retroactively or declared void as justice dictates they should be. What reason? Yeah, the reputation of the Church. Some people, even up there, seem not to get the idea.

Hope this doesn't happen to the US Army.

While I don't doubt the principles and goodwill of American people, the problem I have with Sanchez' quote is a big one:

The honor and value systems of our armed forces are solid and the bedrock of what makes us the best in the world,It clearly says that makes the US armed forces the best in the world is their value system and honour.

The best means that everyone else is worse. If moral values and honour are the criteria, it suggests that all other armed forces in the world have less honour and poorer moral values than the US armed forces.

An indirect implication is that "you're all lacking compared to us anyway, no matter Abu Ghraib or anything". Perhaps he didn't mean it, but it sounds like he did.

He has the right to such an opinion, but only as a private citizen. It is a completely different thing if he speaks like that in his official capacity. Especially in the given situation.

There has been no catastrophic failure, and America's armed forces will never compromise their honor.Here, I don't fully know what he meant by America's armed forces. I only know that the soldiers who abused detainees have compromised their honour, that officers who looked the other way have compromised their honour, that CIA investigators have compromised their honour and that everyone up the chain of command who was involved, even by non-action, has compromised his honour. Including the people who ignored Red Cross complaints. While they don't stand for the whole of the US armed forces, they are a part of them. The whole of the US armed forces haven't compromised their honour, but a part of them has. This is not the first group in the US armed forces to have compromised their honour and there is no rational reason to assume it's the last one. For this reason, I believe it was not proper for the general to say what he said in the given situation.

It may sound harsh, especially for the people who actually do a great job in the US army, but some people up there, especially those in the highest command, need to realise that the US army isn't the best of the world just because it's the US army.

A stance of superiority is dangerous. Even in real heroes. Especially if you have no proof and are isolated in your opinion. Especially with such criteria as moral backbone being the case. I can recall many armies who have long traditions of strong moral standing and great military valour as well as field value. Having the biggest collection of nukes around doesn't make an army better than all other armies in the field of valour, or training, or anything.

"One of the best" would just be an understandable expression of national pride. And actually something I could agree with, as the US armed forces actually are one of the best in the world, anyway.

The US Army is moving much more swiftly, seriously, and decisively than that other world institution that claims to be "the best in the world" - the Catholic Church. Recall the nightmare of the sexual abuse scandal. How long did it take for the cases to trickle out, for the accusations to be counted, and for the compensation monies to be paid? It was only last February that the National Review Board finished its report, and not until next month that the bishops actually decide what to do with the report. Rumor has it that at the bishops' meeting, the report will be discreetly applauded and politely shelved - interesting, given that one of the report's major complaints is that the hierarchy of responsibility between bishop and priest (in America) has completely broken down.

[snip]

That's precisely what's happening with the US Army and Abu Grahib. I'd say that the lesson has indeed been learned.Er, no it hasn't. It would be incredibly naive to assume that this is the first time this sort of thing has happened with the US military, in particular with MI. It would be more accurate to say this is the first time the military got caught with its pants down (no pun intended). You can bet your bottom dollar, however, that the US Miltary has learned to confiscate those cameras.

Well, not the first time, sure. There was Ollie North, there was helping Saddam's revolution, there was helping the Mullahs get rid of the Shah. Heck, even Osama himself was trained and subsidised by the CIA. The most abuse-heavy one was the United Fruit Company case, though.

My point, however, is not to enumerate those cases, but to stress that making claims to be the best one army in the light of moral criteria is not the most fortunate thing to say. In fact, it's an example of exceptionalism being impervious to reality.

It clearly says that makes the US armed forces the best in the world is their value system and honour.

The best means that everyone else is worse. If moral values and honour are the criteria, it suggests that all other armed forces in the world have less honour and poorer moral values than the US armed forces.

"One of the best" would just be an understandable expression of national pride. And actually something I could agree with, as the US armed forces actually are one of the best in the world, anyway.I defy anyone here to name one - just ONE - army in the history of the world which can match the US military's combination of honor and power. The Greeks were hardly saints; crusaders slaughtered innocents in Jerusalem; jihadic armies were less than polite; even the ancient Israelite holy army was rebuked for inappropriate looting, treatymaking, and targeting innocent neighbors (Judges 18).

Compare that to an all-volunteer US force which combines the power to destroy the world a dozen times over with hugely expensive precision weaponry specifically designed to minimize death and destruction. The US ain't perfect, not by a long shot. But "less than perfect" is still compatible wtih "the best".

A recognition of the US military's historic power and honor is not chauvinism. It's simple reality. So, too, is a recognition of the US military's grevious failing in this instance. But acknowledging the blight on the one hand does not require a slight on the other.

I agree with The Magistrate. I support eveything he has said...and that comes after having applied a critical assessment to the contrast he painted between the US Military and "my" own Catholic Church.

There have been errors in policy, and violations of poorly defined policy by "individuals" in a position to do so, but if any of you truly believe that those violations were endorsed by persons at high levels...damn, let me have some of what your on, cuz I've just had a HELL of a week.

Big Picture, people.

At least to my knowledge, the U.S. Army has a few skeletons in its closet to match the debaucheries of others.

Sand Creek Massacre - A certain group of Cheyenne Indians had a problem with moving further westward, yet again. A contingent of U.S. army troops, led by a Colonel Chivingston, made a point of waiting for the male warriors to leave for a hunt. They then moved in and slaughtered all the women and children they could find. Among the atrocities that were documented include rape and genital mutilation.

Wounded Knee Massacre - Much in the same vein, absent rape and mutilation. History is a little unclear as to who fired the first shot. But again we have an apparent lack of restraint when it comes to civilians, women and children included.

Forced March of the Navajo - Once Navajo Indians were subjugated, they were forced to march towards the bleakest and barest patch of desert authorities could find. Throughout the march, overseen by the U.S. military, the Navajo were kept on the brink of starvation and dehydration. Apparently for some, it went beyond the brink to actual death. One historical anecdote I had come across describes a small Navajo girl begging a soldier on horseback for some water from his canteen. She received a boot to the face for her trouble.

After seeing the "U.S. military has the best record in the world" claim, I just felt the need to bring these examples up. IMHO, that isn't necessarily the case.

[ May 22, 2004, 06:02: Message edited by: Beren ]

Also there is Vietnam. How many villages did the US army destroy? How many innocents did they murder? That was a really "honourable" war.

I will just add some more incidents to Beren's list.

1. No Gun Ri Massacre, Korea 1950: At least 300 civilians were executed by american soldiers.

2. My Lai Massacre, Vietnam 1968: 500 civilians were murdered by american soldiers.

3. Confederate POW camp in Andersonville, Georgia American Civil War: 13000 POWs died from summer heat, disease, and inadequate food and medical supplies.

4.Dachau Massacre, 1945: 520 German POWs were executed by the Americans who liberated the death camp. They were members of the Waffen SS "Wiking" Division and of varius Gebrigs Divisions, they arrived in the camp few days earlier, so don't tell me that they were derseving it. The regular garrison of the Dachau, almost 1500 men of the Allgemeine and Totenkopf SS, has left the camp few days earlier.

Comparing atrocities is a moot point. Soldiers commit atrocities, always, in every conflict, in every army. If you are willing to release the dogs of war you must be willing to see your young soldiers commit the most vile of acts. As I see it everyone who supported the Iraq war supports the acts commited in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. It is outright stupidity to think that just this American army wouldnt follow in the footsteps of every other army in the history of the world. Support for war means to me supporting the transformation of decent young kids into horrible monsters and the sanction of the atrocities those once hopeful, proud and naive youngsters.

There are times when that is a price that might have to be paid, I cannot see that Saddam Hussein's reign of terror or the lies of George II's regime is worth transformning good wholesome young American kids into torturing, raping, murdering monsters. Not to mention their victims.

Here is a question.

Would you rather be humiliated or have your head cut off?

It amazes me that this is still an issue. At least the Iraqi POWs are still alive and now that order has been restored the prison is being conducted in a proper way.

As to the topic as posted. Has the lesson been learned? Judging by the fact that court martial proceedings have started and we have one conviction already I would say the lesson has been learned. Is their any doubt that reforms have been made and the torture/humiliations have stopped? I don't think so.

Out of curiosity is the rest of the world (especially our friends in the Arab media) as outraged about Mr. Berg's beheading as they appear to be about prisoner abuse?

Things that make you go hmm?

Punishing perpetrators after their crimes doesnt make the crime go away. What it does is just to further wreck the poor idiots who couldnt handle a situation one wouldnt wish upon anyone. Not to say that they shouldnt be punished but that their crimes would happen was inevitable as soon as the war started and as I see it it is the persons putting young men and woman in situations where things like this was bound to happen who is ultimately to blame. Not some moron blinded by propaganda and a sense of moral superiority.

The situation is the same with the people beheading Nick Berg. Things like that are common in a war. It is what war does to people. Atrocious? Yes. Horrible? Yes. Surprising? No.

And Snook, if anything the arabs is a bit more "honest" in their reactions to vile deeds commmitted by "their" side. You can not tell me that the Bush regime and the people pushing for the war really cares about the prisoners or the kids no painted up as monsters. They tried to hide it and ignore it for as long as possible and now it is all about damage control. Heck, many many just think it was a little bit of hazing, pranks if you like. Not to mention the very large number of people who just plainly thinks the iraqi bastards deserved it and much more and the ones who leaked to the press are bloody traitors.

This is not a few rotten eggs. This is how it is in a war. The court martials are just a show for the gallery, sacrifical lambs. If you were going to court martial every soldier who commits a vile deed in a war you would have to end up court martialing a sizable percentage of your troops. Much easier to keep your soldiers out of wars unless absolutely nescessary and then accept that vile deeds will be committed by your children, siblings, friends and parents.

I'm well aware that all countries' armies have atrocities to their name at some point. I just get annoyed when people claim their army is pure and virtuous, when it clearly isn't.

As to the topic as posted. Has the lesson been learned? Judging by the fact that court martial proceedings have started and we have one conviction already I would say the lesson has been learned.Well, you really believe that the worst punishments they should be able to recieve is one short, frigging year in prison for humiliating many, many, Iraqian POWs? And even if they get the full punishment, a year, then they will be well treated in prison for being "patriots" and will probably not have a single problem afterwards searching for a job ethier. Bullsh*t I tell ya, bullsh*t.

Is their any doubt that reforms have been made and the torture/humiliations have stopped? I don't think so.I doubt it have stopped, they are just not taking pictures anymore and are now covering it up much better.

I defy anyone here to name one - just ONE - army in the history of the world which can match the US military's combination of honor and power. The Greeks were hardly saints; crusaders slaughtered innocents in Jerusalem; jihadic armies were less than polite; even the ancient Israelite holy army was rebuked for inappropriate looting, treatymaking, and targeting innocent neighbors (Judges 18).

Compare that to an all-volunteer US force which combines the power to destroy the world a dozen times over with hugely expensive precision weaponry specifically designed to minimize death and destruction. The US ain't perfect, not by a long shot. But "less than perfect" is still compatible wtih "the best".Ladies and gentlemen, allow me please to introduce...

United Fruits Company, aka Chiquita (http://www1.iwon.com/home/careers/company_profile/0,15623,1309,00.html):

Before 1970, Chiquita Brands was known as the United Fruit Company, one of the most storied and controversial businesses in the history of the Americas. Founded through the merger of four banana importing companies in 1899, United Fruit played a key role in the CIA-sponsored overthrow of Guatemala's democratically elected government in 1954. It also assisted in the attempt to topple Cuba's Castro regime in 1961. Chiquita's name has been additionally tainted by alleged preferential treatment by the Clinton Administration. With its heavy involvement with any Latin American country that was friendly to its policies, United Fruit gave birth to the term "banana republic." Even in 1996, United Fruit - then renamed Chiquita - evicted 100 Honduran families and razed their homes after declaring the land infertile.Note that it's not detailed information from some Latin-American source devoted to spotting and bringing to daylight the US armed forces or MI abuse against their people. It's just a piece of historical background for a company listing entry and an American one.

Another site says:

The capital of the United Fruit Company empire was in Guatemala, in the town of Bananera, where it made its headquarters. From here it master-minded its empire and corrupted every level of government and politics in Guatemala. United Fruit also managed to exempt itself from virtually all taxes for 99 years. UFCO had its fingers in almost every pie in Guatemala. UFCO had the unconditional support of right-wing dictators who maintained their power by terrorizing the people and arresting prominent citizens who were either killed on the spot or tortured in prison to extract confessions. During one wave of repression under Jorge Ubico, hundreds were killed in just two days.Now a brief summary of how a democratically chosen government was overthrown by an adventurous group of CIA agents, United Fruit underlings and US military:

The campaign succeeded and in 1954 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a coup, code-named "Operation PBSUCCESS". The invading force numbered only 150 men under the command of Castillo Armas but the CIA convinced the Guatemalan public and President Arbenz that a major invasion was underway. The CIA set up a clandestine radio station to carry propaganda, jammed all Guatemalan stations, and hired skilled American pilots to bomb strategic points in Guatemala City. The U.S. replaced the freely elected government of Guatemala with another right-wing dictatorship that would again bend to UFCO's will.More on CIA in Guatemala: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/guatemala.html

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/guatrvw.html

National Security Archive (George Washington University) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/guatemala.html

http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/102196/cia102196.html says:

For the CIA, according to a recent account from the San Jose Mercury News, the money from the arms sales were not enough. Acting independently of Congressional and National Security Council authorization, the CIA enlisted the help of a known cocaine smuggler to sell crack-cocaine inside the United States, and sent profits to the Contras.

Substantial proof, however, has yet to surface for charging the CIA with direct involvement. But there is no question that cocaine began being smuggled into the United States in large quantities (sometimes by the airplane load) during the time of the Contra covert operation. The question that remains is why, if they were not directly involved, the CIA chose to ignore the drug smuggling.There's also a summary of General Colin Powell's career (Chief of Staff 1989-1993, ie the head of the army): http://www.worldworks.org/politics/cpowell.htm

Extensive quote below, from the international investigation of Panama invasion as well as independent investigations held by such people as Ramsey Clark (former Attorney General):

In December 1989, while Powell was Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the top military leader for all US forces -- George Bush invaded Panama in an attack condemned by almost every other country on Earth. Portrayed as a "surgical strike" on Manuel Noriega, it did virtually nothing to stem the flow of drugs into the US. (Noriega's replacements installed by the US Southern Command were also linked to the profitable drug trade.) An investigation by Codehuca (Central American Human Rights Commission) concluded:

* "The U.S. Army used highly sophisticated weapons--some for the first time in combat--against unarmed civilian populations.

* "The human costs of the invasion are substantially higher than the official figures. Conservative estimates indicate that civilian fatalities were at least 10 times greater than the U.S. figure of 220.

* "The actual death toll has been obscured through U.S. military practices including: 1) Incineration of corpses prior to identification; 2) Burial of remains in common graves prior to identification; and 3) U.S. military control of administrative offices of hospitals and morgues, permitting the removal of all registries to U.S. military bases.

* "A thorough, well-planned propaganda campaign has been implemented by U.S. authorities to ... deny the brutality and extensive human and material costs of the invasion."

Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark reported a "conspiracy of silence" regarding civilian dead and former U.S. Ambassador to Panama Ambler Moss stated that his "gut instinct is that there is an awful lot of parties around there that have an interest in covering up numbers" (New York Times, 1/10/90). Catholic priest Diego Caffley, working in Panama reported that the invasion killed 3,000 people and that the main obstacle to learning how many people were killed was the US Army Southern Command (La Republica, Costa Rica, 11/01/90). After visiting Panama, Clark estimated that 4,000 died.

Many of the victims lived in the El Chorrillos slum next to Panamanian military headquarters. This neighborhood was leveled by US bombs, and the number of dead remains unknown. Most were of African descent and among the poorest in Panamanian society. The Black, mestizo, and Indian populations suffered most of the destruction and misery wreaked by U.S. forces. Establishment media sources generally cited only the mostly white, elite elements tied to Panamanian banks. Panamanians opposing the invasion, even those also opposed to Noriega, were ignored by US journalists.

The Panama invasion, which occurred just weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, helped prevent efforts to cut the military budget.

"it's really clear ... that the military action in Panama violates international law, designed to maintain peace, and the laws of the [US] which are designed to keep the [US] out of war and from committing unlawful military aggressions." -- Ramsey Clark, 12/27/1989So, what do we have? Unlawful aggression (right, Noriega was a drug dealer but the replacement people were drug dealers too, only more America-friendly ones). Starting a whole war to keep war expenses in the budget intact. Forging reports. False information on civilian victims (ie 10 times less than in reality). Burning corpses of civilian victims to destroy proof. Removing hospital and morgue records and locking them in US military bases. Burrying victims in mass graves quickly so they couldn't be identified. Testing "toys" of military technology on civilians.

Here goes Gulf War I:

Powell, as Joint Chiefs of Staff, presided over the bloody Persian Gulf war. John Lehman, Reagan's first Navy Secretary, reportedly confided in 1991 at a gathering at the "Bohemian Grove" (an all-male retreat for corporate and political leaders in northern California) that 200,000 people were killed in the Gulf War.

US forces bulldozed Iraqi draftees into mass graves, bombed retreating forces on the "Highway of Death," set oil refineries on fire (not all oil spills were caused by Saddam Hussein), dropped uranium tipped shells across the desert (over 40 tons of radioactive uranium was scattered), and threatened to use nuclear weapons before the conflict started. But since strict Pentagon censorship prohibited virtually any photographic documentation of the slaughter, Americans who only watched TV never learned what happened in the desert.Bombing enemy in retreat, dropping uranium all over the desert, burning oil refineries etc etc. As always, strict censorship.

More on the Highway of Death:

More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.Source: http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm WARNING: it might not something you want to read or look at on a beatiful Saturday afternoon.

Here's what Ramsey Clark (former US Attorney General, now international law specialist and human rights lawyer) said about Gulf War I:

"It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice."And here's the 19 point indictment he made:

The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.
President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily.
President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq.
The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.
The United States intentionally bombed indiscriminately throughout Iraq.
The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed Iraqi military personnel, used excessive force, killed soldiers seeking to surrender and in disorganized individual flight, often unarmed and far from any combat zones and randomly and wantonly killed Iraqi soldiers and destroyed materiel after the cease fire.
The United States used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and inflicting indiscriminate death and unnecessary suffering against both military and civilian targets.
The United States intentionally attacked installations in Iraq containing dangerous substances and forces.
President Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade Panama, resulting in the deaths of 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians and the destruction of thousands of private dwellings, public buildings, and commercial structures.
President Bush obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations functions as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace and war crimes.
President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and other high crimes.
The United States waged war on the environment.
President Bush encouraged and aided Shiite Muslims and Kurds to rebel against the government of Iraq causing fratricidal violence, emigration, exposure, hunger and sickness and thousands of deaths. After the rebellion failed, the U.S. invaded and occupied parts of Iraq without authority in order to increase division and hostility within Iraq.
President Bush intentionally deprived the Iraqi people of essential medicines, potable water, food, and other necessities.
The United States continued its assault on Iraq after the cease fire, invading and occupying areas at will.
The United States has violated and condoned violations of human rights, civil liberties and the U.S. Bill of Rights in the United States, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to achieve its purpose of military domination.
The United States, having destroyed Iraq's economic base, demands reparations which will permanently impoverish Iraq and threaten its people with famine and epidemic.
President Bush systematically manipulated, controlled, directed, misinformed and restricted press and media coverage to obtain constant support in the media for his military and political goals.
The United States has by force secured a permanent military presence in the Gulf, the control of its oil resources and geopolitical domination of the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf region. Link: http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm#1 , there's a section devoted to each of the points there.

Gulf War II:

"Ammar Muhammad was not yet 2 when his grandfather pulled him from the rubble and tried to give him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, but his mouth was full of dust and he died." Seventy-two-year-old Hamoodi declared that he considered the destruction of his home and the killings of his family members to constitute a war crime, and he asked rhetorically: "How would President Bush feel if he had to dig his daughters from out of the rubble?" U.S. forces have expended thousands of cluster munitions in Iraq, often in heavily populated places. (In the Karbala-Hillah area alone, U.S. teams had destroyed by late August last year more than 31,000 unexploded bomblets "that landed on fields, homes, factories and roads . . . many were in populated areas on Karbala's outskirts.") The toll among children, whose natural curiosity draws them to the interesting-looking bomblets, has been heavy. Last year the whole world learned about Ali Ismail Abbas, the twelve-year-old boy who was sleeping in his home in Baghdad when a U.S. missile struck and the explosion tore off both his arms and killed his parents and his brother. His heartrending photo appeared in news media around the world, as did reports of his anguished cries for help in getting his arms back.But those could have been construed as isolate cases that "are regrettable but happen in all wars". Well, what about Fallujah?

Recently, the ferocious U.S. attacks on Fallujah have yielded hundreds of additional casualties among the innocent. There, as in many other places in Iraq, U.S. troops have fired recklessly and without adequate regard for the thousands of civilians they thereby placed in mortal jeopardy. "I'm sitting at the funeral of my only son, who was killed because of the U.S. Marines' harsh manner in dealing with civilians," Abbas Abdullah told a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. "They shot him in the head, and he died instantly."

In the White House Rose Garden on April 30, President Bush, displaying his usual keen sensitivity, blustered as he often has on the campaign trail that because of the U.S. invasion "there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq." The president made this claim even as the whole world's press was featuring photos of the U.S. torture chambers at Abu Ghraib and reporting worse crimes against Iraqi detainees there and elsewhere, including rape and murder. Moreover, mass graves have been filling up for weeks at Fallujah, for the most part with noncombatants. According to Dahr Jamail's report in The Nation, "two soccer fields in Fallujah have been converted to graveyards." Jamail also reported that "the Americans have bombed one hospital, and, numerous sources told us, were sniping at people who attempted to enter and exit the other major medical facility." Snipers also shot ambulances braving the dangerous streets to bring the wounded to makeshift places of medical assistance.What do we see now, appart from indiscriminate mass killing in which mostly civilians fall? Right, shooting down ambulances.

Along a quiet residential street in Fallujah, nine-year-old Rahad Septi and other children were playing hide-and-seek when the pilot of a U.S. A-10 aircraft dropped a bomb there. Rahad, "little flower" to her father Juma Septi, was killed along with ten other children, and twelve other children were wounded. Three adults also were killed. Jamal Abbas was driving his taxi when the bomb fell. He found his eleven-year-old niece Arij Haki with "the top half of her head . . . blown off." After half an hour of searching amid the devastation, Abbas found his daughter, eleven-year-old Miad Jamal Abbas, "her body bloody and ripped." She died later at the hospital. "There was no military activity in this area," said Saad Ibrahim, whose father Hussein was killed in his nearby shop by the same bomb blast. "There was no shooting. This is not a military camp. These are houses with children playing in the street."No military activity. Just some pilot felt like dropping a bomb or five because, after all, this was a war.

There's also an account of US soldiers expelling Iraqi children from hospitals to make room for wounded soldiers. Kicking them out and leaving to die. Who cares? They're Iraqis...:

When Daham Kassim, his wife Gufran Ibed Kassim, and their four children tried to escape the hell of U.S. bombing in their neighborhood in Nasiriyah, they stopped on the outskirts of the city at a military checkpoint, where, without warning, U.S. tank crews blasted their car with machine-gun fire, killing three of the children and wounding all the other occupants of the car. U.S. troops, humanitarian as ever, then took the three survivors of the attack to a field hospital, treated their wounds, and let them rest in beds. On the third night, however, the troops expelled them from the hospital to make room for wounded U.S. soldiers. As Kassim relates the story: "They carried us like dogs, out into the cold, without shelter, or a blanket. It was the days of the sandstorms and freezing at night. And I heard [five-year-old] Zainab crying: 'Papa, Papa, I am cold, I am cold.' Then she went silent. Completely silent. . . . My arms were broken. I could not lift or hold her. . . . We had to sit there, and listen to her die."Nasiriyah:

In Nasiriyah, only Kadem Hashem and his youngest daughter survived when a U.S. missile struck their house. His wife Salima, five of their children, and six other family members who happened to be in the house at the time were killed. Finding a photograph in the debris of his house, Hashem told reporter Ed Vulliamy of The Observer: "This was my middle daughter, Hamadi. I found her burnt to death by that doorway, she had shrunk to about a metre tall." His one surviving daughter, Bedour, described now as "what remains of a beautiful girl," lies on the floor of a relative's house. "She is shrivelled and petrified like a dead cat. Her skin is like scorched parchment folded over her bones. Unable to move, she appears as if in some troubled coma, but opens her eyes, with difficulty, to issue an indecipherable cry like a wounded animal." Hashem dug a mass grave for his family in a nearby holy city. "I collected them all and put them in a single grave at Najaf; my money was burnt, too, and I couldn't afford to bury them separately."Robert Higgs, who collected the above examples from Gulf War II (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs25.html), concludes:

Their stories are but a very few of the tens of thousands that might be told if more complete information were available to provide the details associated with the gruesome statistics on deaths and injuries among the Iraqi population. Relatively few of the people slain were "terrorists," Baathists, or even insurgents. Most were noncombatants; thousands were women, children, and elderly people. The military euphemism for these deaths is "collateral damage," but they are actually murders. After all, they did not happen by accident; in the circumstances, they were as predictable as the sun's rising in the east. By choosing to engage in the kinds of military actions that made these deaths inevitable, the U.S. government thereby chose to cause these deaths. The claim that they were not intended has no substance whatsoever.You can check out American Free Press for more information on Fallujah:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__war_crimes.html

“More than 600 Iraqis have been killed in Fallujah since Marines began a siege against Sunni insurgents in the city a week ago, most of them women, children and the elderly, the head of the city’s hospital said Sunday,” the Associated Press reported on April 11.

“Bodies were being buried in two soccer fields filled with row after row of graves,” AP reported. There were also “reports of an unknown number of dead being buried in people’s homes.” There have been numerous reports that U.S. forces seized the city’s main hospital during the opening days of the siege, and prevented injured people from being treated.Not only indiscriminate extermination of all potential opposition, but look what an honourable deed we have here: preventing injured people from being treated.

As for very precise weapons designed to target and hurt soldiers only and not civilians:

Asked how the Gatling guns and cannons of an Apache helicopter or the huge AC-130 Spectre gunship firing on a city of 300,000 could distinguish a combatant from a civilian, Carter said: “They are very precise weapons.”Hear Arabs say:

“Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw in Fallujah yesterday,” Dr. Najeeb al-Ani told Jack Fairweather of Britain’s Daily Telegraph. “There is no law on Earth that can justify what the Americans have done to innocent people.”

“I never saw a more despicable and evil action by the Americans,” Dr. Tariq Atham told United Press International. “Even Sharon or Saddam is better. They [U.S. troops] shot children and women in the face and neck every time.”

Dr. Jamal Taha, a doctor at Al Yarmuk hospital, told The Telegraph: “The U.S. is the most developed country in the world, but in Iraq they are barbarians.”

By April 13, Fallujah hospital officials reported 508 Iraqi dead, with 1,224 injured. Of those killed 298 were women and children—58 under the age of five.

“When you see a child five years old with no head, what can you say?” a doctor in Fallujah asked Pacifica Radio.Of 508 Iraqis, 298 women and children. Of those, 58 younger than five year old. Non-combatants would be an especially accurate expression here.

Sometimes, war goes beyond death, though:

Al Omari said he has unconfirmed reports that U.S. soldiers had dismembered bodies in Fallujah to avenge the mutilation of the corpses of the Blackwater mercenaries.Media Monitors have something to say about destroying drinking water supplies and sanitation facilities: http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html :

The United States is knowingly violating Article 54 of the Geneva Convention which prohibits any country from undermining "objects indispensable to the survival of (another country's) civilian population," including drinking water installations and supplies, says Thomas Nagy, a business professor at George Washington University.Amnesty International demands war crimes investigation and trials if necessary: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1104163.htm

Leaving Gulf Wars for a moment, let's consider other recent conflicts:

Kosovo: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/index.html , straight from Amnesty International, more: http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=17808 , http://www.counterpunch.org/dead.html

Afghanistan:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/pows-d13.shtml

Scores, if not hundreds, of Taliban prisoners of war suffocated to death inside metal cargo containers where they were imprisoned after surrendering to Northern Alliance and US forces in the Afghan city of Kunduz in late November. The Taliban prisoners, mostly foreign volunteers from Pakistan, died of asphyxiation and injuries inside the airtight shipping containers during a two or three day journey to a prison in the town of Sheberghan, according to a report in Tuesday’ s New York Times.

These horrific deaths occurred around the same time as hundreds of other Taliban POWs from Kunduz were being massacred by US and Northern Alliance forces at the prison fortress near Mazar-i-Sharif, and have been followed by reports of widespread killings of surrendering soldiers in the Kandahar area and elsewhereNow I'm going to point out an example of US administration's double standards. One of the official reasons for the invasion of Iraq (Gulf War II) was Saddam not allowing international inspectors entry. However, US army denies International Red Cross entry and what? Nothing happens.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), mandated by the Geneva Convention to ensure the humane treatment of war prisoners, announced it would conduct an investigation into the deaths in the shipping containers. Macarena Aguilar, an ICRC spokeswoman said, “Our staff first visited the prison at Sheberghan on Monday, after pushing for 10 days to be allowed to do so.” Aguilar said many of the 3,000 prisoners there were in need of medical treatment and that ICRC workers had arranged for those needing surgery to be moved to a local hospital.Suffocating prisoners in metal containers in summer heat:

Omar, described by the newspaper as a “pale and slight youth,” said through the bars of his prison wing that all but seven people in his container died from lack of air. He estimated that more than 100 had died. Another Pakistani said 13 had died in his container and that survivors had taken turns to breathe through a hole in the metal wall.

One prisoner, Ibrahim, a 30-year-old Pakistani mechanic interviewed by the Times in the presence of General Jurabek, said he thought some 35 people died in his container en route from Kunduz. “No oxygen, no oxygen,” he said urgently in English. “The general corrected him and said only five or six had died,” the Times reported. One witness, a local driver who declined to be interviewed but spoke to Afghan acquaintances, said he had seen soldiers unloading many dead bodies from a container by the road not far from Sheberghan. Three containers were lined up by the road in Dasht-i-Laili, and soldiers were unloading one container that was full of bodies, throwing them onto the ground, he said.

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture,” of prisoners of war. Top Bush administration and Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have gone on public record stating that the US prefers the killing of non-Afghan soldiers rather than a surrender deal that allowed them to return to their homes as afforded to Afghan-born Taliban prisoners. This itself is a violation of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits in Article 3 “any adverse distinction” between prisoners of war “founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.” Rumsfeld said explicitly that “America is not inclined to negotiate surrenders” and that he hoped al-Qaida forces would “either be killed or taken prisoner.”We're America. We don't need to negotiate. Kill them or have them at our feet. Geneva 3 doesn't matter.

Here's an interesting part about "illegal combatants":

Bush officials have moreover suggested that non-Afghan Taliban fighters are not soldiers in a conventional war, but “illegal combatants,” who are not covered by the protections of the Geneva Convention. This is a grotesque lie, since the Geneva Convention explicitly extends its provisions to participants in every kind of armed conflict, including civil wars, a point recently emphasized by the International Red Cross. The Bush administration invented the category of “illegal combatants” in order to give a pseudo-legal cover to a policy of summary execution.Another excuse is private contractors. Yes, taking private contractors on war together with the army to do the wet job and relieve the military and the administration of the problem. After all, they can always be disowned and who will believe them if they call upon the orders they were given? It's the word of a mercenary against the word of a state's top ranking officials. Quite an easy, convenient solution.

US officials are well aware that the forces they are directing have a history of murdering and torturing prisoners. In these incidents, if US forces are not openly collaborating in the massacre of prisoners—as they did at the fortress near Mazar-i-Sharif—they are, at the very least, turning a blind eye to the activities of their hired killers. It was widely reported by the international media, including many American newspapers, that Northern Alliance commanders planned to kill non-Afghan POWs from Kunduz once CIA and US Special Forces interrogators were through with them. US military officers who oversaw the surrender of the city were well aware of this, and the US government did nothing to stop it, making top officials complicit in the war crimes. No credible estimate has been released of the number of people killed in Afghanistan by American bombing. If the death toll among Pakistani volunteers is as high as 8,000, the casualties among Afghans in the ranks of the Taliban—many of them young boys and unwilling soldiers drafted at gunpoint—are likely to be many times that figure.

But even if one counts only the prisoners who were killed after surrendering—shot, bombed, suffocated, throats slit—the number is likely to be greater than the death toll on September 11. No one can claim that any of these helpless POWs had any responsibility for terrorist attacks which took place 10,000 miles away. Those who perpetrated the destruction of the World Trade Center were guilty of mass murder. Those giving the orders for the slaughter now taking place in Afghanistan are perpetrating even greater crimes.[/URL]

From what I've heard, about 30000 civilians fell victim to bombing. Including cluster bombs dropped in exactly the same containers as food supplies used to be. Whad did the officials say? They said bombs and food had different inscriptions on the boxes. Just who in Afghanistan can read English? Plus, someone actually dropped that.

Extermination of prisoners:

[quote]According to both press and US government accounts, US Special Forces and CIA personnel were on the spot in Mazar-i-Sharif, calling in air strikes by helicopter gunships and fighter-bombers and directing the actions of Northern Alliance soldiers as they shot down hundreds of prisoners. German television broadcast footage of Northern Alliance soldiers shooting down from the walls of the fortress-prison into a mass of prisoners below.

Most of those killed, however, were annihilated by US air strikes. Warplanes dropped bombs on the fort and AC-130 helicopter gunships, which can fire 1,800 rounds a minute, were called in by Special Forces spotters in the fortress. Tanks and 2,000 Northern Alliance ground troops were also brought in to complete the destructive work. Throughout the one-sided battle, according to Time journalist Alex Perry, who was on the scene, the 40 or so American Special Forces and British SAS operatives were “running the show,” directing both the air and ground operations.More:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1023894901416B265&set_id=1

McEntee, who was in Berlin for Wednesday's special screening, said war crimes had been committed not just under international law but, also, "under the laws of the United States itself".

Much of the footage shown in Doran's 20-minute documentary was taken secretly, and although witnesses were said to be living in fear of reprisal from within Afghanistan itself they had all agreed to appear at any future international war crimes tribunal to give evidence, it was claimed.

One witness in the film claimed he had seen an American soldier break an Afghan prisoner's neck and pour acid on others. "The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them," he alleged.

Sometimes prisoners who were beaten up and taken outside had "disappeared", he said.
Another example of "we didn't do that":

In other sequences witnesses, among them two men, claimed they had been forced to drive into the desert with hundreds of Taliban prisoners.

The living were then summarily shot while 30 to 40 American soldiers purportedly stood by, it was alleged. The prisoners had been taken there on the orders of the local American commander, according to the documentary.Right, didn't do. Just watched and were having fun.

Just something to think about.

The vast majority of the Arabic gulags all work the same way. They tie people up and beat them on the soles of their feet. They'll electrocute them. Pull out fingernails. Make them swallow lye or acid. Club and beat them. Chop off hands and fingers. Women are raped.

People are killed.

That's been going on for centuries. Business as usual. Nothing's changed in that regard since the time of The Prophet. It's brutal by American and European standards (I'm not going to talk about Russia). We can't even sic the dogs on our prisoners. If they don't have TV and 3 square meals a day and a weight pile to excercise on, the treehuggers are talking about "inhumane" conditions. In fact, the Indian prisons (on American Indian Reservations) are a brand new focus of outrage in America.

But by Arabic standards, that's fair game. It's just a natural part of life. It's been a part of life for so long, people just accept it and try to focus

Now, amazingly enough, what the Amerikaners were doing in Abu Ghairb was NOT fair game.

You can kill and torture. But you cannot sexually humiliate. You cannot place a woman in a position of power over a man. Women to NOT snicker and give a thumbs up to a boy's dink. Not even Saddam did that. Iran doesn't do that. Saudi Arabia doesn't do that in their gulags. The Taliban didn't do that. Syria doesn't do that.

The Amerikans could have been just performing summary executions, and that would serve as absolutely no deterrance. That would have been an acceptable part of Jihad. That is an acceptable part of Jihad. But it is the stuff that the Amerikans were doing that makes them think twice. This kind of stuff really does get down to them on a cultural level.

Kudos to the PsyOps team. They definately earned their pay on this run. I used to think of PsyOps as just a support function; never as an actual solution in itself.

The catalog of US Army atrocities against American Indians, Confederate rebels, and German Nazis is indeed a bloody blot on US honor. I suppose if we were so inclined, we could tally Poland's ducal abuses, classical Athens' murderous extortion of its neighbors, and Sweden's imperial exploitation.

That the US military is something short of perfection, in service of imperfect political policies designed by imperfect politicians, is old news. The US military, like the rest of the world, is staffed by fallen human beings, and the age-old question remains: Who will guard the guardians? The stronger the guardian, the greater the temptation for murderous mischief.

But I repeat my original challenge:

I defy anyone here to name one - just ONE - army in the history of the world which can match the US military's combination of honor and power.To which I will boldly add one more proviso. Identify one army in the history of the world which can match the US military's combination of honor, power, and accountability.

So much as I respect your patriotic zeal and rising to defend your country's army, I am not going to go there and play the game.

That is because I am not going to make a competition, a beauty contest, out of an important subject.

Suffice to say, examples have been provided to rebuke the claim of the US army's officials to be "the best" one around.

It is very easy to find armies with less war crimes under their belt. It's also easy to find better trained armies. In fact, recent conflicts have shown that the US army is very poorly trained and technical toys don't compensate. Incidents such as Abu Ghraib and flat out war crimes since after WWII show what kind of man is accepted for service in the US army. Apart from honourable and brave people who go there to defend their homeland, there are also adventurers who are in for the thrill, there are bullies who desire power and control, there are sexual perverts with sadomasochist inclinations, there are morally invertebrate men who will follow any order or will come up with a plethora of ideas how to kill boredom by having some quality time with the prisoners. Also, there are people who are either constipated or not willing to use their brains when dealing with a targetting device. They will shoot first and ask questions later. That is neither professional nor honourable.

The US army is the one with the most nukes and other toys around, but it doesn't make it the best army.

It is highly improper in my eyes to boast an army's moral backbone with so many so atrocious war crimes having been committed so recently.

Open the archives, make them public. Judge the criminals, have them pay. Update your procedures for candidate selection. Add some sensitivity training and ethical education in your military training curriculum. Then you can boast your army's moral strength. Hiding and destroying evidence and then saying "we're still the best no matter what" is not really what I would call proper here in this case.

US Army Special OPS, Rangers, Navy SEALS, and USMC MEF are not only the best equipped, but the best trained military units of their kind in the world.

There are some specialized units from other Countries that are better than US forces for particular terrain...as I recall Italy sent special "mountain" trained units to Afganistan...but when it comes to general levels of excellence combined with the ability to execute a mission and achieve objectives...the "Cream of the Crop" of the US Military is the "Cream of the Crop" of the world.

But that is hardly the topic of discussion. Yes, the US has learned, and continues to learn from these events...and this early in the investigation I don't understand how anyone could make the claim otherwise.

Open the archives, make them public. Judge the criminals, have them pay. Update your procedures for candidate selection. Add some sensitivity training and ethical education in your military training curriculum. Then you can boast your army's moral strength GM was boasting of more than just moral strength. And on that issue he's correct. I agree with you that there isn't much honor in the behavior that we've seen recently, but the issue of technical skill and power is something else again. As Hacken Slash noted.... the SEALS, Special Ops, Rangers, etc. ARE some of the most highly trained military personnel in existence. So before we go and call the entire US army or military subrate or inferior, it might be wise to look at the whole picture.

Of course we will all claim are countries' special forces are the best in the world. I'd personally place bets on our SAS if it came to a straight up soldiering competition between the UK and US. But it's easy to hide behind patriotic zeal. At the core we are all blind to the worst of our forces actions because we do not wish to see the apalling truth. Grey Magistrate: Name me one example of the great U.S accountability. One example of what makes the U.S army "better" than everybody else. We can play this game all day. The U.S is AS bad as everybody else. They are not "morally" the best, because they have NO moral high ground to stand on. You have no evidence to support this arument at all. Just agree that this is not a moral argument. Brutality begets brutality. This violence will not end, until the U.S accepts its errors and takes steps to make reperations. Sending one lowly soldier to jail for "up to" a year is hardly accountability.

Let me clarify.

Suppose I were to claim that US corporations are the best in the world - nay, the history of the world. How would we go about demonstrating the truth or falsity of this claim?

Well, we could look at raw stock value. Or contribution to global GDP. Or employment. Or cash on hand. Or number of branches. Or charitable contributions. Or average wage. Or global reach. Or corporate governance. Or whatever.

A cold-hearted economic assessment would measure the current US economic output as leading the world, not just relatively but absolutely.

However, every day US companies go bankrupt. Investors are fleeced. Pensions are looted. Board members exploit their companies. Employees are injured in preventable ways. And every so often, a shockwave like the dot-com scandal or Enron cheat shakes the foundations.

This sad litany of failure and fraud does not obviate that the US corporate economy is the best in the world. Nor do niche competitors that can best individual US companies in a head-to-head match cancel the overall US advantage, or small countries like Switzerland that eke out marginally higher per-capita income. Nor, even, do historical examples like the Medici.

It doesn't require a patriot to claim this - anti-globalization protestors demonize the US precisely because they view it as the best.

My point is that the Abu Ghraib incident - while sickeningly stupid, short-sighted, and sadistic - does not negate the US military's rank at the top of the historical ladder. In terms of power AND honor. And it is because of that very power and honor that the US Army is working - and has been working for months - to deal with this travesty appropriately, according to pre-existing rules and regulations.

All of which calls for humility and a standard which is high unto itself, rather than merely "better than Saddam". Great nations have come and gone, and the US certainly won't be around forever. As Kipling puts it:

Far-called, our navies melt away -
On dune and headland sinks the fire -
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

But we won't understand the true seriousness of the problem - and we won't comprehend whether or not the lesson is actually being "learned" or merely being "publicly revealed in process" - if we don't understand the US military in a truly serious way, either. That ain't a beauty contest or mere patriotism. It's cold reality.

And Takara - one year in a military prison, a ruined career, and official lifetime disgrace may not seem like very much. But it was the maximum penalty permitted given that the fella in question 1) killed no one, 2) raped no one, and 3) physically injured no one. He was a witness and an accomplice, but was not as deeply involved in the actual process as the others. Penalties for those who actually stomped, molested, and shot will be proprotionately higher, according to pre-existing regulations. It is another measure of the US Army's accountability that it does not retroactively increase the penalties on lowly soldiers for purely political purposes.

Imposing retroactive penal laws is not something any government could possibly get away with in any system remotely resembling democracy, so it's not really so great a distinction to refrain from it.

One year is not little and, as GM says, the stigma will remain with the man. The army was his chosen career and now he has nothing to seek there. After a court martial degradation, there's not really any hope for promotion - and anyway, he has been expelled from the army as well. This, together with criminal record, bars him from practically all job in his chosen field. It was sick and it shouldn't have happened. It wouldn't have happened if the guys up the chain had been doing their job. It's enough the man has been stigmatised for the whole life. A year or two more in prison would not change his situation much, nor would it reverse anything. The only "benefit" would be making some people feel better, which is not the aim of justice. Conclusion: a good verdict.

Next, I make it clear once again: I'm not here to condemn the US Army. I'm not here to say it's a bad one, either. However, it has no higher a moral ground than any other army and possibly a lower one than some armies in the world. It is not the best trained one, either. Flashy toys are a nice thing to have, but not if they tend to go mad a lot. Especially if you have grown dependent on them. They contribute greatly to the US Army's world record friendly fire ratio. And civilian victim ratio. The special strength is only in pure power and it comes from the strength of American economy and being able to spend a lot on army budget. Not from any special moral ground.

Next, in the given context, it was very improper of the general to say what he said.

What attracts my attention especially is the obvious link to exceptionalism and arrogant stance of superiority. Feeling confident of your worth is one, feeling superior and letting others know is a completely different thing.

I am opposing the general and his lines, not the US Army here.

My point is that the Abu Ghraib incident - while sickeningly stupid, short-sighted, and sadistic - does not negate the US military's rank at the top of the historical ladder. In terms of power AND honor The US army is indeed the most powerful today but claiming that it is in the top of the historical ladder in terms of firepower is wrong. An army's firepower must be compared with the firepower of its contemporary armies not with the firepower of armies of past years. You can't compare the firepower of the US army with the firepower of the roman legion, because in this case you are comparing apples and oranges. If with the term "power" you mean effectiveness, then your claim is again wrong. There were many armies in the history which had a more impressive record and were far more effective than the modern US army (for example Roman legions, Alexander's army, Attila's Huhns etc).

As far as honor is concerned, I can't understand what you mean. If with honor you mean the values or the ideas that the american army fights for, what makes the american values and ideas more honorable than the ideas and values of other armies who were as powerful as the US army in their time?

@Takara

Your point is valid, and would be of substance, if the Elite forces of foreign nations didn't buy equipment from the US and train their units at US bases ;)

All said though, I would have to say that the SAS could give American Elite units a run for the money...but who are our staunchest allies in Iraq?

Oh, and about US accountability...well, you can either look at the current unfolding of events, or check out the trials on the "Mei Lai" massacre.

@BOC...I understand your point, but it is hard to equate two different eras. The Romans and Alexander's Legions had two trump cards...weaponry and utilization. Those elements are not as applicable today in our Global scheme, so I don't really see that your comparison is valid...a Persian who was confronted with a Greek Phalanx was overwhelmed by the new structure...the same could be said for the Roman Legions.

There were "secrets" in the world back then that could define the results of combat...e.g. mounted archers, iron weapons, strategical formations...that secrecy no longer exists in our modern world and I don't think the comparisons are valid.

Cry havoc! And release the dogs of war!
I would just like to say that it is somewhat amusing to see the wholesale ignoring of my posts. Either they are so confused and muddled they are better left ignored (which is a real possibility I accept that) or it is an issue most people feel most comfortable leaving alone.

On a whole other issue regarding the "elite" soldiers. Elite soldiers are pretty much the same all over the world. No unit is "better" than any other, they are at about the same level. However, I read an interesting article once about the elite corps of Sweden, Norway and Denmark having an exersice in the north of Sweden together with the US SEALs. It was the SEALs of the US and the Scandinavian countries "hunter" corps. They had a ranking after completion of the excersise and the Danes won, I dont remember who got second of Sweden or Norway but I do know that the SEALs finished dead last. Much to the surprise of the people organising the excersise as it wasnt really terrain or climate depandent. Keep in mind that the Scandinavian troops were all conscripts with at most a year of training while the US troops were all professionals. Ties neatly back to a topic I made a while ago about conscription vs mercenaries.

@Joaqin...

NATO knows how to keep an ally ;) Just one more reason why to not allow beer on US bases.

And I'll need to look back at what your posts were...I just jumped into this thread of late, but I hate for you to feel ignored.

Sweden aint a member of the NATO...officially.

It doesn't require a patriot to claim this - anti-globalization protestors demonize the US precisely because they view it as the best.
Nay, GM, we demonize corporate America because of its utter lack of integrity and morals. Also, that it is the biggest leech, off the American taxpayer, to come down the pike. Talk about a corporate welfare state that all Americans can be proud of. :shake: :roll:

Way off topic but that is so true, Corporate Welfare spending is well over ten times so called social welfare spending. Beck to our regularly scheduled topic :)

Nay, GM, we demonize corporate America because of its utter lack of integrity and morals. Also, that it is the biggest leech, off the American taxpayer, to come down the pike. Talk about a corporate welfare state that all Americans can be proud of. ...as compared to what? The bank-bankrupting Japanese congolomerates? The inbred Korean chaebols? The state-massaged European "industrial champions"? The crippled giants of the ex-Soviet Bloc? The red-chip, red-inked Chinese companies?

Should we assume that the billions American corporations donate every year is no more than tax-dodging advertising? Or that the peculiar American prohibition against foreign bribery is somehow irrelevant? Or that American corporations run, owned, and staffed by American citizens inexplicably become both inhuman and unAmerican between nine and five?

Encore, recognizing the very real flaws of American society - military, economy, media, whatever - should blind us to neither its strengths nor the competition's greater flaws.

...as compared to what? Common decency, Amercian middle class values, the same things we profess that we believe in and act on each and everyday for our children's sake. What would you teach your children? The difference between right and wrong should not be that profound an issue. Do we really need someone to tell us what's right and what isn't?

Ah yes, breaking the news is that the original Taguba report on abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US troops, 2.000 pages strong as delivered to congress, in fact was some 6.000 pages long and that the missing two thirds must have been somehow ... forgotten ... :roll: as a result of a computer glitch ... or so :spin:
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4124045,00.html
.
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said he knew of no contact with the Pentagon by anybody at the committee about the reported missing pages.Now that is an argument - to say it isn't a problem because people, who couldn't know the report in fact is 4.000 pages longer, didn't complain :shake: He said he understood there may have been a computer glitch that made some of the electronically stored pages difficult to open, but the problem was resolved.

``Certainly, if there is some shortfall in what was provided, it was an oversight,'' Di Rita said in a statement read to The Associated Press. Sure bet.