| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Abu Ghraib Families: Culprits Should Face Death |
| 2004-05-18 |
| On the eve of the first court-martial in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, relatives of those still held at Abu Ghraib prison said Tuesday the only suitable punishment would be death -- illustrating the potential gap in expectations in the case. Obviously these are people who benefitted under Saddam. Theâve grown used to having their âenemiesâ killed out of hand for âjusticeâ and expect the U.S. to do the same. "If they actually committed such offenses, they should be executed," said Odai Ibrahim, 55, as he waited in a line with hundreds of other Iraqis to visit relatives at the prison on the western outskirts of Baghdad -- notorious as the site of executions and torture during Saddam Husseinâs regime. Sorry dude, we have this little thing called the rule of law here. But the first defendant, Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits, faces only a year in prison, a fine, reduction in pay and a bad conduct discharge. He has cooperated with authorities and is expected to testify against the others, who face more serious charges. I think he should serve his year in Abu Ghraib prison myself. Poetic Justice and all... Three others -- Staff Sgt. Ivan Fredericks, Sgt. Javal Davis, and Spc. Charles Graner Jr. -- will be arraigned Wednesday before Sivits goes on trial. The arraignments and the Sivits trial will be open to media coverage. Nine Arab newspaper or broadcast journalists are among 34 news organizations to be allowed seats in the courtroom. The U.S. military hopes the presence in the courtroom of such prominent Arab media as the Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera television networks will demonstrate American resolve to determine who was responsible for the abuse and punish the guilty. Is it me or is including terrorists such as Al-Jitzz a bad idea? However, the U.S. military has barred the broadcast of Wednesdayâs hearings on radio or television, and is prohibiting all recording devices and mobile phones from the courtroom... However, comments heard Tuesday outside Abu Ghraib suggest the outcome may not satisfy Iraqi demands for justice, especially since the first defendant faces the least severe charges. "Some of the people inside have spent two years in prison and they are innocent," Yeah right... all of our prisons are filled with innocent people too... Ibrahim said. "The maximum sentence for the Americans is one year. Is that justice?" Yes. It is. The International Committee of the Red But, for some reason, not in Saddamâs Iraq, Iran, Syria, or North Korea.... has said up to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake. A 24-page Red Cross report also cited abuses, some "tantamount to torture," including brutality, forcing people to wear hoods, humiliation and threats of imminent execution. These people obviously hadnât visited the mass graves or people-shreadders which Saddam and his sons loved so much. Sharhabil Abdul-Rahman, 41, said he and his brother were arrested by U.S. soldiers during a raid of their Baghdad home in March. He was released, but his brother remains in custody. "This court will not bring justice," he said outside the prison. "Itâs nonsense. They should be tried by the Iraqis. According to Islamic law they should be executed." Of course according to Islamic law (as practiced by Saddam) you and your entire family should be dead. Please line up with your family along this trench here for some Islamic/Saddam Justice. Whereâs my damn M16? Thunijah Jassim Mahmood, 70, waited for hours Tuesday in the desert heat to see her son Abdul-Razzaq Mahmood, 34, who has been held for more than a month. "They stacked them naked, one upon the other," she said. "I donât believe there will be real justice by the Americans. I want them to leave Iraq and go home." Must be one of Saddamâs supporters.. |
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #35 The cinicism of these muslim scums is bottomless. They want the death penalty for these seven soldiers where not death was involved but under their sick religion, any muslim can kill an infidel and they can get scott free. "A Muslim may not be punished for killing a non-Muslim: âNo Muslim should be killed for killing a kafir (infidel).â Vol 9:50" |
| Posted by: Anonymous4617 2004-05-19 4:44:04 AM |
| #34 Where's male honor killings when Arabs need them? |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-05-18 11:40:30 PM |
| #33 Conservatives often criticize liberals for proposing new policies that excessively assume individual virtue. Conservatives wisely point out that individuals and organizations require some clear rules and limits. This scandal is an excellent lesson in that conservative wisdom. Here a few people believed they could ignore established rules, could succeed by using clever gimmicks, could count on all their fellows to act in concert with their own clever efforts. They moved bravely along the edge of the slippery slope -- and then they slipped down the slope all the way to the very bottom. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-18 10:52:43 PM |
| #32 LAte to the thread, but back to the article, it struck me as another bit of evidence that in the Arab world, death is the solution to everything. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-05-18 10:44:50 PM |
| #31 On the eve of the first court-martial in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, relatives of those still held at Abu Ghraib prison (search) said Tuesday the only suitable punishment would be death -- illustrating the potential gap in expectations in the case. Sorry, but we don't put people to death for anything but the most severe crimes. Those naked Iraqi prisoners didn't kick the bucket as a result of being stripped naked, so.......yer all SOL. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-05-18 10:38:44 PM |
| #30 Zhang Fei, these military policemen got caught committing the wrong crime at the wrong time and so will be punished with extraordinary severity. The same is true for all the foreigners who were caught overstaying their visas on September 11 and for John Walker Lind and for those Yemeni Americans in Buffalo, NY, and for everyone else who decided to go adventure in Afghanistan. Punishments are harsher than normal, because we are in a war. That is why the "fraternity pranks" excuse is not acceptable now. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-18 10:31:14 PM |
| #29 RC> didn't know that, then yeah, he is f*cked. A smart jag prosecutor will tie that disobeying one lawful order w/the abuse - I call it piling on the shitbird theory. They'll show a trend that he was already a scumbag w/this pregnancy situation and warning. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-05-18 10:30:18 PM |
| #28 Jarhead -- they had already been warned to stop. I suspect that will compound his offense -- failing to comply with a lawful order can't be good. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-18 10:24:16 PM |
| #27 Graner's prolly screwed either way, if they don't get him for the abuse they might get him for knocking up one of his subordinates (England). I'm not sure how the Army deals w/inner command fraternization but we'd have his ass if he was in the Corps pulling that shit. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-05-18 10:20:27 PM |
| #26 Mike Sylwester: The other six will be tried in general courts-martial and face much longer sentences. These guys may end up serving sentences that are longer than those served by murderers in this country - about 3-5 years. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-18 10:04:24 PM |
| #25 Some of the people inside have spent two years in prison and they are innocent .... The maximum sentence for the Americans is one year. Is that justice? An occupied population has the right under international law to demand that the occupation force not abuse prisoners. On the other hand, the occupation force has the right under that same international law to hold prisoners until the conflict ends. We do not have to put prisoners on trial and sentence them in order to keep holding them for years and even decades. That's the trade-off -- long established and universally recognized in the civilized world -- that we upset when we decided to abuse prisoners in Iraq to make them talk. This attempt is a form of trial. We have justified legal claims that normally are irrelevant with regard to wartime prisoners. Now when this Iraqi alleges that "some of these people are innocent" his argument has more validity than it normally should. By the way, the maximum sentence for Sivitz is one year, because he made a deal and will be tried in a special court-martial. The other six will be tried in general courts-martial and face much longer sentences. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-18 9:55:05 PM |
| #24 I believe individual Arabs (and all people)have the right to speak out. Folks like Saddam and Assad didn't provide their Arab populations with the opportunity to voice any objections. The point in this thread is the lack of perspective of some in the Arab world. So far, no reported event in the prison has risen to the level of a capital offense. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2004-05-18 8:54:34 PM |
| #23 The argument that the US "soldiers" who abused Iraqi prisoners should be killed reminds me of the animal rights activist who said "These people are like Nazis! They should be killed!" after viewing a film about slaughterhouse workers. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-05-18 8:49:33 PM |
| #22 Raj> "No, that's what you're talking about, as Zhang points out in #5" No, that's what Cyber Sarge talked about -- he said "No Arab can even...". My English isn't yet so bad not to know that he was talking about *individual Arabs*, not Arab states. Perhaps your English is that bad, but not mine. whitecollar redneck> Read my words. Then try to parse them. The point that is in them is the one I've already stated repeatedly: Individual Arabs have the right to complain about human rights abuses. Arab *states* don't. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-18 8:47:04 PM |
| #21 "Aris, can you point out some individual Arabs who have stood up and said "We will not tolerate this" against an Arab government. WITHOUT violence of some sort." I don't know that many individual corpses. "In fact, if individuals are different, then a majority of Kurds should be allowed to make their own state." Am not at all sure how the idea of national independence flows from the idea of individual rights. But yeah, I think that it'd be good if the part of Kurdistan currently in Turkey were to become independent in a velvet divorce, ASSUMING that it'd be *atleast* as fully democratic and protective of human rights as Turkey is. Among other things Turkey would no longer have borders to as many Arab and Middle-eastern states as previously, which would make the EU a bit less fearful of turning Turkey's borders into its own. I also think that it'd be currently bad if the part of Kurdistan currently in Iraq were to become independent, because I think that Iraqi division would lead to Iran and Syria being all too capable of intimidating the pieces. But as for whether they have the *right* to become independent -- yeah, I think they should have that right. Even though it'd probably end up being bad in the long term. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-18 8:43:06 PM |
| #20 Aris, is there a point here or are you just trolling to get an angry reaction from someone? |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2004-05-18 8:33:37 PM |
| #19 since we're talking about individuals. No, that's what you're talking about, as Zhang points out in #5. It seems to me that the proposed Iraqi 'eye for a bite of a shoe' punishment (in accordance with sharia law, natch) cannot be reasonably argued in the affirmative other than to satisfy Arab blood lust, so I'm hard pressed to understand what your point is. And the death-penalty is still part of American law AFAIK, even though you don't apply it to torturers, only to murderers. In one scenario, people die. In the other, they don't. I'm no Perry Mason, but I think that's the distinction we make. |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-18 8:33:21 PM |
| #18 Aris, can you point out some individual Arabs who have stood up and said "We will not tolerate this" against an Arab government. WITHOUT voilence of some sort. In fact, if individuals are different, then a majority of Kurds should be allowed to make their own state. Only a small group of individuals are fighting Turkey, the rest are trying through peaceful means. This seems to be implied by what you're saying Aris. |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-05-18 8:26:03 PM |
| #17 bottom line is the US will correct and learn from it's missdeeds. we are not perfect but the world at large thinks we are. everywhere people are hung up on what the US does - positive or negative. if the US farts it is on the local news before news from thier own country. this so-called abuse scandal will be handled and as stated no one was killed so there will be no death penality. it is a ludicrous for an arab to be calling for the US to take action when they will not look at themselves and demand similar action. until the arabs can do this they will not be taken seriously. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-05-18 8:25:14 PM |
| #16 Aris - cool video, thanks! |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-18 8:23:08 PM |
| #15 Raj> "Uh, #10 was me, my bad..." How did I ever guess? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-18 8:20:35 PM |
| #14 "Black slaves had civil rights in the 1950's. It just wasn't enforced in certain regions of the South - the US has a federal system, after all." Which means they didn't actually have them in those certain regions of the South. And your talks about what Arab or European countries are or were doing is still irrelevant, since we're talking about individuals. Raj> Here And can the stalker be banned? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-18 8:19:47 PM |
| #13 Uh, #10 was me, my bad... |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-18 8:17:29 PM |
| #12 "but the fact is that individuals don't enforce the law - governments do" And governments occasionally are tyrannical and get overthrown. "And even if you leave out the government, Arabs individually don't begin to approach the US in terms of accepting the rights of various categories of outsiders in their society " Arabs individually are individuals, which means that you don't know how they accept the rights of others unless you've talked to each of them on an individual basis, not a statistical one. "without prompting by the government, Arabs kill converts to other religions, their female relatives for dishonoring them, foreign missionaries for preaching to Muslims in the most brutal ways possible. " Many Arabs do, yeah. And many Arabs don't. That's the thing that makes them individuals. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-18 8:16:21 PM |
| #11 Aris: You might have just as well argued that no black slave should have gotten civil rights back in the 50s since there existed no sub-Saharan country that was more democratic than the USA. Black slaves had civil rights in the 1950's. It just wasn't enforced in certain regions of the South - the US has a federal system, after all. Many Arab countries have slavery even today, and in the Arab countries where it was made illegal, that happened for the most part, only in this century. As to slavery, Europeans used millions of Jews and Gypsies (Germany) in the 20th century, in addition to millions of political prisoners (Russia) in Siberia as slave labor, working millions to death. Whatever you might say about American slavery, slave owners kept their chattel alive, and ended in in the 19th century. Note that Greek democracy itself was based on slave labor - only the aristocrats had a vote. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-18 8:16:03 PM |
| #10 Aris - an Olympic stadium update, if you would... |
| Posted by: Anonymous4930 2004-05-18 8:15:52 PM |
| #9 Aris: No, human rights are inalienable. They are not *granted* by the state, anymore than life itself is, they are simply protected by it, the same way that life itself is. Political rhetoric and practical reality are two different things. Aris can talk all he wants about individuals providing rights, but the fact is that individuals don't enforce the law - governments do. And even if you leave out the government, Arabs individually don't begin to approach the US in terms of accepting the rights of various categories of outsiders in their society - without prompting by the government, Arabs kill converts to other religions, their female relatives for dishonoring them, foreign missionaries for preaching to Muslims in the most brutal ways possible. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-18 8:10:11 PM |
| #8 Sorry, the last sentence meant to say "black slave gotten freedom in the 1800s or black person got civil rights back in the 50s" |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-18 8:01:57 PM |
| #7 "Human/civil rights are rights granted by the state." No, human rights are inalienable. They are not *granted* by the state, anymore than life itself is, they are simply protected by it, the same way that life itself is. "I think Aris is making more of a tranzi "separate the individual from the nation" argument" Or from the race. You might have just as well argued that no black slave should have gotten civil rights back in the 50s since there existed no sub-Saharan country that was more democratic than the USA. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-18 8:00:55 PM |
| #6 I think Aris is making more of a tranzi "separate the individual from the nation" argument |
| Posted by: docob 2004-05-18 7:54:53 PM |
| #5 And the death-penalty is still part of American law AFAIK, even though you don't apply it to torturers, only to murderers. Actually, very few murderers in the US get the death penalty. There are about 16,000 murders a year. If you assume about 2 murders each, that implies about 8,000 perpetrators. The execution rate is about 100 a year. That's about 1.25% of all murderers. As usual, Aris tries to confuse the issue. Human/civil rights are rights granted by the state. Arab individuals have nothing to do with it. (This is probably Aris's way of saying that not all Arabs are terrorists. The unfortunate thing is that most international terrorists are Arabs). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-18 7:52:21 PM |
| #4 Yep, Aris, and if one of these creeps were guilty of murder, he'd be facing the gallows. But so far none of them are accused of that. "This court will not bring justice," he said outside the prison. "Itâs nonsense. They should be tried by the Iraqis. According to Islamic law they should be executed." Well, yes, because they're kafirs who had the gall to touch one of the Most Holy. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-18 7:50:27 PM |
| #3 "NO Arab can even approach the U.S. on any kind of human/civil rights issue." Yeah, they can. No Arab *state* can, but individual Arabs still can. Unless you have reason to believe that these individual Arabs had violated human/civil rights themselves? And the death-penalty is still part of American law AFAIK, even though you don't apply it to torturers, only to murderers. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-18 7:30:18 PM |
| #2 Hey Odai, STFU. NO Arab can even approach the U.S. on any kind of human/civil rights issue. So a few of our guys screwed up, don't think you can begin to preach to us. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-05-18 7:13:37 PM |
| #1 It was terribly inhumane what we did to the Sadaam supporters at the AG prison. A sad display of man's inhumanity to man. The only solution to remedy this would be to torture and kill the perpetrators. Making them really suffer would get the point across that we will not tolerate this type of behavior in a civilized world. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-18 6:56:22 PM |