- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Well, I watched the 5th estate last night, and they interviewed several of the soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib prison "scandal".
Am I alone in thinking that the treatment that the Iraqi prisoners suffered there was not really torture?
They were badly treated, vigorously interrogated and made uncomfortable for long periods of time in order to facilitate interrogation. This was done under the explicit and implicit order of their chain of command - so, no biggie.
As for the incident in which the three alleged homosexual child rapists were humiliated and beaten up a bit - this was wrong because it did not have official sanction. It was a bunch of angry young men acting stupidly. But was it torture? I don't think so. They (prisoners) were put in uncomfortable conditions and embarrassed.
It seems to me that this documentary is engaging in making a mountain out of a molehill. None of the prisoners in Abu Grhaib died. They were interrogated in methods that the previous Iraqi regime would find laughable, but were still effective. Is pouring water on someone torture? Sandbag over the head was standard in our army until 2002, handcuffing to each other is to prevent injury to the guards, and they were naked because many of them insisted on throwing feces and other bodily fluids, or covering themselves with said.
The documentary reatedly brings up the various Geneva Conventions, and how they were allegedly violated, but makes no provision for the treatment that captured americans have recieved (immolation, genitals cut off and placed in mouth, throat slit etc) and that the enemy in this war does not follow the geneva convention.
Is this documentary an objective account of the events that took place? Or is it another thinly disguised attempt at opposing the US war on terror, the war in iraq, and anti americanism?
Thoughts?
Am I alone in thinking that the treatment that the Iraqi prisoners suffered there was not really torture?
They were badly treated, vigorously interrogated and made uncomfortable for long periods of time in order to facilitate interrogation. This was done under the explicit and implicit order of their chain of command - so, no biggie.
As for the incident in which the three alleged homosexual child rapists were humiliated and beaten up a bit - this was wrong because it did not have official sanction. It was a bunch of angry young men acting stupidly. But was it torture? I don't think so. They (prisoners) were put in uncomfortable conditions and embarrassed.
It seems to me that this documentary is engaging in making a mountain out of a molehill. None of the prisoners in Abu Grhaib died. They were interrogated in methods that the previous Iraqi regime would find laughable, but were still effective. Is pouring water on someone torture? Sandbag over the head was standard in our army until 2002, handcuffing to each other is to prevent injury to the guards, and they were naked because many of them insisted on throwing feces and other bodily fluids, or covering themselves with said.
The documentary reatedly brings up the various Geneva Conventions, and how they were allegedly violated, but makes no provision for the treatment that captured americans have recieved (immolation, genitals cut off and placed in mouth, throat slit etc) and that the enemy in this war does not follow the geneva convention.
Is this documentary an objective account of the events that took place? Or is it another thinly disguised attempt at opposing the US war on terror, the war in iraq, and anti americanism?
Thoughts?