Possible Child Abuse at Abu Ghraib

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

source

 

German TV news report (and take a deep breath, folks): Children at Abu Ghraib

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

 

Three days ago, a German TV newsmagazine called Report Mainz broadcast an eight-minute segment reporting that the International Red Cross found at least 107 children in coaliton-administered detention centers in Iraq.

 

The report also quotes from a yet-unpublished June 2004 UNICEF report, which (as near as I can tell through my crappy German) confirms that children were routinely arrested and "interned" in a camp in Um-Qasr. UNICEF seems particularly vexed with the "internment" status, since that means indefinite detention.

 

Another storm seems about to begin. Possibly a large one.

 

Even if you have no German at all, hit the link and watch the video. (Click where it says "Beitrag ansehen" and you'll get a RealVideo stream. I'd include a direct link but the server seems to require you to link from the page.) There's some footage of the internment camps here that you're not likely to see on American TV. The link also includes a complete transcript, in German.

 

In addition to the Red Cross and UNICEF concerns, Report Mainz broadcast an original interview with U.S. Army Sgt. Samuel Provance, who was stationed for six months at Abu Ghraib and later quite famously blew the whistle about abuses there and the subsequent cover-up. In this interview, Provance confirms the presence of teenagers in Abu Ghraib, describing the torture-by-cold-and-exposure of a teenage boy in order to get his father to talk.

 

The General Secretary of Amnesty International in Germany, Barbara Lochbihler, is finally shown demanding a full accounting from the U.S. government, describing the information as "scandalous."

 

A few caveats: I haven't found where Provance mentioned young people at Abu Ghraib until now, and another witness in the report describes "hundreds" of pre-pubescents at Abu Ghraib, which tingles my smell detector. Then again, I wouldn't have believed in Stack-The-Iraqis at first, either.

 

There's also the point that a 15-year-old can damn sure fire a gun. But even so, since 70-90 percent of those at Abu Ghraib were innocent, if at least 107 kids were locked up, the best-case scenario is still that the U.S. has interned a boatload of innocent Iraqi kids. That's still bad.

 

The worst-case, meanwhile, if the German TV report is even close... is a lot worse.

 

Meanwhile, there's not a damn thing -- I mean, not a single word I can find -- about this yet in the U.S. media, but it's starting to pick up speed on the rest of our tiny planet, so far showing up in Der Spiegel (roughly Germany's equivalent to Time), an Australian ABC Radio report, and TV2 and NRK television in Norway, where the story might even lead to a change in Norway's participation in the U.S.-led coalition.

 

If you're an American news reporter led here by a reader, but you need a hook that doesn't place the incendiary charges in the lead (for whatever reason), OK, here's your story on a platter: Bush may even lose another ally over this. Hit the Norwegian links, and you'll find that the local Amnesty International has stated that "Norway can not continue its military collaboration with the US in light of the alleged torture of children." Norway actually listens to its activists; you'll find that the Prime Minister's office says it plans to address the situation with the U.S. "in a very severe and direct way."

 

If this ain't news, I don't know what the hell is.

 

I've Google-rigged an English version of the Der Spiegel article. This is a good place to get the gist of what the world is starting to read, even through the machine translation, which parses the headline as "US Soldiers Are To Have Abused Arrested Children."

 

This is gonna travel pretty fast. Let me look again... yup. New headlines have appeared just since I started writing this.

 

In Pakistan right this minute, they're reading "Over 100 Children Abused in Custody in Iraq".

 

Factual conflation aside -- that's not what the original report stated -- it hurts like hell that it's no longer a perceptual leap to assume the worst. When I think of the outpouring of love for America post-9/11... it's just stunning how far we have fallen. This is really what the world sees now.

 

Still, we need to know. My thanks to reader Thomas for the tip that started me on this.

 

If you'd like to know more than a guy with bad German, worse Norwegian, and a laptop can find out in an hour, give the major newspapers and cable networks an email or a holler. I understand they have actual reporters and stuff.

 

posted by Bob Harris at 06:55 AM

 

Hopefully nothing too bad happened. Although if something did, that would be another disappointment, especially from the guys who were stupid enough not just to torture various Iraqis, but also photograph them doing it.

 

(And hopefully these aren't "evil children" who "deserved it" for whatever reason)

 

I'm hoping for whatever best can come from this.

[Highland 0]

The American media sanitizes and censors what it shows to the American public. I'm shocked.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Oh good! ANOTHER PR Nightmare.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well lets at least HOPE that none of this is true.

[Guest MikeSC]

The American media sanitizes and censors what it shows to the American public. I'm shocked.

A CANADIAN discussing how the American press sanitizes things. Beautiful.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

I'm well aware that Canadian media sanitizes what it shows to the Canadian public. I'm also well aware that yours sanitize more.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm well aware that Canadian media sanitizes what it shows to the Canadian public. I'm also well aware that yours sanitize more.

If you believe so. God knows I lack the desire to enlighten you.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

You have your opinions, I have mine.

[Guest INXS]

I hope this isn't true. It's bad enough that we tortured, killed and raped innocent adults nevermind doing any of that to children. This could turn into a nightmare. It's hard to be the "good" guys when stuff like this happens.

[EricMM 0]

Jesus Christ INXS, how badly do you want us to be the bad guys?

[Vanhalen 0]

We are the bad guys, whether we like it or not, Abu Ghraib lost us the moral high ground.

[EricMM 0]

Vanhalen, you are out of your mind. You think ten or so American fuck-ups make us equal to terrorists?

[Highland 0]

Sorry, but what happened at Abu-Garib due to a handful of misfit American "soldiers" doesn't compare to the years of horror the Iraqis lived through under Saddam Hussein and his regime.

Whatever the reasons for the war in Iraq, the US and coalition aren't the bad guys here.

And if there actually is child abuse going on there, then the perpetrators will be brought to justice.

[Guest INXS]

Jesus Christ INXS, how badly do you want us to be the bad guys?

I don't want us to be the bad guys at all! In my previous post I wrote that I hope it isn't true.

[Guest MikeSC]

We are the bad guys, whether we like it or not, Abu Ghraib lost us the moral high ground.

Of course, the mutants who did it have been and are being punished for their actions --- but don't let that fact slow down your condemnation.

-=Mike

[Guest Xias]

We are the bad guys, whether we like it or not, Abu Ghraib lost us the moral high ground.

Of course, the mutants who did it have been and are being punished for their actions --- but don't let that fact slow down your condemnation.

-=Mike

Yes, the mutants who did it are being punished, but how about the "mutants" in the White House who were looking for loopholes in the Geneva Convention to make it happen? Oh, I'm sorry, the Department of Justice must not have anything to do with it- it was completely a coincidence that they were looking for legal ways to torture people in publically documented memos while soldiers were torturing people in Iraq. Right.

 

-Xias

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, the mutants who did it are being punished, but how about the "mutants" in the White House who were looking for loopholes in the Geneva Convention to make it happen?

Heaven forbid an administration actually INVESTIGATE the legality of something.

Oh, I'm sorry, the Department of Justice must not have anything to do with it- it was completely a coincidence that they were looking for legal ways to torture people in publically documented memos while soldiers were torturing people in Iraq. Right.

Wow, do you actually live your life by what the media chooses to say? They got the story quite wrong --- not an unusual thing.

-=Mike

[Vanhalen 0]

Wait a tic, I know your american, and I feel sorry for you and that, but do you honestly think that just because one side does something, its ok for the other side to do it, because they did it first? So, it would have been great for us to have concentration camps in world war 2, just because the germans did, jesus fucking christ, give me some adult debate at least

[Guest MikeSC]

Wait a tic, I know your american, and I feel sorry for you and that, but do you honestly think that just because one side does something, its ok for the other side to do it, because they did it first? So, it would have been great for us to have concentration camps in world war 2, just because the germans did, jesus fucking christ, give me some adult debate at least

Your empathy is much appreciated. Really. It is. Totally.

 

The administration was investigating if the Geneva Conventions applied to terrorists (they don't) and at WHAT POINT DOES LEGITIMATE INTERROGATION CROSS OVER TO TORTURE --- you know, something EVERY gov't should do.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Actually, the Geneva convention DOES apply to "enemy combatants" - it's just that the US have decided to ignore it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, the Geneva convention DOES apply to "enemy combatants" - it's just that the US have decided to ignore it.

No, it does not. We've gone over this more than a few times here and I'm not about to go over it again.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Heh. I KNOW i'm right. I've seen proof on a BBC Panorama special dedicated to the subject. The convention should apply - it's America that have decided it doesn't apply in the case of 'enemy combatants'.

 

There's no need for you to "go over it again" - you can continue living in ignorance.

[Special K 0]

The real shit isn't so much the abuse at abu ghirab, IMO. It's that even our intelligence says that the majority of prisoners there are innocent.

 

If you're that uncertain about someone's innocence or lack thereof, you shouldn't be pushing the boundaries and seeing how close you can get to torture without it being legally torture.

 

Even if the Geneva convention allows torture of enemy combatants, they better be people who demonstrably attacked you. You can't treat every damn suspect in Iraq as an enemy combatant.

[NoCalMike 0]

I know there is a difference, but can someone explain it to me. That being the difference between a POW and an "enemy combatant" ? Not just your personal opinion, but the technical differences. Thanks!

[Guest Xias]

Heaven forbid an administration actually INVESTIGATE the legality of something.

Oh yes, it was a complete coincidence that the Department of Justice was investigating torture while US soldiers were conducting torture. Those soldiers completely acted alone and without higher orders. Right.

 

Honestly, who's the naive one again?

 

-Xias

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I know there is a difference, but can someone explain it to me. That being the difference between a POW and an "enemy combatant" ? Not just your personal opinion, but the technical differences. Thanks!

IIRC, "POW" refers to a member of a standing army, while "enemy combatant" refers to rogue fighters, i.e. terrorists.

 

If that's wrong, feel free to correct me.

[Justice 0]

Heaven forbid an administration actually INVESTIGATE the legality of something.

Oh yes, it was a complete coincidence that the Department of Justice was investigating torture while US soldiers were conducting torture. Those soldiers completely acted alone and without higher orders. Right.

Um... proof? None? Oh, okay. Unless you actually have proof to back up the idea that the US Military was ordering these freaks to actually do this, then your argument is moot.

 

Honestly, who's the naive one again?

 

You, obviously.

 

Heh. I KNOW i'm right. I've seen proof on a BBC Panorama special dedicated to the subject. The convention should apply - it's America that have decided it doesn't apply in the case of 'enemy combatants'.

 

There's no need for you to "go over it again" - you can continue living in ignorance.

 

No, you're a moron.

 

The reason the Geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists and guerillas is because they aren't part of the standing army of a country. To enjoy the Geneva Convention, you have to be a marked and recognized soldier of a country that is signee of the Convention. If you aren't a soldier, you aren't a legal combatant in the first place and you aren't afforded protections under the treaty. If you are an illegal terrorist, you technically aren't fighting for a country, and thereby couldn't be under the protections anyway because even if you are a marked soldier, you'd have to be of a recognized signee. Double-whammy there, eh?

 

You could argue that the Taliban fighters were POWs. But the Iraqis? Not a chance.

[Zorin Industries 0]

You could argue that the Taliban fighters were POWs. But the Iraqis? Not a chance.

Just a question, what would the legal standing be for Iraqi soldiers caught fighting the U.S. troops now, say in Najaf (sp?), if they clamied they were fighting against the occupation of their country?

[Highland 0]

Terrorists aren't covered under the convention because they do not carry their weapons openly, something which is required of all combatants under the Convention.

[Justice 0]

You could argue that the Taliban fighters were POWs. But the Iraqis? Not a chance.

Just a question, what would the legal standing be for Iraqi soldiers caught fighting the U.S. troops now, say in Najaf (sp?), if they clamied they were fighting against the occupation of their country?

I would say that, since they are fighting against a government that is being recognized by the rest of the world as 'their government', I don't think they would be considered soldiers, and therefore not POWs. Since the old government isn't something like Taiwan, that was officially recognized as China for a long while, they can't claim to be soldiers because their government no longer exists.

 

Basically, no, because there is no debate on whether or not the Iraqis in Baghdad are the official Iraqi government. If there were some sort of debate on the legitmacy of the new government being the official one, then they might have something. But they are just guerillas now, part of no recognized government anymore.