Jump to content

Talk:Abu Ghraib prison/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Prison under Iraqi control

I just read an article from the Telegraph.co.uk about how the prisoners in the Iraqi-controlled Abu Ghraib prison are pleading for the Americans to come back. Apperantly the new Iraqi guards are torturing the prisoners and have made them live in subpar conditions. The A/C is no longer on in their cells, their food has been limited to rice and water, and 4-6 prisoners are crammed into 12x15 feet cells. The main hall, where the Americans allowed the prisoners to watch TV, is now off limits and is used by the guards. Now heres my question. Should we add this to this page, the Abu Ghraib abuse page, or both? Here's a link to the article below. ThePartyVan 20:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/10/wirq10.xml

Number of Former Iraqi Soldiers detained in Abu Ghraib

As far as clarity goes, I think that if anyone has cited information on the number of detainees in Abu Ghraib who were former Iraqi soldiers and who who the U.S. government would have to admit that the Geneva Convention does apply to, it would help the article out.

Photos and Geneva Conventions

From the text of the Wikipedia article:

"All of the alleged acts clearly violate the Third Geneva Convention regarding treatment of POWs, as do the photographs themselves."

What does this mean, "as do the photographs themselves"?

If this is regarding Article 13 - ""...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.", then yes, the photographs do violate the convention, as does the Wikipedia article for encouraging public curiousity. I'm referring in particular to the unhooded images where the face of the victims are clear. I wasn't going to say anything last night but I see today that another one has popped up. "A naked prisoner is threatened, or intimidated, with a dog." The other photo is the dog leash one. At the very least these photos need to be removed and replaced with blurred face photos. Or we should stop paying lip service to the Geneva Conventions. --M4-10 20:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

"Paying lip service to the Geneva Conventions" is, of course, precisely the point at issue. If only more than that had been done! I agree: In my view the prisoners should not be identifiable unless that is itself relevant. Paul Beardsell 20:50, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I see the photos have gone. Rumsfeld is pissed off at the "illegal" pictures, it seems, more than he is about the activities portrayed. I'm sure none of us here feel the same. Paul Beardsell 21:05, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Those two pictures were actually rather informative, so if someone could reupload blurred-face versions of them (preferably over the old filenames) and re-add them that would be helpful. I'm on a public terminal at the moment so don't have the resources to do so. --Delirium 21:09, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

The two pictures are now restored with blurred faces.--Eloquence* 01:00, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure what Wikipedia will achieve by blurring the faces. If the pictures are available at most other sources unblurred - the individuals privacy cannot be protected. I HIGHLY recommend we use the unaltered, unblurred images. (See Reuters etc) --OldakQuill 21:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

From Eloquence's talk page: OldakQuill reverted the photo to unblurred, I reverted it back to blurred. The man in the picture has a right to privacy from public curiousity, even if Reuters and other media don't believe it. Thanks for producing a blurred version, Eloquence. --M4-10 20:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Agree - seing the faces adds nothing to the pictures - even if others show the faces, we should not - blurring in these cases is appropriate. Mark Richards 18:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
The faces show the fear and horror of the abused detainees. Blurring the faces whitewashes that, and makes the individuals anonymous and therefore less immediately, viscerally human. The (U.S.) Holocaust Museum has also wrestled with this issue (in particular, photos showing Jewish victims of Nazi Germany naked) and ultimately decided that historical verisimilitude required that the pictures -- in all their horror -- be unobscured. orthogonal 08:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, the Geneva Convention, I think, only to apply to militaries, not to journalists - this became an issue when Al-Jazeera broadcast shots of captured US soldiers. (Which reminds me, do we have those photos on Wikipedia? If not, we should do, less we lay ourselves open to charges of racism and unfairness.)

On the other hand, I don't think it would be a problem for Wikipedia to obey the Geneva Convention anyway, so I think we should do that. Martin 18:50, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

However, it is not a problem of Conventions, it is a problem of people's right to their honor -privacy, or what you want to call it. Even though other sources are not aware of the fact that publishing a photo of someone being humiliated is even more humiliating for that person, this does not give us the right to behave rudely (dishonorably) towards them. Eloquence did very well blurring the faces. Pfortuny 19:00, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Hey! Edit history?

Where has the edit history gone? Where have the other current conversations gone? Where have the open issues gone? Archinving was far too aggressive and possibly not quite yet necessary. Paul Beardsell 01:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The page was moved properly instead of copy & pasted so you can see the history on the page where the comments actually appear, /Archive 2. This is the way archiving should be done.--Eloquence* 01:45, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
I chose to archive issues that hadn't been discussed in over a week. Issues that were still being discussed, I left remain. Kingturtle 03:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, a lot of them were still being actively discussed ... pir 09:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

How do we proceed? Not in the archived pages themselves, presumably. How easy is it to undo the archiving? Paul Beardsell 09:57, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Torture

According to Donald Rumsfeld, many more pictures and videotapes of the abuse at Abu Ghraib exist, which include a videotape of a male minor being raped and death by torture.. Did Rumsfeld actually say that there was videotape of rape and death by torture? RickK 05:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald says at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/08/1083911443001.html that Rumsfeld merely said that even more "blatantly sadistic" pictures from Abu Ghraib prison than those shown existed, and that "a US senator" said cases of murder and rape were "likely" to come out. --Stormie 05:15, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. In that case, I'm going to change the article. RickK 05:16, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

My fault, I was unclear about that statement, Donald Rumsfeld didnt say that they included a male prisoner being raped, Sy Hersh did, poor wording on my part. --VTEX 05:43, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Perverted Behaviour

The perverted behaviour of the U.S. and British soldiers make me sick! Make them do the same things as their victims! But then again, soldiers are generally hard and brute with a significant low IQ and moral stature.

What would you know about it? Go to hell. --M4-10 17:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Internet troll
Who is being called a troll here? How ambigious! --M4-10 19:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, figured I was being clear. Obviously I wasn't. ;) I was trying to clue you in to the fact that the original anon contributing the "perverted behaviour" comment was obviously trolling. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:52, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
It's getting very difficult to separate trolls from sincere loony leftists these days. Does being sincere in one's dementia absolve one from being a troll? For example, the third link on google about Pat Tillman --M4-10 09:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am not a sincere loony leftist but I happen to agree that, on average, soldiers tend to be hard and brutal - it's in the training. The evidence is plain: The average IQ is a little lower than the pop'n at large. It is difficult to have moral stature when you are trained to obey orders unquestionably. Remove command and control and what happens? When the cat is away the mice will play. Encourage misbehaviour (explicitly or tacitly) and the troops will misbehave, no encouragement needed. I am not surprised that US and UK soldiers have misbehaved. Soldiers always misbehave. And I am sickened too. In what way is any of that loony or leftist? None of my conservative sane friends think different either. M4-10 might be in the military or not. In any event I would like to make plain I am talking about soldiers on average, I am saying nothing about any individual soldier, and it would be stupid to think I am. Paul Beardsell 20:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

on average, soldiers tend to be hard and brutal. Have you ever been a soldier? Have you ever received training as a soldier? -- Cecropia | Talk 21:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
How about this?
The truth I have finally learned after years of struggle is that all of us who serve become killers the moment we complete basic training. Basic is carefully crafted and intended to remove from our souls the inhibition against killing. The shot fired at another human being on the battlefield is just the end and unfortunately successful result of that process.
— Miguel 03:18, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
Cecropia, this is an example of why the "were you there?" or "Are you a soldier (or doctor, or cancer patient, or whatever)?" is a bad line. There are people out there with soldier credentials who feel that way, like John Kerry who has had disdain for soldiers ever since. And many soldiers have the killing inhibition removed with no conscious morality ingrained in its place (this is bad training). Naturally, they tend to become confused afterwards. I highly recommend David Grossman's On Killing to anyone interested in man's natural hesitancy to kill and the enablers to killing. None of this says anything about how a trained soldier is in essence. "Hard and brutal" is not how I would describe soldiers' tendencies. The one that applies most (after basic training, and still not for everyone) is "confident". --M4-10 06:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

"Encourage misbehaviour (explicitly or tacitly) and the troops will misbehave, no encouragement needed." I invite you to clarify this phrase. If George W. Bush said this it would end up as another example of how "stupid" he is. Feel free to delete this comment if you fix it. I may comment later on your comment as a whole (probably "I respectfully disagree.") --M4-10 20:57, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Clarification: What is Rumsfeld (ostensibly) taking responsibility for? It has to be for not ensuring that this type of thing could not happen. That this was not done (by proper training, or inspections, or by example) is the tacit permission to which I refer. That the US govt and the Pentagon sanctioned some of these interrogation techniques is the explicit permission to which I refer. Very senior UK army officers have reported being disturbed by the very anti-Iraqi attitude of many US soldiers and officers. US soldiers are not naturally torturers and humiliators any more than any other army is, where did it come from? Any unsupervised group given power over others tends to cruel and inhumane treatment, as numerous psychological experiments testify. How would you explain what has occurred? Paul Beardsell 00:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Or, if you simply drawing attention to my illogical sentence I would like to rephrase it thus: "Encourage misbehaviour (explicitly or tacitly) and the troops will misbehave, as often no encouragement is even needed." Also, (as this is no longer plain) I wasn't responsible for the original comment in this section. Visit the archive to see the edit history. I just thought that it was incorrect to identify it necessariy as trolling. I still feel sick about all this, as does the original commenter. I see that Bush has said the same. Paul Beardsell 10:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Is stupidity a part of the military training, or is stupidity required to enter military school? Military men and women = braindead sheep! Rienzo 14:30, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

If you're not careful you'll be called a troll. (1) Those bright enough to enter the universities disproportionately do that rather than joining the military; (2) the army is used by society as a dumping ground for some otherwise unemployable people; (3) joining the army is occasionally offered as an alternative to prison; (4) people who do not like obeying orders or being in a highly structured environment do not typically join the army. But in my view any group of people will act badly if not constrained in one way or another. Paul Beardsell 14:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The partisan playground that is sometimes Wikipedia

First let me say that as an American and former military policeman I am shocked, disgusted and ashamed by the photos that have come out of Abu Ghraib prison. That someone like Lynndie England could wear the uniform of any military force is a disgrace.

Having said that, I looked at this article for the first timne today, and the POV anti-American bias is incredible. I note the very little space devoted this prison under Saddam, with the economical note that "up to 4,000 prisoners are thought to have been executed there in 1984 alone."

Somehow we manage to chronicle the dismal history of this prison under Saddam in five short paragraphs. But when the US took over the prison--ah, now there's something some of our editors can really get their teeth into!

With all the horrors that occurred there, Wikipedia didn't even have an article on the subject until less than two weeks ago.

Some of my shame (and maybe some others, too) should be reserved for calling Wikipedia an "encyclopedia." -- Cecropia | Talk 21:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I think there is bound to be a problem with any article on a recent subject. This article isn't about Abu Ghraib, it's about American prisoner abuse in Iraq. I've asked a couple times for a subject split or rename but some people seem intent on calling it "Abu Ghraib (prison)". In a couple years we can come back, wipe out all the NPOV crap, and start over. Most people writing don't care much for dictatorial abuses in far-off lands where no free press publishes photos, they just care to get a "cowboy" out of the White House. Wikipedia is great, but not for contemporary American politics in particular. --M4-10 21:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

If you think there's a problem, remember, you can edit this page! Perhaps there need to be three articles:

-- The Anome 21:58, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

One thing I have learned in sadness is that bothering to buck the trend in certain articles is like spitting in the wind. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
It's been tried (not by me) and reverted. Maybe in a couple weeks it can be tried again. --M4-10 22:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

There's no reason to split the article at the present time, it just makes linking more difficult. The fact that Saddam Hussein's treatment of prisoners doesn't get as much space is not surprising, after all, we all know that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator; the abuse scandal is a big scandal exactly because it was committed by United States soldiers.

For more arguments, see Talk:Abu Ghraib (prison)/Archive 2#Splitting article, revisited.--Eloquence* 22:24, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

"We all know"? Maybe a Syrian or Egyptian reading this doesn't know that Saddam was a brutal dictator, as are their own regimes. We treat their abuses as statistics. --M4-10 22:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Egyptians know all too well that Mubarak is a dictator and that the US props him up. — Miguel 02:42, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
Is that because the evil librils who dominate Wikipedia all secretly admire Saddam Hussein and loathe good American soldiers, looking for an excuse to ram their abuses down the throats of God-fearing Americans? No, it's because there is simply not a whole lot of reliable information available about Saddam's abuses. His soldiers didn't document their crimes with digital cameras and he didn't oder an investigation into them, nor was there a free press to report about them, nor was there an international outrage when Amnesty or another human rights organization reported that Saddam had tortured people (the typical response would be more like "duh!"). So what we have are vague estimates, witness reports and, certainly, a great deal of propaganda (from Iran, from the United States, etc.). --Eloquence* 22:55, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
No, what we have is mass graves of Hussein's victims which were dug up not even by us, but by the mourning relatives of the victims. We have the testimony of people who have been to those prisons. Some of them actually showed the soldiers around there and told about what happened to them. What you are trying to do here is sort of like write an article about gas chambers where you mention that according to some statistics the Nazis gased some millions of people, and then spend the rest of it describing the horror of the use of gassing in America to execute prisoners. Keep in mind that what you write here may well become "history" as read and accepted by people decades from now, including people in Iraq and places like that. Nothing good will come out of writing a history where real massacres merit a few words and misdemeanors by couple of undisciplined soldiers provoke pages of outrage. And this is not NPOV either. Watcher 23:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
The jury is still out on whether this was official policy or "misdemeanors by undisciplined soldiers". — Miguel 02:42, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
No, you have an incomplete understanding of NPOV. This isn't even an NPOV issue to beginn with, it is an issue of comprehensiveness. If we removed sections from articles whenever certain sections are underdeveloped, we soon wouldn't have much left. Even if these were different points of view, and the NPOV policy would apply, the solution would still be to add more information from the other point of view; see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance.
As for the amount of evidence on Abu Ghraib under Saddam Hussein, evidently it is much less well known than the evidence of Abu Ghraib under the United States. And that is the only reason for the imbalance which you perceive. It's completely fallacious to argue that this has anything to do with NPOV. It has nothing to do with it.--Eloquence* 00:00, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
Really? We have a bunch of ugly photos, and this constitutes a lot of evidence to write a huge article damning the Americans and ignoring other aspects of the place? Then we have all the corpses and stories of survivors, is this somehow less evidence? The treatment of the two events in the article itself has to be conmensurate, e.g. 10 sentences each or so. Now, once you link to an article specifically dedicated to the event, then you can write all you want about all of that alleged evidence you care so much about. Watcher 11:18, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

There are also allegations of maltreatment at sites other than Abu Ghraib. These allegations could usefully be discussed at Abuse of prisoners in Iraq under coalition forces. -- The Anome 22:30, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Which allegations are these?--Eloquence* 22:32, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
The UK soldier allegations. See here: [1]. Oh, and another reason for splitting the article is that it is really long in terms of visible length, because so much of it is made of images with significant visual impact, even if it is not enormous in terms of bytes. -- The Anome 22:35, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the best reason to split the article is that the real story here isn't the geographical location of the abuses (the prison) but the bigger story of abuses. A separate page could have this sub-story as well as other stories including alleged British abuses as well as other American ones. --M4-10 22:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
The UK abuses are already, and correctly, covered in Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq. Given that the veracity of the images has been called into question, it seems appropriate to have these two cases separate for now. As for the visual length, I disagree; the table of contents makes it easy to navigate to any section you are interested in. The byte size limit on articles has been imposed not because of visual length, but because of editing difficulties on long pages which exceed a certain size; these editing difficulties do not exist here. The other reason is that splitting up an article makes it easier to link to individual parts, while I see no need for this in this article.
I will reiterate my earlier position. If one of two things happens - the scandal goes beyond Abu Ghraib, or the article exceeds a size of 35-40 KB, we can split it up. In the latter case, I would prefer looking for unnecessary long sections first and summarize those.--Eloquence* 22:41, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Note that in neither case are the abuses supposed to be limited entirely to Abu Ghraib. There are allegations of abuses both now and then in more than one place in Iraq.

The big political story with the recent allegations is of supposed liberators behaving in a way that appears to violate the fundamental principles that they claim to be fighting for, the resulting soul-searching and disastrous self-inflicted PSYOPS defeat for the coalition. But that's a political story, linked to the abuses, but not literally happening in Abu Ghraib prison. Thus: 

1 Abu Ghraib, torture prison
2 Abu Ghraib and elsewhere --> Saddam-era abuse
3 Abu Ghraib and elsewhere --> Recent allegations of abuse --> political scandal

-- The Anome 22:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

You still haven't cited verified instances of abuse outside Abu Ghraib. The title "Abu Ghraib" is not only appropriate because it is the location of the abuses, but also, because this is the single identifying term for the scandal. If you want to check news.google.com for recent news about the scandal, what do you search for? That's right, "Abu Ghraib". I have no political motivation whatsoever in wanting to keep this article together. My main concern is that titles like Alleged scandal about United States troops in Iraq in 2004 who apparently tortured (some people disagree with the term torture) and humiliated (although the degree of humiliation is disputed) prisoners in Abu Ghraib aren't very easy to find and consistently link to.--Eloquence* 22:41, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Let me see... [2]. Camp Whitehorse, Camp Bucca, and (in Afghanistan) Bagram Air Base. — Miguel 23:04, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
Camp Bucca seems to be gaining steam. [3] If you're willing to summarize these incidents, I'd support having them in a single article with Abu Ghraib, perhaps at Iraq prison abuse scandal (although that would preclude us from reporting on Afghanistan).--Eloquence* 23:09, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
For Afghanistan we also have things like (at least) complicity in the Kunduz massacre. — Miguel 23:18, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
Like you, I hope that I have no political motivation for this split; it just seems the best way to allow NPOV balance to flourish. How about an article split into Abu Ghraib prison and Abu Ghraib scandal, as well as pre- and post-Saddam human rights abuses in Iraq in general? -- The Anome 22:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I would support Iraq prison abuse scandal, or Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, if the conditions for splitting the article I have described above were met.--Eloquence* 22:55, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
I get the impression that they are just about to be: see [4] where Seymour Hersh is quoted as saying that "images he had seen appeared to have been taken by a different unit from that involved in the photos initially published". -- The Anome 08:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
We could fill many huge volumes if we documented these types of abuses for every tinpot dictator throughout history. The abuse isn't the news, isn't what's really interesting. It's the abusers and what they stand for and what the group and country they were a part of stand for, and the inherent contradictions and hypocrisies. --Prosfilaes 23:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Every tinpot dictator? How many do you ahve to murder to be worthy of an encyclopedia covering your depredations? So you feel an encyclopedia is supposed to set a higher value on reporting hypocrisy than murder. I guess we have a lesson, if you plan to murder big time, just be a good old-fashioned honest brutal dictator and you can torture and kill tens or thousands and Wikipedia doesn't get too excited about it. But then, the UN didn't either. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Neither did the US in the 1980's, when it was overtly arming Iraq and covertly arming Iran to get at each other in a grueling 10-year war. Check out the "handshake" picture on Donald Rumsfeld. — Miguel 02:42, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
A lot of the world was busily arming Saddam in that era, especially France. Many considered Saddam in that era "the lesser of two evils," a secular leader who could be influenced. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:01, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
That's not important if you are trying to establish "Bush = Saddam Hussein, Iraq = USA, Liberal Democracy = Theocracy" --M4-10 10:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Interesting to compare what is on the minds of Wikipedians. Contrast this 9 image, 40+ paragraph page with the 1 image, 5 paragraph page for the Halabja poison gas attack where thousands died. Of course this is explained because no one took pictures at Halabja, right? Right, except someone did. Now I'm not suggesting that we need to spam the Halabja poison gas attack article with horrific (and available) images. But neither do we need to spam images and text here.
Yet another unfounded personal attack against the people who have worked on this article. One reason we do not have the images on Halabja is that they are copyrighted, while the soldiers' photos are in the public domain. Another reason is that Halabja happened 15 years ago, long before the Internet became a mass medium, and didn't even attract much attention back then (certainly no clear condemnation or reaction from the United States), while the Abu Ghraib scandal is happening right now and thousands of Wikipedians are around to document it as it happens. Finally, the acts which happened in Abu Ghraib covered a wide range of different types of abuse, which are best illustrated with multiple images (although I would also favor multiple images for Halabja, if permission could be gained to use them). This article is not about Halabja, it is about Abu Ghraib. Stick to the subject, please.--Eloquence* 00:19, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
The subject on this part of the talk page is "The partisan playground that is sometimes Wikipedia". The article as it stands is poorly edited and a horrible read. Basically people have splattered any news that they've come across. Editing is a process of removing and altering content to get to the essence of a subject. "Wiki is not paper." but "Wikipedia is not news." --M4-10 00:39, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
And when it comes to current events articles where the US is involved, "Wiki is not an encyclopedia. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:32, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

'Anti-Americanism'

"Somehow we manage to chronicle the dismal history of this prison under Saddam in five short paragraphs. But when the US took over the prison--ah, now there's something some of our editors can really get their teeth into!

With all the horrors that occurred there, Wikipedia didn't even have an article on the subject until less than two weeks ago. "

With respect, and not wishing to raise the hackles of those who would be burning witches were it not outlawed since the Middle Ages, Saddam Hussein did not claim to be bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. The US-UK 'coalition' must accept that their actions will be judged on the basis of their stated intentions. Please drop the paranoia. --Dazzla 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nix. Wikipedia is not a place of judgment but a place of documentation & description. The Wikipedia history of Abu Ghraib should be documented solely on what happened there and not on someone’s alleged intentions or the price of beans in China or what not. In that light, the article indeed remains very lopsided. With, the comparable minor abuses under US control dominating more than twice amount that the comparable near infinitively more horrid abuses on the long reign of the Baathists. Rune X2 08:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources on statement por favor

Need the source of the following statement please:

These or similar incidents of torture and humiliation were routine, systemic and widespread, had been occurring for over a year, and some of them were official policy.

Else, removing it! >_<

—John | Talk 23:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

This is the gist of what Seymour Hersh has been saying, but I didn't write that line and I can't provide a source for it. — Miguel 23:05, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

I wrote the line. The section of which it is the last sentence has the header "Isolated incident, or systematic failure, or official policy?" The section then goes on to show, with references, that the torture and humiliation were routine, systemic and widespread (Taguba report and Red Cross); that they had been occurring for over a year (Red Cross); and that some of them were official policy (Major Geofrey Miller quoted in the Guardian). The line fairly summarises the section. Wikipedia allows for direct deduction. There is no guess work there. Paul Beardsell 06:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

This just in from the US Senate:

"The despicable actions described in General Taguba's report not only reek of abuse, they reek of an organized effort and methodical preparation for interrogation," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's top Democrat. Reuters

— Miguel 16:31, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

Bush quotes

Kingturtle, please do not remove Bush quotes. Any day now the article is going to be split into various sections. They will then slot with even more relevance into the correct split-article - the one which best deals with the political fall out. Quotes are allowed in Wikipedia - especially short ones. The quotes show a number of things vividly: Chief among them the 3 short quotes totalling less than 100 words show the possible charge of hypocrisy should Bush not respond as it appears he now is doing. Paul Beardsell 07:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like original research to me. Has someone else done research on Bush's position over time on war crimes, or are we just randomly picking some quotes out of context? Does anyone besides the Wikipedia editors make these arguments? Your post above shows pretty conclusively that these are inappropriate: you're clearly trying to make your own argument about Bush's hypocrisy, not simply report, but this isn't the venue to publish your own personal political and historical analysis. --Delirium 09:40, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't post the quotes but I found them informative. I see your point. This isn't the place to hold Bush to account. But, on the other hand, in order to understand the political fallout we need to see why the Iraqis might interpret recent events not only unacceptable in themselves but as evidence of Western hypocrisy. Perhaps a section on Middle Eastern Reaction to US/Coalition Torture of Iraqis would be useful... Paul Beardsell 13:28, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Not to mention that these quotes can all be summarized as "In 2003, Bush said war crimes were bad and that war crimes perpetrators should be punished." How is that a noteworthy comment requiring 3 separate quotes, or even mentioning at all? Just about every head of state says war crimes are bad whenever the issue comes up. --Delirium 09:43, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
... and in that section we could have a remark such as you suggest above. However, won't somebody ask? When did he say these things? To which we would reply with the quotes??? Paul Beardsell 13:28, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Splitting: Let's vote

Eloquence has said he/she favors splitting the article, but only after the scandal goes beyond Abu Ghraib, or the article exceeds a size of 35-40 KB. Taku seems to agree. M4-10, The Anome, Paul Beardsell, Delirium, AndyL, Dante Alighieri, Werbwerb, Jeandré, BL, Hajor, and myself have made statements favoring splitting the article now.

<strikethrough>So let's make it official. I propose a vote. Here are the options. (You can vote for as many different options as you like.)</strikethrough>

Note: voting retracted due to popular demand (or lack thereof) Quadell 00:17, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
  1. Do not split the article at this time. Leave it as one article called Abu_Ghraib_(prison)
    • pir what's the point in splitting it? the problem is that people are trying to explain the whole human rights abuses by the US in an article about one single prison. Just move the more general stuff to Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq and Saddam's Iraq then trim this article a bit.
  2. Split the article into "Abu_Ghraib_(prison)", which mentions the prison specs, Hussein's tortures, and a summary of the scandal, with no pics; and "Abu_Ghraib_Scandal" (or another name) covering the scandal in detail, with pics.
  3. Split the article into "Abu_Ghraib_(prison)", which mentions the prison specs, Hussein's tortures, and a summary of the scandal, with some pics; and "Abu_Ghraib_Scandal" (or another name) covering the scandal in detail, with pics.
  4. Split the article into "Abu_Ghraib_(prison)", which mentions the prison specs and summarizes Hussein's tortures as well as the scandal, either with or without pics; "Abu_Ghraib_Scandal" (or another name) covering the scandal in detail, with pics; and "Abuses_at_Abu_Ghraib_by_Hussein" (or another name) covering Hussein's abuses there in specific.
  5. This vote is unnecessary as the positions are reasonably close to one another to work toward a consensus instead.
    • Eloquence*
    • ChaTo; there is enough consensus between the non-trolls.
    • The Anome, who assumes that a split is now inevitable, as the scandal appears to have gone beyond this prison...

Quadell 14:08, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

Eloquence, working toward a consensus hasn't been particularly effective so far in this very controversial topic. There have been several claims by various users that other users wanted to split or not split out of alterior motives. There have even been brief edit wars about this. Thus, the vote. If you'd like to work toward a consensus, whether you vote or not, it would be welcome.

The Anome, the vote isn't just about whether to split or not, but also about how to split. Your opinion is welcome.

Quadell 16:08, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think we should reach a consensus that a split is desirable, before choosing the exact form of the split. At the moment, I believe that consensus for a split is likely to arrive very soon, and we can then move onto the second part of the problem. Let's not try to do it all in one jump. -- The Anome 17:11, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I think a short article about the prison itself is good, for Abu Ghraib prison or Abu Ghraib (prison), with one redirecting to the other.

Also, a nice long article detailing the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, i.e., American GI's as the bad guys.

Just let's not forget to go back and at least SUMMARIZE the tenfold or hundredfold worse murders, rapes and tortures by Saddam and his crew. --Uncle Ed 17:16, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the "scandal" definately goes beyond this one prison - the interrogation techniques used against "high value detainees" in Baghdad airport has also been in the news and the ICRC report. Martin 19:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we should split to at least two articles. One should be this one, about the prison, its history, the number of cells, etc with links to other articles. The other article should not be specific to prisons. This scandal is going to be found to be broader than just prisons, unfortunately. Paul Beardsell 20:11, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the ICRC also noted abuse in apprehending suspects. Martin 20:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Training of US soldiers

Cecropia asked, perhaps rhetorically:

Have you ever been a soldier? Have you ever received training as a soldier?

I enlisted in the US Army twice (1982-84, 1986-89). I received "peacetime" basic training each time, which included a bare minimum of ethical instruction. "It is illegal to follow an illegal order" was the gist of it, and I was required to carry a code of conduct card with me at all times, which read in part, "An American serviceman is responsible for all his actions."

Now, one reason I finally got out instead of pursuing a career as an officer, is that I was sure that at some point I would be faced with a Major Ethical Dilemma. I envisioned it as being similar to the Abu Ghraib situation: rough up these guys and scare 'em a bit, so they'll talk.

The dilemma would be:

  1. Violate my conscience and US Military Law (as well as the Geneva Convention) by going too far -- to gain valuable information that saves dozens or hundreds of lives (my comrades or local civilians); or,
  2. Follow my conscience, military law and Geneva by scrupulously refusing to "cross the line" -- while risking ostracism or punishment for "refusing orders"

I would like to think that I would make the right choice, and that if were in the current scandal I'd be one of the Military Intelligence interrogators who is NOT being investigated. But soldiers are "a scurvy lot", in many cases little better than 19th century pirates, and I don't know if I'd survive being a whistle blower.

Even if most of the "abused prisoners" were Iraqi officials from the "deck of cards", men who had performed or directed the murder or torture of hundreds of innocent people -- even then, according to my sense of ethics AND according to America's Uniform Code of Military Justice UCMJ -- well, two wrongs don't make a right.

On the other hand, I think the Pentagon and the White House deserve a BIT of credit at least for taking the matter so seriously. I don't recall Adolf Hitler's crew putting out a press release about the MILLIONS of civilians executed in the concentration camps.

If there's outrage at hazing of Saddam's henchmen by GIs, let's not forget Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, and what his sons did to whatever pretty girl they saw on the street. Sure, America ought to be held to higher standard; let's just not let it become a double standard.

Signed, Uncle Ed 17:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

First, Ed, no it was not a rhetorical question, but it was not directed at you, it was directed at Paul Beardsell, who said "on average, soldiers tend to be hard and brutal." That is an amazingly bigoted statement, unless it came from someone who had been in the service, then I would want to know what service, and how was he trained.
Explain how if it's bigoted for a non-military person to make the statement, it suddenly becomes NOT bigoted if the person has served in the military. I happen to personally think it's a monumentally stupid thing to say, regardless of who says it, but I also think that one does not need to experience something first-hand to have knowledge of it. For example, my cousin spent some years in the Navy. Having spoken with him extensively about it, I think I know at least a few things about his time there. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:37, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
A bigot is a person who sticks to an erroneous point and refuses to consider or credit information which shows it to be wrong. If a person who has personal experience in the area offers a similar POV to the nonexperienced person you known it is at least based on some kind of real-world experience, though others may have had different experience. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I have to ask a question about your military experience, because it is oddly out of my experience--even given that there were 15-20 years between our service experiences. First, why were you in service only two years the first time--enlistment is three years minimum unless you're drafted. Second, when you reenlisted, why did you go through basic training AGAIN. That's extraordinary. Third, what was you MOS and AIT training?
I honestly don't understand why you would have a problem with possible moral issues. John Kerry's 1971 charges aside, a lot of highly moral people have served in the U.S. armed forces and been able to deal with possible moral ambiguities, such as the helicopter pilot who brought the My Lai Massacre to an end.
Since you appear to have been on an officer track (I was just a buck sergeant) surely you must have had some concept of what the Army was about, especially to re-enlist after a break.
And to make a point about this "article"--I don't see where we learned how these photos came out. The Army discovered the behavior of the soldiers who committed these acts and they were already being investigated for courts-martial. Those pictures were evidence. A relative of one of these soldiers decided that his kin was being made a fall-guy (remember NONE of this was in the press yet) and started marketing these photos around. CBS (IIRC) finally picked up on these some five months later. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:27, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, I missed your original question. You have subsequently said:

:First, Ed, no it was not a rhetorical question, but it was not directed at you, it was directed at Paul Beardsell, who said "on average, soldiers tend to be hard and brutal." That is an amazingly bigoted statement, unless it came from someone who had been in the service, then I would want to know what service, and how was he trained.

If we are going to restrict comment on something to those with direct experience of it then very few people are going to be allowed to comment on anything. For example I would not be allowed an opinion about torture because I have never been on either end of it. So whether or not I have been a soldier is just irrelevant. If you accept that I will tell you whether I was in the military or not.

Paul Beardsell 21:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Paul, I don't see anywhere that I attacked your right to comment on an issue, and you may respond or not as you wish—this is not a private letter; it is read by anyone interested.
When one makes a broad negative character about an entire group of people or a profession, it is reasonable to ask how and why they come to that conclusion. Let's take your broader quote:
soldiers tend to be hard and brutal - it's in the training. The evidence is plain: The average IQ is a little lower than the pop'n at large. It is difficult to have moral stature when you are trained to obey orders unquestionably. Remove command and control and what happens? When the cat is away the mice will play. Encourage misbehaviour (explicitly or tacitly) and the troops will misbehave, no encouragement needed. I am not surprised that US and UK soldiers have misbehaved. Soldiers always misbehave.
This is not my experience. How is it yours? -- Cecropia | Talk 21:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

You're right, I made a bold statement. You questioned it and so I thought about it again. Essentially I stand by what I said. It is my experience albeit second hand in that I lived in a highly militarised society, apartheid-era South Africa, for a long time. Practically all my school mates and most of my university friends were conscripted into an ugly war. These perfectly reasonable people did some perfectly unreasonable things, some of them. I escaped conscription primarily because of my citizenship. I am glad I did not go because I am not sure that I would have had the strength of character to resist the illegal orders that I know one or two of my acquaintances obeyed. One person I knew well, a perfectly ordinary guy, admitted he had participated with the rest of his patrol throwing hand grenades into the huts of an Angolan peasant village for kicks, not because they were under threat. War does nasty things to ordinary people who are called soldiers. There is but a thin veneer of civilisation on any of us. We are all capable of being hard and brutal given a chance. Soldiers are given a chance. Once again, what I say here says nothing about any particular soldier. Paul Beardsell 22:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response. But your response establishes the necessary context. I don't have experience with (apartheid?) South African military, but you generalized the point to soldiers in general. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:11, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

My response had some detail but was not complete. I could have cited books, articles, well known psychological experiments. We are all the same. I have rightly generalised the point to soldiers in general. Of course, some platoons, units, regiments, divisions, amries will behave better than others: Quality of leadership and training makes a difference. Oh, and recognising the enemy as fully and equivalently human! Perhaps the attitude of the SADF to blacks and the US Army to Iraqis has something in common here. Paul Beardsell 23:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I think you should rethink "rightly generalized." You missed a common experience with your mates, and perhaps it gives you a perspective not supportable by the facts. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


Possibly, but you cannot tell that. I think lack of direct involvement can sometimes allow a truer perspective. Hence the word "perspective": You need to stand back. Your proposition is risible: Essentially you are looking for reasons why I am, according to you, wrong. If you start from that perspective then any of my disclosed history can support that view. E.g. Let's assume (for the sake of argument only) that I was the school friend of whom I speak, the one who needlessly threw the grenades. Then you could say perhaps it is the horror and guilt of that experience which gives me "a perspective not supportable by the facts". What facts? Address the arguments rather than the man. You will note I ask no information about you - I am only interested in the quality of your argument. Paul Beardsell 11:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Proposed organization of content

  • Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq should be our overview article. I think the structure of that article needs work. When people check the table of contents, most will have a specific event in mind, rather than the date when that event occurred, so having the section titles only contain months doesn't make a lot of sense. The summary of the Abu Ghraib incidents on that page also needs work.
  • Abu Ghraib should not be a disambiguation page, but the current content of Abu Ghraib (city). It is, after all, according to the article, a city with a population of "750,000 to 1.5 million" (surely we can be more exact?). The article should contain a prominent link to Abu Ghraib prison, which would be the new title of this page.
  • Abu Ghraib prison should contain the description of treatment of prisoners under Saddam, and a summary (with a single photo) of the description of treatment of prisoners under US supervision, with a link to Iraq prison abuse scandal.
  • Iraq prison abuse scandal should contain all the information that is presently in this article, and also information about other prison abuses in Iraq that have been reported.

Thoughts?--Eloquence* 22:02, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds really good. I support all four points. I'd also recommend cutting the Nick Berg part down to a brief mention and a link. (Not out of disrespect -- it's horrible! But all the info is covered in the Nick Berg page, where it belongs.) Quadell 00:17, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
Before moving Nick Berg to his own page, I want you to make sure that he was not a contractor of any kind. He was unemployed. He wanted to be a contractor. But he was just without a job. His father called him an adventurer. You can call him a civilian or a traveller. However, I think an adventurer was most suitable.
... He saw his trip to Iraq, his father said, as an adventure, but one that fit into his ideology. He was a war supporter and backed the Bush administration. ...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/berg.victim.ap/index.html
-- Toytoy
"Adventurer" is not an occupation. Are you implying that "adventurers" deserve a different fate from "contractors." -- Cecropia | Talk 01:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Very good, I agree with your proposal, it's clear and balanced. Just a minor tweak: I would call the last page "Iraqi prisoners abuse scandal". ChaTo 22:06, May 11, 2004 (UTC).
I agree, except for the last. The title should be Abuses by contending forces during the Iraq Occupation or similar. We have civilian and military hostages being taken (against all laws of war), bodies being fried and hung from bridges in contravention of the religion of the perpertrators, peace workers threatened with being burned alive, and many others. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
These are different incidents, different stories. If we include all of them the article will grow to 500K. I think the article we move this content to should focus on one issue. The other incidents you describe belong in the overview article, and can be described in detail in their own article (e.g. Iraq hostage crisis). Furthermore, article titles need to be short and to the point, and Abuses by contending forces during the Iraq Occupation surely isn't, which is a good indicator that it tries to include too much. I realize that you're only trying to be even handed here, but we don't write articles according to the "an eye for an eye" principle.--Eloquence* 22:47, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
But in focusing on "one issue" we remove its context. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
The only meaning of the "context" point I can fathom is that you might be suggesting that the transgressions of one side excuse those of the other? Or I misunderstand. Paul Beardsell 00:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
The context is in the overview article Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq, which is the only practical approach.--Eloquence* 23:42, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
I support Eloquence's proposal. I disagree with Cecropia's idea because this should not be a "who is worse" or "keeping score" article - neither of which is the point. Paul Beardsell 22:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC).
This entire article is a "who is worse" tirade. But little is allowed that doesn't give the answer: "the U.S." -- Cecropia | Talk 23:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
No, this is not at all about "who is worse". It is about what happened in Abu Ghraib. Some attempts have been made to insert political bias into this article - rightwing and leftwing - but these attempts will not prevail. So instead of trying to turn it into a "who is worse" article, I suggest you work with us in removing any remaining bias -- from your own side or any other -- from this article.--Eloquence* 23:41, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
Selection and quantity of material also constitute bias. How many photos in how many positions do we need? How much lurid detail of every possible abuse? You can get this in your National Inquirer or Daily Mirror. People go to an encyclopedia to finf non-bias. For bias is unavoidable, perhaps Wikipedia should put current events in a separate section. Do you feel you are without bias? -- Cecropia | Talk 01:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Nobody is without bias. I have a declaration of possible biases on my user page and I hope that people point it out to me when they feel that my edits are one-sided. This is not an issue on which I feel I am likely to be biased. That doesn't mean that I have no opinion on the Iraq mess, far from it, but I am not strongly emotionally predisposed towards a particular conclusion.
For me the essential questions regarding the photos are: Do they tell a story? Do they provide evidence for claims that would otherwise be difficult to believe? Do they contribute to the article? All these questions can be answered with Yes, in my opinion. Are the images purposefully manipulative? I do not believe so. But they describe the incidents which happened in Abu Ghraib, separate incidents, and the little details in the photos often contribute to a rational, sound understanding.
If there was bias here, I would think that more people than just those on the right would have complained about the inclusion of the photos. But with few exceptions, the complaint comes almost exclusively from people who we would expect to not want to have photos showinghuman rights violations by Americans in an article. It reminds me of the photograph in the Donald Rumsfeld article, showing him shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Some conservatives made the same arguments there that they make here. And that to me is blatant, visible bias.
Moral comparisons of the sort "But look at what Saddam did" is also a typical indication of bias. It's the language of apologists. When you write about the Inquisition, for example, Catholic apologists will often pop up out of nowhere and point to incidents of torture under Protestant governments, claiming that these were much worse. Worse, people often feel inclined to bring up such matters when nobody was even talking about them. For example, when there's a news report about a child being beaten to death and a discussion ensues, one popular response I have noticed is "But spanking, when properly done, is completely harmless and good for the child". I find such responses highly distasteful and off-topic.
Another indication of bias is when people do the same thing you do, but without bothering to provide a justification. For example, several anonymous users removed the Abu Ghraib photos without comment. This is an indication that the response is purely emotional, and that the rationalization/justification follows later on, if at all.
There has been some anti-American bias here as well, with the inclusion of the "ha ha" George Bush quotes about war criminals (which may have a place in the article, but not as an out of context section) or unsubstantiated claims and people being ready to believe almost anything if there's a photo. But the inclusion of the Abu Ghraib photos is not a symptom of this bias. The repeated attempts to remove these photos, however, is a symptom of conservative bias. I hope you are as willing to see bias in yourself as you are to see it in others.--Eloquence*

I agree fully with this proposal. As for the "who is worse" thing, I'm pretty sure we already have an article on the 4 contractors whose bodies were mutilated, and probably other such incidents as well. I do think context is important, but Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq can take care of that, discussing human rights violations by both the US-led coalition and by Iraqi militant groups. If this article is at Iraq prison abuse scandal, I think that's clearly unbiased, as it is pretty unquestionably what the title describes, regardless of what you think about the larger conflict. --Delirium 01:30, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, can you point me to the article about the 4 contractors? Maybe it's there, but I haven't found it. You think that Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq can handle the abuses from militants. Take a look at the article. Every single item damns the US with an extra little section for UK abuses. On any events involving the US and current events its seems Wikipedia is an anti-US propoganda organ. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I do not follow: Are you suggesting that the lack of that article somehow means that the coalition abuses should not be documented? This is Wikipedia: Write the article. Paul Beardsell 12:01, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

clarification

Why is it wrong to allow "a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee?" Kingturtle 22:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

The only reason would be that an untrained guard was allowed to perform a medical procedure if a medic was available. Mark Richards 22:26, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
That might not have been the most gentle medical procedure I can imagine. This is just speculation, but I'd bet no anesthetic was used. What a perfect opportunity to torture someone without leaving a mark, besides what looks like appropriate medical treatment! If I were the sort of person who would pose in those pictures, that's what I would do. Quadell 00:17, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

this article is losing its continuity

This article reads more and more like a press release and a depository for quotes and external links. Definitely write in News style, but don't write it like it is a news story. Wikipedia is not a news report. Please review Wikipedia:Establish context, Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. Cheers, Kingturtle 03:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


Article has now been refactored

As per Eloquence, this article has now been refactored into:

  • Abu Ghraib prison -- an article about the prison that briefly (for now) mentions both pre- and post-invasion uses
  • Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal -- a detailed article with photographs about the U.S. abuse allegations, political scandal and aftermath
  • Abu Ghraib about the city of roughly 1M people, with a disambiguation block pointing to both of the above articles for readers who come to it looking for either of the others

Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq should be the top-level page on this topic, and should cover abuses by both sides.

I will now clean up more links. -- The Anome 11:33, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Great work Anome! Thanks, it looks great. Quadell 12:31, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
You forgot to move the talk archives. — Miguel 19:15, 2004 May 12 (UTC)


Apologies. I have now done so. -- The Anome 09:42, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Can someone spell out exactly how to pronounce Abu Ghraib? And is this an Arabic name, or something else? Please help this ignorant American do justice to the name. -- Jeff Q 11:09, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Dubbya seems to need help too! ;) Mark Richards 04:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

No kidding. I don't think I've hear it pronounced correctly once. RickK 04:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

How could one know if one never heard it pronounced correctly unless one knew the correct pronunciation? That's my concern. Dubbya is only demonstrating what happens when we don't learn these things. (Well, that and an oddly twisted tongue, given his multilingual family connections. ☺) Surely someone who's watching this page is upset enough at our mangling to post the correct pronunciation?! -- Jeff Q 07:56, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you Jeffq, but am not a fluent arabic speaker. Perhaps someone who is could record a short sound clip to link to? Mark Richards 16:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Silly me! There's an IPA pronunciation guide in the very first line. So now we know that "Abu" starts with a glottal plosive and ends with a long close back "u" sound, and "Ghraib" starts with a voiced velar fricative and has an approximant palatal before the "b"… That sound clip is looking like a real good idea right about now. As a practical alternative to IPA, and in lieu of a good clip, can someone spell out a more informal guide (e.g., "ah-BOO grah-EEB", as a guess) that minimizes the damage done by English speakers? -- Jeff Q 03:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah-boo Grape. AH-boo GA-boo. Ay-buu Gay-buu. AH-bug-a-booo-ga. Ah-boo Gay-rape. Ah-boo Dub-ya Speak (don't misunderestimate our Leader). orthogonal 05:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Très amusant, but I'm serious. I really want to know how it should be said. -- Jeff Q

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were: A National Public Radio piece on the proper pronunciation of Abu Ghraib, complete with an explanation by an Arabic translator. Cheers. Rafa8134 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Eye witness report

" The prisoners would always say "Jihad Jihad Jihad death to the Jehova's Witnesses." -- by User:12.202.174.63. Seems POV. Suggested change: "According to ...., the prisoners ...." Of course, that would require the editor to specify the source. David Remahl 18:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's patent nonsense. Quadell (talk) 18:51, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I guess that too. It can hardly be true that they were always saying that. But I thought I'd give the editor the benefit of the doubt and a chance to supply a source. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so what's the procedure now? Can I remove the sentence from the main page in the mean time? I wouldn't like to start a war. David Remahl 19:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

hectares

hectares? Stargoat 18:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hectares. Bryan 00:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
lol.  :) Stargoat 01:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cut from article

It, and the name Abu Ghraib, is also associated with the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US military personnel. The rising use and wide distribution of digital cameras and camcorders among US soldiers was instrumental in releasing the images to the world. Subsequently, US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld officially banned the use/possession of any type of photo-capable cell-phones in all military installations ( http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9643950%255E401,00.html/ ).

This paragraph makes two points:

  1. That the abuse of Iraqi prisoners constitutes "torture".
  2. That Rumsfeld banned photo-capable cell-phones.

I think both of these points are more related to the Coalition prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison article than this shorter, more general article.

Also, the issue of whether the abuse (for which some soldiers were punished by their own army) rose to the level of "torture" goes way beyond the scope of this article -- and certainly is not a 'matter of fact' but something which Wikipedia should be neutral about.

Someone, please move this info where it belongs. I'm out of time for today. --Uncle Ed 17:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Was coalition torture proven?

In late April 2004, U.S. television news-magazine 60 Minutes II broke a story involving regular torture and humiliation of Iraqi inmates by a group of U.S. soldiers. The story included photographs depicting the torture of prisoners

I have not seen any photos depicting the torture of prisoners. The closest thing to 'torture' I've seen is (a) the hooded guy with outspread arms who was "told that he'd be shocked"; and (b) a photo of dogs on leashes menacing a bound prisoner. Of course, these are gray areas at best, and I'm not saying it's nice to do this even to get info from known terrorists about on-going and planned operations.

I'm just saying we shouldn't call these photos "depictions of torture" unless (1) some named source says they are, or (2) some source defines torture to include 'telling a prisoner he'll be shocked' and 'menacing a bound prisoner with dogs' and (3) some other source asserts that these are depicted in the photos.

Note that #3 is not what I'm disputing so much as #1 and #2. If we can get either of those into the article, then I'd be satifisied that it meets NPOV requirements.

As most of us know, there are many different definitions of torture. The ones I accept, and the ones you accept may differ. If it doesn't involve mutilation or actual pain, I'm leery about automatically labelling it "torture". But what I think doesn't matter to YOU or to the reader. What we need is any or all of the following:

  • definitions agreed to by the US, which may overlap with:
  • definitions made by the UN or put forth in international treaties
  • definitions set by various human rights organizations (possibly stricter than American or UN standards);
  • rules issued by Coalition authorities (just for completeness)

We need to distinguish between "abuse" and "torture". Under US law, even ABUSE can get you a year in prison. Torture (if I understand US military law) would get you much stiffer punishment.

Note also that the US standard of justice for abusers and torturers is THOUSANDS OF TIMES STRICTER than the old Iraqi standard. We don't permit our soldiers to cut off body parts or shock genitals, and if a congressman, reporter or chaplain finds out about it, there will be hell to pay. NOBODY excused William Calley for My Lai.

Some Wikipedians have said things like, "We all were told that torture had ended in Abu Ghraib after Saddam was overthrown, but now we now that it still went on." This is a matter of opinion -- not fact -- and it hinges on sharply different definitions of "torture". No one's tongue or ear was cut off, by coalition troops.

Now whether the 50 or so "softening up" tactics "permitted" by US regulations before/during interrogation are "humane" or not, is a different question. Not all "inhumane treatment" is torture. Or, if anyone says so then there are 2 POVs:

  • some or all "softening up" tactics are "torture"
  • the US p.o.v., i.e., that softening up tactics were strictly vetted to be effective but not to be so "bad" as to constitute "torture"

Not sure these comments are in the right place. I might copy or move them to coalition abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib or wherever the Abu Ghrain abuse scandal currently sits. --Uncle Ed 20:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See the USA's definition of torture from Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code.
Descriptions Taguba found credible: "a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol; [...] d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; [...] g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick." - US Army 15-6 Report of Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq - Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba
When studying the Third Geneva Convention (ratified by the USA in 1955, excluding the protocols) and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (ratified by USA in 1994); see also Pentagon report set framework for use of torture (copy at commondreams.org if the Google cache disappears). -- Jeandré, 2004-09-25t14:34z

Thanks. I skimmed the references -- just enough to be able to draw the following conclusions (as a former soldier with 2 Good Conduct medals and 5 years total service):

  • Severe abuse took place, enough to justify courts-martial (military trials of US servicemen).
  • The US definition of torture is stricter than I thought.
  • Our prison guards are only 100 times better than Saddam's -- not 1,000 times better, as I had boasted earlier.
  • Thank God for the UCMJ, our free press, and the Bush Administration.

If I had been an officer at that prison, I'm not saying I could have stopped all the abuse single-handedly, but I would have blown the whistle much earlier. The commandant was let off too easily, in my opinion; I heard she got a "politically correct" promotion during the Clinton Administration. But rule #1 of command is the commander is 100% responsible for everything his troops do. Or as Spiderman said in the movie, "With great power comes great responsibility." --Uncle Ed 01:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As of May, the Washington Post reported that 33 deaths of detainees were being investigated as homicides. Not all at Abu Ghraib, but beating a man to death or suffocating a man to death under interrogation does count as torture in my book. Wolfman 01:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


  1. Definitions of torture include physical torture and torture that may not leave physical marks (such as long-term exposure to extreme temperatures, routinely practiced at Camp X-ray), as well as even the threat of severe suffering. Sexual humiliation and abuse up to rape may not be as visible as cutting off someone's tongue or ripping out their fingernails, but the damage inflicted on the victim is often greater. "Torture light" methods have been practiced for quite some time in the "War on Terror"[5]
  2. We need to realise that many of the pictures were never released. Some were shown to Congress I believe, and those who saw them were deeply shocked. From Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq: USA Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told an armed services committee of the Senate on 7 May 2004 that "There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist [...] I looked at them last night and they're hard to believe [...] The pictures I've seen depict conduct, behaviour that is so brutal and so cruel and so inhumane that anyone engaged in it or involved in it would have to be brought to justice." Rummy is not known to be a bleeding-hart liberal
  3. There are several credible reports of child abuse by occupation troops. This is another "softening up" technique, sometimes used as a way of making the children's parents talk when all else has failed : [6][7] Witnesses say US forces also abused children and youths. Soldier Samuel Provance from Abu Ghureib reported the harrassment of a 15 to 16 year old girl in her cell as well as a 16 year old boy who was driven through the cold after he had been showered and who was then besmeared with mud. Allegations have been made that children have been subjected to torture and rape. This has been used to make detained parents talk in cases where other interrogation methods have failed. Seymour Hersh told a San Francisco audience: "what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been [video] recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling... the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking." An unpublished Unicef report is said to include statements about children that were arrested in Basra and Kerbela and routinely detained in Umm Kasr. The children are said to be without contact to their families and cannot expect a trial.

Many in the US and the UK seem to find it difficult to believe the torture allegations - "torturing for freedom" is after all not a very convincing slogan. Personally I don't think there is anything surprising about it : counter-insurgency methods (as developed by the French in Algeria) have always included torture as a way of beating a recalcitrant population into submission. The insurgency is very strong and growing in strength, the majority of Iraqis want Coalition troops to leave ("Thank you and goodbye" was their attitude from as soon as Saddam's regime fell), and the military situation for the Coalition is desperate - many in the top echelons of the US military think the "war is lost", retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency even compares it to Stalingrad: "our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad." [8] Desperate times lead to desperate measures. - pir 14:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Latest changes by 203.99.62.252

I have reverted two changes [9] by 203.99.62.252 who had removed the See also section and changed e.g. “7,000 people, some alleged rebels, some alleged criminals and others free of any such allegations” to “7,000 innocent people” and “only about 100 detainees” to “more than about 1000 detainees” et al. Please note that it is a revertion to my own version. Rafał Pocztarski 12:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Father of the Crow

I've just been reading about this literal translation of "أبو غريب" on languagehat.com and languagelog. Apparently "abu" (أبو) has wide usage and would be better translated as "place of". "Ghraib" (غريب) is a dimunitive of either "crow" / "raven", "west", or "strange" / "foreign"; all from the same Semitic root. Because of this I've commented out the literal translation in the article until an Iraqi can clarify things. See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001907.html and http://www.languagehat.com/archives/001757.php — 203.222.154.2 23:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, I've just noticed that both Abu Ghraib and Abu Ghraib prison share this one talk page! My notes here refer to the former. — Hippietrail 23:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Umm, I recall reading somewhere that the "city" was named Abu Ghraib, but that a particular section of the prison was named after one of the firemen that was killed at 9/11. I keep wanting to say that this came from the lengthy rant about being angry by warblogger (at least I think he's the guy who posted "angry"), but I know this actually came from http://www.thestranger.com/2004-05-13/feature.html by Sandeep Kaushik at thestranger.com. Where should that bit about Camp Ganci be fit in... or should it be bothered with? Also, I wonder if anyone knows where "angry" is posted. Sweetfreek 06:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I missed it the irst time I read it. Very sorry about that. Sweetfreek 06:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

removing the paragraph about Leo V. Merck

This was removed as it doesn't seem to be encyclopedic information:

Capt. Leo V. Merck (32), former commander of the 870th Military Police Company, which also serves under Karpinski in the same prison, faces a court martial for allegedly taking pictures of three female soldiers from under a shower door.

Furthermore, he has only "allegedly" done it. Has the court martial been held yet ? What's the verdict ? Is he proven guilty ? If not, then this definitely should be removed from this article. -- 199.71.174.100 00:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

279 photos and 19 videos of Abu Ghraib torture

Salon has just released 279 photos and 19 videos of the torture at Abu Ghraib. -- noosphere 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

From the accompanying article: "While many of the 279 photos have been previously released, until this point no one has been able to authenticate this number of images from the prison, or to provide the Army's own documentation of what they reveal. This is the Army's forensic report of what happened at the prison: dates, times, places, cameras and, in some though not all cases, identities of the detainees and soldiers involved in the abuse." -- noosphere 04:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Transfer of prisoners

This article reads: "On March 9, 2006, the U.S. military decided to close Abu Ghraib prison and transfer prisoners to other jails in Iraq.<" I worked for a news organisation back then, and we found out that this is not 100% true. I called the spokesperson for the coalition forces, and he said it had always been the intent to close the facility, and hand over control to coalition forces. So it wasn't on March 9, and it isn't really sure the prison will be closed permanently. He didn't really want to say a lot, but he did say that the news in that form wasn't true. (Speedwise, scale-wise.)

Merge from Adel Nakhla

Please merge any relevant content from Adel Nakhla per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adel Nakhla. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:19Z

Images

Quick note, I did a couple of things:

  • Slight image balance in Under the US-led coalition.
  • Removed forced sizing on those two thumbs of the images, as the standard thumb sizing that users determine in their preferences should suffice.
  • Trimmed the text fat off of the Satar Jabar image to more closely reflect the summary on that page, because this article is about the prison.

Lemme know if there are any issues. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 11:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Ghraib_prison/Archive_3&oldid=1251632810"