Looks like the Americans aren't the only ones abusing Iraqis

[stormthebeaches]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... CMP=AFCYAH

Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British troops would have been prevented if the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith had not blocked a British judge being appointed to oversee the handling of detainees, a public inquiry heard today.

The army's former top legal adviser in Iraq said he could not understand why there was strong opposition to the military's requests for an independent review of how UK troops treated captives.

Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer said he believed the lack of a checking process led to the abuse of prisoners.

The inquiry, which is investigating the death of hotel worker Baha Mousa, heard there were six or seven deaths of detainees in UK custody by May 2003.

Mercer, the chief legal adviser to 1st (UK) Armoured Division on the ground in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion, said his commanders wanted British troops' treatment of prisoners to be "exemplary" and "meet the highest standards".

In March and April 2003 they requested the formation of a detainee and internee management unit (DIMU) with a British judge to review how suspects were handled.

This was refused by the military's permanent joint headquarters (PJHQ), apparently on the orders of Lord Goldsmith, then the government's most senior legal adviser, the inquiry heard.

In a witness statement to the inquiry, Mercer said: "The proposal for a UK judge was blocked by PJHQ, seemingly on the instructions of the attorney general, and we were instructed to implement a 'suitably vetted' Iraqi judge as a reviewing authority.

"This was however, unworkable, unrealistic, ill-informed and based [seemingly] on the basis of what was happening in Baghdad.

"I still remain bemused as to why there was such resistance to the establishment of a proper review of prisoners. I cannot understand the opposition to the aspiration towards the highest standards for UK prisoners including the appointment of a UK judge, and why such a decision went up to the attorney general."

Mercer said debate about the issue also wasted "very valuable" time and ignored what was happening on the ground.

He said: "If the DIMU had been stood up with a UK judge as the independent reviewing authority, I believe we would not have encountered the tragedy with prisoners that unfolded, nor breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, as there would have been suitable independent oversight, accountability and legal clarity."

Rejecting his request for a DIMU, a PJHQ official wrote: "The standards to which Nick refers are based on UK law.

"Whilst his advice might be appropriate for individuals locked up on a Saturday night in Brixton, they are not appropriate for detainees arrested by the Black Watch etc following a bit of looting in Basra."

Mousa, 26, was working as a receptionist at the Ibn al-Haitham hotel in Basra, when it was raided by soldiers of the 1st Battalion the Queen's Lancashire Regiment (1QLR) looking for weapons.

He and several colleagues were arrested and taken to 1QLR's base, where he died on 15 September 2003, having suffered 93 separate injuries.

The inquiry has heard that British soldiers used "conditioning" methods on Iraqi prisoners such as hooding, sleep deprivation and making suspects stand in painful stress positions, which were banned by the British government in 1972.

Mercer warned his superiors before the invasion that a shortage of manpower and resources meant British forces were in danger of violating the Geneva conventions on dealing with prisoners of war.

"In my view, the issue of prisoners had very low priority and was treated more as an inconvenience than an obligation under international law," he said.

He also raised concerns with Major General Robin Brims, general officer commanding 1st (UK) Armoured Division, in March 2003 after witnessing 40 hooded Iraqi detainees kneeling or squatting in the sand with their arms cuffed behind their backs.

Mercer said he was told the treatment he saw was in accordance with British army doctrine on "tactical questioning" – the immediate interrogation of suspects to obtain valuable intelligence.

The use of hooding was banned throughout 1st (UK) Armoured Division in early April 2003, the inquiry heard.

But shortly after this, representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) expressed concerns about the treatment of prisoners of war on a visit to a British internment camp in Umm Qasr, southern Iraq.

Mercer said: "I had no doubt that, given the seriousness of the situation, it would be staffed to PJHQ and to ministers as there was going to be an official complaint to the UK government by the ICRC."

On 20 May 2003, the military police's special investigation branch told him six or seven detainees had died in British custody and that their deaths required investigation.

As a result, he immediately issued an order reminding UK troops that prisoners should be "treated with humanity and dignity at all times", provided with water and food, and should never have their faces covered.

When he left Iraq, Mercer told his successor that the mistreatment of detainees was the most serious issue on the ground and had the potential to cause serious damage to British forces.

"The divisional headquarters found itself in the extraordinary position of seeking the highest standards for prisoners but being knocked back by those in senior legal and political posts," he said in his statement.

"I am still amazed that we had to fight so hard for even basic Geneva convention rights for prisoners.

"This indifference, of course, was exacerbated by the total strategic failure to plan for occupation, and the vacuum it created."

Disgusting.

[Darth Wong]

To be quite honest, all military forces are quite capable of behaviour like this, and always have been. Nobody can say it because it is currently in vogue to worship soldiers as if they're shining paragons of moral virtue, but the fact is that soldiering and thuggery have always been closely associated, throughout pretty much all of history. Even when people viewed soldiers as "good guys" in various conflicts, they knew they had to accept a certain amount of thuggery and just take it as a lesser evil than whatever the soldiers were fighting off.

For example, people wax poetic about "The Greatest Generation", the D-Day landings, and so forth, but nobody ever talks about the wave of Allied rapes of French women in Normandy after D-Day. It's just something that soldiers do: not every soldier of course, but there's a small percentage of them that do, and the rest are naturally inclined to look the other way because of the bond of fraternal loyalty.

[Edi]

True. Though here it seems like the indifference to abuse came from higher up and Lord Goldsmith was the same fuckwit who did his level best to enable all the pro-war policies of Tony B.Liar. Which is rather different from the way the US side of this happened.

The D-Day landings and the aftermath, yes. One of the hushed down issues after the war, but completely unsurprising.

[Thanas]

Not only D-day, there were things going on in Italy and the Rhineland that would seriously make one think whether some allied troops were any better than the SS.

[Tiriol]

Not to mention what the Soviets did when they entered Germany and Berlin with the difference that many are ready to believe those things, since they were "just dirty Communist Russians" and not enlightened Western Allies' troops. And despite what many of our own history books say, even Finns did do their share of nasty things to enemies and prisoners. When you have armies that number in hundreds of thousands it is impossible NOT to have sociopaths, psycopaths and other dangerous elements among the ranks who will do whatever they please given the chance.

[Enforcer Talen]

As well as being cruel to someone can be a bonding experience, whether its a gang rape or a torture. Dont have to be sociopaths, just a conformist.

[Paradox_Fanatic]

Not only D-day, there were things going on in Italy and the Rhineland that would seriously make one think whether some allied troops were any better than the SS.

I sincerely doubt this. I understand that all armies are capable of doing despicable things, but the SS is possibly one of the most thoroughly criminal and evil organizations recent memory. On the other hand, I don't know a terrible lot about Allied atrocities on the ground. Would you be able to provide a reference to the incidents? It strikes as a bit of an exaggeration to compare the two groups.

[K. A. Pital]

Not only D-day, there were things going on in Italy and the Rhineland that would seriously make one think whether some allied troops were any better than the SS.

I sincerely doubt this. I understand that all armies are capable of doing despicable things, but the SS is possibly one of the most thoroughly criminal and evil organizations recent memory. On the other hand, I don't know a terrible lot about Allied atrocities on the ground. Would you be able to provide a reference to the incidents? It strikes as a bit of an exaggeration to compare the two groups.

I think Thanas may refer to the sadism of individual incidents rather than scale. By sheer scale of extermination, the SS hardly had equals in the war.

[Paradox_Fanatic]

Not only D-day, there were things going on in Italy and the Rhineland that would seriously make one think whether some allied troops were any better than the SS.

I sincerely doubt this. I understand that all armies are capable of doing despicable things, but the SS is possibly one of the most thoroughly criminal and evil organizations recent memory. On the other hand, I don't know a terrible lot about Allied atrocities on the ground. Would you be able to provide a reference to the incidents? It strikes as a bit of an exaggeration to compare the two groups.

I think Thanas may refer to the sadism of individual incidents rather than scale. By sheer scale of extermination, the SS hardly had equals in the war.

Perhaps, but that still doesn't really justify the comparison, the SS weren't considered the epitome of evil because of the crimes of individuals. And the rarity of such individual crimes in the Allied and Soviet forces when compared to the SS seems to strike against the idea that someone could "seriously consider" the possibility that the two were remotely on the same level in sadism and cruelty. If "some" means a handful of troops out of millions, it is hardly mentioning as a basis for comparison the SS.

EDIT: That is to say, the SS is considered terrible and criminal because of the seemingly universal sadism and cruelty of its troops, not because of a few particularly vile individuals.

[K. A. Pital]

Perhaps, but that still doesn't really justify the comparison, the SS weren't considered the epitome of evil because of the crimes of individuals. And the rarity of such individual crimes in the Allied and Soviet forces when compared to the SS seems to strike against the idea that someone could "seriously consider" the possibility that the two were remotely on the same level in sadism and cruelty. If "some" means a handful of troops out of millions, it is hardly mentioning as a basis for comparison the SS.

EDIT: That is to say, the SS is considered terrible and criminal because of the seemingly universal sadism and cruelty of its troops, not because of a few particularly vile individuals.

Oh, I quite certainly agree.

I think the SS and Nazi German forces are an extremely bad example for the discussion at hand, anyway, because they are the antithesis of the point we are discussing (i.e. that in an Army, violent types tend to get their way, and due to the sheer scale of troops involved, atrocities become inevitable).

The SS and Wehrmacht are a little different from your typical Army - they institutionalized crimes in their very command and control system, up to ordering mass extermination of cities, population etc. Thus indeed, when talking about the pervasive violence in "your common army", one must remember that the German forces were hardly "your common army".

[Surlethe]

I've the impression that one widespread war crime in African civil wars and the like is widespread rape. Is that sort of thing related to the thread topic, or is it more akin to the institutionalization of war crimes in the Nazi machine?

[K. A. Pital]

I've the impression that one widespread war crime in African civil wars and the like is widespread rape. Is that sort of thing related to the thread topic, or is it more akin to the institutionalization of war crimes in the Nazi machine?

I think it's just the general barbarity of the African wars - things like the Geneva conventions, etc. hardly apply to African forces. Worse yet, most African armies are nothing but glorified paramilitaries in uniform which are just a few years away from the tribal feudalism era. And I would assume that war rape during feudal-era wars was nothing criminal, few exceptions aside.

[Ilya Muromets]

I think Thanas may refer to the sadism of individual incidents rather than scale. By sheer scale of extermination, the SS hardly had equals in the war.

By sheer scale of extermination, the Imperial Japanese Army would handily out-do the SS. I meant, this was an entire national army essentially brainwashed into fanaticism and the use of brutality as an instrument of authority over civilians, enemies, and each other. It's also a matter of record that the IJA killed far more civilians than the Nazis did in WW2. The SS, meanwhile, was only part of the German armed forces.

[K. A. Pital]

I think Thanas may refer to the sadism of individual incidents rather than scale. By sheer scale of extermination, the SS hardly had equals in the war.

By sheer scale of extermination, the Imperial Japanese Army would handily out-do the SS. I meant, this was an entire national army essentially brainwashed into fanaticism and the use of brutality as an instrument of authority over civilians, enemies, and each other. It's also a matter of record that the IJA killed far more civilians than the Nazis did in WW2. The SS, meanwhile, was only part of the German armed forces.

I think the IJA killed about the same amount of civilians, IIRC, or maybe slightly less. Most of them were killed in China, IIRC that's 20 million and they are roughly 50-50% split between combatants and civilians.

As a percentage amount of the general population, as well as in sheer scale, that is somewhat below the Nazi vacchanalia of destruction that they unleashed on Eastern Europe (most notably Poland, USSR and Yugoslavia as the top-by-civilian casualties due to Nazi actions), using not just the SS for those aims, but the Wehrmacht too.

Nazis killed 13 million civilians in the USSR alone; several million in Poland and half-a-million in Yugoslavia. All in all, that would chalk up to 20 million of purely non-combatant deaths. Now, I agree the SS didn't kill all of them; some were killed by the Wehrmacht, through hunger and starvation, etc. etc. Still it's a little higher. The IJA didn't directl kill every single civilian out of the 10-15 million civilian dead in China either.

[Ilya Muromets]

I think the IJA killed about the same amount of civilians, IIRC, or maybe slightly less. Most of them were killed in China, IIRC that's 20 million and they are roughly 50-50% split between combatants and civilians.

As a percentage amount of the general population, as well as in sheer scale, that is somewhat below the Nazi vacchanalia of destruction that they unleashed on Eastern Europe (most notably Poland, USSR and Yugoslavia as the top-by-civilian casualties due to Nazi actions), using not just the SS for those aims, but the Wehrmacht too.

Nazis killed 13 million civilians in the USSR alone; several million in Poland and half-a-million in Yugoslavia. All in all, that would chalk up to 20 million of purely non-combatant deaths. Now, I agree the SS didn't kill all of them; some were killed by the Wehrmacht, through hunger and starvation, etc. etc. Still it's a little higher. The IJA didn't directl kill every single civilian out of the 10-15 million civilian dead in China either.

Well, I admit that I'm basing my opinion off all the local history books here I've ever read, which focus more on the atrocities the IJA did (local significance and all that) and they always stated that "on record" the Japanese killed more in WW2 than the Germans. Is there any site where we can actually get exact numbers of civilian deaths in WW2? And estimates as to how many were caused by other factors of the war than the military forces themselves? I'm honestly curious now.

[Shroom Man 777]

I'm willing to bet that Europe is more efficient in counting all the dead people the Nazis killed, than South East Asia can with all the dead people the Japanese killed.

[Thanas]

Not only D-day, there were things going on in Italy and the Rhineland that would seriously make one think whether some allied troops were any better than the SS.

I sincerely doubt this. I understand that all armies are capable of doing despicable things, but the SS is possibly one of the most thoroughly criminal and evil organizations recent memory. On the other hand, I don't know a terrible lot about Allied atrocities on the ground. Would you be able to provide a reference to the incidents? It strikes as a bit of an exaggeration to compare the two groups.

I think Thanas may refer to the sadism of individual incidents rather than scale. By sheer scale of extermination, the SS hardly had equals in the war.

Of course I am. Which is why I said "some allied troops were any better than the SS". Now, obviously, that should have been "than some SS troops".

Still, there were some units on the allied side who IMO had an endemic problem of atrocities.

For example, french colonial troops managed to become a synonym for rape. Look up Marocchinata, for example, which refers to the mass rape of several thousand women in Italy committed by those lovely pieces of shits, while also killing civilians who tried to resist them. Not that the conduct of the French officers commanding them was any better, with their commanding officer allegedly telling them that they got a few days to do as they wished with the Italians. (Though to be fair, there is a dispute about that and there was no written order to that effect, so this might be false). Eventually, the allies investigated and hanged 15 of the perpetrators, while sending 50+ to hard labor. However, that did not stop the allies of using the Goumiers in the front role in the push towards Germany, where the same kind of atrocities were committed in the black forest villages. When they occupied Stuttgart, the Goumiers were allegedly responsible for more rapes than the entire Nazi Army during their occupation of the whole of France. The diary entries from that time are absolutely horrifying. Complaints were quite often laughed off by french officers with the words of "don't deserve any better".

[K. A. Pital]

I think the IJA killed about the same amount of civilians, IIRC, or maybe slightly less. Most of them were killed in China, IIRC that's 20 million and they are roughly 50-50% split between combatants and civilians.

As a percentage amount of the general population, as well as in sheer scale, that is somewhat below the Nazi vacchanalia of destruction that they unleashed on Eastern Europe (most notably Poland, USSR and Yugoslavia as the top-by-civilian casualties due to Nazi actions), using not just the SS for those aims, but the Wehrmacht too.

Nazis killed 13 million civilians in the USSR alone; several million in Poland and half-a-million in Yugoslavia. All in all, that would chalk up to 20 million of purely non-combatant deaths. Now, I agree the SS didn't kill all of them; some were killed by the Wehrmacht, through hunger and starvation, etc. etc. Still it's a little higher. The IJA didn't directl kill every single civilian out of the 10-15 million civilian dead in China either.

Well, I admit that I'm basing my opinion off all the local history books here I've ever read, which focus more on the atrocities the IJA did (local significance and all that) and they always stated that "on record" the Japanese killed more in WW2 than the Germans. Is there any site where we can actually get exact numbers of civilian deaths in WW2? And estimates as to how many were caused by other factors of the war than the military forces themselves? I'm honestly curious now.

Bleh, man, it's not a question easily answered... It's really lots and lots of reading and digging through recent monographies and stuff to be more or less sure. Surprisingly enough, I can tell you that the Wikipedia article called "World War II casualties" gives a good general overview and scope, with a few graphs and tables.

If you wish to talk about it or have some questions, take it to History. Alternatively, I'll let this discussion to run in a free flow regime and then split it to History when I think it's deviated enough.

[PainRack]

Well, I admit that I'm basing my opinion off all the local history books here I've ever read, which focus more on the atrocities the IJA did (local significance and all that) and they always stated that "on record" the Japanese killed more in WW2 than the Germans. Is there any site where we can actually get exact numbers of civilian deaths in WW2? And estimates as to how many were caused by other factors of the war than the military forces themselves? I'm honestly curious now.

It depends..... Chinese casualties incorporate casualties from 1937 or earlier, combined with a series of massacres such as the Nanking massacre, the Japanese atrocities list over-reaches the germans. But they had a significantly longer time to do it.
This is important when one considers that German atrocities properly began in 1941.

On the other hand, the use of plague and poison gas as a military weapon does turn the tables a bit.

[Big Orange]

When the British were containing the EOKA insurgency in Cyprus during the 1950s, there inevitably would've been violence, racist abuse, and brutality committed by British troops, and the British military has a habit of turning a blind eye to the bad actions of their foreign auxiliaries (in this case Cyprus police officers who were of Turkish extraction):

If Harding (British commander) carefully had planned to alienate the entire Greek population of the island and push the moderate Greeks into full support of EOKA, he could not have done better than by his policy of unleashing a horde of untrained, poorly-led Turkish police on the population. When the Turks rose against the Greeks, usually in response to an EOKA killing of a Turkish policeman, the all-Turkish Special Mobile Reserve and Auxiliary Police routinely stood by as Turkish mobs assaulted Greek civilians and ransacked their property.

The abusive behavior of the Cyprus Police was a godsend to the insurgents, who made the actions of the security forces a central theme in their international propaganda campaign. Claims of British police abuse were made by the Greek media and brought to world attention with the support of the Greek government.

Security force misbehavior played a key role in mobilizing world opinion against Britain. In the end, the insurgents were grateful for Harding’s strategy. Colonel Grivas, the insurgent leader whom the British never caught, declared that the first act of the new government after Cypriot independence should be to raise a statue to Field Marshal Harding, “since he had done more than anybody else to keep alive the spirit of Hellenic resistance in Cyprus.”

Link

And while it is debatable that the Japanese under Emperor Hirohito killed far more people than the Nazis, their sadism and cruelty was legendary (with IJA/IJN officers having decapitation competitions), and under the directions of Emperor Hirohito the Japanese military-industrial complex was deeply involved in the systematic experimentation of human subjects, with Japanese military doctors and scientists being every bit as nasty as their SS/IG Farben counterparts in their infamous Manchurian based Unit 731 facility (WARNING - Disturbing and gory images of a medical nature).