How was detainee abuse allowed to happen?

[Travis]

While I'm always somewhat skeptical of released detainees claiming horrific abuse--seeing as how it is a good way for them to get some fame--there is documented and incontrovertible evidence that abuse of detainees did happen on a number of occasions.

What gets me is that an excuse, that is often trotted out for this, is that the soldiers handling them were not trained or prepared to do so. How could this be so? Prisoners are a very real fact of war and surely the military knows that. They do have written procedures for such things so what I have to wonder how it could be that they would not have training in place for this. Why, in particular, were the Military Police not properly trained for such things?

 

[Cylinder]

Why, in particular, were the Military Police not properly trained for such things?

MPs do not conduct intelligence interrogations. For the uniformed service members, detainee treatment has always been restricted by DoD and service regulations to things like sleep deprivation, stress positions, light manipulation, etc... Most of these practices are still authorized.

Most of the controversy stems from CIA treatment.


ETA: MP/SP units could very well conduct intake interviews including questioning for intel value. They're not the service members conducting interrogation planning and sustained intelligence interrogations.

 

[Smackety]

'allowed to happen'? I don't think there was anything random or accidental about it.

 

[gumboot]

Why, in particular, were the Military Police not properly trained for such things?

Oh, easy answer. Most nations of the world require soldiers to pass a test displaying a certain understanding of the Laws of Armed Conflict before they are allowed to be deployed overseas. This includes treatment of prisoners, etc. In most military forces, MPs and people like that are required to do higher level qualification (as well as officers). Military lawyers do the very highest level.

This is not the case for the US military, which will deploy soldiers who have no training on the Laws of Armed Conflict.

In particular, the National Guard forces are often poorly trained in this area, and the MPs primarily come from the National Guard.

Thus, ironically, you have the situation where the soldiers who most need to understand things like the Geneva Conventions, have the absolute least understanding of them.

 

[Travis]

MPs do not conduct intelligence interrogations. For the uniformed service members, detainee treatment has always been restricted by DoD and service regulations to things like sleep deprivation, stress positions, light manipulation, etc... Most of these practices are still authorized.

Most of the controversy stems from CIA treatment.


ETA: MP/SP units could very well conduct intake interviews including questioning for intel value. They're not the service members conducting interrogation planning and sustained intelligence interrogations.

I believe most of the individuals in the pictures from Abu Gharib were MP, were they not? Was not one of the explanations for that incident that there had been inadequate training?

 

[Smackety]

So well trained they would refuse orders that they knew were against the rules? Those MP's were put between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Cylinder]

This is not the case for the US military, which will deploy soldiers who have no training on the Laws of Armed Conflict.

Not true. As an intelligence operations specialist with the USAF, one of my duties was conducting LOAC training for our wing. During periods of readiness, the requirement was annual LOAC training for support personnel and semi-annual training for aircrew and some other operations specialties. DoD specified pre-theatre briefs for every service member deployed to Saudi Arabia and Bosnia and monthly training in-theatre. Any foreign national uniformed members also had to undergo LOAC training during in-processing.

Every service also has a LOAC module as part of their Basic Military Training curriculum. This has been the case for some time.

 

[Cylinder]

I believe most of the individuals in the pictures from Abu Gharib were MP, were they not? Was not one of the explanations for that incident that there had been inadequate training?

I thought you were meaning authorized detainee treatment. The behavior at Abu Gharib was illegal.b

 

[gumboot]

Not true. As an intelligence operations specialist with the USAF, one of my duties was conducting LOAC training for our wing. During periods of readiness, the requirement was annual LOAC training for support personnel and semi-annual training for aircrew and some other operations specialties. DoD specified pre-theatre briefs for every service member deployed to Saudi Arabia and Bosnia and monthly training in-theatre. Any foreign national uniformed members also had to undergo LOAC training during in-processing.

Every service also has a LOAC module as part of their Basic Military Training curriculum. This has been the case for some time.

This is all probably quite true, but it doesn't really change me point. The US military has made Laws of War training a Service responsibility, and actual nature of training is a unit command responsibility. What that means is there is no uniform system of Law of War training, and there is no uniform mandatory levels of knowledge prior to deployment.

There's ample evidence that National Guard troops are being deployed to Iraq without even the most basic mission-related training; there are even some quite high profile cases of units disobeying orders or speaking out en masse because the situation is so bad.

That training extends to a lack of understanding of Laws of War training, and that again is evident in numerous reports and studies. An example is the nearly 10,000 pages released by the American Civil Liberties Union detailing Courts-Martial, transcripts, investigation reports and so on into 22 high profile incidents in Iraq. These documents show soldiers had a very poor grasp of the laws of war and repeatedly believed they were acting legally even when murdering civilians.

Like I said, the MPs at Abu Gharib were National Guardsmen. Had they been properly trained, that situation never would have arisen, but because they were clueless the CIA were able to fool them into thinking what they did was legitimate.

 

[Travis]

What Gumboot brought up gets back to my original question. How is that a lack of training in this regard was allowed to happen? Was it a conscious policy decision or bureaucratic bungling?

 

[gumboot]

The US military are over-extended. They're actually not capable of maintaining an occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously. Apparently something like 90% of National Guard units are not at sufficient readiness to be deployed, and that statistic is on the rise - it has been rising ever since 9/11. In a situation like that you're going to get poorly trained and poorly equipped soldiers being deployed into combat.

None of this is, of course, new. Recon Marines who led the invasion of Iraq had to spend tens of thousands of dollars of their own money to get their vehicles combat-ready, because they weren't given adequate equipment.

Like the legions of Rome, the US military is trying to do a task that requires far, far more resources than it has. Eventually something is going to break. Given that it's a volunteer military, my guess is that break is going to be personnel. Morale amongst some units is apparently at rock bottom. You get one major military engagement in which the US suffers serious casualties, and I suspect you'll see some wholesale mutiny.

(There have already been many isolated cases of soldiers refusing to follow orders because of inadequate equipment).

And I think it needs to be said that with the economic crisis and global warming putting increasing pressure on third world countries, with China and Russia both aggressively expanding their spheres of influence, and with Islamic Radicalism on the rise... now is a very bad time to have a military in crisis.

 

[INRM]

It was allowed to happen from the very top. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

It was allowed to happen from the very top. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld

Exactly. These people were/are infidels. The ideology deems they deserve to be tortured/killed/humiliated.

 

[leftysergeant]

It was allowed to happen from the very top. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld

It happened on orders from the worst excuse for a Secretary of Defense that this country has ever had, It is 90% Rummy's fault. He wrote the protocols. Then there is the fact that a lot of interrogators now areprivate contractors.

Like they really have any conscinece. The lot of them need to be abandoned in the hinterlands of Afghanistan to draw fire for reconnaisance purposes. They would probably get more actionable intelligence than they are getting now.

I know for a fact that the military people, including National Guard and Navy Masters at Arms, are trained not to do the kind of crap that Rummy advocated.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

While I'm always somewhat skeptical of released detainees claiming horrific abuse--seeing as how it is a good way for them to get some fame--there is documented and incontrovertible evidence that abuse of detainees did happen on a number of occasions.

What gets me is that an excuse, that is often trotted out for this, is that the soldiers handling them were not trained or prepared to do so. How could this be so? Prisoners are a very real fact of war and surely the military knows that. They do have written procedures for such things so what I have to wonder how it could be that they would not have training in place for this. Why, in particular, were the Military Police not properly trained for such things?

You've obviously never actually met any MPs have you?

 

[Ziggurat]

Like I said, the MPs at Abu Gharib were National Guardsmen. Had they been properly trained, that situation never would have arisen, but because they were clueless the CIA were able to fool them into thinking what they did was legitimate.

The CIA had nothing to do with those infamous photos, directly or indirectly. The prisoners in those photos were being punished, not interrogated. They were common criminals, not insurgents or terrorists. The CIA would have had no interest in them, and would have provided no guidance on their treatment. While poor training may indeed have played a role, the CIA did not.

 

[leftysergeant]

The CIA had nothing to do with those infamous photos, directly or indirectly. The prisoners in those photos were being punished, not interrogated.

So you are saying that an MP who managed to make it through AIT would see nothing wrong with taking a prisoner out of his cell and humiliating him and torturing him because he was a common criminal? Interesting that you would think that they might have that sort of attitude. That sort of thing must go on in every military lock-up, right.

Get a clue.

Rummy and that scum bag "Death Squad John" Negroponte made them do it.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you are saying that an MP who managed to make it through AIT would see nothing wrong with taking a prisoner out of his cell and humiliating him and torturing him because he was a common criminal? Interesting that you would think that they might have that sort of attitude.

I said nothing of the sort. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? What I said was that the CIA had no interest in common criminals because they have no intel value, and so the CIA was not involved in their handling and would not have influenced their treatment. The guards themselves should indeed have known to treat them humanely, and they should be punished for not doing so. I never claimed otherwise, but it's hardly surprising that you would use such a pathetic strawman to attack me.

Get a clue.

 

[leftysergeant]

But you are saying that the guards came up with the idea all by themselves. Odd that they would do just what a dirt bag like Negroponte would do to political detainees just for the hell of it.

 

[GStan]

But you are saying that the guards came up with the idea all by themselves. Odd that they would do just what a dirt bag like Negroponte would do to political detainees just for the hell of it.

I had lefty on ignore for awhile and took him off a few weeks ago; its so nice to once again enjoy his unquestionably objective analysis.