During the U.S. Army Abu Ghraib Prison scandal hearing today, government witnesses revealed that others were complicit in the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners and have escaped prosecution so far. The list includes officers, civilians, CIA operatives, security contractors and military intelligence officials.
What is the United States government doing to do about that? They need to arrest some people and put them on the stand too.
Others testified that they saw what was happening to the Iraqis and did nothing (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128233,00.html). One soldier testified that he didn’t report anything, including the “human pyramid” because he thought “someone was in charge.” So what? Just because someone’s “in charge” makes it right?
The following statement is from the “Soldier’s Manual of Common Tasks” (Skill Levels 2 - 4 STP 21-24-SMCT August 2003) and it reads: You are a soldier in the U.S. Army. As a soldier, you are responsible for identifying, understanding, and complying with the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions. You are also responsible for identifying and notifying the appropriate authorities of any suspected or known violations of the Law of War. The appropriate authorities, including your chain of command, must enforce the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions.
This is required reading for every U.S. Army soldier, whether it is for an infantryman, or a cook behind the lines, or a water treatment specialist, or a military policeman, or a prison guard.
This is from FM 27-10, the official U.S. Army Field Manual for conduct during wartime:
93. Questioning of Prisoners
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this equivalent information.
If he willfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand. (GPW, art. 17.)
----------
So, not only were the Geneva and Hague conventions violated, but these soldiers also violated standing Army procedures for questioning and treatment of prisoners.
As for the others, the authorities need to make a complete list and charge them with violations of the Geneva & Hague Conventions respectively, if U.S. Army policy doesn’t apply to them.
It should also be pointed out that this sex abuse scandal was to punish the prisoners in that particular section for killing one of their own who was cooperating with the U.S., not to "soften them up" for interrogators. Several of the accused have already said this.
No comments:
Post a Comment