I must say I believe, and hope I'm right, that the crowd that sees this and says that looks great is a lot smaller than you believe.

Controversy might be more numerous around the anti-war crowd citing Abu-Ghraib as proof the Iraq war in it's entirety was wrong and evil. There are a lot of people who observe that Saddam did much worse, for much longer, and as standard desirable practice of governance, myself included. I dare say the number of people believing that greatly outnumber the pro-torture crowd.

Still important for America to hold itself more accountable on this. Am I not wrong but most of those involved who even were charged mostly got off with dishonorable discharges?

Your video, Ex-Abu Ghraib Prisoner Speaks Out On Abuse, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In a way Scahill is like a less educated\refined version of Noam Chomsky. He does good investigative work, and dedicates enormous energy into exposing and spotlighting the bad things that America does. That has a place, but without a similarly harsh and critical light being cast on America's targets/enemies it becomes propaganda.

Jeremy says he wouldn't work with Charles Manson to oppose trump, fair enough. What about kind of working with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Say, at least agreeing not to attack Stalin while you both deal with Hitler?

The world is incredibly complicated and the singular and lone focus on American mistakes paints a deceptive picture. Pointing out the problems with America's war in Iraq, like torture and Quantanamo and declaring these as so immoral we needn't even look at Saddam's past is propaganda. Saddam waged two campaigns of genocide against his own people. When America saw the abuses at Abu Ghraib, they shut it down and attempted to punish those responsible. When Saddam's brother used chemical weapons to exterminate Kurdish civilians Saddam commended him for it. Guantanamo is bad, but it doesn't mean we should fail to acknowledge the concentration camps that Saddam operated during his genocide of the Kurds. It doesn't mean it's unfair to observe that conditions in Saddam's prisons across the country were far more cruel during his entire reign.

There's a nuanced place here that Scahill and Chomsky and pundits like them just fail to acknowledge and encourages inaction at times were the lesser evil may well be for America to do something, even if aborting Gadafi's genocide doesn't make Libya a paradise after.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

These guys are acting like graduates from the Abu Ghraib school of policing. Agree that it's rare to see these videos - but this must happen A LOT and go undocumented.

When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.

@bareboards2

I've been operational in a war-zone. Shot at twice, and in a Mexican standoff once, but I never fired my own weapon.

Fact is, other developed nations manage just fine (for the most part) when it comes to things like this. It doesn't help that the US has never and probably will never allow any member of the forces to be prosecuted internationally for war crimes.

I know someone who was in Italy many years ago when a US plane decided to buzz underneath the wires of a gondola (the mountain kind, not the Venice kind, obviously). The tail of the plane caught on the wire and 12 people died, including a few children. There was no criminal prosecution for the pilot, crew, or commanding officers. I mean, just look at all the Wikileaks files on war crimes committed by US soldiers, barely any of them received any kind of judicial review (if any at all did, I never heard of them) including indiscriminate killing of random civilians.

Like it or not, that's a part of the US military culture and they worked hard to make things that way. In Vietnam it was estimated that one in a million shots fired from small arms actually HIT an enemy combatant. They learned it was because fewer than one in ten soldiers even TRIED to hit.

On top of that, the pay is so terrible, it's mostly those desperate to lift themselves and their family out of abject poverty that apply for enlisted positions. They are not well-educated and they are certainly not (for the most part) intelligent, hard-working individuals. The US chooses to spend the vast bulk of military spending on technology, rather than people (after all, it's easier to give kickbacks to your political donors that way).

Well, this is the result. A military with no fear of repercussions unless you're one of the poor scapegoats at Abu Ghraib (and if you think they represent even one tenth of the total personnel involved, you're out to lunch) and you're dumb enough to take pictures of yourself, there's pretty much nothing you can do to the 'enemy' that will get you in serious trouble.

Why do you think the Brits insisted on their own zones of Iraq for the second gulf war? In the first one they fought alongside Americans and suffered more casualties from American fire than they did from Iraqi fire. I talked to a Brit armored officer who was in the first gulf war. He went to introduce himself to the colonel of the American unit next to them, the Colonel stared in amazement at the Scorpion light tank and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?" I can guarantee you, every soldier, from Private to the Colonel of my regiment could have identified every armored vehicle on the battlefield.

Look, it's really simple. The question was, "Will the US military obey unlawful orders."

I pointed to one proven instance where they absolutely did just that. I didn't bring up rape or any of that, you did, but it actually makes my case even more solid. Not only did they OBEY those orders, they took them several steps further on their own. Abu Ghraib is an excellent example because there was a court case and therefore there's a lot of documentation.

There are a ton of other examples, especially from WWII onward, firebombing major German cities, nuclear attacks on Japan, use of Napalm in Vietnam. Treatment of POWs.... It's a very long list of debatable war crimes, many of which are poorly documented. If you want to pick one as a better example, go ahead, but building up straw men to attack when you seem to essentially agree with the thrust of my argument seems petty and ridiculous.

As I see it, there were only prosecutions from Abu Ghraib because the abuse became public knowledge.

While rape and murder have never been proven to be executive orders (although it's pretty clear that murder in the field has been ordered by many presidents, including the current one, but is called something different), they were certainly standard procedure. That's why the offenders felt safe publicly posting pictures of the crimes. Had they been a tiny bit smarter about it, there almost certainly would have never been a prosecution, because that would make the crimes public and keeping the abuse secret was far more important than addressing the crimes.
Most of what we saw from Abu Ghraib was clearly, and admittedly sanctioned by the president and his cabinet. as you said, there was.."sleep deprivation, hooding prisoners, playing loud music, removing all detainees' clothing, forcing them to stand in so-called "stress positions", and the use of dogs" and also waterboarding and other acts designed to inflict the feeling of being murdered. From there to actual 'rape and murder' is just a tiny step over that invisible line that the executive branch had taken them right up to and complained about being stymied by.
They may not have been directly directed to rape and murder, but they were presented with people they were told to treat as subhuman and directed to do more to get the information that 'legal' torture had not delivered. I'm not sure what else they might have done in that situation.

I hadn't thought I was ever disagreeing on Bush and Cheney and company approving war crimes in the form of torture(in particular stress positions and later on water boarding). They were shockingly open about it and basically just defended it by saying they didn't think it was that bad...

When you posed Abu Ghraib as an example of military following illegal orders though, I disagreed. You know, based upon the fact that the acts of sexual assualt, physical assault, rape and murder were counted as crimes by the military. This standing apart from 'lesser' torture like loud music and stress positions which was 'ok'.

If you want to be taken seriously stick to the truth. Trying to run out hyperbole like you were by alluding to rape and murder being an executive order and standard procedure does you no credit. Trotting out Abu Ghraib is even worse as it disproves your hyperbole, what with the military discharging and putting on trial those involved and all.

"The administration of George W. Bush attempted to portray the abuses as isolated incidents, not indicative of general U.S. policy. This was contradicted by humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. After multiple investigations, these organizations stated that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not isolated incidents, but were part of a wider pattern of torture and brutal treatment at American overseas detention centers, including those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. There was evidence that authorization for the torture had come from high up in the military hierarchy, with allegations being made that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had authorized some of the actions." - Wikipedia

Abu Ghraib wasn't exactly standard procedure as ordered by the President. In point of fact, those involved at Abu Ghraib were put on trial and tossed out of the military for the express reason that their actions there went AGAINST how the military was ordered to conduct itself.

It's dishonest in the extreme to point to Abu Ghraib as an example of guys just following orders when the reality is they were put on trial for FAILING to follow orders.

In theory, yes.

In practice, they've been obeying unlawful orders for quite some time now. I'm not sure why they'd stop just because the Prez is named Trump. Have you all forgotten Abu Ghraib so quickly? And that's just one of hundreds of examples.

I don't think you actually read up on the Al Anfal campaign if you wave it away as just Saddam gassing his own people. That was the least of the horrors he inflicted on the Kurds. If you don't care I can't make you, but I'll not idly ignore your ignorant claims it was less than what it was. ISIS hasn't even come close to it yet, and they'd need an incredible increase in their abilities and support to even try.

If you want to champion Saddam as the lesser evil, at least bother to study what he did more closely first. I'd also ask your opinion on Abu Ghraib and Fallujah.

As for American policy, I repeat my complete lack of concern for it when forming my opinion of what is good or better. I don't care whether America is some white knight or not, I care that Saddam gone is better than Saddam in power. My assessment of that doesn't depend on why America claims to have done it, nor on America's post actions or dealings with Saddam. Saddam gone leaves Shia and Kurdish Iraqis no longer leaving under fear of genocide(better than 60% of all Iraqis there). It leaves Saddams neighbouring countries no longer fearing another war of expansion and aggression from him.

And your on the right track with Hitler and Pol Pot when classing Saddam. Read about all he's done and you'll find they'd be right at home with him.

@enoch

Currently I'm paid mostly via commission. I work for a small company where my boss/partner and I work completely independent of any management. I have in the past been paid hourly, biweekly, etc.

It is a stretch to call people slaves, livestock, etc when they are working and exchanging goods and services in a market like ours. Granted there are inequalities, manipulations, and individuals or groups who operate with little morality.

It is a further stretch to blame government for abuses like Abu Ghraib. If 11 or so soldiers commit terrible acts. Does that mean all soldiers are bad? That the government of the country they were from are bad? It just doesn't follow.

The speaker is confused about a lot of things. Democracy is a livestock management approach? What?

Statism is not an excuse for violence. Ignorance and intolerance are. Statism is a general term.

Prison system in the U.S. and the same people who think Abu Ghraib was some horrifying tragedy, you got no clue.

Here's one for all the fans of law enforcement as well-
There is NO police officer in the united states, no corrections officer, no member of any federal law enforcement institution that is not or will not commit a felony during the course of their career. The longer they engage in the employ of the same the more likely they are to perpetrate felonies DAILY.

Uhhh, if you see or know about a felony being perpetrated and don't report it....That's a felony.

It's complicity, and they are ALL criminals. Period.
A person can not perform in these fraternal, criminal organizations without thuggery of any and every magnitude.

and these Corizen pieces of shit....