Talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports

Note: to see older talk prior to the refactoring of this set of articles, please see Talk:Abu Ghraib prison

Great job splitting the page! This is turning into a professional-grade article. Congrats to all for working together so well on this. Quadell 12:24, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. -- The Anome 12:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is just my proposition. If you disagree, just revert. SweetLittleFluffyThing

The apology issue

Cut from article:

Bush ... however did not say he was sorry nor offered an apology.

This statement assumes that he ought to apologize, which is a point of view held by many. It would be more encyclopedic to identify which advocates hold this point of view. Is it human rights advocates generally? Or opponents of the US-led invasion? Or domestic political opponents (i.e., Democrats)?

Something like:

John Kerry and other prominent Democrats blamed Bush and Rumsfeld for the abuses, asserting that "the highest authorities" could have stopped the torture if they wanted to, but that they clearly either did not care or actively promoted it. (sample only, don't paste this in that article!!); or,
Several US reporters, Mr. X, Ms. Y, and Mr. Z (who had earlier tried to get Bush to apologize for 9/11) also tried to get Bush to apologize for the prisoner abues.

On the other hand, didn't I read something recently about how Bush and/or Rumsfeld DID apologize several times for the recent prisoner abuse? Help me out, someone. This event is unfolding faster than I can keep track of it. --Uncle Ed 18:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Bush apologized to the King of Jordan for the abuse photos last week [1]. I'm not sure why the King of Jordan was specifically chosen to receive the apology, other than that he happened to be around for an official visit, but I'm no foreign policy expert. Saucepan 18:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point was that if things have gone so babdly Bush goes on "Arab" TV to try to gain hearts and minds, to give a PR mea maxima culpa, a literal mea maxima culpa is par for the course. But it didn't happen, and the Whitehouse acknowledged that, claiming it was enough so many had done it in his stead. By the time the flamingly obvious dawned upon them, that it was NOT enough, it was far too late (IMO). 142.177.21.215 20:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Almost cardiac arrest

The article quotes someone as saying that a prisoner was hit so hard in the chest that he almost went into cardiac arrest... is that a meaningful statement, medically? Is there a state akin to "almost cardiac arrest"? Some specific rhythm or something? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:24, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. People "almost go into cardiac arrest" when they drink copious amounts of Red Bull. It's not a good way of phrasing it. - Mark 15:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

§ It has recently been discovered that a blow to the chest, and not necessarily a very hard one, can cause death by interfering with the heart's own "pacemaker" at just the right instant in its sequence of actions. This discovery was reported in, among other praces, Science News about a year ago. So it is possible that somebody suffered a temporary heart stoppage and the heart had to be restarted. P0M

I am aware of the phenomenon, note that I did not question the possibility of a blow to the chest leading to cardiac arrest. However, if the prisoner's heart stopped, I'd call that being IN cardiac arrest, not ALMOST being in cardiac arrest, so I'm not sure that this condition is relevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:50, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think you are referring to commotio cordis / myocardial contusion which we should have an article on if we haven't got one already. -- The Anome 15:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

§ I would not expect medical precision from whatever combination of observers and reporters contributed the information to the original report. I was just suggesting that it's more likely that language was imprecise than that the report is fundamentally wrong. There's no way to tell for sure without going to a more fundamental level, the level of competent medical personnel who may have been on the scene. P0M 21:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

§ Just checked. The info comes from Hersh's article and reports the words of the whistle-blower, Specialist Joseph M. Darby, an M.P. Who knows what his level of medical expertise may be. P0M 22:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do the US soldiers' actions constitute torture?

Most of this section is spent providing analysis as to what looks or doesn't look like torture. Like a high school research report. The analysis of the author should be removed and replaced by factual reporting. i.e. these statements & conclusions should be attributed to somebody besides the Wiki author or they should be removed. Mdchachi|Talk 19:20, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The author does give a partiuclar definition of torture at the beginning of the section, so I don't think it's that much of a problem. It would be good to cite the POV's of some authoritative sources on what the treatment of the prisioners constituted, though. Cadr

The International Committee of the Red Cross said that the abuse was "in some cases tantamount to torture." Dpbsmith 20:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentagon just admitted that the acts violated the Geneva Convention, so that's something. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:20, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Is the word "scandal" NPOV?

Oh, all right, it's a rhetorical question...

The U. S. press is now generally using the word "scandal" to describe the prison abuse incidents. However, the definition of "scandal" (AHD4) is:

1. A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society: a drug scandal that forced the mayor's resignation. 2. A person, thing, or circumstance that causes or ought to cause disgrace or outrage: a politician whose dishonesty is a scandal; considered the housing shortage a scandal. 3. Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace. 4. Talk that is damaging to one's character; malicious gossip.

That is, "scandal" concentrates attention on the disgrace of the person engaging in the scandalous behavior, and is usually used in the context of sexual misconduct (Senator Wilbur Mills caught with a stripper in the Tidal Basin; Bill Clinton not having sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky), bribery (Albert Fall taking bribes to give Harding's cronies Teapot Dome leases), etc. It seems to me that "scandal" trivializes the offense and concentrate attention on it as an embarrassment to the United States, rather than as a crime committed against the victims.

We certainly would not talk of the "Black Hole of Calcutta scandal" or the "Auschwitz scandal" or even the "Japanese-American internment camp scandal" (Abu Ghraib not being comparable to the first two examples, but perhaps to the third—particularly if the Red Cross estimate that 70-90% of the prisoners were innocent civilians is correct.) Dpbsmith 20:50, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]