[Skunk]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Fair enough, Skunk. Let me try and revisit it from another angle. Which nation do you feel would be the benchmark when it came to operational transparency, particularly in this kind of situation and with respect to treating hostages? Without making any excuses for this kind of appalling behaviour (we're shocked about it in OZ too) I'd like to see where you think the US ranks in the operational transparency scale, particularly with respect to comparable militaries worldwide (eg the UK, Germany, France, Russia, China, etc).

I couldn't speak for the standards of other western states - I havn't personally witnessed any abuses by other forces during my time in the British army.

I have certainly seen a number of detainees after they had been injured falling down the stairs in single-storey detention blocks and have been troubled by the number of prisoners who had walked into doors during my time in Northern Ireland. I only witnessed injuries sustained after the event - not the actual events themselves mind you.

However, things *did* improve and civilians were given access to lawyers etc. - making these abuses more and more difficult to carry out.

I don't think that the United States treats POW's any better or worse than any other western nation - the treatment of uniformed combatents appears to have been comparable to that of the British - generally good.

What we are seeing here though is a unique situation. The prisoners currently being held are not classified as POW's by the US - and as such, the rules of conduct laid down by the Geneva convention are being treated as guidelines - but not law. Furthermore, since they are being treated as criminals (but without any judicial system to provide oversight), there is a lot of room for abuse.

The United States did provide a mechanism for oversight in the prisons - they allowed the Red Cross to make regular inspections. Under normal circumstances, that should have been sufficient. However, the Red Cross's complaints were *not* addressed by senior officers - leading to the mess that US now finds itself in.

Clearly then, the failure lies in the senior commanders responsible for the prisons to answer the complaints of the the Red Cross as much as the Lynndie England's who carried out the abuses (if not more so).

Yet since no senior officers have been actually charged and placed under arrest (despite negligently failing to follow up the Red Cross's complaints), one can't help but muse upon the idea that the problems arising from this affair are far deeper and more structural than Rumsfield has been willing to admit. A couple of wrist slaps from those who were really responsible, and a couple of court-martials for a few low ranking scapegoats is not the kind of 'transparency' required to solve this problem.

Is the US any worse than other countries in this respect? Hard to say - no other country has found itself in such a unique situation for more than fifty years - except Britain. And Britain currently has a black cloud hanging over it at the moment too.

But are comparisons really relevant anyway? The United States is a democracy, a country where the principles of freedom and human rights are enshrined in its constitution and lovingly taught to its children. Shouldn't the only standards that matter be the principles that Americans are raised to believe in and follow at home?

Shouldn't the standard of treatment of foreign detainees be no worse than domestic detainees? Isn't that the only comparison worthy of making?