Presumably most people are aware that just after the publication of the pictures of American troops torturing Iraqi prisoners, the Daily Mirror in the UK published pictures of UK soldiers urinating on Iraqi captives, Saturday morning.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/frontpages/ The definition of the pictures was extremely good it struck me, with every drop of urine twinkling in the flashlight. By Saturday evening there were strong hints from UK military and establishment sources that their authenticity was in question. Certain details of the uniform were not, it was said, customary for that regiment, the clothing looked too clean etc. This morning the Mirror stands by the overall story but shades its world exclusive by saying that the soldiers who provided the pictures say they are authentic and emphasising a beating. My guess is that this leaves the Mirror, which was a passionate opponent of the war, convinced that there is a real story here, but keeping open the possibility that the picture was a re-enactment by disgusted members of the regiment of something that actually happened. Even though the imperialist philosophy of the British contingent to the Coalition, is that they are much better at peacekeeping than the Yanks, two bits of evidence make me believe the stories. 1. A couple of years ago I met a man in his thirties on a language course whose job involved preparing British armed forces to withstand torture. So they had to bark humiliating orders at them and keep them awake a long time and cold etc. One of the techniques was to to mock them sexually. I remember thinking at the time that presumably this was regarded as psychologically very stressful and intrusive but would not cause actual injury. 2. A few weeks ago a group of half a dozen British detainees were released from Guantanamo and told their stories. A very credible mature islamic prisoner described how female prostututes were used to masturbate younger male prisoners, who appeared to be very disturbed by this abuse of their religious principles and sense of personal identity. The older prisoners would joke about this, but to the younger prisoners it was actually rape. These bits of evidence suggest that within the British army and the US army, rape and sexual humiliation in its various forms is considered not really torture but a softening up process particularly suitable for muslims, who are considered to be rather backward sexually. It leaves out of the picture what the military intelligence actually do to prisoners, once they have encouraged the squaddies to have a little bit of fun with them. It seems entirely credible that within certain sections of the British army photographs of a similar nature have been circulated. This probably provides a cover for more serious torture. Either way it is a disastrous imperialist strategy in the 21st century. Chris Burford London
