Tony Lagournais (Military Intelligence, Abu Ghraib 2004) explained, "Picking up people on hunches and suspicions... any kind of hunch these units had, they would act on and arrest people."

Brigadier General Janis Kaprinski

"Most of (the prisoners) were guilty of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, they don't have any information. Well, according to them, at that time, it was about seventy-five to eighty percent of the people being brought in (who) really didn't have any information of any value or any information at all about terrorism." (Brigadier General Janis Karpinski 2003-2005, the commander of military police in Iraq.)

"They took me and kept me for seven months with my children and I don't know why I was being imprisoned. I asked, what are you accusing me of? They said that I was making explosives, and explosive charges. And that's all. I don't know more than that. What proof do you have against me? Nothing! Just some denunciation from some neighbor." ("Omar Rashid," Abu Ghraib 2003)

As we know, Armenian propaganda levels the charge that Ottoman officials arbitrarily arrested — and executed — Armenians, simply because they were Armenian and a "Final Solution" plan was in effect. The propagandists attempt to discredit the fact that the Armenian community as a whole had become "belligerents de facto, since they indignantly refused to side with Turkey," as Boghos Nubar flatly admitted in early 1919. But what is a government to do when a minority sides with the enemy, especially in a life and death war? As we can see from the U.S. example, insurgents need to be rounded up. The way to round up insurgents relies upon the quality of the available intelligence.

Abu Ghraib prison

When suspected terrorists were arrested in their homes in the Ottoman Empire, no doubt they were sometimes treated roughly. Armenian propaganda reminds us such harsh treatment is another indication of the brutality of the Turks. But let's see how what we regard as the more civilized Americans, known as advocates of human rights, behaved in more recent and enlightened times:

"We saw the Americans storm into the house. They ordered us out with their rifles, 'Out, out!'... They put the women and children on one side and us on the other. It was about 9 p.m. It was cold. The kids were crying, terrified of the way they stormed in. They had dogs. Not to mention the things they broke. The things they took from the house -- gold and money. They took me and my father, may he rest in peace, my uncle and my cousin... They tied our hands behind our backs and left us sitting i the street for everybody to watch. This is the beginning of what happened to me." (Testimony of Iraqi prisoner "Mohammad Talai," Abu Ghraib 2003-2004)

Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, in reference to the prisons the Americans were trying to restore and reopen, commented:

"We requested resources and assistance many times, almost on a daily basis, sometimes practically pleading for resources... There was no plan for anything."

And this is from a very wealthy nation where resources did not go wanting, with all the time in the world to make plans and contingency plans. (The decision to attack and its timing came entirely from the USA, after all.) Compare with a desperate Ottoman government with weak central command, with limited resources and wealth, and needing to deal with a highly dangerous situation in a small span of time.

Sabrina Harman, Military Police

The program continues:

"He was telling us how the guy was praying, a mortar came and killed a bunch of prisoners." (Sabrina Harman, Military Police, Abu Ghraib 2003-2004.)

"Abu Ghraib turned out to be the most attacked U.S. division in Iraq."

"The road outside the prison was the most dangerous road on the planet earth. You have more fatalities on that road... more shots fired on that road than any road in the world. You can be walking to your barracks, "eeuuuuuu... boom. Ohh, man. Incoming, incoming. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy." (Javal Davis)

Despite what Armenian propaganda tells us, there were certainly no plans to commit ethnic cleansing upon the Armenians forced to hit the road; most would eventually die of non-murderous reasons, such as famine and disease, the same causes claiming the lives of most of the 2.5 million other Ottomans who died. The massacres that took place were mainly committed by lawless bands, mainly from Kurdish tribes. In the U.S. example, we also had casualties upon prisoners that were under the care of the U.S. authorities, committed by forces that were out of control. Imagine anyone telling us the Iraqi prisoners were killed deliberately by the Americans, in collusion with the ones firing these bombs.

One of the soldiers interviewed on the program related, "You had the general population of prisoners, which were basically a huge mass of humanity, thrown into a mud pit, surrounded by concertino (barbed) wire... And then there was (a section, Tier 1B) where they had the woman and children."

Many of the transit camps the Armenians were herded off to, with the ultimate destination being villages, also suffered from very poor conditions. The difference: there was no "concentration camp" style barbed wire enclosing the Armenians. Many were allowed to travel back and forth from the nearest towns.

"The spouses or sisters or cousins of high volume[?] detainees that were being used as, okay, we have your sister, we have your wife, you know, you can turn yourself in. The same thing with the little children... Why do we have a nine-year-old in prison? It's crazy." (Javal Davis)

Armenian propaganda often asks us, why were the women and children included for the resettlement ride? The answer, of course, is that it was the families that provided the support system for the traitors betraying their nation; boosting their morale, feeding them, sometimes producing the ammunition, and even joining in the fight.

As Morgenthau's ghost writer quoted Enver Pasha in "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story": "The Armenians had a fair warning," Enver began, "of what would happen to them in case they joined our enemies.... My warning produced no effect and the Armenians started a revolution and helped the Russians... You must understand that we are now fighting for our lives at the Dardanelles and that we are sacrificing thousands of men. While we are engaged in such a struggle as this, we cannot permit people in our own country to attack us in the back." When Morgenthau wondered why the innocent should suffer, Enver is supposed to have replied, "...[I]n time of war we cannot investigate and negotiate. We must act promptly and with determination."

The difference in the two cases here is the innocent Iraqi women and children were being held as leverage against the prisoners of Abu Ghraib.

The program continues to fill in the rest of the story. Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld was frustrated in not getting results at Abu Ghraib, in contrast to prison operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the U.S. kept "high-value detainees." Major General Geoffrey Miller was in charge, of whom Mark Danner, author of "Torture and Truth" remarked: "What he cares about is getting results... using harsher interrogation techniques." Alfred McCoy (Author, "A Question of Torture") claimed: "General Miller at Guantanamo turned Guantanamo from a conventional US military prison that would abide by the laws of war into a kind of ad hoc behavioral laboratory for the introduction, the use of extreme techniques."

Rumsfeld's Dec. 2, 2002 action memo demonstrated his approval of many extreme techniques, such as solitary confinement, noise, light, dark, etc.; in other words the utilization of sensory disorientation. The program tells us, "In August 2003, eight months after Rumsfeld gave his approval for harsher interrogation tactics at Guantanamo, General Miller was sent to Iraq. The Administration's official position was that the Geneva Conventions applied there."

"A month later, General Sanchez issued a new memo, officially rescinding some of the techniques he had just approved."

"There were so many changes in policy... it was kind of confusing." Roman Krol (Military Intelligence, Abu Ghraib 2003) Another soldier, Ken Davis, further explained: "It was never clear to me what was allowed and what wasn't allowed in Iraq; no one can ever make anything clear to me... no one could answer questions for us."

Here is another interesting parallel with what was taking place regarding the movement of the Armenians; instructions would keep changing as events transpired. As an example, a few months into the process, Catholic and Protestant Armenians would be exempted. Armenian propaganda, in an attempt to make it seem as though there was a big extermination plan in effect, points to the failures of the process as "proof" of genocide. (For example, massacres took place, and this would become the pre-planned crime of the Ottoman leaders. No mention of the Ottomans having changed the routes in response, to minimize the possibility of further attacks.) It is only natural that all the answers would not be resolved at the outset of an operation, particularly one of colossal magnitude, a process involving the movement of hundreds of thousands of people.

The soldier Ken Davis elaborated: "Early on in October, (Corporal Charles) Graner was forced... he said M.I. and O.G.A. are making me do things I feel are morally and ethically wrong. What should I do? And I looked at him, and I said, don't do it. He goes, I don't have a choice."

In other words, the old "I was only following orders" bugaboo, which presents grave conflict to every soldier (whose inherent purpose, after all, is to obey). Further:

Ken Davis

"Get a little bit of power; ahh, you know what, this feels pretty good, actually. You get a little bit more power, wait a minute, I need more, I'm addicted to this power, and it just starts building and building and I believe that's what Graner had; he got free rein from people, and got all this power, and youi're not going to turn the reins back over, it becomes who you are, it becomes what you are known for."

Fellow witness Israel Rivera commented, "It reminded me of... 'Lord of the Flies'. You know, that animalistic, that dark element in each of us that is just brought out. It's just a matter of, y'know, (when) all the elements are right."

Prisoner "Mudhaffar Subhi" gave an insider's view: "After one or two in the morning, Graner and his buddies would bring four or five guards and start torturing prisoners as if they were having a party. He would hang people by their hands in positions that aren't bearable for even five minutes. The inmates would start crying. He would hang five or six in different positions. After a half hour or an hour, all of them were screaming together. Then he would walk by and say, 'Now that's the kind of music I like to hear.'"

This documentary had a nice finishing touch, including footage from the famed 1965 film of Stanley Milgram's, "Obedience," where experiments demonstrated our susceptibility to authority. It's easy to paint black and white images of Nazis, but the uncomfortable fact is that the Nazi exists in each of us... and it is only our individual strength of character that determines how far we are willing to go. Who can argue with Javal Davis' summation:

"War is not pretty, war is not nice, oh well. After a while,you become numb, you zone it out. Everyone did."

Harman poses with what she thought was just another dead body

There was one clear-cut case of death resulting from torture at Abu Ghraib, according to Scott Horton, Chairman of the Committee on International Law (NYC Bar Association). Military Policewoman Sabrina Harman, thought the victim was a man who had died of a heart attack, and took a picture.

Ken Davis clarifies: "The CIA put him on ice and tried to get him out on a stretcher with IVs to cover up a murder. But has anyone been brought to trial for that; no. But Graner and Sabrina was charged with those pictures. That, to me, is ridiculous. We won't charge the murderer even though it's ruled a homicide, but we'll charge you for taking the pictures and exposing that a murder happened here. I don't understand. There's a hole in this investigation... that says cover-up."

We're getting to the Number One parallel between the backward Ottoman Empire, and the civilized and modern United States. Crimes were committed during wartime. How were perpetrators punished?

We know of Abu Ghraib because one of the M.P.'s, Specialist Joseph Darby, decided to release the pictures that were taken. We are told the story broke during the spring of 2004, on the television show 60 Minutes and magazine, The New Yorker. The military responded by addressing all personnel at Abu Ghraib, threatening them to surrender all "prohibitive items" (photographs, videotapes, etc.), with the incentive that there will be no legal consequences. Rumsfeld endangered Darby's life by exposing his identity on national television, when the deal required him to remain anonymous.

The brass tried to explain the embarrassment by stating there were a few bad apples within the ranks. For example, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt was shown stating, "Those soldiers let us down. They simply let us down." The Defense Deparment's numerous investigations concluded the Abu Ghraib abuses were "never officially sanctioned or approved." An "animal house on the night shift" is the way Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger put it in in his 2004 report.

Scott Horton classified the governmental response as "conscious disinformation." "Bureaucratic virtuosity in the handling of a scandal," is the way Mark Danner put it. He explained that uneducated prison guards would not have been able to come up with sophisticated and well known interrogation techniques, such as "The Vietnam," developed in Brazil.

On one hand, we can understand the government's reluctance to punish those "really" responsible. The nation is at war, and to focus on the criminal actions of the government would undermine morale.

Talat Pasha

In fact, this was Talat Pasha's very explanation regarding why those who had committed crimes against Armenians were not prosecuted in fuller force:

"An endeavor to arrest and to punish all these promoters would have created anarchy in Anatolia at a time when we greatly needed unity. It would have been dangerous to divide the nation into two camps, when we needed strength to fight outside enemies."

Let's keep in mind, however, that the abuses at Abu Ghraib represented only one example. There were no doubt similar abuses carried out in other prisons and detention centers, and the Middle Eastern prisoners were generally looked upon as less-than-human. As Javal Davis wisely summed up:

"If there were no photographs, there would be no Abu Ghraib, there would have been no investigations; it would have been, okay, whatever. Everybody go home."

The contemptuous attitude on the part of the U.S. government and military remained firmly in place. Other than being informed at film's end that the featured prisoners were all released without charge after up to five months' detainment, we are further told:

"In October 2006, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, further eroding the rights of prisoners guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions."

Meanwhile, new research has updated Kamuran Gurun's ("The Armenian File") figure of 1,397 Ottomans tried for crimes against Armenians to over 1,600, a finding that impressed the generally Turk-unfriendly German publication, “Die Welt.” Hundreds were jailed, and perhaps 67 were executed. (Admiral Chester wrote of "twenty Ottoman officers to be put to death for permitting acts of cruelty against the Armenians in 1915.")

As known examples, Vehip Pasha tried and executed a few of the perpetrators of a massacre in Sivas; Jemal Pasha also convicted and hanged two officers for a massacre near Urfa.

On one hand, the USA addresses crimes committed in wartime by laying blame upon scapegoats and pawns; on the other, the Ottomans levied more than a few examples of the highest form of punishment. Even one such example would have shaken up the truth of a government-sponsored extermination policy (especially in a world that had already been pre-disposed to look at the Turks as killers, thanks to the preponderance of propaganda, mainly concocted by Wellington House; in other words, the Turks were dead ducks regardless, and had nothing to prove).

For those who say Abu Ghraib can not constitute grounds for the severe punishments doled out by the Ottomans (since a few murders and cases of torture cannot compare to massacres of hundreds or thousands), we can always go to My Lai as a more direct parallel. In that case, only one soldier was punished, and his punishment was three days' imprisonment, before house arrest.