American Torture in Iraq

[wmw999 2,534]

It's never as black-and-white at the time as it is later, when you have more information. If it is, then either you're only in very simple situations, or you choose to look at them as black-and-white.

In retrospect, with time, less adrenaline, and the judgement from that situation, it's a lot easier to figure out what was right.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

If you have reason to believe otherwise and that there might be civilians in the house instead, however, the order might be questionable.

  Quote

And what if your commander didn't honestly believe that, and told you to fire because he didn't care if there were insurgents or civilians in the house, but you didn't find that out until later?

See my quote at the top.

That doesn't address my question. You don't have any reason to believe otherwise. You find out after the fact.

If you found out after the fact that your Commanding Officer ordered you to fire at a house when he knew it was full of civilians and not combatants then it would be your duty to report it. Does that answer it?

[PhillyKev 0]

Yes, it does. Now is it really that much of a stretch to understand why Kerry, or any other soldier, would act in the way they were told to, and shown by those who were in country before them, and then later realize, after the terror and uncertainty of combat realize that what they were doing, what everyone was doing, was wrong? And then take responsibility, admit what they did, and try to stop it from continuing?

[pajarito 0]

The bottom line is that, in the haze of war, mistakes will be made. However, if one willingly breaks the rules of engagement, they can be held accountable. Even if they are just following orders. And if their superior willingly breaks the rules of engagement and orders you to act illegally, it is your responsibility to report it.

[pajarito 0]

No....because you should know the rules of engagement before you go into action. No matter what your rank is. We were, in some cases, even required to carry around a card in our pockets declaring in detail what the rules of engagement were.

[dgskydive 0]

  Quote

The conclusion I draw from this that the whitehouse (understandably most might say) simply kept schtum in the hope that it would all blow by without anyone noticing. Once it became obvious that the cat was out, of course then comes the time to make a statement.

Then that is speculation on your part. The military does things differently.

I am sure they would have rather that nobody knew about this at all. Do you really blame them for that?

Also this is a sensitive issue for them. How would they look if they jumped to conclusions about who or why this was done. Then they are double screwed. Not only did it happen but they don't know who and why for sure.

Dom

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Then that is speculation on your part. The military does things differently.

I am sure they would have rather that nobody knew about this at all. Do you really blame them for that?

Also this is a sensitive issue for them. How would they look if they jumped to conclusions about who or why this was done. Then they are double screwed. Not only did it happen but they don't know who and why for sure.

EXACTLY!!!

[dgskydive 0]

  Quote

No....because you should know the rules of engagement before you go into action. No matter what your rank is. We were, in some cases, even required to carry around a card in our pockets declaring in detail what the rules of engagement were.

That is exactley why the staments made by the guy in charge of those soldiers are so ridiculous. These guys are MP's they know what is and isn't exceptable treatment of POW's. They train for that there entire carrer in the Army. This guy knew what he was doing was wrong and should be thrown in jail and the key should be shoved up his ass.

Dom

[pajarito 0]

Absolutely.... The MP's probably know the rules better than anybody out there.

[pajarito 0]

Gotta go. Be back later. Interesting discussion.

[PhillyKev 0]

Free fire zones were defined by the DoD and part of the official ROE during Vietnam. They violated the Geneva convention. Kerry followed the ROE, and when he got home found out they were illegal.

[mr2mk1g 10]

  Quote

Then that is speculation on your part

Yes it is. That's why I didn't say it 7 pages ago. You equally speculated that the reason they delayed 2 days was because they were still trying to sort out who did what. I think that is far less plausable given they already had over a month's notice in this matter.

Besides, they did not have to (and haven't) come out with any conclusions, simply that they condemn torture and that this issue is being looked into. Instead they ignored questions asked 2 days ago in the hope no one would notice. Of course - like I said, that eminently understandable if not particularly worthy of praise.

[Gravitymaster 0]

  Quote

>If simply bringing up Kerry's own words and pointing out his own
>assessment of his own actions is crucifying him, I'd suggest it is you
> who is looking desperate.

  Quote

Ya know, you lived in the wrong age. Would that you could have lived in the '70s and spit on vets as they returned, instead of having to wait so long to vent your ire.

And moderators shouldn't be engaged in personal attacks.


>BTW I explained the comment about Kerry's wifes tactics. I noticed
> you never commented. Could it be because there would be no
> opportunity to use if for political fodder?

  Quote

Call whoever you like a whore. I am not worried that people will decide that's OK because you have a really really good reason. Your words speak for themselves.

Please post where I used this word. It is your word not mine. Moderators shouldn't make personal attacks. I'm done. You are really looking desperate.

• Quote

[dgskydive 0]

  Quote

Yes, it does. Now is it really that much of a stretch to understand why Kerry, or any other soldier, would act in the way they were told to, and shown by those who were in country before them, and then later realize, after the terror and uncertainty of combat realize that what they were doing, what everyone was doing, was wrong? And then take responsibility, admit what they did, and try to stop it from continuing?

Yes it is a stretch. Especially in this day and age. I joined in 1989. When you first join the military you are requiered to learn your General Orders (help me out here Pajarito). They talk about basic duties and how a soldier will follow the "LAWFUL ORDERS" of their Superior Officers. It has been so long since I had to remember them. It is very clear to a new soldier what you can and can't do to a POW. It is made very clear how to treat them. Plain and simple...... you treat them with as much respect and humanity as possible. If they try and hurt you or your fellow soldier than you can knock the crap out of them until they are under control again. Hell that is just self defense at that point.... but if they are compliant and not posing a threat to you well, you treat them better then they treat your buddies that may be a POW. This is also part of winning hearts and minds.

Dom

[crzjp20 0]

take a look at the defenation of a personal attack, i dont think that qualifies.....

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[PhillyKev 0]

And most of those rules came about AFTER Vietnam thanks to the efforts of people like Kerry. Duriing Vietnam there weren't printed cards with the ROE, there wasn't yearly classroom training regarding the Geneva convention, there wasn't much of anything done to educate soldiers about the the international laws of warfare. There were arbitrary ROE that changed on an almost daily basis. Rules such as being allowed to burn down and kill the occupants of a village if they are ordered to surrendur (in English) and don't if you suspect that they may be harboring rebels.

1989 is a far cry different from 1969 thanks to people like Kerry who took the effort to change things for the better.

[livendive 8]

  Quote

When something like this happens, heads roll all the way up the chain of command.

Well, not ALL the way. You can rest assured Rumsfeld and Bush will be properly shielded.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

  Quote

No - the Army brass knew all about this some time ago. The news, was not news to them, don't present speculation as knowledge.

Not just the Army brass. According to this article, Scott McClellan said that Bush has known about it for a while as well.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[dgskydive 0]

  Quote

Yes it is. That's why I didn't say it 7 pages ago. You equally speculated that the reason they delayed 2 days was because they were still trying to sort out who did what. I think that is far less plausable given they already had over a month's notice in this matter.

No disrespect is ment to you with what I am about to say. So, please don't take it that way.

Your speculation is based on what? Only what you think you know. Only what it appears to be. You have no foundation for your idea that they just wanted to cover it up and hope nobody noticed. Appearances are not always what they seem.

My statment is based on almost 10 years service in the U.S. Military and a understanding of how the Military works and why it works that way.

You said that they had already had a month to figure out who is involved. That doesn't mean anything. A month is a very short time to figure out who was involved. The Military will be very meticulous when it comes to finding out why and who is responsible. You are just assuming that since they have pictures of these soldiers it is a done deal. They know who it is. That is not the case. Nothing is that Black and White. The Military wants to know, did they do this on there own? Did they act under the orders of there commanders? Did the "CIVILAIN CONTRACTORS" order them to do this? Is the NCO in charge telling the truth when he says he was encouraged to keep doing this? By Whom?

All this taakes time to sort out. Of course everyone is going to try and cover there ass and point the finger. The Military has an obligation to protect the innocent as well.They don't want to rake someones name through the mud if they didn't have anything to do with it. It would really suck for people to be named and find out later that they had absolutley nothing to do with it at all.

The Media doesn't care about htings like that. They just want the story. Be damned if they name someone that had nothing to do with it. Once your name comes up in something like this. It will follow you forever even if you are found innocent later on.

As an example of how the miltary worries abou tstuff like this. Myslef and another soldier where accused of Arson while I was stationed in Germany. The owner of a bar said that my freidn and I had used the bathroom above his bar and then we left. About 10 or 15 minutes after we left the place went up in flames! Burnt right down to the ground. The first thing anybody said was "The two Americans went up there! They started the fire." One guy said he even saw us come out of the bathroom and smoke was already coming out of one of the stalls.

We did go to the bathroom, He may have seen smoke as well. I was smoking a cigarette when I was coming out of the bathroom. But did I start a fire? HELL NO I DIDN'T!!!!!! After a full investigation by the Military and the German Authorities they concluded that the fire didn't start in the bathroom after all. It was started in a room down the hall by some one that let a cigarette fall onthe floor that was still burning. When he hears people outside start saying it was the Americans, he played along so he didn't get in trouble.

The Military wouldn't allow our names to be released to the public. In fact all they would say was there was a fire and the possiblity that it was two Soldiers that started it was under investigation. Thanks God they didn't release our names. They whole post would have been alive with Gossip and the Germans would have wanted to hang us fromt he highest tree they could find.

Dom

[mr2mk1g 10]

No disrespect taken.

Do you seriously think that 2 days really make that much difference in a time scale of months to come up with a statement which says: "we condemn all forms of torture and this matter is being investigated as we speak"?

I simply do not buy it and I would be surprised if anyone else did, whether they be connected to the military or not.

[dgskydive 0]

[dgskydive 0]

  Quote

Well, not ALL the way. You can rest assured Rumsfeld and Bush will be properly shielded.

Of course they will. First of all Rumsfeld is in charge of Homeland Security (I still don't like that phrase) So he is not responsible for the actions our soldiers take in a far away land.

As far as Bush goes. I agree he is charge of our country. But should he pay for the willfull misconduct of a few idiots? If it is found that this is an established policy and these soldiers where following that policy set forth by the President, then yes he should be held accountable. You prove to me where that is the case with cold hard facts and I will agree with you 100%.

Dom

[Gawain 0]

  Quote

Of course they will. First of all Rumsfeld is in charge of Homeland Security (I still don't like that phrase) So he is not responsible for the actions our soldiers take in a far away land.

As far as Bush goes. I agree he is charge of our country.

Well, Ridge is in charge of Homeland Security (I don't like the phrase either), Rumsfeld is in charge of Defense.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[dgskydive 0]

  Quote

Do you seriously think that 2 days really make that much difference in a time scale of months to come up with a statement which says: "we condemn all forms of torture and this matter is being investigated as we speak"?

I simply do not buy it and I would be surprised if anyone else did, whether they be connected to the military or not.

Dude when you are dealing with issues such as this, I am sure at times one extra minute can make a big difference. We as people want to know the whole story right NOW! That is not always the best thing for anybody involved. Sometimes less is more.

Dom

[dgskydive 0]

  Quote

Well, Ridge is in charge of Homeland Security (I don't like the phrase either), Rumsfeld is in charge of Defense.

OOPS! I stand corrected! I knew that! Still the statment I made about Bush goes for Rumsfled as well.

Doesn't "Homeland Security" sound like some NAzi term or something?

Dom