Don't get mad, it's for our troops

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:45
VIEWED: 14196
PAGE 6 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

JASONZZZ

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's say we have a group of USA Christian missionaries traveling to Pakistan. They get caught up at a checkpoint, somebody doesn't like their papers, and they get their *sses tossed in jail until whenever. While in jail, they're stripped, forced to have sex, set upon by dogs, beaten, and a few are killed.

What in blazes are the Christians (USA or otherwise) doing in Pakistan? I say they must have been up to no good. Trying to pass off a herd of lies to otherwise honest people - trying to get them to turn over their land and gold. I say feed them to the lions.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Are we likely to be telling ourselves, "Well, Pakistan is a violent and confusing place and those guards are doing the best they can suppressing terrorism" or "You know, that's really not so bad, ALL of them could have gotten killed" or even "They were in jail so they must have been guilty"? I think you already know the answer to that question, and some of you no doubt are thinking RIGHT NOW of ways to say "Well that's different!"

No, I said "let's feed them to the lions"

JASONZZZ

Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...
...
Perhaps there was an attempt at a revolt, in which case I would have fully supported shooting from watchtowers....
...

Finn... the shooting from the tower has been known to be a guard mixing up ammo clips. The guard mistakenly used live ammo instead of the crowd control ones.

In either case, I agree that - after seeing some of the other earlier riots where the al-qaeda suspects were able to get ahold of weapons cache and took over the detention centers. It should be standing policy to quash disturbances as quickly as possible.

ZORIAH

Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:35 AM

Extremist fanatics and terrorists who have been proven to have committed atrocities such as rape and murder and torture should be punished to the full extent of international law. No arguments there.

But what we are dealing with here are US soldiers/reservists who are representatives of the coalition which was supposed to be liberating Iraq, freeing its civilian population from tyranny and inhumane treatment. These were meant to be the GOOD GUYS, the people who are meant to stand for what is good and right about democracy and western civilization. You know, the upholding of the rights to freedom and liberty and such. And yet we find them committing acts and engaging in behavior that is not only abhorrent and sadistic but it also undermines what the US led invasion was supposed to be trying to achieve.

Isn't it hypocritical to deplore acts of inhumanity by terrorists/extremists while condoning those same evils to be used against others as long as they aren't our people?

It seems that people are making the *erroneous* assumption that all detainees held or brought to these detention centres are confirmed terrorist extremists who have important intelligence value to the coalition:

Check out these excerpts from Taguba's own report http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=3474

1. (S/NF) MG Miller’s team recognized that they were using JTF-GTMO operational
procedures and interrogation authorities as baselines for its observations and
recommendations. There is a strong argument that the intelligence value of detainees held at JTF-Guantanamo (GTMO) is different than that of the detainees/internees held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and other detention facilities in Iraq. Currently, there are a large number of Iraqi criminals held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). These are not believed to be international terrorists or members of Al Qaida, Anser Al Islam, Taliban, and other international terrorist organizations. (ANNEX 20)

33. (S/NF) The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have
routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) [CIA]
without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their
detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib
called these detainees “ghost detainees.” On at least one occasion, the 320th MP
Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs [CIA] that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive,
contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law. (ANNEX 53)…

A summary on Taguba's report on the abuse allegations
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,250496,00.html

Major-Gen Taguba authored the Pentagon report on the abuse that found numerous 'sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses' at the prison near Baghdad.

At the Pentagon's insistence, Under Secretary of Defence Stephen Cambone, who is in charge of intelligence, and other Pentagon officials also appeared with Major-Gen Taguba to testify on the scandal that has sparked international outrage.

Major-Gen Taguba said, however, that the abuse carried out by a few soldiers was not system-wide.

'At the end of the day, a few soldiers and civilians conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside the bounds of international law and the Geneva Convention,' he said.

His report revealed 'numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses' against prisoners.

It said military intelligence officers told guards to give detainees rough treatment to facilitate interrogation, leading to the abuses.

And how about the comments of the US' own lawmakers after viewing 1,600 more abuse image and clips today?:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=WORLD&oid=50897

WASHINGTON - Members of the U.S. Congress saw new ima

JASONZZZ

Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:41 PM

I agree with everything that you have quoted, that you typed, how you interpreted, and most everything you said in this last post 100%.

These are a few people MPs, and MIs types. But what do you think cause the problems at this particular site, while in at least 2 other sites, things were perfectly fine and even markedly outstanding - despite the common theme of lack of training, low morale, complete breakdown of discipline? They are people after all. What do you think led them to this? My take is that they slipped into their role - eventhough they continued to do what they thought were "their duty", that they continued to do what they were told are their responsibilities - because there were mix-ups as to who their chain-of-command were, and because those two civilian contractors kept feeding them suggestions on things to do.

One of the soldiers accused and pictured, Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick was quoted in one of his letters home:

Quote:

"I questioned some of the things I saw, such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell. And the answer I got was, this is how the military intelligence wants it done."

It's easy to look at this as wrong to an outsider - I am not condoning this or rationalizing this as ok, I am simply suggesting how something like this could have happened - but if you are working in a place where most people around you are saying "f* this shit, I should have been home 6 months ago"; on top of that, you keep telling your superiors that you think something is wrong, but they don't understand what's going on; you keep questioning what you are doing because you really don't know what's going on (lack of training), there's no procedure and everyone around you are just inventing up new things to do everyday. People stopped wearing uniforms and there is no saluting (no military discipline). You toil day after day in the baking heat. I would suggest that without the training and the discipline, these folks just went into a very suggestive mode, simply slipped into the roles of what they have seen in the media and movies as "prison guards" coupled with the stimuli from those two civilian contractors and

what you see is what you have today.

ZORIAH

Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:08 PM

Yes I agree that discipline was allowed to become too lax, with the uniform issue etc. The lines were blurred in terms of the chain of command. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to just who was calling the shots and the role of MI in this particular prison. There is evidence that other detention facilities have had problems with detainee abuse (Bacca?) but Taguba also pointed out incidences in other centres where illegal and undisciplined behavior was reported and rectified.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 14, 2004 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
Isn't it hypocritical to deplore acts of inhumanity by terrorists/extremists while condoning those same evils to be used against others as long as they aren't our people?

Well, assuming that I am condoning everything that has been reported to have happened at Abu Ghraib by American soldiers, I don't see how it would even remotely be close to being the "same evils" conducted by our enemies. So even in that instance, I don't see anything hypocritical about what I've said.

But I am not necessarily condoning it. I said on several occasions that I believe the incidents at Abu Ghraib may have gone too far, and these people should be punished. But that’s not something you’ll ever see our enemy doing, as they proudly use knives to pry the heads off civilians on national tv. And I think that some people need to recognize that. There is no moral equivalence between us then them.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 14, 2004 12:47 PM

Well, we usually don't air our dirtiest laundry on TV since we claim to be morally superior, but we've done things that are just as bad, and worse. Abu Ghraib is not the sum total of every bad thing that we've done in Iraq, and if we were to expand the scope under consideration I'd be hard-pressed to construct a case for us being the good guys.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 14, 2004 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, we usually don't air our dirtiest laundry on TV since we claim to be morally superior, but we've done things that are just as bad, and worse. Abu Ghraib is not the sum total of every bad thing that we've done in Iraq, and if we were to expand the scope under consideration I'd be hard-pressed to construct a case for us being the good guys.

Actually we air our dirtiest laundry even when we desperately try not to. These photos seeping out of Abu Ghraib are clear evidence of that.

So let get this right, you would be hard-pressed to construct a case for us being the good guys even though you have no evidence of any such actions that are “just as bad, and worse.” In other words, you are going to stick to a preconceived unfounded anti-American notion regardless of any evidence? (Incidentally, this is not a rhetorical question or one meant to offend.)

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Friday, May 14, 2004 1:34 PM

We disagree on virtually everything, Succotash, which is why I almost never read your posts. But your rhetoric is coming dangerously close to the sort that cause my uncle to be shouted at, spat upon, and pelted with rotten tomotos when he came home from Viet Nam. You obviously hate the president and hate the war. And that's fine. But you damn well better separate that hatred from from the soldier/sailor/ariman/marine. Because none of us asked to go over there. Our government told us to go, and like good service men and women, we went. Don't you dare presume that the servicemembers are the ones driving this war. Aim your vitriol at the political system, not the military.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

SHINY

Friday, May 14, 2004 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
We disagree on virtually everything, Succotash, which is why I almost never read your posts. But your rhetoric is coming dangerously close to the sort that cause my uncle to be shouted at, spat upon, and pelted with rotten tomotos when he came home from Viet Nam. You obviously hate the president and hate the war. And that's fine. But you damn well better separate that hatred from from the soldier/sailor/ariman/marine. Because none of us asked to go over there. Our government told us to go, and like good service men and women, we went. Don't you dare presume that the servicemembers are the ones driving this war. Aim your vitriol at the political system, not the military.

My reading of 'Tash's post gave me the impression that he *was* attacking the political system/president/administration and their attempt to deflect criticism/debate by claiming criticism of the leadership/government is somehow attacking our troops/putting them in danger/not supporting the troops/etc. It may be true that 'Tash also does not support the military/the troops, but I didn't see evidence of that from his post(s) in this particular thread.

FWIW, I'm aiming my vitriol directly at the Bush (mis)administration. I always have and always will support our men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to protect our freedom and our way of life. I just think *we* dishonor *them* by unjustly sending them to war/invasion/occupation under false pretenses.

Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE