Americans, are you still proud of your soldiers?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The part you just mentioned.

Colin Powell agrees with me.

possibly i'm misunderstanding your stance on the GC. Could you paraphrase what Colin Powell said or better yet provide a link?

[Ted Striker]

*sigh*

How many freaking times do I have to go over this? It's in Gonzales' memo. He says Powell disagrees with him.

But if you want, here is the exact memo Powell gave to the President, in his own words, where he specifically addresses the issue:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999363/site/newsweek/

He gives two options:

1) Not Applying the Geneva Conventions to the conflict
2) Applying the Geneva Conventions to the conflict

Option 1) There is 1 pro, it takes up a paragraph. There are many cons, and it takes up half of a page to describe them all. All of the things Powell said would happen are true.

Option 2) The pros take up several paragraphs, the single con takes up one measly paragraph.


Sorry, I trust Colin Powell's opinion on the matter, not yours, and DEFINITLEY not Bush's, and ESPECIALLY not that sellout twit Gonzales.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Verto
Most of our soldiers are trash whose true nature would disgrace our country. All this myth about the redblooded 'murcan heroes is for the most part, bull****. The low pay of the military serves to attract the least qualified, least educated, and least intelligent America has to offer.

I have a four year B.Sc. from America's best public University system. My pay while in Iraq was $50k per year which doesn't sound like a lot but remember I didn't have to pay any taxes so I'd have to make around $80k per year back in the states to get the same take home salary. I'll also have to take exception to your claim that most of the people weren't well educated since all of the NCOs & officers had college degrees and about half had advanced degrees while about half of the lower enlisted in my unit had degrees while the other half were 20 year olds who were in the process of getting their degrees.

OF course Psyops is part of special ops but by in large its not to far off from the rest of the service. In closing I'd say the only one whose not well educated or well informed in this case is you.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Verto
If Job A pays 4 dollars, and Job B pays 40, which do you think the best and brightest will pursue, for the most part?

Job A will be filled by whatever dregs remain. The US military is staffed with a minority of intelligent people, and a majority of mediocre personnel.

You'd actualy have a point if you had any clue about how much people actually get paid. Take base salary, adjust it for time in service, adjust it for combat pay, adust it rank, adjust it for BAQ, adjust it for family seporation pay, adjust it for jump pay, adjust it for language pay, and then make it so he doesn't have to pay taxes. The end take home pay is fairly decent especially if you consider you get free college and food out of it too.

[Drake Tungsten]

Does he have a history of being a troll?

Yep. Almost as bad as mine...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
the fact we are publicizing their conduct, investigating it, and prosecuting them for it would tend to suggest we're accepting a higher level of responsibility.

Except that:
- The U.S. army is not publicizing it. The report was leaked.
- The U.S. army tried to cover up the murders, by lying and saying the murders had not occurred.
- The invstigation found evidence that 27 people should be put on trial. Only seven have been charged. Can we scapegoats.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
There are standing orders on the handling of prisoners by US forces.

U.S. soldiers tortured prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

At least one innocent Afghan man was beaten to death.

So what exactly where the standing orders.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You mean the ones investigated, reprimanded, and who had their careers ended for doing so, although it was clear they had no specific knowledge that the soldiers attacked were friendlies and no intent to kill or attack friendlies?

I mean the pilots who disobeyed a series of standing orders designed to ensure that pilots do not bomb friendlies. The pilots who ignored information that told them there were friendlies in the area. The pilots who lied about what happened.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
They ****ed up, they were negligent, and they paid with their careers and pensions, despite good and lengthy prior service records.

They were allowed to retire and lost their pensions. Do you really think that is much of a penalty for killing four people?

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Who says they won't be? The investigation board is not a general court martial convening authority, nor is it a prosecuting authority under the JAG. There is a judicial process to be followed in charging any individual under the UCMJ for any general court martial offense. There are also strategic and tactical considerations in all intelligent prosecutions (trials are time consuming and expensive), and selectively prosecuting some at the front gives you leverage for effective plea bargains at the end.

Plea bargains take place during an investigation or after a person has been charged. So why the seven-month delay in charging these people.

And when the NYT began to investigate the story and began interviewing people in the military, lo and behold four more people are charged.

More importantly, these crimes leave a major black stain on the US military. It is for that reason that all 27 soldiers and/or officers should have been charged and given their day in court. Only in doing that would the US military send a clear signal that the torture of prisoners would not be tolerated.

Seven months have passed since the investigation was completed. If it had not been for the NYT story, all of this would have been swept under the carpet.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Your whole argument is we shouldn't be upset because somebody else did something much worse?

Are you in the habit of getting upset when someone in Ohio commits aggravated assault and is then processed through the Ohio criminal justice system?

We're disclosing what happened, we're investigating what happened, we're changing personnel and procedures, and we're prosecuting people. So what exactly is the problem? Should it have happened in the first place? No. On the grand scale of things, in view of every other policy decision and every other event on the ground in those two ****holes, and in view of every other potential threat against the US, is this an issue to get bent out of shape over under the present circumstances of disclosure, investigation and prosecution? No.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Except that:
- The U.S. army is not publicizing it. The report was leaked.
- The U.S. army tried to cover up the murders, by lying and saying the murders had not occurred.
- The invstigation found evidence that 27 people should be put on trial. Only seven have been charged. Can we scapegoats.

The info is out, correct? The killings are known facts, correct? The investigation board issue has already been answered in my previous posts.

U.S. soldiers tortured prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

At least one innocent Afghan man was beaten to death.

So what exactly where the standing orders.

Violated.

I mean the pilots who disobeyed a series of standing orders designed to ensure that pilots do not bomb friendlies. The pilots who ignored information that told them there were friendlies in the area. The pilots who lied about what happened.


They were allowed to retire and lost their pensions. Do you really think that is much of a penalty for killing four people?

Not particularly, but then I'm not privy to all the evidence or the claimed defenses, which included fatigue, excess flying hours over time and pilots being expected to take speed to maintain the flight schedule. What was clear is that there was no specific intent to kill friendlies. What wasn't clear was whether the pilots genuinely thought (however incorrectly) they were attacking hostiles. The pilots' states of mind and soundness of mind under the specific circumstances is a tough legal issue. You want blood for the four dead, but the legal issue is a bit more complex.

Plea bargains take place during an investigation or after a person has been charged. So why the seven-month delay in charging these people.

The investigation boards' actions and conclusions are independent of a prosecutor's actions, conclusions, and procedural constraints. Like I said already, the pace of the military criminal justice system isn't a lot different than the pace of the civilian criminal justice system, especially when cases are made off of complex investigations, not arrests in the act.

And when the NYT began to investigate the story and began interviewing people in the military, lo and behold four more people are charged.

So the NYT has a work schedule, and the Army JAG prosecutors have work schedules.

More importantly, these crimes leave a major black stain on the US military. It is for that reason that all 27 soldiers and/or officers should have been charged and given their day in court. Only in doing that would the US military send a clear signal that the torture of prisoners would not be tolerated.

More importantly, there is nothing to indicate how many will or will not ultimately be charged, and prosecutors have an obligation to investigate indpendently and to make their own judgments as to whether the evidence is sufficient to lead to a reasonable chance of conviction for the offenses charged.

Seven months have passed since the investigation was completed. If it had not been for the NYT story, all of this would have been swept under the carpet.

Whatever gets you through the night, dude.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Are you in the habit of getting upset when someone in Ohio commits aggravated assault and is then processed through the Ohio criminal justice system?

We're disclosing what happened, we're investigating what happened, we're changing personnel and procedures, and we're prosecuting people. So what exactly is the problem? Should it have happened in the first place? No. On the grand scale of things, in view of every other policy decision and every other event on the ground in those two ****holes, and in view of every other potential threat against the US, is this an issue to get bent out of shape over under the present circumstances of disclosure, investigation and prosecution? No.

I'm sure the international community mirrors the EXACT thought process and investigation into these incidents that you just laid out.

All they hear is Americans at it Again and our standing goes down yet ANOTHER notch.

And on top of that, the memo I just laid out which sets the policy for crap like this to happen.

These incidents are extremley damaging to our international efforts, as Powell said they would be, before all of it went down.

[Tingkai]

MTG: You say that justice will be done, but we have seen numerous instances where the U.S. military has not lived up to the standards of justice.

Look at the pilots who killed the Canadian soldiers. The investigators found ample evidence that these men should be tried, and yet, they were never tried in an open court, only "punished" in an adminstrative review. That denied the victim's family a chance to hear the full truth of what happened. It also denied the pilots a chance to publically state their version of what happened, particularly the effect that drugs had on their decision-making processes.

So justice was not done for the victim's families nor for the pilots.

Then there was the case of the Marine who shot and killed a wounded, unarmed Iraqi prisoner. The U.S. military has decided that he will not be charged, because the soldier acted in "self-defence". The problem in this case is not whether justice was done, but whether justice was seen to be done, which is just as important.

With the two killed in the Afghan prison, army investigators conducted a shoddy investigation and closed the case even though the coroner's report said the men had died of blunt trama, consistent with being run over by a bus.

"While the proposal to close the case was ultimately rejected by senior officials, documents show that the inquiry was at a virtual standstill when an article in The New York Times on March 4, 2003, reported that at least one of the prisoner's deaths had been ruled a homicide, contradicting the military's earlier assertions that both had died of natural causes. Activity in the case quickly resumed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/international/asia/22abuse.html?hp&ex=1116820800&en=a70edd940c4374d9&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The latest NYT article details the delays in the investigation.

There is evidence of repeated attempts to sweep these deaths under the carpet.

The information is out only because of the work done by the NYT, proving once again the value of freedom of the press in the United States.

[dannubis]

i wonder what the reaction will be if ever an american soldier was to be captured and beheaded on tv...

oh the outrage... no more apathy...