New Documents Reveal Abuse

[grandpa]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/wo...in&oref=slogin

Newly released documents regarding crimes committed by United States soldiers against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions. The documents, released today by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 cases. They show repeated examples of troops believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.

Yep, the "liberal media" is at it again, citing courts-martial summaries and making America look like a villain.:

But seriously, when will Americans stop believing the troops even know what they are doing anymore? Many of them clearly don't, and why would they? They don't speak the language, this Administration has no clear mission--it's all convoluted. The Iraqi government is all screwed up. It's difficult to tell who is fighting who or what the motives are. A lot of them aren't very bright, either (trust me on this one).

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/wo...in&oref=slogin Yep, the "liberal media" is at it again, citing courts-martial summaries and making America look like a villain.: But seriously, when will Americans stop believing the troops even know what they are doing anymore? Many of them clearly don't, and why would they? They don't speak the language, this Administration has no clear mission--it's all convoluted. The Iraqi government is all screwed up. It's difficult to tell who is fighting who or what the motives are. A lot of them aren't very bright, either (trust me on this one). Grandpa h.

Incdents like these happen in every war. What separates us from the rest is that we prosecute our own.

Quote by: Article Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer was convicted of negligent homicide Among the files released were the court-martial records for two soldiers convicted of assault three soldiers convicted in the “mercy killing” Pfc. James Combs was convicted of involuntary manslaughter Sgt. Ricky Burke was charged with murder

[Jimmy the Pro]

Just because they happen in every war does not mean that makes it okay.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Incdents like these happen in every war. What separates us from the rest is that we prosecute our own.

War tends to spout such incidents like a fountain spouts water. Hence, people oppose war.

"We proescute our own" is partially right. Some of them get punished, but the biggest culprits usually get away.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Jimmy the Pro Just because they happen in every war does not mean that makes it okay.

Oh, but for warmongers it does.

But if you ever do go out bombing, shooting, raping or torturing in a rough neighborhood, just tell people that these things happen all the time. If they don't buy that line of defense, just tell them you were not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

You would essentially be reading from a common script.

Grandpa h.

[bishop]

this isn't very surprising... we've been abusing people since afghanistan, why would we stop now? the small consolation is that the abuse here is being perpetrated by a couple of jaded and confused soldiers - as opposed to being institutionalized via bomb and concentration camp (re: gitmo, abu ghraib).

[Osborn F Enready]

While this isn't right, nor should it be openly acceptable, it is a by-product of war, all wars, regardless of who the participants are.

The United States is much more openly honest, and usually administers very swift justice in most cases, which is more than can be said about many other nations in similar scenarios, but, that is not an excuse, just a little context with which to view what is happening.

War is hell, always has been, always will be. Its the fault of the administration in most cases due to lack of clarity of mission, constraints, intelligence error or a lack of training for the particular mission, in the people performing the missions, due to administrative shortcomings in planning, preperation and execution of the mission.

This war was not lost by military failures, but by military leadership from the Joint Chiefs to George Bush, but mainly Donald Rumsfeld.
I still view the military of the United States as the best in the world, the best trained and equipped in the world, and the most effective fighting force on the face of the planet.

I fault Gramps for attempting to lay blame, any blame, on U.S. troops, when it is clearly the failure of the CITIZENS of the United States who failed to prevent their unchecked, unbalanced government to start a unprovoked, imperial war on Iraq and the abstract image of "terror" in whatever form they "claim" it manifests itself. The blame also lies on the Joint Chiefs, who do their uniform and brothers in arms a disservice by not opposing this war based on the relevant, obvious shortfalls in planning on the non-military side of this diversion into Iraq from Afghanistan.

Thats my opinion.

[prejudged_Fire]

Its the fault of the administration in most cases due to lack of...training for the particular mission

You don't need training to know that it is wrong to kill a person to "put them out of their misery" when they are injured. You shouldn't have to be trained to know they aren't dogs.

[Dieval]

Quote by: prejudged_Fire You don't need training to know that it is wrong to kill a person to "put them out of their misery" when they are injured. You shouldn't have to be trained to know they aren't dogs.

You would think that, but, let me just play devils advocate here.... If someone was injured(not dead), say half of their head is missing and there's no hope for them, isn't it better to "put them out of their misery"?
I'm not saying that this was the actual scenario, as I don't know, but to say that it's "wrong to kill a person to put them out of their misery" in every case may not be very accurate.

[prejudged_Fire]

I still wouldn't kill him. I'd do everything in my power to keep him alive. Maybe the injured person wanted to die, maybe he wanted help. The soldier had no right to make the decision for him.

[Dieval]

Quote by: prejudged_Fire I still wouldn't kill him. I'd do everything in my power to keep him alive. Maybe the injured person wanted to die, maybe he wanted help. The soldier had no right to make the decision for him.

You would try to keep him alive even though, as I said "half of their head is missing and there's no hope for them"? In my scenario, the person is suffering, with no chance of surviving more than say an hour or 2. Would you still try to keep him alive, in pain, and while suffering?

The point I'm trying to make is that there may be mitigating circumstances involved in mercy killings, such as what I described.

[prejudged_Fire]

You would try to keep him alive even though, as I said "half of their head is missing and there's no hope for them"?

If literally half there head is gone, they would already be dead.

In my scenario, the person is suffering, with no chance of surviving more than say an hour or 2. Would you still try to keep him alive, in pain, and while suffering?

Perhaps within that hour or two, I could get him to a hospital. Even if he dies there, I'd rather be able to tell people "I tried to help him by bringing him to a hospital" than to say "I shot him 'cause I figured he'd die soon anyway."

[Osborn F Enready]

prejudged fire said: You don't need training to know that it is wrong to kill a person to "put them out of their misery" when they are injured. You shouldn't have to be trained to know they aren't dogs.

I was not defending any particular action of any particular soldier, and things like this happen... its always terrible, but there are bad apples, as in unstable, and people who are overcome with emotion and adrenaline under extreme stress, and that is something for the courts to find out.

I agree, it seems harsh, but its really hard to say without knowing the context how anyone would react, until they are put in that situation.

War brings about a lot of terrible, and "out of the ordinary" situations, so I find it hard to pass judgement without some serious investigation for context.

just my 2 cents....

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I fault Gramps for attempting to lay blame, any blame, on U.S. troops, when it is clearly the failure of the CITIZENS of the United States who failed to prevent their unchecked, unbalanced government to start a unprovoked, imperial war on Iraq and the abstract image of "terror" in whatever form they "claim" it manifests itself.

Oh, yes. When someone puts on a camoflauge uniform they are absolutely not responsible for their actions.

That's another reason this system is verifiably bonkers. Troops are somehow absolutely above blame for anything.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I was not defending any particular action of any particular soldier, and things like this happen... its always terrible, but there are bad apples, as in unstable, and people who are overcome with emotion and adrenaline under extreme stress, and that is something for the courts to find out.

You say "bad apples." Well I say all the apples are rotten, as is the cart they're delivered in. I'm getting sick of this whole military-worship, "troops aren't morally culpable" attitude.

To me, that's as awful as saying a Muslim's actions should be whatever bin Laden suggests. It's a horrendous form of subservience, which is probably why people cling to it with such tenacity.

In fact, I'm tempted to include the troops among the biggest culprits (they are, after all, dropping the bombs and coordinating much of the chaos).

Grandpa h.