Re: Hope U.S. soldiers don't get railroaded

[B2431]

>From: (HiC)

>
>Regarding the Iraqi prisoner scandal, whether the actions of the
>soldiers was right or not - and I don't believe nearly enough of the
>facts have been brought to light to make an informed judgement - does
>anyone believe that any of this could have possibly happened without
>the knowledge and consent of superiors?

I don't doubt the knowledge, with or without consent, went at least as far as
brigade. It doesn't excuse the abuses. I hope everyone in a position to put a
stop to it gets the maximum allowed under the UCMJ.

>I don't buy the "lack of training, discipline" etc. line. I believe
>they were doing what they were told to do.

Lack of discipline leads to things just like this. A disciplined soldier would
not have done such a thing. One of the very first thing they teach you in mil
law is you are NOT to obey an unlawful order. Every GI from basic trainee
general knows this.

>Does anyone believe worse wasn't done during WWII? It seems throwing
>men into a mortal combat situation and then judging them by armchair
>standards is a mistake.

Much worse was done in WW2 on all sides but that doesn't excuse what happened
this year.

Guarding and transporting prisoners is not "mortal combat" by any stretch of
the term. None of us veterans are armchairing, we all know the limits under
Geneva and UCMJ.

Join the military branch of your choice and learn.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (HiC)

>
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
>
>> That will come out at trial but the knowledge of or even
>> orders from a superior are no defense. All soldiers
>> are REQUIRED to disobey illegal orders and there
>> is no excuse for the behaviour portrayed.
>
>That's assuming they knew the orders were illegal. How many soldiers
>are so intimately familiar with the UCMJ, Geneva Convention, etc. that
>they can second guess what a military court is going to back them on?
>Plus, standing where you are, it's easy to say "they should have..."
>Theory is one thing, actually trying to buck authority in the field is
>another. The military is not set up to protect do-gooders and
>whistleblowers. And if they make a stink, disobey direct orders and it
>turns out they were wrong? They're hosed.
>
>
>> > Does anyone believe worse wasn't done during WWII?
>>
>> nor were they tortured
>> or deprived of sleep as part of an interrogation.
>
>Sure they weren't.

Assuming the GIs in question are MPs the answer to that is very simple. They
were taught handling of prisoners in AIT. At the very least they knew from
basic to comport themselves as soldiers. They lacked the self discipline shown
by the others of the sam ranks who did not abuse the prisoners.

If just ONE of the people in their chain of command were familiar with Geneva
and UCMJ they shouldn't have allowed it to continue. Evidently there was no
discipline in the chain of command and and pinitive actions should be taken as
far up the chain of command as needed.

You may never have served in the military, but I have and I expect much more
from servicemen than I do from civilians who never served.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired.

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"

<snip>

>I guess my memory is failing me once again.....I thought the invalidity of
>the
>"I was only obeying orders" defense was in the context of needlessly and
>deliberately killing detainees in their custody, not in merely humiliating or
>degrading them.
>
>(Snip)
>
>George Z.

The "ve ver only volloving orders" defense didn't wash for the Nazis who didn't
kill anyone either. Take a look beyond the big Nuremburg trial with Goering
etc.

In any event if humiliation is is against the law you, as a GI, are required
to disobey an order telling you to humiliate. They taught you that in
basic/OCS/ROTC.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "HiC"
>Date: 5/13/2004 4:17 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>> They flat screwed the pooch.
>> Anyone who has been through basic training KNOWS they shouldn't do what
>> these soldiers documented themselves doing.
>
>Bull****. I went through basic, and prisoner treatment/interrogation was
>never covered. "Disobeying a direct order" was though.

Remember mil law? They told you to disobey or contravene unlawful orders.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "John Keeney"

>
>"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
...
>> "a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on
>> detainees;
>
>> Are you arguing that a U.S. soldier, specifically an MP, would not
>neccessarily
>> know that the above were illegal?
>
>What the heck would be "illegal" about that?

If your prisoner is from a villiage where high tech means a mule cart and you
tell him the stuff you are putting on him is radioactive I can see where
someone would say it was illegal. The prisoner may fear for his life.

As far as I know the chemical components of the light sticks are non toxic.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

Vince Brannigan >
wrote:

>In this case it is not clear if facts or conviction were the key goals
>but The belief by some interrogators that a few minutes physical torture
>will extract truth is widespread
>
>Vince
>

I'd think that most would know that the
harsher the torture the more the victim would
try to convince the torturer that he was
getting what he wanted.

I suppose anyone inhuman enough to engage in
this practice likely doesn't have the mental
wherewithal to realize that it's not very
successful in garnering truth.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Baudrillard]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "John Keeney"
>
> >
> >"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on
> >> detainees;
>
> >> Are you arguing that a U.S. soldier, specifically an MP, would not
> neccessarily
> >> know that the above were illegal?
> >
> >What the heck would be "illegal" about that?
>
> If your prisoner is from a villiage where high tech means a mule cart and you
> tell him the stuff you are putting on him is radioactive I can see where
> someone would say it was illegal. The prisoner may fear for his life.
>
> As far as I know the chemical components of the light sticks are non toxic.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Same can be said of toilet plungers in New York. The real trick if
one is worried about Osama Bin Laden's press cutting library, is not
to give the impression that surrender is a fate far worse than death.
One could go to a town, show the Abu Grabh photos to potential
recruits, tell them it has to be to the bitter end, they would look
back, end of induction process.

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"

>
>"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on
>> > detainees;
>>
>> > Are you arguing that a U.S. soldier, specifically an MP, would not
>> neccessarily
>> > know that the above were illegal?
>>
>> What the heck would be "illegal" about that?
>
>Without beng a lawyer, my guess is that phosphoric liquid is a form of
>phosphoric acid, and to pour acid on a human being might be considered some
>form
>of assault or mayhem under the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions notwithstanding.
>
>George Z.

When light sticks first came out I used to open them and pour it over my hands
and tell people we were in special ops experimenting with nuclear weapons. The
stuff is harmless. We also used to pour it on the ramp to mark parking areas.

The only dangerous part is the broken glass.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

(Mike Baudrillard)
>Date: 5/14/2004 6:35 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: "John Keeney"
>>
>> >
>> >"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on
>> >> detainees;
>>
>> >> Are you arguing that a U.S. soldier, specifically an MP, would not
>> neccessarily
>> >> know that the above were illegal?
>> >
>> >What the heck would be "illegal" about that?
>>
>> If your prisoner is from a villiage where high tech means a mule cart and
>you
>> tell him the stuff you are putting on him is radioactive I can see where
>> someone would say it was illegal. The prisoner may fear for his life.
>>
>> As far as I know the chemical components of the light sticks are non toxic.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>Same can be said of toilet plungers in New York.

Are you serious? The toilet plunger was rammed up the guy's anus causing
physical as well as psycological damage.
Hardly the same thing by any stretch.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Keeney]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "John Keeney"
>
> >
> >"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on
> >> detainees;
> >
> >> Are you arguing that a U.S. soldier, specifically an MP, would not
> >> neccessarily know that the above were illegal?
> >
> >What the heck would be "illegal" about that?
>
> If your prisoner is from a villiage where high tech means a mule cart and
you
> tell him the stuff you are putting on him is radioactive I can see where
> someone would say it was illegal. The prisoner may fear for his life.

Hmm, perhaps as a question of scaring him rather than actually doing
something to'm.

> As far as I know the chemical components of the light sticks are non
toxic.

Yep, I've got a couple of issue samples right here: "non-toxic and
non-flammable".
I've had a bit of the stuff on me and even consumed small amounts
-I try to avoid that on general principles- and even though the
package says "may permanently stain clothing" I've not even had
that problem.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "John Keeney"
> wrote:

> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid
> > > > on
> > > > detainees;
> > >
> > > > Are you arguing that a U.S. soldier, specifically an MP, would not
> > > neccessarily
> > > > know that the above were illegal?
> > >
> > > What the heck would be "illegal" about that?
> >
> > Without beng a lawyer, my guess is that phosphoric liquid is a form of
> > phosphoric acid, and to pour acid on a human being might be considered
> some form
> > of assault or mayhem under the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions
> notwithstanding.
>
> It's not being a "lawyer" you'ld need to worry about, George.
> The stuffs a binary agent that when mixed together (by breaking
> the inner tube by bending the whole works) emits light. No
> readily detectable heat, I don't recall any odor to speak of
> and non-toxic. It is kind of sticky.
> I've gotten a bit on me from time to time.
>
The original ones were derived from luciferin and luciferinidase, the
light sources of the firefly. I don't know current contents.

I have worked with phosphoric acid, which is not phosphorescent. White,
but not red, elemental phosphorus will glow. Trust me -- if you get
white phosphorus on you, there is no need to get either a lawyer,
pathologist, or bartended to determine there was an assault.

[B2431]

>From: "HiC"


>Isn't the President "required" to get a vote from congress about going to
>war? Ever heard of Vietnam?

Ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? How about the War Powers Act?

The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican, Civil War, Spanish - American war,
WW1 and WW2 were the only wars the US ever declared under the Constitution.
Between 1776 and 1976 the U.S. was involved in almost 60 armed conflicts only 6
of which were declared wars.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Fred J. McCall
>Date: 5/16/2004 9:21 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"HiC" > wrote:
>
>:"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>:
>:> > And we all know that in the military, everything is always done
>:> > exactly the way it's "supposed" to be done....And no nation ever
>:> > cheats on treaties, the President of the US never lies, Oswald was the
>:> > lone assassin, and of course officers would NEVER order or condone the
>:> > abuse of POW's.
>:
>:> Hey, why'd you snip that part about the *requirements* for IET and annual
>:> refresher training on these subjects? Facts tend to upset you, eh?
>:
>:It's all part of the same concept, just because it's "required", doesn't
>:mean it gets done. As I pointed out, my friend who's in the reserves never
>:receives any of this "required" training, nor did I when I was in my active
>:duty unit.
>
>Well, either that or neither one of you was paying attention (which I
>find much more credible, frankly). You were probably busy trying to
>stack your subordinates into a naked human pyramid or something.
>

Or else he was never in the military.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (HiC)

>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>
>> > It's all part of the same concept, just because it's "required", doesn't
>> > mean it gets done. As I pointed out, my friend who's in the reserves
>never
>> > receives any of this "required" training, nor did I when I was in my
>> active
>> > duty unit.
>>
>> Yeah, right... I served in two different active duty units and four reserve
>> component units--all received the required training. Your friend needs to
>> square away his unit (though that he is an NCO, thus having attended BNCOC
>> and ANCOC, and still claims he has not received this training is *very*
>> suspicious...). Sorry, but I am not buying this, "Our units operated beyond
>> the pale of regulations and training requirements..." bit. Nor am I buying
>> into a claim that an *MP* unit had never received training regarding the
>> proper handling of EPW's, either.
>
>I don't know what the MP units did or didn't do. I do believe that
>some senior officers and very likely way up higher than them knew what
>was going on. Now everyone is scrambling to deny culpability.
>
>I'm not making the same mistake as a couple of you and making broad
>claims that I know for an absolute fact what goes on in each and every
>unit in the armed forces because it's in a reg book somewhere. I
>stated what my experience was (or wasn't) and even called a longtime
>buddy who's remained in the reserves and therefore figured would be
>more current on what's going on. He related similar experience.
>
>That fact that we were in the band might have something to do with it,
>I don't know.

Just to remind you: your secondary MOS was infantry. Are you going to tell us
they didn't even teach you the Code of Conduct in basic either?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
wrote:

> In article >,
> on Fri, 14 May 2004 07:45:20 -0400,
> George Z. Bush attempted to say .....
>
> >
> > "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> > ...
?
> >
> > Without beng a lawyer, my guess is that phosphoric liquid is a form of
> > phosphoric acid, and to pour acid on a human being might be considered
> > some form
> > of assault or mayhem under the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions
> > notwithstanding.
> >
>
> The liquid in "chem" lights is non-toxic. It will not burn or damage
> exposed
> skin other than to make the individual glow in the dark.
>
> I can imagine that someone not familiar with chem lights might think it
> would be harmful, especially if they were led to believe it is


The original ones used luciferin and luciferinidase, the active
ingrediets of the taillight of a firefly. There are now some synthetic
varaints.

This reaction does not at all involve the glow of elemental phosphorus.
Phosphoric acid doesn't glow -- since it's a major component of soft
drinks, supermarkets wouldn't need as much lighting. Anyone remember the
19th century term for what we call sodas today? "Cherry phosphates"

To get into the weeds, the luciferin reaction, IIRC, does involve energy
transfer with an adenosine diphosphate-adenosine triphosphate reaction,
but that's present in about every cell of your body.

[B2431]

>From: Tank Fixer
>Date: 5/21/2004 8:47 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article et>,
> on Thu, 13 May 2004 09:17:59 GMT,
> HiC attempted to say .....
>
>>
>> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>
>> > They flat screwed the pooch.
>> > Anyone who has been through basic training KNOWS they shouldn't do what
>> > these soldiers documented themselves doing.
>>
>> Bull****. I went through basic, and prisoner treatment/interrogation was
>> never covered. "Disobeying a direct order" was though.
>>
>
>You missed the part about illegal orders then I guess.

Tank, after reading this fool's comments and responses I have my doubts about
his ever having served.

There is absolutely no way this guy could have gone through basic/OCS/ROTC etc
without at least a couple of hours of mil law.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Gord Beaman]

Ed Majden > wrote:

>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/
>>
>Why do I get an NBC News page that is blank when I go to the above web
>address???????

Comes up instantly for me Ed (...unlike most of my efforts...) :)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[B2431]

>From: Abrigon Gusiq
>Date: 5/31/2004 9:59 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>General in Japan, I forget his name, proved that even if you are not in
>command of troops, they are in your area, you are responsible for them..
>
>Something to do with command intent or ..
>
>Mike
>

Yama****a was hanged for that.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
wrote:

> In article >,
> on Mon, 31 May 2004 18:59:55 -0800,
> Abrigon Gusiq attempted to say .....
>
> > General in Japan, I forget his name, proved that even if you are not in
> > command of troops, they are in your area, you are responsible for
> > them..
> >
> > Something to do with command intent or ..
> >
>
> Gen Yamashima <sp>
> Manila, Philippines 1945
> Special Naval Landing Troops ran amoke killing civilians.
> He was tried and hung post war.

And, in my opinion, a travesty of justice. Yama****a had declared Manila
an open city, not to be defended and risk civilians. RADM Iwakune
(IIRC), the SNLF commander, "declined to obey" and made a battleground
of Manila. Yama****a had no means to compel obedience, although he
generally tried to keep order with respect to Filipino citizens that
could be affected by troops under his control.

There are some questions about Yama****a's command in Malaya, but it is
fairly clear that he tried to protect Filipinos. MacArthur wouldn't
allow Yama****a and Homma even to be sent to the biased Tokyo trial,
but essentially held his own tribunal with a foregone conclusion.

If the doctrine by which Yama****a was executed were applied
consistently, Westmoreland would at least have been in for the same
prison term as Calley.

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>> Tank Fixer wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > on Mon, 31 May 2004 18:59:55 -0800,
>> > Abrigon Gusiq attempted to say .....
>> >
>> >> General in Japan, I forget his name, proved that even if you are not in
>> >> command of troops, they are in your area, you are responsible for
>them..
>> >>
>> >> Something to do with command intent or ..
>> >>
>> >
>> > Gen Yamashima <sp>
>> > Manila, Philippines 1945
>> > Special Naval Landing Troops ran amoke killing civilians.
>> > He was tried and hung post war.
>>
>> That'd have been Gen. Yama****a and Gen. Homma as well. Along with
>> acknowledging their responsibility for the action of the troops under
>their
>> command even if those actions had not been reported to them, Yama****a's
>major
>> crime seems to have been that he'd whipped McArthur's ass in the
>Phillippines
>> at the outset of the war with far less troops than McArthur had at his
>disposal.
>
>George/Hal, your grasp of military history is about as keen as your grasp of
>what constitutes a violation of UN Res 687-- Yama****a was nowhere *near*
>the PI "at the outset of the war".
>
>Brooks

Wasn't he on his way towards booting the Brits out of Singapore at the time?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Tank Fixer wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > on Mon, 31 May 2004 18:59:55 -0800,
> >> > Abrigon Gusiq attempted to say .....
> >> >
> >> >> General in Japan, I forget his name, proved that even if you are not
in
> >> >> command of troops, they are in your area, you are responsible for
> >them..
> >> >>
> >> >> Something to do with command intent or ..
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Gen Yamashima <sp>
> >> > Manila, Philippines 1945
> >> > Special Naval Landing Troops ran amoke killing civilians.
> >> > He was tried and hung post war.
> >>
> >> That'd have been Gen. Yama****a and Gen. Homma as well. Along with
> >> acknowledging their responsibility for the action of the troops under
> >their
> >> command even if those actions had not been reported to them,
Yama****a's
> >major
> >> crime seems to have been that he'd whipped McArthur's ass in the
> >Phillippines
> >> at the outset of the war with far less troops than McArthur had at his
> >disposal.
> >
> >George/Hal, your grasp of military history is about as keen as your grasp
of
> >what constitutes a violation of UN Res 687-- Yama****a was nowhere *near*
> >the PI "at the outset of the war".
> >
> >Brooks
>
> Wasn't he on his way towards booting the Brits out of Singapore at the
time?

Yep.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ярослав&]

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > on Mon, 31 May 2004 18:59:55 -0800,
> > Abrigon Gusiq attempted to say .....
> >
> > > General in Japan, I forget his name, proved that even if you are not in
> > > command of troops, they are in your area, you are responsible for
> > > them..
> > >
> > > Something to do with command intent or ..
> > >
> >
> > Gen Yamashima <sp>
> > Manila, Philippines 1945
> > Special Naval Landing Troops ran amoke killing civilians.
> > He was tried and hung post war.
>
> And, in my opinion, a travesty of justice. Yama****a had declared Manila
> an open city, not to be defended and risk civilians. RADM Iwakune
> (IIRC), the SNLF commander, "declined to obey" and made a battleground
> of Manila. Yama****a had no means to compel obedience, although he
> generally tried to keep order with respect to Filipino citizens that
> could be affected by troops under his control.
>
> There are some questions about Yama****a's command in Malaya, but it is
> fairly clear that he tried to protect Filipinos. MacArthur wouldn't
> allow Yama****a and Homma even to be sent to the biased Tokyo trial,
> but essentially held his own tribunal with a foregone conclusion.
>
> If the doctrine by which Yama****a was executed were applied
> consistently, Westmoreland would at least have been in for the same
> prison term as Calley.


How long did Calley spend behind bars? I don't think Calley actually
did any prison time. He got clean away with it.

[Peter Skelton]

On 7 Jun 2004 12:48:53 -0700,
(Ярослава) wrote:

>Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > on Mon, 31 May 2004 18:59:55 -0800,
>> > Abrigon Gusiq attempted to say .....
>> >
>> > > General in Japan, I forget his name, proved that even if you are not in
>> > > command of troops, they are in your area, you are responsible for
>> > > them..
>> > >
>> > > Something to do with command intent or ..
>> > >
>> >
>> > Gen Yamashima <sp>
>> > Manila, Philippines 1945
>> > Special Naval Landing Troops ran amoke killing civilians.
>> > He was tried and hung post war.
>>
>> And, in my opinion, a travesty of justice. Yama****a had declared Manila
>> an open city, not to be defended and risk civilians. RADM Iwakune
>> (IIRC), the SNLF commander, "declined to obey" and made a battleground
>> of Manila. Yama****a had no means to compel obedience, although he
>> generally tried to keep order with respect to Filipino citizens that
>> could be affected by troops under his control.
>>
>> There are some questions about Yama****a's command in Malaya, but it is
>> fairly clear that he tried to protect Filipinos. MacArthur wouldn't
>> allow Yama****a and Homma even to be sent to the biased Tokyo trial,
>> but essentially held his own tribunal with a foregone conclusion.
>>
>> If the doctrine by which Yama****a was executed were applied
>> consistently, Westmoreland would at least have been in for the same
>> prison term as Calley.
>
>
>How long did Calley spend behind bars? I don't think Calley actually
>did any prison time. He got clean away with it.

This is the best i could find on short search

From
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/myl_bcalleyhtml.htm

In the end, he only served only days in Fort Leavenworth, before
being transferred back to Fort Benning, where he was placed under
house arrest. His sentence was repeatedly reduced. Finally, he
was pardoned by President Nixon. He was paroled in November,
1974.


Peter Skelton