Hope U.S. soldiers don't get railroaded

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.

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

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

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

In article ,
wrote:

In article ,
on Fri, 14 May 2004 07:45:20 -0400,
George Z. Bush am 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.

From: Tank Fixer
Date: 5/21/2004 8:47 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: t

In article . net,
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

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)

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

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.

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