Hope U.S. soldiers don't get railroaded

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

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.

From: "George Z. Bush" am

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

From: "HiC"
Date: 5/13/2004 4:17 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
nk.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

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

(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.

(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

"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 he "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.

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.

From: "George Z. Bush" am


"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