View Full Version : Abuse of Iraqi prisioners....
Ezmartini
2 May 2004, 15:37
I'm not sure whether what the soldiers did was against UCMJ or not, but I think we must respect the Iraqis' culture nonetheless. We can't humiliate them or force them to strip naked and make a pyramid (if that is indeed true) and have the majority of Iraqis still like us.
natedogg42
2 May 2004, 15:58
I will follow order and UCMJ but... if I was in a position to change policies...
Shoot to kill, stack like linkin logs in the middle of some "hotbed of violence" and let em serve as a reminder not to **** with us. You can't change the opinions of the ones already fighting us...this stupid ass hearts and minds game has to end before it is allowed to kill any more US/Coalition soldiers.
CDThardass
2 May 2004, 17:30
Prisioners are just that, prisoners, when leaving the OBJ place them a little to close to the burn hole, yell fire in the hole three, and burn the sons of bitches... jk, do not do that, bad for moral.... i think that what this women general had happen under her nose is UNFORGIVABLE, she should be sent down to private 1st class.... UN BELIEVABLE..... as for the EPWs, i say that we need more MPs to take care of that problem, because that is their job after all
wow, that is a lot of rambling, sorry
Hmm... so much for voting before reading the topic. I said 'shoot them on sight', but that doesn't really answer the question, does it?
Fine, then, to the question... I'd go for the mind games. Good interrogators can work a lot out of people with mental stuff... I'm not a fan of torture or whatever this shit that just came out is. Of course, I'm also a fan of the 'shoot to kill' mentality. I also think we should go back to the old Arabic system of justice... find somebody fuckin' around? Chop off their damned hand, see how fast they pick up a rifle again.
natedogg42
2 May 2004, 22:19
Damn Gambit....you're smarter than you look....:)
natedogg42
2 May 2004, 22:20
That hippie-ish drawing fortunately misleading.
kinda makes ya miss the old days when wars were fought under the terms of unconditional surrender
Ok, just to clear everything up. This is two questions: The poll and then the question I asked in my post.
Gambit: The tazer we had worked well... didn't make the mess that cutting their hands off would.
mindgames, sure. Physical abuse? no.
Gambit: The tazer we had worked well
*twitch*
jehgunnz
3 May 2004, 11:07
search silence segregate safeguard speed to the rear.
i'll make my soldiers act f*cking robotic to the epws. They'll be inanimate cargo that needs to be moved. No kicking, epw crawling or any other weird unconstructive shit.
The MPs, my respect for them went down a notch but nevertheless, epws should be their job, not mine or my CA soldiers.
natedogg42
9 May 2004, 19:27
thats what happens when you put west virginia national guard in charge of something...it still pisses me off that some ass hat in falluja can stab a charred american body with a sword, put pieces of flesh on it like a shish kabob and start hitting it with a shoe...yes i saw this...on a cable news channel even...they were leaving those videos of the air but after the pow thing, fox decided to put things in perspective...
Uh, they were Reservists from Maryland.
natedogg42
9 May 2004, 19:43
my mistake about mixing up national guard and reserve....but the unit was based in cumberland maryland....i some of the MPs in question were from WV so i got a mapquest map...
as you can see, cumberland maryland is about half a mile from the west virginia border....i rest my case
There's only two things in life where you win by coming close. Horseshoes and Handgrenades.
Sammy Sandbag
9 May 2004, 19:55
it's three, you forgot thermo nuclear weapons.
natedogg42
9 May 2004, 20:06
that got me thinking about something i heard on fox news (of course) this morning... reporting asking former green beret maj. bob (long ass last name) what he would do it he were in charge in iraq about the whole al sadr situation...he said, either put 63 bullets in his face, or drop a MOAB on his house....
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/iraq_moab030311.html
either put 63 bullets in his face, or drop a MOAB on his house....
Which is why I voted "Prison? What's prison? Shoot them on sight!"
Either kill them, or torture them and then kill them. If someone kills an American soldier he has his right to life revoked. Oxygen theives should not be allowed to live.
FYI: Don't talk shit about the National Guard, 1st AD had fire fights with eachother in the middle of Baghdad. They have also shot at us. When we were attached to them after 101st and 3rd ID left they couldn't get us new boots but instead offered us the chance to take the ASVAB test...
Slilock
10 May 2004, 18:46
Found this on the eDodo (a AF JAG posted this) and I agree:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and oppose the majority, yet again.
Lets assume these guys were following orders. They didn't shoot anyone, they didn't main, permanently disfigure, etc. They did a lot of the shit that we might do to our folks to in SERE training, the resistance + escape portion.
If they did it of their own accord, shame on them, they should get thumped.
Lets assume someone, an officer, appointed over them, from, say, military intelligence, told them to do it, told them we needed the information, that American lives were on the line. Not, say, unlike the actions of a certain Lt. Col. who fired his pistol near the head of a captured Iraqi to save the lives of his troops, not all that long ago, who, in my view, is still a hero, and did the right (albeit politically incorrect) thing.
Now, you are also aware that these folks know they can be criminally prosecuted for violating a lawful order. The lawfulness of an order isn't submitted to a military jury, it is an issue for a military judge. Now, we aren't dealing with an order to mow down a village, to pour acid on kids, or to otherwise permanently injure these prisoners. We are also dealing with an order that perhaps comes from military intelligence. Joe E-1 isn't going to question that kind of order.
We expect a lot of our troops. We expect them to follow lawful orders. We expect them not to follow orders that are clearly unlawful (like mowing down a village). I disagree with the contention that these troops are going to know that humiliating these prisoners, perhaps to extract intelligence, if given by an officer who is supposed to know whether or not he/she is giving a lawful order, is an unlawful order. On the flip of the coin is criminal charges for failing to follow a lawful order.
If we prosecute these people, and there was an order, you may well have the net result of folks refusing questionable (not clear whether lawful or not) but necessary orders, requiring JAG intervention, etc, in the heat of battle, and I'm here to tell you you don't want that. Damned if you, damned if you don't. You aren't dealing with experts in military law or the geneva convention.
I think the question to be asked is who gave the order? Why was the order given? What information was available to these troops when they carried out the order?
I don't disagree with personal accountability. But, lets look at the totality of the circumstances and determine whether or not following the order was reasonable from the perspective of these troops, and their age, experience, training, and the like.
All I know is that this whole thing has made my last few days shitty. Damn abused prisoners making my job tough.
natedogg42
10 May 2004, 22:02
The Arags should be the last to complain about human rights and how prisoners should be treated.....I could find you at least 5 videos in less than 30 minutes of Chechens cutting the heads off of live Russian prisoners (some soldiers some not) when their media starts addressing these issues, perhaps I'll take into account what they have to say more seriously...until then, fuck em.
Good read...I agree with the article...
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.3 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.