US military in prisoner torture Photographs

And the soldiers are being punsihed, and were in the process of being punished before this scandal blew up.

However, America's protections still apply to those who violate them..

Like I said, the worst mass murder is still entitled to a fair and honest trial, regardless of the public outcry surrounding the case.

What do you want to see happen, a selection of soliders simply rounded up and stoned out of revenge?

It's not going to happen.

We can't undue the abuses those specific soldiers already engaged in, but we can do everything in our power to make sure our ideals are upheld, for everyone.

This is not to say that some future soldier, or police officer, or teacher, or senator will not violate that public covenant again.

It's a consequence, if you will, of living in a free society.

However, you can't simply paint everyone with the same tarbrush, or use this to abandon the principles we believe in.

 

I don't think they should be stoned--not by any means.

However, they should be court-martialed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

And I don't think we should excuse their actions by either saying "It's not as bad as what the Iraqis did!" or "They're not dead!" or "Look at the way Arabs behave!"

 

Let me reiterate, I'm not making excuses for the schmucks who mistreated the prisoners. I just think it's a lack of perspective -- an inability to see the big picture, if you will -- that allows some of us to go guano loco over this.

The lack of perspective allows the overwrought reaction; the hatred for Bush adds fuel to the fire.

And if you think I'm wrong, let's move away from comparing Iraqi actions and our own to comparing acts by the U.S. government.

Did Waco or Ruby Ridge produce this much outrage?

 

I'm not sure about this but did anyone hear an apology to the rest of the "coalition of the willing" from Bush and Co. regarding these atrocities?

Being a member of the coalition, I feel Australia deserves an apology for being brought into disrepute by the actions of these criminals.

Did we get one?

 

Apparently Rumsfeld is a 'hero' and 'deserves your gratitude'.

Which makes me want to puke.

 

Did Waco or Ruby Ridge produce this much outrage?

I don't remember much about Ruby Ridge, but I was bloody pissed about Waco.

 

AG, the Ruby Ridge incident is actually studied as part of some police academy use of force classes.

While somewhat off topic, it does represent an interesting case for the "following orders" mindset.

In that regard, it does offer some comparisons.

Ruby Ridge was an example of nobody being right, but the government being less so.

Originally, Randy Weaver was charged with purchasing sawed-off shotguns (which are restricted) from an undercover officer. When he didn't show up to court, a warrant was issued for his arrest.

So Weaver was no "boy scout" himself.

However, a joint FBI, ATF, and local task force was sent to arrest him.

That's where it gets murky.

Because at the scene, a "shoot on sight" order was given, which was against federal rules of engagement, and of course, the Constitution. (normally, deadly force is used to protect life or serious breeches of the peace)

The local police refused to follow the order, but an FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, shot Randy Weaver's wife, Vicki, in the head, killing her.

Because of the mishandling, all charges against Randy Weaver were dropped, and he was awarded 3+million dollars for wrongful death.

However, the FBI agent, Horiuchi, was charged with voluntary manslaughter. He defense was he was just following orders.

However, the government's position was that every individual has a duty to ignore an unlawful order.

Even worse was, because it was a joint task force, nobody remembered who gave the original order.

Since he was direct supervisor, a special agent named Larry Potts was suspended for 18 months, I do believe.

Those are the basic facts about the case, the principle of which could be applied here as well.

As with anything, politics crept into the entire affair, and the rest usually split according to party lines.

There are many conspriacies related to the political side of things, most of which are just speculation.

Larry Potts, as the field officer in charge, claimed that Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno authorized the illegal order, because she wanted to cover up the fact that Weaver was set-up.

Of course, Janet Reno denied this, and the matter was dropped.

There are parallels to the political side of things with both cases.

Personally, I think the offical investigations in both cases speak for themselves, no matter how many people are calling for who to resign, or try and make connections "all the way to the top.."

 

All fine and dandy and completely off topic but....

"Following Orders" hasn't been a defense since Nuremburg.

 

I truly wonder if our resident law student would analyze what the Geneva Convention actually does.


Well, Genius boy, I assume you mean the Third...

And yes, you are bound by the Third Geneva Convention as a signatory to it;

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

I'm sure that even you, Bubba, will admit this is relevant:

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.



Regardless of what people's perception of the just punishment of England and Co, you can't deny the above clearly indicates their behavior is illegal under international law. Of course, this is the UN which is pro-France and pro-Terrorist and Anti-American because FOXNews told us so, but...

I'm confident we can agree on this...

E_S

 

Umm, Uruk, thank you,

But-It might not be off-topic if you follow what the example relates to.

A defense for some of the soldiers in the prison where that they were following orders.

A defense for the FBI agent charged in Ruby Ridge was that he was following orders.

His defense was not granted, because individuals have no duty to follow an illegal order.

Due to partisan politics, some attempted to tie Janet Reno and Bill Clinton to what happened at Ruby Rdige.

Due to partisan politics, some are attempting to tie Sec Rumsfeld and Pres Bush to the prison.

In the Iraqi prison, some soldiers acted outside of the scope of what the US represents.

At Ruby Ridge, some federal agents acted outside of the scope of what the US represents.

Some soldiers dehumanized Iraqis who may have been just regular people.

At Ruby Ridge, some agents dehumanized the Weavers even though they had not yet been convicted.

Finally, some tried to use Ruby Ridge as an overall characterization of the government..

See the similiarities now?

You can use one, as a case study for the behavior of the other.

Although not exact, hardly off topic at all.

 

See the edit.....

 

But the point remains is what does Ruby Ridge represent now?

The FBI could not take back the actions of those who acted improperly at Ruby Ridge, but they could make improvements and do their best to make sure it never happens again.

For example, one of the changes that came out of that is now, an overall authority is appointed for a call-out, even if it is made up of many agencies.

That's why the Ruby Ridge case is studied by future law enforcement officers.

Even with this, it is no guarentee that another FBI agent at some time will not act improperly.

However, nobody seriously characterizes the entire FBI by the actions of an individual, because that's not what the FBI represents.

Why should this incident be any different?

There are the same partisan allegations being thrown about this time, but this doesn't have to signal the end of the western way of life.

 

I'll bet it does remind them of Saddam's regime.

My cousin's over in Baghdad right now, and he was talking with an Iraqi who told him, and I'm quoting from an e-mail here, "he said "It's shameful what those animals did, but it's even more shameful that you are associated with them." That man made my day."

The Iraqis, despite what people may say, can differentiate between the actions of a few and the actions of the whole.




b4k4^2

 

Moderate Iraqis will differentiate. The problem is that there are many Iraqis and Arabs who aren't moderate. They will be the ones spurred into a greater hatred of the coalition because of this.

It fuels the fire that's already burning over there. It's the worst possible thing to have happened.

 

Uruk

And what makes you think that moderates aren't in the majority? Surely you aren't implying that most Arabs are extremists?




b4k4^2

 

However, nobody seriously characterizes the entire FBI by the actions of an individual, because that's not what the FBI represents.

Why should this incident be any different?

The word systemic has been bandied about by more than one independant observer, Mr44. Of course now it's all out, there's going to be denials but this action was not a single isolated incident by one soldier.

Whatever the spin anyone puts on it, there's some myths being broken in Iraq as we speak.

 

What I'm saying is the USA has made it very difficult for the coalition to get the resolution it wants (whatever the hell that is) in Iraq because of it's actions and quoting one or two moderate Iraqis doesn't change that.

 

Uruk

You didn't answer my question.

What I'm saying is the USA has made it very difficult for the coalition to get the resolution it wants (whatever the hell that is) in Iraq because of it's actions and quoting one or two moderate Iraqis doesn't change that.

Exceeeeeept, it was not "the USA," it was a few idiotic animals in American uniforms.

They don't represent the US, and I'm willing to bet that the Iraqis realize that.




b4k4^2

 

I guess only time will tell.

OK. Most people I know were not shocked by this episode. As a matter of fact they were expecting something like this to be happening. I admit I don't hang with the most conservative crowd on Earth, but if this is the way many people in Australia think, I wonder how they are thinking in Iraq?

I wouldn't call all Iraqis extremists either, but I seriously doubt the majority would be pro American.

 

I guess only time will tell.

That's what I've been saying.




b4k4^2

 

just saw the photos and i;ve never seen anything more wrong in my life.

While i am all for the naturalness of the human body, no one should be subject to this humilation. NO ONE.

I was listening to Lawsie yesterday and he was saying that it's obvious that the photos were stunts, not fake but intended to be released and attract some kind of media frenzy. These photos are in fact quite old, and there was a coverup to try and stop them. There are also some worse photos that haven't been released.

 

Just another little note - I know it isn't everyone in the USA that's done this, but when troops go overseas they are representing their country. The attitude they portray and actions they commit reflects badly on the country they represent, especially when the reason of the invasion was based on holier than thou pretences.

 

was listening to Lawsie yesterday and he was saying that it's obvious that the photos were stunts, not fake but intended to be released and attract some kind of media frenzy. These photos are in fact quite old, and there was a coverup to try and stop them. There are also some worse photos that haven't been released.

Katana,

I don't know what you mean by cover-up.

The original actions took place in the Oct-Dec timeframe last year.

The military authorities, acting on a tip from a soldier from that unit, started an investigation almost immediately.

The preliminary investigation was completed in March, and the 6 primary individuals were already identified by the time the pictures were released.

You have to keep in mind that this is an active investigation.

I know it's hard to accept, but even these soldiers are "innocent until proven guilty," and allowed a fair trial under the law.

As such, the system has to be allowed to work. The standard of law can't change on the whims of the public, or such standards become meaningless.

 

did i say i beleive everything lawsie says? He's okay, ask urak-hai, but some of the stuff is distorted. Like all journalists.

I'm just saying what he said, that doesn't mean i agree with it.

 

Lawsie's not a journalist and I think he's an idiot. He'd say Saddam Hussain was a misunderstood genius if he got payed enough to say it.