[Altix]

Sick bastards, that's all I will say.

From the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ines-frontpage

"WASHINGTON � Marines in Iraq conducted mock executions of juvenile prisoners last year, burned and tortured other detainees with electrical shocks, and warned a Navy corpsman they would kill him if he treated any injured Iraqis, according to military documents made public Tuesday.

In the case that drew the stiffest punishment, a one-year prison sentence for the Marine, a detainee at Mahmoudiya was shocked with an electric transformer. Wires were held against his shoulders, and "the detainee danced as he was shocked," the documents state.

The new records � which blacked out the names of soldiers � also show that a Marine was convicted of ordering four juvenile Iraqi looters to kneel down beside two shallow holes in Diwaniya. Then, "a pistol was discharged to conduct a mock execution." The Marine was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment with hard labor."

[Troll]

WTF? 30 days for the mock executions and 1 year for electrocutions? That's all?

[CD Hanks]

Nevermind.

[Athens]

All countries have guys in the military that do bad things.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Athens:
All countries have guys in the military that do bad things.

This is true.

Though those who profess to walk the high moral ground are naturally under much closer scrutiny.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
This is true.

Though those who profess to walk the high moral ground are naturally under much closer scrutiny.

I think it is how it was dealt with, 30 days and a year. Thats pathetic.

[ambush]

Neo-imperialism for the 21st century.

[eklipse]

But it's all okay cos they didn't behead anyone.

[Spliffdaddy]

Oddly enough, we prosecute and punish the bad soldiers.

Yet you dolts still complain.

[chabig]

I think the US Army is a lot better than Sadam's. That's why they won. ;-)

Also, the LA Times has an anti-military agenda and are likely blowing this out of proportion. Sure there is some stuff that is wrong, but the soldiers were punished. 11 Marines out of 150,000 troops and you say we're as bad as Sadam? Some of the stuff just isn't torture in my book.

According to the LA Times story, physical abuse consists of pouring a glass of water over a prisoner's head and draping him with an American flag.

And a prisoner with a record of escaping killed himself by jumping out of a window? How is that the Marines' fault?

Chris

[Athens]

Originally posted by chabig:
I think the US Army is a lot better than Sadam's. That's why they won. ;-)

Also, the LA Times has an anti-military agenda and are likely blowing this out of proportion. Sure there is some stuff that is wrong, but the soldiers were punished. 11 Marines out of 150,000 troops and you say we're as bad as Sadam? Some of the stuff just isn't torture in my book.

According to the LA Times story, physical abuse consists of pouring a glass of water over a prisoner's head and draping him with an American flag.

And a prisoner with a record of escaping killed himself by jumping out of a window? How is that the Marines' fault?

Chris

I'll let you know when the US Army has won. Could be a long way away though....

[Troll]

Originally posted by chabig:
Sure there is some stuff that is wrong, but the soldiers were punished.

The guy got 30 days for lining prisoners up in front of graves and firing blanks at them in a mock execution! I don't personally call that punishment.

The excuse you present is one every tin pot country uses when they're criticised for human rights offences. "We've punished the offender," without mentioning how.

[Abu Bakr]

Have you guys noticed how these "isolated" incidents of 10-15 soldiers are piling up? First we had the original Abu Ghraib scandal, then we heared about Guantanamo, then we heard about a few soldiers in Iraq again, then we heared about soldiers in Afghanistan, and now again we hear about soldiers in Iraq. Always about 10-15 in every release of information. Wait one or two months until this has died down and then the next batch of soldiers will be released.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
Have you guys noticed how these "isolated" incidents of 10-15 soldiers are piling up? First we had the original Abu Ghraib scandal, then we heared about Guantanamo, then we heard about a few soldiers in Iraq again, then we heared about soldiers in Afghanistan, and now again we hear about soldiers in Iraq. Always about 10-15 in every release of information. Wait one or two months until this has died down and then the next batch of soldiers will be released.

If you're trying to find a conspiracy behind it all, it's not going to work. Why would a nation constantly release bad PR for itself, or deliberately cause actions which it knows will lead to bad PR? This does not make sense.

[Abu Bakr]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you're trying to find a conspiracy behind it all, it's not going to work. Why would a nation constantly release bad PR for itself, or deliberately cause actions which it knows will lead to bad PR? This does not make sense.

1. If you do it small enough amounts each time it gets easily forgotten or discarded as a few and isolated "bad" soldiers.

2. A small amount coupled with that they were "punished" puts a more positive spin on it.

3. Keeping the numbers small and keeping the reports trickling out every now and then makes newspapers immune to it and it gets a small column in the papers.

Just look at the reports from Chechnia or Palestine. The newspapers and media aren't interested anymore. You only hear about the few "spectacular" incidents. It's controlled releases of bad information. It's damage control.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
Have you guys noticed how these "isolated" incidents of 10-15 soldiers are piling up? First we had the original Abu Ghraib scandal, then we heared about Guantanamo, then we heard about a few soldiers in Iraq again, then we heared about soldiers in Afghanistan, and now again we hear about soldiers in Iraq. Always about 10-15 in every release of information. Wait one or two months until this has died down and then the next batch of soldiers will be released.

That would make your life, wouldn't it?

You are acting like soldier miscondict is something new whenit comes to war. You know, that activity where people shoot at you in an effort to kill you. I mean, eEmotions play nothing into a soldiers action...especially when they are fighting scum who hide behind innocent women and children and use Mosques as cover. Let's forget about the beheadings and indiscriminate murders performed by the insurgents/ terrorists. We all know they are angels...right. I mean they practice Islam and are dedicate to peace...unless of course it is time for the weekly Jihad.

Logic, this is a two way street. Our soldiers who break the law are court martialed. A 'insurgent' who breaks the law is praised by millions of muslims throughout the world, despite their cheap and dastardly tactics of targeting innocent Iraqi civilians...including children.

[Moderator]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You are acting like soldier miscondict is something new whenit comes to war.

Wake up

The misconduct was condoned, right from the top, right from the begining. This enemy combatant nonsense was conceived strickly for the purpose of providing legal defence for top administration officials against war crimes prosecution..meanwhile the soldiers on the ground, many of whom are f'n kids, are going to jail.

I feel bad for them. Yes it'll likely happen in any war...But this time they took the lead from their leaders. The individuals who enacted this policy, and we know who they are, are war criminals in the truest sense, there is no way around it.

[Moderator]

from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it:"substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote.

[bamburg dunes]

Doesn't surprise me. It would seem that, by and large, the US army is made up of people from the arse-end of society. I saw some crazy things when I was in the Marines, but this just takes the biscuit.

On a slightly different note. I'm just back from a nice long holiday in Morocco, in which I had the pleasure of bumping into a CNN crew. I ended up chatting away to the reporter there and she was telling me of her time in Iraq this year. She said that what she saw of her own country's troops was atrocious, and that no wonder most of the world hates us, especially the Iraqis. She went on to compare the way in which British and American troops entered cities and towns in Iraq. The British, she said, would enter with an air of diplomacy, attempt to understand, help and foster good relations with the civilians. The Americans on the otherhand, would ride in like a bunch of *******s, start shouting out things like, "Check out that raghead", or "Shoot that nigger, he ain't doing much sitting like a rat". She told me about the Amercans had virtually no clue as how to best approach the Iraqis. They were ignorant, racist, and just utterly disgusting. This was happening right in front of the Iraqis, who would be on the receiving end of this barbarity. It's acually far worse than what most of us think, hell, even she wasn't allowed to broadcast half of what she saw.
Anyway, what can you expect when we send hicks from Tennessee whose only knowledge of the world is from the utterly useless American Press.

[Krusty]

While I don't know if I am in 100% agreement with the thread's title, it is becoming clear that the "few bad apples" theory put forth after the Abu Ghraib pics came to light would be better stated as a "few bad apples who got caught in pictures that made it to press"

RealPlayer movie of a returned conscientious objector discussing what he saw in his year in Iraq (clip says 48 min, but they're only talking to him for about the first 20min)

Short article from salon.com reprinted at informationclearinghouse discussing the leaked FBI memos.

...
The documents also show that officers from the CIA, the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency lodged "heated" objections to the abusive methods of interrogation used by the military, denouncing them in previously secret memoranda as not only unethical but useless and destructive._

In the files released by the government, FBI officials with special expertise in counterterrorism and interrogation techniques recorded their ongoing debate with Army officers about the harsh, coercive techniques authorized by the Pentagon. They were as concerned about the efficacy of those methods - which they believe often produce poor intelligence - as with possible violations of law and regulations. But the commanders overseeing the military interrogations simply dismissed the sharp warnings of the law enforcement and intelligence officers.

The abuses continued, in some cases even after the initial furor over Abu Ghraib. What's more, an internal FBI memo indicates that the directive to discard traditional restraints came from the very highest civilian official in the Pentagon: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld._
...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
Doesn't surprise me. It would seem that, by and large, the US army is made up of people from the arse-end of society. I saw some crazy things when I was in the Marines, but this just takes the biscuit.

On a slightly different note. I'm just back from a nice long holiday in Morocco, in which I had the pleasure of bumping into a CNN crew. I ended up chatting away to the reporter there and she was telling me of her time in Iraq this year. She said that what she saw of her own country's troops was atrocious, and that no wonder most of the world hates us, especially the Iraqis. She went on to compare the way in which British and American troops entered cities and towns in Iraq. The British, she said, would enter with an air of diplomacy, attempt to understand, help and foster good relations with the civilians. The Americans on the otherhand, would ride in like a bunch of *******s, start shouting out things like, "Check out that raghead", or "Shoot that nigger, he ain't doing much sitting like a rat". She told me about the Amercans had virtually no clue as how to best approach the Iraqis. They were ignorant, racist, and just utterly disgusting. This was happening right in front of the Iraqis, who would be on the receiving end of this barbarity. It's acually far worse than what most of us think, hell, even she wasn't allowed to broadcast half of what she saw.
Anyway, what can you expect when we send hicks from Tennessee whose only knowledge of the world is from the utterly useless American Press.

What was the reporter's name?

And why wasn't she allowed to broadcast what she saw? Surely if NBC can broadcast a Marine killing a wounded Iraqi, and other networks can broadcast Abu Ghraib and other "torture" videos, CNN can air what she reported.

I think you're full of crap.

And then you end your post with "when we send hicks from Tenessee...", which ultimately shows how disgusting and ignorant you are.

[Spliffdaddy]

^ what he said.

I think the story is BS.