Haditha Massacre - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-07-2006, 11:25 AM   #76
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



Considering there is no uniformed opposition in Iraq, insurgents and civilians are indistinguishable. I'd say all death's since the fall of Saddam fall in this category.
So if they kill a soldier they are a civilian, if they are a prisoner they are an enemy combatant...

I got it now.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 11:38 AM   #77
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
We do have different reactions to death of soldiers by civilians and death of civilians by soldiers.


i dunno.

i remained unsettled by the thought of bullets found in the skull of an infant.

but that could just be me.

i mourn each and every unnecessary American death.

we are the occupiers. this was a war of choice.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 12:04 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So if they kill a soldier they are a civilian, if they are a prisoner they are an enemy combatant...

I got it now.
Enemy combatant is really a created term for civilian playing soldier in a combat zone - a dynamic not fully contemplated by the laws of war (Geneva Convention, etc.).

As you can imagine, the dividing line between civilian and insurgant is intentionally blurred so that the insurgant can drop a weapon and claim innocence. This creates an added layer of stress for the soldier - nearly all of whom are trying to do the right thing in their service.

Those soldier who have not will be punished.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 12:39 PM   #79
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

Those soldier who have not will be punished.


really? will we be able to pin this one on the "retarded midgets" like they pinned Abu Ghraib on Lyndie England?

we punish the soldiers and not their commanding officers.

that's how it is now, i see.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 12:54 PM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:52 PM
What would be the culpability of those not involved, but who you still want to punish?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 12:58 PM   #81
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
What would be the culpability of those not involved, but who you still want to punish?

it's called the vertical chain-of-command.

Rumsfeld should have resigned a long, long time ago.

i've already presented my thougths several posts previously:

[q]when there were no resignations after Abu Ghraib, when torture rules were deliberately relaxed, Bush sent a clear signal (*before* the election) that people in command will not be held responsible for atrocities committed on their watch. it is perfectly easy to understand why military commmanders would follow Bush's example. responsibility in the military is vertical. commanders are responsible for violations committed by inferiors. the commander-in-chief is the president (you know, "the decider"), and he is ultimately responsible for any atrocities in the military he commands.

and, i'm sorry, but Americans themselves - not just their government - have some responsibility. 51% of this country re-elected a man who had been shown to have endorsed torture and abuse.

accept the consequences of your actions.

what is particularly sad is that those who love the military the most, by and large, re-elected a man who has done more damage to American credibility than any president, possibly ever. we have little hope for restoring the military's credibility until we have a new president[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 02:13 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:52 PM
I read your comments earlier. Under this line of thinking, every President would have been culpable for every criminal action taken within the military. While I'm sure you would love this to happen with GWB, it is not a principle that would consistently get you the desired results.

I think we still want to find actual culpability before we hold someone responsible.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 02:17 PM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I read your comments earlier. Under this line of thinking, every President would have been culpable for every criminal action taken within the military. While I'm sure you would love this to happen with GWB, it is not a principle that would consistently get you the desired results.



you're mixing things up. i am not asking for punishment of the president, but i am asking for him to acknowledge that, as commander-in-chief, he is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the US military.

it does not seem reasonable to punish him (though a resignation by the Defense Secretary seems not just reasonable, in light of everything, but the only moral thing to do), but it is entirely reasonable for him to accept responsibility for the conduct of troops especially in highly contentious wars of choice and convenience.


Quote:
I think we still want to find actual culpability before we hold someone responsible.

this we can all agree.

since we're all so proud of the new Iraqi government and the Iraqi military, let's let our soldiers be tried by Iraqi courts.

how about that?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 08:38 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




really? will we be able to pin this one on the "retarded midgets" like they pinned Abu Ghraib on Lyndie England?

we punish the soldiers and not their commanding officers.

that's how it is now, i see.
* Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.
* Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.
* Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial (less severe than "general"; confinement sentence limited to one year) to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.
* Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.
* Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.
* Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.
* Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 08:41 PM   #85
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

* Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.
* Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.
* Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial (less severe than "general"; confinement sentence limited to one year) to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.
* Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.
* Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.
* Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.
* Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge.


wow -- that's it? two officers?

even more abdication of responsibility than i thought.

inexcusable for Bush not to have accepted Rumsfeld's resignation.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 09:57 PM   #86
Refugee
 
4U2Play's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,791
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
wow -- that's it? two officers? even more abdication of responsibility than i thought. inexcusable for Bush not to have accepted Rumsfeld's resignation.
Agreed.

This is a big problem in American culture: the failure of leaders to take responsibility and either apologize or resign.

Part of this is due to the litigious society that exists here now, where saying sorry or resigning is tantamount to admitting guilt in a lawsuit.

We have a lot to learn from the Japanese (though maybe not the hari-kiri part).

Bush is loyal to a fault. He could have quashed the Abu Ghraib scandal immediately by firing Rumsfeld and General Sanchez and apologizing to everyone.

Let's see if these idiots have learned any lessons this time around.
__________________
4U2Play is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 11:54 AM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
wow -- that's it? two officers?

even more abdication of responsibility than i thought.

inexcusable for Bush not to have accepted Rumsfeld's resignation.
So Rumsfeld is the pound of flesh you want?

I hope you become a manager one day.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 12:37 PM   #88
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


So Rumsfeld is the pound of flesh you want?

I hope you become a manager one day.


yes, boil this down to a personal vendetta. you can do better -- please address the issue at hand.




managers also take responsibility, especially in the military.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 01:17 PM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
managers also take responsibility, especially in the military.
Yes, managers take responsibility for their direct reports.

Expecting a CEO to resign based on the actions of a front line employee, for no other reason than "they should accept responsibility" loses all sense of addressing culpability and moves towards a general desire for political retribution.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 01:22 PM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Yes, managers take responsibility for their direct reports.

Expecting a CEO to resign based on the actions of a front line employee, for no other reason than "they should accept responsibility" loses all sense of addressing culpability and moves towards a general desire for political retribution.


this is the military not a business. there is a verticle chain of command, very important when you are administering war and killing thousands of people.

Rumsfeld offered Bush his resignation after Abu Ghraib, and Bush didn't accept it.

(eep)
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com