Hometowns defend acts by soldiers

[Tiken]

Hailed as a hero in her hometown, a 21-year-old U.S. soldier is now facing a court martial over the humiliating treatment of Iraqi war prisoners as the abuse scandal expands.

The court martial comes as more photos have emerged allegedly depicting further instances of abuse. One of the photos allegedly depicts Lynndie England, 21, of Fort Ashby, W. Va., holding a leash attached to the neck of an Iraqi prisoner.

In England's hometown, some 260km west of Washington, there is little understanding of why photos showing soldiers from the 372nd Military Police Company abusing prisoners has caused a furor.

"A lot of people here think they ought to just blow up the whole of Iraq," Colleen Kesner said.

"To the country boys here,if you're a different nationality, a different race, you're subhuman. That's the way girls like Lynndie are raised.

"Tourmenting Iraqis, in her mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey. Every season here, you're hunting something. Over there, they're hunting Iraqis."

England's mother Terrie dismissed the allegations.

"They are trying to pin all of this on the lower ranks. My daughter was just following order," she said.

Another soldier facing charges is Staff Sgt. Ivan Chip Frederick, 37, of Dillwyn, Va.

His Father, Ivan Frederick, 76, said his son, an ex-prison guard, sent him a journal outlining the barbaric treatment of Iraqi PoW's.

He said his son was a scape goat.

"He was unhappy with what he saw. There is no way Chip would do these things unless he was orderd to," he said.

Six soldiers from the 372nd are facing court martial.

- SUN NEWS SERVICES

(Taken from the Calgary Sun.)

[Karly]

I can believe that there are some ppl being used as scapegoats in this. Whatever happened to the chain of command? I find it incredibly unbelievable that NO ONE knew what was going on.

[Bergs]

Thats expectable, but first of all, the Army teaches you otherwise and secondly the "following orders" defense didnt work for the Nazis, it wont work for these people regardless of whether or not its true which I dont think it is.

[Tiken]

I can believe that there are some ppl being used as scapegoats in this. Whatever happened to the chain of command? I find it incredibly unbelievable that NO ONE knew what was going on.


6 of the Enlisted involve are being filed in for a court martial while 6 officers involved are being handed repremands, 2 of them however have been relieved of duty. The head commander (Brig. General, I forget her name) hasent been charged or even looked at in this even though she has command over the prison and the immediate area.

I smell a coverup in this.

[tourettes]

although i believe that the abuse of iraqi prisoners is horrible, the media makes a much bigger deal about this than when coalition forces are abused. Also, wouldn't it take a lot of self-control to treat well someone who had been trying to kill you and your friends moments earlier?

[wataba]

well, not all of them were combatants...at least not this onehttp://msnbc.msn.com/id/4900337/

but i think we generally try to hold ourselves to higher standards than the rest, since i mean...we are supposed to be the 'liberators'.....
we treat others how we would like to be treated, we don't have control over what others do, but we do have control over what we do, there's no excusing or rationalizing what was shown in those photos

[droogsteve]

although i believe that the abuse of iraqi prisoners is horrible, the media makes a much bigger deal about this than when coalition forces are abused. Also, wouldn't it take a lot of self-control to treat well someone who had been trying to kill you and your friends moments earlier?

It doesn't matter if they were trying to kill you. That's the entire object of war. Once somebody surrenders, they are to be treated according to the rules. Even the Nazis abided by the Geneva convention for the most part as far as treatment of American POWs.

And it doesn't matter how they treat our prisoners. They're supposed to be the savages, we're supposed to be the good guys. Do you really want to sink to their level?

[Tiken]

Fuck it, this is Vietnam all over again.

[Viceroy]

What amazes me is the flat out denials of the faimilies of those soldiers. They said they're sons/daughters were ordered to by superior officers.

Even if they were ordered to break the will of Iraqi prisoners, when were they told to take photographs or come up with highly imaginative branches of sadism?

[Tiken]

Maby sodomizing people with chem sticks and broom handles is a usual practice of these soldiers, I mean they are raised rednecks.

[krazykomrade]

I only regret that there are no masses of returning soldiers here in Scottsdale, AZ, so that I could spit on them.

[wils0646]

I only regret that there are no masses of returning soldiers here in Scottsdale, AZ, so that I could spit on them.

You are meaning the people that are charged with abuse right?

[Bergs]

I only regret that there are no masses of returning soldiers here in Scottsdale, AZ, so that I could spit on them.


If you spit on me, I would kill you.

[poopchow]

the whole situation is blown out of proportion although those acts were pretty shitty.


i doubt it came from higher command because probably whoever was in command of the place sent some orders and the people inside did "their order". So all then had to do is dont ask dont tell.

I personally dont care much for this issue. The media is fucked up. 20 thousand tons of biological weapons weere found in Jordan or some place and not a peep has been said about that. Fucking bullshit

[Viceroy]

The media is fucked up. 20 thousand tons of biological weapons weere found in Jordan or some place and not a peep has been said about that. Fucking bullshit

That story was covered by the BBC about a month ago. The reason you're not hearing about it is because it's old, and possibly fake.

[Dozzi]

The BBC sucks.

The story is real dick, sorry that you've had a setback in trying to gain sympathy for terrrorists in your mission to deface America.

[Viceroy]

The BBC sucks.

The story is real dick, sorry that you've had a setback in trying to gain sympathy for terrrorists in your mission to deface America.

The BBC is very reliable.

You can't prove the story was real, just like I can't prove it was fake, hence, I said it was possible, not certain.

In any case, we heard about it at the time. We haven't heard about it since. Stop whining.

[poopchow]

That story was covered by the BBC about a month ago. The reason you're not hearing about it is because it's old, and possibly fake.


Even still i didnt hear about it. My brother told me that the news said the guy admitted to be Iraqi and which only intrigued me more. Yet all i hear about is getting Rumsfeld out. Such shit

[poopchow]

The BBC is very reliable.

You can't prove the story was real, just like I can't prove it was fake, hence, I said it was possible, not certain.

In any case, we heard about it at the time. We haven't heard about it since. Stop whining.

How about the democrats stop whinning about getting Rummy out.

Dont give that shiit "we heard about it at the time". 1st of all we didnt, 2nd of all thats a big story. An iraqi admitted to smuggling WMDs through Jordan. That should be big fucking news. We are so quick to jump on "maybe rumsfeld knew something" which is just complete guesswork, yet we dont hear about WMDs that were possessed by an iraq.

[Viceroy]

Dont give that shiit "we heard about it at the time". 1st of all we didnt, 2nd of all thats a big story. An iraqi admitted to smuggling WMDs through Jordan. That should be big fucking news. We are so quick to jump on "maybe rumsfeld knew something" which is just complete guesswork, yet we dont hear about WMDs that were possessed by an iraq.

Its old news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm

Note the date. 17th April.

As for Rumsfeld, he's admitted under oath that he DID know something.

[Fossil]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3698965.stm

Iraq abuse: US policy or anomaly?


Were the soldiers at Abu Ghraib acting on their own, or were they following interrogation policy set by their superiors?

[Coven66]

although the situation these iraqie prisoners were put through is deplorable and almost un-human it is not the origination of some massive government plot set down by rumsfeild. Rummy may be many things, but one thing he is not is a press whore. if he knew about the abuse definativly then he would have put a immediant and quite stop to it. with the election coming up and the recent surge of anti-US sentement around the world it would have been in Rumsfields best intrests to stop it befor the reports of abuse got out and he found himself in this situation. belive me that if this was occuring at any other prison, that it is not anymore.
as to the solders themselves. they were suffering from a combanation of rage of the stories of there fellow solders being killed in suicide attacks, and also the military mentality pumped into them that there enemy wasn't human, but sub-human. the military puts this in your mind so you will be less-hesitant to pull the trigger in active combat. a good stratigy, but deadly when left to brew with the knowledge that your comrads are out there dying and you are responsoble for looking after the enemy trying to kill them.
although these actions were sick and deplorable, they ae nothing compared to what those solders did to that somalian teenager in 93. at least nothing like that has happened so i think thats a bonus.
as to the press. solders abuse iraqie prisoners, is a much better headline then possibilaty of chemical weapons in jordan. just remember that old truism. if it bleeds it leads.

[fubar]

Even still i didnt hear about it. My brother told me that the news said the guy admitted to be Iraqi and which only intrigued me more. Yet all i hear about is getting Rumsfeld out. Such shit

thats crap, don't you think that if it was true Bush wouldn't have shut the fuck up about it.

[Bugfatty]

although these actions were sick and deplorable, they ae nothing compared to what those solders did to that somalian teenager in 93.

Are you talking about those Belguim soldiers in Africa who held a kid over a fire to torure him?

[RFAlias]

Ok, so a few soldiers fuck up, and rumsfeld is blamed? Thats stupid.
Ok, so he knew about it and kept it quiet, prolly because he didnt want it getting out like it did.
But What needs to happen is that the people directly involved need to be punished, and thats that. People will screw up, thats just life. This whole situation has little to do with the higher ups, IMO.

[wataba]

How about the democrats stop whinning about getting Rummy out.

Dont give that shiit "we heard about it at the time". 1st of all we didnt, 2nd of all thats a big story. An iraqi admitted to smuggling WMDs through Jordan. That should be big fucking news. We are so quick to jump on "maybe rumsfeld knew something" which is just complete guesswork, yet we dont hear about WMDs that were possessed by an iraq.

an iraqi man who possessed and smuggled WMD's through jordan....where did you hear this and can you cite a source to back up these claims?

[wils0646]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3698965.stm

Iraq abuse: US policy or anomaly?


Were the soldiers at Abu Ghraib acting on their own, or were they following interrogation policy set by their superiors?

Give me a break Fossil. The administration did not tell them to do these horrific acts. They did it on their own and they shall pay the price. This type of abuse is NOT U.S. policy and it will never be.

[Bergs]

Torture is not a fucking American policy you douche bag.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040509/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_tarnished_brigade

That is such a crock of shit. You shouldnt hold an entire Brigade of soldiers responsible for a few people's bullshit and you shouldnt punish outstanding individuals for the actions of others.

[poopchow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm

.

I also heard on the news the guy said he was iraqi.

No one is denying the smuggling of the weapons.

[wataba]

but that article says the al qaeda mastermind is jordanian
and it also says so here http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

unless you're talking about another person, but i haven't heard anything of any iraqi involved

[krazykomrade]

If you spit on me, I would kill you.
lol bergs you crack me up

[Bergs]

Im not joking.

[shade]

Lol... come to Texas and try spitting on people. I dare ya :D

[DeeDee]

Well, honestly it really doesn't matter if the soldiers being courtmarshalled were following orders or not because soliders take a vow not to do anything to disgrace the country. They would have been perfectly justified in disobeying orders in this paticular situaton and they all know it. If your CO gives you orders to do something that is unethical you can disobey the order and report him. The only way it matters if this came from their CO would be that the CO's would need to be disiplined as well and dealt with accordingly. I am just saying that it is a lousy excuse to use that you are just following orders.
As for Rumsfield, I will be really interested in seeing what he is gong to do at this point. Rumsfield might resign anyway just to protect the President. By the way, I hear they are asking for Blair's resignation as well because apparently the British soldiers watched the toture happen and Blair has also know about this for some time.

[Fossil]

Give me a break Fossil. The administration did not tell them to do these horrific acts. They did it on their own and they shall pay the price. This type of abuse is NOT U.S. policy and it will never be.

How do you know this? Policies have changed since 9/11.

[wils0646]

How do you know this? Policies have changed since 9/11.

Yes, obviously, but the United States is the cornerstone in upholding the Geneva Conventions. We will never change the standards of treatment of captured soldiers. Seriously, do you want to believe this is true just so you can bash Bush and his administration again?

[Viceroy]

Since 9/11, America has come up with the phrase "enemy combatants". By not designating it's prisoners as PoWs, America can and does hold prisoners for as long as they like, and can ignore the Geneva convention.

[krazykomrade]

Lol... come to Texas and try spitting on people. I dare ya
I'd kill me before I go to Texas.

[wils0646]

Since 9/11, America has come up with the phrase "enemy combatants". By not designating it's prisoners as PoWs, America can and does hold prisoners for as long as they like, and can ignore the Geneva convention.

?? It's like you're saying we do that with every soldier we capture. That is simply not true. And the enemy combatants really only are potential terrorists or terrorism suspects.

[JuliaAguilar]

and also the military mentality pumped into them that there enemy wasn't human, but sub-human. the military puts this in your mind so you will be less-hesitant to pull the trigger in active combat. a good stratigy, but deadly when left to brew with the knowledge that your comrads are out there dying and you are responsoble for looking after the enemy trying to kill them.

Where are you getting your information? That's total bullshit. Never once in any training exercise have I been told that the enemy is "sub-human." We've been taught from the very beginning that killing/use of deadly force is a last resort. There are procedures that are to be followed before we just fly off the handle and go on killing sprees against thousands of foreign nationals just because we are at war with them. Yes, there is some level of stress involved, but it's not born of "military mentality". We are taught how to react to wartime situations and to act in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, following the LAWFUL orders of those appointed over us.

And I say LAWFUL because any one of those soldiers is full of bullshit when they say they were following orders. I don't care if Sergeant Major John Doe or General Joe Schmoe tell me to do something that immoral - I will refuse. I may get in some trouble at first, but when I go to a court-martial and tell my side of the story, look whose ass will be in trouble. These soldiers all had the obligation to tell their superiors "NO" when they were told to do things like this. I don't believe for a second that these soldiers were just "following orders." Especially if they were taking pictures and smiling in them, like it was just some fun game. If they were following orders regardless of their personal convictions, then they would not have taken pictures and they certainly wouldn't have been smiling. These soldiers are liars on top of everything else. So don't anybody give me any of that "We were following orders" bullshit. I've never been afraid to tell someone, "No, I won't do that, that's wrong. It's immoral, it's illegal, and I won't do it." These soldiers are cowards. By not having the courage to stand up for what is right, they are the worst kind of cowards and deserve whatever punishment the military can dish out.

[Viceroy]

?? It's like you're saying we do that with every soldier we capture. That is simply not true. And the enemy combatants really only are potential terrorists or terrorism suspects.

Potential terrorists or terrorism suspects?

So they don't actually have to have done anything to plan or carry out an attack. They just have to be suspects. It'd be okay detaining suspects if they were allowed some legal representation.

[bobby2k]

Are people on this board seriously trying to argue that the higher ups bare no responsibility for this occurring?

[Bergs]

That depends entirely on what you mean by higher ups first of all and secondly Julia is exactly 100% right. The "following orders" defense was used by the Nazis and guess what, it didnt work! As a soldier you are responsible for your own actions and if you are given an illegal order you dont fucking do it! If you get in trouble you go to the next level on the chain of command until somebody listens. You are not a robot.

[bobby2k]

Well bergs thats easy to say for us when we are not put in that situation. Picture yourself in the middle of a hostile country, and a colonel or general ordering you do prep prisoners up for interrogation. You can legally say no, but in reality you know there are going to be severe consequences for it, like maybe a immediate transfer to the frontline in Fallujah. I'm not condoning the actions of these soldiers, but I am not quick to jump on them and say "if you are given an illegal order you dont fucking do it! because it is much more complicated then that. We really don't know the details of what happen and need to wait for a trial to find out. As for "higher ups" I am referring to the people who gave the supposed orders to "soften" the prisoners for interrogation. As well I feel that you should have some control and knowledge over the activities which take place in your department.

[poopchow]

but that article says the al qaeda mastermind is jordanian
and it also says so here http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

unless you're talking about another person, but i haven't heard anything of any iraqi involved


Wow it said from your article "Jayyousi said he took orders from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a suspected terrorist leader who has been linked to al Qaeda and whom U.S. officials have said is behind some attacks in Iraq."

Also

"Jayyousi returned from Iraq in January after a meeting with al-Zarqawi in which they allegedly plotted to hit the three targets in Amman."

The guy had connections with Iraq. Your rebuttal just helped me out.

[poopchow]

Well bergs thats easy to say for us when we are not put in that situation. Picture yourself in the middle of a hostile country, and a colonel or general ordering you do prep prisoners up for interrogation. You can legally say no, but in reality you know there are going to be severe consequences for it, like maybe a immediate transfer to the frontline in Fallujah. I'm not condoning the actions of these soldiers, but I am not quick to jump on them and say "if you are given an illegal order you dont fucking do it! because it is much more complicated then that. We really don't know the details of what happen and need to wait for a trial to find out. As for "higher ups" I am referring to the people who gave the supposed orders to "soften" the prisoners for interrogation. As well I feel that you should have some control and knowledge over the activities which take place in your department.


Umm i raelly doubt that they could send you to frontline of Fallujah.

If you are given an illegal order you dont do it as Bergs said. but many people put their own personal spin on it causing it to be complicated.

[bobby2k]

once again very easily said from a person who is not in their circumstances. And you really dont think that a general could reassign you at the snap of his fingers???? I'll give u a reality check it happens all the time.

[Fossil]

Yes, obviously, but the United States is the cornerstone in upholding the Geneva Conventions. We will never change the standards of treatment of captured soldiers.

I'm not convinced that this was an isolated incident involving only a handful of privates and sergeants acting on their own. I think that their superiors at least tolerated the abuse, if not dictated it.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3700975.stm

"...The Red Cross inspected jails in Iraq between May and November 2003 and made 29 visits to prison facilities in central and southern Iraq during that time.

The report says abuses had been committed at a number of facilities - not just Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, which is the focus of allegations against US soldiers.

Other facilities where mistreatment allegedly occurred include al-Baghdadi air base, Hubbania camp, Tikrit holding area, the defence ministry and a presidential palace in Baghdad. "

If the Red Cross's report is accuate, and I'm sure that it is, then I would say that our standards of treatment have changed. Wouldn't you agree?

[Sketcher]

The people, the US soldiers, in the pictures were smiling and laughing. I seriously doubt they were under any order that they would rather not do. They did those things voluntarily. I'm not saying that there is no blame on any superiors, I'm just saying that I doubt the solders were being forced to do these things.

[Tiken]

?? It's like you're saying we do that with every soldier we capture. That is simply not true. And the enemy combatants really only are potential terrorists or terrorism suspects.

Actually the US is doing that to every soldier they capture. If the US actually gave two shits about the Geneva Convention then they would of let go the thousands of Iraqi soldiers currently under the US's "enemy combatants" status.

[wils0646]

Actually the US is doing that to every soldier they capture. If the US actually gave two shits about the Geneva Convention then they would of let go the thousands of Iraqi soldiers currently under the US's "enemy combatants" status.

So they are abusing every soldier? Are you serious about every Iraqi soldier being under this status?

[Bergs]

Your a dumbass. According to the Genvea Convention you must release all POWs once combat has ended and if youve been reading the paper, COMBAT HASNT ENDED! In Afghanistan too. You want to call the Gitmo detainees POWs? Fine, they still dont have to be released or given lawyers because combat has not ceased!

[Tiken]

From what I have seen on the News, and through reading Red cross reports released to the Public I can a great deal of the Iraqi army soldiers captured have not been released.

[Tiken]

Your a dumbass. According to the Genvea Convention you must release all POWs once combat has ended and if youve been reading the paper, COMBAT HASNT ENDED! In Afghanistan too. You want to call the Gitmo detainees POWs? Fine, they still dont have to be released or given lawyers because combat has not ceased!

So I guess that big banner and that long speech on the aircraft carrier ment shit all then. Major Combat operations means there is no longer any major operations or fighting being conducted in the campaign. If the large portion of the fighting is over and done with, then why not release the soldiers? The war is practiclly over and since the US controls the country..or "did" control the country then of what harm could they be, especially if they are demoralized family men just wanting to get back home.

And for example when Germany surrenderd in WW2, fighting was still being conducted all over the country for months afterwards, yet the allies were releasing their German PoW's.

The Gitmo detainees arnet even apart of an army, they are militia men or "Terrorists" as the US likes to brand them, they have no rights under the Geneva convention. However they are subject to US law, and US law dictates that the ordinary civilian foriegn or domestic will be given a lawyer to defend him/her if they are accused of terrorism or anything related to it.

[wataba]

Wow it said from your article "Jayyousi said he took orders from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a suspected terrorist leader who has been linked to al Qaeda and whom U.S. officials have said is behind some attacks in Iraq."

Also

"Jayyousi returned from Iraq in January after a meeting with al-Zarqawi in which they allegedly plotted to hit the three targets in Amman."

The guy had connections with Iraq. Your rebuttal just helped me out.

yeah, thanks for the info, but i can read
there was no rebuttal, i wasn't disputing his connections with attacks in iraq, i was just wondering since you said distinctly that there was an 'iraqi' involved, since i heard nothing about it i was wondering if you could show me

if this is the guy you were talking about, the article also said he is jordanian, and just because he had ties to iraqi attacks doesn't make him "Iraqi", you shouldn't spread that misinformation, or you should at least make the correction

[Sam Da Butcher]

ANTIOCH, California (Reuters) - Three U.S. military policemen who served at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison said on Thursday they had witnessed unreported cases of prisoner abuse and that the practice against Iraqis was commonplace. LINK (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5068071)

[Bergs]

So I guess that big banner and that long speech on the aircraft carrier ment shit all then. Major Combat operations means there is no longer any major operations or fighting being conducted in the campaign. If the large portion of the fighting is over and done with, then why not release the soldiers? The war is practiclly over and since the US controls the country..or "did" control the country then of what harm could they be, especially if they are demoralized family men just wanting to get back home.

The aircraft carrier speech meant that the mission to topple Hussein was over. The war isnt over. There was more deaths in April than in the entire invasion prior to that speech! The war is not fucking over!!

However they are subject to US law, and US law dictates that the ordinary civilian foriegn or domestic will be given a lawyer to defend him/her if they are accused of terrorism or anything related to it.

Must've missed that part of the Consitution. :rolleyes:

[Viceroy]

If America's gonna hold detainees without trial "until hostilities end" then we might aswell tell them now, they're in jail for life.

The War on Terror (if it continues) will likely last decades. It's not like a conventional war that last a few months or years, America's in it for the long haul.

Just supposing Islamic fundementalism was destroyed, where would America travel to next? Who knows.

[Galwyn]

Obviously I will get banned again :rolleyes:

But this is Tiken and I would love to know the reason for me being banned.

Send me an e-mail or something, just dont delete this post (Which you will probably do) and explain to me why I am banned, because from my point of view I have done nothing wrong.

[Sam Da Butcher]

Obviously I will get banned again :rolleyes:

But this is Tiken and I would love to know the reason for me being banned.

Send me an e-mail or something, just dont delete this post (Which you will probably do) and explain to me why I am banned, because from my point of view I have done nothing wrong.
Don't fuck with Berg's... he's an army of one! :D

[Galwyn]

You mean dont piss off the 12 year old who doesent like to be beaten in a debate. :rolleyes:

Corruption, the evil which plagues this world.

[Bergs]

Um, I'm not a moderator so I cant ban you and when have YOU ever beaten me in a debate. Your above posts were some of the most uneducated and pointless anti-American rantings I have ever seen on this forum.

[droogsteve]

Obviously I will get banned again :rolleyes:

But this is Tiken and I would love to know the reason for me being banned.

Send me an e-mail or something, just dont delete this post (Which you will probably do) and explain to me why I am banned, because from my point of view I have done nothing wrong.
You were banned after an IP check revealed that you are also:

Deathass
Gurpy
KOLOSSAL
loyaleddie
okt
poogle_search
themonk
Tiken
viffer
viffer2
XtremeXtsy

[Sam Da Butcher]

You mean dont piss off the 12 year old who doesent like to be beaten in a debate. :rolleyes:

Corruption, the evil which plagues this world.
Yeah, you're a legend in your own mind.

Bergs: You don't need to be a moderator to point out the obvious.

Steve: Taking care of business!

Actually I despise politics and politicians. Since the only news source for too many people is The National Enquirer - its probably a good thing that the media will be focusing more on our prisoners and hostages now rather than the abuses at Abu Ghraib.