:mad:
http://www.boblonsberry.com/writings...tory=1267&go=4
I agree he should be court-martialled.
When you break the rules of the military you get court martialled.
Its ok to kill your enemy but for god sakes dont scare them! :rolleyes:
X
Any coments you have, you might also want to tell Bob:
http://www.boblonsberry.com/comments.cfm?story=1267
Or, you could read the comments:
http://www.boblonsberry.com/readcomments.cfm?story=1267
who cares ? :rolleyes:
So now we condone torture? We threaten to kill people if they don't give us x, and it's ok to do that because "we didn't really mean it?"
If they knew we didn't mean it, they wouldn't give us x, so they must have believed we meant it if they did give us x.
It is not the violence itself that makes for effective torture, as the officer may well have known, but the threat of violence. We are well equipped physiologically to deal with pain, but not so well to deal with the anticipation of pain. My understanding of the subject of torture is that the actual pain causes more anger and resentment than the willingness to cooperate. I believe that because of the study of torture in interrogations, that technique is considered counter productive.
In any event, we have standards of conduct in this country. Are our principles just a cloth that we drape ourselves with to hide a fundamentally ugly nature, or are they a part of us which we do not lightly set aside. Heroism isn't the willingness to brutalize others, but in this country, it is defined more by a willingness to be brutalized to protect people or principles.
I understand our standards, and I understand why we need those standards, but damn, I would have done the same thing he did if I was in that situation. My soldiers lives would come first. Period. They are friends that you fight for your lives with. You don't just roll over and take a few of them getting killed when you could have bent the rules a little.
Like I said, I know the rules, I know what they are there for, but it doesn't work in all situations. Sorry.
They should punish him for breaking the rules, and I think he would proudly take on that punishment knowing he saved some of his soldiers lives. I don't think he should get 3 years for it. I think 1 year max of hard labor. It shows that it was wrong, and sends a message to others to think twice about it. But it would also show some compassion for what he acomplished.
Just my thoughts.
If he really saved the Americal soldiers by preventing the attacks, then I personally think he was an idiot to have written up a detailed account of what happened. I guess if he had just decided to pretend the prisoner spilt the beans during the normal interrogation, nobody would have said a word. His superior too surprisingly didn't destroy the write-up.Quote:
.
Why would he lie? He did what he needed to do. If there is to be punishment for that, then so be it. This is why our military is the greatest in the world. We have some values that allow us to stand up when we believe in something, and take the punishment given if we deserve it. We don't cower and lie about stuff to get away with it.
Now, before you go off on a little rant, remember there are always exceptions to the rule when you are dealing with humans. But for the most part, the American military has values that most people do not.
Oh, that last part almost stinks :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by hellswraith
Why would he lie? He did what he needed to do. If there is to be punishment for that, then so be it. This is why our military is the greatest in the world. We have some values that allow us to stand up when we believe in something, and take the punishment given if we deserve it. We don't cower and lie about stuff to get away with it.
Now, before you go off on a little rant, remember there are always exceptions to the rule when you are dealing with humans. But for the most part, the American military has values that most people do not.
Anyways, speaking the truth is not always the best option. Also everyone doesn't need to know everything. Not revealing what he did to the prisoner would not amount to lie. It would simply be concealment of truth at the most. Also if he just mentioned that he got the information during interrogation, he wouldn't exactly be lying. After all that indeed was his method of interrogation.
When you are doing something that your conscience says is right, it doesn't always mean others will see it as right, and therefore there is no reason why you should be extra honest about it and get punished. There are countless examples of the US soldiers' asses being covered up by Pentagon with the typical phrase of 'rules of engagement'. It's basically for this stupid approach of some of the higher-ups that the entire truth need not be revealed at all times. But I guess this honesty thing is taken too far by people and they forget their practical obligations.
As for this solitary case, the officer in question has put to risk his obligation to his country, to his soldiers and to his family and friends just because of a far-fetched notion of truth and honesty. If he had kept his mouth shut, he could have continued to serve in his present position and would have been able to help his soldiers better, for one thing.
At the end, the blame for this episode should go to those who decided to court-martial the officer, not with the officer. The fact however remains that he committed a mistake.
.
Somehow I knew you would feel that way.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Anyways, speaking the truth is not always the best option.
X
20 years ago when he started his carrer the US ARMY was quite a bit different. He probably didn't even know he did anything wrong. Now he is an old schooler in a new kinder gent'ler sensitive type army. Mabe he shoulda gave the Iraqi a blowjob, a handfull of C4 and said, "My men like to get killed here ya go!". He did what he had to do to keep his troops alive. Damn, once upon a time they gave out medals for that.
I highly doubt his punishment will be severe but I'm sure he'll be punished in some way for what he did.
An old quote from the bible says: "Do unto others as you'd like them to do to you".
That applies to any situation. If we start using unethical pratices during integ then its only a matter of time that others start using those pratices.
If all mankind were actualling following the bible's advice neither of the men would have ever been in that situation in the first place. We'd all be sitting around a camp fire singing Kumbaya eating granola bars. It could be argued that it would be un-ethical for the officer not to do everything in his power to save the lives of his men. Either way. Trying to argue ethics about an event that occured in something as un-ethical as a war is about productive as slamming your nutts in a toilet seat.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
An old quote from the bible says: "Do unto others as you'd like them to do to you".
That applies to any situation. If we start using unethical pratices during integ then its only a matter of time that others start using those pratices.
Some actions you take during war can make the war worse then other actions.
True, I'll buy that, but I wouldn't call it un-ethical. I'd call it Illegal according to the UCMJ. Morals and ethics flew out the window as soon as the bombs started dropping.
Since when did an opinion of an American in America about the trial of an American soldier in America become a "world event" ?
Don't blame me! I started this in chit chat!
;)
Wally stop causing problems ;)
och ya oirish poofta, whatcher gonna do then, send the gardai round ? :p
Garda Siochana Leds, What's the Creck? And these drugs oi see ?
I gots nuffink coppa.
The core issue behind this incident is about ethics, which I would hope would concern us all. It’s an interesting topic to discuss regardless of the country of origin. And believe it or not world events can happen anywhere, even in America :)Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Since when did an opinion of an American in America about the trial of an American soldier in America become a "world event" ?
X
oo err, I love a good wind up.
Your what? :bigyello:Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
oo err, I love a good wind up.
:DQuote:
Originally posted by KayJay
Your what? :bigyello:
See MB's post immediately following yours which I have quoted. I don't know if the US Army did give medals for such acts, but I do know that if he is going to be court martialled for protecting his troops, he should have kept his mouth shut about the whole thing.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Somehow I knew you would feel that way.
X
.
So, according to this, West was just trying to protect his own hide, and nobody elses. {Hmmm, lets kill a convoy, and West will die. How does that work???}Quote:
The case stems from an incident August 20 at a military base in Taji, just north of Baghdad, when West was interrogating an Iraqi policeman, who was believed to have information about a plot to assassinate West with an ambush on a U.S. convoy
Yep. Just a bunch of wusses!Quote:
West testified to a military courtroom of observers and some teary-eyed troops formerly under his command.
Am I glad that reporter was there to tell us how much of a selfish and scared commander he was, and how much of a pansy his troops were.
At least he will be able to sleep at night, knowing he stopped a potential ambush that could have taken his life, as well as, the lives of his soldiers.
He won't be court-martialed...He'll leave the army first.
His soldiers should be thanking him and standing up for him. Who knows how many of them wouldn't be alive today if he hadn't done what he did.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/US/12/12/s.../vert.west.jpg
I thought the US Amry had a don't ask, don't tell policy? Surely him and his boyfriend [pictured above] are breaking the no-gays in the army rule, and he'll get kicked out for that?