Post #246,358
2/28/06 9:09:51 AM
|
More finger pointing and lack of responsibility acceptance
A military man of 31 years, he knew that the widespread abuses could have taken place only if sanctioned from high up in the civilian and military leadership. Essentially, his point is that >HIS< army could NEVER do this. They would have to be TOLD. So they were >only following orders<. Gee, where have we heard this before. And didn't we, at that time, create an oath that goes something like... I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Officers, upon commission, swear to the following: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So, if a military man receives an order he believes to be illegal, it is his DUTY to refuse to carry out that order. So regardless of the chain of command and the orders processed, those in uniform conducting the abuse are responsible. The chain of command is responsible for conspiricy with respect to any non-uniform personnel that were also participating. So...message to the Colonel...suck it up bub...YOUR army is responsible. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #246,359
2/28/06 9:33:56 AM
|
Suck it up?
Torture orders coming from the top? No problem in Beeps world. It's just a dumb grunt whinging away.
I notice you don't quote the oath of office taken by our dear leaders and point out how they've broken it.
Do you hold your children with those bloody hands?
Ass.
-----------------------------------------
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
-Put it on all your emails
|
Post #246,375
2/28/06 12:25:37 PM
|
I have to agree....
in your world it's prefectly acceptable for higher-ups (and Presidents) to issue Torture orders, it's the grunts fault if they follow it?
(Sidenote: he doesn't make the argument cleanly, imo, that someone very high up issued the Torture orders. If you're arguing that; I'm willing to debate it. The evidence is there, imo, that this was NOT just a few grunts torturing people on their own accord.)
Sadly, this argument continues upwards. Ultimately the President is NOT responsible. He is carrying out the wishes of his boss, the American people. I note that he was re-elected.
|
Post #246,383
2/28/06 1:44:25 PM
|
Highly debatable.
I note that he was re-elected. One word. Diebold. -----------------------------------------
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
-Put it on all your emails
|
Post #246,387
2/28/06 1:51:16 PM
|
Incorrect assessment
Its his statement, that was quoted...that it couldn't happen in >HIS< army. It did. And "I was only following orders" is NOT a defense.
I also stated that those that brought in outsiders (higher ups) are <<<< guilty of criminal conspiricy.
And torture orders is a pretty specific accusation. The evidence suggests that this was a translation of "taking the gloves off" and not defining these prisoners as covered under Geneva. Still, conspiricy yes...did Cheney call and tell that private to leash the prisoner? I doubt it.
So, if you want to debate all of this, great. Don't see what fun it would be to have me agreeing with you all of the time...but hey..its your dime.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #246,390
2/28/06 2:00:45 PM
|
Torture orders.
I'm wondering how the hell else you interpret "taking the gloves off". What gloves? Oh the Geneva convention, The Convention against Torture, The UN Anti torture Treaty. Don't try playing your semantic games with me. You know damn well these orders came from the top or have you forgotten who our attorny general* is?
*C'mon, if you try, I'm sure you'll remember his nickname.
-----------------------------------------
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
-Put it on all your emails
|
Post #246,399
2/28/06 2:51:51 PM
|
That's not really his point
His point is that the boots on the ground should've known better than to follow an illegal order, and that those orders (despite being couched in such a way as to maximise plausible deniability) were fundamentally illegal.
He's agreeing with you in that the people higher up who set this up should get the hammer, but he's pointing out that you can't exonerate the grunts either. The grunts SHOULD go to the can; ignorance of the law is no excuse. The issue is that they SHOULD also be joined by various folks up the food chain too, but that doesn't seem to be happening; CYA all around, fuck the boots on the ground, if you know what I mean.
Finally, he's saying something about how the colonel is couching his statements; he's pointing out that his army did in fact behave this way. One can argue that he really means this wouldn't have happened in the culture extant in the armed forces when he was serving, but the institution is undoubtedly the same institution he served in.
There're some real problems in how education in the army is happening. Taking a look at the experience of the CAF in Somalia and how our torture scandal was handled may be instructive, though it also has to be said that the higher ups didn't exactly cover themselves in glory... but at least our civilian leadership did Do The Right Thing (including disbanding the regiment) when it came out. This was a big deal; it was the Airborne, who covered themselves in glory in WWII. Despite this, the general sentiment that came out was that the crime was so ignominious that the regiment (and its commanding officers) had to go. Some of them were removed completely, and some of them got window seats, depending on how involved they were in the actual mission. The justification for this was that whatever else one may say, what happened in Somalia was a massive failure in proper training and discipline, and the officers had to pay for it, as training and discipline is their job.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #246,412
2/28/06 4:06:50 PM
|
OK. Kneejerk emoticon misplaced again.
I take it back. Beep didn't mealymouth this into an accusation that only the grunts were to blame.
I do wonder how a troop in the field is supposed to understand that just because the Attorney General of the US says torture is legal for these prisoners, it doesn't mean it really is and he should just disobey orders because he disagrees with what his Commander in Chief's team is telling him.
-----------------------------------------
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
-Put it on all your emails
|
Post #246,415
2/28/06 4:41:29 PM
|
By thinking for themselves
Hence my comment about educational problems in the service.
There are good reasons to minimise thinking for oneself in a combat situation. Because of this, combat situations are often taken as a mitigating circumstance when adjudicating illegal actions of this type. That said, the overall tendency to train people to minimise thinking for themselves because of the need to act on orders during combat can have some very undesirable knock-on effects, as Abu Ghraib was not a combat situation.
That said, the ONLY reason why one can condemn the chain of command in the Abu Ghraib situation is because the officers (who are generally supposed to be educated in these things; that's why they're officers) didn't act until they realised they were about to be exposed to the world at large.
This is the only reason, but it's absolutely sufficient to condemn everyone all the way to the top. The statements coming out of the civilian leadership, the attempts to legalise torture by Gonzalez, the various orders and statements posted in the workplace all condemn the chain of command all the way up to the top general in the theatre as well as his civilian overseers are just gravy to add to the real crime.
To everyone that knows about how these things are supposed to work in Western democracies and militaries, the Abu Ghraib scandal (along with Gitmo, and now with NSA surveillance) has given the US a massive black eye in the eyes of its Western allies, as well as with the rest of the world. It will take years to undo the damage, and might take generations if the following leadership after 2008 doesn't take steps to bring it all out into the open and start putting the current administration's feet to the fire after they leave office.
The whole situation just sucks.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #246,474
3/1/06 9:45:52 AM
|
Try this one:
j<
Beep and I sorta "agreed" on this one...
jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #246,556
3/2/06 1:12:05 AM
|
Don't get used to it ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #246,585
3/2/06 12:03:05 PM
|
Dude, I know better'n that!
And so do you... ;-)
jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #246,417
2/28/06 6:17:12 PM
8/21/07 5:56:33 AM
|
Ya know if the military gave that oath any credence
the whitehouse would be under seige.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
