| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > What About The Fate Of The Guantanamo Detainees ? |
| Posted by: Lionel 29-Jan-2004, 04:44 AM |
| What do you think of their fate ? Jailed without any trial for about two years. Even if they are alleged terrorists, it is a real shame to keep them like this regardless of basic war prisoners and human rights ! |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 29-Jan-2004, 05:50 AM |
| An administration that deliberately builds a prison camp in a locatin where it can expect to beyond the reach of any law should be held to account--not likely to happen though. |
| Posted by: Annabelle 29-Jan-2004, 08:08 AM |
| I have to give you guys a heads up on something. It's more of a camping reserve. My nephew is a Marine based there right now. They have tents posted everywhere cause they don't have enough housing for this large number of people. They are receiving free dental, medical, housing and hot food daily at the US Gov's expense. Yes, US Tax payer pay for this. Now due process takes time. And unfortunately it will be supplied as available. So don't jump the wagon. My nephew tells me they play ball, basketball read and swim in the NCO pool so they aren't hurting that bad. I'm not saying this is ideal just doing the best they can in a difficult situation. Annabelle |
| Posted by: Randy 29-Jan-2004, 08:08 AM |
| You know I am not really sure how I come out on this, but I have opposite feelings. I agree that maybe the deserve due process. The other half of me (actually the larger half) never wants to see innocent people to die again because people in that part of the world are jealous of our way of life and mad that we support the israelis. They are not american citizens so they do not fall under our law structure but instead under international law and in my opinion they are prisoners of war and it is the job of the UN to set up negotiations to process the prisoners. Which to my knowledge they have not done. I guess I just do not know, but I have a friend (in boarder patrol & homeland security) and said the last I talked to him explained that these people are not there for no reason they are a serious threat to our security. I guess I will step off my soapbox )) |
| Posted by: Armo 29-Jan-2004, 10:06 AM | ||
I can totally see that jealousy in this day and age.. It is totally obvious. Now days, hatred and racism is NOT expectable UNLESS its the Americans and Israelis you hate and despise. Its really sad.. Hatred is Hatred no matter what color you paint it. I could get more into this, but it would take up three pages... So far, the USA has been there for me and my family with opportunities since the 1970's. We came to the USA for a better life.. and a Better life is what we got. Again.. Its ALL jealousy... Others in the world are just mad that thier country they are living in is not a strong super power. |
| Posted by: Armo 29-Jan-2004, 10:16 AM |
| AS for the treatment of the prisoner of Guantanamo.. I am sure they are being treated humane.. It is just for the time being until things blow over.. Its not like a life imprisonment or death sentence. In fact it is better they are in the camp rather than out fighting US troops and loosing their lives. Remember, these are people who surrendered or were captured ON the battle Field. Its not like they were just picked up off the street or in a market. This is WAR, resources are low, and not enough lawyers to go around anyways. By the time all the prisoners get a trial, this conflict would be over. And what kind of "fairness" can you get out of speedy trials? Now the top Al-Qaida operatives... THEY have something to worry about... Usually they get the big punishments.. and with the big punishments usually comes a trial. Trust me I heard it all living in a Liberal state such as California.. I even heard that there is "Gas chambers" and "mass executions" on the bay (which is NOT true). But people still try their best to push propaganda of the sort.. I've talked to troops coming home from Iraq and from Guantanamo bay and get a TOTALLY Different story than what the media reports.. I am sure there is some isolated events, but no widespread human rights violations. |
| Posted by: Randy 29-Jan-2004, 10:41 AM |
| Armo I think you miss my point, I never specifically said USA was what they are jealous of. I was talking about western world in general that includes Europe. And it is my opinion that people in poor 3rd world countries are jealous of our way of life. Some move to get a better life and some scratch and happy existence in there country and others blame the well off for there situation. I understand there is an underlying religious issues involved, but I think that acting horribly in the name of your religious belief is being used as justification. There are muslim countries that interact and prosper in the global community that is why I tend to look for another reason. I believe this same idea can be seen inside the USA and I am sure other countries as well. There is always a resentment between the haves and the have nots. |
| Posted by: Armo 29-Jan-2004, 10:51 AM | ||
Well that is true.. As for your feelings towards religion playing a role.. As I always say, "To the enemy, we are all Infidels". Many people feel Islamic extremists only have a problem with the USA (which sadly justifies the terroist's cause in their eyes)... Those people are missing the whole picture and are terribly mistaken... Its not just a problem with the USA, Its is a problem with the whole western civilization AND Non-believers of the Muslim faith.. Maybe when people come to that reality, we can all stand together against the common enemy which is extremists. Many other countries and religions are victims of Islamic extremists.. Here is only a few, but the list goes on and on... Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, EVEN Muslims of opposing sects... ect.. ect... |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 29-Jan-2004, 11:14 AM |
| I draw great ire from the legal wrangling by the government to prevent these prisoners from due process. Guantanamo bay is effectively a posession of the United States, it is a long term lease with Cuba and does falls under US law. Therefore these prisoners should have access to lawyers, court and have the ability to confront their accusers. By taking these rights away from the lowest in society we run the danger of allowing them to be taken away from ourselves. A fine line can be drawn between a terrorist and a cell support system and between a cell suport system and a protester and between a protester and a common citizen. The government should be held to the rights and responsibilities of jurisdictional rule, individuals must have their rights protected or the system will fail to function. I also say that after a full trial if these prisoners are found guilty they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. |
| Posted by: peckery 29-Jan-2004, 11:15 AM |
| To be blunt, war IS hell.As a man once said, we don't call it racial profiling, we call it good police work. I feel bad for them, if they are innocent. I think right now we don't have the luxury of time to "wait and see." Yes, sucks for them, but who is ready to watch another building fall down live on tv? Our hand my be dirty, but who then supplied the dirt?? |
| Posted by: oldraven 29-Jan-2004, 11:46 AM |
| This makes me think of another issue. What do you all think of Maher Arar? A 33yo Canadian citizen who was taken into custody by Americans in New York in 2002 on his way home from Tuisia. He was then shiped to Syria and held there in prison, and tortured for a full year, almost to the day. He had never been charged for any crime in any country. Here it is in his words. http://www.counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html If you don't like hearing just one side of this kind of story, look around. There's lots of coverage on this one. |
| Posted by: Armo 29-Jan-2004, 12:15 PM |
| That would be considered, as I stated in a previous post, an "isolated" incident. There is no mass exodus of Middle eastern people out of the USA.. In fact the borders are still flooded with people wanting in the USA.. And the poor man being tortured... That?s on Syria's head.. It was Syrians who tortured him.. Not the Americans. As for him being deported out of the USA, Desperate times take desperate measures.. He definately was not an American citizen, we can agree on that. Not that I belive that non-citezen should all be deported but Unfortunately, nothing in the life if 100% perfect. |
| Posted by: oldraven 29-Jan-2004, 12:25 PM |
| Nope, but he was traveling on a Canadian passport. That should have sent up flags to start with. And if you can find multiple instances of the same thing happening it's not an isolated incident, is it? The US government is every bit as responsible as the Syrian in this case. They didn't hold the whip, but they also didn't follow protocol, and ended up deporting an innocent man for no reason, simply because of his heritage, not his past. You've got to see how messed up this is. edit Oh, and this should be in the politics forum, don't you think? It's far too hot for general. |
| Posted by: tartangal 29-Jan-2004, 12:42 PM |
| While I understand the terrible wound that was inflicted by the terrorists that is still hugely painful, I have to agree with birddog. When you allow those responsible for upholding the law to circumvent it when they want, then you erode the civil rights of every citizen of America. If the people held in Guantanamo are found to be guilty then by all means prosecute them to the full measure of the law but to hold them without trial or access to the judicial system shames America's championing of civil liberties. WHEW!! (Jules climbing long way down from her soapbox!  ) |
| Posted by: peckery 29-Jan-2004, 01:31 PM | ||
These are not "normal" times and as I said before in my opinion, we do not have the luxury of time. If the government has to change laws of the fly for the greater good of the country, I can live with that. There have be no other large scale acts of terrorism against the US since 9/11. Do you think it is because they have not tried or because of agressive actions by the US government to prevent it?  |
| Posted by: Irish Stepper 29-Jan-2004, 01:49 PM | ||
Or maybe it's because we have a lot of their more dangerous people cooling their heels down in Gitmo.  |
| Posted by: oldraven 29-Jan-2004, 01:51 PM | ||
..but at the expense of the individual? I can't accept something like that. These are not the tactics of a democracy. It's like they went into a nation wide state of martial law that only applied to those of a certain lineage. And what's worse, it seemed that they didn't need ANY evidence to condemn these people, they simply had to be part of that race. |
| Posted by: gaberlunzie 29-Jan-2004, 01:59 PM |
| Unfortunatly we have a much longer tradition with terrorism than the United States. A democracy is only as strong as she's able to get along with those extremists and extreme demands with using her measures of justice WITHOUT forgetting about any human right. I hate terrorism. I hate violence. To point iz out clearly. But to hold people arrested without trials to me is wrong, no matter what they had committed. It's a shame for every democracy. In my country these people have the right for lawyers, they get their trials; they are also arrested in high security prisons and prosecuted and sentenced by the full measures of laws and justice. This makes the strength and integrity and wealth of a modern democracy. To say that desperate imes need desperate means...no, I can't accept it. This would open door for possibilities I don't even want to think of! I don't want to offend anyone; this is just my honest and strong opinion... |
| Posted by: gaberlunzie 29-Jan-2004, 02:01 PM | ||
This is one of the consequences I don't want to think of... I agree, oldraven. |
| Posted by: peckery 29-Jan-2004, 02:16 PM |
| to paraphrase Mr. Spock from Star Trek II The Wrath of Kahn The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The civil rights of one do not, in my modest opinion, outweigh the rights of the millions to be protected, safe and confident that they are not going to die drinking tap water. As people are cleared they are let go. I have not heard anyone else come up with an alternate plan. The government in protecting YOU It may not be perfect, but its what we got, and people from around the world will gladly change places with you. Do you know that in some countries, you would be killed for having an opinion contrary to that countries government? |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 29-Jan-2004, 03:59 PM |
| Maher Arar was an atrocity there was no reason to do that to that man. I believe that they should find the individual responsible for that incident and procecute him. Some one had to sign on the dotted line to transfer him to the Syrians start with that person. Also there is a 30 year old Buddist nun that is in the custody of the US and has been for some time; her crime, coming to the US to escape Chinese persecution in Tibet. So US policy is to arrest everyone who asks for safe haven. Not quite the land of the free is it. Armo how many "isolated incidents" would it that for people to start seeing a pattern. Peckery when have "normal times" existed life is in a constant state of flux, it is violent and chaotic it always has been and always will. I was born in 75 and grew up around the oil fields and refineries of the Gulf Coast during the early Reagan years I saw a documentary on Soviet Missile tactics and some of the old Get under the deck films while others were playing hide and go seek or coloring I was frozen with fear. I knew at the age of 6 I was living in a Soviet target area. Remeber the Maine, Haley's comet falling from the sky the Great Depression. There is always a call for the Government to protect us in every time. And again Peckery the needs of the many ARE JUSTICE OF THE FEW and that was weighed by the lives of all patriots whom have given life and health for the dream that was America. |
| Posted by: oldraven 29-Jan-2004, 04:07 PM | ||
I can't believe I'm saying this but, it's a very different situation when you're making that sacrifice of yourself. You're taking this way out of context. Spok was talking about himself. He never chose to kill someone else to save the 'many'. And every time Spock said something like that, or anyone on any of the series, the captain made a point that, 'This is not the human way'. We risk the many to save the few. |
| Posted by: peckery 29-Jan-2004, 04:29 PM | ||
What color is the sky where you live? |
| Posted by: peckery 29-Jan-2004, 04:33 PM |
| You are quick to attack our governments methods, but again I ask, what is YOUR perfect plan and/or solution? The entire world is waiting for the perfect answer, but there is none. |
| Posted by: oldraven 29-Jan-2004, 04:43 PM |
| The sky is white here today. The overall plan is alright. It's the details that are screwed. The US will always have an enemy. It's almost as if you depend on it. It's easy to say that in times like these we have to sacrifice 'that guys' freedom. I asure you, you would think differently if you happened to be 'that guy'. So, if times like these always exist in your country, then when will you ever find peace and freedom for all? Isn't that the whole priciple behind democracy? |
| Posted by: peckery 29-Jan-2004, 04:49 PM |
| Gotta break eggs to make an omlett |
| Posted by: oldraven 29-Jan-2004, 04:55 PM | ||
Then screw the omlett.  I mean............... bah, you keep suckin me into these little cliche's.Ok. When is that omlett ever going to be finished? You've been breaking eggs since the get go, and yet, no breakfast. Saying that is completely selfish. Screw the little guy, as long as I'm safe and happy. |
| Posted by: scottish2 29-Jan-2004, 06:06 PM |
| Well either they are held as POWs and should be release at wars end but being they are consider detainees I and the issue keeps coming up in court then I feel the detainees need to be tried ASAP and freed or imprisoned or what have you but I feel they need to be tried in the international court because they are not US citizens so technically the US has no jurisdiction over them an international court would. |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 05:08 AM | ||||
No US civilian court has jurisdiction, but US military tribunals are appropriate to these trials. No International Court has jurisdiction over these unlawful combatants. They are provisionally listed as unlawful combatants (based, I feel, on a logical application of the 1949 Geneva Accords) in a continuing conflict, ie, the "War on Terror." Just because the "Battle of Afghanistan" or the "Battle of Iraq" happen to be over, the "War" goes on. Even according to the Geneva Protocols (which only apply to lawful combatants), repatriation only occurs after the cessation of active hostilities. This hasn't happened. Al-Quaeda is still out there. The war goes on. There are two relevant legal decisions here. The Supreme Court decision in Ex Parte Quirin in 1942 approved the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants (specifically German saboteurs in WWII). It emphasized that unlawful combatants are not privy to the extensive judicial protections applicable to POWs. The other relevant case here is in 1950 Johnson v. Eisentrager. Here it was decided that enemy aliens who have not entered the United States are not entitled to judicial protection in US courts. Since Gitmo is "technically" Cuban territory (although it is an extraterritorial treaty possession), the unlawful combatants are pretty much limited to what is allowed them by the remanding authority. And that means military tribunals, in all likelihood. IMHO, these guys did it to themselves when they took up arms against the United States and didn't follow the accepted laws of warfare. They condemned themselves to incarceration as unlawful combatants by not following the Geneva Accords themselves, in particular Article 4(2) which sets forth who is a lawful non-regular combatant. Al-Quaeda fails all the way around and the Taliban fail on sec's a,b and d. Should they be treated humanely? Of course. Do they deserve the same consideration as a regular combatant? Absolutely not. But, show me the proof of torture or abuse. Show me where they are being mistreated. Don't say they are being mistreated because of their accomodations. It isn't that bad. I mean show me the proof of no food. No latrines. Not being allowed to fulfill their religious needs by praying towards Mecca. Lack of medical attention. I have seen no proof of maltreatment. I understand that some are even allowed to write to their families (subject to censorship), and others aren't for security reasons. I don't see the problem.
OldRaven, how many people were screaming in 1944 for the war to hurry up and be over, or we should just quit and leave Hitler and Tojo capable of continuing? Not very many. War is war, and it takes time. Whether it be the war against fascism or the war on terrorism. It matters not a whit. Patience. This is a different type of war. It is against an ideology, not a geopolitical entity. It takes longer to concquer an ideology than a piece of real estate. Just my tuppence. Andy BTW, here is a website with the entire 1949 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art4 Here is a copy of the http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/docs/jve.pdf decision. Here is a copy of http://www.law.umkc.edu/Faculty/Profiles/Kobach/ConLaw2/Fall2003/EX%20PARTE%20QUIRIN.pdf |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 05:19 AM |
| But the issue keeps coming up in Civilian courts. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=701&e=2&u=/ap/20040129/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo That's as far back as I can go on yahoos thing without digging and to early for that right now but I seem to remember posting a link to another article where the US Supreme Court is getting involved in this matter which is making this into a civil not military matter. |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 05:46 AM |
| But it is not a civilian matter, no matter how often people try to make it into one. Case law is against it. These people will likely be tried by military tribunals under the UCMJ. The US Congress has specifically provided for the use of military commissions in Article 21 of the UCMJ. Of course those who want to see these people released want them to be placed in civilian courts. Given the track record, I don't blame them. It would dramatically increase the likelihood that these guys would get put back into circulation. IMHO, this would not be a good thing. These people bore arms against the United States, and did not abide by the Geneva Accords. Ooops. Shouldn't 'a done that. And now, they pay the piper. Just my tuppence. Andy Here is a link to the http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm. |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 05:56 AM |
| I know they should be tried in a military tribunal but being this is so still raises the question why it keeps coming up in civilian court? Now on a side note I would have to wonder though of the detainees who really deserves to be tried and who doesn't. I mean even in post WW2 germany individual soldiers were not tried as they were following orders even thoguh too held arms against us. The tribunals only went after those in charge giving out the orders even thoguh a lot of the soldiers were volunteers just as I would stand to guess are some of the detainees. |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 06:18 AM |
| The post-WWII analogy doesn't work here because those men were "lawful combatants." These guys are not. The Germans were working under a recognized heirarchical military structure. These guys were not. Therefore, these guys bear more of the burden of juridical guilt than the lads who fought in WWII as combatants. And the reason that this keeps being dragged into the civilian courts is because there are people who don't think these guys did anything wrong and want them to go free. They see the civilian courts as the best chance for that. Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 06:55 AM |
| That's just it thoguh. Bin Laden has said he is waging a war on us. And even Bush considers this a war on terror which makes then legal enemy combatants. |
| Posted by: Catriona 30-Jan-2004, 08:25 AM |
| There are a small number of UK citizens and UK nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay... Talks have been ongoing between the UK and US Govts re these prisoners.... One of the talking points has been the fact that we do not hav the death penalty - and the US does... I believe it has been agreed that they will not be executed, even if found guilty. I am ambivalent about the fate of these men... I believe that some of them who were picked up in Afghanistan probably weren't Al Quaeda.... but as we are not told about any evidence against them, it makes finding out the truth very difficult. During Mr Bush's recent visit these men were high on the agenda. There was some speculation that they would be sentenced and then released here to serve their sentences..... I'm not sure that's much of a solution, either.... But I don't really have the answer to this... I suppose as a member of Amnesty International it just worries me that there would appear to be double standards applying in some cases... Here's an article from the Guardian newspaper http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1127639,00.html QUOTE Guantanamo families to take fight to US American civil liberties group to help British detainees Tania Branigan Wednesday January 21, 2004 The Guardian The families of British detainees at Guantanamo Bay are to take their fight for the men's release to the US with the help of the foremost American civil liberties group, they announced yesterday. Politicians, campaigners and lawyers joined relatives of the prisoners to launch the Guantanamo Human Rights Commission at the House of Commons. A delegation will travel to Washington in March to lobby politicians and raise awareness of the detainees' plight with the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union. Nine Britons and three British residents are among the 660 men who have been held at the American naval base in Cuba for more than two years without charge or access to lawyers. Another 11 Europeans, several from France, Sweden and Germany, are also detained at Camp Delta. "We have to speak not only to the courts of law but to the court of public opinion," Nadine Strossen, the president of the ACLU, said. She said there was growing concern over the Bush administration's actions in the "war on terror". "The [involvement of the] families will put a human face on a very compelling legal issue." The visit should coincide with the filing of the US government's brief in a high profile supreme court case that will determine whether American courts have jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay. Ms Strossen said the Bush administration "should be getting very nervous about the outcome" of the hearing. A defeat would be embarrassing and particularly unwelcome in an election year, and American legal experts have speculated that the US is keen to return the Britons because two are plaintiffs in the case. A senior US diplomat recently suggested that a deal was imminent. But previous rumours of the detainees' release have proved unfounded and, even if most are repatriated, it is feared that Feroz Abbasi, from Croydon, and Moazzam Begg, from Birmingham, might still be held. The pair have been named as potential defendants who could face military tribunals on unspecified charges. There is also concern about the fate of the three British residents, since the government represents only British citizens, and nationals from other European countries. The commission, which unites families from across Europe, is the most organised attempt to date to win justice for the prisoners. Corin Redgrave, the founder of the commission, said it aimed to "appeal to the American conscience" to ensure that the prisoners were charged and tried according to the standards of international law. "It is plain and clear that the treatment of these 660 being held without charge, without access to a lawyer, without access to a court, violates the most fundamental of human rights," said Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College, London. Mr Begg's father, Azmat, said he believed that the American public would support the families when they learned about the detainees. "All I want is justice for my son," he told the meeting. "Democracy and justice cannot exist in any country unless governments act according to international human rights law and the conventions that apply to captured prisoners." Mr Abbasi's mother, Zumrati Juma, said she was disap pointed at the lack of support she had received from the British government. Patrons of the new commission include the novelists Margaret Drabble and Hari Kunzru; the former special envoy on Chechnya to the Council of Europe, Lord Judd; the MP Peter Kilfoyle and Baroness Sarah Ludford, an MEP; and Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, the leader of the Muslim parliament. Actors Vanessa Redgrave and Ian Holm, and the playwright David Hare, also support the group. Special reports Guantánamo Bay Al-Qaida United States Useful links Lawyers Committee for Human Rights Centre for Constitutional Rights Office of Military Commissions UNQUOTE |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 08:35 AM |
| If they fall into the areas of unlawful combatants or mercenaries, they fall outside the scope of the Geneva Accords. They are being treated humanely, although not being kept in comfort. They should have abided by the Protocols, and they would be POWs now. As I said previously, if you are going to dance, you've got to pay the piper. Hey, that ended on a Celtic theme!!  Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: Randy 30-Jan-2004, 08:35 AM |
| The geneva convention has a set of rules for how war can be raged. It started in the middle ages when the Pope made it illegal to use crossbows in combat. The idea that there are rules to war is kind of funny, but I know for a fact that the US military takes them VERY seriously now, I think since all the horrible stories that came out after vietnam (Killing civilians etc). Most combat platoons have a JAG (judge advocate general agent) that advises the CO on protocol. Point is the these men in Cuba broke international law and they are prisoners of war. I think very little of lawyers (Sorry if any of you are one and like anything there are good and bad), but Lawyers always seem to want to make a name for there self, one great way to get your name on TV or the paper is to say how these people are being held unjustly and how they would like to represent they "poor mistreated" people. |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 08:44 AM | ||
Well this is debatable when you listen to some of the soldiers stories after their return. Not sure I believe the line the military gives out cause obviously if a crimes committed they're going to try and protect themselves so....Not sure I buy all their statements after hearing some of the stories like some of the soldiers that came back and said they were ordered to set fire to some of the wells during the last war. Can't prove their claims are true or not but they have still made statements which raise questions. |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 08:54 AM | ||
Well being Bin Laden is waging a war on us I would consider them legal combatants. Yes their violating international law but this doesn't change their status otherwise every individual would be an illegal combatant who participates in a war. |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 09:16 AM | ||||
While you might consider them legal combatants, the Geneva Accords do not agree with you. See Article 4, Section 2 below
They do not fall into the category of regular soldiers, as they do not serve in a geopolitical entity's armed forces. While one may argue that Bin Laden is responsible for his subordinates, they do not fit the other three categories. Not even close, especially on (  and (d) which are the most important, as these clauses are designed to minimize civilian casualties.Regardless of whether Bin Laden has declared war on uss or not, Al Quaeda fighter do not qualify as lawful combatants by the current definition, which is the only one available. Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 09:38 AM | ||
If these soldiers have stories to tell, why not tell the JAG officer or anybody in CID. They live for that stuff. CID is about as popular with the military in a forward ops area as an IAD officer is with police officers. Their job is to find out what happened and bring the perp to an Article 32 hearing. They can tell everyone but the people with the horsepower to do something about it, and it is not like they don't know who t tell. That gets drilled into them in Basic and AIT. By the way, the military takes these things VERY seriously. There is the warrior ethic at play, but a more practical reason as well. When someone messes up, there are too many people that are going to know about it. It WILL eventually get out and that is bad for the military. When the press get hold of something like this, they drive it into the ground, and justly so. The military (and I am assuming that the other branches are like the Army) wants to avoid that if possible. I know a LOT of soldiers, from grunts to majors. I live about an hour from Ft. Campbell. The guys I know are all honorable men who do a tough job when their nation asks them to. They aren't mad-eyed killers bent on the total destruction of the enemy. They go in to win, but they play by the ROE in force and if someone does go off the reservation, that guy is snatched up and investigated. War is terrible. Horrible things happen. That is par for the course. But when someone violates the Geneva Accords, the military takes that very seriously indeed. Just my tuppence. Huah! Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 10:03 AM |
| Well not being one of the soldiers I can't say if they did or not maybe they did but just to many stories floating around for all to be false. |