ABC Slanders Troops - What Else Is New?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by red states rule, May 8, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The liberal media is once again sliming the troops. God forbid if the troops do their job and prevent terrorists attacks and save lives

    Yes, ABC News is more interested in the right of terrorists then stopping terrorist attacks


    Poll: Many in Army OK with torture

    11:31 PM CDT on Friday, May 4, 2007
    From Wire Reports

    WASHINGTON – More than one-third of U.S. soldiers in Iraq surveyed by the Army said they believe torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents, the Pentagon disclosed Friday. Four in 10 said they approve of such illegal abuse if it would save the life of a fellow soldier.

    In addition, about two-thirds of Marines and half the Army troops surveyed said they would not report a team member for mistreating a civilian or for destroying civilian property unnecessarily. "Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," the report stated.

    About 10 percent of the 1,767 troops in the official survey – conducted in Iraq in the fall – reported that they had mistreated civilians in Iraq, such as kicking them or needlessly damaging their possessions.

    "They looked under every rock, and what they found was not always easy to look at," S. Ward Casscells, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said of Army researchers who conducted the survey. The report noted that the troops' statements are at odds with the Army's "soldier's rules."
    Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, the acting Army surgeon general, cast the report as positive news. "What it speaks to is the leadership that the military is providing, because they're not acting on those thoughts," she said. "They're not torturing the people."

    But human rights activists said the report lends support to their view that the abuse of Iraqi civilians by U.S. military personnel was not isolated to some bad apples at Abu Ghraib and a few other detention facilities but instead was more widespread.

    "These are distressing results," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "They highlight a failure to adequately train and supervise our soldiers."

    The study also found that the more often soldiers are deployed, the longer they are deployed each time, and the less time they spend at home, the more likely they are to suffer mental health problems such as combat trauma, anxiety and depression. That result is notable given that the Pentagon has sent soldiers and Marines to Iraq multiple times and recently extended the tours of thousands of soldiers from 12 to 15 months.

    The authors of the Army document argued that the strains placed on troops in Iraq are in some ways more severe than those borne by the combat forces of World War II.

    And although U.S. casualties in Iraq are far lower than in the Vietnam War, for example, military experts say that Iraq can be more stressful. In Vietnam, some rear areas were considered safe, but in Iraq there are no truly secure areas outside big bases.

    The authors recommended that soldiers be given breathers during combat tours and also intervals of 18 to 36 months between such tours, substantially longer than they are allowed now.

    Overall, 20 percent of the soldiers surveyed and 15 percent of the Marines appeared to suffer from depression, anxiety or stress, the Army reported. That was in keeping with findings of past surveys, as was the conclusion that more than 40 percent of soldiers reported low morale in their units.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/050507dnintethics.372ee0d.html
     
  2. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    how is that slander? I would assume - (although, with you, assumptions about intellectual knowledge are risky) - that you know that the affirmative defense against a charge of slander is that what was said is the truth. Are you suggesting that ABC LIED about the results of that poll?
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    I fail to see slander. ABC ran a story from an Army source. I don't even see where in this story deviates from just reporting what was in the study. The conclusions from OTHER sources are wrong, but that is not ABC's fault. No lie is evident, no slander and I cant even say I see any bias in the story.
     
  4. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    RSR, once again, confuses his delusions with reality.
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Read the headline of the "story"

    Libs play the torture card again
     
  6. Rosotar
    Offline

    Rosotar Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Ratings:
    +45
    Do you support the right of our enemies to torture U.S. soldiers RSR?
     
  7. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    RSR have you heard of the Geneva convention?

    Article 1


    For the purposes of this Convention,

    torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
    It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

    This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

    http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

    Cruelty in war may be universal: but an international code acknowledging limits on cruelty has been, until now, a fundamental part of civilization. The Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1949, put it plainly: Even in war, all persons are to be treated "humanely"; "cruel treatment and torture and outrages upon personal dignity" are prohibited. The United States and countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, 192 in all, have agreed that freedom from torture, degradation, and cruel or inhuman treatment is one of the most basic of human rights, transcending national boundaries.

    As Judge Irving Kaufman of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1980 -- in a landmark case we at the Center for Constitutional Rights brought in a U.S. court against the Paraguayan general who tortured Joel Filartiga to death -- "for purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,384163,00.html
     
  8. actsnoblemartin
    Offline

    actsnoblemartin I love Andrea & April

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,039
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    La Mesa, CA
    Ratings:
    +407
    Superlative, I thought the geneva convention only applies to prisoners of war. Not enemy combatants. Meaning, if your not an iraqi, trying to kill american soldiers, you are not entitled to the protections, and if your a terrorist not fighting a country, like any insurgent terrorist since, the iraqi army was defeated, how are they, or anyone at guantanamo bay subject to the terms of the convention. If torture saves life, i would support it. I have not read the convention yet, i will, thank you for sharing it :)

     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    So when are you going to start harping on Islamic extremists torturing captives? That's before decapitating them.

    And I'm not looking for the obligatory "I'm against them doing it to." I'm talking about giving EQUAL coverage to the crimes committed by our enemies as you do indicting US troops.

    Your double standard and anti-American point of view is rather obvious.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... if I could save the life of even ONE of my Marines, I'd stick a Kabar to an enemy combatant's throat in a heartbeat. He can start singing his life's story or hope I'm bluffing.
     
  10. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    I don't see that as torture...now if put the KBAR to his crotch...that would be torture!
     

Share This Page