A Matter Of Honor

[NATO AIR]

Once the investigation is complete, heads need to roll, and I don't just mean in the 82nd Airborne....completely unsat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701527.html?nav=hcmodule
A Matter of Honor

Wednesday, September 28, 2005; Page A21

The following letter was sent to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sept. 16:

Dear Senator McCain:

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.

That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.

Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."

Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.

With the Utmost Respect,

-- Capt. Ian Fishback

1st Battalion,

504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,

82nd Airborne Division,

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

 

[CSM]

I will wait and see on this one...I am not so sure the good Capt or the letter is legit. I will check it out though.

 

[theim]

I agree that confusion on what is and is not acceptable needs to be cleared up. But the one argument that I am getting annoyed with is this one:

When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard,

Which sounds just fine, except this kind of pie-in-the-sky attitude is the exact thing that drives imbeciles like Amnesty International to declare that Gitmo is a gulag because of Harry Potter being read by females and Infidel guards daring to touch the Q'u'r'a'n without gloves, and that anything less than putting up inmates in a five-star hotel suite is torture. Hey, we're Americans, so we must be held to a higher standard. Any other Imperialist Warmongering Power Controlled By the Zionist Entity would only go for four stars.

Now I'm not saying its cool to break people's legs or cut open their arms or anything reminescent of...oh...pretty much any enemy we have ever fought against.

Which leads me to agree with the overall point of the letter. A standard must be marked that makes Soviet-style stuff totally out of bounds, but at the same time fully states that non-gloved guards and Harry Potter-reading females are acceptable.

 

[CSM]

I will wait and see on this one...I am not so sure the good Capt or the letter is legit. I will check it out though.

Yep, he is for real all right.

That being said I'll wait on the investigation to be complete before passing judgement. I am willing to bet that the libs will be crying for administration blood before that though. I find it really ironic that those so unwilling to condemn all Muslims as terrorists are the same folks who want the entire US condemned because of the actions of a few.

I would also point out that unless the 82d is different, every soldier is taught how to handle prisoners and should know exactly how they are to be treate. I never had anyone indicate anything less than the Geneva Convention as acceptable. I know of no units that have been told otherwise either...and I know of a lot of units.

What really disturbs me is that no commander in this officer's chain of command had the balls to take a stand and state precisely what was the correct course of action and state exactly how the prisoners were to be treated.

 

[NATO AIR]

I agree that confusion on what is and is not acceptable needs to be cleared up. But the one argument that I am getting annoyed with is this one:

Which sounds just fine, except this kind of pie-in-the-sky attitude is the exact thing that drives imbeciles like Amnesty International to declare that Gitmo is a gulag because of Harry Potter being read by females and Infidel guards daring to touch the Q'u'r'a'n without gloves, and that anything less than putting up inmates in a five-star hotel suite is torture. Hey, we're Americans, so we must be held to a higher standard. Any other Imperialist Warmongering Power Controlled By the Zionist Entity would only go for four stars.

Now I'm not saying its cool to break people's legs or cut open their arms or anything reminescent of...oh...pretty much any enemy we have ever fought against.

Which leads me to agree with the overall point of the letter. A standard must be marked that makes Soviet-style stuff totally out of bounds, but at the same time fully states that non-gloved guards and Harry Potter-reading females are acceptable.

We discussed this today during our GMT (general military training), which we actually are doing for the first time in 2 years because we now have an 0-6 XO (executive officer) who runs things with an iron fist (largely for the better)...

An officer brought up a good point; the tactics utilized at Gitmo are not "abuse" because they are in a controlled environment with no chance of escape, no chance of attack from the outside, no outside interference, etc etc. HIGHLY CONTROLLED, STABLE ENVIRONMENT with very little crisis-like pressure to get information. We're taking our time with these guys.

However, the same tactics when utilized in Iraq and Afghanistan have wrought disaster because they're under completely different circumstances now, there is no real stable environment, terrorists/insurgents everywhere, constant threat of attack, constant outside interference, and oh by the way, the pressure to get intel is often severe. the insurgent you capture at noon may have the key to a terrorist bombing you've heard about that is supposed to happen that night, you know the insurgent knows, but he won't tell you, now you're under pressure and forced to take actions you normally wouldn't to try to get information out of him.

This along with the fact the Army was using poorly trained personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan because it didn't have enough intel and military police. Whereas at Gitmo, the Navy has special billets for the master at arms (and temporary master at arms) (navy military police) that entail extensive training and supervision before they actually go to Gitmo and have regular responsibilties.

 

[NATO AIR]

What really disturbs me is that no commander in this officer's chain of command had the balls to take a stand and state precisely what was the correct course of action and state exactly how the prisoners were to be treated.

That is also what really disturbs me, besides the consequences of this for our counter-insurgency efforts in iraq and afghanistan.

but seriously, even on the most messed up day on my ship or in the navy (and there are quite a few), i could never imagine something so important be so ignored by the chain of command. yet its happened here, and its happened on other occasions in our past, always to our detriment.

an understandable outcry may come from the military that it is the civilians like rumsfeld who are really to blame for this, and that may have some truth. but at this point, we can only sit back and watch the scandal explode, because the captain's bravery in coming forward may encourage others to come out of the shadows.

 

[CSM]

We discussed this today during our GMT (general military training), which we actually are doing for the first time in 2 years because we now have an 0-6 XO (executive officer) who runs things with an iron fist (largely for the better)...

An officer brought up a good point; the tactics utilized at Gitmo are not "abuse" because they are in a controlled environment with no chance of escape, no chance of attack from the outside, no outside interference, etc etc. HIGHLY CONTROLLED, STABLE ENVIRONMENT with very little crisis-like pressure to get information. We're taking our time with these guys.

However, the same tactics when utilized in Iraq and Afghanistan have wrought disaster because they're under completely different circumstances now, there is no real stable environment, terrorists/insurgents everywhere, constant threat of attack, constant outside interference, and oh by the way, the pressure to get intel is often severe. the insurgent you capture at noon may have the key to a terrorist bombing you've heard about that is supposed to happen that night, you know the insurgent knows, but he won't tell you, now you're under pressure and forced to take actions you normally wouldn't to try to get information out of him.

This along with the fact the Army was using poorly trained personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan because it didn't have enough intel and military police. Whereas at Gitmo, the Navy has special billets for the master at arms (and temporary master at arms) (navy military police) that entail extensive training and supervision before they actually go to Gitmo and have regular responsibilties.

I tend to agree that using Reserves and Guard troops as prison guards/MPs without at least some mentoring by active duty supervisors is just asking for trouble. It is very disturbing that any leader in the chain of command, regardless of level in that chain, would turn a blind eye or even condone or abet prisoner abuse.

 

[NATO AIR]

I tend to agree that using Reserves and Guard troops as prison guards/MPs without at least some mentoring by active duty supervisors is just asking for trouble. It is very disturbing that any leader in the chain of command, regardless of level in that chain, would turn a blind eye or even condone or abet prisoner abuse.

Yes, i mean, we have people from around the ship who go TDY (TAD in the navy ) to ship's security, and 9 out of 10 are not nearly as skilled or reliable as the master-at-arms. Now, I imagine them in a situation where they're in Iraq or Afghanistan, filling a Master-At-Arms billet or an MP billet, and I can see the problem and the potential for disaster right there. We just need more MP's and intel folks. Right?

 

[CSM]

That is also what really disturbs me, besides the consequences of this for our counter-insurgency efforts in iraq and afghanistan.

but seriously, even on the most messed up day on my ship or in the navy (and there are quite a few), i could never imagine something so important be so ignored by the chain of command. yet its happened here, and its happened on other occasions in our past, always to our detriment.

an understandable outcry may come from the military that it is the civilians like rumsfeld who are really to blame for this, and that may have some truth. but at this point, we can only sit back and watch the scandal explode, because the captain's bravery in coming forward may encourage others to come out of the shadows.

Yep. I suspect that there is more than a little politics involved as well. By that I mean that some officers get where they are because of political connections rather than skill and competency...I know this for a fact. Such officers are generally a detriment to begin with. Please note that not all officers fall in the latter category. Also, it is far more prevalent in the Reserves and National Guard, though the active component is not free of political influence. This is particularly true for the field grade ranks beyond LtCol and above.

 

[CSM]

Yes, i mean, we have people from around the ship who go TDY (TAD in the navy ) to ship's security, and 9 out of 10 are not nearly as skilled or reliable as the master-at-arms. Now, I imagine them in a situation where they're in Iraq or Afghanistan, filling a Master-At-Arms billet or an MP billet, and I can see the problem and the potential for disaster right there. We just need more MP's and intel folks. Right?

Absolutely. Regardless, we need more professionalism in our forces, particularly for MPs and Intel fields.

 

[NATO AIR]

Yep. I suspect that there is more than a little politics involved as well. By that I mean that some officers get where they are because of political connections rather than skill and competency...I know this for a fact. Such officers are generally a detriment to begin with. Please note that not all officers fall in the latter category. Also, it is far more prevalent in the Reserves and National Guard, though the active component is not free of political influence. This is particularly true for the field grade ranks beyond LtCol and above.

I would agree with you. Though in the Navy, our quality of officers is not nearly as high as the marines or army. I hate to say that, but i feel it is the reality.

I hope this can be a catalyst for reform, if its handled properly but it will probably turn into a giant CYA dog and pony show.

 

[CSM]

I would agree with you. Though in the Navy, our quality of officers is not nearly as high as the marines or army. I hate to say that, but i feel it is the reality.

I hope this can be a catalyst for reform, if its handled properly but it will probably turn into a giant CYA dog and pony show.

I bet there are a lot of officers scrambling to cover their butts right now! Probably some senior NCOs too. If they did propagate the abuse of prisoners either by initmation or actual action, they should be relieved of command, tried, and if found guilty, jailed.

 

[NATO AIR]

Absolutely. Regardless, we need more professionalism in our forces, particularly for MPs and Intel fields.

Yep, especially for our future needs in urban battlezones in Africa, SE Asia and the Middle East.

Counter-insurgency is going to be either the bane or hallmark of a significant portion of our ground forces for years to come.

We need to make the investment in our critical needs now, not later.

 

[pegwinn]

I seem to remember sitting thru an ungodly amount of POW treatment classes. I was sleepy, bored, unruly, typical Lance Corporal. AS God and the Commandant conspired to exact revenge, I got to teach some of those classes years later as a senior staff nco. I know for a fact that POW Handling, Law of Land Warfare, Cultural Lookouts, Country Briefs, Rules of engagements (under umpteen scenarios) etc took place prior to my final deployment.

Having said that. There is a fine line between a lawful order and a violation of international treaty. Often the specific action is in the eye of the beholder. Senior Leadership, we are talking stars here, should have set the tone firmly and the shit as they say would have gone downhill.

Let the JAG investigation do it's thing. Then let the courts martial do theirs if warranted.

Not sure about the Army, but a Captain of Marines sending an open letter to his congress critter would not have earned any cool points unless he had Christ himself as a character witness.

 

[CSM]

I seem to remember sitting thru an ungodly amount of POW treatment classes. I was sleepy, bored, unruly, typical Lance Corporal. AS God and the Commandant conspired to exact revenge, I got to teach some of those classes years later as a senior staff nco. I know for a fact that POW Handling, Law of Land Warfare, Cultural Lookouts, Country Briefs, Rules of engagements (under umpteen scenarios) etc took place prior to my final deployment.

Having said that. There is a fine line between a lawful order and a violation of international treaty. Often the specific action is in the eye of the beholder. Senior Leadership, we are talking stars here, should have set the tone firmly and the shit as they say would have gone downhill.

Let the JAG investigation do it's thing. Then let the courts martial do theirs if warranted.

Not sure about the Army, but a Captain of Marines sending an open letter to his congress critter would not have earned any cool points unless he had Christ himself as a character witness.

Amen to all of the above.