ABC Slanders Troops - What Else Is New?

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
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?
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
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?
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.
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
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
 

actsnoblemartin

I love Andrea & April
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
4,039
Reaction score
412
Points
98
Location
La Mesa, CA
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 :)

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
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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
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.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
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.
I don't see that as torture...now if put the KBAR to his crotch...that would be torture!
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
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 :)


There is the brilliance of the USA, you can circumvent both the constitution and the Geneva conventions by simply renaming the enemy.

Look up the definition for "Prisoner of War"

A prisoner of war is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict

Or even the definition of "Prisoner" i bet the people detained, or affected by an invading force are classified as prisoners of war, therefor are susceptible to the Geneva Convention, and because we hold them on foreign land, they circumvent the Constitution as well. simply by calling them Enemy
Combatants.

Besides, 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.

Persons, Humans, living beings are to be treated humanely.

Not just POW's.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
There is the brilliance of the USA, you can circumvent both the constitution and the Geneva conventions by simply renaming the enemy.

Look up the definition for "Prisoner of War"

A prisoner of war is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict

Or even the definition of "Prisoner" i bet the people detained, or affected by an invading force are classified as prisoners of war, therefor are susceptible to the Geneva Convention, and because we hold them on foreign land, they circumvent the Constitution as well. simply by calling them Enemy
Combatants.

Besides, 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.

Persons, Humans, living beings are to be treated humanely.

Not just POW's.
actually the Conventions themselves provide for enemy combatants, that are non-conventional, the same rights do NOT pertain.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
actually the Conventions themselves provide for enemy combatants, that are non-conventional, the same rights do NOT pertain.
so you are saying that the GC allows for non-conventional enemy combatants to be tortured? Sleep deprivation? extreme hypothermia? stuff like that? Odd.... they never taught the GC that way when I was in school!
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
so you are saying that the GC allows for non-conventional enemy combatants to be tortured? Sleep deprivation? extreme hypothermia? stuff like that? Odd.... they never taught the GC that way when I was in school!
If you want to get technical, as ununiformed militants conducting a war against uniformed militaries of sovereign nations, they could be treated as spies and saboteurs.

I think the non-conventional enemy combatant label is much more humane, and far better than they deserve.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
If you want to get technical, as ununiformed militants conducting a war against uniformed militaries of sovereign nations, they could be treated as spies and saboteurs.

I think the non-conventional enemy combatant label is much more humane, and far better than they deserve.
spies and saboteurs can be tortured under the GC?

I know that they can be shot, but tortured? I did not think so
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
but I will admit that my formal classes on the GC were many decades ago and I hadn't given them much thought at all in the last dozen years or so.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
spies and saboteurs can be tortured under the GC?

I know that they can be shot, but tortured? I did not think so
That was my point. We aren't taking detainees out and shooting them, when, with the right legal definition, we could.

And my point from the beginning is this board is brimming with threads ranting against US servicepeople who allegedly tortured some poor, underserving slobs.

Not one thread on the verysame slobs who follow absolutely no moral boundary while using our morals against us even to the point of turning us against one another on the issue.

If even the slightest discomfort is going to be labelled "torture" for the sole purpose of weilding a political warclub, then some of us have forgotten where we came from and/or even how to win a war.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
That was my point. We aren't taking detainees out and shooting them, when, with the right legal definition, we could.

And my point from the beginning is this board is brimming with threads ranting against US servicepeople who allegedly tortured some poor, underserving slobs.

Not one thread on the verysame slobs who follow absolutely no moral boundary while using our morals against us even to the point of turning us against one another on the issue.

If even the slightest discomfort is going to be labelled "torture" for the sole purpose of weilding a political warclub, then some of us have forgotten where we came from and/or even how to win a war.
Its truly not a matter of knowing how, its a matter of desire. I have said that from the begining (can't find the post from 5 years ago) but I remember posting many times the prediction that the US citizenry would not have the will to see this through. That is my biggest reason for opposing the invasion of Iraq.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Its truly not a matter of knowing how, its a matter of desire. I have said that from the begining (can't find the post from 5 years ago) but I remember posting many times the prediction that the US citizenry would not have the will to see this through. That is my biggest reason for opposing the invasion of Iraq.
You're a little older than me, and you've seen it before as an adult. I figured no way would the extreme left be allowed to create another Vietnam, thinking we should have learned that lesson from history, and thinking no right-minded American would take another political loss on the battlefield just for partisan politics.

Guess I was wrong.
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
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.
Guess what, the Extremists didnt write the rules, Alot of people helped to write them, incliding the US ,then they used THAT set of rules to try people for crimes committed during war.

Do you think that we should act as the extremists do?

does that make us a noble enemy? an eye for an eye?

does that give us just cause? that they broke the rules?

to lower ourselves and be no better than them? that is wat you want

They are a different breed, they have been fighting for decades, and we stepped in ,invaded, and feel they should follow "Our Rules"

I do believe if they are ever found and convicted of their crimes they should be hanged .

I think that the US being the 'Superpower' they are, that it is only right that they should hold themselves to some kind higher standard, perhaps a set of rules for war?

like the Geneva Convention perhaps?

The extremists kidnap and torture people then behead them.

We should find them and try them. What youre saying is we should go into someones house and kidnapp them and torture them to see if they "Know" anything".

Your so called double standard is hardly applicable when the people being occupied are not a superpower, and are hardly capable of defending themselves with anything short of blowing themselves up.

They have their hidden camps, but they do not have entire detention centers located in international waters to avoid the very rules that were set into play to counter such horrors. they do not have guantanamo's.

They are at least honest in the horrors they commit, the US looks in the face of the rules and says oh, they arent POW's, they are "enemy combatatants." its ok.

Im not saying that what the enemy does isnt horrifying or terrible, what im saying is that the US holds itself outside the rules, simply because it makes them.

Its the right of the people of this nation to hold our armed forces, and government responsible for their actions, for they reflect our nation.

You call my view a double standard, but if you set rules of war, and you try others for them, then you better well apply them to yourselves, or admit you dont follow them, and that they dont apply to you because you say so.

That i believe is the definition of a double standard? isnt it? Or is it hypocrisy? one or the other? maybe even both>? hhhhmmmm just a little?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top