Alright FRAGO 242 is gone

You are now telling our Army to investigate in the affairs of a sovereign nation's army.

How would you like to proceed under the following circumstances

1. The IA does not allow us access into their prisons
2. The US Army finds stuff, but in only minimal amounts and it appears the Iraqis are dealing with it on their own
3. The US Army finds stuff, in a large amount, the Iraqi army is trying to take care of it
4. The US Army finds stuff in a large amount, nothing is being done to prevent it.

And Go!

Seriously man, you act like running a military/country is completely black and white and ever everything is good or bad. It's not. There are some situations in where no matter what option you choose, you're going to look bad.

[Edited on December 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM. Reason : a]

12/28/2010 4:04:37 PM

Also, now that we are investigating one sovereign nation, should we investigate every other country that we hear reports of doing something unsavory?

12/28/2010 4:23:29 PM

Quote :

"Alright FRAGO 242 is gone You are now telling our Army to investigate in the affairs of a sovereign nation's army."

The affairs of an army they helped set up and train, an army they currently have ultimate responsibility for. Aren't you people always thumping your chests about personal responsibility? Why does this never extend to the social consequences of ones action (or inaction)?

Quote :

"1. The IA does not allow us access into their prisons"

Withdraw support and aid.

Quote :

"2. The US Army finds stuff, but in only minimal amounts and it appears the Iraqis are dealing with it on their own"

Monitor the situation to ensure it's dealt with; if not, solve as #1.

Quote :

"3. The US Army finds stuff, in a large amount, the Iraqi army is trying to take care of it"

Offer assistance; if accepted, proceed as in #2. If not accepted, #1.

Quote :

"4. The US Army finds stuff in a large amount, nothing is being done to prevent it."

Make demands on the Iraqis; either clean up house or forgo aid.

Quote :

"Seriously man, you act like running a military/country is completely black and white and ever everything is good or bad. It's not. There are some situations in where no matter what option you choose, you're going to look bad."

There's a difference between looking bad and being bad.

Quote :

"Also, now that we are investigating one sovereign nation, should we investigate every other country that we hear reports of doing something unsavory?"

The fact that you imagine this question as relevant makes me wonder if conversation is possible

12/28/2010 7:45:55 PM

^ It isn't remember this is lawful order dude. Fuck ethics if it comes from his superiors and doesn't break any laws he is doing it!

12/28/2010 7:50:40 PM

McDanger is right on all counts. But these quotes are interesting:

Quote :

"Make demands on the Iraqis"

And in responding to the suggestion that we may have to "investigate every other country" if we investigate "one sovereign nation," he says:

Quote :

"The fact that you imagine this question as relevant makes me wonder if conversation is possible"

Now, I don't personally think either of these points (or remark, in the latter case) are controversial, but I would have to assume that many people who share his worldview would.

Suggesting that we should "make demands" on another country's armed services, if offered in any other context, would be met with howls and jeers about the Great American Hegemon infringing upon the sovereignty of another nation, whatever the relationship between our two countries may be.

The second point I just found interesting because it displays the exact same exasperation I endure when told that one Fascist regime may not be forcibly removed unless we are willing and able to depose every murderous crackpot regime on the planet, all at once.

[Edited on December 29, 2010 at 9:34 AM. Reason : ]

12/29/2010 9:33:04 AM

Considering FRAGO 242 originated in 2004 I wonder how we approached this issue? Not investigating a system which we put into power is very different from "investigating every other country". Especially when you are made directly aware of the abuses going on.

Quote :

" A prisoner was kneeling on the ground, blindfolded and handcuffed, when an Iraqi soldier walked over to him and kicked him in the neck. A US marine sergeant was watching and reported the incident, which was duly recorded and judged to be valid. The outcome: "No investigation required.""

Just following lawful orders... Was that you bbehe?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-abuse-torture-saddam

12/29/2010 11:00:46 AM

It is obvious from the last several posts who is pro-torture (as long as it is brown people) and who isn't.

12/29/2010 5:07:52 PM

Yes, I am a pro-torturing person who would murder babies if given that order, assuming it was lawful of course.

12/29/2010 8:56:13 PM

and your silence makes it obvious that you support attempted murder against teens. I mean it's been five days and you haven't denied it



[Edited on December 29, 2010 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2010 11:03:16 PM

Dude, I'm in the military, who don't I support the murder of?

12/30/2010 4:43:13 AM

sorry, should have had the ^^'s on that for OEP

12/30/2010 8:28:33 AM

Quote :

"I follow lawful orders, not just ones I personally agree with."

So you would definitely just sit there and watch while the Iraqis tortured the shit out of someone. Another way of saying this is "If it is lawful I will ignore my ethical obligations". I think it is kind of pointless for you to continue posting in here. You obviously don't have much in the way of independent thought/convictions.

I am proud to say I would make a terrible fucking soldier.

12/30/2010 8:35:47 AM

Purple because ice cream has no bones.

12/30/2010 8:48:33 AM

In other words you have no response so you are just going to label the statement illogical. Maybe you should check with your superiors about posting in this thread... They probably wouldn't be happy about you being exposed to differing viewpoints

Seriously you have had no response about what you think about unethical lawful orders. Here we have a real world example and you have no response.
Another example for you:

Quote :

" On February 22 2007, a U.S. helicopter engaged a group of insurgents involved in a mortar attack upon coalition forces, near Baghdad. After firing a series of 30mm rounds, the crew of the helicopter – callsign “Crazyhorse” – radioed to their command, stating the insurgents “wanted to surrender”. The response was blunt: “CRAZYHORSE cleared to engage … Lawyer stated they cannot surrender to aircraft.” The Apache crew killed the men."

So what would you do?

12/30/2010 9:11:59 AM

follow orders, duh!

my superiors always know what's best!

even if that includes sodomizing some brown man with a broomstick (as the CIA has done many times, not talking about some rogue inbred soldiers/contractors)!!!

12/30/2010 9:13:59 AM

Situation 1 is the one where the Iraqi kicks a guy in the throat? That's not torture, although it is prisoner abuse. Had I seen the incident, I would have reported it up the chain, had I seen the Iraqi keep continuing to abuse the prisoner, I would have stopped it.

Situation 2, the Apache.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-apache-insurgents-surrender

Quote :

"After receiving the lawyer's advice, the pilots reported that the men had by now got back into their truck and were attempting to drive on. The gunship made two attempts to kill the fleeing men, launching a Hellfire missile at the truck."

So the Iraqis attempted to surrender and then continued driving? That's not surrendering.

12/30/2010 9:41:20 AM

Quote :

"had I seen the Iraqi keep continuing to abuse the prisoner, I would have stopped it."

Interfering in a "sovereign nation" now are we?


So in other words you would have shot the fuck out of people who had dropped their arms attempted surrender and were now fleeing because their surrender hadn't been acknowledged?

12/30/2010 9:57:35 AM

Stopping a guy hitting a prisoner in front of you is hardly interfering. Conducting a full fledged investigation into the Iraqi prison system is.

Seriously 'shot the fuck out of people'? Given that there is an abundant history of Iraqis 'surrendering' and then continuing on their attacks or even shooting at the helicopters they 'surrendered' too, I believe the flight crew of that aircraft acted accordingly. They report their situation and asked for clearance at every step of the way.

12/30/2010 10:05:41 AM

Quote :

"So in other words you would have shot the fuck out of people who had dropped their arms attempted surrender and were now fleeing because their surrender hadn't been acknowledged?"

Umm.... Im pretty sure that it was acknowledged when 30mm rounds stopped being thrown their way.

How else is the two man crew of an apache gunship supposed to acknowledge their surrender?

[Edited on December 30, 2010 at 10:15 AM. Reason : rounds]

[Edited on December 30, 2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason : 0]

12/30/2010 10:15:12 AM

THEY WERE GIVEN CLEARANCE TO FIRE UPON PEOPLE WHO HAD SURRENDERED! This is wrong this is not debatable. It is a violation of the Geneva convention.

Considering they chased unarmed people into a shack after they couldn't gun them down while they were fleeing and then blew the shack up I think shot the fuck out of is an apt description.

And considering FRAGO 242 was implemented in 2004 I wonder how we dealt with situations before that?

[Edited on December 30, 2010 at 10:27 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

12/30/2010 10:25:05 AM

No, if you are fleeing, that hardly constitutes surrender. And once again, it was very clear that their surrender had been acknowledged as evidenced by the lack of 30mm rounds turning their bodies into pink mist.

Is it pretty messed up that the lawyer granted them clearance to fire based on the fact that you can't surrender to an aircraft, yes. But at the time that they were killed, they were not surrendering, they were retreating combatants. Armed or not, if I were being pursued by a gunship, id probably try to find some cover too.

12/30/2010 10:35:43 AM

Quote :

"Is it pretty messed up that the lawyer granted them clearance to fire based on the fact that you can't surrender to an aircraft, yes."

So even if they had stayed put, they would have been vaporized.

Where is the condemnation for that?

12/30/2010 10:39:00 AM

The condemnation is right there in my quote. The legal advice and clearance they received when the men appeared to be surrendering was WRONG. It would be horrible had they been vaporized while attempting to surrender and I hope that the legal advice has been scrutinized and corrected since (if not punished).

HOWEVER, they were not vaporized while trying to surrender and their killing was reasonable (as even stated in the previously cited article).

12/30/2010 10:46:12 AM

Quote :

"Where is the condemnation for that?"

You keep ignoring my multiple posts about the attempted murder of three black teenagers in baltimore last week. Remember, this is one case that we know of, I bet there have been tens more from the past few decade, if not hundreds.

It is obvious from the last several posts who is pro-murder (as long as it is black people) and who isn't.

Where is the condemnation for that?

12/30/2010 10:53:18 AM

There are accounts of people surrendering and getting vaporized:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=66d_1219663925 To deny someones surrender is a violation of the Geneva Convention even if you are unable to take custody of the ones who surrendered.

Quote :

" I hope that the legal advice has been scrutinized and corrected since (if not punished)."

Considering that there are multiple instances of this being used for justification and it took wikileaks for this information to become common knowledge what do you think the chances are of that?


[Edited on December 30, 2010 at 10:56 AM. Reason : adsf]

12/30/2010 10:54:20 AM

And considering that there are 'multiple instances', you chose this particular case to illustrate your point? A situation in which, despite being given an order to engage the targets (one that is certainly of questionable legal standing), the crew of the gunship did not engage surrendering targets but went on to legally engage the fleeing men

From the guardian article above:

Quote :

"One of Britain's foremost experts on the subject, Professor Sir Adam Roberts, cast doubt on the legal advice given to the Crazyhorse 18 crew. "Surrender is not always a simple matter," Roberts, emeritus professor of international relations at Oxford University and joint editor of Documents on the Laws of War, told the Guardian. But the reasoning given by the US military lawyer was "dogmatic and wrong". "The issue is not that ground forces simply cannot surrender to aircraft," he said. "The issue is that ground forces in such circumstances need to surrender in ways that are clear and unequivocal." However, he added: "If the insurgents did indeed get back into the truck and drove off in the same direction as previously, then they probably acted unwisely, in a way that called into question their act of surrender … The US airmen might legitimately reckon that the truck contained weapons and that the men could be intending to rejoin the fight sooner or later." "

12/30/2010 11:04:55 AM

I provided another example are you ignoring it?

12/30/2010 11:06:38 AM

I can't access Liveleak here but I will take a look this evening when I get home. For the purposes of this discussion I will take you at your word and assume that the video depicts people surrendering and getting murdered. In that case, so long as the surrender is clear, their murder should go to trial as a war crime.

My whole point in this discourse this morning is not to say that attrocities have not and do not happen, it is simply to point out that the killing of the two guys fleeing after appearing to surrender is not unjustified even if the legal advice leading to the clearance was horrible.

In reference to the Marine Sargeant witnessing the prisoner abuse from the top of the page, its hard for me to argue that he was wrong. Sure, he could have (probably should have) made an attempt to stop it, but he reported it through his chain of command. I'm not even very surprised by the command decision not to investigate as that jurisdiction really falls on the Iraqi Army. Of course, there are a few avenues the USG could pursue with the Iraqis in this situation but I highly doubt that it would be as extreme as sanctions or withdrawing material support.

12/30/2010 11:20:02 AM

It's funny to see how this place, in particular, climbs to its own self-amplified lows

Pro-establishment people here are actually arguing we shouldn't be "meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation" LOL; either this was lifted from Free Republic or this place is special enough to spawn such a low, trashy perch for debate

12/30/2010 11:21:40 AM

Quote :

"as that jurisdiction really falls on the Iraqi Army."

Only since 2004. I wonder how we approached issues such as this prior to the convenient establishment of this order. WE PUT THESE PEOPLE INTO POWER WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

12/30/2010 11:25:15 AM

And as far as I can tell, this occurred since 2004. So like I said, jurisdiction lies with the Iraqis on this one and should be investigated from their end.

As far as being responsible for their actions, thats the tricky part about the nationbuilding business. Since we turned over the reins to them, they have just as much right to give us the diplomatic middle finger as any other country in the world. Of course, we have a bit more leverage with them but ultimately they have to decide that its something worth investigating.

We've put plenty of people into power over the last 60 years or so, but I suspect that you wouldn't argue that we are responsible for their actions now. At what point are we absolved of this responsibility?

12/30/2010 11:33:36 AM

We handled the prison systems (at least for some) prior to 2004. I know you're going to bring it up so yes, there were atrocities committed by our side during this process (Abu Ghraib etc.)


Also, the people of Iraq put the current government in process, although that answer is going to prompt the 'zomg nothing but a shadowy puppet government lead by the US' from you.

[Edited on December 30, 2010 at 11:37 AM. Reason : a]

12/30/2010 11:37:05 AM

We are not only ignoring we are hiding our knowledge of the torture. We know it is happening and not only are we doing nothing about it we are hiding it to protect "national security". Shouldn't voters be given access to this information?
Oh and the link I provided was a guy driving down the highway getting out with his arms raised and getting gunned down.

[Edited on December 30, 2010 at 11:41 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/30/2010 11:40:05 AM

Ok, the US voters now have access to cherry picked information released from a egotistical douche bag who is working on his own agenda.

You think that will really change anything? If you really want to make a difference, maybe you should be out on the streets protesting, raising money to support wikileaks, campaigning for a candidate of your choosing, or hell, run yourself.

Instead you troll on an internet board. Congrats Sir.

I'm done with this thread.

12/30/2010 11:47:05 AM

Quote :

"raising money to support wikileaks"

Given the information about how our government has dealt with the Bradley Manning situation (searches and confiscation of materials from people who visit/ set up legal defense fund) that wouldn't be too smart would it?

Quote :

" Ok, the US voters now have access to cherry picked information released from a egotistical douche bag who is working on his own agenda. "

Wasn't someone complaining a while back about how he just released it without cherry picking it. Please get your story straight.

How about you stop arguing on a message board and go rape more prisoners. Fucking government drone...

I guess you have no reason why our government should be keeping information like this secret? I am surprised.

12/30/2010 12:00:27 PM

Quote :

"You think that will really change anything? If you really want to make a difference, maybe you should be out on the streets protesting, raising money to support wikileaks, campaigning for a candidate of your choosing, or hell, run yourself."

Change in this system is likely impossible. You want him to either engage a corrupt system or get kicked to shit trying to protest it (as frequently happens to peaceful protesters, usually to the cheers of people like you). Then you marginalize discussion on the internet as illegitimate, when probably it's the only thing that's going to save us. Without a public discussion of how to replace our broken system, how do you imagine real change being affected?

12/30/2010 7:45:24 PM

http://www.sify.com/news/1-in-3-brit-muslims-students-back-killing-for-islam-40-percent-want-sharia-law-wikileaks-news-international-kmwmEhjhief.html

Quote :

"The whistleblower website 'Wikileaks' has revealed the outcome of a 2009 poll in the secret US diplomatic cables, saying that 32 percent of Muslim students in 30 universities across the UK believe killing in the name of religion is justified, while 40 percent want Muslims in the country to be under the Sharia law."

12/31/2010 12:28:20 AM

Quote :

"Change in this system is likely impossible."

What about Nixon?

Quote :

"You want him to either engage a corrupt system or get kicked to shit trying to protest it"

I want him to be less of an attention whore about it trying to make himself out to be some superhero savior of truth and righteousness. He could have released the relevant information like any legitimate reporter or whistleblower would have done, not childishly releasing everything he gets his hands on.

12/31/2010 12:54:19 AM

Quote :

"He could have released the relevant information like any legitimate reporter or whistleblower would have done, not childishly releasing everything he gets his hands on."

However just a couple posts up from you he gets accused of cherry picking

Quote :

" Ok, the US voters now have access to cherry picked information released from a egotistical douche bag who is working on his own agenda. "

So now do you understand why he wasn't able to just "release relevant information"

12/31/2010 8:38:55 AM

Quote :

"However just a couple posts up from you he gets accused of cherry picking"

No I didn't.

12/31/2010 10:03:45 AM

I don't care if you didn't another vapid supporter of the american governments crusade for secrecy did.

12/31/2010 11:01:13 AM

ITT "you" = anyone who isn't adder

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 11:17 AM. Reason : ]

12/31/2010 11:15:58 AM

Are you really this dense? We already had this discussion pages back. You bitch about him not being selective about what was posted. The logical response is he didn't want to be accused of cherry picking information to make the US look bad. If you look the accusation of cherry picking is made ON THIS FUCKING PAGE. In other words the fact that YOU didn't make this statement is irrelevant to the premise of the argument. What a fucktard...

Also at no point did I say that YOU made that statement.


[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM. Reason : asdf]


[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 11:42 AM. Reason : furthermore]

12/31/2010 11:40:12 AM

Quote :

"The logical response is he didn't want to be accused of cherry picking information to make the US look bad."

That is a stupid response considering the many, many journalists who have leaked information in a much more mature way haven't come under those accusations. Besides that, such accusations are besides the point considering they do not address the leak's validity.

12/31/2010 12:04:06 PM

Considering how widespread the accusations of cherry picking are IN THIS THREAD do you really feel so confident in your assertion?

Quote :

"Besides that, such accusations are besides the point considering they do not address the leak's validity."

Neither does your complaint about how he chose to release it. In other words you are just as bad as those who would cry "cherry picking". You and the US media are choosing to focus on the person instead of the information being released.

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 1:08 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/31/2010 1:08:13 PM

Paging smc...

Quote :

"An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience. He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102?currentPage=1

bwahahahahahahahahaha, what a noble champion of truth!

1/6/2011 9:26:20 AM

Who cares? He is an asshole. While the idiot American's are caught up in the scandal that is Assange the US media is quietly collaborating with the government to keep us uniformed and scared.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4206

[Edited on January 6, 2011 at 10:25 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/6/2011 10:20:49 AM

Assange is a hero.

1/6/2011 4:23:50 PM

So....who follows Wikileaks on Twitter?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/us-subpoenas-wikileaks-tweets-and-why-this-could-affect-you/7610

Quote :

"The US government has subpoenaed Twitter in a bid to support an ongoing criminal investigation into whether Wikileaks and people involved or connected to Wikileaks, including an Icelandic member of parliament, broke the law. According to Wikileaks lawyer Mark Stephens live on the BBC News a short time ago, it is believed Facebook and Google (see here) have also been contacted regarding Wikileaks members and potential whistleblowers. Update (12:20am GMT): Mark Stephens on the BBC News also makes clear that the court order will also cover the “600,000 odd followers that Wikileaks has on Twitter“."

1/10/2011 1:06:47 PM

I've been following them since before the Iraqi helicopter video was leaked.

Twitter has seemed suspect ever since the Library of Congress began cataloging tweets.

From the article:

Quote :

"The order asks specifically for names of those attached to selected accounts, user and screen names, and any registered mailing or postal addresses. It also asks for email addresses, credit card details where possible, and even content relating to connected mobile phones. The server logs which could identify the computer and geographical location of where even private messages were sent from have also been ordered to be handed over."

1/10/2011 2:22:52 PM