US soldiers often not prosecuted for torture

[Severian]

A Denver Post article tallying up Army records (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E6439%7E2350815,00.html)

It says, in part:

Four Army police officers faced criminal charges last year for kicking and punching seven Iraqi prisoners at Camp Bucca, assaults that resulted in broken bones. Instead of sending them to trial, however, commanders booted them from the service.

Army Spec. Juba Martino-Poole avoided trial on a manslaughter charge for fatally shooting an Iraqi prisoner, also in 2003. His punishment was the same: Turn in the uniform. Another specialist accused of raping a fellow soldier in Iraq last year was discharged without being prosecuted.

Such outcomes are routine for soldiers accused of human-rights crimes - even some who have admitted guilt, The Denver Post has found.

By more than a 2-to-1 ratio, military officials have handed down administrative discipline rather than pursue criminal punishments for service members accused of prisoner abuse or sexual-assault crimes in war zones, according to records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and a Pentagon source.

I've noticed this previously, in news of particular torture cases in Iraq: soldiers being slapped on the wrist. It should be added that when prosecutions do occur, sentences are still light: the only jail time I've seen was two Marines given eight months for torturing a prisoner with electricity.

Kudos for the Denver Post for adding up the overall picture, though.

Clearly gives the lie to Bush's claim that the torture at Abu Ghraib shocked and outraged him, and that it did not reflect the "values" of the U.S. capitalist class and its government.

[fernando]

You think they were actually going to punish these soldiers? That would drop morale, to see that their own government who sends them to war also persecutes them...

[Severian]

Well, no, I don't, because those soldiers were carrying out policy, partly written and partly unwritten.

A real army of liberation, however, certainly would have to punish these acts and enforce its policies against torture.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Raping of the female members is also very common in the US military. And in large part, the rapists go unprosecuted or aren't even charged with rape.

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:19 PM
Raping of the female members is also very common in the US military. And in large part, the rapists go unprosecuted or aren't even charged with rape.
It's normal for them...I mean they are mostly a bunch of brainwashed jarheads who have been indoctrinated with messages of war and bloodlust for ages, then send out in these situations where they have to kill people, and as a way to get rid of all the tension they just rape a bunch of women...

The US is not liberator, they just needed to make money and get the public behind them

[DRS]

in my eyes, those soldiers that are torturing and killing the iraqi people deserve to be shot on the spot, stupid brainless grunts.

They need the British army in their, our army is one of a small amount of armies that know how stupid the american army can be

[Severian]

The Brits have their own atrocity scandal developing.

[Purple]

maybe it would help to have a blend, make them insecure

[DaCuBaN]

They need the British army in their, our army is one of a small amount of armies that know how stupid the american army can be

No, we simply have a superiority complex. Our army consists of a bunch of kids given sub-par equipment sent into terrain they are largely unfamiliar with to die. We are as equally incompetent as our american "friends".

Just get them all fucking out.

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:19 PM
Raping of the female members is also very common in the US military. And in large part, the rapists go unprosecuted or aren't even charged with rape.
If were going for high scores the former USSR would hold the all time high score for rapes of the innocent.

Berlin occupaication for the most, but also a trail of rape follows the army where ever it went.

Its not easy to control an army. You got 1000s of guys walking around armed, highly trained who are now in control of a group of people who have been shooting at them and continue to shoot at them. Lets see how you'd react. Assuming you'd live long enough into occupation. It doesn't need to be said but id doubt it.

Its hard to lay blame on a soldier for the things they have witnessed and dealt with and continue to live in.

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 01:29 AM
They need the British army in their, our army is one of a small amount of armies that know how stupid the american army can be

The British army has more experience with occupation and controlling the locals they Handel it differently thats why you hear of fewer bombings of brits then Americans. they learned this for the most part well in Scotland.

Americans patrol the streets with rifles out helmets on brits patrol with pistols concealed and berets on.

[Hawker]

Well what do you expect from a society that encourages violence?

Personally I'm not suprised at all,what do you expect from modern barbarians?

[DaCuBaN]

The British army has more experience with occupation and controlling the locals they Handel it differently thats why you hear of fewer bombings of brits then Americans. they learned this for the most part well in Scotland.

Umm... I live in Scotland, and last time I checked there hasn't been any fighting or occupation here for 200 years. We're part of the union and all that.

Perhaps you mean Northern Ireland? ;)

With that example in mind, we're still not 'better' - we made a fucking pigs ear of that part of the world. The only reason you don't see as many problems with the UK army as the US is simply a matter of numbers: You've got hundreds of thousands of soldiers there: We've merely got scores of thousands, although I'll admit I'm unsure of the exact figures and I'm in no mood to go looking it up.

Proportionally, it adds up.

[fernando]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 26 2004, 07:48 AM
If were going for high scores the former USSR would hold the all time high score for rapes of the innocent.

Berlin occupaication for the most, but also a trail of rape follows the army where ever it went.

Its not easy to control an army. You got 1000s of guys walking around armed, highly trained who are now in control of a group of people who have been shooting at them and continue to shoot at them. Lets see how you'd react. Assuming you'd live long enough into occupation. It doesn't need to be said but id doubt it.

Its hard to lay blame on a soldier for the things they have witnessed and dealt with and continue to live in.
Ah ok so because the USSR did it, it;s ok for the US to do it as well :lol:

Hey guess what about those people who are shooting at the soldiers...maybe that is a hint...maybe they dont want those soldiers there at the first place ;)

But hey it isnt the soldier's fault if he rapes innocent women.... :lol:

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 07:55 PM
Ah ok so because the USSR did it, it;s ok for the US to do it as well :lol:

Hey guess what about those people who are shooting at the soldiers...maybe that is a hint...maybe they dont want those soldiers there at the first place ;)

But hey it isnt the soldier's fault if he rapes innocent women.... :lol:

I wasnt implying that becaus the ussr did it its ok for the us army to do it.....


The people who are shooting at the soldier are a minority. The majority of iraqis are happy with out saddam.

Never implyed it wasnt a soldiers fault.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 26 2004, 09:57 PM



The people who are shooting at the soldier are a minority. The majority of iraqis are happy with out saddam.


Thats because because the majority are shia fundelmentalist who follow a Islamic fundelmentalist. Why would they want dictator who allowed religous freedom when they can install a Islamic republic.

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 27 2004, 03:09 AM
Thats because because the majority are shia fundelmentalist who follow a Islamic fundelmentalist. Why would they want dictator who allowed religous freedom when they can install a Islamic republic.

Saddam did NOT allow religious freedom

Google ithttp://dark2k1.com/modules/gallery/images///Miscellaneous/EbonyLupa%20Productions/bullshit.jpg

[DaCuBaN]

Saddam did NOT allow religious freedom

Saddam has, to my mind, one saving grace: He had true seperation of church and state, something which given the political climate of the middle east was a phenomenal achievement.

It doesn't change any of the other facts about the man, but that at least is one thing he is worthy of credit for.

[fernando]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 26 2004, 09:57 PM

I wasnt implying that becaus the ussr did it its ok for the us army to do it.....


The people who are shooting at the soldier are a minority. The majority of iraqis are happy with out saddam.

Never implyed it wasnt a soldiers fault.
Well you make it sound liek that...I mean this thread is about the US commiting these things and then you fall back to: "but the USSR did it also!!!"

The majority is happy that Saddam is gone, but they are now annoyed by the US presence there, there is a difference between the two ;)

You did imply it by posting:

Its hard to lay blame on a soldier for the things they have witnessed and dealt with and continue to live in

So we cant blame a soldier if he rapes somebody

[dotcommie]

the question is were they following orders and if so will the superiors be done for it?

i think not it is a true reflection of societies sorry state

[fernando]

Well...that would mean society hasnt changed in I have no idea how many years...I mean...I think it's a normal thing for them to do during war, I mean Soviet troops did it too, US forces did it, they all do it.

But ok this doesnt mean they should be able to do these crimes unpunished...I dont know for sure how Guevara would have reacted if he saw his men commit these crimes...I assume he would execute them immediatly.

But ok...rape isnt justified, never, not even during war!

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 03:23 PM
Well...that would mean society hasnt changed in I have no idea how many years...I mean...I think it's a normal thing for them to do during war, I mean Soviet troops did it too, US forces did it, they all do it.

But ok this doesnt mean they should be able to do these crimes unpunished...I dont know for sure how Guevara would have reacted if he saw his men commit these crimes...I assume he would execute them immediatly.

But ok...rape isnt justified, never, not even during war!
no you right fernando that's what people forgot when they go to war ,singing!
war is being there where you don't like to be where you gonna be survive where you're gonna see the worse of yourself and the worse of mankind.some will go unpunished some will be blamed but who cares since it happens also in "peace time"
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28533

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:00 PM

Saddam did NOT allow religious freedom

Saddam has, to my mind, one saving grace: He had true seperation of church and state, something which given the political climate of the middle east was a phenomenal achievement.
No, he didn't. He had state control of the church, something which is not particularly unusual in the Middle East.

And during the past decade, the Iraqi regime had begun rolling back some earlier advances in women's rights, etc...whose roots were, essentially, to the revolutionary overthrow in the monarchy in the 1950s.

The Ba'athist regime's basic, irreconcilable disagreement with Islamic fundamentalists was not about secularism, or anything like that.. It was: who will be in charge? Saddam was not about to go along with anyone who though mullahs should be in charge, instead of him.

[Xvall]

Its not easy to control an army. You got 1000s of guys walking around armed, highly trained who are now in control of a group of people who have been shooting at them and continue to shoot at them. Lets see how you'd react. Assuming you'd live long enough into occupation. It doesn't need to be said but id doubt it.

That's not a valid argument. With that aregument, I can say that the Gulags were perfectly acceptable, because '30,000,000 Soviet soliders are very difficult to control'. This isn't a case of 'accidentally shooting back at an innocent civilian'. This is a case of 'taking your off-duty time to go around raping women'. It has nothing to do with control. Soldiers know very well that they are not supposed to do this, and understand that there are severe punishments for doing these things. There is no excuse for rape.

Its hard to lay blame on a soldier for the things they have witnessed and dealt with and continue to live in.

You're right. We can't blame those poor German soldiers for shooting every accused Jew that they saw in Europe. They witnessed a lot of tough stuff, and it's not really their fault!

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 16 2004, 08:03 PM
Its not easy to control an army. You got 1000s of guys walking around armed, highly trained who are now in control of a group of people who have been shooting at them and continue to shoot at them. Lets see how you'd react. Assuming you'd live long enough into occupation. It doesn't need to be said but id doubt it.

That's not a valid argument. With that aregument, I can say that the Gulags were perfectly acceptable, because '30,000,000 Soviet soliders are very difficult to control'. This isn't a case of 'accidentally shooting back at an innocent civilian'. This is a case of 'taking your off-duty time to go around raping women'. It has nothing to do with control. Soldiers know very well that they are not supposed to do this, and understand that there are severe punishments for doing these things. There is no excuse for rape.

Its hard to lay blame on a soldier for the things they have witnessed and dealt with and continue to live in.

You're right. We can't blame those poor German soldiers for shooting every accused Jew that they saw in Europe. They witnessed a lot of tough stuff, and it's not really their fault!
I don’t blame the Germans for shooting the Jews. Not because i hate the Jews, They were just following the orders of their government and were following them very well. A soldier is a mobile politician enforcing the will of his government on others.

If your raping women in your off duty you should be prosecuted, of course! Rape is rape! Soldiers do deal with tough things, and hard times. Their quickness to shoot at civilians, who they think posses a threat. Just shows the stress they are put under.

A soldier should never be prosecuted for following orders. The highest up on that chain of command should be punished,

[socialistfuture]

so lets say mr warmonger orders the troops to commit genocide he gets charged and everone else is ok?

[The New Yorker]

Correct Soldiers should never question there orders just follow them. If you think about what there doing you can de-humanise them by simply looking at them as mini-politicans that are enforcing the will of the goverment.

Am i a facist? in a way ill make a thread soon enough explain my "middle" goverment.

[socialistfuture]

u got some fucked up ideas man

[LSD]

Correct Soldiers should never question there orders just follow them. If you think about what there doing you can de-humanise them by simply looking at them as mini-politicans that are enforcing the will of the goverment.

You are VERY wrong.

That attitude is precisely what is responsible for the majority of attrocities in human history.

And guess what, even the US agrees with me.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice:


Article 90/91/92 - Failure To Obey Order Or Regulation (Illegal Associations)


Illegal Orders


Definition: Orders that do not relate to “military duty.” They do not:

Accomplish a military mission or

Safeguard or promote morale, discipline, and usefulness of soldiers and

Directly connected to good order in the Army

There is no obligation for a soldier to obey an illegal order. However, soldiers disobey at own risk.

Your Response to an Illegal Order


Clarify the order with the superior (You might have misunderstood!).

Next, inform the superior that you believe the order is illegal.

If the illegal order stands, request to speak with the company commander or a higher-level commander.

Finally, disobey the illegal order if necessary.

[PRC-UTE]

US/UK
OUT OF IRAQ!
OUT OF IRELAND!

go on home british soldiers go on home
have you got no fucking homes of your own
for 800 years we've fought you without fear
and we'll fight you for 800 more!


DaCuban,

There were actually tanks sent into Scotland in the 1920's to quell unrest there.

[Xvall]

Are you insane, New Yorker?