Memo to Army Chief of Staff

[Colonel Olrik]

Thank you Senator McCarthy.

Like I said, I dont care, soldier's lives were saved.

If that's the only thing that matters, many more soldiers lives would have been saved if they had just stayed at home.

[Faram]

Wars over, and If he's Iraqi Police and suposedly working on our side now then he the POW Geneva convention stuff doesnt apply.

Call me a hearltes s Bastard, but I wouldn't be against it if thaty Lt Colonel ha ddecided that, instead of firing in the air or at the ground, he put a bullet in the fuckers Kneecap. He knew something, lives of my countrymen were saved, im happy.

Okay threat him like a common criminal then, IE book him and give him a trial.

Somehow I don't think that the american police can threathen the life of a suspect to get a confession.

You cannot pick and choose withe the rules and laws.

[Vympel]

Wars over, and If he's Iraqi Police and suposedly working on our side now then he the POW Geneva convention stuff doesnt apply.

Regardless of such legal nitpickery, I imagine the civilian provisions of the rules of war would certainly apply.

Call me a hearltes s Bastard, but I wouldn't be against it if thaty Lt Colonel ha ddecided that, instead of firing in the air or at the ground, he put a bullet in the fuckers Kneecap. He knew something, lives of my countrymen were saved, im happy.

So can this bankrupt reasoning be used to justify the torture of anyone? If I was shot in the fucking kneecap, I'd tell the psycho arsehole there was an ambush planned to.

[jegs2]

Each MSC is given rules of engagement for their specific area of responsibility. Those ROE lay forth what can and cannot be done, however there are gray areas, wherein the ROE can be interpreted as pertains to a given situation. The commander in question made a judgment call, either interpreting his specific ROE wrongly, or blowing them off altogether. From the sound of things the ROE may be too restrictive, and commanders may be forced to bend the rules somewhat in order to garnish desired results. The challenge is that the enemy knows the ROE as well (if not better) than we do. They test both ROE and unit SOP all the time, when they attack TCPs and convoys. If we throw them a curve-ball and the enemy slips up as a result, I see that as a good thing. Unfortunately, a commander may be fed to the wolves as a result...

[Knife]

He is a POW and the only thing he has to say is Name, Rank and SN.

Threatening a POW’s life should give him life in the stockade. If the military accept this from their officers don’t come whining when your soldiers gets the 3rd degree or torture.

The rules of warfare is there for a reason.

Thats all they have to say, but capturing forces are still going to interogate them. Its not like if you sputter out Name and rank, they'll just give up trying to get more info.

Intimidation is a big part of interogation. Its control. From police to military to goverment. Thats all this was, intimidation. I seriously doubt the Iraqi's life was seriously threatened. If he had shot him in the leg or stuck the gun next to his head and fired, I'd be with you. But all this guy did is excert alittle intimidation on a potential source.

And I've mentioned it before, we need to sit down and retool the Law of War and the Geneva Convention. (the world that is)

[Death from the Sea]

He is a POW and the only thing he has to say is Name, Rank and SN.

Threatening a POW’s life should give him life in the stockade. If the military accept this from their officers don’t come whining when your soldiers gets the 3rd degree or torture.

The rules of warfare is there for a reason.

Seconded. The United States seems to think it can get around the rules of war with regards to POW's. The detainees at Gitmo are just another example of this behavior.

Any useful information derived from an illegal interogation is beside the point. When someone violates the rules of war, they destroy our credibility as a nation that plays by the rules and doesn't resort to these kind of cowboy tactics.

Ah, but the detainees at Gitmo and the folks we are capturing today in Iraq are not POW's but captured terrorists and terrorists are not provided for in the Geneva convention. Now I didn't say to praise or encourage this sort of behavior because if we did it would get out of hand eventually, but in this case they are hanging the man out to dry.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Intimidation is a big part of interogation. Its control. From police to military to goverment. Thats all this was, intimidation. I seriously doubt the Iraqi's life was seriously threatened. If he had shot him in the leg or stuck the gun next to his head and fired, I'd be with you. But all this guy did is excert alittle intimidation on a potential source.

The Iraqi was unlikely to get hurt.
Link

On the other hand, the troops were likely to get ambushed. Even if such interrogation method is prohibited the Lt. Col doesn't deserve to lose his career like that.

[Tsyroc]

Like I said, I dont care, soldier's lives were saved.

If that's the only thing that matters, many more soldiers lives would have been saved if they had just stayed at home.

Or if we glassed the place.

I'm in favor of the staying home part.

[Ender]

I think its an absolute bullshit call. The Lt Col has a first and foremost duty to protect the troops he was given charge of; and he did just that. He should get upgraded later in private, but the Army should be praising this guy for his initative or at the very least supporting him in public.

Incidently, I'm laughing my ass off at the complete 180 between the feelings of former infantry as expressed in the mess, and the opinions of the local armchair generals here.

[The Kernel]

Ah, but the detainees at Gitmo and the folks we are capturing today in Iraq are not POW's but captured terrorists and terrorists are not provided for in the Geneva convention. Now I didn't say to praise or encourage this sort of behavior because if we did it would get out of hand eventually, but in this case they are hanging the man out to dry.

They are soldiers of a foreign army; that doesn't sound like terrorists to me. Anyways, it doesn't matter. Even a terrorist must be given a trial and cannot be subjected to torcher, nor an abusive interrogation.

[Chardok]

I'm all for the Kernel's suggestion of Torching terrorists.

[HemlockGrey]

That's the real problem isn't it? We expect other countries to obey the rules when we violate them whenever it suits us. If I could sum up the Bush administration in one word it would be "hypocrisy".

I guess you missed the part where he was being PROSECUTED.

[Colonel Olrik]

That's the real problem isn't it? We expect other countries to obey the rules when we violate them whenever it suits us. If I could sum up the Bush administration in one word it would be "hypocrisy".

I guess you missed the part where he was being PROSECUTED.

And you missed the part where all of you are saying he shouldn't be.

[SirNitram]

I support the officer who did this. Sure, it sounds bad to say it's okay to terrify a prisoner, but saying 'where do your draw the line' is a load of bull; you draw it before actual physical harm comes to them. Or does slippery slope not ring a bell?

I don't know if he should be promoted for it, but they shouldn't fire him for coming out of a situation with a prisoner whose apparently fine and his troops alive..

[The Kernel]

I support the officer who did this. Sure, it sounds bad to say it's okay to terrify a prisoner, but saying 'where do your draw the line' is a load of bull; you draw it before actual physical harm comes to them. Or does slippery slope not ring a bell?

I don't know if he should be promoted for it, but they shouldn't fire him for coming out of a situation with a prisoner whose apparently fine and his troops alive..

Your argument sounds good on the surface, but it still misses the point. There are rules of interogation and this man broke them. Can you imagine the public outcry if an LAPD detective pulled a stunt like this? You think the Rodney King riots were bad...

Actually, POW's are held to an even stricter standard then suspects in the criminal cases. POW's are required to give only their name, rank and serial number, then the interogation must cease. This rule exists for a reason and by violating it the officer in question makes it easier for the enemy to justify doing the same in the future.

[SirNitram]

I support the officer who did this. Sure, it sounds bad to say it's okay to terrify a prisoner, but saying 'where do your draw the line' is a load of bull; you draw it before actual physical harm comes to them. Or does slippery slope not ring a bell?

I don't know if he should be promoted for it, but they shouldn't fire him for coming out of a situation with a prisoner whose apparently fine and his troops alive..

Your argument sounds good on the surface, but it still misses the point. There are rules of interogation and this man broke them. Can you imagine the public outcry if an LAPD detective pulled a stunt like this? You think the Rodney King riots were bad...

Actually, POW's are held to an even stricter standard then suspects in the criminal cases. POW's are required to give only their name, rank and serial number, then the interogation must cease. This rule exists for a reason and by violating it the officer in question makes it easier for the enemy to justify doing the same in the future.

You know, Kernel, I was honestly convinced your level of naivete was erased from the USA during the recent events. I can't really think of anything to reply except that the real world is not as nice, pretty, and dainty as some people want it to be, and in the terrifying harsh light of the real world, occasionally, acts must be done for the greater good.

[The Kernel]

You know, Kernel, I was honestly convinced your level of naivete was erased from the USA during the recent events. I can't really think of anything to reply except that the real world is not as nice, pretty, and dainty as some people want it to be, and in the terrifying harsh light of the real world, occasionally, acts must be done for the greater good.

Hey, I'd rather be naive than try to justify immoral acts with virtues like "the greater good".

[SirNitram]

You know, Kernel, I was honestly convinced your level of naivete was erased from the USA during the recent events. I can't really think of anything to reply except that the real world is not as nice, pretty, and dainty as some people want it to be, and in the terrifying harsh light of the real world, occasionally, acts must be done for the greater good.

Hey, I'd rather be naive than try to justify immoral acts with virtues like "the greater good".

So one man pissing himself is somehow a crime so terrible that the fact that a number of lives were saved will not balance the scales? You are a scary individual.

[Uraniun235]

So the Iraqi prisoner's comfort is worth the potential loss of several comrades?

[The Yosemite Bear]

The war in Iraq is over. Did you miss Bush landing a plane on a carrier to announce that?

The fact that more US soldiers died after the war then during the war proves that the war is over !

You know as late as the 1980's we were still finding Japanese hold outs.....

[Chardok]

Hey, I'd rather be naive than try to justify immoral acts with virtues like "the greater good".

How is firing a gun near the prisoner to scare him into thinking we were not fucking around immoral? (Other than the fact that we were making him think we were going to kill him was a lie?) Think about this: Does an O-5 with YEARS of service in the military walk up to a guy, a prisoner, and say, okay, since I'm sure you know something, I'm just going to beat you until you spout something which may or may not be useful? The answer is, of course, not bloody fucking likely. an officer knows that one tiny blemish on his record could end his career, no matter how minor it may seem. Likely there was some intel gathered, like, the Prisoner said something like "We know where you move, your men will be dead soon, and I will rejoice." or something like that (Perhaps he was a part of a unit known to ambush regularly, or was captured from an ambush [ie. WHERE'S THE NEXT AMBUSH YOU FUCK?! I'M SICK OF LOSING GOOD MEN TO YOU, DICKWEED!!]). The officer, hearing this (Or knowing this), and knowing the prisoner knows something, goes to whatever means necessary to protect his troops, which is what an officer DOES. The man deserves a commendation, not reprimand.

So let's tally some shit up, real quick like, moral implications of violating an archaic ruleset aside.

Temporarily deafened POW due to close range gunshots, whereby no direct injury resulted (1 each) (Leaving out the slightly roughened up state due to alleged "Assault")

Soldiers alive and well, happy that they averted a potentially disastrous and demoralizing ambush (Unknown, we'll say platoon sized element of 30 ish, so.....) (30 each) (The deaths of which would result in payment of at LEAST 50,000.00USD to families of deceased: so, 1,500,000.00 USD)

Equipment still in working order due to not being destroyed by an ambush (We'll say 3 men to a vehicle, standard team sized element in the MP Corps) so: (10 each) cost: ~40,000 USD each +/- due to lost weapon/commo equipment.

Dumbass JAG officer who should be busted down from O-whatever to E-2. (1 each)


The Man deserves a medal, the JAG officer deserves a dirty Sanchez, and the Prisoner deserves to go home now, and a better person for having saved many lives! Hooray beer!

[The Kernel]

So one man pissing himself is somehow a crime so terrible that the fact that a number of lives were saved will not balance the scales? You are a scary individual.

Don't you get it? The entire premise of your argument is flawed. We don't make moral decision by weighing the benefit vs. the harm involved. In the United States we place a great deal of emphasis on personal freedoms which is exactly why this is such a wonderful country to live in. But those freedoms require certain sacrifices, sacrifices like respecting an individuals rights.

The purpose of the rules surrounding interrogation is to set limits on the type of behavior that is acceptable during a prisoner interogation. Just because the outsome was beneficial doesn't mean that it was somehow right. The officer threatened the suspect's life in order to illicit a confession. Don't you see the problem with this?

[Ender]

So one man pissing himself is somehow a crime so terrible that the fact that a number of lives were saved will not balance the scales? You are a scary individual.

Don't you get it? The entire premise of your argument is flawed. We don't make moral decision by weighing the benefit vs. the harm involved. In the United States we place a great deal of emphasis on personal freedoms which is exactly why this is such a wonderful country to live in. But those freedoms require certain sacrifices, sacrifices like respecting an individuals rights.

Fun fact: In the military, you don't have all these individual rights you are going on about. So in the military, yes it does come down the the greater good vs the harm.

[The Kernel]

Fun fact: In the military, you don't have all these individual rights you are going on about. So in the military, yes it does come down the the greater good vs the harm.

Red Herring. We are talking about a man who was a POW, not a member of the US military.

[HemlockGrey]

And you missed the part where all of you are saying he shouldn't be.

Thank you for alerting me to the fact that we constitute the government of the United States. I'll go order the army to march on Tehran.