John Kerry's Congressional Testimony

[Rogue 9]

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Erm... The administration has indeed disowned the ad.

[Iceberg]

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Erm... The administration has indeed disowned the ad.

Not the same thing. Disclaiming responsibility is not the same thing as condemning something.

[Edi]

Given recent events re: criminal activity by US servicemen and the flatout stonewallng and denial by the US armed forces, and given the past history of punishments (or more properly lack thereof) in confirmed cases of atrocities and/or criminal negligence by US soldiers, what the hell makes you think anybody who reported something like that would have been rewarded instead of just drummed out of service as troublemaker?

Rewarded? No, reward is nessesary. That is one of the Jobs of NCO's and Officers on the battlefield, not just in the US forces but in EVERY western military.

Indeed, it is their duty, and no reward is necessary or should be expected. I've been in the military too, in a military police unit no less, where they paid a fucking lot of attention on teaching us what is and is not legal for us to do.

You have a far too naive view of how things have been demonstrated to work in the US military.

Bullshit Asshat. I was in uniform for over 6 years with the US Army.

Well, gee, whiz, I'm not able to magically use long-range ESP to determine whether or not some asshat like you who's posting bullshit and talking out of his ass has or has not been in service. You talk about the events described in Kerry's testimony as if every time something bad happened, it would be reported as a matter of course, when there is evidence going back almost 40 years that the US military has a tendency to cover up outright crimes committed by US soldiers and criminal negligence by its personnel, and denying any responsibility at the command level no matter what the evidence stacked against them.

Or have you forgotten even the most recent of these scandals, namely Abu Ghraib? Other dirty laundry in the recent past that has been swept under the carpet includes but is not limited to the sinking of a Japanese training and research vessel off the coast of Hawaii by a US Navy sub (due to commander's criminal negligence, no appreciable punishment), 20 Italian civilians killed in 1995 by US Air Force pilots who deliberately violated standing orders (got just a slap on the wrist after court martial, even though they got caught falsifying evidence and trying to cover up their crimes), several instances of soldiers not being court martialed after killing allied forces through friendly fire under circumstances where this could only happen due to criminal negligence or incompetence (both Gulf War I and the latest conflict).

Latest news about the Abu Ghraib issue is that there is enormous pressure from within the Pentagon on the investigators to absolve the higher chain of command from any responsibility, when the fucking document trail (just the portion that has been seen in public so far) already points to positions no higher than the bloody Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the White House, the Commander of US forces in the ME and a whole host of other bigshots.

I've got all of the above to support my position that within the US military reporting abuses and crimes committed by personnel is actually discouraged, and most often the offenders are either acquitted or just slapped on the wrist. What do you have other than your claim to having served 6 years in the US Army and which in and of itself proves absolutely fuck-all regarding this issue?

Edi

[Augustus]

Well, gee, whiz, I'm not able to magically use long-range ESP to determine whether or not some asshat like you who's posting bullshit and talking out of his ass has or has not been in service.

I reacted harshly to your post...calling you 'asshat' was rude. I apolgize.

You talk about the events described in Kerry's testimony as if every time something bad happened, it would be reported as a matter of course, when there is evidence going back almost 40 years that the US military has a tendency to cover up outright crimes committed by US soldiers and criminal negligence by its personnel, and denying any responsibility at the command level no matter what the evidence stacked against them.

No I'm not. If Kerry witnessed such things going on then he had a lawful duty to report them, regardless of what his superiors whould do. I made the observation that his Congressional Testimony only makes sense if the DOD had a standing policy that such acts where to be tolerated and the majority of US service men were willing to carry them out.

<snip>

Thanks for the history lesson it's not rellivant, and besides I did not say the US never commited atrocities in Vietnam or anywhere else in ever. So I'm not sure what the point your trying to make is.

I've got all of the above to support my position that within the US military reporting abuses and crimes committed by personnel is actually discouraged,...

And its a UCMJ offense to not report one then, why?

.. and most often the offenders are either acquitted or just slapped on the wrist. What do you have other than your claim to having served 6 years in the US Army and which in and of itself proves absolutely fuck-all regarding this issue?

And what prey-tell is my position? That the US doesnt commit atrocities, or is incapable of doing so? wrong. The people in US BDUs are human just like everyone else, they can exhibit the highest and lowest range of human behavior. But if you are going to say that the US encouraged atrocities in Vietnam as a matter of policy, as Kerry did in front of Congress, then the burden of proof is much higher than he would have us believe.

[Elfdart]

In some cases, it's pretty clear that those taking part in atrocities (In Vietnam or Iraq -or anywhere else, for that matter) did so either at the behest of their superiors or with the knowledge that they would not be held accountable.

Take Tiger Force Three of the 101st Airborne, for example. The Toledo Blade ran a series of stories about the rampage the unit went on: rape, torture, murder, mutilation... Himmler would have been proud. Now these men BRAGGED about the crimes they committed in Vietnam to the paper. The Army will not prosecute them. In my opinion, this kind of thing is a de facto endorsement of this kind of behavior. No doubt about guilt + no prosecution = wink-and-a-nudge approval.

Of course no officer or official (except Alberto Gonzales) will be stupid enough to actually write down explicit orders ("kill all gooks/ cornhole sand niggers") to commit war crimes. Even the Nazis tried to cover their asses through the use of euphemisms and ciphers. Watch the movie Breaker Morant, which was based on a court-martial for war crimes during the Boer War. You'll see that the way Lyndie England is used as the hapless patsy is nothing new.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, Senator Collins made a good point. If these guards and other low-level types were angry or just in the mood to mistreat prisoners, they most likely would have simply beaten them, like unruly policemen are known to do. To make porno tapes, to cornhole little boys, to shove glowsticks up prisoners' asses shows a kind of deliberate premeditated sadism. The fact that it wasn't just one or two, but many who took part shows that it wasn't Just Pvt England.

A number of orders issued by the political and military leadership in Washington before and during Vietnam constituted war crimes, the most vile of which was the attack on Cambodia, which Nixon claimed was not an invasion!

People who smarmily claim that no war crimes were committed, let alone endorsed remind me of those who deny the Nazi Holocaust.

[Edi]

No I'm not. If Kerry witnessed such things going on then he had a lawful duty to report them, regardless of what his superiors whould do. I made the observation that his Congressional Testimony only makes sense if the DOD had a standing policy that such acts where to be tolerated and the majority of US service men were willing to carry them out.

His Congressional testimony makes perfect sense because the DOD seems to have an unofficial standing policy of sweeping allegations of wrongdoing under the carpet unless their hand is forced. This does not require willingness on part of the majority of the military personnel to commit wrongs, but it is significant that when a minority has done so, they have often been protected as much as possible from the consequences they should get.

Thanks for the history lesson it's not rellivant, and besides I did not say the US never commited atrocities in Vietnam or anywhere else in ever. So I'm not sure what the point your trying to make is.

The history lesson is very relevant as evidence that there is in fact an unofficial DOD policy of not punishing wrongdoers even though the official policy condemns wrongdoing. I'm not saying that the US goes out of its way to commit atrocities, but too often when bad things happen, nobody will take responsibility, and nobody will be forced to take the responsibility that belongs to them.

I've got all of the above to support my position that within the US military reporting abuses and crimes committed by personnel is actually discouraged,...

And its a UCMJ offense to not report one then, why?

The UCMJ is only as effective as its enforcement, and in the field of crimes committed against non-Americans by US military personnel (e.g. the Italian incident in 1995) it has been only enforced to the most lenient possible degree, if at all.

And what prey-tell is my position? That the US doesnt commit atrocities, or is incapable of doing so? wrong. The people in US BDUs are human just like everyone else, they can exhibit the highest and lowest range of human behavior. But if you are going to say that the US encouraged atrocities in Vietnam as a matter of policy, as Kerry did in front of Congress, then the burden of proof is much higher than he would have us believe.

I hear and agree about US military personnel. I've never thought otherwise in that regard. But actively encouraging atrocities and turning a blind eye to atrocities that happen are two different things. The former is a concerted effort to pursue atrocities, the latter is simply ignoring relatively infrequently happening ones. The latter has a problem, though: If soldiers see that illegal actions are not investigated and punished, their attitude will shift toward seeing some of these actions as more or less permissible. This is an encouraging factor, so I wouldn't say Kerry is all that wrong.

I've seen this type of thing happen on a whole different scale, namely when I was in boot camp, the unit I was in was very disciplinarian and even illegal hazing passed without any comment from the officers. The NCOs who should have enforced the proper standard of conduct were themselves some of the worst hazers (remember, this is, aside from the officer corps, a fully conscript army we're talking about). After boot camp the whole company was transferred to our actual post, and the attitude of the officers and NCOs there was completely different. Infractions were investigated and punished immediately, and stunts like what had been routine earlier became rare to nonexistent. It wasn't like the offenders didn't know they were doing wrong, they just knew the rules wouldn't be enforced, but when they were, the number of offenses dropped significantly and quickly.

Edi