Alias 0
Recommended Posts
JohnnyD 0
QuoteQuoteYes, and it was authorized by superiors all the way up to the current AG. I think it is sad that the guys on the low end of the totem pole who were just trying to do their jobs are the ones taking the fall.
You are straying from the story which this thread is about. No one has "taken a fall" for having a dog present during an interrogation. No lower ranking folks, nor their superior officers. Nor should they.
If simply having mean-looking dogs is going to be considered "torture", then you need to ban them from all U.S. police forces. And then a lot more criminals would escape justice, and more police officers would get hurt.
The idea that there is something wrong with having police dogs to control prisoners is ludicrous.
Well, you missed my point but at least you missed it entirely.
vpozzoli 0
Quote
You got it worng as usual
What's really missing is some pointless final comment such as 'You go colonel!'
Vale
Ei, che cosa intendi amico mio?
spiega ti
I was referring to this thread
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1643402;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread
I think it says it all about his attitude. Fortunately his 'personal rules' do not apply to this forum.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
I was referring to this thread
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1643402;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread
I think it says it all about his attitude. Fortunately his 'personal rules' do not apply to this forum.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1643402;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread
I think it says it all about his attitude. Fortunately his 'personal rules' do not apply to this forum.
Yup. Agreed.
dudeist skydiver # 3105
EBSB52 0
QuoteQuotePerhaps he should have started with the explaining_all_introduction: "In the news" like others do many times?
I do use that often, because that introduces my subject, and explains where it comes from, so that no one thinks that it is my own writing. Then, after the introduction, I also go on to support or defend my subject matter. When I start a thread, I stick around to defend my position.
So, your comment doesn't really say anything, as usual. Even if he had started with "In the news", it wouldn't have done anything towards contributing his own personal opinion.
John, in organized argumentation a person's personal opinion is generally unimportant. If you criticize a person as a basis for an argument versus criticizing the merit of the argument you have committed an Ad Hominem. In a skydiving forum, who cares, but it isn't constructive, intillectual argumentation to focus on the author. There are few exceptions, but if your meat-n-potatos of an argument is spelling/grammar (absent total illiteracy) or a person's character then you have done nothing to refute the merits of the issue at hand - Ad Hominem.
With that, I understand your position that no one will desicrate your flag, your country. You were a 20 year veteran of teh Marines if I understand correctly. I'm not evaluating the argument based upon that, just understanding your paradigm.
I believe the argument to this thread is that of rank elitism / criminal immunity. I would argue that the government treats organized crime differently depending upon whether it's intra-gevernmental or extra-governmental.
John Ghotti and Sammy the Bull; they let the lower guys go on 19+ counts of 1st degree murder to snag the big guy. However, there seemed to be some immunity with the Catholic Preiests scandal up high. It seems to be present within military rank and file too. Presidentially there was a lot of that with Iran-Contra, but Clinton was impeached for his doings. It's not absolute, but there seems to be a trend in immunity up high with crininal matters within governmental structures and the reverse outside.
So I don't think there is any conspiracy here, just good ole American protocol.
EBSB52 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou still haven't told us your personal opinion on this story...
No, but I think he told you WHY he was not giving an opinion....which you are proving to be true. Sheesh. People get hassled for the opinions they give and then they get hassled for the opinions they don't. The way I see it: He posted an article of interest that he thought might spark some conversation. That's it.
The way I see it: if you find something interesting enough that you want people to talk about it, you ought to have the courage to voice your own opinion on the subject, and stand up for it.
And you're still going on about it late in the thread. See, what John is doing is to divert attention from the argument/issue: Do high ranking military officials have immunity?
Enough of the cross-bickering over whether an opinion should have been inserted - let's talk about military officer criminal immunity.
RunJct 0
Quotelet's talk about military officer criminal immunity
Fine, I guess we can all get back on topic........
I did some online searching and couldn't really find anything proving immunity from command responsibility, but there are substantiated claims for it.
First, in law command responsibility has gone from basically nothing to codified laws within the past 100 years or so. Currently, FM27-10 The Laws of Land Warfare (the Army's law of war book, which is from 1967 and they're currently drafting a new one) states in article 501:
The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof
This "should have known" standard was last used (through what i found) in Vietnam with LT Calley, CPT Medina, and MG Koster for the My Lai massacre. Of course we all know Calley was found, given a hefty sentence that was then shortened by the Convening Authority (his general). But, his sentence was house arrest, and visitors were allowed. Now this is just hearsay but a retired Marine LTC JAG officer told me that he had women lined up outside his house because America thought he did nothing wrong and he was being unfairly punished. But he was eventually pardoned by I think the President and was free within a couple of years.
Next was his company commander, CPT Medina. CPT Medina was charged with murder for failing his command responsibility by not ordering the cease fire soon enough in that he should have known this was going on. He was acquitted by a jury of his peers with no further action.
Finally, was MG Koster who heard things may have happened and ordered Calley's Brigade Commander (COL Henderson) to investigate. Henderson did nothing more than put on a "show" and give a false report to MG Koster. But Koster took this investigation at face value without further questions and was administratively punished for his actions. BUT, a new rule came out of this.....the commander is not liable under the should have known standard if they were simply a bad commander and didnt have proper communications channels to talk to their subordinates etc.
So that's where this applies to this case. Apparently the BG in Iraq was bad (and maybe this COL too), but does that absolve them of criminal responsibility? What about the PL, PSG, 1SG, and CO who should all be checking in on their people?
Personally, I think they should all be punished under the should have known clause, because I haven't seen legitimate proof that they actually ordered these crimes. But there were reports that in her (I think) 2 visits to Abu Ghraib the BG didn't go to the wing with these crimes taking place because she was told "Oh ma'am you don't want to go there." Now any commander should immediately go to that sector if they're told that, so she should have known.
Sorry for the long post, and I would have said more but hopefully that's enough to get this thread back on topic.
If "if" were a fifth, then we'd all be drunk
Not trying to be too trite here BUT...
I guess what people are forgetting here is that in the military (in particular) shit flows DOWN HILL.
The bosses rarely cop the flak, if there is someone lower to cop it for them.... such is life. You cann't fight it (unless you have the negatives!). Hindesight is always 20-20. You just have to remember to watch your own back.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
I guess what people are forgetting here is that in the military (in particular) shit flows DOWN HILL.
The bosses rarely cop the flak, if there is someone lower to cop it for them.... such is life. You cann't fight it (unless you have the negatives!). Hindesight is always 20-20. You just have to remember to watch your own back.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
jenfly00 0
QuoteQuoteNo wonder I have such a hard time reasoning with some people on here. It’s a fucking thread dude. About news that I thought should be mentioned.
You still haven't told us your personal opinion on this story...
I got more from his posting of a news article than your tiring old cries of LIBERAL CONSPIRICIES!
Do you expect anyone that marries outside their own family to take you seriously?
jen
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers" -Homer Simpson
-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteNo wonder I have such a hard time reasoning with some people on here. It’s a fucking thread dude. About news that I thought should be mentioned.
You still haven't told us your personal opinion on this story...
I got more from his posting of a news article than your tiring old cries of LIBERAL CONSPIRICIES!
Do you expect anyone that marries outside their own family to take you seriously?
jen
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers" -Homer Simpson
Do you expect people to take YOU seriously after the personal attack?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Where is the personal attack? I see none.
QuoteWhere is the personal attack? I see none.
My words.
Don't see any personal attack.
Just spoken in general.
dudeist skydiver # 3105
This republicans.... How sensitive of them. I hope insurgents don´t start calling their troops names.
mnealtx 0
QuoteWhere is the personal attack? I see none.
See the bolded comment - I'd say calling someone inbred at best, and incestuous at worst would count as a personal attack...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jenfly00 0
QuoteQuoteWhere is the personal attack? I see none.
See the bolded comment - I'd say calling someone inbred at best, and incestuous at worst would count as a personal attack...
For pity's sake.
Let's see if I got this right. You read something you didn't like (an comment unappreciative of the old guard conservatives and their repetitive cries), get miffed and provide an ...alternative interpretation of my words in hopes of moderator wrath.
Big ones, dude.
Perhaps you should re-read the line.
Jen
-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
Fair enough. I should have left that one in the pile with the "mean dogs, nudity, stacking etc" bullshit.
I only have issue's with the extremes in this case - not what the media spews
Carpe Diem
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites