• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Appears DICK and the Donald are repeating history again.

conjur

No Lifer
U.S. reaps what the Army sows
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4028285
Recent headlines from Iraq are ugly: Marines charged with murdering Haditha civilians. A crippled man killed by Americans, who then planted a rifle and shovel near the body as if he had been burying roadside bombs. And a particularly gruesome charge that U.S. soldiers raped and killed an Iraqi woman, killed her family, and burned the bodies to cover the crime.
If these atrocities are carefully investigated, the likely deficiency may be sufficient command leadership and discipline. A recent book (May 2006) speaks to the issue of leader accountability with stunning eloquence. Tiger Force is a documented account of 120 U.S. soldiers who, between May and November of 1967, rotated through an Army special operations platoon. This platoon, Tiger Force, wreaked its vengeance in the vicinity of Duc Pho and Chu Lai in South Vietnam.
Operating largely on their own and only passingly accountable to a chain of command that rarely ventured into the jungles and paddies, these soldiers ruthlessly murdered hundreds of unarmed men, women and children. One soldier cut off a baby's head with a knife. Victims' ears were regularly sliced off, collected and fashioned into necklaces which some soldiers proudly wore. Other victims were scalped. Some were tortured. Teeth were kicked out to retrieve the gold from fillings. Virtually all of the civilian deaths were reported as "Viet Cong," even though, oddly, no weapons were ever found and none were ever reported. No officer in command ever questioned this glaring disparity.
That part of Tiger Force is grim enough. What the Army then did with the evidence is shocking, and what was covered up in 1974-75 may have sowed the headlines we are reaping in 2006. One of the most thorough Criminal Investigation Division (CID, the Army's internal FBI) investigations ever conducted, meticulously gathered the facts surrounding the war crimes committed by Tiger Force. The evidence was voluminous, certain and had been obtained at the risk of a few investigators' lives.
In 1974-75, Richard Cheney was a special assistant to President Ford. Ford's chief of staff was Donald Rumsfeld. The secretary of defense from 1973-75 was James Schlesinger. The case was made to disappear by these men who served presidents Nixon and Ford - probably out of considerations of politics. There were never any charges filed against the soldiers or the officers who ordered and participated in the routine killing of civilians.

The only reason the case file ever became public was that the CID officer who directed the investigation, and who later commanded the Criminal Investigation Division, kept a copy of the investigation file, and prior to his death in 2002 made provision for the file to be delivered to a reporter with the Toledo Blade.
Thirty years later, Mr. Rumsfeld refuses to discuss the Tiger Force case. Mr. Cheney declines to discuss much of anything. Mr. Schlesinger conducted one of the see-no-evil investigations at Abu Ghraib. The senior leadership of the Army and the nation prefers to characterize war crimes as the work of a few "bad apples." My Lai was pinned to Lt. William Calley, who suited the bad apple role.
Tiger Force was far larger, killed three times as many people, but involved too many "bad apples" and too much gore to maintain the right story line.
The common thread which runs from Tiger Force through My Lai, to Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib, to a hundred episodes of sadistic brutality inflicted by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, is the remarkable fact that the official responsibility for all these tragedies never runs higher than the lowest-level trigger-pullers or body-stackers.
But suppose in 1975 that Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney had made a different decision. Suppose the CID Tiger Force investigation had been permitted to charge the perpetrators and their superior officers with war crimes. Suppose a court-martial inquiry had asked why no battalion commanders bothered to check out the reports of Tiger Force ear collections? What if a colonel or two had been found guilty of failing to adequately control the troops under their command? For starters, those cases and leadership lessons would have been part of today's core curriculum in ROTC and at West Point.
This administration never holds anyone in senior positions accountable for derelict performance. However, unless there is full accountability for the war crimes of Iraq - wherever the evidence leads - there is a high probability that the lessons today's lieutenants and captains need to learn about the law of war and command leadership will never be sufficiently absorbed to make the crucial difference when those men and women become colonels and generals.
---
David R. Irvine is a lawyer in Salt Lake City and a retired Army Reserve brigadier general. He was commissioned as a strategic intelligence officer in 1967, and taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for the Sixth Army Intelligence School for 18 years.
A lot of "suppose" going on and there's one thing this administration has shown time and time again and that is it is completely against holding anyone accountable for any number of crimes or forms of deceit orchestrated since Jan. 2001.

Certainly does explain how the WH and DoD are foaming at the mouth to protect their crimes in Gitmo and elsewhere and fought to keep the arena "lawless".
 
Pat yourself on the back much? When do I get to cite that your source isn?t CNN.com as you do to others?

Seems to me that with 16,000 murders in America each year and, last I checked, with the army recruiting Americans, that it only seems natural to have a few rotten eggs as with any selection of people.

Oh but no, you?d have us believe it?s the status quo, that it?s built into the system from the top up. Bravo! Excellent anti Bush post, I haven?t seen many of those.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Pat yourself on the back much? When do I get to cite that your source isn?t CNN.com as you do to others?

Seems to me that with 16,000 murders in America each year and, last I checked, with the army recruiting Americans, that it only seems natural to have a few rotten eggs as with any selection of people.

Oh but no, you?d have us believe it?s the status quo, that it?s built into the system from the top up. Bravo! Excellent anti Bush post, I haven?t seen many of those.


You sound drunk on some type of right wing radio fix.. or maybe right wing TV fix...

USE YOUR FVCKING BRAIN ... don't let those people tell you want to think or who to label... label yourself as UNinquisitive.. as TOO trusting.. as possibly - BLIND

Do you really think cover-ups of MURDER should be acceptable?

Do you think our mission over in Iraq is showing great signs of success?

Don't you think that many in the chain of command knew that we would throw Iraq into a giant civil war when we went over there - ESPECIALLY after abu-ghraib and others?


You should read a little on the net about what this man has to say
Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser in the first Bush administration, said a strike on Iraq ?could unleash an Armageddon in the Middle East.?

 
I see a difference is some isolated murders and a platoon. How do we get to speculating how much things might be better now than they are if people had been held responsible when there is no correspondence to the crimes. So far there is no evidence the whole army is nuts or even a substantial part of it. Looks to me like it's been surprisingly clean. Sorry, but I see no logic in this piece. I would like to see the perps who covered up what happened in 67 brought to justice, but that's a different story.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Pat yourself on the back much? When do I get to cite that your source isn?t CNN.com as you do to others?
His source is a retired Army Reserve brigadier general.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I see a difference is some isolated murders and a platoon. How do we get to speculating how much things might be better now than they are if people had been held responsible when there is no correspondence to the crimes. So far there is no evidence the whole army is nuts or even a substantial part of it. Looks to me like it's been surprisingly clean. Sorry, but I see no logic in this piece. I would like to see the perps who covered up what happened in 67 brought to justice, but that's a different story.
I don't think anyone is saying the entire military is filled with murderers and rapists. But, Iraq is turning quickly into what Vietnam was near the end. Frustration, repeated tours of duty, lack of a clear mission, lack of any end in sight, etc. all play into the psychological well-being of the boots on the ground. Couple that with the lowered standards for recruiting (hate group gangs are now being recruited and allowed to enlist) and even Dr. Phil could see the writing on the wall of the atrocities to come.

And, this is the history of the neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld. They believe they can wield absolute power without any of the consequences of having such power. That's a tragic mistake.
 
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Pat yourself on the back much? When do I get to cite that your source isn?t CNN.com as you do to others?
His source is a retired Army Reserve brigadier general.
Ouch. That left a mark. 😉
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I see a difference is some isolated murders and a platoon. How do we get to speculating how much things might be better now than they are if people had been held responsible when there is no correspondence to the crimes. So far there is no evidence the whole army is nuts or even a substantial part of it. Looks to me like it's been surprisingly clean. Sorry, but I see no logic in this piece. I would like to see the perps who covered up what happened in 67 brought to justice, but that's a different story.
I don't think anyone is saying the entire military is filled with murderers and rapists. But, Iraq is turning quickly into what Vietnam was near the end. Frustration, repeated tours of duty, lack of a clear mission, lack of any end in sight, etc. all play into the psychological well-being of the boots on the ground. Couple that with the lowered standards for recruiting (hate group gangs are now being recruited and allowed to enlist) and even Dr. Phil could see the writing on the wall of the atrocities to come.

And, this is the history of the neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld. They believe they can wield absolute power without any of the consequences of having such power. That's a tragic mistake.

The claim as I see it is that a lack of accountability among officers leads to future military corruption where the lack of accountability in Nam has created criminal activity of a similar order now in Iraq. As admirable as the sentiments may be, the logic is flawed because it looks to me like the Army has gone quite a long way to clean up its act and that despite insufficiency of accountability in the past. There are lots of reasons to strive for a crime free military without having to introduce faulty logic and one big one is that it is wrong. There are lots of reasons to seek the prosecution of those who protect wrongdoers without implying they have completely tainted everything.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Are they really repeating history, or just stuttering over one of it's bad lines.

Seems there's quite a bit of evidence that the scum at the top has pervaded the people questioning prisoners and that this would not have happened had that scum been removed long ago.
 
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Pat yourself on the back much? When do I get to cite that your source isn?t CNN.com as you do to others?
His source is a retired Army Reserve brigadier general's op-ed piece which sites historical facts.

fixed
Added further elaboration.


And I do have to wonder what else you post said before the moderator got to it. Bit defensive against reality perhaps?
 
Wow. We have created real-life monsters. Mission accomplished.

Al-Qaeda video shows mutilated bodies of US soldiers 1 hour, 1 minute ago. Mondau, July 10, 2006.

PARIS (AFP) - The Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda put on the Internet a video showing the mutilated bodies of two US soldiers kidnapped in June and executed to "avenge" an Iraqi woman raped near Mahmudiyah south of Baghdad.

"Here is a film on the remains of the bodies of the two American soldiers kidnapped near Yussufiyah (south of Baghdad). We are showing it to avenge our sister who was raped by a soldier belonging to the same division as these two soldiers," said a preamble by the Mujahedeen Al-Shura Council, an Al-Qaeda dominated alliance of armed Sunni groups in Iraq.

When guerrillas learned of the rape, "they repressed their sighs to avoid news of the affair spreading but they swore to avenge their sister," the council said on its usual website.

"Praise God, they captured two soldiers from the same division as this vile crusader. Here are the remains ... to rejoice the hearts of the faithful," the statement said.

A 15-year-old Iraqi girl was raped and murdered along with three other members of her family in mid-March near Mahmudiyah. A US soldier, Steven Green, stationed nearby at the time, was charged with rape and murder on July 3.

Green, who has left the army, pleaded not guilty last Thursday before a Louisville, Kentucky, court.

The nearly five-minute film shows the horribly mutilated bodies of the two soldiers, who had had their throats cut. The head of one of them was held high by an armed man, like a trophy. The head of the other was being stamped on by another armed man.

The film is accompanied by extracts of old speeches by the head of the Al-Qaeda terror group, Osama bin Laden, and the ex-head of its Iraqi wing Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who was killed June 7 by the US Army.

The Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda announced on June 20 it had executed the two American soldiers whose bodies were found south of Baghdad.


End-------------------

 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Aelius
They should be tried for crimes against Humanity and executed.

Damn that President Bush and the Republicans for sending soldies to war in 1967.

:cookie: for bringing up a 2nd war you would have run and hid from were you alive back in the 60's.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Aelius
They should be tried for crimes against Humanity and executed.

Damn that President Bush and the Republicans for sending soldies to war in 1967.

:cookie: for bringing up a war that both King George and Darth Artery Clog wimped their way out of.
 
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Aelius
They should be tried for crimes against Humanity and executed.

Damn that President Bush and the Republicans for sending soldies to war in 1967.

:cookie: for bringing up a war that both King George and Darth Artery Clog wimped their way out of.
Yup, its a good thing Clinton went there to get in shape.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Aelius
They should be tried for crimes against Humanity and executed.

Damn that President Bush and the Republicans for sending soldies to war in 1967.

:cookie: for bringing up a war that both King George and Darth Artery Clog wimped their way out of.
Yup, its a good thing Clinton went there to get in shape.


Umm Clinton got a deferral based on his academic skills.

Bush got a deferral because of his daddy.

Cheney got 4 deferrals. Now what is interesting is his last deferral. In his last deferral the rules where changed so that only married men with children could get a deferral. If you look up Cheney's kids birthday you will notice it is 9 months after the change.

The Ace of Spades

Honestly how can you compare a drunk and a drug user to a Rhodes scholar?
 
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Aelius
They should be tried for crimes against Humanity and executed.

Damn that President Bush and the Republicans for sending soldies to war in 1967.

:cookie: for bringing up a war that both King George and Darth Artery Clog wimped their way out of.
Yup, its a good thing Clinton went there to get in shape.


Umm Clinton got a deferral based on his academic skills.

Bush got a deferral because of his daddy.

Cheney got 4 deferrals. Now what is interesting is his last deferral. In his last deferral the rules where changed so that only married men with children could get a deferral. If you look up Cheney's kids birthday you will notice it is 9 months after the change.

The Ace of Spades

Honestly how can you compare a drunk and a drug user to a Rhodes scholar?

That baby wouldn't happen to be Mary Cheney, would it???
 
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Aelius
They should be tried for crimes against Humanity and executed.

Damn that President Bush and the Republicans for sending soldies to war in 1967.

:cookie: for bringing up a war that both King George and Darth Artery Clog wimped their way out of.
Yup, its a good thing Clinton went there to get in shape.


Umm Clinton got a deferral based on his academic skills.

Bush got a deferral because of his daddy.

Cheney got 4 deferrals. Now what is interesting is his last deferral. In his last deferral the rules where changed so that only married men with children could get a deferral. If you look up Cheney's kids birthday you will notice it is 9 months after the change.

The Ace of Spades

Honestly how can you compare a drunk and a drug user to a Rhodes scholar?

the same way you can compare the kosovo war and vietnam to iraq. It's easy, just take two things completely unrelated to each other, and twist them for your own political purpose :laugh:

 
Originally posted by: daveymark


the same way you can compare the kosovo war and vietnam to iraq. It's easy, just take two things completely unrelated to each other, and twist them for your own political purpose :laugh:

Honestly what are you talking about?

From what I was commenting on was why the three did not goto Vietnam.



 
Back
Top