|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 4, 2011 21:07:10 GMT -4
I did a longer version and cyberspace ate it, so here's the shorter one you miss my point. if they say that no investigation is required, it is presumed that the information was passed to them to decide if investigations should be carried on or not, whether they give te results to the iraqis or deal with it themselves. however, they decided that there is nothing were investigating. anyhow, it is not new at all. we all recall Abou Ghraib's prison were orders were given for abuse. USA didn't interfere until it was on media and everyone new about it. You making an assmption that it wasn't passed on. Also these are from field reports, not complaints given to be investigated. Finally, you still haven't explained what a US investigation would have achieved. There was no "orders from a high level." The crew radioed back to base to find out what they had to do. The answer was given by a military lawyer that as they couldn't accept a surrender in a helicopter their only choice was to engage them. Looking in the law, there is a large gray area under what should be done when it is not possible to accept a surrender and take those surrendering prisoner. The general rule seems to be that surrendering units need to make sure that they can actually be disarmed and taken prisioner by those that surrender too. From the literature it appears to be an area that needs to be looked at and hard and fast rules written since the battlefield has changed a lot since they were originally done, and countries are having to fill in the blanks themselves at the moment. If you have a solution to how a helicopter crew can accept a sutender, disarm, and secure prisoners for transport without endangering themselves when there are no other troops in the area to deal with the prisoners, feel free to let us all know.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 4, 2011 21:17:12 GMT -4
You are missing the point, what would be the point of investigating? What would be the outcome? How would it be different to not investigating? It's 15,000 over the period of 6 years, about 2,500 a year. In context, that is apparently a little less than the number of people that die in Iraq in car accidents (about 3,000) and about 1,000 less than die in the US in car accidents in a month (about 3,500.) We also don't know how they died, just that they did. We know some were from coilition forces at check points and the like, but we don't know that all were, they are merely un-reported, and as I noted, what law states that the military are responsible for publically releasing deaths it knows about but the media doesn't? so wikileaks documents were reporting on the iraqi civilian deaths of car accidents or blasts? www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/23/wikileaks-iraq-war-logs-casualties_n_772807.html"It said most of the newly disclosed casualties included targeted assassinations, drive-by shootings, torture, executions and checkpoint killings." these include the omes done by iraqis I guess. Nevertheless, they were not stopped or investigated Do you think that the US should be running Iraq and investigating every murder by insurgents and abuse by Iraqi Secutiry Forces? Are the Iraqis not responsible for any self-determination or investigation? BTW I said the deaths were less then the number of road fatalities, not that they were from road fatalities.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Feb 5, 2011 16:38:33 GMT -4
You making an assmption that it wasn't passed on. Also these are from field reports, not complaints given to be investigated. Finally, you still haven't explained what a US investigation would have achieved.
the US investigation decision would come up with proofs and recommendations. there is no justification for not investigating these events whe nthey clearly could. you don't write 'no investigation required' unless you were asked to decide if there are needed investigations.
Looking in the law, there is a large gray area under what should be done when it is not possible to accept a surrender and take those surrendering prisoner. The general rule seems to be that surrendering units need to make sure that they can actually be disarmed and taken prisioner by those that surrender too.
the iraqis surrendered. by all common sense and ethics a person who surrendered should not be killed.
If you have a solution to how a helicopter crew can accept a sutender, disarm, and secure prisoners for transport without endangering themselves when there are no other troops in the area to deal with the prisoners, feel free to let us all know these solutions should come from military experts not me. I know that Machiavellic justifications don't work. you don't kill a surrenderer and that's that.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Feb 5, 2011 16:39:47 GMT -4
so wikileaks documents were reporting on the iraqi civilian deaths of car accidents or blasts? www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/23/wikileaks-iraq-war-logs-casualties_n_772807.html"It said most of the newly disclosed casualties included targeted assassinations, drive-by shootings, torture, executions and checkpoint killings." these include the omes done by iraqis I guess. Nevertheless, they were not stopped or investigated Do you think that the US should be running Iraq and investigating every murder by insurgents and abuse by Iraqi Secutiry Forces? Are the Iraqis not responsible for any self-determination or investigation? BTW I said the deaths were less then the number of road fatalities, not that they were from road fatalities. see above
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 5, 2011 21:07:53 GMT -4
the US investigation decision would come up with proofs and recommendations. there is no justification for not investigating these events whe nthey clearly could. you don't write 'no investigation required' unless you were asked to decide if there are needed investigations. So you wanted them to spend a whole lot of time, manpower and money to determine something they already knew and then pass on a recommendation that no-one had to act on, even though you have no evidence that they didn't pass on the basic information in the reports anyway? You also don't know that they were asked specifically to look into these cases, it could be standard practice to check all field reports for incidents and determine if there is need for the US to investigate. When incidencts fall outside the US chain of command, then they don't investigate. Under the law however it's not that black and white anymore. I know that it should be, but the world is not black and white, and the battlefield less so. Put yourself in the cockpit of a helicopter for a moment. You recieve a report that cars are being motared on a road near you and that the nearest ground units are an hour away so you need to respond. Heading to the area you spot the motar team preparing to fire, but when they hear your approach they stand up, drop their weapons and put their hands in the air. You check your fuel, you have enough fuel to stay in tharea for another 30 mins and stull get back to base. Your gunner is warning you that there may be other enemy units in the area and that hovering here you are a sitting duck. What do you do? Not so black and white now is it? You don't know if landing and exiting the aircraft will put yourself and your gunner is danger and risk losing a multi-million dollar high-tech and deadly aircraft to the enemy. You do know that you can't stay where you are and wait for ground troops to arrive, and if you leave, you know that innocent people on the road will start coming under attack again. So what exactly do you do?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Feb 7, 2011 4:15:24 GMT -4
"No further investigation”, and "No further investigation will be required unless directed by HQ".blogs.amnesty.org.uk/blogs_entry.asp?eid=7070“These documents apparently provide further evidence that the US authorities have been aware of this systematic abuse for years, yet they went ahead and handed over thousands of Iraqis they had detained to the Iraqi security forces,” said Amnesty’s Middle East director Africa Malcolm Smart. www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2010/10/iraq-101023-irna01.htmthis what they would write. so the HQ didn't want the investigations and they could have done them . This doesn't take nuclear physics smartness to notice. These HQ would have known that the Iraqis wcarrying out all thee atrocities will deny them and will not investigate them so it was their duty to offer proof for Al Maliki and pressure him to stop what is happening fro thousads of people. As for the helicopter, as I said it is the job of the military to make out a way that the prisoners are caught and no one is killed . Since they went to the monn, I am sure they can come up with some smart way of doing it or else everyone will start finding excuses for killing. All in all, wikileaks does uncover US practices of hiding things: www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-cable-corroborates-evidence-us-airstrikes-yemen-2010-12-01at the end it is really a pit that we as humans live in the 21st century and claim that we evolved from being brutal , but it seems tha tthe human aggressive nature still prevails and no democracy no hogwash comes in the face of our interests.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 7, 2011 12:26:33 GMT -4
But what did the Americans who deported him to Syria for interrogation think was going to happen? Did they think that the Syrians would ask him polite questions? I think they recognized that he was a Syrian citizen, and that Canada apparently didn't want him (he was a Canadian citizen too), so deporting him to Syria was the legal thing to do if we weren't going to hold him as an enemy combatant. So you're okay using them on someone who is an obvious terrorist, but not so much on someone who's guilt is in more doubt? But we know that KSM did reveal authentic and useful information.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 7, 2011 12:40:03 GMT -4
Put yourself in the cockpit of a helicopter for a moment. You recieve a report that cars are being motared on a road near you and that the nearest ground units are an hour away so you need to respond. Heading to the area you spot the motar team preparing to fire, but when they hear your approach they stand up, drop their weapons and put their hands in the air. You check your fuel, you have enough fuel to stay in tharea for another 30 mins and stull get back to base. Your gunner is warning you that there may be other enemy units in the area and that hovering here you are a sitting duck. What do you do? Not so black and white now is it? You don't know if landing and exiting the aircraft will put yourself and your gunner is danger and risk losing a multi-million dollar high-tech and deadly aircraft to the enemy. You do know that you can't stay where you are and wait for ground troops to arrive, and if you leave, you know that innocent people on the road will start coming under attack again. So what exactly do you do? An excellent example. Really, the most responsible thing to do is fire on them. There is no way to capture them and no way to gaurantee that they won't immediately go back to what they were doing (shelling civilians) if you leave.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 7, 2011 12:52:48 GMT -4
I think they recognized that he was a Syrian citizen, and that Canada apparently didn't want him (he was a Canadian citizen too), so deporting him to Syria was the legal thing to do if we weren't going to hold him as an enemy combatant. True, the RCMP messed up as well. And the Canadian government should have done more to get him freed sooner. I didn't mean that necessarily, just that the situations are different.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Feb 8, 2011 4:01:57 GMT -4
Put yourself in the cockpit of a helicopter for a moment. You recieve a report that cars are being motared on a road near you and that the nearest ground units are an hour away so you need to respond. Heading to the area you spot the motar team preparing to fire, but when they hear your approach they stand up, drop their weapons and put their hands in the air. You check your fuel, you have enough fuel to stay in tharea for another 30 mins and stull get back to base. Your gunner is warning you that there may be other enemy units in the area and that hovering here you are a sitting duck. What do you do? Not so black and white now is it? You don't know if landing and exiting the aircraft will put yourself and your gunner is danger and risk losing a multi-million dollar high-tech and deadly aircraft to the enemy. You do know that you can't stay where you are and wait for ground troops to arrive, and if you leave, you know that innocent people on the road will start coming under attack again. So what exactly do you do? An excellent example. Really, the most responsible thing to do is fire on them. There is no way to capture them and no way to gaurantee that they won't immediately go back to what they were doing (shelling civilians) if you leave. sorry to note this , but a Chrsitian saying that you should fire on surrenderers? this Bushism should have brainwashed you totally..
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 8, 2011 6:37:48 GMT -4
An excellent example. Really, the most responsible thing to do is fire on them. There is no way to capture them and no way to gaurantee that they won't immediately go back to what they were doing (shelling civilians) if you leave. soory to noet this , but a Chrsitian saying that you should fire on surrenderers? this Bushism should have brainwashed you totally.. I did note that even though condeming Jason's reply, you failed to actually answer it yourself. So what would you do lionking. Would you risk your life, your gunner's life, and your aircraft, along with the civilians, by landing and getting out in enemy territory, would you leave and let them go back to killing civilians, would you pull the tigger, or have you got another amazing solution to the problem?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Feb 8, 2011 9:27:25 GMT -4
soory to noet this , but a Chrsitian saying that you should fire on surrenderers? this Bushism should have brainwashed you totally.. I did note that even though condeming Jason's reply, you failed to actually answer it yourself. So what would you do lionking. Would you risk your life, your gunner's life, and your aircraft, along with the civilians, by landing and getting out in enemy territory, would you leave and let them go back to killing civilians, would you pull the tigger, or have you got another amazing solution to the problem? How about making sure that this is not a trap ? especially with the technology that can see if ther are other people around?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:43:05 GMT -4
An excellent example. Really, the most responsible thing to do is fire on them. There is no way to capture them and no way to gaurantee that they won't immediately go back to what they were doing (shelling civilians) if you leave. sorry to note this , but a Chrsitian saying that you should fire on surrenderers? this Bushism should have brainwashed you totally.. Loving my neighbor means protecting them too. If I leave the mortar crew alone I let them kill innocent civilians - civilians that it is my duty as a member of the military to protect.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:47:36 GMT -4
How about making sure that this is not a trap ? especially with the technology that can see if ther are other people around? It's just you and your gunner on the chopper. The mortar crew doesn't need to have anyone else nearby to be a threat to the two of you if you land and get out of the chopper to try to take them prisoner. Making sure there is no one else around won't allow you to safely capture them if they change their mind once you're on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 8, 2011 13:42:27 GMT -4
I think part of the issue is that people are trying to convince the people on the other side that the problems of war are more simple than they really are.
|
|