 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
East Street Trader
|
 |
London, United Kingdom
Jun 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
There were stories of incidents like that current with British aircrew, Che - my dad says. So I imagine your great-uncle's experience was not unique.
Bombing raids were much resented, I think, for one thing. And maybe there were civilians who just felt savage towards the enemy for any number of reasons and who would ordinarily have no chance to express their rage.
In England people spent quite a while in daily expectation of an invasion. So I seem to recall hearing a couple of incidents of German airmen who had to bail out being attacked when they landed in the belief that they were paratroopers taking part in such an invasion.
There are lots of stories of surrenders not being accepted or of men who had already surrendered just being shot out of hand because those accepting the surrender or asked to do so just couldn't spare the time and effort and manpower required. To the extent that this has become a matter of urban legend. Whether it is really prevalent it is pretty well impossible to know. Such things would hardly be made a matter of record or openly talked about. But I did once hear, on television, an eye witness account given by someone who had been told to take a group of German prisoners behind a wall and shoot them. He and his comrades did so but he had been very shocked by the order and was clearly happy, all those years later, partly to relieve his conscience by giving an account of it.
I suspect many others would feel the same so the paucity of hard evidence of this kind makes me think that it is not really a common experience.
I leave aside the eastern front in the second world war. It is said that battles there were substantially fought on a no quarter asked or given basis.
What is certainly true is that it has got harder and harder to surrender as the range of infantry weapons has extended. This was said to be the case for the Argentinian conscripts who fought in the Falkland trenches. The weapons used by the British regulars were killing well ahead of the advance - at least two trenches ahead. So the troops were either too far away to know that the Argentinian kids were trying to surrender or else the pace of the advance afforded no practical way to switch off the rain of death being laid down ahead of the advance.
And, of course, surrendering to missiles is a bit of a non starter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:35
|
|
Supposedly a large part of the "preparing for interrogation" and the actual "interrogation" has been farmed out to the ubiquitious "external contractors". I think the soldiers captured on the pictures were ordered to make the prisoners do what you can see on the pictures by people from companies or institutions who won't be caught on camera.
The whole using private companies to perform security sensitive tasks worries me, but seems to be a sign of the way Rumsfeld wants to run the DoD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:35
|
|
I think it probably does, especially if they are carrying weapons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:35
|
|
Rummy isn't safe.
Let's stop pretending this is an isolated incident. Apparently there are over 1000 photos and there have been 25 deaths in custody of which 2 are being treated as homicide. I think that figure is Afghanistan and Iraq.
But maybe this publicity will stop something worse like Operation Phoenix. At least 20,000 people in Indochina were assasinated at CIA direction under that program during the Vietnam War. The murders were carried out by local friendly forces, CIA operatives (now rather quaintly called "contractors" in Iraq) and by US Special forces including Navy Seals and green berets.
Here's a few sources:
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/operation_phoenix.htm
And before anyone says it's bull, this was all admitted to in congressional testimony by it's architect, the CIA's then South Vietnam Station chief and later Director William Colby.
Colby never served a day in jail as far as I know.
Here is his bio.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/wcolby.htm
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 07-05-2004 at 20:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kropotkin
Made me think of something, this is a question of sorts mainly aimed at MtG I suppose. Anyhow, those 'civilan contractors' seems to be doing quite a few of the shady jobs in Iraq, some have called some of them for modern mercenaries. Would that made them 'Illegal combatans'? |
Private contractors with weapons may not be combatants at all - i.e. bodyguards, building and diplomatic security. Private contractors who engage in combat operations and/or direct combat support operations may be unlawful combatants depending somewhat on their nationality (South Africans have a bit more problem, as IIRC, they're not a party to the conflict) and depending primarily on their conduct. The same standards apply to them, i.e. wearing identifying markings, openly bearing arms, part of an organization with a chain of command, and general adherence to the laws and customs of war.
The first and last of those four requirements are most likely where the issue of lawful vs. unlawful combatant status is determined. Whether they're lawful or unlawful combatants is an entirely different issue from any specific criminal acts which they may commit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
Looks like Rumsfeld stays.
quote:
Americans Do Not Think Rumsfeld Should Resign
Public Divided Over Administration's Handling of Investigation
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 7, 2004; 12:00 PM
A large majority of Americans believe that embattled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should not resign over the Iraq prison scandal, but the public remains sharply divided over whether the administration moved quickly enough to investigate reports of abuse before they became public, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Seven in 10 Americans said Rumsfeld should not be forced to quit, a view held by majorities of Republicans, Democrats and self-described political independents. The survey comes a day after President Bush gave Rumsfeld a vote of confidence, and as Rumsfeld faced stiff questioning by members of Congress enraged that they were kept in the dark about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
As new details continue to emerge, the survey found that public views on the way Bush is handling the scandal are divided and not yet fully formed. Fewer than half -- 48 percent -- said they approve of the way the president is dealing with the issue while 35 percent disapprove. But 17 percent are undecided, a clear indication that many Americans are waiting for more information before coming to judgment.
The poll found even greater divisions over the way the administration handled reports of abuse before the scandal broke in the media last week. Four in 10 faulted the administration for failing to move quickly enough to investigate the reports while an identical proportion disagreed.
Americans also are divided over whether the administration made a good-faith effort to probe claims of abuse. Slightly more than four in 10 said the administration was seriously investigating the incidents before they were publicly reported last week -- but just as many said they were trying to "cover it up."
But there was no clear indication yet that the scandal has affected the public's overall attitudes toward the war in Iraq, which have been trending downward since the first of the year as the situation in Iraq has grown increasingly violent and unstable.
About half of the country continue to say the war was "worth fighting" while nearly as many disagree. And six in 10 said the U.S.-led occupation is bogged down in Iraq. That number is unchanged from a Post-ABC News survey conducted three weeks ago, though the proportion who believe the U.S. is "making good progress" dipped to 35 percent.
As the military and political situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the survey suggests that the prisoner abuse scandal has become another unwelcome surprise in Iraq, sharpening the deep partisan divide over the war and its aftermath and raising new doubts about the administration's management of the situation in Iraq.
Even though overall attitudes toward the war remain essentially unchanged, the proportion who believe that the administration has a clear plan in Iraq stands at 38 percent, down 7 percentage points in the past three weeks, while the proportion who see the administration adrift in Iraq stood at 57 percent, a new high in Post-ABC News polling.
A total of 802 randomly selected adults were interviewed Wednesday and Thursday for this survey. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Americans have recoiled in disgust over the flood of graphic photos that were published in the past week and appear to clearly document physical abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel. Still, six in 10 believe these were isolated incidents, while fewer than a third said such abuse was more widespread
But there was no doubt in the public's mind about the seriousness of the reported incidents. Seven in 10 said the reports were "a big deal" and half said they were either "upset" or "angry" about the incidents.
Two-thirds said the soldiers involved should be charged with a crime. A slight majority also believed higher-level officers should be held responsible for allowing a breakdown in discipline.
Republicans and Democrats largely agree on the seriousness of the allegations, the scope of the problem and the future of the secretary of defense, but differ dramatically when it comes to Bush's role in the process and the wisdom of the Iraq invasion in general.
Across the partisan spectrum, majorities of Republicans, Democrats and political independents said this kind of abuse is unacceptable, no matter what the situation, and about half in each group said they are either upset or angry about it.
At least six in ten in each group said that the soldiers involved should be charged with a crime. But majorities of Republicans (82 percent), Democrats (58 percent) and independents (73 percent) said Rumsfeld should not be forced out of his job over the prison scandal, but also agree the reported incidents are serious.
When it comes to Bush and his role in the controversy, agreement vanished. Roughly six in 10 Democrats said the administration moved too slowly in investigating the report, and were mainly trying to cover up the scandal. At the same time, an even larger proportion of Republicans -- about seven in ten -- said the administration acted quickly, and were making a genuine effort to investigate the problem and not cover it up. Independents roughly split on both issues.
Neither have the two parties drawn any closer in their views of the bigger picture in Iraq. The large majority of Republicans continue to say that the war with Iraq was worth fighting and the United States is making good progress, while the large majority of Democrats said the war was not worth the costs and worry that the United States is getting bogged down. Political independents divide more evenly on the issues: half said the war was worth it, half disagree. Still, six in ten said they fear the U.S. has been slowed in its progress. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004 04:53
|