Special courts martial as a red flag?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
the uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) in the USA, or at least
what it was in 1966. Briefly, military personnel accused of a crime
can be punished via four types of proceedings:
1. Article 15 (nonjudicial punishment)
2. Summary court martial
3. Special court martial
4. General court martial
In general, these allow progressively stiffer punishments but also
have progressively stronger safeguards for the accused. An accused
has the right[1] to refuse Article 15 and demand a summary court
martial or to refuse a summary[2] court martial and demand a special
court martial; I don't recall whether he is allowed to refuse a
special court martial and demand a general court martial.
Now here's what bothers me; normally, a person accused of a serious
crime will face a general court martial. So is the convening of
special courts martial for torture cases a sign that the
administration does not regard it as a serious crime?
[1] Under must circumstances it's not a good idea to invoke that
right. Odds are that you'll still be convicted and will face a
harsher penalty.
[2] Except that if you refuse an Article 15 you cannot refuse the
summary court martial that replaces it.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Jeremy Worrells
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
<SNIP>
> Now here's what bothers me; normally, a person accused of a serious
> crime will face a general court martial. So is the convening of
> special courts martial for torture cases a sign that the
> administration does not regard it as a serious crime?
>
According to a NYT article sent out on the IP mail list today, a team of
crack lawyers have given the green-light to this kind of thing. In summary,
the lawyers have said that Bush cannot be bound by any law or treaty
that prohibits torture, because he was protecting the country. Interestingly
enough, the lawyers have also said that the immunity extends down the chain
of command into the ranks of the military.
Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08ABUS.html
(soul-sucking registration required, but we all have our ways around that)
The report was given back in March. I'm sure word has gotten out.
Ugh.
Jeremy
Mercenary Monk
> According to a NYT article sent out on the IP mail list today, a team of
> crack lawyers have given the green-light to this kind of thing.
"Crack lawyers" are like "crack monkeys" except with law degrees, yes?
> the lawyers have said that Bush cannot be bound by any law or treaty
> that prohibits torture, because he was protecting the country. Interestingly
> enough, the lawyers have also said that the immunity extends down the chain
> of command into the ranks of the military.
Thought it only extended as far as military folks who were high enough to be
"in the executive branch" (i.e. Rummy) but I could be incorrect.
--
The mercenary monk, parting fools and their money since 1995.
"If you can't do business with the evil and the greedy, then
who _can_ you do business with?" - Chode, "Tripping The Rift"
Ramje Lomor
wrote:
> "Crack lawyers" are like "crack monkeys" except with law degrees, yes?
>
No. "Crack lawyers" are *worse* than "crack monkeys" *because* they have
law degrees.
--
Proof that they're lusers who must die: they send spam saying "Restore
your sex life" even though they never told you to back it up. -Anthony
de Boer in the Monastery
Douglas Henke
> [ worm spreads via 'doze admin accounts; orkplace has st00pid password ]
> I blame this expensive screwup on two parties: the writer of the worm, and
> the jerk who decided on that password. I mean, really.
Come, now. There's plenty of blame to spread it much further than
that.
I blame the PHB who decided to use WormOS in the orkplace. I blame
everyone present for this decision who did not immediately pick up the
nearest heavy object and smash it into the base of said PHB's skull,
forcefully and repeatedly, until dragged away by the authorities.
I blame poor meatstick who had to, probably under severe duress and
violent protest, attach the first WormOS box to your network.
I blame the little furry newbie with big beady eyes who made the
predictably -- nay, invariably -- fatal error of setting up a network
where one WormOS box can route packets to another without severely
restrictive filtering (implemented on something written by grown-ups)
in between.
I blame whatever limp-dicked beancounter wrote a site security policy
that fails to make various worm-enabling behavior a fire-on-the-spot
offense. (Such behavior to include but by no means limited to: taking
random bytes from web pages or email and doing what those bytes say to
do; installing software that fell off a truck; hooking up random
wireless access points; letting your crackmonkey warez-trading
offspring and their 3733t little friends play with your work laptop;
installing a POTS modem on work machine inside "secure" network and
dialing up ISP to browse pr0n; about a jillion more actual examples
I could draw from life at my _tiny_ orkplace.)
I blame the pathetic suckweasels in HR and legal who sneeringly cut
off whatever remnants of balls the site security policy might once
have pretended to have.
I blame everybody under the sun who, when confronted with the idea
that software HAS to be this lame, that worms and viruses and
pointy-clicky clipart powerpoint hammerduck hell is normal, OK and
acceptable, doesn't demand of the teller: are you DELIBERATELY LYING
or are you just a FUCKING IDIOT? Those are the only two options.
Which is it? Both?
I blame AOL. I blame Mike Holmes. I blame Joel Furr, and I'm gonna,
Glub willing, shove the last lemur into a paper shredder with my own
bare hands just to make the point that I have some feelings about the
matter that aren't entirely mild and drawing-room fashion.
I blame myself, for not being enough of an asshole to all the idiot
lusers who deserve it. (There probably isn't such a thing as _enough_
of an asshole, but I could probably be more of one. So, I blame
myself.)
I blame Postel, for not making pessimism about human nature the first
and foremost design consideration when he came up with a goodly number
of the things that make it possible for you to be reading this crap
today. I blame the skidmarks on BUGTRAQ who slag off the robustness
principle without having actually read it for content, and I blame the
miles that prevent me slapping them upside the head with ten inches of
limp InterLISP manual.
The writer of the worm? Feh. Come on: You (FVO including "your
orkplace") made a long line of business and technical decisions which
are the equivalent of standing in the prison yard pantsless, with your
hands on your ankles, shouting "Come and get it, boys!". Through a
megaphone. In every language of man. After having previously spiked
the food with a mixture of PCP and Viagra. And now you want to
complain about getting "raped"?
Blaming the victim? You're damn straight I'm blaming the victim. Just
because you can cite some case in the past where that was done
unjustly doesn't mean it isn't well deserved here.
I blame every so-called monk who's taken "all software sucks" to mean
that all softare sucks equally, so you might as well just pick some
at random out of a hat, or get whatever's most popular, or use whatever
came "free" with the box, and pretend you're the equal of the people
who actually researched technical merit and made intelligent decisions
based on fact.
Finally, I blame anyone who dismisses this as advocacy. If saying
"Using <FOO> hurts everyone. <FOO> is garbage. Use whatever you want,
just not <FOO>." is advocacy, then I'm an advocate. Go climb the
nearest power-pole and french kiss the transformer. I've got shit to
do in the blue room.
David Cameron Staples
mercena...@mercenary-monk.example.org (Mercenary Monk) in hoc locus
scripsit:
> j...@bloat.swapspace.org (Jeremy Worrells) wrote:
>> According to a NYT article sent out on the IP mail list today, a team
>> of crack lawyers have given the green-light to this kind of thing.
>
> "Crack lawyers" are like "crack monkeys" except with law degrees, yes?
>
>> the lawyers have said that Bush cannot be bound by any law or treaty
>> that prohibits torture, because he was protecting the country.
>> Interestingly enough, the lawyers have also said that the immunity
>> extends down the chain of command into the ranks of the military.
>
> Thought it only extended as far as military folks who were high enough to
> be "in the executive branch" (i.e. Rummy) but I could be incorrect.
You are incorrect. A memo (same one? I'm losing track) explicitely states
that as the PotUS is empowered to do whatever the fuck he feels like in
Defence Of The Nation, any grunt doing what the PotUS wants can claim the
Nuremburg Defence as justification if (unjustly, of course) charged as a
War Criminal. Seriously. Not even a *hint* of outrageous irony. Are we
outraged yet?
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
catapultum habeo. nisi multam pecuniam dones mihi,
lapis ingens ad caput tuum mitterit.
Mike Looney
> I blame AOL. I blame Mike Holmes. I blame Joel Furr, and I'm gonna,
> Glub willing, shove the last lemur into a paper shredder with my own
> bare hands just to make the point that I have some feelings about the
> matter that aren't entirely mild and drawing-room fashion.
*blink* (or should that be *frink*?)
What did Joel Furr do?
I mean I know about alt.fan.lemurs and all that, but what did
he do WRT doze worms?
I must have missed something someplace.
--
Silliness is the last refuge of the doomed. P. Opus
GAT d-- s:- a44 UL+++$ P++$ L+++$ E- W+++$ N++ K++ w---(++)$ O- M- V-- PS+
PE++ Y PGP t++ 5 X R+++$ tv+ b++++ DI+++ D G+ e+ h--- r+++ y+++(**)$
Douglas Henke
> > [ my litany of who's to blame for worm outbreaks, including: ]
> > I blame AOL. I blame Mike Holmes. I blame Joel Furr [...]
>
> *blink* (or should that be *frink*?)
>
> What did Joel Furr do?
I picked him as a random example of someone with no sensible causal
relationship to malware, hidden or apparent. My point is that, even
knowing he's blameless, I choose to blame him anyway in a spirit of
general free-floating misanthropy and simple malice.
My previous post was somewhere near the triple-point where the regions
of rant, tirade and tantrum are joined. What, you want it to make
sense, too?
Bogdan Iamandei
> Jeremy Worrells <j...@swapspace.org> writes:
>> [ worm spreads via 'doze admin accounts; orkplace has st00pid password ]
>> I blame this expensive screwup on two parties: the writer of the worm, and
>> the jerk who decided on that password. I mean, really.
>
> Come, now. There's plenty of blame to spread it much further than
> that.
Come on, Douglas. Tell us how you *really feel*. Don't hold back.
Ino!~ (ducking)
--
I have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire
off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark
near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.
Mark C. Langston
Apropos of nothing, did anyone ever get Joel to fork over the
files necessary to print his shirt designs, and get permission to do so?
There were a few I always regretted not getting when I had the chance[0][1],
and it'd be nice to have a replacement for my "The Internet is full. Go i
away" shirt, which has long since passed its prime.
[0] Like the Canter & Siegel shirt.
[1] I also wish I'd snagged an LOD/MOD World Tour shirt; Joel had nothing
to do with this one, but it was from roughly the same time period, and
was another one I wish I'd had the sense to pick up, if only for the
nostalgia factor.[2]
[2] I'm surprised nobody's started up a museum of geek T-shirts yet.
Before I cull my collection (probably over 100 by now), I need to scan
them for posterity.
--
Mark C. Langston
ma...@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
Patrick R. Wade
wrote:
>j...@bloat.swapspace.org (Jeremy Worrells) wrote:
>> According to a NYT article sent out on the IP mail list today, a team of
>> crack lawyers have given the green-light to this kind of thing.
>
>"Crack lawyers" are like "crack monkeys" except with law degrees, yes?
>
>> the lawyers have said that Bush cannot be bound by any law or treaty
>> that prohibits torture, because he was protecting the country. Interestingly
>> enough, the lawyers have also said that the immunity extends down the chain
>> of command into the ranks of the military.
>
>Thought it only extended as far as military folks who were high enough to be
>"in the executive branch" (i.e. Rummy) but I could be incorrect.
>
Erm, isn't it the case that *every* inducted member of the military,
down to the last private, is a member of the executive branch?
--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.--Charles Babbage
Patrick R. Wade
>
>You are incorrect. A memo (same one? I'm losing track) explicitely states
>that as the PotUS is empowered to do whatever the fuck he feels like in
>Defence Of The Nation, any grunt doing what the PotUS wants can claim the
>Nuremburg Defence as justification if (unjustly, of course) charged as a
>War Criminal. Seriously. Not even a *hint* of outrageous irony. Are we
>outraged yet?
>
My supply of outrage ran out a long time ago. At this point i'm not even
disappointed, just a little weary of having my evil expectations fulfilled.
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Iain Chalmers
Douglas Henke <he...@kharendaen.dyndns.org> wrote:
> I blame...
(everybody)
8.3, 8.7, 8.7, 8.2, 7.9, and 9.6 (from the Russian judge).
Its just a shame the degree of difficulty (ranting about GameOS
security) is so low at 0.6, resulting in a total score of only 5.14
big (passing hints to the .sigmonster)
--
"I ran out of gas! I got a flat tire! I didn't have change for cab fare!
I lost my tux at the cleaners! I locked my keys in the car! An old friend
came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake!
A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault I swear to god!" Jake Blues
Mike Looney
>> What did Joel Furr do?
>
> I picked him as a random example of someone with no sensible causal
> relationship to malware, hidden or apparent. My point is that, even
> knowing he's blameless, I choose to blame him anyway in a spirit of
> general free-floating misanthropy and simple malice.
Oh, Well, then, carry on.
> My previous post was somewhere near the triple-point where the regions
> of rant, tirade and tantrum are joined. What, you want it to make
> sense, too?
No, just making sure I didn't miss something.
--
Silliness is the last refuge of the doomed. P. Opus
GAT d-- s:- a43 UL+++$ P++$ L+++$ E- W+++$ N++ K++ w---(++)$ O- M- V-- PS+
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 10:45 PM, Douglas Henke <he...@kharendaen.dyndns.org> said:
>Finally, I blame anyone who dismisses this as advocacy.
While I understand that you are on a roll, and just looking for
something else to rant about, and while I appreciate your need for
new targets, there is nothing that you can do are say that would
convince me to dismiss criticism of that fetid reeking FPOS[1] as
mere advocacy. I suspect that others in this froup share my
reluctance to defend that company or its products. No, I'm far more
likely to accuse you of letting them off the hook and being too easy
on them.
Don't hold it back. Tell us how ou really feel.
[1] Not just &Product or &release, but the entire corporate
infrastructure.
david parsons
David Cameron Staples <sta...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> wrote:
>You are incorrect. A memo (same one? I'm losing track) explicitely states
>that as the PotUS is empowered to do whatever the fuck he feels like in
>Defence Of The Nation, any grunt doing what the PotUS wants can claim the
>Nuremburg Defence as justification if (unjustly, of course) charged as a
>War Criminal. Seriously. Not even a *hint* of outrageous irony. Are we
>outraged yet?
If it wasn't for the tiny problem of living in the US, I'd be
delighted; Remember a few decades ago when the lunatic left in the
United States was spinning all sorts of ridiculous prophesies about
how the country would go to hell in a handbasket? Whoops.
Yesterday's lefty conspiracy theory is now a pretty restrained level
of tyranny.
I feel really sorry for my right-wing relatives who are trapped in
the Armed Services, because it's their dream that's turning to bitter
ash.
____
david parsons \bi/ Grrr.
\/
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> An accused has the right[1] to refuse Article 15
Not if he is attached to a vessel, he doesn't.
> and demand a summary court martial
He may demand "trial by court-martial" ... the command can decide what
to do from that point, and will normally proceed with a special court.
I think it is unlikely he'd be offered a summary in that circumstance,
but every command does what it wants.
> [...] I don't recall whether he is allowed to refuse a special court
> martial and demand a general court martial.
No, there is no such right, and I can't see any conceivable advantage
to the accused of making such a request. Of course, as any military
veteran will point out, you can *request* anything you like!
> [2] Except that if you refuse an Article 15 you cannot refuse the
> summary court martial that replaces it.
We have been through this before. The right to refuse a summary court
is absolute, whether or not one has already refused NJP. The UCMJ
leaves no wiggle room whatsoever on this point. The "one upgrade to a
customer" principle has no basis except in folklore.
> Now here's what bothers me; normally, a person accused of a serious
> crime will face a general court martial. So is the convening of
> special courts martial for torture cases a sign that the
> administration does not regard it as a serious crime?
That's a pretty good question in general. I was a little taken aback
at first that they got SCMs, myself. ('Course, I favored turning the
bastards over to the new Iraq government when it is established, but I
don't expect that idea to get a lot of support.) So now that you
brought it up, I decided to look into it a little more. The one case
I found with Google had three charges associated with it:
Maltreatment of detainees (two counts)
Conspiracy to commit the above (two counts)
Dereliction of duty (two counts)
All of the charges in this particular case were with respect to taking
photos of prisoners in humiliating poses, not "torture" as the term is
commonly understood. The charges seem pretty much appropriate to me.
Digging through the good ol' MCM, I see that the maltreatment charge
and the conspiracy charge each carry a max penalty of one year
confinement; the dereliction charge (if "willful," which seems
obvious) carries a penalty of six months. Honestly, if I were the
unit Legal Officer, and -- trying to be objective, here -- someone
brought me a charge sheet with this stuff for an enlisted accused, I
would recommend a special court; it would not be an especially close
call.
This leads us to the (also very good) question as to whether there may
have been other, more serious, laws under which they could have been
charged. Of course, some of these cases have not yet been disposed of
-- a general court takes a while to convene; maybe there are a few of
those in the offing. If any officers are to fry for this, you may
rest assured that they will face general courts.
As for the disposition of the cases reflecting Administration
attitudes directly, I certainly hope no Pentagon or White House
official had a hand in the convening authority's deliberations. That
would be extremely improper.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Patrick R. Wade <pa...@efn.org> wrote:
> Erm, isn't it the case that *every* inducted member of the military,
> down to the last private, is a member of the executive branch?
Military judges could be said to be part of the judicial branch, even
though the DoD cuts their paychecks.
David Cameron Staples
locus scripsit:
> INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>>All of the charges in this particular case were with respect to taking
>>photos of prisoners in humiliating poses, not "torture" as the term is
>>commonly understood. The charges seem pretty much appropriate to me.
>
> Now this has bothered me for some time. My father is a retired Army
> Non-Com - a Staff Sgt., to be precise. He is furious at the stupidity of
> these "kids" in the prison, and far more furious at their commanders.
>
> "There is no way, what they were doing wasn't known. In the field, a
> unit commander at least would know. But in a confined facility like
> that? Their colonel knew about it, damned straight. And if he didn't, he
> should be bounced for incompetence." There's a _lot_ more where that
> came from, and I with my limited understanding of military life, would
> tend to agree.
>
> However, the larger question in my mind is this: Why is taking an
> embarrassing picture considered torture? it is dumb, uncomfortable and
> immoral by most standards. But when I think of torture, I think of
> pliers, crushed thumbs, exposed nerve endings. MS-SQL. How on this earth
> did we end up so fucked up that we will shoot a man, but we'd better not
> embarrass him? And $Deity forbid we scare him a little when we
> interrogate him!
>
> Shit.
>
> It makes me ill, that so much has been made of this, but almost no
> concern is shown over that non-combatant boy whose head was cut off on
> video. Big f$ck'n deal, these assholes were humiliated. It's
> unprofessional, it's definitely unkind, but it's a hell of a lot more
> humane than the treatment our POWs received in either gulf war. Even if
> we have the wrong people interned - and I have no doubt some are
> innocent - they are alive, breathing and perfectly able to play the
> piano as badly as they ever could.
>
> WTF is it that requires us to be so fscking spic and span that Jell-O
> won't stain us, when our people are carved up or blown to pieces by a
> bomb on the side of the road?
>
> We are dealing with people who blow up their own children. How is it
> improper for us to make some bastard uncomfortable when combating that
> kind of brutality?
>
> Regardless of my feelings about the war, the double standard the .us is
> being held to in this case is absurd. Sure, set off car bombs, mortar
> your elementary schools. Do what you like! But heaven forbid someone
> takes a picture of your ass.
>
> Stupidest damned thing since GvzrPrager.(0)
>
> - AJS
>
> (0) Which is a fully separate rant deserving of vitriol several orders
> of magnitude nastier than this.
OK, first: not all Iraqis are terrorists, just like not all US soldiers
are torturers. The evidence is, however, that a *lot* of innocent people
are being arrested on the word on someone with a ten year old grudge, even
unto entire families. Even their arrest is difficult to justify, let alone
harsh treatment.
Second: Not all Iraqis are terrorists, even if there is evidence that
their ex-leader gave money to the widows and orphans of Al-Aqsa bombers.
Is that not the reason (this week) why the US went in? Or are all Iraqis
to be punished for being subject to Saddam ... again?
As to the difference in media treatment, Nick Berg was heavily covered at
the time. But. While it was horrible, it happened, and Nick feels no more
pain. The story is being continued by others in the same situation, like
that guy being held at the moment, not in Iraq, but in Saudi Arabia. I
suspect you'll find that the coverage of Nick Berg started to tail off
sharply at about the time that his family disclosed evidence that his
kidnapping was in large part due to the incompetance of the US/Iraqi
'Security Forces' who arrested and held him as he was trying to leave the
country, and let him go onto the street just as the foreign kidnappings
were becoming endemic. As soon as the blame began to get spread around,
the coverage dropped right off.
The Abu Graib scandal, however, is still justified as newsworthy for its
information content. So there are thugs and murderers in the Middle East,
who would happily kill US citizens. Well, duh. That the US military might
have justified and participated in the pissing on the Geneva Convention,
in a systematic, widespread and pervasive way, well, that is something
that the average Joe Citizen would be very surprised to hear. There is a
very much higher information content in that story. The revelations that
this did indeed go all the way to the top is part of a continuing
investigation, and it is not a single localised outrage on one person, and
not even even just an outrage perpetrated on largely innocent Iraqis, but
something that has affected by extension every single USian who has
contact with foreigners. Like you do.
Why was Abu Graib so bad? It's not just the beatings. It's not just the
sleep deprivation, or the deaths (what, 17 at last count, and those are
just the ones we know of?). There *is* a strong cultural element to the
PsiOps. Arabs have very strong nudity taboos. It is common for arab men to
go their whole lives without seeing another naked man. Women who are raped
are sometimes killed by their own family for the shame by association.
Piling naked Arabic men on top of each other, forcing them to simulate
fellatio, these men have effectively been raped. Some of them have
actually been raped. Ask any rape or sexual assault victim, and they will
tell you that the aftereffects are for the rest of your life. Nick Berg's
death was horrible, but it is over, and he feels no more pain. These men
- *and* women, don't forget - will suffer for the rest of their lives. And
there are a lot of them.
Maybe this goes some way to explain why Abu Graib is so much bigger a deal
than Nick Berg. (And check out what I said about when (and why) the
coverage of his circumstances dropped off...)
If you want to continue this further, might I suggest we take it off list?
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
Ow! My Mythological Buttocks!
Patrick R. Wade
>
>However, the larger question in my mind is this: Why is taking an
>embarrassing picture considered torture? it is dumb, uncomfortable and
>immoral by most standards. But when I think of torture, I think of pliers,
>embarrass him? And $Deity forbid we scare him a little when we interrogate
>him!
>
This confuses two issues; the torture depicted in some of the pictures
(and yes, rectal insertion of foreign objects, rape of women, application
of cattle prods, et al *are* torture, TYVM; if running "rape rooms" was
bad under Saddam's management, it's still bad under W's management),
and the humiliation of being in the photos at all. The humiliation angle
is a no-no under the Geneva Conventions, the premise being that civilized
powers are supposed to treat their enemies in in a civilized way. The
excuse that the enemy are uncivilized has little to do with it; we are not
supposed to reduce ourselves to their level.
>It makes me ill, that so much has been made of this, but almost no concern
>is shown over that non-combatant boy whose head was cut off on video.
Ask his father about that.
>Big
>f$ck'n deal, these assholes were humiliated. It's unprofessional, it's
>definitely unkind, but it's a hell of a lot more humane than the treatment
>our POWs received in either gulf war.
So Saddam and Osama are our role models now?
>Even if we have the wrong people interned - and I have no doubt some are
>innocent - they are alive, breathing and perfectly able to play the piano as
>badly as they ever could.
>
Except for the ones that aren't, which were in the photos Congress has seen
and you apparently have not.
>WTF is it that requires us to be so fscking spic and span that Jell-O
>won't stain us, when our people are carved up or blown to pieces by a bomb
>on the side of the road?
Our claim to be The Force Of Righteousness Enlightening The Middle East.
If this is just about killing brown people for having the wrong relatives,
then our Dear Leader can kindly get off his high horse.
>
>We are dealing with people who blow up their own children.
Dealing with them by blowing up their children for them via remote control.
And don't tell me that sodomizing the innocent with flashlights is a
necessary cost of doing business; how many thrusts are you prepared to take
for the cause? It hasn't even done anything to appreciably improve the
intelligence gathering at interrogations; what prisoners in such circumstances
learn to do is tell the interrogator whatever he wants to hear.
You might want to reread "The Gulag Archipelago" for a discussion of the
effects of this sort of treatment by someone who has received it.
>How is it
>improper for us to make some bastard uncomfortable when combating that
>kind of brutality?
>
>Regardless of my feelings about the war, the double standard the .us is
>being held to in this case is absurd. Sure, set off car bombs, mortar your
>elementary schools. Do what you like! But heaven forbid someone takes a
>picture of your ass.
>
As to "double standards", we initiated a war against a foreign power
because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Whether the excuse is
"threat of weapons of mass destruction" (no credible threat yet demonstrated)
or "sponsorship of terrorism" (refuted) or "liberation from tyranny"
(score so far; same lack of civil liberties, plus reduced public services),
the burden is upon the aggressor to demonstrate that his cause is just.
So far we've inflicted added miseries upon the Iraqi people for little
delivered gain to them, and conducted ourselves badly in the process of
doing so. We have much to be ashamed of.
--
"When the President of the United States cannot travel abroad or to any
major city at home without fear of a hostile demonstration --
then it's time for new leadership for the United States of America."
-- Richard M. Nixon, 1968
David Cameron Staples
hoc locus scripsit:
> - AJS <bogus @ nowhere.com> writes:
>
>> We are dealing with people who blow up their own children. How is it
>> improper for us to make some bastard uncomfortable when combating that
>> kind of brutality?
>
> I think you and I have been reading different reports about this.
> Obviously I don't know which ones are true, but I've heard worse rumours
> than "some bastard(s)" being made "uncomfortable".
Rumours like this:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#108059254488988448
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
Thanks for the Dadaist Pep-talk.
Iain Chalmers
- AJS <bogus @ nowhere.com> wrote:
> WTF is it that requires us to be so fscking spic and span that Jell-O
> won't stain us, when our people are carved up or blown to pieces by a bomb
> on the side of the road?
Because thats the way Dubbyas marketing people decided to spin the whole
war from the start.
"We're so noble, us and our pure as gold 'one nation under God', that
its our _obligation_ to go and rescue those poor unenlightened Iraqi and
place them under an honest-to-god all-American democracy!"
If they'd said at the beginning "We're going in for the oil, and anyone
who gets in our way had better get the hell out of our way!", then
prehaps less of the rest of the world would be thinking that your
(perhaps) elected leader is such a fucking hypocrite.
People expect war-mongers to act like war-mongers - if you want to
justify your actions by claiming the moral high ground, you've got to
stuck to it...
disenchanted-big
--
Its now day 361 of Harsh Week on Usenet...
That means its only 4 days till the anniversary of Harsh Week,
have _you_ made celebration plans yet??? http://tinyurl.com/kfd1
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, James Riden <j.r...@massey.ac.nz> wrote:
> I think you and I have been reading different reports about
> this. Obviously I don't know which ones are true, but I've heard
> worse rumours than "some bastard(s)" being made "uncomfortable".
Well, the guy who was just charged, tried and sentenced was accused of
no more than making a few, uh, bastards "uncomfortable," so maybe we
can shrug this *particular* case off as not really indicative of
anything special.
As for the other reports (rape, etc.), they are still in my personal
mental taxonomy under the heading "unsubstantiated." There is no
question (obviously) that some humiliation has gone on, and I am
pretty well convinced that some of this "humiliation" even rose to the
level of psychological torture[1], but we're still pretty far short of
the Hoa Lo / Cu Loc standard.
[1] I was taught, in official training courses, from an officially-
approved syllabus, by employees of the United States Government,
that
- sleep deprivation
- putting someone in fear of his life or safety (e.g., "this
machine will shock you if you step off the box")
- mock executions[2]
- forcing someone to stand in a painful or uncomfortable
position for extended periods (see the above thing about
stepping off the box)
are all in fact forms of "torture."
[2] Haven't heard any reports of that one just yet; just thought
I'd throw it in.
Alan J Rosenthal
>- AJS <bogus @ nowhere.com> wrote:
>> WTF is it that requires us to be so fscking spic and span that Jell-O
>> won't stain us, when our people are carved up or blown to pieces by a bomb
>> on the side of the road?
>
>Because thats the way Dubbyas marketing people decided to spin the whole
>war from the start.
Yup. There's no shortage of murderous religious-zealot motherfuckers in
that part of the world. The question is whether America's involvement
is just more of the same, or some sort of Force For Good. I think that
there's increasing evidence that it's the former.
AJS referred to a "double standard". A double standard is when something's
considered ok if one party does it and not ok if the other party does it.
None of the above is considered ok, for either party to do. I don't think
the debate is whether or not Saddam Hussein is evil. That's settled.
We're discussing the actions of some of the other parties.
I don't think that the American invasion has improved civilian life in Iraq.
I think the sysadmin analogy would be something like down-grading BIND
to 4.9.3 because the script kiddies keep breaking in to your BIND 8.1.2
installation.
Btw, http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Toppling_the_statue_of_Saddam_Hussein
Alan J Rosenthal
>[1] I was taught, in official training courses, from an officially-
> approved syllabus, by employees of the United States Government,
> that
>
> - sleep deprivation
> - putting someone in fear of his life or safety (e.g., "this
> machine will shock you if you step off the box")
> - mock executions[2]
> - forcing someone to stand in a painful or uncomfortable
> position for extended periods (see the above thing about
> stepping off the box)
>
> are all in fact forms of "torture."
btw (I'm not telling J.D. this, I know he knows), some of the above are
MUCH nastier than they seem. Humans are complex machines. You can kill
someone by forcing them into an odd position for extended periods; that's
what crucifixion was. You actually died of the lungs filling with fluid
or something bizarre like that.
Peter Corlett
[...]
> - forcing someone to stand in a painful or uncomfortable
> position for extended periods (see the above thing about
> stepping off the box)
> are all in fact forms of "torture."
I think you've just described many of the workstations I've had to
suffer in my career.
When you get fired from a job and your thoughts are more "well, at
least I won't get the back pain and the headaches any more" rather
than panic about what will pay the bills, it's not exactly an
endorsement of the employer.
--
Optimist (n) a person who believes that this is the best of all possible worlds
Pessimist (n) a person who prays that the optimist is wrong
Cynic (n) a person who knows that either way, things can only get worse
Maarten Wiltink
news:1756d0pl89men8qdk...@4ax.com...
>> Regardless of my feelings about the war, the double standard the .us
>> is being held to in this case is absurd.
>
> Not to mention the 2 Australians still being held at Guantanamo Bay
> for over 2 years without being charged.
Now there's a double standard. Never mind the Australians, what about
the *human beings* imprisoned without trial?
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 07:41 PM, INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin)
said:
>Not if he is attached to a vessel, he doesn't.
Why? Don't most naval vessels have enough officers to convene a
summary or even special court marshall?
>No, there is no such right, and I can't see any conceivable advantage
>to the accused of making such a request.
And there's an advantage to the accused in refusing NJP? How many
acquittals have you seen of such?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 11:25 PM, - AJS <bogus @ nowhere.com> said:
>However, the larger question in my mind is this: Why is taking an
>embarrassing picture considered torture? it is dumb, uncomfortable
>and immoral by most standards. But when I think of torture, I think
>of pliers, crushed thumbs, exposed nerve endings. ZF-FDY.
Had that been the extent of it, it would not have been front-page
news. It wasn't. Presumably the prisoners who died during
interrogation did not die of embarrassment.
>f$ck'n deal, these assholes were humiliated.
Which? The ones that were guilty or the ones that were innocent?
Perhaps it might have seemed a bigger deal had you been one of them.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 02:15 AM, - AJS <bogus @ nowhere.com> said:
>That said, I would also like to note that I NEVER claimed that all
>Iraqis are terrorists. Nothing of the sort. But I do believe that
>any man who would set off a car bomb in a crowded street
>_FOR_ANY_CAUSE_ should be hunted down like an animal and shot.
I have no quarrel with that. But if, failing to find that person, you
just round up someone with the same complexion or who lives on the
same block, in order to provide your interrogators with amusement,
then I have a problem with that. Many of the people tortured were
innocent, so even if you condone torture of those complicit in a
major crime, how do you justify what actually occurred?
>But random slaughter of innocent civilians is not justifiable for
>any end. In my mind, disturbed as it may be, that level of
>brutality deserves an immediate and overwhelming effort from all
>parties to bring the guilty person in-front of a firing squad.
How about random torture of innocent civilians with a small number of
unintended deaths? Should we not prosecute those at the top who either
ordered it or at best turned a blind eye to it?
Niklas Karlsson
>
> [1] I was taught, in official training courses, from an officially-
> approved syllabus, by employees of the United States Government,
> that
> - sleep deprivation
Didn't the KGB use this one a lot?
> are all in fact forms of "torture."
Niklas
--
"I always thought a serious programming facility should include a padded room."
-- Walter Bushell
Scott Forbes
- AJS <bogus @ nowhere.com> wrote:
> However, the larger question in my mind is this: Why is taking an
> embarrassing picture considered torture? it is dumb, uncomfortable and
> immoral by most standards. But when I think of torture, I think of pliers,
> crushed thumbs, exposed nerve endings.
Some of the prisoners were raped, beaten to death, forced to watch as
their children were raped, held hostage in exchange for a relative (a
violation of U.S. and international laws), forced to perform sexual acts
(you thought those were *simulated* sex acts in the photos?), held under
water until convinced they were drowning, and other treatment which
meets both the legal and the lay definition of torture.
This isn't about making people wear underwear on their heads, in other
words. Some of the prisoners were tortured to death.
> It makes me ill, that so much has been made of this, but almost no concern
> is shown over that non-combatant boy whose head was cut off on video.
Nick Berg's murder (and now Paul Johnson Jr.'s as well) is not enough to
stop us from establishing law and order in Iraq. Torturing prisoners
*is* enough to stop us from establishing law and order, because it
destroys what faith the Iraqis had in their liberators.
--
Scott Forbes for...@ravenna.com
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>>All of the charges in this particular case were with respect to taking
>>photos of prisoners in humiliating poses, not "torture" as the term is
>>commonly understood. The charges seem pretty much appropriate to me.
>
> Non-Com - a Staff Sgt., to be precise. He is furious at the stupidity of
> these "kids" in the prison, and far more furious at their commanders.
>
> "There is no way, what they were doing wasn't known. In the field, a unit
> commander at least would know. But in a confined facility like that? Their
> colonel knew about it, damned straight. And if he didn't, he should be
> bounced for incompetence." There's a _lot_ more where that came from, and
> I with my limited understanding of military life, would tend to agree.
>
> embarrassing picture considered torture? it is dumb, uncomfortable and
> immoral by most standards. But when I think of torture, I think of pliers,
> end up so fucked up that we will shoot a man, but we'd better not
> embarrass him? And $Deity forbid we scare him a little when we interrogate
> him!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1239824,00.html
Getting smeared with shit?
Having electric probes places on your genitals (whether they are
fscking connected or not)?
Being beaten?
The 17 deaths?
I also notice you are very much thinking in a Western frame of
mind. What if some foreign person came up to you and forced you to
have sex with a 13 year old boy? Yes, that is as shocking to you as
what the American prison contractors forced upon the prisoners, in the
mind of a Muslem.
> It makes me ill, that so much has been made of this, but almost no concern
> is shown over that non-combatant boy whose head was cut off on video. Big
> f$ck'n deal, these assholes were humiliated.
Arseholes? What are they in prison for? I was under the impression
this was just a regular prison - not for terrorists in particular (and
given that Guantanamo Bay has had some large proportion (majority) of
its prisoners accused of being terrorists actually found not to be so
at all - just in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong skin
colour)
> It's unprofessional, it's
> definitely unkind, but it's a hell of a lot more humane than the treatment
> our POWs received in either gulf war.
There was a letter to the editor recently where some one claimed that
everything the Americans did was OK, because they didn't do it as bad
as <insert some random unrelated conflict here> did.
> Even if we have the wrong people
> interned - and I have no doubt some are innocent - they are alive,
> breathing and perfectly able to play the piano as badly as they ever could.
And in the case of Guantanamo Bay inmates, had 2 or more years of
their life simply removed from them for no just reason.
> WTF is it that requires us to be so fscking spic and span that Jell-O
> won't stain us, when our people are carved up or blown to pieces by a bomb
> on the side of the road?
Your people? What's the death count of Americans in Iraq so far? 1000?
http://icasualties.org/oif/
What's the death count of Iraqians in Iraq, first - as a direct result
of the Americans being there (ie, as colateral damage from American
bombs), and second, as an indirect result (eg, malnourishment, looting).
Total is 10000 (don't know about a breakdown) according to (and they
don't count bodies unless it comes from a few sources):
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
> We are dealing with people who blow up their own children. How is it
> improper for us to make some bastard uncomfortable when combating that
> kind of brutality?
>
> Regardless of my feelings about the war, the double standard the .us is
> being held to in this case is absurd. Sure, set off car bombs, mortar your
> elementary schools. Do what you like! But heaven forbid someone takes a
> picture of your ass.
>
> Stupidest damned thing since GvzrPrager.(0)
Stupidist damn thing since the US decided to conveniently outsource
the prison work so no-one fell under any law whatsoever. To me, this
seems like the administration had planned this all along - every
reaction they make seems more of shock that they got caught than shock
of what actually happened - and the comments about it not being
torture, or the documents marked "Secret/ No foreign dissemination".
"The failed C.O. pleads ignorance on grounds that these sections were
off-limits to all of her command except those responsible for
interrogations." -- it's like the people up the chain deliberately
wanted to know as little as possible about what was going on, so they
could incriminate the least amount of people possible if the news ever
did make it out.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"The application failed to fail"
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> approved syllabus, by employees of the United States Government,
> that
>
> - sleep deprivation
> - putting someone in fear of his life or safety (e.g., "this
> machine will shock you if you step off the box")
> - mock executions[2]
> - forcing someone to stand in a painful or uncomfortable
> position for extended periods (see the above thing about
> stepping off the box)
>
> are all in fact forms of "torture."
I'm just worried that if *any* of the following is true, then
something is screwed (yes, this is leftist media -- but some of the
claims made could surely be verified by people with a bit of time on
their hands)
http://socialistworker.org/2004-1/501/501_02_Torture.shtml
"... Meanwhile, a witness to the terror at Abu Ghraib who told ABC
News that he believed the military was covering up the extent of
the abuse was punished by his superiors and told he could face
prosecution--all for telling the truth.
...
The military intelligence brigade that took control of the
interrogation center was deployed directly from Afghanistan. They
brought "special rules" with them. The U.S. military considers
prisons in Afghanistan to be outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva
Conventions because it defines al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters as
"unlawful combatants." But these "special rules" were developed
before the Iraq war.
According to the New York Times, between 2001 and 2002, the White
House, Vice President Dick Cheney?s office and the Pentagon signed
off on secret Justice Department memos outlining ways that
U.S. officials could interrogate prisoners while avoiding war
crimes charges. A January 9, 2002 memo by Justice Department
lawyers-- written just four months after September 11--provided
legal arguments against the Geneva Conventions.
Last year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself approved a
series of "aggressive" interrogation techniques for Taliban and
al-Qaeda prisoners, according to a general with the Judge Advocate
General?s office who spoke to the Los Angeles Times. In April 2003,
Rumsfeld approved a request by Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who
oversaw prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, to use a broad range of
extraordinary "nondoctrinal" questioning techniques.
...
These contractors aren?t subject to the same military legal code as
uniformed soldiers. And according to a decree passed by the U.S.?s
Coalition Provisional Authority, they?re also exempt from Iraq?s
local laws."
Of course, in .au, if anyone in the action claims they witness
something bad, Alexander Downer and John Howard scramble for the next
day or two to try an discredit the person in question as much as
possible - witness the bullshit that Andrew Wilkie (head of ASIO) had
to go through when he revealed that ASIO had been ordered to
effectively tell the government exactly what they wanted to hear, or
the girl that was kidnapped a month or so ago, and then told about how
inept the consulate were.
So of course the people that leak damaging information (eg, just who
in the chain was fully aware of what was happening) to the media (see
para 1 quoted above) are going to be discredited and/or thrown in jail
before they can even bat an eyelid.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> its our _obligation_ to go and rescue those poor unenlightened Iraqi and
> place them under an honest-to-god all-American democracy!"
Emphasise the God part there...
> If they'd said at the beginning "We're going in for the oil, and anyone
> who gets in our way had better get the hell out of our way!", then
> prehaps less of the rest of the world would be thinking that your
> (perhaps) elected leader is such a fucking hypocrite.
^^^^^^^
And remember this part. It doesn't reflect well on the American people
if the majority of voters (or the just under 50% in that rigged
election - but still a close majority) voted for the person who's
responsible for all this.
If you really cared about what happened, I'm sure there would be
enough support for an impeachment.
It just doesn't seem that enough Americans can actually give a shit.
> disenchanted-big
I'm fscking sick of it. Lusers are one thing, but the American
administration is putting real absolute fear (and depression) into me.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Another thing that pissed me off. We only ever hear about the 2
.auians. I don't even know how many people in in the Bay -- the other
inmates certainly are never mentioned.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Chairman: I'm glad to see so many bright-eyed and bushy-tailed people
here at this time of the morning.
From the audience: Actually, most of us are rabid. -- From an astro talk
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote, quoting me:
> >Not if he is attached to a vessel, he doesn't.
>
> Why? Don't most naval vessels have enough officers to convene a
> summary or even special court marshall?
Take it up with Congress. If they appointed me in charge tomorrow, I
would abolish this rule. Summary and special courts convene aboard
ships all the time. The UCMJ denies this right mainly as a matter of
expedience. Personally, I think it is outdated.
> >No, there is no such right, and I can't see any conceivable advantage
> >to the accused of making such a request.
>
> And there's an advantage to the accused in refusing NJP? How many
> acquittals have you seen of such?
I never personally saw anyone refuse "mast" in my time in the Navy --
and, having been Legal Officer during my squadron tour and friends
with a few JAG guys during other tours, I have seen my share of
Article 15 proceedings. Nevertheless, it does happen, and acquittals
in such cases are hardly unheard of. The standard of proof at mast
is, technically, preponderance of evidence -- and, in practice,
"whatever the captain wants it to be." At a summary or special court,
the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt," and believe it or don't,
the officers charged with enforcing these standards take the
responsibility very seriously. A weak case that would get you
hammered by an Article 15 hearing might very well be thrown out of a
special court entirely for just this reason.
Like I say, it happens ... but you're really rolling the dice when you
make a choice like that.
Kevin
>> won't stain us, when our people are carved up or blown to pieces by a bomb
>> on the side of the road?
>Because thats the way Dubbyas marketing people decided to spin the whole
>war from the start.
A drawback to "Slick Willie" having done his two terms already. Now THERE
was a President who knew how to fuck people without getting the public
riled.
>"We're so noble, us and our pure as gold 'one nation under God', that
>its our _obligation_ to go and rescue those poor unenlightened Iraqi and
>place them under an honest-to-god all-American democracy!"
>If they'd said at the beginning "We're going in for the oil, and anyone
>who gets in our way had better get the hell out of our way!", then
>prehaps less of the rest of the world would be thinking that your
>(perhaps) elected leader is such a fucking hypocrite.
If our "darling" American politicians had the guts to do that, they'd have
the guts to tell Detroit "Here are the new, tighter CAFE standards for new
vehicles, deal with them!". They would be offering more incentives for
alternative energies. Car-pooling and mass-transit wouldn't be the major
joke that it is.
Perhaps if the cornholing fundamentalists bust the current regime in Saudi
Arabia and cause OPEC prices to skyrocket, US industries will be encouraged
to satisfy our demand for energy without supporting scummy Third World
dictators in exchange for getting their oil at artificially cheap prices.
>People expect war-mongers to act like war-mongers - if you want to
>justify your actions by claiming the moral high ground, you've got to
>stuck to it...
It would be nice if the new Iraqi government told Bush to get the hell out
of Iraq. It would be justice if they voided all the big contracts arranged
by America for rebuilding and gave them to France.
I'd like our troops brought home (and some stationed on our border with
Mexico. I also think it's high time we pulled most of our troops out of
Europe and let France and Germany pick up the bulk of NATO expenses.
Kevin
Lieven Marchand
> I'd like our troops brought home (and some stationed on our border with
> Mexico. I also think it's high time we pulled most of our troops out of
> Europe and let France and Germany pick up the bulk of NATO expenses.
That would be nice but it isn't going to happen. Since this thread has
turned into a major US bashing, let's add some counterpoint. The
bloody European leaders should get off their ass about Iraq. Sure, the
Bush administration has behaved as such a bunch of assholes before
Iraq that they're entitled to their fifteen minutes of gloating, but
that time's up. The reality of the situation is that Iraq can still be
made a reasonably functional, more or less democratic state but that
it's got to happen now. And since Iraq is a whole end closer to Europe
than it is to the US, it's in Europe's best intrest to ensure that it
does. Now that we've gotten the UN or NATO fig leaf to allow our
politicians to deny giving in to the Americans, we should get involved
in a substantial way.
I'm not holding my breath though. And if Kerry wins the election and
tries his multilateral plan, I don't think he's going to get more than
some rhetoric from most of his NATO allies. It's all very well to
deplore the American unilateralism, but there has to be a credible
partner available in order to avoid it.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right,
A professional practices until she can't get it wrong.
Omri Schwarz
given the presence of veteran monks:
Any thoughts on whether media coverage of Abu Ghraib
will interfere with the courts martial because of
regulations on command influence?
--
Omri Schwarz --- ocs...@mit.edu ('h' before war)
Timeless wisdom of biomedical engineering: "Noise is principally
due to the presence of the patient." -- R.F. Farr
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Omri Schwarz <ocs...@h-after-ocsc.mit.edu>
wrote:
> This probably is the place to ask,
> given the presence of veteran monks:
>
> Any thoughts on whether media coverage of Abu Ghraib
> will interfere with the courts martial because of
> regulations on command influence?
In my experience, both convening authorities[1] and JAG officers I
have known have been extremely scrupulous about avoiding any kind of
interference, or even the apprearance thereof. Not only have I
assisted with numerous special courts, but I personally acted as a
summary court several times, and despite not always giving the command
every single thing it wanted (I think), I got a great ticket[2] out of
that tour, and my duties as a court officer were specifically noted as
a big positive.
That said, I have never been close to a military court proceeding that
got intense media coverage; however, I do know two officers who have
been involved in two separate such cases (neither was a defendant),
and the word of these individuals, whom I trust, is that no command
influence was exerted at any time.
I have a good deal of confidence in the military justice system in
general, and see no reason to assume, by default, that there will be
any underhandedness afoot in the Abu Ghraib prosecutions -- at least
as far as the actual court proceedings go. I expect that, when the
smoke clears, I am going to have SERIOUS issues with who did and
didn't get prosecuted, but that is another rant for another (future)
time.
[1] For special courts, usually the accused's commanding officer; for
general courts, the flag or general officer in operational command
at the site.
[2] i.e., Officer Fitness Report; not that it did me any good.
David P. Murphy
> This probably is the place to ask,
> given the presence of veteran monks:
>
> Any thoughts on whether media coverage of Abu Ghraib
> will interfere with the courts martial because of
> regulations on command influence?
This discussion is not my idea of recovery. Enjoy without me.
ok
dpm
--
David P. Murphy http://www.myths.com/~dpm/
systems programmer ftp://ftp.myths.com
mailto:d...@myths.com (personal)
COGITO ERGO DISCLAMO mailto:Murphy...@emc.com (work)