General Wesley Clark

[Bushmaster]

They didn't refuse because most people in this world are beta following muddafukkers.

Here's the thing though bro. These weren't "most people." They were soldiers in the United States Army and they were supposed to know better. Also...





Look at the expression on their faces. Is that the look of someone who is having to follow some unpleasant orders? Go watch a couple of privates on shiit detail and you can see the look of "following orders." They're miserable aren't they. They might crack jokes to pass the time, but they certainly won't be having the time of their lives like these retards.

Plus, if they were "just following orders" that they knew were wrong, then why the hell did they take photos of themselves enjoying it so much?

Now, do you see what I meant when I said "I was only following orders" is a cop out?

[ElrondHubbard]

On the contrary, he's insulting the values I learned in the Army and I'm defending them.

Now THAT's what's 100% bullsh*t. I'm glad that you learned to "question authority" in the Army. But you went into the military a few years after I did, and the military changed. When I was there we would call it "200 years of tradition -- uninterrupted by progress." There was no culture of questioning authority. A few people did anyway, and some got their a$$es reamed for it. We had one guy who was accused of mutiny just because he submitted a petition for a non-smoking area in the f*cking toilet. Yes you were told not to obey a lawful order. But don't even try for a minute to tell me that what I saw and heard never happened.

Because here's the thing, and I want you two to try and get this through your fuking skulls. I was an MP, and I guarded Iraqi prisoners in the gulf war, so I know a thing or two about detainee operations. I also know that "Well golly gee, don't be mad at me because I was just following dem dere orders" is THE lamest, most pathetic excuse for doing wrong on the face of the earth. Every service member iin the US military is taught right from wrong, and they are well aware that "I was just following orders" won't save them when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

You supposedly know this too, so why are we even discussing it? Didn't you say you were even an officer?

Those retards at Abu Ghirab weren't following any orders to sodomize those prisoners and force them to suck each other's dicks any more than you or I were. This is fundamental, and is what separates the US military from Hitler's SS, or some rag-tag military in a third world shiithole country. They gave a black eye to the entire US military with their little fun and games and you know it. "B-b-b-but I was only sollowing orders!"

So what?

Also, don't turn this back around on me. I'm not under any obligation to be nice to people - not when they supposedly know better. Isn't that right, "sir."

Now you're right that these people were sh*theads. Like I said, they deserved what they got. But the black eye they gave the military, shameful as it was, wasn't even unusual. They were just the latest in a long line of people -- authoritarians all -- who approach their day with a "might is right" attitude, and behave accordingly. As I also said upthread, they are not unique to the military. But as long as the military has an authoritarian culture it will attract these people in outsized proportions.

And that's why it's laughable that you mentioned William Calley along with these people, saying "just following orders" didn't work. It worked in spades. I'm old enough to remember the whole scene as it unfolded. He blamed his Captain, who was heard by others to have given the orders, and who did a bit of murder himself that day. The captain, Ernest Medina, of course denied it and got off. I heard a lot of people at that time, including some relatives of mine, refer to Calley as a "hero". That sickened and angered me. Despite the conviction that you enjoy pointing out, he never served more than a few days of his prison sentence -- primarily due to the political influence of politicians and generals who said he was a hero. That's where "just following orders" got him. And no one else in his company, not the murderers, not the rapists, was ever convicted: because they were just following orders.

So don't give me that sh*t about the nobility of the American military and how it doesn't tolerate evil deeds. I've seen both sides. I've seen nobility and I've seen evil. And I know that there is always a culture there that protects abusers from answering if their chain of command supports them.

Abu Ghraib was just scratching the surface. We know that there was plenty of abuse that never got reported. Good on you for not tolerating it. But not everybody in the military was, or is, like you. And a lot of people got away with it. And there are a lot of people on the other side of that abuse who hate America and Americans because of it. We're not talking about a single black eye here.

[ElrondHubbard]

Bump for Elrod. It wasn't a rhetorical question - I legit want to know how YOU seem so sure those orders were given when the people in question weren't able to show it. What say you Norwich?

And more to the point why didn't they refuse?

It's not that hard to find.

From Wikipedia

"Documents obtained by The Washington Post and the ACLU showed that Ricardo Sanchez, who was a Lieutenant General and the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq, authorized the use of military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, and sensory deprivation as interrogation methods in Abu Ghraib.[19] A November 2004 report by Brigadier General Richard Formica found that many troops at the Abu Ghraib prison had been following orders based on a memorandum from Sanchez, and that the abuse had not been carried out by isolated "criminal" elements.[20] ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said in a statement from the union that "General Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards."[21] In an interview for her hometown newspaper The Signal, Karpinski stated that she had seen unreleased documents from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld which authorized the use of these tactics on Iraqi prisoners.[22]"

[Karl_Hungus]

They didn't refuse because most people in this world are beta following muddafukkers.

And this goes back to my previous comment on the importance of leadership. Strong leadership, especially from MEN, is dying.

There was an experiment that was done decades ago. I will have to come back and post more info. But basically a high percentage of the population are wired to be followers.

Stanley Milgrim?

[mikieson]

That is one of the most terrifying things I have ever heard of.

WHY? when you are told what to do..especially in a "test" as they were in, you are required to follow through with the test.Not sure why some of you are acting shocked..?

I wouldnt have done it. I dont like hurting people so I would have said "no thanks" right after hearing the instructions. BUT some people are not that way. Some would do it because its now their job.

What are we to do guys/gals? Do we take a stand against our nation and demand control be given back to the people? AND if so,...what people? There still has to be a leader. THEN on top of that,what if they say f&* you and a war breaks out? So, we normal citizens are going to overtake our military? police force? We show up with our 9mm and they blow us away with a tank or armored vehicles..their choice. Bomb us from air. We are stuck. We let it happen now its done. Now its a waiting game. When does the real first move take place? When are we captive instead of free? It happened already...didnt even know it did ya?

[JediRN]

Meh, he's retired and is now a civilian. He got shot several times in 'Nam but stayed in command, so I'll go with war hero.

HE can say what he wants, he gets a pass in my book. That doesn't mean anybody has to listen too him

Who knows, maybe he has a little bit of the dementia sitting in or a latent UTI? I work with a lot of older ex-combat vets and it's not unusual to see night and day changes from one day to the next.

He may also be dealing with memories that I'm thankful I will never have. Things he saw, things he ordered. I've seen people get PTSD from having to decide who was going to go out on the next patrol in 'Nam.

I don't know, maybe he is a crack pot. Either way, I'm biased and tend to give my vets a pass and just respectfully ignore the crunchy pants things they often say.

[NorwichGrad]

Stanley Milgrim?

Yes. I posted vid on page 1. Very good sir.

[Brackneyc]

WHY? when you are told what to do..especially in a "test" as they were in, you are required to follow through with the test.Not sure why some of you are acting shocked..?

I wouldnt have done it. I dont like hurting people so I would have said "no thanks" right after hearing the instructions. BUT some people are not that way.

BS. You don't know what you would have done.

[Bushmaster]

And that's why it's laughable that you mentioned William Calley along with these people, saying "just following orders" didn't work. It worked in spades. I'm old enough to remember the whole scene as it unfolded. He blamed his Captain, who was heard by others to have given the orders, and who did a bit of murder himself that day. The captain, Ernest Medina, of course denied it and got off. I heard a lot of people at that time, including some relatives of mine, refer to Calley as a "hero". That sickened and angered me. Despite the conviction that you enjoy pointing out, he never served more than a few days of his prison sentence -- primarily due to the political influence of politicians and generals who said he was a hero. That's where "just following orders" got him. And no one else in his company, not the murderers, not the rapists, was ever convicted: because they were just following orders.

Dude.. If "I was only following orders" had one bit of validity, they would not have even been charged with a crime in the first place. You keep getting hung up on their light punishments which has jack to do with anything. Why can't you understand this?

"Documents obtained by The Washington Post and the ACLU showed that Ricardo Sanchez, who was a Lieutenant General and the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq, authorized the use of military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, and sensory deprivation as interrogation methods in Abu Ghraib

Yeah, so? None of that is illegal, none of that is considered torture, and is in fact pretty standard interrogation methods. It sounds harsh, and I'm quite certain it wouldn't be very pleasant - but its not supposed to be.

I'm talking specifically about the actual torture that occurred there. Forcing them to suck each other's dicks, sodomizing them with batons, beating the shiit out of them for their own amusement, etc. You can't tell me they were "ordered" to do that - not when the very own pics that they took themselves showed them having the time of their lives.

And even so, that would have been an ILLEGAL order and they should have disobeyed it - which is the whole point.

[Karl_Hungus]

Yes. I posted vid on page 1. Very good sir.

Ah thanks. Missed it because vids don't show up on my phone. That experiment was very illuminating.....and not in a good way.

[Bushmaster]

Bump for Elrod. It wasn't a rhetorical question - I legit want to know how YOU seem so sure those orders were given when the people in question weren't able to show it. What say you Norwich?

And more to the point why didn't they refuse?

It's not that hard to find.

From Wikipedia

So... the people in question - ie the ones who went on trial for this weren't able to prove that they were ordered to do what they did - but YOU found rock solid proof of it on Wikipedia lol. Damn.. too bad you weren't their lawyer!

[mikieson]

BS. You don't know what you would have done.

DaamnSon you know what I would or wouldn't do?? If you know all you should market it make some $$$ bro.

[Brackneyc]

DaamnSon you know what I would or wouldn't do?? If you know all you should market it make some $$$ bro.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

But you're a wizard, so maybe you know what you would have done on a different era, under totally unique circumstances

You go boy.

[Fishman15]

Here's the thing though bro. These weren't "most people." They were soldiers in the United States Army and they were supposed to know better. Also...





Look at the expression on their faces. Is that the look of someone who is having to follow some unpleasant orders? Go watch a couple of privates on shiit detail and you can see the look of "following orders." They're miserable aren't they. They might crack jokes to pass the time, but they certainly won't be having the time of their lives like these retards.

Plus, if they were "just following orders" that they knew were wrong, then why the hell did they take photos of themselves enjoying it so much?

Now, do you see what I meant when I said "I was only following orders" is a cop out?

Well, that puts it in perspective doesn't it. Sickening for sure...

[mikieson]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

But you're a wizard, so maybe you know what you would have done on a different era, under totally unique circumstances

You go boy.

crack is wack..how wack is your crack bro?

[ElrondHubbard]

Dude.. If "I was only following orders" had one bit of validity, they would not have even been charged with a crime in the first place. You keep getting hung up on their light punishments which has jack to do with anything. Why can't you understand this?

He was only charged with a crime because the information came out in the press. The military tried to cover it up at first.

Yeah, so? None of that is illegal, none of that is considered torture, and is in fact pretty standard interrogation methods. It sounds harsh, and I'm quite certain it wouldn't be very pleasant - but its not supposed to be.

I'm talking specifically about the actual torture that occurred there. Forcing them to suck each other's dicks, sodomizing them with batons, beating the shiit out of them for their own amusement, etc. You can't tell me they were "ordered" to do that - not when the very own pics that they took themselves showed them having the time of their lives.

And even so, that would have been an ILLEGAL order and they should have disobeyed it - which is the whole point.

I don't know why you keep pursuing this line. I've already agreed that what these people did was inexcusable and they were right to be prosecuted. As to whether "enhanced interrogation" was torture. That's another argument. I'm not too sure we'd agree on that one either, especially on the need for it in the first place.

[ElrondHubbard]

So... the people in question - ie the ones who went on trial for this weren't able to prove that they were ordered to do what they did - but YOU found rock solid proof of it on Wikipedia lol. Damn.. too bad you weren't their lawyer!

Again, not sure why you continue to pursue this.

First, it's pretty standard practice that a jury in a criminal case doesn't have access to all the information about that case that the public does. What the jury hears is information that's restricted by legal rulings. It's not at all uncommon for juries not to know facts that are general public knowledge. It's also not uncommon for facts to be revealed after the criminal trial has already concluded. So finding this information is not extraordinary, and having it not revealed during the trial is not unusual.

Second, I'm not your enemy here. You seem to be distorting my argument just to be contentious. I haven't claimed that they were ordered to go above and beyond what General Sanchez is known to have instructed. The sexual abuse and the gratuitous brutality are things I'm agreeing with you about. The problem was that those abuses were widespread, and permeated the entire atmosphere of Abu Ghraib, yet the top brass claimed not to be aware of it. I'm not saying that the people at the bottom should not have been punished, I'm saying that people higher up were aware of what was going on and either encouraged it or at least did nothing to stop it, but the higher-ups were never held accountable.

In my vision of a noble and honorable military, accountability goes all the way up to the top. A commander is responsible for the actions of his subordinates, because he creates and sustains the atmosphere and culture under which they operate. If he coddles the bad apples, ignores them, or makes excuses for them, he's just as guilty as they are.

Abu Ghraib and My Lai are two examples that show this culture was not so honorable.

[Bushmaster]

I'm saying that people higher up were aware of what was going on and either encouraged it or at least did nothing to stop it, but the higher-ups were never held accountable.

A Brigadier General (Karpinski) was demoted to Colonel and retired.

Bro, you have displayed complete ignorance of a subject that you have exactly zero knowledge of, yet here you are still shoveling. Just stop already ffs.

[Bushmaster]

I don't know why you keep pursuing this line. I've already agreed that what these people did was inexcusable and they were right to be prosecuted.

I keep saying it because you can't understand it, and I'm trying to get it through to you. Listen... one more time.

It doesn't matter if they were ordered to do it. If they were they knew right from wrong and they had the absolute right to refuse to do it. That is the whole entire point.

Remember me saying this on page one?

That is 110% false.

In the US military, not only do you have the right - but you are duty bound and obligated to disobey illegal/unlawful orders. That is spelled out in the UCMJ, and is taught in basic training to the greenest of 18 year old buck privates.

"I was only following orders" did not work at Nuremberg, didn't work at My Lai, and it didn't work for those idiots at Abu Ghirab when they tried to pull it either. Sorry bro, but you are a no-go at this station.

You were in the military - how do you not know this?

And do you remember disagreeing with it?

That's all true, but my point is that the authoritarian culture of the military attracts authoritarian types. Not exclusively, of course, but in a large proportion. They are conditioned to obey without question -- or to expect obedience without question. If they are stopping to think for themselves about whether an order is lawful or not, then they are not part of that group. There will always be a large percentage of those for whom the question of whether an order is lawful or not will simply never be considered. And that's the personality type that the military recruits.

When I was in the Navy it was part of our official training that we do not obey unlawful commands. But there was always that caveat in the subtext -- "you are not qualified to determine whether a command is lawful or not. So just obey your commander. He'll worry about the legalities." No, they didn't come right out and say that, but there were very strong hints.

BTW, the "just following orders" excuse actually DID work at My Lai. Only Lt. Calley was convicted, and he got off very light. It didn't work at Nuremberg primarily because the accused were the losers. At Abu Ghraib it didn't work for the low-level soldiers because they couldn't show that such orders were actually given at the time, and the administration successfully maintained a cover-up until prosecution of higher-ups became politically inconvenient.

Hell, I'll even break it down into simpler terms for you - DO YOU or do you NOT agree that the retards at Abu Ghirab had the right to disobey the orders to torture the prisoners? Whether they actually were ordered to or not is completely irrelevant.

And for further clarification - the incidents in question and not the sleep and sensory deprivation from your wiki link. There is a difference.

[philipj]

I have not stood by and complained. For years I was politically active. When things got to the point where you really could not find a difference between the remocrats and depublicans I joined the Lib Party. It has paid off, slowly we are making some local things better and a few more folks are taking notice. We were a good part of stopping a state tax increase, defeating the vote 80+%. Now we have our eyes on a $800,000.00 budget expense, to eliminate and it, and spend the money only on roads. That is just short of a billion dollars. Thinking local people can get together and make good changes. Time for the voters who OWN the USA to take it back from corporations