pajarito 0 #126 April 30, 2004 I said....ahemm....I'm....ahem...s.o.r.r.y. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #127 April 30, 2004 QuoteJust heard on the news that GWB vows that the ones responsible will be facing a court-martial. I would hope so. Although if there was direction from CIA et al. to act in this manner as one of the accused alleged, I doubt anything will be going down with regard to their actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #128 April 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteJust heard on the news that GWB vows that the ones responsible will be facing a court-martial. I would hope so. Although if there was direction from CIA et al. to act in this manner as one of the accused alleged, I doubt anything will be going down with regard to their actions. Wouldn't be so sure they way they're under the microscope these days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #129 April 30, 2004 >I said Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal. He admitted to following orders to do things that were, when he researched it later, war crimes. So no, he's no more a war criminal than a US soldier in Iraq that blows up someone's house - even if that US soldier feels badly about it later. I know you are hell-bent on crucifying him for being willing to admit mistakes, but you're looking a little desperate here. Slamming vets for following orders? Almost as low as calling a senator's wife a whore. If there's one thing that may cost the republicans the election, it will be their relentless attempts to slander their opposition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #130 April 30, 2004 I should add Kerry knew of these same type of atrocities during Vietnam and did nothing about them according to his own testimony. With all the condemnation of anyone remotely involved in these latest Iraq atrocities, doesn't it give one pause that a man who ignored even worse in Vietnam without so much as reporting them is running for President? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #131 April 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy don't we ask John Kerry. He's running for President. He is admitting he's a war criminal. So if he wins that will be the first two criminals in a row to be elected to the White House. I'm not sure though, should we differentiate that GWB has an actual criminal conviction from a court of law? Isn't it you who is always harping about people changing the subject? I stayed on subject with your post. You're the one who brought up John Kerry in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with him. No, what you did is change the subject to your normal Bush bashing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #132 April 30, 2004 Quotedoesn't it give one pause that a man who ignored even worse in Vietnam without so much as reporting them is running for President? So he's two faced for coming back from the war and talking about the atrocities that were commited, yet he didn't report them. Which is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #133 April 30, 2004 There are orders which may be unlawful. The soldier must use his judgement to determine if it is the "right" thing to do or not. If it is not and he "follows orders" anyway, he can be held accountable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #134 April 30, 2004 QuoteNo, what you did is change the subject to your normal Bush bashing. Actually, I defended Bush, twice. Then you started your typical Kerry bashing which I reponded to. Try re-reading the thread from front to back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #135 April 30, 2004 >With all the condemnation of anyone remotely involved in these > latest Iraq atrocities, doesn't it give one pause that a man who > ignored even worse in Vietnam without so much as reporting them is > running for President? As he said in his own statements, he did what he was ordered to do and did not realize until later that they violated international war treaties. If we finally end the illegal incarceration of US citizens, it won't turn all the US soldiers at Gitmo into kidnappers - even though they might be violating the US constitution by detaining US citizens without trial. On the other hand, we have the current administration which is knowingly violating both international treaties and the US consitution by holding people at Gitmo. So take your pick. A soldier who follows orders or a president who knowingly violates international law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #136 April 30, 2004 >If it is not and he "follows orders" anyway, he can be held accountable. If Gitmo is eventually held to be unlawful detention of both US citizens and prisoners of war, do you think the soliders there should face prosecution? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #137 April 30, 2004 QuoteAs he said in his own statements, he did what he was ordered to do and did not realize until later that they violated international war treaties. If we finally end the illegal incarceration of US citizens, it won't turn all the US soldiers at Gitmo into kidnappers - even though they might be violating the US constitution by detaining US citizens without trial. On the other hand, we have the current administration which is knowingly violating both international treaties and the US consitution by holding people at Gitmo. So take your pick. A soldier who follows orders or a president who knowingly violates international law. Everything you say about Gitmo is questionable but, in regard to Kerry, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I mean, we could all use the excuse that we didn't know till we got back and read the rules that something was wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #138 April 30, 2004 Quote>I said Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal. He admitted to following orders to do things that were, when he researched it later, war crimes. So no, he's no more a war criminal than a US soldier in Iraq that blows up someone's house - even if that US soldier feels badly about it later. I know you are hell-bent on crucifying him for being willing to admit mistakes, but you're looking a little desperate here. Slamming vets for following orders? Almost as low as calling a senator's wife a whore. If there's one thing that may cost the republicans the election, it will be their relentless attempts to slander their opposition. If simply bringing up Kerry's own words and pointing out his own assessment of his own actions is crucifying him, I'd suggest it is you who is looking desperate. When GWB wins re-election I'm sure it will be comforting to cry in ones beer and talk about how unfair the attacks on Kerry were. BTW I explained the comment about Kerry's wifes tactics. I noticed you never commented. Could it be because there would be no opportunity to use if for political fodder? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #139 April 30, 2004 Quote>If it is not and he "follows orders" anyway, he can be held accountable. If Gitmo is eventually held to be unlawful detention of both US citizens and prisoners of war, do you think the soliders there should face prosecution? No...as you said, that hasn't been determined. When a law is in place, however, and it is broken, that person should be held accountable. You can't be held accountable for something before it's been declared against the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #140 April 30, 2004 >I mean, we could all use the excuse that we didn't know till we got >back and read the rules that something was wrong. So if you were ordered to fire on a house that was hiding insurgents, and you later realized that they had gotten the wrong house - would you turn yourself in? Or do you refuse such orders until you can verify that the house itself is indeed the correct target? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #141 April 30, 2004 >When a law is in place, however, and it is broken, that person should > be held accountable. The constitution is in place. Its provisions have been violated. There is absolutely no question about that. The argument goes that it's OK because we're at war, a very questionable argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #142 April 30, 2004 QuoteNo - the Army brass knew all about this some time ago. The news, was not news to them, don't present speculation as knowledge. I never said they didn't know about the incident. QuoteThey needed to find out who to hang other then the soliders involved. That is not speculation. That is how the U.S. Military works.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #143 April 30, 2004 Quote When GWB wins re-election Technically just "election" as he didn't actually win the first time round. (ok ok, so that was just a joke). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #144 April 30, 2004 QuoteSo if you were ordered to fire on a house that was hiding insurgents, and you later realized that they had gotten the wrong house - would you turn yourself in? Or do you refuse such orders until you can verify that the house itself is indeed the correct target? Again, different situation. If you "act on the best intelligence you've got at the time", your commander honestly believes that there are insurgents in the house (or WMD in the country), and tells you to fire on it, you are completly in the right even if it turns out later that you were wrong. That's the haze of war. Mistakes are made. Regretable but a reality. If you have reason to believe otherwise and that there might be civilians in the house instead, however, the order might be questionable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #145 April 30, 2004 Quote>When a law is in place, however, and it is broken, that person should > be held accountable. The constitution is in place. Its provisions have been violated. There is absolutely no question about that. The argument goes that it's OK because we're at war, a very questionable argument. Obviously, there are questions about that and it has not been determined yet. You even stated that, "if eventually it becomes determined." Therefore, what you say is irrelevant at this time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #146 April 30, 2004 >If simply bringing up Kerry's own words and pointing out his own >assessment of his own actions is crucifying him, I'd suggest it is you > who is looking desperate. Ya know, you lived in the wrong age. Would that you could have lived in the '70s and spit on vets as they returned, instead of having to wait so long to vent your ire. >BTW I explained the comment about Kerry's wifes tactics. I noticed > you never commented. Could it be because there would be no > opportunity to use if for political fodder? Call whoever you like a whore. I am not worried that people will decide that's OK because you have a really really good reason. Your words speak for themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #147 April 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo if you were ordered to fire on a house that was hiding insurgents, and you later realized that they had gotten the wrong house - would you turn yourself in? Or do you refuse such orders until you can verify that the house itself is indeed the correct target? Again, different situation. If you "act on the best intelligence you've got at the time", your commander honestly believes that there are insurgents in the house (or WMD in the country), and tells you to fire on it, you are completly in the right even if it turns out later that you were wrong. That's the haze of war. Mistakes are made. Regretable but a reality. If you have reason to believe otherwise and that there might be civilians in the house instead, however, the order might be questionable. And what if your commander didn't honestly believe that, and told you to fire because he didn't care if there were insurgents or civilians in the house, but you didn't find that out until later? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #148 April 30, 2004 Quote They needed to find out who to hang other then the soliders involved Of course - but they had at least a month to do that as they were had discussions with the media about delaying the broadcast of this information that long ago. Why on earth would they need another two days to come up with a response? The answer is virtually nobody in America took any notice of a late night revelation on one network. It was not covered by any other networks and people only actually start paying attention to this issue when the rest of the world media get hold of the photos and published them earlier today. The conclusion I draw from this that the whitehouse (understandably most might say) simply kept schtum in the hope that it would all blow by without anyone noticing. Once it became obvious that the cat was out, of course then comes the time to make a statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #149 April 30, 2004 QuoteIf you have reason to believe otherwise and that there might be civilians in the house instead, however, the order might be questionable. QuoteAnd what if your commander didn't honestly believe that, and told you to fire because he didn't care if there were insurgents or civilians in the house, but you didn't find that out until later? See my quote at the top. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #150 April 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf you have reason to believe otherwise and that there might be civilians in the house instead, however, the order might be questionable. QuoteAnd what if your commander didn't honestly believe that, and told you to fire because he didn't care if there were insurgents or civilians in the house, but you didn't find that out until later? See my quote at the top. That doesn't address my question. You don't have any reason to believe otherwise. You find out after the fact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
