GI Guilty in Iraqi's Suffocation - Read the link and then vote...

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182422,00.html

Is this a fair sentance? What would you decide the fate of Lewis Welshofer Jr. should be?

 

[ImWithStupid]

My personal opinion is that he should be acquitted based on the urgency and potential to save lives that he performed this "torture" under.

I also know because of the political pressures right now about mistreatment and torture of war prisoners, this will never happen.

This is a tolerable sentence given the fact that he knew he was doing something that was illegal and knew the consequences but sometimes you have to say to hell with the consequences and do what is illegal for the right reasons.

I voted acquittal.

 

[Lethalfind]

I read the story and lets assume for one moment that I believe Fox has not shaded the events...

I think he should be let off. You can't expect soldiers to go into battle and then have someone sitting back here in the safe zone to sit in judgement on every little thing they do.

Of I have never been in war and I don't think I (and those like me) can judge or understand what is going on over there in Iraq. Walk a mile in this mans shoes and then judge him. See the atrocities he has seen, hold the dying men he has held and then pass judgement on him.

This man and others like him have been sent to clean up a mess not of their making. They do it without complaining and with valor most of us will never know. This story makes me sick to be honest.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

I voted acquittal, because war can make you do some ****ed up ****.

The man that was smother was an Iraqi general, a man that would not be swayed either way. His treachery would follow him into Mecca, I suppose, and would no receive his 70 virgins. So you can not expect him to give up his muslim brothers. Besides, there is no telling the atrocities the general is guilty of.

He deserved to die. Karma is an insatiable bitch.

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

The plot thickens... apparently, there are some sane individuals in the military

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/23/suffocation.case.ap/index.html

Now, if we can get General Robert Mixon to put the verdict aside, justice will be served!

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

You people make me ****ing sick! You're all psycho!

Do you realize that we convicted and executed German Nazi's for doing just this thing?

We used Control Council Law No. 10
- Article 2 concerning War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

WTF people? Do our own rules not apply to us anymore? What a bunch of thugs you are. Defending a sick **** who TORTURED TO DEATH a human being; a high ranking military officer no doubt.

Who is the terrorist here? Who is the war criminal? I'm confused.

You ****ing make me sick!

"(b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offenses against persons or property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(a) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated.

 

[tiredofwhiners]

You people make me ****ing sick! You're all psycho!

Do you realize that we convicted and executed German Nazi's for doing just this thing?

We used Control Council Law No. 10
- Article 2 concerning War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

WTF people? Do our own rules not apply to us anymore? What a bunch of thugs you are. Defending a sick **** who TORTURED TO DEATH a human being; a high ranking military officer no doubt.

Who is the terrorist here? Who is the war criminal? I'm confused.

You ****ing make me sick!

"(b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offenses against persons or property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(a) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated.

Yes that's right they have stuck to the rules of war, oh wait no they havent. **** THEM get what you need how ever you need to get it. Get done and get the **** home. Rules of war WTF thats like being in a fist fight and saying you can't hit in the face or gut, and you must not punch hard.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Yes that's right they have stuck to the rules of war, oh wait no they havent. **** THEM get what you need how ever you need to get it. Get done and get the **** home. Rules of war WTF thats like being in a fist fight and saying you can't hit in the face or gut, and you must not punch hard.

Then I guess there really was no moral victory in WWII for the Allies, and the Nurenburg Trials were a dog and pony show sham. We killed innocent men who's only guilt was ignoring the non-existent rules of war. Dumb ass idiots.

Afterall, the victorious make the rules, right? And if we made them, we don't have to follow them.

Hey, this sounds like a Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential policy platform. What do you think?

 

[Jhony5]

As much as the Iraqi general deserved what he no doubt, I agree with what CES has stated, in principal. We can't participate in the same rules of engagement that our enemy does. Judging by the thinking of many of the other members of this forum, why don't we just start randomly placing bombs in the road and throwing grenades into food markets? Nothing was gained from the execution of this man. Alls fair on the battlefield, but once a POW is taken out of that environment and secured, it is the responsibility of the soldiers to show them the American way. Thats what we're doing over there isn't it? Trying to show a brutal and violent society a better way to conduct business, politics, and humanity. Then we engage them in a way that is familiar to them already. We can't kill them with kindness per say, but we should not create examples that say "We are liars". I would not go so far as to call this an "atrocity" towards humanity in a time of war, but I most definitely would qualify it as a crime. Maybe the soldier didn't intend on actually killing the Iraqi gentlemen, but he did and he should be charged with something. Not murder due to the circumstance, but assault at the least.

I accidentally voted for acquittal when I meant to vote otherwise.

 

[tiredofwhiners]

What your both saying is right but not fair. (head down stomping feet and pouting) they don't have to play fair why do we.

 

[snafu]

Woops! Oh well.

OK I really don’t care. First it wasn’t intentional. Second we convicted Nazi’s for war crimes. No where near the same as this instance. They killed people in cold blood on purpose!
How do you expect to get information from these people? You have to fight fire with fire.
Do you think we’re gonna get information from them by putting underwear on the heads? **** that. This is war. These people wouldn’t think twice about doing the same thing only on purpose. If we have to accidentally kill a few to save lives then so be it.

We will always have integrations. I guess that’s a fancy word for torture.
I don't feel sorry for the Iraqi General one bit.
I feel bad we lost some information that could have help us.

 

[Jhony5]

What your both saying is right but not fair. (head down stomping feet and pouting) they don't have to play fair why do we.

Because we're the "good guys" dammit. It's not real hard to figure. Our whole basis for occupying a foreign nation is to combat tactics just like the one we're discussing. For exactly the reasons that CES stated. We can't, as a world power, dictate to other offending nations, the rules of war and then break these rules without binding ourselves to these same rules. It's not that I feel bad for the Iraqi man, I feel bad for our nation. As if we have been caught lying.

What is the difference between chopping off a POW's head with a sword, and smothering a POW to death with a sleeping bag?

 

[Jhony5]

First it wasn’t intentional. Second we convicted Nazi’s for war crimes. No where near the same as this instance. They killed people in cold blood on purpose!

True......but...

You have to fight fire with fire.

Which is it? Should we gas the ****ers with chemical agents? Maybe construct underground dungeons to torture them to death? NO we shouldn't "fight fire with fire" because we have the overwhelming ability to defeat this enemy within the terms of the Crimes Against Humanity terms enacted by the United Nations.

Originally posted by: TIREDOFWHINERS

Yes that's right they have stuck to the rules of war, oh wait no they haven't.

This DOES NOT give the US license to engage the enemy with illegal interrogation tactics. Hypocrisy is not a proper substitute for valor and ethics.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

...Hypocrisy is not a proper substitute for valor and ethics.

HOLY **** JHONY5!!!

You're my new Hero! **** me.

I love that quote so much, I'm using it in my signature. Thanks!

 

[snafu]

OK I contradicted myself. I would say of course it’s wrong. But if we need to stoop to their level to win this fight then I’m all for it. This is not a conventional war. Are they taking American prisoners and using the Geneva Convention? No!
I guess that shouldn’t matter but if we loose to terrene would it be worth it to fight fair? No.
I think it’s a new age of warfare. And we need to do whatever it takes to come out on top. Hypocrisy and all. In this instance valor and ethics alone won't win the war.

I think the Patriot Act, wire taps, secret prisons, racial profiling and even coercion in some fashion or another are all tools that we need in this conflict. Sorry to say.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

...we need to do whatever it takes to come out on top. Hypocrisy and all. In this instance valor and ethics alone won't win the war.

I think the Patriot Act, wire taps, secret prisons, racial profiling and even coercion in some fashion or another are all tools that we need in this conflict. Sorry to say.

I've read this before...

With regard to methods outside that which are considered ethical...

"May the adherents of our movement never forget this if ever the magnitude of the sacrifices should beguile them to an anxious comparison with the possible results." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

I am SURE that your intention is not to be like a Nazi, but this policy of "do whatever it takes including murder, spying, secret imprisonments, etc" was the mainstay philosophy and tool of the Nazi party!

I'm curious, were they our enemy, or our teachers? The real answer scares the **** out of me.

 

[Jhony5]

But if we need to stoop to their level to win this fight then I’m all for it. This is not a conventional war.

No this isn't a conventional war. If this war isn't about oil, then what is it about? Is it about bringing democracy to a region that has been subjugated to brutal rule that knows no boundaries concerning human rights? Thats the reason we have been provided with and that being the case is it not 100% wrong to align ourselves with the enemies tactics? We are above that ****.

And we need to do whatever it takes to come out on top.

Including smothering unarmed captives with army issue sleeping bags? Don't get me wrong, Snafu, I'm not defending the Iraqi general, but I certainly will not defend the man who murdered him either. As far as I'm concerned hes an embarrassment to America.

In this instance valor and ethics alone won't win the war.

We will win this war no matter what ethical approach we take. After the dust settles the only thing that will be left to question is the way we won.

I think it’s a new age of warfare.

I realize this fact. It is due to the fact that our enemy has the conviction of the Japanese soldier, and the ethics of Islam. On our side we have technology, endless $$$ , and democracy. Democracy must remain separate form human rights violations. Once these two entities merge, then the inhumane treatment consumes the democracy. America was a large factor in imposing human rights into world law. Now we want to renig on this using the excuse that we will win at all cost?

I think the Patriot Act, wire taps, secret prisons, racial profiling and even coercion in some fashion or another are all tools that we need in this conflict.

Agreed, but I couldn't help to notice you didn't include murder in that sentence. Sometimes I want my 6 year old to admit she did something wrong, so I use coercion to accomplish this. That does not suggest I will beat her ass with a belt till she complies. I know that analogy doesn't equate to POW treatment, but the principal is the same.

The federal government had been losing the war on drugs for decades. They witness the dealers and gangs murder police and innocent people indiscriminately. Should the police stoop to these tactics to end the war?

 

[Lethalfind]

True......but...



Which is it? Should we gas the ****ers with chemical agents? Maybe construct underground dungeons to torture them to death? NO we shouldn't "fight fire with fire" because we have the overwhelming ability to defeat this enemy within the terms of the Crimes Against Humanity terms enacted by the United Nations.

Originally posted by: LETHALFIND


This DOES NOT give the US license to engage the enemy with illegal interrogation tactics. Hypocrisy is not a proper substitute for valor and ethics.

sorry, I didn't say that, read back.

 

[Jhony5]

sorry, I didn't say that, read back.

I apologize for misquoting you, LETHAL. It was TiredOfWhiners I meant to quote. I prostate myself before you and bag your forgiveness.

Originally posted by: CES

I love that quote so much

I forgot to say thank you. Thank you. It seemed to fit nicely given what I've been hearing.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Oh and here are a few more little tidbits to ponder...

Remember Lyndie England? Abu Graib picture girl? She's involved in "rogue" behavior of posing inmates in "humiliating" positions and taking photos and what does she get, 3 years in prison!

This guy MURDERS a man in cold blood...yes, cold blood, and gets jack ****.

What The ****!

Also, I probably am the only one who ever noticed this, but if Abu Graib was just a fluke of a few rogue prisioners, then somebody please tell me...WHERE THE **** DID THESE "ROGUE" SOLDIERS GET A ****ING DOG LEASH AND COLLAR IN IRAQ? CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME? MR. ****ING RUMSFELD?

.

Rogue soldiers my ass...Stupid Stupid Stupid Fall guys for the crooked interogation machine.