1. As a policy probably not. Hard to control, would be a huge image issue. On a case by case basis I wouldn't be surprised if they slipped through. 2. They do. 3. Not at all times.
1- Relaxed screening measures would allow more and more "slips". 2- Would you agree that prolonged exposure to violent conditions would change how a person sees the world and how they would react to given circumstances? 3- Its been proven that people under incredible stress have done things they normally wouldn't do.
Mortai Gravesend: I think you meant "How is my saying that the people who let them in should be punished seen as an attack?"
Some of the responsibility does lay at the feet of those who allowed them to join in the first place.
Which makes no comment on those guilty of the actual acts. If I knowingly let someone who I think might be an assassin in to see someone I'm guilty, but the assassin doesn't become less guilty.
1. As a policy probably not. Hard to control, would be a huge image issue. On a case by case basis I wouldn't be surprised if they slipped through. 2. They do. 3. Not at all times.
1- Relaxed screening measures would allow more and more "slips". 2- Would you agree that prolonged exposure to violent conditions would change how a person sees the world and how they would react to given circumstances? 3- Its been proven that people under incredible stress have done things they normally wouldn't do.
1. Refer to my example above. Doesn't matter when the subject is what the perpetrator of the actions deserves. 2. Yes, however I would not say those changes make someone less guilty of things they choose to do. 3. And? It has not been shown to be the cause here, nor do I think it necessarily absolves responsibility.
We already have 'cultural awareness classes'... and yes they're half-assed, lame attempts at best. They're only there so the government can say, "well, we briefed them on cultural diversity and respect toward others, so it must be a bad apple."
Should they be punished, yes. Though I think the most they'd get is some kind of other than honorable discharge or maybe a dishonorable.
Sad to say the military culture (especially the infantry) revolves around this kind of blood lust and disrespect. It's ingrained into the remolded psyche of the soldiers. Not everyone slips into the trap, but a lot do, especially the younger guys.
Should the training of US troops be amended to involve more peacekeeping related topics, in particular how to treat locals?
This seems like a no-brainer. If you're being sent on a peacekeeping mission, being trained how to perform a peacekeeping mission is probably a good idea. Otherwise you end up with shit like this.
Nah.
With a military the size of the USA's - this is going to just happen.
The US military is too large to have consistent behaviour. They recruit a lot of people all the time and they don't have very tough pre-enlistment standards or tests. Why? Because if they did it would slow the recruitment process down and drastically change the effectiveness of their military.
It's a trade off. You either have a smaller military with tough pre-enlistment tests to weed out the people without discipline, or you have a huge military with lesser pre-enlistment tests which save money and time and resources. In the latter, the psycho assholes who have a tendency to snap under pressure slip through the cracks.
The US military are doing fairly well considering just how many people they recruit.
Zachary Tarlow: This is why we need to bring the troops home.
Because they'll kill and then take facebook pictures with the corpses? That's the best reason you can come up with to bring them home? Not the whole financial cost of the war, or even the anti-american mindset that is becoming popular?
If anything, this, plus all the other stupid shit our soldiers have done in the past 12 months, just shows that we are not properly training them and that a portion of our troops are assholes who think death is funny.
Zachary Tarlow: This is why we need to bring the troops home.
And abandon the Afghans to their fate after first putting them in that situation. Not an option. The US committed to Afghanistan. Like that decision or not, but will have to see it through now.
All that needs to change is actually train those troops that supposedly need bringing home, so they act with discipline and can be used as peacekeepers.
Should the training of US troops be amended to involve more peacekeeping related topics, in particular how to treat locals?
This seems like a no-brainer. If you're being sent on a peacekeeping mission, being trained how to perform a peacekeeping mission is probably a good idea. Otherwise you end up with shit like this.
Nah.
With a military the size of the USA's - this is going to just happen.
The US military is too large to have consistent behaviour. They recruit a lot of people all the time and they don't have very tough pre-enlistment standards or tests. Why? Because if they did it would slow the recruitment process down and drastically change the effectiveness of their military.
It's a trade off. You either have a smaller military with tough pre-enlistment tests to weed out the people without discipline, or you have a huge military with lesser pre-enlistment tests which save money and time and resources. In the latter, the psycho assholes who have a tendency to snap under pressure slip through the cracks.
The US military are doing fairly well considering just how many people they recruit.
I find this excuse rather abhorrent personally. If you recruit an individual for the purpose of representing your countries armed forces in some of the most inhospitable and downright dangerous conditions on the earth then you better be damn sure you've trained and equipped them fully enough to handle the situation you've put them in.
It should never be a question of recruiting X amount of soldiers and simply training/arming as many as you can, it should be a question of recruiting however many individuals that you can ensure will be fully trained and equipped when you sent them off to (potentially) die. "Well, we equipped as many as could!" was never an excuse for the British government sending our troops out there without body armour, lord knows why "Well, we trained as many as we could!" should be a valid excuse for the US Army when it becomes clear that whatever it is, (probably training) is woefully ineffective in keeping their troops in good mental health.
And if you can't ensure the discipline of your troops when occupying entirely independent nations, then either reassess your policies or don't go there in the first place. This is why the world dislikes you America, you shit all over the world, you invade whoever you want of your own accord, your armed forces do their job badly, and when the world comes back to you for answers, the best a lot of you can give is a few lame excuses that rarely hold up to critical examination.*
With a military the size of the USA's - this is going to just happen.
The US military is too large to have consistent behaviour. They recruit a lot of people all the time and they don't have very tough pre-enlistment standards or tests. Why? Because if they did it would slow the recruitment process down and drastically change the effectiveness of their military.
It's a trade off. You either have a smaller military with tough pre-enlistment tests to weed out the people without discipline, or you have a huge military with lesser pre-enlistment tests which save money and time and resources. In the latter, the psycho assholes who have a tendency to snap under pressure slip through the cracks.
The US military are doing fairly well considering just how many people they recruit.
Maybe you should, I dunno, trim the military then? That's a crazy thought, I know. It might just work though.
Also, what Shpongled said. It's a really shitty excuse. You (that is, impersonal plural 'Americans') tout these soldiers as Defenders of Freedom and the best of the best and all that 'patriotic' jazz. I daresay with all that funding you could probably invest it into better training and better screening.
ITT: People in a warzone doing weird and disgusting shit that freaks the hell out of civilians thousands of miles away sitting at home on their couch sipping a drink and arguing on the internet.
Posing next to dead bodies. Pretty creepy? Yes. Tacky? Hell yes. Against the rules? Nyeh, if you say so. They're in a place where the enemy would gladly dangle their dead mutilated bodies from a tree if they happened to win an engagement. Complaining about rules in a warzone is pretty naive.
Can't really find the energy to care, and dunno why others should either. With an army that size, weeding out the muppets who shouldn't have permission to be armed with a plastic shovel is pretty much impossible. Can't cut down on the amount either, since the US doctrine pretty much revolves around overwhelming force. The only time they go into any engagement with smaller numbers is special ops.
Heh. Humanity - United States - cut down on military spending. That's a good one. :D
With a military the size of the USA's - this is going to just happen.
The US military is too large to have consistent behaviour. They recruit a lot of people all the time and they don't have very tough pre-enlistment standards or tests. Why? Because if they did it would slow the recruitment process down and drastically change the effectiveness of their military.
It's a trade off. You either have a smaller military with tough pre-enlistment tests to weed out the people without discipline, or you have a huge military with lesser pre-enlistment tests which save money and time and resources. In the latter, the psycho assholes who have a tendency to snap under pressure slip through the cracks.
The US military are doing fairly well considering just how many people they recruit.
A small, superior force isn't inherently less effective than a large, inferior one. Many nations keep their armies small for this reason (also cheaper).
It also makes a big difference politically, less PR disasters. And, yeah, you can look after each soldier better, but that doesn't seem to be such a concern.
We don't prosecute our leaders for those. Do you honestly think that we'll do it with these guys?
Aren't "these guys" usually the ones to take the fall so a leader doesn't have to, though?
Though, I honestly do not think you'll prosecute "those guys" for this. I mean, not unless there's some consistency in the entire thing. As long as there's any no matter how implausible and ludicrous justification for their behavior, that's what is going to be...
Against the rules? Nyeh, if you say so. They're in a place where the enemy would gladly dangle their dead mutilated bodies from a tree if they happened to win an engagement. Complaining about rules in a warzone is pretty naive.
No. Not 'if I say so'. If the Geneva Convention says so. If the UCMJ says so.
Which they do. Should torture be okay because they're in a place with bad hostiles? Fuck no it shouldn't. If the US military won't adhere to the rules, why should we grant them the moral high ground over terrorists?
Mortai Gravesend: Which makes no comment on those guilty of the actual acts. If I knowingly let someone who I think might be an assassin in to see someone I'm guilty, but the assassin doesn't become less guilty.
The assassin chose their way of life, they can't make any claim to innocence.
1. Refer to my example above. Doesn't matter when the subject is what the perpetrator of the actions deserves. 2. Yes, however I would not say those changes make someone less guilty of things they choose to do. 3. And? It has not been shown to be the cause here, nor do I think it necessarily absolves responsibility.
1- Under the U.S legal code, if a person is found to have been under duress, they can be absolved of the crime. 2- If they chose to make them individually yes, but, there were a group there. Take the Stanford Prison experiment as an example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment ) of good group of people turning bad in a very short time. 3- Not yet, but the soldiers' psychological reviews will fall in to the public light.
Mortai Gravesend: Which makes no comment on those guilty of the actual acts. If I knowingly let someone who I think might be an assassin in to see someone I'm guilty, but the assassin doesn't become less guilty.
The assassin chose their way of life, they can't make any claim to innocence.
The soldiers chose their way of life. That I theoretically helped the assassin along doesn't absolve him. That people let the soldiers in doesn't absolve them.
1. Refer to my example above. Doesn't matter when the subject is what the perpetrator of the actions deserves. 2. Yes, however I would not say those changes make someone less guilty of things they choose to do. 3. And? It has not been shown to be the cause here, nor do I think it necessarily absolves responsibility.
1- Under the U.S legal code, if a person is found to have been under duress, they can be absolved of the crime. 2- If they chose to make them individually yes, but, there were a group there. Take the Stanford Prison experiment as an example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment ) of good group of people turning bad in a very short time. 3- Not yet, but the soldiers' psychological reviews will fall in to the public light.
1. I'm pretty sure that doesn't include mutilating people when you're not in danger. 2. And they're still guilty for it. Being a mob doesn't make the individuals any less guilty for participating. 3. Which is why you've been not acting as if they're already out. Wait, alternate reality. You have been acting like you know them.
2- If they chose to make them individually yes, but, there were a group there. Take the Stanford Prison experiment as an example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment ) of good group of people turning bad in a very short time.
Of course people will always argue "but they were such nice boys..." Well, ladies and gents, I don't care what they were when I see what they are.
The other way as well, if someone was scum but then starts being genuinely nice and good I'm going to be glad he came around and is no longer causing mayhem instead of going on and on about how much of a bastard he used to be. I don't know if such mental flexibility is a good or bad thing inherently, but clinging to history too much is just as bad as ignoring it.
And Zimbardo's experiment was about something slightly different, and it only confirmed what we already knew, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We don't prosecute our leaders for those. Do you honestly think that we'll do it with these guys?
Aren't "these guys" usually the ones to take the fall so a leader doesn't have to, though?
Though, I honestly do not think you'll prosecute "those guys" for this. I mean, not unless there's some consistency in the entire thing. As long as there's any no matter how implausible and ludicrous justification for their behavior, that's what is going to be...
No, we give them a medal. We prosecute the people who report this.
Karathos: Against the rules? Nyeh, if you say so. They're in a place where the enemy would gladly dangle their dead mutilated bodies from a tree if they happened to win an engagement. Complaining about rules in a warzone is pretty naive.
Is not the stated reason the troops are fighting that the enemy is cruel and barbaric?
Against the rules? Nyeh, if you say so. They're in a place where the enemy would gladly dangle their dead mutilated bodies from a tree if they happened to win an engagement. Complaining about rules in a warzone is pretty naive.
No. Not 'if I say so'. If the Geneva Convention says so. If the UCMJ says so.
Which they do. Should torture be okay because they're in a place with bad hostiles? Fuck no it shouldn't. If the US military won't adhere to the rules, why should we grant them the moral high ground over terrorists?
Didn't say a word about torturing living people. Moving around dead flesh and causing pain on living people are very different things - please stick to the subject. The Geneva Convention is a nice idea, but any place where humans openly kill each other daily can forget about adhering to any rules in the long run. The very notion of rules in war is ridiculous - the winning/stronger side make the rules.
And as far as moral high ground goes, personally I still value a man who simply poses next to dead enemy combatants over a man who blows up a street full of civilians. Now - US forces causing civilian casualties; that's another discussion entirely.
But as far as posing next to dead bodies? Please - people are dying, and the media makes a shitstorm out of the treatment of the dead. How about we focus on the living eh? Seems like a bit more fruitful ground...
Obviously basic training needs to include topics relevant for peacekeeping, including a lengthy section on behavior like this; we also need better mental health care for active duty soldiers. As pompous as first world forum posters like to act toward stories like this one, lashing out like this is not surprising considering what Afghanistan is like right now. If anything it's surprising how few of these stories we see. These photos should have been sent up the chain of command rather than to the media. This way makes money for the Times and gets recruits for the Taliban.
The troops involved should be tried and discharged.
Pumpkin_Eater: As pompous as first world forum posters like to act toward stories like this one, lashing out like this is not surprising considering what Afghanistan is like right now.
Then why is it a probleem seemingly exclusive, or at least almost exclusive to US troops? If there's so many soldiers of so many nations there, and it would be due to conditions around there, we should've seen headlines like "Australian soldiers beat civilians with boomerangs" or "Dutch soldiers force Afghans at gunpoint to cut back on everything, spend nothing, and complain about railroads" or "8 people left dead as French soldiers force POWs to smell French cheese".
I thought I kept up with the news pretty good, but I've never really seen similar war crimes or misconduct from other country's troops. That's not proof nothing has ever happened, but US troops seem to be quite a lot worse. And that's also what the few Afghan interpreters who are a bit wider travelled told me when we got talking.
I mean, in Iraq, when the Dutch mission ended, the governor of Al Muthanna province pleaded with the Dutch government for an extension, literally citing "Otherwise I get American troops instead" as a reason, and I suppose other countries with good peacekeepers will have similar experiences.
Something specific to the troops of the US seems to be at work here, and I think it's something I've heard more often: the US only trains it's soldiers for combat, and not for peacekeeping, resulting in a rather lousy undisciplined attitude.
As for up the chain of command... That would be foolish. It would've been kept quiet, the perpetrators would've been let off without any disciplinary measures or maybe a token measure, and the whistleblower would've been punished.
Like what happened with the 5th stryker brigade and their murders. Adam Winfield who told his father of the crimes, was assaulted by other soldiers, dragged to court, and sentenced to 3 years in prison, whereas most soldiers involved in the 'kill team' either had their cases dropped or got much lighter sentences.
The corruption is way up the chain of command and extends into the military courts as well. Informing the media in an anonymous way was the only option open to whomever brought out these photographs.
But as far as posing next to dead bodies? Please - people are dying, and the media makes a shitstorm out of the treatment of the dead. How about we focus on the living eh? Seems like a bit more fruitful ground...
But that's the point, dude! Every time this happens, x amount of Afghani civilians join a terrorist group to defend their land against these barbaric american invaders who have no respect for their way of life. Preventing these things, forbidding them and punishing soldiers who do crap like this make sure the locals don't hate your guts... Preventing shit like this IS about the living. Give less ammo for anti-Western hate, get less suicide bombers.
Karathos: Didn't say a word about torturing living people. Moving around dead flesh and causing pain on living people are very different things - please stick to the subject. The Geneva Convention is a nice idea, but any place where humans openly kill each other daily can forget about adhering to any rules in the long run. The very notion of rules in war is ridiculous - the winning/stronger side make the rules.
The concept that you're toying around with is something called "total war." Go read up on WWI and the "scorched earth" policy. There are what spawned the Geneva Convention. If you'd like to see more wars like WWI, then remove the Geneva Convention. If you don't, then leave it as it stands.
Karathos: The Geneva Convention is a nice idea, but any place where humans openly kill each other daily can forget about adhering to any rules in the long run. The very notion of rules in war is ridiculous - the winning/stronger side make the rules.
Yes and no. You have to keep your organisational structure that allows your military to function, and if you can do that, rules of war shouldn't be too hard.
Blablahb: Then why is it a probleem seemingly exclusive, or at least almost exclusive to US troops? If there's so many soldiers of so many nations there, and it would be due to conditions around there, we should've seen headlines like "Australian soldiers beat civilians with boomerangs" or "Dutch soldiers force Afghans at gunpoint to cut back on everything, spend nothing, and complain about railroads" or "8 people left dead as French soldiers force POWs to smell French cheese".
It should be pointed out that the US provides about 70% of all ISAF forces, you'd expect them to be over-represented, though not exclusively, in the war crime stories.
Naheal: The concept that you're toying around with is something called "total war." Go read up on WWI and the "scorched earth" policy. There are what spawned the Geneva Convention. If you'd like to see more wars like WWI, then remove the Geneva Convention. If you don't, then leave it as it stands.
Not exactly, various wartimes conventions were still followed in WW1. And I can't think of too many wars were both sides played by all the rules.
Vegosiux: Of course people will always argue "but they were such nice boys..." Well, ladies and gents, I don't care what they were when I see what they are.
The other way as well, if someone was scum but then starts being genuinely nice and good I'm going to be glad he came around and is no longer causing mayhem instead of going on and on about how much of a bastard he used to be. I don't know if such mental flexibility is a good or bad thing inherently, but clinging to history too much is just as bad as ignoring it.
And Zimbardo's experiment was about something slightly different, and it only confirmed what we already knew, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Hence my point. Lax psychological screenings allowed people entrance who should not have been there.
1. I'm pretty sure that doesn't include mutilating people when you're not in danger. 2. And they're still guilty for it. Being a mob doesn't make the individuals any less guilty for participating. 3. Which is why you've been not acting as if they're already out. Wait, alternate reality. You have been acting like you know them.
1- Think of it like escalation; You're in a group with someone as a prisoner, you're about to arrest him when one of your fellows says "He killed our friends, we should rough him up for a bit first, make sure he gets whats coming." With all the hate, anger and rage, it's a short hop to cutting off their limbs.
2- Yes they are guilty, but it will be argued that their circumstances (and mental conditions both pre and post deployment) affected their judgement.
3- No, I don't know them. I do know people like them (not the same crimes mind you). Stress can do horrific things to a persons mind.
1. I'm pretty sure that doesn't include mutilating people when you're not in danger. 2. And they're still guilty for it. Being a mob doesn't make the individuals any less guilty for participating. 3. Which is why you've been not acting as if they're already out. Wait, alternate reality. You have been acting like you know them.
1- Think of it like escalation; You're in a group with someone as a prisoner, you're about to arrest him when one of your fellows says "He killed our friends, we should rough him up for a bit first, make sure he gets whats coming." With all the hate, anger and rage, it's a short hop to cutting off their limbs.
2- Yes they are guilty, but it will be argued that their circumstances (and mental conditions both pre and post deployment) affected their judgement.
3- No, I don't know them. I do know people like them (not the same crimes mind you). Stress can do horrific things to a persons mind.
1. That has nothing to do with duress. He's upset, he escalates, they should lock him up for good if he murders someone like that. 2. And? They don't deserve to get off for that. 3. It doesn't absolve them of their crimes.
Against the rules? Nyeh, if you say so. They're in a place where the enemy would gladly dangle their dead mutilated bodies from a tree if they happened to win an engagement. Complaining about rules in a warzone is pretty naive.
No. Not 'if I say so'. If the Geneva Convention says so. If the UCMJ says so.
Which they do. Should torture be okay because they're in a place with bad hostiles? Fuck no it shouldn't. If the US military won't adhere to the rules, why should we grant them the moral high ground over terrorists?
Didn't say a word about torturing living people. Moving around dead flesh and causing pain on living people are very different things - please stick to the subject. The Geneva Convention is a nice idea, but any place where humans openly kill each other daily can forget about adhering to any rules in the long run. The very notion of rules in war is ridiculous - the winning/stronger side make the rules.
And as far as moral high ground goes, personally I still value a man who simply poses next to dead enemy combatants over a man who blows up a street full of civilians. Now - US forces causing civilian casualties; that's another discussion entirely.
But as far as posing next to dead bodies? Please - people are dying, and the media makes a shitstorm out of the treatment of the dead. How about we focus on the living eh? Seems like a bit more fruitful ground...
Sorry Charlie, but desecrating the dead kinda kills the whole "winning hearts and minds" element of what is now a decade-long occupation.
Karathos: Didn't say a word about torturing living people. Moving around dead flesh and causing pain on living people are very different things - please stick to the subject. The Geneva Convention is a nice idea, but any place where humans openly kill each other daily can forget about adhering to any rules in the long run. The very notion of rules in war is ridiculous - the winning/stronger side make the rules.
The concept that you're toying around with is something called "total war." Go read up on WWI and the "scorched earth" policy. There are what spawned the Geneva Convention. If you'd like to see more wars like WWI, then remove the Geneva Convention. If you don't, then leave it as it stands.
I am quite familiar with what I'm talking about - hence why I'm talking about it. Wouldn't want to flap my mouth about stuff I haven't read up on, would I? Thanks for giving me that much credit at least; wait...
I didn't say it should be removed, I said it's not going to get upheld in the long run because end of the day a war is always going to be a goddamn brutal, inhuman slaughter no matter how many fancy rules one tries to slap on it. The Geneva convention is a nice thought, but like so many other nice ideas put on paper - it fails in practice simply because humans will do everything they can to come up on top in a you-or-me situation, be it on the individual or the national level.
But we're getting really off track here. Then again I've stated my opinion numerous times; dead bodies being disrespected? Whoop-de-doo, because either side of that conflict is such a nice and wholesome lot amirite?
Sorry Charlie, but desecrating the dead kinda kills the whole "winning hearts and minds" element of what is now a decade-long occupation.
Almost forgot to answer this one. You're never going to win over a country which you invaded due to the simple fact those people fighting the ISAF forces have nowhere else to go. After the firefight is over, where are they to retreat to when they're already fighting on their home turf?
It's a pointless conflict which will never be won. Shame about all the good soldiers lost because older men can't pull their heads out of their cloacas. Too late by now I suppose, if they just got up and left it'd be too blatant in terms of just how pointless all the death has been. Probably wouldn't sit too well with the relatives of the dead. :D
It's good to know these pillars of discipline and mental health are going to come home to a country entirely prepared to facilitate their reentry into civilian society.
Karathos: I didn't say it should be removed, I said it's not going to get upheld in the long run because end of the day a war is always going to be a goddamn brutal, inhuman slaughter no matter how many fancy rules one tries to slap on it.
Not true. Most armed forces operating in Afghanistan have been able to do so decently. Why is only the US failing time and again?
Karathos: But we're getting really off track here. Then again I've stated my opinion numerous times; dead bodies being disrespected? Whoop-de-doo, because either side of that conflict is such a nice and wholesome lot amirite?
You're being blinded by your American propaganda image of 'the Taliban'.
There's a whole lot of people under that denominator who are:
-Kids bought from a Pakistani madrassa who have no clue why they're fighting -Tribal militia opposing local American-backed warlords, sometimes for a very good reason -Militias of drug lords trying to protect their trade, or fighting American-backed rival drug lords -People who have been wronged by American forces, have had relatives killed either innocently or as fighters and have taken up arms because of that -And finally, finally, you have a small bit of actual Taliban, religious extremists who are fighting to bring back what they had before the American invasion
Only the last group is the actual enemy, the rest can be turned aside through diplomatic means and good peacekeeping. With your simplistic demonizing view, hostilities will only get bigger and worse, and impossible to win as a result.
Karathos: Almost forgot to answer this one. You're never going to win over a country which you invaded due to the simple fact those people fighting the ISAF forces have nowhere else to go. After the firefight is over, where are they to retreat to when they're already fighting on their home turf?
Into the hills, or in some case river valleys. A place where you don't follow them unless you're a very very dumb officer who likes getting ambushed. Cleaning the hillsides is quite possible and has been done several times, but controlling the hills permanently in an illusion.
They know damn well the various armed forces active in their country are vastly superior in an open confrontation. That's why the support of the people, which the US troops are steadily eroding, is paramount; the more people feel wronged, the more recruits and sympathisers the fighters dubbed Taliban get.
Vice versa, the more support you have, the easier it is. An Afghan farmer risked his life (imagine what the people who put it there would do to him and his family if they saw him doing it) by warning me of an IED buried in the road. He basically walked in front of our car and wouldn't move out of the way.
Americans would probably have assaulted or killed him for getting in their way, fearing an ambush or something. But because we had local support and respected the locals, they weren't hostile, and even helped us.
1. That has nothing to do with duress. He's upset, he escalates, they should lock him up for good if he murders someone like that. 2. And? They don't deserve to get off for that. 3. It doesn't absolve them of their crimes.
1- Their state of mind will be called in to question.
2- Psychology is going to play a very large role in this, whether people like it or not.
1. That has nothing to do with duress. He's upset, he escalates, they should lock him up for good if he murders someone like that. 2. And? They don't deserve to get off for that. 3. It doesn't absolve them of their crimes.
1- Their state of mind will be called in to question.
2- Psychology is going to play a very large role in this, whether people like it or not.
3- It will affect their sentencing.
Shifting the goal posts now, are you? Not too surprising, though I didn't expect it. This conversation here was not about "What will be done" it was about "What should be done".
Taking into consideration the number of troops that have been involved in the Afghan and Iraq wars, it is a very small number that have engaged in such actions. As far as I know there has been an average of less than one per year, with millions of US and allied troops deployed. The fact that the handful who do things like this are what we let represent everyone is pretty pathetic. As for why we haven't heard about other countries' troops doing things like this, the sheer number of US troops probably has a lot to do with it, and like I said earlier, non-combat training is one of the deficiencies that needs to be addressed.
I still stand by the assertion that the images should not have been released to the media. This will put more men into Taliban militias, and people who had nothing to do with the scandal will die as a direct result. Abu Graib was, quite frankly worse, and if that didn't force necessary reforms, then this scandal sure as hell won't.
Some of the responsibility does lay at the feet of those who allowed them to join in the first place.
1- Relaxed screening measures would allow more and more "slips".
2- Would you agree that prolonged exposure to violent conditions would change how a person sees the world and how they would react to given circumstances?
3- Its been proven that people under incredible stress have done things they normally wouldn't do.