"I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country..."
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (107) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You don’t know what you would do until you are there; but you do know what you hope you would do.
Article I: I am an American, fighting in the armed forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
Article II: I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
Article III: If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Article IV: If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Article V: When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
Article VI: I will never forget that I am an American, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Reid Lies About Impact Of Supplemental Spending Shenanigans — Comments (5) »
"I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country..." 107 Comments (0 topical, 107 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
but if the threat of imminent and deadly force against a comrade--ie a pistol to the head off-camera--is used, does instruction on the CoC specify whether
IV: ... I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades ...
trumps
V: ... I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country or harmful to their cause ...,
or vice-versa, or is it left to discretion in the moment?
soli Deo gloria
One isn't asked to commit suicide or get murdered while a POW. Just resist the best one can and give as little as possible in order to survive.
The POW's in VN were very good at misleading while appearing to give away information. It can be a dangerous game but quit a few have come out of it alive and with honor intact.
Don
1. If the would actually pull the trigger are they going to let you go?
2. If they aren't going to let you go what do you have to lose?
3. The reason you don't make these statements is because they will be used against you in a show trial. Kind of hard to defend yourself against your own words.
Like I said, you don't know what you will do until you've been in that position. The correct answer isn't all that hard to come by, though.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
At least some of our POWs were killed by the Vietnamese, either by execution or the witholding of medical treatment. Yet, at the end of the conflict, many of them were still alive to come home. Furthermore, i'm under the impression that even POWs whose resistance was truly heroic (e.g. ADM Stockdale) were coerced through torture to say things that they might not otherwise have said. From my perspective, the Code of Conduct contains guidelines concerning proper behavior (i.e. resist) rather than inflexible rules, particularly when torture or other coercive methods are used.
It depends on who did the capturing. The majority of those captured by the Viet Cong didn't make it. Air crew shot down over the North tended to survive. Very few, if any, of those lost over Laos made it.
There wasn't a unitary enemy and your odds varied wildly with the circumstances of your capture.
True, the Code of Conduct isn't rigid but you can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for violating it.
Have you heard or read of anyone saying the two Brits have been tortured? I haven't. Absent that salient fact I don't see where the Stockdale analogy comes in.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I'm not going to condemn these sailors for their statements when we don't know what the Iranians have subjected them to.
It would be hard for me to condemn them when apparently an attmept that could have been made to prevent them being into captivity was not allowed by their own government.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
being failed by your government or your command doesn't relieve you of your duty.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I simply will not condemn any of these soliders for how they have acted to this point.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
I don`t know whether you`ve served in the military. I haven`t. I can say with a high degree of confidence, though, that you have never been subjected to what they have been subjected to for the last week. Because of their service, it is more than likely that neither one of us ever will be. Stop playing the game that the left usually does in forgetting who the real bad guys are (hint: they`re in Afghanistan and Iraq, not Washington) and keep the focus on the illegal seizure of coalition troops rather than those who were coerced by means of which we probably cannot even conceive into making statements that they clearly would never have made on their own.
The "real bad guys" are, in fact, in Washington and in NYC. Our military is very capable of taking care of the putz's overseas with great dispatch. The problem is not them. The problem is the the people here in the US who are more than willing to undercut our military for purposes nothing greater than crass politics.
It's the constant "surrender verbiage" from those on the home front that make war fighting so very difficult. The Brits were in the area with a heavily armed cruiser and these sailors/Marines were taken by Iranians in very lightly armed boats. Those boats should currently be at the bottom of the waterway along with their crews. The reason they aren't is because of the RoE inflicted on the British Navy because of Pelosi & Murtha's counterparts in London.
Just so there's no mistake about what I'm saying, I'll try to be real clear. The biggest enemies of the United States are the elected Democrats in Congress - with the exception of Joe Lieberman - and the major media like the NYT, the WaPo and the TV news outlets.
We can survive the Islamists. I'm not confident we can survive the Left.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
"The biggest enemies of the United States are the elected Democrats in Congress"
Wow - talk about hating our country.
the elected Democrats in Congress are equivalent to the United States of America? I know they are claiming this '06 election mandate thingy, but equivalent to the USA? No. Wrong.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
they are the ones in favor of letting terrorist take over Iraq, not us.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
And I look forward to the day when the slime-bag Democrats in Congress actualy love their country more than they hate George Bush.
Bastards.
The "real bad guys" are, in fact, in Washington and in NYC
The biggest enemies of the United States are the elected Democrats in Congress - with the exception of Joe Lieberman - and the major media like the NYT, the WaPo and the TV news outlets.
I really hope this is just ranting and not your actual belief.
You think that Democrats would be willing to fly a plane into a building? You think they want to kill Americans?
I realize that you strongly disagree with the Democrats. But to suggest that they are the real enemy and not the people actually trying to kill us is such a distorted view of the world I really don't know how you could suggest it.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
how the Democrat policy on Iraq differs from the al Qaeda plan?
We are way beyond the point of considering them Americans.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
And I honestly have no idea what the Al Qaeda plan in Iraq is other than to get us to leave.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Why are the Democrats helping Al Queda to get the Americans out of Iraq?
This is the same story from Vietnam? The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong want the Americans to leave. The Democrat leaders
with the help of Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, John Kerry and his leftist supporters accomplished what the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong could not. They defeated America.
Now we have some new names and faces, but the same goals from the same political party, only the country name is Iraq now.
would be a solution, but that would be wrong.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
For instance, the DoJ should have grand juries empaneled to investigate the leaking of the NSA & CIA programs to the NYT and WaPo. The people who leaked those programs should never see the light of day, and the owners/managers/reporters who printed the stories should be subpoenaed and if they won't give up their sources, they can rot in jail - preferably solitary - until they do.
Joe Wilson committed perjury when he testified to the 911 Commission. He should be prosecuted.
The DoJ and the State Department should put an immediate halt to members of Congress trucking off on their own little missions to our enemies. Pelosi has no business in Syria, unless she's planning on buying a house and moving permanently. Republican members have no business going there either. They should be arrested and prosecuted under the Logan Act.
I also have pleasant dreams of John Kerry being charged with treason for his little jaunt to Paris in 1971 when he was still a member of the US Naval Reserve. A trial for treason would be good. I have a rope in my garage I'm saving for that eventuality.
Unfortunately, the Administration lacks the cajonies to do this stuff.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I'm also not talking about democrats in general, I'm talking about the Democrats holding elective office nationally. The reason they are the "real" enemy is that they are the ones who make killing us easier because of the policies they promote.
Do I think Miss Nancy would fly a plane into a building? No. Do I think she'd rather pursue finding out the root causes of why people don't like us as opposed to finishing the military action in Iraq? Yes.
Do I think we can survive as a nation with elected Democrats? I doubt it.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
You guys are taking some pretty extreme positions here.
The reason they are the "real" enemy is that they are the ones who make killing us easier because of the policies they promote.
So the real enemy isn't the person doing the killing but rather the person who you believe enables that person to do the killing. An interesting logic.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I think we're saying they are both the enemy. There are people on death row for enabling killers. It isn't a radical concept.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Because people on death row for "enabling" killers were put there because they willfully and deliberately wanted the killers to kill.
Are you seriously going to suggest that the Democrats WANT Americans to be killed?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
indicates breaking a few eggs to make their omelett isn't one of their big concerns.
Do you think Dems would be sad at another 9/11? Or would they be dancing the macarena because of the opportunity to hang a failure on the administation.
We saw how they treated the first 9/11, I don't know why they'd be different on another one.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Do you think Dems would be sad at another 9/11? Or would they be dancing the macarena because of the opportunity to hang a failure on the administation.
We saw how they treated the first 9/11, I don't know why they'd be different on another one.
I have a basic faith in my fellow Americans that no sane one would be dancing the macarena if another 9/11 were to happen.
Honestly these sorts of claims are absolutely no different than the claims from the Left that the Administration is more interested if making money for Halliburton than they are in protecting American lives.
These are irresponsible accusations that do FAR MORE damage to our body politic than the various inane accusations made by various Democratic leaders.
There is nothing inherently good or evil about being a Republican or a Democrat.
And I would like to know what you mean by "We saw how they treated the first 9/11". The days, weeks, and months following 9/11 were arguably one of the most unified periods in our history. And that unified spirit didn't begin to dissipate until the White House chose to go after Iraq. So tell me how Democrats were being Unamerican after 9/11.
I respect you, Streiff. You're a sharp mind that makes some great arguments. But you are bordering irrational in your hatred of the Democrats.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
is killing inconvenient children just because the law says one can. Killing a inconvenient woman just because she is no longer the one you've decided to spend your time with. Surrendering to or supporting your countries' enemies for no reason except you want to. Knowing your fellow countrymen/women are dying because
you are providing hope to the enemy. The fact that the leaders of one, of our two, major US political parties support these positions leads me to believe I want no part of that political party.
try thinking about how the Dems used it?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Did you miss all the blather from the left, about "Afghanistan will be George Bush's Vietnam", or "Afghanistan is turning into a Vietnam-like quagmire"? All this prior to our invasion of Iraq.
The point is, the Dems think this problem can be solved through law enforcement and the courts (interestingly enough, since they usually don't want to prosecute American criminals), rather than treating 9/11 as the act of war it was. ANY step taken by a Republican Administration is, in their apparent view, "illegal and immoral". No matter where the battles are being fought, they are against it, simply because it is 'Dubya' doing the job.
Watch the leftys on CNN every time a chopper goes down or we have multiple deaths in a single incident. They almost have an orgasm. They report it with enthusiasm. It makes me puke. Bad news for our soldiers is good news to them. And the reason why?
Because of their hatred of Bush.
Puerile least common denominator stuff. I would hope that people would not use that as a barometer of anything other than how pathetic these alleged "news" people can be.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
the only difference between the jihadis and the left is that the left don't have a real burning vehicle or helicopter to dance around and hit with their shoes. The lefties have to use a metaphorical burning vehicle to dance around.
And, of course, they wouldn't be able to find the sharp edge of a knife if they were trying to behead someone.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
but they would certainly support positions that would make the plane flying easier.
And it is apparent that they are more than willing to sell our soldiers down the road for spinach and other pork barrel goodies.
They are actually a tougher enemy to fight, given that they aren't actually holding guns to anyone's head, but their policies don't seem to do much to help prosecute the WOT.
I also think a lot of congressional democrats would like to see the US lose just so they can score political points. I don't think that equals "pro troop."
domestic political foes from real foreign foes intent on our destruction what is the point in even carrying on?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
maintaining domestic political power, even if it is at the expense of our nations security and our nations troops are as dangerous as those who at least openly admit they want to see our destruction.
I realize that most here think that all Democrats are base political opportunists while nearly all Republicans are truly concerned about the country, do you think it might possible that some Democrats honestly believe that another course of action is the best course of action for this country?
I'm not asking you to agree with them but why is it that both sides feel the need to demonize each other? Why can't we simply discuss policy and strive for the right answers rather than make wild claims of evil agendas?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
to the first question.
Maybe because their agenda IS evil? That would be my guess.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"Why can't we simply discuss policy and strive for the right answers rather than make wild claims of evil agendas?"
I would suspect because accusing those who disagree with you of having "evil agendas" is much simpler than actually having to consider the complexity of problems. The logic of "Those who disagree with me are evil therefore I am correct and therefore good" is convenient and soothing to writers who feel frustrated and powerless.
before the decision to go to war was made. After the decision to go war, the only policy should be to win. What is so hard to understand about that? How can we win. Simple, present a united
front to the enemy. Make them understand they will never defeat us, and that we are not going to allow our politicians to assist the enemy.
You believe that the Democrats should simply support what goes on in the Middle East REGARDLESS of whether they agree with the policy or not and that if they don't then they are being Unamerican.
This country has a united front. However that does not mean we have a monolithic view on foreign policy. And it does not mean that the White House is above criticism.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Where do you see a united front? The American soldiers are out there fighting an enemy, that the Democrats say should be allowed to win, how can that be a united front?
You and I differ in what we are concerned about winning.
I really don't know what winning in Iraq is going to be. And given the wholly unrealistic expectations of others, I don't think they do either.
I am concerned about our struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. I am concerned that we are not engaging it in the best manner. But I most certainly want to win that struggle not just for us but for the rest of the world because I believe that our way of life is vastly superior to Arab Muslim culture.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
us to retreat to the backwaters of Afghanistan while leaving the resource rich Iraq to the bad guys. AQ will take that deal all day long.
So it's about the resources.
Interesting that you consider a nation that borders two of the most virulent hot beds of Islamic fundamentalism as a backwater.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
"But I most certainly want to win that struggle not just for us but for the rest of the world because I believe that our way of life is vastly superior to Arab Muslim culture."
This is what we wish to hear from our most vociferous critics. Is our way of life preferable to that of the Islamo-fanatics? Does Rosie secretly want to be forced to wear a burqua, with her tongue cut out? All we have to do is quit while we're ahead. Sadly, the Dems seem to want this vision for America.
God forbid this country gets attacked again. Should it happen though, honestly, what do you think will be the main response by the elected Dem leaders?...Outrage at the attack, or condemnation of GWB and his Admin for not keeping us safe or preventing the attack?....
I don't this is too far fetched, and I think you know the right answer.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
If you accept the premise that the entire war on terror is fixed in Iraq. I would suggest that the war on terror is much larger than the Iraq front, which in a broader context can be viewed as a battle in the war on terror, albeit a very large and long battle. That said, it behooves our nation to look at victory in the longer term, which will require an honest assessment of our current strategies vis a vis the use and strain on our military, our budget, and our international influence. Questioning the tactics of the leaders when so many of thier decisions have proven wrong is not only wise, it is absolutely necessary and patriotic.
votes for pork-I would almost believe there was some real desire to vote for the right thing.
And playing micromanager to a war isn't going to help anyone. Micromanagement of the Vietnam war led to defeat. I can't imagine how a general is expected to win in Iraq with 200 self proclaimed generals setting timelines and deadlines for "redeployment."
200+ generals overseeing the war, no matter how altruistic they believe their positions will do nothing more than harm our troops and harm their mission.
If democrats in congress truly believe Iraq is the wrong war, then they should vote to defund, not play at being general for a day.
is made worse when the "domestic political foes" want to grant "real foreign foes intent on our destruction" constitutional rights like the prisoners at Guantanamo.
There are very few Democrats I would want to share a fighting position with. I can count them on one hand..
So trying to give some level of civil rights to people who are being given no civil rights, many of whom have done nothing materially wrong other than be at the wrong place at the wrong time, is now aiding the enemy.
We are a nation of laws. If we decide that we no longer wish to follow those laws and the basic foundational tenets of our society, the terrorists have already won.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
to the handling of dangerous people and dangerous regimes is
why we fear putting your party in charge of protecting us.
It is easy to condem our way of dealing with these killers.
Your way is to do little or nothing.
So you don't people that people that the people in Gitmo should be given any civil rights? None?
Just held forever in a prison while the "War on Terrorism" wages on for likely decades?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
in Gitmo should be given any civil rights?
uh
sober up and come back
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
at Gitmo? In a word, no.
They should be held until the war on terror is over. If that takes 75 years, so be it.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
And the real lesson from this mess is that we should avoid taking any but very high value prisoners. We should shoot terrorists on sight, on the battlefield. High value prisoners should be taken somewhere completely out of sight until we've got everything we need and then they should be shot.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
The fact that we are releasing them would seem to indicate
a) the United States is incapable of determining guilt or innocence
or
b) some of the individuals in Gitmo were mistakenly detained
I'm going to presume you don't believe a) is the case. In that situation, what would it make us if we shot them on sight?
but eggs-omeletts, you know
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
or in the words of The Poet, Cædite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
How would killing them make us less safe?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"How would killing them make us less safe?"
By this logic, we should kill anyone who might be a threat to us. That would be a large portion of the world right now. Shall we be prepared to commit genocide on a massive scale in order to assure our own safety? Judging by your comments in other threads, I assume that you feel that Democrats are a danger to our country because their policies? Shall we kill them also in order to make us safer?
are going to the limit of tortured logic. John McCain would have you charged and tried.
The people at Gitmo got there because they were on a battlefield, not because they stopped at the 7-11 on the way home from a movie. Some apparently have been released, I do not know what the standard for "guilt" is. I do know that several have been picked up a second time on a battlefield after being released.
I'm not suggesting genocide. I'm not suggesting randomly shooting civilians. I'm suggesting that people who are on a battlefield - even an urban battlefield - should be shot.
If Jack Murtha is on a battlefield, I absolutely think he should be shot. Given that that is an unlikely event, I would consider arresting him for sedition. Along with a fair number of his party.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
They are enemy combatants not covered by the Geneva Convention and they are not American citizens.
The case of bin Laden's driver, Hamdan, is a good example of how the left wanted to establish a precedent where a seemingly, as you say, individual in the wrong place at the wrong time, is granted a trial in a US court. This would insure that terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed would later benefit from the US legal system.
There have been several detainees who have been released from Gitmo only to be found on the battlefield in Afghanistan once more. If there have been individuals, such as these released without appearing before a tribunal, who is to say that there will not be additional prisoners released once their cases are heard by the tribunals President Bush wants to establish?
Despite what Senator Durbin states, our military is more trustworthy than Pol Pot. I think that is what this boils down to.
I am not talking about whether the Democrats are right with their specific arguments. I am referring to the prisoners themselves and whether they have certain basic civil rights. You claim they have no civil rights and if we so chose to detain them forever we are within our right. It matters not one whit whether the person is guilty of anything other than being fingered by someone who has a vendetta against them.
By the way your argument that these people have no civil rights seems to fly in the face of some of our basic core principles. Perhaps you've forgotten this little tidbit....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
However I have not.
I do not like creating a "special" type of prisoner so that you can circumvent granting them any rights. And I don't care whether the terrorists recognize the Geneva Conventions. I do not want our country to use their actions as a standard anymore than I would have wanted the United States of 1940 to use the actions of the Japanese as a standard on how to treat enemy soldiers. We respect the basic human and civil rights of others not because we are obligated to but because that is who we are.
FTR, I also feel the way about laws in this country in which we have chosen to ignore the rights of people because they have become social pariah. Megan's laws being the most notable. I personally detest pedophiles and wish harsh punishments for them. But I don't believe that we should simply ignore our own core principles because no one is willing to stand up for them.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
are familiar with the Delaration of Independence.
Much more pressing to them is completion of the mission and their own survival.
"Flyerhawk" connotes a military background, so I'm assuming you are familiar with the needs of troops in a combat zone.
It is incumbent on the US Government to provide every means possible in order for our troops to accomplish their mission, while at the same time, having a good chance of living to tell about it.
I include the use of land mines and even would go so far as weapons forbidden by the Geneva convention - such as mechanical ambushes. Sleep deprivation, water boarding, and other harsh forms of interrogation are permissible if these could save the lives of our soldiers.
If military tribunals and holding prisoners indefinitely keep our troops safer, I am all for these.
Our troops are the most important consideration - not the perceived rights you would incorrectly grant to terrorists.
While I do agree that we should do whatever we can to ensure that our troops are protected that does not mean that we simply ignore our own sense of decency and humanity.
I don't have a problem with the apprehension of these people. I do have a problem with equating apprehension with guilt and then keeping them locked up forever or until we decide we don't want them locked up anymore.
Do you favor the use of chemical weapons if it protects our troops? It not, why?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
or humanity in war.
That is the problem liberals have with warfare.
Our troops in the field have their hands tied by Rules Of Engagement dreamt up by civilians in Washington who never faced enemy steel.
Chemical weapons.
I saw napalm used many times in Vietnam. Not once did I feel pity on the enemy who got his ass cooked.
It's survival, plain and simple.
War is ugly, inhumane and terrifying.
A sense of decency - when all hell breaks loose - will buy you and your compatriots a trip home in a box.
So the use of chemical weapons is A-OK in your book. Duly noted.
You wish to unleash our soldiers to do whatever they want and if that causes countless civilian deaths, so be it.
I cannot accept that view.
I realize that evil things must be done in war and I am not one to criticize soldiers who may do bad things in battle. War is an ugly place and we can't always act the way we wish.
But that does not mean I condone carpet bombing cities to weaken the morale of the opposition simply so we can achieve some nebulous political objective.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Have you ever "seen the elephant"?
Soldiers on the ground do not see a "nebulous political objective".
Their constant thoughts have to do with survival. These thoughts never disappear.
That is why it is important that the prisoners at Guantanamo are kept right where they are - unless found innocent of wrong doing by military tribunal. As I mentioned earlier, there are instances where detainees have been released only to take up arms against our soldiers again.
My concerns are for our soldiers first. That is supporting them.
Soldiers on the ground do not see a "nebulous political objective".
Their constant thoughts have to do with survival. These thoughts never disappear.
Why do you keep trying to make appeals to the welfare of the soldiers? Perhaps so you can claim some sort of high ground in this discussion?
Do you think we should detain innocent people indefinitely because some of these people might fight again?
As I mentioned earlier, there are instances where detainees have been released only to take up arms against our soldiers again.
How many times has this happened? Got link?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
than the welfare of our soldiers. Making sure that people likely to do them harm are kept in captivity is in keeping with protecting their welfare.
I asked you if you had "seen the elephant" because, if you had, you would know where combat soldiers are coming from. Then you would know that when it gets right down to it one's personal welfare trumps all the considerations you have presented in our discussion.
I first heard about a guy who was released from custody on one of the networks, most likely Fox. They showed him in Pakistan leading Taliban troops. it's been quite a while back.
Check this link out:
http://crapo.senate.gov/legislative/transcripts/guantanamo.cfm
no "rights" under the Geneva Conventions, specifically they have none. The Conventions were written to specifically exclude "non-state" actors from having any "rights".
They aren't US citizens, and they aren't operating on US soil, so they have no "rights" under the US Constitution. None. Zip. Nada.
So, let's just enforce the current blackletter law. They have no rights, they get no rights. They get no access to attorneys, they should get no access to the IRC or AI either. They should just "go missing".
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
So you wish to simply make them non-human. And you aren't all that concerned about whether they actually did anything or not apparently.
I am not suggesting they should be granted Geneva Convention rights. I am also not suggesting they should be given full civil rights of American citizens.
What I am saying is that their rights, whatever they are, should be clearly articulated. If we choose to have summary executions of each prisoner then at least have the guts to say so.
Don't hide behind legalese of saying "well they aren't entitled to rights". Of course they are entitled to rights. They are human beings not animals. And I am not willing to go down the very slippery slope of removing basic human rights from anyone.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
are neither human beings or animals. I have empathy for both. These are terrorists, are supporters of terrorists, and are epitomized by the guys who left two children in a car in Iraq last week so security wouldn't look for a bomb.
They deserve nothing but a bullet.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
These are people accused of being terrorists or supporters of terrorists. In some cases it is quite clear they are. In others it is not.
Dehumanizing others is pathway to great evil.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
than people usually do when making your point (including, I think, you, in the past). But it would help if you considered the meaning of all the words you quote.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
As seems quite clear from the above quoted text, governments derive their powers from the governed not from all human beings. Equally, governments are instituted by the governed to secure those rights. The responsibility of the US government is for the US people. It is government of the people, by the people and for the people. IE, it is government by and for the same people it is of.
I don't see how it could be clearer. All people have rights, and are entitled to demand them of their own government. But American civil rights do not apply to enemies of America taken in the field. If they did, America would not have been able to sign the Geneva Conventions, which allow the US government to hold prisoners of war for the duration of the conflict, without any of the rights defined in the US Constitution applying to them.
Prisoners at Guantanamo must therefore look to the Geneva Conventions for a definition of their status and their rights, not to the US Constitution. The Conventions are clear. If they were fighting in the field out of uniform they have one right - the right to be shot on sight. That they are alive at all is by the grace of the US government. The fact that they are alive demonstrates that the US government is treating them more favourably than they are entitled to be treated.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Would they be willing to kill fellow Americans?
Some would. But even the Dems recognize those as the far fringe.
No, they would rather do everything they can to stop any actions that would Prevent the flying of the planes or the killing of fellow Americans.
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
1, I have served.
2. Read the story again because I don't claim to have knowledge of what they have experienced.
3. It's not a game, it is war and right now we have grounds, both from the circumstances of the capture and the behavior of those in captivity, to question how our allies will act if shooting starts.
4. Back to an earlier point. Either they are going to let you go or they aren't. It is a safe bet that the Iranians will let them go short of 444 days and an even safer bet that they haven't been physically harmed.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
after they extract concessions from the Brits. Whether those concessions will include the return of the 50 or so Quds Brigade operatives the Brits have in custody, or whether it will be for the British Army to ease up the pressure on the border between Southern Iraq and Iran, or something else.
I don't think anyone believes the Iranians took these guys a a preparation for war. I don't for sure.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Whether those concessions will include the return of the 50 or so Quds Brigade operatives the Brits have in custody, or whether it will be for the British Army to ease up the pressure on the border between Southern Iraq and Iran, or something else.
I don't think Iran was/is looking for war, I think they are looking for a way to gain an upperhand and the appearance of strength.
I do think any concessions will in the end come across as victory for Iran-even if Britain gets their hostages back unharmed.
they got a lot done in 444 days the last time. They had just over thrown the Shaw and kept the revolution at a fever pitch while holding us at bay. Kind of kept every ones attention, mostly their own people. Same thing here, they think it protects them for now. It worked once. They have a lot of dissent right now.
1. Thank you for your service.
2. While you don`t claim to have knowledge of what they have experienced, you certainly do pass judgment on their actions. Without having any idea of the circumstances, that`s an incredibly difficult judgment to make. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn`t aid and abet in a crime. If someone was holding a gun to the heads of members of my family, I might act differently. Speaking from what previous POW`s from mideast wars have suffered, mock executions, beatings, etc. are all possibilities, if not likelihoods.
3. To question the resolve of America`s primary ally in the war on terror is foolhardy. The British government and their military have served honorably. What`s more, it is entirely reasonable - though possibly not correct - to assume that American troops would have done the same under the same circumstances.
4. It is beyond argument that their current ordeal will be with them for the rest of their lives. It`s not as though they are staying in a resort. They have to fear for their lives, their physical and mental wellbeing, and those of their fellow prisonors, at every moment. Whether they will be released and what their physical and mental conditions will be for the rest of their lives are two entirely different questions.
1. That's the equivalent of "have a nice day." I didn't serve to get thanks.
2. Yes, I do. And no it isn't.
3. How do you explain the morass they've left in Basra? How do you explain the truce they've negotiated with the Taliban in Helmand province which left part of the province in Taliban control? As a I posted yesterday, how can a US ship safely cooperate with a British ship when we now know they won't fight even to protect their own men? It is foolhardy to rely on such allies, or to position then in the battlespace where their now glaring deficiencies can be taken advantage of.
4. Puh-leeze.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I remember Operation Southern Watch, first in Dahran and then El Karge, Saudi Arabia. The French were there as our allies to protect the southern "No Fly Zones". However, we all knew better. They were there to keep an eye on us, and claim to be our allies.
I grew up Canadian French, and my grandparents expected me to speak French when at their homes. It came in handy. I remember a day in the Moral, Welfare and Recreation computer center where people e-mailed families and generally play games and surf the internet. I was sitting next two two French Officers who were having a good time chatting in French, not knowing I spoke French. As I was leaving, I thanked them in French and wished them a good day. There faces went stone cold and they stopped smiling.
I would not put the British in this category, but there comes a time when allies are of questionable reliability. Right now the British are very "gun shy", but not unreliable. They have anti-war sentiment that is neutering them. It would serve us better to make sure we keep our back sides covered.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): Prayer is the hardest thing. And no one congratulates you for doing it, because no one knows you're doing it, and if things turn out well they likely won't thank God in any case. -Peggy Noonan-
if not those who serve? By your standard, an Admiral (decision authority) who had not had experience as a POW would be unable to pass judgment on a sailor.
I have attended the US Army's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape school at Ft. Bragg (RTB). I can honestly say that streiff is right on this one. They are acting dishonorably and making decisions that will follow them the rest of their lives (and may even lead to their execution).
The times have changed and clearly your view shows that Honor is disappearing quickly. Relativity reigns. Bummer.
Detention can be more difficult than being a POW. Because neither the Geneva Conventions nor the Code of Conduct apply absolutely in such situations, your situation becomes more uncertain and you are more vulnerable to manipulation.
It is unlikely the Brit sailors were tortured or seriously mistreated. The Iranians aren't that stupid. On the contrary, they are very calculating. Besides, they probably wouldn't need to abuse the sailors to gain propaganda value. Those kids were almost certainly unprepared for such a situation, which requires advanced training.
Young, inexperienced victims are easy to manipulate and trick. "Oh, this was a terrible accident. Have some coffee. We are ready to release you and send you home. But first, we must satisfy our court system. Please sign this release form. Don't worry about the admission of guilt, it is only a formality for our judge. You can trust me."
"Oh dear, it seems things are more difficult. There is a protest downtown. Perhaps you could make a short video apology to calm the people? Don't worry, it will only be shown locally. Here, please wear this scarf."
"I'm so sorry, there is another problem. The judge wants to release you, but the national government is very angry. We tell them you are a peaceful woman who wants only to go home to her child, but they do not listen. It might help if you wrote a letter home. Please say these things."
"What, you do not want to write a letter? Why not, since you have already confessed? You made a video too. Perhaps that video may be released to the world, since you have chosen to stop cooperating. I'm afraid we cannot release you after all, without this letter. Such a pity, you were so close."
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
though I think that while the Geneva Conventions is pretty much a fraud if we aren't fighting Canadians or Swedes, the Code of Conduct does apply.
I don't know if what they're going through merits a need for SERE training but I think it is clear thay they haven't been prepared for this eventuality.
Hopefully, we're getting a wake up call on this as well.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
While the spirit of the Code clearly applies in all circumstances, parts of it cannot be applied literally in non-POW situations because they are based on the Geneva Conventions. The Article V provisions about "name, rank, ssn" may be untenable in a peacetime detention situation. The detaining government may have a legitimate prerogative to investigate, and some degree of careful cooperation may be neccessary to resolve an incident. For instance, the mission of the British sailors at the time of capture was an overt, UN sanctioned activity and there would be no reason to deny it when questioned.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
I can't think of an instance in which it works to your advantage, if detained, to speak to the detaining power, here, BTW, I'm talking about your local constabulary as well as a foreign power.
If I'm detained by the police, I call a lawyer. If I'm detained by a foreign power my consul, the ICRC, or the interests section of a friendly embassy is the only person I'd talk to without a beating.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
The code serves as something to hold on to. The entire interrogation process, is the process of breaking down a person's will to resist. Water boarding is the inducing of panic to get a sudden and total breaking of the will to resist. However, usually it is a slow grinding process of compromises. They wear you down little by little. "If I give a little and tell them a little, they will stop". The next time you give a little more, then the next time a little more. Then before long, over time, it all breaks down and your will to resist gives out. Read the books about the POW's at the Hanoi Hilton. That is the theme over and over in those books. The only thing you have is your fellow prisoners and the code. You never let them down. You hang together. You don't let the interrogators win, and when you do give in, you do your best to not completely collapse.
I doubt these Brits have been worn down like that so quickly. I don't know why they would be giving confessions this readily. I remember the pilot videos from Desert Storm. They really had to break those pilots first to get the confessions. I could only hope and pray I would have done as well.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): Prayer is the hardest thing. And no one congratulates you for doing it, because no one knows you're doing it, and if things turn out well they likely won't thank God in any case. -Peggy Noonan-
I don't know if you might consider this a fair argument, but I am not aware of the British version of a Code of Conduct that we should measure the Brit behaviour by. Should we apply oour own?
The Code certainly captures some universal truths to follow, but the application of those truths without training may be difficult to grasp (and without their own version to boot).
Here's my take on the situation for better or worse:
1. I agree that it is reasonable to assume that there has been less coersion in this incident than in incidents against traditional POWs. Thus the hostages "should" resist making these comments/letters to their utmost.
2. I believe that the classic hostage/POW paraded on tv making statements has less effect now that the world pretty much realizes that anything said under duress is likely BS. I don't think the British govt. or people will hold the remarks against the hostages.
3. I don't know if we should use the Code as a standard to measure the Brits. I'd be interested in knowing what their training dictates. I worked with SERE, but never crosstrained with the Brit version of the RTL. Did these troops have Brit SERE training? And do we really know the extent of any coersion (though, like you, I tend to think it has been minimal thus far).
4. I will say this (and I think it has gone unmentioned): The letters written by the female captive have contained multiple errors. I think she is making a good attempt to demonstrate that her letters are under duress. Good one for her.
In sum, I agree with you that the hostages should make no statements of disloyalty without reasonable resistance. Until all of the facts are in, I'm not yet ready to make any judgements though. As SERE training dictates, I'm not going to judge my comrades during the captivity because I don't know what tricks the enemy may be employing to make my comrades action look bad. We stay united until release, escape, or rescue.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
1. SERE training is targeted for aircrew, special forces, etc. who could be expected to be behind enemy lines. The Code of Conduct is applicable to all US servicemembers and is not accompanied by training beyond the classroom.
2. Perhaps it is unfair to judge based on what we would expect of US military in similar circumstances. Perhaps it is unfair to judge the Royal Navy based on their performance in this incident. Regardless, it is what it is and we need to be aware of what we can expect from our allies.
3.You make statements at your own peril. They can be used as evidence to convict you of a civil offense and remove you from the detainee category. Silence is golden.
This is how you resist passively
this from the USS Pueblo incident
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I can always count on a reasoned and quick answer from you, but that kind of speed (and with a picture post too) makes my head spin.
At any rate, here's hoping this incident backfires on Iran. Wouldn't it be grand if this spectacle has the American hostage 1979 effect and angers the British people over a period of time? Then if the people are sufficently angered we see a return to Thatcherite times and a more kickbutt ally? Then (of course) the Brits go in, and we with them like old times?
Well, I can still dream can't I?
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I specifically remember the US prisoner who agreed to make his propaganda video, but while he was speaking, he was blinking his eyes in morse code the word "T-O-R-T-U-R-E". This was shown to me in Code of Conduct classroom training when explaining the difference in giving in, and doing what you can to resist, but having to give somehow.
The Pueblo picture is also classic to this point.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know. -Jer 33:3-
You are using some terms you shouldn't use in public.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
The only term I can think of that you might be refering to is RTL. The RTL was featured on the Discovery Channel several years ago (to my surprise). I then called a friend still associated with JFKSWC and he said what elements of the RTL were made public. Simply acknowledging the existence of (the) an RTL is not a breach of security.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
When I was teaching the Code of Conduct, approximately 1960 to 1965, one of the discussion points always revolved around the phrase "the means to resist." Usually it took some time to get a majority of the class to agree that "the means to resist" does not mean the same as "the means to win."
One of the examples that I used was from the USCG's Lifeboat Service. These lifeboats would go out in all sorts of weather conditions to rescue seamen and passengers on floundering ships. Their special motto was " You have to go out - you don't have to come back."
I, and the majority of people that I trained with, understood that the Code meant that we would fight rather than surrender. That, if we were in command, we would fight even if meant an Alamo result. It also meant that we would not obey a superiors order that we surrender because such an order would be unlawful.
issue. I have some knowledge of two "boomer" captains - Jimmy Carter and Lloyd Blucher (sic). I offen wondered if, called upon, the "boomers" would fire. For six of my nine years in service, I was the one who taught the mandatory one hour class on the Code of Conduct. Luckly, the Pueblo was captured after I left the service. I am uncertain as to how I would teach the Code after the Pueblo Incident. Before, it was simple - "Stranger, passing by, go tell the Spartans that here we lie, obedient to their will."