|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I think that the act of photographing the dead was the "simple", whereas the "horrific brutality" was the killing that went on first. Interesting position. I don't agree and I'll explain why, though it is subjective so you can take it or leave it. The pictures are not all of dead, and (from what I have heard) include the injured who may have been hit by US or enemy forces. Furthermore they are from Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq. The former I feel is justified warfare, and the second is an ongoing defensive action. Truly if no one was firing at us in Iraq it is rather unlikely we'd be firing at them. We have a right and a duty to help people there get a stable gov't in place. Thus while war may be horribly brutal, that is different than engaging in horrific brutality against one's defeated enemies. And that is the key difference. A record of what we did to show the brutality of warfare itself is fair game. Gloating and torturing innocent and enemy alike by mocking images of the injured and dead (who are by definition defeated) is a crime and it is brutality for brutality's sake. If you believe there is never a reason to go to war, including to defend onesself, then we would be at an impasse on debate. I truly hate war, but if there are some who do not, and as long as they exist, the ability to defend onesself physically will be necessary. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
The following was posted at the website under discussion, apparently it is release from Gen Schoomacher to the troops regarding the absolute gaping wound which is internet security within the military. I can't believe it.
What's interesting is that you may note in the following that he never comes out and tells them to quit with the war crimes, in fact he totally avoids mentioning that where it should be which is point #1. Instead there is a small pitch after telling them not to post classified material, that they should keep in mind to post so as not to offend allies and other nations. Sorry that the following is in all caps. That was at is was posted...
FM DA WASHINGTON DC//DACS-ZA// TO ALARACT ZEN/ADDRESS LISTS @ AL ALARACT(UC) BT UNCLAS ALARACT 156/2005 SUBJECT: CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY OPSEC GUIDANCE CSA SENDS:PASS TO ALL ARMY LEADERS. REF//A//MSG/ALARACT/141637Z FEB 05/SUBJ: SENSITIVE PHOTOGRAPHS(U/FOUO) 1. (U//FOUO) OPSEC IS A CHAIN OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS SERIOUS BUSINESS AND WE MUST DO A BETTER JOB ACROSS THE ARMY. THE ENEMY AGGRESSIVELY "READS" OUR OPEN SOURCE AND CONTINUES TO EXPLOIT SUCH INFORMATION FOR USE AGAINST OUR FORCES. SOME SOLDIERS CONTINUE TO POST SENSITIVE INFORMATION TO INTERNET WEBSITES AND BLOGS, E.G., PHOTOS DEPICTING WEAPON SYSTEM VULNERABILITIES AND TACTICS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES. SUCH OPSEC VIOLATIONS NEEDLESSLY PLACE LIVES AT RISK AND DEGRADE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR OPERATIONS. 2. (U//FOUO) THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS ISSUE HAS SURFACED.THE VICE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED THIS VIA MESSAGE IN FEBRUARY 2005. TAKE A HARD LOOK AT HIS GUIDANCE. 3. (U//FOUO) LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS MUST TAKE CHARGE OF THIS ISSUE AND GET THE MESSAGE DOWN TO THE LOWEST LEVELS. TO ASSIST YOU, THE HQDAG-2 AND THE OPSEC SUPPORT ELEMENT ARE DEVELOPING A TRAINING MODULE AND ARE FORMING A MOBILE TRAINING TEAM TO ASSIST IN TRAINING YOUR SOLDIERS. DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED NLT 2 SEPTEMBER 2005. HQDA G-6 (IN COORDINATION WITH G-2) IS DIRECTED TO TRACK AND REPORT, ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, OPEN SOURCE OPSEC VIOLATIONS. AN INTERIM CHANGE TO AR 530-1, OPERATIONS SECURITY, WILL BE PUBLISHED VIA MESSAGE WITHIN 30 DAYS WHICH WILL CONTAIN CLEAR POLICY CONCERNING THE POSTING OF SENSITIVE PHOTOS AND INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET. 4. (U//FOUO) GET THE WORD OUT AND FOCUS ON THIS ISSUE NOW. I EXPECT TO SEE IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENT. 5. (U//FOUO) EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS ALARACT IS UNDETERMINED. PETER J. SCHOOMAKER, GEN, CSA =====================================================================DTG: 141637Z Feb 05 SUBJECT: (U) SENSITIVE PHOTOS (U//FOUO) PASS TO ALL ARMY LEADERS O5 (LTC) OR EQUIVALENT AND ABOVE. 1. (U//FOUO) THE ENEMY IS ACTIVELY SEARCHING THE UNCLASSIFIED NETWORKSFOR INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE PHOTOS, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN TARGETING DATA, WEAPONS SYSTEM VULNERABILITIES, AND TTPs FOR USE AGAINST THE COALITION. A MORE AGGRESSIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD PROTECTING FRIENDLY INFORMATION IS VITAL TO MISSION SUCCESS. THE ENEMY IS A PRO AT EXPLOITING OUR OPSEC VULNERABILITIES. 2. (U//FOUO) IT IS CRITICAL TO REMIND OUR PEOPLE THAT THE NEGLIGENT ORUNAUTHORIZED RELEASE OF SENSITIVE PHOTOS IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR FORCES. LEADERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO: 2.A. (U//FOUO) REMIND ALL PERSONNEL THAT THE ENEMY WILL EXPLOITSENSITIVE PHOTOS SHOWING THE RESULTS OF IED STRIKES, BATTLE SCENES, CASUALTIES, DESTROYED OR DAMAGED EQUIPMENT, AND ENEMY KIAs AS PROPAGANDA AND TERRORIST TRAINING TOOLS. FOR EXAMPLE, ANNOTATED PHOTOS OF AN ABRAMS TANK PENETRATED BY AN RPG ARE EASILY FOUND ON THE INTERNET. CAPTURED INSURGENT PAMPHLETS CONTAIN HAND DRAWINGS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT INSURGENTS BELIEVE ARE VULNERABLE PENETRATION POINTS ON TANKS, HMMWVS, BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLES, AND HELICOPTERS. RELEASING PHOTOS OUTSIDE OFFICIAL, PROTECTED CHANNELS MAY ALLOW THE ENEMY MATERIAL FOR HIS INFORMATION OPERATIONS AND TARGETING TTP AGAINST FRIENDLY FORCES. INSURGENTS ALSO USE WEBSITES TO COMMUNICATE, TRAIN, AND RECRUIT FOLLOWERS, OFTEN USING PHOTOS/VIDEO OF THEIR BATTLEFIELD SUCCESSES. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE OUR PHOTOS BECOME TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT TOOLS FOR THE ENEMY. 2.B. (U//FOUO) INFORM YOUR PERSONNEL THAT WE COULD UNWITTINGLYMAGNIFY ENEMY CAPABILITIES SIMPLY BY EXCHANGING PHOTOS WITH FRIENDS, RELATIVES, OR BY PUBLISHING THEM ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER MEDIA. WE ARE NOT LIMITING AUTHORIZED COMMUNICATION (TO INCLUDE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF PHOTOS) UNDER EXISTING PUBLIC AFFAIRS GUIDANCE, BUT WE MUST PROTECT PHOTOS THAT REVEAL TO THE ENEMY OUR BATTLE LOSSES, ONGOING FRIENDLY OPERATIONS, TTP, EQUIPMENT VULNERABILITIES, OR DISCLOSE INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION EFFORTS AND METHODS. MOREOVER, WE MUST PROTECT INFORMATION THAT MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON FOREIGN RELATIONS WITH COALITION ALLIES OR WORLD OPINION. 3. (U//FOUO) OUR MISSION SUCCESS AND SOLDIERS LIVES DEPEND ONAGGRESSIVELY DENYING THE ENEMY ANY ADVANTAGE. I NEED YOUR FOCUS ON THIS CRITICAL ISSUE. 4. (U//FOUO) EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS ALARACT CANNOT BEDETERMINED. So please don't spy, now carry on. If I were president, heads would be rolling right about... NOW! This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-04-2005 09:31 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Thanks for that material , holmes, interesting military-speak: things haven't changed much.
In Nam the brass learned that in future wars they should: 1) keep the media away from the action (unless they were first thoroughly (em)bedded and co-opted, and 2) keep the media away from the coffins coming home, although apparently they didn't learn much about fighting (or the wisdom of trying to fight) nationalistic "asymmetrical force" insurgencies. No doubt when we invade Iran or Syria, digital cameras, cell phone cameras, camcorders, etc., will be prohibited. Problem solved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
quote: That's because the subject of of this message was about OPSEC (Operational Security), specifically, sensitive photographs. What war crimes are you referring to? Oh, and he's not telling us to practice good OPSEC so we don't offend anyone. It is so we don't place soldiers on the ground at greater risk and degrade the effectiveness of our operations. "Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
That's because the subject of of this message was about OPSEC (Operational Security), specifically, sensitive photographs. Okey doke. Unfortunately that doesn't quite cut it as an excuse.
What war crimes are you referring to? The crimes we can't possibly be commiting since we're americans. Have you read the thread?
Oh, and he's not telling us to practice good OPSEC so we don't offend anyone. It is so we don't place soldiers on the ground at greater risk and degrade the effectiveness of our operations. Ahem. I never said otherwise, or at least never meant anything different. He is telling them to be careful to not do something which might offend others because it might effect us. That is not being the good guy. You have no opinion on the actions of these (particular) soldiers, nor the astounding lack of security protocols within the theater of operation? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
The crimes we can't possibly be commiting since we're americans. Have you read the thread? Answer the question. Generalizations avoid specifics.
You have no opinion on the actions of these (particular) soldiers, nor the astounding lack of security protocols within the theater of operation?
My opinion of these particular soldiers is that they are dirtbags and have been convicted and sentenced. My point is that you can't pull 1 memo about 1 subject and conlude that covers every topic in the military. "Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Answer the question. Generalizations avoid specifics. I asked if you had read the thread, because the specifics were there. Do I need to rewrite what I and others have already said? Here is the short version... taking pictures of wounded and dead within warzones and occupied territories and posting them for purposes of personal pleasure and in a gloating fashion are against the geneva convention, this goes for enemy soldiers as well as "friendlies" who are accidentally hit, and goes double if bodies are adjusted or mutilated for such purposes. This is being done, yet ignored by the military. On a side note this reveals unbelievable stupidity in military security.
My opinion of these particular soldiers is that they are dirtbags and have been convicted and sentenced. What the fuck are you talking about? You think this thread is about Abu Ghraib? How insulting... read the OP at least. This is about stuff going on post Abu Ghraib, all over both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about people posting many different scenes of violence, death and mutilation. The military, unlike with Abu Ghraib is refusing to touch this, saying that they cannot figure out if the pics and vids are real and if so who from within our army posted them. Yeah, right. At least one general, the one sent in to retrain soldiers after Abu Ghraib, did have a very negative comment about these recent events saying that at this point he no longer has a clue what atrocities our forces are willing and able to commit. That wasn't me or Michael Moore talking, it was a US general. Unfortunately the only thing the military high ups are willing to go after is soldiers getting porn. They say that is the only real potential crime.
My point is that you can't pull 1 memo about 1 subject and conlude that covers every topic in the military. This was posted by soldiers stationed within the region about what the recent military stance is. If you have something else please share, otherwise I'll trust the guys that are there and posting this, rather than you. This message has been edited by holmes, 10-05-2005 10:55 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
This was posted by soldiers stationed within the region about what the recent military stance is. Posting this is an OPSEC violation in itself.
(U/FOUO) FOUO means For Official Use Only.
If you have something else please share, otherwise I'll trust the guys that are there and posting this, rather than you. Not sure what you mean here. I was there. I've read the memo. "Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Posting this is an OPSEC violation in itself. Someone else mentioned that at that site where they were busy posting the pictures in question. That only adds to the irony, and my point.
Not sure what you mean here. I was there. I've read the memo. The people that posted this did not indicate that the military had any other policies or comments coming down the line than this memo. You implied that there could be, and I can't assume there isn't just because of this memo. Fine. Is there something else, regarding the posting gratuitous and in gloating fashion pix of dead and injured people that are under our protection or at war with us? And I have yet to hear you comment on this recent batch of assholes. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It turns out that the images of mutilated bodies is not illegal in the US, even when they contravene the Geneva Convention, but sexual imagery definitely is and will be prosecuted.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
welcome to the results of a volunteer military led by a president who demonizes the enemy. why are we surprised?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
why are we surprised? That atrocities could happen is not surprising. The surprise is that absolutely no action is being taken except for to take this opportunity to demonize and in fact prosecute sex and sexual imagery. They said this very thing (violent imagery) would not be done by our troops, and if so would be punished, while fighting for more freedom. Instead this thing is going on and we are repressing freedom. This makes us exactly equal to Hussein's army at this point. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
eh. armies are armies. war is war. war is what allows for this and it needs to end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
eh. armies are armies. war is war. war is what allows for this and it needs to end. Sorry but that is simply not true. While war is horrible in and of itself, and to be avoided as much as possible, it is sometimes necessary and it can be conducted without tolerating war crimes. War can be ended as much as crime can be... which is never. As long as someone is willing to kill another group other groups must be prepared in some way to defend themselves. If you are refering specifically to the Iraq occupation, then I am unsure how you suggest it be "ended". While the war was wrong, now we have a duty to protect Iraq until a stable gov't can be put in place. If we don't do this, what will happen to Iraqis? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
iraqis will have to stand up for themselves. they really didn't need us to take out their leader and they don't need us to install a puppet democracy that they don't want and aren't paradigmatically prepared to deal with. they only needed us to take away saddam's helicopter gunships which was the only thing that allowed him to maintain power. but we needed him in power because we didn't know who would be if he wasn't. and now we're in charge of a big nasty mess that won't solve itself and isn't serving our ends or anyone else's.
you want to end war crimes? end war. war crimes are a result of crazy volunteers and people who have been traumatized and overwhelmed by war. it is possible to end war, it has to be. we have to change policy so that violence isn't an option. we just have to ask the right questions and i'm working on it as fast as i can. This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-20-2005 03:58 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024