Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
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: 12-11-2002


Message 31 of 80 (248413)
10-03-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Funkaloyd
10-02-2005 8:14 PM


Re: american terrorism
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Funkaloyd, posted 10-02-2005 8:14 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 32 of 80 (248796)
10-04-2005 7:08 AM


Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
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 HQDA
G-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 NETWORKS
FOR 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 OR
UNAUTHORIZED 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 EXPLOIT
SENSITIVE 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 UNWITTINGLY
MAGNIFY 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 ON
AGGRESSIVELY DENYING THE ENEMY ANY ADVANTAGE. I NEED YOUR FOCUS ON
THIS CRITICAL ISSUE.
4. (U//FOUO) EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS ALARACT CANNOT BE
DETERMINED.
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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 10-04-2005 10:23 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 34 by Tal, posted 10-04-2005 10:36 AM Silent H has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 33 of 80 (248820)
10-04-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Silent H
10-04-2005 7:08 AM


Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 10-04-2005 7:08 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 34 of 80 (248822)
10-04-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Silent H
10-04-2005 7:08 AM


Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 10-04-2005 7:08 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 10-04-2005 11:23 AM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 80 (248831)
10-04-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tal
10-04-2005 10:36 AM


Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tal, posted 10-04-2005 10:36 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tal, posted 10-05-2005 10:34 AM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 36 of 80 (249074)
10-05-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Silent H
10-04-2005 11:23 AM


Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 10-04-2005 11:23 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2005 10:51 AM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 80 (249086)
10-05-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tal
10-05-2005 10:34 AM


Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tal, posted 10-05-2005 10:34 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Tal, posted 10-06-2005 1:42 PM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 38 of 80 (249548)
10-06-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
10-05-2005 10:51 AM


Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2005 10:51 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 10-06-2005 4:23 PM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 80 (249572)
10-06-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tal
10-06-2005 1:42 PM


Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tal, posted 10-06-2005 1:42 PM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 80 (253287)
10-20-2005 9:01 AM


Update: porn prosecuted, soldiers not

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 41 of 80 (253329)
10-20-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
09-29-2005 11:11 AM


welcome to the results of a volunteer military led by a president who demonizes the enemy. why are we surprised?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 09-29-2005 11:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 1:02 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 80 (253377)
10-20-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by macaroniandcheese
10-20-2005 10:53 AM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-20-2005 10:53 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-20-2005 1:08 PM Silent H has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 43 of 80 (253380)
10-20-2005 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Silent H
10-20-2005 1:02 PM


eh. armies are armies. war is war. war is what allows for this and it needs to end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 1:02 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 3:41 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 80 (253456)
10-20-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by macaroniandcheese
10-20-2005 1:08 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-20-2005 1:08 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-20-2005 3:58 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 62 by tsig, posted 10-22-2005 8:22 PM Silent H has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 45 of 80 (253462)
10-20-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Silent H
10-20-2005 3:41 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 3:41 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 6:37 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024