Did anyone stand up and say "No" to torture? I lost a job I needed largely because I

refused to go along with safety shortcuts. (Two people have been killed at this workplace in the last 6 years, so you can see my concern was warranted.) Others have lost jobs because they refused to do or approve unethical procedures. Sometimes the issue was limited to an accounting scam. What kind of people do we have working for us when lawyers refused to say it was wrong and CIA employees actually performed torture?

it's about scruples. Some people have them, most dont.

There are no excuses for not doing the right thing.

In many other times, in many other cultures, an accolage like "thanks for doing the right thing" would not be necessary.

But in our society, where the wicked justify the inhumane for the sake of their God (or their profits) --the decent person doing the decent thing deserves kudos.

family.
Most people do not care if the next guy gets screwed, as long as they do not.

How many whistleblowers get loud accolades and back slaps from their fellow workers?
How many people would rather go along to get along?
How many people would rather not report shoddy conditions or products in order to keep their jobs?
How many people will be a part of an industry that destroys their land, their health and even their country...
just to get a paycheck every week?

Your behavior was the exception, not the rule.
Sadly, standing up for principles and being an independent thinker are not always appreciated
by one's co-workers, one's family, one's fellow town mates....

They are certainly NEVER appreciated by employers...whether in the private or public domain.

Maybe this is the first and foremost argument for unions. They are supposed to stand up for their members' safety and
wellbeing...not that of the employer.

Whistleblower who even stops bad behavior by others. But at least the whistleblower knows that he or she owes his soul to no one. Some people spoke to Seymour Hersh off the record. Did anyone have the guts to speak openly to stop all this?

ROTC college commissions KNOW that we are sworn to uphold The Constitution and are under the UCMJ. We know that The Geneva Convention applies from day one.

I don't know about other non-DOD intelligence agencies. They have their own operating procedures but they must not conflict with the DOD which includes all the uniformed services. :shrug:

is DIE HARD union, our friends union organizers and one was a union creator: railroad. I can't stand tyranny.

or for just not being a right-wing predatory asshole.

The basic premise of the Cheney administration was "Create plausible deniability and then ignore the law."

The bastard spent a life-time perfecting what he saw as the perfect "Power Behing the Throne Play." Our own fucked up Wormwood from his seat behind the ever-loving American throne, undid decades of attempts of American Patriots to move the country away from the wretched excesses of the FBI and CIA.

Someone of this generation needs to seach for the ring and to cut the finger that holds it from his hand. A member of a generation yet born can carry it to its destruction.

That's why Abu Graib, IMO, was preventable IF they had senior NCOs (E7-E8) or Company Grade Officers dropping in on each shift of MPs. That would NOT be hard to arrange and the line troop MPs guarding the prisoners would also be briefed on the Army Field Manual for Interrogations.

Psst! Guess What? Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation is UNCLASSIFIED

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/ar

Appendix J
1949 Geneva Conventions

1. The United States is a party to the following Geneva Conventions of 1949:

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, cited herein as GWS.
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, cited herein as GWS Sea.
Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, cited herein as GPW.
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, cited herein as GC.

2. These treaties will be strictly observed and enforced by United States forces without regard to whether they are legally binding upon this country and its specific relations with any other specified country. Military commanders will be instructed which, if any, of these treaties, or component parts thereof, are not legally binding in a given situation. On 10 August 1965, the US Secretary of State notified the International Committee of the Red Cross that the Geneva Conventions as a whole would apply to the Vietnam conflict. Future armed conflict involving the United States will most likely be subjected to the same laws on a unilateral basis.

3. Those articles of the above-referenced treaties directly applicable to this manual are quoted below. (See FM 27-10 for full explanation of these treaties.)

were Reservists and not Regular Army. If so, did that make the difference?

courses. As a young woman I "burned it up" in my courses and was blessed to be awarded a regular army commission directly to active duty. However, many of the other military science peers I attended classes with went what we called way back in the 1980s, "The Weekend Warrior" route directly into the reserve service, i.e., one weekend drill once a month and six weeks active duty over the summer months.

IMO, every junior officer who emerges from ROTC to the Guard and Reserves KNOWS that the Geneva Conventions apply. In fact, as a junior officer one is usually assigned a platoon of younger enlisted soldiers. The Platoon Sergeant is there to keep "us smart" but we are RESPONSIBLE for setting the tone of leadership from their paying their bills on time (finances) to appropriate behavior while on duty. In other words, along with the senior enlisted women/men, the junior officer MUST be aware of what is going on within their group (up to 45 soldiers).

Therefore, IF there was proper *staffing* (that's a big if) then either the senior enlisted or junior officers (regular army, reserve or guard) WOULD have monitored each of the three shifts of guards. IMO, it comes down to poor staffing, poor training, and above all POOR LEADERSHIP from the top down.

Not that you were not so briefed - I'm sure you were.

But the fact is, if any of those at Abu Ghraib asked up the chain if the order was legal, they would be told it WAS. If you think that Lynddie England et al came up with that shit on their own you are delusional. Those tactics of 'interrogation' only started AFTER key personnel were brought in from Gitmo who TOLD them to do it - and those personnel were NEVER charged. The military had their scapegoats, and was not interested in pursuing it up the chain of command because it went all the way to the top.

The only reason Abu Ghraib was ever revealed was because one person with a conscience blew the whistle - there is NO WAY the senior NCOs and Co. grade officers did not know what was going on - they were giving the orders. Just as THEY were ordered to by THEIR superiors.

If you are on the lower end of the rank system, whether Officer or Enlisted, you have no pull.

However, I would not be surprised that people who had stronger moral compasses were transferred to other units.

I don't want to believe that senior enlisted and older officers "went along" with this immoral/illegal breech of The Geneva Conventions.

Sorry, but I don't want to believe it. It's just vile. :(

"Military commanders will be instructed which, if any, of these treaties, or component parts thereof, are not legally binding in a given situation."

If your concern is whether an order is illegal, and then you receive a formal opinion from the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel, what's next, you say, "Well, I personally disagree?"

people administering the shocks began to balk they were reassured by the 'professor' that it was all right, which shifted responsibility from the student to the professor. It wasn't just about 'how far will they go', but also 'how far will they go when they are told what they are doing is right - despite their own senses and instincts'.

The guy who disseminated the Abu Ghraib pictures had hit his line - those committing the torture and humiliation had not. Maybe Lynddie England would have hit the line if it came to pulling out fingernails. Some will NEVER hit a line they won't cross - which is why we have reports of as many as 100 tortured to death - er - dying in custody.

Assurances from higher ups will always extend that line - and these assurances came from the very highest levels.

Well, it was a good paying job when I was 23 and single. The owner of the lawn and garden equipment dealership where I worked as a mechanic kept insisting that I "sell parts, sell parts, sell parts" by replacing perfectly good parts for no reason other than he was a greedy bastard. After while, I told him I couldn't be a part of stealing from people and walked away.

I don't know about you but I adored all kinds of STUPID stuff right out of high school.

Today it's "24" whereas back in my day it as "Kung Fu" and the war flicks "The Wild Geese" and "Apocalypse Now." However, after four years of military science and other college courses, you realize that the movies are NOT real life especially if you want to be a platoon leader. It's not glamorous but a lot of planning and short-notice hard work to effectively function as a military leader.

are capable of incredible stupidity, but where were the grown-ups?

It's known legally as in loco parentis ("in place of the parents").

Here's Hersh on Democracy Now, for example

LOL!!! I kid you not!

:rofl:

you're forgetting the climate of fear created by the Bush Crime Family. Not only would you probably have been court-martialed, you would probably also have been charged -- or at least smeared -- with "aiding and abetting terrorists." Your fellow soldiers would have been encouraged and incited to turn on you as sympathizing with the people who attacked the US.

when you refuse to follow orders? Do you just get re-assigned, tossed out of the military? I would think there would be a bunch of people refusing to follow orders if it would get you tossed, especially those on multiple deferments.

My question was what happens when someone refuses to follow orders? Do they get reassigned? Are they released from the military? Are they charged?

And if those same people are in a war zone and taking orders from people who supposedly were trained in interrogation, etc.

I'm not using that as an excuse, I'm just saying.

trained in torture-

I'll go look and see if I can find it-

the story from 2005:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

here is the pertinant section ;




pretty sad....

interrogation team that got people from the other side bombed by the US. A Sunni arranging for a Shiite stronghold to be targeted, for example.

"Everybody talks" may be true - but there's no reason to believe it to be the truth.

and the 3 need to be promoted.

choose to opt out- as well as what effect that has had on them.

:hi: