View Full Version : Excellent article on Marine peeing on corpse
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130922/NEWS/309220022/Exclusive-Marine-scout-sniper-urination-video-controversy-speaks-out
At long last, they got him. After weeks of observation, Sgt. Rob Richards and his fellow Marine scout snipers had taken out the insurgent leader in Afghanistan responsible for the improvised explosive devices that had killed two of their fellow Marines. One of the Marines’ bodies had been desecrated by the Taliban, his leg hung in a tree to send a defiant message, Marines said.
...
“What really led up to it is they desecrated one of our Marines,” Richards said of the video. “When you’re under that much stress and in that environment, your whole mental being changes. You’re no longer Joe the Family Man. You’re a warrior, and if you read back to biblical wars and wars since the dawn of time, men have been doing this to men for millennia.”
It's worth reading the entire article... I swear this could be made into a movie.
Filming it was their only indiscretion IMHO.
Filming it was their only indiscretion IMHO.
In the article, it talks about how they didn't film it. Someone in a different unit did.
Then the person who filmed it stepped on an IED and died a couple of weeks later. His camera was stolen when his belongings were being packed up to be shipped back home and the video was anonymously posted online by whoever stole the camera.
In the article, it talks about how they didn't film it. Someone in a different unit did.
Then the person who filmed it stepped on an IED and died a couple of weeks later. His camera was stolen when his belongings were being packed up to be shipped back home and the video was anonymously posted online by whoever stole the camera.
After all this time I did not know that tidbit about how it came to be online. Still, would have been prudent to tell the guy filming to knock it off or something might happen to his camera!
After all this time I did not know that tidbit about how it came to be online. Still, would have been prudent to tell the guy filming to knock it off or something might happen to his camera!
Seriously, read the article :p
Wherever I go, people ask ‘Why did you videotape it?’ And I say, ‘We didn’t f---ing know,’ ” Richards said. “We didn’t know at the time, and we didn’t know it would get in the hands of a traitor, in my opinion. Not only a traitor, but a coward who would potentially try to destroy us and the Marine Corps at the same time by releasing it selfishly.”
They didn't even know it was filmed until it was released.
They didn't even know it was filmed until it was released.
It's been a while since I've seen the video but I thought at least one of the pissers looked at the camera while doing the deed. Perhaps my memory is inaccurate. Even if one did know that doesn't mean they all did though.
Despite all this my GAF meter is pegged at ZERO! "Untoward" things occur in war. Big deal. If we weren't so damned politically correct it wouldn't even make the news. I'm sure there were more than a few Japanese/German/ChiCom/NVA corpses that reeked of urine when finally buried.
It's been a while since I've seen the video but I thought at least one of the pissers looked at the camera while doing the deed. Perhaps my memory is inaccurate. Even if one did know that doesn't mean they all did though.
Despite all this my GAF meter is pegged at ZERO! "Untoward" things occur in war. Big deal. If we weren't so damned politically correct it wouldn't even make the news. I'm sure there were more than a few Japanese/German/ChiCom/NVA corpses that reeked of urine when finally buried.
I think what made it worse was that the Commandant decided to get involved in the trial process.
I think what made it worse was that the Commandant decided to get involved in the trial process.
Sadly, in today's PC environment he probably didn't have much choice but to get involved once it hit the airwaves. Now at that point he can exercise discretion, i.e. slap on the wrist as opposed to court-martial, etc.
Sadly, in today's PC environment he probably didn't have much choice but to get involved once it hit the airwaves. Now at that point he can exercise discretion, i.e. slap on the wrist as opposed to court-martial, etc.
He did the opposite of a slap on the wrist...
In July, Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, the first convening authority in the cases, said in a signed declaration for Clement’s case that he was willing to avoid courts-martial for Richards and the other sergeants involved. Amos, however, told Waldhauser he wanted all of the Marines involved “crushed” and tossed from the service, Waldhauser said.
Amos replaced Waldhauser shortly afterward with Lt. Gen. Richard Mills as the consolidated disposition authority for the cases, a highly unusual move.
In a Feb. 10, 2012, memo to Waldhauser, Amos acknowledged his comments “could be perceived as possibly interfering with your independent and unfettered discretion to take action in these cases.” The commandant removed the three-star general “to protect the institutional integrity of the military justice process, and to avoid any potential issues,” the memo said.
Sounds like ass-covering to me.
HackerF15E
09-24-13, 10:42
He did the opposite of a slap on the wrist...
Sounds like ass-covering to me.
Who covering whose ass?
What that quote talks about is Unlawful Command Influence in an official investigative and punitive process, which is plainly against the UCMJ.
Who covering whose ass?
What that quote talks about is Unlawful Command Influence in an official investigative and punitive process, which is plainly against the UCMJ.
Ames covering his own.
Filming it was their only indiscretion IMHO.
Pissing on enemy corpses is not behavior one should encourage in any fighting force.
Use all the tricks in the book, and every weapon in your arsenal to kill the enemy. When he is dead, he is dead, and should be treated accordingly.
If you think this is ok, you cannot really get angry when the other side does despicable things either.
brickboy240
09-24-13, 12:02
Piss on them all you want...just don't FILM it...ok?
Lesson learned...the hard way.
-brickboy240
And what exactly is achieved by pissing on their corpses?
Does it make them more dead?
He did the opposite of a slap on the wrist...
Sounds like ass-covering to me.
Holy crap! "Protect the institutional integrity of the military justice process"? By doing ONLY what the Commandant wants done? Seems that the word process implies that there are a number of steps to be taken to ensure "justice", not a railroading dog-and-pony show reflecting the Commandant's personal opinion. Sure, he's the Commandant of the Corps but isn't the "system" supposed to be free from bias and such? Wow.......
That comment about he wanted them "crushed" is not becoming a general officer, unless he's referring to the enemy.
And what exactly is achieved by pissing on their corpses?
Does it make them more dead?
According to the article it was a form of payback for desecrating a Marine's corpse. I don't expect our guys in mortal combat to see things from the "Moral High Road" of sitting here at home. Payback is payback.
Look, IIRC you've served in Afghanistan, correct? Kudos to you; I haven't. However, you really think this is the first time in warfare this type of thing has taken place? Surely pissing on a dead Taliban is a lesser indiscretion than cutting off body parts or similar. I tend to give a generous amount of leeway to our guys shy of walking up and capping a civilian for no reason (not collateral damage from shooting/bombing back at an enemy who has taken position among them; that's different).
I really don't care about alienating the enemy.....they are, after all, the enemy and probably couldn't hate us much more anyway!
Holy crap! "Protect the institutional integrity of the military justice process"? By doing ONLY what the Commandant wants done? Seems that the word process implies that there is a number of steps to be taken to ensure "justice", not a railroading dog-and-pony show. Sure, he's the Commandant of the Corps but isn't the "system" supposed to be free from bias and such? Wow.......
That comment about he wanted them "crushed" is not becoming a general officer, unless he's referring to the enemy.
This whole story spiraled way out of control, having rammifications all the way up the chain.
If this were a movie, I'd imagine it'd be a legal movie like A Few Good Men. The story of the hunt, capture, and subsequent urination would be told in flash backs, viewings of the (recreated for the movie) video, and testimony. But I don't know how it would end since it hasn't actually ended.
Arctic1 - The only positive gain from doing so is a temporary morale boost for those involved. However, the negatives far outweigh those paltry gains. That being said, if no one knows about it, I'd say there's technically only gain (morale) and no downside. But the risk of a video showing up is far too great in a risk-vs-reward sense.
It's quite simple really. This country never had the intestinal fortitude to do what needed done, to control the battlefield with an iron fist and crush the enemy in a decisive fashion. No, we have to "help" the enemy see the error of their ways and rehabilitate them, or take their toys and send them to bed without supper.
I really don't have an issue with treating the enemy kindly and rebuilding their infrastructure, but only AFTER an unconditional surrender and complete control. We never got either of those in that shithole. Those filthy savages act like complete animals, ignore every international law on modern warfare and indiscriminately target civilians in unspeakable ways. So be it.
I'm all for striking our enemies with missiles and planes, but I will never again support putting a single boot on the ground anywhere in the world unless the overwhelming majority of the American population is calling for the total annihilation of the enemy and salting their earth. :mad:
According to the article it was a form of payback for desecrating a Marine's corpse. I don't expect our guys in mortal combat to see things from the "Moral High Road" of sitting here at home. Payback is payback.
Look, IIRC you've served in Afghanistan, correct? Kudos to you; I haven't. However, you really think this is the first time in warfare this type of thing has taken place? Surely pissing on a dead Taliban is a lesser indiscretion than cutting off body parts or similar. I tend to give a generous amount of leeway to our guys shy of walking up and capping a civilian for no reason (not collateral damage from shooting/bombing back at an enemy who has taken position among them; that's different).
I really don't care about alienating the enemy.....they are, after all, the enemy and probably couldn't hate us much more anyway!
I know that bad things happen in warfare. That does not mean that we should approve or accept that it happens.
Cool, they were pissed off and wanted some payback. They got their payback when they killed the bastards dead. The moment they decided to piss on the corpses of their defeaten enemy, they disrespected the uniform and hurt the effort that has, unfortunately, cost us many lives over the last 12 years. Do you not think that these kinds of incidents do not put US servicemen and women at risk for green on blue attacks?
This isn't all out existential warfare; win or be conquered, this is a security assistance mission to the government of Afghanistan. Acts like these don't exactly help increase support, on either side.
It is also an example of low-level leadership failure, someone there should have had the fortitude to tell these guys to knock it off as soon as he saw what was going on.
Arctic1 - The only positive gain from doing so is a temporary morale boost for those involved. However, the negatives far outweigh those paltry gains. That being said, if no one knows about it, I'd say there's technically only gain (morale) and no downside. But the risk of a video showing up is far too great in a risk-vs-reward sense.
No downside? What about the integrity of those Marines? It still hurts the fight; there were others there who witnessed what happened, even if no camera was present. Some might think that Afghans are stone age people, but word gets around even without internet or cell phone access. People would still know.
Again, why wasn't it sufficient payback to kill these guys? Is pissing on the guys you just killed worth it if it leads to a US or allied serviceman or woman getting killed by either a real ANA soldier or an impostor?
Controlled aggression is good; uncontrolled is not good. Kill them has hard as neccessary, then stop.
thopkins22
09-24-13, 15:37
They didn't even know it was filmed until it was released.
Sure they did. One of them looked at the camera and said, "getting it on video?" The camera man responded in the affirmative.
Then another one made a comment about a shower or golden shower...not sure which.
Here's the video. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ddb_1326259280
ETA:
It was a good article, and he seems like a good guy. It also raised some good points about some of the officers that were brought down because of it. But if you're going to do something that's in poor taste, make sure there aren't video cameras and witnesses. Certainly it's one of the downsides to having so many video cameras along for the ride.
Upon watching the video, it's implausible that any of the four didn't know there was a video camera. They looked at it and one of them commented loudly about it. Stress does weird things to your decisions, and I hope he's able to deal with the PTSD that he suffers with and move on in life. I'm also glad that he's able to keep his benefits after retirement.
It's quite simple really. This country never had the intestinal fortitude to do what needed done, to control the battlefield with an iron fist and crush the enemy in a decisive fashion. No, we have to "help" the enemy see the error of their ways and rehabilitate them, or take their toys and send them to bed without supper.
I really don't have an issue with treating the enemy kindly and rebuilding their infrastructure, but only AFTER an unconditional surrender and complete control. We never got either of those in that shithole. Those filthy savages act like complete animals, ignore every international law on modern warfare and indiscriminately target civilians in unspeakable ways. So be it.
I'm all for striking our enemies with missiles and planes, but I will never again support putting a single boot on the ground anywhere in the world unless the overwhelming majority of the American population is calling for the total annihilation of the enemy and salting their earth. :mad:
What needed to be done then? And I am not sure how your post correlates to Marines pissing on corpses...
And we did win in a decisive fashion, against AQ and the Taliban. They were defeated and on the run. We just took a time out that lasted too long and gave them time to regroup and reorganize.
The goal was never to demolish Afghanistan the country. It was to make it impossible for terrorist organizations to use Afghanistan as a safe zone, it was to demolish the AQ presence in the country and to find OBL. Unseating the Taliban was a natural consequence.
Most of the people in Afghanistan don't care for the Taliban, they don't care for the US or Norway for that matter either. Until we start killing the wrong people or piss on the corpses of our enemies.
I am not sure what kinds of decisive actions you would have seen the alliance take to prevent the situation that we are in now from developing, 12 years after the fact.
The mission in Afghanistan is off topic anyways, and discussed in previous threads.
What needed to be done then? And I am not sure how your post correlates to Marines pissing on corpses...
And we did win in a decisive fashion, against AQ and the Taliban. They were defeated and on the run. We just took a time out that lasted too long and gave them time to regroup and reorganize.
The goal was never to demolish Afghanistan the country. It was to make it impossible for terrorist organizations to use Afghanistan as a safe zone, it was to demolish the AQ presence in the country and to find OBL. Unseating the Taliban was a natural consequence.
Most of the people in Afghanistan don't care for the Taliban, they don't care for the US or Norway for that matter either. Until we start killing the wrong people or piss on the corpses of our enemies.
I am not sure what kinds of decisive actions you would have seen the alliance take to prevent the situation that we are in now from developing, 12 years after the fact.
The mission in Afghanistan is off topic anyways, and discussed in previous threads.
No, we didn't. They may have been on the run, but they were never defeated. We never had any declaration or cessation of hostilities from the enemy. We've allowed our troops to languish in an openly hostile foreign territory that we've never fully controlled and got them pot shot and blown up, FOR YEARS. It's repugnant. This is what you get when you do this to your troops; fear; rage; suicide; desecration; mass murder, you name it.
Afghanistan is a cluster**** of biblical proportions. If only we'd had a leader in charge that had ever bothered to study the history of the region, we might've had a different outcome. We didn't and we still don't. It's unconscionable. :mad:
I know that bad things happen in warfare. That does not mean that we should approve or accept that it happens.
Cool, they were pissed off and wanted some payback. They got their payback when they killed the bastards dead. The moment they decided to piss on the corpses of their defeaten enemy, they disrespected the uniform and hurt the effort that has, unfortunately, cost us many lives over the last 12 years. Do you not think that these kinds of incidents do not put US servicemen and women at risk for green on blue attacks?
This isn't all out existential warfare; win or be conquered, this is a security assistance mission to the government of Afghanistan. Acts like these don't exactly help increase support, on either side.
It is also an example of low-level leadership failure, someone there should have had the fortitude to tell these guys to knock it off as soon as he saw what was going on.
It was their way of exacting revenge for a Marine's leg being hung in a tree. Other than making it public, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. We'll have to agree to disagree about this.
As for it inciting the blue-on-green crap, that's a whole other issue and I'd likely deal with it in a manner you wouldn't approve of. Again, off topic.
Moose-Knuckle
09-24-13, 17:35
If I ever have the honor of meeting any of those Marines . . . the drinks are on me.
Most of the people in Afghanistan don't care for the Taliban, they don't care for the US or Norway for that matter either. Until we start killing the wrong people or piss on the corpses of our enemies.
I have to ask, although I probably know the answer: did the Taliban hanging that deceased Marine's leg in a tree alienate the population? Something tells me it didn't. So if it isn't played both ways then I don't really care how they see it, i.e. they'll turn a blind eye with a wink and a nod to the Taliban doing it but not us. They're evidently using a double standard so screw them.
Emotionally I can understand how the Marines felt and how this incident happened. Realistically it should not have happened.
If anyone saw an individual taking photos or recording the incident with their telephone or camera, they should have stopped the recording immediately.
When I was a NCO a lot of years ago there were no cell phones or small video recorders, but we did have a few shutterbugs with Nikon cameras in our area. My job was to protect the men who worked for me and I took my job very seriously. I advised the shutterbugs that if any pictures were being taken at an inappropriate moment, their camera would become an instant suppository.
It's quite simple really. This country never had the intestinal fortitude to do what needed done, to control the battlefield with an iron fist and crush the enemy in a decisive fashion. No, we have to "help" the enemy see the error of their ways and rehabilitate them, or take their toys and send them to bed without supper.
Such was the lesson of WWI; best to rebuild one's conquered enemy so that you don't have to fight the next generation that has been hardened by poverty. Some might say that WWII, or at least the European half, could have been avoided had Germany been dealt with in a more humane fashion after the Geat War.
Then, post-WWII success in West Germany and Japan taught the world that it was indeed possible to rebuild previously totalitarian societies into flourishing democracies with enough treasure and manpower. The Bush Docterine was simply a more preemptive extension of this thinking.
So, this leads us to attempting to replicate in the 3rd World what was successful in previously developed countries. Unfortunately, I don't think that the international community is ready to face the fact that all of those lessons from the past century were wrong, and that Conan and Genghis Kahn got it right (www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc).
I'm a nice guy and I'd shoot a Taliban and piss on 'em a few times a day and still be a nice guy.... I'm behind the Marines 100%. Assholes win.
IMO, winning a war has nothing to do with moral high ground or doing the right thing. That's just a matter of religion, slant, and perception. I ain't about none of that shit. Winning a war is about winning. Plain and simple.
You'll never start a fight, whip someone's ass, and come out lookin' like the nice guy...
theblackknight
09-24-13, 22:48
If I ever have the honor of meeting any of those Marines . . . the drinks are on me.
I posted the same on forcebutt with the video of the interview.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-24-13, 23:17
I guess I can't fault those Marines. I can't really fault any of the bad shit that happens in war. Its war. America has forgotten how terrible war is, and thats why we keep starting them.
Dont hurt innocents. Everyone else is fair game.
Discipline is necessary in a military force, doubly so when they are engaged in war. If an order is made, it must be enforced, or there will be a negative effect on discipline.
The rightness or wrongness of pissing on corpses is a separate conversation. An order was disobeyed and the offenders must he punished somehow.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-24-13, 23:40
Discipline is necessary in a military force, doubly so when they are engaged in war. If an order is made, it must be enforced, or there will be a negative effect on discipline.
The rightness or wrongness of pissing on corpses is a separate conversation. An order was disobeyed and the offenders must he punished somehow.
Agreed, discipline is of the utmost importance and punishments should be doled out for doing stupid things. But, personally and as a civilian now, I don't mind what they did.
MountainRaven
09-25-13, 00:07
I have to ask, although I probably know the answer: did the Taliban hanging that deceased Marine's leg in a tree alienate the population? Something tells me it didn't. So if it isn't played both ways then I don't really care how they see it, i.e. they'll turn a blind eye with a wink and a nod to the Taliban doing it but not us. They're evidently using a double standard so screw them.
Does a Marine pissing on a dead Talib alienate you more or less than a Talib hanging a dead Marine's leg in a tree?
I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out that it's as much "us versus them" for the Afghans as it is for us.
Genghis Kahn got it right (www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc).
Because that's worked out so well for the Mongols, right? The largest land empire in the history of the world for less than a century and the next half millennium as the backwards playthings of the Russians and Chinese.
I'm pretty sure that the cornerstone of any "martial art" from personal hand-to-hand defense to diplomatic politicking and global strategy is control. War, like personal defense, is not simply violence. It is controlled violence. It is violence with an objective. When you are attacked in the street you do not simply draw your firearm and start slinging lead at anything that moves - that's a good way to end up killing an innocent bystander and on trial for manslaughter (for the innocent bystander you shot) and murder (for standing over the corpse of the threat and dumping the rest of your mag into their body and then whipping out your dick and pissing on them). You draw your firearm and put lead into the person attacking you (control) until they are no longer a threat (objective).
I do not hold the Marines in the video responsible; they're scared teenagers doing what scared teenagers will do. This is (IMHO and for what little it is worth) a result of a systemic failure by their leadership, from the President to the Generals and staff officers all the way down to the Corporals and Sergeants: They failed to provide direction or control. And because they failed to do so, the mission was harmed and more ISAF personnel will and have been put into body bags.
Don't we have enough problems dealing with al-Qaeda and the Taliban without our own fighting men and -women giving the enemy their propaganda talking points on a silver platter?
No, we didn't. They may have been on the run, but they were never defeated. We never had any declaration or cessation of hostilities from the enemy. We've allowed our troops to languish in an openly hostile foreign territory that we've never fully controlled and got them pot shot and blown up, FOR YEARS. It's repugnant. This is what you get when you do this to your troops; fear; rage; suicide; desecration; mass murder, you name it.
Afghanistan is a cluster**** of biblical proportions. If only we'd had a leader in charge that had ever bothered to study the history of the region, we might've had a different outcome. We didn't and we still don't. It's unconscionable. :mad:
What is your definition of "defeat"? Especially when applied to ideological organizations like AQ and the Taliban. Do you think you can get them all? Organizations like these are like the mythical beast hydra; chop off one head and it grows back.
The purpose of warfare is never to kill everyone, it is to inflict enough hurt in order to decimate the enemies will to fight. This hurt can come in different ways; casualties, infrastructure, resources etc.
This works well when you are fighting another sovereign nation, not so much when it is an ideology/organization that transcends national borders. You cannot apply tactics used in WWII to this kind of warfare.
We succeeded in completing the initial mission we set out to do. The nation building effort that followed is what led up where we are now. I have said time and time again, albeit with 20/20 hindsight, that we should have left well enough alone after AQ was fleeing and the TB had been unseated. That said, we did fumble the ball. The people in Afghanistan were overtly friendly to NATO/ISAF forces in the years after 2002, up until maybe 2005. Sure, there were pockets of resistance here and there, but mostly it was calm. It was from 2005 and onward that the situation deteriorated, because AQ and TB had time to regroup and reorganize.
Still, pissing on dead bodies should be unacceptable behavior and steps should have been taken even before this happened to prevent it; leadership, discipline, screening, training etc.
I am sure they were good Marines, but this incident was despicable.
I have to ask, although I probably know the answer: did the Taliban hanging that deceased Marine's leg in a tree alienate the population? Something tells me it didn't. So if it isn't played both ways then I don't really care how they see it, i.e. they'll turn a blind eye with a wink and a nod to the Taliban doing it but not us. They're evidently using a double standard so screw them.
I cannot possibly answer that question with any accuracy. My best guess is that some of the local population would look at it with disgust, some would be indifferent and some would probably approve of the desecration of the Marine body.
But trust me when I say that the Taliban maintain the influence and control they have more by terror than any actual local support. Sure, they have some support, but they also terrorize the local population, threatening to kill them and/or their families if they don't help the Taliban in different ways.
I'm a nice guy and I'd shoot a Taliban and piss on 'em a few times a day and still be a nice guy.... I'm behind the Marines 100%. Assholes win.
IMO, winning a war has nothing to do with moral high ground or doing the right thing. That's just a matter of religion, slant, and perception. I ain't about none of that shit. Winning a war is about winning. Plain and simple.
You'll never start a fight, whip someone's ass, and come out lookin' like the nice guy...
Yup, they won that much more by pissing on their corpses....
Pissing on enemy corpses is not behavior one should encourage in any fighting force.
Use all the tricks in the book, and every weapon in your arsenal to kill the enemy. When he is dead, he is dead, and should be treated accordingly.
If you think this is ok, you cannot really get angry when the other side does despicable things either.
Pretty much.
Besides, that video (which I don't believe his story because they were ALL looking and laughing while looking at the camera, iirc) would be used as propaganda against us. The hearts and minds we won over don't need ANY excuse to reconsider. I think that's the biggest potential damage. The story could be told any way and many ways to convince the moderates or converted that we are beasts, etc.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
I wonder, from a philosophical perspective, why is it "ok" to kill a living being but not "ok" to do things to an inanimate object? Is it a religious thing?
I think it's in poor taste... I don't like to watch people urinating in any context. And yes, I do watch people urinate every so often... yay drug testing? But why does it matter that it's on one inanimate object (a corpse) rather than another (a urinal or in a cup)?
Is it only because the local population sees it as disrespectful? If so, are we showing weakness if we don't do it to our enemies as they do it to our own fallen when given the chance?
Such was the lesson of WWI; best to rebuild one's conquered enemy so that you don't have to fight the next generation that has been hardened by poverty. Some might say that WWII, or at least the European half, could have been avoided had Germany been dealt with in a more humane fashion after the Geat War.
Then, post-WWII success in West Germany and Japan taught the world that it was indeed possible to rebuild previously totalitarian societies into flourishing democracies with enough treasure and manpower. The Bush Docterine was simply a more preemptive extension of this thinking.
So, this leads us to attempting to replicate in the 3rd World what was successful in previously developed countries. Unfortunately, I don't think that the international community is ready to face the fact that all of those lessons from the past century were wrong, and that Conan and Genghis Kahn got it right (www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc).
Apparently you missed my very next sentence:
I really don't have an issue with treating the enemy kindly and rebuilding their infrastructure, but only AFTER an unconditional surrender and complete control.
This is (IMHO and for what little it is worth) a result of a systemic failure by their leadership, from the President to the Generals and staff officers all the way down to the Corporals and Sergeants: They failed to provide direction or control. And because they failed to do so, the mission was harmed and more ISAF personnel will and have been put into body bags.
Don't we have enough problems dealing with al-Qaeda and the Taliban without our own fighting men and -women giving the enemy their propaganda talking points on a silver platter?
This was exactly my point.
What is your definition of "defeat"? Especially when applied to ideological organizations like AQ and the Taliban. Do you think you can get them all? Organizations like these are like the mythical beast hydra; chop off one head and it grows back.
The purpose of warfare is never to kill everyone, it is to inflict enough hurt in order to decimate the enemies will to fight. This hurt can come in different ways; casualties, infrastructure, resources etc.
This works well when you are fighting another sovereign nation, not so much when it is an ideology/organization that transcends national borders. You cannot apply tactics used in WWII to this kind of warfare.
We succeeded in completing the initial mission we set out to do. The nation building effort that followed is what led up where we are now. I have said time and time again, albeit with 20/20 hindsight, that we should have left well enough alone after AQ was fleeing and the TB had been unseated. That said, we did fumble the ball. The people in Afghanistan were overtly friendly to NATO/ISAF forces in the years after 2002, up until maybe 2005. Sure, there were pockets of resistance here and there, but mostly it was calm. It was from 2005 and onward that the situation deteriorated, because AQ and TB had time to regroup and reorganize.
Still, pissing on dead bodies should be unacceptable behavior and steps should have been taken even before this happened to prevent it; leadership, discipline, screening, training etc.
I am sure they were good Marines, but this incident was despicable.
Even by your own definition, we did not accomplish the mission. My definition is to demoralize the enemy to the point they come waving a white flag and lay down their arms. If that requires a complete reeducation of the local populace, so be it. But until that is accomplished, you either establish total control and consider the battlefield still active, or you GTFO. We did neither. Dithering is a peculiar art which the United States excels at beyond all others.
Pretty much.
Besides, that video (which I don't believe his story because they were ALL looking and laughing while looking at the camera, iirc) would be used as propaganda against us. The hearts and minds we won over don't need ANY excuse to reconsider. I think that's the biggest potential damage. The story could be told any way and many ways to convince the moderates or converted that we are beasts, etc.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Except for the fact that 99% of the indigenous population will never see the video in their lifetimes. Do you not think the enemy tells tall tales in order to establish control and support of the locals? Most can't read or write or own computers and TV's.
Propaganda works for them too, whether it's a truth or a lie doesn't really matter much.
I wonder, from a philosophical perspective, why is it "ok" to kill a living being but not "ok" to do things to an inanimate object? Is it a religious thing?
I think it's in poor taste... I don't like to watch people urinating in any context. And yes, I do watch people urinate every so often... yay drug testing? But why does it matter that it's on one inanimate object (a corpse) rather than another (a urinal or in a cup)?
Is it only because the local population sees it as disrespectful? If so, are we showing weakness if we don't do it to our enemies as they do it to our own fallen when given the chance?
I think very few people view corpses as inanimate objects. And if that should be the case, that corpses should only be viewed as inanimate objects, why would the Marines care if some "stone age savages" desecrated the bodies of their fallen comrades?
I, for one, would not be cool with it if someone shot and killed a family member or loved one, proceeded to urinate on the remains, videotaped it and then posted it online.
sandsunsurf
09-25-13, 11:38
Glocktogo has nailed this one. If only they would have had some pig blood. War is fought to win, and to win you need violence of action. If the mindset of the US had been "we are going in to kick ass, win this war NOW, and turn this place into 'Afghanistan, territory of the US' owned by us and run by us" then maybe we would have won.
Arctic1, sorry to say this, but you sound like the PC administrators running the "war." The enemy doesn't give a **** about so-called rules of war; they kill our civilians, desecrate our killed, and use their own women and children to fight and hide behind. We can't win a war against them when we do it like a police action.
Even by your own definition, we did not accomplish the mission. My definition is to demoralize the enemy to the point they come waving a white flag and lay down their arms. If that requires a complete reeducation of the local populace, so be it. But until that is accomplished, you either establish total control and consider the battlefield still active, or you GTFO. We did neither. Dithering is a peculiar art which the United States excels at beyond all others.
Except for the fact that 99% of the indigenous population will never see the video in their lifetimes. Do you not think the enemy tells tall tales in order to establish control and support of the locals? Most can't read or write or own computers and TV's.
You did not answer my question though; how do you apply unconditional surrender to an ideology like extremist islam or organizations like AQ and Taliban? It won't work that way, this is not conventional warfare.
And the majority of the local populace in Afghanistan are not the enemy, nor were they when we first entered Afghanistan. We create more enemies by bombing or murdering civilians, and by urinating on the ones we kill. They do not take that as a sign of our resolve and ability to do everything it takes to win. They won't cower before us if we act this way.
And you also underestimate how common cell phones and computers are. Or how fast word travels between villages. And so what if most cannot read or write? They still speak the language and most do have the ability to hear. People talk. And odds are that someone knows someone with a phone or computer, and has internet Access so they can watch it.
And true, they (AQ, Taliban) can fabricate lies in order to influence the local populace. But why bother when we hand them scoops like this on a silver platter.
Does a Marine pissing on a dead Talib alienate you more or less than a Talib hanging a dead Marine's leg in a tree?
I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out that it's as much "us versus them" for the Afghans as it is for us.
Right, my point exactly. So why walk on eggshells? Sure, don't do atrocity-level stuff but this? Really worth a court-martial? Maybe an Article 15, pehaps an extra one for being stupid and allowing it to end up on film (yes, I watched the video and more than one looked at the camera).
thopkins22
09-25-13, 11:48
Glocktogo has nailed this one. If only they would have had some pig blood. War is fought to win, and to win you need violence of action. If the mindset of the US had been "we are going in to kick ass, win this war NOW, and turn this place into 'Afghanistan, territory of the US' owned by us and run by us" then maybe we would have won.
How did we get any closer to winning because of this? We didn't, in fact arguments exist that things like this hurt our mission.
Kill a bunch of them. Kill a bunch of them with the ROE that existed years ago. Lay waste, don't arrest anybody at all. To quote Paul Howe, set a new tone in that country that if they mess with us, we'll kill them wholesale. Fine, I'm with it.
Don't help the enemy's recruitment campaign for absolutely nothing in return but a giggle and then immortalize your lack of professionalism on videotape.
Glocktogo has nailed this one. If only they would have had some pig blood. War is fought to win, and to win you need violence of action. If the mindset of the US had been "we are going in to kick ass, win this war NOW, and turn this place into 'Afghanistan, territory of the US' owned by us and run by us" then maybe we would have won.
Arctic1, sorry to say this, but you sound like the PC administrators running the "war." The enemy doesn't give a **** about so-called rules of war; they kill our civilians, desecrate our killed, and use their own women and children to fight and hide behind. We can't win a war against them when we do it like a police action.
So I am PC because I don't approve of pissing on my enemies' corpses?
I know very well that the enemy does not give a shit. I will still retain my integrity and honor as a Warrior by living up to the ideals expected of me by myself and the nation I serve.
I don't see how we win more thoroughly by acting like savages; there is no correlation between violence of action and not respecting the dead.
On one mission we expended 4000lbs of ordnance to kill between 10-15 fighters who fled when CAS arrived on station. 4 500lb bombs and 1 2000lb bomb for good measure. We killed people who were totally unaware of our presence, by gunning them down using our superior range. We shot people up close when clearing buildings or fighting in green areas. We provided first aid to wounded enemy fighters.
I don't see how we would have done this in a better way by desecrating their bodies.
You did not answer my question though; how do you apply unconditional surrender to an ideology like extremist islam or organizations like AQ and Taliban? It won't work that way, this is not conventional warfare.
And the majority of the local populace in Afghanistan are not the enemy, nor were they when we first entered Afghanistan. We create more enemies by bombing or murdering civilians, and by urinating on the ones we kill. They do not take that as a sign of our resolve and ability to do everything it takes to win. They won't cower before us if we act this way.
And you also underestimate how common cell phones and computers are. Or how fast word travels between villages. And so what if most cannot read or write? They still speak the language and most do have the ability to hear. People talk. And odds are that someone knows someone with a phone or computer, and has internet Access so they can watch it.
And true, they (AQ, Taliban) can fabricate lies in order to influence the local populace. But why bother when we hand them scoops like this on a silver platter.
I already told you the answer. You either destroy everything they hold dear and their very will to fight, or you stay out of it physically and kill them remotely with missiles and bombs. If you never give them an opportunity to kill a single U.S. or alliance troop, yet rain death on them daily, it robs them of any sense of victory. Don't get me wrong, pissing on the enemy bodies is not kosher. Yank them and put them on guard duty in the Aleutian Islands for a year, fine. NJP or even 30 days in the brig, fine. Dishonorable discharge for losing it an a combat zone that isn't supposed to be a combat zone anymore? Ludicrous.
I really don't care whether we make no enemies or all enemies, I care that we leave our troops with their 6 hanging in the breeze. :mad:
Yes, you outlined your course of action; bombing the crap out of them.
My question to you is who do you target? Who is "them"?
The situation on the ground is that many are hiding among the civilian populace. How would you make the distinction?
And how would you get target information if you had no boots on the ground? How would you know who and/or where to bomb?
Young stupid kids that have no idea about what they are doing and why they are doing it. If I were to take wrath in the muslims I would drench them pigs blood.
Yes, you outlined your course of action; bombing the crap out of them.
My question to you is who do you target? Who is "them"?
The situation on the ground is that many are hiding among the civilian populace. How would you make the distinction?
And how would you get target information if you had no boots on the ground? How would you know who and/or where to bomb?
You're still not getting my point. We should've stopped all of it about 10 years ago. Either that, or we should've gone in with such overwhelming force that there wouldn't be anyone with an ounce of actionable force left to worry about. As a result of our dithering and wasteful "actions", the U.S. has lost all credibility on the world stage. :(
Can you answer the specific questions I asked in my previous point?
Or is your approach, as you are implying, to just bomb everyone in the country regardless of their allegiance?
sandsunsurf
09-25-13, 15:27
Yes, you outlined your course of action; bombing the crap out of them.
My question to you is who do you target? Who is "them"?
The situation on the ground is that many are hiding among the civilian populace. How would you make the distinction?
And how would you get target information if you had no boots on the ground? How would you know who and/or where to bomb?
You bomb everybody. Civilians that aren't immediately fighting the same enemy are supporting that enemy. There's no need to make the distinction; that's war. If some civilian lives in an area that terrorists hold in great numbers then that civilian can leave. They know the risks of supporting terrorists and of supporting leaders that support the anti-American terrorists. Don't you think that if enough civilians are worried that the terrorists bad decisions are going to cost them and their families their lives that they might not tacitly support those terrorists?
Your point about being a warrior and being honorable was well written, and taken, but I still think demoralizing the enemy is good, and while pissing on them in the heat of a win may be uncouth, it certainly doesn't deserve much mention or punishment.
You bomb everybody. Civilians that aren't immediately fighting the same enemy are supporting that enemy. There's no need to make the distinction; that's war. If some civilian lives in an area that terrorists hold in great numbers then that civilian can leave. They know the risks of supporting terrorists and of supporting leaders that support the anti-American terrorists. Don't you think that if enough civilians are worried that the terrorists bad decisions are going to cost them and their families their lives that they might not tacitly support those terrorists?
Your point about being a warrior and being honorable was well written, and taken, but I still think demoralizing the enemy is good, and while pissing on them in the heat of a win may be uncouth, it certainly doesn't deserve much mention or punishment.
Ok, but how does that make you different from the guys who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, and crashed United 93 into the ground? The people of Afghanistan did not attack the US and, by default, NATO. Why would you kill them?
What you are suggesting is a naive and overly simplistic approach, and shows that you might not have the neccessary understanding on how to fight THIS enemy. This is not Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
And yes, pissing on enemy corpses deserve mentioning and punishment. It is acts like these than can destroy the ENTIRE effort.
Can you answer the specific questions I asked in my previous point?
Or is your approach, as you are implying, to just bomb everyone in the country regardless of their allegiance?
Sure. Who is "them" is AQ and the Taliban at the time. Like I said, we should've declared victory and left/stopped bombing 10 years ago if we weren't willing to go the distance. Police actions via military might after hostilities have allegedly ceased, when in fact they haven't is really a very stupid policy.
I realize you're not American and english isn't your 1st language, so I'm assuming this is a language barrier issue? :confused:
If not and you really think we did the best we could do under the circumstances, then I feel sorry for you. We'll never agree on that point and there's nothing in the world you can say that will convince me otherwise. In the case of Afghanistan, the juice wasn't and still isn't worth the squeeze. If you understood the history of the region, you'd know that. :(
It is acts like these than can destroy the ENTIRE effort.
Well for the sake of accuracy, acts like that idiot Bales did could wreck an effort.
Urinating on a corpse? *Maybe* piss a few people off (no pun intended) who don't like us anyway, but our own "feelings" seem to be butthurt way more than theirs.
Like I said earlier, if you don't think that a few German/Japanese/ChiCom/NVA bodies were pissed on you're deluding yourself. Hell, guys in Vietnam sometimes wore ears on a necklace; a bit creepy for me but I wasn't there so I won't criticize. Were all these guys from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam unprofessional and a disgrace? Or is it just not politically correct to condemn the "Greatest Generation"? IMO all these guys, the Marines in question included, did some unsavory things in combat. Shit happens.
The camera was the big difference here and the Commandant wants to "crush" a few combat Marines. Smack their dicks, fine, but crucifying them is more than a bit overboard.
Look, the biggest difference (I think) between us is what degree of punishment is meted out. I'm not suggesting that we encourage such behavior.
Sure. Who is "them" is AQ and the Taliban at the time. Like I said, we should've declared victory and left/stopped bombing 10 years ago if we weren't willing to go the distance. Police actions via military might after hostilities have allegedly ceased, when in fact they haven't is really a very stupid policy.
I realize you're not American and english isn't your 1st language, so I'm assuming this is a language barrier issue? :confused:
If not and you really think we did the best we could do under the circumstances, then I feel sorry for you. We'll never agree on that point and there's nothing in the world you can say that will convince me otherwise. In the case of Afghanistan, the juice wasn't and still isn't worth the squeeze. If you understood the history of the region, you'd know that. :(
We are drifting waaay off topic here, but anyways....
I agree, as I have stated in a previous post, that we should have left after SOF/OGA's did their thing in 2001 and 2002. At that moment in time, the mission was a success. That is the way I see it.
We should have left it for the various factions in Afghanistan to sort themselves out. As I have said in other threads covering this topic, I think the situation now is that we have only postponed what would have happened in 2002, if we had left then; civil war. I think that is what will happen when we leave for good next year. And it will be bad.
And I do understand the point you are trying to make; I disagree, however, that it is as simple as destroying the will to fight when it comes to this specific enemy. AQ won't simply quit just because they got their ass beat in Afghanistan. TB won't give up their goal of controlling Afghanistan, just because they lost power. Mullah Omar is still in Pakistan, recruiting and training.
I have tried to outline a few issues I see with your approach, by asking critical questions. I also understand and know the history of the area. The biggest failure was that the mission evolved, or devolved if you prefer, to a nation building effort that had no clear end state developed from the get go. That does not, in my opinion, detract from the initial effort by SOF and OGA's.
And no need to feel sorry for me. I am a grown man fully capable of forming my own opinion on things.
theblackknight
09-25-13, 19:19
Sandy vaginas everywhere.
I really don't understand how pissing on bodies is really that big a deal. Piss on someone when they are alive, yeah you going to jail unless they like it and are weird like that. Kill someone, and you most likely getting 20-life. So how how is pissing on them after you just reaped their soul worse then killing them? Oh, it isn't.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Sandy vaginas everywhere.
I really don't understand how pissing on bodies is really that big a deal. Piss on someone when they are alive, yeah you going to jail unless they like it and are weird like that. Kill someone, and you most likely getting 20-life. So how how is pissing on them after you just reaped their soul worse then killing them? Oh, it isn't.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
I agree, you people are being too sensitive.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
We are drifting waaay off topic here, but anyways....
I agree, as I have stated in a previous post, that we should have left after SOF/OGA's did their thing in 2001 and 2002. At that moment in time, the mission was a success. That is the way I see it.
We should have left it for the various factions in Afghanistan to sort themselves out. As I have said in other threads covering this topic, I think the situation now is that we have only postponed what would have happened in 2002, if we had left then; civil war. I think that is what will happen when we leave for good next year. And it will be bad.
And I do understand the point you are trying to make; I disagree, however, that it is as simple as destroying the will to fight when it comes to this specific enemy. AQ won't simply quit just because they got their ass beat in Afghanistan. TB won't give up their goal of controlling Afghanistan, just because they lost power. Mullah Omar is still in Pakistan, recruiting and training.
I have tried to outline a few issues I see with your approach, by asking critical questions. I also understand and know the history of the area. The biggest failure was that the mission evolved, or devolved if you prefer, to a nation building effort that had no clear end state developed from the get go. That does not, in my opinion, detract from the initial effort by SOF and OGA's.
And no need to feel sorry for me. I am a grown man fully capable of forming my own opinion on things.
IDGAF what AQ and TB do in Afghanistan. Really, I couldn't possibly care less. If the backwards people there want to stop it, they will. If not, oh well. Only when they export their twisted BS do I care. At that point, I wouldn't care if it took complete annihilation and salting the earth so nothing would ever grow there again to stop that evil byproduct from reaching our shores. I wouldn't stop until they swore on Mohammed's grave that they would never again attack us.
War should be ugly and repugnant and mentally scarring. That's what keeps sane people from starting wars for less than absolute survival. We've lost that over the past 60 odd years. If you ask me (and you didn't), our willingness to attack people in such a limited fashion that they don't get the message is far more inhumane. It keeps the cycle alive. :(
You're still not getting my point. We should've stopped all of it about 10 years ago. Either that, or we should've gone in with such overwhelming force that there wouldn't be anyone with an ounce of actionable force left to worry about. As a result of our dithering and wasteful "actions", the U.S. has lost all credibility on the world stage. :( It was B.S. from day 1 and the whole B.S. in the middle east is no more than B.S and the people in this country are a bunch of ignorant TV watchers. I bet the next president will be Hillary.That is how ignorant the majority is. Obama getting elected the first time is proof, the second is proof enough.
Sandy vaginas everywhere.
I agree, you people are being too sensitive.
Real convincing arguments.
I see this act as unprofessional and a display of disgusting behavior. They are not badasses for pissing on the corpses of their enemies, quite the contrary.
theblackknight
09-26-13, 08:48
Real convincing arguments.
I see this act as unprofessional and a display of disgusting behavior. They are not badasses for pissing on the corpses of their enemies, quite the contrary.
I'm not sure you can prove you badassness any better to someone then killing them.
What's more disgusting, pissing on someone, or spraying their insides about the desert?
sent from mah gun,using my sights
In the context of being a professional soldier, taking a life is part of the job. Pissing on their corpse is not in any way, shape or form professional nor is it conduct becoming a professional soldier.
They are playing "Total War"; we are not...
No, the young Marines shouldn't have done it. Yet I understand how and why. Bust them a grade or two weeks pay Company Grade Article 15 should have been enough. But then the press got ahold of it..
Real convincing arguments.
I see this act as unprofessional and a display of disgusting behavior. They are not badasses for pissing on the corpses of their enemies, quite the contrary.
I think the disagreement here is a matter of degree. I don't agree with what they did, but I believe you're holding them to a MUCH higher standard than those who reside higher in the chain of command. In essence, it's OK for the civilian authority, general grade and field grade officers to make massive mistakes, but the boots on the ground hauling the freight aren't allowed the same consideration.\
This isn't substantially different from PFC Manning. Yes, he deserves to pay for his wrongdoings, but every one of the officers in his chain of command (including the stars) deserve to be occupying cells in his wing alongside him.
Simply put, these guys should've faced Article 15, but all of their officers should've been relieved of command and Congress shoud've ripped DoD and the Pentagon a new one. What happened instead is Mismanagement and Asscovering 101. Not kosher...at all... :(
thopkins22
09-26-13, 13:19
They are playing "Total War"; we are not...
No, the young Marines shouldn't have done it. Yet I understand how and why. Bust them a grade or two weeks pay Company Article 15 should have been enough. But then the press got ahold of it..
The young man is getting out without a dishonorable discharge and retaining his medical benefits...I'm fine with that despite his lie that they didn't know it was being recorded. Whomever uploaded it to the internet did far more damage, and deserves worse punishment. It should have been turned in to authorities who handle that type of thing within the organization.
It's understandable which is not to be mistaken for acceptable. I truly hope he's able to deal with his very real mental wounds in a healthy fashion and hope that he's able to move on with his life in peace. In the article the gentlemen talked about being in a hotel room with his wife, hearing fireworks, losing control of himself and then he began discharging his weapon into a mirror...with no recollection of what happened or why he did it.
Considering the totality of his actions, it's probably a good thing that he's leaving the service as opposed to being shuffled back into the mix and I hope he takes advantage of counseling programs available to him.
This isn't substantially different from PFC Manning. Yes, he deserves to pay for his wrongdoings, but every one of the officers in his chain of command (including the stars) deserve to be occupying cells in his wing alongside him.
... what?
Do you just have something against officers, or is there some reasoning behind that?
You do realize his chain of command goes from him all the way to the Chief of Staff of the US Army, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, and ends with the President, right? If we fired the entire chain every time someone at the bottom screws up, we'd have constant turn over. If we arrested them, we'd run out of jail cells in a few weeks.
It'd be completely counter-productive to fire/arrest people "just because." You punish people who did the crime, people who knew about it but covered it up or did nothing about it, and people who should have known about it. That means maybe one level above, if that. In the case of Manning where he deliberately covered up his own work, it makes abso-****ing-lutely no sense whatsoever to punish his NCO/SNCO/OIC.
... what?
Do you just have something against officers, or is there some reasoning behind that?
You do realize his chain of command goes from him all the way to the Chief of Staff of the US Army, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, and ends with the President, right? If we fired the entire chain every time someone at the bottom screws up, we'd have constant turn over. If we arrested them, we'd run out of jail cells in a few weeks.
It'd be completely counter-productive to fire/arrest people "just because." You punish people who did the crime, people who knew about it but covered it up or did nothing about it, and people who should have known about it. That means maybe one level above, if that. In the case of Manning where he deliberately covered up his own work, it makes abso-****ing-lutely no sense whatsoever to punish his NCO/SNCO/OIC.
Bullshit. If you let a lowly PFC have access to 400,000 classified documents, some not even from DoD, then you have a major cluster**** of biblical proportions. If heads don't roll, you'll have the exact same problem at some point down the road. :mad:
Bullshit. If you let a lowly PFC have access to 400,000 classified documents, some not even from DoD, then you have a major cluster**** of biblical proportions. If heads don't roll, you'll have the exact same problem at some point down the road. :mad:
Manning was a SPC at the time, and an intel analyst. It was literally his job to have access to SIPRNet and JWICS.
And let me tell you, everyone in a deployed environment either has access to SIPRNet or could get access if they needed it. The leak had absolutely nothing to do with his leadership giving him access that he didn't need. If anyone was at fault besides Manning, it was the lax access controls placed on high side networks at the time that even allowed him to burn a CD in the first place.
So you're basically saying only NCOs and higher should have a security clearance? And you're a proponent of punishing people who had nothing to do with it just to make yourself feel better?
And your example has little to do with what happened here. If a grunt pees on an AQ corpse unbeknownst to leadership, someone films it, then that person dies and someone else uploads it, you honestly believe that everyone all the way up to the Commendant should be fired or arrested for a crime that is far out of their control?
In the context of being a professional soldier, taking a life is part of the job. Pissing on their corpse is not in any way, shape or form professional nor is it conduct becoming a professional soldier.
Don't mistake the US military for a professional military. Rather, think of it as semi-professional--aware of what it would be to professionalize and unwilling to go there currently.
Manning was a SPC at the time, and an intel analyst. It was literally his job to have access to SIPRNet and JWICS.
And let me tell you, everyone in a deployed environment either has access to SIPRNet or could get access if they needed it. The leak had absolutely nothing to do with his leadership giving him access that he didn't need. If anyone was at fault besides Manning, it was the lax access controls placed on high side networks at the time that even allowed him to burn a CD in the first place.
So you're basically saying only NCOs and higher should have a security clearance? And you're a proponent of punishing people who had nothing to do with it just to make yourself feel better?
And your example has little to do with what happened here. If a grunt pees on an AQ corpse unbeknownst to leadership, someone films it, then that person dies and someone else uploads it, you honestly believe that everyone all the way up to the Commendant should be fired or arrested for a crime that is far out of their control?
Ever heard of compartmentalization? How about "need to know"???
Yes, we're veering way off course. However, by your standard Capt. Schettino of the Costa Concordia should get off scot free and get his job back, while the helmsman should be in jail for the rest of his life. With authority comes (or should come) responsibility.
This country is plagued by an epidemic of bad leadership. From executive golden parachutes, blaming Bush 5 years later, asking "What difference does it make!?", to Holder saying at no time was he aware of what his Dept. of Justice was doing, yet he should keep his job because he's a great AG.
One day there will be a "straw" that breaks this country's back. When it happens, its going to make Bastille Day look like a county fair. :(
theblackknight
09-26-13, 17:19
In the context of being a professional soldier, taking a life is part of the job. Pissing on their corpse is not in any way, shape or form professional nor is it conduct becoming a professional soldier.
Lemme guess, you were a MP?
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Ever heard of compartmentalization? How about "need to know"???
If information is SCI, it is in fact protected. But if it's just SECRET//NOFORN or something similar, chances are it'll be on a sharepoint or shared drive for mostly everyone to look at that has access to SIPRNet. Or at least that's how it was back then. I'm not saying that information shouldn't be compartmentalized, but it's interesting that you think that all information is compartmentalized in a war zone.
No, his superiors did not specifically grant him access to diplomatic cables, gun camera footage, etc. Yet you want to punish them anyway?
Yes, we're veering way off course. However, by your standard Capt. Schettino of the Costa Concordia should get off scot free and get his job back, while the helmsman should be in jail for the rest of his life. With authority comes (or should come) responsibility.
This country is plagued by an epidemic of bad leadership. From executive golden parachutes, blaming Bush 5 years later, asking "What difference does it make!?", to Holder saying at no time was he aware of what his Dept. of Justice was doing, yet he should keep his job because he's a great AG.
One day there will be a "straw" that breaks this country's back. When it happens, its going to make Bastille Day look like a county fair. :(
I'm not familiar with the Costa Concordia incident.
But let's take it another direction. If a McDonald's employee is found to be selling crack via the drive thru, should the manager be arrested too if he had been doing due diligence and did not realize the crime being committed? Should the franchise owner be arrested as well? Should the CEO of McDonald's?
thopkins22
09-26-13, 17:46
But let's take it another direction. If a McDonald's employee is found to be selling crack via the drive thru, should the manager be arrested too if he had been doing due diligence and did not realize the crime being committed? Should the franchise owner be arrested as well? Should the CEO of McDonald's?
Maybe not, but it's safe to say that the manager would be fired.
If information is SCI, it is in fact protected. But if it's just SECRET//NOFORN or something similar, chances are it'll be on a sharepoint or shared drive for mostly everyone to look at that has access to SIPRNet. Or at least that's how it was back then. I'm not saying that information shouldn't be compartmentalized, but it's interesting that you think that all information is compartmentalized in a war zone.
No, his superiors did not specifically grant him access to diplomatic cables, gun camera footage, etc. Yet you want to punish them anyway?
I'm not familiar with the Costa Concordia incident.
But let's take it another direction. If a McDonald's employee is found to be selling crack via the drive thru, should the manager be arrested too if he had been doing due diligence and did not realize the crime being committed? Should the franchise owner be arrested as well? Should the CEO of McDonald's?
I have access to a classified computer and no way can I pull 400K in docs off it. Even stuff classified as Confidential is and should be need to know. And no, we don't put classified materials on Sharepoint. No way in hell a PFC in any unit needs access to DoS cables. THAT, is a failure of command. :(
I have access to a classified computer and no way can I pull 400K in docs off it. Even stuff classified as Confidential is and should be need to know. And no, we don't put classified materials on Sharepoint. No way in hell a PFC in any unit needs access to DoS cables. THAT, is a failure of command. :(
Maybe, but not necessarily his command. DOS employees probably are responsible.
Maybe, but not necessarily his command. DOS employees probably are responsible.
Possibly, but can you name one single person other than Manning who has been charged with anything or relieved of duty? :confused:
theblackknight
09-26-13, 21:09
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/25/former-marine-lawyer-takes-on-top-brass-to-defend-/
With the help of whistleblowers inside the Corps‘ legal staff, Mr. Dowd discovered that Gen. Amos last year held a one-on-one meeting with the general overseeing all desecration cases. Gen. Amos ordered the general to “crush” the defendants, who included Capt. Clement.
“We do not crush Marines,” Mr. Dowd said. “We care for them, even when they stumble.”
The legal defense team also found out about a concerted effort inside Gen. Amos‘ legal staff to withhold evidence from the defense in violation of discovery rules.
All of this was set to play out in public Sept. 11 at a pre-court-martial hearing, with Gen. Amos as the focus, when the Corps suddenly dropped all criminal charges against Capt. Clement. There would be no trial and no airing of Mr. Dowd’s evidence against Gen. Amos, including Marine lawyers he had lined up to testify.
“The withdrawal of the charges was another act of cowardice by the commandant [and] his counsel,” Mr. Dowd said.
Mr. Dowd said internal emails he demanded “would have revealed that the commandant and his lawyers had engaged in a secret corrupt effort to rig and control the investigations and dispositions of the so-called desecration cases.”
A spokesman for Gen. Amos did not respond to inquiries for comment.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/25/former-marine-lawyer-takes-on-top-brass-to-defend-/
A DOD level IG needs to look in to the Commandant regardless if he dropped the charges.
Lemme guess, you were a MP?
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Nope, good try though.
I was infantry and reconnaissance for most of my career.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.