A clear message on the legitimacy of torture

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Jan 25, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Wonder how this will play on Al-Jazeera?

    Wonder what would have happend to a British soldier?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4642596.stm

     
  2. What to say other then the US has established acceptable limits for Rendition of every US soldier captured in wars to come.
    john
     
  3. I raised this issue a couple of days ago, and the point that amazed me was the following statement from the defence lawyer

    How can the verdict reflect the context???

    He suffocated a man in a sleeping bag, wether deliberately or by mistake. He must take the punishment.
     
  4. Jonw - don't think it needed this incident to do that. I think we can expect any fanatic aka fundamentalist group to summarily execute any US soldier who comes into their hands. This attitude will outride financial or politicial benefits from ransom demands etc.
     
  5. Yes Agree.
    I was thinking of all the wars to come, the US has lost the High Moral Ground.
    The Politicos have decided.
    And who will pay the price GI Joe, Tom.
    john
     
  6. and the problem being, we get lumped together with the Septics, so what goes for them goes for us too.

    $6000 ffs you get more for traffic offences. :evil:
     
  7. There's the possibility that the judge was hoping that this p1ssweak sentence would send a message to the powers at be to get their house in order with regard to the rules and their enforcement by the chain of command, right the way up to the Joint Chiefs and SECDEF. (Remember that public spat between Rummy and the Chairman at a press conference over the duty of a serviceman that witnessed torture?) There's also confusion over the Signing Statement that accompanied the passage of the McCain Amendment.

    On the other hand, I was under the impression that the UCMJ and standing orders were pretty unequivocal when it came to this sort of thing and that the McCain Amendment sought to make the rest of the US government conform with the military's rules and regs. If so, then the guy should have had the fcuking book thrown at him.

    On a related note, it's good to see that the spams have a sense of perspective when it comes to sentencing:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays

    Killing a Prisoner of War: $6000, a slap on the wrists, 2 months in a barrack block and "Bad boy, don't do that again."
    A female MO who has a penchant for playing subbuteo: "Get in the unemployment line, deviant!" :roll:
     
  8. getting away with murder, no more, no less.....
     
  9. Another interesting issue highlighted in the debate in parilment was the issue of UK Troops handing over prisoners to third parties.

    If as this thread suggests that there is a disconnect in US policy between the Military and Politician. Are British forces personnel at risk of action in the ICC if they were to hand over a detainee to another party who is 'alledgelly' already at best abusing if not torturing prisioners?