It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: American Citizen Tortured on American Soil by Navy Police

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobeckyI have been on many military bases. I know that there are many ways to get your butt roughed up, as well as one sure way to have people listen to you.

Maybe it's just a Marine thing, but in my experience it's hard to get listened to by a lot of people on base. I'm not saying the only way to get your way with the military (or anyone) is force, but when it comes to that, the big stick policy really does work sometimes.



Agreed, but a lynch mob is definately reactive, so I think we're pretty much on the same side here. I think that making a fuss with the guards was a mistake, but coming back the next day and shooting them might have worked out OK if he got the drop on them.


You're joking, right? Otherwise, if this is the way you react to situations, you've got a very short time left here, my friend.


I'm half joking. As I said repeatedly, I weigh the risks and I don't always take violence, because I don't feel like ending up in prison. Often that means just letting it go though and hoping against hope that it doesn't happen again. I am dead serious that sometimes the only way to achieve results is violence, and when feasible, I don't have a problem with pursuing that option.
When it comes to an impasse dealing with matters such as abuse of authority, you can try every avenue first, but if push comes to shove you might find yourself facing a choice between letting it stand or making a show of force so that failure to reform takes on unacceptible consequences.
As Al Capone said, "You get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word".


You may not have learned it yet, but one day you'll run into the guy that's gonna pop your head like a zit.

I've been knocked around a couple times. Maybe I have "mess with me" written on the back of my head. I learned the hard way that people keep pushing until you push back. Nine times out of ten the authorities can not or will not help you. But when you break somebody's face open people seem to get the message that you're not a good target. You get your head popped like a zit once in a while, but thats the price you will occasionally pay for all the other times when you successfully protected yourself at the expense of others. It's not a perfect system, but it seems to get things done in a pinch.

I don't know what else to tell you- when violence is used against you, violent retaliation is sometimes necessary. Take Pearl Harbor (conspiracy theories aside). Getting our head popped like a zit didn't factor into the equation. What mattered is that we could send one of two messages: 1. Violence works against America. 2. Violence against America is a risky proposition. We chose to send the second message, and it was a good choice.




posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Well, the fact remains that nobody can name a single international conflict that has been resolved through non-violence.

I get called a pacifist a lot, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. I believe that violence is the path of last resort, and that's a decision based on a couple of factors. One is, I study animals. They engage in threat displays before committing to a fight. This increases their survivability, because the ones who successfully threaten save themselves the energy loss and injury of battle. Two is, violence that is unprovoked comes with serious consequences in our society. Sometimes you can get away with it, but it's fairly rare.

Basically, I think this gentleman did the right thing. He got his story out, he's going to trial as the plaintiff instead of the defendant, and he's still alive. A pretty good outcome all around.

And look, getting your butt kicked isn't the end of the world. It happens to most people at one time or another. The worst part about getting punched in the face is the first time it happens, you expect it to hurt so bad it's very scary. Then you realize (hopefully) that it doesn't hurt that bad at all, and is really more of a minor inconvenience rather than something to be avoided at all costs.

The ironic thing about modern society is that we demand pacifism from our citizens by and large, but we enforce it with threats of violence!
I mean, c'mon.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
We're not talking international conflicts here, guys. We're talking one single incident of punks irritating a drunk.

I'm not against violence. I just believe that revenge is a dish best served cold.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Well, he wasn't drunk JSO, or at least, there is no proof to that effect. He was charged, and acquitted. That means he's innocent, therefore, not drunk.

He was on his way to work at the time, so he very well could have been drunk, but there's no evidence to support that, not even circumstantial evidence. The Naval Police weren't smart enough to get a breathalyzer or urinalysis done on him, so they lost the case in court.

I know we got a little off topic on the violence thing, sorry about that everyone.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Well, the fact remains that nobody can name a single international conflict that has been resolved through non-violence.


That is a contradiction mate. When (as in many cases) something is resolved through non-violence, it isn't counted as an international conflict.

Happens all the time as long as the US doesn't get involved.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I was using conflict in place of disagreement, which would have been a better word. Basically what I was trying to say was, if two countries disagree big-time on something, the only solution ends up being violence. I think it's probably a discussion for another thread though, I don't wanna drag this one too far away from the topic at hand. But good call on the contradiction. It could have been worded much better.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Fair enough.

I am sure a good opportunity to have that discussion will come soon enough.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Please see the definition of torture

There clearly was an excessive use of force, however.


From the source:
Joe says Lewis was brought on base and was held in the police department's holding room and it was there things got out of control.

"The only thing Mr. Lewis did was use vulgar language and yell out loud because he was upset," says Joe.

"I was so mad. First my truck was damaged, second no one wants to listen at all. I said this is b.s. and I called him a name and he didn't like what I called him. At that time, he just freaked out. He grabbed me by the throat and threw me against the wall and then he threw me down on the ground," says Lewis.

"He again warned him(Lewis) to be quiet. When he(Lewis) refused, he taped his face shut with duct tape. It was two strands of tape," says Joe.


If he was in a holding room, they could have just left him handcuffed and locked the door, going on about their business until he was calm enough to deal with. Even a raging goomba would cool off eventually.

Hopefully this was a learning experience for Mr. Lewis, though. If any of you have ever made the mistake of screaming profanity at a police officer (as I have), then you will know just how stupid and dangerous it is to do so.

This is particularly true of military police. You just don't push these guys if you don't want to suffer some consequences. The will not tolerate such behavior.

To say that this was torture, however, is absurd. Yes, he was abused a little bit. He will live, and he still has full use of all of his limbs.

It sounds as if he dished out a healthy serving of verbal abuse himself. These men were just trying to do their job and prevent a potentially dangerous person from entering a military base. He chose to escalate the situation by being irrational when confronted by authorities. Did he really expect them to allow him to go road rage rampaging right onto the base?

From what I have read in this article, even though it is presented from Mr. Lewis' point of view, it sounds like he earned that duct tape fully, both strips!



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   


Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion


First definition from your link RoadScholar.

In my opinion, this fits perfectly. So while it may not fit your personal definition of torture, it certainly fits with the definition provided.

If you've never been choked, lemme inform you, it hurts a lot. Asphyxiation is one of the more painful ways to die, along with immolation and a gut shot.

When the attacker saw he couldn't breathe, and was trying to force the duct tape away from his mouth using his tongue, did the guy give him some air? No. He added a third strip of duct tape.

This was coercion using violence. That's abuse. err..torture. So it wasn't hacking off limbs or making him drink oil, but it was uncalled for, and a sign of the mental state of these officers. They have severe psychological problems, and need to be treated. The guy was rightfully pissed off, and acted in a manner entirely expected of someone who has just been arrested, detained, and handcuffed without cause.

And as I've said before, the guy stopped short of entering the gates. He wasn't rampaging through a military compound. He was trying to tell the officers at the gate what had happened.

He didn't start screaming profanity until after he was handcuffed and locked up in an interogation room.

[edit on 30-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
Welcome to the New World Order...... fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a scary ride and we do expect death and injuries.......


Ugh, exactly the hysterical unintelligent kind of reply I hoped I would not read in this thread.
Keeping your eyes open to notice conspiracies is something else than seeing conspiracies in every single thing that happens.

The navy police obviously shouldn't have been police in the first place, as they (as it seems) are unable to do their job without having to out their personal furstrations and problems on people.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion


If you've never been choked, lemme inform you, it hurts a lot. Asphyxiation is one of the more painful ways to die, along with immolation and a gut shot.


Actually, I have been. Yes it does hurt. This is not what was done to this man, however. He was grabbed by the throat and slammed against the wall, then thrown to the floor. Nowhere in the article does it mention any prolonged act of choking taking place here.

I still do not see where "severe physical pain" was inflicted upon this individual, based on what is stated in the article. Certainly there was excessive force, but not enough to categorize it as the infliction of severe physical pain, IMHO.



When the attacker saw he couldn't breathe, and was trying to force the duct tape away from his mouth using his tongue, did the guy give him some air? No. He added a third strip of duct tape.


I believe that the article indicated that he recieved the second strip of tape because he was using his tongue to remove the first one.

Remember, this was not an attacker, but rather an MP trying to do his job. Would you want to listen to someone screaming profanity at you while you are working? They could have, and should have, locked him in the holding room and walked away until he was calm, but this is not what they chose to do. Doesn't make it right, but it still is not torture.



This was coercion using violence. That's abuse. err..torture. So it wasn't hacking off limbs or making him drink oil, but it was uncalled for, and a sign of the mental state of these officers. They have severe psychological problems, and need to be treated.


Then every single law enforcement officer and MP in the entire U.S. needs to be treated or retrained, because almost all of them that I have ever encountered would react similarly when confronted with an out of control individual. Remember, these men are trained to deal with deadly situations. They will overreact when confronted with hostility.



The guy was rightfully pissed off, and acted in a manner entirely expected of someone who has just been arrested, detained, and handcuffed without cause.


His behavior was irrational and confrontational. He fully deserved to be detained and restrained for attempting to penetrate a military facility without proper clearance, and with violent intentions.



And as I've said before, the guy stopped short of entering the gates. He wasn't rampaging through a military compound. He was trying to tell the officers at the gate what had happened.


No, he was stopped before he could enter. Would he have stopped on his own? I seriously doubt it. Was he calm and rational when speaking with the officers at the gate? I seriously doubt that too.



He didn't start screaming profanity until after he was handcuffed and locked up in an interogation room.


And that is where he made his mistake, and they made their mistake in how they reacted to him. I am not saying that the treatment he recieved was righteous or correct, but it is still not torture.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
RoadScholar
Well, it's a minor point, but it does appear they used three strips of duct tape based on the article.



"He again warned him(Lewis) to be quiet. When he(Lewis) refused, he taped his face shut with duct tape. It was two strands of tape," says Joe.

"When he put the tape over my mouth, I really couldn't breathe. I was almost trying to get my tongue out to open up a breathing path and that's when he saw me and he grabbed another one and placed it over the top of my mouth," says Lewis.


As far as the way he was acting, and the actual damage done to him in the interogation room, we can only hope it comes out at trial. If he was forcibly stopped from entering the base, that would explain his incarceration. If he stopped before the entrance to talk to the officers, I see no cause for his arrest. He was charged with reckless driving and DUI, but there was no proof he was doing either. Just their word against his I guess.

I just noticed that this incident took place over two years ago, and is just NOW surfacing! What the hell is up with that? Is it because he's been involved in the other case for all this time, or has he been working out with his lawyer what to say and when?

That makes me wonder what else is going on today, that we won't hear about until 2007.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I do believe that the headline chosen: "American Citizen Tortured on American Soil by Navy Police" is misleading and was designed to inflame the reader, making it seem as if something has happened, which has not.

This headline is clearly biased, and in my opinion, untrue. This seems to be another attempt to paint American Armed Forces personnel as brutal masochists, who have now extended the extreme treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib (and other hostile territory facilities) to U.S. citizens here at home.

The man was out of control. He was restrained. Perhaps excessive force was used, but certainly not torture. It is disrespectful to those who are serving us in uniform to attempt to use this story to paint them all in such an ugly light, as well as being misleading.

This story is no indication of big brother taking over, as some here seem to suggest. At any time during my lifetime or yours, anyone approaching a military base displaying this sort of erratic behavior would be placing themselves in a position to recieve exactly the sort of treatment that this man did.

Hopefully, this was a learning experience for Mr. Lewis on how NOT to behave on or around a military base.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Too bad it wasn't a lesson for the troops on how we act in a civilized society....



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
or do you want them to be civilized?



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roadscholar
or do you want them to be civilized?


Both. If they can't be, then they don't need to be interacting with society anymore. Move them to an island or something.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Indeed. Move them to an island.

A fighter/killer/soldier has always been a detriment to society.

A warrior's usefullness has not ended when the battle is over. Real warriors are poets, writers, artists, musicians, and statesmen.

A fighter is just a conscript with a pointy stick.

It deeply saddens me that there are so few warriors left.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
on which we agree


Have a great day!

[edit on 30/4/05 by Roadscholar]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Indeed. Move them to an island.

A fighter/killer/soldier has always been a detriment to society.

A warrior's usefullness has not ended when the battle is over. Real warriors are poets, writers, artists, musicians, and statesmen.

A fighter is just a conscript with a pointy stick.

It deeply saddens me that there are so few warriors left.


So are you ready to defend yourself?

Are you able to?

Don't be one of those keyboard "warriors" that think they can do just fine without the real warriors.

Most millitry people are fine in society, of course there are exceptions. "Putting them all on an island"? That part of your post I found to be the most saddening.


A fighter is just a conscript with a pointy stick.


Everyone in the millitary is a vollunteer. I have yet to here about a Draft.

All in all, to reply to your post?




posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Intrepid
Edit: Forgot to say, you're right about 'conscript'. I forgot the compulsory in the definition. Had to look it up.
Sorry, thought it included those who were brought up from the reserves. I'll wear the dunce cap now...

Yes and yes. Those men in Iraq aren't defending me, they're defending what others in this society preach. I don't want them there. I don't need them there. You may want them there, and you may need them there, and if you pay for it, and support it, and accept whatever consequences may arise from that decision, you're certainly entitled to do so.

For the record, I've never been accosted by drunken Islamic fundamentalists in bars. I've never had to save a woman from getting raped by muslims. I've never been stepped to in my own home by a member of the local mosque. All those things were done by US soldiers, fly-boys and squids. The marines are the best of the bunch, and the Army isn't far behind. Those fellas are alright. Most still aren't warriors, but they're a damn sight more respectful and respectable.

The vast majority of modern war-fighters aren't warriors. They're soldiers. They receive half a years worth of training, are issued a weapon and a uniform, and are released on the enemy. Warriors spend their whole lives training for battle. These children dying now, in Iraq and elsewhere, are for the most part just mobile weapons platforms with a low survival instinct/duty ratio.

The age of the warrior is long dead. There are a few survivors, but by and large they are extinct.

Those you call warriors, do they write literature? Play the flute? Pursue excellence in diplomacy, linguistics, and art? Do these men you call warriors devote equal time to honing their martial and social prowess? No. They don't.

You insult warriors by confusing them with glorified, gun-toting ashigaru.

[edit on 30-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join