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.

 

umm...was this legal?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
SOP, Standard Operating Procedures the quide lines on what and how to do things. My point is that if the standing orders are that if you find someone looting and using a car then you are to destroy the car, then that is what they did.

I am not saying that the video is fake, what I am saying is just from the video we don't know if this is the first time that they had run into this guy. What if they had just given this guy a warning the day before? No i do not know this for sure, I am saying that I want more information before I can say for sure.

But instead of taking the video at face value I can see circumstances where what happened would in fact be legal and that is what the thread is about.




posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
you just go out and destroy someone's property.

Follow SOP. Sure that stuff can't be wrong?

The American Fighting men, if he knows nothing else, knows that to pi$$ the enemy off is not the smart thing to do. In Viet-nam the rules were, "Feed me today, and I might not kill you tomorrow."

But this enemy is far deadlier. They say, "Feed me today, so I have the strength to kill you tomorrow."

NO ONE is obligated to blindly follow orders. If a fighting man is not smart enough to see that his orders are carried out to fit the situation as necessary, then he shouldn't be in charge of a a million dollar piece of destructive hardware. Simple?

I keep saying, what we have is kids playing army. They have the advantage in technology, but they have dead batteries in their brain cells. Hasn't anyone clued them in that the worst weapon they can leave the enemy is his life?

You see the rules of war are: if you don't kill me, I'll kill you! If you knew that was the rule would you go f@@k someone's life up?

If these young people were only old enough to remember the faces of in Viet-nam, they'd have a healthy dose of respect for what they see as a helpless enemy!

God help us all if we can't remember a single lesson.

G



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
A military person has the right to refuse an order if it goes against the UCMJ or Code of Conduct. If the order does not, then they are obligated to follow that order, not, Gee this makes me feel bad and I don't want to do it.

Again, if they were under orders to do what they did, then what they did was legal---the question posed for this thread.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna

Originally posted by Banshee
It's EbaumsWorld.com, y'all.


Oh no! You did not just type out "y'all"! I don't care if I don't have the authority you are:




LOL Us people down herre in NC have a unique form of dialect. So listen here YALL can say whatever yall wanna say lol. Im sure banshee has my back



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Nice clip. Carefully edited and commented so no one knows what actually happened and why they destroyed the car. I would like to see the whole video.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I thought they were supposed to CUT OFF HIS RIGHT HAND AND HIS LEFT FOOT. I am sure that he is mighty glad they just shot and ran over his car instead.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Nice clip. Carefully edited and commented so no one knows what actually happened and why they destroyed the car. I would like to see the whole video.


Exactly its difficult to tell at first i thought it could have been staged in Mexico! but then i thought Mexico nah! it is difficult to tell but i noticed the nuber plate of the car was blanked out, any1 else see that?



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Yes, thank god the American's are there spreading democracy. Now live free or I'll run over your car!

EDIT: Found out where that clip came from,
PBS's Frontline

FRONTLINE's editors respond:

Several viewers have also written in about the incident shown in FRONTLINE's report in which U.S. troops used a tank to crush the car of a looter. In late October, at a Georgetown University forum, a student asked Deputy Sec'y of Defense Paul Wolfowitz about this incident. Here is Mr. Wolfowitz's response:

"We are looking into it. And mistakes, pretty ugly mistakes can get made in wartime. And that is again one of the reasons why if you can find a peaceful way to resolve things it is so much better. I would remind everybody here...it wasn't so long before that incident when people were saying 'Why don't you shoot a few looters in Baghdad because looting is causing terrible disruption...'

Looting has been a serious problem. I don't know why those mistakes were made in the particular incident that you described. I do know that the best way to change the situation is...to get more Iraqis on the front lines. They are much less likely to make those mistakes. So it's a legitimate question and we're looking into it."

With regard to this letter writer's mention of FRONTLINE's report "The War Behind Closed Doors" you can view the whole program online off our homepage www.pbs.org/frontline Just click on our View Online collection of reports.

[Edited on 9-5-2004 by curme]



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by silQ
yea but does the punishment fit the crime?
i mean the guy needed his car to make a living. now, he cant support his family.



um in that area of the world they still cut off the hands of thieves..

would you rather have someone run over your car with a tank or have the local magistrate chop off your hand?

yeah running over the car doesnt look so bad now does it?



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Well, after watching the vid, I can say that what WAS illegal was stealing wood. Remember, STEALING is what was wrong here - had the taxi driver not been commiting a crime, he would still have his car. This just seems to me like more Anti war BS - sure there may have been other options, but you know what - now that guy can't STEAL wood using his car. I say they did the right thing, though there may have been other ways to deal with the situation.


makes me wonder if u have ever gone hungry or needed wood to cook the family meal if they had a meal, or was stocking up on wood because of such short supply of fuel because we destroyed it all, this man did not ask for this american occupation what gives those soldiers the right to decide this mans fate for several pieces of wood you are a disgrace for even suggesting he was wrong for taking the wood, wood from his country not americas so get off your high horse you fool.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

Originally posted by silQ
yea but does the punishment fit the crime?
i mean the guy needed his car to make a living. now, he cant support his family.



um in that area of the world they still cut off the hands of thieves..

would you rather have someone run over your car with a tank or have the local magistrate chop off your hand?

yeah running over the car doesnt look so bad now does it?


I'd rather be charged with a crime, have a fair trial. That's just me. But then again, that is 'that part of the world'. It's not here. They, over there, really don't need any type of due process. It's for us, 'over here' . They should be thankful that our brand of justice is less brutal than Saddam's. I mean, that's why we are there, right?



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   
life isnt fair, things arent always taken care of in a fair and just manner.

while i'm sure you'd like to think america is the root of the worlds problems i was merely pointing out that the obvious, things can always be worse.

if we werent there and he was caught he'd be one hand akbar right now instead of carless akbar.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
quote:

A military person has the right to refuse an order if it goes against the UCMJ or Code of Conduct. If the order does not, then they are obligated to follow that order, not, Gee this makes me feel bad and I don't want to do it.


Again, if they were under orders to do what they did, then what they did was legal---the question posed for this thread.

unquote - Duke_Nukem

Your above post leads me to the lemmings postulate:
I run to the cliff and throw myself off because all the other lemmings do it.

Its all semantics. The same semantics that allow one to overlook, or dimiss whatever had been done as being resultant of the system, the rules, the law, etc.
It doesn't take logical process, or common sense in to account.

If one chooses to blindly follow semantic arguments there is always a way to find just cause for whatever happens, i. e. we can always find an excuse for our actions after the fact.

To my knowledge, no commanding officer, with a knowledge of the conditions, the implications of such act, or the possible repercussions, would give that order. (I reserve the right to be wrong, since we have seen that there are persons in authority who lack the basic understanding of the responsibility that comes with authority)

I can surmise the order was shut down the operations. (This too would be odd that one man with so little wood could be considered a serious threat.)

But other than in possible jest, no one was ordered to shoot a car or run it over with a tank.

In guerilla warefare the risk is too great that you would place lives other than your own in harms way by such actions.

Enjoy your semantics.

G



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
i think they made a good call by just crushing the car, it could have been much worse!!!



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
i think the whole thing is fake............. or edited into a different context



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Fake or not, my opinion is this...

I don't give a flying frogs fat ASS whether the soldiers were ordered to do what they did or NOT. It is STILL a reprehensible act and inexcusable in my book.

I agree with the other poster who asked "How could you steal a tree ????" No # ! Trees and other natural resources, such as water and air, were put on this planet for us to use for FREE. Hell, If they could find a way to charge for air, I'm sure they would ! Then hang those who dare to breathe !

These soldiers were simply mindless. That's it. They were/are no better then preprogrammed Borg. Any normal sensitive THINKING person might have said "Oh, this person needs this wood for warmth" or something like that. But not these guys. They may as well be robots for as much humanity as they display.

I hope, in the not too distant future that somebody destroys something that THEY might need dearly to survive. Karma is a bitch when it's bad Karma and these "soldiers" dearly deserve a little bit of what they send out there.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   


Its all semantics. The same semantics that allow one to overlook, or dimiss whatever had been done as being resultant of the system, the rules, the law, etc.


I am not trying to overlook or dismiss anything, but unless things have dramaticaly changed since I was in the military if you are given a lawful order you are supposed to follow that order. If you refuse then you will face the results of that action.

If the tankers were following orders then what they did was legal. Without knowing the full circumstances we cannot say for sure. I do not know if I am correct but simply pointing out that the actions seen in the video could in fact be "legal", not that it was "right", "justified" or other "semantics".

As for no commander giving an order like that since when has the term "Military Intelligence" been anything other than an oxymoron? With all of the photos and video that have come out and are about to come out I refuse to jump to the conclusion that everyone in the military are doing these things or to automaticaly take all of this at face value. ANYONE who was involed in PROVEN violatons of the UCMJ will and should be punished. I just want to make sure that all information is looked at before making a judgement.

Because of the actions of a few I will not blame everyone. I want to make sure that this is looked into completly, that the entire chain of command is looked at and not have this put on a few peons at the bottom of the food chain.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I suppose since you were born in June and I came along in October, I should defer to the elder statesmen.

I can't discredit military intelligence. When we both know that My Lai didn't happen and Lt Calley was a scapegoat. We saw it on 60 minutes just to remind us it didn't happen last night.

I agree to wait until all the evidence is in before making a decision on this matter.

Of course it took 30 odd years for My Lai and with the world ending in 2012 we need to be quicker this time.



Semper Fi,
G



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
garyo1954

Hard won and hard fought for lessons do seem to be forgoten. I quess the one thing that I just want to make sure gets out and stays in discussion is that things like this do not happen in a vacuum. I've seen where investigations have stopped before going to far up the chain of command. There just seems to be a basic lake of discipline and training to have let this come about




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join