Discussion in 'Current News' started by usmarinemike, Sep 7, 2010.
I'll believe it when I see it.......at the very least this is already a political hot potato, why would the civilian leadership risk even more criticism? But then again as long as you assume they would do so then I guess they are already guilty, right?
interesting question, but who?
The civilian leadership of course! You assume the worst with just speculation so they must be guilty of since they are almost certainly thinking of trying the soldiers who did the burning. Just as bad as actually doing it, right?!
Seriously, on what basis do you have to back up your speculation?
Because Obama, that's why! (straw man, I know, I know...)
Dude, seriously... My suspicion comes from a drastic difference in policy between this administration and the previous with specific respect to playing nicely with foreign nations. I think (and I'm pretty sure that's still ok) that this administration could see holding the book burners accountable (criminally?) as a way of appeasing Karzai and various Arab leaders throughout the region why the collective we try to figure out how to leave gracefully.
Squorch - it might be helpful for you remember that this forum models itself after a ready room where rules of evidence and the scientific method are not required for the exchange of ideas, opinions, and thoughts.
loudest voice carries the day, got it.
Ah.. Now that it's past 0001L Eastern...
Obama's in over his head, and I think he will gladly sell Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen down the river to curry favor for no reason other than to be seen as a "different kind of leader"
Ah, felt good to say that.
That very same day, Allen's commander-in-chief sent a letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai that included an apology, expressing "deep regret for the reported incident." "The error was inadvertent,'' President Obama wrote. "I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.''
You're right, let's dumb this down as much as possible and form our opinions on base emotion and mob rule. Are you suggesting that evidence and critical thinking takes away from the discussion, or am I reading you wrong?
Does the president have a track record of unjustly prosecuting military personnel? Are there any examples of this in the GWOT during his tenure?
No, but there are a lot of people well under him scared about it, that do the investigating for him.
I'm out. I can say what I want now. I held my tongue as was required.
And yes, I feel the current administration is FAR more likely to go after Officers who say things he don't like, especially if he gets a second term.
I have not "proof", just my gut feeling and opinion. I'm allowed to have that now you know.
I simply suggest that not every opinion expressed here need be backed up with a list of supporting sources, every time. My going in presumption was that if folks were posting about CinC's statement/letter to Karzai they had actually read it. However for the sake of this conversation I submitted the following snapshot:
My point was, and remains, the last sentence above makes me nervous for those involved.
Well, holding someone accountable is pretty vague and leaves a lot of wiggle room. My bet is that nobody gets prosecuted.
Valid. I hope you're correct.
Baseless speculation, got it.
There seems to be a tendency to assume the worst about the administration and then criticize and lambast them for it, even though it hasn't actually happened yet and isn't likely to. And it isn't just this administration either, some folks thought the worst about the last administration and surprisingly enough the speculation of what may happen never came to pass (unless you count Scout Snipers.....). Shocking that it didn't happen! From a purely political point of view to discipline the folks that did this more than just a slap on the wrist, sternly worded letter or a talking to would be a disaster here in the US. That alone would give any political leadership serious pause no matter the party.
So instead of darkly hinting, openly suggesting or just baselessly accusing the civilian leadership of doing something that hasn't happened yet why not sit back and see what actually happens first? Or is that just too simple?
While not exactly the same as going after the individuals who were involved with this incident, the Whitehouse has been accused of going further than previous administrations in prosecuting offenses that previous administrations (both parties).
They are talking about going after folks who leak classified info, a clear violation of the law. That ain't even close what we are talking about here.
But if the issue is whether the present administration will go after people they feel are harming the country, then it is relavant.
If you make the argument that the actions of these individuals have compromised the safety of U.S. servicemembers in harms way (which is evident by the fact that the President and Gen. Allen have appologized and the fact that NATO personnel have been killed in the ensuing riots), then you can make the argument that the government make take a hard-line with these individuals.
While I will state that the actions of these individuals (at least as been reported thus far) appear to have been accidental vice deliberate which the ABC news reporter was specifically asking about, you can then look to the career progression of the indivduals who blew the whistle on Fast and Furious. Has the U.S. government punished individuals who embarrassed the administation? http://nation.foxnews.com/fast-and-furious/2011/11/30/whistleblowers-punished-over-fast-and-furious
It appears through these incidents (the ABC news reporter questions punishment of leakers AND the perception of punishment of whistle blowers for F&F) that this present administration is taking a hard line on those individuals who break the law (one view) or interfere or embarrass this adminstation (a different view).
The actions of the soldiers was unintentional, but to say that there is no history of this present administration seeking to take a hard line on individuals who take actions that have 'strategic consequences" is not true.
Man, whoever expressed concern about this very thing a few days ago is such a naive conspiracist... If only he were a little more enlightened and didn't rely on those silly people over at Fox - er, New York Times....
a few excerpts:
"...The responses highlighted continuing and deep differences between American and Afghan concepts of justice: American officials insist that no deliberate insult was intended and that the military justice system and apologies should suffice, while the Afghan religious leaders demand that public identification and punishment of the offenders is the only path to soothe the outrage of Afghans over what they see as an unforgivable desecration of God’s words..."
"...On Friday, an American official close to a joint Afghan-American investigation into the episode noted that the final report would call for disciplinary review for at least six people involved in the Koran burning, including American military “leaders” and an American interpreter. Afghans familiar with the case described the interpreter as an Afghan-American..."
There's a lot of "things" being put out there for public consumption from both sides to try to manage this situation. Let's judge them on their actions, not their rhetoric.
I get shit on here for expressing an opinion and asked to provide some basis for such "speculation".
I did, twice now, with internationally reputable sources. The article from the NYT cites both American and Afghan sources and is pretty clear - even Squorch probably recognizes the BBC and NYT...
Of course the US is not going to turn these individuals over to NATO or the Afghan "government" - but I'm unsure of what faces them back stateside within UCMJ.
Not sure if you were aware when you said it but it looks like that just happened.
Yes Sir, that's why I quoted my post from Feb 25. Very, very sad situation. It was only a matter of time until a nut job decided to use the situation as an excuse to go on a rampage. (yes, I'm making that assumption about the motives of the SSgt).
Separate names with a comma.