You just can't make this stuff up!!!

[FLYTPAY]

I don't believe that he is saying that the Army or the CIA are terrorist organizations, but that they have done things that are good, that were questionable and things that were flat out illegal, and that we can take this time to use on what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable behavior for safeguarding the most important American institution: our Constitution.

Typically things that are viewed of as questionable or illegal are done at the tactical level of warfare. As a member of the US military, you are obligated to adhere to the UCMJ and also the Law of Armed Conflict. With that being said, you are responsible for your actions if you obeyed an unlawful or illegal order. It is also important to remember that these young groundpounders are fighting a war against illegal combatants, where there is a language barrier, and the price of hesitation when you need to decide whether or not to pull the trigger is American lives protecting the rights of Cindy Sheehan:icon_rage and such. The US investigates and prosecutes military members who are guilty of war crimes, as they are required to by the Law of Armed Conflict. Abu Graib et al. Just because you are out of the military does not make you immune from prosecution either. Time to study for a sim.

 

[BigIron]

I disagree with the point that the US does not "target" non-combatents. I understand that inadvertant collateral damage can not be considered as terrorist acts. But as some recent legal cases have made clear, US forces do target individuals known to be non-combatents. In two tours in Iraq, I witnessed some of this. I also think that rounding up people and carting them off to a prison on the other side of the world, without recourse to legal protections, is done in part to terrorize a population. I also think that the US Army training insurgents to forment a revolution so that the US can influence the resulting government is basically the same as what Iran is supposedly trying to do in Iraq.

All that said, I'm fine with our government carrying out such questionable actions, if there is a need. I do think that national defense merits extreme action in extreme cases. I just wanted to make the point that an informed citizenry needs to be aware of what it government does, and not fall into a state of blind acquiesence. We don't live in Iran, and I don't want to let my country slide into that kind of authoritarian regime.

On a personal note, I focused on international conflict and relations in college (which is very popular nowadays,) and have done my share of research.

I am not sure why you are asking members of the Armed Forces about this. The Armed Forces are a tool of the United States. We carry the job out as directed. We don't get involved in the "why" behind the scenes or get involved with State Department level issues.

I certainly hope you are not on here to inform us we are all sheep and that the US government is a big evil entity. You wouldn't be the first. You are not the only one who has studied in college, or have served in Iraq. We are all educated here as well.

I also hope you are not trying to bait folks here into talking bad about the Armed Forces either. Members of the Services do not affect political change other than with our votes when it comes time. Then it's a personal matter.

Why would we debate with you why we (members of the Services) could possibly be a terrorist organization as asserted by Iran?

 

[joshmf]

I am not sure why you are asking members of the Armed Forces about this. The Armed Forces are a tool of the United States. We carry the job out as directed. We don't get involved in the "why" behind the scenes or get involved with State Department level issues.

I certainly hope you are not on here to inform us we are all sheep and that the US government is a big evil entity. You wouldn't be the first. You are not the only one who has studied in college, or have served in Iraq. We are all educated here as well.

I also hope you are not trying to bait folks here into talking bad about the Armed Forces either. Members of the Services do not affect political change other than with our votes when it comes time. Then it's a personal matter.

Why would we debate with you why we (members of the Services) could possibly be a terrorist organization as asserted by Iran?

I should probably stop before my foot is too firmly in my mouth... BUT to answer some of this: No, I'm not trying to bait people into talking badly about the Armed Forces. I'm very proud of my service, and greatly respect the sacrifices that those in the military make for everyone at home. And as most people in here are either officers or officer hopefuls, we do get involved with the why of our actions, and State Dept level decisions, especially those at the senior level. As such, it's important to consider those issues from time to time. While flying over enemy territory, or kicking down a door, are not appropriate times to discuss this, but while on the computer at home or at work are. I'm also aware that everyone here is educated, and I'm not the only one to have served. That's why I would bring this up here, and not anywhere else out on the interwebs. So, do I need to redact something?

 

[Brett327]

I should probably stop before my foot is too firmly in my mouth... BUT to answer some of this: No, I'm not trying to bait people into talking badly about the Armed Forces. I'm very proud of my service, and greatly respect the sacrifices that those in the military make for everyone at home. And as most people in here are either officers or officer hopefuls, we do get involved with the why of our actions, and State Dept level decisions, especially those at the senior level. As such, it's important to consider those issues from time to time. While flying over enemy territory, or kicking down a door, are not appropriate times to discuss this, but while on the computer at home or at work are. I'm also aware that everyone here is educated, and I'm not the only one to have served. That's why I would bring this up here, and not anywhere else out on the interwebs. So, do I need to redact something?

Not at all. The topic is a valid one that more military officers should be better informed on. While it is true for the most part, thinking of oneself as "just a tool" of the government does one a professional and intellectual disservice. Thinking big picture will always make you a better officer, even if you don't have the power to significantly effect how policy-makers do business.

Brett

 

[Flash]

Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed against civilians for political or other ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or utterly disregard the safety of non-combatants.

The US does not "target" non-combatants. Remember that there is a distinction that is not understood by most people between a lawful combatant and an unlawful combatant. Lawful combatants, those that wear the uniform and are under the discipline of a soverign nation's military, have Geneva Convention rights. Everyone else who takes up arms, is not a lawful combatant and therefore is not afforded protection under the Geneva Convention. I would suggest doing some research before going into an interview since you are a former Marine and hopeful Naval Officer. If I was the interviewer and you said what you did in the above quote, I would deny an endorsement for commission.

Yeas and no on the protection of the Geneva Convention for 'unlawful combatants'. The determination has to be made by a 'competent tribunal'. With the US military commisions as currently structured, it could be debated whether they are really 'competent tribunals' or not.

Also, the Geneva Conventions do make a point of saying the following:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

And the following:

Art. 43. Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose. If the internment or placing in assigned residence is maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

One of the biggest problems I have with our current policy is that it originated with a handful of idelogically driven people who had very little practical experience, or none at all, in international law or the law of armed conflict. The professionals in such areas, State and JAG's, were left out of the process from the beginning and were only peripherally consulted in the later stages. The whole thing has been a stain that has hurt us internationally in GWOT.

I am not some hippie who believes that we should have these guys housed at Club Fed but there is a better way of doing things than the bumbling and idiotic way we have done it thus far.

 

[BigIron]

Ok. Let's debate then.

I disagree with the point that the US does not "target" non-combatents. I understand that inadvertant collateral damage can not be considered as terrorist acts. But as some recent legal cases have made clear, US forces do target individuals known to be non-combatents.

Which legal cases are you referring to?

In two tours in Iraq, I witnessed some of this. I also think that rounding up people and carting them off to a prison on the other side of the world, without recourse to legal protections, is done in part to terrorize a population.

This is your opinion. What legal protections (and under whose authority) should be afforded to these individuals? What is a better solution in your opinion?

I also think that the US Army training insurgents to forment a revolution so that the US can influence the resulting government is basically the same as what Iran is supposedly trying to do in Iraq.

You state it as fact that is what the US is trying to do, but leave it some question of Iran's intent. Why is that?

All that said, I'm fine with our government carrying out such questionable actions, if there is a need.

You qualify your statement with "if there's a need." Do you think there's a need? On what grounds do you call "our" government's actions "questionable?" How should the US government (in your opinion) be conducting business?

I do think that national defense merits extreme action in extreme cases. I just wanted to make the point that an informed citizenry needs to be aware of what it government does, and not fall into a state of blind acquiesence.

Who's your target audience for this statement? Officers, enlisted, general citizens? If it is the military population, what do you suggest is the solution?

 

[joshmf]

Ok. Let's debate then.

Going to make my back my claims up huh? Probably a good idea.

Which legal cases are you referring to?

I'm specifically referring to the Hamdania and Haditha murder trials, along with the Abu Ghraib trials. In addition to those high profile cases, I'm aware of one other incident that went to a court-martial, but since it involves someone from my unit I don't want to get into details. I understand that these cases do not represent the majority of forces deployed, and were all prosecuted under the UCMJ as being illegal. I'd also assert that only a small fraction of similar cases are being brought to a court-martial, or receiving attention. I should also mention the recent Blackwater controversy, but it is too soon to see how that will be resolved.


This is your opinion. What legal protections (and under whose authority) should be afforded to these individuals? What is a better solution in your opinion?

A better solution would have been to conduct fair and speedy trials under the auspices of an impartial, international body. The Nuremberg trials following WWII are a good example of this. Imprisioning potentially innocent people for longer then six years, often on nothing more then undocumented accusations by rivals, does not seem to be the best example of American ideals.

You state it as fact that is what the US is trying to do, but leave it some question of Iran's intent. Why is that?

Well, it's clear that this was the general intent of invading Iraq. Beyond that, I was thinking of the CIA's long history of leading coups and aiding dictators willing to support the US's objectives. The best examples are: 1953 coup in Iran, 1954 coup in Guatemala, the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the Secret Army and Air America in Laos during the Vietnam war, supporting two coups in Iraq in the 1960's, the 1973 coup in Chile, and support for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Some of these were quite plainly carried out by the CIA, and others are more alleged, without firm evidence. My point was that Iran's declaration of the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organization was done in response to calls in the Senate to declare Iran's Quds Force as a terrorist organization, for doing exactly what the US has done several times.


You qualify your statement with "if there's a need." Do you think there's a need? On what grounds do you call "our" government's actions "questionable?" How should the US government (in your opinion) be conducting business?

Is there a need for covert actions, outside the laws of the Constitution and other binding resolutions (i.e. Geneva Convention) the US subscribes to? I want to say no. In the world of international terrorism, there may be a need, but that would depend on the judgement of senior civilian and military leaders. My problem is that this leads to a world where there is no oversight, and we are being given a black and white picture of the world, where our actions never overlap with those that oppose us. This is the question I was originally posing: What actions are acceptable for our government to engage in? Is it okay for the CIA to support non-democratically elected governments which align with our interests? If doing so is what makes the Quds Force a terrorist organization, what does it make the CIA? US Army special forces, such as the Green Berets, train in formenting and training revolutionary forces. How is that different from Iran's actions? We, as civilians and military leaders need to answer these questions before using the label 'terrorist' as a political tool.


Who's your target audience for this statement? Officers, enlisted, general citizens? If it is the military population, what do you suggest is the solution?

The target audience of my statement was people on Airwarriors, so mostly people in, have been in, or want to be in the military. If the people on here are going to lead our military and make decisions affecting national policy, we should from time to time think about how our actions affect our nation. One solution is for healthy debate in non-official forums, like Airwarriors. It isn't the only solution, but the only one I could effect on this website. I'd also encourge those in the military to consider the ramifications of their orders, rather then viewing themselves as an unthinking tool of national will. That mentality works well in bootcamp, but not in the real world.

 

[joshmf]

Apparently I need to figure out this quoting mechanism .

 

[FLYTPAY]

I'd also encourge those in the military to consider the ramifications of their orders, rather then viewing themselves as an unthinking tool of national will. That mentality works well in bootcamp, but not in the real world.

If the order is legal you must obey it. Good luck in the Navy, you are going to get eaten alive in the wardroom.

 

[BigIron]

Apparently I need to figure out this quoting mechanism .

You have a lot more to figure out. Mainly if you have the right "stuff" to be a commissioned officer in one of the Armed Forces.

It seems from reading your responses that you have moral problems with the foreign policies of the United States. Not only the current policies, but with the way business has been conducted in the past. Maybe you have an idealized notion of how business should be conducted, and the current policies aren't congruent with your "American ideals." It is obvious you do not agree with the way things have gone down in Iraq, and you bleed some of your disdain to a potential conflict with Iran. If a conflict does happen, are you able and willing to lead your troops into this conflict when ordered to do so even if you morally disagree with it?

Most of the things you wrote in your above response are things anyone can read on websites from moveon.org to Vets Against the War in Iraq and associated links. Perhaps you could best serve your needs by engaging with those groups. I have a feeling you are well acquainted with these type groups, if not a member already. If you truly want to bring about change, then as I mentioned before: exercise your vote. That's a luxury a lot of the world knows little about.

What most disturbs me about the possibility of you being commissioned is this:

.....It isn't the only solution, but the only one I could effect on this website. I'd also encourge those in the military to consider the ramifications of their orders, rather then viewing themselves as an unthinking tool of national will. That mentality works well in bootcamp, but not in the real world.

I think you are saying question authority and if the order doesn't suit you, or in your opinion is detrimental to the U.S, then you are exempt from carrying it out. Can you imagine what kind of organizational cluster fuck we would have? I can, and his name is Ehren Watada. A lot of the arguments his counsel and supporters make are the very ones that you are making here. Let him be a litmus test for you.

Good luck.

 

[HH-60H]

Typically things that are viewed of as questionable or illegal are done at the tactical level of warfare.

You mean like this or this or this?

 

[joshmf]

Ok, I was going to wait to respond to this, but here goes:

No, I'm not a member of either moveon.org or Vets against the War. I've never heard of the second organizaion, to be honest. And I don't think either of those are appropriate forums for me, seeing as I'm not against the war, and voted for Bush twice. I knew this was going to open me up to personal attacks, but I thought the point was worth making. Officers in the military establish a lot more policy then some people seem to think, and need to at least be aware of national policy and the history of foreign relations.

I've been in some of the situations where legal orders might produce illegal results, but I've always followed legal orders, and know without a doubt I will be able to do so in the future. As I've stated before, the battlefield isn't the place to have these discussions, but safe on a computer at home is. I've also stated that I thought the declaration by Iran that the CIA and the US Army were terrorist orgaizations is facile, and done by an egomaniac dictator trying to get attention. But even an idiot can have a good point sometimes.

I think I've made my point. If people think I'll have a tough time in the wardroom or elsewhere, that'll have to be seen. My judgement's been trusted before, so we'll see what happens in the future.

 

[HH-60H]

I've been in some of the situations where legal orders might produce illegal results...

Such as? I really can't think of situation where this would happen, maybe I am not being imaginative enough.

 

[joshmf]

Such as? I really can't think of situation where this would happen, maybe I am not being imaginative enough.

I feel like I'm being sucked into quicksand of my own making. I'll give one example: A squad of Marines is given orders to hold one end of a recently captured bridge, so units to come can cross it. While defending, the squad sees a civilian bus heading towards the bridge, and fire a warning shot. The driver of the bus, doing what every other driver in the world being shot at would do, speeds up in an attempt to get away from whoever is shooting at them. The squad of Marines then opens fire on the vehicle speeding towards their location, killing several civilians, and not one combatent. Was the order to hold the bridge legal? Yes. Was the result illegal, and could it possibly reflect poorly on the US military? Yes. Has it happened? Yes. Is this the only possible scenario where legal orders, on a confusing battlefield, could result in illegal actions? No. I'm not trying to be dramatic, or shed a bad light on the military. But I know I'll take that with me in my future career as an officer, and while I wasn't trying to give credence to one dictator's ramblings, I wanted to point out that the world isn't as clear-cut as many of politicians make it out to be.

 

[HH-60H]

Oh, I was thinking of a more direct cause and effect relationship. By that logic then the OPORD to invade Iraq was a legal order that resulted in illegal actions. Now that I see your reasoning behind it, I am not sure that arguement holds much water.