Posted on 09/28/2005 5:32:49 PM PDT by warrior9504
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-abuse25sep25,0,4578648.story?coll=la-home-world THE WORLD
Officer's Road Led Him Outside Army Capt. Ian Fishback repeatedly voiced his concern about prisoner abuse in Iraq to his superiors, but felt he was being brushed off. By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer
September 25, 2005
WASHINGTON — When Army Capt. Ian Fishback told his company and battalion commanders that soldiers were abusing Iraqi prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention, he says, they told him those rules were easily skirted.
When he wrote a memo saying Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was wrong in telling Congress that the Army follows the Geneva dictates, his lieutenant colonel responded only: "I am aware of Fishback's concerns."
And when Fishback found himself in the same room as Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey at Ft. Benning, Ga., he again complained about prisoner abuse. He said Harvey told him that "corrective action was already taken."
At every turn, it seemed, the decorated young West Point graduate, the son of a Vietnam War veteran from Michigan's Upper Peninsula, whose wife is serving with the Army in Iraq, felt that the military had shut him out.
So he turned to those he knows best. He sought guidance from fellow infantry commanders and his West Point classmates, and learned that they agreed with him that abuse of prisoners was widespread and that officers weren't adequately trained in how to handle them.
Then, in a lengthy chronology obtained Saturday by The Times, recounting what he saw in Iraq and his numerous efforts to get the Army's attention, he wrote that "Harvey is wrong." He wrote that Army guidance was "too vague for officers to enforce American values." He concluded that violations of the Geneva Convention were "systematic, and the Army is misleading America."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The title is really changed from the original "Officer's Road Led Him Outside Army"
Who's the helper, Fishbeck or the times?
The guy was reporting what he witnessed. I don't see how that's caving into "media hype."
And the mods get very annoyed with people who change the headlines of articles.
Sorry, my first post. Didn't know about the title, thought I could pick one.
Democratic values must apply to the scumbags too, otherwise what we're attempting to do is for nothing. If what this officer says is true, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't, then this situation must recieve some immediate attention.
I was there, I know Fishback...he is not doing some honorable thing here.
Oh, I see, our soldiers are doing evil, but it's not really their fault. If only they had the correct guidelines, all would be well. I, fine fellow that I am, searched and searched for those guidelines, which would, of course, be consistent with our "values." We are much better than to bust someone in the chops to save some of our guys' lives. And the Geneva Convention should apply to non-combatants. Anything less makes us as bad as them, or, at the very least, hypocrites. This is a "here we go again" stab at this torture thing.
Now hold on just one minute:
"And when Fishback found himself in the same room as Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey at Ft. Benning, Ga., he again complained about prisoner abuse."
"At every turn, it seemed, the decorated young West Point graduate, the son of a Vietnam War veteran from Michigan's Upper Peninsula, whose wife is serving with the Army in Iraq, felt that the military had shut him out."
I smell a another snake, and he is creeping low in the grass.
Since when? I do not seem to recall any provision in the Constitution requiring the USA to extend the same rights to non citizens as to citizens. So I would guess that makes it a matter for International Law. To witm, the Genva Convention. What does the Geneva Convention say about Unlawful Combatants?
An unlawful combatant is a spy, saboteur or (sometimes) a terrorist who pursues a military objective outside the commonly accepted laws of war. Not wearing the uniform of a sovereign nation (as in spying) or not being under the command authority of a recognizable entity are the chief reasons for a combatant to be classified as "unlawful". By contrast, uniformed soldiers who commit atrocities are tried for war crimes
In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms — or as in the guerrilla case, a badge — to keep this important rule of warfare.
By choosing to be a terrorist, they have chose to set themselves outside the rule of law.
Thanks for serving with honor and commitement. Very best wishes for the future. I cannot for the life of me figure out after him seeing with his own eyes what you guys have to deal with he thinks the Geneva Convention should apply to some of the low life scum bags that would slit your throat at the least given chance. Officers like that we don't need.
There is such a veneer of self-righteousness just reeking off of this thing.
Also, there is a section in the Geneva Convention that states if one side fails to uphold the standards stated then they loose all protections granted by the treaty.
So let's just grant the terrorists could be soldiers (and that almost makes me vomit) if any of thier actions violate the GC then they lose protected status. Does the Geneva convention mentions something about using POWs for propoganda (Al Jazeera anyone)? Or how about hacking a civilian's head off with a dull knife? Or what about detonating car bombs near mosques?
Where do I stand in line to grant these "people" democratic and Geneva Convention rights?
I wish the Libs/Dems would worry as much about victory for the US as they do about being nice to people who want us wiped off the face of the earth.
Thank you for that valuable bit of information. God Bless you for your services to our Country. Hope you find your American Dream you mentioned on your profile.
I have never understood why the mods get annoyed by that. If the original headline is misleading in the first place, why not correct it...
If our values don't extend beyond our borders, then they are both hollow and selfish. Part of the rational for the Iraq War is that we are bringing democracy to the ME. Democracy cannot be selectively applied, otherwise it is worthless. Hiding behind legaleese besmirches our honor, something that the good captain is trying to prevent.
Part of what I recognize, and what Capt. Fishback and his fellow officers recognize, is that without strong guidance on the handling of knuckleheads from above, there are going to be more incidents like Abu Gharib. Now I can already hear, "Oooohh! Pantyhead!" remarks coming. I'll reply to that by saying that the troops on the ground referred to the idiot guards at Abu Gharib as, "Those assholes who lost the war for us." Hyperbole? Sure, but it meant something to the jarheads and grunts, and it sure as hell meant something to the Iraqis.
We're Americans, we must act like Americans.
You know, I might have had some sympathy for this dipsh*t if he had been the one who had actually seen any of the "torture" he is reporting.
Saw the interview with this X-ringknocker in uniform no less tonite on NBC.
His info is second and third hand rumors; he did not witness any of the "torture" he is reporting.
I suspect mr junior army man did not have the stomach for his chosen career; wanted to become a civvy; did not want to go back to Iraq or Afghanistan; has a lucrative job lined up with a relative.
Probably fully owned by Soros.
Terrorist and persons who fire upon US and Iraqi forces are not POWs. They are criminals and no protection is afforded because they are considered criminals and not legal warfighters. The Geneva convention specifically does not cover illegal combatants. You would think mr junior army man would have had a few courses and breifings in the Law of Armed Conflict considering he is a west pointer.
Ah yes the duality of the UCMJ. Officers can resign their commision; enlisted have a contract to fill and cannot quit to sell a book and get speaking fees.
This guy has alterior motives. F him and the press he rode in on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.