|
BoondockSaint
|
10-21-2004, 02:43 PM
Post subject: Frederick Gets 8 Years in Iraq Abuse Case
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,844
|
|
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The highest ranking soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was sentenced to eight years in prison for abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib during a court martial Thursday in Baghdad.
Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, 38, of Buckingham, Va., was also given a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay and a dishonorable discharge. The sentencing came a day after he pleaded guilty Wednesday to eight counts of abusing and humiliating Iraqi detainees.
He had faced a maximum possible sentence of 11 years in prison.
The Abu Ghraib scandal broke worldwide in April with the publication of photos and video that showed U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
BoondockSaint
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,844
|
|
I figured I need to start a topic that I hear some debate on while I'm at work. Personally I think this is bullshit myself. Those fuckers were trying to kill these people and when we have a little fun with em (after they try to kill us and we stop them) a soldier gets 8 YEARS in prison. Thats a long ass time. Shit thats over 1/3 of my entire life lived so far. I guess they should probably get something but 8 years is a damn long time. They should have just shot their asses dead on site instead of keeping em and toying with em. Now all these soldiers lives are I would say basically ruined because they served their country and slipped up because their minds were probably screwed from always having to look out for car bombs and dudes whiping out AKs and wasting you. Not to mention living in 140 degree heat being probably totally pissed off they were even there.
I dont know about you but if someone tried to kill my ass and I caught em before he did I would probably beat the living shit out of him for a month straight and then chop his hands off so he couldnt shoot me when I eventually let him go. Sort of like in saving private ryan they were nice enough to let that prisoner go then he shoots tom hanks at the end.
|
|
|
|
Aceofone
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 497
|
|
Basic human rights must be observed.
You argue that it's justified because they were trying to kill American soldiers, on the other side Americans are trying to kill them. They fight for an ideology, American soldiers fight for a different ideology. Someone must take the high road and accept that violence is a problem not a solution.
Back to the topic at hand, I think he should have been sentenced with 11 years for such blatant disregard of the Geneva Convention.
I have to leave now, more to post later
|
|
|
|
lonnie
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 923
|
|
Quote:
|
Those fuckers were trying to kill these people and when we have a little fun with em (after they try to kill us and we stop them)
|
If you really think like that now, give it about 10 years and you'll probably become wiser. We should treat captive soldiers humanely, as we would like our soldiers to be treated should they be captured.
People trying to kill people is the nature of war. It's nothing personal.
|
|
|
|
BoondockSaint
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,844
|
|
Quote:
|
People trying to kill people is the nature of war. It's nothing personal.
|
Yeah I know I just wanted to spur a heated discussion. I still dont think he should have gotten 8 years but I dont think quite as extreme as a wrote it. Like when I said "have a little fun with them" that wasnt quite what I really think. I shouldnt use the term fun but 8 years is still too much in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
elanto
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,117
|
|
Well I have to strongly agree with Ihoney and Aceofone. The reasson is simple "dont do to others what you dont want people to do to you" (or something like that), that soldier violated human rights and should get time in prision for the things he did.
As Ihoney said, its a war, its nothing personal, he shouldn't have abused of that Iraqui soldier, the american soldier got what he deserved
|
|
|
|
lonnie
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 923
|
|
Don't forget, 8 years in a military prison like Leavenworth is probably the equivalentof 20 anywhere else. Leavenworth is HARD time.
|
|
|
|
7ape
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 51
|
|
Glad to hear you retracting the "fun" part, Boondock, that really worried me in your original post.
Have to agree with the concensus so far, although I am inclined to think that (a) 8 years was probably too harsh a sentence and (b) one man alone should not have had to take the fall. The "following orders" argument didn't work at Nuremburg or My Lai, it should not apply here either. Every soldier involved in the abuse of prisoners had the choice to participate or not, and made that decision based on personal morality, not whether it would affect their employment. What's the news on any others facing the same charges? Apologies, I have not been following this as closely as I'd've liked...
As stated above, the reason we have the Geneva Convention (and doctrines like it) is to protect ALL parties. If it is applied inconsistently, it may just as well not exist, and applying it to only those parties who are "in the wrong" is so subjective as to also render it worthless.
|
|
7ape
“I'm only here for the nuts...”
|
|
johnnyawe
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,064
|
|
I believe the sentence was appropriate.
I also strongly believe that it is appropriate for nations of the world to come together and agree to some basic "rules of war" (as silly as it sounds), and that humane treatment of prisoners of war should be part of that agreement. This in fact happened and the agreement is known as The Geneva Conventions.
I disagree with boondocksaint that "140 degree heat" or the fact that the soldiers were "pissed off" should be grounds for temporary nullification of the Geneva Conventions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 7ape
As stated above, the reason we have the Geneva Convention (and doctrines like it) is to protect ALL parties. If it is applied inconsistently, it may just as well not exist, and applying it to only those parties who are "in the wrong" is so subjective as to also render it worthless.
|
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
fishstick
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,405
|
|
some random thoughts:
- i'm sorry natural, in principle, rules for war are just too silly to me. the purpose of war is to dominate and control your enemy, through violence and intimidation. regulating how you go about killing your enemy just seems to defy logic. that said, the US has agreed to abide by the geneva convention, and therefore, should do it.
- this such a horrible case of scapegoating. definitely a case of "shit runs downhill."
- i find it hard to feel too much sympathy for those in trouble when they demonstrated the intelligence of sand by photographing themselves having so much "fun".
all in all, a truly unfortunate situation.
|
|
i hate what i have become to escape what i hated being...
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
