Heads should roll on this horrendous issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's deconstruct this once and for all with an analogy:

If soldier A found out that soldier B was a wife beater, and then soldier A beat the crap out of soldier B for it, guess what, soldier A would be charged under the UCMJ for beating soldier B. The fact that soldier B beat his wife doesn't change anything about how soldier A acted inappropriately. Soldier B's situation with his wife beating is a separate issue from soldier A's beating soldier B up, both are issues that would get charges filed. Soldier B's behavior does not excuse soldier A's behavior. Got it?

He pushed him. Career ending?

Sounds like it was more than just a "push."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More information hopefully will come out in the coming days.

the lack of an official policy does not make the accounts that the NyTimes revealed not true. And I am gladdened by the comments on that site that most people have not lost their humanity unlike you.

"Lost my humanity" - Pffft. You are the one who has let his partisan desperation get so far out of control that you have resorted to LYING YOUR ASS OFF here by claiming other posters are somehow condoning child rape.

And sorry, but you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT claim a "policy change" without actually having that specific order or policy document to point to. That IS how it works, PERIOD.

First: If child rape is happening on the military base that yes it is being condoned by the US military

Second: There is no official document but yes there are accounts that the soldiers are being asked to look the other way. This is reported in the new york times.

Third: Regardless of procedure it can be agreed that if a person sees rape occurring and intervenes, if the system was not so completely warped he should be commended for helping the child not lose his or her job.

Forth: The only person being partisan here is you. You've been screaming about everyone who is horrified at this must be some conservative hack. The nytimes readership is mostly liberal and there are many expressed horrified reactions there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More information hopefully will come out in the coming days.

the lack of an official policy does not make the accounts that the NyTimes revealed not true. And I am gladdened by the comments on that site that most people have not lost their humanity unlike you.

"Lost my humanity" - Pffft. You are the one who has let his partisan desperation get so far out of control that you have resorted to LYING YOUR ASS OFF here by claiming other posters are somehow condoning child rape.

And sorry, but you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT claim a "policy change" without actually having that specific order or policy document to point to. That IS how it works, PERIOD.

First: If child rape is happening on the military base that yes it is being condoned by the US military

Second: There is no official document but yes there are accounts that the soldiers are being asked to look the other way. This is reported in the new york times.

Third: Regardless of procedure it can be agreed that if a person sees rape occurring and intervenes, if the system was not so completely warped he should be commended for helping the child not lose his or her job.

Forth: The only person being partisan here is you. You've been screaming about everyone who is horrified at this must be some conservative hack. The nytimes readership is mostly liberal and there are many expressed horrified reactions there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's deconstruct this once and for all with an analogy:

If soldier A found out that soldier B was a wife beater, and then soldier A beat the crap out of soldier B for it, guess what, soldier A would be charged under the UCMJ for beating soldier B. The fact that soldier B beat his wife doesn't change anything about how soldier A acted inappropriately. Soldier B's situation with his wife beating is a separate issue from soldier A's beating soldier B up, both are issues that would get charges filed. Soldier B's behavior does not excuse soldier A's behavior. Got it?

I'd hate to have you in my family - sibling, spouse, child.

Let's not break a "rule" to save a life. sheeple asshole

Hey, FUCK YOU too. Are you willfully stupid, or what?

Lemme explain this one last time: If you beat your wife, and I come over and beat the shit out of you for it, that's a choice I make, and if I get arrested and charged with assault for it, that's a consequence I accept. The problem is not with me not wanting to "break rules." The difference is that I am aware of the consequences, and I would accept them, and I would PROUDLY take my court date and whatever sentence for it, rather than thinking I could just beat the shit out of someone and get away with it, regardless of what a scumbag you are. I damn sure wouldn't be sitting around WHINING about it the way you pathetic scumbags are.

Look, I wouldn't want you in my family either. You'd be the FIRST to just sit around and whine as opposed to doing anything at all.

Let me explain to you. There is something WRONG with society and the system that someone that intervenes to help another that is suffering or in pain is punished. Just because it is a consequence does not make it RIGHT. get it? And we should decorate this guy who helped a child who was CHAINED. Not remove a sterling officer from service because he happens to embody the best of american values.

Exactly how did "pushing" the man help the boy? If the green beret truly wanted to help that boy, he would have either stolen/bought the boy, or killed the man. Then the boy would be saved. Right?

+1 Merely "pushing" the Afghan would have quite likely made it worse for the boy. The boy needed to be separated from the Afghan, whether having the Afghan arrested, killed, or taking the boy out of there. Merely "pushing" the Afghan only would have left the boy in an even worse and even more unsafe situation with a strong likelihood of retribution from the Afghan. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But evidently nobody here is using their grey matter today.

[Anonymous]

^^^if your kid was being taped! you would want someone to do more than turn a blind eye or give apush! but if it is just some dark skinned kid on the other side of of the world, the cultural sensitivity is all that matters. The kid was screaming for the love of...what is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

The prior generation did a crappy job of installing empathy in their children. This is pathetic.

[Anonymous]

I'm.pretty sure when they reported it up the chain, which by the way they self reported, they expected something to be done to help the boy. Or are you saying under this administration that was stupid stupid stupid of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More information hopefully will come out in the coming days.

the lack of an official policy does not make the accounts that the NyTimes revealed not true. And I am gladdened by the comments on that site that most people have not lost their humanity unlike you.

"Lost my humanity" - Pffft. You are the one who has let his partisan desperation get so far out of control that you have resorted to LYING YOUR ASS OFF here by claiming other posters are somehow condoning child rape.

And sorry, but you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT claim a "policy change" without actually having that specific order or policy document to point to. That IS how it works, PERIOD.

First: If child rape is happening on the military base that yes it is being condoned by the US military

Second: There is no official document but yes there are accounts that the soldiers are being asked to look the other way. This is reported in the new york times.

Third: Regardless of procedure it can be agreed that if a person sees rape occurring and intervenes, if the system was not so completely warped he should be commended for helping the child not lose his or her job.

Forth: The only person being partisan here is you. You've been screaming about everyone who is horrified at this must be some conservative hack. The nytimes readership is mostly liberal and there are many expressed horrified reactions there.

Who ordered them to look the other way, and on what basis and what authority? That is the central question here.

And too bad for you, that we already know it did not come through the White House, the Pentagon or the Commanding General given the lack of any order or policy at that level directing it, and given the statements of the Commanding General to that effect. This last part is what makes it partisan on your end - your extreme desperation to somehow blame Obama for it, even to the point of telling lie after lie on this thread.

[Anonymous]

The decision to ignore it came from the field commanders, not the higher brass.

[Anonymous]

Um, no..sorry you have no idea what you're taling about.

[Anonymous]

Really, you have no idea where this policy came from either. Its easy to just blame it on the field commanders. Usually when a system is rotten the leadership sets the tone for the rest to follow.

I hope more details will come out over the next few days.

[Anonymous]

Do u have any idea how the military works? Do you think field commanders just sit around and make stuff up, or or do they r eceive guidance and expected outcomes. You think the generals didn't know about this practice ??????? Obama?????????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um, no..sorry you have no idea what you're taling about.

PROVE it. Show the order. Show the policy.

If you can't, then you are just talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous]

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he's learned that the Army leadership has since pushed a "gag order" prohibiting soldiers from "speaking to anyone regarding the case." Hunter has asked Defense Secretary Ash Carter to "review this matter immediately."

The inquiry is currently being referred to the DOD as we speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he's learned that the Army leadership has since pushed a "gag order" prohibiting soldiers from "speaking to anyone regarding the case." Hunter has asked Defense Secretary Ash Carter to "review this matter immediately."

The inquiry is currently being referred to the DOD as we speak.

You don't need to bold it. Gag orders are pretty common, not that exciting.