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