# Korean War Massacres Sanctioned By U.S. Officers



## MA-Caver (Jul 6, 2008)

> *                                         AP IMPACT: US wavered over S. Korean executions                *
> 
> By CHARLES J. HANLEY and JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writers                                  _Sun Jul  6,  1:42 PM ET_
> full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080706/ap_on_re_as/korea_mass_executions_us
> ...


Wasn't sure exactly where to put this... War College? Horror Stories? Or here for serious discussion. 
Seems like dirty little secrets, dirty little lies keep coming out of the woodwork with more frequency. 



> "Although we can't present concrete evidence, we bereaved families believe the United States has some responsibility for this," she told the AP, as she visited one of the burial sites in the quiet Sannae valley.


I would have to agree. It's the same responsibility of watching a crime in progress and doing nothing. 
Question is what is the U.S. going to do by way of owning up to that responsibility? 

Here's going to be what I think is the crux of the whole situation. 


> An American historian of the Korean War, the University of Chicago's Bruce Cumings, sees a share of U.S. guilt in what happened in 1950.
> "After the fact &#8212; with thousands murdered &#8212; the U.S. not only did nothing, but covered up the Daejeon massacres," he said.
> Another Korean War scholar, Allan R. Millett, an emeritus Ohio State professor, is doubtful. "I'm not sure there's enough evidence to pin culpability on these guys," he said, referring to the advisers and other Americans.


As much as I hate to say it, this is no different than late 1940's Nazi soldiers executing Jews simply because the enemy was advancing. In many cases however the Jews were simply left behind in hopes to slow up the advance of the oncoming Allied military. 
Here however, the U.S. went to the aid of South Korea supposedly to help stem the spread of Communism. Well okay but I don't think we should've stood idly by while thousands were being massacred. This makes the U.S. just as guilty as if they had pulled the trigger themselves. 
What is amazing is how long this has been kept secret. 

One wonders what this will do (if ANYTHING) for how the U.S. is viewed militarily ... particularly with our presence in Iraq.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jul 6, 2008)

whoa


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 6, 2008)

I just about cried when I read this article earlier today.  I couldn't believe that our government would be party to such a thing, even at the height of the Cold War.  I still have trouble believing it.

Perhaps it is my naivete', or partly a 'willing disbelief', but I still see holes in the article's case.  'Doing nothing after the fact' is a lot different than 'doing nothing to stop' massacres occurring realtime, and it is not clear from the article just how much was known about what was going on in-country, at the time.  It also appears that all sides agree that the US did not order any of the massacres, so 'sanctioned' becomes misleading.

The record makes it clear that the one US Colonel implicated never believed the North Koreans would get anywhere near Busan.  I could see someone in his position possibly trying to dissuade his South Korean counterpart from carrying out an imminent massacre by getting him to agree to 'wait until the communist troops get closer'.  Unfortunately for the historical record (and the search for truth and accountability), that one Colonel has died - he will never get the chance to shed light on his thoughts and circumstances, or to defend himself from such heinous charges.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 6, 2008)

yeah,
bad things happen in war. I am shocked.......

Seriously though, some things to consider:

The US didnt do this
We couldnt have stopped it if we wanted to
Asian wars tend to be pretty horrendous. the Cultures involved all have traditions of "whatever it takes to win" look at the japanese actions during WW2, the chinese actions during thier so called "cultural revolution"

it prob comes from having too much surplus population.

Why was it covered up?prob to help legitimize the new South Korean Government after the war.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2008)

What were they gonna do, fight the S.Koreans (who we were there fighting for in the first place) over it?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 7, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> What were they gonna do, fight the S.Koreans (who we were there fighting for in the first place) over it?


In a manner of speaking, yes. At the political table at least. There are alternatives to fighting as it's once sagely was said. As the primary peace-keeping force there and remember that it was a "police action" not really a "war" (a rose by any other name) said Colonel (and other officers whom undoubtedly witnessed (or knew) of similar massacres) still had to report it. Officers still have reports to fill out, paperwork so that military analysts can study them and decide the next best course of action. Higher ups (had to) know about these goings on. 
If I understand right, the American soldier has that right to prevent or carry out immoral orders. Said Colonel knew that the massacre was going to take place, the only course of action he took was to delay it, but he didn't (what it seems so from the article anyway) try to *stop* his South Korean counterpart from doing it. He didn't try to convince the SK from marching the prisoners further south, away from the oncoming Chinese army, while there was still time. It's been done before, moving prisoners en-massed, Alvin York did it in WWI though maybe not with thousands but definitely a large number.
Point is that it wasn't prevented and that there was no real effort in preventing it. Then it was buried and kept secret.
That is just as wrong. That is just the same as pulling the trigger yourself.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2008)

Oh, I agree it was wrong and there should have been some political pressure up the chain of command. im talking about the troops on the ground. What would you do as a platoon leader in that situation? open up on your allies?

On another note...this is more "lets feel bad about a historical event outside the direct blame of 90% of anybody alive". how far back should we "apologize" for our countries actions? WWII, Civil War, Revolution, French and indian War?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 7, 2008)

No side is ever going to come off clean in a war.  This doesn't excuse anyone, but I think that it makes George Carlin's point in his seven words that can't be said on TV skit.  War is the most obcene word in the english language.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2008)

In THAT we are in total agreement.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 7, 2008)

it is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.


----------



## aedrasteia (Jul 7, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> it is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.


 
Robert E. Lee

an honest man to tell the awful truth that there _are_ those quite fond of war.

My father's close friend was an infantryman in Korea. As a child I remember him sitting with my Dad, drinking beer and talking in low tones so we kids wouldn't hear. That friend was the first grown man I ever saw cry, who was not at a funeral or a wedding. I asked my Dad why and he was direct - 'he had to do bad things in the war and he saw other people do terrible things and people die. The ones who plan this stuff aren't there when the bad times come and they forget about people like Ray'. My Dad was his true friend and sat with him many nights and just let him talk. Long before anybody felt it was OK to give those bad times a name or any help. People have mostly forgotten Korea and the terrible horrors there.

When we citizens agree, through our outspoken support or silent compliance, to send our soldiers somewhere to bring war on people, we must know that this is also an expected part of what war is and we must be absolutely sure that the conflict is worth the price.

Not what we are told, or what is implied or suggested or assured or assumed or hinted or guessed, but what _we_ are dead solid certain, based on our own knowledge, research and understanding of the history of the place and people involved. If those who make the plans do anything other than clearly and absolutely set forth the unshakeable reasons for force, they do not and will not obtain my support, because I owe it first to Ray and all those like him who are willing to put themselves on the line. If people like him will do that, I cannot do any less.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2008)

I wish it was so easy to have "solid reasons" to go to war. But that is rarely the case except in movies or history books. Even wars we accept as "just" today, like WWII, had many "anti war"..."its their busines"...types. It took pearl harbor to wake us up.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 7, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> I wish it was so easy to have "solid reasons" to go to war. But that is rarely the case except in movies or history books.



If there are rarely "solid reasons", then perhaps wars should be fought much more rarely.  I won't even decide which doctor to go to or what to do with my day without solid reasons, funny that massive death and destruction are held to a lesser standard.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 7, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> If there are rarely "solid reasons", then perhaps wars should be fought much more rarely. I won't even decide which doctor to go to or what to do with my day without solid reasons, funny that massive death and destruction are held to a lesser standard.


 
People had to be convinced that the lesser standard was neccessary.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2008)

Its the best argument a politician can make that gets us into war, always has been in our country. WWII was a pretty damn "solid reason" but back then some people didnt think so.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 7, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> WWII was a pretty damn "solid reason" but back then some people didnt think so.



We got into the war after being attacked, which seems pretty solid to me.  I really don't think too many people at the time disagreed.  The America First Committee closed up shop right after Pearl Harbor.

Unfortunately, none of the wars we have been involved in since have had such a solid rationale.  The biggest until the Iraq Wars had the Domino Theory as a rationale, which history has been shown to be completely unfounded.  For that matter, we still didn't have an honest rationale given to us by Johnson for the Vietnam escalation.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident was mostly made up, and then covered up by the NSA - a report of which by an NSA historian was made publicly available in 2005.

War may indeed be terrible, but our leaders have nonetheless shown themselves to be quite fond of it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 7, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Its the best argument a politician can make that gets us into war, always has been in our country. WWII was a pretty damn "solid reason" but back then some people didnt think so.


Well eventually once Europe was wholly beaten then the next obvious (and stupid) choice would've been the U.S. Far sighted analysts saw it coming, but finding a good enough reason so that the American people would WANT to get involved, had to be postponed until the morning of Dec. 7th 1941. 

I think the Korean conflict/war/police action was probably for the same reasons that the Vietnam conflict/war/police action was fought for (though Vietnam came later)... to show the cold war opponents that we were willing to spend lives... yet again... as if the sacrifice of the first and second world wars weren't enough. Something that I guess we had to keep proving. 

Back on topic however for some reason it seems that seeing the horrors of the first two world wars had given license to commit atrocities and massacres or to turn a blind eye to them at any-rate.


----------



## teej (Jan 27, 2011)

I'm not exactly sure what you point is in this. I know it is an old post which I came upon by accident researhing something else. But let me tell you as cold as it may seem, I don't care!

My sisters father was a WWll combat vet and hero. 2 purple hearts and bronze star- captured by the Germans, surviving their prisoner death march when the Russians advanced and the Germans fled with their captives. Death march because if you couldn't keep up the Germans killed their unarmed prisoners.

Stuff happens in war.

So he goes on entering the Korean conflct as a Captain leaving my mother and 5 yr old sister behind. Gets captured again when the Chinese flooded troops in. 

I've heard from a man, another officer who flew over there with him. He was also captured the same night. The Koreans took all the Americans and held them in some minning caves where in below freezing temps the Korean took all their captives boots. 

This officer told me he credited my mothers husband, Captain Rodney F. Cloutman, with giving him advice in that cave that allowed him to survive captivity. In the cave Rodney identified himself to the other Americans as being a German prison camp survivor and proceeded to start giving advice on prisoner survival. Later the Americans were moved to camps in what became known as "Death Valler".

Supposedly Rodney died within 2 months of captivity this time. The American Dr. that signed his death certifiate arrived in the camp 6 weeks after Rodney supposedly died, going by a list of names given to him, he signed Rodneys death certificate.

I say supposedly died here as I've uncovered accounts from a N. Korean prisoner claiming to have seen 12 US prisoners in a facility up in N. Korea. And we have uncovered that a Lt prisoner in Rodneys unit ended up in Russia. Rodney was higher ranked and communications officer makes us think he would have been valuble.

But then a mysterious fire destroyed 90% of all Korean War vet records, so we have hit a dead end.

Back on topic. The Koreans did not provide much for the Amerians. No boots, wrapped in material, frost bite set in to fingers and toes. Prisoner accounts state is was SO freakin bad that they were able to just snap off toes and fingers. These N. Koreans you are so worried about put large pots out every night for the Americans to put body parts in. In the morning carts were loaded up with bodies and body parts and villagers came each morning removing and disposing of the loaded carts.

I'm not even going to go into the beatings and tortures!! But guess what, the N. Koreas also had their own death marches. I have seen photos of stretches of dirt road with American service men in uniform, HANDS TIED BEHIND THEIR BACKS murdered bodies lying in the ditch along the road.

Stuff happens in war. That is why it is called War. Don't you dare pick at my gov't without looking at both sides. 

Morally murdering anyone is wrong. You think dropping H bombs on civilian cities was right? It saved How many Amerian lives and ended a war. 

I don't care about the N. Koreans. They brought suffering to my family and my sister in her 60's cried recently recounting saying good by to Rodney, him telling her he was going to bring her a porclin doll. She even at 5 yrs old just knew she was never going to see her dad again. I can't even imagine the hell he went through.


----------



## billc (Jan 27, 2011)

The domino theory was only shown not to apply because we fought in Korea and vietnam.  Remember, after Germany surrendered, Russia kept the countries they "liberated."  The Chinese gave support to the North koreans, if we hadn't helped the south would the entire country of Korea be the gulag the north is?  If a million or more north vietnamese soldiers hadn't been killed by Americans, slowing down the loss of the south,  what would that have meant to the region if the south had fallen 15 years earlier.  Looking back from your desk chair while reading posts is easier than living in the middle of the times.  people today didn't live through world war two.  Coming out of the fight with Germany, Italy and Japan, where they were expanding their territory, and having scene what not stopping Hitler earlier in his military advances meant to the world, is it any wonder people were concerned about korea, and vietnam and the domino theory.  
People forget Austria, Alsace Loraine, The sudetenland, and the rest of Checkoslovakia, and the final straw of Poland.  The time was different, the experience was different, and we can actually say the South Korea is better off having not lost its independence.
China, and vietnam may slowly be beginning to realize that the pursuit of communism is foolish, but they didn't back then.  Just something to keep in mind.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The domino theory was only shown not to apply because we fought in Korea and vietnam. Remember, after Germany surrendered, Russia kept the countries they "liberated." The Chinese gave support to the North koreans, if we hadn't helped the south would the entire country of Korea be the gulag the north is? If a million or more north vietnamese soldiers hadn't been killed by Americans, slowing down the loss of the south, what would that have meant to the region if the south had fallen 15 years earlier. Looking back from your desk chair while reading posts is easier than living in the middle of the times. people today didn't live through world war two. Coming out of the fight with Germany, Italy and Japan, where they were expanding their territory, and having scene what not stopping Hitler earlier in his military advances meant to the world, is it any wonder people were concerned about korea, and vietnam and the domino theory.
> *People forget Austria, Alsace Loraine, The sudetenland, and the rest of Checkoslovakia, and the final straw of Poland.* The time was different, the experience was different, and we can actually say the South Korea is better off having not lost its independence.
> China, and vietnam may slowly be beginning to realize that the pursuit of communism is foolish, but they didn't back then. Just something to keep in mind.


 

No, we don't. Btw Austria, Alsace and the Sudetenland weren't exactly joined to Germany kicking and screaming, the last two were German enclaves and Austria well, they embraced Nazism with all the glee of a dog finding a leg of lamb. 
I doubt China is thinking the pursuit of communism is foolish, it did more for their country whatever you think than capitalism ever did, think Opium Wars etc etc.

I don't know what you mean about people today not living through the Second World War? I know many people who have, including my father, who also lived through the Korea War, his regiment was there. You talk as if it were the Napoleonic wars!


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 27, 2011)

i'm not suprised.

Its no different than....Naw i wont name it it might get Bill started about 'those leftists' again


----------



## billc (Jan 27, 2011)

That is so 19th century thinking tez, Capitalism is the new communism. Just wait and see.

from each, according to their ability, (hard work and individual effort) to each,according to their need, ( I need my kids to go to the best schools, and to have a nice home, and a nice car...).


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> That is so 19th century thinking tez, Capitalism is the new communism. Just wait and see.
> 
> from each, according to their ability, (hard work and individual effort) to each,according to their need, ( I need my kids to go to the best schools, and to have a nice home, and a nice car...).


 
??? sometimes you aren't on the same page as the rest of us you know. You can't go around making up history to suit your way of thinking. I know facts are inconvenient sometimes but they have to be faced and history has to be learnt from.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 28, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> In a manner of speaking, yes. At the political table at least. There are alternatives to fighting as it's once sagely was said. As the primary peace-keeping force there and remember that it was a "police action" not really a "war" (a rose by any other name) said Colonel (and other officers whom undoubtedly witnessed (or knew) of similar massacres) still had to report it. Officers still have reports to fill out, paperwork so that military analysts can study them and decide the next best course of action. Higher ups (had to) know about these goings on.



Every report that I read states that the U.S. urged them not to do it, or to stop doing it.



> If I understand right, the American soldier has that right to prevent or carry out immoral orders.



What American soldier was ordered to execute unarmed prisoners that he should have not complied with?  This was a South Korean action, not an American one.

Said Colonel knew that the massacre was going to take place, the only course of action he took was to delay it, but he didn't (what it seems so from the article anyway) try to *stop* his South Korean counterpart from doing it. He didn't try to convince the SK from marching the prisoners further south, away from the oncoming Chinese army, while there was still time. It's been done before, moving prisoners en-massed, Alvin York did it in WWI though maybe not with thousands but definitely a large number.[/QUOTE]

How would you suggest that this Colonel stop it in the immediate moment?  I can't seem to pull up the article for some reason, but how do we know that he didn't try to convince the SKs from doing this or providing alternatives?



> Point is that it wasn't prevented and that there was no real effort in preventing it. Then it was buried and kept secret.



Once it's done, when political realities come into effect, what do you think should have been done?



> That is just as wrong. That is just the same as pulling the trigger yourself.



Of all the things you have said in this thread, this is the one I find most objectionable.  If you see someone being assaulted, but don't do anything to stop it, are you just as guilty as the person doing the beating?  If you see someone about to be shot on the street, but do nothing, and we find out about it, should you be convicted of murder as well?


----------



## billc (Jan 28, 2011)

There is an image of the American military that stories like this are trying to find and expose.  Namely, that the American military routinely conducts itself in the ways that you see socialist militaries conduct themselves.  Torture, rape, mass murder, the stuff you routinely seen portrayed in a lot of hollywood films and on the news whenever you get Isolated incidents like Abu Graihb.  The problem that these stories find is that, as pointed out above, it was not condoned, or ordered by the american military.  As hard as it may be for some to believe, the American Military is a force for good in the world.  Our military has fought to free people, to protect people, and it has done these things with a minimum of the atrocities often found as part of war.  The killings at My lai, or other places have never been a policy or practice of our military.

The American soldier is trained to not commit war crimes, to report them when they happen, and to refuse to perform under orders that direct that type of behavior.  Do all the troops live up to that, obviously not.  To say that the majority do live up to that standard is actually not accurate, because it is far more than a simple majority that live up to that standard.

If someone says, well, they covered up this incident, I will say yes, but it was done by allies, not the U.S.  Is it excusable, no, and it doesn't meet the standards the U.S. military tries to live up to.  Keep in mind as well, the south koreans were fighting a communist army that has no civilized standards.  Murder, rape, and torture of both military personnel and civilians was  policy and practice of the North Koreans.  Facing defeat at the hands of an enemy like that creates a pressure cooker  most people will hopefully never face.  Under that stress really bad decisions can be made.  These decisions are not standard policy, but extremes under extreme situations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 28, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The problem that these stories find is that, as pointed out above, it was not condoned, or ordered by the american military.



Sorry to disturb this fantasy, but...

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/10/24/frago-242/



> The biggest US security breach in our history, carried off by WikiLeaks, reveals a wealth of information   hundreds of thousands of field reports, the raw material collected  by the US military on the ground in Iraq. It will be quite a while before  the gems are mined from this treasure trove, but initially the  one that stands out as the jewel in the crown is the revelation of Frago  242  an order from high up in the US military command instructing  officers not to investigate reports of torture and other human rights  violations by their Iraqi allies. As the _Guardian_, one of the media  outlets given  privileged access to the database prior to its general  release, reports:
> 
> _A frago is a fragmentary  order which su__mmarizes a complex requirement. This one, issued  in June 2004, about a year after the invasion of Iraq, orders coalition  troops not to investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict,  such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members  of the coalition. Where the alleged abuse is committed by Iraqi on Iraqi, only an initial report will be made   No further investigation will be required unless directed by HQ._




Knowing a war crime is being committed and turning your back is about the same as doing it.




> We invaded Iraq, according  to George W. Bush, because Saddam Hussein was killing his own people.  Yet the same can be said about the regime we installed after the Iraqi  dictator was deposed  and it was being done with our knowledge. There  are many references in the Iraq war logs to detainees being turned over  to MOI (the Iraqi Ministry of Information) for interrogation,  where, as the _Guardian_ reports:
> 
> 
> _At the torturers whim,  the logs reveal, the victim can be hung by his wrists or by his ankles;  knotted up in stress positions; sexually molested or raped; tormented  with hot peppers, cigarettes, acid, pliers or boiling water   and always with little fear of retribution since, far more often  than not, if the Iraqi official is assaulting an Iraqi civilian, no  further investigation will be required._
> ...



We turned people over knowing they would be tortured to death.  

Look, any argument for American Exceptionalism, ends here.  This isn't a few bad apples.  

I started a thread about Frago 242 here.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1360550#post1360550


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 28, 2011)

There are bad people in the American armed forces, there are bad people in the British forces, face it there are bad people everywhere, being in the military is something that attracts a certain type of violent, amoral personality. It's a fact, the important thing is how we deal with these people, how we weed them out, how we punish them when they go over the top, that's what makes good leadership, good leaders and a good country.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 28, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> There are bad people in the American armed forces, there are bad people in the British forces, face it there are bad people everywhere, being in the military is something that attracts a certain type of violent, amoral personality. It's a fact, the important thing is how we deal with this people, how we weed them out, how we punish them when they go over the top, that's what makes good leadership, good leaders and a good country.


A-moral personality huh? It attracts people who want a damn job.
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 28, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> A-moral personality huh? It attracts people who want a damn job.
> Sean


 

That may not be so true over here as one can go on the dole instead, you don't have to join the forces. We tend to have people who want a career/ to do a worthwhile job/ help make a difference or just kill people. The trick is guiding all those types into the right sector of the armed forces and keeping control. this goes for the top brass as well.


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

Tid bits left out of the article sited: Which also show that the activity was not condoned or ordered by the U.S.
International law did not require the US to investigate these allegations of Iraqi-on-Iraqi detainee abuse, because all of them were reported after June 30, 2004  when Iraq once again became a sovereign country, according to the United Nations resolution 1546. The United States no longer directly controlled Iraqs security services, and thus, it was no longer legally obligated to police them.

What do you do when you are fighting in the actual soveign country and they have a government? How do you not hand the citizens over to their own government when you are in that country, can you legally send them out of that country? Isn't that also against international law, the laws the anti-war groups are always complaining about? Kind of catch 22 isn't it?

Maybe we should send those prisoners to gitmo?

From another article, which was not easy to find:

American soldiers, however, often intervened. During a visit to a police unit in Ramadi, an American soldier entered a cell after hearing screams and found two badly dehydrated detainees with bruises on their bodies. He had them transferred out of Iraqi custody. 
In August 2006, an American sergeant in Ramadi heard whipping noises in a military police station and walked in on an Iraqi lieutenant using an electrical cable to slash the bottom of a detainees feet. The American stopped him, but later he found the same Iraqi officer whipping a detainees back.Read the Document » 
One beaten detainee said in 2005 that when the Marines finally took him, he was treated very well, and he was thankful and happy to see them. Read the Document »

From Michelle Malkins site Hotair.com:
*Numerous logs show individual members of the coalition making genuine attempts to stop the abuse.* Since 2006 the coalition has had military transition teams, known as Mitts, working alongside Iraqi military units; and police transition teams, PTTs, embedded with local police. These teams are recorded on multiple occasions making unannounced spot checks at Iraqi security bases and finding torture in progress. Captain Walker and 1st Lieutenant Ziemba  caught Captain Hassan and Sgt Alaa by surprise  In the office there was what appeared to be a battery with open ended wires  Before entering the office, Capt Walker and 1Lt Siemba heard what sounded like an individual being hit and moaning. The detainee was sitting in the centre of the room sobbing. They stopped the suspected abuse.
In other words, per Frago 242, if Iraqi troops or cops were doing the abusing, it was the Iraqi governments problem to deal with them. Al Jazeera notes that, since Iraq officially became sovereign again on June 30, 2004, there was no legal obligation for occupying forces to police Iraqi security. 

Also, much of the reporting and articles on this story come from left wing sites, almost exlusively, and Al Jazeera. To say the coverage is slanted is a bit of an understatement.

Also, it is made to appear that if torture was found nothing was done, "_  No further investigation will be required unless directed by HQ. This is because the reports of abuse were given to the Iraqi authorities to deal with, once again, they were the guys in charge of the security forces, not he U.S. You also have to look farther to get this detail as well._

_I wondered why this hadn't been a much bigger story, all over the mainstream media. Possibly because some of these abuses have happened under Obama's time as commander and chief? One wonders._

_And another thing, a lot of people want the peaceful sheephearders who are being "illegally" held at Gitmo sent home. Which of these countries, where these peaceful sheep hearders were captured doesn't perform torture on prisoners? Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, now Iraq. How do we send these peaceful sheep hearders back to these countries and not violate international law? Catch 22?_ 
_Last edited by billcihak; Today at 03:25 AM. _


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

Pace stood his ground, informed by the U.S. military's own guidelines. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said.




American soldiers, however, often intervened. During a visit to a police unit in Ramadi, an American soldier entered a cell after hearing screams and found two badly dehydrated detainees with bruises on their bodies. He had them transferred out of Iraqi custody. 
In August 2006, an American sergeant in Ramadi heard whipping noises in a military police station and walked in on an Iraqi lieutenant using an electrical cable to slash the bottom of a detainees feet. The American stopped him, but later he found the same Iraqi officer whipping a detainees back.Read the Document » 
One beaten detainee said in 2005 that when the Marines finally took him, he was treated very well, and he was thankful and happy to see them. Read the Document »

Frago 242 instructs U.S. troops in Iraq not to investigate incidents of detainee abuse that were carried out by Iraqi security forces, even when witnessed firsthand. "Only an initial report will be made,

Stopping abuse when they find it is different then conducting investigations into it. The articles all state that the reports of abuse were passed on to the Iraqi government, and our troops stopped the abuses that they themselves witnessed. 

So again, it was not our practice or policy to do what the Iraqui's did no matter how hard you try to paint the U.S. as the villain here.

We are dealing with a history of torture that predates the existence of the United States. Nothing we do in the immediate future is going to stop what the Iraquis do to their people, and as a sovereign country we can only tell them they need to change how they do things. Remember, we don't want a colony, we want a nation that can govern itself. It has just out from under a dictator and his sons and comes from a culture where torture is a practice and a policy. This is not something you change with a wave of a magic wand. 
It will take years of exposure to how a real democracy treats it people, something Iraq does not have, and will only get with time and exposure to the United States. Torture of its people will stop, eventually. It isn't going to change quickly or easily, but they have a chance, thanks to the United States and its military.

Of course the reporting is also misleading.

The WikiLeaks documents, however, show that Pace's guidance apparently did not reach down to U.S. troops in the field. One June 2004 "fragmentary order" (summarizing a command requirement) identified as Frago 242 instructs U.S. troops in Iraq not to investigate incidents of detainee abuse that were carried out by Iraqi security forces, even when witnessed firsthand. "Only an initial report will be made," the order said. "No further investigation will be required unless directed by [headquarters]." 
Once again, investigating is not the same as intervening when you see it happening and the phrasing of this little bit is used once again to mislead people into believing it was a U.S. policy to stand by when this was happening.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Tid bits left out of the article sited: Which also show that the activity was not condoned or ordered by the U.S.
> International law did not require the US to investigate these allegations of Iraqi-on-Iraqi detainee abuse, because all of them were reported after June 30, 2004  when Iraq once again became a sovereign country, according to the United Nations resolution 1546. The United States no longer directly controlled Iraqs security services, and thus, it was no longer legally obligated to police them.
> 
> What do you do when you are fighting in the actual soveign country and they have a government? How do you not hand the citizens over to their own government when you are in that country, can you legally send them out of that country? Isn't that also against international law, the laws the anti-war groups are always complaining about? Kind of catch 22 isn't it?
> ...


 


The subject of this thread is the behaviour of US Officers in the Korean War, this has nothing to do with the Korean war and the actions of American offciers, the discussion is about whether their actions were right, wrong, mistaken or mislead etc. Could you return to that subject do you think?


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

You are right Tez, please write to Maunakumu and let him know your feelings on this as well.  I have also moved to his new post  in U.S. politics, but I am not going to let an article like the above one stand uncontested.  From this point forward I will post this stuff under U.S. Politics.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 29, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Knowing a war crime is being committed and turning your back is about the same as doing it.


 
No, it's not.  Neither legally or morally.  

I will take a broader perspective, and once again ask that if you walk by a person being beaten, if you don't intervene to stop it are you then guilty of battery.  Because that is exactly what you are arguing in this thread.

Not everyone has a legal obligation to intervene in criminal activity.  In fact, the law can sometimes discourage or hold liable those that do.  So quite frankly, you perspective is naive and juvenile.

Now, if you want to make a moral argument, rather then a legal one, so be it.  But even then I would caution you that there are different perspectives one can take on that as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> You are right Tez, please write to Maunakumu and let him know your feelings on this as well. I have also moved to his new post in U.S. politics, but I am not going to let an article like the above one stand uncontested. From this point forward I will post this stuff under U.S. Politics.


 

Mauna stated he'd started another thread, rightly, to take into account his change of tack in arguing his point. He even added the link to make it easier to go across to.


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

I understand Tez, but his original post on the subject was here, not there, so it was left standing.  If I had not submitted here, as well as there, it would have been left without a response here.  Keep in mind, he could have started the new thread all on its own, and that would have been fine.  He thought it might be relevant here, and I think that is fine as well.  He chose to move it, which is great, so I will follow his post, which is interesting and a good topic for discussion.  I know you have an "issue" with me, but this is really MA-carvers post, and he may have an issue with Maunakumu posting about iraq on his post, which is his right, which I also stand by.  Thanks for your concern, and your attention.  Bill.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I understand Tez, but his original post on the subject was here, not there, so it was left standing. If I had not submitted here, as well as there, it would have been left without a response here. Keep in mind, he could have started the new thread all on its own, and that would have been fine. He thought it might be relevant here, and I think that is fine as well. He chose to move it, which is great, so I will follow his post, which is interesting and a good topic for discussion. I know you have an "issue" with me, but this is really MA-carvers post, and he may have an issue with Maunakumu posting about iraq on his post, which is his right, which I also stand by. Thanks for your concern, and your attention. Bill.


 

I have no 'issue' with you at all, I feel you have 'issues' ( horrid word) with people who don't believe as you do but that's by the by, Mauna, correctly as one should, when the subject is splitting, made a new thread. Your two posts didn't reference his and came after mine and a couple of others which were not discussing Maunas post as he'd said he'd made a separate thread, so it was confusing to have the first post say "Tid bits left out of the article..." and then "Pace stood his ground...", if you'd referenced Mauna's article or addressed it to him it would have been understandable.


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

Good point Tez, I copied and pasted from the new thread, which is why it was the way it was.  I stand corrected on that count.  Thanks.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Good point Tez, I copied and pasted from the new thread, which is why it was the way it was. I stand corrected on that count. Thanks.


 
No worries, now back to the debate. 5-0 Kenpo made good points anyone replying?

Sadly I'm on night shift starting shortly, but will think during the peace between fights and drunks lol.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> No, it's not.  Neither legally or morally.
> 
> I will take a broader perspective, and once again ask that if you walk by a person being beaten, if you don't intervene to stop it are you then guilty of battery.  Because that is exactly what you are arguing in this thread.
> 
> ...



Aloha, I posted a response in the other thread.  My only point in posting this here was to show that the idea of American Exceptionalism doesn't exist.  It didn't exist then and it doesn't exist now.  I think we lost all sense of moral authority after WWII where we were actually attacked and declared war in response on specific enemies.


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

I have to say I am sad for you Maunakumu.  I also responded on the other post, and this is the last time I will mention it out of respect for this post, no disrespect intended.  We fought to keep korea, vietnam and cambodia free.  we lost lives in all of this conflict for countries that had no real value to us, and yet you say our country isn't exceptional.  We are the country that uses military assets, in peace time, to save the lives of the citizens of other countries,  (I am not saying other nations don't also help, I am just addressing the American side of the issue, that's all).  As a nation we provide massive amounts of resources to private charities, our soldiers stand to help other countries stay free, our navy keeps the sea lanes free, we feed the world with the food we produce, and yet we are not exceptional.  

America, during the period before I was alive, and during my tenure here on the planet has been an exceptionally good country.  It has done more in its short existence to spread liberty and freedom around the world than any country before it, with fewer abuses of that power.  Countries much older, have done far less, and caused far more suffering in their time as dominant powers than the united states at its worst.

I am sad for you.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have to say I am sad for you Maunakumu. I also responded on the other post, and this is the last time I will mention it out of respect for this post, no disrespect intended. We fought to keep korea, vietnam and cambodia free. we lost lives in all of this conflict for *countries that had no real value to us*.


 
Korea has great mineral resources, _north of the 38th parallel,_ the principle wealth and export of North Korea-_this was known at the time of the Korean war._


Vietnam has, _and was known at the time of the war to have_, large oil and gas reserves.

Cambodia is about to get rich on its own oil, _known about since the late 60's._


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

Now from our history of fighting Germany, japan and Italy, during the second world war, it is easy to see that those fights were just about oil, and coal, and rubber and gas for the United States.  So obviously, if we only fight for oil, and coal and rubber and gas against Germany, Italy and Japan, that would be the only reason we would fight for Korea, Vietnam and the other asian countries.  

I mean look, after the war with Germany, Japan and italy, we came in like the aliens on the T.V. show "V", sucked up all the resources of the countries we conquered, enslaved their peoples, and now use their bodies as living batteries.  Oh, wait, we didn't actually do that,we, sort of, helped them rebuild, restart their governments and now they are telling us that we spend too much money.  Hmmmm.

(wait, I have stumbled upon a secret cache of internet files directly from the data vaults of the DARK OVERLORDS who control every aspect of life on the planet.  I have set up scramblers and false trails, but i need to get this information out quickly.  Apparently, the DARK OVERLORDS, who control the entire world have become bored.  they control every aspect of life, however even with their control, their x-box 360' keep breaking.  Back in the 1940' coal, oil and gas were just the excuses they used to cover up their real agenda.  The DARK OVERLORDS, were afraid that Hitler would win the war and install beer and sausages as the main food source in Europe, forcing out the English "chip" and the French Croissant.  When the japanese moved into china, the DARK OVERLORDS wanted to stop them from placing sushi, as the staple food source.  Apparently, the some of the children of the DARK OVERLORDS thought that sushi was "icky."  And so, to prevent the food dominance of Germany and Japan, which acted in complete disregard for the orders of the DARK OVERLORDS, world war 2 was fought.  Wait, the black vans are pulling up, I have to leave.  Good luck, it was good knowing you, continue the fight for food choice freedom...)


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Now from our history of fighting Germany, japan and Italy, during the second world war, it is easy to see that those fights were just about oil, and coal, and rubber and gas for the United States.  So obviously, if we only fight for oil, and coal and rubber and gas against Germany, Italy and Japan, that would be the only reason we would fight for Korea, Vietnam and the other asian countries.
> 
> I mean look, after the war with Germany, Japan and italy, we came in like the aliens on the T.V. show "V", sucked up all the resources of the countries we conquered, enslaved their peoples, and now use their bodies as living batteries.  Oh, wait, we didn't actually do that,we, sort of, helped them rebuild, restart their governments and now they are telling us that we spend too much money.  Hmmmm.
> 
> (wait, I have stumbled upon a secret cache of internet files directly from the data vaults of the DARK OVERLORDS who control every aspect of life on the planet.  I have set up scramblers and false trails, but i need to get this information out quickly.  Apparently, the DARK OVERLORDS, who control the entire world have become bored.  they control every aspect of life, however even with their control, their x-box 360' keep breaking.  Back in the 1940' coal, oil and gas were just the excuses they used to cover up their real agenda.  The DARK OVERLORDS, were afraid that Hitler would win the war and install beer and sausages as the main food source in Europe, forcing out the English "chip" and the French Croissant.  When the japanese moved into china, the DARK OVERLORDS wanted to stop them from placing sushi, as the staple food source.  Apparently, the some of the children of the DARK OVERLORDS thought that sushi was "icky."  And so, to prevent the food dominance of Germany and Japan, which acted in complete disregard for the orders of the DARK OVERLORDS, world war 2 was fought.  Wait, the black vans are pulling up, I have to leave.  Good luck, it was good knowing you, continue the fight for food choice freedom...)



Now, you finally understand.  2 + 2 = 5.  LOL!


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

By jove, you're right, Maunakumu.  Let's meet back at the cave and prepare for the next operation against the DARK OVERLORDS.  I'll bring the nachos, don't forget the rootbeer.


----------

