Korean War Massacres Sanctioned By U.S. Officers

[Blade96]

i'm not suprised.

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

 

[billc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 summarizes 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.”

There’s no doubt US officials knew about this torture, and by their inaction were complicit. Indeed, the regularity with which they turned over detainees captured by US forces to MOI personnel shows they were depending on their Iraqi allies to employ methods that were far worse than anything that happened at Abu Ghraib [.pdf].



This is quite clearly a war crime, committed not just by the Iraqi security forces but also by the top US military command and no doubt extending up to the political leadership. All roads in this matter lead straight to Washington, D.C.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.