Anonymous Preps Release of 2.6GB of Haditha Documents

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]I was going to thumbs up you because you were speaking truth about it being in the military's best interest to quiet this quickly, but then you said "...arguably for the security of the nation." Get your facts straight. The Iraq War had NOTHING to do with American security. It was, retroactively excused as, for Iraqi freedom.It definitely decreased American security because it increased the hostility towards America in the region as they now have to fear an unprovoked American attack even if they comply with ALL American requests.[/citation]

It seems you and others have misunderstood me, I am not taking the side of such I am simply pointing out that it is a debated topic. I do apologize for not making this clear.
Nor was I even speaking about the war in Iraq per say, rather the actions that can be done in war that the public will not respond favorably to.

We have a volunteer military that tries not to have to draft. Due to this public opinion matters greatly if we hear about the deaths of innocent people who died at the hands of our military or any other unfavorable action recruitment will slow down for a period of time. Iraq became a very unpopular war that already hurt recruitment. Certainly the actions done to sweep things under the rug for their own interest is immoral. Some (Not I) excuse this as a form of necessity.

 

[dalauder]

[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]It seems you and others have misunderstood me, I am not taking the side of such I am simply pointing out that it is a debated topic. I do apologize for not making this clear.Nor was I even speaking about the war in Iraq per say, rather the actions that can be done in war that the public will not respond favorably to.We have a volunteer military that tries not to have to draft. Due to this public opinion matters greatly if we hear about the deaths of innocent people who died at the hands of our military or any other unfavorable action recruitment will slow down for a period of time. Iraq became a very unpopular war that already hurt recruitment. Certainly the actions done to sweep things under the rug for their own interest is immoral. Some (Not I) excuse this as a form of necessity.[/citation]If you meant that the military is "doing what is best for...arguably the security of the nation", then that's true as a blanket statement. Now I understand what you mean and agree with it.

As an organization, I completely understand their decision to do what it best for themselves in attempting to quietly end the saga of this massacre. But it is the responsibility of free people to not allow an injustice to pass. And people are doing their job of criticizing this move.

The fact is, you can put people in military prison pretty easily (compared to normal prison). There should have initially been greater disciplinary action, if only to save face, and even if it was only 2 years in a military prison for a couple of those involved.

 

[jalek]

Further proof that if you don't want something getting into other people's hands, don't put it on an internet-facing server. There are always vulnerabilities, whether technical or social.

 

[nottheking]

I find it somewhat amusing that apparently the Naval Institute opted for the term "Merry Pranksters," for what was apparently their chosen term for Anonymous there. Of course, I can't really tell the context, since it appears that that blog post has since been taken down; the link provided is dead, and a quick look over the site reveals a post by that name... Which appears to have been removed.

Meanwhile, I'm somewhat mixed on the punishment; yes, a "mere rank reduction" may come across as lenient, though I noted that it wasn't simply a single grade of drop, (which would've been to "Sergeant") but rather one all the way to "Private;" for those a bit familiar with the US Marine Corps' rank structure know that "Private" is not just the lowest rank, but one from which promotion out of (to "Private First Class" which roughly equates the ORDINARY "Private" in the US Army) comes automatically upon a certain amount of time spent enlisted; in prior years, the equivalent rank in the US Army was actually called "Recruit."

This sort of demotion implies that this rank is to be permanent; in terms of demotion, it's the stiffest penalty possible. In the context of the USMC, this is an incredibly degrading thing; he's been permanently relegated to forever be that rank, and that's what will officially be recorded on the rolls when he leaves the Marines. Of course, not that this would be sufficient punishment given that this is hardly an issue that rests entirely within the USMC.

 

[dickcheney]

Someone will qualify for treason if this is released. It is ridiculous to blow such an incident out of proportion, this kind of crap happened every week in Vietnam.

If someone did something wrong (read: criminal) they will be punished and that's it. Mind your own ****** business.

 

[Guest]

reveal 911

 

[Guest]

First, if one side in a war does not wear a uniform easily recognizable from civilian wear they give up their Geneva Convention rights. They are infact considered spies not soldiers at that point. There is nothing that covers what happens to spies. IE By the Geneva Conventions spies can be tortured.

Next, One of the reasons the Geneva conventions were written was to protect the civilian population from this sort of violence. However, when the enemy does not were a uniform, hides in schools, churches, hospitals and behind any crowd it can find I think it is reasonable to expect a bunch of civilian casualties.

Finally, with that type of atmosphere you will breed a certain amount of callousness/contempt for the civilians. In a perfect world this would not happen but this world is not perfect.

 

[bustapr]

so, the weight of a Staff Seargeant's rank is the same weight leading the massacre of 24 unarmed men, women, and children? just, wow

Im supporting Anonymous on this one.

 

[dickcheney]

[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]so, the weight of a Staff Seargeant's rank is the same weight leading the massacre of 24 unarmed men, women, and children? just, wowIm supporting Anonymous on this one.[/citation]

I agree that his punishment is severe but its to serve as an example.

 

[dalauder]

[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]If you meant that the military is "doing what is best for...arguably the security of the nation", then that's true as a blanket statement. Now I understand what you mean and agree with it.As an organization, I completely understand their decision to do what it best for themselves in attempting to quietly end the saga of this massacre. But it is the responsibility of free people to not allow an injustice to pass. And people are doing their job of criticizing this move.The fact is, you can put people in military prison pretty easily (compared to normal prison). There should have initially been greater disciplinary action, if only to save face, and even if it was only 2 years in a military prison for a couple of those involved.[/citation]Did I get "thumbed down" for saying an organization is expected to do what is best for it? Obviously, an organization should do what is best, but that's not what I expect--just what I hope they do.

 

[the_brute]

Go there, see the horrible stuff that happens, then talk. After being there and being shot at by a dozen kids that are having a hard time even lifting the weapons, you get a level of distrust for people. I pulled gate guard, and saw several innocent looking people try to kill us (moms kids old).
I dont know anything about this case in particular but many of the style are wrongly looked at by the public.

 

[wild9]

[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]The least amount done draws the least amount of attention. This is something the military would rather people simply forget about. Recruitment numbers suffer do to times of unpopular wars or when a terrible act by their hand is done and gets major coverage. They are simply doing what is best for themselves and arguably the security of the nation.[/citation]

IF they want to do what's best for the nation..why aren't they defending it? The Mexican border is a sham, a system wide open to abuse and a means by which all manner of low-life can enter the country undocumented. Parts of Northern Mexico resemble Iraq. Are these troops overseas really, honestly, and fairly, defending America's interests..or are they merely acting as useful idiots to the corporations who put the very people in power these troops are sent to topple?

The vast majority of the American public want their borders defended. This ain't happening. These troops are 'fighting terror' overseas, chasing ghosts whilst those with a clear, terrorist, racist, violent agenda just bloody dance across that sodding border. The sheer hypocrisy of this and previous administration's policy on security is startling.