Col. David Hackworth's $.02 on who should take the weight for Abu Ghraib

Wow! Pardon my ignorance but I didn't know kids that young served then.

He mentions the one thing about this whole story that nobody talks about much... all of those letters that were being sent to Congress, Governors, etc. All this people acted soo shocked by the photos yet many of them had received letter about what was going on months ago. Why weren't they shocked then??

No fewer than fifteen government officials were contacted earlier in the year seeking help in finding out the status of SSgt. Ivan F. Frederick, USA. The letters themselves are pleas for intervention in finding out what their son is potentially being charged with and directly alerts the reader to the point that SSgt. Frederick was concerned, early on in his assignment at the prison, that there were no written instructions or directives for his unit. Those contacted by the Frederick family are:


Jack Reed (D) RI
Robert Byrd (D) WV
Evan Bayh (D) IN
Edward Kennedy (D) MA
Hillary Clinton (D) NY
Daniel Akaka (D) HI
Paul Sarbanes (D) MD
Gov. Mark Warner (D) VA
Mark Dayton (D) MN
William Nelson (D) FL
Mark Pryor (D) AR
Benjamin Nelson (D) NE
Joseph Lieberman (D) CT
Roscoe Bartlett (R) MD
John “Jay” D. Rockefeller (D) WV

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted%2edb&command=viewone&id=12


And then we have the infro from Part II of 60 Minutes II re the Abu Ghraib scandal where soldiers (not those charged!) say they faxed, phoned, and e-mailed Carl Levin (-D), Joe Lieberman (-?), Arlen Specter (-R) and one other I can't recall as well as Rumsfeld and the White House.

No shock then. Not even any curiousity. The moral outrage of the 4 contacted last year is sickening.

I admit that I am disheartened by this new list. There are a lot of good people on it & I don't understand that they all failed our soldiers and are now so "surprised". Totally dis-heartening- some people I admire very much are on that list.

I wonder if these letters ever made it past the low level staffers.

That could be why they don't see their mail anymore...and seems it would give the White House reason to monitor their incoming mail.

Wanna shake things up and have a more effective military? Want to put the pigs at the trough on a diet? Put Hack in as SecDef. Give him a politically astute Undersecretary. Hook him up with Wes Clark as SecState or National Security Advisor. (I think maybe we need a proven peacemaker at State, tho I think Clark can handle it.)

As someone else in this thread noticed ... what about all the civilian leaders, congreesfolk and governors, who received written complaints about the pattern of abuse from our soldiers?

Indeed, this fish stinks from the head first. The head of this rotten fish is named George W. Bush.

Hack rules.


And I imagine he had to -ahem- exaggerate his age to 17, the legal minimum under the right conditions, I believe.

I do believe from my Uncle's that they fudged a little on age. Shhhh! He could be a good Sec. of Defense, don't know if he would want the job. He could shake it and bake it and get it cooking,the right way.

Kudos Hack--

as says TacticalPeak.

And he HATES weanies like the MI pukes who have gotten us into this mess because they have NO appreciation of soldiering.

is that he's a gadfly. His opinions and commitments can turn on a dime (look at his assessments of Colin Powell over the years for example, he's either a soldier's soldier or a shit, depending on what day Hack was writing). And after what he did to Adm Boorda, when he was guilty of the very same charges he was bellowing, I've had a strong mistrust of the man. When he's good, he's very good, and conversely, when he's an asshole, he's a mighty asshole.

He had a photo on his website of some soldier shaking hands with Hillary Clinton (or perhaps accepting a certificate or something) while simultaneously, with his other hand, giving her the finger -- no one but the camera could see that.

I wrote to Hack and expressed my disappointment because no matter what the soldier thinks about Hillary, she's still a Senator and that it was inappropriate for that reason AND that given the military's problems with its attitudes toward women in uniform, inappropriate for that reason too.

He wrote back, quite succinctly, something along the lines: "Good point. I've removed it."

Confirmed the respect for him I already had, even if I don't always agree with him. I think he serves an extraordinarily important role and I hope he continues for a very long while.

Link:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Feedback%202004.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=14&rnd=83.01888294601272

(snip)
There's a very good reason why no one in the upper levels of the Pentagon read MG Taguba's report. This is not a new problem. It existed in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, GWI and everywhere in between. As an MP in Nam, I can tell you that one of the main functions we had with POWs was to protect them from everybody else. The Army has learned from sad experience that MPs should NEVER be placed under the authority on MI. This is not a suggestion, it is in the ARs. THOU SHALT NOT... because this has happened so many times before.
(snip)
The real crime here, that has all the brass running for the hills while playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" is the order that placed the 320MP Bat. under the control of MI. Someone above Karpinsky in the chain of command, issued that order, in direct violation of Army Regulations, as pointed out by MG Taguba. It may have been an MG directly above Karpinsky, but I'm betting it was signed by LTG Sanchez, and unless he can pin it on some JAG on his staff who signed off on the orders, then his head needs to roll. No early retirement. Court Martial and Leavenworth.
(snip)


:nuke:

Today, an estimated 300,000 children under age 18 are participating in armed conflicts worldwide. Thousands more face recruitment or are members of armed forces and groups not presently at war. The Swedish organization Rädda Barnen reports that during 1997-98, children under age 18 participated in the armed conflicts of 36 countries, 27 of which involved soldiers under 15. Approximately 20 more countries, including the U.S., recruit children under age 18. Most child soldiers are from 15 to 17 years old, but others are as young as 7. Because age documentation does not exist in many areas, children are frequently passed off as older than they are.
<snip>
Several initiatives are under way internationally to address the problem of child soldiers. In the policy arena, a growing movement is seeking international agreements raising the minimum age for soldiering to 18. Current international agreements set 15 as the minimum age. Raising this to 18 would add protection for children ages 15-17 and for those passed off as older than they are. In 1998, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared that UN military peacekeepers must be at least 18 and should preferably be older than 21. Some governments have also changed (or are considering changing) their policies, and instruments such as the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child reflect this perspective. U.S. law, however, permits 17-year-olds to join the military voluntarily, with parental permission.
<snip>
Specific U.S. measures to block international efforts to prevent children from becoming soldiers have also occurred outside of governmental and UN arenas. During Summer 1999 negotiations on the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 182 on the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, the U.S. lobbied strongly against banning all forms of soldiering by children under 18. Thus, the final text specifically condemns only forced recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.

Successive U.S. administrations have argued that a minimum age of 18 is unacceptable and unrealistic. Recently, Pentagon officials, backed by the State Department and the administration, have contended that raising the minimum by 2 years, to 17, is acceptable and that the difference between 17 and 18 is only "peripheral." This position corresponds with U.S. law, which allows 17-year-olds to join the military. U.S. opposition to age 18 is also fueled by Pentagon concerns about possible interference with its domestic recruitment practices, especially in the wake of current enlistment shortfalls. The Pentagon has greatly expanded its outreach and advertising activities for young people, including Junior-ROTC in high schools and various other military programs for children as young as eight.

Not only is the U.S. resisting current international endeavors, it is also actively engaged in creating the conditions leading to the use of child soldiers. Of the 42 armed conflicts that occurred in 1994-95, 39 involved armed forces that had received U.S.-supplied weaponry. As of November 1998, the U.S. was providing military support to 11 of the 22 governments engaged in armed conflict whose armed forces or supported paramilitaries were known to use children under 17.
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol4/v4n27child_body.html

After Bush-the-father
destroyed what remained of the Goverment of Somalia,
that nation found itself UNABLE to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
At least the Somalis have an excuse for being one of only two nations in the world that have not endorsed this international treaty.

The united States of America
which steadfastly REFUSES to acknowledge that children are human
has no excuse whatsover.
http://www.unicef.org/crc/faq.htm

games and play 'em on your computer! They show just how much fun being in the army can be! Ain't it great!

Go to the third column, "Recreation" at

http://www.goarmy.com/index03.htm

and you can:

Play the Army Game. Download the highly realistic "America's Army" game here.

Go Army Racing —
satisfy your need for speed.

Army Downloads:
Put a piece of the Army on your desktop.

fake "Veterans Against Kerry" next.

This is great stuff. :)