Tucson soldier blows whistle on Iraq rape/murder

[Ban Hammer 13,783]

That's a disgusting thing to say...he did a brave thing that, whether some believe it or not, could cost him his own life. No doubt it's already cost him his career. Military types often apply the mouth closed policy to every aspect of the life and for every one officer that's praising him I'm sure 20 more aren't so happy. To try to lessen what he's done, to seek dishonor in him, is disheartening to see. I should just stick to the visa related questions on this board, the rest is really starting to make me sick.

what do you base that statement on? experience?

Gah! Please don't make me chase down articles. I'm not putting down the military AT ALL. Like an social group they have their secrets, their loyalty to eachother, their hesitation at 'snitching on their own'...Hell, boy scouts, frats, any group have that! And this man and his family obviously have a strong loyalty and history with the military. And he's gone and put himself as the article says against some of his brothers. I applaud his actions and i'm sickened by the thought that some people in this world cant' see good without looking for the bad, that was my comment.

in other words, it's based on what you've read instead of seen. got news for you. the military demands that every individual take the hard right over the easy wrong and that is constantly drummed into everyone in the military from the time they join till the time they leave.

i seriously doubt that there will be a 1-20 ratio of individuals that are not happy about him reporting such. i'd tend to believe more like 20 happy and 1 not. you can continue with believing there it is like a social group with secrets, loyalty, secret handshakes and such, but when it comes to breaking the law people are told about it.

[almaty 19]

This also makes you wonder how many other witnesses there are to crimes of this nature who have been intimidated into not coming forward...

who now lives with the fear of payback from other soldiers. A U.S. senator has told the Army that Watt has "received threats," and the Army says it is investigating whether Watt is in danger.

I'm also curious if he would have been moved to come forward if it had just been the girl and her family who had been terrorized and killed or if it was more because his brothers were getting payback for what those soldiers did..

That's a disgusting thing to say...he did a brave thing that, whether some believe it or not, could cost him his own life. No doubt it's already cost him his career. Military types often apply the mouth closed policy to every aspect of the life and for every one officer that's praising him I'm sure 20 more aren't so happy. To try to lessen what he's done, to seek dishonor in him, is disheartening to see. I should just stick to the visa related questions on this board, the rest is really starting to make me sick.

Of course it's disgusting. Her 'heroes' purposely do horrible horrible things to people with no thought of ever coming forward. Ever. She can't comprehend 'doing the right thing'.

In the article the man says the only thing that got his goat was that this Green guy had gone back to the states and all this bad stuff was happening to his 'brothers' because of what Green had done.

Don't tell me that they don't have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the military.

I'm glad this guy came forward but why did it take so long if it was for the right reasons?

ETA: if you know me so well why don't you name one of my 'heros'???

Borat

chopf##k

[Joey559 1]

That's a disgusting thing to say...he did a brave thing that, whether some believe it or not, could cost him his own life. No doubt it's already cost him his career. Military types often apply the mouth closed policy to every aspect of the life and for every one officer that's praising him I'm sure 20 more aren't so happy. To try to lessen what he's done, to seek dishonor in him, is disheartening to see. I should just stick to the visa related questions on this board, the rest is really starting to make me sick.

what do you base that statement on? experience?

Gah! Please don't make me chase down articles. I'm not putting down the military AT ALL. Like an social group they have their secrets, their loyalty to eachother, their hesitation at 'snitching on their own'...Hell, boy scouts, frats, any group have that! And this man and his family obviously have a strong loyalty and history with the military. And he's gone and put himself as the article says against some of his brothers. I applaud his actions and i'm sickened by the thought that some people in this world cant' see good without looking for the bad, that was my comment.

in other words, it's based on what you've read instead of seen. got news for you. the military demands that every individual take the hard right over the easy wrong and that is constantly drummed into everyone in the military from the time they join till the time they leave.

i seriously doubt that there will be a 1-20 ratio of individuals that are not happy about him reporting such. i'd tend to believe more like 20 happy and 1 not. you can continue with believing there it is like a social group with secrets, loyalty, secret handshakes and such, but when it comes to breaking the law people are told about it.

Fine...then I guess the guy in the same article who was on charges for not reporting it missed that day at military school.

Edited September 14, 2006 by Joey559

[Ban Hammer 13,783]

Fine...then I guess the guy in the same article who was on charges for not reporting it missed that day at military school.

Shortly after the kidnappings, Watt spoke with another Bravo Company friend, Sgt. Anthony Yribe, 22. According to testimony Watt later gave in court, reported by a small group of journalists allowed inside the hearing, Yribe disclosed a terrible secret: He suspected that 1st Platoon soldiers had attacked the Iraqi family March 12.

story link

he had suspicions about such. not proof. so it was a gray area to him in the way of reporting. i believe he should have reported it, yet as he was not sure i can also understand his reluctance to do so due to the military justice system being like the spanish inquisition.

and please park the sarcasm.......

Edited September 14, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Joey559 1]

Fine...then I guess the guy in the same article who was on charges for not reporting it missed that day at military school.

Shortly after the kidnappings, Watt spoke with another Bravo Company friend, Sgt. Anthony Yribe, 22. According to testimony Watt later gave in court, reported by a small group of journalists allowed inside the hearing, Yribe disclosed a terrible secret: He suspected that 1st Platoon soldiers had attacked the Iraqi family March 12.

story link

he had suspicions about such. not proof. so it was a gray area to him in the way of reporting. i believe he should have reported it, yet as he was not sure i can also understand his reluctance to do so due to the military justice system being like the spanish inquisition.

and please park the sarcasm.......

Ah. Then apparently the gentleman in the story being charged by military court for not coming forward was either A. not half the person this Watt is or B. belonged to a group of armed service that's, "military justice system being like the spanish inquisition" persuaded him through said intimidation to keep his mouth shut.

And that's with sarcasm on the curb. You answered your own question in that sentence. You, who have experience, put forth that the military justice system is so intimidating that it's what could be stopping a solider from reporting a suspected crime.

[Veiled Princess 1]

In the article the man says the only thing that got his goat was that this Green guy had gone back to the states and all this bad stuff was happening to his 'brothers' because of what Green had done.

Don't tell me that they don't have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the military.

I'm glad this guy came forward but why did it take so long if it was for the right reasons?

ETA: if you know me so well why don't you name one of my 'heros'???

what does this mean?

It means they have their own little set of rules in the military and especially in times of war. Someone does something wrong? Sweep it under the rug, act like it didn't happen, downplay it... after all, they're stressed out... give them a break....

What I find disgusting is that more members of the military are not happy that he reported this act of TERROR to the authorities. Why does he have to relocate? Why is he receiving threats? Because he violated don't ask don't tell???

Borat

I looked that up on ask.com but I still don't know what it means.

[Ban Hammer 13,783]

Fine...then I guess the guy in the same article who was on charges for not reporting it missed that day at military school.

Shortly after the kidnappings, Watt spoke with another Bravo Company friend, Sgt. Anthony Yribe, 22. According to testimony Watt later gave in court, reported by a small group of journalists allowed inside the hearing, Yribe disclosed a terrible secret: He suspected that 1st Platoon soldiers had attacked the Iraqi family March 12.

story link

he had suspicions about such. not proof. so it was a gray area to him in the way of reporting. i believe he should have reported it, yet as he was not sure i can also understand his reluctance to do so due to the military justice system being like the spanish inquisition.

and please park the sarcasm.......

Ah. Then apparently the gentleman in the story being charged by military court for not coming forward was either A. not half the person this Watt is or B. belonged to a group of armed service that's, "military justice system being like the spanish inquisition" persuaded him through said intimidation to keep his mouth shut.

And that's with sarcasm on the curb. You answered your own question in that sentence. You, who have experience, put forth that the military justice system is so intimidating that it's what could be stopping a solider from reporting a suspected crime.

i don't believe it's A or B. keep in mind that if he made such an allegation of misconduct/criminal activity and after an investigation, such was found to be unsubstantiated, what do you think his career would have looked like? it seems to me that there was quite a bit of uncertainty on his part. yes, the military has a great rumor mill. add into that his age of 22 and it's a recipe for things just like this. damned if he do, damned if he don't. and it's not the military justice system that intimidates one from doing so - more like the fallout from making reports that turn out to be false and being branded a "chicken little - the sky is falling" person.

[Veiled Princess 1]

I'll name two.

Hamas

Hizbollah

and especially not hizbu Iblees

[Ban Hammer 13,783]

In the article the man says the only thing that got his goat was that this Green guy had gone back to the states and all this bad stuff was happening to his 'brothers' because of what Green had done.

Don't tell me that they don't have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the military.

I'm glad this guy came forward but why did it take so long if it was for the right reasons?

ETA: if you know me so well why don't you name one of my 'heros'???

what does this mean?

It means they have their own little set of rules in the military and especially in times of war. Someone does something wrong? Sweep it under the rug, act like it didn't happen, downplay it... after all, they're stressed out... give them a break....

What I find disgusting is that more members of the military are not happy that he reported this act of TERROR to the authorities. Why does he have to relocate? Why is he receiving threats? Because he violated don't ask don't tell???

the don't ask don't tell policy has nothing to do with your statement above.

as for relocation of the individual who made the report, that is standard practice. happens in sexual assault cases, criminal investigations, etc. it removes the person from the unit so there can't be any retribution. after all, people in the military do have friends in the military.

[Veiled Princess 1]

the don't ask don't tell policy has nothing to do with your statement above.

as for relocation of the individual who made the report, that is standard practice. happens in sexual assault cases, criminal investigations, etc. it removes the person from the unit so there can't be any retribution. after all, people in the military do have friends in the military.

So you admit that people in the military encourage covering up the truth when they do something wrong?

[Welshcookie 17]

the don't ask don't tell policy has nothing to do with your statement above.

as for relocation of the individual who made the report, that is standard practice. happens in sexual assault cases, criminal investigations, etc. it removes the person from the unit so there can't be any retribution. after all, people in the military do have friends in the military.

So you admit that people in the military encourage covering up the truth when they do something wrong?

How did you get that?? relocating a person during an investigation does not equal a cover up....

[Ban Hammer 13,783]

the don't ask don't tell policy has nothing to do with your statement above.

as for relocation of the individual who made the report, that is standard practice. happens in sexual assault cases, criminal investigations, etc. it removes the person from the unit so there can't be any retribution. after all, people in the military do have friends in the military.

So you admit that people in the military encourage covering up the truth when they do something wrong?

sigh...........retribution is actions taken by someone (or more) after the reporting of an incident. as there have been occasional acts of retribution on whistleblowers in the past, the military moves the person(s) doing the reporting for the safety and peace within the unit. are you done yet trying to make a mountain out of a molehill yet?

Edited September 14, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Veiled Princess 1]

the don't ask don't tell policy has nothing to do with your statement above.

as for relocation of the individual who made the report, that is standard practice. happens in sexual assault cases, criminal investigations, etc. it removes the person from the unit so there can't be any retribution. after all, people in the military do have friends in the military.

So you admit that people in the military encourage covering up the truth when they do something wrong?

sigh...........retribution is actions taken by someone (or more) after the reporting of an incident. as there have been occasional acts of retribution on whistleblowers in the past, the military moves the person(s) doing the reporting for the safety and peace within the unit. are you done yet trying to make a mountain out of a molehill yet?

It's obviously people inside the military who are seeking retribution if he has to be relocated... those members of the military are then encouraging him to keep his mouth shut and not tell the truth?

the don't ask don't tell policy has nothing to do with your statement above.

as for relocation of the individual who made the report, that is standard practice. happens in sexual assault cases, criminal investigations, etc. it removes the person from the unit so there can't be any retribution. after all, people in the military do have friends in the military.

So you admit that people in the military encourage covering up the truth when they do something wrong?

How did you get that?? relocating a person during an investigation does not equal a cover up....

No, that's not what I'm saying... the fact that he has to be relocated is proof that members of the military didn't want him to report it. I'm talking about the actual soldiers in the military...

[Peter Miami 1]

This also makes you wonder how many other witnesses there are to crimes of this nature who have been intimidated into not coming forward...

who now lives with the fear of payback from other soldiers. A U.S. senator has told the Army that Watt has "received threats," and the Army says it is investigating whether Watt is in danger.

I'm also curious if he would have been moved to come forward if it had just been the girl and her family who had been terrorized and killed or if it was more because his brothers were getting payback for what those soldiers did..

That's a disgusting thing to say...he did a brave thing that, whether some believe it or not, could cost him his own life. No doubt it's already cost him his career. Military types often apply the mouth closed policy to every aspect of the life and for every one officer that's praising him I'm sure 20 more aren't so happy. To try to lessen what he's done, to seek dishonor in him, is disheartening to see. I should just stick to the visa related questions on this board, the rest is really starting to make me sick.

Of course it's disgusting. Her 'heroes' purposely do horrible horrible things to people with no thought of ever coming forward. Ever. She can't comprehend 'doing the right thing'.

In the article the man says the only thing that got his goat was that this Green guy had gone back to the states and all this bad stuff was happening to his 'brothers' because of what Green had done.

Don't tell me that they don't have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the military.

I'm glad this guy came forward but why did it take so long if it was for the right reasons?

ETA: if you know me so well why don't you name one of my 'heros'???

I'll name two.

Hamas

Hizbollah

Very True! It is sad!

Peter Miami

[Ban Hammer 13,783]

the don't ask don't tell policy has nothing to do with your statement above.

as for relocation of the individual who made the report, that is standard practice. happens in sexual assault cases, criminal investigations, etc. it removes the person from the unit so there can't be any retribution. after all, people in the military do have friends in the military.

So you admit that people in the military encourage covering up the truth when they do something wrong?

sigh...........retribution is actions taken by someone (or more) after the reporting of an incident. as there have been occasional acts of retribution on whistleblowers in the past, the military moves the person(s) doing the reporting for the safety and peace within the unit. are you done yet trying to make a mountain out of a molehill yet?

It's obviously people inside the military who are seeking retribution if he has to be relocated... those members of the military are then encouraging him to keep his mouth shut and not tell the truth?

the don't ask don't tell policy has nothing to do with your statement above.

as for relocation of the individual who made the report, that is standard practice. happens in sexual assault cases, criminal investigations, etc. it removes the person from the unit so there can't be any retribution. after all, people in the military do have friends in the military.

So you admit that people in the military encourage covering up the truth when they do something wrong?

How did you get that?? relocating a person during an investigation does not equal a cover up....

No, that's not what I'm saying... the fact that he has to be relocated is proof that members of the military didn't want him to report it. I'm talking about the actual soldiers in the military...

let's make it clear to you........4 persons in a company (about 100 people) do something wrong. 1 person reports this. you have 4 who did wrong, 1 person who reported it, and (going with the assumption that the chain of command was not involved in the wrongdoing so none of them are involved) the platoon leader, sergeant, 1sg, and cdr involved investigating that report. now out of a total of a 100 person unit almost 10% of the unit is involved.

a vast majority of those in the unit won't care about the 4 wrongdoers being reported. however, those 4 might have a few friends who feel the need to take matters in their own hands in regards to the "stool pigeon - whistleblower - squealer' or whatever term you wish to use.

those who are interested in some form of retribution would most likely be very young, new, and on their first term in the military. as a large percentage of those in the military don't go for a 2nd enlistment, moving the person who made the report out of the unit means that person would most likely never run into anyone in that unit again. that no one from the unit can affect any testimony this person might have to give later on. and yes, obviously for that person's safety too, which is a consideration.

does this mean that oh private A squealed on private B and private C is going to kill private A? no. it's called risk management - the military has the means to keep anything unpleasant from happening and they take steps in that direction. i'd call it more of a protection of the witness from being compromised and a career protection move of the superiors when this occurs, as should the reporting individual be compromised or something "bad" happen to the person (beating, killing, intimidation so the person refuses to cooperate with the ongoing investigation or trial) the chain of command might be found negligent in their duties then.

Edited September 14, 2006 by charlesandnessa