What do you think of the U.S. soldier who informed the authorities about the abuses at Abu Ghraib?

Question

I hope that if I was called to do so, that I would have is courage.

Wow! There have been some very interesting answers to this question thus far.

This was a soldier who reported on illegal activities. Things that are against international law and against the policy of the United States armed forces. They were activities that were also just plain wrong - even in times of war. We want to show the world that we are better than the Taliban, the terrorists, the Nazis, the totalatarianist regimes, and we can't do that if we condone or tolerate the abuses that were seen at Abu Ghraib. To say things like "well, there are far worse things that happen in other countries" is such a weak argument. If we condones these activities than we are no better than our enemies.

The people who committed these acts at Abu Ghraib disobeyed orders, and went against the policies and values of the United States. That's unamerican.

Answer 1

He was courageous. A true soldier and patriot....one who knew that America's high-minded talk of morality...of being the good guys can't be JUST talk. We have to live it.

Otherwise, what's the fight for?

Answer 2

It's extremely courageous. The kind of backlash this kind of person would face would be horrendous if the media didn't get a hold of such stories. There are members of the armed forces all the way up who would ruin a person's life to keep something which is clearly wrong from becoming public.


But like others have said in this thread, and from personal experience in the military I guarantee that the general view of military people is horribly negative towards this kind of thing. I guarantee beyond any doubt, and there are surveys that have confirmed this, that there are a huge proportion of the members of the armed forces who would go along with a cover up of something like a fellow soldier executing a number of people for no reason at all rather than speak out. The reason is that the whole military culture is about teamwork and supporting each other no matter what. It's an outdated attitude but is still supported all the way up to very high levels.

Your average enlisted soldier in the army isn't the sharpest person and the training just reinforces the sheeplike mentality of doing what your told and working as part of the team. Ethics is mentioned maybe once during training as a formality but the overwhelming atmosphere makes it clear that misconduct is better tolerated than spoken out against.

Like above, apparantly someone can't stand up against things that are clearly wrong, it has to have an alterior motive. That's just how ingrained it is that ethics and the clearly defined rules are meaningless in day to day conduct. Yet people can't understand why progess in gaining public support in Iraq or Afghanistan is nil.

Answer 3

You have to make the decision if all the honor and noble character that the American military is hype and bull or if it is true and something you try to attain and preserve. If something is wrong, it is plain wrong no matter who does it. You can justify things till hell snows over but is just rationalizing something that is not acceptable. You have to make the choice if we represent this nation in the ways that we are advertised to or if we are just doing dirty work and letting all the honor be empty rhetoric. If he saw something that was wrong and reported it then he did what honor would have him do. To defend wrongdoing is a bad thing. America should be what we say we are.....above such things and as an emissary of America, the soldiers should uphold that. If not, what are we fighting for?

Answer 4

It simply shows the difference between Americans and the vile vermin that exist in other parts of the world. We prosecute our people for putting underwear on peoples' heads while they cheer their people on for chopping off the heads of journalists and contract workers. Oh, can't wait for this answer to be deleted for violating the yahoo code of ethics, I support America.

Answer 5

sorry haven't seen the 60 minutes thing... but i guess he got oaid for it - his 15 seconds of fame huh..?!

I can't understand what the big hoo haw is about - so what?

no one complains of the serious torture that goes on around the worl and people are upset about a little fooling around...

true it probably shouldn't have happened - maybe they should have just lined tem all against the wall and shot them like china does or used them as slave labour building the roads... or attached electrodes to their genitals....

who do you get to watch prisoners who tried to kill your own people ? and who do you trust not to want to ge some of their own back by humiliating these misguided fools?

these people (the prisoners.. not the guards...) were not nice poele and wouldn't have been so nice to us if they were the guards - unfortunately we have to prove we are better and more civilized than these freaks..

I really dont agree - how can these people be protected by our own laws? they are some of the worst kind of people....

I don't think even their own people would have been so nice to them as they (the prisoners) did some pretty nasty things to their own kind...

sorry guess I got a little side tracked there

the person who blew the whistle on the so called atrocities...

well each to their own and they unfortunately will probably suffer for opening their big mouth on what they saw as wrong - well it probably was wrong for a civilised person to do but war is hell and we are at war.... the war of terror where the enemy are not playing games or politics but for keeps - we are the only ones playing by the rules... the self imposed rules.......

I would probably just go get another job somewhere else, maybe feel sicked by the whole thing but then that is me....

Answer 6

Because, as he pointed out in the '60 Minutes' interview: it was wrong; it was illegal; it was something that U.S. troops don't do. We are the United States of America; even in war we should be expected to hold ourselves to a higher standard. What he did was heroic, patriotic and absolutely correct.
If you're going to stoop to the same levels as your 'enemy' then there's nothing sacred about the military oath of honor. George W. Bush seems to forget that when he deliberately violated the terms of the Geneva Convention, which the great U.S.A. claims to whole-heartedly support. To reduce our military personnel to the same kind of wretched animals as we believe our 'enemies' to be, we have no honor, no self-respect, no commitment to law and order, and no right to call ourselves a peace-loving nation. -RKO- 06/24/07

Answer 7

I suppose we will always have rats among us that want to pretend they are ratting for genuine humane purposes, yet every time a rat gets the opportunity it seems they always end up in politics where the people say ( oh, he is a honest person lets elect him ) but , when he gets elected he is just as crooked as his predecessors, which makes me think maybe a lot of people out there are looking for something that they can use to further their interest, is this guy running for office to?? or did he just want out of the military?

Answer 8

He did the right thing. The abuses may pale against a beheading, but they were still wrong.

Answer 9

In the Army, we called guys like that a Buddy-f--ker.

Answer 10

A hero of human rights