SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
The Pentagon could be poised for a rapid about-face under the Trump administration, with the Obama administration's push for social reform surrendering to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military, experts told FoxNews.com.
Under President Obama, the military sought to integrate transgender persons into the ranks, allow women into special operations forces and purge the nomenclature of gender-specific words, adopting what some critics say was a "politically correct" liberal agenda. That's a contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach.
In addition, some Navy ships have been named for civil rights activists. And while the Obama administration has taken an inclusive approach on some issues, it has also worked to minimize expressions of Christianity in the ranks. For example, several officers have been disciplined for displaying Bibles or gospel verses in their quarters.
Veterans and military experts told FoxNews.com that, while some of Obama's civil rights advancements may be locked in, neither Trump nor his choice for secretary of defense, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, are likely to make social experimentation a priority.
Source: Fox News
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @10:35PM
Was it "lawful orders" when that young blonde Specialist at Guantanamo (in the famous photo) had those terrorist suspects naked on a leash and collar like dogs? I'd say that at the time the entire complex was acting under orders. It was to break the enemy to get information. However, when the photos came out, it provoked a backlash. That lowly Specialist was deemed to have acted on her own, and anyway, if they had been orders, presumably the govt was not on the hook for what she did because it was her duty to decide the orders were unlawful
and to not follow them. So I can see where the lawful order business is to prevent outright massacres and other war crimes, but I can also see that it is a useful way for the govt to deflect responsibility onto lower ranking personnel for actions they took under command. Hey, not the Army's fault, it's *that girl's* fault!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @10:46PM
Those were not lawful orders. Pretty much everything that happened at Abu Ghraib is contrary to everything the military has taught it's troops since - damned near forever. Blame that shit on George Bush and his legal corps trying to find excuses to justify torture. And, I don't let anyone in the chain of command off the hook on that. The blonde in the photos needed to serve prison time, in the cell across from Bush.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by NewNic on Friday January 13 2017, @11:39PM
But you do let them off the hook, because the whole chain of command should have served prison time. Do you think that the officers all the way up the hierarchy did not know what was going on? So why are Bush and the blonde the only people you say should serve time?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:47PM
Uhhhh - please re-read the post you responded to. I said the blonde needs to be in prison, right alongside the former president. I don't see any suggestion in my post that the lieutenants, colonels, and generals in between the top and the bottom of the chain of command should be exonerated.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:03AM
Uh, I did read it, carefully. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
I was commenting on your omission, which I felt was informative (perhaps showing implicit biases) rather than what you included.
It would have taken less words to write that the whole chain of command should go to prison than the way you overtly expressed that Bush and the blonde should have been punished. For example, instead of:
"And, I don't let anyone in the chain of command off the hook on that. The blonde in the photos needed to serve prison time, in the cell across from Bush."
you could have written:
The whole chain of command, from the blonde in the photos to Bush needed to serve prison time
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:47AM
No, it's a direct result of what was decided at Nuremberg. Go educate yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:21AM
That may be where it *originated*, but that doesn't explain why the USA chooses to apply that language *to its own military* to this day.
Think about the reasons I gave when I wrote my post. One of the benefits is that the US military can absolve itself as an organization of responsibility for atrocities by claiming the people underneath their commanding officer are personally responsible for those atrocities. It's a way of limiting the military's liability. Try using your brain to THINK.