Army Times has an article about this roughly two-thirds of the way down on their site. Apparently they were other more unsavory allegations besides the prisoner "abuse".

Sure wish there was a way to find out what really happened. I've become so jaded, I don't know who to believe any more <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I don't think being barked at constitutes anything anybody should be punished for. Big deal! Like having panties on your head is the end of the world. However, if there is indeed a videotape of the other things, they should nail him to the wall for those things. If he's going to be sent to jail, send him for the right reason.

I agree. If they are going to punish, & if it is justifiable, I just hope they don't just hang the lower ranked guys out to dry, (to satisfy media) while those who gave the orders scurry around like rats trying to CYA at the expense of the guys on the bottom of the totem pole.

That's exactly what they're doing, letting the lower ranking guys take the heat. But, maybe they were the ones taking the pictures which resulted in this mess?

I think this whole thing is stupid. They were just violent criminals in prison. It's not like they were anyone decent. Whatever it takes to get they results the officers were after should be done. They don't follow rules, so why should we? Whoever sent the pictures to the media and started all this should be convicted of treason and shot. The picture of Lindsay England with a cigarrette hanging out of her mouth pointing at the scantily clad prisoners is a classic. The latest of the English soldiers roughing up a bunch of young guys with an arab guy narrating in the background is another classic.

Luke you made an excellent point; sex offenders don't even receive a fraction of that sentence. What is the world coming to that we would give common criminals more consideration than our own?

They don't follow rules, so why should we?


Because we are NOT LIKE them........

Consideration for these soldiers should be very broad, they are getting a hard job done!!!!!!

 Quote:

Andrew I can not disagree more, we are at war with terrorists who brutaly torture and murder women, children and peace activists with the expressed goal of establishing a religious fascism thru out the world. That soldier showed restraint by not letting the dog take a groin bite <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I have to disagree, Dennis. He didn't show restraint, he showed poor judgement for not letting him bite ALL the sob's.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Andrew, ever work in a prison? Ever handled a dog when dealing with less than 'ethical' individuals?

Mike A - Props for making good, solid points that made me swing over to your side. Using a dog in a "game", as you said, is the crux of the situation, and I, too, must agree with some form of discipline.

"Andrew, ever work in a prison? Ever handled a dog when dealing with less than 'ethical' individuals?"

*****
The utility of a code of ethics has little to do with the ethics of prisoners.

In the military there are lawyers and doctors each with professional as well as military obligations.

I'm sure there are protocols for using dogs in a prison situation. I'm fine with this sort of application of force when rules apply (as I'm sure they ordinarily do).

On my experience: I'm a lawyer. I've handled both defence and prosecution matters. I've been in several prisons. I have no illusions. I deal with law enforcement every day and find that 99% are not just ok but are first class human beings. Any good defence lawyer maintains a very clear dispassionate view of his client's actual character and life situation. Any good crown attorney looks for the wedge on motive, the inconsistency.

On Mr. Armstrong's comments: I agree with his point of view.

I do see that those involved in dog sports such as Schutzhund suffer harm in terms of PR when abuses such as described here occur.

I also believe this man has harmed, not helped, American security by his disgraceful conduct.

On a code of conduct: it is clear that these people are soldiers first, and subject to military discipline. That's fine.

I do note that most dog handling units are low in the hierarchy, and are often seen as "tools" to achieve other objectives, which is fine.

On this basis I float the idea that maybe the dog handling "profession" should define itself as well as be defined by others. I have no clear idea on how or if this should occur.

If anyone else has opinions on this it will be interesting to read.

rgds andrew may