Hero's or Villains?

perseus

Active member
These extracts are from Philip Zimpardo’s book ‘The Lucifer Effect (how good people turn evil)’ . Zimpardo was the psychologist who defended Chip Frederick, one of those convicted of abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He cites several cases of servicemen who broke with the pressure of loyalty to their countrymen to serve what they saw as a higher moral purpose. Are they heroes or Villains? Zimpardo thinks the former since it takes courage to break with ones peers and suffer the consequences. Just interested to know what others think who have served in the military.

Joe Darby at Abu Ghraib

These abuses became known when Sergeant Joe Darby U.S. Army Reservist who served as an M.P. at the Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq. After learning of the abuse Darby was the first person to take steps to alert the U.S. military command.

Not everyone thinks what Darby did was the right thing to do. For many, even in his hometown, Darby’s calling attention to the abuses was seen to be unpatriotic, un-American, and faintly even treasonous. He his wife and mother had to remain in military protective custody for several years in the wake of the many retaliation threats they received.

Hugh Thompson at Mai Lai Vietnam

While this massacre was unfolding a helicopter piloted by Warrant officer Hugh Thompson Jr. which was flying overhead to provide air cover set down to help a group of Vietnamese civilians who appeared to be still alive.

As Thomson and his two-man crew returned to their helicopter, they saw Captain Medina and other soldiers running over to shoot the wounded. Thomson flew his helicopter back over My Lai village, where soldiers were about to blow up a hut full of wounded Vietnamese. He ordered the massacre to stop and threatened to open fire with the helicopters heavy machine gun an any American soldier or officer who refused his order. When Thomson ordered that civilians be taken out of the bunker, a lieutenant (who outranked him) countered that they would be taken out with grenades. Thompson replied "I can do better than that, keep your people in place", he then ordered other helicopters to fly in for medical evacuation.

Thompson became persona non-grata in the military and for punishment was required to fly the most dangerous helicopter missions, eventually being shot down and suffering serious injury. In contrast Lieutenant Calley the only person convicted of the atrocity, was treated as a hero in some quarters with a song dedicated to him and being eventually pardoned.
 
Last edited:
Both of them did the right thing. But doing the right thing doesn't make you a hero. It makes you the guy who did the right thing.
 
Zimpardo's view is that if you risk being alienated by the society you live in then you are taking a big risk, just as if you take a risk in battle from being killed or injured. In both cases you act to protect people other than yourself. Therefore, the difference is merely social v physical injury. In fact in Thompson's case it was both.
 
Interesting dilemma, and I wouldn´t dream about contradicting TomTom who is the SME on the ARVN part of the subject.

I do tend to agree with 03 though.
They did the right thing, period.
Before signing on the dotted line you should have a clear wiev on where your moral boundaries go IMO.

I wouldn´t use the term hero,s over this.
I know people who have done more, with less credit, never seeking accolades, at greater personal risk.
These are the men I would use that term for...Even if it is just a phrase and don´t mean **** nowadays..
 
Last edited:
Actually in this book Zimbardo goes into a lot of detail who and why people should be called hero's. He heavily criticises the celebrity hero culture where someone can be worshipped for winning Big Brother for instance.

Incidentally Zimbardo defended Chip Frederick who abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib because he sees him as a scapegoat and because of the Stanford prison experiment in the 70s were mellow college types playing the role of guards abused fellow students in a similar way http://www.prisonexp.org/

In Abu Ghraib the civilian CIA gave the guards permission to 'prepare' the prisoners, however there was no audit trail to the higher levels, particularly to the top politicians who probably knew the consequences of their policy. Personally I think both should have been prosecuted, since an opt out did seem possible, but the officers and politicians were more to blame.
 
Last edited:
Always remember, if we are going to portray ourselves as "The Good Guys" in this conflict we must be seen to be good, otherwise we will be seen as no better than our opponents.

It's people like Joe Darby who will ultimately show that we really ARE the good guys, regardless of an occasional hiccup here and there. When we discover our mistakes, we do what we can to correct those mistakes.
 
The thing they did wrong was to allow people to photograph these events, if I was on patrol and some wally started to film some of things we were doing the camera would be thrust into that spot were the sun never shines
 
Guess I'm just one of those folks who really didn't have much of a problem with how these terrorists who intentionally waged warfare on civilians (prisoners at Abu Ghraib) were treated. I also do not see the things done in interrogations to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as torture. To me, what was done to these folks was pretty dang mild, especially considering what they themselves did to other people.

Now, the ones who were shipped to Morocco, the REAL torture that they received there, you bet, no way would I want ANY US military person acting in that way to anyone. Heck, not even so sure I want US troops turning over prisoners to countries known for torture just because we won't do it ourselves. But Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, torture? No way, man, that was NOT torture. Humiliation, especially Arab men sexually humiliated by women, I am pretty happy that happened, honestly, considering how they treat women on a daily basis, and that they WERE terrorists waging illegal warfare, many times on innocent civilians, on purpose.

However, I also think that the Geneva Convention, which does NOT apply to illegal combatants (no uniform, no national command structure, targeting civilians intentionally), has been abused and used illegitimately as a cudgel by the international Left in their lawfare and open hostility towards the militaries that keep innocents safe. Reminds me of the photo from the attacks on Saigon with the chief of police blowing out the brains of a VC who was busted red handed massacring civilians including women and kids: I have NO problem with him doing it at all, will not fault that police chief, in fact, guy should have gotten a medal.

I shed no tears for subhumans who intentionally target innocents getting what they deserve. As for Calley and Mai Lai, I can understand WHY they did it, but don't want US troops descending to that level of attacking civilians who are not combatants.

So, not so sure that someone who exposed the Abu Ghraib stuff was exposing anything all that horrible, but the one who exposed the Mai Lai stuff did the right thing, because that WAS horrible.

NO ONE should be prosecuted for what occurred at Abu Ghraib under Coalition control. I find it great hypocrisy for the Iraqis to get so incensed over these MINOR incidents especially considering what was occurring in the place prior to the Liberation. They tend to all-to-easily forget what the previous management was up to there.

[LeEnfield, I agree.]
 
Last edited:
I see your point, this needs to be got into perspective and this was nothing in relation to Saddams treatment of the political prisoners
Secret graves near a civilian cemetery with the bodies of almost 1000 political prisoners. According to an eye witness, ten to 15 bodies arrived at a time from the Abu Ghraib prison and were buried by local civilians. An execution on 10 December 1999 in Abu Ghraib claimed the lives of 101 people in one day. On 9 March, 2000, 58 prisoners were killed at a time. The last corpse interred was number 993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison

However, my point is that most of the prisoners were probably not involved in insurgency, they were just rounded up from the districts in which the suspects lived. Hence once they had been abused and interrogated only to find they are unlikely to know anything, what do you do with them, return them to their homes? No doubt they will become an insurgent after that treatment.

The other issue is that the coalition forces had to be seen to be the good guys or else you are replacing one tyrant with another, albeit slightly less brutal.
 
Guess I'm just one of those folks who really didn't have much of a problem with how these terrorists who intentionally waged warfare on civilians (prisoners at Abu Ghraib) were treated. I also do not see the things done in interrogations to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as torture.
It has been admitted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed started talking after only 37 0r was it 38 seconds of waterboarding was then waterboarded a further 130+ times,... (it changes from 10 - 183 times depending which liar you believe) that was not intelligence gathering, that was torture. The very fact that the figures given are so diverse is a good indication that those doing it were aware that it was a war crime and eager to hide the facts. The trouble being that their figures given to please their bosses and the figures provided to their detractors just don't come within a bulls roar of one another. Something stinks.

However, I also think that the Geneva Convention, which does NOT apply to illegal combatants (no uniform, no national command structure, targeting civilians intentionally), has been abused and used illegitimately as a cudgel by the international Left in their lawfare and open hostility towards the militaries that keep innocents safe.
This line of thinking would totally absolve the Gestapo of their treatment of the French Resistance then??? they wore no uniforms. Your memory is very selective
Reminds me of the photo from the attacks on Saigon with the chief of police blowing out the brains of a VC who was busted red handed massacring civilians including women and kids: I have NO problem with him doing it at all, will not fault that police chief, in fact, guy should have gotten a medal.
What you so quickly forget is that in today's case many of the persons confined in Gitmo and other prisons were competely innocent unlike a person caught red handed. This is now being admitted by the Government. http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2008-06/msg02466.html

NO ONE should be prosecuted for what occurred at Abu Ghraib under Coalition control. I find it great hypocrisy for the Iraqis to get so incensed over these MINOR incidents especially considering what was occurring in the place prior to the Liberation.
What a difference is makes when we use a skewed perspective, I'll bet my next years pension to a nob of nanny goats crap that if it were you being subjected to this treatment, you would be screaming your tits off about it.
They tend to all-to-easily forget what the previous management was up to there.
And this makes it OK for us to demonstrate to the world that we are no better than they are???
 
-snip-
However, my point is that most of the prisoners were probably not involved in insurgency, they were just rounded up from the districts in which the suspects lived. Hence once they had been abused and interrogated only to find they are unlikely to know anything, what do you do with them, return them to their homes? No doubt they will become an insurgent after that treatment.

The other issue is that the coalition forces had to be seen to be the good guys or else you are replacing one tyrant with another, albeit slightly less brutal.

Worse:

Many (if not the majority) of these guys are *sold* to the coalition forces for a reward (paying up to 10.000 bucks for a hint on terrorist suspects), often simply because they had a neighbour or family brawl, political or religious faction differences etc.

This happened more in Afghanistan, but also was normal practice in the early Iraq invasion days.

Now, I guess all of those posting here have a quarrel with someone they know, if you get tortured for this, would you accept it? Would you not get mad at the guys that later even say it was not torture "especially after what you did" if you had not done anything?

The way to produce generations of terrorists goes down that line.

Here in Spain we had the same thingy (even family members selling each other out to the factions for a reward getting rid of rivals, work competiotion etc...) during the Civil War of ´36, now, 63 yrs later there is still soooo much hate left within the villages, neighbours, and even within families according to who were the victims at that time you wont believe it...

Just in my small village with some 2k inhabitants there are people known to have murdered (on order) some of their neighbour families members to pay a reward who - now in their 80´s and 90´s - still refuse to disclose where they left the bodies... This just as an example, such things will not be forgotten easily.

Should have been a lesson learned long ago, methinks.

My 2c,

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Want to see heroes?

Here goes, the guys practicing CRT after just under a minute into the event are heroes in my book (and not all of them - but may - wore uniform):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtYbPBNZz

Also the police guy that entered the sea OCT 28, 0710J in my village at winds of 150k and waves of 5 mtrs in front of his house to rescue the - then already dead - neighbour with his wife and children trying to stop him. A police officer, incidentally.

http://ohlmer.es/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/hobre_muerto_sant_elm.jpg

Rattler
 
To my mind the heroes are the ones that stood up against the abuse. Although Senjokips and I don't see eye to eye on everything I'm firmly behind everything he has said.

We (the Allies) assumed the moral high ground and publicised this fact, removing Saddam, fighting religious factions etc. That these things happened is inexcusable, because we just became the new dope dealer on the block (after all it is hard to fly like an eagle when you flock with turkeys). If we set a higher standard then we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, this includes all of our personnel. Abu Ghraib must be investigated and those reponsible - at the highest levels shouls be prosecuted - the greater the power, glory and reward, the greater the penalty for failure - in duty if nothing else.

At the end of the day think long and hard about how you would like to be treated as a POW or captive! Not a situation that I've been in, but if we send the message that we will brutalise you, what does this say to our people who end up holding our soldiers?
 
If you save unarmed civilians from being killed for no reason you're a hero in my book.

The only time "torture" (Can you really call it that when you look at what insurgents do to prisoners) is acceptable is if you are absolutely CERTAIN that you have the right guy. I really don't give a damn what you do with someone who intentionally kills innocent civilians. But if you are not 100% on who you have and what he has done it's inexcusable.
 
Last edited:
I really don't give a damn what you do with someone who intentionally kills innocent civilians.


Does this include (to name a few)
  • Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, who was sentenced to 100 years in prison for the gang rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and the killing of her family last year. He will be eligible for parole in 10 years under the terms of his plea agreement.
  • Those responsible for the killing of up to 24 unarmed Iraqis, some of them ``execution style," in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha . The pictures reportedly show wounds to the upper bodies of the victims, who included several women and six children. Some were shot in the head, and some in the back, according to congressional and defense officials.
 
I agree that I don't mind torturing the right guy and only the right guy. But that's just about all I'm in favor of. The fact that KSM talked after waterboarding means torturing isn't as useless as we think. However, it should be used with extreme prejudice and discretion like the death sentence.
As for "innocent civilians," we're entering a very slippery slope here. The last time a SEAL team decided to let a kid go for being an innocent civilian, they and over a dozen others perished in an ambush. Not saying it's all fair game, just saying, it's not clear and cut like we like to believe.
 
The waterboarding figures have dropped rapidly during these past months, I think that shows a severe lack of dilligence at the job...












And yes, that was a joke.
 
Back
Top