Colinism said:
I know I mean whats next the married president of the united states getting blow jobs from interns?
You have absolutely no idea of the implications behind him fraternising with a prisoner's daughter and the message it could send to troops under his command, especially in a region where women are considered property.
STFU already.
Name a war where troops have NOT fraternized with the people they are occupying? Your acting like this sort of thing has never happened before and it happens all the time.
Providing unmonitored mobile phone to detainees
Mishandling classified information
These two offenses are the serious ones the rest probably would have been overloked were it not for these two.
Rape happens all the time, too, and that doesn't make it A-OK to do. Any troops caught screwing around with the local women should be punished, IMO. The fact that this man, as a very high ranking officer, has an oath-bound duty to be a role model to troops under his command, makes it worse. It is not so much his actions as the message it could send to the impressionable young men that he is leading.
Did you not even stop to ask yourself why a woman who's father was being held in prison would take it upon herself to sleep with the man in charge of keeping him imprisoned? Or why granting special privileges for sexual favors is also wrong?
Troops fraternizing or having relations with local women is going to happen a few of them will probably end up married. HIS actions with a woman who was the daughter of a prisoner however leading to his aiding the enemy is a problem, I just wanted to clarify my position. I was reading back and it has already been covered but you actually want th etroops to fraternize with the locals to build trust. sometimes sex will happen people are human I don't think that charging the men for having consensual sex makes sense tho.
[Walt Huffman, a former Army judge advocate general] who stressed that he had not seen the specific charges and could not comment on Colonel Steeless culpability, said the fraternization charge sounded as if it involved allegations of a simple impropriety of being in regular contact with a detainee's relative, rather than anything involving sexual relations.
Adroitbeing said:
It would help immensely if you would read the posts:
Did you not even stop to ask yourself why a woman who's father was being held in prison would take it upon herself to sleep with the man in charge of keeping him imprisoned?
I did read that post. It was actually the reason I asked why people are assuming the couple had sex.
There is nothing in the original BBC source that claims they had sex. It just says they socialised. Just because she is a woman and he is a man and they are fraternising does not automatically mean they are fucking.
It could be that the BBC is exercising some discretion, as explicitly stating that the woman was engaged in extra-marital intercourse would pretty much be a death-sentence for her in that region of the world.
Old Reilly stole a stallion
But they caught him and they brought him back
And they laid him down on the jailhouse ground
With an iron chain around his neck.
Old Reilly's daughter got a message
That her father was goin' to hang.
She rode by night and came by morning
With gold and silver in her hand.
When the judge he saw Reilly's daughter
His old eyes deepened in his head,
Sayin', "Gold will never free your father,
The price, my dear, is you instead."
"Oh I'm as good as dead," cried Reilly,
"It's only you that he does crave
And my skin will surely crawl if he touches you at all.
Get on your horse and ride away."
"Oh father you will surely die
If I don't take the chance to try
And pay the price and not take your advice.
For that reason I will have to stay."
The gallows shadows shook the evening,
In the night a hound dog bayed,
In the night the grounds were groanin',
In the night the price was paid.
The next mornin' she had awoken
To know that the judge had never spoken.
She saw that hangin' branch a-bendin',
She saw her father's body broken.
These be seven curses on a judge so cruel:
That one doctor will not save him,
That two healers will not heal him,
That three eyes will not see him.
That four ears will not hear him,
That five walls will not hide him,
That six diggers will not bury him
And that seven deaths shall never kill him.
[Walt Huffman, a former Army judge advocate general] who stressed that he had not seen the specific charges and could not comment on Colonel Steeless culpability, said the fraternization charge sounded as if it involved allegations of a simple impropriety of being in regular contact with a detainee's relative, rather than anything involving sexual relations.
I'm leaving sensationalizing shit to someone else from here on out.
*sigh*
But c'mon, I'm not the only one with a dirty mind who thought
Charge three suggested that Steele carried on improper relationships with Iraqis, interactions that were deemed "conduct unbecoming an officer in the armed forces." Specifically, it said that on two dates in October 2005 and February 2007, Steele did "wrongfully fraternize with the daughter of a detainee."
The third charge also said Steele did "knowingly and wrongfully provide special privileges to and maintain an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter" between December 2005 and December 2006.
DhD_PillowPants said:
But c'mon, I'm not the only one with a dirty mind who thought
Charge three suggested that Steele carried on improper relationships with Iraqis, interactions that were deemed "conduct unbecoming an officer in the armed forces." Specifically, it said that on two dates in October 2005 and February 2007, Steele did "wrongfully fraternize with the daughter of a detainee."
The third charge also said Steele did "knowingly and wrongfully provide special privileges to and maintain an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter" between December 2005 and December 2006.
I see where you're coming from, but I do think it's dangerous and unfair to say that these two individuals were having sex when there is currently not a shred of evidence to say that they were.
There's no need to focus on the completely unproven sexual element of this story, when there are plenty of outrageous things going on here that are proven, and of much more consequence than the titillating 'maybe she shagged him!' element. For example, this guy provided unmonitored mobile phones to detainees and mishandled classified information.
Jenni said:
I see where you're coming from, but I do think it's dangerous and unfair to say that these two individuals were having sex when there is currently not a shred of evidence to say that they were.
There's no need to focus on the completely unproven sexual element of this story, when there are plenty of outrageous things going on here that are proven, and of much more consequence than the titillating 'maybe she shagged him!' element. For example, this guy provided unmonitored mobile phones to detainees and mishandled classified information.
[Walt Huffman, a former Army judge advocate general] who stressed that he had not seen the specific charges and could not comment on Colonel Steeless culpability, said the fraternization charge sounded as if it involved allegations of a simple impropriety of being in regular contact with a detainee's relative, rather than anything involving sexual relations.
I think we're all pretty much on the same page now.
bean said:
I think we're all pretty much on the same page now.
I guess so. There seemed to still be a bit of a desire to talk about the sexual side of this story, which is why I posted what I did. But I probably just mistook the last few comments, never mind. Sorry.
Colinism
Atlanta, GA
July 2005
APR 26, 2007 11:20 AM