No one is saying the soldiers shouldn't have done anything. We're just discussing whether their reaction was reasonable. You think it was, but others think they're not. Personally, I think it was slightly overboard if we know that the kids were ATTACKING them. This is true to me regardless of whether the parents are to blame. We don't know if these kids are homeless anyway. Quite frankly, if you want to play the blame game, you will eventually come to the conclusion that whoever caused the conditions to be as they are in Iraq has impacted this situation. But again, this doesn't change the fact that these soldiers are humans as well and have families and children of their own. They are not killer robots. They made a decision and that decision may have been poor. IMO, the reaction was not appropriate. They would not accept such a thing happening to their kids even if their kids were attacking soldiers. It is not shocking at all IMO, but it's still an overreaction.
Which is a mistaken belief but one that has some important implications. If someone posted something saying "New Findings about the Chinese bombing Pearl Harbor" would you not see how putting "Chinese" instead fo "Japanese" in the title does change the perception of the incident? Who did the incident is vital to the context. In a recent thread you corrected a poster who mistook Persians for Arabs and you have on several occasions pointed out the difference between various Middle Eastern groups pointing out where cultural beliefs differ from what is in the Qu'ran. I personally aplaud you for doing that as it adds a lot to the discussion. That said your downgrading this is basically saying well it doesn't matter who did this. Frankly that isn't a standard that you often agree too as you have been quick to point out where people are confusing different groups. In case you have missed my discussion with Ottomaton I don't think it is all right and for the large part agree with you that this isn't a good thing. That doesn't mean that attributing these actions to the right group doesn't matter.
Obsessed? You made a very controversial statement and I am asking you about it since you haven't seemed to follow through on it. You don't know if these guys are comparable to the Basiji? I find it surprising you would raise that comparison as you have criticized other people for using extreme comparisons but now you feel free to say that the British soldiers are better because they aren't beating them to death like the Basiji. I agree they aren't but that is hardly a ball park comparison. And in the video the kids weren't in much of a position to fight back and were also being held in the British compound. I will agree with you that the British weren't doing headshots but they were beating the kids while in custody. I am not aware of that being allowed by police British or American. They are beating kids in custody. Apparently that is fine with you as long as they aren't acting like the Basiji but I would hope the British Army is held to a higher standard. They maybe MP's and if so I don't find that more reassuring but let me ask you do you think beating people in custody is the correct rules for aprehension? Fair enough and you are right that without knowing more its not fair to these particular soldiers ot hold them responsible for an overall failure of the British occupation forces in Basra. That said I would say this is an example of the problems the British had dealing with the civilian population of Basra even though they had claimed to be able to handle the situation better than the US. Of course I understand that people get pissed off and scared in situations like that and they may act out. That said their is appropriate threat responses. As I have said before when teaching self defense one of the most important things is how you respond. In a situation like this where the threat isn't life threatening I would say such a response is excessive. Another situation is that in an occupation situation it is important to try to win over hearts and minds. Hauling some rock throwing kids into your compounds and beating them with clubs isn't going to do that. I would question though if the use of baton extends to beating captives which these kids are as soon as they are hauled into the compound.
I've watched the video again with the sound off as Ottomaton recommended and I've noticed a few more things. When the soldiers bring the kids in they are not resisting. As soon as they are brought into the compound away from where they can been seen from the street is where they start beating them. This is clearly not an act of self defense on the part of the soldiers but one where the soldiers know that their actions are punitive and inflammatory. Also at about the 23 second mark a soldier headbutts one of the kids in the head, note the soldier is wearing a helmet, and then proceeds to punch the kid in the head. Between the 30 to 43 second mark that same soldier is repeatedly punching the kid and knee striking him in his abdomen and head while another soldier holds the kid up. At about the 50 sec. mark a couple of soldiers are beating on another kid on the ground not showing much resistance with one soldier clearly strking at the head. From what I see of the situation the soldiers actions aren't in line with self-defense or even trying enforce compliance as the kids aren't trying to strike back but are trying to huddle to protect themselves for about the minute that these beatings go on. While a couple of the soldiers appear to be acting cautiously, aiming their blows at the legs and buttocks, several of the other soldiers are not and are freely delivering blows to the head and upper body including having another soldier hold one of the kids up so they can hit them easier. Also note in the video several soldiers are caring riot shields so they are fairly well protected from rocks. I will agree that for the first 20 seconds of the videos it looks like the soldiers were justified in charging and taking into custody the kids given the large number of rock throwers. While I haven't read the military guidelines for dealing with civillians I strongly doubt though that beating them in custody while prone, particularly taking head and body shots using battons, fists, knees and helmeted head butts, is allowed or encouraged.
Very true. Most of my experience with soldiers have been officers since I have friends who either are ROTC or military academy grads. I've also trained many students who have or are serving. Most of them have been officers or were in college on the GI fund. From what I have noticed is that almost all of these people are fairly smart and thoughtful. I can't say though if that is typical of the military especially enlisted personel.
I can say, for the Navy at least, that it also depends on what we do. Obviously your brains dictate the job you can get. For my job, most of the folks I work with are pretty intelligent. Not saying some aren't jerks, but most have a decently functioning brain.
Incorrect. My guess is that this is the crux of your misunderstanding. They aren't 'captives' until they stop resisting, are on the ground or some other position where they are not a threat, and have their hands secured behind their backs. If you read US Army manuals, application of force from the baton to the extremities and avoiding the 5 potentially fatal locations is entirely appropriate until there is compliance and the prisoners are secured in a safe position. You'll notice once the detainee in the foreground stops struggling, lies on the ground, and lets them secure his hands behind his back, they let him be. While the others continue to resist and continue to have force applied.
Otto: The soldiers are clearly giving the kids a beat down. And maybe the little brats deserved it -- but I highly doubt this is accepted standard procedure or in accordance to any US Army Manual (Or UK Army Manual). No way we see "take the kids behind a barricade and beat them senseless to teach 'em a lesson." I'm sure it happens (and the evidence is posted here) but the vid will not be making any official training session (with the sound turned off, of course) or condoned by any senior Army spokesperson.
Maybe not, but I've watched it upwards of probably thirty times to try and figure out what is going on. The voice, the title, and some very specific editing make it seem like it is just a rage filled beat down, but if you pay attention to some of the subtle cues, that is not what is happening. These three people are being arrested, and while it may not be something that they want to publicize, with one or two minor exceptions (for instance, there is a guy who kicks the individual farthest away from the camera and there is a headbutt at the beginning) it is entirely within the bounds of US Army rules for apprehending and securing prisoners. And that is what they are doing. Watch it and only focus on the kid in the foreground. If they were just trying to beat up kids, he would have it much worse than what happens. Once that kid stops struggling, he has his wrists secured behind his back, and he is no longer hit. The same is true to a lesser degree for the guy in the middle who is brought in after the other two. He struggles a bit more, but when he gives up, they stop. And again, watch it and pay attention to where there are breaks in the video. For the kid in the foreground, he ends up with his hands secured behind his back, but the video cuts from the point to where he gives up to some point that has to be at the very least 20-30 seconds later when he is secured in what is probably zip-tie cuffs. Assuming that it is the same guy who added the title "solders beat children" that break probably didn't make that break in order to sanitize it and edit out the "bad parts".
You are obviously going to have kids throwing stones, some Iraqi's view the occupying forces as invaders, you don't win the hearts and minds of the people by beating up their kids even if they are acting out. I thought the beat down was quite vicious...there were numerous blows to the head/above the waist, plus even a kick on the midsection of a child on the ground at the 1:07 mark (that must have hurt). I don't see how anyone can view this as reasonable force under the circumstances.............
I don't know Otto. It sure looks bad. At the 1:07 mark (approx) a guy who is fully secured, on his stomach with two soldiers holding him down, gets a quick, unprovoked kick to the nads. Not cool. That, and the head butt -- and the batton beatings from behind don't play well to the masses. If forced to defend this, no way Her Royal Top Army Guy doesn't come out very appologetically. Again -- I'm not there. I don't know how I would react. And it certainly doesn't rank up there with some of the greater abuses we've seen. I'm also not convinced they're securing prisoners. TOTAL speculation on my part -- but quite possibly they are released after this. (our local police were recently accused of similar tactics dealing with some troublemaking drug dealers -- so maybe that's my bias ). FWIW -- not that it matters -- but they didn't look like kids to me.
If you watch the video again when the kids are brought in they aren't struggling. The soldier that headbutts the kid swings him around to get to a position to headbutt him. And what are those fatal locations? Do the head or solar plexus count? How is he struggling? He's not trying to swing or kick at the soldiers. What about the kid that is being held up by one soldier while the other one knees him? If this was all about compliance how come the beatings don't start until the kids are safely behind the walls of the compound outside of view? If the kids weren't complying wouldn't they have done so outside where they could draw attention and possibly escape? From what you have been saying it doesn't seem like we are watching the same video.
With all due respect Otto you seem to be selectively watching the video. I agree they are being arrested and I also agree that the soldier in the foreground from about the 25 sec. to the 40 sec point appears to be acting with restraint (in regard to targetting his blows) along with another soldier in the midground at around the 35 sec. mark. That said even under the standards that you are ascribing the soldiers in background are in violation by propping up one of the kids to continue to beat on him. Also the soldier in the foreground at the 23 sec. mark is seen yanking his captive down who doesn't appear to be fully complying and then proceeding to beat that kid. Again though in fairness he seems to be restrained in where he is targetting. Also at the 55 sec mark the soldiers appear to be carrying in another kid who although is on the ground already with his legs and arms restrained another soldier proceeds to beat him a few times in the head. Also from the limp appearance of his body its likely he may be unconscious or borderline conscious as this is going on. I'm willing to grant that there probably is some selective editing but from about the 12 sec mark to the 43 sec mark it appears seamless and from the 44 sec mark to the end also seemless.
When they first walk in, the soldier tries to get the person to the floor. The person resists going to the ground. What they teach, is that if someone resists, the only tool you have to prod them to comply is the application of pain. Obviously he has both hands on the guy. So he headbutts. That wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't wearing a helmet. I see police rabbit punch people in the ribs, neck, and head all the time. The helmet probably makes a headbutt a bad idea, but given the situation, not particularly an indication of premeditated sadism or abnormal disregard. Just a poor execution of force application. I don't see a single riot stick to any of those locations. That is the context in which you are not supposed to go to those locations. If someone poked a stick into a solar plexus, they used an incorrect technique. Edit: Actually, the "fatal locations" are head, side of neck, throat, heart area, and armpit. Solar plexus is listed as a "vulnerable body point" suitable for application of force. per Chapter 10, FM 19-15. Struggling in this context is refusing to enter the position that the soldiers place you in. The solder tries to get him on the ground on his stomach. He keeps flailing around, trying to roll over. I guess police in the USA would Taser you for that these days. Military police in combat zones operate under more conservative rules. They use techniques that were common years ago - they don't have Tasers or pepper spray, and they operate in an inherently more dangerous environment. They are trying to get the kid face down on the ground, but he won't go. So they stop, apply some "incentive" and start trying to put him down again. It may seem unreasonable to you, but it seems to be fairly standard procedure around the USA. I would think that should be very obvious. From FM 19-15: [rquoter] The basic human element sparking a disturbance is the presence of a crowd. There are almost as many types of crowds as there are reasons for people to assemble. There are casual crowds like the crowd that assembles for a football game or gathers at an accident. Persons in such a crowd probably have no common bonds other than enjoyment of the game or curiosity about the accident. And there are "planned" crowds like the crowd that assembles at the call of a leader to accomplish a goal. Members of a planned crowd have common bonds of interest and purpose. Simply being a part of a crowd affects a person. Each person in a crowd is, to some degree, open to actions different from his usual behavior. Crowds provide a sense of anonymity because they are large and often temporary congregations. Crowd members often feel that their moral responsibility has shifted from themselves to the crowd as a whole. Large numbers of people discourage individual behavior; the urge to imitate is strong in humans. People look to others for cues and disregard their own background and training. Only well-disciplined persons or persons with strong convictions can resist conforming to a crowd's behavior. Crowd behavior influences the actions of both the disorderly participants and the authorities tasked to control them. [/rquoter] You don't take them down and cuff them in front of a crowd because of the crowd mentality. The "pack" sees one of their own being "unreasonably attacked" and they respond with escalating violence. They did the same thing at the G20. They grab people, shove them in a car, and take them to a private location before taking them down, cuffing them, searching them, and arresting them. At that point they were in a state of balanced equilibrium with the soldiers. You may describe that as "compliance" but as I understand it, that would be inaccurate. The soldiers were dragging them, and they were sort of walking along, but the individuals were hardly complying with the "total authority" of the officers. Certainly they weren't about to stab one of the soldiers, but at the same time they were hardly obeying the demands of the soldiers. They were dragging the kids, and the kids were trying to drag back the other way, though unsuccessfully. When the police get you to that point, people still think they can negotiate compliance. They were beyond the point of negotiations. I see that all the time watching COPS. Some guy takes the police on a car chase, crashes, and gets out and tries to talk with the police, saying "I give up", "Don't hurt me", etc. to try and "negotiate" his surrender. Too late. The point of negotiation ended when you tried to run when the cops lit you up. The police know you are willing to not comply - you have demonstrated this very clearly - so they assume that that the slightest reluctance is a prelude to total noncompliance. At that point, even if the guy is standing there with his hands up, the police tackle him, throw him on his stomach, and forcibly put his arms behind him. Often at this point, the guy being arrested, screams, "Oww! You're hurting me!" and seems to want to talk about what the police are demanding he do - as though they had no responsibility for the way the police were treating them. At that point even the slightest resistance will result in physical force, like punches to the abdomen, or ribs, mace in the face, or a tazer. When the police go into "force mode" you need to be as a rag doll if you wish to not suffer any physical consequence. I appreciate that that might seem harsh. But it seems to be a pretty much universal police theory. And I would imagine it isn't a theory arrived at without some precedent.
I've paid my own way with loans, so can everybody else. Or as I am doing now, get a job and have your employer help pay for it. There is NO reason to say I can't afford to go to college. Community colleges are dirt cheap and many of them have agreements with state schools. I attended a CC and with a certain GPA received a grant to finish at a state college. A loan for school is very reasonable, and if you are "too poor" you can get a pell grant which thanks to the stimulus pacakge is now like $5,000. NO EXCUSES. I considered going to the military just for the GI bill but IMO it would be a waste of 4 years that I could be going to college. Most of the people I know who went to the army had trouble getting jobs when they got out and never used the GI bill to go to college. Anecdotal evidence though.
Again with all due respect it seems like we are watching two different videos. From what I saw it looks like the soldier is putting the person in position to headbutt him. It doesn't look like he even tried to make him sit down. Not a stick but a knee shot to the solar plexus. That is almost as bad as baton. They don't appear to be flailing but trying to cover up while the soldiers are hitting them. What I am seeing is they aren't resisting but are in a natural protective position, fetal, which is almost automatic. Again I'm not seeing that. It appears very much to me that the soldier holds the kid up opening him to a knee shot. It looks to me like the kid is trying to go down but the soldier holds him up. At one point in the video it even looks like he is trying to slam his back against the wall. Frankly that sounds more like an excuse for the soldiers as the other soldiers are acting brutally so the individuals soldiers act so. If I recall this was a defense that has been argued before in cases of police brutality and was brought up in regard to the behavior in Abu Ghraib. And do you have evidence that during the G20 the police administered these type of beatings on protestors behind the scenes or that such was standard practice? As I've said before in these sorts of issues I have worked with and helped train police. I understand that police do things like in this video and even that many officers use tazers rather liberally. That said they are also taught restraint and from my knowledge of police this goes beyond, particularly headbutting and holding up a captive to deliver a knee shot, what is considerred allowable. Anyway the issue of complete compliance doesn't seem to be an issue when at the about the 23 sec. mark a soldier is seen pulling one of the kids down to a sitting position with the kid complying and then beating him or at around the 55 sec. mark when they are carrying in a captive that appears limp, possibly unconscious or borderline conscious, and they proceed to hit him in the head. I've said this before is that in such cases there is a tendency to place most of the blame on the captive by saying they aren't complying but that completely ignores the fact that the police also have a responsibility in their own behavior. They are not automotons (no pun intended) that merely react to stimuli. So captives should comply but at the sametime the idea of "total authority" is one that is circumscribed. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be situations where police and others have been held liable.
Very true and even from the video you can tell different soldiers act with different levels of restraint.
