[J3Vr6]

Wow, we've stooped to new lows with this one:

Army Drops Cowardice charges


Basically:

Pogany, an Army interrogator assigned to the 10th Special Forces Group, was charged with cowardice Oct. 14 after suffering what he described as a panic attack from seeing a mangled body of an Iraqi man who had been cut in half by American gunfire in Iraq.

It's punishable by death.  Later, they dropped the charges.  I still can't believe it, though.  There has to be more to this story that we're not seeing.

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]I can understand his fellow men going up to him and making chicken noises, but killing him for it? Sheesh...[/color]

[Warlock]

The article only mentions that the charge can be punishable by death,...not that his would be. They dropped the charge and replaced with "Delreliction of Duty" and offered him and Art. 15, which is basically the standard Army method of 'grounding you without an allowance" for screwing up.

More than likely the original charge was only used until the situation was investigated, which given the event and circumstances over there, makes perfect sence.



I would be interested in hearing more details about this "Panic Attack" as it's stated he had also. I mean turning your eyes away from a body or perhaps vomitting is one thing,...but freaking out and running off screaming while waving an assault rifle in the air is another.

Some might say he has received national notoriety. How do you fix that? How do you reinstate your integrity?’

This part I find amusing,...."I ran off like a scared girl,...how do I stop the other boys from picking on me?"  

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]The very fact that cowardice can be punished by death is what scares me, even if they withdraw it. The fact his commanding officers placed it on him immediately is a big clue as to the trigger-happiness levels.[/color]

[Gloriano]

Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]I can understand his fellow men going up to him and making chicken noises, but killing him for it? Sheesh...[/color]

have you seen dead peoples usualy panic when they see dead
even soldiers if it's their first time when they see dead before they see more dead peoples war is full dead and soldiers who it's their dirst time in Conflict it's more harder than to those who have seen battles

[Warlock]

Well you do realize cowardise has been punishable by death since ,...hmmm the Bronze age?



Basic reason, you're in the military, if you're given orders to do something and because you're too busy clutching your face and crying like a school girl to do it 10 other soldiers die,.....etc etc.

Just imagine if this guy had to provide cover fire on a fortified enemy position while a squad got into position to take them out, and he freaks out and doesn't perform his mission. Now you might think "So they just fight harder/longer"...but if his cover fire was meant to distract the enemy so the squad could sneak past their line of fire,..the squad would get torn to pieces.



It's one of those charges that death would require one hell of a reason. Also it's a "In time of war" penalty. I could possibly see if we had the draft in effect and a soldier that had been drafted was charged with cowardise,....then yea the charge would be questionable to the point of only, "You forced someone that couldn't handle it into the situation". But keep in mind not only was this guy a Volunteer,...but he'd been in for 5 years. Yea he most likely hasn't been to a war zone until Iraq, but the point is still he signed up to do a job.


Also it's not surprising that the Cowardise charge was used right off, nor is it "A sign of trigger happiness". It's a warzone,..commanders can't afford to take chances with crap like this. Cowardise was most likely that best suited charge for the situation that allowed his commanders to remove him from the area, remove his Security Clearance, remove his weapon, and confine him under watch.

Had they just sent him back to his unit until investigating and the guy flipped out and started tossing grenades into ppls tents,...we'd be *****ing that they allowed him to do it. Just like that guy from the begining of the war. They are responible for every person under their command, this was likely the 'best course of action' to protect both him and his fellows. (Keep in mind in a warzone some of your fellow soldiers might not be too happy with you if you're a coward, this could have also been a way to seperate him and keep him from harm)

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano


have you seen dead peoples usualy panic when they see dead

[Odyssey]

Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
have you seen dead peoples usualy panic when they see dead
even soldiers if it's their first time when they see dead before they see more dead peoples war is full dead and soldiers who it's their dirst time in Conflict it's more harder than to those who have seen battles

[color=cc9900]I didn't understand a word of that, sorry.
But, the general gist, is that you seem to be saying that it's natural to be scared when you see a dead person for the first time. And yes, that is true, and supports my statement that potentially killing the poor bastard for it is wrong. Hell, the guy was an interrogator, so he shouldn't even be kicked out of the military for it - if he was a soldier, it's possible that you could say he doesn't belong there, but an interrogator? They don't need to be accustomed to mangled bodies.
I'll emphasise that for Warlock: the guy was an interrogator, not a soldier. He wouldn't be trusted to cover guys' asses with a big gun, that's not his job.[/color]

[Gloriano]

Originally posted by Warlock
Well you do realize cowardise has been punishable by death since ,...hmmm the Bronze age?

]Yes, i know

.

I'll emphasise that for Warlock: the guy was an interrogator, not a soldier. He wouldn't be trusted to cover guys' asses with a big gun, that's not his job.

but he is still soldier

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]Was it really necessary to quote all that, HIG? (EDIT: Thanks)
And yes, he is a soldier. But he's not a warzone soldier. He interrogates living breathing suspects, he doesn't kill.[/color]

[aldo_14]

I think HIG is particularly making reference to the level of shock anyone - even a soldier - would have when first encountering the horrors of war.  i doubt even the most intense mental training can really prepare soldiers for this, and some may just crack.

BTW, in WW1 a LOT of British soldiers (dunno about other nations) were executed for cowardice - in many case it's obvious that they were shellshocked, but the condition was not recognised at the time.  I doubt the psychological / physiological effects of war are truly understood, even now - i.e. 'Gulf War Syndrome'.

Incidentally, i think a panic attack could be classed as basically going into a semi-catatonic, incoherent state..... at leats in my understanding of the term.  It's certainly a dangerous thing for soldiers in action, but it's not exactly voluntary is it?  Probably better to offer a deskjob / dismissal and counselling / psychological care than execution..... i'd see it as a failure in training / screening by the military - i can;t see a soldier signing up if he knows he'll 'crack'.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Odyssey

[color=cc9900]I'll emphasise that for Warlock: the guy was an interrogator, not a soldier. He wouldn't be trusted to cover guys' asses with a big gun, that's not his job.[/color]

Let's not leave off the "Special Forces" tag on that k? He was a soldier He was in the second top unit in the US Army. He was trained for combat.


I was an electronics tech in the Army. Does that mean I wasn't a soldier and I should have been cut slack had I gone to war? Nope. First thing any member of the Army is taught is that regardless of your MOS (job) you are a solider first and foremost. If he shouldn't have been where he was, he wouldn't have been sent there. They wouldn't send a Chow Hall cook out to assassinate someone. But at the same time if that same chow hall cook's unit is being attacked, he's doesn't hide under his stove and yell "I'm not a soldier I'm only a cook".


Obviously his superiors are trying to help him, the change of his charge to dereliction of duty is a big change, one that will have a much lower impact on his career, and his future.

[Odyssey]

Originally posted by Warlock
They wouldn't send a Chow Hall cook out to assassinate someone. But at the same time if that same chow hall cook's unit is being attacked, he's doesn't hide under his stove and yell "I'm not a soldier I'm only a cook".

[color=cc9900]As a non-military type, I don't understand the logic here. What would they expect the cook to do, go out and beat up the people shooting at him with a frying pan? The same thing for an interrogator, do they expect him to talk them down? Their life ought to be their first priority, since they have no brilliant offensive power or ability. If they can pop a shot off it's helpful, but by no means a necessity or something they should be thrown out of service for.
Then again, I don't understand most of this military stuff. It's all kind of backwards.[/color]

[Solatar]

Simple. Everyone in the military is trained to fight, even a cook is expected to help although I don't think as much would be expected of him as a soldier who's first job is being a soldier.

If you are a coward, you run, and as a result more people die then that is punishable by death. I don't agree with death, but that's just me not agreeing with the death penalty.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Odyssey

[color=cc9900]As a non-military type, I don't understand the logic here. What would they expect the cook to do, go out and beat up the people shooting at him with a frying pan? The same thing for an interrogator, do they expect him to talk them down? Their life ought to be their first priority, since they have no brilliant offensive power or ability. If they can pop a shot off it's helpful, but by no means a necessity or something they should be thrown out of service for.
Then again, I don't understand most of this military stuff. It's all kind of backwards.[/color]

I think the point is that any person in the army has to be able to pick up a weapon and defend themselves.

[01010]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I think the point is that any person in the army has to be able to pick up a weapon and defend themselves.

No, the point is that any person in the army IS trained as a SOLDIER first before any other specialised training is done. Every single soldier has to go through the same infantry training regardless of their chosen profession within the armed forces.

[aldo_14]

That's what i meant.

[01010]

Originally posted by aldo_14
That's what i meant.

I just quoted you, just to clarify to Oddysey really.

 

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]Fair enough, I suppose. Good thing I'm never going to join the military, eh?[/color]

[Warlock]

Meh, it's not as difficult as it seems. For the most part you're right in the aspect that Soldiers with non-combat professions aren't trained as in depth as those with combat professions, but they are trained. It's something that changes quite often, almost yearly it seems. When I was in my AIT training (after basic, the 'job training' if you will) we had a new class show up who's basic training was completely different than what I'd gone through,...even though they went through basic at the same base I had,.....then the class after that had basic more along the lines of what I'd gone through.

Sadly the worse difference is that non-combat soldiers do not go through the same basic course as the combat soldiers. Yea we got the weapons training, survival and such,...but not at the same intensity. They had (At the time though it's likely changed now) begun a "Low stress" boot camp for support unit soldiers,...since someone in congress decided support troops didn't need do be put through the same stress as infantry and the like,.....flaw is you get guys like the soldier in this article,...or guys like I knew whom during field training wouldn't even fire their weapons because it was easier to clean them once they got back at base