Soldier posing as G'tmo prisoner beaten during exercise

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » June 10, 2004, 12:16 pm

Army Now Says G.I. Was Beaten in Role
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 9, 2004

OUISVILLE, Ky., June 8 — Reversing itself, the Army said Tuesday that a G.I. was discharged partly because of a head injury he suffered while posing as an uncooperative detainee during a training exercise at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The Army had previously said Specialist Sean Baker's medical discharge in April was unrelated to the injury he received last year at the detention center, where the United States holds suspected terrorists.

Mr. Baker, 37, a former member of the 438th Military Police Company, said he played the role of an uncooperative prisoner and was beaten so badly by four American soldiers that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and seizures. He said the soldiers only stopped beating him when they realized he might be American.

Bruce Simpson, Mr. Baker's lawyer, said his client is considering a lawsuit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/inter ... 9SOLD.html

Michigan Prisoner Abuse
Aaron Baskerville

A former member of the Kentucky National Guard claims he was severely beaten by other soldiers who thought he was a prisoner, and the repercussions can be felt right here in Michigan.

Former guardsmen Sean Baker claims he was ordered by an officer in the U.S. Army to pose as an uncooperative detainee. Army officials in Miami, Florida tell News Ten he was volunteering for a training exercise at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Baker was volunteering for another unit. Officials say that unit was the 303rd Military Police Company based in Jackson, Michigan. Baker claims he was beaten so badly by the four U.S. soldiers in January 2003 that he suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Army officials say these four soldiers from the 303rd were not aware of the exercise at the time, but say the only injury Baker received was a small cut above his eye.

Members of the 303rd say they know nothing about the incident, adding they believe the reports are false. Baker says the beating didn't stop until the soldiers realized he was an American.

The Army says a line of duty investigation was conducted in February of 2003. It found no criminal misconduct.

http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/796712.html

more details:

http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S ... v=EQlpNN9R

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 10, 2004, 1:14 pm

But but but, this is just an isolated incident...

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 10, 2004, 1:16 pm

Guardsman sigh

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 10, 2004, 1:17 pm

Way to brush it off.. it is all because they were guardsmen!

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » June 10, 2004, 1:42 pm

Why exactly was he told to pose as an uncooperative detainee in the first place?

I've got a friend who works at a local county prison. When the prisoners are uncooperative or fight with the guards, they usually respond with some sort of physical submission followed by retraints. I've heard plenty of stories about prisoners getting beaten down before restrained, and in each case the guards were found to be within their means of protecting themselves and the other prisoners. I'd like to see more specifics about this before I pass judgement on the guards for their actions.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 10, 2004, 3:10 pm

I have been on both sides of POW, detainee exercises while in the military, and when both sides escalate the violence in a training role even knowing each other it gets a little mean. It says they did not know he was not a real prisoner, and he may have made a total jackass of himself slapping them around, pushing them etc.

This is only one side of the story and thus any judgements made are ignorant ones.

Other than the fact that he was yet another weekend warrior.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 10, 2004, 3:20 pm

heh without those weekend warriors there wouldn't be much of a military to fight your invasions!

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 10, 2004, 3:31 pm

You know, calling it an invasion is like calling this board the Center for Intelligent Debate.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 10, 2004, 3:49 pm

What else would you call it?

Syn: Invasion, Irruption, Inroad.

Usage: Invasion is the generic term, denoting a forcible entrance into a foreign country. Incursion signifies a hasty and sudden invasion. Irruption denotes particularly violent invasion. Inroad is entry by some unusual way involving trespass and injury.

Hum!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 10, 2004, 3:54 pm

Kelshara wrote:What else would you call it?

Syn: Invasion, Irruption, Inroad.

Usage: Invasion is the generic term, denoting a forcible entrance into a foreign country. Incursion signifies a hasty and sudden invasion. Irruption denotes particularly violent invasion. Inroad is entry by some unusual way involving trespass and injury.
Hum!

Wrong!! There was no force used we went in fairly uncontested. I would call it more like a cake walk.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 10, 2004, 4:57 pm

"fairly uncontested". lol

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 10, 2004, 5:24 pm

Kylere wrote:I have been on both sides of POW, detainee exercises while in the military, and when both sides escalate the violence in a training role even knowing each other it gets a little mean. It says they did not know he was not a real prisoner, and he may have made a total jackass of himself slapping them around, pushing them etc.

This is only one side of the story and thus any judgements made are ignorant ones.

Other than the fact that he was yet another weekend warrior.

Yeah, cause a *real* marines skull would be thick enough to avoid brain injury in an exercise! =)

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 10, 2004, 7:44 pm

Cartalas wrote:Wrong!! There was no force used we went in fairly uncontested. I would call it more like a cake walk.

Oh? So those 948 coalition deaths are what, the icing?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Have a little perspective you sheltered asshole.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » June 10, 2004, 8:20 pm

948 deaths are sad they occured, but in proper perspective to what was done... It was a tremendous accomplishment in military terms to be such a low number..Im not a cold ass and I have many great friends there now in hot spots and one almost got hit by rpgs just last month the rpg didnt explode and hit a gas truck near them....and they all agree.

Im sure Vietnam or Korea had a week that was higher than that...Im sure WWII, WWI had many hours over that, Im sure Hannibal and the Romans lost over that in a few minutes even way back when. The only major conflict that compares in success for loss of life was the Gulf War.

With Kyoukan talking about how tough the Republican guard was and how they were gonna kill like thousands of us before the war....and many of the negative views you see on this board....ohhh

and just looking back and remmebering past conflicts I was exspecting a casualty count between 5,000 to 10,000 Americans alone.

Not agueing for the war or not in this post, but in proper perspective the death count on the Coalition side has been unbelievable and in military terms is more like a cake walk...there is still some obsticals, but there is no way the other side can win unless we let them win.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 10, 2004, 8:48 pm

OF course, buying off a large part of the Republican Guard didn't hurt.. and it was so typical American

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » June 10, 2004, 8:56 pm

that was smart...heheh I remember hearing how they were soooo loyal to saddam as well...yea right.

..we did also wipe out abit of em aswell and they did give some very good resistance in areas for maybe 1 day or so at a time..knocking down many apache helicopters, but not many soldiers... south of bagdad....We adjusted and wiped them out with massive air power:)

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 10, 2004, 10:50 pm

Kelshara wrote:OF course, buying off a large part of the Republican Guard didn't hurt.. and it was so typical American

Calling this typically American shows that your school system is not exactly the best either, since buying off part of the enemies forces has been the part of every major nation/citystate/empire in the history of man.

Hell people have even bought off the enemy entirely trhoughout history, so much so that phrases like "paying the danegeld" are part of the language.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » June 11, 2004, 12:08 am

Actually, Danegeld ('danegæld') was not designed to buy off defenders but rather it was instituted by Aethelred II (also known as 'The Unready') as an extortion practice - pay your Danegeld and we won't burn down your churches and whatnot.

Danegeld , medieval land tax originally raised to buy off raiding Danes and later used for military expenditures. In England the tribute was first levied in 868, then in 871 by Alfred, and occasionally thereafter. Under Æthelred (965?–1016) it became a regular tax, and was collected by later rulers until the 12th cent., when it was converted into tallage.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 12:21 am

That is why I said "people have even bought off the enemy entirely" Drolgin, which is what was done with the Danegeld.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 1:29 am

Calling this typically American shows that your school system is not exactly the best either, since buying off part of the enemies forces has been the part of every major nation/citystate/empire in the history of man.

It was a play on the capitalistic focus on money in the US, not on historical relevance.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 8:47 am

Ignorance of historical relevance is a shame, when you choose words to attack the US, while disregarding that the US was in fact repeating the actions of almost every government in history, then you negate your own argument.

Other than the fact that you are a liberal democrat Kelshara and have a hangup about attacking me you are not a dumbass, so I expect more of you than I do of Kyoukan for example.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 8:51 am

You know.. not sure about the liberal democrat thing. I don't fit into either mold here at all, which is why I really hate the two-party system. If I was to put in place a perfect system for me it would most likely take things from both sides.

That said, I am more of a liberal democrat than a conservative republican for sure.

Also, I had never heard of the historic relevance at all so that was interesting. Although I still stand by my play on the capitalistic focus! Even fits in with how you "won" the Cold War!

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 8:55 am

Well the alternative was a ground war in Europe killing 30-80 million, or going nuclear at the cost of 5 billion. Outspending your enemy is the kindest possible way to win a fight that MUST be fought, The Soviets had a policy of belief that they would eventually triumph and nothing could stop them, they planned on fighting us solider to soldier, plane to plane, bomb to bomb, missile to missle, but their jeans really sucked and their cars were worse.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 11, 2004, 9:56 am

Kelshara wrote:
Calling this typically American shows that your school system is not exactly the best either, since buying off part of the enemies forces has been the part of every major nation/citystate/empire in the history of man.
It was a play on the capitalistic focus on money in the US, not on historical relevance.

Precisely which country in the world do you live in? Capitalism is a major focus of most of the modern developed ones that I can think of.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 12:43 pm

Well I am Norwegian, you know.. one of those socialist countries!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2004, 12:45 pm

Kelshara wrote:Well I am Norwegian, you know.. one of those socialist countries!

He said Modern developed ones

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 12:48 pm

Hate to tell you Cart but we are rated above the US

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 1:00 pm

Kelshara wrote:Hate to tell you Cart but we are rated above the US

You are, of course, aware that without the US as an argument, the Soviets would have taken the entire Scandanavian Penisula, not easily, not quickly, but they would have. Add to this that Sweden, Finland, Norway could have bankrupted themselvestrying to prevent this from occuring.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 1:02 pm

And that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and yes I am well aware of it). Finland was already balancing between Russia and Europe, but nobody would have bothered with the Swedes. Nothing there to warrant an occupation! heh.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 1:12 pm

It is relevant in the fact that your standard of living, education, healthcare, etc would all be much lower or nonexistant without the United States et al.

I do not think the US deserves thanks or anything, we did it for ourselves more than for any other country, but at least recognition of the fact that hundreds of trillions of dollars were freed up during the course of the Cold War for other nations to use socially rather than militarily.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 11, 2004, 1:15 pm

Kylere wrote:It is relevant in the fact that your standard of living, education, healthcare, etc would all be much lower or nonexistant without the United States et al.

I do not think the US deserves thanks or anything, we did it for ourselves more than for any other country, but at least recognition of the fact that hundreds of trillions of dollars were freed up during the course of the Cold War for other nations to use socially rather than militarily.

None of that takes away from the fact that your attempt at making Scandanavia's situation during WWII relevant to this thread is completely and utterly retarded

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 1:18 pm

Well we did actually spend a fairly huge amount of money on our military (compared to the size of the country) during the cold war. If I recall correctly the military strategy was that our forces were to last for a certain amount of time (2 weeks for Oslo I believe with an invasion coming from the north), which was the estimated time it would take for NATO reinforcements to arrive. Of course most of that military equipment was bought from the US heh.. including fighther jets (and currently in the process of renewing these).

Even if we had put our entire national budget into the military there is noway we could have defended alone against a possible Russian invasion. Too small a country, not enough people, not enough resources.

And most of our social standards is based on a lot higher taxation than what you got here. We like it that way, most Americans do not.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 11, 2004, 1:20 pm

Kelshara wrote:Well I am Norwegian, you know.. one of those socialist countries!

You understand, of course, that your nation being socialist (politically) does not preclude it being heavily focused on capitalism, which is an economic doctrine. As it happens, your country relies on capitalism to provide you with your standard of living. I am sure that your country would gladly bribe a foreign nation as needed to preserve your wellbeing. I assume that you would expect them to!

Furthmore, your country is not technologically more advanced, does not have a substantial world class research center, is not a world political leader, provides extraordinary social support for only a small population, and is clearly worse than England at football (;))! I would judge that your educational focus on historical relevence is not necessarily making your country a world leader.

p.s. I have nothing against Norway, never been that far north, but all the Scandanavians I have met are cool well adjusted people.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 1:27 pm

and is clearly worse than England at football

3 words: Wembley. Kjetil Rekdal.

1-2 baby!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2004, 2:43 pm

Kelshara wrote:Hate to tell you Cart but we are rated above the US

In what? Hot blonde chicks

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 2:52 pm

Nah the UN's list of best countries to live in

And I prefere brunettes!

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 3:03 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:
Kylere wrote:It is relevant in the fact that your standard of living, education, healthcare, etc would all be much lower or nonexistant without the United States et al.

I do not think the US deserves thanks or anything, we did it for ourselves more than for any other country, but at least recognition of the fact that hundreds of trillions of dollars were freed up during the course of the Cold War for other nations to use socially rather than militarily.
None of that takes away from the fact that your attempt at making Scandanavia's situation during WWII relevant to this thread is completely and utterly retarded

Nothing takes away from your post more than the fact that you show a complete ignorance of geopolitical reality, I am glad Kelshara is educated.

Fesuni, if the US had let the Soviets do as they wish from 1946 until present, other than in areas of resistance or in the US, everyone would be speaking Russian. The Soviets made it clear they wanted year round ports, and the simplest ones to gain without autotriggering WW3 like the Black Sea ports, would have been to invade and take the scandanavian penisula.

So you can score what you think are points while demonstrating your ignorance, but I know that there are smart people who are also gay, so your attempt at stereotyping all people who are gay as dumbasses has failed.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 3:04 pm

Kelshara wrote:Nah the UN's list of best countries to live in And I prefere brunettes!

Dig it, except I prefer girls with dark brunette or black hair, froth and blue eyes.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 11, 2004, 3:13 pm

Kylere wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Nah the UN's list of best countries to live in And I prefere brunettes!
Dig it, except I prefer girls with dark brunette or black hair, froth and blue eyes.

Many British girls fit that description. I had a Scottish (raised in England) girlfriend who was born blonde haired and blue eyed, but had very dark hair by the time we met and gorgeous, almond shaped, big blue eyes. *sigh* She had me wrapped round her little finger for years with that look!

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 11, 2004, 3:18 pm

Kylere wrote:So you can score what you think are points while demonstrating your ignorance, but I know that there are smart people who are also gay, so your attempt at stereotyping all people who are gay as dumbasses has failed.

What in the hell are you talking about? Making idiotic statements like that takes away quite a lot from any attempt at an argument you try to make Kylere

I simply agreed with Kelshara in saying that your argument was completely irrelevant to this thread..but hey, if you want to get your panties in a twist, be my guest

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 3:40 pm

heh the political situation for Norway in particular (and to a lesser degree the other Scandinavian countries) have been very interesting up through history. The all-year seaports we have all along the coast made us a priority target for Hitler during WWII, and he rated it so high he STILL kept 450 000 soldiers in Norway when Germany capitulated. That also had something to do with the rather aggressive militia working in Norway as well at the time though.. It was in fact believe that those 450K soldiers would fight on in "Festung Norwegen" which would have been a long and bloody battle due to the geographical landscape. Luckily that was avoided.

After WWII we got into a rather delicate situation. We bordered Sovier Union up in the north, and that along with the coastline made us prime target again. Most possible strategic plans I have read included a Phase I direct attack on Norway in the north or a sweep through Finland and Sweden to get to Norway ASAP. My uncle was a figher pilot during the cold war (F-104! Best plane ever!) and the stories I've heard of how they daily had to scramble to cut off incoming Russian planes are fascinating. I also read fairly recently in declassified reports that at several occassions the border forces up north got scrambled due to what was Russian military drills and they were within meters of eachother with fully armed weapons. It sometimes makes me wonder how fast things would have changed if ONE of those nervous 18 year olds had pulled the trigger by accident.

So that was our geopolitical recent history! On a side note, I looked up how the Marshall plan spread the money around and I'm wondering wtf Sweden got any. They stayed neutral and had no attacks on their soil!

Now as for the economical situation.. We got lucky in 1940 when the Germans attacked. Our ancient torpedo and gun battiers in Drøbak managed to somehow sink Blucher, which was considered more or less unsinkable. On board were the special forces who were tasked to capture the Royal Family, the government and the national gold reserve. They all got away and over to England. A lot of the gold (along with the civilian float of ships, the commercial fleet was the largest in the world at the time) were used to finance the forces fighting back home and also to finance 3 squadrons for the air force (2 fighter squadrons, 1 squadron of seaplanes if I recall). The gold (along with the Marshall plan) also set us up for the repairs after WWII, which were extensive due to the Germans using scorched earth strategy in most of northern Norway. After that, oil, fish and hi-tech fields of business have kept us afloat!

Heh.. so what were we talking about again?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 3:42 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:
Kylere wrote:So you can score what you think are points while demonstrating your ignorance, but I know that there are smart people who are also gay, so your attempt at stereotyping all people who are gay as dumbasses has failed.
What in the hell are you talking about? Making idiotic statements like that takes away quite a lot from any attempt at an argument you try to make Kylere

I simply agreed with Kelshara in saying that your argument was completely irrelevant to this thread..but hey, if you want to get your panties in a twist, be my guest

Nah I said it just to get your goat, and I suceeded, now go read a history book.