military using new torture weapon in Iraq. (temp. blindness)

[donsu]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.lasers.reut/index.html

Laser 'optical incapacitator' issued in Iraq
U.S. device for use by soldiers at checkpoints

The U.S. military has given troops in Iraq a laser device to temporarily blind drivers who ignore warnings at vehicle checkpoints, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, defended its use as legal and said the devices were intended to prevent civilians from being shot.

-snip-

The U.S. military is fitting some M-4 rifles used by U.S. forces in Iraq with a tube-shaped device that is about 10 1/2 inches (27 cm) long that shines a laser beam. Venable stressed that the devices do not cause permanent blindness.

"They don't blind people. It's like shining a big light in your eyes," Venable said. "I think the term is optical incapacitation -- dazzlers as opposed to something that will blind you."

Venable said he did not know how long the "optical incapacitation" effect lasted.
-snip-
--------------------------------------


america, the country that tortures

[Xeric]

1. Because nothing bad could happen

if you "temporarily" blind a guy driving a car or truck, right?

[Tempest]

2. So instead of shooting them

They're going to turn them into missiles careening into buildings, people, etc.

[Xeric]

3. Well see,

If the guy is blinded then you HAVE to shoot him because he might hit something. Great pre-packaged excuse.

[IA_Seth]

4. So what would you prefer?

I guess I don't understand threads like these.

If our troops are there, have ordered a vehicle to stop and they don't, what would you have them do? Move aside and say "sorry for asking you to stop"?

This seems to me to be a more humane option than unloading a clip into the vehicle, but maybe that is just me?

[democrat_patriot]

6. I agree.

This is how Dems get labelled as weak and soft.

If you are ordered to stop, stop. Otherwise you're going to get shot.

The soldiers have to treat every vehicle as a possible threat. This is not meant to argue about the whole "We shouldn't be there in the first place", I agree with that. But the soldiers need to protect themselves.

[wtmusic]

10. Debatable whether most of the people killed at checkpoints

were ever "ordered to stop". There are signs, but that's not enough. They need automatic gates, but they don't want to spend the money. Much easier to put the burden on the Iraqis. Then if we kill them, it's their fault.

[IA_Seth]

15. Ok, then..

If it IS debatable whether or not most of the people killed were ordered to stop, this should help things, no?

Automatic gates are a great idea, and to say they are non-existant is folly. But while these may work in a limited scope, a gate isn't going to stop someone hell bent to blow past a checkpoint with a car bomb, and sadly that is what soldiers have to expect when involved in a miliatary operation. Sandbags and soldiers are about the only thing that can stop a car on the move.

The real issue here is that we have soldiers relegated to police duty, which they are not trained for. Soldiers are inherently trained to overcome obstacles by force. Perhaps if we provided an alternative to force we would have less casualties, which I am all for.

[Minnesota Libra]

7. OMG, IA_Seth, all I'm going to do is ask one simple question and..........

....that is, do you have a double flame suit on??:sarcasm: Go grab it quick!! :rofl:

While I agree that it would be much better to temporarily disable someone rather than outright kill them, and like you I don't understand the objection, I must still point out one issue here. I've noticed of late that not to preach to the choir invites an all out flame war. So my advice to you is go :hide:

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[IA_Seth]

14. Lol...

I am cool with it!

For the record, I am against the war and against what the war was all about (that is, if you can really say for sure WHAT it was all about in the first place!). That being said we ARE there, and I would rather we use non-lethal, non-permanent, means of dealing with issues now that we ARE there.

When the choices are securing a country by killing everyone, or securing a country by non-lethal means, I am gonna go ahead and stand up and say I vote for the non-lethal means.


P.S. - go go gadget flame suit!

[Minnesota Libra]

19. It goes without saying that any reasoning person is against......

.....this war because Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam was the least of our problems.

Any weapons Saddam has/had we sold or gave to him during the Iran/Iraq war anyway so this country knew exactly what he did and didn't have.

So I too am totally against this war but now that our troops are there they need and deserve all the protection they can get. In fact, I'm of the opinion that it's pretty cool of our troops to try and temporarily disable a potential enemy rather than just shoot and ask questions later.

[IA_Seth]

21. Hallelujah! n/t

[Tempest]

8. I'd prefer U.S. troops left Iraq

And stopped giving the insurgents a reason to run road blocks.

[IA_Seth]

16. Great idea...

And I agree, but we ARE there, and there are those that are running road blocks to do harm to our soldiers and innocent Iraqis caught in sectarian violence.

Knowing we won't be leaving Iraq anytime soon, do you still disagree with promoting non-lethal means to disable people who would otherwise be killed?

[Tempest]

24. The real question is...

Why are U.S. troops manning the road blocks?

After 3 years, the Iraqi police and military has to be competent enough to man road blocks.

There's not one reason in the world for the U.S. to still be performing this task.

[IA_Seth]

25. I don't disagree.

We shouldn't be there. We shouldn't be manning roadblocks three years running.

But we ARE. And since we ARE, non-lethal means on incapacitation should be used to the fullest.

At least until we can bring them home.

[BDCORCO]

27. US & Iraqi Soldiers

I would like to know how many Iraqi soldiers are covertly using their place in the Iraqi military to weaken front lines at the right moment to put the soldiers Iraqi and our own in harms way. Is this wrong to wonder? I am 100% for Iraqi's to have their own military and government in operation, but do you think the soldiers have issues with the Iraqi soldiers in this way?

[Minnesota Libra]

20. I think we'd all prefer that our troops had never gone to Iraq since......

.....we all know Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.

Any weapons he had this country either sold or gave him during the Iran/Iraq war anyway so this country knew precisely what weapons he had.

All that having been said, I think our troops deserve all the protection they can get especially considering the ever increasing amount of IED's.

Would I prefer that our troops came home yesterday or better yet had never gone to Iraq in the first place?? Heck yes, I would have preferred that.

Our troops are there though and short of an all out win by the Democratic Party in 06 I doubt they are coming home any time soon. So we should protect our troops however we can for now and get them home ASAP but don't leave them vulnerable right now just because we don't think they should be there.

[guidod]

9. If you're close enough to

shine this in someones eyes then you're close enough to empty a clip into his tires and engine. Then, innocent bystanders wouldn't be involved. I wouldn't call the laser device a torture weapon but it is something that is not needed to safely stop a vehicle.

[tatertop]

13. But we must inflict US style terrorism on innocent people!

Your suggestion is humane and logical.
The US is waay beyond all that.

The United States:

"We might be dumber than shit
but our terrorism is bigger than Texas!"

"Terrorism, our number one export!"

and, the up and coming:

"Torture, it's not just for export anymore!"

[IA_Seth]

17. I don't know what to tell you....

But if you've ever fired an automatic rifle, you'd know that "emptying a clip into tires and engine" would 9/10 include at least one or two shots hitting and possibly killing the driver and/or passengers. It's not like we can guarantee that every round that is shot will hit it's target...and a vehicle disabled by blowing out tires has just about the same chance of careening into a crowd of innocents as a car with an incapacitated driver.

Add to it the bit of fear that all soldiers must feel and you are inviting a recipe for disaster.

[guidod]

26. You're missing my point.

To get this idiotic lazer weapon to hit them right in the eyes you would probably be close enough to shake their hands. But I have a better idea for a weapon, get the fuck out of Iraq. That way the poor Iraqi people wouldn't have to deal with with the shit we're throwing at them.
:mad: :banghead:

[BDCORCO]

28. Point Taken

I am with you on that. There needs to be structured government, but forcing it down their throats seems not to be working.

[guidod]

32. We need to announce a timeline

for leaving and let them worry about structuring their own government. Welcome to DU!:hi:

[Xeric]

11. I would prefer

Our troops not be there subjugating people and harassing the population, torturing them and occasionally committing war crimes. "Humane" isn't one of the terms our military is known for.

[IA_Seth]

18. And that folks, is why Democrats lose the "security" vote...

I can tell you that the good majority of our troops are not there subjagating people to inhumane treatment or harassing a population, yes I am sure it happens, but to paint with such a broad brush is ingenuine and disrespectful to the thousands over there trying to do their duty in a way that honors their service.

you don't have to agree with the war, I surely don't, but to say that our troops aren't trained to be humane is ignorant.

[Xeric]

22. Are you sure you're on the right board?

Abu Ghraib? The atrocity Murtha exposed this week?
Yeah. rah rah for the troops. Drive around with your yellow ribbon and all that.
Iraq is a disaster for the people of Iraq, our troops and our country. Playing the patriot card is what the freepers do.

And this has nothing to do with the "security" card. That's just crap. Everybody in this country knows by now, except for the complete morans, that this has nothing to do with security. It has to do with subjugating a country and stealing its resources along with war profitteering.

[IA_Seth]

23. Yeah, pretty damn positive I am on the right board...

And I am not trying to get into a patriotic pissing match, what I am saying is that there are a good number of humane soldiers over there doing what they have to do until this war is over, and for you to say that they are all acting in the same vein as the monsters of Abu Grhaib is insulting to those decent human beings in our military that are stuck in the shitstorm that this administration has created. The same human beings that voted for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and the rest of the Democrats. The same human beings that signed up for service never imagining that they would be called to duty in an unlawful war.

Playing the patriot card, if that is what I am doing, is what we should all be doing. Like I said in my last post, you don't have to support the war, this administration, or the military way in general, but there is a difference between that and ridiculous claims that all of our soldiers are republican thugs.

And for the record, I didn't say the war was about "security". What I said was your type of hyperbolic comments about our military being full of inhumane monsters is what loses the "security" vote for our party. Can you not see that there is a difference between supporting a war and wanting to give our troops non-lethal ways of deterring possible threats?

So yeah, rah rah for the troops, and boo hiss hiss for the jerkoffs that made them get involved.

[BDCORCO]

30. I agree with my man Seth!

I have family and friends in Iraq... Family if you can get that word through your head and realize what it truly means, so of course I do not want them in this war. I am not for the war, I am not for the apparent subjugation of Iraq you so adamantly feel is happening, which I can't disagree or agree with at this point. That's another discussion, I just quickly want to say that our troops have one main focus and belief when they are there. They are doing is for us as our countries armed forces. They don't have time for gut checks or time for questioning. They are dead if they do. It's our responsibility to get them home.

[LizW]

5. "Blindness" vs. "optical incapacitation"

No, of course, that's not the same at all.

:eyes:

[woodsprite]

12. So THAT'S what they were testing on airplane pilots here. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

29. Winning hearts and minds!!!

[kitkat65]

31. Remember the car that was shot up at a checkpoint killing the parents?

The pictures were all over the net showing the aftermath and soldiers consoling the terrified children covered in their parents blood.

Do you think the soldiers involved in that incident wished they had a different option than bullets?

I'll bet a c-note they did.