Greg de'Ville Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/04/tillman.death/index.html Watergate wasn't the only "cover-up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Bloody uniforms and gear are always burned after a death of a service member. This isn't a "cover-up" whether they knew it was friendly fire or not. Media hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg de'Ville Posted May 5, 2005 Author Share Posted May 5, 2005 USMC, thank you for your clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Here's news: The only reason anyone cares is because the guy's name is Pat Tillman. If it was Leonard Smith from Walla Walla, no story. Our guys die in combat. Sometimes it's the result of friendly fire. You know why? Because combat sucks. In the best of times it's controlled chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Bloody uniforms and gear are always burned after a death of a service member. This isn't a "cover-up" whether they knew it was friendly fire or not. Media hype. 329036[/snapback] Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately CNN and most of the public will not want to hear this logic and make it political and start pointing fingers, as both sides love to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Here's news: The only reason anyone cares is because the guy's name is Pat Tillman. If it was Leonard Smith from Walla Walla, no story. 329137[/snapback] I would care, Leonard Smith was a hell of a safety for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Bloody uniforms and gear are always burned after a death of a service member. This isn't a "cover-up" whether they knew it was friendly fire or not. Media hype. 329036[/snapback] Are you saying they burn the items before completing an investigation? I understand they burn the items...but, if there was a question of the circumstances surrounding his death, wouldn't they be burning evidence that might help them in answering those questions? The article goes on to say: [Army investigators now say his clothes should have been preserved as evidence. Army officials said the Jones report concludes that the Tillman family should have been told at once that "friendly fire" was suspected. The report, however, found no official intent by military commanders to hide the truth.] It's not just the Washington Post or CNN pointing fingers or hyping this. The presentation seems straight-forward and fair. Because he was Pat Tillman it's getting more attention...in the same way his death gained more attention because of who he is/was. This takes NOTHING away from what he did. He's still a hero, IMO. But, to believe they should not investigate what might be potential misconduct (or worse) because he was a soldier is naive, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Bloody uniforms and gear are always burned after a death of a service member. This isn't a "cover-up" whether they knew it was friendly fire or not. Media hype. 329036[/snapback] I know the culture of the military feels that they don't owe an explanation to anyone, least of which nosy civilians. Besides, why spoil a good story, right? Harsh, I know. But some of us still think America is a free and open society (thanks to the military!) But it's pretty easy to justify keeping secrets for the wrong reasons. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately CNN and most of the public will not want to hear this logic and make it political and start pointing fingers, as both sides love to do. 329140[/snapback] It would have been nice if CNN or other media reports had been about just the facts initially, but unfortunately the news media is out to make a dime out of reporting the news and they tend to boil all stories of warfare be it Tillman's tragic death or Jessica Lynch's story into their own pre-conceived Hollywood notions of warfare. Unfortunately, part of modern warfare for the generals is managing the media in a digital world where images are taken transmitted and broadcast in an instant. Nature abhors a vacuum and when there is a moments delay in getting images from the front, this on-air vacuum gets filled by whatever seems initially believable and impressions get built in the public and even reported by the media of stories of a hero like Tillman getting cut-down by enemy fire or a photogenic gal like Lynch firing until he gun was empty. When reality differs from the initial storybook truth, even SOP gets viewed in a different light. I know the generals want to wait unto the investigation is complete before they issue a report, but the story-telling begins immediately and Tillman's family (and the public as soon as possible afterwards) needed to be informed this might be a friendly-fire tragedy. By waiting until after an impression has been built and stories were being told which did not match the facts, motives are now being questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately CNN and most of the public will not want to hear this logic and make it political and start pointing fingers, as both sides love to do. 329140[/snapback] Destroying evidence BEFORE an investigation? Why would anyone have a problem with that? You're right. Those of us who watch CNN hust don't get it. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Are you saying they burn the items before completing an investigation? I understand they burn the items...but, if there was a question of the circumstances surrounding his death, wouldn't they be burning evidence that might help them in answering those questions? The article goes on to say: [Army investigators now say his clothes should have been preserved as evidence. Army officials said the Jones report concludes that the Tillman family should have been told at once that "friendly fire" was suspected. The report, however, found no official intent by military commanders to hide the truth.] It's not just the Washington Post or CNN pointing fingers or hyping this. The presentation seems straight-forward and fair. 329156[/snapback] It was standard procedure. They didn't think there would be any question that it was friendly fire that killed him. It's easy to look back and say they should have or shouldn't have done this or that. Contrary to popular belief, holes are holes. The bad guys bullets don't make holes any different than our bullets. (in clothing) The real evidence is within the body itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old German Woman Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 I remember da same ting happening in Deutschland. No vay would da innocent guys in da military ever try to cover someting up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 The government covering something up???? Nah.......never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 It was standard procedure. They didn't think there would be any question that it was friendly fire that killed him. It's easy to look back and say they should have or shouldn't have done this or that. Contrary to popular belief, holes are holes. The bad guys bullets don't make holes any different than our bullets. (in clothing) The real evidence is within the body itself. 329172[/snapback] The problem here is that SOP doesn't keep pace with a 24/7 world where images are ready and expected in the blink of an eye. The problem is that there were no images here so all you had were media talking heads and pundits theorizing and a "sory" was created in the public's mind which was mostly based on their fictitious Hollywood image of war. The generals in charge dropped the ball on this one because they did not deal with the tales spun and impression left by the 24/7 media, particularly when they failed to inform the family and then the public that there was even a suspicion of this beomg a friendly-fire incident until their investigation was complete. I know and it is understandable they want to wait for all or most of the facts before speaking, but that is simply not a realistic way of dealing with the reality of a business which abhors the vacuum or dead air. False impressions were created in the public mind and now when they find out reality and their pre-formed conclusions do not jibe they are suspicious of even SOP. The brass should have released to the family and then to the public even their unfcornfirmed suspicions of friendly fire. If it turned out he actually died from enemy fire their suspicions were wrong but he is treated all the more like the hero he is. If as was the case the suspicion is correct then this doubt about about the motives behind an SOP are much less of a story if they are a story at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 The government covering something up???? Nah.......never. 329211[/snapback] The ignorant masses blowing something that they have no knowledge of out of proportion on the word of other people who have no idea what they are talking about?????.....Nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 It was standard procedure. They didn't think there would be any question that it was friendly fire that killed him. It's easy to look back and say they should have or shouldn't have done this or that. Contrary to popular belief, holes are holes. The bad guys bullets don't make holes any different than our bullets. (in clothing) The real evidence is within the body itself. 329172[/snapback] The fact of the matter is that the investigating officer felt that, according to this report, the buring of Cpl. Tillman's body armor and uniform "amounted to destruction of evidence." The Washington Post, as liberal as it may be, did not come to that conclusion. A senior officer whose job was to look deeply into this case came to that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 The ignorant masses blowing something that they have no knowledge of out of proportion on the word of other people who have no idea what they are talking about?????.....Nah. 329236[/snapback] You just keep waving that flag high and believing everything they tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 It was standard procedure. They didn't think there would be any question that it was friendly fire that killed him. It's easy to look back and say they should have or shouldn't have done this or that. Contrary to popular belief, holes are holes. The bad guys bullets don't make holes any different than our bullets. (in clothing) The real evidence is within the body itself. 329172[/snapback] Sorry, that's way too simple an explanation for the other experts in this thread. Buncha garden variety Quincy's and CSI agents here. You know, it's funny. As a military person, when you report the details as you hear them, you are "jerking people around" or "changing your story." When you wait until all the facts are in or to investigate completely, you're "covering things up." Idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Idiots. 329278[/snapback] And Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK by himself too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udonkey Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 And Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK by himself too. 329281[/snapback] Is your 30 line signature really necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Is your 30 line signature really necessary? 329307[/snapback] Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Yes. 329309[/snapback] Some how I think someone else disagrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Some how I think someone else disagrees. 329562[/snapback] I took it down on my own. It was getting to my eyes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 You just keep waving that flag high and believing everything they tell you. 329273[/snapback] ......and you keep regurgitating what zach de rocha tells you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udonkey Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 queso con dorko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 It was standard procedure. They didn't think there would be any question that it was friendly fire that killed him. It's easy to look back and say they should have or shouldn't have done this or that. Contrary to popular belief, holes are holes. The bad guys bullets don't make holes any different than our bullets. (in clothing) The real evidence is within the body itself. 329172[/snapback] I don't buy the "holes are holes" thing. There have been incidents, especially in past conflicts that people where killed by their own people on purpose. I am NOT implying that this (Tillman) situation was one of them. It just needs to be investigated. Accountability has to be taken on EVERYTHING. They burn the clothes and body armor because it is a BioHazard... That I understand. There is a lot of room here to skirt accountability. And to think that the military doesn't know its outcomes, choices and legal options is just plain naive. To think they don't take advantage of those options is also naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Sorry, that's way too simple an explanation for the other experts in this thread. Buncha garden variety Quincy's and CSI agents here. You know, it's funny. As a military person, when you report the details as you hear them, you are "jerking people around" or "changing your story." When you wait until all the facts are in or to investigate completely, you're "covering things up." Idiots. 329278[/snapback] I here what your are saying. Quite a PR problem?... Damn if you do, damn if you don't. Will the military ever get a good business model for handling the instant media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 ......and you keep regurgitating what zach de rocha tells you 329855[/snapback] Zack is so far out of the limelight right now it's not even funny. I'm sorry to break it to you Pete, but my political views aren't formed by listening to Rage Against the Machine. I will say however that I believe in a good number of their causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 I here what your are saying. Quite a PR problem?... Damn if you do, damn if you don't. Will the military ever get a good business model for handling the instant media? 329864[/snapback] I'm not sure it's possible to have a good model for handling today's media. The only consistancy is inconsistancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts