My favorite part of this thread was falcon pretending he could formulate an opinion worth writing down. Good try guy. such a cute poster. Keep it up little guy.

Let me try to explain this again, there's no reason for anybody to look for the last thread:

There's a pretty fundamental theorem wrt military justice since the end of WWII. Basically, that theorem states that, "no soldier is immune from the prosecution of war crime simply because that soldier was following orders." That theory is vitally important to the way we conduct ourselves in war imo. On the individual level, it boils down to "no soldier shall obey unlawful orders or commands."

This is all wonderful in theory, but you can't honestly expect a marine in the jury box to take all of this to heart can you? I mean, do you want to be the guy to tell some corporal that s/he can be imprisoned for life for following orders? Take a look at the quote I made earlier in the thread:
Soldiers, particularly marines in my experience, place a whole hell of alot of faith in their training/orders. Regardless of legal theorems and rules of warfare, you just aren't going to convince you average Marine that they shouldn't follow orders.

So yes, there is a conflict of interest here, but it's a political issue, not a military one.

Yes you ****ing can. Here is the flow chart:

Does the order violate the geneva convention/miltary code of conduct/etc?

if no: do it
if yes: dont do it


they should be trained in this before anything else. I'd rather the US lose a war than commit war crimes

we are trained in it in basic

Which doesn't change the fact that when sitting in a jury, a Marine is naturally going to think, "could that possibly be me in the defendant's chair? He was following his training? WTF would I do if this happened to me?"

Again, there's a conflict here, but it's hardly the military's fault. The UCMJ (written by congress btw) is and federal law is quite specific on the matter. The JAGs know that they have to overcome this conflict of interest, so if there is an doubt, any at all, it's probably better to accept a plea deal.

why would he think that? he should be thinking "wow look at this ****ing war criminal, put him and his superior officer away"

I realize this is not the case but "just following orders" has been roundly debunked as an excuse

Is it really categorically different for a marine to go around shooting children in cold blood then to have children die as collateral damage or even say the death of a civilian owing to improper sewage facilities, hospitals etc as a result of bombs blowing all that **** up? Obviously we view these deaths differently, but they are both the exact result of occupation and I doubt the families in mourning make any distinction as to motive. You would think with the costs of conflict so savage that we would be more hesitant to promote interventionism.

Yeah, well, unfortunately I have to argue out of both sides of my mouth itt. I hate the occupations, and think military action should only be used as a last resort. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two scenario's, but that's only when I drift off into my libertopia fantasy land. Legally though, there's a big difference, and public perception wise there's a huge difference (I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, but it's undeniably true.)

Do you honestly have that hard of a time wrapping your head around the concept? There's a huge difference between some nice simply legal theory and actually being on a battlefield. There's going to be a huge amount of empathy from anyone who's been in similar positions as the douchebags from Haditha, especially when a Sergent Major gets on the witness stand and says the defendant was, "a great Marine" who was following his training and his orders.

It would be lovely if everyone who's ever put on a uniform can completely detach themselves from their own experiences and simply look at the law, but that's absolutely impossible and it's completely unreasonable to expect. We have a system where soldiers are going to be tried by "a jury of their piers", in this case it means other active duty members, likely with combat experience. Again, this a purely political situation that the military has to deal with as best it can.

DblBBJ is laughing his ass off at me right now, I'm sure. I'm in the same position defending the military as he's usually in when defending the police (typically from me, oddly enough)

if we lived in your libertopia there would be no geneva convention

Ya, sure. I answered you in my edit. Read it if you wish

You're still making excuses for war criminals. Being a soldier in a war zone does not excuse you from being a human being. It might be hard for a soldier to be impartial, but it's certainly not "absolutely impossible". And if it is impossible, then they should be tried in court where the jury will be more objective.

If an American soldier (or ANY soldier) commits a war crime, they need to go to jail. Any other outcome is unacceptable. Any justice system that produces a different outcome is broken and must be changed.

Okay, first off, ya it is impossible for soldiers to be completely impartial, being completely impartial goes against human nature. Second, grats on that amazing analysis of our military justice system. Now all you need to do is convince the POTUS and congress to play along with your idea. Oh, damn, there's another impossibility. Jesus, I though only libertarians lived in a fantasy land. Finally, how is "any other outcome unacceptable?" You do realize our justice system, military or otherwise, is basically set up for the prosecution to fail don't you? Would you honestly prefer a system in which it's significantly easier for the government to convict suspects of a crime?

what would the implications be if he wasn't working alone, but in fact working with a team of 10+ people?

This is my first post in this thread so somebody may have already mentioned this, but I wonder if we're trapped in a "Catch-22" type situation with respect to Afghanistan?

During the 2008 presidential campaign John McCain was asked how long we should keep boots on the ground in Afghanistan? I'm paraphrasing a bit, but McCain responded "100 years if necessary" or words to that effect. The problem with a commitment that drags on that long is that a majority of Americans won't support it - in terms of both the money being spent and the lives being lost. Americans don't like (or support) wars that drag on indefinitely with no clear resolution. After approximately 15 years, we decided we had had enough of Vietnam. The Russians decided they had had all they wanted of Afghanistan after only eight years ...

If we leave Afghanistan, the fear among some - including our military commanders - is that the Taliban will sweep back into power and control of the country. It will then be "business as usual" for Al Qeada and other terrorist groups using Afghanistan as a training base. From there it's just a matter of time until we experience another 9/11 terrorist attack here in the United States. It's arguable as to what extent this "fear" is justified, but that seems to be the rationale for our involvement in Afghanistan - we're denying the terrorists a safe sanctuary.

So we seem to be stuck on the horns of a dilemma. The problem with protracted military engagements is that unfortunate incidents tend to happen - the kind of "incidents" that tend to erode public support back home. During Vietnam it was a Viet Cong soldier being summarily executed on the streets of Saigon followed (later) by the My Lai massacre. Veterans of World War II witnessed equally gruesome acts of barbarity on the islands of Tarawa, Saipan, and Iwo Jima. You can't insert people - even "trained soldiers" - into the midst of insanity and expect every one of them to behave like perfect model citizens. Under that kind of constant unrelenting stress, some of them are going to crack. (It's a wonder there haven't been even more of these type incidents.) How well do you think you would hold up after being sent over there on four separate deployments?

I don't agree with Ron Paul on very much, but maybe he's right on one thing: We should think really hard before we commit our military to long protracted engagements. It's relatively easy getting into these imbroglios - it's hell getting out.

Former DJ

The problem with protracted military engagements is you murder hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent civilians (typically brown).

floyd what about oj and all the other folks who get away with murder? it happens.

Sorry, The A Team has already been reboot.

hundreds of thousands? hundreds of thousands murdered? havnt been hundreds of thousands murdered in every us war since ww1

it's not even close IMO, although I haven't read this whole thread. Any PM'd death wishes (or public death wishes)?

Been trolled by mods yet?

They've called me a racist, a fascist, an evil tyrant, told me they hope I die in a shoot out. A prominent poster I don't see much anymore told me I made him "physically sick to his stomach".

At the end of the day, you just have to ask "do I really care what this collection of assorted weirdos think of me?" and laugh it off.

You and I are closer than you think IRT life experiences. In more ways than one....

Please go to a conservative forum or some type of pro fox website whete your logic will be well received . With your opinions on Iran , you faulting obama for that flag , and now this , I would love to just chalk you up a troll , but your pov is sadly agreed by millions.

his golf forum posting is also horrible and very trollish, he is probably just your standard fake conservative fox news watching go USA #1 guy though

Maybe he should go work for Cruz in Texas so they can stop Soros, Agenda21, and the UN from banning golf courses?

Eric Margolis has an excellent piece on this incident, I highly recommend it :

http://lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis284.html

eh, not crazy about the article, though I do think he hits one crucial point here:

Unfortunately, discussion of the widespread bigotry among rank and file military members is off the table. It's protected partly because the brave and noble troops meme is the ultimate sacred cow in America, but also because a huge portion of American citizens hold similarly hateful views so it isn't seen as a problem.

i get the impression that you really, really do