For the American Soldier, Not a Good Storyl!

[Jones]

Ok and people have been charged and convicted for this, even for things that would not otherwise be a crime. But it seems like you guys want to charge more than this one Soldier.

To be honest, I don't "want" to charge anyone, but I do think that as a nation of laws, we have an obligation to uphold our laws. Historically, as a nation, we have upheld the concept of command responsibility with regards to crimes committed by troops on the battlefield. If the SFC acted completely alone then he is the only one who should be charged. If, however, an investigation reveals that his PC knew what he did and failed to take any action then he becomes culpable as well. Same goes for the CC. And the BC. And right up the line. Because anyone in the chain who knows, or should know, that a crime might have occurred has a legal obligation take action and if they fail to so then they have failed to do their jobs and are at least guilty of criminal negligence.

I will add that the charges you bring are far less and to fewer people than what the military brought in this case.

Well, that's because I'm not a prosecutor. You know they always throw every charge they can think of and bring those charges against everybody they can even remotely connect to the case in order to maximize their chances of getting someone to cooperate and cut a deal, or plead guilty to a lesser charge.

 

[av8torntn]

To be honest, I don't "want" to charge anyone, but I do think that as a nation of laws, we have an obligation to uphold our laws. Historically, as a nation, we have upheld the concept of command responsibility with regards to crimes committed by troops on the battlefield. If the SFC acted completely alone then he is the only one who should be charged. If, however, an investigation reveals that his PC knew what he did and failed to take any action then he becomes culpable as well. Same goes for the CC. And the BC. And right up the line. Because anyone in the chain who knows, or should know, that a crime might have occurred has a legal obligation take action and if they fail to so then they have failed to do their jobs and are at least guilty of criminal negligence.



Well, that's because I'm not a prosecutor. You know they always throw every charge they can think of and bring those charges against everybody they can even remotely connect to the case in order to maximize their chances of getting someone to cooperate and cut a deal, or plead guilty to a lesser charge.

I am not a prosecutor either. If you think it is an unofficial policy to plant evidence this would be your opportunity to bring the charges all the way up the chain of command to where you thought this policy came from. People should be held accountable for criminal acts. I do not believe that a crime was committed here. I also think I am in the minority.

You bring up the point of the platoon sergeant acting alone and command responsibility. If possible I would like to get you to expand on that thought some. I am curious to see where you feel command responsibility begins and ends. If you are saying a leader is responsible for the crime because they feel a crime may be committed or could be committed which I think is what Mac is saying I was just wondering how far you guys want to take that. You posted that war crimes have been committed in every war. Do we charge every politician with war crimes because they put the military in a position to commit possible war crimes? Do we stop with the Sec of defense for approval of the plan? Do we stop with the joint chiefs for sending those units to the battlefield? Do we stop with the highest ranking person on the ground at the scene? These things get debated every war and I do not wish do get in a debate here I was just curious as to how some of you guys see it since you brought it up.

I will tell you where I stand. I think if you commit the crime you do the time. Take some responsibility, stop trying to pass the blame up the chain of command. Most of these things however I do not see as criminal. I see no crime in the above story. If someone shot a civilian outside the rules of engagement and then tried to cover it up by planting evidence I would bring the charges and not make any deals. In this case you would not want me sitting on your jury.

 

[av8torntn]

In your 2nd repsonse to this thread, you seem to question or at least to me it did, the motive of some of the soldiers in the video and that's fair. You asked a valid question about some soldier speaking only of what others did. That's being objective but I noticed you resorted to using the namecalling as a means to demean or degrade a fellow soldier.

Ok I was wrong. I got personal. I HATE people that live on a nice FOB, eat good, stay clean, have time off, wear clean uniforms, get to call home, then tell us how the Marines or Soldiers in the field are doing their job. He was a fobbit. Oops can't call him that. OK he was a 7 ton driver. Why is he making a video telling me what he heard Marines do on patrol. If the young man had said he was a rifleman, lived on a patrol base, ate MRE's, and saw these crimes then I would have just questioned why he did not say anything at the time. Why wait till now? Where is his integrity? There may be no difference to you but there is a huge difference to me. To me the young man is screaming that he has no idea what he is talking about. He heard this. He heard that. Of course he never did anything wrong. He never saw anyone do anything wrong. There have been people convicted of trying to cover up their crimes by planting evidence.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Will this ever end? Why are some people so obsessed with bashing or military? Is it for kicks? Do they get off on it? Or is it just a hobby?

 

[Jones]

I am not a prosecutor either. If you think it is an unofficial policy to plant evidence this would be your opportunity to bring the charges all the way up the chain of command to where you thought this policy came from. People should be held accountable for criminal acts. I do not believe that a crime was committed here. I also think I am in the minority.

You bring up the point of the platoon sergeant acting alone and command responsibility. If possible I would like to get you to expand on that thought some. I am curious to see where you feel command responsibility begins and ends. If you are saying a leader is responsible for the crime because they feel a crime may be committed or could be committed which I think is what Mac is saying I was just wondering how far you guys want to take that. You posted that war crimes have been committed in every war. Do we charge every politician with war crimes because they put the military in a position to commit possible war crimes? Do we stop with the Sec of defense for approval of the plan? Do we stop with the joint chiefs for sending those units to the battlefield? Do we stop with the highest ranking person on the ground at the scene? These things get debated every war and I do not wish do get in a debate here I was just curious as to how some of you guys see it since you brought it up.

I will tell you where I stand. I think if you commit the crime you do the time. Take some responsibility, stop trying to pass the blame up the chain of command. Most of these things however I do not see as criminal. I see no crime in the above story. If someone shot a civilian outside the rules of engagement and then tried to cover it up by planting evidence I would bring the charges and not make any deals. In this case you would not want me sitting on your jury.

I don't think it was an unofficial policy to carry drop weapons, that just happens to be what the guys in the video are claiming. For the purposes of this discussion I was assuming what they said had some validity but I honestly don't know. It's a video produced by an anti-war group, not sworn testimony in a court of law. It's entirely possible that they could be disgruntled former marines who are just badmouthing the Corps, in which case shame on them. If in fact what they say if true, then it's the duty of the Marine Corps to investigate it and put a stop to it because no one has any business carrying drop weapons with them on patrol. Obviously I'm in no real position to anything about it one way or the other.

My feeling on where command responsibility begins and ends is really no different than the military's position, which I think is a good one. It begins and ends with the people under your command. It doesn't matter whether you are a fire team leader or a division commander, if you know or suspect that someone in your command has committed a crime you have a duty to investigate and report it. If you fail to do so then you become complicit in whatever they have done and open yourself up to charges in connection with it.

As far as charging politicians for war crimes committed in the wars they start, I think we both know the reality is that it only happens to the losers. Just ask Hideki Tojo, Slobodan Milošević, or Saddam Hussein.

Will this ever end? Why are some people so obsessed with bashing or military? Is it for kicks? Do they get off on it? Or is it just a hobby?

Who's bashing the military?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Who's bashing the military?

Riiiiiiight.

 

[Jones]

Riiiiiiight.

That's about what I figured

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

That's about what I figured

If you had to ask then you'll never know.

 

[av8torntn]

I don't think it was an unofficial policy to carry drop weapons, that just happens to be what the guys in the video are claiming. For the purposes of this discussion I was assuming what they said had some validity but I honestly don't know. It's a video produced by an anti-war group, not sworn testimony in a court of law. It's entirely possible that they could be disgruntled former marines who are just badmouthing the Corps, in which case shame on them. If in fact what they say if true, then it's the duty of the Marine Corps to investigate it and put a stop to it because no one has any business carrying drop weapons with them on patrol. Obviously I'm in no real position to anything about it one way or the other.

My feeling on where command responsibility begins and ends is really no different than the military's position, which I think is a good one. It begins and ends with the people under your command. It doesn't matter whether you are a fire team leader or a division commander, if you know or suspect that someone in your command has committed a crime you have a duty to investigate and report it. If you fail to do so then you become complicit in whatever they have done and open yourself up to charges in connection with it.

As far as charging politicians for war crimes committed in the wars they start, I think we both know the reality is that it only happens to the losers. Just ask Hideki Tojo, Slobodan Milošević, or Saddam Hussein.

Who's bashing the military?

Thanks for the reply. I think I understand a little better what you are saying now.

 

[Jones]

If you had to ask then you'll never know.

Never know what?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I'm just sick of all the negativity people dish out about our military. Whether the info is true or not. War is hell. People need to realize that. If people only knew half the things our military has done in the past during other wars their hearts would stop. I'm not sure I'd want to know. Keep in mind that others have wronged too. The United States Military is known for being one of the most honorable and moral minded of any other country. When I see Americans constantly complaining about the rare wrong doings of our troops I can't help wonder about their intentions. I choose not to dwell on the negative that comes from those isolated events (those that are true anyway) and instead choose to concentrate on the good things they've accomplished, which, by the way greatly out weighs all of the negativity you people can dish out. So, when i see people complain about an Army MP taking pictures of a dog standing close to a prisoner or of a prisoner in his underwear I can't help but laugh. At least we aren't beheading them and posting it on Al-jazeera or YouTube.

 

[tieguy]

Tie,

Tie, your idea of discussion is to ask 1000 questions and question something to death in what you think is a means to wear someone down till you think you won the argument. You take simple discussions where people express ideas and turn them into some kind of crusade.

no mac I've been basically asking two questions of you and each time I get some evasive answer from you. No name calling here. No badgering. You made what I think is a pretty outrageous statement so I'm trying to get you to answer two questions. who and what will you charge them with.

The fact is that you made a comment of charging everyone up the chain of command for what those soldiors may have done. This is one of those feel good / sound good comments that is very impractical when you actually try to apply it. Thats why I also commented that you were better then that. You usually do not succumb to posting BS feel good rhetoric. Since then I have not asked you a thousand question but two , who would you charge what would you charge them with.

Look its real simple if you want to post a bunch of philosophical BS here and not have anyone actually challenge the content of your post then just say so in your signature line. I'll be more and happy to leave your posts alone. Lord knows it takes hours to read one of them....

 

[wkmac]

I was thinking outside of war. Like the two border patrol agents who shot an illegal at the border. I think they got ten years each. Do we charge others for this also. The ones who created the policy placing them there. The ones making the policies that entice people to transport drugs across the border. The mayors of sanctuary cities.

Or were you just wanting to apply this justice system to the war? Not taking a shot just curious how far you are really willing to go with this.

Was there a policy or suggestion of some unoffical policy that illegals should be shot? If so then yes the same I would think should apply. If the mayors can be shown in direct connection to said, yep, same may hold true.

AV, here's the quickest way to understand this more than any other and I think you are a Teamster also so maybe you can relate to this. Ever heard of the RICO act. It has to do with fighting organized crime and people involved at various levels in such operations. Conspiracies to commit certain crimes play a part of it and it's been a very powerful weapon for US Attorneys. Teamsters learned a bit of this firsthand. If it should show that there are/is some un-official policy, then apply the same standards of looking at this issue as you would outside the gov't as it concerns a private interest. You bust a mob figure for a crime and find a link to a union boss and you bust him too!

You want a reason I'm not so quick to judge these soldiers as some of you seem to be. Look no further that the real beginning of the Iraq war in Public Law 105-338 which is the 1998' Iraq Liberation Act which called for regime change. Democrats try like hell to hide this fact in order to pawn the blame all on Bush. It passed the House 338 yea, 2 nah 36 no vote. The Senate was unnaimous in passage. Clinton signed into law. Both democrats and republicans overwhelmingly passed this document on which ultimately Bush did what he did. I give him much credit for at least having the balls to go with his convictions. But there's one interesting part in that legislation that catches my eye and this is direct from the Congressional record as they read it in.

[quote
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an eight year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
][/quote]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/1998_cr/h981005-iraq.htm

OK, nobody disputes that or the fact that Saddam was a bad guy but here's the question. Did someone give him those weapons or access to such weapons knowing he would do exactly what he did with them? If so, then in the interest of justice should we not go after them as well? We bust a street level drug dealer to get drugs off the street but then do we not go after the major supplier to make sure we don't have the same scenario happen again?

Then why do we sit by quietly and without objection applaud such law and such noble causes as bringing democracy to a savaged peoples when we harbor this in our history and we dare not speak a word of it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

If you are gonna condemn a soldier for his actions against civilians then why stand silent on the bigger sin?

Some of you here parade around and wave the flag of God and Country and I just ask you this one question and I ask it of myself as well.

What would Jesus Do?
In my case I hope he can forgive!

public law 105-338 pdf file from FindLaw
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

 

[av8torntn]

Was there a policy or suggestion of some unoffical policy that illegals should be shot? If so then yes the same I would think should apply. If the mayors can be shown in direct connection to said, yep, same may hold true.

Ok I guess here is what I am having trouble understanding. There is no policy or unofficial policy to kill civilians in Iraq yet when a civilian dies you are willing to charge everyone.

I know you have figured out by now that there is no policy to carry drop weapons to cover up crimes in Iraq. The young man even admitted the one he carried he had to keep hidden in his vehicle. I know you have asked yourself why keep it hidden if it was policy. Soldiers have been charged and convicted of using drop weapons to try and cover up actions outside the rules of engagement.

I would rather see something that would hold these JAG officers accountable. For every charge they bring against a soldier that results in a not guilty finding should bring an automatic death sentence against the prosecutor. We expect these young men and women to make life and death decisions constantly on the battlefield. So give these prosecutors the same chance to make life and death decisions. We could even include all their staff so they know the true meaning of how your decisions affect others. If you want to do something radical I think this is plan would fit better.