Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exonerating Servicemen Convicted of War Crimes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Agree. But we don't shoot them anymore. They can be hanged, but I don't think that would be done either.

    There is a difference, though, between traitors and spies and war criminals. I remember the Law of Land Warfare class we took at Quantico. The bottom line is that you don't kill anyone that doesn't deserve killing. These 'exonerations' are wrong and out of line.
    No, the problem is that we-- well, the West-- has come to look at war as more like policing than war. Our politicians will rail about "...bringing so and so to 'justice,' " that sort of nonsense. They look on the military as some sort of super SWAT unit that will go and 'arrest' the bad guys.
    The proper attitude towards war is We're here to kill you, destroy your ability to do anything, and take your stuff away. Don't like that? Then you shouldn't have gotten in a war with us.

    I've read that the military today has to apply "appropriate" levels of force against opponents in a war. That is idiotic. We should apply available and overwhelming force against enemies in war. Now, that doesn't mean nuking a city just because we can, but it does mean you are shooting say a machine gun at us from a building, there's nothing wrong with use flattening that building on you with a 1000 lbs. guided bomb.
    You're using a mosque for military purposes? It gets turned into a pile of rubble that's your grave. No hesitation about it.
    You capture some enemy combatant in the heat of battle but have no means to securely move him to the rear and keeping him with you endangers your unit and mission, while letting him go could result in his returning to combat, and you decide the best course is offing him? Good for you. It's his fault he was captured. Sometimes that's just how it is. It isn't an atrocity. It's what happens in combat.

    Oh, and shooting lawyers is always a good thing.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Massena View Post

      Agree. But we don't shoot them anymore. They can be hanged, but I don't think that would be done either.

      There is a difference, though, between traitors and spies and war criminals. I remember the Law of Land Warfare class we took at Quantico. The bottom line is that you don't kill anyone that doesn't deserve killing. These 'exonerations' are wrong and out of line.
      The Law of Land Warfare is meaningless when you place uniformed soldiers in a combat situation where the enemies they are fighting are in fact civilians. Then what are the expectations? Just as with the Tet Offensive, the NVA infiltrated village's and cities months in advance dressed as civilians. When the attacks started our soldiers and Marines were fighting men an women dressed as civilians. The famous event where a South Vietnamese official shot one of the infiltrators in the head showed us just how brutal the fighting was. What the film didn't show was that the man who was executed had lead a team of assassins' who had already murdered dozens of police officers and their families.
      Our soldiers and Marines and special forces and air crews operating in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and throughout the Middle East and in Africa are fighting enemies who do not wear uniforms, they are in many cases children, and more often that not they are women.
      While I agree with you that there has to be rules of warfare, I have always wondered just how that applies to situations where the opponent does not honor any recognized law of warfare ?
      Does the US have the stomach for such a war?
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Massena View Post
        The bottom line is that you don't kill anyone that doesn't deserve killing.
        That is the problem. That very simplistic take away leaves the door wide open......

        Who determines that someone deserves to be killed?
        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post

          That is the problem. That very simplistic take away leaves the door wide open......

          Who determines that someone deserves to be killed?
          I have mentioned this before. A good friend was a grunt in Vietnam around 1966-7 He made sargent in a couple of months because most of the NCO's were killed or wounded. On patrol one day they took fire from a sniper. The CO..... a lieutenant said he would run into the open and draw fire and they could get him. My friend was the one who shot him. He was in a tree. When they went to search him...…….they discovered he was 12 years old. He related this to me over more than a few beers...…..He had tears in his eyes...….
          This is hardly any "code" in war......

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            More like a very small apple to a whole orchard of oranges. Hillary is guilty as [email protected]#!
            It's be nice to Grammas week , TAG
            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

              The Law of Land Warfare is meaningless when you place uniformed soldiers in a combat situation where the enemies they are fighting are in fact civilians. Then what are the expectations? Just as with the Tet Offensive, the NVA infiltrated village's and cities months in advance dressed as civilians. When the attacks started our soldiers and Marines were fighting men an women dressed as civilians. The famous event where a South Vietnamese official shot one of the infiltrators in the head showed us just how brutal the fighting was. What the film didn't show was that the man who was executed had lead a team of assassins' who had already murdered dozens of police officers and their families.
              Our soldiers and Marines and special forces and air crews operating in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and throughout the Middle East and in Africa are fighting enemies who do not wear uniforms, they are in many cases children, and more often that not they are women.
              While I agree with you that there has to be rules of warfare, I have always wondered just how that applies to situations where the opponent does not honor any recognized law of warfare ?
              Does the US have the stomach for such a war?
              No, it isn't. If you want to lower yourself to their level, then what is the point?

              The US hasn't fought anyone who paid attention to the Geneva Convention or the Law of Land Warfare-not Germans, Japanese, North Vietnamese, Chinese, North Koreans, Iraqis, ISIS or anyone else. Get a grip.
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                No, it isn't. If you want to lower yourself to their level, then what is the point?

                The US hasn't fought anyone who paid attention to the Geneva Convention or the Law of Land Warfare-not Germans, Japanese, North Vietnamese, Chinese, North Koreans, Iraqis, ISIS or anyone else. Get a grip.
                The Germans were totally annihilated by allied force at a great cost. The Japanese were fire bombed and nuc`d,
                Do you believe we have the stomach to repeat that?
                North Vietnamese won mostly because we restricted our forces from fighting an all out war. North Korea has never signed a treaty. Only a truce. Officially we are still at war.
                I have a grip. Mogadishu, special forces attacked by civilian militias, not one was wearing a unifoirm and our forces had to kill their way out.
                Would you charge them? Killed civilians, many were no older than 12, a d armed with RPGs.
                Uniform codes. Law of Land Warfare, all of that goes down the tubes when we place highly trained kill teams in harm's way and are fa ed with savages who are willing to turn a child into a bipedal bomb.
                The one man was tried for stabbing a young ISIS fighter to death after he had been taken I to custody. While I have a problem with the event as told by prosecutors, there were witnesses who didn't support the prosecution.
                Meanwhile we are operating armed killer drones via satellite from the comfort of a bunker out of harm's way. Those drones routinely take out dozens of humans from thousands of feet in the sky with the will to kill those dozens just to get one insurgent leader. Even if it takes out his children or one or more of his wives.
                Welcome to war by Microsoft.
                Last edited by Urban hermit; 19 Nov 19, 22:57.
                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Massena View Post

                  No, it isn't. If you want to lower yourself to their level, then what is the point?
                  To a degree, yes. The point is winning. Not compromise. Not some temporary peace treaty or cease fire. But crushing the opposition into the dirt so they won't do it again.

                  The US hasn't fought anyone who paid attention to the Geneva Convention or the Law of Land Warfare-not Germans, Japanese, North Vietnamese, Chinese, North Koreans, Iraqis, ISIS or anyone else. Get a grip.
                  Then why should we? I'm sure you'll say something like to prove we're morally or socially superior, but to who are we proving that? Certainly not the people we're fighting. I say crush them like bugs and then we can choose how we want to handle the peace that follows.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                    The Germans were totally annihilated by allied force at a great cost. The Japanese were fire bombed and nuc`d,
                    Do you believe we have the stomach to repeat that?
                    North Vietnamese won mostly because we restricted our forces from fighting an all out war. North Korea has never signed a treaty. Only a truce. Officially we are still at war.
                    I have a grip. Mogadishu, special forces attacked by civilian militias, not one was wearing a unifoirm and our forces had to kill their way out.
                    Would you charge them? Killed civilians, many were no older than 12, a d armed with RPGs.
                    Uniform codes. Law of Land Warfare, all of that goes down the tubes when we place highly trained kill teams in harm's way and are fa ed with savages who are willing to turn a child into a bipedal bomb.
                    The one man was tried for stabbing a young ISIS fighter to death after he had been taken I to custody. While I have a problem with the event as told by prosecutors, there were witnesses who didn't support the prosecution.
                    Meanwhile we are operating armed killer drones via satellite from the comfort of a bunker out of harm's way. Those drones routinely take out dozens of humans from thousands of feet in the sky with the will to kill those dozens just to get one insurgent leader. Even if it takes out his children or one or more of his wives.
                    Welcome to war by Microsoft.
                    You must make a reference to the witness and friend of the accused seal commander who testified under immunity that it was him who killed the captive.Meanwhile, multiple younger seal members testified against their commander who was the one who was initially accused. You do not see anything wrong with that immunity deal?

                    As for the general issue about the rules of law, the point is very simple.
                    Do soldiers (and seals) follow orders or not? Because if they do, then the orders about their conduct are clear. Period!

                    Moreover, this is not just about "be nice," it is also an issue of "be smart" and effective The captive ISIS fighter who was a teenager could have been a source of information for the interrogators. But some supposedly trained seal let his emotions get the better of him and decided to act unlawfully and stupidly instead of completing his job in the best possible way by letting the G2 or S2 or whatever you call the branch that processes these captives.

                    And do not tell me that it is easy for me to judge from thousand of miles away as a civilian because the comparison I make is actually among the seals themselves, and I see that seals who were fighting right next to the defendant (and I think he was the commander of the unit) were troubled by his behavior and did not hesitate to testify against him in court.



                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      You must make a reference to the witness and friend of the accused seal commander who testified under immunity that it was him who killed the captive.Meanwhile, multiple younger seal members testified against their commander who was the one who was initially accused. You do not see anything wrong with that immunity deal?

                      As for the general issue about the rules of law, the point is very simple.
                      Do soldiers (and seals) follow orders or not? Because if they do, then the orders about their conduct are clear. Period!

                      Moreover, this is not just about "be nice," it is also an issue of "be smart" and effective The captive ISIS fighter who was a teenager could have been a source of information for the interrogators. But some supposedly trained seal let his emotions get the better of him and decided to act unlawfully and stupidly instead of completing his job in the best possible way by letting the G2 or S2 or whatever you call the branch that processes these captives.

                      And do not tell me that it is easy for me to judge from thousand of miles away as a civilian because the comparison I make is actually among the seals themselves, and I see that seals who were fighting right next to the defendant (and I think he was the commander of the unit) were troubled by his behavior and did not hesitate to testify against him in court.


                      I get suspicious of the witness any time immunity is offered. Did the JAG tell him to take the deal or we will pin it on you?

                      As for the "general issue about the rules of law". The Seal in question was ordered to kill and enemy that is in fact a group of civilians.
                      Is that not true? If ISIS are civilians and our solders are commanded to engage them, is not the order it self a violation of the "general issue about the rules of law?"

                      That is the basis of my question.....How does the soldier on the ground react when the order itself is a violation of the basic rules of warfare?
                      When our troops fought the Iraqi army, that was an actual force of a recognized nation. ISIS is not . Many of the fighters are young people recruited from all over the world. That would mean they do not even share a language . And our fighters have to engage them. The stupidity is to expect our soldiers to fight the devil and remain saints.
                      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Precedent ?

                        Captain John T. Compton

                        Sergeant Horace T. West

                        Look them up.
                        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Just saw on the news that SEAL CPO Ed Gallagher who was recently restored to his rank by the president will be subject of a Naval Review Board. It's possible that he will be expelled form the Navy. What a waste of taxpayer dollars.
                          Chief Gallagher was demoted for posing with the corpse of an enemy combatant.
                          In the rarefied world of special forces fighters, where is the outrage over such an incident? Here's a hint. There ain't none.
                          ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
                          IN MARE IN COELO

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
                            Just saw on the news that SEAL CPO Ed Gallagher who was recently restored to his rank by the president will be subject of a Naval Review Board. It's possible that he will be expelled form the Navy. What a waste of taxpayer dollars.
                            Chief Gallagher was demoted for posing with the corpse of an enemy combatant.
                            In the rarefied world of special forces fighters, where is the outrage over such an incident? Here's a hint. There ain't none.
                            You make a great point, we are not in Kansas anymore, just think of how much brutality the average person no matter where you may reside has been exposed too by age 20.
                            During WWII the censorship board prevented any photos of dead American soldiers from being published in newspapers until 1943!
                            How many beheadings have been broadcast on network news, YouTube, etc.
                            It is not uncommon for video of drone attacks, or air strikes showing actual video of people being blown apart, illuminated by infrared lens to be broadcast or for viewers to see actual suicide bombers blow themselves up.
                            To hear that a Navy Seal may have killed a captive ISIS killer is a yawner for most of us now. Especially after watching ISIS sympathizers attack a British soldier on the streets of a British city in broad daylight and butcher him .
                            Live by the sword, die by the sword.
                            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                              I get suspicious of the witness any time immunity is offered. Did the JAG tell him to take the deal or we will pin it on you?

                              As for the "general issue about the rules of law". The Seal in question was ordered to kill and enemy that is in fact a group of civilians.
                              Is that not true? If ISIS are civilians and our solders are commanded to engage them, is not the order it self a violation of the "general issue about the rules of law?"

                              That is the basis of my question.....How does the soldier on the ground react when the order itself is a violation of the basic rules of warfare?
                              When our troops fought the Iraqi army, that was an actual force of a recognized nation. ISIS is not . Many of the fighters are young people recruited from all over the world. That would mean they do not even share a language . And our fighters have to engage them. The stupidity is to expect our soldiers to fight the devil and remain saints.
                              Why would the JAG threaten to pin the crime on the new witness when they already had started the prosecution of another person (seal commander) and had numerous witnesses (other navy seals) testifying against him?

                              The ISIS terrorist was killed after his capture, and it is obvious that the circumstances did not justify the killing of a captured terrorist. There was not an issue of self-defense or ambiguity about who the enemy is or necessity to accept collateral damage in order to neutralize an enemy. On the contrary, there was an incentive to deliver this teenager prisoner to the interrogators so that they could extract from him as much information as they could.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                There is no justification needed for the killing of a captured terrorist .

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X