Thread: Court marshall or not?

Screw this lets call a spade a spade. I love how we are to set the example, and follow the geneva convention. The terrorists don't and suddenly they're the victims. Screw it.

All of this touting about the fact that these presumed terrorists are "accused", not convicted and therefore presumed innocent is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because these soldiers were charged with apprehending, holding, perhaps interviewing the presumed terrorists, not punishing them, therefore, hanging your hat on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is pointless.

Someone posted above that they might not be guilty..."it happens ALOT". well, guess what else happens alot, people who are very, very guilty get off in court on some stretched rule of law. Despite the fact that this fact has nothing to do with what we're talking about, I just had to point that out...it is a two sided coin, much in favor of the bad guys. In other words, our M.I. guys might know these suspected terrorists to be very gulity, but, in the international climate and trying to appease the world with our goodness, they might, and probably will get off because of this stink of the "fat lip" or whatever the hell.

Back to the topic...What is important is the totality of the circumstances that surrounded the incident of the famed "fat lip". The majority of violence that takes place between authorities, (police or military in this case), is the result of encounters with "suspects", people who are only suspicioned or accused and not convicted. Take our recent example of the professor whose neighbor called in as a possible burglar, (remember the Obama Beer Summit); the police arrived, asked our esteemed professor some questions in the interest of establishing who he was for the purpose of protecting his dammed property and the professor reacted with hostility, resulting in his well educated a** being arrested and booked. He was a suspect under a suspicious circumstances call; not convicted of burglary. The point is that it is your conduct at the time of detainment or arrest that turns a molehill into a mountain, not whether you're guilty or innocent. How may people do you think resist arrest for a crime they are accused of and end up trying to sue for use of excessive force where the real or contended injury is the result of their own actions in the resistence...when you're guilty the best defense is to re-direct the focus to your accusors.

To smack or not to smack...easy to determine from a computer...it's just wrong, but, have any of you ever had someone you arrested or detained as a suspect say something to you like, "I'll kill your kids" or "If you have a wife, sister or mother, they won't be safe when I get out..." What would you do? Maybe smack em? I'm not saying that whatever these soldiers did was right or wrong, none of us was there, and therefore we are unqualified to speculate. Perhaps one of these pristine terrorist suspects spit on someone; perhaps they whispered a threat or taunted about a bombing that killed some soldiers these guys knew and perhaps that resulted in a fat lip. If it was something like that, I say two fat lips were in order.

Probably the manner inwhich these investigations are conducted these days, (if you're accused, your already screwed), resulted in the residual improper actions. Does that make them correct, no, but, it does make them somewhat more understandable and perhaps the system would be better off by examining itself and the impossible position they put these soldiers in. Remember the officer a few years ago who asked an enemy combatant some questions and the combatant responded with something like death to you and your soldiers...the officer pulled out his side-arm and pointed it at his head and repeated the question. The combatant then provided information that saved a unit from an impending ambush. The military court martialed that officer. Public outcry got it reversed if I recall correctly. Over there isn't New York or Los Angeles, it is another world.

So much for them being accused, not convicted suspects. The rest is to be determined.

Three of my sons have served over there. One was wounded and the only one of his four man team to survive. All of them came back still good, but, very, very different from the boys who left. It is another world, one we can read all about and still not have a clue. This is a very different enemy.

I hope I haven't offended anyone, but, with all I've said, I could say a lot more, but, won't.

I like the way you think hardblues.

Likewise JMS, BTW, my name is Scott, pleased to meet you!

Gentlemen,

We will NEVER know the full circumstances of what went down. By saying this, I mean the truth. Everyone here is judging when they don't have all of the facts & when it comes down to the court martial, I can promise you the "whole truth" won't even come out. Read my tag line and I'm sure you will guess that I will side with our military boys first and always. Sure, some idiot may screw up, but my heart is with our boys. For those who have served or have been in a combative situation, I'm sure that you will agree that when the poop hits the fan, you're mission comes first and someone's feelings aren't considered. Unfortunately our US Military has become a political battleground as well. We weren't there, so how can any of us judge what "actually" happened?

Originally Posted by JMS

james, if you don't have anything of value to add to this conversation please refrain from posting.

Quite so.
Everybody should know by now that once a group of people get into that 'righteous indignation' zone, rational arguments will get you nowhere.


I agree that we don't know what happened so we shouldn't judge. But I dislike the attitude of the people making comments who seem to think it is alright to rough up someone because 'you are the good guys and they are the bad guys'. Because like other posters already indicated, once you go down that road, you might as well do away with quaint ideas like impartial justice and go back to lynch mobbing.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Quite so.
Everybody should know by now that once a group of people get into that 'righteous indignation' zone, rational arguments will get you nowhere.


I agree that we don't know what happened so we shouldn't judge. But I dislike the attitude of the people making comments who seem to think it is alright to rough up someone because 'you are the good guys and they are the bad guys'. Because like other posters already indicated, once you go down that road, you might as well do away with quaint ideas like impartial justice and go back to lynch mobbing.

While I tend to agree with you and James for the most part you have to remember that this is war, and in war the rules are simple: you destroy and/or subdue the enemy at any cost. If a nation is not willing to do this they have no business declaring war.
Those "quaint ideas", as you put it are only fit for civilized society. In war there is no place for such niceties. Such niceties at war only get you dead,dead,dead!!

The problem is that if you consider the 'war on terror' an actual war like any traditional wars you've already lost it. It is impossible to win such war by your proposed conventional warfare of 'just kill them'. Not while maintaining the values of the american society, which is what you are trying to protect at the end of the day.
You say you like history, did you skip the terror parts?

Originally Posted by gugi

The problem is that if you consider the 'war on terror' an actual war like any traditional wars you've already lost it. It is impossible to win such war by your proposed conventional warfare of 'just kill them'. Not while maintaining the values of the american society, which is what you are trying to protect at the end of the day.
You say you like history, did you skip the terror parts?

You seem to be suggesting that I am not paying attention to history. I wonder if you would be willing to point out the bit of history I am turning a blind eye to?

I agree I am an armchair commentator. But so is a goodly proportion of the world, and my argument is that if you want to be "better" than the terrorists, you must hold yourself to a higher level of accountability than they do. Which means that if there are rules to follow, you must follow them. And if you don't, you must face the consequences. If those rules are not clear, or not clearly enforced, then you run the risk of being viewed as arbitrary and self-serving. I feel a strong weapon in this war on terrorism is global opinion. A negative opinion of the actions taken by those countries involved in the eradication of terror simply feeds into the terrorists overall aim.

I have no idea whether these three men are guilty or innocent, are political pawns, were acting on orders, or what. But if, and I stress *if*, they have breached any rules of conduct, they should face the consequences of their actions.

James.