Warfare vs. ‘lawfare’

In today’s wars, American troops face not one enemy, but three: jihadists, infiltrators, and lawyers. Today, our soldiers and Marines are held not just to the laws of warfare, but to unprecedented standards of criminal law, even though they are operating in a combat environment,” said John Maher, a former Army attorney and current reserve lieutenant colonel who specializes in the defense of military accused. Incidents that in the past would have been viewed as collateral damage in the ‘fog of war’ are now being prosecuted as war crimes. Texas defense attorney Colby Vokey, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel, considers some of these convictions just—as in the case of Robert Bales, for example. In raids on two Afghan villages in March 2012, the Army staff sergeant shot and killed 16 people, half of them children. Other Leavenworth prisoners, Vokey says, have been ground up in the lawfare machine, a bureaucracy that often seems more intent on securing convictions than justice.

I don’t see much hope for our military now based on the above article and the two among so many I could have linked to.

The Tragedy of Women in Combat http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/05/the-tragedy-of-women-in-combat/

An Open Letter to General Mattis http://usdefensewatch.com/2017/04/an-open-letter-to-general-mattis/

In a lot of ways, the UCMJ is a lot like civilian law. In a different atmosphere, like a firefight, this would have been acceptable as a kill. But, like civilian law, the perp was unarmed, and even though the attempt was made and called an attempt, you can’t shoot an unarmed individual that has no backing as they are not a threat to your life. The article didn’t say enough to tell us that was or was not the case.

Article 118 states:

Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- –
(1) has a premeditated design to kill;
(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

Number three of the article is probably the one that applies here. And unless there is proof that the individual was killed as a direct threat to the guard, it applies. If our military was given the open invitation to kill without provocation, where does it stop. Does it mean just the enemy, our own, any foreigner not liked, or a guy bunking next to you that is snoring? Slippery here.

rwood

“Just let him take you firearm.”

I didn’t say that. He can take every effort to retain his firearm, and use it if needed to put the guy on the ground, and capture him as a terrorist as he was not where he was supposed to be, and lied about being there. But to my knowledge, none of those create a capital crime.

It is not the duty of the military member to surrender his/her weapon. And, again, I didn’t say that. If it takes a gun butt to the intruder to protect yourself or causes him to submit. So be it. But if he was just standing there, looking at you, you can’t just shoot him. And the reg says until you are in a position where you are in fear of your life or the destruction of priority A property, capital force is not legal.

And if you look over my answer again, I mentioned there was not enough information to determine the use of force. All we have is that the perp tried to get the weapon and the troop shot him and killed him. Not enough info to make a call.

rwood

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.