LOL! Now I'm hungry!
Posted on 04/15/2007 2:12:23 PM PDT by RedRover
If my guess is accurate, jude24 is a law school student (or maybe “pre-law”) who is just starry-eyed and naive enough to believe that judges and courts and lawyers give the slightest damn about “justice”. A 5 - 4 ruling by a bunch of political hack lawyers in black robes is rock solid law. The mention of “jury nullification” would likely give jude24 a heart attack. Trust me, jude24 has absolutely no problem with the scumbag ACLU lawyers of JAG dictating the rules of engagement and the conduct of the war in Iraq.
I can tell you with complete, first-hand knowledge that "scumbag ACLU lawyers" do not become JAGs.
There are more than that (and now we have the Afghan Highway case coming soon). But you are essentially correct and I was being hyperbolic. Prosecutions seem inevitable when the media is involved and that is understandable given the nature of our fight.
jude, I'm sure you'd agree that this debate is very healthy. The war planners, and people like me who supported the war, didn't expect a counterinsurgency of the magnitude we're facing. The political atmosphere is so poisoned, and our media so childish, that you never hear constructive debate about the war in Iraq.
I am concerned that our military is being asked to fight a fight it hasn't been trained to undertake. I'm even more concerned that the public doesn't understand the nature of the fight. We need to be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. It will make victory all the greater an achievement.
If the JAG lawyers who rub their hands in glee at the prospect of prosecuting Marines for “excessive force” aren’t “scumbag ACLU lawyers”, then they are doing a great imitation.
Regards,
LH
7-23. Limiting the misery caused by war requires combatants to consider certain rules, principles, and consequences that restrain the amount of force they may apply. At the same time, combatants are not required to take so much risk that they fail in their mission or forfeit their lives. As long as their use of force is proportional to the gain to be achieved and discriminates in distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants. Soldiers and Marines may take actions where they knowingly risk, but do not intend, harm to non- combatants.
Meaningless tripe.
(There. I have now replaced a five-word sentence with a two-word phrase.)
If this is the best Patraeus can come up with, then I will have to redouble my prayer efforts for the troops.
Ours (and Girlene's) are. That is because we are all operating from an assumption of good faith.
The war planners, and people like me who supported the war, didn't expect a counterinsurgency of the magnitude we're facing.
Unfortunately, you're right. The ones who did (Shinseki et al.) were marginalized and pushed out.
The political atmosphere is so poisoned, and our media so childish, that you never hear constructive debate about the war in Iraq.
Even this thread has illustrations of that. The dialogue has been reduced to bumper-sticker level discussions (and ad hominem attacks). The Republicans are splintered, and the Democrats are pressing for a precipitous withdrawal. Very few - on either side - recognize the perilous point at which we find ourselves. The prospects for victory in Iraq are slim, and fighting the war as though we were fighting a state-actor rather than an insurgency only will make matters worse.
I am concerned that our military is being asked to fight a fight it hasn't been trained to undertake. I'm even more concerned that the public doesn't understand the nature of the fight. We need to be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. It will make victory all the greater an achievement.
I share your concerns. I am also encouraged that the Army, and the MNF-Iraq led by Petraeus, are aware of the problems and are taking very serious steps to fix the problem. The military is training the military for this fight. It's a bit late, but at least we are taking these steps.
Thanks for that find, lancey howard, on the British MoD report. The report...” confirms that soldiers believe that if they shoot dead insurgents they will become embroiled in a “protracted investigation” and if prosecuted will receive “no support from the chain of command”.”....”The Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch has conducted more than 150 investigations in Iraq involving British soldiers, with more than 100 of these launched after troops opened fire when attacked by insurgents.”...
I hope the treatment of the Haditha Marines does not cause this attitude in our troops.
What kind of chip is on your shoulder...Doritos or Fritos?
I couldn't help but think of LCpl. Sharratt (and Tatum) when I read about Fallujah. Marines survived that hellhole by developing a knack for staying alive. And that's what they did in Haditha.
LOL! Now I'm hungry!
But of course...WISE! (and All Natural)
Your shoulders have been through a lot...thank you.
A certain FR wrote me and said the chip on your shoulder was Macho Nachos.
It is practically inconceivable for a Marine, or any soldier, to be convicted of murder based on the “excessive force” argument. But with anti-war political opportunists controlling military appropriation committees, perhaps the inconceivable will happen. With cases on the horizon, we’re all about to find out.
The real possibility of insidious command influence initiated by a committee chairman is chilling.
There is a significant portion of the domestic population who screams bloody blue murder every time it takes multiple wounds to bring down a perp wacked out on Angel Dust. "Excessive force".
You expect them to 'get it' dealing with doped up jihadis in an already adrenaline-rich CQB environment?
Maybe the .45 in a subgun would be a good item to have around--or bird/buckshot loads for the M203...
The Army Counterinsurgency Manual may be Gen. Patraeus’s magnum opus and have some great insight into dealing with counterinsurgencies, but what happens when a Haditha happens? Does Gen. Patraeus say to throw the Marines under the bus? I doubt it. I believe I read not long after he took command in Iraq that he tried to clarify ROE and at the same time reassure the troops they would be backed up and not second-guessed.
Another thing about this manual, does it give direction/rules on how to deal with a free media or politicians who are increasingly hostile to the war effort, and thus the troops, and use them in their specific agendas? That is a big piece of this whole pie.
With insurgents' propaganda, all (casually dressed) casualties are automatically "civillian". They play that tune for Reuters, AP, and anyone who will listen. It is a side benefit of blending into the population which permits more disorienting propaganda.
Right out of the Little Red playbook, Mao, the VC, and others have used all along.
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.