[Gunrunner2]

>>I think many/all of us who are so-called "against him" are simply arguing that he does not deserve the sainthood that many on this list are prepared to bestow on him.<<

Fair enough, but do not presume many/all of us who are so-called "for him" are simply arguing that he deserves sainthood.

The conflict between what is moral and what is ethical often conflicts, and when that happens many choose to stand behind the cold letter of the law (what "is" is), versus some who stand and say "this is wrong."

The choice may have been between what is right and what is legal. In that case, it is a bit harsh to jump in and support fully the full weight of the legal system bearing down on him---as some apparently do.

Again, let me be clear on this, because some of us do not support the hang-em high mentality doesn't mean we do not recognize the ethical/legal conflict and issues. We simply choose a different side---especially at this stage.

You admit that the man was in a difficult situation, facing a conflict where the ethical thing to do may not necessarily been the "legal" thing to do. We don't know, yet. That said, in this case, I am loath to fire off and support hanging the man before the facts are in and the situation fully in context.

[Ispy4u]

If I recall correctly isn't his Article 32 hearing supposed to be today in Mosul?

It's almost Midnight there and yet, not one word on the outcome of that.

Maybe I have the date wrong, but maybe it didn't happen.

[alpowolf]

It is wrong to characterize our position as a "hang-em high mentality". The military authorities to whom the Lt.Col. is answerable have called upon him to account for his actions. I don't see that as a "hanging". No-one can judge without the facts; if the system is not permitted to function, how will we ever get the facts? I assume you're not suggesting that his superiors just ignore the whole thing?

Many posters on this thread have insisted that the whole thing be dropped, and even that the President or SecDef intervene to stop it.