[Poohbah]

"Why are FReepers so quick to demand that the military justice system ignore reports of criminal activity?"

Interesting declarative presupposition of guilt.

No, the military justice system goes into action based on a report of criminal activity; the purpose of the military justice system is to determine whether said report is actually fact.

Waiting for the results of the investigation.

I am content to do that. Farah wants a guaranteed verdict of innocent.

We don't want warriors that obey orders. . .we want warriors to obey lawful orders (there is a difference).

ROEs are lawful orders.

[Gunrunner2]

ME: "Interesting declarative presupposition of guilt."

YOU: ""No, the military justice system goes into action based on a report of criminal activity; the purpose of the military justice system is to determine whether said report is actually fact."

The tone and tenor of your comments in this thread and others on this subject indicate you do, indeed, assign guilt--now. That is a fact.

ME: "We don't want warriors that obey orders. . .we want warriors to obey lawful orders (there is a difference)."

YOU: "ROEs are lawful orders."

What does that have to do with what I said? And besides, you are not actually correct, as LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict)" are lawful, whereas ROE (Rules of Engagement)" are not necessarily so.

One day you can do this, the next day you can't, does that mean you behaved unlawfully the previous day? No. It merely means the "rules" have been modified but the legality of your action (in accordance with LOAC) remain unchanged.

Again, and you know this (or should know this), you obey lawful orders---regardless of ROE. Period. You have the duty and obligation to ignore ROE that are unlawful. You do NOT merely follow orders. You follow lawful orders.

You are expected to think and to behave lawfully, and if that means not following orders or stepping outside ROE, so be it, and you will be cleared of any wrongdoing.