Posted on 03/31/2005 5:38:45 AM PST by Former Military Chick
Your insight based on your solid credentials is truly a thing of beauty.
You were griping about how nobody would join the military because the military expects its orders to be followed.
And it turns out...that's exactly why you never joined, chickenhawk.
There's W.W.II film showing G.I.'s doing the same to wounded enemy.
Is the Bush administration going to stand by and have W.W.II vets dragged out of their hospital beds and put on trial? IMO, for sure! Hey, it's politics above all nowadays. Can't give the ACLU a chance to raise a stink. Besides the courts run things now, there's nothing the President or Congress can do.
What would FDR do? I remember. He let the greatest generation do what it takes. Those were the days.
We can't stop the mission to care for our own wounded, certainly not his. Also it isn't really a good idea to leave wounded and armed enemy behind our troops as we move through an area.
With all due respect sir, we care for the wounded DURING the Op, and in some cases afterwards. This man was wounded and un-armed, (no we dont leave armed enemy on the battle field) and missing a rathter large portion of his skull at that. He wasnt going any where or gonna cause anyone harm. I bet you think Lt Pantano should get a pass too?
I did not know that the man was unarmed and harmless. Also I am not sure how much time you spend to assess their condition. A second is too long if it gets you killed. A soldier is in a situation where he often has to make split-second live or die decisions. Training and experience reduce errors, but they still occur.
I don't think a soldier should be punished for what he judged to be an act of mercy.
I'm nor sure about the circumstances in the Pantano case, but again I don't think a wartime soldier should be prosecuted for killing the enemy.
There are too many rules of engagement which end up putting our troops at unnecessary risk. We send soldiers to kill the enemy. At the end of the day it's how you tell who won and who lost.Yes there are war crimes, but I don't see either Maynulet or Pantano as war criminals.
God bless you. Im sorry but I think youve got this whole thing wrong! You give the impression that these "soldiers" are hodge podge minute men. WRONG! They are professionals, highly skilled and trained to do this thing that they have been called to do! Why do you not hear more of these kinds of things? Because it doesnt happen!
I don't think a soldier should be punished for what he judged to be an act of mercy.
This may be what he thought but HE WAS WRONG! What makes it worse and why these two WILL get the book thrown at them, is that they are OFFICERS and example professionals for the rest of us to emulate.
You cant just sit on the porch with a flag draped around you saying, "Kill every Got Damn one of em'", because thats not how we fight....its not how we want to fight. Its not American.
I presume that you are active duty USMC, possibly in Iraq. I respect you and I respect your opinions and you have been patient with me. I truly believe that there are too many rules of engagement. We should never send troops to a hostile area and not allow them to do what is necessary to protect themselves. During the Vietnam conflict, a lieutenant was court-martialed because he ordered the destruction of a village and its entire population. That was considered a war crime. If a president had done it with a Cruise missile, it would not have been.
Yes a soldier must follow orders, but the rules should protect our troops too.
Respectfully,
OldEagle
I just saw the punishment. Discharge from the army, no prison time. Seems a little light to me.
I am grateful that you are wrong about the book being throw at him. He will lose a distinguished career but fortunately will serve no time! Mercy to thy enemy carries much weight in the eyes of God & even sometimes to the jag.
What may seem light to you, is probably devasting to a career Bronze Star & Meritorious Service Medal recipeint. The loss will be great to his men!
Anything more than sending him to a rear unit for a couple years is too harsh.
I suppose you have 'solid credentials' in every single topic you ever express an opinion about.
If you believe he thought he was genuinely doing something compassionate, as I do, then it was a fair sentence in my opinion.
I never expressed an opinion regarding open-heart saurgery.
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.