Posted on 08/16/2006 4:32:54 AM PDT by IrishMike
Doesn't matter to them who gets hurt.
What does the term command influence mean? Is it illegal? Immoral?
Absolutely right. Hard to believe that men in Washington could stab their own country in the back to further their own petty agendas. For Murtha, this was all about advancing his own power and prestige as a congressional leader. It's enough to make you ill.
Command Influence can be illegal, I think, if proven intentional. Unintentional command influence can also seriously undermine an accused's ability to get a fair trial. Command influence is some action by the chain of command that might influence the outcome of a fair trial/court martial. It has resulted in convictions being thrown out when it has been discovered.
Commanders have such influence on the lives and careers of their subordinates and others that the military has long acknowledged a commander's power to affect a fair trial by "signaling" to others what his desired outcome on a trial would be.
"This Congressman from the Arab state of Detroit does not speak for me."
I think he is from the Norwegian state of Minnesota...
"Atrocities happen in wartime. Deal with it."
Absolutely not. the WOT is based on the premise that western liberal (meaning free) democracy is a morally superior way of life. A war based on moral superiority leaves no room for atrocities.
"A war based on moral superiority leaves no room for atrocities."
You would probably then be shocked about the actions of elements of the US Army in the European theatre during WWII. Surely this among all wars was ..."a war based on moral superiority" with the truly evil Nazis on the other side. Given events which occurred after June 6, 1944 the paratroopers of the 82nd and 101st had an informal 'policy' of NO prisoners from Waffen-SS units they fought - and vice versa. Any 'prisoners' taken were interrogated and eliminated, "combat deaths" on reports.
Remember - we were the good guys with loads of that 'moral superiority' that you reference...
dvwjr
From the article: "24 civilians".
If this is accurate (and I have no reason at this point to believe otherwise), your comparison to Waffen-SS units is null and void. I stand by what I said.
Ah, so you have a 'flexible' morality. If "24 civilians" might have been killed - that is an atrocity. If hundreds of surrendered SS prisoners are executed that is - 'null and void'...
dvwjr
A war based on moral superiority leaves no room for atrocities.
When the enemy WEARS NO UNIFORM, blends with and hides amongst the "innocent civilians" then there will be deaths of said "innocent civilians."
There should be NO ROOM for acting as judge, jury and executioner BEFORE an investigation is complete and BEFORE it has even been decided to charge anyone.
There is NO EXCUSE or APOLOGY that can negate these actions and words.
Thanks for the welcome. Just to be clear, I am not judging what happened there- I do not know. However, the argument that such things are inevitable is a invitation to anarchy.
I did not make that claim. I simply commented on your statement.....
A war based on moral superiority leaves no room for atrocities.
Right you are Nobody. You doin OK these days? I gotta get up to DC with you folks one of these days soon.
"Unarmed women and children do not equate with SS fighting units."
Please don't play obtuse... I did NOT say "SS fighting units". You did. I said "unarmed" prisoners of war who were members of the Waffen-SS and were executed by US troops after capture. I am simply pointing out that your flexible morality seems to abhor the killing unarmed women and children as an atrocity - while killing unarmed prisoners of war is something else...
You do realise that the Waffen-SS executed US prisoners of war on the battlefield? See Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge.
dvwjr
I gotta get up to DC with you
Well, since YOU brought it up .......... ;*)
Ok. You are really squirming here.
There you go again.
Let's make it simple.
The US 82nd and 101st fought Waffen-SS units in the ETO. The unofficial unit policy was to kill all Waffen-SS combatants either during "combat", even after any Waffen-SS soldiers were captured and briefly held prisoner for interrogation. During the time the Waffen-SS prisoners were being interrogated for battlefield intel - they were disarmed. In fact, they were considered disarmed POWs according to the Geneva Conventions after their surrender. They were still killed by US forces. It happened...
Now back to the original question. How does that action during WWII square with your flexible morality vice what might have happened to civilians at Haditha?
You might be interested to note that our quite moralistic Canadian cousins to the north had a similiar "no-prisoner" policy in effect during WWII with the Waffen-SS - especially after they tangled with the 12SS Panzer "Hitlerjugend" (Hitler Youth) in Normandy.
dvwjr
Now back to the original question. How does that action during WWII square with (ad hominem deleted) what might have happened to civilians at Haditha?
It doesn't.
Combatants are one class.
Civilians are another.
One chooses (or is forced by some despotic regimes) to take up arms in war. Being disarmed does not alter that choice.
The 24 women and children mentioned here did not make that choice, which means they do not deserve the same treatment.
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.