Posted on 04/27/2003 7:37:18 AM PDT by harpu
During World War II, Nazi Germany fought two drastically different kinds of war.
On the Western Front, Nazi Germany and it's American and British foes agreed to a mutual respect of the so-called "Rules of War". Except for a few glaring exception such as the Malmedy Massacre, both sides had a pretty clean record in regards to treatment of each other's combatants. After the war, hundreds of thousands of Allied and German POW's returned home alive from German and Allied POW camps.
On the Eastern Front, Nazi Germany and it's Soviet foe made no such agreement. The Germans and the Soviets both treated their captured POW's as animals. After the war, hundreds of thousands of German and Soviet POW's never retured home as they had died in captivity.
As I documented in Post 94, observing the "Rules of War" that prohibit the willful execution of captured POW's is not "Politically Correctness", as you describe it.
The prohibition of the willful execution of captured POW's is U.S. Military Law.
In the U.S., the military obeys the law. It is one of those little details that differentiates America from a banana republic.
Even if you throw all concepts of military "honor" aside, civilzed nations such as the U.S. follow the "Rules of War" and codify it into their military law for their own self interest.
Without such, as you describe it, "Political Correctness", tens of thousands of American POW's would have died in Nazi German POW camps just like the Soviet POW's in German custody and the German POW's in Soviet custody died by the hundreds of thousands.
Without such, as you describe it, "Political Correctness", those seven American ex-POW's would not have been found by American forces walking down a road north of Baghdad. They would have been found by American forces in shallow graves with bullet holes in the back of their skulls.
If the "Rules of War" regarding POW's are recognized by the U.S. Department of Defense in 2003 and were recognized even by Nazi Germany in the Western Front in 1944 and even some Iraqis in 2003, maybe you should show as much respect for the "Rules of War" as the Nazis did on their Western Front and some of the Iraqis did in Gulf War II.
Unless, of course, you believe that the Nazis and the Iraqis were a bunch of "Politically Correct" pansies and that Pfc. Lynch and seven other American ex-POW should have had a couple of rounds pumped into the back of their skulls so that "Political Correctness" would not prevail.
Then that Marine needs to convince the preliminary investigation that will be conducted in accordance with UCMJ that he did not wilfully execute a POW that he had just captured in violation of U.S. Military Law.
If he does not, he will be prosecuted. "Rule of Law" and all that.......
The Iraqis who executed American and British POW's during the war don't want to be prosecuted either.
But, as Mick Jagger once sang, "You can't always get what you want."
Not a cruel attitude only a realistic one. If you don't kill these guys they will return to kill you.
Once you have had someone try to kill you I can guarantee you will have a whole different outlook on this issue.
If this Marine made any mistake at all it was opening his mouth to someone outside his platoon.
One of the Iraqis tried to escape:
He said he also shot the man's partner, who tried to escape.
That being the case, the escaping Iraqi was not a Prisoner of War under control but still a combatant. The Marine had every right under U.S. Military Law to kill him.
The other Iraqi was another matter:
Covarrubias... found the soldier inside a nearby house with the grenade launcher by his side. Covarrubias said he ordered the man to stop and forced him to turn around. "I went behind him and shot him in the back of the head. Twice," Covarrubias told the Review-Journal.
That second Iraqi soldier was a Prisoner of War under control and was entitled to the rights of a Prisoner of War under U.S. Military Law. Such rights include not having his brains blown out for no reason other than anger.
It would have been fun to see Jagger out demonstrating with the Dixie Chicks.
If your looking for a poster boy against the ICC, this guy sure as hell isn't it
You can fill in the blank with any number of issues:
You can't express an opinion about ____________ because you aren't:
Gay
Female
A Minority
A member of a particular religous group.
A Veteran
A police officer
A Teacher
Etc., Etc.
To: Happy2BMe.....In all due respect sir, what right do you have to tell other posters to take a hike?
Well, Central_Floridian, Happy2BMe is simply exercising his right to demonstrate to this Forum, as well as his debating skills will allow, that he is totally incapable of defending his position.
Happy2BMe has not argued the facts of this particular case nor U.S. Military Law nor morality nor examples from military history nor even the Realpolitik of what embracing a Nazi/Soviet World War II POW policy would have on American POW's.
Happy2BMe has simply embraced the World War II Nazi/Soviet POW policy of the wilfull slaughter of POW's without explaining or defending his position. Since he is incapable of explaining nor defending his position, he reverts to the debating tactics of a 10 year old child.
The thing to take away from this thread, Central_Floridian, is that your gut instinct on how to treat a Prisoner of War under control is not only morally correct (as American Judeo-Christian Civilization defines morality) it is also mandated by U.S. Military Law.
When and if you join the military, Central_Floridian, you will receive repeated lectures on the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and the Department of Defense will expect you to know it, to take it seriously and to follow it. If you do not follow it, you will be subject to prosecution under the UCMJ.
The bottom line, however, putting aside all considerations of military honor and military law, is that following the LOAC saves American lives.
If you have an American wingnut bragging that he put two rounds into the back of the skull of a captured enemy POW, that puts American POW's at great risk of getting the same treament from enemy wingnuts in the current war or in future wars.
If the U.S. Armed Forces slaughters POW's like the Nazis and Soviets did, they will get slaughtered American POW's like the Nazis and Soviets did on the Eastern Front as opposed to the live POW's, both Nazi and Western Allied, that came home from both Nazi and Western Allied POW camps.
When you follow the LOAC, you are following U.S. Military Law and protecting your fellow Americans who have become POW's.
When you violate the LOAC, and, even worse, brag about it, are are violating U.S. Military Law and you are jeapardizing the lives of your fellow Americans who have become POW's.
When in doubt, Central_Floridian, during your military career, follow the mandates of U.S. Military Law and not the advice of the Eastern Front Waffen SS wannabe wingnuts.
See my Post 127.
If he had said, "I chased the guy and killed him because he launched an RPG at my unit" and left it at that, he would have been getting commendations instead of a UCMJ preliminary investigation.
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.