Replies

My reply was based on paraphrasing the position taken by a West Point professor who teaches this stuff for a living. I'll take his expert opinion over yours any day. My position is that our soldiers should abide by UCMJ: do you take a different position?

I'm agnostic about whether this particular individual was guilty or not: I never claimed he either should be court martialed or convicted. I was merely stating the odds are not in his favor based on the tape. But if you read carefully, I also raised the possibility that in a fair hearing, this individual might conceivably offer a credible defense of his actions. That defense, assuming those making the decision followed the letter and spirit of UCMJ, could not rest on the claim that the wounded soldier "might have done X, Y or Z." It would have to be based on demonstrating a tangible threat.

If this were "no big deal" the military would not waste its time investigating it right now. As with Abu Graib, I believe the investigation will ultimately culminate in a court martial. Whether it results in a conviction remains to be seen. Even though we all had our priors, Scott Peterson wasn't guilty until a jury convicted him. Same's true here.

Did the Abu Graib convictions "harm every soldier who defends this country and portray us as pathetic and hapless jackasses to anyone we should respect?" The fact is IF this soldier crossed the line and we convict him, we actually will garner more respect. Conversely, if this guy crossed the line and we fail to hold him accountable, we will be sending a message to all US military personnel that UCMJ is a crock and we have no plans to enforce it. I think it's fantasy to believe that the latter world is preferable to the former.

"That defense, assuming those making the decision followed the letter and spirit of UCMJ, could not rest on the claim that the wounded soldier "might have done X, Y or Z." It would have to be based on demonstrating a tangible threat."
DrC, It's easy for you to sit in your arm chair and bloviate about what this Marine should have or shouldn't have concieved of in a couple of seconds of time, especially when his buddy was blown up the day before, in a similar situation.
Let's ask a Veteran from Vietnam, what he thought of this marines situation:
"If you hesitate in a situation like this, YOU can be the dead one" - Sen. Bob Kerry (D)(the good kerry, interviewed on the Hannity & Colmes show- 11/18)

Now, let's put the bloviating DrC in this Marines situation:
He's just been shot in the face, been in a firefight in the last half hour with terrorists that were in the mosque that the wounded terrorist was in; what would YOU do DrC?: ...."the wounded soldier "might have do X, Y or Z." It would have to be based on demonstrating a tangible threat...."

BOOM!
Guess what DrC? You hesitated...and YOU'RE DEAD.

You won't be court martialed, and tried by 12 of your buddies...you'll be carried by 6 of them, instead. But don't you feel better about yourself?

The story you don't hear:
(This happened the day before the Marine shot the wounded terrorist.)

- A young Marine and his cover man cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with Ak-47's and RPG's.

There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor (doctor)!" He is badly wounded, lying in a pool of his own blood.

The Marine and his cover man slowly walk toward the injured man, scanning to make sure no enemies come from behind. In a split second, the pressure in the room greatly exceeds that of the outside, and the concussion seems to be felt before the blast is heard.

Marines outside rush to the room, and look in horror as the dust gradually settles. The result is a room filled with the barely recognizable remains of the deceased, caused by an insurgent setting off several pounds of explosives.

The Marines' remains are gathered by teary eyed comrades, brothers in arms, and shipped home in a box. The families can only mourn over a casket and a picture of their loved one, a life cut short by someone who hid behind a white flag. But no one hears these stories, except those who have lived to carry remains of a friend, and the families who loved the dead. No one hears this, so no one cares.

I have a request to all:
Please pass this part of the (untold) story on.

DrC, I'll excuse you from this request, as I'm sure you wouldn't want you to jettison your lofty euro-weenie ideals.

Your #97:
1. You're proud to claim regurgitating the words of an unidentified West Point prof. Ya'know that might be a "verecundiam" fallacy if only you could ID the joker and hit the full bogus level. On the other hand, you see my #85 and the lack of respect I have for thoughts generated by you. Your little popgun is not the Crack of Doom and whether the little popgun belongs to him or not, your argument amounts to unsupported leftist assertions which undermine our troops.
2.You call yourself agnostic with respect to the Marine's guilt. My, you are quite shameless aren't you? You say he, ". . . might conceivably offer a credible defense." Almost inconceivable but we see your deeply creative mind operating here. You say you believe he will be court-martialed and if he's convicted this with garner respect (Frenchman, without doubt) and if he gets off our military personal get the OK for brigandage. It is also conceivable that you've done in some '98 Freeper and waylaid his password and are giving us the full #6.
3. When you make pretentious assertions about the letter and spirit of the UCMJ is that you or could that be the unidentified eleventh postwar knuckle-headed professor who got a job at West Point?
4. It appears awfully childish to bring in Scott Pederson or even Abu Graib when you don't address my comments in #85. I doubt that you have a clue about the military justice system. Peterson would get nailed as fast a Lindie England's boyfriend. There's no fairy dance, politics, Zola, or Dickensian pettyfoggery in combat law. Our youth gets blasted in the twinkling of an eye and, as you forgot to address in #85, the system isn't there to get our combatants killed. Your head would probably explode if I told you how much hard time William Calley did for MyLai. "But I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd here."
5. Frankly, I don't like your use of the pronoun "we". "If we convict him." You're not one of "us" and more than that, it would be Marine officers that would convict him and you're a long, long way from that I have to say.

6. Misc. stuff. ". . . our soldiers should abide by the UCMJ:do you take a different position?" Fallacy of the False Dilemma - you're in the Bill Press Fan Club and you're begging the question of whether you know sh@t from shinola about the UCMJ.
7. "It would have to be based on demonstrating a tangible threat." Lame for many reasons but you've mastered Madame DeFarge's concept of burden of proof.
8. If it was "no big deal . . ."
Straw man. Try quoting me or some concept I presented.
9. "Pederson wasn't guilty until convicted."
Thanks for your service on the OJ jury, Buster.
10. "Did Abu Graib 'harm every soldier . . ."
Conflates a pair of your silliest arguments and uses the Either-Or Fallacy. It is downright moronic to ask me if convicting ". . .digital camera perverts abusing unarmed prisoners" is consequentially equivalent to lynching a Marine for a split second combat decision. Your moral sense is repulsive here. If I assert it's bad to convict the Marine, it's morally bankrupt to answer with the sophistry that, "Was it bad to convict Tojo and Goring?" The Marine isn't Tojo and isn't Abu Ghraib. Only a DU-type would think that malarkey works.

So, get yourself some DU time. They'll enjoy your thoughtful discourse. They love shallow and respect nearly all injustices visited on America. Please don't keep them waiting on my account.

Quote of the week, from the Wall Street Journal:

"Some 40 Marines have just lost their lives cleaning out one of the world's worst terror dens, in Fallujah, yet all the world wants to talk about is the NBC videotape of a Marine shooting a prostrate Iraqi inside a mosque.

The al-Zarqawi TV network, also known as Al-Jazeera, has broadcast the tape to the Arab world, and U.S. media have also played it up. The point seems to be to conjure up images again of Abu Ghraib, further maligning the American purpose in Iraq. Never mind that the pictures don't come close to telling us about the context of the incident, much less what was on the mind of the soldier after days of combat.

Put yourself in that Marine's boots. He and his mates have had to endure some of the toughest infantry duty imaginable, house-to-house urban fighting against an enemy that neither wears a uniform nor obeys any normal rules of war.

When not disemboweling Iraqi women, these killers hide in mosques and hospitals, booby-trap dead bodies, and open fire as they pretend to surrender. Their snipers kill U.S. soldiers out of nowhere. According to one account, the Marine in the videotape had seen a member of his unit killed by another insurgent pretending to be dead. Who from the safety of his Manhattan sofa has standing to judge what that Marine did in that mosque?"
--The Wall Street Journal