Free Republic

it was former president george h.w. bush, not dubya.

"What Sites did by rushing the footage out to the world, before we even heard the entire story and the facts of the case, hurt our marines and our cause. It's perfectly LOGICAL to be angry with Sites."

Do you know a single journalist in the world who would have done differently? It could take months for the "entire story and the facts of the case" to be known.

"I hope the next time we see him he is in an orange jumpsuit begging Al Zarqawi not to saw off his head."

That's something that shouldn't be wished upon any American, period.

It's amazing to me how rabid some have gotten over this story....

Should we just throw out the rulebook and what is and what is not permissible in combat then? The rules aren't mine, they're the military's. Why are you taking the side of a soldier over his commanding officer? Do you know more facts than the CO?

OK, I get it now. It's OK to judge military actions if I support them, but it's not OK to judge them if I disagree with them, or even if I think that they were questionable and should be investigated.

I'm just glad I live in a free country.

On the Marines pulling a soldier out of the field ONLY because of bad publicity: I thought Marines were tougher than that. They stand up to terrorists every day; they can take some bad publicity. Face it: they pulled him out because he MAY have done something wrong.

And on the ROE, I'm sure that it didn't include "finishing off" the wounded enemy lying in a mosque. Is the Marine "guilty"? I don't know. But you don't have enough facts to pronounce him "not guilty", period.

If you don't see the contradiction in saying, "who are we to judge the military" on the one hand, and "the majority of us think the marine did nothing wrong, so let him go", then you're beyone reason.

And if you have a problem with rules of engagement, your problem is with the generals, not with me.

Now you've completely contradicted yourself:

You said this earlier today (Post 55 of this thread):

"We aren't a democracy. You do not control the military. The elected representatives do. So no, you most certainly do NOT have the right to judge this Marine."

And now you say this:

"The President answers to all of us, and the majority say the Marine was right in what he did. Therefore, the answer to this is simple. Return the Marine to duty and carry on."

Read that again and think before you type. Let the Marines and the JAG do an investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

you're right, cheney and wolfowitz are part of the executive branch, which directly controls the military.

and let's follow this line of logic for a second: who then do cheney and wolfowitz (and bush and rumsfeld, for that matter) answer to? me. and you. and the rest of the american public. if i want to question the military it's my god-given right as an american.

and i'm not so much questioning the military, which is an honorable, admirable institution. i think that this marine MAY have done something wrong. who knows? i don't have all the facts, and neither do you. but i at least allow for the possibility that there are some minimum standards for conduct in wartime, and that this marine MAY have violated them.

we'll just let the investigation go forward, much to your dismay.

"If you feel so strongly about this, then get thee to a recruiter, sign up, and get over there to show these men how its done. Firsthand, not from a safe distance and behind a computer screen, where your biggest threats are eyestrain and carpal tunnel syndrome."

So that's how we're supposed to act in a Republic? Unless you're willing to go into battle, you can't say peep about the military? I guess you don't like having guys like Cheney and Wolfowitz calling the shots, do you?

You have a serious problem with the idea that civilians should control the military...

"You aren't questioning the military or its leaders, you are questioning the actions of a single Marine. Are our fighting men going have to submit their proposed actions to the public before taking them, then? This isn't Mai Lai we are talking about here. You are demanding control over shoot/don't shoot decisions from thousands of miles away. And you call my views dangerous?

Seems to me you are the type to 'support our troops' until the going gets rough, then you are willing to throw them to the wolves. Sunshine patriot is what our Founders called people like you. That shoe fits you and several others here perfectly."

You know what, it's not me who's going to investigate this m
soldier; his superiors have already taken him out of his unit to investigate whether he broke the law or not. As it should be. I'm not asking to go over and try him myself.

But I'm not prejudging the verdict, as most of you are doing.

I say, let the Marines do their job, including those Marines who police their own.

hey, i agree with you completely. but, pardon the pun, you're shooting the messenger here. sure, i wish the press would spend more time focusing on the evil of the enemy, and the honor of our soldiers.

but here's a case where a soldier MAY have behaved dishonorably in killing a wounded man. we'll need to wait for the investigation to be sure.

"Freedom of the press to only report what fits their agenda?"

Following my same theme, tell me an alternative that doesn't put us on the road to tyranny. Funny how easy people would throw freedoms aside at a whim.

"We are a Constitutional Republic, bright guy. Do you vote on every proposed law? No? Then we aren't a democracy. The military is under Congressional and Executive control, not public control, Mister Constitutional Scholar. We do not decide what course of action the military takes. We may disapprove all we want, and often have. But the fact of the matter is that the last time the US public decided to get involved with the conduct of a war we were forced to disengage with very problematic (read 2.5 to 3.5 million dead civilians) results."

Again, this would be funny if it weren't so dangerous. Yes, the US is a Republic, but a republic is simply a more mature form of democracy -- it's founded on democratic principles, and depends on those principles for its legitimacy.

My point is, it's our principles of freedom and democracy that unite us. If the public can't question its leaders and its military, then we've become a tyranny.

not to defend everything the media does (far from it), but go re-read the first amendment, specifically the thing about "freedom of the press". or do you just pick and choose the amendments you like and dislike?

"We aren't a democracy. You do not control the military. The elected representatives do. So no, you most certainly do NOT have the right to judge this Marine."

That's worth reading again folks. Americans don't have the right to judge those in the military; only elected members of congress do, according to this constitutional scholar.

If we aren't a democracy, what are we fighting for? Go tell that to the couragous marines who you claim to love.

so at least you're consistently wrong in not caring how our military achieves its ends.

why bother with rules of engagement in the first place?

"But don't you DARE use your wrong ideas about combat to condemn this fine Marine. You don't have that right."

We damn well do buddy. It's called democracy. It's called civilian control of the military.

This may turn out to be a hard case. We don't have all the facts yet. But to say that civilians can't judge the actions of those in the military is the same defense John Kerry used... think about it.

love the logic here. why not start using marines as suicide bombers? where would you draw the line on what is acceptable in combat and what is not?