Here's another incident where a soldier shouldn't have to stop and think if he's breaking any rules during the middle of a war.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15/marine.probe/index.html - http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15/marine.probe/index .html

I am unclear on your point here.

Are you saying that no officer/soldier should ever be held responsible for a split-second decision?  That no charges should ever be brought against soldiers for decisions made under fire?

I don't think you are, so maybe I am missing your point.

Or are you simply saying that you think THIS INSTANCE is so obviously acceptable that no charges need to be brought?

If so, I am not sure why - presumably, when charges are brought, there is some just cause for concern.  Otherwise, this killing would not have resulted in any charges.  And the military tribunal will sort it out - that's what they do.

So - what am I missing?

EDIT - and does anybody have a link to this story?

jmac3 wrote: Darur wrote: oldsoldier wrote: Developing, but as I hear it...from what I know, patrol of marines searching for explosives in a ville, find explosives in a house, along with several "military aged" individuals. These individuals were lined up to be searched and two bolted and ran, the Marine LT then yelled halt twice, knelt and fired dropping both. Military types are trained "center mass" shooting, none of this law enforcement incapacitation shooting, in the military when you fire your weapon at an enemy there is just one intent at that time. Er, Police trainning says that when you fire your gun, you aim for the head or torso.  Police officers are trained to shoot to kill, not incappacitate (sp?). I am pretty sure they are not unless their lives are in danger(IE: Being shot at). I could be wrong though.

naw my dads a cop and i just asked him if he was trained to shoot to kill or shoot to incapacitate and he said that they taught him to aim for the centermass just because its a bigger target and not because itll gaurantee a kill.  he said that they do recommend to shoot to make sure that the target does not present a further threat to you or any civillians.  he said they wouldnt tell them whether that meant shoot to kill or wound really bad but that all of the officers knew what it meant (shoot to kill of cours) but they could get in trouble for sayin that tho.

oldsoldier wrote: Clark...To answer your question, having been in combat myself, when you are in a split second, your life or protecting your troopers lives decesion, any hesitation on your part increases the possibility of you or your troopers taking the hit not the bad guy. Any "enemy" action that within the scope of protecting yourself and your troopers from death or physical harm, where you make that decesion based on your training and trained response cannot be "disected" by an individual who was not there, under the stress you were under, and was forced to make a decesion.

I don't question that, and I don't necessarily think that the soldier in question did anything wrong.  I also agree that a premeditated action is completely different.

You aren't being completely clear - but what I am taking from your post is that you in fact ARE saying that soldiers essentially get an unlimited "get out of jail free card" for decisions made under fire, as it were.

Is that what you are saying - that in a combat situation, no rules apply at all?  I still find that hard to believe.

But if not, then what rules DO apply?

Sammy wrote: No I haven't but it wasn't a life or death situation. Two of them were running and had the POTENTIAL of getting help or throwing a grenade but we do not know that. Also, the rest of his squad was covering the other enemies so there were no other immediate threats..

Umm...

Better safe than sorry?

I would imagine you don't take those kinds of chances with your life and your fellow soldier's lives.

I'm with OS on this - on the facts as presented, I would have shot them both too.  You're in enemy territory, not the Green Zone.  Can't have baddies running around.

But I still want to know what rules apply.   :)

oldsoldier wrote: There are "Rules of Land Warfare" and US servicemen are held accountable under UCMJ

This was what I was getting at.  I am certainly no expert on the UCMJ, but I am confident that there is quite a bit of established law under the UCMJ as to how and when you can shoot escaping prisoners.

Therefore, I conclude that somebody saw something that was sufficiently bad to warrant some charges.  Almost by definition we do not have the facts - we weren't there.  If it was that obvious of a clean shooting, no charges would ever have been brought.  SOMETHING was a little fishy.  Whether or not there is actual guilt will be determined at trial, and that is why we have trials.  Unless you plan on giving all soldiers that get-out-of-jail-free card, this is how it has to work.  This is EXACTLY why the UCMJ exists.

I am also confident that it wasn't a JAG officer's idea to bring charges - they have better things to do.  Some senior officer saw or heard something that brought this to the JAG's attention.  I understand your frustration at charges being brought at what appears to be a perfectly legit shooting, but being upset at the lawyers is directing your frustration in the wrong direction - they are just tools in the process.  (And, if further defense of the JAG corps - I know quite a few JAG officers with significant combat experience.  They are also soldiers)

And, if the shooting went down the way you think it did, the officer will presumably be aquitted.

oldsoldier wrote: Just a FYI.....per Rules of Land Warfare ref1947, any individual not uniformed or flagged under the colors or uniform of a hostile government which is in a state of war with the first party is in violation of the Geneva Rules of Land Warfare, such non uniformed or flagged personnel will not be covered under the protections afforded uniformed or flagged individuals under Geneva Rules of Land Warfare, and can if caught or in the commission of a hostile act against the 1st party be summarily executed without trial or cause. Military tribunials are a curtosy we the US do because we try to be a tad civilized in the way we do war, we do not have to under Geneva Conventions or Rules of Land Warfare.

This is certainly the Attorney General's interpretation...    I understand other people disagree.  But that is a different discussion.

You kidding?  20 feet, shoot a RUNNING leg, with no time to aim?  Maybe if you flip to full auto, but then you'll probably kill the guy anyway.

That's an obscenely difficult shot.

Center mass.

I would have been like, "Stop running, please!" And shoot them both in the legs. I wouldn't kill them, just take away their ability to run. But that may take more bullets than a head or back/chest shot.

Hmm.

I would...

Yeah, I'd hit their calves/feet or behind the knee while they ran away. Or the ass, where the legs connect to the body.

Sammy wrote: Yes but you are ignoring the fact that 2 of them were already tied down and that the rest of the squad were watching over them. If it was one man, I would understand but i think he should have gone for a leg shot. Or taken chase, but that is my opinion.

The US military doesn't train for leg shots, or hand shots, or shooting the gun out of someones hand like the Lone Ranger.  Every time a Marine, or Soldier, Sailor, or Airman goes to the range and picks up an M16/M4/etc. they are trained to shoot for center of mass.  The center of the body is the biggest target so it is the easiest to hit.  Additionally, a center of mass hit has the best chance of hitting something vital and causing the target to cease whatever hostile acts he/she was engaged in.  The entire point of such training is so that the action of aiming and firing becomes an automatic response that requires no thought.  This speeds up the reaction time and can give the military member the split second advantage they need to survive.

Why would you shoot someone who is fleeing and failed to heed a challenge?  In this case, in a house where explosives had already been found it is a good bet that there are other weapons hidden somewhere, possibly more explosives primed and ready to detonate.  I would not take that chance with my life or the lives of personnel who depended upon me.

Try this for an example you might understand:  You're playing speedball, as the team captain it is your job to keep your team members in the game and win the game.  Your team has to play by the standard rules and the other team doesn't.  They are allowed to have spare markers hidden about the field in bunkers, under tarps, etc.  They get to have extra unarmed players on the field that you can't shoot unless they become a threat.  You can take prisioners, but they don't have to follow your instructions unless they want to.  They can quit if they want, but you can't.  If a member of the other team runs away, or drops their marker and runs away what do you do?  If you shoot them, you could get second-guessed by a board of referees who didn't even see what happened that it wasn't justified because they were headed toward the sidelines to go off the field.  Or if you let them go, they could pull a squadbuster from the tall grass and throw it back at your team.  Oh, and if you shoot, and everyone agrees it was the right thing to do, make sure you only hit an arm or a leg, don't hit them in the torso or goggles. 

Sammy wrote: Yes yes, I realize that, but that's not the lawyers responsibility. They do not come up with the case. And if there was no crime then the case will be thrown out and he will be found innocent so why does it matter?

It matters, because it will give Soldiers/Marines the impression they will be second-guessed, and if they are found wanting their actions could land them behind bars or end their career.  With that in mind, someone is going to hesitate when they shouldn't and military members will die when it could have been prevented. 

Mack wrote: It matters, because it will give Soldiers/Marines the impression they will be second-guessed, and if they are found wanting their actions could land them behind bars or end their career.

But soldiers ARE second-guessed.  Constantly.  And if they are found wanting their actions WILL land them behind bars or end their careers.

That's the reality.

Brainless_Fool wrote: When I play games like "Time Crisis 2 & 3" I always hit their bodies. It is the fastest thing to do. But when there's an unlikely chance they will actually hit me, I'd aim for their crotches or their heads or their arms and legs. But war isn't a game. It has more adrenaline and clouded thinking and fast action and more stress.

More importantly, a firearm doesn't come with a convenient and completely accurate crosshair target that you can put where you want with a flick of your wrist.

Go to your local pistol range and try to hit a STATIONARY leg-size target at 20 feet.  Not easy to do, unless you take time to aim carefully.  Of course, these people weren't stationary...

Clark Kent wrote: Brainless_Fool wrote: When I play games like "Time Crisis 2 & 3" I always hit their bodies. It is the fastest thing to do. But when there's an unlikely chance they will actually hit me, I'd aim for their crotches or their heads or their arms and legs. But war isn't a game. It has more adrenaline and clouded thinking and fast action and more stress. More importantly, a firearm doesn't come with a convenient and completely accurate crosshair target that you can put where you want with a flick of your wrist. Go to your local pistol range and try to hit a STATIONARY leg-size target at 20 feet.  Not easy to do, unless you take time to aim carefully.  Of course, these people weren't stationary...

Why don't they have lasers? Lasers make the whole aiming thing easier.

Just spray bullets at their lower bodies. That's what I'd do. But I guess I'd be embarrassed to hell if I actually missed them and they'd get away, since they would be like 20 feet away and I would be aiming for non-vital parts of the body.

Nope - but same rule applies.  A leg is a small/narrow target.  Hitting a target that small with ANY weapon at twenty feet is easy if (a) the target is stationary, and (b) you have 4-5 seconds to aim. 

Neither were the case here.

There is a reason they use shotguns for skeet.

OS for what its worth , I am backing you 100 percent on your views in this post .

Trained individuals ,under combat stress , have to make the best decision they can , and hopefully live with the consequences afterwards .

The analogy about the six year old girl is a tragic example , and Has happened . I've been thru the P.O.S.T Shoot/Dont shoot training simulation , and unfortunately shot a deaf/mute trying to seek help from Law enforcement . Even tho it was a training scenario , I will remember that error for as long as I live . PS , the rest of the bad guys didnt make it either , and I support what those troopers did .

oldsoldier wrote: The moment you shoot at a pop up, shoot back target, that moves, and your mind sees it as another human being, accuracy is questionable. And shooting at a target moving in any condition, select aiming points are not a primary concern. The stress, and level of training in these situations are primary, and no matter how many times you place that sight on another human being, it is never easy and never gets easier....BTDT

As I have said on multiple occasions in this thread, I do not disagree with that.

And as for the legal aspect of combat, if you have never expierienced combat, how can any lawyer make the pure "judgement" of the situation.

You are back to implying that the soldiers get a free pass, OS.  Is that really what you want?  I just don't think so.

There have to be rules.  Those rules will be enforced after the fact - that's the nature of the rules.  Whoever enforces those rules will become lawyers, if they weren't lawyers already.  Also by definition, the rules are enforced by people who weren't there.

I'm still missing the beef.  If your complaint that JAG officers don't have sufficient combat experience - that only people with combat experience should judge combat decisions?  Not an unreasonable position, I might think (although again, more JAG officers have combat experience than you might think).  I would point out, though, that the UCMJ (TMK) provides for a jury of peers in this type of case.  Would you feel better about this case if the judge and jury all were combat vets?

Is your complaint that the UCMJ might prohibit this type of shooting?  If so, take that up with your elected representative.  Laws can be changed.

Honestly, I fail to identify the crux of your concern.  Are you upset with the rule, the system, the people...?

oldsoldier wrote: It is just unbelieveable, where US Military personnel now who are under the pressure of a combat enviorment must now also understand that any action of arms taken may be also the scrutiny of a civil rights lawyer who will review his split second life and death decesion for legal merit after the fact. The US Marine Officer is under investigation for making such a life death decesion in that split second, doing what all soldiers do, to protect himself and his unit from what he believed in that second to be a hostile or threatening act by an enemy. The minute those two bolted from the "captured" group, the use of deadly physical force is authorized by both UCMJ and Geneva Rules of Land Warfare ref 1947/53/62. Yet for the purpose of "political correctness" this soldier who in that split second acted within the scope and rules of war is under investigation for an "illegal killing". Lets put lawyers out on the line with a rifle, quote the rules to the enemy under fire to ensure they are followed, and judge how they act. This act alone jepoardizes more American lives, for now our soldiers need to hesitate in that second and weigh death vs criminal charges, by some REM* lawyer, who with all the time in the world can make judgement on that split second life and death decesion.

I completely agree with you, However, I only have one thing to add, Marines are not called nor are they soldiers, they are Marines and Marines only!

Clark Kent wrote: And as for the legal aspect of combat, if you have never expierienced combat, how can any lawyer make the pure "judgement" of the situation. You are back to implying that the soldiers get a free pass, OS.  Is that really what you want?  I just don't think so. There have to be rules.  Those rules will be enforced after the fact - that's the nature of the rules.

There are rules, its called the Geneva Convention, and as Oldsolgeir wrote, this Marine’s actions were not against the Geneva Convention.

MT. Vigilante wrote: There are rules, its called the Geneva Convention, and as Oldsolgeir wrote, this Marine’s actions were not against the Geneva Convention.

Read the rest...   the UCMJ also applies, and it is only OS's opinion (and that of the Attorney General of the US) that the Geneva Conventions either do not apply, generally or specifically.  That interpretation is quite controversial.  Again, this is why we have courts.

Darur wrote: oldsoldier wrote: Developing, but as I hear it...from what I know, patrol of marines searching for explosives in a ville, find explosives in a house, along with several "military aged" individuals. These individuals were lined up to be searched and two bolted and ran, the Marine LT then yelled halt twice, knelt and fired dropping both. Military types are trained "center mass" shooting, none of this law enforcement incapacitation shooting, in the military when you fire your weapon at an enemy there is just one intent at that time. Er, Police trainning says that when you fire your gun, you aim for the head or torso.  Police officers are trained to shoot to kill, not incappacitate (sp?).

It's not the point of aim thats different, it the intent.  The primary difference between the police and the military is the use of force.  A police officer is trained to resolve a conflict without the use of deadly force.  A soldier is trained to kill the enemy. A soldier is not a cop.  Now this is not to say that the military is incapable, but to ask soldiers to do somthing that requires an entirly different mindset and years of training is compleatly unreasonable.  This is the type of thing that happened in Somalia in 1993.  The military in Iraq is going above and beyond in their mission.  Unless anyone can do it better, let them do their job making the world safe for you to complain.

Clark Kent wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: There are rules, its called the Geneva Convention, and as Oldsolgeir wrote, this Marine’s actions were not against the Geneva Convention. Read the rest...   the UCMJ also applies, and it is only OS's opinion (and that of the Attorney General of the US) that the Geneva Conventions either do not apply, generally or specifically.  That interpretation is quite controversial.  Again, this is why we have courts.

And my point, as well as OS’s I believe, is that the courts are no longer representing justice, they are sentencing murderers to just a few years in prison, and then a Marine, at war, who is only doing his job by taking out a potential threat is charged w/ pre-meditated murder!

MT. Vigilante wrote: And my point, as well as OS’s I believe, is that the courts are no longer representing justice, they are sentencing murderers to just a few years in prison, and then a Marine, at war, who is only doing his job by taking out a potential threat is charged w/ pre-meditated murder!

That is a complete copout.

Allow me to restate your point:  "Occasionally I disagree with a court decision, usually without knowing all the facts.  When I disagree about a ruling, I am right and the court is wrong, and all courts are therefore evil."

In reality, you would almost certainly agree with 99% of judicial decisions in this country.  Every so often one comes up that appears hokey, like McDonald's coffee lady, and people start complaining about how the courts are evil, when in fact (a) there are always facts not known to the general public, (b) the occasional mistake doesn't mean that "the courts no longer represent justice", and (c) that's why we have appeals courts anyway.

Who are all these murderers who are getting "just a few years?"  According to the DOJ, in 2002 murderers convicted in State courts got an average sentence of 18 years.  I suspect you will find that number is significantly higher than similar numbers for other developed countries.  And, of course, it doesn't even count the death penalty convictions.

And as to this soldier:  (a) he hasn't been convicted, and (b) you don't know enough facts to declare him innocent.

The whole "the courts suck" argument is simply not justified.

Clark Kent wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: And my point, as well as OS’s I believe, is that the courts are no longer representing justice, they are sentencing murderers to just a few years in prison, and then a Marine, at war, who is only doing his job by taking out a potential threat is charged w/ pre-meditated murder! That is a complete copout. Allow me to restate your point:  "Occasionally I disagree with a court decision, usually without knowing all the facts.  When I disagree about a ruling, I am right and the court is wrong, and all courts are therefore evil." In reality, you would almost certainly agree with 99% of judicial decisions in this country.  Every so often one comes up that appears hokey, like McDonald's coffee lady, and people start complaining about how the courts are evil, when in fact (a) there are always facts not known to the general public, (b) the occasional mistake doesn't mean that "the courts no longer represent justice", and (c) that's why we have appeals courts anyway. Who are all these murderers who are getting "just a few years?"  According to the DOJ, in 2002 murderers convicted in State courts got an average sentence of 18 years.  I suspect you will find that number is significantly higher than similar numbers for other developed countries.  And, of course, it doesn't even count the death penalty convictions. And as to this soldier:  (a) he hasn't been convicted, and (b) you don't know enough facts to declare him innocent. The whole "the courts suck" argument is simply not justified.

Ok, first of all you need to calm down, this is just my opinion on the matter and there is no reason to get angry. And, I keep my knowledge of judicial decisions in this country as up to date as possible. (a) As for the public not hearing all the facts, once charges have been brought against someone it is Illeagal to withhold any evidence brought against the accused person. (b) I believe that mistakes in the court system ( but not the law inforcment) are becoming more frequent. The perfect example of this is the fact that the average sentence for a pre-meditated murderer is 18 years, that’s not enogh, those kind of people should get the death penalty! Or at the least, life in prison, Which brings me to the biggest problem w/ our court system, these people w/ life sentences are getting out based on good behavior, that’s rediculos! They should never be allowed to go up for parroll!

Last of all, don’t start judging how many facts people know about something, I know a lot more than you think.  

MT. Vigilante wrote: Ok, first of all you need to calm down, this is just my opinion on the matter and there is no reason to get angry.

Oh, I'm not angry...  believe me.

:)

And, I keep my knowledge of judicial decisions in this country as up to date as possible.

I am very curious what exactly you mean by that...?

... once charges have been brought against someone it is Illeagal to withhold any evidence brought against the accused person.

I'm not talking about witholding.  I am simply talking about what is in the paper.  People in this thread, for instance, appear to be judging this case entirely upon the facts as presented by OS.  I certainly haven't even read a story on the matter yet - and even if I had, that story would have nowhere near all the facts.  Unless you are watching the whole trial, OJ style, you don't have anywhere near all the facts, and even then you are probably missing quite a bit.  Most people, including us, simply do not have enough facts on this case to make a meaningful judgment.

I believe that mistakes in the court system ... are becoming more frequent. The perfect example of this is the fact that the average sentence for a pre-meditated murderer is 18 years, that’s not enogh, those kind of people should get the death penalty!

That is not a mistake in the court system.  That is the state of the law.  If you don't like the sentencing guidelines, take it up with your elected representatives. 

Or at the least, life in prison, Which brings me to the biggest problem w/ our court system, these people w/ life sentences are getting out based on good behavior, that’s rediculos! They should never be allowed to go up for parroll!

Also a policy question, which has very little to do with the courts.  Call your Senator.

Last of all, don’t start judging how many facts people know about something, I know a lot more than you think.

*snide comment witheld*   :)

Not judging - stating.  I will state, as a matter of fact, that NOBODY in this thread, including you, me, and OS, have enough facts to make a fully informed judgement about this particular incident.  That same statement is true for the overwhelming majority of court cases in the country.  That's why they have trials - to get ALL the facts, instead of going off half-cocked.

oldsoldier wrote: Unfortuanately we do not live in a perfect world. Courts Martial is not a jury of your peers, it is comprised of a board of officers and one NCO, all, some or none having combat expierience. JAG Officers for the most part are civilain lawyers given basic military training, basic military law training, then promoted to 1st Lietenant, to begin his/her career, and again for the most part never see a shot fired in anger in their career.

... we judge our own we a true jury of peers, determine if the action needs to go higher for whatever reason we determine. May not be what you or the American public cares to hear today, but it is our 4th point of contact that is on the line that split second, not some lawyer, new media type, or rear echelon puke, who cares to make a name for themselves.

Thank you for your honesty.  I think I can sense the essence of your concern.

If I can summarize:

1.  There are rules.

2.  We know/understand the rules.

3.  They don't know/understand the rules.

4.  They are therefore not qualified to judge us.

5.  Many/most Courts Martial are made up of them, not us.

6.  Only we can judge us.

7.  Therefore, Courts Martial (at least in their current form) can't judge us.

Is that a fair summary?  I think you are suggesting a major change is needed in the way military infractions are handled.

MT. Vigilante wrote: Clark Kent wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: And my point, as well as OS’s I believe, is that the courts are no longer representing justice, they are sentencing murderers to just a few years in prison, and then a Marine, at war, who is only doing his job by taking out a potential threat is charged w/ pre-meditated murder! That is a complete copout. Allow me to restate your point:  "Occasionally I disagree with a court decision, usually without knowing all the facts.  When I disagree about a ruling, I am right and the court is wrong, and all courts are therefore evil." In reality, you would almost certainly agree with 99% of judicial decisions in this country.  Every so often one comes up that appears hokey, like McDonald's coffee lady, and people start complaining about how the courts are evil, when in fact (a) there are always facts not known to the general public, (b) the occasional mistake doesn't mean that "the courts no longer represent justice", and (c) that's why we have appeals courts anyway. Who are all these murderers who are getting "just a few years?"  According to the DOJ, in 2002 murderers convicted in State courts got an average sentence of 18 years.  I suspect you will find that number is significantly higher than similar numbers for other developed countries.  And, of course, it doesn't even count the death penalty convictions. And as to this soldier:  (a) he hasn't been convicted, and (b) you don't know enough facts to declare him innocent. The whole "the courts suck" argument is simply not justified. Ok, first of all you need to calm down, this is just my opinion on the matter and there is no reason to get angry. And, I keep my knowledge of judicial decisions in this country as up to date as possible. (a) As for the public not hearing all the facts, once charges have been brought against someone it is Illeagal to withhold any evidence brought against the accused person. (b) I believe that mistakes in the court system ( but not the law inforcment) are becoming more frequent. The perfect example of this is the fact that the average sentence for a pre-meditated murderer is 18 years, that’s not enogh, those kind of people should get the death penalty! Or at the least, life in prison, Which brings me to the biggest problem w/ our court system, these people w/ life sentences are getting out based on good behavior, that’s rediculos! They should never be allowed to go up for parroll!   Last of all, don’t start judging how many facts people know about something, I know a lot more than you think.

The average sentence for murder in the 1st is not 18 years. You cannot begin to complain about the judicial system when you do not understand the myths from the truth. You seem to me to also be the type of person that would claim that the exclusionary rule hurts officers, and that claiming insanity is just an easy way out. Also, your idea of the death penaly being "because they deserve it" is a matter of opinion, which is why the death penalty is unconstitutional in the first place. Coming from someone constantly surrounding by all three branches of government, you must first know the facts or else you will spout fiction.

Dune wrote: The average sentence for murder in the 1st is not 18 years.

Good distinction - my number was aggregate.

O.S. do you really feel it is justified to shoot 2 people in the back who have not raised a weapon on these soldiers? I think it does not matter whether it was in a combat situation or not, soldiers need to use good judgement, which he may or may not have, depending on the situation, which we don't know. If they were just fighting these guys ten minutes before, captured them, and then they ran, I can see it being justified.

Saying a soldier is justified because he is under the stress of combat doesn't hold water. I have known a lot of stupid soldiers in my time.

MT. Vigilante wrote: Clark Kent wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: There are rules, its called the Geneva Convention, and as Oldsolgeir wrote, this Marine’s actions were not against the Geneva Convention. Read the rest...   the UCMJ also applies, and it is only OS's opinion (and that of the Attorney General of the US) that the Geneva Conventions either do not apply, generally or specifically.  That interpretation is quite controversial.  Again, this is why we have courts. And my point, as well as OS’s I believe, is that the courts are no longer representing justice, they are sentencing murderers to just a few years in prison, and then a Marine, at war, who is only doing his job by taking out a potential threat is charged w/ pre-meditated murder!

Shooting people in the back who are not representing a threat isn't the Marines' job. Our country has elevated the soldier to some kind of mother Teresa philanthropist, and that just isn't the case. If he is guilty of shooting two people in the back for no good reason, I hope he gets plenty of time to recollect in Ft. Leavenworth.

Yeah, two people running, and like kayback said, I think, running around the nearest corner and coming back with an RPG-7.
I have no sympathy for the deaths of two likely insurgents...  If they weren't insurgents, why were they running?

E-98 wrote: Yeah, two people running, and like kayback said, I think, running around the nearest corner and coming back with an RPG-7. I have no sympathy for the deaths of two likely insurgents...  If they weren't insurgents, why were they running?

Running to keep from getting shot?

E-98 wrote: Yeah, two people running, and like kayback said, I think, running around the nearest corner and coming back with an RPG-7. I have no sympathy for the deaths of two likely insurgents...  If they weren't insurgents, why were they running?

Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay. The muslim world thinks we are immoral people who enjoy torturing muslims. They ran because they didn't want to be locked up in Gitmo for 2 years without legal counsel, or stacked naked in a human pyramid and then attacked with dogs.

DBibeau855 wrote: A soldier is trained to kill. To do otherwize in that sort of situation would be going against what the government trained him to do. It should be know wonder he took those to men out, he was operating on his instinct and did what he was trained to do.

You've had military training? Are you speaking from experience? I don't remember being taught to shoot unarmed civilians in the back in my military training.

E-98 wrote: Yeah, two people running, and like kayback said, I think, running around the nearest corner and coming back with an RPG-7. I have no sympathy for the deaths of two likely insurgents...  If they weren't insurgents, why were they running?

So you cannot sympathize with this? That's alright, but I don't expect to see you complain when a marine is shot while running away...or are you going to say it's because of "freedom."

What scares me about this issue is the American attitude that if it has brown skin and dies, "what a shame." If it has an American flag on the shoulder and dies, it is a complete outrage. This neo-conservatism that America is bound to a divine destiny and all that we do is justified is exactly what has distanced us from all of our old allies and the rest of the world. Let's face it, we aren't too popular in the world right now, and glossing over incidents like this one doesn't help our popularity much.

I do not have an opinion on the rightness or wrongness of the soldier's actions, as I wasn't there. But saying that investigating the shooting of two unarmed civilians in the back is tantamount to "lawyers running the war" is ridiculous. Soldiers are no better than anyone else in society and are just a prone to making bad decisions. That is why the military launches investigations. I am confident that they will be exonerated if they were innocent.

Kayback wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Soldiers are no better than anyone else in society and are just a prone to making bad decisions. Now they have been sent into a danger zone, and are ngaged on a mission that has already turned up terrorist style weapons, and two of their detainees try to run away. The split second decision is made, and then the lawyers descent on them like a flock of vultures.

When I was in Bosnia an AR 15-6 investigation was launched for every one of these type of incidents. We never looked on them like "evil lawyers decending upon the innocent". It is how it works, it keeps soldiers from doing the kinds of things that happened in Vietnam and killing unchecked.

Dune wrote: E-98 wrote: Yeah, two people running, and like kayback said, I think, running around the nearest corner and coming back with an RPG-7. I have no sympathy for the deaths of two likely insurgents...  If they weren't insurgents, why were they running? So you cannot sympathize with this? That's alright, but I don't expect to see you complain when a marine is shot while running away...or are you going to say it's because of "freedom."

The terrorists generally don't shoot unarmed individuals, they are more likely to use them to make a political/religious statement by beheading them and vidiotaping it.   

[QUOTE=Goodsmitty] What scares me about this issue is the American attitude that if it has brown skin and dies, "what a shame." If it has an American flag on the shoulder and dies, it is a complete outrage. This neo-conservatism that America is bound to a divine destiny and all that we do is justified is exactly what has distanced us from all of our old allies and the rest of the world. Let's face it, we aren't too popular in the world right now, and glossing over incidents like this one doesn't help our popularity much. [QUOTE]

Yes, the neo-conservitive attitude, which is out there, that "if it has brown skin and dies, what a shame", is scary.  Here are two things that I also find scary about neo-liberal attitudes:

1. The idea that if an American did it, it must be wrong.
2. The assumption/position that world opinion is more important than the safety of our military members

No, we libs get antsy if the American Government does it and it turns out to be a lie.  We also have few gripes if the military is acting in a legal manner.  The righties turned us into "America Haters" when we got miffed over pyramids made out of naked prisoners.   

Ajreaper wrote: Dune wrote: If captured and unarmed, anyone would. You do not know Marines very well. If they could run it would be at the enemy even if it was with only a dang entrenching tool.

perhaps, but they seem to be easily overcome by comely spies while guarding embassies.

Ajreaper wrote: Dune wrote: If captured and unarmed, anyone would. You do not know Marines very well. If they could run it would be at the enemy even if it was with only a dang entrenching tool.

Wow, maybe you should have added "USA USA" to the end of that. They're human, when the life is at stake and there's a chance to escape, they'd take it.

Ajreaper wrote: Dune wrote: If captured and unarmed, anyone would. You do not know Marines very well. If they could run it would be at the enemy even if it was with only a dang entrenching tool.

OOH RAH! No marine has ever run in fear in combat!

WUNgUN wrote: Lt. Pantano is a hero, not a criminal. This is an "after the fact" investigation after he was cleared by a preliminary field investigation. If this motivated Devil Dog receives any type of disciplinary action, CM or OH, it will be a disservice to all of our fine men and women in Iraq who are doing the best they can under the circumstances and more directly the orders they are given. Please read up on what really happened before you pass any judgement on this Marine.

Try reading the posts before you pass judgement on non-testosterone crazed intellectuals. We have all acknowledged that we don't know the facts, but that doesn't change the fact that we need to have some oversight in the combat zone. If the soldier is innocent, I am confident he will be found as much.