Re: US soldier Kills 16 Afgan Civilians
Broker, you're not listening. He is in US custody. We are not going to turn him over to the villagers to be stoned. Had they caught him he would be SOL. Our justice system can handle this. If we were to go against our law and turn him over, the precedent would be devastating. This is a gross violation of ROE, but many circumstances are not. You have no idea how many of our men have died from hesitation and fear of being punished with violations of ROE in our <span style="font-style: italic">own</span> system. THIS case is pretty clear, but I can tell you with CERTAINTY that ROE violations are easy to make. To fight a war with the threat of being turned over to the enemy for ROE violations is beyond the pale. You wanna fight that war, you go do it, cause I wouldn't.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We're not at war with Afghanistan and they let us in so we didn't invade them.</div></div>
This right here is funny...yeah I forgot that they called me on the radio and asked me to come right over, just begging for democracy and bombs. Let's be clear about one thing. I have seen plenty to be emotional about and an internet discussion ain't it. If you think my judgment is faulty, point out how it is.
Do I have disdain for Afghanis? Of course. What reasonable person could condone or defend such a miserable theocratic totalitarian existence. One of the worst records in the world for basic human rights, religious freedom, economic opportunity, abuse of women and children, (and goats for that matter, have the predator video to prove it). There is little to recommend their way of life except respect for their tenacity. Does all that mean that non-combatants should be targeted? No of course not, at least not in the limited war we are fighting at this point. My personal assessment of the values by which they live is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Are there Afghanis who would break out of their medieval existence and live differently? Of course. But it is not our job to make it happen for them. It is theirs. Our military does not exist to install democratic republics elsewhere, it is to protect our own. You seem to picture the Afghanis as yearning for freedom if they just had the opportunity, in the same way that our brilliant planners just knew we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.
The facts on the ground are much different, I assure you. If the national security of the United States truly depends on running water and free and fair government in every village in Afghanistan then we are well and truly screwed. If it does not, then we have no business spending the blood and treasure of the United States trying to give the Afghanis a gift they will throw right back in our faces, just as the Palestinians did when they freely elected Hamas as their governing body. People get the government they deserve.
Again, my view of Afghanis and our national strategy there really have no bearing on this issue though. You want his blood, I get it. You would like to see him staked out in some village getting his just desserts, which would already be happening if the Afghanis had him. You could be enjoying the video of him getting his head cut off with a steak knife on Al-Jazeera by now, if we just throw him out of the gate. My point in all of this, from the beginning, is that the Constitution is bigger and more important than a single crime. We should never willingly ignore or give up its protections.
We should never subvert it because of one man's deranged actions.
We should never subvert it because some terrorist organization attacks us.
We should never subvert it because we are afraid.
It is the only thing we have to cling to that prevents the usual human condition of tyranny and misery.
We continue tearing down those protections for any reason, one day we will all regret it. It sounds like a small issue, just looking the other way and throwing this guy to the wolves might feel good, but the principle involved goes to the core of who we ought to be. We follow our principles and process this guy in accordance with the law not out of respect for him, but for us. It has nothing to do with him really.
We can follow the Constitution, and in this case the law in the UCMJ, or we just do what we want and might makes right. I prefer the rule of law, but make it my business to be prepared for either. I have seen what that kind of society looks like over there, and it ain't pretty, and I wan't no part of moving us toward it no matter how small the step.
I can't explain my position any clearer. I know of no instance in US history where we turned over a war criminal to an occupied country during open hostilities. Unless you can show, through some logical or legal argument where I should be informed, I am done arguing this with you. It is a waste of time to argue with someone who presents nothing other than anger, no matter how righteous, to support their point of view.
