So let’s employ your logic here in the United States. Using this logic the police should be able to use deadly force when dealing with a criminal? I mean we all know criminals don’t play by the rules, that’s why their criminals. So the police should be able to ignore the rules when dealing with them.

SPIFF1669 on April 18, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Your analogy fails on grounds that policing society is not in the same respect as war.

I personally reject your premise and believe that they still aren’t rules, they are limitations. The reason being is that they are limitations on justice. We as a society decided to accept limitations as a way to keep from injustice by tyrannical government, but in war we should accept no limitations for we are fighting that tyrannical government (a government who is trying to or tried to force it’s will upon us).

As one vet I know says, “When choosing between justice and law, I choose justice.” Society in that case choses law ergo limitations.

If I did accept that police have rules I must point out that criminals too have rules. If they are caught breaking them, then they pay the consequences. Presently our military system is allowing for us to have limitations, when the terrorists have none. Tell me the last time we executed a prisoner for war crimes? Exactly…we haven’t and some have been picked up on the battlefield a second time.

Also I say this as someone who, if my medical waiver comes through, will be joining the military very shortly.

Before you go off on morality:

The only moral option in war is to win it as fast as possible so as to end the killing quicker. Placing limitations upon our side is immoral. It gets our brothers killed and extends the war longer causing more “civilians” to be killed.

Both Natural Law and Special Revelation (Scripture) places no limitation upon waging war against another nation. Natural Law actually encourages total war due to the fact that war’s intent is to destroy a moral evil that is threatening you. The best way to destroy a moral evil is fighting to total victory (This doesn’t mean all wars end with moral evil being destroyed, nor does it mean all wars are to destroy a moral evil.).

Special Revelation allows for and a case can be made encourages Total War. I recommend reading God’s instructions on waging war in the OT and then realize it never was repealed in the NT.

Now, this doesn’t mean I am opposed to rules in war. It means that I can accept rules in war when both sides agree to them and abide by them. In WWII Germany for the most part did abide by the Geneva Convention when facing the Allies. Therefore we basically abided by them too. On the other hand Japan rejected them, therefore many of our troops did to. I know my grandfather openly admitted to killing Japanese Prisoners to my father. I also know that the one time he said something to me about war was when I was watching the old PBS show, “GI Diaries”. The narrator said, “At the end of the battle, only 17 Japanese surrendered out of XXXX.” And my Grandfather responded. “He is wrong, we only allowed 17 Japanese to surrender.”

It didn’t dawn on me at the time what he meant.

I also remember my dad telling me my grandfather’s advice to him when he was drafted and was headed to get enlisted into the Marine Corps. My father said he said, “If one VC wants to surrender, be careful, but if you see two of them trying to surrender at the same time, SHOOT them.”

My father asked why, and he said, “I lost a couple good buddies, when 2 guys were surrendering as kamikaze.

War is hell, and the best thing we can do is fight it so hard as to stop the fighting.

In the mean time, I suggest you read the Bio of Lt.Col. Ronald Speirs. He shot one of our own and is considered a hero, our priorities are messed up when we are more concerned about if our guys should have killed someone who could have been the enemy. Heck, if these people were so innocent, why didn’t they turn in the people who were trying to kill Americans?

So let’s employ your logic here in the United States. Using this logic the police should be able to use deadly force when dealing with a criminal? I mean we all know criminals don’t play by the rules, that’s why their criminals. So the police should be able to ignore the rules when dealing with them.

SPIFF1669 on April 18, 2007 at 1:41 PM

I don’t usually respond to such ignorance, but what the hell. Unfortunately criminals have rights in this country, as the Constitution states. Ever read that document? Now, remind me what rights the Constitution provides for enemies of the U.S. that are engaged in a war against U.S. soldiers? Jackass.

You don’t play a game where only one side has rules and the other doesn’t. When you do play a game that one side has rules and the other doesn’t the rules no longer are rules, but a handicap, ergo limitations

Tim Burton on April 18, 2007 at 12:19 AM

So let’s employ your logic here in the United States. Using this logic the police should be able to use deadly force when dealing with a criminal? I mean we all know criminals don’t play by the rules, that’s why their criminals. So the police should be able to ignore the rules when dealing with them.

Our soldiers went in… killed Iraqis…

okay, where’s the problem? Haditha is what could be called, “a good start”.

I’m sick of the people comparing apples and oranges here. Take the Waco Massacre (14th anniversary is tomorrow). Those were innocent American citizens, many of them children, who died by what could charitably be described as incompetence of federal and State authorities overstepping their authority with respect to American citizens
Haditha is in Iraq, occupied territory that is still in resistance. It wouldn’t be such a gray matter if Fat George had not decided to give Iraq democracy at the cost of American blood.
You think maybe the crew of the Enola Gay should be put on trial for murder? NO.
The only guilty ones are the Iraqis who will not submit to American forces completely whenever they encounter said forces.

I’d have been put up for war crimes charges long ago had I been appointed governor general. First time an IED took out some of my troops, I’d march the male heads-of-household into the street and stick a bayonette in the belly of every 10th one. The second time, I’d carpet bomb the neighborhood with napalm.

We’re not fighting the Men’s Glee Club. We’re fighting savages who’ve lived under tough conditions for decades if not centuries. You don’t get their attention by being nice, you get their derision. You want their attention, speak a language they understand; brutality.
We defeated the Japanese by convincing them that we would wipe them out. Our marines didn’t play nice, particularly on islands such as Guadalcanal and Tarawa. Our soldiers in Europe could fight by a different code, a more civilized code, because the Germans we fought, for the most part, waged Just War, not Total War, as did the Japanese and as do the moslem terrorists we fight today.
The Iraqis should have been told, “This is what happens when you interfere with our troops.” And the soldiers should have been given commendations for their leniency.

War used to have rules; during the late middle ages and early Renaissance, mercenary companies decided issues. Laws of War were created and adopted, to minimize the harm to civilian populations, and to minimize the carnage among mercenary units. Slowly the laws eroded, until by the American War of Independence officers were being sniped at from behind trees, and by the Confederate War, civilian population centers were utterly destroyed for the effect it would have on the morale of the civilian population (the word for this is “terrorism”). As we encountered enemies who had no concept of Just War, such as the American Tribes, and later the Japanese, we had to surrender such notions if we wanted to win. And here we are again.

I don’t care how the world views us, or how we view ourselves, so long as at the end of the day, America is in charge.

Yes, war is chaos. War is messy. But war also has rules. Soldiers (and Marines) have standards. They are trained (incessantly) on those rules and standards. Merely repeating ad nauseum that “war is hell” is both ignorant and insulting.

armylawyer on April 17, 2007 at 7:27 PM

No war does not. We have placed limitations on the way we wage war, but they aren’t rules, because if they were rules both sides would abide by them. There is logically a huge difference between rules and limitations.

You don’t play a game where only one side has rules and the other doesn’t. When you do play a game that one side has rules and the other doesn’t the rules no longer are rules, but a handicap, ergo limitations.

I’m sorta shocked that you being a lawyer, having to had to study logic for the LSAT but you don’t have the basic understanding of the Law of Identity.

I believe this to be as manufactured as rathergate and Bush plugging in the hybrid car.

The vast majority of servicemembers are brave, honorable people that do the right thing every time.

Others, however, are absolute sh!tbags. Both get deployed.

Which group the accused here fall into remains to be seen.

Then:

Shouldn’t Marines be held to the highest standards and expected to perform almost impreccably in combat?

JaHerer22 on April 17, 2007 at 6:04 PM

They are and they do, consistantly.

Excellent point. I occasionally see the same sort of people excusing serious police misbehavior using the same kind of excuses: they have a difficult job, they’re stressed out, give them a break. Yeah, but they’re cops. If anyone should know better, they should. If they cannot handle the job, then they need to get out. We don’t allow criminals similar excuses (or at least we shouldn’t). Either we have objective standards or we don’t.

tommy1 on April 17, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Apples and oranges comparison – police can resign at any time, soldiers can’t. And soldiers don’t really know how they will handle combat until they actually experience it.

Glad you are so understanding of their plight. You “support the troops” almost as good as a liberal.

Please. Most soldiers know better. Lets not excuse bad conduct. How absolutely condescending to every soldier out there who would never dream of engaging in this sort of vile behavior.

Don’t give me that crap about “it’s war, how do you know how you would act” either. I’m tired of that sort of moral relativism. It is the same sort of relativism we saw out of those excusing the cowardice of the British Fifteen. “How do you know what you would do in their situation?” I know I wouldn’t completely puss out like those British sailors and I know I wouldn’t engage in cold-blooded murder of civilians. You know these things because you’ve given them some thought and decided what kind of a person you are and what you stand for.

tommy1 on April 17, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Nice one, Nifong.

You know for a fact, before these guys have even been given a trial, that they definitely engaged in cold-blooded murder as they are accused of, right?

JaHerer22 on April 17, 2007 at 6:04 PM

In a word, No!

Shouldn’t Marines be held to the highest standards and expected to perform almost impreccably in combat?

Excellent point. I occasionally see the same sort of people excusing serious police misbehavior using the same kind of excuses: they have a difficult job, they’re stressed out, give them a break. Yeah, but they’re cops. If anyone should know better, they should. If they cannot handle the job, then they need to get out. We don’t allow criminals similar excuses (or at least we shouldn’t). Either we have objective standards or we don’t.

Don’t give me that crap about “it’s war, how do you know how you would act” either. I’m tired of that sort of moral relativism. It is the same sort of relativism we saw out of those excusing the cowardice of the British Fifteen. “How do you know what you would do in their situation?” I know I wouldn’t completely puss out like those British sailors and I know I wouldn’t engage in cold-blooded murder of civilians. You know these things because you’ve given them some thought and decided what kind of a person you are and what you stand for.

The United States is the greatest country around and shines as a beacon of freedom, justice, and the rule of law to the rest of the world.

The United States military is the most professional and most capable military force in the history of the human race.

The United States Marine Corps and the best-trained, most elite branch of said military.

Then:

Shouldn’t Marines be held to the highest standards and expected to perform almost impreccably in combat?

i will note however that the picture we’re looking at now, as ugly as it appears, is a far cry from the deliberately deceptive and slanderous coverage which broke the story. to recap, that original narrative had our troops secure the scene first, adn then march pregnant women, old men and children into the street where they were lined up and shot execution style in a cold blooded act of class revenge.

that’s the story which would still be out there if ours wasn’t a nation moral enough to examine charges like these.

We could still pull it off. It just wouldn’t be so tidy.

JadeNYU on April 17, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Women are the most vindictive people I have ever met. I have seen a girl win a fight with another girl and then when the loser was pinned, the winner gag herself and vomit on the other girl.

I also knew another girl in my neighborhood growing up who would win a fight and then use sissors to cut off the loser’s hair.

Find another self righteous way to make yourself feel good, “assclown”, I know which side I am on and I will not persecute our warriors and I will not take glee in denigrating America like so many others.

JayHaw Phrenzie on April 17, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Oooo-rah!!!! Siemper Fi. (And I mean it).