What's your opinion of soldiers who commit atrocities during war?

[ecstatic]

[ShaneGR]

1. Push poll.....

It's a dumb question, how do I feel about US Military who commit atrocities in a foreign land, on an impossible mission?

Answer:

Sad

[JVS]

2. I think they're groovy

:sarcasm:

[NightOwwl]

3. I'm not going to judge them...

because I can't say with 100% certainty that if I were in that helllhole day after day, watching my buddies die in front of me, that I wouldn't snap under the pressure.

IMO, those that vote to EXECUTE!!! are no better than Freepers who cheer the killing of Iraqis. This situation ain't black or white, it's shades of gray.

It's sad for everyone involved...except the one who never gets his hands dirty...and he started this goddam war.

[Tunkamerica]

4. execute?

are y'all serious? it would have to be one pretty horrific atrocity to even consider execution of a soldier, especially if they were following orders.

[ContraBass Black]

7. There's no option for imprisonment only.

[Erika]

9. 7 women and three children dead

Yes, murder charges should apply.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. That didn't excuse the Nazis

and it shouldn't excuse these Marines either.

[Trajan]

33. Nuremburg established unlawful conduct of soldiers in wartime

Both commander AND soldier are two parties to the same act ... BOTH can be held accountable IF both can be shown to have broken the law ....

Being 'at war' is no excuse for atrocity, IE the killing of unarmed civilians, for either commander OR soldier ...

IF the commander gave orders to commit such a crime, and the soldier follows those orders, then BOTH are guilty of committing that crime ....

IF the commander gave orders to commit such a crime, and the soldier refused to follow those orders, since they were 'unlawful', then no crime would have been committed ...

IF the commander did NOT give orders to commit such a crime, and the soldier DID commit that crime without being given orders to do so, then the soldier is guilty, and the commander is not ....

This isnt rocket science here .... Laws exist which protect civilians in wartime, and NEITHER soldier nor commander may violate those laws ....

Following through on 'unlawful' orders is NOT a defense for criminal behaviour: EACH man is responsible for their own behaviour .... including BOTH the soldier AND the commander ....

[Toots]

41. That doesn't apply to America

We do not believe in International Law or World courts. We make our own "laws" or lack there of. America is wayyy to superior to listen to what the rest of the world might have to say.

[libhill]

12. Agreed

and "low intensity" guerrilla conflicts such as Iraq and Viet Nam, are more likely to breed incidents of that type, because it is often unclear who or what "the enemy" consists of. I'm not tying to justify, only clarify. Iraq is not like regular warfare, where the lines are pretty much clearly drawn... I would hesitate to judge until all of the facts were presented to me.

[Raine]

27. Same here

those soldiers are overworked and overburdened and over stressed. I could not commit an atrocity but then I could never be a soldier either. I don't want to judge them solely on what I believe my reactions to something like that would be. I have never been in their situation and never will be.

[TygrBright]

5. Other: They should be prosecuted under the UCMJ, AND their superiors...

...should also face prosecution. If a trial establishes that the superiors did not specifically order the atrocities, the superiors should face charges of dereliction of duty, since it is their duty to ensure that those under their command do not commit such offenses. If a trial establishes that the superiors ordered the atrocities, they should face the same penalties as those who actually carried them out, plus an additional level of penalty (ex., the soldier who shot a civilian gets 25 years, the officer who ordered the shooting should get 35.)

If the atrocities are more than an isolated incident, the training instructors and the chain of command in charge of training the units involved in the atrocities should also face charges for dereliction of duty.

It is, most emphatically and explicitly, the duty of the training command to enable service personnel to understand the UMCJ, the Geneva Convention, and the other rules and conventions governing legal actions within their theater of operations. It is their duty to train the service personnel to distinguish between legal and illegal actions in a combat zone, occupied zone, or other theater of operations. It is their duty to train the service personnel how to handle a conflict or an illegal order from a superior in all likely situations.

It is the duty of officers to prevent the personnel under their command from committing illegal acts. Period. Part of officers' training is to make officers aware of the situations that give rise to the impulses to commit illegal acts, and how to prevent such acts, and how to deal with service personnel in such situations. They are expected by me and you, THEIR ULTIMATE BOSSES, to use that training to control the personnel under their command both to function effectively and achieve combat objectives, and to do so in a manner that befits our expectations of them and reflects on us--THEIR ULTIMATE BOSSES.

When the leaders we elect to exercise our sovereign power decline to exercise it in an appropriate manner, that does NOT absolve those officers and service personnel of their responsibilities under the laws and treaties that we, the people, have accepted. It does not convey a blanket permission to ignore our clear expectations.

Any officers or service personnel who forget or ignore this should expect to face prosecution and punishment. We are America, we are Americans. We hold ourselves (well, all of us except the sleazy dictator wannabes and the drooling neanderthals who support them) to a higher standard, and when we give someone the power to exercise deadly force on our behalf, they are obligated to maintain that standard.

emphatically,
Bright

[beam me up scottie]

11. Excellent post, TygrBright!

Thank you for that precious bit of sanity in this ridiculous thread.

You should start your own to remind people that those who wear the uniform ARE accountable for their actions.

[BikeWriter]

14. Thank you.

[silvertip]

51. Re-Other

     You are correct in stating that these Marines should be
responsible for their actions,every member of our armed forces
are required to recieve instruction in both the Geneva Conv.
and the U.C.M.J. and they are required to be instructed by an
officer every year.                                           
                             I think that what happened in
this instance is that they had just seen their friend and
fellow Marine blown up and killed in their presence and the
Sgt. in charge of the patrol lost control of his men and they
killed everyone in sight.Having their friend killed and
possibly blown into several pieces can do things to your mind
but it is not an excuse for killing women and kids,but before
you hang them I think you should walk that mile in their
boots.                                                        
                I am a former Marine GYSGT. with two tours of
duty in Vietnam and I do know wherof I speak.

[TygrBright]

52. My Dad Was a Marine...

...and if he were alive right now he'd be grieving for these Marines, I know. I grieve for them, too, and for all of the young American men and women who volunteer to do the hardest, dirtiest, most soul-destroying job Democracy requires. I grieve for their loss of brothers and sisters in the field, and for the loss of their own innocence as they confront the worst and most shameful side of humanity in others... and in themselves.

But my Dad would also be angry at what those Marines have done to ALL Marines, by their failure to "act like Marines." Because according to him, Marines are the ones who care most deeply about their buddies and about their service as a whole, and ALSO the ones with the strongest discipline. Including the discipline to endure horror and trauma, to see their buddies blown to bits and to put aside their grief for later and DO THE JOB, correctly, legally, and with Marine efficiency. That these Marines failed to do so, my Dad would see as a blot on the whole service, and on all Marines. A failure of discipline.

And he would be asking (correctly, I think,) "Where the HELL were their officers?" Not literally in the case of during the incident itself (naturally, not every patrol has an officer in charge,) but during the lead-up to this incident, when the officers should have been paying attention to morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and the stability and reliability of the non-coms in charge. Troops that are competently officered do not "suddenly snap" in situations like this, because if there are signs of strain, the non-coms should be doing something about it and/or kicking the problem up to the officers if it's beyond their ability to handle. The officers themselves should be observing the men closely enough to see the risks for a failure of discipline on this scale. They should be observing the non-coms' ability to control the troops in stress situations, and if the non-coms are in trouble, arranging for medical treatment, transfers, and assistance. Officers know that the non-coms are what holds the entire unit together.

AND (the real kicker, the tip-off, the big kahuna in the way of evidence of the officers' failure) should an incident like this happen under the command of a competent, conscientious officer, the officer should IMMEDIATELY suspend the troops involved from duty, request relief from duty himself, and ensure that the proper investigatory procedures are initiated. That's what a MARINE OFFICER would do, because "by Holy God, Marines are better than those candyasses in the Army that let that sonofabitch Calley get away with My Lai for all that time." (Yes, I think that's a bit idealistic, myself, Marines are only human, too, but you get the general picture.)

No, I don't want the men involved in this "hung." In the first place, I don't believe in capital punishment, and in the second place, I think all of the circumstances should be taken into consideration, starting with the fact that they (Marines) DON'T BELONG THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Both because we (America) don't belong in Iraq, but more pertinently because Marines as a force are not appropriate troops for occupation duty--that is not their function or mission as a service, it's not what they're best at or trained for. However, even after all circumstances have been taken into account, in the final analysis, they broke the law, they committed atrocities, and they are ultimately responsible for their own actions. And I have a hard time believing any Marine would suggest that a fellow Marine would, could, or should shirk taking responsibility for his own actions. Marines take responsibility, they're trained to take responsibility. They should and must face the appropriate consequences in proportion with the illegal acts they committed.

But so should their officers, and possibly their entire chain of command and the training command that inadequately prepared them for their jobs as Marines. Marines are BETTER THAN THAT, DAMMIT!! Partly because they're MARINES, but also because they are AMERICANS. And shitty leadership doesn't absolve any American, especially not Americans delegated to use lethal force on our behalf, from the responsibility to maintain AMERICAN standards of decency and respect for the rule of law, even (hell, ESPECIALLY!) on the battlefield.

These Marines join the officers at Abu Ghraib and the shitheads at Gitmo and the platoon of bottomfeeders that is the current government of this country in kicking every American into a sewage dump and throwing a gallon of dogshit on our heads.

angrily,
Bright

[silvertip]

58. Marine Father

   Thank you for the vote of confidence in the Marines. If I
remember correctly these men were  members of a reserve unit
and I have no intention of running down the Reserves 99% of
them do a great job but they don't always receive the same
amount of training as do the regulars.  Different subject- You
spoke of our current fearless leaders and I can't vouch for
the truth of any of this but check out the following
www.supportthetruth.com  you will have to type it into your
browser I don't know how as yet to set it up so you can just
click on it.

[Clarkie1]

6. lousy poll, false choices. n/t

[Suich]

8. It's been a while ago, but I read an article about

how they had to train soldiers to "kill" in WW1.

Anyone else ever hear/read this?

[Erika]

10. When we dropped bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima

population centers, said it all. It makes me heartsick.

[DarkTirade]

13. I selected 'other' because it's really impossible to generalize.

Some people may lose it in the heat of things and start shooting at people. Some people may 'just be following orders'. Some people may be knowingly committing atrocities. Each incident has to be judged on its own.

[Erika]

15. Once again...Soldiers are Army personnel only!

Navy are sailors, Air Force are airmen, Army are soldiers, and Marines are Marines.

If you wish to talk about all troops, then call them troops.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. How about their superiors?

Oh never mind me... GRRRRR... we are seeing the same damn pattern we saw in Nam

By the way, I will not vote in your stupid poll, but suffice it to say... UCMJ, but until we make the men who put them in those circumstances pay, this is only a half meassure

[moobu2]

17. The mass murder at Haditha was a war crime

No different than what the Nazi’s did during ww2. And there are no extenuating circumstances that would excuse or lessen the responsibility of those soldiers who evidently slaughtered unarmed old men, women attempting to protect their children and babies. (girls ages 14, 10, 5, 3, and 1 murdered in one house).

Those responsible have to pay.

[Erika]

19. As a devils advocate I must ask you why these troops

must pay when it is proven that W's shock and awe campaign killed and maimed hundreds of innocent Iraqis. The little 13 year old boy who had his arms blown off in that campaign haunts me to this day.

[moobu2]

22. Throw em all in prison

They ordered the invasion and violent military occupation of a sovereign country for no real reason…that’s a war crime. They're all mass murderers as far as I'm concerned.

[banana republican]

18. Unfortunately I cannot generalize here.

On the one hand, I want to convict & sentence those individuals to DEATH.

On th other hand, I can understand the impact of Post Traumatic Stress.

It really is a fact and circumstance situation. How can I judge since I have never been in combat.

[Erika]

20. Did any of these people pose a threat to us?

We need to start answering these questions.

[banana republican]

34. Unfortunately you are correct in

your assessment that they did not present a threat.

However;

WE sent them there;

WE are responsible for their actions;

WE did this.

I am sorry if you do not like this but I cannot hold them responsible for what WE have done.

If anyone is guilty of a crime here it is US.

[Bluerthanblue]

55. I have to

agree-

And while many of us tried everything we could to stop this 'war' on terra,

(I marched, and worked against ANY action of violence in response to 9/11)

I 'own' my share in this evil and awful reality- That America has done grievous harm to countless innocent people, and refused aid to the most needy in this world-
And for that i will carry a burden of shame do my grave.

People snap. There comes a point where people just 'lose' it- i believe that for the most part, the atrocities committed were examples of that.

there is no flag, or document, or treaty to cover the evidence of what has and continues to be done, 'in our name'-

[sandnsea]

21. Executed, wow, suddenly 56% are pro-death penalty

I don't recall 56% of DUers being pro-death penalty in death penalty polls. I think whoever voted for that needs to take a good long look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they truly apply their principles equally and fairly.

Each incident should be honestly investigated, real war crimes should be tried, and people should be sentenced to time that considers the circumstances, exactly like we do when anybody is murdered.
Ordered war crimes should go up the chain of command to whoever gave tacit approval and they should most certainly serve lengthy prison sentences.

[moobu2]

24. The option said "imprisoned / executed"

which I took to mean imprisoned OR executed. I'm not for the death penalty under any circumstances but there was no option for "imprisoned" only. I'm sure that's the case with many or most who voted that option. So you saying "suddenly 56% are pro-death penalty" is probably very inaccurate.

[Trajan]

26. Hence why the poll is lame ....

It confutes 'imprisonment' which would be absolutely proper PRIOR to an full investigation if sufficient evidence exists that a crime has been committed, and 'execution', which MANY of us do NOT support ....

The wording of the poll doesnt give an option of one without the other ....

Push poll ? ... at LEAST as bad as that: DIVIDE the questions ....

[greyl]

29. Yup, I agree. nt

[sandnsea]

32. Some managed to reject it on its face

No way would I click a poll that jumped to execute somebody. Seems to me some people might be more willing to pull that trigger than they realize, depending on who its aimed at.

[Dogmudgeon]

23. How 'bout a trial and investigation first?

There's a lot of people around here willing to execute soldiers post-haste. Most investigations, even those which have been out for blood, have found that most atrocities are not committed by cartoonishly evil thugs. A few are. But not most.

There are certainly plenty of opportunities to punish soldiers guilty of atrocities. There are, sadly, many people who are just plain evil, and given a gun and a couple of stripes of cloth, are quite dangerous. But calling for the punishment before the investigation, trial, and sentencing is just a little too hasty for justice.

Now, if we're talking about justice, there's two things that would better serve it: First, to take better care of the victims of atrocities (who currently usually receive a gold coin, a pat on the back, and a "better luck next time"!), and bringing about an end to warfare iself.

No wars, no war atrocities. Makes sense to me.

--p!

[moobu2]

31. The presumption of innocence is meant for a court of law.

The evidence is pretty strong that the soldiers killed those unarmed 1,3,14 year old girls, the mothers and fathers attempting to protect them and old men. From what I’ve read, they’re guilty as shit, I don’t have to presume anything, I have little to no doubt about it. They murdered them and tried to cover it up. The only reason it wasn’t brushed under the rug like all the other civilian murders is that people documented this incident with photo’s, death certificates, autopsies, eye witness accounts and they wouldnt shut up about it after they got the hush money.

[Trajan]

25. Wont Judge ?

Your thread says 'Atrocities' ....

NOT 'killing' ... NOT Manslaughter .... NOT Murder ....

A T R O C I T I E S .......

The very definition of an atrocity is an UNACCEPTABLE act of depravity ....

COMPLETELY immoral .... and absolutely unlawful ....

Immediate arrest, imprisonment, a fair trial ....

Afterwards ? .... Conviction; and a sentence of LIFE IN PRISON ...

Why not 'execution', which you so deftly embedded into the limited set of questions ? .... Because execution implies a willingness of the state, as a proxy for society in general, to kill as a sentence for killing ..... How is THAT a valid philosophical position ?

WTF is 'progressive' or 'liberal' about execution ? ....

It is about as UNprogressive, as UNenlightened, as one could be ....

WHY not STONE them to death in the public square ? .... sheeeesh ....

These LAME ASS polls can be infuriatingly narrow minded ....


There is no guessing about 'atrocities' .... It implies UNLAWFUL acts which would dictate prosecution ....


Did you know my sister is female ????

[ecstatic]

40. Well the thing is... If you are found guilty those are the penalties

Death or imprisonment are the penalties when you're found guilty of war crimes. I agree that the poll choices were awkward because I myself realized I couldn't even choose an option---On one hand, it seems that when it comes to the Iraq situation, the soldiers wouldn't even be there if it were not for Bush's illegal war. On the other hand, the soldiers are there now, and in the situation, and expected to conduct themselves in a certain way despite all the pressure.

[rman]

28. Whatever is done, the upper brass should not even be mentioned

You got that part right in your poll.

[Sgent]

35. IMHO

those w/o a rank of at least NCO shouldn't be held fully responsible -- if they were following orders, and IF there is some evidence of an objection to those orders (even as much as a private asking the First Sargent).

Everyone from the company commander on down the chain of command should be prosecuted for acts of the soldiers.

Anyone higher than the company commander should be subject to review of their actions, contributing factors, etc. The rebuttable presumption is they must be charged with dereliction of duty.

[sweetheart]

36. Their commander and chief should fall on his sword

The troops are commanded, and they are not responsible,
only insomuch as they are in harms way... who put them there?

Rumsfeld/Rich/Bush/Cheney/Blair/Asscroft/Powell.

Then those persons should be brought up on charges of aggreessive war,
criminal malfesiance, mass murder, conspiracy to committ genocide
and like saddam, they can claim the court is illegitimage, like
milosovic, they can wonder why pandering nationalism is criminal,
and like the nazi leadership, they will all die and nobody will cry.

[Selatius]

37. At Nuremberg, war criminals were hanged.

If this was 1945 and we were Germany, those soldiers would be hanged, and Bush and the rest of the gang would be tried and hanged as well for war crimes and crimes against humanity. At Nuremberg, soldiers tried the defense of "We were just following orders."

I don't believe the death penalty serves any purpose except societal revenge, and I'd recommend the harshest penalty be life in prison with no parole.

[robbedvoter]

38. Your poll is aid and comfort to BFEE - what they did after Abu Grahib

Nope. The grunts are not my concern in this. It's those who decided to send them there who are responsible. Only after all the "deciders" have been brought to justice will I be able to even consider the poor bastards who were used in this.

[FlaGranny]

39. Other - Soldiers during war

are mostly very young men who should be working in normal every day jobs, not killing people. They join up and are trained to kill, they go with their best buddies into a war and they follow orders - which means killing people in battle. Then their very best buddies get killed and they get very angry. They have killed in battle and they no longer have inhibitions against killing and they want revenge.

War is bad, VERY BAD. That is one reason that war should be only a last resort. It damages some of these young men. They won't fit well into society when they return and many will wind up addicted to alcohol and drugs, in prisons, mental hospitals, or on the street. War does that to the minds of some young men. The real war criminals are the old men who use our young men and women to fight wars for profit.

As to what to do with military that commits atrocities? The only solution is to imprison them and try to rehabilitate their damaged minds.

In every war, in every time period in our entire history as humans, atrocities have been committed on every "side" of every conflict. It's what happens when people revert to war.

Edit: There is nothing noble about war. It is merely a slaughter because those in charge are too narrow minded or shortsighted to find another solution.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. I had to vote "other". They should be imprisoned but for me execution is

Never an option.

[BlooInBloo]

43. I want 3 AND 4!!! hrmph.

[applegrove]

44. Put on trial and sent to jail.

[Minnesota Libra]

45. Walk a mile in their shoes before criticizing someone for atrocities......

.....during war.

Before someone flames me let me point out that I DO NOT condone war atrocities, torture, or any thing of the kind at any time for any reason.

Yes, such actions should be punished but I'm also willing to admit I might have acted the very same way with bullets flying, bombs going off, and buddies getting shot up right beside me.

We think we might be so much better than others but until we've actually been in their shoes we don't know for sure.

[gizmo1979]

46. I'm going to be roasted for this but

I understand how this happens.People you are very close to are killed you are pissed off,remember these are 19 yearold kids,you are out for revenge.Does that make it right no,but I can't say I wouldn't do the samething.I would not do well in war,short fuse,automatic weapon,not a good mix.War is hell,I blame Bush for putting our kids in this situation to begin with.

[Orangeone]

47. Yes but

would you kill babies? The victims were killed execution style, not in the heat of battle.

[gizmo1979]

48. i can't say for sure.

They are put into a situation I can't even begin to imagine.I know I'd be tempted.Would I be devastated once it was over absoulutely.

[PassingFair]

49. Hugh Thompson.

Excusing amoral behavior in war or ANYWHERE,
dishonors the memory of Hugh Thompson.
A MAN, not a SUPERMAN, who instinctively
did the right thing.

He is a hero to me, he is the type of soldier we should
honor this Memorial Day.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/18/1442240

[zonmoy]

50. They should be imprisoned

and the ones above them imprisoned for double the penalty of the underlings until they reach infinate imprisonment at the very top.

[Jade Fox]

53. Read this....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/rogue-apple_b_21738.html

[Bluerthanblue]

54. we create 'human killing machines' and drill (note the word)

DRILL into thier minds what they are supposed to do, expect and react to-
But we haven't removed their human-instincts- Thier 'flight-or fright' responses.

I would LOVE to claim the 'high-ground' on this, and say "I would never..."
but no one who hasn't walked in their shoes can say that. Does it make it 'right'?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!-

"Look what we've done to our sons... and daughters ma"

I'm so ashamed, angry, sad, and frustrated. The M.A.S.H. theme song is so relevent.

Only one thing can be said with absolute truth-


WAR IS HELL.

and its fruits are poison.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Soldiers are killers. That's why they carry guns.

They are trained to kill efficiently. When I went through boot camp and infantry trainig the Geneva conventions and such like, were never mentioned. In fact, in 4 years, I can't recall a single minute of training devoted to "proper conduct" in war. Which would be an oxymoron anyway.

These guys, and their commanders, should be held responsible for their actions. But, designating them "war criminals" is kind of dicey. Unless you want to start trying the guys who drop bombs on civilians, or blow them up with artillery, all from a nice safe, impersonal distance, war criminals while you're at it.

Which is what I think should be done.

[peacebaby3]

57. "Unless you want to start trying the guys who drop bombs on civilians, or

blow them up with artillery, all from a nice safe, impersonal distance, war criminals while you're at it."

Exactly. Great post! How many innocent Iraqi women and children were blown to bits during "Shock and Awe?" It was a massacre as well. Should we go after the men and women who followed orders and delivered the bombs?

I do believe these Marines should be court-martialed and if guilty should go to prison, but there are mitigating circumstances that have to be considered as well. This is not a black and white issue and nobody unless they are a liar or consumed with their own delusional grandiosity (i.e. George W. Bush*)can claim any moral high ground!