Which would you say best explains why our military courts... (Warning Graphic Pic)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

Poll question: Which would you say best explains why our military courts... (Warning Graphic Pic)

... consistently deal out little more than a wrist slap to perpetrators of such egregious war crimes as those described in the editorial below?

1) Because the troops don't intentionally target civilians -- this is war -- this stuff happens in war.

2) Because mass civilian slaughter is actually part of the unofficial and unspoken plan.

Two years ago, a group of Marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians -- including women and children cowering in their own homes -- in a revenge rampage in Haditha. Once the story emerged from the usual layers of lies and cover-up, the atrocity flared briefly on the public stage, and eight of the Marines and their officers were charged "with murder or failing to investigate an apparent war crime," as the Post reports. But public attention moved swiftly on, and over the past few months, the Pentagon's "military justice" system has quietly reduced or dropped charges against most of the men. . .

http://counterpunch.com/

[Lint Head]

1. It's called collateral damage instead of killing babies.

It's double speak that has a ring of non human destruction. :dem:

[Desertrose]

4. Has a more sanitary ring to it, doesn't it?

Makes me sick in my heart.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Collateral damage is when a shell kills civilians as well as the intended

military target.

This is not collateral damage. It is murder.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. Exactly -- and they're being given a pass -- absolutely unconscionable. nt.

[damntexdem]

2. Three -- because the military won't convict its own, unless ...

they're guilty of becoming pacifists.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. Do you believe it's always been that way?

...And what do you think should happen to these soldiers?

[UndertheOcean]

3. bunch of babykillers

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Kick for a larger sample. nt.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. Kick for a larger sample. nt.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. Kick for a larger sample. nt.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

10. Kick for a larger sample. nt.

[brazos121200]

11. Mass slaughter is always a planned part of war, one way

or another. The responsibility of war rests primarily on those leaders who instigate it without having to personally sacrifice for it or fight it. A war is the admission of total failure of a country's leaders ability to negotiate the peace.

[Zywiec]

12. So not negotiating with Hitler was a total failure on FDR's part? n/t

[brazos121200]

13. Hitler could not be negotiated with, he was insane. But Hitler

did not attack the US, Japan did, and much has been written on FDR's planned efforts to goad Japan into attacking the US using his "7 provocations" so he could do battle with Germany, his "back door to war". I will not fault FDR's desire to join Britain and Russia in fighting to halt the Nazis, but scheming to get us into the war was less than noble. Roosevelt had been the US President since 1933 but did next to nothing, along with Britain, France and Russia to halt the Nazis through sanctions, blockades etc. until it was too late.

[Zywiec]

14. So your proposition that a war is the admission of total failure of a country's leaders

only applies when the leaders are of a clear mind? If that's the case, then there would never be war.

[brazos121200]

15. No, if all leaders were truly of clear mind there would not be war,

but war always indicates failure of the leaders. But leaders have learned to carefully pick their opponents so as to make themselves look noble by comparison. Slavery is horrible so let's go to war, the Nazis are horrible so let's go to war, Saddam Hussein is horrible so let's go to war. Rather than work over the long haul to ameliorate injustices and adjudicate disagreements to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, they would rather demonize their enemies (many surely deserve to be demonized) and solve their problems by war. War is easy, solving world problems by diplomacy and artful guidance of world events is difficult. So we idolize our Lincolns, Roosevelts and Wilsons and continue to die. I suppose I may be hoping for too much in our leaders, I want genius in leadership, not rhetoric and war.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

20. So would you agree then...

that the U.S. is guilty of genocide in Iraq?

[Radical Activist]

16. This happens in every war.

If soldiers were seriously prosecuted for this sort of thing it would make it very difficult to have a war at all.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

17. This incident was not a question of poor judgment...

...or indiscriminate targeting -- this was wanton, point blank, up close and personal, slaughter of civilians including women and young children in their own homes, and it seems to be much more of a pattern than an isolated incident.

Are you saying you believe this is nothing new for U.S. ground troops?

[Radical Activist]

18. Yes, I am saying that this is nothing new.

It's nothing new for any war at any time by any country. Anyone who is the least bit surprised is being naive about the nature of war. This is what happens. This is what war is. There never has been and never will be a war where only bad people die.

Impressionable young kids were trained to kill Iraqis. What the hell else do you think is going to happen?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. I would have to disagree that this is nothing new...

...for U.S. ground troops. I do not believe our ground troops conducted house-to-house, point blank slaughter of women and children in WWI or WWII. Of course, there is the comparison to My Lai, and maybe this kind of thing did occur with some regularity in Viet Nam.

You seem to be suggesting that anything goes in war, and that the horrific crimes described in the editorial do not stand apart as something outside acceptable boundaries of conduct in a theater of war, and I would say this suggestion is very wrong -- they do stand apart as particularly heinous, gratuitous killings, done purely for the sake of killing.

I do not delude myself to believe that there is such a thing as an honorable war, or that only bad people die, and I don't think I've written anything to suggest otherwise. What I am suggesting is that there are accepted standards and rules for conduct in armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions, to which we are a signatory, are well known to our military officers. When they are not followed we should be held to account for it, just as the Nazis were at Nuremberg.

Are you also then suggesting that these soldiers should not stand trial for murder?

[Radical Activist]

21. If you want to talk about ww2

How many civilians were killed in the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings? How about the Dresden bombing? None of those attacks were strategically necessary to win the war nor were they aimed at military targets. If we don't know about worse things that happened in WW2 its probably because the media didn't know about it or report about it back then.

The Civil War was fought for the noble cause to end slavery but it still involved Sherman's army marching through the South in a house to house rampage of pillage and rape. It has happened in every American war.

I'm not saying anything SHOULD go during war but the reality is that anything DOES go. Its unrealistic to believe otherwise and its unrealistic to expect that soldiers will abide by any "acceptable" standards after they're trained to hate and kill people. War makes ordinary people do extraordinarliy horrible things.

I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should stand trial for murder. They are the ones responsible more than the young kids they suckered into fighting for their country. If it wasn't this group of soldiers it would have been another. This is exactly what you sign up for when you agree to go to war. The soldiers who did this are victims too. Anyone who gets brainwashed and suckered into going to war for their country based on lies is a victim. They will be haunted and tortured by their experiences for the rest of their lives.

Can you tell me how this crime is any worse or different than the bombers who killed tens of thousands of innocent people during the Shock & Awe campaign? Personally, I think killing innocent civilians is immoral in any case. What distinction can you make between the two cases? Why should one be sanctioned and rewarded with medals while the other case is a crime?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

22. I wasn't arguing for the sanctioning of the intentional slaughter...

...of civilians by ANY methodology under ANY circumstances. And while I can't find much to disagree with in your post, I don't see how it argues for letting our soldiers who went into Iraqi homes and intentionally slaughtered all occupants (men, women, and children) at close range, escape prosecution for murder.

Citing the war crimes of others, or claiming to have only been following orders, in order to escape prosecution for one's own such crimes was rejected at Nuremberg, and rightly so. That said, as far as I know there is no statute of limitations on war crimes, and I would agree that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others should stand trial for the genocide we have conducted in Iraq.

As to your question about the Shock & Awe bombers (I presume you're referring to the aviators who flew these missions) I would say that those responsible for selecting civilian populated target areas is/are much better candidate(s) for war crimes charges than the aviators who flew the missions.

Again, I think the Geneva Conventions are as good a guide as we've got for what is legal and what is not, and where there are known violations I would support prosecution. And if, as you stated in your first post, that "...this sort of thing would make it very difficult to have a war at all" is true, what better reason could there possibly be for doing it?