Originally Posted by perseus

So you think everyone who hasn't been in combat should stay quiet about this and bury their head in the sand, how convenient! Is this what we call Brothers in arms? Perhaps you might feel differently if they came over here and did the same to our families Eh? Do we not have the right to talk about the Holocaust because we weren't in a concentration camp?

The conspiracy of silence on here is sickening to the extreme. Everyone has the right to condemn or everyone is in the firing line, ever heard of terrorism? If it makes me angry what do you think it does to them? Remember that the next time we have a terrorist incident in London and New York.

People say there are just a few bad apples, I can see that is not the case. Go on support one another, you only bring shame on yourselves.

What the massacre of young children has to do with mercy killing of a combatant, I have no idea!

Cool down sunshine!

What I´m saying is that civilians expect that soldiers behave rationally in all circumstances. You've never been so high on adrenaline that you are completely out of touch with your feelings. Believe me mate it is a daunting experience.

You know the phrase "crime of passion" a state of mind where you are temporarily insane. This condition can easily be induced under extreme conditions such as combat. If you for a long time have been in condition red you will eventually not respond rationally.

This is not an apology for what happened. But I have an understanding of why such things happen in combat. Those of us who have crossed the line know why such things happen. You must be a little less colored before you point fingers, it's not your normal everyday life out there.

There is no conspiracy but all of us who are or have been in the military have at some level been over the edge. It´s easy to walk the line back home in cozy little UK. In a warzone the line is blurry.

Originally Posted by 42RM

Cool down sunshine!

What I´m saying is that civilians expect that soldiers behave rationally in all circumstances. You've never been so high on adrenaline that you are completely out of touch with your feelings. Believe me mate it is a daunting experience.

You know the phrase "crime of passion" a state of mind where you are temporarily insane. This condition can easily be induced under extreme conditions such as combat. If you for a long time have been in condition red you will eventually not respond rationally.

This is not an apology for what happened. But I have an understanding of why such things happen in combat. Those of us who have crossed the line know why such things happen. You must be a little less colored before you point fingers, it's not your normal everyday life out there.

There is no conspiracy but all of us who are or have been in the military have at some level been over the edge. It´s easy to walk the line back home in cozy little UK. In a warzone the line is blurry.

You are right people behave irrationally at times of great stress and in cases this should be considered a mitigating circumstance but it is not unreasonable to expect that people pay for their crimes nor is it wrong to be disappointed when it is obvious that this has not happened.

The argument that civilians expect that soldiers behave rationally in all circumstances is not true nor is it relevant because what civilians expect is that everyone no matter what role they play in society will be subject to the same laws and punishments so while on the battlefield the line may be blurry in a court of law it isn't or at least shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by MontyB

You are right people behave irrationally at times of great stress and in cases this should be considered a mitigating circumstance but it is not unreasonable to expect that people pay for their crimes nor is it wrong to be disappointed when it is obvious that this has not happened.

The argument that civilians expect that soldiers behave rationally in all circumstances is not true nor is it relevant because what civilians expect is that everyone no matter what role they play in society will be subject to the same laws and punishments so while on the battlefield the line may be blurry in a court of law it isn't or at least shouldn't be.

And you don´t consider combat stress a mitigating circumstance.

mitigating yes, acquitting no.

Are you telling me that killing 24 unarmed civilians and attempting to cover it up is only worth a reduction in rank and 3 months pay?

In fact I even struggle to accept that this was a stress related incident given the elaborate cover up story used, basically if they were clear headed enough to enact an "acceptable" cover story they were clear headed enough not to pull the trigger.

Originally Posted by MontyB

mitigating yes, acquitting no.

Are you telling me that killing 24 unarmed civilians and attempting to cover it up is only worth a reduction in rank and 3 months pay?

In fact I even struggle to accept that this was a stress related incident given the elaborate cover up story used, basically if they were clear headed enough to enact an "acceptable" cover story they were clear headed enough not to pull the trigger.

I don´t defend the crime that was committed. But soldiers will commit such things under the influence of war.

Originally Posted by brinktk

Where was the leadership on this? I understand in the heat of combat emotions run high and soldiers are tempted to do things they would not normally do...that's why we have experienced leaders that are supposed to channel this aggression in the appropriate way...not unload on a bunch of civilians who were obviously not caught in the cross fire.

Exactly, and this is where I as an officer has a huge responsibility for such things not to happen.

What concerns me is not so much the event itself, but how others with military connections first try to ignore it, then try to minimise its significance through mitigating circumstances. There is no honour in this. I would have hoped, at a minimum, they would come clean, admitted this was a serious breach of law, justice was not served, and it risks severe reprisals. The attitude above is appalling and completely at odds with 90% of views even in right wing newspapers.

I doubt if this event is isolated either.

Lawyer Sergei Maksimov of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences thinks that the chances of a fair trial of this crime are bleak:

“Unfortunately, this is universal practice. Any state that has an army strives to protect its servicemen from criminal prosecution and to imbue soldiers with belief the that they must fulfill their military duty at any cost. The only true ‘guardian’ here is not criminal law, but conscience and faith. True, under the existing international convention crimes against peace and humanity carry a severe punishment. But one should hardly expect any fair investigation in this particular case unless it goes before an international tribunal, which is unlikely.”

Crimes against civilians during U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have actually become routine practice. No military expediency can justify the shooting of a wedding procession, which happened in 2008, or the regular abuse and torture of detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iran and the U.S. Guantanamo prison on Cuba. This is how Hakim al-Zamili, a member of the Iraqi parliament’s commission on defense and security, has reacted to what was virtually an acquittal of marine Wuterich:

“One can hardly call it a punishment. This is blatant disrespect for Iraqis and their spilt blood. It’s downright inhumane. The victims’ relatives will petition to the United Nations and other organizations for a tougher penalty.”

U.S. congressman John Murta has expressed concern over the verdict:
““The allegations are very troubling for me and equally troubling for our military, especially the Marine Corps.”

http://www.eurasiareview.com/2601201...ican-way-oped/

There is no honor in war. It is a tough, brutal and dirty craftsmanship. Civilians will be killed either accidentally or deliberately in war. Such is the Human nature.

I don't think anyone here is trying to minimize anything. This seems like a black and white issue for you when the rest of us who have been in combat know that there is no such thing. Remember, we don't have uniformed enemies in this fight. They could be anyone, kids throwing grenades into Humvees, women killing soldiers with sniper rifles, these things happen. When you go to a place for a year or more, are in a constant state of vigilence, take casualties, know that the local population is complicit to some extent...it makes a perfect storm for something like this to happen. I'm not condoning this action, I think every single leader in their chain of command up to the Battalion level should have been tried for this. This is a leadership issue. There is no way that this would have happened had the leadership been in touch with these guys.

This incident is the exception not the rule. This instance was an extraordinary circumstance among countless others who HAVE behaved and served honorably. I know guys who have done 4, 5, and 6 combat tours (at a year a piece or more) and continue to serve and commit themselves in the most honorable of ways. This is the rule...not the exception. So please don't assume there is this big conspiracy to let soldiers get over for war crimes, there isn't, we're just trying to say we can understand how these things can happen.

Originally Posted by brinktk

So please don't assume there is this big conspiracy to let soldiers get over for war crimes, there isn't, we're just trying to say we can understand how these things can happen.

But understanding is something that should stay out of justice. It was the court's duty to objectively look at what had happened and judge it on that basis. Then the punishment looks rather insignificant to what has been done.
So eventhough I too have understanding at the constant threat, the blurring of civilian versus civilian clad combatant etc., courts should not. They are for passing judgement based on facts. And all of a sudden 3 months, demoted to private and loss of pay don't seem that much. If I would accidentally kill 24 civilians, may punishment would be a lot worse (specially in the US). And we are all equal according to the law.... at least I hope so.

The current laws of war regarding civilian protection resulted from a process of treaty development that included nineteenth-century agreements to safeguard the sick and wounded, which were gradually extended in the twentieth century to prisoners of war and then to civilians caught in conflict. A cardinal rule of the existing framework insists that civilians may not be deliberately targeted, unless they participate directly in hostilities. The laws stipulate that military forces must direct their operations toward combatants and military objectives only and must conduct themselves in a manner that allows their adversaries to distinguish them from civilians by wearing uniforms, for example, or carrying arms openly. The drafters of the Geneva Conventions carefully delineated combatants and civilians to assist militaries in distinguishing between them. In addition, the conventions state that when in doubt, military forces should assume the targets are civilians and that some number of combatants among a civilian population does not render that civilian population a legitimate target.

This legal structure unfairly favors insurgents on the modern battlefield. Many of today's wars are fought in dense urban environments, largely between uniformed state militaries and guerrillas in civilian clothing. The problem is not that the rules inadequately protect civilians but that they provide too much protection for nonstate armed groups in this new type of war, on the mistaken assumption that civilians are always innocent bystanders.

Many civilians in modern wars are agents and not just bystanders, they aid and abet insurgents by storing their weapons, producing their propaganda, providing them with food and shelter, and even agreeing to act as civilian shields. It is no surprise that states such as the U.S. would expand the circle of "legitimate targets" to include civilians who assist insurgents, because it is otherwise difficult to see how they could successfully wage war at all.

Today we justify and sanitize civilian casualties by invoking the concept of "collateral damage" -- a military term used to describe regrettable but unintended, and therefore lawful, casualties of war. The notion that civilian deaths are permissible if unintended, has allowed militaries to whitewash the destructiveness of their operations. In other words, the existing laws of war, which prohibit intentional civilian targeting but permit "accidental" civilian deaths, are part of the problem. So, do the laws of war, then, need to be adapted to the current era, and if so, how?