You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #49: Not Good Enough, Sir [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-03-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. Not Good Enough, Sir
Not nearly good enough.

There must be some component of reasonableness in the assessment of 'feeling' oneself under threat, otherwise that purported standard is a lisence to shoot at whim and phantoms, and plead "But I was scared, Sir!" to evade any consequence in aftermath. That plea deserves no more than a brisk slap, some grotesque sexual insult, and busting to the ranks if made by an NCO. If the command authority is setting the bar too low, as certainly seems to be the case here, whether in the interests of cover-up, or a misguided belief they deprive the enemy of propaganda points by not prosecuting, or an equally misguided belief doing so is a necessary safe-guard to morale among the rank and file, then that is a seperate problem, and into the bargain a seperate instance of criminality, for failure to prosecute violations of the Geneva Accords is itself a violation, establishing command responsibility for the actions of rank and file riflemen firmly onto the authority that does not prosecute.

By the Sergeant's own account, in storming the two houses, he made no identification of his target, and no attempt at reconnoiter: he simply heard several shots from that direction, and fixed on the nearest shelter as their source, without any real cause to do so but laziness of mind compounded by rage and fear. The second house stormed is even worse. Again, by the Sergeant's own words, he decided that armed men had fled there from the first house, though he never saw any armed men in the first house, or any sign such had ever been present there, nor did he claim, even, to have seen them flee the first house, or enter the second one. He was not at that time under fire, had seen no enemy combatant at all at any point, and simply cannot make a credible claim he was acting under imminent threat and taking the best steps possible to remove that threat.

Put bluntly, Sir, there really is no way around it: the man fucked up, he fucked up badly, and deserves a heavy sentence for sheer incompetence, let alone criminal behavior. The finding of a pack of officers to the contrary does not matter a tinker's damn to me....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC