| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| This is the way it's done; We are the good guys. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 22 2006, 10:42 AM (198 Views) | |
| Post #1 Jan 22 2006, 10:42 AM |
|
|
Link to Yahoo article We are the good guys. As a group, we try to follow the rules. When one among us breaks them, we follow the rules to hold him responsible for his actions. That is what happened in this case. A warrant officer, out of the direct supervision of superior officers (who would have stopped him), interrogated an enemy officer, using a technique that resulted in death. Since it was forseeable that death could result, but not virtually certain, the court convicted him of the correct crime. I think the max sentence is a bit light, but that is a legislative policy issue. I'd like to see Congress up that max to 20 years. Based upon my knowledge, I'd give this guy 15 or 20 years. Being the good guys does not mean the every one of us follows every rule every time. It means that we do not tolerate violations of the rules of war and hold violators accountable. I think this exchange related in the article sums up the conflicting ideas on this issue:
We are the good guys. |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Jan 29 2006, 12:54 PM | TheHugeUnit |
| Ya i always looked at the United States as the World Police. I think we are doing the world a favor in stepping up to the plate to be it. |
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Jan 29 2006, 12:59 PM |
|
|
While we have to be careful not to arbitrarily impose our will on the world, we need to always try to do the right thing. Often that is perceived as imposing our will. BTW, welcome to Civility. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Jan 29 2006, 02:03 PM |
|
|
I don't want the US to be the World Police, but that does seem that that's what we are. I'm all for us fighting our own battles -- not someone else's. But, that's neither here nor there. I don't think the sentence was too light. Again, I put myself in that guy's position. He's probably had to many of his buddies blown to bits right in front of his eyes to be thinking straight. I can't honestly say that I wouldn't be on a killing spree in the same situation. I think I'd have a very hard time keeping a cool head in the same room with a known enemy. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The War on Terror · Next Topic » |
2:36 PM Feb 6