US marine jailed for murdering a disabled man

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now here's a tough one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6152636.stm) for my principles.

US marine jailed for Iraq death
By David Willis
BBC News, Camp Pendleton, California

A US marine has received an 18-month prison sentence for his part in killing an unarmed man in Iraq.

Pte John Jodka is one of eight servicemen implicated in the attack seven months ago in Hamdania, in which a 52-year-old man died.

The judge said he would have sentenced Jodka to five years, but he was bound by a "very fortuitous" pre-trial deal.

Jodka, who apologised to the victim's family, is expected to give evidence against the other defendants.

They are expected to face murder charges, and they could face the death penalty if convicted.

By giving evidence against them, Pte Jodka stands to receive a general discharge from the marines, although the judge, Lt Col David Jones, said that he would have given him a dishonourable discharge.

At 20 years of age, Pte Jodka is the youngest and lowest-ranking member of a group of marines who were deployed in Iraq earlier this year.

It is alleged that the eight-strong team went looking for a suspected insurgent.

When they failed to find him the men became frustrated and dragged a disabled grandfather from his home, bound and beat him and then shot him to death.

In court, Pte Jodka apologised to the family of the Iraqi man who died and to fellow members of the Marine corps.

He also talked about conditions in Iraq, referring to the fear and frustration he and his colleagues felt there and telling the court that he often felt poorly trained for the duties he had been asked to undertake, including counter-terrorism.

A US Marine has been jailed for his part in the murder of a disabled Iraqi. He has got 18 months as a result of a plea bargain, and a general, not dishonourable discharge.

Now the Daily Mail wielding devil on my right shoulder is screaming "travesty of justice", "Fry him" etc for the amazingly horrid act of dragging a disabled grandfather to a beating and death - under the argument he might be an insurgent. Why should this person who demeaned his uniform and his humanity get to plea bargain at all, let alone for such a soft sentence?

Then the fluffy human rights hippy on my left shoulder wakes up and notes calmly that I have often argued that a) capital punishment is anathema and b) imprisonment should serve a purpose other than pure punishment. This young man is unlikely ever to transgress again outside the madhouse that is Iraq, and perhaps he can make a difference to society in his future. He perhaps should never have been put in that situation in the first place, so why should we take our frustrations at the wider failure out on this unfortunate?

On reflection, I feel that the sentence is actually just and appropriate, in the hope that he will go on and make something fine out of his blighted life, but that he should be discharged dishonourably and publicly to bring home the gravity of his offence. He has apologised to the family - perhaps it would be impossible for him to do so in person, but it would be ideal.

Perhaps you come to a different conclusion?

[Spetulhu]

Perhaps you come to a different conclusion?

Even if it's not a dishonorable discharge he's not likely to be accepted back in military service. That part's OK.

18 months jail after a plea bargain may sound light, but that's the deal that was made. Would anyone have been caught if this one marine suppressed his guilt and kept silent? If the answer is no then that's fine too.

[BDC]

Low ranking and young. He was just following what everyone else was doing.

Not that that's a real defence, but definately should be considered. And he's giving evidence against the others.

[Aenlic]

Rather than a dishonorable discharge, which I feel he should have received, he was given a general discharge instead. This in itself will have an effect on his future, just not as much as a dishonorable discharge would do. He did not receive an honorable discharge, and thus will not recieve many benefits which are given only to honorably discharged veterans, including things like the GI Bill. His DD-214, the document which shows his discharge status, will reflect his general discharge status forever.

Frankly I think it stinks that a general discharge was the result. At the very least he should have recieved a bad conduct discharge. But I suppose there is something to be said for testifying against the others.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I got mixed reations on this. I think the Jail Setenece is fine enough though.
Reading how the other Marnies could get the Death Pentaly really does make me Sick..Really does.. I'll stop here, don't want to get warn for my comments I not going to say....

[Tribesman]

Well lets see , murder , kidnap , conspiracy .
Lets call it 20-25 years hard labour with no early release .
That 'd be about fair .

Where are all the hang 'em high crowd this time ?
Or should I remind them that kidnap ending in murder was one of the crimes they said deserved the death penalty .

[KrooK]

Actually he should be sent to Hague where is place for war criminals.

[Major Robert Dump]

I do find it odd that on military forums I frequent military tribunals are "okay" for terrorist and enemy combatants, but not for Us soldiers. I find it amusing that people complain that the military judges issue gag orders etc, particularly when there was an entire platoon present but only a few of the soldiers are charges...erm, like, maybe the others testified against the guilty parties and the court is trying to keep them anonymous...but noooo, its always a conspiracy, theres no way these guys did this horrible crime right? americans never commit crimes, especially slodiers

theres actually a lot of speculation in the military community about this particular case, but the fact that many were present while only a few were charged speaks volumes for me

[Samurai Waki]

That is just the ugly face of war rearing it's head again. What he did, or perhaps his platoon did, was wrong in every meaning of the word. But things get crazy in a place where taking a step in the wrong direction can result in your death, or the death of a comrade. Eventually that frustration, and fear leads to episodes of extreme rage and psychosis, and things like this happen. It is unavoidable. I think the military emphasises to much on training a soldier to be a killing machine, that they forget to teach them about honor and decency. I know that there are many many good men in Iraq that already have those qualities at heart, but they aren't trained to rely on them in sed situations, its more of a training on a generalized level, rather than a personal one. And then people scratch their heads and wonder why a person could do such a thing. But I'll say this, if you took the average civilian and put them into a combat situation in Iraq, without any sort of military type training. They'd either piss themselves in fear, shoot themselves in the head, or kill any living being that comes within a mile of them.

I think a general discharge is a fair sentence. He did his time in Iraq, and screwed up royally, the rules change in a warzone I'm afraid.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Actually Krook the Hague should never see an American soldier. ~:rolleyes:

[mystic brew]

to argue these things happen in war is not ok.
what about the vast majority of soldiers who manage to not commit war crimes? By saying this is in some way acceptable, even in a high stress enivronment we tar every soldier with the tag of murderer.
But to argue we should let war crimes slide because they occur during, well... war is a monstrous abrogation of everything our justice system holds to be true. Not to mention it violates every military rule.
the ROE are explicit and clear. That the incident occured in a high stress situation excuses nothing. we must stress your actions are your own responsibility.

however, as an opponent of the death penalty, i'm not keen on that aspect.

[Spetulhu]

Actually Krook the Hague should never see an American soldier. ~:rolleyes:

The Hague is for those cases where the accused party's own government isn't doing anything about him. This case is being handled by the proper authorities. No reason to bother other courts with it.

[Kralizec]

The USA signed the statutes of the Hague tribunal under Clinton (in his late presidency), but it was never ratified. They're thus not binded and therefore no US soldiers would or should be tried in the tribunal.

It didn't stop the USA from passing The Hague Invasion act, though.

[ezrider]

Now here's a tough one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6152636.stm) for my principles.

A US Marine has been jailed for his part in the murder of a disabled Iraqi. He has got 18 months as a result of a plea bargain, and a general, not dishonourable discharge.

Now the Daily Mail wielding devil on my right shoulder is screaming "travesty of justice", "Fry him" etc for the amazingly horrid act of dragging a disabled grandfather to a beating and death - under the argument he might be an insurgent. Why should this person who demeaned his uniform and his humanity get to plea bargain at all, let alone for such a soft sentence?

!Demeaning his uniform! - he brutally murdered a disabled man out of childish frustration.



Then the fluffy human rights hippy on my left shoulder wakes up and notes calmly that I have often argued that a) capital punishment is anathema and b) imprisonment should serve a purpose other than pure punishment.
This young man is unlikely ever to transgress again outside the madhouse that is Iraq
Thats a shameful excuse.


He perhaps should never have been put in that situation in the first place, so why should we take our frustrations at the wider failure out on this unfortunate?
- These guys are Marines. You can't just join the Marines, its an achivement to get in there and their job to be in combat zones. He wanted to go to war, he wanted to be in Iraq and wanted to kill that man.
- Why did that soldier take out his fraustrations on the poor Iraqi who shouldn't have to live in that situation either.



On reflection, I feel that the sentence is actually just and appropriate

What happened to you sense of justice? I know you don't support the Death penalty but 18 months in jail is what people get for stealing cars or selling weed. This man is a murderer. He should get a murderers sentance.


He has apologised to the family - perhaps it would be impossible for him to do so in person, but it would be ideal.
Atonement is a Christian buzz. It would make him feel better and alleviate his guilt with the "at least I apologized" bit.

This decision demeans the memory of this victim, and all the victims of war crimes.

[Redleg]

The Hague is for those cases where the accused party's own government isn't doing anything about him. This case is being handled by the proper authorities. No reason to bother other courts with it.

This is also my understanding.

[Banquo's Ghost]

ezrider, you make some interesting points, if harshly. :smile:


!Demeaning his uniform! - he brutally murdered a disabled man out of childish frustration.

You may note that I wrote that he demeaned his uniform and his humanity. In the context of my own background as a soldier, the uniform/regiment stands for a tradition - letting down that tradition is a great transgression, at least to a soldier. Letting down his common humanity is the wider transgression against society.


Thats a shameful excuse.

I'm sorry that you concluded that I was excusing his conduct. My post was to examine my own conflicting urges in response to the story. My first reaction was like yours - outrage. Yet I have often argued on the forum that imprisonment should serve a purpose other than retribution. There should be rehabilitation into society. Now, I can see why I would favour Tribesman's sentence of life with hard labour without possibility of parole. The crime, of itself, certainly justifies such a draconian measure.

But having been in combat myself, and reading about the pressures these soldiers are under, I would also argue to myself that there are perhaps extenuating circumstances that might justify his release at some point. Since I have often argued that if you are going to release someone, you should do it so that they can contribute once more to society rather than as a brutalised wreck, I can then reflect on what might be best for society. This young man has made a colossal error, under the influence of peer pressure. He has made some measure of atonement by testifying and thus bringing more culpable persons to justice. Is he likely to do murder again? Unlikely. So what purpose is served by ruining his life much further?

I would be hypocritical if I now revert to vengeance-style punishment of the type I have argued against - especially since I suspect it would be rooted in my abhorrence of the war in Iraq - of which this soldier's circumstance is a symptom - rather than a sense of justice.

I have never allowed myself to be seduced by the "victim's vengeance" argument, and I do not intend to start just because the criminal here is an American soldier. I also don't know the full details of the actual events, and must place some degree of trust in the judge.



- These guys are Marines. You can't just join the Marines, its an achivement to get in there and their job to be in combat zones. He wanted to go to war, he wanted to be in Iraq and wanted to kill that man.
- Why did that soldier take out his fraustrations on the poor Iraqi who shouldn't have to live in that situation either.

Some of this I agree with, but I cannot be so sure as you that he wanted to kill that man. I suspect he wanted to achieve his mission, which was about finding an insurgent, and got carried away with the others. I suspect his officer is actually far more culpable, though that does not deny his personal responsibility. I certainly agree with the argument that the Iraqi shouldn't have to be in that danger in the first place, but that is a political argument and what has happened, has happened. The soldier is a casualty of idiotic policy too.


What happened to you sense of justice? I know you don't support the Death penalty but 18 months in jail is what people get for stealing cars or selling weed. This man is a murderer. He should get a murderers sentance.

My sense of justice is exactly what this is about. Justice is cold and thoughtful, based on evidence, and not influenced by personal politics. I posted my own struggle with balancing vengeance and analysis, and do not claim I am right. But I can see why the judge came to his conclusions, and I can find my own internal consistency with my own principles, which I know many do not share.



Atonement is a Christian buzz. It would make him feel better and alleviate his guilt with the "at least I apologized" bit.

This decision demeans the memory of this victim, and all the victims of war crimes.

Your idea that atonement and forgiveness are purely Christian "buzzes" is nonsense. Reconciliation through truth and understanding is a universal concept, perhaps one of the finest defining concepts of mankind. Vengeance is the pyre on which humanity burns. That is why I have issue with capital punishment and knee-jerk "burn the criminals" arguments. As noted above, I believe that a person can be rehabilitated in the right supportive and educational atmosphere, and that this should be our first aim - otherwise we should put every criminal behind bars, for ever.

War crimes are notoriously difficult to judge and sentence. Not least when it comes down to the lowest level of the chain of command.

Now, get Don Rumsfeld in front of the beak and you'll soon see how "hang-'em-high" I can get. :bounce:

[KukriKhan]

From Navy Times (http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2363641.php)


... Marine Pfc. John J. Jodka III, of Encinitas, Calif., was sentenced Wednesday to 18 months in custody after pleading guilty to reduced charges of aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Given that they reduced the charges to what one might expect for a bar brawl and cover-up, 18 months sounds right.

Anyone have info on a Status Of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi gov't, dictating who gets to try such crimes? In other words, are there any conditions under which a US soldier/Marine could/would be tried in an Iraqi court vs a US Court-Martial? (I'm just guessing that the puishment might have been more severe coming from a local court).

And I wonder how this is playing in Hamdania. Do those folks think Justice is served?

EDIT: and just to muddy the waters a bit more: Is anyone else worried about the longer-term effect this war is having on our combat troops? I mean we're taking war-fighters (riflemen) and giving them police-type tasks ("Go stake out and apprehend this guy"). Are we 'blunting the bayonet' , using a sledge-hammer for a job that calls for a screw-driver? What happens the next time this guy's Battalion is called on to actually assault a position - do they balk? Or fight?

[ezrider]

I apologise for being reactionary before. I didn't express my opinions in the way I would have liked.
regarding the first response: "demeaning his Uniform", given your military background, I can see how that is important. I personally think that demeaning ones uniform is less important than the shame of committing a cowardly act of violence.

2nd: I still think that rationalising an violent act due to peer/situational pressure and stress gives a way out for violent sociopaths. The crime should have a fixed sentence with the chance of parole dependant on circumstances.
3rd: This was mostly just spouting. I can't be sure he wanted to kill anyone but you can't coddle marines for being stressed out.
I agree that justice is about the facts and evidence. He did plead guilty to the crime but that doesn't make you any less guilty or worthy of a reduced sentence because you were honest.

Ok atonement my not be just a Christian "Buzz" (I really regret using that word) but it is the basis of Christianity. Muslims in Iraq don't seem to be big on atonement or forgiveness at the moment. I doubt the old mans family would take much solace from an apology, especially in writing.

rehabilitation of criminals is one of the classic liberal beliefs. I'm not saying its not possible but you can't rehabilitate anyone in 18 months. It would take a couple of years to rehabilitate the troops that haven't committed any crimes when they get back to civvie street, let alone a man who has comitted serious crimes.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I do find it odd that on military forums I frequent military tribunals are "okay" for terrorist and enemy combatants, but not for Us soldiers. I find it amusing that people complain that the military judges issue gag orders etc, particularly when there was an entire platoon present but only a few of the soldiers are charges...erm, like, maybe the others testified against the guilty parties and the court is trying to keep them anonymous...but noooo, its always a conspiracy, theres no way these guys did this horrible crime right? americans never commit crimes, especially slodiers

theres actually a lot of speculation in the military community about this particular case, but the fact that many were present while only a few were charged speaks volumes for me


Ok, Well, Makes me Sick. How Can, These SOB enemy vombatants we have, not be tried already, but yet, if a US Marine kills a Man, Oh my Lord, They hurry up and have a Trial? Something is Wrong with That.



People, It's War. W,A,R, War. Deal with it. It's ok if the combants they a US Marine or a Journlist and chop their head off, but it's not ok for a Sqaurd of Marines to kill 20 people in revange? Well, People here who think that is wrong need Help. To Me, if I was the Judge, I would say "There is no Case". To Me, They,the combatans want to Kill Civianlins, Iraqi People, British People (reember subway bombings) and US people (See 9/11) then, it's payback. You Kill one of us, then we kill one of you guys, that how it works IMO.


And this Comment is True

"he rules change in a warzone"

There Is NO Rules in War. Don't you dare say the Genvea Convanstion. That is such the Biggest JOKE ever. One is "non-Combatans should not b killed"

but in every War, non-Combatans been Killed. From the Civil War, to WW1, to Now, Every War, so, That is the Biggest Joke.


and Tribesman,, he did what he had to do,period.

[Kralizec]

Ok, Well, Makes me Sick. How Can, These SOB enemy vombatants we have, not be tried already, but yet, if a US Marine kills a Man, Oh my Lord, They hurry up and have a Trial? Something is Wrong with That.



People, It's War. W,A,R, War. Deal with it. It's ok if the combants they a US Marine or a Journlist and chop their head off, but it's not ok for a Sqaurd of Marines to kill 20 people in revange? Well, People here who think that is wrong need Help. To Me, if I was the Judge, I would say "There is no Case". To Me, They,the combatans want to Kill Civianlins, Iraqi People, British People (reember subway bombings) and US people (See 9/11) then, it's payback. You Kill one of us, then we kill one of you guys, that how it works IMO.


And this Comment is True

"he rules change in a warzone"

There Is NO Rules in War. Don't you dare say the Genvea Convanstion. That is such the Biggest JOKE ever. One is "non-Combatans should not b killed"

but in every War, non-Combatans been Killed. From the Civil War, to WW1, to Now, Every War, so, That is the Biggest Joke.


and Tribesman,, he did what he had to do,period.

Holy smoke :inquisitive:

[Ser Clegane]

To Me, They,the combatans want to Kill Civianlins, Iraqi People, British People (reember subway bombings) and US people (See 9/11) then, it's payback. You Kill one of us, then we kill one of you guys, that how it works IMO.
The point is that they were not killing an insurgent but just the next Iraqi they could get hold of.

Again I can only suggest that you read what has been posted before responding.

[Redleg]

Ok, Well, Makes me Sick. How Can, These SOB enemy vombatants we have, not be tried already, but yet, if a US Marine kills a Man, Oh my Lord, They hurry up and have a Trial? Something is Wrong with That.

Military justice on soldiers within the Military is pretty much cut and dry in its procedures. And this didn't just get hurried up and done with. The time line is something like 6 monthes or more. In fact within the UCMJ, when charges are first brought upon the soldier, the clock starts ticking. What this trail demonstrates is that the adminstration of justice on the charges of the illegal combatants in Gitmo are indeed taking to long.



People, It's War. W,A,R, War. Deal with it. It's ok if the combants they a US Marine or a Journlist and chop their head off, but it's not ok for a Sqaurd of Marines to kill 20 people in revange? Well, People here who think that is wrong need Help. To Me, if I was the Judge, I would say "There is no Case". To Me, They,the combatans want to Kill Civianlins, Iraqi People, British People (reember subway bombings) and US people (See 9/11) then, it's payback. You Kill one of us, then we kill one of you guys, that how it works IMO.


This is incorrect. Soldiers, Marines, Airman, and Sailors must abid by the Rules of War as stipulated in the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the subsequent adjustments to that convention. All servicemen are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and guess what, in that manual it has rules against the behavior the marine was charged with. Just because your in war does not excuse criminal behavior. Things happen in war, that is correct, but if the behavior crosses a certain line, then the individual can not not use war to excuse his actions and escape criminal prosecution. The Judge and the sentence can take the effects that war has on the individual as a mitigating circumstance when passing sentence, but in determining guilt in regards to a battlefield crime - war is no excuse.



And this Comment is True

"he rules change in a warzone"


Incorrect - the rules of engagement adjust to meet the circumstances of the conflict, the Rules of War have been consistent since their inception based upon the Hague Conventions of 1907.




There Is NO Rules in War. Don't you dare say the Genvea Convanstion. That is such the Biggest JOKE ever. One is "non-Combatans should not b killed"


Geneva Conventions deal with the treatment of prisoners and civilians. The Hague Conventions deal with the Rules of War. The Geneva Conventions are not a joke, they were and are needed to provide guidelines for human treatment of prisoners of war. Just because your oppenent does not follow the conventions is no excuse for you to break them. Now Gitmo is in that shadow grey area for both sides, The prisoners are in the grey area, and the treatment is in the grey area.



but in every War, non-Combatans been Killed. From the Civil War, to WW1, to Now, Every War, so, That is the Biggest Joke.


Correct, the difference is was it done as a murder or was it the unfornate side effect of the battle happening in an area where the civilians could not get out of the way. There is a major difference between the two.



and Tribesman,, he did what he had to do,period.

Obviousily not, since he felt remorse about the act, has cooperated with the military justice system, and has apolgized for is incorrect actions.

Edit: Having been in war, remorse is a part of every battle. Before you respond I suggest you search the web to find an online copy and interpations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This site has some of what you will need to understand why the system works the way it does.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

[Kralizec]

I've got to hand it to you Redleg, there was so much wrong with that post that I didn't even want to touch it. Good post.

[Redleg]

I've got to hand it to you Redleg, there was so much wrong with that post that I didn't even want to touch it. Good post.

Thanks. Personally I think the Military Judge should of went with what he wanted versus the plea deal, but I don't know all the details. So its obvious to me, from knowing the system and how it works, this marine will probably be critical to the prosecution of others. If an officer was present and did not stop this event, He deserves to be stripped of his commission and spend a half decade of his life at Leavenworth.

[Major Robert Dump]

Red is right about the plea deal in exchange for testimony against the others. This has already happened with the infantry platoon accused of raping the young girl and killing her family.

While this practice does make people cringe, while it does make the witnesses seem tainted and traitorous, unfortunately its a necessary evil if you want to get the job done. There may also be US witnesses who aren't being charged with anything, which explains why the case is so hush-hush and the accused are not fully aware of who their accusers are, and will not face them all in court. If I were a soldier who witnessed something horrible committed by a fellow soldier, one of the primary reasons I might hesitate to report it would be loss of faith and trust from other soldiers. No one wants to be the tattle-tale, especially in a warzone.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Military justice on soldiers within the Military is pretty much cut and dry in its procedures. And this didn't just get hurried up and done with. The time line is something like 6 monthes or more. In fact within the UCMJ, when charges are first brought upon the soldier, the clock starts ticking. What this trail demonstrates is that the adminstration of justice on the charges of the illegal combatants in Gitmo are indeed taking to long.



This is incorrect. Soldiers, Marines, Airman, and Sailors must abid by the Rules of War as stipulated in the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the subsequent adjustments to that convention. All servicemen are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and guess what, in that manual it has rules against the behavior the marine was charged with. Just because your in war does not excuse criminal behavior. Things happen in war, that is correct, but if the behavior crosses a certain line, then the individual can not not use war to excuse his actions and escape criminal prosecution. The Judge and the sentence can take the effects that war has on the individual as a mitigating circumstance when passing sentence, but in determining guilt in regards to a battlefield crime - war is no excuse.



Incorrect - the rules of engagement adjust to meet the circumstances of the conflict, the Rules of War have been consistent since their inception based upon the Hague Conventions of 1907.




Geneva Conventions deal with the treatment of prisoners and civilians. The Hague Conventions deal with the Rules of War. The Geneva Conventions are not a joke, they were and are needed to provide guidelines for human treatment of prisoners of war. Just because your oppenent does not follow the conventions is no excuse for you to break them. Now Gitmo is in that shadow grey area for both sides, The prisoners are in the grey area, and the treatment is in the grey area.



Correct, the difference is was it done as a murder or was it the unfornate side effect of the battle happening in an area where the civilians could not get out of the way. There is a major difference between the two.



Obviousily not, since he felt remorse about the act, has cooperated with the military justice system, and has apolgized for is incorrect actions.

Edit: Having been in war, remorse is a part of every battle. Before you respond I suggest you search the web to find an online copy and interpations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This site has some of what you will need to understand why the system works the way it does.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm


Good post, but I am aware of the Rules of War, or I won't have posted what I did Red.


"st because your oppenent does not follow the conventions is no excuse for you to break them. Now Gitmo is in that shadow grey area for both sides, The prisoners are in the grey area, and the treatment is in the grey area."

Yes it Does. Yes it Does Red. You Fight the War to Win, not to Be Nice, not to Play "lets follow the Rules". If your oppenent captures and tortures US marnies and other people, then you do the Same, I think this Argument here is done.



And Ser

I direct your own comment to you, so Please don't start again with me,really.


"Again I can only suggest that you read what has been posted before responding."

[mystic brew]

Yes it Does. Yes it Does Red. You Fight the War to Win, not to Be Nice, not to Play "lets follow the Rules". If your oppenent captures and tortures US marnies and other people, then you do the Same, I think this Argument here is done.
And how do you win an insurgency... is it perhaps by winning hearts and minds? or by promoting the rule of law? By persuading the populace that it's you who offer them stability and respect, rather than the ruthless, brutal extremists...

Yes, you fight to win. Of course you do.
But you fight smart.

But in this case, what does winning mean?
In every war on a strategic you operate NOT to minimize the loss of individual soldiers in every situation, you operate to minimize the overall loss of your soldiers, and further your national interests. That's the nature of fighting. If you advocate a slaughterhouse, kidnap and murder, then how long do you think your allies will stick around. Sacrifice the moral high ground to this extent and you betray the vast majority of soldiers who do believe in helping the Iraqis...

The average person in Iraq wants stability and safety at this point, and the US' best hope of minimising overall loses is to help them create that stability. So far the US' expeditions into dubious moral areas at Abu-Ghraib and Guantanemo Bay have cost them sympathy and support, and caused outrage across the Muslim world.

[Ser Clegane]

If your oppenent captures and tortures US marnies and other people, then you do the Same, I think this Argument here is done.

Ah ... now I see your logic:
If your opponent captures and tortures other people (i.e. Iraqi civilians) you retaliate by also capturing and torturing other people (i.e. Iraqi civilians)

I guess that will teach those insurgents a lesson...

[Redleg]

Good post, but I am aware of the Rules of War, or I won't have posted what I did Red.

Then your post makes even less sense given the nature of the comment of
There Is NO Rules in War. Don't you dare say the Genvea Convanstion. That is such the Biggest JOKE ever. One is "non-Combatans should not b killed"





"st because your oppenent does not follow the conventions is no excuse for you to break them. Now Gitmo is in that shadow grey area for both sides, The prisoners are in the grey area, and the treatment is in the grey area."

Yes it Does. Yes it Does Red. You Fight the War to Win, not to Be Nice, not to Play "lets follow the Rules". If your oppenent captures and tortures US marnies and other people, then you do the Same, I think this Argument here is done.



Your view is wrong, nor is it consistent with Military Doctrine in which in military of the United States fights under.

[Husar]

You Fight the War to Win, not to Be Nice, not to Play "lets follow the Rules".
I want you to say that again once China or North Korea or anyone drops a chemical or biological weapon onto your village/city that kills you in the most cruel way you could think of...:thumbsdown:

[Tribesman]

Well now, I had said all I intended to say on this subject , but a strange request has wheeled its way through that internets thingy to me .

So from our temporarily absent devastator from down Georgia way......



"I completely agree with Tribes. He should have recieved a much more harsh sentence than what he got".

If need be, copy and past this PM. Thank you my old nemesis.

[KukriKhan]

Good post, but I am aware of the Rules of War, or I won't have posted what I did...

But it isn't a war, is it? If it were, Congress would have declared it one, as they (alone) have the power to do under Article I, section 8, of the US Constitution.

This is something; a "police action" maybe, like Korea in the 50's. But it ain't a war.

A war would have the entire country on a war-footing. Industry would be cranking out weaponry, grade school kids would be selling war bonds, you would be thinking about the Draft, Hollywood would be selling the war to the populace, women would stop wearing nylons, men would be trying to figure out how they could best help the effort, lines outside recruitment offices would be 2 miles long...

But none of that is happening, is it? So the Rules of War you think you know, have nothing to do with what has happened or is happening in Iraq.

With extreme sadness, I regret to inform you: my generation has failed you.

As my father's and grandfather's and his great-grandfather's generation failed as well.

We try to make rules to lessen our tendancy to kill, and sometimes we obey those laws. But mostly, we don't.

We'd kinda hoped that you and your generation might come up with a bright idea or two that would maybe make a world where Mike, Abdul, Hans, Xiang, and Kunta could get along without killing each other.

Hell, I still hope. Maybe you're the guy.

[Shahed]

Now here's a tough one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6152636.stm) for my principles.

US marine jailed for Iraq death
By David Willis
BBC News, Camp Pendleton, California

A US marine has received an 18-month prison sentence for his part in killing an unarmed man in Iraq.

Pte John Jodka is one of eight servicemen implicated in the attack seven months ago in Hamdania, in which a 52-year-old man died.

The judge said he would have sentenced Jodka to five years, but he was bound by a "very fortuitous" pre-trial deal.

Jodka, who apologised to the victim's family, is expected to give evidence against the other defendants.

They are expected to face murder charges, and they could face the death penalty if convicted.

By giving evidence against them, Pte Jodka stands to receive a general discharge from the marines, although the judge, Lt Col David Jones, said that he would have given him a dishonourable discharge.

At 20 years of age, Pte Jodka is the youngest and lowest-ranking member of a group of marines who were deployed in Iraq earlier this year.

It is alleged that the eight-strong team went looking for a suspected insurgent.

When they failed to find him the men became frustrated and dragged a disabled grandfather from his home, bound and beat him and then shot him to death.

In court, Pte Jodka apologised to the family of the Iraqi man who died and to fellow members of the Marine corps.

He also talked about conditions in Iraq, referring to the fear and frustration he and his colleagues felt there and telling the court that he often felt poorly trained for the duties he had been asked to undertake, including counter-terrorism.

A US Marine has been jailed for his part in the murder of a disabled Iraqi. He has got 18 months as a result of a plea bargain, and a general, not dishonourable discharge.

Now the Daily Mail wielding devil on my right shoulder is screaming "travesty of justice", "Fry him" etc for the amazingly horrid act of dragging a disabled grandfather to a beating and death - under the argument he might be an insurgent. Why should this person who demeaned his uniform and his humanity get to plea bargain at all, let alone for such a soft sentence?

Then the fluffy human rights hippy on my left shoulder wakes up and notes calmly that I have often argued that a) capital punishment is anathema and b) imprisonment should serve a purpose other than pure punishment. This young man is unlikely ever to transgress again outside the madhouse that is Iraq, and perhaps he can make a difference to society in his future. He perhaps should never have been put in that situation in the first place, so why should we take our frustrations at the wider failure out on this unfortunate?

On reflection, I feel that the sentence is actually just and appropriate, in the hope that he will go on and make something fine out of his blighted life, but that he should be discharged dishonourably and publicly to bring home the gravity of his offence. He has apologised to the family - perhaps it would be impossible for him to do so in person, but it would be ideal.

Perhaps you come to a different conclusion?

Well look here if you want a different conclusion, pretend that he came to your grandfather and they did this to him.

They beat YOUR grandfather, then they SHOT and KILLED... YOUR grandfather.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well look here if you want a different conclusion, pretend that he came to your grandfather and they did this to him.

They beat YOUR grandfather, then they SHOT and KILLED... YOUR grandfather.

No doubt I would be hurt and emotional, and react with unthinking hatred.

Which would disqualify me from any participation in the judicial process of the case.

Don't you think? :inquisitive:

[rory_20_uk]

Try him.

If guilty, shoot him.

~:smoking: