Backroom Errata

[Sarmatian]

I think that's the concern I identified. To try an individual is manageable (affordable), but if the organization bears culpability, that's ruinous to pursue to its logical conclusion.

We need specify are we talking about moral issues or legal practicality here.

From legal point of view, it doesn't really matter. Some countries, most notably USA, but also other powerful countries like Russia and China can do what they want with impunity. The international institutions are set up in such a way that they could never be held legally responsible, and even if they were by some miracle, it would be impossible to enforce such a ruling. Go back a few decades, every single American president was a war criminal. Who's gonna come over and arrest an American president?

A multipolar world might at least bring some semblance of equality as multiple centers of power would keep each other in check. On the other hand, it could go horribly wrong, see WW1.

So, I'm not very interested in legal issues, because of those reasons. I find moral aspects more important, and with those in mind, the marine involved was guilty. There was even no draft for the Iraqi war. He volunteered for service. If he sincerely didn't expect to be put in a situation where his life might be in danger than he had no grasp of reality.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A multipolar world might at least bring some semblance of equality as multiple centers of power would keep each other in check. On the other hand, it could go horribly wrong, see WW1.

For some reason, this only seems to balance when there are 5 clear powers. The development of more or the reduction from 5 seems to cause problems. Not quite sure how that seems to work out that way.

[Fragony]

So, I'm not very interested in legal issues, because of those reasons. I find moral aspects more important, and with those in mind, the marine involved was guilty. There was even no draft for the Iraqi war. He volunteered for service. If he sincerely didn't expect to be put in a situation where his life might be in danger than he had no grasp of reality.

If you say he commited a warcrime, basta, yo seem to be not interested in morality at all. Just musing, I think it really becomes a warcrime when it's an order, a stressed grunt shold be able to be trialed for manslaughter or murder, but only an officer for warcrimes

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you say he commited a warcrime, basta, yo seem to be not interested in morality at all. Just musing, I think it really becomes a warcrime when it's an order, a stressed grunt shold be able to be trialed for manslaughter or murder, but only an officer for warcrimes

Soldiers are responsible for their own actions. Officers are responsible for the actions they order of others AND their own actions.

[Montmorency]

This Current Affairs outfit is regularly producing good material:

here is a certain species of argument that is frequently raised in response to attempts to restrain the influence and power of corporations and the wealthy. It is, roughly: you will fail, therefore you should accept things as they are and not try to tamper with them. If you try to, say, issue some sort of new tax, you will be told that the wealthy will take their money offshore, with the implication that you should therefore not issue the tax.

Of course, it doesn’t necessarily imply that at all: the argument is a non sequitur, because “X alone won’t work” doesn’t necessarily mean “X shouldn’t be done,” it might just mean “X shouldn’t be done without also doing Y.” If the argument is “corporations will simply get around this new regulation,” that isn’t necessarily reason not to pass the regulation, it might just be reason to figure out ways to make sure you can enforce it effectively.

The funny thing about these “it won’t work” arguments is that they often make the case for revolutionary socialism just as well as they make the case for inaction. [...] The people who make these arguments want us to reach the conclusion “Don’t even bother…” but if we examine them carefully, we can see that they can equally well mean “Don’t even bother… doing anything short of totally changing the economic system.”

...conservative arguments almost never change. They tend to be variations on three themes: perversity, futility, and jeopardy. Perversity arguments are of the sort that say “this is immoral and goes against God’s will/tradition/the state/etc.” (Think culturally conservative arguments against homosexuality.) Jeopardy arguments suggest that some proposed change would jeopardize what we already have (“you’ll hurt the people you’re trying to help”). And futility arguments contend that it’s pointless to try to act, because you won’t succeed (futility and jeopardy are often used in conjunction: you’ll fail, and you’ll make things worse). The perversity, futility, jeopardy framework is very useful, because it allows us to recognize that conservative arguments are often formed prior to any examination of the facts: whatever the change is, we will be told that it is futile and will only make us worse off. That’s why there’s good reason to be skeptical of them. They may be correct, but it’s also frequently true that the speaker doesn’t really care whether they’re correct, because being a conservative means constantly saying that some proposed change will do no good, is an abomination, and will actually hurt the people you’re trying to help.

Note that Schoen might be right that refusing to criticize Wall Street makes “economic sense” for the party: if you criticize the rich, they are unlikely to donate to your cause. But Schoen is also telling us that we are essentially held hostage by Wall Street: if you tick them off, they’ll move their money to the other side, and then you’ll lose. It’s an admission that the United States is in no way democratic: it doesn’t matter what people want, it matters what Wall Street wants, because they have the money, and so the people have to please them. This is true regardless of whether the criticisms of Wall Street have merit; Schoen doesn’t really refute the charges that are made. Instead, his posture is pragmatic: it doesn’t matter whether you’re right, it matters that they have money and you don’t. Schoen decries the Democratic embrace of “stifling” regulations, meaning a refusal to let Wall Street do as it pleases without consequence.

The pattern of Schoen’s rhetoric is familiar: Resistance is futile. Wall Street is in charge, and you cannot tick them off. As I say, that may actually be true, and I’m not concerned to debate it here. But it’s amusing that people like Schoen think their arguments are somehow an endorsement of Wall Street, rather than an explanation of just how pernicious its stranglehold on political and economic life is.

[Husar]

Old news my friend.

[Montmorency]

Speaking of military crimes, here's a story about US Special Forces in Africa (Mali):

The accusation is that a Green Beret uncovered an embezzlement plot by two members of Seal Team Six to siphon funds allocated for informants and collaborators, the SEALs offered him a cut, he refused, they killed him and claimed it an accident of the victim's drunkenness. Yet he hadn't been drinking...

If true, these SEALs have disgraced their names before gods and men. AFAIK Military Justice is relatively diligent when it comes to rooting out and punishing violence in the ranks, so they will get to the bottom of things. Right?
@spmetla

[Husar]

Didn't the TV series of NCIS already have a story or two like that? Guess it's more realistic than I thought.

[spmetla]

Speaking of military crimes, here's a story about US Special Forces in Africa (Mali):

The accusation is that a Green Beret uncovered an embezzlement plot by two members of Seal Team Six to siphon funds allocated for informants and collaborators, the SEALs offered him a cut, he refused, they killed him and claimed it an accident of the victim's drunkenness. Yet he hadn't been drinking...

If true, these SEALs have disgraced their names before gods and men. AFAIK Military Justice is relatively diligent when it comes to rooting out and punishing violence in the ranks, so they will get to the bottom of things. Right?
@spmetla

They have certainly disgraced themselves. Military Justice usually has trouble when it's between the different branches. The SEAL community would normally close ranks and protect their own or it will hang them out to dry to avoid any looking into their other activities. All the SOF branches enjoy their relative freedom from bureaucracy and will do what they must to avoid any additional oversight.

The one 15-6 (investigation) I had to conduct on an SF Soldier proved inconclusive because they had already sent him out of the country as well as the female soldier he was having a relationship with and then wiped both their phones leaving me to conduct days of interviews of everybody but the Soldier and the female and ending with no actual evidence of their mutual acts of adultery.

Them lining their own pockets wouldn't surprise me, there are a lot of 'cowboys' in the SOF community. Them killing to keep it a secret though is incredibly surprising. The little I've seen of the SEAL community makes me think far less of them than Army SF because they start out as SEALs as their first job in the military while SF guys had some other job in the Army before trying out for selection. Means that SEALs tend to think of themselves as better than everyone else because they've never had to do time as a regular soldier and have gotten to foster their elite mentality from the day they pass their selection.

The SOF community does have a lot of dirty money connections though because they do have to work with tribal leaders, militias, smugglers and so on. Part of their effectiveness is their ability to essentially use their operational 'slush fund' more liberally without the receipts and inspections required for the rest of the military.

For this particular case though, with all the press coverage the two SEALs will probably have justice meted out to them very quickly so that the rest of the SOF community their can go back to work without being under the microscope as well as to quickly repair the relationship between Army SF and SEALs which undoubtedly has suffered a catastrophic loss of rapport between the two communities.

[Montmorency]

Speaking of military crimes, here's a story about US Special Forces in Africa (Mali):

The accusation is that a Green Beret uncovered an embezzlement plot by two members of Seal Team Six to siphon funds allocated for informants and collaborators, the SEALs offered him a cut, he refused, they killed him and claimed it an accident of the victim's drunkenness. Yet he hadn't been drinking...

If true, these SEALs have disgraced their names before gods and men. AFAIK Military Justice is relatively diligent when it comes to rooting out and punishing violence in the ranks, so they will get to the bottom of things. Right?
@spmetla

Heeey @spmetla, remember this?

Turns out it is murder.

THE NAVY HAS formally accused a member of SEAL Team 6 with choking a Green Beret to death last year, and then using his field medic skills to cut open the victim’s throat in an effort to fake a lifesaving technique and cover up the murder.

Melgar had reported to his chain of command that the two SEALs were stealing money from an operational fund used to pay informants

[Montmorency]

We need specify are we talking about moral issues or legal practicality here.

From legal point of view, it doesn't really matter. Some countries, most notably USA, but also other powerful countries like Russia and China can do what they want with impunity. The international institutions are set up in such a way that they could never be held legally responsible, and even if they were by some miracle, it would be impossible to enforce such a ruling. Go back a few decades, every single American president was a war criminal. Who's gonna come over and arrest an American president?

A multipolar world might at least bring some semblance of equality as multiple centers of power would keep each other in check. On the other hand, it could go horribly wrong, see WW1.

So, I'm not very interested in legal issues, because of those reasons. I find moral aspects more important, and with those in mind, the marine involved was guilty. There was even no draft for the Iraqi war. He volunteered for service. If he sincerely didn't expect to be put in a situation where his life might be in danger than he had no grasp of reality.

The moral issue is the same as the legal one in my original question to the thread, since the matter struck me as war-crimey and I'm asking how you all judge the legality.

My subsequent thoughts are speculating on why the official investigation came to a different conclusion.

That is, if successful courts-martial of the Marine and his comrade sets a precedent over the incident, then there isn't much to justify why that precedent shouldn't be pursued in likely similar incidents throughout the battle involving many other Marines and soldiers. Indeed, if it turns out the operating procedure developed for the battle was especially prone to encourage or demand actions that would frequently be criminal, you could move up to high-ranking officers, and eventually even the civilian leadership, who developed and approved these procedures.

Justice is easy to apply to 'isolated' cases, but if you take strict legalism to its logical conclusion the whole institution implodes - for example, as in your example of trying the POTUS for war crimes.