Should the Marines just kill the husband of the pregnant woman now?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 1 2006, 10:05 AM) [snapback]263989[/snapback]</div>

How do you know he did not send them into harms way on purpose on a designed mission?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 1 2006, 10:31 AM) [snapback]263998[/snapback]</div>

No we should do neither. Life is full of mistakes. It is how you handle them that defines you and the system in which you operate.

I am currently questioning whether or not some type of restitution should be made to him if he is indeed fully innocent. That would be a real tragedy - I am sure the soldier who fired the rounds does not feel good about this either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 1 2006, 04:57 AM) [snapback]263954[/snapback]</div>

Oh this is rich! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Daniel is still lecturing us on “The Law” . . . :lol:

But we are still waiting for daniel's reply to his infamous . . .
“No semantics here. It is not against the law to enter without permission, and a person who enters undocumented has not broken any law. They cannot be charged with breaking any law. It is NOT against the laws of this country to be here undocumented.”
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&showtopi...ndpost&p=248848

It's now been over a month daniel . . . where's our answer????
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&showtopi...ndpost&p=249965
You promised!!! You are denying me a good laugh. :angry:

U.S. Uniform Code of Military Conduct???? :huh:
Sorry, wrong again, daniel.
It is the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
And I would bet you haven't read that one either. [I'm affraid daniel is going to say he has, and then start lecturing us on its contents ]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 1 2006, 04:57 AM) [snapback]263954[/snapback]</div>

This I must admit, I totally agree with daniel on this one.
For that scenario to come to reality, it would undoubtedly be the byproduct of a bunch of likemidned daniels having gained so much power in the US government that they succeeded in gutting the military and allowed the Talliban, Islamic Jihad, Al Quada and the rest to quickly conquer the United States. In that case I would hope Canada and the rest of NATO would come to our defense and attack and occupy America.

If I were to blame a Canadian soldier for killing my pregnant wife while she was running a check-point, I would consider “that” me a causality of war - in that I had been indoctrinated into radical Islam.

 

The problem with Daniel and Larkinmj and other like minded leftists is that they need to run and hide when confronted with arguments and facts that rip the facade off their beliefs or reveal them to be so far from what we as Americans think to be the center of thought.

I am still waiting for larkinmj to explain himself on his response to my post concerning the 200,000 strong Canadian public employee union's obvious anti-Semitism and Pro-Terror stance taken the other day. He won't for many reasons...

 

In ancient China, if you wanted to kill someone, it was standard practice to wipe out the person's entire family. Otherwise, any survivor would be sure to come after you. So by this standard, if you kill 2 year olds and 4 year olds, you better kill their whole families too just to be on the safe side. Let's just call it "preemptive collateral damage".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 1 2006, 05:21 AM) [snapback]263959[/snapback]</div>

Then why are they killing U.S. soldiers in ever-growing numbers?

That soldier has made a decision to travel halfway around the world to occupy a foreign country, he has armor and weapons.

The civilians were born there and have no way of getting out. They have no weapons and no armor.

The occupation is illegal. Citizens have a legal right to wage war against an illegal occupying army. But they're both stupid, because violence only leads to more violence in an ever-increasing spiral. And the stupidest of all are the morons who decided to take us into a war we cannot win and cannot afford.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 1 2006, 04:53 PM) [snapback]264335[/snapback]</div>

No. Only in YOUR Pollyanna military would the individual have the right to pick and choose which order they will follow. Upon enlisting, soldiers in the real US military made a decision to obey and carry out the orders of superiors and those of the President of the United States. .

“I, G.I Joe, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.â€

The civilians have no weapons and no armor?
If that is the case, then who is attacking our soldiers? What? Only “freedom fighters†who entered Iraq to repel the infidels? :huh: I don't think so.

A war we cannot win and cannot afford?
This is a war we cannot afford to lose. The consequences of cutting and running far outweigh the costs of finishing the job. The benefits of finishing the job also far outweigh the costs.

Imagine a Middle Eastern Islamic country, formerly headed by a tyrannical dictator, which has a freely elected government and no intention on invading its neighbors. The freedoms its citizens will enjoy will put pressure on the rest of the region to reform. . . . but no, you wish to cut and run.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ May 31 2006, 08:57 PM) [snapback]263842[/snapback]</div>

And your point is? If you're too stupid to respond to what I said and have nothing better to offer than inane name calling, then save your breath.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(unruhly @ May 31 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]263862[/snapback]</div>

First off, walking around gunning for civilians is not "civilian casualties" or even "collateral damage". It's simply a crime.

Secondly, the common grunt soldier is drawn from the lowest rungs of society (this is especially true in an all-volunteer force). Their level of "training" is irrelevant since that training, particularly in the Marines, is mostly about how to be an effective killer. What is relevant is the common soldier's capacity for truly hideous acts unless under direct supervision by older, wiser officers who know better and who can arrest or shoot the bastards under their command before they kill too many women and children.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 1 2006, 09:40 PM) [snapback]264393[/snapback]</div>

:lol: let the bashing begin!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 1 2006, 02:44 AM) [snapback]263938[/snapback]</div>

We're talking about battle situations, when the emotions of young, impulsive men get the better of them. We're not talking about making your bunk properly on the base. Do try to stay on topic. Military commanders often speak highly of "the men" and how wonderful they are; indeed, it's a cliche to wax poetic about their dedication and bravery. These same commanders, however, also understand the need for extremely tight discipline. Wellington certainly understood this and was one of the few generals honest enough to speak candidly about it. For a more contemporary treatment of the Marine ethos (from the inside) in particular, you might want read _Jarhead_, by Anthony Swofford.

I leave your name calling aside, since that speaks volumes about your own standards.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 1 2006, 09:40 PM) [snapback]264393[/snapback]</div>

So how do they both defend the Constitution from its domestic enemies such as President Bush AND follow the orders of President Bush at the same time? I guess they are just going to have to pick and choose.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 1 2006, 09:40 PM) [snapback]264393[/snapback]</div>

There is no such thing in "winning" in a "war" that by definition is never-ending.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 1 2006, 07:16 AM) [snapback]263991[/snapback]</div>

I think a lot of people are confusing the reported massacre and the checkpoint incident. I know from your statement that you clearly are talking about the checkpoint incident. Like the reported massacre, it evidently is a horrendous tragedy, but one that is probably much more common than the reported massacre. Innocents always seem to get killed in war, no matter how much the two sides try to adhere to the rules designed to minimize it.

I think the bigger question you pose, that no one has dared answer, is the value of preemption. You have framed the question brillantly, in my view, even though I suspect I don't agree with you politically. We have reason to believe the husband will seek revenge; should the Bush Preemption Doctrine apply?

The Bush Preemption Doctrine has to give us pause, even those of us on the right. The idea that a democracy should wage war preemptively, rather than as a retaliatory measure after an attack, is something we should all be considering carefully. I don't like it. Now, it may be necessary when we have good reason to believe that a weapon of mass destruction is being produced, with plans to unleash it on Americans. But as we've seen throughout history, our "intelligence" and "spy network" leaves a lot to be desired.

Should we kill the husband? No, we cannot. We have a moral imperative not to kill him. Should we preemptively jail him, or spirit him away to protect Americans he may harm? Without a specific threat, or violation, we should not. Our "intelligence" in this case is simply our intuition, and that's not good enough. We really have no evidence he will join the insurgency. If, and when he does, then we can take action.

Should we have gone to war against Iraq if the reason was to preemptively remove a threat of weapons of mass destruction? Does the husband represent Iraq in this analogy? It is nicely framed, and a very good challenge for those of us who (belatedly) support staying in Iraq and finishing the work there (even if we didn't agree to go in in the first place).

So here's my answer: our analogy of "husband = Iraq" falls apart because of the quality and specificity of the "intelligence" before the invasion of Iraq. The intelligence proved to be faulty, but it was there, and was persuasive enough for the Congress to vote to grant the President the power to use force. The husband's expected hatred of the US is simply a "common sense" theory, and that's not enough to wield the sword of preemption. You wouldn't get a majority of Congressmen to agree with jailing or killing the man.