MSN Q / day: Should troops ever be charged with murder during combat?

[Maru Kitteh]

To vote, click here.

My view yes, of course yes. Some deviant sick asshole that picks off civilians like a redneck shooting prairie dogs? Yes it happens and yes they must be charged and justice done.

Looks like it's being freeped too.

[bobthedrummer]

1. Sure if civilians are involved, non combatants.

[bryant69]

2. What a crappy question

It's contextless, so any answer will largely be meaningless.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[wtbymark]

3. yea, the freepers are on it

29% yes 71% no

[malmapus]

4. Problem is you don't know who is a civi or not in certain situations

I have to respectfully disagree with folks on this one, I'm ready to be flamed as well.

But I know this from personal experience..

Being in combat you don't have time to think, if a soldier ends up second guessing if someone in the area is a combatant or non-combatant and worrying about being charged for muder if they are wrong, then either they end up dead or their buddies do.

[northzax]

10. indeed, there is a 'fog of war' arguement to be made

but there can also be deliberate targeting of civilian populations unexplainable by the fog of war, or the deliberate execution of surrendering opponents that is inexcusable by 'fog of war' arguements.

Basically, what I'm saying is that civilians are killed in wars, it sucks, but it's true, and those incidental casualties are not to be blamed on the individual soldiers any more than the casualties of combatants. But, say, throwing a grenade into a room full of people when you don't have any real reason to suspect there are combatants there is murder, and should be prosecuted.

[Maru Kitteh]

11. I certainly won't be flaming you

but I do disagree. "Combat" is too loose a term, and gets used to cover too many acts not of duty or self preservation but sadism and hate. I think we've all seen that.

Thats why the word EVER is important in that sentance.

[atreides1]

12. So It's Okay to Murder

As long as you can find an excuse, only you can't say you were following orders, all you have to do now is to say "it was combat and I didn't have time to think".

I really am sorry for killing that pregnant woman, but she might have been carrying weapons under her dress, I'm sorry for throwing
a hand grenade into that house and killing that family, but it was combat.

In combat you do have time to think, it isn't much and the decision you make will either be the right one or the wrong one. You can wait
for that one second and not kill a child, or you can just point the barrel, pull the trigger.

And once we start killing civilians and covering it up with "it was a combat situation", too late, the troops are already doing that, and getting away with it.

My question to you is this, how many civilians do you think a soldier
should be able to kill, before even you call it murder?

[malmapus]

15. I can't answer that

EDIT: self deleting just too many personal demons on this subject

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[malmapus]

23. because the countries I was in had no military to speak of

Somalia you had the warlords with their gaggle of armed militia who apart from having various weapons looked like the rest of the populace.

Haiti it was "secret police" who didn't wear uniforms. At first these guys were in constant shootouts with supporters of Aristede. But afterwards when they were outnumbered began taking pot shots at us and getting more ballsy afterwards.

[Montauk6]

5. As much as I loathe war, I must disagree

In the event of a war, imho, all liability for whatever casualties/deaths occur should be shouldered SOLELY by the policymakers who created the scenario in the first place. The problem is that war no longer takes place on designated areas of open fields with trenches like in the old days; we now go into neighborhoods and downtown areas.

So, every person who was instrumental in sending troops to Iraq should stand trial for ALL atrocities committed. Not the grunt.

Edit: Oh, I voted no too for the above reasons and not because I'm a freeper (which I'm not).

[malmapus]

7. I agree with you

Grunts should not be charged, its the policy makers who put them there in those situations who should face the consequences of what happens.

[TahitiNut]

6. While we all agree there's a "line" ....

... I think those of us who've served in a combat zone would probably agree that the "line" isn't where Jody might think it is. It's impossible to rationally deal with the utter insanity of a combat zone. One thing's for sure: the "leadership" is far more culpable than they've ever been held accountable. Even at Nuremberg.

[Cuban_Liberal]

8. Totally agree, TahitiNut.

:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

13. Thanks. I think it's fascinating to indulge in some conjecture.

How many, do you suppose, of those who answered "No" to the question of whether troops should ever be charged with murder during combat, were among those who attacked Kerry's service in Vietnam and alleged that he murdered a VC or that he didn't deserve a Purple Heart? If, as I suppose, there are quite a few ... then I think they should turn in their brains under the "lemon laws."
:evilgrin:

[ComerPerro]

9. What a leading question

Not specific enough. At all

[Maru Kitteh]

18. Yeah, I like the 9-11 refrence in it too

:eyes:

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. It's a stupid poll question to use an absolute like that

I've never been in combat, but I think it's ridiculous to give a definite 'yes' or 'no' answer with this one. Just when the 'no' becomes policy, some situation happens where it's seems pretty clear murder took place.

So, GENERALLY, I'd say no. But I'd still hate to see it taken as an absolute that a marine or soldier cannot be tried for murder while in combat...that is, if his/her actions warrant a case for them to be tried.

[TahitiNut]

16. Well, not when they frag the officers ... nope.

:evilgrin: After all, if they're immune from such charges, why should they be charged for blowing away some arrogant asshole wearing bars or leafs???

[kerry-is-my-prez]

17. It should be Bush & Rumsfeld who get charged not a lowly soldier.

They were all given the ok to do whatever they want. In addition, prior offenses were all ignored, maybe condoned - which would give the stamp of approval on these acts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Lt. Calley didn't think so. Nor the pilots who bombed schools in VN.

War IS murder.

[NewJeffCT]

21. I thought combat operations are over?

Oops, that was changed to major combat operations...

[beam me up scottie]

22. That's a really good point.

This "war" isn't really a war at all.
The "War on Terrorism" exists so that we can justify everything we do: napalm, clusterbombs and yes, murder.