Now, as if this weren't bad enough, Greathead admitted that one of the main reasons they decided to come forward at all was because they were afraid they could be implicated for keeping silent. Not because killing a civilian and then hacking his ear off for a souvenir is wrong. Oh no. It was because they were afraid they would be just as guilty. Amazing! But what gets me is that they were willing to fight alongside him because they needed "all guns on the ground". Knowing he had murdered someone and then cut the victim's ear off before dumping his body in the desert, they were willing to look past that so long as he could serve during a military operation. Maybe someone should tell Sgt Major Bryant that a true courageous soldier and successful combat leader does not murder civilians and then hack off a piece of their body part to keep as a memento.
This unit of men is probably closer than brothers from working together in training and combat. One of them went bad and it took awhile for the others to turn him in. It would be like if a married person killed someone. It could take some time for the spouse to sort out their feelings and decide what to do. Turning in this person affects the whole team and its integrity. From our perspective this is bad, but from a soldier's perspective where they get paid to kill people but you don't know who is good and who is bad but you have to kill or be killed, I can see where the line can get blurred after a few months of this. How many of your friends would have to die before they all look the same because none of them look like you or your team. Hopefully this soldier will get the help he needs.
Here's some more sources on this story. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=5566002&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5520518 I hope that will verify the veracity of the story itself, eh BR?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
try this one then buffalo http://www.lawinfo.com/legal-news-story.html?msgID=BD472E5B-A1AB-405D-AAB0-F980E8AC902D bells to be honest are you really surprised? i mean you send kids out as young as 16 to spend there days killing people and then expect them to know its wrong to kill this group of people but not THAT group? Especially when you concider both the indoctrination of the millarty and the groups the solders are selected from
That's not fair. They needed a justification for betraying one of their own, who depended on them just as they depended on him in life and death situations fully comparable in intensity to the crime, to an outside and arbitrary authority safely far from the scene. They knew what he'd done. Their need for him was just as serious, life and death, and their loyalty to him of the same order. So they did the right thing, apparently, and you complain ?
I'm not sure, but I think this may be the first time I've found myself in complete agreement with you.
As I sit here in my comfortable office chair typing, I think "Hell yeah I'd tell" But if I was in a combat situation and my Master Sgt did this, I would probably think he had reasons. Otherwise why would he do it? He's a Master Sgt, he's more experienced. I would play it over and over in my head as to why he killed this civilian. I would try and justify it. I would talk to my fellow soldiers about it. I'm thinking as soon as he cut off the ear, I would know he had gone over the edge. If he hadn't cut off the ear, I would think that maybe he had run-ins with the civilian before and knew something about him that I didn't. I would hope I would tell, but I'm not sure.
I actually think this is reasonable...though that said, I can see why Bells is troubled by the crassness of the soldier's stated reason. One would hope that the immorality of the murder, not just fear of punishment, played a role in their decision (though i am not sure that the quote should be read as if it were the sole reason for their decision). As for their delaying in turning him in, I'd feel strange about the decision, but likely would have made the same choice they did. I would have left an account of the murder with someone I trusted, for fear I might not come back, but otherwise... It's not that I want a murderer to walk free, but I also want to maximize my and my other friend's chances of survival. If I turn him in before the operation, (a) the risk of my or my friends' deaths increases, (b) the risk of the murderer's being killed decreases (since he won't be on the dangerous mission) and (c) either way, the murderer goes to trial. It's not like they waited until after Spring Break to turn him in; his getting in "one extra mission" before jail was more of a quasi-punishment than a reward.
Very good reasoning, as always the Tactical Situation determines the timing of any actions. This is neither justice delayed, nor justice denied, it is Justice in Action, by statute. And according to you were do I stand?
Collecting the ears of victims is a time honoured tradition in the US forces. Why is it suddenly a big deal?
I think people were more in awe of authority than they are now. It should have been a big deal to the soldiers then as well. About the only thing we heard about was My Lai . I'm sure there were more acts on both sides. I saw that Afghani children are being raped now as well. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/07/afghan.family/index.html?iref=newssearch
Oh well, once they are liberated, it will be alright. Ears, rapes, torture, thats a small price to pay for democracy.
That's a horrible thing to say. Its a HUGE price and they shouldn't have to pay it. What some of our soldiers are doing is wrong and what some of their soldiers are doing is wrong. Civilians have always paid a heavy price in war. Always. I don't ever see that changing. Its the very nature of war. Its what makes war bad.
No. Some people need to die. They aren't innocent. Any war fought against men like Pol Pot is a good war.
But would Pol Pot and his supporters agree? Maybe they are fighting for what they believe is right. Right and wrong is too subjective an issue to kill someone for.
actually i was talking about WW2 type wars, did the solders fighting for germany deserve death any more than the solders fighting for Australia? they were both fighting for there countries and lots of them were conscripts who may not have even agreed with there goverments. It was the rulers who were unethical not the solders