Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Breaking Bad ?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#11 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,708
  • Reputation: 2,645
HUDDLER

Posted 05 January 2014 - 01:13 PM

Calley got his sentence overturned on appeal because he somehow successfully argued that he believed infants and toddlers were enemies. Several in his platoon refused to obey his orders.

since he was told that only "the enemy" would be in the village, his honest belief that there were no innocent civilians in the village exonerates him of criminal responsibility for their deaths; and, finally, that his actions were in the heat of passion caused by reasonable provocation.


Although ordered by Calley to shoot, Private First Class James J. Dursi refused to join in the killings, and Specialist Four Robert E. Maples refused to give his machine gun to Calley for use in the killings

http://law2.umkc.edu...i/MYL_uscma.htm

And Meadlo (the only one proven to participate) did not agree to testify against Calley until he was given immunity.
http://law2.umkc.edu...myl_bmeadlo.htm

"I was just following orders" does not apply to the Calley case.

But it did apply to the Abu Ghraib case, where Soldiers were "following orders" from Intelligence officers. Did their defense work?

#12 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,515
  • Reputation: 2,431
  • LocationWherever I May Roam
HUDDLER

Posted 05 January 2014 - 02:21 PM

Again, 22 men were officially charged in the My Lai killings. Only the two issuing the orders were convicted. Period. The other 20 men who were using weapons and killed people were not convicted. What happened during the appeals process was after the fact.

 

If you honestly believe in the Abu Ghraib case that a few lowly E3's and E4's reservists with less than 3 years of service were supposedly carrying out all they were accused of with no one above them knowing, you're sadly mistaken and uninformed. There was no one at Abu Ghraib junior in rank to these people- everyone was senior in rank to them. And you're telling me nobody knew a thing about what was going on? And you failed to mention the broken chain of command where soldiers were taking orders from civilian intelligence (and therefore could not be investigated by the military in their role). The Abu Ghriab case is the exception, not the rule. If anything, Abu Ghriab has served as a textbook case of politics and the military at odds creating a broken chain of command, a convoluted mission statement and a giant question as to who was issuing orders to who.

 

You'd be every surprised that not many real "orders" are issued in the heat of the moment. Training kicks in and you do what needs to be done to protect your brother and yourself. The orders are the mission itself, not what happens when the mission is being accomplished. Military actions (when people start shooting) are governed by the Rules of Engagement (ROE) which are reviewed and modified for each mission. ROE tells you when you can start shooting, not normally orders issued by someone else. 

 

When you begin speaking to military actions involving civilian and military lives, you're speaking to ROE, not military regulations or orders.

 

 



#13 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,708
  • Reputation: 2,645
HUDDLER

Posted 05 January 2014 - 05:18 PM

Cpt. Medina was acquitted of all charges. According to the wikipedia page, Calley was the only person convicted.

The Nuremberg principles affirmed that "following orders" is not a valid argument. the Nuremberg principles were adopted by the DOD in 1953.

#14 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,515
  • Reputation: 2,431
  • LocationWherever I May Roam
HUDDLER

Posted 05 January 2014 - 07:36 PM

Cpt. Medina was acquitted of all charges. According to the wikipedia page, Calley was the only person convicted.

The Nuremberg principles affirmed that "following orders" is not a valid argument. the Nuremberg principles were adopted by the DOD in 1953.

 

Again....and again.... 26 soldiers had charges brought against them for their roles. Whether via Courts-Martial, NJP or other judicial processes, none of the 25 remaining were convicted.

 

"Twenty six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Second Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest."

 

And I'm tired of arguing a point with which you have no real life experience and nothing beyond an idealist opinion about.



#15 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • Joined: 12-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,718
  • Reputation: 35
  • LocationStokeridge
HUDDLER

Posted 05 January 2014 - 08:16 PM



#16 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,708
  • Reputation: 2,645
HUDDLER

Posted 05 January 2014 - 11:48 PM

Again....and again.... 26 soldiers had charges brought against them for their roles. Whether via Courts-Martial, NJP or other judicial processes, none of the 25 remaining were convicted.

"Twenty six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Second Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest."

And I'm tired of arguing a point with which you have no real life experience and nothing beyond an idealist opinion about.

Where does the "I was only following orders" come into play?
One enlisted Soldier was shown to have participated with the lieutenant in mass murder of civilians and detainees. That one Soldier was granted immunity.

Again, the Nuremberg Principles are DOD policy. Can you refute that? Or is it better to admit defeat with another round of insults, sailor.

#17 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,515
  • Reputation: 2,431
  • LocationWherever I May Roam
HUDDLER

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:28 AM

http://www.digitalhi...etnam_mylai.cfm

 

On November 24, 1969, Lt. Gen. W.R. Peers was directed by the Secretary of the Army to review “possible supression or witholding of information by persons involved in the incident." After more than 26,000 pages of testimony from 403 witnesses were gathered, the Peers inquiry recommended that charges should be brought against 28 officers and two non-commissioned officers involved in a cover-up of the massacre.

 

In the end, Army lawyers decided that only 14 officers should be charged with crimes. Meanwhile, a separate investigation by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division concluded that there was evidence to charge 30 soldiers with the crimes of murder, rape, sodomy, and mutilation. Seventeen men had left the Army, and charges against them were dropped.

 

Army investigators concluded that 33 of the 105 members of Charlie Company participated in the massacre, and that 28 officers helped cover it up. Charges were brought against only 13 men. In the end, only one soldier – Lt. William Calley - was convicted. Calley was charged with murdering 104 villagers in the My Lai massacre.



#18 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,708
  • Reputation: 2,645
HUDDLER

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:59 AM

Yes, nobody is denying a cover up.

Calley was in charge of a *platoon*. He was not in charge of either all of Charlie Company or any of it's other platoons.
In Calley's *platoon*, to whom he gave unlawful orders, only one Soldier is known to have followed his orders. Several were known to flat out refuse.

Others may have committed war crimes. But when he gave the order to kill detainees and children, only one complied.

What happened within the rest of C Co does not apply to Calley as the other platoons had their own butterbars.

You and I both know the UCMJ's jurisdiction does not end at separation. Let's not pretend the My Lai case is a textbook example of how the military works.

#19 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
  • LocationPleiades
HUDDLER

Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:27 PM

F*ck the military. Half the time it seems like it serves an excuse for demented people to run amuck.



#20 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,708
  • Reputation: 2,645
HUDDLER

Posted 07 January 2014 - 12:54 AM

I guess, if you believe in reptilian overlords and thermite demolitions


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users