fortyofforty Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Someone is accused of murdering, without a trial, a suspected Taliban terrorist who killed Americans and was a danger to confidential sources working with the coalition. The accused simply killed the terrorist, without the benefit of due process. Obama Says Mullah Mansour, Taliban Leader, Was Killed in U.S. Strike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyofforty Posted December 16, 2018 Author Share Posted December 16, 2018 Oh, wait. That's the wrong story. Here it is. Green Beret charged with murder in death of suspected Afghan terrorist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, fortyofforty said: Someone is accused of murdering, without a trial, a suspected Taliban terrorist who killed Americans and was a danger to confidential sources working with the coalition. The accused simply killed the terrorist, without the benefit of due process. Obama Says Mullah Mansour, Taliban Leader, Was Killed in U.S. Strike I know, all too well, the mental gymnastics involved in the last few actions of the WoT. But believing that a detained person is a terrorist and has killed Americans is not up to opinion. Troops don’t have that authority or intel. You can’t kill them because you “just know” or “probably” he stepped well beyond his mandate and orders, took action all on his own. While i I don’t agree with a murder charge (that’s probably for the headlines) he lost control and acted on his own and we cannot have that . Edited December 16, 2018 by Dric902 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holyjohnson Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 murder is a stretch and as said a headline grabber. but he is a trained professional and can`t just execute anyone,it was obviously wrong. there's a fine line between someone higher in the chain of command saying "kill him" and just deciding that for yourself. but i do understand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown Hawk Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 Keep in mind that Green Berets are imbedded with natives and usually have better info, if not legal proof of problems like that. We have become way too prone to persecuting our military just to make the media happy. When an officer is court-martialed because he fired a pistol behind a suspect to get him to talk because the media jumped all over it, we are going too far. This stuff has happened in every country in every war. Let’s try to get a little balance. And remember that in a war, things are very different than behind a desk in a media broadcast room. Hawk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Brown Hawk said: Keep in mind that Green Berets are imbedded with natives and usually have better info, if not legal proof of problems like that. No not even close You have absolutely no idea what your talking about . Edited December 17, 2018 by Dric902 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 Sorry, don’t mean to jump as deeply as you can be embedded, you are still in communication with a chain of command. The first thing they want is intel. any info or “legal proof” is to be passed along, not acted on extra judicially. You do your job, you stay focused, you stay in the moment. If you’re not professional enough then you shouldn’t be there. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyofforty Posted December 17, 2018 Author Share Posted December 17, 2018 One person ordered the killing of a suspected terrorist, with no trial, no hearing, no proof. Just suspicion. And boom. The other killed a suspected terrorist and might face the death penalty. Realize that, even if ordered to carry out the killing by a superior officer, the soldier is not "allowed" to carry out an execution like that described. Except if it's Barack Obama. He can order drone strikes all day and night and the media bow down in awe. Just following orders is no longer a valid excuse, since 1945. One side saws captives' heads off with a knife while pulling the hair. The other puts its own soldier on trial for killing a bomb maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg warner Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, fortyofforty said: One person ordered the killing of a suspected terrorist, with no trial, no hearing, no proof. Just suspicion. And boom. The other killed a suspected terrorist and might face the death penalty. Realize that, even if ordered to carry out the killing by a superior officer, the soldier is not "allowed" to carry out an execution like that described. Except if it's Barack Obama. He can order drone strikes all day and night and the media bow down in awe. Just following orders is no longer a valid excuse, since 1945. One side saws captives' heads off with a knife while pulling the hair. The other puts its own soldier on trial for killing a bomb maker. A soldier kills an enemy combatant and it's murder? Oh, right. This took place in 2010 under then-commander-in-chief Obama's rules of engagement, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 33 minutes ago, fortyofforty said: One person ordered the killing of a suspected terrorist, with no trial, no hearing, no proof. Just suspicion. And boom. The other killed a suspected terrorist and might face the death penalty. Realize that, even if ordered to carry out the killing by a superior officer, the soldier is not "allowed" to carry out an execution like that described. Except if it's Barack Obama. He can order drone strikes all day and night and the media bow down in awe. Just following orders is no longer a valid excuse, since 1945. One side saws captives' heads off with a knife while pulling the hair. The other puts its own soldier on trial for killing a bomb maker. Authority nobody voted for the soldier . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyofforty Posted December 17, 2018 Author Share Posted December 17, 2018 I'm sure there are still a few Marines alive who refused to accept the surrender of Japanese in the Pacific, and killed them instead. Maybe they can be tried for murder, too, before it's too late. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentpoet Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 After hearing what he did to a terrorist, I think I'll have a coke. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now