[Ruiceara]

Don't tell me what I don't understand. How much long term combat have you served in? I was on the ground then in that place. HE didn't murder them. HE didn't stop it. I think he should have been executed. I am certain that his company commander and most likely some battallion staff were aware of what was happening and certainly aware of what happened once the morning light returned. Those are the people that covered it up. YOU think they would order an on-the-ground execution? The Pentagon was riding everyone to REDUCE the visibility of bad discipline. Its a shame that people who were there like yourself (but not you) did not value holding people accountable for murder. So, you think the solution for one of your people committing an act of murder is to cover it as opposed to publically and severely holding them responsible? Interesting.

Answer me this question, would people be more or less inclined to give into the more base desires if they know the normal consequence was execution by hanging?

Answer me this question, would people be more or less inclined to simply follow orders they know are illegal but may be inconvenient to disobey if they know the likely result will be execution by hanging?

Answer me this question, are the two above facts more readily apparent to the units in the field who witnessed the action or at the very least know the person who committed them if it happens years later a thousand miles away, or in front of them where it is real and unavoidable?

Answer me this question, if you are a member of that unit appalled and disgraced because you are linked to someone who would commit such an act, are you more readily absolved of your circumstantial guilt by a newspaper article on page 8 of the Stars and Stripes or by witnessing the act first hand and knowing that you have nothing to connect you to that scum?

Would the existence of execution by hanging for capital offenses be looked at as some albatross around their neck unfortunetly keeping them from participating in murder/rape/torture/desertion/espionage/sabotage/etc. or a matter or pride that they are held to such a high standard?

Now you say to me from your controlled ship environment loaded with volunteer sailors on board that you understand what the US Army was like at that time. Such a view sounds childish to a man that commanded troops sent in to the Army as an alternative to prison, as an experiment to prove the mentally challenged could be mainstreamed, drafted at random, and that liked the Army because they could make serious noise and kill people. You are not helping yourself here BP. You are explaining exactly why harsh and public discipline should have been the order of the day, not why not. You understand why people like Calley thought they could get away with what they did is because they expected that nobody would have the balls/take the time to bother enforcing the rules, right?

Could good officers have brought the whole force under control? Yes, but the command structure would have had to support that. Instead the Generals threatened officers that brought men up on charges with ruined careers. They said they wanted discipline problems ended and made it clear they meant to supress the visibility, not introduce healthy discipline. Most LTs, like me, figured out what to do in that environment to keep my sergeants alive (stop fragging) and exercise control in the field. Or in other words you abdicated responsibility for enforcing standards. I understand why you did this, but it is still a gross dereliction of duty on your part. You say the above, yet you then try and whine about declining discipline?

You know how you stop fragging BP (or keep it from happening in the first place)? You hang everyone who has done so in front of the battalion in question at parade, so that everyone knows with certainty that there is no benefit for participating in such murder and that instead of maybe preventing a combat fatality they ensure a noncombat one.


Clearly LT Calley lost control, failed to report same and allowed the death of over 350 "innocent" civilians. For that, the Army should have strung him up. But to do that on the ground at site would have initiated a whole round of fragging and shootouts in that unt. These were not unknown in other units at that time, but the shootouts were fairly rare. The Army wanted such activity covered up. It wouldn't do for it to break out in a unit with lots of press focus. You seem to be under the impression someone called for summary execution. This did not happen. As far as I can tell there has never been a summary military execution sanctioned by the US military since its inception.