[KlaraNovikoffaZ]

They're going to do the same thing with the torture scandal: pin it on some low-level CIA types, just like they did with Lyddie England. Change we can believe in, baby.

-Arrian

[KongoSan]

Calley was orderered to do it. He's the only one that paid any price, and now apologized.

[CoenceLomneedtrue]

That's exactly why I didn't call out Medina, but he skated, too.

[evammaUselp]

No. Because it's a really easy thing to sit behind a desk, far from the battlefield and order that old men, women and children be shot. It's another thing to be on the field, see them begging for their lives, and to order them killed.

It was probably some colonel or one-star general who had dreams of being more effective than his miniscule talents would permit. So he had a testosterone moment.

[Soassesaisp]

No. Because it's a really easy thing to sit behind a desk, far from the battlefield and order that old men, women and children be shot. It's another thing to be on the field, see them begging for their lives, and to order them killed. If you thought about what you said you would realize it doesn't make sense. Are most murders cold blooded planned events, or snap decisions made in the heat of emotionally stressful moments? Apply.

Could there be some culpability higher up? Sure. Should we assume so without evidence because it lets us stick it to the man? No.

I'm not. I'm attacking people above her who were culpable, but who were protected while she & others at her level were hung out to dry. 1.) There are no criminally culpable people abover her, its been looked at exhaustively and these imaginary people you speak of don't exist. Sometimes you have to accept that people do horrible things on their own initiative, there is not always some grand conspiracy all the way to the top.

2.) Nobody was hung out to dry, unless you think those convicted were not every bit as guilty as they were found. If anything the opposite is true, they got off light.

[dalnecymync]

Your comparison with a civil act of murder, well, I would expect to hear from someone like Che, not you. Pat, it's a stupid comparison and you know it. No Sloww, it is completely appropriate. There is no reason to assume that a junior officer in a war and on mission as frustrating and difficult as his can not lose it and give into his more base emotions and urges. The fact that it doesn't happen everyday is testament the the metal toughness and training of our military leaders, but the possibility of it happeneing is always there and can not be completely avoided. It is hardly a unique event, and the motivations for that activity are not all that different than a husband not able to deal with a leaving wife or a disgruntled employee not being able to deal with a life changing lay off.

You might help you case if you tried to explain why they are different though. Just a suggestion. It would also help if you provided any evidence whatsoever to support him being "hung out to dry."

[MYMcvBgl]

You are right, all the people who followed Calley's orders should have stood trial too, but unfortunetly due to a quirk in the law those no longer in the service were not able to stand trial. To my understanding this has been corrected.

There were several individuals who should have stood trial for future coverups, but that is hardly important in comparison to Calley's crimes.

[DialOne]

Well, in other countries it would be a matter of course, as they don't keep people in so long.

I Would say never let him out.

JM

[ValintinoV]

1.) There are no criminally culpable people abover her, its been looked at exhaustively and these imaginary people you speak of don't exist. Sometimes you have to accept that people do horrible things on their own initiative, there is not always some grand conspiracy all the way to the top.

[Lgcjqxlw]

It's not a wish - hell no. I wish Bush, Cheney and their cronies had an ounce of integrity between them, but sadly they do not. Here's the thing, though: it seems to me you have a pretty powerful wish to believe that they are innocent. I do, too (believe it or not, that is the case: I would much rather believe that "a few bad apples" are to blame. I have come to believe otherwise).

As for where I get this from, I've read Glenn Greenwald's blog. If I have the time, I'll post some links (and, of course, you will end up having to follow links within Glenn's posts). He's been all over this stuff.

-Arrian

[ptolerezort]

Here's the thing, though: it seems to me you have a pretty powerful wish to believe that they are innocent. I do, too (believe it or not, that is the case: I would much rather believe that "a few bad apples" are to blame. I have come to believe otherwise). Actually no, I have a very strong wish for every single person responsible for this and who consequently brought shame to some degree to every person in the military service to be harshly punished. At the same time, however, I am not going entertain the fantasies of conspiracy theorists and half assed excuses by the accused of the involvment of people who have no motivation to act as they say (think about it) and for which there is zero evidence to support it just because I am pissed off about it. The same goes for Calley's situation.

I am a junior officer, I don't like knowing that my peers such as Calley was then can do such things but I know it is possible and it does happen. There is no reason to invent grand plots where none exist.

As for where I get this from, I've read Glenn Greenwald's blog. If I have the time, I'll post some links (and, of course, you will end up having to follow links within Glenn's posts). He's been all over this stuff. I just read the Wiki entries for every person tried (that has an article) and there is nothing that even remotely suggests that their dubious claims of mysterious intelligence officers and unnammed "senior officers" should be given even an ounce of credit.

[Caliwany]

How's this, Patroklos? Arrian, given that I actually value your opinion I actually read that entire thing. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, mentioned in that entire article provides anything that amounts to more than hearsay by the convicted accused. The General even admits this. It is all well and good that he suspected involvement by other people, it is a natural tendancy for an investigater to feel there are more involved in the plot, but there is zero evidence as is clearly stated in your posted article.

I want you to think about this for a second. There are apparently super secret career intelligence operatives interrogating prisoners out of a serious expectation of getting intelligence. Apparently they know their methods are wrong, but they feel they must proceed anyways. So given the seriousness of their task, allegedly knowing how illegal it was to be doing it, genuinely believing it to be a matter of the highest national security, people who live in a world where everything is considered top secret, and aware the implecations of what they are doing and the consequneces if it got out, they decide to enlist the help of a group of bum **** hicks from a random reservist MP unit on normal rotation that don't even have clearance (top secret, I don't even have this) to read my toilet paper budget numbers let alone be privy to any intelligence data whatsoever? WHAT? Oh yeah, and on top of that we will also let them take their own personal pictures of all of this and keep them and take them home with them? WHAT?

Honestly Arrian, does the above paragraph pass your BS sniffer?

Now contrast this with what actually happened, that being a very strong willed and abusive guy who gets off on screwing with people and has already been manipulating several people in his unit (read Graner's profile) enlists them to fullfill his ****ed up masichistic fantasies because he finds himself suddenly with the power and position to do so, and then records it so he can relive his ****ed up fantasy over and over again.

Which one makes sense.

[Toninvell]

IIRC he served less than 2 years of his sentence, so it's not like he served major time.

[Adollobdeb]

Just out of curiosity - if the order came from a higher place and the soldiers denied to follow it because it would be an illegal order, what would happen to those soldiers ?

Edit: should notice that danish soldiers are obliged to deny following illegal orders. Depending on how clear the case is they would be either vindicated outright by the inquiry or they would go to court marshal where they would then be vindicated. Court marshals need not be scary things, they are an excellent way to get your action on the public record with the proper scrutiny, and any commanding officer who even suspected his orders in the wrong would be stupid to allow one to proceed as opposed to simply admitting it.

US service men are also obliged to deny illegal orders. They are, however, liable to disciplinary action if they are wrong in their refusal, so it pays to know your stuff.

[Qrhzbadu]

IIRC one of Calley's beefs was that what he did was done by "everybody else" and given a silent nod of approval from above, so why was he singled out.

[Quigoxito]

How is a person who murdered several hundred people getting screwed by a two year prison sentance? Even if he were absolutely correct in his unsubstatiated claims of "orders," it is not a mitigating circumstance as far as his culpability is concerned in the slightest.

[Anavaralo]

What I am getting at Arrian is that you are drawing a line between two things that why superficially similar really have no true relation to each other. That's possible. I think they are related. I could be wrong. It's a belief, man. I can't possibly have access to the info that would confirm it.

-Arrian

[BrianGoldsmith]

As far as Calley goes, if he had been hung in front of his battalion at parade like any military taking dicipline seriously would have done, there would be far less of these problems.

Your response indicates that either you are naive or you are trolling. Remember that the charges were delayed initially by the attempted coverup. Many battalion members would be new since those events. This hanging would have resulted in an outright mutiny with the level of violence determined by how armed the battalion was at the event (no weapons, weapons but only selected ammo, or weapons and ammo). The army was gradually coming apart at the seams in terms of discipline and morale. Further the news coverage would have been completely unacceptable to the higher commanders.

Punishing the LT proves to the troops that discipline applies to everyone. Killing him tells the troops their commanders are insanely out of control. Many of the draftees believed that anyway.

[vypusknye]

Patty

[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.