Turboswede
Very Metal
I believe that the accusation was that the killings were intentional.
Sorry about that Glock, I hadn’t seen the statement so I didn’t know that there was a suggestion that the killings were intentional. Even though I am against the war, I do know that the military justice system of the US Armed forces is probably the best in the world and I would much rather go in front of a military cort martial than a jury of my “peers”. If the JAG has not found that the individuals acted with malicious intent or with a reckless disregard of human life, there is NO reason to suggest they did so.
If will give the average drunk driver the benefit of a reasonable doubt, then we should apply the same standard to our soldiers, sailors and airmen.
I looked at my earlier statement and we should give our service men and women a heightened standard of reasonable doubt as we are placing them in harm’s way. Even a higher threshold should be given our military personnel than we provide police in the US as there are in an extremely hostile environment.
As it is our elected leader’s decision to send out troops into harm’s way it is their duty to consider the possibility that innocents will be harmed in any used of military force. In addition they need to consider that, with any “live fire” deployment the danger to our own troops raises dramatically just from accidents and friendly fire.
Last edited: