A Great American Hero

[Drake Tungsten]

As for where I get this from, I've read Glenn Greenwald's blog.

Oh, Arrian...

[Theben]

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.

[SlowwHand]

He got screwed, plain and simple. I think it was more than a silent nod, but even it was that only, he got screwed.

[Patroklos]

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.

[Arrian]

Oh, Arrian...

Oh, if only I cared what you think.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

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

[Patroklos]

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.

[Blaupanzer]

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.

[Patroklos]

Your response indicates that either you are naive or you are trolling. Remember that the charges were delayed initially by the attempted coverup.

Your complete lack of understanding of the gravity of what this person did, the responsibility of the entire service for its occurance, and the nessecity for the unit to carry out the diciplining of its own just highlights the problem. It is a point of pride and responsibilty to the unit involved to be party to the diciplining of one of their own. It is an unforgetable lesson about the consequences of performing such acts and that they themselves are not like the person hanging from the gallows.

We give people extrodinary power when we give them guns and authorize them to decide life and death, the consequences for criminally abusing that power need to reflect that.

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.

The army was coming apart at the seems because nobody was enforcing dicipline, such as what I mentioned above. The scene I mentioned was not an uncommon occurance in armies up through WWII, at no point was it concidered a thing that decreased discipline, quite the opposite.

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.

You understand that he MURDERED several hundred people, right? In all reality there should have been upwards of 30 hangings, all for MURDER.

There were 160 military executions from 1942-1961, of those 106 were executed for murder (including 21 involving rape), 53 for rape and one for desertion.

Currently, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 14 offenses are punishable by death. Under the following sections of the UCMJ, the death penalty can be imposed at any time:

94 - Mutiny or sedition
99 - Misbehavior before the enemy
100 - Subordinate compelling surrender
101 - Improper use of countersign
102 - Forcing a safeguard
104 - Aiding the enemy
106a - Espionage
110 - Improper hazarding of vessel
118 - Murder
120 - Rape and carnal knowledge
Four provisions of the UCMJ carry a death sentence only if the crime is committed during times of war:

85 - Desertion
90 - Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer
106 - Spies
113 - Misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_military

[Kuciwalker]

Patty

[Blaupanzer]

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.

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. 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.

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.

[Patroklos]

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.

[chequita guevara]

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?

Calley was right, too. If it hadn't been for American journalists uncovering this one massacre (out of so many others), Calley would never have been charged with any crime. As the Winter Soldier investigations should, the military was never seriously interested in investigating these crimes against humanity, and only did so when forced.

The U.S. military has a long history of engaging in brutality against civilians to terrorize them into submission. Calley's "crime" wasn't in "failing to control his soldiers." It was in getting caught.

[Patroklos]

Journalists were late to the party. The thing was investigated by the Army long before anything public went down (though very inadequately), and it went public when one of the unit members sent a letter to his Congressmen who then brought it up publically. The court marshals stem from this, journalist involvement was just blood thristy sensationalism (justified, though don't give them altruistic motives) after the fact.

[Kuciwalker]

court marshals

martial martial martial martial martial MARTIAL

also, "courts martial" not "court martials"