Rush to Judgement on Blackwater Defendants
Those who have already decided on the guilt of the security contractors should remember what happened with the Haditha "massacre."
Like the Marines, the ex-Blackwater employees will face an uphill battle in clearing their name. The infamous shootout has been described at length, though no journalists were present on that September day in 2006. Meanwhile, the media has repeatedly characterized the firm — and its security guards — as trigger-happy cowboys and rogue operatives.
“Blackwater most often shoots first,” trumpeted a headline on CNN’s website in October 2007. Citing the findings of a Congressional report, the cable network claimed that Blackwater USA guards inflicted “significant casualties and property damage” in Iraq. According to investigators, Blackwater contractors fired their weapons 195 times, “an average of 1.4 times a week between the beginning of 2005, and September 2007. In 80% of those incidents, Blackwater reported that its personnel fired first.”
That certainly fits the popular template, but it’s also worth remembering that Blackwater (and other private security firms) face a daunting challenge in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Baghdad shootout occurred as conditions in the city — and the rest of Iraq — spiraled out of control. Terrorist attacks were increasing at an alarming rate, with insurgents targeting the Green Zone and other locations that were once considered “secure.”
Making matters worse, the U.S. military had long advised the State Department, intelligence agencies, relief agencies, and other organizations that it could not provide security for all activities in Iraq. Troop reductions in the 1990s and our “pre-surge” strategy left ground forces unprepared for a growing insurgency that threatened key sections of that country, and required an expanded security presence.
Against that backdrop, private contractors became an imperative. They provided protection for supply convoys, escorted diplomats to meetings with Iraqi leaders, and accompanied CIA operatives on intelligence-gathering operations in some of the most dangerous sections of the country.
And the vast majority of the contractors performed their duties admirably, even heroically. In Congressional testimony last year, Blackwater Chairman Eric Prince reminded lawmakers that 30 employees of his company — or its affiliates — have been killed in Iraq, with many more wounded or maimed. He also pointed out that Blackwater employees mounted more than 1,800 security details in the first nine months of 2007, and discharged their weapons on just three percent of those operations.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has also defended Blackwater publicly, pointing out that our operations in the country would be impossible without private security contractors. Ambassador Crocker clearly understands the realities of modern warfare and diplomacy. With projected force levels there will never be enough troops for all security missions, leaving other agencies with stark choices: develop their own protective services; go without security, or rely on contractors. Obviously, the notion of removing private security firms from the war zone is both naive and dangerous.
But that doesn’t excuse unprofessional or illegal behavior. The Justice Department clearly believes that contractors involved in the Baghdad incident broke the law, and filed charges after a lengthy investigation.
Still, it would be a grave mistake to prejudge the actions of the Blackwater guards, or the outcome of their eventual trial. Three years ago, the Haditha Marines were tried and convicted in the courts of public opinion and media coverage. Yet the military justice system, for all its flaws, delivered a far different verdict. Now, a similar presumption of guilt is being applied to those former Blackwater staffers. They deserve their day in court — not a press-driven rush to judgment.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Nate Hale is the pseudonym for a retired military intelligence officer with combat experience in the Balkans, Haiti, and the Middle East. He blogs at In from the Cold.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
35 Comments
1. Tom Holsinger:It is too appropriate to pre-judge this matter.
That this was a pre-planned media ambush by Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating from the Iraqi ministry building near where the initial incident occurred is established by the way the American mainstream media and Democratic politicians reacted to it – they immediately claimed that the Blackwater Security personnel were mean, bad, nasty, rotten and guilty.
This is close to conclusive evidence that the whole thing was fabricated by enemy action hoping to influence American politics.
When the MSM and national Democrats immediately jump on board, it’s enemy action.
Dec 12, 2008 - 12:10 pm 2. robotech master:It is funny… they are all but found guilty without trial…but obama doesn’t even have to provide his birth cert to meet a Constitutional requirement to be president… o the media…
Dec 12, 2008 - 1:24 pm 3. Will Sharpe:Sadly, you’re correct. Whether or not these events did take place is beside the point. There will always be unnecessary casualties of war–yes, even in the 21st century. The media needs to find a way to come to grips with this fact. It does no good to ceaselessly report the wrongdoings of a few when a larger war has been shifted in a very different, more optimistic, I’d say, direction than years past.
Far be it from me to claim mainstream media conspiracy. I think stories such as these have a larger claim on our collective psyche–one that is apt to be easily manipulated by speculatively horrific circumstances. Hadditha is a perfect case in point; I imagine we may very well see this Blackwater debacle disappear into a void–not heard from again amongst the mainstream media if it turns out the accused were not at the degree of fault currently charged.
Dec 12, 2008 - 2:35 pm 4. Paul_Unalaska:I worked with a former Blackwater mechanic recently. He couldn’t speak highly enough of what these heroes, yes heroes display day-in day-out. To both the Iraqi citizens and the plethora of U.S. support they keep watch of.
I only hope Murtha will keep his preemptive, bureaucratic, good for nothing piehole shut for these gentleman to get their well deserved day in court.
Dec 12, 2008 - 3:19 pm 5. Bugs:Unfortunately, the anti-war crowd considers civilian contractors like the Blackwater people to be mere mercenaries. Never mind that they’re fighting for their own country.
Dec 12, 2008 - 6:43 pm 6. Robin:Huh. I just can’t figure out what happened to the weapon the 3 year old girl was using during the incident. Of course, the Iraqi policeman must have tossed his weapon just before his justifiable death.
Dec 12, 2008 - 7:09 pm 7. Gozer the Carpathian:I was always taught that real men accepted responsibility for their actions – right AND wrong. Apparently, I am out-of-date. In the US Army I served in for 25 years, people did not go around spraying civilians with rifle fire. It was called fire discipline. Things sure have changed.
Oh, I forgot. These guys were contractors and their fear for their lives more than justifies killing civilians.
I see the media pre-judging trial after trial. It’s a testiment to our judicial system when it can get past all of this outside pressure to actually have a fair trial for those concerned.
Dec 12, 2008 - 7:53 pm 8. robotech master:5. Bugs:
Unfortunately, the anti-war crowd considers civilian contractors like the Blackwater people to be mere mercenaries. Never mind that they’re fighting for their own country.
The left/anti-war crowd just hate soldiers period… they learned from the last time in the 60s that it was stupid to target soldiers directly… now they voice their hate under the veil of “looking out for the soldier”. Mercs and groups like blackwater(of which is mostly made up of former and someone current enlisted US soldiers) are the new easy target.
Its funny that a national guard guy is a hero to the left(supposedly) until he joins blackwater or some other group… then he’s an evil killer… of course if he called to active duty hes a hero…again.
The leftist hate mercs because mercs have always stood in the way of their dreams… Mercs by land and sea(sometimes called privateers or sometimes called pirates..) help found the US and played a key role in winning the won vs england. Mercs were the first to fight hitler… they fought in spain then over england…. they were the first to stand up against japan over china’s air space…
The military history of the US is rich… be it the minute man… the merc… the volunteer… The one thing they all share in common though is the unending hatred of the leftists because they stand for freedom… where leftists only stand for government control…
Groups like blackwater and other are just the latest fad in the leftists hatred of all things the US armed forces stand for… its all the sweater for them in the knowledge that almost all are former US soldiers… They have been denied the right to cheer and so joy over the death of US soldiers. Ppl look down on them for it and point out what they really are…traitors. But that changed no more fear no more hiding their happiness they can cheer with glee in the streets every time one dies or is brought up on media driven charges… and they never have to fear that they will be called traitors for those actions… its their dirty little secret…
Dec 12, 2008 - 9:14 pm 9. James:More Bush/Cheney murder. Blackwater? I wonder how Cheney is profiting from the lucrative contacts awarded to those hired killers. It’s amazing to think that once the final death toll is calculated Bush/Cheney will go down as the biggest murderers in the last 100 years. Imperialists……
Dec 12, 2008 - 9:49 pm 10. Patterson:RE: Robin
For your information.
I’m in the US Army and I am about to go back over for my second tour here soon to Iraq. I don’t care if you were in for 25 years or not. This is a different war and if you only knew what it was like to be shot at by “Civilians” then you’d know why this kinda shit happens. The enemy doesn’t wear uniforms and they blend in by hiding behind the innocent. I am not saying what these guys did was right but I know EXACTLY what it’s like to come under fire and get a sort of “tunnel vision” where all you care about is the guy standing next to you in the same uniform. Don’t immediately judge any of these guys…contractors or military. The military and the contractors keep an eye out for each other over there so you do build up a sense of camaraderie. I pray these guys make it out of this mess.
By the way what unit were you in and what was your MOS, if you don’t mind me asking? I’m a former 13M. Now I’m just a paper pusher for the US Army…a little more safe.
SGT Patterson
Dec 12, 2008 - 10:14 pm 11. Dave Surls:“In the US Army I served in for 25 years, people did not go around spraying civilians with rifle fire. It was called fire discipline. Things sure have changed.”
They sure have. In WWII they were dropping napalm, high explosive and atomic bombs on civilians. Killed a few hundred thousand Japanese and German civilians doing it too.
Pretty effective, though somewhat gruesome.
Guess you weren’t serving in those days.
Dec 13, 2008 - 3:26 am 12. Robin:Maybe this war is different. Maybe our morals have changed. I spent a lot of training time being lectured about the Geneva Conventions and war crimes. I guess those don’t apply anymore. There are a whole lot of soldiers that don’t indiscriminately shoot civilians. Besides, what has that got to do with accepting responsibility for your actions? Professionals admit when they screwed up, don’t they?
Dec 13, 2008 - 8:20 am 13. Robin:This whole incident sounds like people with no discipline. Just curious, but did anyone find any bullet holes in the vehicles of this convoy? If these guys did hear gunfire, maybe it was an Iraqi policeman engaging terrorists. Sounds like they didn’t check. That is what you get when you give some knucklehead immunity from any and all prosecution no matter what his actions. This was stupid and if you are going to justify killing a 3 year old than nothing you say really matters.
Just FYI: I enlisted as a 31E in 1974 and retired as an MI major in 1999. I served two tours with the 82d (one in the 2/321st FA Abn). We had our own stuff going on in the 80s and 90s that no one will ever hear about.
I guess one thing I haven’t made clear is that I can understand their actions because I’ve been scared and instinctively reacted, too. One thing I can’t understand is how the Blackwater guys and their company can insist that they didn’t do anything wrong. Anytime you kill a 3 year old and/or an unarmed policeman, you are wrong. Mistake or not, you are still wrong. Period. If you believe otherwise, you shouldn’t be carrying a weapon and your morals are no better than a murderer.
Dec 13, 2008 - 9:17 am 14. Frank:Remember “Rules of Engagement”? I know that’s just a movie but that doesn’t mean things like that don’t happen in real life.
Dec 13, 2008 - 9:39 am 15. robotech master:Robin were you there? I think not. You cry about a 3 year old dieing but for all you know she was being held up as a shield… they do that sort of thing over there. Your judgment is that of a back seat driver who has no clue what happened…
I really find it hard to believe you were ever in the military… Your understanding of warfare seems lacking more based on Hollywood then real life. Your understanding of the Geneva Conventions, ROE and laws on the battlefield also seem to be based more on Hollywood then real life as well.
Dec 13, 2008 - 11:29 pm 16. Robin:Since robotech master is leaning toward stupid, this is my last comment: According to the logic of returning fire even though you don’t have a target – by this reasoning, any police officer under fire is justified to engage anyone in the immediate vicinity, no matter who they are or what they are doing, bad guy or good guy. It doesn’t matter. Do you really want your family in that type of situation on the streets of America? There are reasons you do NOT react the way the Blackwater guys did.
Dec 14, 2008 - 4:24 pm 17. Nick:I was in the Marines and I remember seeing the Blackwater teams when I was deployed. They can be a nice asset but they don’t follow the rules like the military does. If they are gonna operate “outside the wire” then they should adhere to the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) and all the rules of engagement and be overseen by a field grade military officer to ensure the progress that then men in uniform have made isnt a waste of time. Many times they completely undo all the hard work that soldiers and Marines do.
Dec 14, 2008 - 8:05 pm 18. Nick:The liberal media could be behind this one. I dont know. Im just saying, sometimes they go overboard and then Marines end up paying for it.
Dec 14, 2008 - 8:07 pm 19. robotech master:Once again robin you keep showing you are clearly not a soldier… Next being the fact that police do what your saying all the time… and the fact that wasn’t the case in this blackwater fire fight… please STFU your cover’s been blown next time try to research a little more before you pretend to be a soldier…
Dec 14, 2008 - 11:37 pm 20. DoktorNo:I’m glad that people with real military experience are speaking out here. Opinions from the field are always priceless.
In unsymmetrical warware the civilian support is crucial. How do you want to win “hearts and minds” when some contractors, who are feeling, that they are not supposed to follow the rules as regular military should do, are doing something *wrong*?
BTW: someone could say, that history doesn’t repeat themselves, but AFAK the Roman Empire during its fall had been relying more and more on mercainaries…
Dec 15, 2008 - 2:46 am 21. seven:The Muslims in Guantanamo are deemed innocent heroes and contractors who do not have military protection are the thugs??
Something is wrong.
Dec 15, 2008 - 7:40 am 22. robotech master:To 20. DoktorNo…
Please review your history… roman like pretty much every country before france’s Napoleon heavily used mercs or only used mercs for their armies… The only thing bad about Romans use of mercs was the fact they were more national/state armies that were mercs vs home grown mercs…
The US has heavily used mercs in the past with great success…
Dec 15, 2008 - 7:59 am 23. Tom Holsinger:Robin,
You assume that Iraq is like America. It isn’t. Iraq was a war zone then, and parts of it were controlled by the enemy. This was one of them. The incident took place near an Iraqi ministry building controlled by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and their Sadrite Iraqi allies.
This incident was fabricated by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. It did not “just happen.” They set it up precisely to influence people like you, and they succeeded. You have fallen for enemy propaganda.
As part of this, the Iranian personnel involved removed evidence exculpating the Blackwater personnel from the scene after the event, and planted fabricated evidence incriminating them.
This was not the first time such things have happened. The Haditha incident described in the opening post was another, and previous, one. Ask yourself what happened when the American personnel accused in that one took it to trial, and why. Because it did not go to trial.
Though Americans like you had prejudged that one too, and believed enemy propaganda about it. Just as you believe enemy propaganda about this incident.
Dec 15, 2008 - 3:04 pm 24. Carlson Jetsen:Tom, I’d be curious to see anything that is an unbiased support of what you just stated. Wouldn’t you agree that perhaps you are believing a biased propaganda piece as well? Just because you believe it, doesn’t make it so. Steer clear of the Kool-Aid big guy.
Dec 15, 2008 - 11:16 pm 25. Tom Holsinger:Carlson,
The same was said of Haditha.
Dec 16, 2008 - 7:50 am 26. Robin:Tom,
Dec 16, 2008 - 1:08 pm 27. Tom Holsinger:OK, I couldn’t stay away. Yours is an argument I can respect. I’m very familiar with the scenario you outlined. I spent 17 years as an MI officer. I never gave any credence to the Haditha charges since it was fairly evident that it was faked. I was a Bn 2 and a Bde 2 (twice) and have investigated those types of incidents before. Anything reported more than 18 hours after the fact is, more often than not, fabricated or a lie.
Having been employed at CALL, I can assure you that most professional soldiers do not blindly spray the crowd with gunfire. Even if they were under attack, the Blackwater guys over reacted beyond anything that was reasonable. Mostly, they need to admit that they were wrong and to act like real men. Real men admit when they screwed up; they don’t make excuses.
Robin,
BwS personnel are not subject to the UCMJ, and violating ROE under fire is a UCMJ offense. Whether armed government contractors can be made subject to the UCMJ by contract and/or by the host government as a condition of entry into the country was a thread at the Volokh Conspiracy. Here’s the link:
http://volokh.com/posts/1228850137.shtml
These BwS personnel are being charged with a Title 18 U.S.C. offense, and their affirmative defense is both self-defense AND “defense of another” for which your reference to ROE is irrelevant. Here’s a link to a “defense of another” explanation:
http://volokh.com/posts/1176499503.shtml#205702
Basically these BwS are not guilty of the only possible 18 USC charges against them because the federal criminal code is simply not fitted to address matters which arise only in a military combat situation. And, as Professor Cassell noted in his opening post on the Volokh Conspiracy thread, DOJ has way over-reached in its charges because it knows how weak its case is.
I repeat, here, one of my comments in the Volokh thread – http://volokh.com/posts/1228850137.shtml#500567:
“Bear in mind that this incident was a not especially covert operation by Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating from the Iraqi ministry building near where the initial IED detonated.
There is a marvelous opportunity here for criminal defense counsel to demand discovery from all of US intelligence about the nature and extent of Iranian operations in Iraq, and to expose it in open court.
This is further evidence that the prosecution here is a “show trial”. It is not intended to produce convictions at trial, because then the prosecutors would have to provide incredibly secret intelligence information as discovery and watch it on television during the trial. It is obvious that charges will be dismissed against those defendants who insist on trial.
This Blackwater Security prosecution is only intended to produce propaganda. The only convictions it might produce will come via plea bargains by psychologically weak and vulnerable defendants. The prosecutors would deem it a victory if they can induce any such defendants to commit suicide too.
The government’s prosecution of Steve Hatfill and his replacement as scapegoat, who did commit suicide, and the failure of its Haditha prosecutions, are reasonable evidence of the government’s bad faith, lack of credibilty and lack of legitimacy in these sorts of prosecutions.
The Blackwater charges here are clearly political, and highly likely utterly devoid of merit.”
Dec 16, 2008 - 1:33 pm 28. robotech master:To 26. Robin
Please please make it easier…
“These guys were contractors and their fear for their lives more than justifies killing civilians.”
“I can assure you that most professional soldiers do not blindly spray the crowd with gunfire.”
You are truly a smacktard… does your simple lying fake saying your in the military anti-war soldier hating talking points ever stop… ALL OF THE BLACK WATER GUARDS ARE EX-MILITARY YOU ****ING IDIOT…
Before you stop using anti-war bash soldier talking points of the “new age” where you try to pretend to support soldiers do a little ****ing research….
You run a classic new aged anti-war propaganda set… now STFU
“Even if they were under attack, the Blackwater guys over reacted beyond anything that was reasonable.”
Your opinion of what you think you know is retarded at best…. You use only emotion and lies to make your case… no facts… no laws…
Dec 16, 2008 - 4:00 pm 29. Tom Holsinger:robotech,
Robin knows the BwS guards were all ex-military. That is why he holds them to the higher standard of the U.S. military’s rules of engagement.
Robin’s problem is that they were NOT subject to the ROE, or the UCMJ, because they were non-military private contractors working for the State Department, and so subject only to Title 18 of the United States Code under the extra-territorial (aka “long-arm”) jurisdiction doctrine.
Legally they’ll walk. The only offenses for which they could be convicted are those chargeable under the UCMJ, and they were not subject to UCMJ jurisdiction. Title 18 of the United States Code simply cannot apply to the purported over-reaction of these BwS personnel to an ambush by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in a war zone.
IMO you owe him an apology for your tone. Legally he is wrong, but he was not offensive, and you are over-reacting.
Dec 16, 2008 - 4:31 pm 30. robotech master:I think you give him way way to much credit plus I find his claim of being military highly doubtful…
I also think you assume/read way to much in his beliefs…
I’ve watched similar propaganda artists run amok on other boards running an almost parallel story line…
Dec 16, 2008 - 5:17 pm 31. Tom Holsinger:BTW, Robin got me thinking of the proper analogy to this Blackwater Security incident, and here it is – an armed robbery of a Brinks Company armored car, which is operated by two Brinks security guards.
So one of the Brinks guards opens fire on the robbers, and there is a firefight in which all three robbers are killed, along with one of the two Brinks guards (the one who started the shooting) and two wholly innocent bystanders across the street. And forensic evidence shows the two by-standers were killed by bullets from the gun of the surviving Brinks guard, who was not the one who started the shooting.
Would the local district attorney bring involuntary manslaughter charges, with firearms enhancements, against the suriving Brinks guard for killing the bystanders? If he did, would the guard be aquitted given a reasonable defense on self-defense and defense of another (the latter of the now-dead guard)? Again, assume the robbers are dead. Also assume that the surviving guard fired wildly, and contrary to his firearms training from Brinks.
I just don’t see any criminal liability here. Civil liability for wrongful death, payable by damages to the dead bystanders’ families might be proper, but not being found guilty of a crime.
The Blackwater guards here drove straight into a setup by Iranian Revolutionary Guards who had already created an on-going incident for the express purpose of making Blackwater look bad. The Iranians succeeded, but that makes the Blackwater personnel as much victims of enemy action as the people they purportedly shot.
Not to mention that the Revolutionary Guards might alo have shot some of the Iraqi victims themselves, and blamed it on Blackwater complete with planted evidence.
Dec 16, 2008 - 5:18 pm 32. Robin:Tom,
Dec 16, 2008 - 8:37 pm 33. Brian Richard Allen:Don’t pay any attention to robotech. I don’t pay any attention to people like that. He/she is just trying to get a reaction. Just FYI, I was a BCTP Intel Controller and ROE was a big deal.
Robin
They’re not mercenaries, Bugs.
They’re the incredibly brave men who put their lives on the line to replace the American Military Men the “administration” of the treasonous, recidivist, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, co-serial-rapist incidental “president,” Billy-Bubbah Blythe, (”Cli’ton”) blew off (if you’ll pardon the expression) while the whore-Monica moaned him the blues in our once most hallowed house’s once most hallowed office.
Brian Richard Allen
Dec 17, 2008 - 5:06 am 34. James Pairmore:Los Angeles – califUBAMAcated 90028
As an actively serving US Army Major currently in the CGSC/ILE program with over 20 years of service and numerous deployments, I feel compelled to express some personal opinions on the subject about the 6 former Blackwater employees. The security contractors fulfill a vital mission in our nation’s security at great personal sacrifice deserving our gratitude and support. Their portrayal as mere mercenaries is unjust and harmful.
Dec 17, 2008 - 5:59 pm 35. Robin:The US government employed security contractors to fill a role that is traditionally performed by the military or the Department of State’s (DOS) World Wide Protective Service (WWPS). Since 1995 the DOS has faced increasingly greater security concerns due to terrorism and working in hostile environments which over taxed the capabilities of the WWPS. The solution was to utilize security contractors. Right or wrong, this is the reality our government faced. These security contractors have served our nation in harm’s way often with valor and distinction. Blackwater alone has suffered over 36 casualties. Many in the public think these men and women are nothing more than mercenaries. I would argue that if money alone were their only objective, they could likely find reasonable compensation with less risk of harm elsewhere. These men were protecting America’s diplomats. Diplomats that themselves were risking their lives in a difficult asymmetrical war zone. Personal protection services are amongst the riskiest and most difficult missions to accomplish. In order to protect, they must constantly expose themselves and put the lives of their charges above their own. This is no small sacrifice in a war characterized by suicide bombers, car bombs, improvised explosive devices, and extremist terrorists. Those that haven’t served in today’s combat environments would have difficulty imagining the confusion and chaos of an urban engagement in Iraq. It’s not like a movie that is clear cut with bad guys brandishing guns and exposing themselves. The fog of war is ever present and our men and women serving must make split second decisions. It’s no different for a security contractor employed by our government than for a uniformed service member when it comes to the dangers. Hesitation can result in mission failure and loss even more so when you are charged with protecting others.
My hope is that the accused former security contractors will receive a fair trial and not be prosecuted by the media and public before they have their day in court. These are American’s that answered our nation’s call in a time of war. We should respect that and acknowledge their service and give the same support we would any American accused of a crime- innocence until proven guilty. Our nation owes them that.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
MAJ Pairmore,
Dec 18, 2008 - 11:07 amWell said. I very much agree with you. The problem is more ethically than legally based. If I am out of date, I am truly sorry for our country. While I was on active duty, soldiers were supposed to protect people, as well as complete their mission. I cannot reconcile that a diplomat’s or contractor’s life is intrinsically more valuable than a citizen in his own neighborhood. Who makes that decision? PO Luttrell and his team-mates decided that their lives were NOT more valuable than a little Afghan girl. That was the correct moral decision to make. Unfortunately, they did not accomplish their mission. Who is right? I guess we will have to leave that to God.
I know that this difficulty is being thought of in a lot of places. Right now, it is food for thought. What would you, personally, decide? Instead of a 3 year old Iraqi girl, imagine it was your son or daughter, or niece. Now what is your decision? It shouldn’t depend on a person’s nationality.
Respectfully,