[Girlene]

Having lawyers in the field during war is "effective?"

I have no idea since I've never been involved in combat. I assume at times it must be helpful, otherwise why bother? I'm just saying asking lawyers/officers to keep investigating combat situations even if there is no crime is ridiculous. They investigated and determined no "murders" had occurred. The prosecution is essentially saying since the civilian deaths reached too high a number, a formal investigation by NCIS should have happened. That seems ineffective. Especially with the way NCIS does an investigation.

[RedRover]

I believe it was the Andersonville prison camp trial, after the Civil War, that established a soldier’s obligation to disobey unlawful orders.

This trial seems to seeking similar earth-shaking precedents.

The prosecution is arguing that: 1) Any soldier or Marine has the obligation to demand an investigation into any civilian death even when his superiors do not agree. 2) Urgent combat operations are no excuse for holding an investigation, even if it means withdrawing an entire unit from combat for interrogation.

The truly scary thing to me is our enemy in the WOT now knows how to remove troops from the field.

Is that what Murtha and his co-horts are truly after? Seems they would do anything to end the WOT.

[oh8eleven]

I have no idea since I've never been involved in combat. I assume at times it must be helpful, otherwise why bother?
The only way it could be effective to have lawyers in the field is if they stood in front of the guns.