Posted on 10/30/2007 2:54:17 PM PDT by RedRover
Was Savage criticizing the Marine Corps, or the civilians appointed or elected over them?
I'd sure be interested to know how the *rate* (i.e. per 10,000 troops in country) of prosecutions for acts against the local population, compare to say the end of WW-II, while fighting was still on going, or even during the "stalemate" part of the Korean war.
In war, stuff happens, mistakes, honest mistakes, are made. Much more so when the enemy wears no uniform and hides behind the civilian populace.
You are absolutely correct.
I was speaking of his remarks on GitMO, not his comments on the treatment of fellow Marines.
From my own experience I can tell you that it will be an extremely difficult task to find someone to replace Lt. Col. Vokey, if that is at all possible. Everyone should have the chance to be represented by such a knowledgeable and caring man.
?
Sounds like he and Hillery might get along just fine -
“The U.S. has imprisoned hundreds of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, in a military legal system that Vokey denounces as “horrific.”
“But he says the system is too rigid and should blend discipline with compassion.”
“Vokey charges that some commanders and officials in the Bush administration have abused the system of justice”
“The prosecution argued that the Marines went on a senseless rampage”
And they would know all about that seeing how they mount them with such felicity. I guess they don’t want the MSM to outdo them.
With any luck he will choose to defend military personnel from a civilian practice, like James Culp has done.
There is such a thing as a Deputy Commander. Sometimes more than one. For example, III Corps has two Deputy CGs, one of those is a Cannuk on an exchange tour. Similarly 1st Cav, part of III Corps, also has a CG and two Deputy CGs.
A family friend was a deputy commander of a different Corps.
In this particular instance, I don't think the choice of words "helped command is too much of a distortion, although giving his actual position would have been more clear. Even the Command Sergeant Major is generally part of the Command Group, and could fairly to said to *help* command the outfit (boy does he/she ever.) We used different terms in the AF, but the Command Chief or Senior Enlisted Adviser was/is always a force to be reckoned with as well)
Yeah, the guy has been around for twenty years and only now, with the Bush Administration, does he have a problem. No sale.
First, this is not even close to true, and I have a few recent Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise. Second, I did not serve on active duty just so that this could even be true. We are a better country than that, but you know that since you acknowledge a requirement for due process - which universally means an "impartial" process whose judgments reasonable men would agree to be fair based on presentation of credible evidence and the rule of law.
One of the largest problems that we have had in the prosecution of Iraq has been the neo-cons from Cheney down running roughshod over the judgment of capable, experienced military commanders. It is they who lead to the rise of the insurgency by insisting we go to war with an inadequate force and inadequate plans to deal with the post-Sadam world that they wanted to create. History will not treat such names as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Bremer, among others, kindly. A lot of good men have died as a result of their amatuerish meddling with professional soliders who did know better, and a lot of the "monday-morning" quarterbacking was from Army generals who had a much better understanding of what was about to come down when Sadam was gone than these men did. Rumsfeld, I think, did a great job on transformation, but he played fast and lose with the planning process as well.
USMC's loss.
Turda is trying to frame these guys, but the Truth keeps standing in the way.
Pray for W and Our Marines
>They are not the same as civilian juries, they have different duties, and different powers.<
I think the article was written for the viewing audience which is primarily civilians and therefore civilian terms were used.
Very interesting analysis. I think Lt Col Vokey probably received more heat from trying to defend the Haditha Marines than the Gitmo Bay detainees. But, that’s just me. I think the Marines will lose a very dedicated Marine lawyer if he decides to leave.
I indicated that we *could* just shoot them, after they got due process to determine if they were indeed illegal combatants. I did not advocate that. They know too much to waste 'em for one thing,. It would not serve our long term interests to do so indiscriminately. But I sure would feel better if the worst offenders had been more than just "detained". But we'd be within our treaty obligations to execute them after that initial due process.
BTW, I too served on active duty, in the reserves, in the guard and then in reserves again.
I also discounted *recent* court decisions in favor of older ones. It's so nice how settled law crumbles under political correctness and modern sensibilities. As I'm sure you know we executed 6 German saboteurs, with two their group of 8 having their death sentences commuted for cooperation, and two others of a "second wave" were sentenced to death but the sentences were commuted. Their crims? Violation of the Laws of War (unlawful belligerency) , the Articles of War (Now UCMJ) and conspiracy to commit those crimes. They never killed anyone, something that cannot be said for many of the current "detainees". The cases were tried by *secret* military tribunals, which were found constitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin The only real change in treaty obligations in the intervening years is the 1949 Geneva Convention, which still contains the unlawful combatant language.
By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
The 1949 Geneva convention extends POW protections to militias and other irregular forces. However they do have to meet certain conditions to obtain POW status as lawful combatants.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Most of these folks have violated serveral of those condition, all in some cases, the last 3 in many cases, and at least b and d, in most others.
Does that mean it was incorrect, but accurate? I'd say it was "dumbed down", but in reality it's just wrong. Most of the people, even those who believe every word on NPR, are not that dumb. Except maybe the Hollyweird crowd who insist on portraying the proceedings of a Court Martial as if they were a civilian trial.
I'm shocked, shocked I say, at such questions about our esteemed MSM.(/sarc)
God bless LtCol Vokey for what he's done for the Haditha Marines, but the only reason his story made NPR is because he's critical of what's going on at Gitmo. NPR doesn't give a damn about Marines unless they are accused of atrocities. They are just thrilled to get a high level Marine to criticize the Corps on the record.
Bump and a ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.