Page: 1 2
Incog4
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
Joseph had mentioned and explained, in more than a few of his original essays, that he considered as "the only viable alternative" to losing the U.S. Constitution along with the entity of the United States in a third World War a timely and justifiable coup d'état by the U.S. Military.
I personally agreed with that, knowing that Joseph meant a temporary take-over of the civilian government as ordered and carried-out by the highest leaders in the Military establishment.
I want to make it clear that I do not agree with or condone a mutiny anywhere within the Military establishment, any more than I would agree with and condone an attempted Civilian Revolution against the standing government.
But, It is important to note that there are veterans (and by implication active-duty personnel) who so strongly resent and bemoan the mis-direction of our troops in Iraq that they would welcome an internal mutiny.
That is the reason why I chose to duplicate the following editorial by an ex-Marine.
Aaron
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/seanews1/OPED/TimeForMutiny.html
A TIME FOR MUTINY?
OP-ED
By Robert S. Finnegam
Managing Editor
Southeast Asia News
05/31/2006
Haditha.
The United States Marine Corps was already on it's last legs as an elite fighting force, our reputation sullied by the dishonorable and sometimes criminal actions perpetrated by bottom of the barrel Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers in Iraq. Now this.
We are now observing the death throes of the oldest fighting force in America.
We had a good run, from November 10, 1775 to 2006. These dates may now be etched into the tombstone of an institution that has epitomized the meaning of the phrase "Duty, Honor, Country." Sure, we had our warts over the decades, but somehow our leaders throughout the many wars we fought managed to pull back from the brink and handle our problems internally. No more.
From the Commandant on down, with this incident, this atrocity, the Corps has shown the world that it is now leaderless. The Marine Corps is now in the same league with the American Division in My Lai, Vietnam and a Lieutenant by the name of Calley. Murderers.
Prior to this war, we were trained to be killers, not murderers. We killed combatants, not women and children. Murder was not only not condoned, it was punished in the extreme as we envisioned ourselves as the "good guys" among the armed forces, at least when it came to helping and protecting civilians in the countries we fought in.
In the not too distant past, Marines died assisting civilians, as we have since our inception. The CAP (Civil Action Patrol) program in Vietnam is a prime example of Marines helping civilians above and beyond the call of duty. This is but one example, one side of the Corps that didn't see much ink. We took pride in our work. Many Marines died protecting civilians throughout our long history, and look at us now.
It would be easy to put the blame on the cowards, the evil bastards that inhabit the White House, Pentagon, and the "military-industrial complex" but the blame lays squarely on the shoulders of leadership of the Marine Corps, all the way from the neutered Commandant of the Marine Corps on down to the most junior Corporal.
These individuals, the supposed backbone of the Corps, have allowed themselves to become whores for the present administration and our insane, born-again Commander-in-Chief and his band of criminals.
America is not long for this world if these pukes and their robotic followers are somehow not stopped from unleashing WW III by invading Iran.
I believe that Marine Corps General Chesty Puller would have had the leaders of the debacle in Haditha Courts-Martialed and shot, and failing this remedy would have led his men in a mutiny.
It is our duty as Officers and NCO's to disobey illegal orders. The Corps has been ripe for mutiny for some time now and had we still leaders in our ranks, it surely would have happened in this illegal war, where illegal acts of war are now commonplace.
The junior enlisted Marines who pulled the triggers on these civilians are not responsible for their actions. The orders come from above, the leadership, or what passes for it now. These are the individuals that are responsible, right up to the maggot that is our Commander-in-Chief.
If by some miracle we have military investigators and prosecutors who possess the integrity and courage to assure that the individuals responsible for this massacre are brought to trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, perhaps some of the stain of this crime will eventually be washed away.
As for the restoration of integrity and honor in Marine Corps, I believe it is too late.
Robert S. Finnegan is the Managing Editor of Southeast Asia News and a former Marine Corps Non-Commissioned Officer. He may be reached at seanews1@yahoo.com.
---------------------------------------
|
|
12/13/2006, 11:10 am
|
Send Email to Incog4
Send PM to Incog4
|
NamVet2
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
I realize that I'm mostly "preaching to the choir" here insofar as understanding and agreeing with Chief Sarandos' stances and his reasons for them, and this should not be taken in a vein detrimental to us Army, Navy and AF vets.
But it is the stark truth that the Jarheads among us are the most frustrated, disappointed and downright angry, about our active troops being sold down the river (and turned into murderers), for the sake of Bush's hubris.
Maybe not in the same words or with as much eloquence as Robert Finnegan, I have heard the exact same sentiments as his expressed by other former and retired Marines, especially the "lifers".
My heart really bleeds for especially them.
Greg
|
|
12/13/2006, 4:01 pm
|
Send Email to NamVet2
Send PM to NamVet2
|
NamVet2
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
Aaron,
I want to add that you were apparently the first to find and refer to Finnegan's article, since it had not been previously mentioned in the private ring.
I was quick to send-out the URL of your topic, naming you as my source.
Keep up the vigilance,
Greg
|
|
12/13/2006, 4:10 pm
|
Send Email to NamVet2
Send PM to NamVet2
|
Incog4
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
quote:
NamVet2 wrote:
Aaron,
I want to add that you were apparently the first to find and refer to Finnegan's article, since it had not been previously mentioned in the private ring.
I was quick to send-out the URL of your topic, naming you as my source.
Keep up the vigilance,
Greg
Now you've made me feel bad about this, Greg.
I can't see how I would've ever found this article by myself, and the truth is that I ran across a reference to it in one of the other boards that I went to on "butt-kicking" missions for the sake of Joseph (who was being assailed in his absence from them).
I find the bulk of my own topics for re-post and commentary via "google News-headlines," and via separate searches on names and terms mentioned within the so-found articles. I also subscribe to Israel online newspapers, the NY Times and the Washington Post.
Of course, as everyone can see, most of my posts within threads are in reply or response to what was written by others.
I know that I necessarily miss a lot of interesting and pertinent articles, and that I sometimes neglect to timely post some others "while they're hot".
But, usually when I know that Joseph will be tied-up with offline matters, I try my best to research the www instead of watching T-V, to find and add fresh content to TFTF.
Thanks otherwise,
Aaron
|
|
12/14/2006, 12:53 am
|
Send Email to Incog4
Send PM to Incog4
|
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
quote:
NamVet2 wrote:
I realize that I'm mostly "preaching to the choir" here insofar as understanding and agreeing with Chief Sarandos' stances and his reasons for them, and this should not be taken in a vein detrimental to us Army, Navy and AF vets.
But it is the stark truth that the Jarheads among us are the most frustrated, disappointed and downright angry, about our active troops being sold down the river (and turned into murderers), for the sake of Bush's hubris.
Maybe not in the same words or with as much eloquence as Robert Finnegan, I have heard the exact same sentiments as his expressed by other former and retired Marines, especially the "lifers".
My heart really bleeds for especially them.
Greg
At times like this, it saddens me that neither "vikingamerican" nor "AmericanSamurai" are posting members of TFTF, and that I can't even know if they are among our very many readers who prefer to stay anonymous.
Whether or not either or both of them are exactly as they "advertise" themselves, and regardless that their forum-personas "hate each other with purple passions," there should be no doubts in anyone's minds that both of them are in fact former Marines.
To my recollection, I had never once conversed with "AmSam" in any of the forums that I'd ever posted in.
But, as many people know, "VA" and I (and eventually he and Aaron) became mutual "flame warriors," which was mainly because he had chosen to side with and protect the very worst of the character-attackers on the internet, while Aaron chose to stand up for me.
Nonetheless, I really do wish that both of those "ex-Jarheads" could be among the others like them who will read what I have to say now.
Greg said that this should not be taken as a slight against former or current members of the regular divisions of the Army, Navy and Air Force, and I'll add that there are special divisions of each -- i.e.; Green Berets, Seals, and the like -- whose members are set widely apart from the "regulars" in their respective Branches of the Military, just like the Marines were while they were a "special division" of the U.S. Navy before coming into their own right as one of the Branches. These specialists had earned and deserve the same admiration and respect that is, and should be, reserved for regular Marines.
What sets such men apart from the rest of us who'd served honorably in the regular Army, Navy and Air Force is special and outstanding courage, in their knowledge that they will constitute "the first lines of defence (and/or aggression)" in any wars, along with their total, unquestioned and unconditional loyalty to the Chain-Of-Command, regardless of the particular civilian politicians who (honestly or dishonestly, deservedly or undeservedly) "claw their ways into" the Presidency of the United States and so become the Commanders-In-Chief. Such men are taught, and they gladly accept and abide by, the mantra of; "Yours is not to wonder why. Yours is but to do or die".
Let me quickly toss in that such men do not expect to "die for their country," but to instead, as General George Patton had put it; "Make the other bastards die for theirs!" But, when push comes to shove and they are left with no other alternatives, such men become perfectly willing to die for the sakes of their comrades as well as for the honor of their Corps.
I was not such a man. My purpose in joining Naval Aviation during the Korean War was neither to kill nor die, but simply to help keep other men from dying needlessly. And, I did "wonder why," and did not agree with, the reasons America was involved in that conflict between the two Korean governments. Although I was able to quickly "make rank" all the way to the top of the existing enlisted structure in spite of it, I'd very often questioned, and sometimes legally disobeyed, the orders of my superiors in the Chain-Of Command.
But, I well understand and agree with the thought-processes of Marines. One of my brothers was a Marine in WWII, my son was a Marine during the earliest fighting in the M-E, and one of my nephews was a Marine during the Iraq War.
This is why I well understand and wholly sympathize with the expressed feelings of this Robert S. Finnegan, although I realize that the "mutiny" he implies would be totally illegal and impossible to implement "from the bottom up".
Joseph
|
|
12/15/2006, 7:27 am
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
Incog4
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
Joseph,
I could not agree more with the comparisons you made between the "regular" and "special" forces within the Branches of the U.S. Military. I also fully agree that the Marines, as now a Branch, should still be considered as a "special" rather than "regular" fighting force as a whole, for the reasons you gave.
Personally, I can speak for those of us involuntary conscripts (draftees) into the Army Infantry during the Nam War, who actually saw combat duties and did not shrink from them, in saying that we also were willing to give our lives for the sakes of our "buddies," but not for the sake of our government's political/financial agendas.
Although I don't share your same level of confidence that "VA's" thinking toward the Corps comes close to that of "AmSam," given the huge chasm between them in terms of what they did and for how long they did it while on active duty, I deferred to your judgment and opinion as expressed above.
Therefore, I'd made it one of my last acts, before "coming home unscathed from the flame-wars" in N54, to cut&paste only your above reply to one of those 2 boards, as a new topic titled; "vikingamerican: your attention please," dated December 15.
I can't know in the case of AmSam, but I'm certain that VA, among other current and former members of Pravda, still "surfs" the N54 boards, so I'm sure that he has read it by now.
A/G
|
|
12/18/2006, 8:17 am
|
Send Email to Incog4
Send PM to Incog4
|
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
Aaron,
It was probably a (non-fatal) mistake for me to mention those two by usernames, but they are the only two posters that I know of in any of the forums whom I've discerned to be certainly ex-Marines.
In the interim since you started this thread, I have heard from six retired Marines via E-mail, and their consensus opinion is in full agreement with all that's been publicly said herein. But, none of them are "forumers" like VA and AmSam, and each of them prefer to keep their personal information (including IP and E-mail addresses) confidential outside of the Veterans E-mail rings.
Since you, along with Greg for certain, are a member of at least one of the private E-mail rings, I'm sure that him and you have also heard from (or about) these particular ex-Marines in their true identities.
Also, I expect that one or more of our "silent readers" have written directly to Robert S. Finnegan at the E-mail address given in his article, so there is a chance that Finnegan himself has read this topic.
I'll repeat his given E-mail address:
seanews1@yahoo.com
Anyway, thanks for bringing this thread to the attention of VA, even though it is extremely doubtful that he would respond to it.
J/S
|
|
12/21/2006, 10:55 am
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
NamVet2
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
As you all know by now, indictments have been brought against the Marines who were directly involved in the Habitha massacre.
It is my feeling that a few of them will be scape-goated for the sake of quickly placing this incident among the archives of "dead" news-issues such as My Lai and Fallujah.
It is also my feeling that other such incidents will arise as the Mid-East Wars continue, for reasons that have been amply covered in this board by especially Aaron, involving the mental and emotional stresses under which our troops are operating.
This is not to say that these men are innocent of atrocities and war-crimes, or that they should go unpunished, but rather to say that they had been forced into the underlying circumstances by men who will not even be mentioned by name during the trials and convictions of these men, and who might conceivably never have to answer for their own, evil and criminal decisions and orders from nearer the top of the Chain of Command.
|
|
12/22/2006, 9:10 am
|
Send Email to NamVet2
Send PM to NamVet2
|
Incog4
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
quote:
NamVet2 wrote:
As you all know by now, indictments have been brought against the Marines who were directly involved in the Habitha massacre.
It is my feeling that a few of them will be scape-goated for the sake of quickly placing this incident among the archives of "dead" news-issues such as My Lai and Fallujah.
It is also my feeling that other such incidents will arise as the Mid-East Wars continue, for reasons that have been amply covered in this board by especially Aaron, involving the mental and emotional stresses under which our troops are operating.
This is not to say that these men are innocent of atrocities and war-crimes, or that they should go unpunished, but rather to say that they had been forced into the underlying circumstances by men who will not even be mentioned by name during the trials and convictions of these men, and who might conceivably never have to answer for their own, evil and criminal decisions and orders from nearer the top of the Chain of Command.
My sentiments exactly, Greg.
Also, thanks for the credit.
Aaron
|
|
12/22/2006, 9:18 am
|
Send Email to Incog4
Send PM to Incog4
|
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: An ex-Marine asks: "A TIME FOR MUTINY?"
I found this Christian Science Monitor article particularly interesting, in that it delves a bit deeper into the “chain of command” and the "rules of engagement" aspects, along with mentioning Hamdaniyah and Mahmudiya “in the same breath” with Haditha and My Lai.
It also includes a brief touch into the base cause of such incidents which, as Aaron had covered in depth and upon which we all agree, is the lack of mandatory psychiatric screening for latent suicidal and homicidal tendencies, especially in men who are slated for combat duty in such, stress-producing situations involving non-uniformed real and potential enemies.
from the December 22, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1222/p01s01-usmi.html
'Atrocity' cases test US military justice
Charges against eight marines in the Haditha case refocus attention on how the military handles the abuse and killing of civilians.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Haditha, Hamdaniyah, and Mahmudiya - Iraqi cities where US troops are alleged to have committed wartime atrocities - may not have seared the public consciousness as deeply as did My Lai in Vietnam. But the cases, including new criminal charges filed Thursday against eight marines in connection with the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha, are sure to focus more attention on how the military handles abuse and killing of prisoners and civilians.
The serious charges brought in these cases also raise basic questions about how the US military-justice system proceeds against alleged atrocities:
What constitutes a "war crime"? What is the responsibility of officers of enlisted soldiers and marines who are found guilty? What punishments are being meted out?
Prosecution in such cases falls under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Geneva Conventions. But it is the "rules of engagement" that may be most relevant for troops going into battle.
Such rules for combat typically are set by the unit commander just before an operation begins, based on an evaluation of mission, enemy, terrain, troops, and time available, says retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Quaker lobby in Washington. But, he adds, rules of engagement "can be idiosyncratic."
Colonel Smith notes, too, that "soldiers always have the right of self-defense using even deadly force if they judge that they are in danger of suffering grievous wounds or death from enemy action."
In the Haditha case, those marines charged with killing civilians (including 10 women and children shot at close range) are expected to assert that they were fired on from houses near where their convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device (IED) that killed a lance corporal.
"Our view has been and continues to be that these are combat-related deaths," defense lawyer Gary Myers told the Associated Press. Mr. Myers represents Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, who faces one charge of murder involving unpremeditated killings of three men in a house.
Evidence gathered by military investigators contradicts that, prompting the Marine Corps to charge four of the eight marines with murder. It also led Thursday to charges against four others - unit officers not present at the scene - of failing to properly investigate and report the event. The highest-ranking officer to be charged is a lieutenant colonel, accused of failing to obey an order or regulation, encompassing dereliction of duty.
That raises questions about the responsibility of officers up the chain of command, from lieutenants leading platoons to colonels commanding brigades.
Rank should be important in assessing professional and perhaps even criminal responsibility, says Gary Solis, a 26-year Marine Corps veteran who served as a courts-martial prosecutor and judge.
"Under the law of armed conflict, if a superior knew, or should have known, of a subordinate's misconduct, and he took no action to stop it or to punish it, then he is himself personally criminally liable for the crime committed," says Dr. Solis, who directed the law of war program at West Point and now teaches at Georgetown Law School in Washington.
"That's basic World War II Nuremberg Tribunal stuff," he says. "But how often have we seen the principle honored? Not often."
During the nine-year Vietnam War, 95 soldiers and marines were convicted of murder or manslaughter of noncombatants. Courts-martial resulted in sentences as stiff as 50 years and life in prison.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, most incidents involving civilian deaths caused illegally by US forces have resulted in far lighter punishment, Solis finds.
For example, an Army chief warrant officer charged with negligent homicide in the 2003 death of an Iraqi detainee received a letter of reprimand, a fine of $6,000, and two months' restriction to Fort Carson, Colo. A sergeant involved in the beating death of an Afghan detainee in 2005 was reprimanded, given a one-grade demotion, and fined $1,000. In the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the most senior officer punished was Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, demoted to colonel.
But dealing with detainees is very different from fighting in the heat and fog of battle, especially when the enemy emerges from or blends into the civilian populace. That situation, which troops face routinely in Iraq and Afghanistan, can lead to a difficult and potentially deadly paradox.
"Because Army personnel are trained for conventional warfare, they naturally want to kill the enemy," says national security analyst Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. "But in counterinsurgency warfare, a premium must be put on providing security for the population without killing civilians.
"This unfortunately means tighter rules of engagement, which increases US casualties," says Dr. Eland.
In Haditha, the death of one marine and injuries to two others while traveling in a convoy preceded the attacks on Iraqi civilians. The squad leader that day faces the most serious charges - murdering 12 people and ordering other marines to kill six people. His attorney said the charges carry a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Other recent cases of civilian deaths at the hands of US troops point to murderous intent.
In the Hamdaniyah case, seven marines and a Navy corpsman have been charged in the kidnap and murder of an Iraqi man, and then making it look as if he had planted an IED. So far, four have pleaded guilty to lesser charges in return for prison terms of less than two years.
In the Mahmudiya case, five Army soldiers have been charged in the rape and premeditated murder in April of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the murder of her parents and 5-year-old sister. One soldier pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty. Another, a sergeant charged with dereliction of duty for failing to report the crimes, accepted an "other than honorable" discharge from the Army. Cases against the others are pending.
As with civilian trials, the nature of the evidence may lead military prosecutors to conclude that negligent homicide - not premeditated murder - is the most serious case they can make.
"Even with negligent homicide, the starched and pressed judge advocate who's not been in combat has to convince a jury that the young [marines] who daily risked their lives in Iraq are unworthy of belief," says Solis, the former Marine Corps judge advocate. "That could be a hard sell, and acquittals would not surprise me."
Some experts attribute such atrocities to the stress of enduring multiple tours of duty in Iraq, as well as the very difficult circumstances of fighting an unconventional war.
"It seems to me the main point is that these incidents are symptoms of combat stress," says John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org. "The question is whether the combat stress management system is doing a good job because there are so few incidents or a bad job because these incidents happened."
• Material from wire services was used in this report.
-----------------------------
|
|
12/23/2006, 7:44 pm
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 11/25/2009, 7:52 pm
|
|
|
