Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Marine accused of killing 24 Iraqis in Haditha makes plea deal [View all]Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 6, 2012, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)
We become annoyed, and justifiably so, when hard-heads force us to look for the Advil, to ease the pain caused by their ignorance and/or denial of science.
However, many of the opinions expressed in this corridor, demonstrate same ignorance and/or denial of human psychological factors--the human element, and its affects on the military bearing of soldiers. To the knowing observer, it's understandable and predictable--it has existed heretofore as it will henceforth.
But for whatever reason, many people simply repudiate reality. (Where is the Advil?)
Next, we People like Solomon, the Professor of Law, a.k.a., Gary Solis. I don't know...I am not comfortable with using the term "enemy," to define him, but if I am a soldier, he is not my friend. Moreover, his judgment and understanding of the Laws of War, is dubious.
There is a fundamental difference between the Laws of War and the Rules of Law, and Solomon appears to be trying to merge and muddle, in an effort to re-define the Laws of War. That is intellectually dishonest professional comportment. Thus, he is not qualified to judge our soldiers.
Edited: To Address The Jury Room
The legal maxim, "innocent, until judged guilty, by one's peers," is a basic principle of common law; and it remains with us today. Susan Anthony, made the argument during her trail for illegal voting, that she had not been judged by her peers. I do not see how I could make a rational argument against her; with the proviso of her status.
Likewise, a civilian jury that might include a Paris Hilton, or a Charley Sheen, would not constitute a jury of a soldier's peers. Would it?
Also edited to wallow in the magnificence of glory: