Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Army 1LT Clint Lorance and I are the same age. I just think this case is a tragedy at all levels.
I certainly would not call him a war hero, but I definitely am not quite convinced based on what I read about this case that he is a war criminal either simply because I don't know what happened there. Nobody knew exactly what he was thinking at the time except for himself. According to many internet articles about this case, he was trying to protect his unit going by the information he was given (Although I don't know if these internet articles have any credibility. They can be biased.) The end result is two people without weapons were dead and one officer is now given 20 years. Innocent people (or people without weapons) die, this is unfortunately the horror and nature of war.
One article on the internet says,
"It is important to consider that, though the men Lorance ordered killed did not have any weapons on them, their motorcycle was taken away by another Afghan a few minutes after the engagement. Only weeks later in a similar area of Afghanistan, a two wheeled motorcycle was driven into a market where US Soldiers were patrolling and the Taliban on the bike detonated a deadly amount of explosives which were affixed to the bike. The leader of that patrol did not take the actions Lorance did, and his patrol suffered heavy casualties that day.
Intelligence reports for the area identified any personnel owning or operating a motorcycle as Taliban, as there were no local population living there. The local population had long since moved out of the area because it had been taken over by the Taliban. Essentially, if they were in this area, they were up to no good. The only other non-Taliban actors in this area were farmers who commuted from their homes south of the river to farm the land that had been left abandoned".
I have never seen combat, I can only imagine what kind of stress these combat troops are under on a daily basis. I certainly am not going to look at this case and conclude he is a war criminal because I have not been there. I don't know what really happened there.
I can see that at war time, both enemies good and bad are on high alert. They are almost in a paranoid state of mind, meaning every little noise, every odd person is going to send out warning signals. When these things occur, as first responds, human nature tends to fight or flight. Unfortunately, the option of making mistake is not there. Mistake = people die.
Perhaps this soldier through years of combat, given the memo he was given just reacted impulsively at what he thought was right at that given moment. In the course of wars, these happened sometimes. Do I think this guy killed people for the sake for killing people? Absolutely not, I don't believe so. This case is the ultimate tragedy of war. Unfortunately, we cannot change the nature of war.
I can see that at war time, both enemies good and bad are on high alert. They are almost in a paranoid state of mind, meaning every little noise, every odd person is going to send out warning signals. When these things occur, as first responds, human nature tends to fight or flight. Unfortunately, the option of making mistake is not there. Mistake = people die.
Perhaps this soldier through years of combat, given the memo he was given just reacted impulsively at what he thought was right at that given moment.
These kind of circumstances which you describe whilst quite possible are not extenuating. Although, they could possibly be seen as mitigating they most certainly aren't exonerating.
Regardless of the thoughts and feelings he had or the influences both physical and intellectual upon him he was, to a greater or lesser extent, trained to deal with them.
These kind of circumstances which you describe whilst quite possible are not extenuating. Although, they could possibly be seen as mitigating they most certainly aren't exonerating.
Regardless of the thoughts and feelings he had or the influences both physical and intellectual upon him he was, to a greater or lesser extent, trained to deal with them.
Perhaps this soldier through years of combat, given the memo he was given just reacted impulsively at what he thought was right at that given moment.
"Lorance, who joined the Army in 2003, had very little experience in Afghanistan and was on his second combat patrol after having taken command of his platoon only a few days earlier"
I will just say it was an unfortunate incident. We still do not really have all the facts. We were not members of the jury, who heard all the testimony.
"Lorance, who joined the Army in 2003, had very little experience in Afghanistan and was on his second combat patrol after having taken command of his platoon only a few days earlier"
I will just say it was an unfortunate incident. We still do not really have all the facts. We were not members of the jury, who heard all the testimony.
I wonder if we'll ever see all of the testimony and evidence.
As someone who has been on a dismounted patrol in Afghanistan to have a vehicle drive up behind you at a quick rate, I can say that it's an experience you'll never forget...
I wouldn't weigh the statements of the troops who testified against him to heavily. I've no doubt they were cut a deal so they wouldn't be prosecuted. Under the UCMJ they were in violation by following an unlawful order; which they made statements to that fact. If the Lt is guilty then those troops are just as guilty.
I am not so sure about that theory but I am sure it all came out in the Article 32 investigation and during the trial.
In all my years in the Army I have come to believe two things about troops: 1. Troops can break anything that isn't supposed to be broken. and 2. Troops will always come through in the end. Someone would have said something to someone if the story they gave is untrue.
I do wonder where the NCOs were when it happened. Was this 29 year old 1st Lt new to the platoon and combat patrols on his own? just wondering.
Here are some very interesting articles written about 1LT Clint Lorance
I believe armytimes.com has a lot of credibility and perhaps is not biased.
According to armytimes.com
"1st Lt. Clint Lorance was found guilty by the jury Thursday. He was found not guilty of making a false official statement.
Prosecutors said Lorance ordered his men to open fire immediately in violation of the military’s rules of engagement, which requires soldiers to hold fire unless they have evidence of hostile action or hostile intent. They said three men on a motorcycle approached the patrol in July 2012. Two were killed and the third ran away.
Attorneys for Lorance said he was trying to protect his unit. His defense is laid out on a website called Defend our Soldier."
Obviously, according to the prosecutors, he violated rules of engagements, although, according to defendoursoldier.com
"1LT Lorance then ordered that both men be physically separated, put into a shaded area, and be given food and water. Both men refused food, but drank water. When the Afghan Police arrived and asked Lorance for permission to interrogate the prisoners, Lorance denied the Police access to the prisoners and declared them under US custody, as such, they would be treated in accordance with US Army laws for treatment of prisoners. These laws mandate that the US personnel must protect anyone in their custody from interrogation or unjust treatment. 1LT Lorance instructed his men to guard the prisoners and not talk to them. 2-3 hours later, the prisoners were transported to the Detainee processing facility at the Brigade Headquarters.
Even though both men tested positive for explosive residue and were acting suspiciously and acted exactly as all other Taliban do in the area, Lorance's higher HQ assumed they were innocent due to political reasons. The Army assumed Lorance guilty of random acts of murder, fired him from being a platoon leader, took his weapon away--in a combat zone-- and moved him to headquarters to assume administrative duties while awaiting the investigation.
The members of Lorance's platoon have since made efforts to protect themselves by testifying against Lorance in exchange for immunity. Lorance is the only person in this incident to face any criminal charges.
Each of the above circumstances were validated by witness testimony, while under oath, during the court martial."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
