Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
|
My sense, which is based upon nothing just as yours, is that the Army is allowing some latitude for combat soldiers without establishing a legal precedent or admitting combat stress is a factor.
It's like in the case I told about above. Those prisoners we saw abused were recent captives, taken on the battlefield. It's not at all uncommon for POW's to be slapped around by their captors for critical intelligence which may mean life or death right now. While it's still illegal, and immoral, the Army isn't real keen on prosecuting soldiers for things done in the literal heat of combat. That does not mean the Army approves, just that it recognizes that soldiers will do certain things and, for the good of the whole, turns a blind eye to it whenever it can and so long as it's not too life threatening.
Of course, Behenna's case wouldn't fall under that scneario because it happened well away from the scene of the attack and was pre-planned and pre-meditated. That's why couldn't they pretend not to see, but that does not mean the Army can't show a little mercy to one of its own.
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.
Hey Jack
