Primary tabs

Should U.S. servicemembers be punished for taking action when their moral codes differ from local cultural norms?

 

 

View more polls

Comments

This is a trick question met to stir up controversy. First of all, military members that are deployed to a theater of operation are trained on the culture norms of the theater and operate under prescribed Rules of Engagement(ROE)and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the government of the country in which deployed. Violations of the ROE and SOFA are governed under Article 92 of the UCMJ, lawful orders and regulations. So the answer is YES, if the action is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. That is the only code that matters, which is obeying the orders of the officers appointed over you.

Submitted by JAF (not verified) : Sep 24, 2015 3:42pm

That was the same argument that was tried by Hitler's troops after WWII and it was ruled invalid. The world courts have from time to time ruled that the abuse of children, women, etc. is wrong and the violators should be brought to justice. Under UCMJ the "key" word here is "lawful orders and regulations". Allowing the violation of children does not constitute a lawful order.

Submitted by wcl (not verified) : Sep 24, 2015 5:23pm

If you can remember the Vietnam War and the MILLIE situation where the children and women were throwing hang grenades in back of our troops riding in back of our 5 ton vehicles,were we wrong then for protecting one another, even though it was women and kids.Why are we the only country that punishes our soldiers at war time.

Submitted by Sjon Ross (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 9:42am

Right again JAF. It is a trick question and should have never appeared in this forum. The AL has no business attempting to proscribe actions in another nation even if we find them abhorrent. We should be at the forefront of defending Veterans rights and lobbying for such. Assisting Veterans and their families should be paramount to rewriting military law and ROE.

Submitted by Jim Creagan (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 10:00am

Umm, yeah of course we are talking about lawful orders. I don't see the Hitler connection to the U.S. Military and how it operates.

Submitted by JAF (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 10:17am

You guys do realize we are talking about the rape of young boys by Afghans at U.S. military camps? So, they should just stand by and do nothing? I don't think so.

Submitted by Jack R (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 3:13pm

Aren't US Military Bases American Territory? bound by American Law? Therefore taking action would be a matter of preserving human rights, such as if you interfered in a situation like this in your hometown until the proper authorities could take over? Seems to me, that the Afghans should respect OUR laws on OUR bases!

Submitted by VS (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 3:18pm

Then the officer should be smacked down if he goes along with this. Think good leaders like General Jim Mattis what he would do.

Submitted by Richard Cooper (not verified) : Sep 24, 2015 5:37pm

Except that even under the guidance of the UCMJ, members of the Armed Forces are held to the fact that they must obey LAWFUL ORDERS of Officers appointed over them... I maintain that if a uniformed service member is ordered to ignore what would clearly be a prosecutable unlawful act, or ignore any act of violence to an innocent bystander, than I believe it is in the interest of justice that a uniformed member should be able to act appropriately in that regard.

Submitted by Gunny411 (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 12:44am

It is worse than a trick question. Calling the rape of young boys a "cultural norm" is misleading at best. A "cultural norm" is accepted by the general population and that behavior is not. It is simply an expression of tribal power. Ask the parents of those children!

Submitted by J L DENSMORE (not verified) : Sep 28, 2015 10:27am

Article 92 of the UCMJ may be superceded if more harm to the combatants lives and/or welfare occurs in the course of their duties. As far as I am concerned the ROE and SOFA are antiquated. The POTUS and the Joint Chiefs of Staff set the Rules of Engagement(ROE)as outlined in the Executive Branch of government. SFC Martland who "Pushed" a Afghani police commander after learning that the Police Commander had sexually abused the boy and his mother had been beaten by police officers should not be forced to retire because his actions saved the life of the child. SFC Martland should be allowed to continue his military service instead of being forced to retire. In my "Humble" opinion, SFC Martland and his Commanding Officer have done nothing but bring "Honor" to our military forces and should receive a medal for their actions on that day.

Submitted by RBN68 : Sep 24, 2015 5:40pm

Sorry, but your ROE statement is not exactly true. The POTUS and JC's may give broad ROE, and the DoD/State department negotiate the SOFA with the host country's government, but the Commanders on the ground are responsible for specific ROE which is often tailored to an individual operation or mission.

Submitted by JAF (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 11:52am

The highest ranking authority making such an order should be held responsible and punished, be it a military officer or civilian authority. What is the difference in these crimes than those atrocities taking place at Mai Lai

Submitted by Richard A Jensen (not verified) : Sep 24, 2015 6:32pm

If the soldier is witness to an assault on a child he should rescue the child, restrain the attacker and call in his superior officer. If the the superior officer takes no action against the child molester, the child molester should subsequently suffer a fatal accident.

Submitted by Bronxite (not verified) : Sep 24, 2015 6:50pm

impossible question to answer. Provide the parameters then we can answer.

Submitted by bob green (not verified) : Sep 24, 2015 7:36pm

No, military personnel should not be punished but if they act in a manner which could risk the mission then they should be reassigned.

Submitted by Rouhana Mansour IV (not verified) : Sep 24, 2015 7:40pm

I don't want to get into all of the legalities of soldiers projecting their morality on people of countries that we are fighting in, but I believe we have been bringing our morality to the fight for centuries. Everywhere we have been stationed we have influenced the people in one way or another. Do the Japanese still act the way they did before the war and subsequent occupation? I think that we changed some of their customs and injected some of ours. Are the Vietnamese the same or did some of our morality, good or bad rub off on them? I believe that the morality, compassion, and humanity of the American soldier in Germany was the reason Europe didn't fall into depression and war again. The politicians wanted to pack up and leave after the war but soldiers that had caused the destruction and could see the pain of the people didn't want to just walk away. I know in my own experience that I never compromised my own beliefs and morality because it differed from that of the host nation. If I saw something that was wrong I didn't just go along to get along. I did something. When we go to war we don't just project our war fighting force we also project our morality. Why else do we go to war? We go to war because there is some kind of wrong that was committed either against us or an ally. Isn't war the ultimate imposition of a countries beliefs on another country or people. Why punish a single soldier for doing what the country as a whole is doing?

Submitted by SFC ET (not verified) : Sep 24, 2015 9:04pm

Why are we even associated with people like this, who have the same principals of Hitler! "I'll pray for our troops"

Submitted by Thomas Palmer (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 9:38am

On an unconventional battlefield, Soldiers can get caught up in the politics of the local culture. That is why senior military leaders are responsible for the ROE for all kinds of situations that Soldiers can encounter. Soldiers have to look after themselves and their buddies by obeying orders first. Any thing questionable is taken through the chain of command. Obviously there may be situations that quick decisions have to be made on the ground by those in charge that could conflict with the ROE, but the person making them will be held accountable and such decision would have to be justifiable in a commanders inquiry. Then it is up to senior officers to determine if there was a punitive violation of art 92, or if the decision was justifiable given a changed or unforeseen condition.

Submitted by JAF (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 11:45am

JAF,
Don't you think the ROE in Afghanizstan limit our military leaders and the decisions they have to make on the "spur" of the moment! If our military bases on foreign soil are considered an extension of the United States of America, why would the ROE be in effect in a situation whereby the "Host" country is unaccountable to the laws of the United States. The Afghan Police Commander should have met with an unfortunate accident because of his actions against a young boy who was "Sodomized" and his mother "Beaten" for attempting to protect her child. I believe that if this incident had occured on Afghan property SFC Martland and his superior officer would have been shot on the spot, end of story! However, since this occured on territory held by the United States of America in a host nation, SFC Martland acted reasonably! ROE in Afghanizstan are inconsistent and put our military men and women in effect at the mercy of the host nation! This is and never should be a ROE when we are asked to defend their nation from internal and external forces. SFC Martland's punishment for his "Supposed" crime is insane. You have an 11 year Special Forces member not being allowed to finish out his military career by the actions of "Convening Authority". This attitude and punishment by people in the Department of the Army and DOD have set recruitment back to the "Dark Ages". You can use Article 92 as your justification JAF, however a Article 92 hearing, punishment do not amount to the rules of Article 92 of the UCMJ in which it is written! You left wing zealots are wrong on this issue, and the people who have made these decisions are simply wrong! How can they in good consciousness sleep soundly with the decisions that they have recommended against SFC Martland. They and you should be ashamed of yourselves for using the ROE and Article 92 as a "Gotcha" clause of the UCMJ!!

Submitted by RBN68 : Sep 25, 2015 6:37pm

I am not making a point for any particular incident or individual, merely providing some perspective in regards to the overall question. Not sure how that makes me a left wing zealot. I retired from Active Duty 2 years ago. 26 Years Regular Army NCO. I think I know a little something about TODAY'S military. This forum is not for veterans discussing military and veterans issues. Its a political spew pot for past generations of vets who know nothing about this generation of military and veterans. Go pound sand. And the AL wonders why young vets aren't joining the "club".

Submitted by JAF (not verified) : Sep 29, 2015 10:53am

To easy to tell the men from the boys in these comments. I see 7% of you said simply walk away. If someone was harming your family you probably would still walk away. Most Americans are born with back bones but there is a percentage born without. Good thing is it's easy to tell a hawk from a dove. You few should be ashamed of yourself. Don A.

Submitted by Don A. (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 12:37pm

Well said Don. I can't imagine any self respecting person in the military walking away. They would be complicit and certainly guilty of cowardice.

Submitted by Richard Cooper (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 2:21pm

I fail to see where a LAWFUL ORDER conflicts with personal ethics or code of honor and visa versa!!

Submitted by mikedv733 : Sep 25, 2015 2:59pm

JAF is right on target.

Submitted by John T LaRochelle : Sep 25, 2015 3:09pm

If our military is expected to stand by and watch the rape of young boys, we shouldn't have a military. Martland is a hero.

Submitted by Jack R (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 3:16pm

Hero status is NOT the issue. Was this incident actually observed while it happened, or was it hearsay? Maybe we should not have a military if the military can arbitrate our standards on everyone. Everyone here in the U.S certainly would not like to live under martial law - all civil rights suspended. If anyone does, try it in North Korea.

Submitted by John T LaRochelle : Sep 25, 2015 4:25pm

Yeah, because stopping boys from getting raped is just like what the North Koreans do! Give me a break.

Submitted by Jack R (not verified) : Sep 29, 2015 12:31pm

Your getting all the breaks your entitled to as long as YOUR civil rights have not been violated.

Submitted by John T LaRochelle : Sep 29, 2015 2:29pm

Taking direct action against a foreign official without proper authorization is stupid. If the individual who took action was authorized, then no punishment is in order for them. Moving up through the Chain of Command it may be difficult to see where the "Authorization" occurred, but that is where the blame lies. This looks more to me like a leadership vacuum. That is what should be addressed, not the morality of the situation. One of the comments above said that the Legion should stay out of this. I agree. The question and the answers provided are polarizing and inflammatory. This is not helpful and the Legion should be in the business of being helpful.

Submitted by David Feagles (not verified) : Sep 25, 2015 10:54pm

Right on target.

Submitted by John T LaRochelle : Sep 26, 2015 12:31pm

The molesting of children and women are not to be tolerated under no circumstances! The United States does not stand by and allow such crimes to take place! Any order to stand down and allow this to take place is not valid. If your conscience would allow you stand by and allow this then you are a Nazi !

Submitted by Bill Pennington (not verified) : Sep 27, 2015 9:39am

These "animals" that we trained, are on the base that we built, and are performing these acts while are soldiers know it's going on, and they aren't allowed to do anything about it? This leadership is pathetic!

Submitted by Mike Dinger57 : Sep 28, 2015 2:20pm