ABC: Officers Likely to Be Charged in Haditha Killings, Sources Say

So much for "a few bad apples"

himself to Truman; the buck stops there. :grr: Oh, and add rumsfailed to the list.


http://www.trumanlibrary.org/buckstop.htm
The saying "the buck stops here" derives from the slang expression "pass the buck" which means passing the responsibility on to someone else. The latter expression is said to have originated with the game of poker, in which a marker or counter, frequently in frontier days a knife with a buckhorn handle, was used to indicate the person whose turn it was to deal. If the player did not wish to deal he could pass the responsibility by passing the "buck," as the counter came to be called, to the next player.*

On more than one occasion President Truman referred to the desk sign in public statements. For example, in an address at the National War College on December 19, 1952 Mr. Truman said, "You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made." In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.

He's representing the commanding officer of the batallion, who was relieved of duty because some of them cursed on television. They have both been screaming he had nothing to do with the killings because he was miles away. But no matter how you slice it, the officer must be held responsible allowing a false report to go through. You'll look better screaming about the lawsuit you've filed for the vets whose personal data got stolen, Paul.

:headbang:
rocknation

but this military has spent an entire administration without command responsibility having really mattered except in the case of a woman (Lt. Gen Karpinski re: Abu Ghraib) so I have my doubts anything's actually gonna happen for real. It'd be easier if they could prove specific responsibility for something. Can they? No clue. We've heard a lot more about the NCIS investigation so far into the incident itself while the Army cover-up probe continues.

...in this climate we have to be very precise.

He was on the Majority Report putting down Murtha big time for Murtha's views on the killings. I hate when Dems viciously attack other Dems.

of US forces killing citizens. Perhaps 4 separate incidents now?

just four where they know there is corroborative evidence that might come out.

Makes me wonder how long have these soldiers involved been in Iraq

and Dems need to demand his firing. His recent "bad things happen in war" is more of the same he has said for years. It is sickening.

It would be a ruthless tactic to kill civilians living near the site of an IED attack. It would encourage civilians to report insurgents planting IEDs in front of their house knowing that they would be murdered if they did not. It would discourage them from harboring or supporting insurgents. Both are desirable ends but the means are a war crime. Orders cannot be given to commit a war crime nor can they be obeyed.

How else can IEDs, the major cause of death and wounded be effectively prevented? What must be done at what cost? Americans are dying. Some might view such a ruthless tactic to be acceptable. Torture is also ruthless.

If it could and would happen because orders and rules prohibiting it were not emphasized to the extent that good judgment dictates then it is a war crime of a responsible officer. Negligence or intent, it is a crime.

The situation smells. Officers using troops to accomplish a crime that they could not order by allowing it to happen and then covering it up is a suspicion that is not beyond doubt. It is a way that things get done sometimes in war. Isolated incident or a pattern of unspoken, unwritten strategy? Cover up as an exit strategy?

There are simply too many other patterns of criminal action, cover up and spin from the top down to not consider this repulsive suspicion to be probable and seriously considered. That is how bad the Bush war has become.

The gravity of the situation dictates that officers act at the highest standard beyond reproach. Those that have done so are safe, those that have not must be punished. Unfortunately, some in the middle ground will also probably be punished simply for not holding to the highest standard of honor, integrity and judgment but having little or no relation to the crime committed by the troops.

The most unfortunate situation is that only those in the middle ground of negligence or intent will be punished and that the truly guilty will escape by cover up and advance in rank.

The investigation must be closely watched. The un forgivingly guilty might not the ones that pulled the trigger. If that is exposed then this war of Bush collapses in its own stench.

The courageous will tell the truth and that could make two countries free.

"It would be a ruthless tactic to kill civilians living near the site of an IED attack. It would encourage civilians to report insurgents planting IEDs in front of their house knowing that they would be murdered if they did not. It would discourage them from harboring or supporting insurgents. Both are desirable ends but the means are a war crime. Orders cannot be given to commit a war crime nor can they be obeyed."

The Nazis used the tactic of killing civilians in area where the Resistance had struck. And many still did not rat on Resistants. Bu$hCO should be IMPEACHED, INDICTED, TRIED, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO LIFE WITH HARD LABOR AND NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE!

Someone had to go great lengths to cover this mess up, big time. It might go further up the chain of commands than we think.

...but evidence that the military is unsuited for this kind of duty on the other hand. Garrison occupation-- security work-- is not what the military is designed for. They operate under rules of engagement that trigger catastrophic violence, whereas security forces, e.g. police, generally work to avoid violence whenever possible.

Policing civilian populations is not the proper role of the U.S. military. They're not trained for it. They're not good at it. They bring the wrong set of skills and reactions to the task.