[Grovenet] The law

[Phoenixacm at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/3/08 12:34:20 PM, waltw at teleport.com writes:


> the panicky young soldier who
> kicks around or even shoots an unarmed farmer after a roadside bomb
> has killed his buddies cannot be judged in the same context as the
> administration spokesweasel who sits comfortable and safe in his
> Washington lair and dresses up the administration's illegal decisions
> on torture in pretty, legalistic, hair-splitting formulae, or the
> officers who pass along those decisions, or even the troops who,
> serving safe prison-garrison duty, go along with orders
> 

If the
offending troops are young and the portions of their minds concerned
with analytical thinking and  common sense are not yet fully
developed, yes, that can be taken into account. But their officers,
and the civilians who direct their officers, have no such excuse. If
the troops are to be punished, then the punishment should go all the
way up the chain of command, even to the White House, whose denizens
should have been impeached long ago.

So we agree, afterall.   But when you try to say that these things should not 
be done because of the oath of office then I assume that you are pointing the 
finger at enlisted people who take the oath more often than officers.   And, 
you are barking up the wrong tree because the oath does not have the force of 
law or regulation.

Jane B-P


**************
Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel 
Guides.
      
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)