25th Anniversary K9
25th Anniversary K9

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soldier sentence to 20 years: "murdering" Taliban Scouts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Soldier sentence to 20 years: "murdering" Taliban Scouts

    From: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/15...-clint-lorance


    Out of the Foxhole" By Allen West for The Washington Times
    WASHINGTON, October 14, 2013 – If the fact that the Obama Administration has blocked aging veterans from visiting the World War II memorial and denied death gratuity benefits for fallen warriors doesn’t seem to indicate contempt for our military, how about this most recent story?
    Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, a 28-year-old combat leader in the 82d Airborne Division from Celeste, Texas was recently found guilty of two counts of murder in Afghanistan and sentenced to 20 years in Ft. Leavenworth.
    The story of First Lieutenant Lorance has not been covered by a single major media source.
    In July 2012, Lorance was ordered to take command of a platoon in the southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar, a region where I also spent two and a half years training and advising the Afghan National Army. The platoon Lorance now commanded had lost its previous leader to enemy attack.

    During a patrol in enemy territory, Lorance ordered a marksman to engage two unarmed Taliban fighters on a motorcycle operating as scout spotters.

    In Afghanistan and Iraq, a common enemy tactic is for unarmed fighters on motorcycles with cell phones to track unit movements. In fact, enemy combatants had previously used the tactics against this same platoon.
    Lorance, who was operating in a combat zone, saw the scout spotters and assessed them as a threat to his platoon. Aerial surveillance later backed up Lorance’s on-the-ground assessment.
    It seems obvious that enemy scouts reporting a unit position and movements in order to facilitate an ambush would define “hostile intent.” But not according to the watered-down Rules of Engagement with which our warriors must contend.
    In little more than a year, First Lieutenant Lorance was tried and sentenced to prison. Swift justice to be sure, but why then did it take four years to try and convict Nidal Malik Hasan, who fatally shot 13 and wounded more than 30 during his 2009 rampage at Ft Hood Texas?
    The irony of the dilemma currently facing our troops, those who have volunteered to protect and defend our freedoms, is appalling. Shall they fight and kill the enemy but then risk imprisonment because of insidious rules by lawyers?
    Or shall they be killed and denied their rightful benefits for their families, because of insidious declarations by lawyers and politicians?




    These ridiculous rules of engagement need revised badly, or it's just going to be another Vietnam, where we could have won the war without all the politicians and press crying about all the perceived war crimes and inhumane things going on. Well, cupcake, that kind of what war is about, to treat the other side as inhumanely as possible and win the freaking war.
    Tom
    Live today, tomorrow may not come!
    Boberg XR9S
    Kahr CW40
    Springfield Armory 1911
    Dan Wesson Revolver

    HY*NDAI is to cars, what Caracal, Hi-Point, and Jennings is to handguns. The cars may or may not run ok, but the corporation SUCKS.

  • #2
    Shooting unarmed enemy combatants is murder.

    http://curiosity.discovery.com/quest...ing-during-war
    Never trust anyone who doesn't trust you to own a gun.

    Life Member - NRA
    Colt Gold Cup 70 series
    Colt Woodsman
    Ruger Mark III .22-45
    Kahr CM9
    Kahr P380

    Comment


    • #3
      Playing by rules when the enemy doesn't is stupid.

      He did the right thing in lieu of previous observations.

      Ovomit should be in Leavenworth for 30 years, not him.
      http://bawanna45.wix.com/bawannas-grip-emporium#!
      In Memory of Paul "Dietrich" Stines.
      Dad: Say something nice to your cousin Shirley
      Dietrich: For a fat girl you sure don't sweat much.
      Cue sound of Head slap.

      RIP Muggsy & TMan

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bawanna View Post
        Playing by rules when the enemy doesn't is stupid.

        He did the right thing in lieu of previous observations.

        Ovomit should be in Leavenworth for 30 years, not him.
        So then you accept that the Taliban or Al Qaeda killing our unarmed soldiers is an acceptable practice? Things look different when the shoe is on the other foot. That's why there are rules of war.
        Never trust anyone who doesn't trust you to own a gun.

        Life Member - NRA
        Colt Gold Cup 70 series
        Colt Woodsman
        Ruger Mark III .22-45
        Kahr CM9
        Kahr P380

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by muggsy View Post
          So then you accept that the Taliban or Al Qaeda killing our unarmed soldiers is an acceptable practice? Things look different when the shoe is on the other foot. That's why there are rules of war.
          So you assume when the sheet heads plant IED's they will assure that any soldiers they blow up are armed and enemy combatants and not ambulances or medical personnel.

          They do not abide by any rules, that's my point. We can go play nicey nicey and be there a very long time and not accomplish a damn thing or we can take care of business and get the job done.

          Most of our guys I'm sure are playing by our self administered rules. That is why we have so many combat injuries and deaths. We're the good guys, try to wrap your mind around that.
          http://bawanna45.wix.com/bawannas-grip-emporium#!
          In Memory of Paul "Dietrich" Stines.
          Dad: Say something nice to your cousin Shirley
          Dietrich: For a fat girl you sure don't sweat much.
          Cue sound of Head slap.

          RIP Muggsy & TMan

          Comment


          • #6
            Terrorism is an unacceptable practice. Scroom. They use kids as human shields, I have no sympathy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Muggs, Tell our Commander in Chief that murdering unarmed enemy combatants is murder, when he drones the innocent along with the guilty, armed or unarmed. HE is the one that should be in Leavenworth.

              I don't care if they are armed or unarmed, if they are scouting for the enemy they should be taken out, or captured. Up to them, do they want their 72 virgins, or do they want to live. Bombs kill many unarmed innocents, yet we dropped a few tons on them in Iraq and Afghanistan. You talk of Rules of War, yet WE and our Allies are the only nations that abides by them. And we break the rules when it's convenient or necessary and can get away with it. Using a damn cell phone and reporting our troop movements IS a weapon in my opinion, it is going to cause our troops to be attacked if they get in a vulnerable position. Providing the enemy with the information they will use to kill our troops if they can is armed enough for me. Call them spies if that makes you feel better. We know what happens to spies. And how do we know they aren't armed, do you want to be the guy to go up and search them for weapons? They can hide a lot of stuff in their robes and baggy clothes. Maybe enough explosives to take out anyone within a certain distance. Why take the chance, when a bullet will take care of the situation. Your statements sounds like part of the liberal BS that caused us to lose the Viet Nam war.
              Tom
              Live today, tomorrow may not come!
              Boberg XR9S
              Kahr CW40
              Springfield Armory 1911
              Dan Wesson Revolver

              HY*NDAI is to cars, what Caracal, Hi-Point, and Jennings is to handguns. The cars may or may not run ok, but the corporation SUCKS.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by muggsy View Post
                So then you accept that the Taliban or Al Qaeda killing our unarmed soldiers is an acceptable practice? Things look different when the shoe is on the other foot. That's why there are rules of war.


                That's not a fair or accurate comparison. Shooting a scout, actively engaged in scouting, providing information back to armed insurgents, military, whatever? You call that unarmed all you like. Bull! Has nothing to do w/ this situation. They didn't shoot Taliban typist for crying out loud. They weren't shooting unarmed Taliban POWs or Taliban running away or Taliban surrendering. They shot (by all account) individuals actively operating against the U.S. forces. Kill 'em!


                There are rules of engagement, but unarmed has NOTHING to do w/ it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm not getting into a pissing contest on this one. Me personally, I'd kill every one of the radical extremest Muslim bastards, but we have rules of war and a UCMJ. This individual broke the rules. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. He ordered that his men kill two unarmed men who were riding on a motorcycle. How did he determine that those to men were enemy scouts? We don't need loose cannons on the battlefield.
                  Last edited by muggsy; 12-29-2013, 08:03 AM.
                  Never trust anyone who doesn't trust you to own a gun.

                  Life Member - NRA
                  Colt Gold Cup 70 series
                  Colt Woodsman
                  Ruger Mark III .22-45
                  Kahr CM9
                  Kahr P380

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by muggsy View Post
                    I'm not getting into a pissing contest on this one. Me personally, I'd kill every one of the radical extremest Muslim bastards, but we have rules of war and a UCMJ. This individual broke the rules. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. He ordered that his men kill two unarmed men who were riding on a motorcycle. How did he determine that those to men were enemy scouts? We don't need loose cannons on the battlefield.

                    As much as I want to disagree I cannot. We ARE a civilized society and if we do not follow our own rules we are no better and in fact are worse than the enemy we sought to eliminate. Personally I would be glad to authorize the use of a few W88's and turn the Middle East into a glass paved parking lot.
                    Wake Up...Grow Up...Show Up...Sit Up...Shut Up...Listen Up

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Alinsky:

                      "RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We always played by the rules in Nam. Really. We did. Really.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I know of two cell phone armed individuals that were taken out with no questions asked in Iraq. Each was a spotter for an unseen mortar team, ducking in and out between buildings with the phone to their ear. Each time they disappeared another mortar would come in. They would pop out to see where it hit and then disappear until the next round came in closer to their target.


                          So, yes, a cell phone can be used as a weapon. Just like the MANY IED's that have been set off by them.


                          We certainly do not have nearly enough facts from the news post to determine whether or not these were scouts. If they were, regardless of is they were armed or not, I personally have no problem with taking them out.


                          ROE's change from region to region, day to day. Really sucks that we have to follow the rules, set by us, when the other side has no rules at all. But this is what makes us who we are as a country and as the finest military the world has ever known.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't want to have a pissing match on this either. But you guys are not reading the article. If the two guys on bikes were considered to be scouts by this soldier and then backed up by aerial recon (read the article please), then they were fair game. Period. Now if that was not the case, so be it. But I have to take the article on face value until someone decides to present information otherwise. This was a fox news article by Allen West, not some nut-whack-job conspiracy website. All because a lawyer managed to convince a military jury or tribunal (probably packed with liberal waste-oid folks like Colin Powell), then I'm gonna opt to come down on the side of the soldier not the buereaucrat-ish brass that hung him out to dry. Sorry. The article indicates the RoE are loosely defined? Really? Sounds like somebody needs to be more specific...don't you think.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm sure you guys would line up in a straight line and fire away like we did during the revolutionary war and civil war too?...those were the rules of engagement back then. good idea wasn't it!? nah, rules are meant to be broken, especially when they'll get you killed just to claim you are better than the other side. nope. use the head that God gave you, not some piece of paper from the government that says you can't kill someone that's helping someone else kill you all because they weren't pointing a loaded weapon at your head at that very second.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X