They are almost always relieved or suspended, at least while the investigation is in process. Once the initial furor blows over, they are either quietly put back on duty or sometimes fired. Since most departments don't bother to blacklist them, they will simply find another place to be a cop.

Just like the two cops who killed the kid with the fake airsoft gun (Tamir Rice) both had prior incidents that, in any normal job would have prevented them from working in that field ever again. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice and read the background of the officers. Both had incidents that should have made them unsuitable for duty, but they both were able to continue working and then were let off the hook by a grand jury after the shoo...murder of Rice. Since they were acquitted, the wonderful police unions mean they get to stay cops.

Now you tell me another field of employment that gets away with this. You might say the military, but generally if you screw up badly they will make you go away. There might be a cover up, but you are going to be kicked out, court martialed, or put in a dead end place where you will never advance out of nor have authority to make any important decisions. Politics is close, but if you aren't super high up in the food chain you will pay for it as well. Police, though, they will walk 99% of the time. Even the officer who shot the teen here in Austin that was wandering around naked and threatening people, he was only fired and this town is one of the most liberal towns in the USA. We've already established that a lot of police forces don't even bother checking with previous employers, so I expect he will be able to go someplace else and be a cop again.

The most fun thing? This has been going on for decades, hell, probably a couple of centuries. Only since the advent of video recording technology that was easily portable have we been shown the true nature of the beast. But, and forgive me as I can't find the exact quote, someone said something along the lines of that the majority of the public will forget anything in six weeks. Over and over we seem to prove that as we keep letting these people get away with impunity.

And I fully agree and support people getting across the point that aid to places like Africa is not futile. I just fear the big overlap of people that insist that military intervention is therefor always a detriment and the dollars far better spent on aid. I wish I shared your optimism on popular opinion if intervention had taken place in Rwanda, but I just don't see it. The other two genocides I mentioned were committed by Saddam and we've all seen how popular that reception was around the world. The Belgian officer in charge in Rwanda was facing a court martial for putting his men in harms way as the genocide began. I'm afraid I have zero doubt had Clinton sent Americans to stop the Rwandan genocide our popular opinion today would be the lesson of how tragic the foreign intervention was in escalating a civil war into a disaster and if only Clinton had listened to the voices begging for peace not war.

>> ^mxxcon:

i don't know...making fun of a situation where 300 innocent civilians got killed.. bad tact


But, is he Christian?!?

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^LarsaruS:
Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.

As both an atheist and a liberal, I vehemently disagree with this. Only actions that harm others without their consent should be illegal. Only actions that harm others without their consent are capable of being immoral. Actions which are immoral are a subset of those that harm others without their consent. Actions which should be illegal are a subset of actions which are immoral.
"You can't legislate morality" is just a copout to prevent the masses from forcing their inane bronze-age-myth derived morality on everyone. Real morality and just law are perfectly compatible.

Maybe I misunderstood/misread you but to me it seems like you feel I believe gays should not be allowed to marry? Since I believe they should be able to I feel like you must have misunderstood me. My comment was only directed towards the flawed notion of morals, morality and ethics as an absolute set in stone ~2k years ago in a desert. This is also why the entire gay-marriage-controversy is utter BS. It is make belief morals enshrined in law fucking real peoples lives up for absolutely no reason at all.
I completely agree that actions that harm others without consent should be illegal. However, I do not like your circular reasoning for the reason why it should be illegal. I believe that it should be illegal because it hurts another human being not because it is "immoral" as morals are fluid and changes a lot. 500-1500 years ago rape and pillage during war wasn't seen as immoral, just effective. Today you get court martialed and possibly shot/hung for it.
If your actions cause pain or discomfort to another human being try to refrain from it, or they might do the same to you (or worse!). That is also the reason why you shouldn't mess with people. Because if you break the I-wont-try-to-kill-you-and-you-wont-try-to-kill-me pact that we base our coexistence and civilization on you might just cause your own demise.


It's not circular reasoning. It's redundant explanation of an axiom (one of many).

Not every action that harms others without their consent is immoral or should be illegal:

1. Train is about to hit 10 people, but you can pull a lever that will make it go on a different track and hit 1 person instead.
2. You run a business. You have underperforming employee. You fire underperforming employee.
3. Some instances of self defense.

Don't let the bronze-age-myth fools soil the name of morality so thoroughly that you stop bothering to use the word except mockingly.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^LarsaruS:
Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.

As both an atheist and a liberal, I vehemently disagree with this. Only actions that harm others without their consent should be illegal. Only actions that harm others without their consent are capable of being immoral. Actions which are immoral are a subset of those that harm others without their consent. Actions which should be illegal are a subset of actions which are immoral.
"You can't legislate morality" is just a copout to prevent the masses from forcing their inane bronze-age-myth derived morality on everyone. Real morality and just law are perfectly compatible.


Maybe I misunderstood/misread you but to me it seems like you feel I believe gays should not be allowed to marry? Since I believe they should be able to I feel like you must have misunderstood me. My comment was only directed towards the flawed notion of morals, morality and ethics as an absolute set in stone ~2k years ago in a desert. This is also why the entire gay-marriage-controversy is utter BS. It is make belief morals enshrined in law fucking real peoples lives up for absolutely no reason at all.

I completely agree that actions that harm others without consent should be illegal. However, I do not like your circular reasoning for the reason why it should be illegal. I believe that it should be illegal because it hurts another human being not because it is "immoral" as morals are fluid and changes a lot. 500-1500 years ago rape and pillage during war wasn't seen as immoral, just effective. Today you get court martialed and possibly shot/hung for it.

If your actions cause pain or discomfort to another human being try to refrain from it, or they might do the same to you (or worse!). That is also the reason why you shouldn't mess with people. Because if you break the I-wont-try-to-kill-you-and-you-wont-try-to-kill-me pact that we base our coexistence and civilization on you might just cause your own demise.

"Bradley E. Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed restricted material to the website WikiLeaks. He was charged in July that year with transferring classified data onto his personal computer, and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source. An additional 22 charges were preferred in March 2011, including "aiding the enemy," a capital offense, though prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty. He currently awaits a hearing to decide whether he will face a court martial.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

So he's been locked up with no trial, only charges, for a full year (almost).

Not to mention that very shabby conditions he's being held in, which to me seem obviously punitive, which is illegal.
>> ^Morganth:

He does though. They can't just give you a trail date immediately when you're arrested. His trail date is within the next two months.>> ^gwiz665:
But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.
In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

>> ^NetRunner:

Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.


Very good point. Yes, he can legally be Court-martialed, but that is a much lower standard of justice. One which should only be used when a proper trial is truly not possible. The same goes for everyone accused of terrorism.

The ethics of what he did is much harder to defend. Most leaks are done to expose specific crimes or wrongdoing, and they are a courageous act of patriotism when that is the case. But leaking a database of hundreds of thousands of documents in the hopes that some will show wrongdoing (or at least be embarrassing), is not really the same as what Daniel Ellsberg did.

Of course, his treatment while awaiting court-martial is unacceptable. Unless he genuinely is suicidal, even then they could handle it in a less cruel manner.

This is a most shameful episode. It represents failure at every level in the US:
The psychotic pilots were saw what they wanted to see, and either made an incompetent judgement on what they could see, or lied, or both.
* The rules of engagement were clearly misapplied and the chain of command failed to verify that a threat existed.
* The pilots then fired on civilians rendering aid to the wounded, which is a clear breach of US military code and of the Geneva convention.
* They also fired on wounded people who if they represented a threat before the were fired upon certainly didn't once shot with 30mm cannon (a weapon which incidentally should be used on materiel rather than people given that these look like exploding rounds).
* There is no proper investigation and the General lied to Reuters.
* Once the video released the White house and doubtless Pentagon behaved in a shamefully complicit way.
* Finally the US media behaved in an extraordinarily cowardly way. Why is it too shocking to show what ones troops do? If you don't want to be shocked your troops should be properly commanded and controlled?

I think this is a war crime. But who cares what I think? What should happen is that these pilots undergo a Court martial, and if found guilty serve long hard time, and if innocent (fog of war and all that) be exonerated by a court. That presumably is why there are military courts - to test difficult cases?

The bottom line here is that the US needs to sign up and recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the US military that most other countries accept, but which the US has failed to ratify, so that its soldiers and indeed the whole chain of command recognise that they are accountable for what they do. Why should US soldiers be exempt from a need to observe human writes in the same way as American Civilians? Only real accountability will prevent this sort of shameful butchery in future.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE CRAZY TO BE A DEMOCRAT, BUT IT HELPS
October 27, 2010

Ann Coulter


With the media sneering about the Tea Party candidates being a bunch of nuts, how about we take a look at some of the Democrats running this year?

We've got Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who personally presided over the housing crash after getting that gay prostitution business behind him. Of course, Frank's actions are nothing compared to Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul's alleged participation in a college prank. Now, THERE'S a scandal!

California Sen. Barbara Boxer refuses to say whether a newborn baby is a human life. When Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., asked her on the Senate floor a few years ago whether she believed a baby born alive has a constitutionally protected right to live, Boxer was stuck for an answer. Her nonresponsive replies included these:

"I support the Roe v. Wade decision. ...

"I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights. ...

"Define 'separation' ...

"You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's arms? ...

"The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question. ...

"I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions!"

(Also, I think she said: "Please call me 'senator.'")

That's not Patty Murray-stupid, but it's still pretty stupid. How many late-term abortions are you planning to get, Californians, that it's worth being represented by such a cretinous woman?

Even if you are under the misimpression that Boxer's Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, is somehow going to outlaw abortion in California, Carly will cut your taxes so much that you'd be able to fly to Sweden for all your abortions and still come out ahead!

Liberals are indignant that Sarah Palin writes speech notes to herself on her hand. This week, Alex Sink, the Democratic candidate for governor in Florida, was slipped a debating point by her makeup artist, texted by a campaign aide in violation of the rules during a debate with her Republican opponent, Rick Scott.

Oh, those thick Tea Party candidates!

Last weekend, Illinois governor Pat Quinn -- Rod Blagojevich's running mate -- stood silently as his supporter, state Sen. Rickey Hendon, blasted Quinn's Republican opponent, Bill Brady, as "idiotic, racist, sexist, homophobic."

Hendon has repeatedly made headlines over the past few years for his inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues. Once -- during a Senate debate -- he asked Sen. Cheryl Axley if her hair was naturally blond and then publicly propositioned her.

Another time, Hendon tackled Rep. Robin L. Kelly, knocking her to the ground after a House-Senate softball game she had come to watch in office attire.

Of the impeccable Brady, Hendon wailed: "If you think that women have no rights whatsoever, except to have his children, vote for Bill Brady. If you think gay and lesbian people need to be locked up and shot in the head, vote for Bill Brady."

Even the Chicago press was shocked by this, calling on Quinn to apologize. Quinn has "renounced" Hendon's remarks, but refused to apologize.

But watch out for the Tea Party candidates! There are some real loose cannons in that bunch.

Also last week, Rep. Ron Klein, Democrat of Florida, hysterically claimed he had been "threatened" by one of the Vietnam Veteran bikers supporting his Republican opponent, Allen West.

The man who had allegedly "threatened" Klein is 60 years old and goes by the terrifying name of ... "Miami Mike." Mike told the Miami Herald that he had simply e-mailed Klein, saying that he deserved to be voted out of office and, in addition, he needed "a good ass-kicking, which I'd be more than happy to do even though I'm a lot older than you."

As Miami Mike said: "A threat? Give me a break. He cannot be scared of what I wrote. If he is, he is just a real baby."

Apparently so. Klein turned Mike's e-mail over to the Capitol police, where they promptly burst out laughing and then ordered framed copies of the e-mail.

Speaking of little girls in pink party dresses, Keith Olbermann has repeatedly claimed that Allen West "disgraced his uniform." Weirdly, he never gives details of how he thinks West did that. (Maybe Olbermann could check on war-zone protocol with fake-Vietnam War veteran Dick Blumenthal, who's running for the Senate from Connecticut by lying about having served in Vietnam.)

As a colonel in Iraq, West was interrogating an Iraqi terrorist who knew about a planned ambush. Unable to get him to talk, West shot a gun near the terrorist's head, whereupon the frightened but unharmed detainee spilled the beans.

Because of that, West's men were able to capture a potential attacker and identify future ambush sites. There were no further attacks on West's men.

As West later told The New York Times, "There are rules and regulations, and there's protecting your soldiers." He said, "I just felt I'd never have to write a letter of condolence home to a 'rule and regulation.'"

When the Army considered court-martialing West, thousands of letters poured in defending West and thanking him for what he had done. Ninety-five members of Congress signed a letter to the secretary of the Army in support of West. No court-martial was ever convened.

Liberals won't say that John Phillip Walker Lindh disgraced his country. Washington Sen. Patty Murray thinks Osama bin Laden is a swell guy for building "day care centers" in Afghanistan. But they say a hero like Allen West "disgraced his uniform" by saving the lives of American soldiers.

Yeah, the Tea Party candidates are a real embarrassment.

I would love to watch that court-martial.

@joedirt, what happened was tragic. It's why I don't want us to start wars in the first place.

But, to a certain degree, this is how war always works. You shoot first, and only ask questions later if you kill people in a way that embarrasses your side.

Will court martialing the Apache crew stop innocents from being killed in the future? Almost certainly not.

Should someone be held accountable for what happened? Sure, but I'm not sure the people pulling the trigger are even chiefly to blame, if they've been trained and ordered to do what they did here.

My reaction to this is "war is awful, we shouldn't do it" not "these specific guys flying the helicopter are evil people".

I also think that if you want to make an evidence based case that these soldiers either individually or collectively (via an over-loose ROE) did something wrong, you should at least address one of the contentions in the official story before you declare it "junk", rather than just basing it on the "tone".

I get that it was just a tweet, but that kind of thing chips away at your credibility, and there's a lot at stake in getting this right.

It's pretty worrisome how much they trust the technology - they get a grainy image of a dark blob with a shoulder strap and decide it's a gun, and not just a gun but an AK-47 (and then an RPG).

Nikon et al ought to make a bright orange line of cameras for use in conflict zones, so they have less risk of being mistaken for guns.

- And the pilots ought to be court martialed of course.

So many front line soldiers faced court martial and prosecution, while Bush and other higher ups get off scott free. What a disgrace.



The UCMJ is a different situation. Soldiers are held to different standards by military courts. "I was only following orders" is not a viable defense in the military.

I'm not sure about working under faulty legal advice though. If a high-ranking JAG told someone that they could do something that they were later court marshaled for then that could possibly be used in their defense.

I don't think they soldiers were working under direction from the justice department though. It really depends on the specific situations for specific soldiers.

So many front line soldiers faced court martial and prosecution, while Bush and other higher ups get off scott free. What a disgrace.

Global inaction in Rwanda is the shame of my entire generation. All the major powers in the world had troops and aircraft on the ground in Rwanda promptly after things went bad to evacuate their nationals. They then just as quickly flew them all out and never returned and declared it would be too difficult logistically to respond in time to stop the genocide. The UN went so far as to evacuate the majority of their peace keepers, leaving all of 400 men to be powerless witnesses to the massacre.

Even after the genocide had occurred the Belgian government started court martial proceedings against their highest ranking officer that had been stationed in Rwanda during the genocide to stop it because 10 Belgian soldiers had died under his command. The Belgian government was more upset about it's own 10 people being put in harms way than trying to stop the 800,000 Rwandans butchered in the genocide. Before blaming Belgium alone though, that fear of seeing dead troops was the same thing that kept ALL nations of the world from doing anything to stop the genocide. It is the shame of every last person on this planet that did not stand up and demand their country do something. My only excuse is that I was still in my teens, I just hope I know better now.