Abomination II -- Chefjef's Revenge

Correspondent Chefjef responds to this post from yesterday:

Monk

Okay, now for the other side of the argument.... I agree that the Marine who shot the insurgent should NOT be villified in the press. And yes, that reporter is probably trying to make a bigger name for himself (read "$$$"). But an investigation - now that the incident is public- should be conducted by the Marine Corps.

Listen, I know everyone's reaction to these rat bastards is "kill 'em all." I'd be a big, fat liar if I said my visceral reaction is not the same. However, even war being what it is - the worst, most vile endeavor of man - if a man is wounded, unarmed, and does not pose an imminent threat (the last prong of that test being the real locus in quo of whether the Marine's action was justified), then there really is
no moral justification to shoot him.... and since our country adopted a moral stance (i.e. getting rid of an evil regime, installing democracy, etc.) in invading Iraq in the first place, consistency in moral conduct (not moral language, moral consuct)is paramount in maintaining the legitimacy of our occupation.

To shoot a man (regardless of what he has done) who is unarmed, wounded, and does not pose an imminent threat, is plain wrong. The Marine was certainly trained that way. When I was in the Infantry, we were specifically trained (my unit, specifically, spent one week being trained by recon specialists of the 2nd Ranger Battalion)on approaching and detaining wounded or dead enemies who may be booby-trapped. Just shooting them was not an option. I'll admit that even in a safe training environment, it was nerve wracking and most of us thought it was nuts - why not just kill 'em, we thought - so I can only imagine, at best, what it is like to do it for real. Nontheless, it is part of the job. Like my platoon seargant used to say, "[Y}ou don't have to like it, Private, you just have to do it. If you can't do it, go flip burgers. This is a gig for big boys with big balls."

The expounding of certain values and morals, folks, is not what separates the Christian from the non-believer, the criminal from the law abiding tax payer, the Red State from the Blue State, etcetera; it is the PRACTICE of certain values and morals that is the differentiating factor. Our Savior Jesus Christ tried, repeatedly, to teach this to the Pharisees (indeed, to everyone) and they just didn't get it.

They believed if they spoke Holy and pretended to be Holy, they were Holy. They weren't. I'll give a more practical example.

The "Red State" of Texas, which is a supposedly "family values" state, has one of the highest rates of divorce and teen preganancy in the country. San Antonio, when I lived there, had one of the highest rates of the spread of Herpes and Syphillis in the country (that statisitic was reported by the city itself). In contrast, the "Blue State" of Massachusetts, a liberal state (okay, more of a socialist state, really) has one of the lowest rates of divorce in the country and one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancy in the country. (feel free to check the stats, of course)

So, Texas may call itself a "family values" state, but it isn't doing family values; it is doing a lot of teen and extra-marital sex. Massachusetts, on the other hand, apparently practices what Texas preaches. Talk is cheap. Divorces, un-wed teen mothers and abortions are not.

Which is the real "family values" state? The one that talks the talk or the one that walks the walk?

If we behave like the barbarians, even in war, then we are the barbarians. Moral superiority is more difficult than depravity. Following a Christ-like-moral path is severly more difficult than not; Jesus made it clear that abiding by God's principles WOULD be extremely difficult and could even cost you your life. If a piece of crap drug dealer shoots my partner, then drops his gun, raises his hands and says,"I give up," I cannot shoot him. I have to take him into custody and read him his rights.

I'll be up-front: I think that sucks. I hate that. It pisses me off. I think it is b**l s**t. It is a slap in the face, and I would much rather see the drug dealer dead, and be the one to send him to to his maker, than smell his stinking f*****g breath in my patrol car. I am not overstating my position, either. I damn well mean every word. But, in that situation, arresting him and reading him his rights is the right thing to do; morally and legally. And I would do it. Most people probably could not; but that's why most people can't wear the badge I wear. Most of us who do wear the badge (unfortunately not all, though) have the ability to abide the moral and legal values of our nation in difficult, horrific, delicate and/or tempting situations in which many others cannot. But that is why we require such personality traits in police officers; if our law enforcement officials simply verbalize, but do not practice, the principles set forth by our Founders and our Savior, then our self-proclaimed Christian democracy is really just an illusory self-deceit.

As for the young Marine, certainly his age, training, the totality of his circumstances, his mental state, the particularities of the engagement in which he was involved, the presence and effect(or lack of) of his command structure, as well as many other factors MUST be taken into account in any evaluation, analysis and/or investigation of the incident. But to say, absolutely, that what he did was okay, so let's kill'em all and move on - I respectfully disagree.

Chefjef