POST SCRIPTS

I totally agree with that attorney for the defense, we can't have a lot of hesitation in combat. And being too quick to charge soldiers with murder sure has that effect.

Although, I also recognize we have an obligation not to kill everyone in sight, armed or not, combatant or not, just because it's a war zone and there is shooting going on. There are rules of engagement. Those rules must be followed and they aren't that tough to follow either.

The military certainly has more latitude to shoot than a typical police officer, because police must answer according to the standards of their training which are extremely high.

Soldiers on the other hand are trained to kill and break things. This is their primary mission and the are psyched up to fight! Unlike police officers who must use deadly force only when absolutely necessary to save a life, including his own. Both the cop and the solider are authorized to use deadly force, but there is a world of difference between the how they employ that authority!

Police officers are psychologically screened with a battery of tests, unlike soldiers which have almost zero psychological fitness screening. They can even have a gang history and a minor rap sheet and still get in, but police candidates have to be squeaky clean. So law enforcement is getting the highest caliber of individual, we can't always say that about the military.

Police officers are therefore more predictable in their responses to life threatening situations and they are far more likely to keep their cool under fire or remain calm in the face of great danger. Their whole selection process and training is designed to weed out all but the most desirable qualities in humans.

The soldier is often very young. It might his or her first real job! They are often lacking in life experience and probably haven't fully developed their judgment process. They are not nearly as well trained as the police, yet they are asked do everything to the highest standards of these armchair quarterbacks with law degrees. That's an awful lot to expect from a 17-21 year old with perhaps 6 months worth of training or less and suddenly being thrown into combat.

We better remember what we are asking of them and how we've prepared them, before we unleash anymore murder indictments on soldiers. I have a real problem with the Bush Administration for not weighing in better on this one.

If we don't knock it off and quite indicting at the drop of an Iraqi, it's going to be real hard to get volunteers... and I wouldn't blame them.

Personally I would like to see the youngest stay out of combat and let only those over 25 with at least 4 years of service be on the front line. But, that is a luxury we can't afford and it's too bad because it would save a lot of lives.

Anonymous said, "...we can't have a lot of hesitation in combat. And being too quick to charge soldiers with murder sure has that effect."

I agree. And I'd like to add that an investigation is not the problem, the military does that anyway,...a trial is not the problem, the military police their own and have a justice system in place...having the civilian media and one political party use these events to make America wrong, or to create a moral equivilence with this brutal enemy for political purposes, IS THE PROBLEM.

Our military is doing all within their power to minimize civilian deaths up to and including putting themselves at greater risk and not bombing targets (like mosques used by the enemy as a shield) out of respect.

The military should be acknowledged, thanked, and respected and honored not drug through the mud by a mad dog generation of elitest vipers with delusions of saintliness.

This REALLY makes me mad...can you tell?