• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Lt. Clint Lorance Could Be Any One of Us

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
29
Points
530
http://dcxposed.com/2013/09/24/us-1stlt-clint-lorance-gets-20-years-in-leavenworth-for-ordering-attack-on-taliban/

Leavenworth - Clint Lorance’s Conviction Will Stand – Clemency Denied


Twenty eight year old First Lieutenant Clint Lorance of North Texas was recently found guilty of two counts of murder in the July 2012 killing of two suspected Taliban fighters in a remote sector of Kandahar Province Afghanistan. Lorance was sentenced to 20 years in Leavenworth, dismissed from the army and must forfeit all pay. He was found not guilty of making a false official statement.

Prosecutors insisted Lorance ordered his men to open fire on unarmed civilians which violates the U.S. military‘s official rules of engagement – a policy that requires them to hold their fire unless there’s evidence of hostile action or direct hostile intent.  Capt. William Miller, a government prosecutor, told the jury “Lt. Lorance used his rank and position to harass, intimidate, threaten and murder Afghans.”

Lorance’s defense argued that the village being patrolled was under Taliban control and had long since been vacated by all known civilian inhabitants due to constant violence and warfare. In fact, Lorance had just taken command of that particular platoon because in the days prior they had suffered several losses – including the loss of their prior commander. Lorance’s very presence in the situation was a testament to the “hostile action” and definitive “hostile intent” that U.S. troops had come to expect in that district.
Background of Lorance:

Clint Allen Lorance was born on December 13, 1984 and is a North Texas native who grew up in the town of Celeste. He was a member of the FFA as well as a Police Explorer throughout High School who also worked 3 jobs simultaneously to help cover household expenses as well as prepare for moving out on his own when he turned 18.

On the day of his 18th birthday Lorance walked into the Army recruiting station in Greenville, Texas and joined the Army as a Military Policeman. Upon graduating from Basic Training and AIT he shipped off to his first duty assignment in Pusan, South Korea. His next duty station was in Fort Richardson, AK, stopping briefly at Fort Benning, GA to earn his Airborne Wings.

As part of the 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team In Alaska, Clint deployed for his first deployment to Iraq from September 2006 to November 2007 , initially a 12 month deployment which turned into a 15 month deployment. Lorance was then assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division’s 4th BCT and deployed to Afghanistan in March 2012 to Southern Afghanistan. During his deployment, Clint was the squadron’s liason officer to the commander until selected to become a platoon leader.

Setting the stage:

Lorance’s patrol, consisting of 16 US Infantrymen, 5 Afghan National Army Soldiers, and 1 US Interpreter, left their Strong Point early in the morning on July 2nd 2012 headed to a remote village within the Kandahar sector of Afghanistan for a combat patrol.

Traveling on foot with electronic mine-sweepers in the front due to the heavily mine-riddled terrain, Lorance was in constant contact with overhead US Army helicopter pilots who had warned Lorance over the radio of enemy presence to the North, East and West of the Platoon’s position on the ground. Lorance confirmed with the pilots a good description of the enemy, and pilots continued to track and provide overhead surveillance for LT Lorance’s platoon.

As the patrol approached the village they spotted 2 individuals who were sitting on a motorcycle at a distance observing the patrol’s movement. The individuals matched the exact description that the Army pilots had relayed to Lorance moments earlier.

    FYI: It’s common practice for Taliban fighters to use what the US calls “spotters”. This is a tactic the Taliban uses to communicate with one another and track the movement of platoons, just as it was apparently doing in the case of Lorance’s patrol.

Official intelligence reports for the area identified any personnel owning or operating a motorcycle as Taliban because as I mentioned earlier, there was no local population living there. The local population had long since moved out of the area because it had been taken over by the Taliban. Essentially, if they were in the area, they were up to no good and if they were in that area and perched upon a motorcycle sitting stationary there was little doubt they must have been Taliban scouts intent on divulging the existence and whereabouts of Lorance’s platoon – as had obviously happened just days prior when the same platoon was attacked in the same geographic location – losing several men.

His decision:

Realizing the situation afforded him just seconds to react, Lorance made the decision to protect his troops by preventing the scouts from relaying back to the Taliban any further information as the platoons whereabouts by ordering a trained US marksman, who was standing guard in an overwatch position from the road on a US gun truck, to fire two long-range precision shots, eliminating the threat, but it was too late. Within minutes Lorance and his men found themselves embroiled in a gunfight with Taliban fighters.

The aftermath:

Following the precision shots US Intelligence intercepted enemy radio signals talking about the position of the patrol and planning an ambush. Moments later, Lorance’s men engaged with and killed two confirmed Taliban fighters who were planning the ambush. Simultaneously, Lorance’s men in a separate location intercepted and detained a Taliban fighter who was attempting to flee the village on a motorcycle. Another suspected Taliban fighter was shot in the arm and was intercepted by the Afghan Army Soldiers. Lorance ordered his Combat Medic to immediately stabilize the man and bring him back to base with the patrol for further medical treatment and remain on Lorance’s base pending the investigation.

Upon return to base, Lorance ordered both of the captured men be tested for gunshot residue on their hands. Both men tested positive, confirming Lorance’s suspicions that the men had fired weapons recently.

Lorance then ordered that both men be physically separated, put into a shaded area, and be given food and water. Two-three hours later, the prisoners were transported to the Detainee processing facility at the Brigade Headquarters.

Even though both men tested positive for gunshot residue and were acting suspiciously military intelligence released them back into the wild.

The two aforementioned scouts were not confirmed as enemy fighters by that same exact military intelligence and the Army assumed Lorance guilty of random acts of murder – fired him from platoon leader and took his weapon. He was moved to HQ to assume administrative duties while awaiting the investigation.

On Tuesday January 15th 2013 Clint was charged.

The trial:

The marksman in this particular case, as well as 4 other U.S. military operatives involved in the events of July 2 2012, were exonerated of all responsibility in exchange for their testimony against Lorance.

On August 1st Lorance was found guilty on 2 counts of murder by a 10 member jury comprised of military officers. During the sentencing hearing Lorance said “I take full responsibility for the actions of my men on 2 July, 2012.”

Former military colleagues appeared and spoke on behalf of Lorance’s character, telling the jury they always knew Lorance as a smart, above-average soldier.

Capt. Zachary Pierce called Lorance “trustworthy,” “unparalleled” and “one of the kindest and gentlest people I’ve ever met.”

Regardless, Lorance was sentenced to 20 years at the Fort Leavenworth military prison in Kansas.

After the sentence was announced, Lorance turned to hug his crying friends and family members who traveled from Texas to North Carolina to watch the trial and support their hero during his court trial.

    “Y’all can handle this,” Lorance told them. “Be strong.”

Lorance’s family has maintained that he was unfairly singled out by the military for simply doing his job.

Update 01.01.2015:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON CLEMENCY :

Brig. Gen. Richard Clarke of the 82nd Airborne Division notified defense attorneys that Clint’s conviction will stand. Clarke took 1 year off of the sentence.


http://www.stripes.com/opinion/lt-clint-lorance-could-be-any-one-of-us-1.325886

Lt. Clint Lorance could be any one of us

By Sean Parnell - Published: January 27, 2015

The vast majority of Americans cannot comprehend the reality of combat. Media portrayals, no matter how seemingly realistic, only dimly reflect the true nature of what it means to come under fire from an enemy. Films like “Lone Survivor” and “American Sniper” may be gripping, but the reality is even more intense, unsettling — and consequential.

Serving in Afghanistan in 2006-2007 with the U.S. Army 10th Mountain Division, my platoon and I engaged Taliban combatants repeatedly along the Pakistan border area. My platoon was deployed 485 days, with one of the highest casualty rates of the entire war.

The hardest lesson I learned was that in a combat situation, sheer uncertainty stalks you constantly. Amid that uncertainty, you’re forced to make instantaneous decisions with incomplete information, surrounded by chaos and under unimaginable stress. A wrong call can result in tragedy.

To grasp the price of that uncertainty, consider the case of Clint Lorance — a 29-year-old U.S. Army lieutenant sentenced to military prison for ordering his men to fire upon Afghan nationals he believed were a threat. The facts suggest the punishment rendered to Lorance is a stark injustice — and is a chilling example to all who have had to make tough decisions in complex combat situations.

Here’s what we know: In July 2012, Lorance was a new platoon leader in the 82nd Airborne Division on patrol in Kandahar province with his platoon. Three Afghan men approached the platoon on a motorcycle. Believing the men to be a threat, Lorance ordered his troops to open fire, killing two of the men (the third escaped).

In a war zone, such stories are common. What’s unusual is what happened next.

Army officials accused Lorance of violating the rules of engagement, saying the killed men were Afghan civilians. The young lieutenant was given a court-martial and charged with second-degree murder. In August 2013, he was found guilty and received a 20-year sentence. His most recent request for clemency was denied.

Uncertainty swirls around Lorance’s case. Any combat veteran will tell you that the lieutenant’s position that day in Afghanistan was challenging, if not morally impossible. Had he allowed the men to continue approaching, and they had in fact been Taliban combatants — either attacking his platoon, or surveilling their position for future attacks — his troops could have been injured or killed. If that happened, and he had failed to act, he would live in his own personal prison for the rest of his life — tormented by guilt and regret.

Moreover, serious questions have been raised about the fairness of Lorance’s trial. Lorance’s attorney maintains there is evidence that the Afghan men killed on that fateful day in 2012 had links to Taliban insurgents. There is also evidence that the Army has willfully withheld this evidence, for an unknown reason. If true, that would shine a decidedly different light on Lorance’s order to fire.

The Army prosecutors who zealously pursued Lorance’s case seem to have forgotten a basic principle of military service: The benefit of the doubt in a combat situation should always go to our men on the battlefield. With the uncertainty surrounding the facts of Lorance’s case, he deserves that same benefit of the doubt.

As a combat veteran, I look at Lorance’s situation and realize his fate might just as easily have been mine. I am Clint Lorance, just like thousands of other combat leaders who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on the standards used to prosecute Lorance, virtually any one of us could be in jail as a result of difficult decisions made in combat.

I can’t say for certain I didn’t make a wrong call while under combat strain; no one who’s served under fire can. I know I was faced with tough decisions that required immediate judgments based on incomplete information, and I may have made mistakes.

In 2007, my men and I came under attack by Taliban insurgents, one of whom was wounded and rolled down a hill, coming to a stop near our patrol vehicles. As the man lay dying, one of the specialists under my command — spiking with adrenaline, fear and anger — wanted to finish him off. While I understood his desire to take decisive action against an enemy combatant who had posed a serious threat to our lives, I would not allow him to kill the wounded man. That was the right decision.

But I can also look back and see how it might have gone the other way if I had judged that man to be an immediate or future threat — and how I then might have found myself facing a military tribunal and potential imprisonment, just for seeking to keep my men safe. If I had made that decision, would I be in prison for 20 years?

The system failed Clint Lorance, but there may still be a chance to get it right. His case is being forwarded to the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals for review. His family and supporters should continue pressing for a fresh look at this case — because, if we are honest with ourselves, any one of us could be in his shoes. We are Clint Lorance, and we will always have his back.

Sean Parnell, military adviser to Concerned Veterans for America, is a retired U.S. Army Airborne Ranger who served as a captain in Afghanistan with the 10th Mountain Division. He is the author of “Outlaw Platoon: Heroes, Renegades, Infidels, and the Brotherhood of War in Afghanistan.”






Video Clip: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4021681269001/a-closer-look-at-the-case-of-lt-clint-lorance/?#sp=show-clips

More Info: http://allenbwest.com/2014/12/bombshell-army-withheld-evidence-free-clint-lorance/
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
It makes me both enraged and disgusted to see the US doing exactly the same thing to their own troops that we did to Capt. S. and the UK did to the RM Sgt. 
 

Tibbson

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
All too often there is a very fine line between the realities of battle and what some legal system says is right or wrong.  In years past this would have been a non event, just the same way the taking of war souvenirs was allowed and even somewhat encouraged.  Now it would be considered looting or theft.  No wonder we take so many lawyers with us into theater these days.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
575
Points
890
So a young American man gets a degree, and decides to join the military to serve his country. 

He obviously isn't a bloggins, as his postings and titles suggest he was a competent member of the units he was assigned to.  From this article, he seems to be a well rounded member who was trusted with making decisions to keep the personnel under his commend safe, in an area that was obviously violent and volatile. 

He receives intelligence about what the enemy looks like, where they are, and what the enemy is doing.  He takes action, but not before the enemy attacks.  Similar attacks in days prior - in the same area - had resulted in friendly KIA. 

Yet somehow, he spends the rest of his life behind bars - literally, for doing the job they assigned him to do, and acting on the intelligence that they provided to him.  Absolutely PATHETIC. 

How can a young man have the rest of his life ruined by the very country he was serving?  Serves in 2 wars, endures extended deployments - and the thanks he gets is the next 20 years in prison?  How the heck is that 'justice'?

What REALLY REALLY irks me is the slimeball tactic of manipulating people to testify against someone under the threat of being imprisoned themselves.  Withdrawing charges against people if they will TESTIFY AGAINST someone else?  Again, where is the Justice in this?  People should testify to the truth, and only the truth. 

They should never be pressured, coached, or coerced into giving testimony under the threat of saving their own lives.  (20 years in prison when your already in your 20's or 30's pretty much is putting you behind bars for the remainder of your useful life.)
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
190
Points
710
We're going to see more of this now the dust has allegedly settled in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The corporate guilt over doing nasty things to bad people is going to increase, and bus schedules will have to be ramped up so there are enough of them to throw troops under.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,404
Points
910
This is what happens when a nation forgets what waging war is all about, and we've forgotten it too. Instead of providing good advice and training, we worry about toys and technology. We've forgetten that it takes real soldiers to man LAVs, tanks, planes and ships. We have micro managers at all levels who cannot trust the troops to do the right thing and instead of holding people accountable, ban everything. We are more concerned about some of the stupid mandatory training  than we are about making sure our troops can shoot.....and hit what they aim at.

Instead of training to win, we train not to break the Rules of Engagement. I cannot imagine Field Marshal Montgomery or General Patton listening to some lawyer advise them on how to win a war.

I'll say this right now: This will cost soldiers lives. Either they will die because the ROE is overly restrictive or they will do some time in jail.

Ok rant ends.....unless I think of anything else to say....and I probably will.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
190
Points
710
I keep saying it, the moral high ground will be a cemetery with a lovely view.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
56
Points
480
I think the whole thing sucks, but did the Americans attempt to warn the oncoming Afghans? That would have, at least to me, changed the complexion of the incident.

I can think of at least two cases including one involving the ANP in the Sandbox where Canadians were faced with oncoming vehicles that did not respond to warning signals and shots and opened fire, "neutralizing" the targets.

I still think the case sucks.
 

Gunner98

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
360
I have been reading Chris Kyle's book "American Sniper" and the first concern for me in this incident is who had the authority to make the decision to fire the deadly shots.  I accept that Lt. Lorance gave the order to remove the perceived threat and he wanted to accept full responsibility for the actions that followed.  According to Chris Kyle's narrative each and every shot that would result in kills had to be continually evaluated against clear ROE.  I don't expect the same standards for ROEs were maintained from Iraq until 2012 in Afghanistan.

Hamish, I certainly hope that we don't rely on a comparison between WWII engagements and Afghanistan to sort out right from wrong.  Man + Motorcycle + cell phone does not equal threat  Man + cell phone + AK + Motorcycle = Threat

The Brits called these spotters - 'dickers".  I If we remove the AK + motorcycle and insert "shepherd's staff + flock of sheep" does that change the situation?

The third concern for me is whether the LT was judged by a jury of his peers.  Stating that he had endured multiple long deployments are mitigating evidence but they do not absolve someone from responsibility for their actions.  Likewise with previous day's events. 

The final concern for me is that this type of scenario is not as rare as we might think.  Just Google "US kill team".  The difference in many of those incidents is the statement of "losing his/their moral compass."

For me the ongoing dilemma faced by US soldiers is why are they deployed - were/are they in a war, counter-insurgency operation or capacity building initiative.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,448
Points
1,040
I think all too often we rush to judgement that the legal system is mistreating someone who was just doing their job in a dangerous situation. We tend to forget that the military legal system is made up of soldiers as well; ones who also have experience and can understand the circumstances and, most importantly, can weigh the evidence that is before them.

There are clearly two sides (at least) to this story. Another one is partially set out in the Army Times article below which indicates that it was Lorence's own troops who considered him as "ignorant, overzealous and out of control. That he hated the Afghan people and that he had spent recent days tormenting the locals and issuing death threats."

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/12/clint-lorance-afghanistan-murders-case-army/21470289/

I tend to take anything said to the press by a defence lawyer and the knee-jerk public reaction and petition campaign with a bucket of salt. For those of you who were old enough, you may remember the wave of support that came out in favour of Lt Calley as a result of his convictions for his part in the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War. (For those who aren't old enough you can read up on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre). Please note that I'm not comparing Lorence's actions with Calley's just the public reaction to the convictions.

Lorence has the right to appeal and undoubtedly will do so. Perhaps when that is filed we'll be able to get some source information which will allow us to make a more reasoned evaluation of the case.

:cheers:
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
237
Points
680
I would tend to side with FJAG here.

Lorance was judged by a jury of ten of his peers. This being the US, where the services are still distinct, it means he was judged by ten Army officer - no Naval officers nor any Air Force officers for whom combat on the ground would have been an unknown. I am quite willing to entertain the idea that some of those judging officers had never been in combat, but I highly doubt that none of them had ever been. Therefore, there must have been someone on that panel of judging officers that could account for and explain to the others (if need be) the realities of combat.

We'll have to see what the complete facts are before we can make a final call on this one.

On the other hand, I don't think that this decision alone will make it more difficult for all officers to continue to make what remains, on the ground, difficult and uncertain moral decisions. They have always been difficult and will remain so every time we are not in a "total war" scenario like the World Wars.
 

Tibbson

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oldgateboatdriver said:
On the other hand, I don't think that this decision alone will make it more difficult for all officers to continue to make what remains, on the ground, difficult and uncertain moral decisions. They have always been difficult and will remain so every time we are not in a "total war" scenario like the World Wars.

I agree with you but I think that is part of the problem.  If our soldiers are fighting and dying then as far as I'm concerned its war.  However, that seems to be considered some sort of "war lite" these days however our troops end up just as dead or injured. 
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
29
Points
530
I posted this case for discussion. I do not, of course, know who is right/guilty/innocent.

Compare this case with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, whose disappearance was investigated insitu, and after his release. His Pl mates said he deserted. Several personnel were killed and maimed looking for him. Special Forces teams looked for Bergdahl.  Five Taliban "generals" where released for his return. His parents stood with President Obama at a WH press conference. Now the Taliban are not Terrorists, but an Armed Insurgency as the US does not negotiate with terrorists. http://army.ca/forums/threads/117789.0.html

MGen(!!!) Kenneth R. Dahl was tasked to conduct an exhaustive investigation into the matter, and spent months interviewing unit members and commanders, and meeting with Bergdahl and his civilian attorney, Eugene Fidell

The investigation after his release was completed in Oct 14. A three star has been reviewing since. Are not Officers trained and experienced in making decisive decisions?

Speaking of Chris Kyle:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2015/01/29/nbcs-mohyeldin-suggests-real-american-sniper-racist-who-went    see video at link

NBC's Mohyeldin Suggests Real American Sniper a 'Racist' Who Went on 'Killing Sprees'



I personally believe that hardly anyone nowadays speaks the whole truth and nothing but the truth under oath.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,448
Points
1,040
Rifleman62 said:
I posted this case for discussion. I do not, of course, know who is right/guilty/innocent.

And I'm glad that you did as it certainly is a case that has very definite discussion points to it. Regretfully the media is doing a very poor job presenting the facts and both sides of the case and we have to dig for the facts, what few there are.

[/quote]
Rifleman62 said:
Compare this case with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl,. . . Five Taliban "generals" where released for his return. His parents stood with President Obama at a WH press conference. . . . The investigation after his release was completed in Oct 14. A three star has been reviewing since. Are not Officers trained and experienced in making decisive decisions?

There have been several "leaks" and it appears that the officers had made a "decisive decision" to prosecute but that the White House is trying vigorously to have that scuttled. It's not hard to guess why this would be.

[/quote]
Rifleman62 said:
Speaking of Chris Kyle:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2015/01/29/nbcs-mohyeldin-suggests-real-american-sniper-racist-who-went    see video at link

NBC's Mohyeldin Suggests Real American Sniper a 'Racist' Who Went on 'Killing Sprees'

I'm currently waiting in a queue for an ecopy of Kyle's book through my local library. I'll reserve my opinion until I've read what he himself (or his ghost writer) have said.

:cheers:
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
29
Points
530
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/31/american-sniper-chris-kyle-defended-against-msnbc-/

Iraqi interpreter defends Chris Kyle against MSNBC racism charge

By Kellan Howell - The Washington Times - Saturday, January 31, 2015

An Iraqi Muslim interpreter for Chris Kyle spoke out against claims by MSNBC foreign correspondent Ayman Moheldin that the “American Sniper” was a racist and went on “killing sprees,” sharing his own experiences with Mr. Kyle whom he considered a dear friend.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/31/american-sniper-chris-kyle-defended-against-msnbc-/#ixzz3QW3LCCz1

 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
29
Points
530
FLAG:
There have been several "leaks" and it appears that the officers had made a "decisive decision" to prosecute but that the White House is trying vigorously to have that scuttled. It's not hard to guess why this would be.

Realize that. This WH does not give a damn about anything, including the Nations' safety. It's all political and his nibs.

Rifleman62 said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/31/american-sniper-chris-kyle-defended-against-msnbc-/

Iraqi interpreter defends Chris Kyle against MSNBC racism charge

By Kellan Howell - The Washington Times - Saturday, January 31, 2015

An Iraqi Muslim interpreter for Chris Kyle spoke out against claims by MSNBC foreign correspondent Ayman Moheldin that the “American Sniper” was a racist and went on “killing sprees,” sharing his own experiences with Mr. Kyle whom he considered a dear friend.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/31/american-sniper-chris-kyle-defended-against-msnbc-/#ixzz3QW3LCCz1
 

jeffb

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2
Points
330
FJAG said:
I think all too often we rush to judgement that the legal system is mistreating someone who was just doing their job in a dangerous situation. We tend to forget that the military legal system is made up of soldiers as well; ones who also have experience and can understand the circumstances and, most importantly, can weigh the evidence that is before them.

There are clearly two sides (at least) to this story. Another one is partially set out in the Army Times article below which indicates that it was Lorence's own troops who considered him as "ignorant, overzealous and out of control. That he hated the Afghan people and that he had spent recent days tormenting the locals and issuing death threats."

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/12/clint-lorance-afghanistan-murders-case-army/21470289/

I tend to take anything said to the press by a defence lawyer and the knee-jerk public reaction and petition campaign with a bucket of salt. For those of you who were old enough, you may remember the wave of support that came out in favour of Lt Calley as a result of his convictions for his part in the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War. (For those who aren't old enough you can read up on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre). Please note that I'm not comparing Lorence's actions with Calley's just the public reaction to the convictions.

Lorence has the right to appeal and undoubtedly will do so. Perhaps when that is filed we'll be able to get some source information which will allow us to make a more reasoned evaluation of the case.

:cheers:

It's perhaps worth noting here the Calley only ended up serving three years house arrest. That being said, I completely agree with your points.
 

medicineman

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
182
Points
680
Simian Turner said:
I have been reading Chris Kyle's book "American Sniper" and the first concern for me in this incident is who had the authority to make the decision to fire the deadly shots.  I accept that Lt. Lorance gave the order to remove the perceived threat and he wanted to accept full responsibility for the actions that followed.  According to Chris Kyle's narrative each and every shot that would result in kills had to be continually evaluated against clear ROE.  I don't expect the same standards for ROEs were maintained from Iraq until 2012 in Afghanistan.

Should read "Level Zero Heroes" - written by a former JTAC with a US Marine Spec Ops team in Afghanistan...there were several layers of BS this dude had to go through to put a bomb on enemy troops, even with ZERO chance of collateral damage.  There were several times where sensor data was used to determine shoot/no shoot targets - they'd even see them dump weapons before the weapons release, as the TB knew they wouldn't be hit if they appeared to be unarmed.  The baddies know the ROE better than the goodies do and use it to good effect.

MM
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,448
Points
1,040
jeffb said:
It's perhaps worth noting here the Calley only ended up serving three years house arrest. That being said, I completely agree with your points.

Right. Just to summarize for those who don't know about this case: Calley was sentenced to life in prison and hard labour in 1971 but President Nixon the next day converted that to house arrest pending appeal. The Secretary of Defence disagreed with Nixon's actions. Some five months later the Convening Authority reduced the sentence to twenty years imprisonment. The court of Military Review upheld both the conviction and the sentence in 1973. The Secretary of the Army approved both as well but in a separate clemency hearing reduced the sentence to ten years. In early 1974 Nixon reviewed the matter and determined to take no further action. Later, in 1974, Calley petitioned the Federal court for habeas corpus citing several procedural issues at trial. Habeas corpus was granted by a judge but later reversed by an Appeal Court and he was ordered back into Army custody. Late the same year Nixon issued Calley a limited pardon that upheld the conviction and dismissal from the military but reduced the sentence to time served.

:cheers:
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
Too many of these cases for my liking.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-charged-with-murder-in-iraqi-death/
 
Top