Posted on May 8, 2014
Army LT Gets 20-years in Prison for Violating Rules of Engagement
28.5K
86
55
1
1
0
What are your thoughts about murder charges during war?
Prosecutors said 1LT Clint Lorance ordered his men to open fire immediately in violation of the military’s rules of engagement, which requires soldiers to hold fire unless they have evidence of hostile action or hostile intent. They said three men on a motorcycle approached the patrol in July 2012. Two were killed and the third ran away.
1LT Lorance was sentenced to 20 years in prison, forfeiture of pay and dismissal from the military.
Prosecutors said 1LT Clint Lorance ordered his men to open fire immediately in violation of the military’s rules of engagement, which requires soldiers to hold fire unless they have evidence of hostile action or hostile intent. They said three men on a motorcycle approached the patrol in July 2012. Two were killed and the third ran away.
1LT Lorance was sentenced to 20 years in prison, forfeiture of pay and dismissal from the military.
Court Martial
UCMJ
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 30
10
10
0
I am scared that political correctness and an agenda is putting our troops in harm's way. I do not know enough about this situation but I find it ironic in war that you basically have to shoot second and what about all those IEDs and suicide attacks. This administration is playing with fire.
(10)
(0)
MSgt David Mata
Ah, politics, politics...I am pretty sure the White House has hired "competent" Secretaries and Generals to develop today's ROE's and LOAC adjustments...There's Geneva too, I'm sure that's the WH's fault as well...and the VA has only sucked ass under this Administration...My subtlely sarcastic point is it does not matter who or what is presiding at the moment...there are several upon SEVERAL layers between the troops on Ground and the CinC, you know that...I find ROE and LOAC violations to be sacreligious now of days; when our enemy are savages at their very best, but that is just my humble opinion...politics suck...(no BS or homo)...
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Relativism is the bane of reality, erecting false constructs for a human time tunnel.
(3)
(0)
10
10
0
THIS IS SCARY...I WONDER WHAT THE ELTEES (LT) RESPONSE IS?..20 YEARS SOUNDS LIKE IT MUST BE EGREGIOUS, HOWEVER, I WILL NEVER BE A FAN OF MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING...IF HIS MEN WERE SAFER BECAUSE OF THE "ILLEGAL" ORDER AND CAME HOME ALIVE, THEN, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED...GODSPEED SIR...
(10)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MSgt David Mata . Like you, I agree with the overkill side of it and sometimes people get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yeah and if they save lives well it is all good.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
From what I read on this story previously (and please correct me if I'm wrong), this LT ordered his soldiers to fire on any motorcycle they saw. Now, I can understand emotion and frustration downrange, but if that was the order that was given, then he should be held accountable. This is the frustrating situation we're in - the military is meant to go in and conquer, not police. But it is the situation we're in.
(5)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
I’d have to agree with the Maj’s first statement. From what I read of the case, it seems the Lieutenant violated the rules of engagement. Although Kerry’s statements about the Vietnam War were trumped up, I do understand the absolute necessity to prevent future My Lai's, which require warfighters to remain in self-control - even when survival tendencies surface from the creature within. There is a biological reason for this (see below).
Lt. Lawrence is likely everything good attributed to him, including a good officer. 99% of his life was likely comprised of good and honorable decisions and behavior. However, he was in a 1% situation where he made a bad decision. But it didn't seem to be in the fog-of-war. He seemed to have decided beforehand to shrink-wrap certain situations based on criteria not authorized by the LOAC. If he was a good officer he was likely very concerned about his troops and may have decided based on such emotions.
He probably knew of or faced hostiles on motorcycles who didn’t brandish weapons until the last moment. After the stricter rules were enacted in Afghanistan hostiles regularly blended with civilians and fired weapons previously hidden then threw them before we could return fire. I have two children in the military and one was deployed three times. I tell people if you want to win the war, just have one of them kidnapped - I'll win it single handedly. This is of course is not realistic but the emotions are. I would probably decide to risk court martial if I knew it would increase the chances of my kids surviving. And I tend to look at my troops as my kids.
Lt. Lawrence may have tried to make it easier for his soldiers to recognize the situation. If he ordered his troops to take extreme interest in Afghans on motorcycles coming at them, rather than just to shoot any motorcyclists, he might not have been convicted or received as hefty of a sentence. It may very well be the statement about shooting anyone on motorcycles was taken out of context. For instance, perhaps he said such knowing they won’t fire unless he gave the order. Perhaps he wanted to ensure they were ready to fire because of how quickly they go from civilian to hostile shooting at them.
Benefit of the doubt should come from the mere fact we are called to fight war within which it is absolutely natural for our survival programming in our instinctive brains to engage. We should make sure we view situations such as Lawrence faced with as much consideration as possible. Perhaps the court martial did and Lawrence truly care nothing for any Afghans and didn't care if innocent civilians might have been killed. Or perhaps it was something along the lines I mentioned above.
Someday the DoD may be able to better tell how warfighters will act in those situations and not send into battle anyone who is not "built" for it. Lt. Lawrence may not have been built to fight magnanimously in today’s contemporary theaters of war.
(Our survival tendencies operate within the primitive brain and to remain in self-control, we need to keep the advanced CC part of the brain engaged. These two areas compete over dopamine and so giving in to survival instincts can effectively shut down our CC.)
I share this because each of us must avoid knee-jerk rationalization and the false dilemmas today that can lead to make wrongful decisions in the future in the heat of battle. I studied the neuroscience of what I just shared in both my master’s and doctorate programs and I would be extremely disappointed if the court martial failed to consider our biological nature. I share in the hope those reading might want to learn more about themselves in this regard.
I disagree with the Maj’s stance that the military is meant to go conquer. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs on the word conquer but the nature of our country’s values and heritage is just the opposite: to prevent conquer. This is hopefully accomplished through deterrence but if necessary, military action in the absence of conquering. I don’t view taking over Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein was conquering, but rather in the same spirit as raiding a criminal operation, only on a grander scale.
Lt. Lawrence is likely everything good attributed to him, including a good officer. 99% of his life was likely comprised of good and honorable decisions and behavior. However, he was in a 1% situation where he made a bad decision. But it didn't seem to be in the fog-of-war. He seemed to have decided beforehand to shrink-wrap certain situations based on criteria not authorized by the LOAC. If he was a good officer he was likely very concerned about his troops and may have decided based on such emotions.
He probably knew of or faced hostiles on motorcycles who didn’t brandish weapons until the last moment. After the stricter rules were enacted in Afghanistan hostiles regularly blended with civilians and fired weapons previously hidden then threw them before we could return fire. I have two children in the military and one was deployed three times. I tell people if you want to win the war, just have one of them kidnapped - I'll win it single handedly. This is of course is not realistic but the emotions are. I would probably decide to risk court martial if I knew it would increase the chances of my kids surviving. And I tend to look at my troops as my kids.
Lt. Lawrence may have tried to make it easier for his soldiers to recognize the situation. If he ordered his troops to take extreme interest in Afghans on motorcycles coming at them, rather than just to shoot any motorcyclists, he might not have been convicted or received as hefty of a sentence. It may very well be the statement about shooting anyone on motorcycles was taken out of context. For instance, perhaps he said such knowing they won’t fire unless he gave the order. Perhaps he wanted to ensure they were ready to fire because of how quickly they go from civilian to hostile shooting at them.
Benefit of the doubt should come from the mere fact we are called to fight war within which it is absolutely natural for our survival programming in our instinctive brains to engage. We should make sure we view situations such as Lawrence faced with as much consideration as possible. Perhaps the court martial did and Lawrence truly care nothing for any Afghans and didn't care if innocent civilians might have been killed. Or perhaps it was something along the lines I mentioned above.
Someday the DoD may be able to better tell how warfighters will act in those situations and not send into battle anyone who is not "built" for it. Lt. Lawrence may not have been built to fight magnanimously in today’s contemporary theaters of war.
(Our survival tendencies operate within the primitive brain and to remain in self-control, we need to keep the advanced CC part of the brain engaged. These two areas compete over dopamine and so giving in to survival instincts can effectively shut down our CC.)
I share this because each of us must avoid knee-jerk rationalization and the false dilemmas today that can lead to make wrongful decisions in the future in the heat of battle. I studied the neuroscience of what I just shared in both my master’s and doctorate programs and I would be extremely disappointed if the court martial failed to consider our biological nature. I share in the hope those reading might want to learn more about themselves in this regard.
I disagree with the Maj’s stance that the military is meant to go conquer. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs on the word conquer but the nature of our country’s values and heritage is just the opposite: to prevent conquer. This is hopefully accomplished through deterrence but if necessary, military action in the absence of conquering. I don’t view taking over Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein was conquering, but rather in the same spirit as raiding a criminal operation, only on a grander scale.
(2)
(0)
MSgt David Mata
Brother, I completely agree with you in the whole feeling as though our troop are our "Kids"...I Retired E-7 largely due to the fact I provided too much cover, from the Back Office Bitches (BOBs), for my Troops on Flt...Decisions are made sometimes when directly on the ground...plenty of times, I discontinued a UXO sweep, pissing off the Battle CPT, simply because it was too dark and I had ways to maximize our safety...secure the area 360 then re-continue sweep when dawn arrives...I am sure there were plenty of signs and warnings for the local Iraqi populace to hopefully say to themselves, "Shit, maybe I should'nt approach those Infidels w/Weapons at a high rate of speed in my motorcycle or any vehicle...they just might shoot me"...We do not know the entire situation because we were not there...My views on punishing anyone for a LOAC violation now of days is an entirely different rant brother...I enjoyed the read on the Pshychology (no BS or Homo)...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google