Army Command Continues Its Assault On 'War Hero' Green Beret Who Confronted Afghan Child Rapist -...

What were those "Army Values" again? Let's call them "Army Suggestions" if we're only going to pay lip service to them. This is a flagrant leadership failure at the highest levels and showcases a massive double standard.

they go through with this and the Army will lose a lot of soldiers maybe not physically but the damage will be done. is there anyway we can get Army commands head out of its ass and stop this?

Ultimately, this is a discussion about the rule of law and civil disobedience. On the one hand, I absolutely empathize with with the SFC Martland and his response to finding out what happened to that boy. On the other hand, laws and military regulations don't have an footnote that says, "*it's okay to disregard this if the other guy is a heinous criminal." I mean, what if SFC Martland was wrong, or his information was inaccurate, or he grabbed the wrong guy? Would the discussion even be happening? No, even though in the hypothetical case of SFC Martland making a mistake, the righteousness of his outrage would have been the same.

So, you might say, "who cares? The guy really deserved it." Well, that may be, and I would be inclined to agree to an extent, but then the question becomes one of civil disobedience. In such a case, there tends to be an agreement that the rule or law that was broken (i.e. don't assault people) may actually inhibit justice (i.e. SFC Martland only assaulted the person because the police commander is a monster). However, and this is where a lot of people stop agreeing, just because SFC Martland felt personally justified and just because we agree that he was personally justified, he still has no authority to break the law and to meat out justice himself. Ultimately, that is where the rationality of a criminal justice system comes into play: it is up to no *individual* to break the law, even when it appears to be unjust in a specific case. If a person does so anyway, he must be prepared to face the consequences. If such a person does not wish to, or feels that he should be exempted from the consequences, then that person is not acting with justice in mind, but rather simple anger.

If I still don't have you, think about this: for what crimes of the police commander should SFC Martland have been allowed to assault him? I think the consensus is, obviously, sexually abusing and assaulting a boy. What if it wasn't a minor? What about murder? What if it wasn't a capital offence, like embezzlement? What line exists that is not arbitrary in that each person faced with the same dilemma that SFC Martland did would be able to reach a just decision? It's in the law: assault is prohibited, no asterisk, no footnote.