Asking for pardon
1LT Clint Lorance has people asking for a pardon for his for murdering two Afghan men. According to this story, Lorance ordered his unit to shoot the two Afghans, but did not shoot them himself, and there is evidence connecting the two Afghan men to a roadside bomb that exploded.
This brings up the questions about Wm. Calley’s conviction for personally shooting 22 villagers at My Lai. A total of 109 Vietnamese civilians were killed, but there was never any indication that he gave an order to his men to do that. They acted independently.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/calley-charged-for-my-lai-massacre
The question that needs to be answered is direct. In a war zone, under direct attack or an unexpected ambush, why is it not understood that the reaction to being attacked, and subsequently trying to find the enemy to take him out, but failing and taking the anger out on the next perceived enemies is exactly what happens in warfare?
I’m not saying it’s right when it happens. I’m questioning the lack of understanding of the reaction itself. When these accusations and charges by people who were not in the war zone are inflicted on people reacting normally under extreme duress, why is this reaction to being attacked, or not finding the enemy but finding a viable substitute, not understood?
Category: Disposable Warriors, Legal
Sorry, but I have to disagree. We do need to be held to a higher standard.
Now I will admit my only combat was during Operation Just Because.
My thinking might be different if I had been other places.
But that’s exactly my point: we are held to a higher standard, but the hair-trigger reaction to being ambushed or attacked is at the root of these incidents.
I’m not justifying it. I’m only saying that it happens and the higher standard goes by the wayside as a result.
“But that’s exactly my point: we are held to a higher standard, but the hair-trigger reaction to being ambushed or attacked is at the root of these incidents. I’m not justifying it. I’m only saying that it happens and the higher standard goes by the wayside as a result.” But in this case the shooting was not done in reaction to something happening now; but in response to something that had happen prior to this patrol. Yes, there could have been a heighten sense of awareness because of thing that had happen on other patrols. And if there was some aggressive behavior, or perceived behavior, against the patrol then a hair-trigger response might have been justified. But that is not what I believe (and yes it is MY belief) what happened in this incident. This should be in “War Story” but I am posting it here: Many, many years ago I was the Team Leader on an exercise in the PI. My team was to be inserted and then travel to an area to link up with a simulated survivor. The ROE stated that the aggressors were not to be in place until an hour after infil. This was because there was only a couple authorized LZ and they were close to where the aggressors were based. Right after infil (just a few minutes) I noticed that there was an aggressor following my team. He was in the bushes waiting for the infil. Found out later that the aggressors had put a person at each of the LZ before the exercise so that they could follow any team that was inserted anywhere in the exercise area. Just to make their jobs easier. The person at the correct LZ would just call in the remaining aggressors to their position. I had my team do a button hook at a river bend and caught the aggressor on our tail. I talked to him and found out where the other aggressors were and their call signs. I then took his radio. I then told him that I was going to release him to… Read more »
Balikatan?
Nope; Copious Blunder aka Cope Thunder
👍
Copious Blunder aka Cope Thunder
BBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I remember that from being at Kadena 84-86.
I was a TMO troop so no war stories, unless you accept the guy in freight who was bored on Midnight shift and was doing wheelies on the Warehouse tug and the Commander and the First Sergeant came to visit the warehouse unannounced and caught him doing it.
He tried to deny it but the bent pintle hook on the rear of the tug and the large gouge marks with red paint in them on the warehouse floor spoke for themselves.
I don’t remember if he got busted like an Article 15 or took a stripe or anything but he did get most of all his ass chewed off.
It was a long time ago.
Too bad they didn’t just shoot the roadside bomb and blow the bastards up!!
I have my own little story which figures into this. Not a war story. I was mugged on the back steps of my apartment early in the spring of 1986. Two guys, a tall, skinny black guy and a short, plump Mexican. It was an ambush. The black guy had a small black gun, a revolver with bullets in the cylinder. Basically, I was ambushed. My reaction, since I didn’t have a weapon, was to be loud and confrontational and step deliberately toward them instead of running. What else was I going to do? It was too far up to my back door from that landing. Everything I did – yelling, moving forward instead of running – was stupid, but it worked and they ran off. My 1st floor neighbor didn’t hear me yelling but he did hear me pounding on his door and did call the cops for me. After the cops came and went, I took my dog out for her walk in the alley, carrying a paring knife and a can of hair spray. Sounds like it was a mere nothing, right? Well, for four weeks after that, I laughed it off, told people about it, made a joke out of it, offered my services as a bodyguard, and when I got home, every time I took those back steps down or up, with or without my dog, I looked under the first flight to see if there was anyone there. I also got a canister of pepper spray. This is more than 30 years later, and I still look around when I’m putting stuff into my car, or unloading it, and when I’m opening the front door to my house. I stopped taking ‘safety’ for granted after that. That’s why I put those two articles together. Both Calley and Lorance committed unjustified acts when there was no need to do so, but they were both carrying some kind of emotional load that never got a release. It seems to be how long it sticks with you, and what your mental makeup is that decides how you’re… Read more »
Speaking of Calley, back in the early 80’s I was visiting Fort Benning on business. After checking into my hotel I went to a nearby bar to meet my local sales rep. It was happy hour and the bar was very crowded. Not seeing my rep, I found an empty bar stool and asked the guy sitting next to it if it was occupied. He grinned and told me to grab it which I did, thinking, “He looks familiar.”
As soon as I was seated and had ordered a draft, the guy turned with a grin, held out his hand and said in a booze-friendly manner, “Hi, I’m Rusty.” I instantly realized my seatmate was the notorious Lt. Calley. We made small-talk for a few minutes until my rep showed up and we moved off to a table where he confirmed that Calley was regular there and had a bit of a drinking problem.
But what really made the situation weird was a couple of days later my watch battery died. I stopped in at a jewelry store on Victory Drive and told the nice lady I needed a new battery. She turned around and said, “Rusty will you help this man with a battery?”
Yep, it was him once again and he showed no sign of recognizing me from the bar so I didn’t bring it up. I learned later that his in-laws owned the jewelry business.
Small world…
Paring Knife and Hairspray? You sure you weren’t a Marine? Adapt, Improvise and Overcome
Well, (cough), I did have my dog Bandit, a German Shepherd, with me, too. She and I went to dog school twice a week, so I knew I could count on her if I said ‘Get ’em!’ But the other things were all I had besides my big mouth.
I prefer starting fluid myself, one spark afterward and the would-be perp has a hot time if you know what i mean!
N A V Y …who do you think taught the Marines? 😉
Did you even read the article you linked? This was not a “hair-trigger” reaction. It was not even an action during combat. This guy was a bad guy. It was only a matter of time before he was relieved (best case) or court martialed.
According to the article you linked Lt. Torrance had at least one previous incident of ordering his men to fire on noncombatants.
I don’t think “higher standards” can be analyzed or considered while under duress. As a 20 year old (SGT) squad leader in Vietnam, I was scared and under duress much of the time. My thoughts weren’t about accountability, fault, repercussions, etc.. My only thoughts were to keep my men and myself alive at any cost. The enemy then was much like it is today (and for the past 45 years), not knowing who the enemy is/was; unidentifiable and unable to distinguish form the “good guys.”
From a U.S. Army E-7 with 13 years of service.
I was taught:
“A Commander is responsible for everything his Soldiers do…
or fail to do”
I read the account available through the link provided. The lieutenant ordered unarmed men to be shot and then lied and tried to get others to lie as well. The damning testimony came from his men. This was not a mistake in the heat of battle, any more than the Malmedy Massacre was. Many well meaning people have signed a petition asking that Lorance be pardoned. None of them men who were there that day support the effort. I’ll stand with them.
I want to be clear in my view of this. I am NOT justifying what they did.
The higher standard was thrown aside in both incidents, My Lai and Afghanistan. Both Calley and Lorance were far and away over the line, Calley for participating in that slaughter and Lorance for lying about what happened.
However, I do know that there is something about being in an active war zone that removes the rules in the minds of these people, if only briefly, and they will do things that they would not otherwise do. In Lorance’s case, it includes trying to get people to cover for him.
The part that is civilized goes out the window. This is what I myself am trying to understand.
It’s not just active war zones that remove rules from minds. Your anecdote is an example. The crime statistics from Chicago is another. Cain and Abel is another anecdote.
Some people just need an excuse or opportunity to let the evil out.
Ever read “Lord of the Flies”?
Oh, yes, and now we see it in the riots in southern California at Berkley. It’s the same thing: I’m trying to figure out where the restraint comes off. I stopped being ‘nice’, meaning wimpy, after that little incident because I knew it wouldn’t pay.
PH, I just read the article and I don’t see that the incident in question happened during a period of “hot blood.”
Yes, the patrol had taken casualties before the incident, but at the time of the incident they were not, nor had they been, under attack. The 1LT ordered his men to engage unarmed men on a motorcycle which was a violation of the ROE. There was no imminent danger at the time the 1LT ordered his men to open fire and there would have been no danger to the LT and his men had they held their fire.
For that matter if they had detained the men and tested them for explosive residue, they’d likely have taken them into custody where they could have been interrogated and provided details about other bomb makers in the area – which is just one reason why prisoners are usually preferable to EKIAs.
Gunning unarmed men down – even if it turns out that they may have been making bombs earlier in the day – is not a way to win against an insurgency.
An Army has to have discipline to be worthy of the name. And in a country where we depend on the goodwill of the locals, shooting people down randomly is only going to make it more difficult to accomplish the mission.
As far as the fact that the LT himself did not pull the trigger, so what? He was in command and gave the order, from both a legal and moral standpoint he is responsible. Those silver bars on his shoulder straps make him responsible, that’s kind of the whole point.
Okay, that is the same thing that happened at My Lai.
Calley’s squad was on a search-and-destroy mission, looking for VC where they had been reported, and couldn’t find them. When they got to Son My village, they found only old men, women and children and started their slaughter.
It isn’t so much about how you react immediately to being shot at or attacked. It’s how long it stays with you. With Calley, it was a long-term objective that brought him and his men under fire, but the objective – find the VC/bad guys – was difficult at best to achieve. This kind of thing festers unless there’s an outlet for it which would be a direct frontal attack.
Unless I missed something, neither Calley’s unit nor Lorance’s had that kind of outlet at their disposal and both Calley and Lorance took it out on whoever was available to them. In both instances, it was a perceived enemy.
All they had ahead of them was the grind of more of the same and no way of knowing when it would end. There is something in that seemingly unending state which kicks over the traces and says ‘I’m just going to do whatever I feel like doing’.
Again, I’m not justifying it or sympathizing with either of them. I’m just trying to understand it.
“understanding” and “excusing” are totally different though.
If a husband finds his wife in bed with another man and in a rage, kills them both, we may understand it, but we don’t excuse it.
No, and I’m not excusing either of them.
From your explanations you seem to understand “it” already. Unless I am missing something.
I think you’re right. I may understand it more than I realized.
I don’t think it’s even about a moral code of some kind. It’s the restraint that keeps us from become the angry, out of control mob of thugs burning things and destroying property in Berkley and Washington, DC, as well as Kristallnacht in November, 1938.
And thanks for the observation.
Wrong. Military personnel need to be held to a different (lower, if you will) standard: how many times is the average civilian asked to make split second decisions that could determine life or death of the whole platoon (or 40 other people)?
If you’re wrong and do nothing, 40 men are dead. If wrong and shoot, 2 innocent people die.
We can talk high cockalorum about how a “higher standard” is somehow noble (or whatever). Bullshit. What makes being an American Soldier noble is the willingness to risk one’s life to destroy America’s enemies.
Lawrence should never have had to lie. He should have been able to say, “Sir, it was a good-faith mistake” and the chain of command should have said, “while tragic, this is war. But you are relieved of duty and returning to the US.”
Read the damn linked article. It was not a “good-faith mistake” and it was not a split second decision.
Right, both men should have called for firebombing strikes to burn the cities or villages to the ground..
We’ve lost the ability to slaughter innocent civilians like we used to do in WW2 to the Japs…people forget the reason why we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t to minimize the casualties…they were the only two larger cities still standing after we firebombed the other 67 major urban centers of the nation of Japan killing all manner of women and children without concern for their well-being.
We need to re-read some Curtis LeMay who told his men they would be killing women and children and to get used to the idea.
It’s different when you’re looking them in the eye as opposed to flying overhead a few miles in the air, but they’re still just as dead when you’re done.
Our mistake is thinking that we can somehow make war “better” by limiting the number of civilian deaths…one of the major factors ending these wars was the destruction of enemy forces and the unending bombing of their cities killing thousands and thousands of civilians in the process.
Never mind that we indiscriminately kill innocents with drone strikes to get the one HVT we decided was worth those additional dead civilian bodies.
The hypocrisy of this system of rules is unbelievable. To say that Lorance shouldn’t have shot two unarmed men because it was a crime but then decide that killing some kids at a wedding with a drone strike to get their uncle is perfectly fine is fucking ridiculous.
Or that dropping a bomb in the middle of a village because you think it might be a VC stronghold so it’s worth killing the farmers and their families to get the VC is somehow morally superior to killing them with a firearm instead is just stupid.
“We’ve lost the ability to slaughter innocent civilians like we used to do in WW2”
I read somewhere that you must demonize the enemy in order to kill him. We certainly did that in WW2 on both fronts.
My dad once described a bombing mission where the target was a factory in a small village on a river. As they turned and headed for home he watched as the entire village slid down into the river.
I’ve copied this part of the article:
‘ “When [Lorance] arrived at the platoon, his first act was to threaten a local Afghan’s young child with death” and ordered soldiers to fire into a nearby village, telling one of his men to falsely report they had been attacked, according to court documents filed by prosecutors in October.
The 28-year-old lieutenant promised his platoon there would be no more casualties and before the July patrol said they would wage a “shock and awe” campaign on Afghans as revenge, ordering his platoon to engage any Afghan seen riding a motorcycle.’
I’m not a combat veteran, my interpretation of the two paragraphs is that that he was fearful due to history in the area and wanting to make sure there were no more casualties. His response was to be very aggressive in his unit’s patrols. Lying about not being able to do the assessment and then calling in the false report just made things worse.
If he had done the assessment and not lied when he called it in, I could have seen him getting a lighter sentence or maybe charges dropped (especially if they were able to get the biometric data on the two killed). By lying, he screwed himself in court… and having the unit members testify about his actions just made the government’s case stronger.
IMO, he has to do some time for his actions…
VOV. If the lion’s share of Japanese armed forces would have obliged us by gathering in one place some August day in 1945, I am quite certain the bomb would have been dropped on them alone. As for your other examples, I won’t quibble. Nor can I take issue with your drone wedding example, although I would guess that if a lone shooter could do the job, a lone shooter would be used. There are rules, however ridiculous you may regard them to be, and one of them is that a soldier does not intentionally kill a noncombatant or an unarmed, passive enemy. Those rules have been broken in every war. (In WW I, my grandfather’s infantry company had a reputation for routinely taking few prisoners. As in virtually none.) The rules control behavior and allow some humanity to season the otherwise unsavory plate that is war.
I have an aunt who was a child in eastern Germany (now Poland) during WWII. They fled to Berlin ahead of the Russians.
She tells stories about being in the bomb shelters during the Allied bombing of Berlin. The allies were using ground penetrating bombs to get to the underground shelters. One landed in the entryway of the shelter they were in. Fortunately for her and her mother, it was a dud – although they had to wait for the bomb squad to come deactivate it.
The point being – in an all-out fight for survival, civilians have never been fully off-limits.
There does need to be some way of making distinctions, if possible. For my father (U.S. Army Infantry, WWII) he could quite easily distinguish between German soldiers and civilians, and behave accordingly (although he did have a story about shooting a woman in the leg when she refused to halt when so ordered.)
But for the poor guys in the Pacific, where every Japanese civilian was expected to fight for the Emperor, or for the guys in Nam where the “rice farmer” could just as well be a VC – where do you or can you make a distinction? Women fought just like the men did. Therefore, any adult could be an enemy and there was no way to know for sure until they started trying to kill you.
Same problem now fighting ISIS. Have you seen the videos of 6-year-old boys being trained to shoot or behead prisoners? Now every 6-year-old and up is a possible enemy.
I do not know what the solution is (other than napalm a lot of goats) but the rules will not fit the reality, it appears. Strict adherence to rules without consideration for reality is folly.
“The rules control behavior and allow some humanity to season the otherwise unsavory plate that is war.”
That, Sir, is a very well-turned phrase; my compliments.
Thanks, PT. Coming from you, I am genuinely flattered.
“but there was never any indication that he gave an order to his men to do that.”
So what? Did he order them to stop murdering people? He was the Platoon leader; an officer.
I understand the reaction, I have even had that reaction, but that is irrelevant. Murder is murder. If we all had to “walk a mile in their shoes” in order to sit on a jury nobody would ever be convicted. Including Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc.
IMO the LT is reaching too far by asking for a pardon.
A pardon wipes the slate clean – once a pardon is granted it’s as if the crime never occurred and all disabilities that come with a conviction are removed.
Traditionally, a pardon is issued when there is an egregious miscarriage of justice and either the person was never guilty of the offense in the first place, or the person should not have been held accountable for his/her actions because of extenuating circumstances or issues of fundamental fairness.
(Examples of the latter would be someone convicted of stealing bread to feed his starving children or someone who was maliciously prosecuted for an offense they were technically “guilty” of, but which is normally not prosecuted or which is enforced arbitrarily or unfairly.)
Given the overall circumstances, the LT might be more successful if he argued for clemency instead of a full pardon. Clemency, or a commuted sentence, does not remove the disabilities of a conviction, and more importantly, when a convict is granted clemency, it’s not like he is considered innocent.
Clemency is more like the “king’s mercy” where the executive (president in this case) says that the person is still guilty, but has been punished enough and that further punishment would be unjust.
I think if a sex freak traitor gets out way short of his completed sentence, then what this guy did is no worse. Out on time served.
Don’t lie.
His actions after the shootings were unpardonable. That a PFC had the integrity and balls to not endanger a child while the Lt was out for blood speaks volumes of his leadership, or lack of it.
I would think the new evidence that linked the two dead to IEDS should be introduced and his sentence reviewed, but his lack of integrity and blatant disobedience of the ROE are inexcusable.
I have been face to face with Afghans and Iraqis that I knew, with 100% certainty, would be shooting at me and my soldiers and/or emplacing IEDs come nightfall. But they had no weapons on them at the time, no contraband that could be used as evidence to detain them, and no proof that their intent would soon be hostile. I had nothing but my gut and experience to tell me that this was going to happen. They knew this as well, and their shit-eating grins only further confirmed my suspicions as our searches of them and futile attempts to find even a shred of evidence that they had anything illegal or a remote hint of explosive residue produced nothing. In those kind of situations, where you know you are standing two feet from someone who will soon try to kill you- and there is nothing you can do about it- it is a surreal experience. I admit there was a small voice in my head that argued there was a very easy and quick way to prevent these future attacks from happening. But we are a military that operates on rules of engagement and specific regulations on the use of lethal force. Even without the ROE and use of force regs we have in place, we have a moral obligation to do our jobs with integrity. While it may be much easier and safer for me to preemptively shoot a man I know will shoot at me later, I cannot justify doing so if he is not exhibiting hostile action or hostile intent at the time. It is incredibly frustrating. But you know what? Welcome to an insurgency. Insurgencies are all about people shaking your hand in the morning and shooting at you at night. Boy, it sucks. It really, really sucks. And if you cannot handle that, don’t put on your gear, pick up your weapon, and leave the wire. If your own soldiers are calling your actions murder, if your own soldiers are testifying that you acted in ignorance and call you overzealous- then the only similarity… Read more »
I neglected to mention that in both my brief encounters with Calley he seemed shaky, uncertain, exhibiting no sense of confidence whatsoever. Whether he was that way before the massacre I have no idea but he was a defeated man when I spoke with him.
Marrying a woman whose parents owned a large jewelry store probably left Calley with a better fate than most wished for him. By now, he’s probably comfortably retired and quite well to do.
If the booze didn’t do him in.
I’m not surprised that Calley seemed shaken, unsure, and defeated. He is forever tied to one of the most publicized atrocities of the entire Vietnam War. High school kids who learn American history in class and get to the part on Vietnam will inevitably hear about My Lai. Any documentary or in-depth journalism piece on Vietnam includes My Lai. I can’t imagine living my life under that great of a shadow, and I’m not surprised that he found some semblance of solace inside of a bottle. According to the omniscient Wikipedia, Calley became divorced around 2005 or 2006, which ended his job at the jewelry store. He was forced to move in with his son. In 2009, Calley broke decades of silence about his role and feelings on My Lai when he said at the Kiwanis Club in Columbus, Georgia: “There is not a day that goes by that I do not feel remorse for what happened that day in My Lai. I feel remorse for the Vietnamese who were killed, for their families, for the American soldiers involved and their families. I am very sorry…. If you are asking why I did not stand up to them when I was given the orders, I will have to say that I was a 2nd Lieutenant getting orders from my commander and I followed them—foolishly, I guess.” Reading that should give you a sense of how spineless of a f$&k Calley is. He apologizes for following “orders” and not speaking up, and only mentions the Vietnamese “who were killed” and the “American soldiers involved”- interestingly leaving out the fact that he personally pulled the trigger and killed over a dozen Vietnamese civilians himself, encouraging his soldiers to kill more and more Vietnamese all the while. His apology is rife with omissions and lack of personal accountability. I think that, deep inside, Calley still refuses to own his actions on that day. I’m surprised as well that his liver hasn’t finally given up the ghost. LT Calley, like LT Lorance, was not well liked by his men. Of Calley, ‘One GI described… Read more »
“Just following orders”. Where have we heard that before?
Speaking of order giving, Calley’s CO, Capt. Ernest Medina, got off a lot easier than he should have.
Exactly, timeactual. “Just following orders” has been the go-to excuse for a certain group of National Socialists perpetrating a certain act of genocide.
And I have no doubt in my mind that CPT Medina’s role in My Lai was much larger than he says it was. No CPT can be present during a massacre of that size and duration, do nothing to stop it, and then claim it wasn’t his fault and that he was just a shitty commander who couldn’t control his own soldiers. I don’t buy it one bit.
But it was a different time in those days, and there was an incredible amount of support for Medina and Calley from the American people, who in turn called their political representatives to place political pressure to give them leniency. As we all know, Medina was acquitted, and Calley’s conviction and subsequent sentence to life imprisonment with hard labor was never executed. The day after his conviction, he was placed on house arrest pending appeal. Ultimately, his life sentence was commuted to 20 years, and then finally 10 years. Calley served only 3 1/2 years of house arrest before he was released. His appeal of his conviction and dismissal from the Army was unsuccessful, but he was sentenced to time served out of his 10 year sentence and let loose.
Fuck ’em.
Sometimes it is the hardest thing to do is not pull the trigger.
YOur out there winning hearts and minds, giving out free chickens and toothbrushes, your doc treats all the lil kiddies bumps and bruises and as soon as you roll out of town… BOOM! you get hit with an IED.
I can’t tell you how many times this happened to me ( well at least 17 times) and the hardest thing to do was not mow the locals down. as they gathered around looking on you know that they knew it was going to happen. and you hate them for smiling at you and taking your shit then smiling when the medivac comes in to take your driver away. you take your gunner off the gun because you know, i mean you just know that if someone in the crowd trips he is going to rock that 240B.
It shouldn’t happen period. but the enemy wants you to. it makes great SJW & hippy media fodder.