William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[wm]

Fuchs,
US military members are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield as well. The restrictions are very explicit, but that, as well as being subject to a special penal code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in the US anyway, make military members a separate group from most folks in the country.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs,
US military members are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield as well. The restrictions are very explicit, but that, as well as being subject to a special penal code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in the US anyway, make military members a separate group from most folks in the country.

I noted how Floridian civilians "are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield" in general and in ways soldiers in New York State aren't. The restrictions in Florida infamously are not very explicit. I also heard about how bodyguards, guards, policemen, executioners and in many countries also hunters/park rangers are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield", and in often ways soldiers aren't.

Killing is no military monopoly - and certainly not so in peacetime. In fact, intentional kills by soldiers are in peacetime again extremely uncommon and rather the extreme exception compared to the many legal kills by civilians.
So no, the big difference regarding "killing" is also about war/no-war, not mil/civ.

Besides; even in wartime civilians are hardly going to be prosecuted by their own country for killing a hostile soldier.

-----

Did you know tenured civil administrations, policemen, seamen and plenty other civilian job groups are under a special penal code in many countries all over the world? In fact, the penal code of German policemen is by its nature a twin of the Bundeswehr's. As is in fact the penal code for all German tenured public servants. Teachers, for example. Yes - a first grade teacher who teaches children the alphabet is under a special penal code in some countries!

I made a quick google search, and it confirmed that in the United States there's a huge legal difference between a public servant in a utilities institution and a normal employee in the same job.
Did you ever hear about a conviction for "abuse of office" by a non-government employee?
Me neither.
Non-governmental jerks can be fired, but never charged with "abuse of office".

-----

Besides, even IF soldiers were different/special because of special penal code or killing authorization:
That would still not support all the attitude stuff about it. No support for higher morality, hardly support for requirement of higher morality such as no cheating on spouses, no 'deserving' much respect et cetera.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Since you all have lost any connection with the original intent of the thread, I will throw this out:

Let women fight on the front line: Defence Secretary tells Army to end macho image

Tory Cabinet Minister reveals plan for women to be given combat roles
Review was due in 2018 but will be brought forward to this year
Chief of the General Staff will report to Hammond by end of year
Hammond says current ban sends bad signal Army not 'open to women'
Says 'macho image' of the Army is wrong. Claims reality 'very different'

By Daniel Martin and Ian Drury

Published: 09:56 EST, 8 May 2014 | Updated: 19:01 EST, 8 May 2014

592 shares

678

View
comments

Women soldiers could be allowed into frontline combat roles, it was announced yesterday.

Signalling the historic change, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said it was time for the Armed Forces to abandon the ‘macho’ image and show they were open to everyone who was fit enough.

He said the US, Canadian and Australian armies allowed women to serve in combat roles – and so should Britain.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz31GHLvQXF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[wm]

I noted how Floridian civilians "are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield" in general and in ways soldiers in New York State aren't. The restrictions in Florida infamously are not very explicit. I also heard about how bodyguards, guards, policemen, executioners and in many countries also hunters/park rangers are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield", and in often ways soldiers aren't.

Killing is no military monopoly - and certainly not so in peacetime. In fact, intentional kills by soldiers are in peacetime again extremely uncommon and rather the extreme exception compared to the many legal kills by civilians.
So no, the big difference regarding "killing" is also about war/no-war, not mil/civ.

Besides; even in wartime civilians are hardly going to be prosecuted by their own country for killing a hostile soldier.

Too bad you have chosen to use mockery and equivocation to try to make points.

On a serious note, the US has a history of fear of standing armies, choosing instead to rely on the call up of militia forces in time of need. I submit that European nations have a fear of militias (but I cannot substantiate this other than by appeal to the rest of Europe's reaction to Napoleon's armies of the people and the results of the Congress of Vienna). Does Germany having anything like the US National Guard, which is a military force in each state under the control of the governor of that state? In some states, a state militia also exists alongside the National Guard. The National Guard primarily provides support to local (state) law enforcement and disaster relief agencies when it has not been called into Federal service.

I also suspect that most European nations are federal unions with little to no states rights (although I seem to remember that the Bavarian Free State is or was somewhat unique in its relationship to the rest of Germany and Switzerland is a confederation.) The US started as a confederation, not a federal union, which may explain some of the differences between the US military and that of European nations or the former colonies of European nations.

Did you know tenured civil administrations, policemen, seamen and plenty other civilian job groups are under a special penal code in many countries all over the world? In fact, the penal code of German policemen is by its nature a twin of the Bundeswehr's. As is in fact the penal code for all German tenured public servants. Teachers, for example. Yes - a first grade teacher who teaches children the alphabet is under a special penal code in some countries!

I made a quick google search, and it confirmed that in the United States there's a huge legal difference between a public servant in a utilities institution and a normal employee in the same job.
Did you ever hear about a conviction for "abuse of office" by a non-government employee?
Me neither.
Non-governmental jerks can be fired, but never charged with "abuse of office."

Besides, even IF soldiers were different/special because of special penal code or killing authorization:
That would still not support all the attitude stuff about it. No support for higher morality, hardly support for requirement of higher morality such as no cheating on spouses, no 'deserving' much respect et cetera.

American business executives can be tried for abuse of office, although it is not called that. Still things like insider trading are exactly such abuses of office in the private sector.. (Check out Bernie Madoff or Jeff Skilling for examples.)

In American English at least, "special" can just mean different, it does not always have a connotation of "better." The attitude you are describing is, I think, an outgrowth of the attitude about the great cause described in the JMA quotation from Buchan to which I expressed concern in a later post in response to Carl

(Aside to The Curmudgeon--I'm trying to get back to the critique by Lind.) The last few lines above may be of use as an explanation for some of the officer failings Lind asserts. I believe that much of the US military does not have this overinflated sense of self-worth. Rather, my experience with them is that they are a humble and self-effacing group of folks. In fact, I think that were the US to follow the proposals made by JMA for selection and training, the expression by military members of their superiority and entitlement to special privilege would be even worse, in the American military at least.