Charlie Daniels: What Does America Even Stand for Anymore?

[rangerrebew]

Charlie Daniels: What Does America Even Stand for Anymore?

If you were a strong and able man and saw a situation where a boy was kept in chains and regularly raped and abused by a grown man, what would you do?

If your heart was in the right place, you would probably free the boy and land a couple of good punches on the nose of the pervert who enslaved him.

Well that's exactly what Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland did to an Afghan commander accused of chaining up and sexually abusing a young boy, and the initial thanks Sgt. Martland got from the United States Military was to be kicked out of the Army.

But how could this be a wrong act, and how could the Army go against one of its own who had the decency to stand up for a helpless child? Is the American Military in the business of placating child rapists? Have we become so politically correct that we ignore the morally correct and allow this, worst of all crimes to take place in our presence without reacting the way Sgt. Martland did?

The Muslims strongly condemn homosexuals, but if you were to confer with anybody who guarded Muslim prisoners during the Iraq War you'll get a different story.

And it seems that – at least in Afghanistan – pedophilia is accepted and that it is perfectly permissible for a male to keep an underage boy for a sex slave. And from many indications it looks to be a fairly common practice.

Is this the way of life American soldiers are fighting and dying to preserve?

Are these the kinds of allies we commit our blood and treasure to?

Where was the United Nations? Where was the loud condemnation of this accepted perversion, and why was it not on the front pages of the New York Times and the lead story on the NBC Evening News?

And why would the powers that be court martial a loyal and dedicated American soldier for throwing a couple of punches at a scumbag who obviously deserved much worse.

Who are we fighting for in Afghanistan, and why has no high up political or military official come forth to defend Sgt. Martland?

I think America needs to step back and take a long look at what we're doing.

Are we training Afghan troops to defend and proliferate a society that condones the rape of children?

Why is a single member of ISIS still walking the earth when they should have been destroyed years ago, and would be if we had a president who had some cojones and was not surrounded by flower children and academics who know as much about eradicating ISIS as a mule knows about a helicopter?

Why does ISIS have one oil well that is still pumping or a petroleum hauler that still functions?

Why is every avenue of finance and supply not cut off to them?

Why has the destruction of ISIS not been turned over to Special Forces command with the equipment and autonomy to do whatever it takes to totally eradicate this evil?

And why would a president, who is a father, stand by and watch a loyal son of America be disgraced for defending a helpless child?

Shameful.

What does America even stand for anymore?

At the end of April, some common sense finally prevailed [1] and the Army removed Sgt. Martland from their QMP list, which allows him to stay in in the Army.

Justice at last.

Sgt. Martland, I want you to know that there are many, many of us out here in flyover country who are literally ashamed of the way you were treated.

I salute you, sir, and thank you for the years you spent defending my nation, my family and my way of life.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Charlie Daniels is a legendary American singer, song writer, guitarist, and fiddler famous for his contributions to country and southern rock music. Daniels has been active as a singer since the early 1950s. He was inducted into the Grand Ole Opry on January 24, 2008.
Source URL: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/charlie-daniels-what-does-america-even-stand-anymore

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It should stand for due process among other things, which is why you can't punch a pedophile in the face even if you want to.

[Oceander]

It should stand for due process among other things, which is why you can't punch a pedophile in the face even if you want to.

It's not a matter of due process but of military discipline and order. 

[HoustonSam]

It should stand for due process among other things, which is why you can't punch a pedophile in the face even if you want to.

Certainly due process before government deprives a citizen of property, liberty, or life in the civil justice system.  But does the concept of due process also constrain an individual in a combat zone from righting an immediate, and terrible, wrong with action that does no real harm to the perpetrator?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Certainly due process before government deprives a citizen of property, liberty, or life in the civil justice system.  But does the concept of due process also constrain an individual in a combat zone from righting an immediate, and terrible, wrong with action that does no real harm to the perpetrator?

Welp for one, it shows how we should not play policeman. Our armed forces are not and should not be police man.

We can't have a military punching people in the face because they feel like it, no matter how bad. That is a horrible image for our country and armed forces.

Throw the pedophile in jail and execute him. But you cannot assault POW's or foreigners.

[HoustonSam]

Welp for one, it shows how we should not play policeman. Our armed forces are not and should not be police man.

We can't have a military punching people in the face because they feel like it, no matter how bad. That is a horrible image for our country and armed forces.

Throw the pedophile in jail and execute him. But you cannot assault POW's or foreigners.

You raise valid and legitimate points; perhaps reasonable people can differ.  And full disclosure here, I've never worn the uniform; I'm just trying to think it through carefully.

It seems to me that constraining the US military to operate according to due process in a combat zone actually does put them in the role of policeman.  (I think the example situation occurred in a combat zone, maybe I'm wrong on that.) While there must be some laws that govern US military operations even in combat, the purpose of the military fundamentally is to kill people who threaten the security of the US, without consideration of due process or other constitutional rights.

I don't suggest that the pedophile was threatening the security of the US, or that every US serviceman can act as judge jury and executioner in combat.  As I say, your points are well made and merit serious thought.  But my sympathies are with the Sergeant in this case.

The whole "nation building" approach seems to lead to this kind of problem.  We put the military in the role of arresting terrorists and enemies overseas, then we equip the civilian police with assault gear and have them kill people in no-knock raids here at home.  It all seems backwards to me.

Thanks for your thoughts Weird Tolkienish Figure, you've forced me to think as well.  Do you ever go by the abbreviation WTF?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It seems to me that constraining the US military to operate according to due process in a combat zone actually does put them in the role of policeman.  (I think the example situation occurred in a combat zone, maybe I'm wrong on that.) While there must be some laws that govern US military operations even in combat, the purpose of the military fundamentally is to kill people who threaten the security of the US, without consideration of due process or other constitutional rights.

THis is exactly why you don't want to put the military in the role of policeman, because these sorts of issues always arise, and make the military look bad.

The whole "nation building" approach seems to lead to this kind of problem.  We put the military in the role of arresting terrorists and enemies overseas, then we equip the civilian police with assault gear and have them kill people in no-knock raids here at home.  It all seems backwards to me.

The "militarization" of police is overblown IMO. What is aesthetically "militarizating" may be the opposite, equipping police forces with "non-lethal" weaponry that aesthetically looks militarized. There's little about actually military weaponry that is non-lethal. The military doesn't care about things like the LRAP (at least as much as police do, even if LRAP is military in origin), pepper spray etc. because they primarily want to kill people. Your traditional cop was plenty lethal: a uniform, a gun, and maybe a truncheon (which are plenty lethal), yet is described as "non-militarized". But a scared cop is a lethal cop IMO.

Yes police forces might have armored cars with one huge difference to actual armored vehicles: the lack of mounted weaponry. Another huge difference missed by those who decry "militarization". I saw pictures from the 1960's of actual military m117's (I believe) with machine guns patroling the streets in DC. Is that preferable to armored cars without mounted weaponry? Why?

I do agree about no-knock raids and how problematic they are.

Thanks for your thoughts Weird Tolkienish Figure, you've forced me to think as well.  Do you ever go by the abbreviation WTF?

No problem. I try to give the most thoughtful, honest opinions I can. Don't always succeed. WTF is fine.  ^-^

[Fishrrman]

HoustonSam wrote:
"Certainly due process before government deprives a citizen of property, liberty, or life in the civil justice system.  But does the concept of due process also constrain an individual in a combat zone from righting an immediate, and terrible, wrong with action that does no real harm to the perpetrator?"

It was Afghanistan.

Sgt. Martland should have put about 10 rounds into the pervert and walked away.

(and yes, I really mean that!)