Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly
Too bad. The soldier in the first example stood a courts martial for his action. He was found not guilty, but it should never have passed the Article 32 hearing, let alone go to a c/m. Everybody involved thought that insurgents were all that was left in the building complex. Still, this is the Poltically Correct Army!
|
I'm not in disagreement with you, but isn't it the CM's purpose - to determine guilty or not? I mean just because he stood doesn't imply guilt right? That is the method in which criminal intent is determined I would expect.
My question may not make sense though... I don't know what Article 32 is.