What struck me was the complete comfort we have come to accept in "acting appropriately" as long as our actions were only a function of some combination of our own failures ... and failures on tasks that we are specifically trained and instructed to not fail at.
Do I act appropriately if I burn a orphan house down because I though it was a trojan horse full of jihadists? Does my perception alone define appropriateness?
But do "mistakes" lay the foundation for appropriate behavior, or is it not the case that all dependent behavior post-mistake is necessarily inappropriate.
I'm not going after the guys that blasted the Reuters guy, seriously, folks get shot in war zones and friendly fire is very very very very common .... but is it "appropriate"??? Is it not still failure?
"""""The pleas would include admissions that Manning sent WikiLeaks classified memos, Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, Guantanamo Bay prison records and a 2007 video clip of a U.S. helicopter crew gunning down 11 men later found to have included a Reuters news photographer and his driver. The video, titled "Collateral Murder" on WikiLeaks, garnered worldwide attention. The Pentagon concluded the troops acted appropriately during the attack, having mistaken the camera equipment for weapons.
The government could still prosecute Manning for all 22 counts he faces, including aiding the enemy. That offense carries a maximum penalty of life in prison."""""
Let's try this: It's o.k., I was drunk at the time.
"acted appropriately during the attack, having mistaken ..."
"acted appropriately during the attack, but were drunkenly mistaken ..."
Are mistakes a free lunch?
| 