# Was there someone hanged???



## Polar Bear (Dec 30, 2006)

I always thought Benedict Arnold was hanged for treason during the Revolutionary War. I just finished watching the History Channel and they said he lived in England the rest of his life after switching sides. Was there someone famous that was hanged for treason during that time period?? I googled it and came up empty


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 30, 2006)

Hm, I believe Knowlton was hanged by the British for being a spy, that's the only one that comes to mind.


----------



## pardus (Dec 30, 2006)

Nathan Hale by the Brits for treason.

Kind of a nobody who did nothing, but apparently died very well, hence his fame.


----------



## LibraryLady (Dec 30, 2006)

There's also John Andre. He was Arnold's British handler, caught by the Americans. He begged Washington to be shot as a gentleman rather than hanged as a spy. Washington didn't listen to him.

LL


----------



## DDSSDV (Dec 30, 2006)

pardus762 said:


> Nathan Hale by the Brits for treason.
> 
> Kind of a nobody who did nothing, but apparently died very well, hence his fame.



Hummmm....gonna have to research that one....


----------



## LibraryLady (Dec 30, 2006)

DDSSDV said:


> Hummmm....gonna have to research that one....


 
Here ya go D.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/hale.htm

LL


----------



## DDSSDV (Dec 30, 2006)

Hale is in the American pantheon not because of what he did but because of why he did it," -- former CIA chief Richard Helms

Good enough for me.


----------



## Polar Bear (Dec 30, 2006)

pardus762 said:


> Nathan Hale by the Brits for treason.
> 
> Kind of a nobody who did nothing, but apparently died very well, hence his fame.


 
That is who I was thinking of Pardus, Thank You


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2006)

DDSSDV said:


> Hale is in the American pantheon not because of what he did but because of why he did it," -- former CIA chief Richard Helms
> 
> Good enough for me.



Dont forget, he was a tratoir, guiltey of treson to the crown.


----------



## AWP (Dec 31, 2006)

pardus762 said:


> Dont forget, he was a tratoir, guiltey of treson to the crown.



You could make the same argument about the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I am quite glad that they did what they did.


----------



## Looon (Dec 31, 2006)

Freefalling said:


> You could make the same argument about the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I am quite glad that they did what they did.


Our Hero's could have been/would have been traitors if we would have lost the war.


----------



## AWP (Dec 31, 2006)

Ranger Luna said:


> Our Hero's could have been/would have been traitors if we would have lost the war.



I agree, hence Franklin's line about hanging together or hanging seperately.


----------



## Looon (Dec 31, 2006)

Freefalling said:


> I agree, hence Franklin's line about hanging together or hanging seperately.


:uhh: hahahaha

Going into any war you are not the good guys or the bad guys. That is only determined by who the loser is.:doh:  If you think about it, it's the truth. If we would have lost WWII, our Govt and Generals would have been put on trial for war crimes.:doh:


----------



## LibraryLady (Dec 31, 2006)

What's the line?

History is written by the winners...


LL


----------



## msteen1 (Dec 31, 2006)

Hussein was.


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2006)

Freefalling said:


> You could make the same argument about the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I am quite glad that they did what they did.



True, but I will add that its not an argument, its fact.

Right or wrong, what they did was treason, however it could be argued that they were terrorists....


This is not meant as anything inflammitory/against the founding fathers etc... I have a lot of respect for them, just talking about facts/opinions :2c:


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Dec 31, 2006)

Terrorists? They dont even fit the definition of a terrorist, Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

traitors sure, terrorist.. uh no.


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2006)

Dude, that is exactly what they did, the only thing about your definition that needs looking into is perpetrated against noncombatant targets and I bet you either 24 hrs with your M4 or some sillicone ;) that I could prove it if I could be fucked doing so...


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Dec 31, 2006)

I can understand if you have your rogue warriors doing their own thing (as like our Haditha incident etc), but I haven't read anything stating George Washington sanctioned acts of violence against noncombatants.


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2006)

No I dont think GW did that at all, but he lead a force that im sure did commit those acts, sanctioned or not, therefore making him guilty of it.

I refer you all to the trial of Jochiem Peiper, and his conviction over the Malmedy massacre.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Dec 31, 2006)

ok so how would you classify events like Haditha? I dont put terrorism and those bad eggs (who go against orders) in the same category, at least from an overall perspective.


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2006)

Either do I, but That is irrelevant in the eyes of a war crimes tribunal.

Guilty by association, guilty because you lead those men...

Again the trial of Jochiem Pieper is a classic one in this vien.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Dec 31, 2006)

pardus762 said:


> Guilty by association, guilty because you lead those men...
> 
> .


 
maybe by the immediate chain of command, but are you you saying Washington should be held liable?  That would be the same as saying GW should be held liable for Haditha atrocities.


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2006)

Not that he _should_ be held accountable, but that he _could_ be.

Im not saying anything against Washington, dont want it to seem like that.

What evidence was there of the guilt of hitler, saddam, pol pot, stalin, tojo etc... the trails at the end of WW2 charged the vanquised with starting a war that included war crimes therefore making them guilty because they started the war, under those conditions Bush could be held accountable for Haditha because he started the war.

Does that make sense?


----------



## 104TN (Dec 31, 2006)

This conversation serves pretty well to highlight probably the only aspect of military life I ever really developed a problem with, accountability. It seems to me that historically; and even now watching current events play out on the tube, that the military hierarchy does a tremendous disservice to its own.

I understand how the chain of command works. My point is that while those in charge are capable of exerting control over their subordinates, there is only so much interaction they have with those outside of their immediate person. The murderers and psychopaths above being exempted because they ordered the atrocities carried out by their troops. 

I guess what I'm getting at is that while I agree that by accepting the burden of command you also accept responsibility for the actions of your subordinates, I am not quite sure it is right...well maybe moral, to always point the finger at "the man". Take the crap going down at the 50Deuce, I foresee it being a career-ender for pretty much everyone affiliated from the BN down, but is it realistic to expect the CO to know what Joe's doing in the field if he's deviating from mission? Or for those who have probably never laid eyes on him to be responsible for his actions? Thoughts?


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2006)

Personally I think unless a commander has told his men or has trained them or  encouraged them to do dodgy stuff, he is not responsible :2c:


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 31, 2006)

A lot of times the officers you see getting into trouble are the ones who were willfully negligent of what was going on during their watch (Abu G.) or tried to something up (Haditha).

Due dilligence is the responsibility of every commander.  You've got to be proactive, be in your troops' business (if you're an NCO) and regularly inspect the things that are important (if you're an officer).  You can't be everywhere at once, and micromanaging is counterproductive, but you've got to establish and enforce the standards all the time.  

In most organizations, "Big boy rules" are a cop-out excuse for poor leadership.


----------

