It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
Let's take this apart.
Headline: "Army kicking out decorated soldier for protecting Afghan child from rape". Present tense. Done deal.
First paragraph of the story: "A decorated Army sergeant who protected an Afghan boy from a child molester could find out any day whether his actions will end his career in the military." Could find out. Not will find out. Could find out. In other words, it's not even certain whether whether his expulsion is being considered.
Paragraph two: "Martland and Daniel Quinn were both disciplined for their actions." Fact but no detail. Were they disciplined for removing the rapist or giving him a damn good beating on the way out? Did they steal his boots and take a dump in them? The beating and the dump are justified but people in a position of authority don't have the same leeway we have.
Paragraph three: " it’s the Army’s turn to do the right thing and reverse the decision to expel him from the service" says a politician...contradicting the first paragraph.
The morality and ethics of the situation are beyond debate.
The article, however, reads like rabble rousing clickbait, one "Obama is to blame" away from a full house.
They are in a career of 'protection' of people, all people who cannot defend themselves from 'bullies'