Samuel Walters wrote:
Lets say hypothetically, she had a feasible enough force to wage a guerrilla war with a chance for success, and she committed the actions she did. Would they be that different from the actions American Presidents have taken in the past during war?
Which American presidents explicitly ordered American children to not only stand against a firing squad, but also be executed as a means to coerce their American parents to serve in the military?
I concede Cain was a bit harsher than past American Presidents in this regard.
However, the principle of conscription is nothing new in American history. People of age were required to fight and die for the country without free will if one was drafted, even if you thought the war was immoral or thought it was against your religion or just didn't want to be separated from your family and die. Conciouncess objector statuses were given out very rarely so you really can't really bring this up as a mitigating factor.
You could be jailed for refusing to cooperate if chosen. Obviously its a far cry from threatening to execute a family member if chosen, but still, the principle is similar in that there is harsh punishment for non-compliance.
Cain also did inflict harsher punishment in all areas in the name of discipline. Given her situation where discipline was of great importance, I tend to give her more leeway.
To address an earlier post that was similar to this, I think she wanted to enforce the principle of discipline when she wanted to execute Helo and the Chief for haphazardly killing one of her officers. If a CIA officer killed another CIA officer while trying to stop the latter from torturing someone, I suspect the punishment would be life in prison. Hell, they are promoting someone right now who had a part in destroying the torture tapes.