She threatened to murder her own man if he didn't give up his weapon, thereby making him helpless to the enemy. This was in Serling's report, so the "judges"(I guess we could call them) of course, would know about this travesty! If Karen were alive, she should have been court marshalled.
share[deleted]
Still threatening him of gunpoint isn't a bright idea. They need to stick together to survive the enemy. Arrest him for mutiny when you get back to base.
share[deleted]
If I were Karen I wouln't have even brought up the mutiny for the sake of distrust and danger. That's what go ther killed. Same thing in Platoon. People threaten there fellow man in times when they need to depend on one another.
share[deleted]
Isn't so easy to swear what you would do in any given situations from the sidelines?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
My marine friend says you could be legally executed right there without a jury if you jeopardize a mission or the lives of fellow men by disobeying orders.
shareIn this case Walden was jeopardizing lives of her men which puts her in the wrong. She lets her personal principals of success get in the way of surviving. If only her men had the right to kill her for jeopardizing lives.
shareOh shut up, Ryno II!!!
She was right and they were cowards!
[deleted]
Okay I just watched it again. The guy didn't really commit mutiny. He said he was going to leave, then Karen stopped him. He cooled down and they fought off the enemy. So the mutiny was over before it started, yet she still threaten to courtmarshall him and make a big deal out of it.
And since she is allowed to kill him for putting the team at risk (when all he wanted to do was leave on his own), why didn't she shoot him? Cause she sure as hell couldn't arrest him. She had no back up to take him. So either let him go and forget about it or shoot him. But she was in a situation where it's not doable to arrest him. But the big flaw is is that after he calmed down, and no one was hurt from the mutiny, she still threatened him after, which puts everyone at risk. She made waves out of her ego, when she should have just let it go.
In this case Walden was jeopardizing lives of her men which puts her in the wrong. She lets her personal principals of success get in the way of surviving. If only her men had the right to kill her for jeopardizing lives.
DoctorWeeTodd wrote:
"My marine friend says you could be legally executed right there without a jury if you jeopardize a mission or the lives of fellow men by disobeying orders."
That is absolutely correct. She was his CO, and he mutinied and tried to get his other fellow soldiers to follow suit. She had the right to kill him on the spot if she felt it was necessary. No military tribunal would even have been summoned to question this when she returned, much less convicted her; it would have been a non-event.
On the other hand, if she had been rescued, SSgt. Monfries WOULD have been court-martialed, and either executed or (more likely these days) sent to Leavenworth for his mutinous acts. That's a no-brainer. That's why Monfries had to make sure she was left behind and killed - to save his own butt.
Wasn't the whole premise on her getting the medal the result of engaging the tank to defend some trapped friendlies. Those friendlies saying that the helo saved their lives is what sparked the campaign to have Walden honoured. The whole mutiny and results of that was the basis of the core of the story that played out. When that was resolved, the truth remained that she did give her life to save her fellow comrades.
Well, thats how I saw it.
Jack O'Neill: so, do you guys "Practice" being Vague?
I think she was up for the medal on both the tank rescue and teh wounded rescue from her chopper going down. Cant really be sure havent seen in a while. ON the other subject anyone who is direct diobedient is guilty of treason or mutiny. She had every right to treat them like prisoners. Tha fact that she was willing to do so under heavy stress prooves she was in command and that they were all wimps and disobeying. The fact that she had to be forceed to trust a guy who pointed a rifle at her should tell you something there Ryno II. Have you ever served? If so how do you think your command would be upheld if you take a guy putting a rifle in your grill and then just say ok we can all do what you want to do. Doesnt sound very military like does it? She has a command to uphold and laws to obey called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, she violates that and it is worse then loosing her life. Stop acting like youwouldnt piss your pants when a gun is pointed at your head that close. She did the best she could. dies trying to as well. Leave it alone, wish there was more people willing to do smo much to make a differance. I served, your turn.
stupid was a crime you would get double life and the electric chair
No I haven't served, but even if I did I wouldn't agree with her tactics. The mutiny wasn't a real mutiny. All he did was threaten to leave, then she calmed him down. They fought the enemy together afterwards. But she still threatened him even though he was originally back on her side. Her threatening him even though the mutiny was over before it started, puts the men at risk.
shareIt became mutiny the moment he tried to get others to go along with him. She was in command, and he intentionally set out to undermine her command and turn the unit against her. He fought beside her after their confrontation simply out of self preservation, not because they were getting along all the sudden. And military law doesn't allow a junior soldier to kill their commander if they think that officer is jeopardizing the mission. The law doesn't even allow an officer to simply shoot one of their own.
He wanted to run, and she told him to leave his weapon if that's what he was going to do. He got argumentative about it and pointed his machine gun at her and she raised her pistol in response.
At this point he's already committed assault by threatening her with his weapon. As soon as he tries to get the others to go with his plan instead of hers, he's committed mutiny.
Monfriez: She's trying to get us all killed!
Altemeyer: Come on captain, I don't want to die out here.
Monfriez: Its a majority!
Walden: That would be great if this were a democracy, but it isn't.
Monfriez: We don't even need your permission!
Walden: I am in command here!
Monfriez: Well maybe not anymore.
It doesn't get any more cut and dry. Watch the movie again. She didn't calm him down. He mutinied and accidentally SHOT HER. After the Iraqis left she was going to return the favor until he surrendered his machine gun. The next morning she gave his weapon back simply so they could defend themselves. He tried to forget about it and she reminded him it wasn't over. HE THEN LEFT HER TO DIE.
I remember her pointing her weapon first. His weapon was just off to the side, as he was just holding it. But I will check it out again. Him accidentally shooting her had nothing to do with the mutiny. He thought she was going to execute him, when she was trying to shoot an Iragi. Can you blame him for shooting back without thinking in a split second?
share[deleted]
But you also have to remember that Walden getting the medal was as much a publicity move as an acknowledgement of her actions under fire. The higher ups were pushing hard to get her the medal since she would be the "first woman to recieve the CMH in combat" As such they would probably gloss over a lot of stuff to get her the medal.
shareIt looked like at the beginning a lot of generals and politicians were pushing buttons to get her the MOH. In Denzel's report, however, he probably said she deserved it for saving the first helo crew, being in command and keeping her cool the entire time, dealing with a mutiny, and finally covering their escape - which cost her her life.
shareApparently you missed a point they made early in the movie - it's the 'Medal of Honor', NOT the 'Congressional Medal of Honor.'
But yes, the top brass were so eager to award her the medal as a political stunt that they didn't want anyone giving them reasons not to (remember, it's a movie, so that's just what the script says.) However, Denzel Washington's character is still in a state of anguish about his own 'friendly fire' mistake being covered up, so he insists on finding the whole truth. In the end, he finds that she was an even bigger hero than the brass realise: she stared down a mutiny by her own men, even after being shot, then covered their escape when the rescue helo turned up.
However, if I remember correctly, the citation referred only to the incident when she saved the first helo crew by taking out the Iraqi tank.
Oh no, she did not. If anything she was putting herself in the minority. Ilario, Altameyer(sp?) and Monfriez all wanted to mutiny. She said, I can't stop you but you're surrendering your firearms before you leave. Monfriez pointed the gun. She pointed her gun cited the section within military law "Mutiny, an act punishable by death" basically saying, I will kill you if you don't surrender your weapon. To say she should have been court-martialed is ridiculous. She did her job right. She had the right to shoot him. And like one poster said, a soldier who disobeys orders like that is in the green for being shot.
shareYeah, and what the original poster is leaving out is that once the soldiers mutiny, they BECOME the enemy. It doesn't matter if it lessens their chances of individual survival. In war, survival isn't the ultimate goal.
shareIndeed.
shareShe got the medal because
a) she gave the order and took part in the destruction of the initial tanker which saved the first black hawk crew.
b) she was able to maintain their position and fire power during the night and keep one injured crew member alive, even after being shot herself.
c) she decided to go last during the rescue so that she could provide covering fire to her men and as a result she saved their lives, even though she lost her own.
d) She was able to do all of the above in the midst of a mutiny - she turned her gun on an officer who was attempting to undermine the entire mission and potentially get everyone killed. in the military, the senior officer is the senior officer. you follow their orders like they come from god himself. without that there is chaos.
the fact that she was a woman was a political advantage for the white house, but i personally believe it SHOULD have contributed to her getting the medal, because in a situation like that it would have been twice as difficult for a woman to maintain courage and leadership over a bunch of terrified macho young men who saw her as a female first, and their commanding officer second. she needed twice the ability and courage that a male officer would have needed to do the same thing.
just my opinion.
[deleted]
'....because in a situation like that it would have been twice as difficult for a woman to maintain courage and leadership over a bunch of terrified macho young men who saw her as a female first, and their commanding officer second..'
excellent 'down under birdy'
- i.e. your whole summation - particularly the above part. You put into
words what I wanted to say!
yes but it wasn't a real mutiny. He just bitched, then calmed down. She gave him his weapon back, and he fought on her side. She still threaten to courtmarshal him after he took the mutiny back, and fought with her. Yes it's right to shoot a soldier for disobeying if he or she causes damages, but he did no damage. He just said he was going to leave, but then ended up staying and fighting. Not really a crime, if you didn't even get to do anything, in my opinion.
shareInteresting how a commander is allowed to execute a fellow officer for putting the team at risk. Is it legal the other way around, for a subordinate to execute a commander, in order to keep the mission from being compromised?
share"Oh no, she did not. If anything she was putting herself in the minority. Ilario, Altameyer(sp?) and Monfriez all wanted to mutiny. She said, I can't stop you but you're surrendering your firearms before you leave. Monfriez pointed the gun. She pointed her gun cited the section within military law "Mutiny, an act punishable by death" basically saying, I will kill you if you don't surrender your weapon. To say she should have been court-martialed is ridiculous. She did her job right. She had the right to shoot him. And like one poster said, a soldier who disobeys orders like that is in the green for being shot."
Well she tried to detain him when she had no back up to take him in. She should have just shot him or let him go, after he surrendered his weapon. But she still kept him there. It is ridiculous to try to detain someone with no back up. Another thing is all the guy wanted to do was leave. So after he surrenders his weapon, let him leave. Why try to hold him and endanger everyone else?
Mutiny isn't worth arresting someone over if it puts the whole crew in even more danger than previous. Perhaps a lot of people who have served won't concur with me on that, but sometimes life is more important than orders. Karen actually did point her gun first, which caused the other guy to point his. So she started the whole stand off, instead of trying to reason first. Like I said the mutiny was over before it started and she still had a grudge cause of her ego.
Why didn't she just let him go, or order him to leave after taking his weapon? Then the crew wouldn't have to worry about detaining him when they couldn't in combat.
"Perhaps a lot of people who have served won't concur with me on that, but sometimes life is more important than orders."
When hundreds of lives are your responsibility maybe you'll rethink that statement. Walden's orders were to hold their position because moving Rady without proper medical treatment would probably kill him. She offered to let him run away as long as he left his weapon. The fact that he didn't after surrendering his weapon was his decision. And as for shooting her? Absolutely will I fault him for pulling the trigger. His cowardice brought on the entire situation.
I didn't say he should shoot her. That would totally be wrong. But even after he stayed after she still made threats about courtmarshalling and treated him like a prisoner that needed to be arrested. That put herself and the rest of the crew in danger. And her threatening him like that at the end, lead to her own death. It's not wise to even threaten to arrest someone without back up, in case the person turns on you. The mutiny was over before it started, and she still held a grudge even though no travesties happened.
share"The mutiny was over before it started, and she still held a grudge even though no travesties happened."
I'm really getting tired of you repeating that first phrase. Regardless of how long the mutiny lasted - THE MUTINY STILL HAPPENED. She wasn't holding a grudge, she was upholding the law. If he wasn't a coward and started a mutiny, then none of this would have happened. Any danger incurred by the team was on his head. Her timing could be debated, but she did what was legally and morally right and she died because of it.
So a guy says he's going to leave, then calms down and stays, no one is hurt, and you still hold a grudge. That's hardly breaking the law. He just panicked merely, then calmed down and obeyed. She's upholding the law because of her grudging ego, and not in the interest of justice.
Later on he asked for his gun back to help fight the attackers. She gave it to him, he helped save his team, and she still threatened to charge him, even after he helped. Some commander. I would never put my life in her hands. Some commanders are not honorable enough to have that right.
That being said, her actions were very grey area, in my opinion. A movie character is allowed to make those types of decisions for sure, but this movie doesn't debate the grey area and let the audiences to draw it's own moral conclusions. It's points out everything in a very black and white way and saying what she did was definitely right, even though it's a very debatable thing.
<<<That is absolutely correct. She was his CO, and he mutinied and tried to get his other fellow soldiers to follow suit. She had the right to kill him on the spot if she felt it was necessary. No military tribunal would even have been summoned to question this when she returned, much less convicted her; it would have been a non-event.>>>
This is not correct whatsoever. While it may be "technically" and "legally" possible (due to anticuated language in military law) to shoot another soldier on the spot for mutiny, it simply does not happen, and I guarantee you if it did would generate ALOT of controversy and it would be severely scrutinized by the press, congress, and the military courts. You don't just make the decision to execute in cold blood a fellow soldier because he didn't follow an order and get away with it, I don't care if your a 4 star general. What exactly constitutes mutiny in the modern military? There have been many cases of soldiers who refuse to deploy, refuse to follow an order, refuse to come back from leave, freeze in combat, disrespect a superior officer, etc. Usually they either get an Article 15 or in the worst of cases, face a court martial. They're not executed on the spot. This is the twenty first century, not revolutionary war times.
Old posts but holy crap this guy is dense... sorry for resorting to a personal attack, but it had to be said.
When a soldier demonstrates behavior such as his, i.e. mutiny, even once, he can hardly be considered trustworthy in the future either. He could mess things up in an even more dire situation and get even more people killed with his shenanigans. He didn't care for anything but saving himself, thus he "helped". We saw how far that "help" went when it was time to go back to save her.
In summary she didn't really do anything wrong, while he did almost everything wrong. Hell, he even shot her when it was clear she wasn't aiming for him.
Are we watching the same movie?
Monfriez was the first one to point the weapon at Captain, not the other way around. You could even see the SAW being pointed directly at her which caused her to reacts by pointing her pistol back at him.
However because of the standoff, I wouldn't "hardly" blame him for firing back at the Captain, partly because he wasn't aware that there was an Iraqi soldier above him, and that the rounds she fired weren't actually meant for him. But because from the look of it, it does look like she was trying to execute him which later caused him to fire back in retaliation.
Let's not forget that as a viewer, you did not get to view the character perspective, which in this case being Monfriez, so you can't judge the character for not knowing what is happening in the background (that there was an Iraqi) or what Karen's clear intention was (actually pointing weapon at the enemy). The only reason why you were aware about this was because you get to see the whole event unfolded infront of you.
Part of the end, although justified, it was her own ego which lead to her downfall by threatening that same soldier during the evacuation that his action will be taken accountable for in court. Had she not threatening him with that remark, she would've lived.
To make it short on whose fault was it which lead to the death of Captain Karen Walden, in a non-judicial matters
Fault: Monfriez, for not surrendering his weapon when he was told to in exchange for getting the chance AWOL. (You're not taking my weapon, *beep*
Fault: Monfriez, for aiming his weapon at his superior officer.
Fair: Monfriez, for shooting at Captain Karen thinking that he was being fired upon by his superior.
Fault: Captain Karen, for threatening Monfriez about his action when they were about to be evacuated.
Fault: Monfriez, for lying to the pilot that all the "survivors" are on board.
There, I hope I could clear this 6 year old thread up.
What Captain Walden was guilty of wasn't being wrong -- she was clearly right. You don't get to decide that mutiny is just some non-event. She was also clearly right to tell the guy trying to get everyone to run away and clearly implying he was trying to undermine her command to leave the weapon -- they had a position to defend until rescue came. What she did wrong was repeating her threats there at the end. It was clearly a power-play and she let her ego get the better of her. Keep quiet, let the rescue team take you home, and then, when you're surrounded by an entire base of soldiers to make sure things stay calm, make a point of the fact that you're court-martialing the hell out of the mutinous, cowardly soldier.
shareYou can't judge what they were supposed to do under a non-war situation. Mutiny isn't only getting the others to go along with him...as soon as you disobey a direct order or challenge the authority (which Monfr. did) or threaten to take over (which Monfr. did), you are a mutineer. And, once he threatened to take over, she knew perfectly well she couldn't trust him again for a second. I don't think her reiterating that there would be consequences made any difference, because he knew that and was a threat to her already. What she did was perfectly right, and what she had to do. If she backed down, what kind of a commander would she be? No one would ever respect her again.
shareThere are some great comments in this thread. And many very articulate responses to the OP. That Ryno 11 could still not comprehend why Keren was in the right and Monfreis was a mutineer is absolutely mind boggling. "The mutiny wasn’t a real mutiny"?! How in heaven's name do you figure that? He disobeyed direct orders, threatened to desert, tried to convince others to go with him, wanted to take one of the group's weapons when he deserted, pointed his gun at his superior officer and then 'accidentally' shot her! That my friend is as mutinous as it gets. And "no travesties happened" and "no one got hurt"?! He frikkin' shot her! She was well within her authority to point a weapon at him. She did not force him out on his own. He threatened to leave and she said she couldn't stop him from going but he wasn't taking their weapon with him. And I think he really did believe she was going to shoot him when he shot her but the fact remains she wasn't and the only reason he believed that of her is because he was so ready to do that hinself. Any other soldier would know that if she pointed her gun it would be at the enemy. But because he's just presented himself as the enemy, his own failings influenced his ability to judge that moment and she paid the price.
down under birdy shared a great list of Karen's accomplishments in that event. The only thing left out was that she also saved the lives of that other platoon by staying behind with the F-16 and keeping the enemy engaged during that final rescue.
So yes, she was brave. Yes, she was a good leader (not her fault the people under her caved under pressure) and yes she was responsible for saving the lives of many, many people:
- the other chopper in the initial effort
- Rady, who the others were ready to leave behind
- the others (twice) who were ready to surrender to the enemy at night and benefited from her cover the next day
- the other platoon that was able to get to safety because she stayed at her post with the gun manned.
Oh yeah, and she did all that with a gunshot to the abdomen.
There were many reasons they wanted to give her the medal. That's why she deserved it.
I laughed very hard when i read this post.......
WHat do you mean a mutiny was not a mutiny when it is over before it even begin...THis is like you kill a guy, you then help the police everystep along the way, will you get out of the charge that you committed a crime?? Or you are saying no matter which crime we committed as long as it gone back to original form, it will all be forgiven...?
The truth is under combat, any insubordination will be treated as mutiny. Tho would you be legally excute the mutineer without due process is debatble. but i would judge in this case, she can put 2 in the head and 1 in the cheat in monfriez as she is not only jeopedising the situation but also bought a direct consequence of the basic survival of her and soldier under her command. He have the SAW, which is the most powerful weapon in the squad. Without the SAW, the survival chance of her and her squad is significantly disminished. SHe can legally excute him if he insist to go with the SAW.
I would also believe, whether or not she remind him the thigns is not over will not change anything, an mutiny had been committed, the only way monfriez can get out of that is to eliminate all the witness....
Okay well after watching the movie again, I may have reconsidered. She was trying to do the right thing, but I think she made it worse by turning into a bigger stand off than it needed to be. Should have shot him in the arm or something causing him to drop the weapon, and the other men can take it away, or something like that. But trying to keep the gun on him the whole time does not help. How are you going to defend yourself if you choose to hold one a man captive the whole time?
After getting the gun away from him, they should have just told him to get lost, instead of trying to hold him, when danger was around from other forces.
She was in the wrong, in my opinion. She cared about the pilot who was hurt, put him first, thinking of saving him. Her heart was in the right place but then she refuses to give Monfrieze his weapon back, even when the enemy scouting party is there. Monfrieze was clearly the only solider that was highly trained. She nearly took away her best chance at helping the pilot.
She should have either stated her position. If he didnt listen, let him leave or kill him for mutiny on the spot (although I don't think he would have left).
Matt Damon's character was the only one who seemed to care about anything. The only one who thought rationally. You could argue that he agrees to the mutiny or you could simply think that his "Cap please," statement was to simply find a solution quickly. Even if you argue that he agreed to leaving, you 100% knew he would follow his captain. The captain let the situation raise too high. Everyone would be confused in a situation like that, but that's where the captain needs to put their foot down. Monfrieze was a douche and clearly in the wrong, but Walden didn't help.
i think she made a big mistake by not leaving when it was suggested to her. The pilot was wounded and was on deaths door. Sure she covered for them when they were getting away but it did not need to come to that if they just left during the night.
shareTake my weapon in a hostile environment??
Good luck with that.
Here we have a case of another officer leading by convenience.
-----------------------
When we're thinking about our own brain, would that be a mental paradox??